"Vaccine Hesitancy" - Poorest rates of kindergarten vaccination in relatively prosperous states

[progressoid]

Doctors Counter Vaccine Fears In Pacific Northwest

Parts of the U.S. are seeing a drop-off in vaccination rates among young children. The falling rates don't necessarily track with poverty or other poor public health trends; in fact, a recent U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report flagged the poorest rates of kindergarten vaccination in relatively prosperous states, like Washington and Oregon.

Public health officials say they see this trend, which they call "vaccine hesitancy," often among well-to-do, educated parents. Private Waldorf schools, for instance, often have unusually high percentages of families who get exemptions from state vaccination requirements. In Seattle, exemptions are also high at some public schools, especially those with an alternative bent.

...

Pediatrician David Grossman is medical director for preventive care at Group Health, a nonprofit health care system in Seattle. He recalls a time, not too long ago, when parents just accepted the full slate of vaccines, no questions asked. "Everyone had this common assumption, this shared agreement that this is a public health good, that this is important for protecting not only my child, but also my neighbor's children and other children," Grossman says.

Not anymore. Now Grossman says parents often want to discuss every vaccine, just as they might discuss a surgery. Public health officials say this "vaccine optional" attitude is dangerous, not only for the unvaccinated kids, but also for people who have weak immune systems or can't be vaccinated for medical reasons.

Vaccine-preventable diseases are on the rise; Washington and California have seen outbreaks of whooping cough, with some fatal cases.

More:
http://www.npr.org/2011/09/13/140432995/doctors-counter-vaccine-fears-in-pacific-northwest

Listen to the story: http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=140432995&m=140443137

Edit to add link to CDC study: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6021a4.htm?s_cid=mm6021a4_w#Tab3

[FSogol]

1. The media and the anti-vac crowd are responsible.

Here's an awesome article in graphic novel form about it:
http://darryl-cunningham.blogspot.com/2010/05/facts-in-case-of-dr-andrew-wakefield.html

[phantom power]

2. Yet another lesson of history people have forgotten, and will now re-learn the hard way.

Apparently some sufficiently-large number of children will have to die before people re-discover what the actual consequences of not vaccinating are.

:(

[kestrel91316]

3. I doubt large numbers of deaths would do it. Some celebrity will have to die

before American antivaxers will pay attention and rethink their insanity.

[Warpy]

5. Some fucking politician or high profile lobbyist will have to die

before they toughen those public health laws back up.

[HuckleB]

4. K & R.

Maybe we can help the economy by offering a Federal program of basic science classes to adults.

[HuckleB]

6. .

:kick:

[HuckleB]

7. Measles cases abroad linked to increase of disease in U.S.: Resurgence shows need for vaccinations

http://thenationshealth.aphapublications.org/content/41/7/1.2.full

"...

Prior to say 2008, every year you would see 60 to 65 people come into the United States with measles, but you wouldn’t see it spread,” Offit told The Nation’s Health. “What’s worrisome about what happened in 2008 and what’s happening now is that you see it spread from one American child to another because you have a critical number of unvaccinated children. In other words, then it was sort of like the ball would get thrown up against the wall and it would just bounce back. Now it sticks a little bit because you have a critical number of unvaccinated people.”

Maintaining high immunization rates with the mumps-measles-rubella, or MMR, vaccine is the cornerstone of outbreak prevention, infectious disease experts say. The vaccine is recommended routinely for all children at age 12 months to 15 months, with a second dose at ages 4 to 6.

Prior to the introduction of the first measles vaccine in 1963, nearly all children got measles before their 15th birthday. The virus caused pain and suffering, including as many as 500 deaths each year and 48,000 hospitalizations. According to the National Network for Immunization Information, the vaccine has led to a 99 percent reduction in the incidence of measles in the United States.

Jane Seward, MBBS, MPH, deputy director of CDC’s Division of Viral Diseases, said health care providers and parents need to be aware of the special recommendation for early measles vaccination for infants ages 6 to 11 months when they travel overseas.

