A Link Between Autism and Thimerosal?

tessellation writes "Environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has just published a review of evidence for the link between thimerosal (a mercury-based preservative added to vaccines until 2003) and the autism epidemic. It also details attempts by the FDA and CDC to protect the drug industry from litigation by producing favorable results rather than objective studies: '"Four current studies are taking place to rule out the proposed link between autism and thimerosal," Dr. Gordon Douglas, then-director of strategic planning for vaccine research at the National Institutes of Health, assured a Princeton University gathering in May 2001. "In order to undo the harmful effects of research claiming to link the [measles] vaccine to an elevated risk of autism, we need to conduct and publicize additional studies to assure parents of safety." Douglas formerly served as president of vaccinations for Merck, where he ignored warnings about thimerosal's risks." How often are studies successfully altered by funding agencies to conceal negative results?"

Comments

Experimenter Bias

[QuantumG]

Take 100 rats. Give 50 to a random selection of students and give them 5 tests to perform. Give the other 50 to a random selection of students and give them the same 5 tests to perform, but tell the students that these are specially bred laboratory rats which have been genetically tested to ensure they are more accurate when testing for human disease (or whatever fairy tale your students are likely to buy). The results from the second group will not match the first. There will be a statistically significant difference between them.

Re:Experimenter Bias

[Quixotic Raindrop]

Prove it.

Re:Experimenter Bias

[QuantumG]

If you don't want to put in a bit of background reading then don't talk about psychology. Piss off to some other message board and talk about reality tv or Paris Hilton. Is it too much to ask that the people who don't know what is going on bugger off and learn on their own? Is our society so spoon fed that they can't even participate in educated conversation?

Re:Art Bell

[Anonymous Coward]

While I agree that your typical drug company is about as evil as it gets,

Such exaggerations don't help anyone and what's worse is that they may discourage the young and clever from going into an industry where such people can do a lot of good.

you're missing the point

[cahiha]

I agree with you that the data and results are "fishy". But you are asking the wrong question. Kennedy doesn't have to be a "qualified researcher" in order to publish something in Salon.com, even something with scientific content. Salon.com is not a scientific journal, it's an on-line magazine for journals and writers, and Kennedy qualifies as one of those. Furthermore, anybody who has not been living under a rock for the last several decades will know his background and status.

As a scientists, I hope the day will never come in which only "qualified researchers" can publish on controversial issues. Voting age citizens are supposed to be able to comprehend, judge, and evaluate information for themselves.

Re:you're missing the point

[gusnz]

As a scientists, I hope the day will never come in which only "qualified researchers" can publish on controversial issues.

Relax, I agree he has the right to write articles on the issue regardless of his qualifications; it's a free world. I do, however, think that he should fairly represent the current state of research, or at least acknowledge that the point is undecided, rather than writing as if the evidence is 100% against thimerosal. Quoting Page 2 of his article:

From the very beginning, the scientific case against the mercury additive has been overwhelming.

That's not exactly balanced. Furthermore, above that he writes:

It was only after reading the Simpsonwood transcripts, studying the leading scientific research and talking with many of the nation's preeminent authorities on mercury that I became convinced that the link between thimerosal and the epidemic of childhood neurological disorders is real.

It's unethical for someone who has studied the "leading scientific research" and talked "nation's preeminent authorities" to so misrepresent the preponderance of evidence and the positions of those who disagree with him; he cites and dismisses "some skeptics" in the paragraph after my quote as believing the increase in autism prevalence is due to better diagnosis, which may be true, but doesn't even mention such "skeptics" may think the cause of the increase remains totally unknown!

In addition there's a lot that contravenes common sense. For instance:

In 1930, the company tested thimerosal by administering it to 22 patients with terminal meningitis, all of whom died within weeks of being injected.

Patients with terminal meningitis died? As in "terminal" meaning "incurably near death"? Who would've thought?

I could go on and on for a while, but I hope my point has been made. If you're a notable public figure writing on a contentious issue, you have an obligation to present the evidence in a balanced manner, rather than picking and choosing your sources to prop up your own biases and conclusions.

Re: you're missing the point

[Anonymous Coward]

"Strictly speaking he doesn't have to be a "qualified researcher" in order to publish in a scientific journal either, so long as he does his homework, justifies his method of collecting data, and draws his conclusions by applying sound reasoning to the data."

When he does all that, he is a qualified researcher.

Re:you're missing the point

[Grab]

However, Salon.com should not be publishing articles which contain untrue information. "From the start, the evidence against it was overwhelming"? Oh yes?

