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

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: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: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".