..."

[proverbialwisdom]

8. FYI. Read for facts alone, ignore interpretation.

http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.com/2010/07/cdc-vaccine-recommendations-in.html

July 16, 2010

CDC Vaccine Recommendations in Childhood Hits 70.. count 'um... 70 Doses:

http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.com/2010/08/1983-23-doses-of-vaccine-2010-70-doses.html

August 9, 2010

In 1983, twenty-three doses of vaccine from birth to 18:

Dr. Bernadine Healy on AAP, Paul Offit, Vaccine Schedule and Safety
April 14, 2009

Here's an excerpt from Dr. Bernadine Healy's blog at US News.
Full post HERE: http://health.usnews.com/health-news/blogs/heart-to-heart/2009/04/14/the-vaccines-autism-war-dtente-needed

Dr. Healy cites Generation Rescue http://www.generationrescue.org/ and WHO comparing vaccination rates in the US versus abroad.

"...pediatricians might do families a great service if they could work with them to loosen up the schedules to accommodate reasonable concerns and allow more choice. Some already do—say, by spacing out shots that are normally given in one visit, particularly those that contain live viruses like measles, mumps, and chicken pox and tend to deliver strong immune reactions. Or delaying hepatitis B until school age, at least. The goal is to get all kids appropriately vaccinated, but the pace for that might vary.

Finally, are certain groups of people especially susceptible to side effects from vaccines, and can we identify them? Youngsters like Hannah Poling, for example, who has an underlying mitochondrial disorder and developed a sudden and dramatic case of regressive autism after receiving nine immunizations, later determined to be the precipitating factor. Other children may have a genetic predisposition to autism, a pre-existing neurological condition worsened by vaccines, or an immune system that is sent into overdrive by too many vaccines, and thus they might deserve special care...

...Paul Offit, an infectious-disease expert from the University of Pennsylvania who has been a frequent spokesman and adviser on vaccine policy (and by his admission has become wealthy by developing the now mandated rotavirus vaccine), has said on more than one occasion that the infant's immune system can handle 10,000 vaccines. If that's where we're going—and it has been estimated that there are more than 100 new vaccines in the pipeline—the national investment in vaccine safety had better get on steroids fast."

Link from: http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/04/dr-bernadine-healy-on-vaccine-schedule-and-safety.html

[proverbialwisdom]

9. Forbes slammed the Baltimore Sun for publishing Dr. Dunkle's op-ed.

http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/07/researcher-asks-are-36-doses-of-vaccine-by-2-too-much-too-little-or-just-right-.html#more

Researcher Asks: Are 36 Doses of Vaccine by 2 Too Much, Too Little, or Just Right?

July 11, 2011|By Margaret Dunkle

Managing Editor's note: This is from The Baltimore Sun ( http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-07-11/news/bs-ed-vaccines-illness-20110711_1_doses-childhood-vaccines-mmr ). Researcher asks: Are 36 doses of vaccine by age 2 too much, too little, or just right?

The topics of vaccines and vaccine safety spark emotional outbursts at scientific meetings and family dinner tables alike. But many of these debates are remarkably fact-free. Surprisingly few people — not just concerned parents but also doctors, policymakers and even immunization experts — can answer this seemingly simple question: How many immunizations does the federal government recommend for every child during the first two years of life? The answer is important because most states, including Maryland, faithfully follow the recommendations of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, codifying CDC guidelines into requirements for children to enroll in school, kindergarten, preschool and child care.

A new Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health study reports that the higher the proportion of infants and toddlers receiving recommended vaccines, the higher the state's rate of children diagnosed with autism or speech-language problems just a few years later. This analysis is sure to rekindle the debate about vaccine safety.

