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

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.

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.