Scientific journals tend to (or are supposed to) carry out some factual checking on article content before publishing. Salon.com apparently just published without checking. Kennedy is claiming an ability to spot connections which is not backed up by evidence, or by a superior scientific ability.

If this were an editorial expressing one person's opinion, then fine - but responsible journalism requires that it is made clear this is all it is. This is presented as a factual evidence-based investigation, which it clearly is not. If Salon is just a blog, then fine. But if Salon claims to be a reputable news source, which it does, then it's screwed beyond belief.

You're correct - anyone should be able to submit stories on anything. However it is grossly incompetent and unethical for a magazine to publish articles of this nature. My beef is not with Kennedy (hell, he can submit stories claiming he's the second coming of Elvis, and I'll not worry about it) but with Salon for printing such easily-disproved rubbish and passing it off as factual content.

Frankly though, this doesn't surprise me. It's been a very long time since I've seen anything worth reading on Salon. It's just another blog these days. "Online magazine"? Don't make me laugh.

Grab.

Re:you're missing the point

[kargis]

As a scientists, I hope the day will never come in which only "qualified researchers" can publish on controversial issues. Voting age citizens are supposed to be able to comprehend, judge, and evaluate information for themselves.

Although I agree with this in concept, the problem here is not that people shouldn't be allowed to have their opinions and discuss controversy, but rather that when people read stuff like this, that claims geniune scientific method and discovery without having either, they grow worried about vaccines. This not only endangers their own children, which depending on the laws of the state they live in, etc., is their business, but creates a public health risk -- people who are immunosuppressed due to illness, old age/young age, aren't vaccinated due to being too young, or have other immune problems are at risk of dying because people decide not to have their kids vaccinated because of some junk written at salon.com.

Worse yet, if they don't get the vaccine and the child has a negative outcome from getting measles, mumps, or rubella, I'm sure they can still sue the doctor, even if we beg them to reconsider at the time and document our disagreement with their refusal of the vaccine. Laypeople have a right to information, a right to discussion, a right to refuse care, but then why do they get to retain the right to blame us if their decisions go badly?

Further, I don't pretend to understand the inside of my car, or the electrical wiring in my house enough to be able to render an accurate judgement. Medical science is not any different from any other technical field -- yes any person of age can read the information (if they're literate), but can they really understand it, and do they know which sources are accurate and which are not?

Kargis Strong, MD
(Pediatrician)

Re:you're missing the point

[cahiha]

yes any person of age can read the information (if they're literate), but can they really understand it, and do they know which sources are accurate and which are not?

When these people go to the voting booth and vote on issues like health care, national defense, social security, and the justice system, they need to make the same kinds of evaluations of expert opinions, and they decide over the life and death of hundreds of thousands of other people every year. If we entrust people with that responsibility at the voting booth, they should face the same responsibility within their own family or have to live with the consequences.

are at risk of dying because people decide not to have their kids vaccinated because of some junk written at salon.com.

The cause isn't salon.com, it's the lack of critical thinking by the parents. If you want to address that, improve the education system.

Trying to eliminate undesirable actions based on bad information is hopeless; the Chinese and Soviets tried it and failed, and they had a lot more control than you do.

I'm sure they can still sue the doctor, even if we beg them to reconsider at the time and document our disagreement with their refusal of the vaccine.

Of course, they can sue you. Any of your patients can sue you at any time. The question is whether they would win, and I find that doubtful if you did your job.

Re:Interesting article...

[Vellmont]

Yah, I read that too. The problem is the "control" group he found is just terrible. The Amish lead such a different lifestyle, eat different foods (probbably not a lot of foods with preservatives, pesiticides, etc probbably don't eat a lot of high sugar foods, etc) that focusing only on one of the differences (vaccinations) seems to make the whole study meaningless.

It could also be simply the Amish kids are diagnosed with Autism far less than non-Amish. Do the Amish go to the doctor as much?

The article is troubling, and I'd be interested to learn more about the whole controversy, but I can't say it's very definitive.

So true

[QMO]

I had scarlet fever in high school, and got completely over it (including rheumatic fever and hives) in a couple of weeks.
My grandfather had scarlet fever in high school and it took him more than a year to get over it.

Too bad they made me get a penicillin shot. I probably would have been cured much quicker without it, like my grandfather.

What a waste.