For that conversation to produce useful results, we must start by defining terms. A "dose of vaccine" refers to each vaccine or antigen given to increase immunity against one specific disease. For chicken pox, a child receives one dose of vaccine through one shot. By contrast, an "immunization event" refers to each separate administration of a vaccine or bundle of vaccines — through a shot, orally, or nasally. The MMR shot for mumps, measles and rubella involves three doses of vaccine but is one immunization event. The critical number is how many doses of vaccine a child receives. Why? If a vaccine is strong enough to confer immunity against a disease, it is important enough to count separately.

Clear definitions, analysis of CDC's "General Recommendations on Immunization," and confirmation by Dr. Andrew Kroger, lead author of the definitive report on these recommendations, produce the answer to the not-so-simple-after-all question posed above. In all, the federal government recommends 36 doses of vaccine, addressing 14 different diseases, for every U.S. child under age 2. An on-schedule child will receive a dose of vaccine for hepatitis B at birth, eight doses of various vaccines at 2 months, seven additional doses at 4 months, and four to seven more doses at 6 months. Infants and toddlers receive these vaccine doses through 26 separate immunization events — mostly shots. If a child misses vaccinations because of illness or scheduling problems, following CDC's catch-up schedule usually results in extra doses at a later date. The federally recommended doses of vaccine for every child during the first two years of life are: three doses each for hepatitis B, polio, flu, and HIB (12 doses in all); two doses each for hepatitis A and rotavirus; four doses for pneumococcal infections; one dose for chicken pox; three doses through the combination MMR vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella; and 12 doses through four separate administrations of the combination DTaP vaccine for diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (whooping cough). Some infants and toddlers receive still more doses of vaccine — if they switch to pediatricians who use different "combined" vaccines, if they are at high risk for certain diseases, if lost or incomplete records lead to duplicate immunizations, and depending on the time of year they were born (for flu shots) or the brand of vaccine used.

While testing is routine for individual vaccines as they are licensed, research on the both short- and long-term effects of multiple doses of vaccine administered to very young children during the critical birth-to-2 developmental window is sparse to nonexistent.

In addition to the number of doses, vaccine ingredients can be problematic, especially for susceptible subgroups. First are adjuvants, substances added to boost effectiveness and allow smaller doses of vaccine antigen to be used. The most common adjuvant is aluminum, which is found in vaccines for hepatitis and diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus. Second are preservatives — such as thimerosal, which is 49.6 percent mercury. Thimerosal is still contained in many flu shots, although it was, except for trace amounts, removed from other child vaccines a decade ago. Many child vaccines (including those for diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus, HIB, and hepatitis) contain formaldehyde, which was just added to the government's list of known human carcinogens. Third are ingredients to which some people have severe allergies: stabilizers such as gelatin, and eggs or other proteins that are used to prepare vaccines for flu, MMR, and other immunizations.

The ongoing debate about vaccines and their safety needs to incorporate these basic facts as our country seeks to answer the critical Goldilocks question: Too many? Too few? Or just right?

Margaret Dunkle is senior research scientist at the Department of Health Policy at George Washington University and director of the Early Identification and Intervention Collaborative for Los Angeles County. She also has a family member who is vaccine-injured. Her email is [e-mail].

Posted by Age of Autism at July 18, 2011 at 5:43 AM

COMMENT: Steven Salzberg has an article http://blogs.forbes.com/stevensalzberg/2011/07/17/the-baltimore-sun-sinks-deep-into-anti-vaccination-quicksand/ in Forbes slamming the Baltimore Sun for publishing Dunkle's piece. It seems that we don't dare speculate that there might be safety concerns involved with the vaccine schedule. We don't dare ask questions.
Posted by: Anne McElroy Dachel | July 18, 2011 at 12:52 PM

[HuckleB]

15. Anti-vaccine propaganda in The Baltimore Sun

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/antivaccine-propaganda-in-baltimore-sun/

The Baltimore Sun dives into the anti-vaccination pool
http://www.medpedia.com/news_analysis/6-Genomics-Evolution-and-Pseudoscience/entries/82439-The-Baltimore-Sun-dives-into-the-anti-vaccination-pool

Anti-Vaccine Propaganda: A Cloudy Smudge in the Baltimore Sun
http://kckidsdoc.com/?p=741

Oh Dear The Baltimore Sun is Running A Multiply-Mendacious Opinion Piece on Vaccine Safety
http://lizditz.typepad.com/i_speak_of_dreams/2011/07/oh-dear-the-baltimore-sun-is-running-a-multiply-mendacious-opinon-piece-on-vaccines-safety.html

[HuckleB]

10. Study: many vaccines at once OK for kids

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=87420&mesg_id=87420

Frequently Asked Questions About Multiple Vaccinations and the Immune System
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=87420&mesg_id=98120

Report: Vaccines Generally Safe, Cause Few Health Problems
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=222x108427

[proverbialwisdom]

11. Other experts disagree - again, dueling experts - not you vs. me.

http://www.safeminds.org/research/commentary.html

SafeMinds Authored Commentary, Critiques & Presentations

SafeMinds has actively critiqued much of the research on the vaccine-autism link since 2000. Generation Rescue has provided two websites, www.fourteenstudies.org and http://www.putchildrenfirst.org/ , that provide critiques of the flaws of studies that are often used to refute the vaccine-autism link. Those websites include critiques written by SafeMinds, such as Analysis and Critique of the CDC's Handling of the Thimerosal Exposure Assessment Based on VSD Information written as critique of the Verstraetten study. You will find other commentaries and critiques by SafeMinds below.

Vaccines and Autism: What do Epidemiological Studies Really Tell Us?
This paper examines the epidemiological studies surrounding "autism and the MMR vaccine" and "autism and thimerosal". It explains in detail the conflicts of interest, poor designs and unsupported conclusions in 16 different studies related to autism and vaccines. It includes the opinions of other authorities on these studies as well.
Click here to download.

On-Time Vaccine Receipt in the First Year Does Not Adversely Affect Neuropsychological Outcomes (June 2010)
SafeMinds tells you what’s wrong with this study and Sallie Bernard’s comments are published in Pediatrics
See: http://www.safeminds.org/research/On-Time-Vaccine-Receipt-Response.html

<...> More at link.

Suffice it to say that not all experts are satisfied with the study.

[proverbialwisdom]

12. Embedded links in original.

http://www.safeminds.org/research/On-Time-Vaccine-Receipt-Response.html

On-Time Vaccine Receipt in the First Year Does Not Adversely Affect Neuropsychological Outcomes

SafeMinds tells you what’s wrong with this study and Sallie Bernard’s comments are published in Pediatrics.

A recent study published in Pediatrics concluded that timely vaccination in the first year of life was not associated with adverse neuropsychological outcomes. The authors, Michael Smith and Charles Woods, utilized data previously collected for a 2007 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study investigating neuropsychological outcomes from early thimerosal exposure. SafeMinds President Sallie Bernard served as a consumer representative on the original 2007 study. At the time of the first study Ms. Bernard submitted comments regarding limitations of the data including only a 30% participation rate when the standard for scientific research is at least 70%. Children were tested at 7-10 years of age, and there was no attempt to control for prior interventions which may have ameliorated neuropsychological deficits. Investigators did not combine prenatal and postnatal thimerosal exposures in assessing outcomes, when cumulative exposures would have been an important analysis for ruling in or out a thimerosal effect. Children born weighing 5lbs 8 ounces or less, almost 9% of the population, were excluded from the study. These infants may have been more vulnerable to mercury exposure, and their exclusion limits the applicability of the findings.