[hubs99]

The link between thimerosal is shaky at best. There have countless studies looking at populations like the swedes who removed ALL thimerosol from their vacines and still had the same number of autism cases. Autism is not going to be an easy fix. Parents of autistic children focus on mercury and other contaminates because there are pathological similarities between mercury poisoning and autism. Someone is eventually going to bring up the research who found a strain of rats that were deathly allergic to thimerosal so I want to touch on this too. This population of rats was screen for their allergy to thimerosal. It would be like taking a population of dogs who were allergic to cats, and breeding those dogs which had the worst allergies to the cats, Repeat indefinetely as rats/mice can breed every 2 weeks or so. Also this research will not allow any one else to use these mice as they are a patented strain of mice and the last I heard he wasn't going to allow outsiders to use them because he wanted first crack at all possible research from them. This crusade against thimerosal is based on peoples ignorance and inability to erlationally look at the evidence. It is a quick way to blame for a illness that no one is at fault for. 30 yaers ago people blaimed distant mothers as the cause of autism.

Re:Interesting article...

[pla]

Given the national rate of autism, Olmsted calculated that there should be 130 autistics among the Amish. He found only four.

When looking for a good control group (though, you can't really call them that in a post hoc study), you want them as similar as possible to the treatment group.

The Amish live a radically different lifestyle from your typical American. Does their low Autism rate result from a low vaccination rate? Does it result from using minimal, if any, AC power? Pesticides? Growth hormones in meat? Formaldahyde from common modern building materials? I could go on.


One had been exposed to high levels of mercury from a power plant. The other three -- including one child adopted from outside the Amish community -- had received their vaccines.

Here, you have a very strong selection bias. You have four people. Three of them received immunizations; how many others received immunizations? Lower than average, but certainly more than three. One lived near a power plant; how many others lived near a power plant? And if none of them lived near a power plant or received immunizations, do you suppose a motivated investigator could have found other potential sources of mercury exposure? How about a school chemistry lab? An old thermometer? The ever-popular "high local levels" in the ground?


Personally, I do suspect a link between mercury and autism. It might not even have anything to do with thimerosal, just a side effect of our massive all-around habit of polluting the hell out of our water, air, soil, and food. But a post hoc study of a radically different so-called "control" group with findings justified by a glaringly obvious selection bias - No. Sorry, but even the Bush administration could spot science that bad.

Re:Half-truths

[dasunt]

The drug companies have not used it in child vaccines since 2002. In the US . As for other countries, most notably third world countries that are accepting "charitable donations" from drug companies, are stuck being guinea pigs until the true risks are discovered.

So, you are weighing a known risk (risk of childhood diseases) against an unknown risk (risk that vaccines will cause autism) and assuming that there is a problem?

In that case, let me inform you that the US population are stuck being guinea pigs because seatbelts may cause baldness.

Sure, my critics may say that I'm massaging and misreading the data (they claim that any baldness is probably due to increased life expectency of seatbelt wearers) but do you really want to take the risk?

Stop mandatory seatbelt laws now!

Re:The link is definitely there.

[MadAhab]

Don't be an idiot. Any parent who has had a kid with medical issues knows that before very long, you become far more aware of the daily ups and downs, ins and outs of the child's condition than any medical professional anywhere. And pretty soon, you get to know the little corner of science that affects your child very well.

Hey, dummy, how do scientific hypotheses get formed? Scientists turn casual observations - "hmm, these dietary changes seem to improve symptoms of autism" - or logical conjectures - "hey, mercury is really fucking poisonous in general - shouldn't we look for negative effects from giving so much of an untested mercury-containing substance to babies?" - into formal studies blah blah blah. This takes time - but the observations of parents will be a critical link in this chain. Those parents report chelating to have a positive effect very consistently.

Something else I'll tell you about parents and their children's medical problems: if you knew anything about dealing with a sick child - clearly you don't - you'd know that very easy in talking to parents to distinguish between overzealous, overoptimistic people who fool themselves and/or blame doctors at every opportunity and latch on to every quack cure in sight and those parents who are thoughtful, powerful agents in their child's care.

The suppression of information reported in the Salon article is fucking scary - large scale epidemiological databases showing dead obvious connections, then said data is removed from public view permanently by officials with deep industry connections defending their own policies. Whether the thimoseral connection shakes out or not, that public health policy was made this way is incredibly fucking stupid. But you don't care as long as you can take the lazy pose of a skeptic.

Science wouldn't progress quite so quickly without the parents observations being given credibility. Did you know that until the 1970s, most infant surgery - from circumcision on up - was done without anaesthesia? Why? Because scoffing skeptics like you (only with MDs) insisted their nervous systems were to immature to feel pain. In retrospect, we can see pretty clearly how stupidly obviously wrong that was. Striking a skeptical pose doesn't make you scientific, it just makes you arrogant enough to believe your version of things is "obvious" and others are "fooling themselves".