In addition to these inherent weaknesses of the data set, the current study by Smith and Woods did not include vaccine exposure beyond 3 DTP, 3 Hib, 2 hepatitis B and 2 polio vaccines. The recommended schedule for this time period allowed for a third dose of hepatitis B and polio vaccines as early as 6 months. Some children in the study received other vaccines in the first year of life, including those for influenza, hepatitis A, MMR, pneumococcal, tuberculosis, tetanus toxoid, varicella, and meningococcal. Whether a child did or did not receive these additional doses was not factored into the analysis. Smith and Woods controlled for cumulative ethylmercury exposure, without providing justification for doing so. Cumulative ethylmercury is positively associated with receipt of 3 of the 4 vaccines in the analysis (hepatitis B, DPT and Hib) and thus with overall vaccine receipt. Including this variable would have the effect of reducing variance (P value) observed for the exposure variable of interest, vaccine receipt. A number of additional variables in the model such as familial and SES factors were associated with vaccine receipt as well as the outcome measures. The authors do not state whether diagnostic tests were conducted for multicollinearity and whether their model was impacted by collinearity, for these and other variables.

Vaccine timeliness was ill-defined. A vaccine was considered on-time if it was given within 30 days of the recommended window. In practice, this meant, for example, the birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine, a shot of particular concern to many parents and doctors, would have been counted as “on time” if it were given any time from day of birth up to age 2 months (60 days). Many parents who “delay” vaccination are requesting a similar extension in timing like the one allowed under this study definition.

Ms Bernard’s submitted comments regarding the study to Pediatrics. These were accepted by the journal and posted online. Comments to Pediatrics posted by others, including Dr. Larry Rosen, pointed out conflicts of interest by the study authors as well as other deficiencies in the research.

[HuckleB]

14. Safeminds is not an expert. It is an anti-vaccination group.

How do you fail to understand that these anti-vaccine groups are not dueling anyone? They are extreme propagandists, and they don't care about the science.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=979662&mesg_id=979707

http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2010/09/safeminds-comments-on-the-latest-thimerosal-autism-study/

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/03/11/the-panic-virus/

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/smartvax-versus-maxvax/

http://autism-news-beat.com/archives/1290

http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2010/12/safeminds-retaliates-against-skeptic-blogger/

[proverbialwisdom]

16. Wrong, reread post #12. PEDIATRICS JOURNAL published the comments critiquing the article.

[HuckleB]

18. And that means something?

Goodness, but you really don't get it, do you?

The evidence is clear, and it is not what you want it to be. Too bad. That's real life.

For those of us who care about helping others, the fact that vaccines are safe and effective is good.

SafeMinds remains nothing but an anti-vaccination group. Getting an online LTTE published does not change that in any way, shape or form.

[HuckleB]

13. The research is clear. Vaccines are safe and effective.

There are no dueling experts here.

Safeminds is an anti-vax propaganda site. (And I'm being VERY KIND by leaving the description at that.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=979662&mesg_id=979707

http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2010/09/safeminds-comments-on-the-latest-thimerosal-autism-study/

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/03/11/the-panic-virus/

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/smartvax-versus-maxvax/

http://autism-news-beat.com/archives/1290

http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2010/12/safeminds-retaliates-against-skeptic-blogger/

[proverbialwisdom]

17. Why the double post? See post #16. NFM

[HuckleB]

19. You posted two posts with pointless anti-vaccination propaganda.

I responded to both of them.

The propaganda you are pushing is wrong and dangerous.

http://www.highlighthealth.com/resources/anti-vaccination-movement-endangers-public-health/

[proverbialwisdom]

20. YOU got nothin if you all you can do is try to disparage me rather than the content of my posts.

It's a sign of the intellectual weakness of your argument or you're playing the devil's advocate. I vacillate between those possibilities leaning toward the latter, but on that, I could be wrong.

[HuckleB]

21. That's quite the claim.

Your posts lack valid content, as I've repeatedly shown. Further, you're the one making baseless personal attacks when you finally figure out that you've can't defend the nonsense you push. (Trying to claim otherwise doesn't change that reality. Again, vaccines are safe and effective. I'm sorry that find to be a problem.)

Try again.

[proverbialwisdom]

22. Was that a Freudian typo? It was worth a chuckle while it lasted.

Before your edit, I laughed reading post #21 directed at me which stated, 'Your posts have lack valid content, as I've repeatedly shown.'

Wait, wait, I can guess what you'll say. No, I didn't imagine it, but as usual, we'll agree to disagree. As for the rest, it's very Rovian, all that accusing another of your own conduct as if anyone who can read would be fooled. I might have a higher opinion of others than you, since I think the distortions made in your posts supposedly paraphrasing me reflect on you. Surely, you're too intelligent not to consider that.

Hence, my working hypothesis. I never called it a claim.

And I'm too intelligent to seek the approval of strangers or even physicians, PhD.s, family or friends on these topics after what I've learned from fully credentialed and vetted whistleblower sources. That's just how it is.

[HuckleB]

23. And you offer no content but yet you offer another attempt at distraction.

You're far too predictable. I did laugh at your overconfidence in your intelligence, however. It's never wise to try to toot one's own horn. It's always best to let actions show for one's abilities.

Of course, that overconfidence actually explains a lot. In fact, it tends to explain a lot when it comes to many anti-vaccination supporters. (Oh, btw, you're so-called whistle-blowers are not vetted. In fact, they lack any semblance of honesty, integrity or ethics. The question is why do you pretend otherwise? I mean, you really have to ignore almost everything they say and do to claim that they're "vetted.")

What's also odd is that you bring up Rovian tactics. The anti-vaccination seems to survive on those, yet you pretend that science is the Rovian pusher. Have you forgotten that Rove and the GOP are rather unhappy with science?

An intelligent person questions his or her preconceived notions. An intelligent person takes in new evidence, and challenges what he or she once perceived. Should I go on, or have I made my point?

[EvolveOrConvolve]

24. How do you reconcile the content of your previous post?

How do you reconcile the content of your previous post where you state "YOU got nothin if you (sic) all you can do is try to disparage me", with this post attacking the person rather than the content? It makes you look intellectually dishonest.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HuckleB]

28. Yeah, Bachmann really got them motivated to do what they do, yet again!

:argh: :grr: :banghead:

[proverbialwisdom]

29. Irrelevant, but...

I posted articles (#11 and #12), HuckleB responded with personal attack (#19 and #21), I replied to personal attack (#22). BORING DIVERSION. I really need to walk away, but here's a thought experiment for y'all first:

You'll note that the number of recommended vaccination doses more than tripled between '83 and the present (while the health of American children has declined by any objective assessment).

If in the next 30 years the number of recommended vaccination doses again triples to 120 (and the incidence of childhood disorders continues to increase annually beyond current levels), would you characterize parents who preferred the 2011 schedule as anti-vaxxers?

Of course not. Most people aren't, certainly none of the physicians I've cited are anti-vaxxers (two on this thread), and to assert otherwise is a blatant misrepresenation and lie.

They just don't automatically fall in line with FORBES' pharmaceutical industry business plans or projections or those of hedge fund investors and others trying to drive profits. When does it end?

[HuckleB]

31. Reality is not a personal attack.

Neither of those posts are anything resembling a personal attack. They simply state your behavior as evidenced by your posts.

Try again.

BTW, are you going to tell us that none of your posts needed to be "edited" recently?\

PS: http://www.dangeroustalk.net/a-team/Vaccines

[proverbialwisdom]

35. If in the next 30 years the number of recommended vaccination doses again triples to 210...

[HuckleB]

36. Well, then children would likely miss less school, and fewer of them would die.

Is that bad?

[EvolveOrConvolve]

25. Safeminds is on Quackwatch's list of questionable organizations

http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/nonrecorg.html

Their motives are questionable, their tactics are dishonest, and their science is lacking.

[proverbialwisdom]

30. Read post #12. If you're happy with the holes exposed, carry on.

I would imagine your standards as a scientist would be more rigorous, however. In fact, a follow-up study is indicated.

[HuckleB]

32. Holes?

In other words, if a Safeminds supporters offers a blind rant, you think there are holes in the study?

Isn't it odd that vaccines are repeatedly shown to be safe and effective, yet Safeminds pretends otherwise?

:rofl:

[proverbialwisdom]

33. Generalities and platitudes don't matter, details do. That's SCIENCE, as you know.

Substitute the word science for perfection.

Trifles make perfection, but perfection is no trifle.
-Michelangelo

What’s wrong with this study and Sallie Bernard’s comments published in Pediatrics

Background: Smith and Charles Woods utilized data previously collected for a 2007 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) study investigating neuropsychological outcomes from early thimerosal exposure. SafeMinds President Sallie Bernard served as a consumer representative on the original 2007 study.

1. At the time of the first study Ms. Bernard submitted comments regarding limitations of the data including only a 30% participation rate when the standard for scientific research is at least 70%.

2. Children were tested at 7-10 years of age, and there was no attempt to control for prior interventions which may have ameliorated neuropsychological deficits.

3. Investigators did not combine prenatal and postnatal thimerosal exposures in assessing outcomes, when cumulative exposures would have been an important analysis for ruling in or out a thimerosal effect.

4. Children born weighing 5lbs 8 ounces or less, almost 9% of the population, were excluded from the study. These infants may have been more vulnerable to mercury exposure, and their exclusion limits the applicability of the findings.

5. In addition to these inherent weaknesses of the data set, the current study by Smith and Woods did not include vaccine exposure beyond 3 DTP, 3 Hib, 2 hepatitis B and 2 polio vaccines. The recommended schedule for this time period allowed for a third dose of hepatitis B and polio vaccines as early as 6 months. Some children in the study received other vaccines in the first year of life, including those for influenza, hepatitis A, MMR, pneumococcal, tuberculosis, tetanus toxoid, varicella, and meningococcal. Whether a child did or did not receive these additional doses was not factored into the analysis.

6. Smith and Woods controlled for cumulative ethylmercury exposure, without providing justification for doing so. Cumulative ethylmercury is positively associated with receipt of 3 of the 4 vaccines in the analysis (hepatitis B, DPT and Hib) and thus with overall vaccine receipt. Including this variable would have the effect of reducing variance (P value) observed for the exposure variable of interest, vaccine receipt.

7. A number of additional variables in the model such as familial and SES factors were associated with vaccine receipt as well as the outcome measures. The authors do not state whether diagnostic tests were conducted for multicollinearity and whether their model was impacted by collinearity, for these and other variables.

8. Vaccine timeliness was ill-defined. A vaccine was considered on-time if it was given within 30 days of the recommended window. In practice, this meant, for example, the birth dose of Hepatitis B vaccine, a shot of particular concern to many parents and doctors, would have been counted as “on time” if it were given any time from day of birth up to age 2 months (60 days). Many parents who “delay” vaccination are requesting a similar extension in timing like the one allowed under this study definition.

Ms Bernard’s submitted comments regarding the study to Pediatrics. These were accepted by the journal and posted online.

Comments to Pediatrics posted by others, including Dr. Larry Rosen, pointed out conflicts of interest by the study authors as well as other deficiencies in the research.

Dueling experts (and elsewhere whistleblowers). The situation isn't as one sided as you'd like to represent.

[HuckleB]

34. You mean "I can find an incredibly minor quibble in order to dismiss every study that shows ....

... vaccines to be safe and effective. But, of course, I will ignore all the other evidence (no matter how bountiful and overwhelming) that shows vaccines to be safe and effective."

Got it!

Thanks for the clarification!

[EvolveOrConvolve]

37. It isn't about the holes that are or are not exposed

It's about the organization being on Quackwatch's list of questionable groups. I trust Quackwatch not to lie, while I expect it from groups like Safemind.

If you're interested in ALL the evidence, you should really pay attention to that which goes against your rigid world-view.