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

Mr Kennedy's a qualified researcher now?

[gusnz]

This smells fishy. Especially considering most of the authors of the original 1998 study suggesting a link between the MMR vaccine and autism have apologised and had their paper retracted by the Lancet due to a conflict of interest. Furthermore, a recent study of Danish children has shown rates of autism continued to increase even after the removal of thimersol from vaccines (via a MetaFilter discussion of this topic).

Now, don't get me wrong; it may still be the case that thimersol or some other vaccine ingredient contributes to autism. However, the balance of evidence from qualified medical researchers is against this viewpoint at the moment, and it's unethical of Mr Kennedy to start spreading what is essentially FUD unless he has the epidemiological data to back it up.

Opposing viewpoints and reg-free link

[SchnauzerGuy]

First, a registration-free link: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/73 95411

Then some counterpoints to the article:

• http://oracknows.blogspot.com/2005/06/saloncom-flu shes-its-credibility-down.html
  
• http://autismdiva.blogspot.com/2005/06/endangered- species.html

And finally, as was posted earlier, the MetaFilter thread is well worth reading before making up your mind one way or another.

Half-truths

[jd]

There is unquestionably a link between mercury and brain disorders - mercury is a well-known neurotoxin, and is linked to all kinds of madness and dementia, especially in the hatting industry, where mercury was used to soften felt.

Autism is not on the list of known effects and many of those who do make the link are involved in expensive remedies that have no established effectiveness whatsoever. As such, I would regard them as being just as dubious as the American pharmaceutical industry.

Now, it is well established that the CDC and FDA have been involved in gross coverups and scandals - not too long ago, they were caught having forged the results of "studies" in Africa on an antiviral. The results weren't merely "not good", they were utterly bogus. Further research actually showed that patients had a distinct habit of dying from the medication, which was damn inconvenient for those wanting to make a fast buck.

It is entirely possible that certain vaccinations MAY have untoward impact on the brain - we don't know all of the allergic responses to vaccinations and have no means of predicting them in advance. (Why do you think you're asked to sit and wait, after getting shots? Because they need someone to prop the wall up?)

However, the link is unproven to be connected with autism and if you look at the mechanics of autism, there is no reason to believe that that is where the link lies.

Autism involves sensory overload shutting parts of the higher levels of the brain down. This is why a severely autistic child is quite capable of interacting with environments that are relatively slow-moving and over a very small fraction of the field of vision. Anything more simply puts the brain into shock.

It is also why geeks are commonly associated with higher-functioning autism and aspergers, as computers are generally not moving a great deal. The range a person needs to contend with is vastly reduced.

Nobody - absolutely nobody - knows the cause of autism, or how to diagnose it except empirically. There are no diagnostics beyond observing a person's responses, which is somewhat medieval. Studies of autism involving PET, CAT, fMRI or EEG devices are limited at best (I know of exactly none), so the amount of neurological data is limited.

Autism is likely to be genetic, as couples on the autistic spectrum do seem to have a higher chance of producing autistic children, but even that is not really proven. It could equally well be dietary. No gene has been found linked to autism, despite some work in this area, which raises the possibility that there is no gene to be found.

In the meantime, I don't suggest cutting back on vaccinations over fear of autism, though because vaccinations can have unexpected effects, I don't advise ever taking a vaccination unnecessarily. It is not something to mess with. On the other hand, superbugs, misdiagnosed lethal infections, killer viruses, etc, are considerably more lethal. If a vaccination is a live hand grenade, the pathogens we live with are a live neutron bomb.

My advice to those concerned about any kind of mental disease is to increase your intake of follic acid to twice current recommended levels, increase your intake of fresh fruits and don't mix citric acid and vitamin C with anything with a high metal content (tea, coffee, swordfish, etc) as those two CAN (under some circumstances) increase your uptake of some of the nastier metals.

Do that and I don't think you'll have anything to worry about. At least, nothing more than usual.

Re:Half-truths

[avi33]

I don't suggest cutting back on vaccinations over fear of autism, though because vaccinations can have unexpected effects.

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've got drug companies on the one hand saying "there's no risk" and on the other hand, removing the suspect chemical and lobbying congress to make it impossible to be found liable.

I don't think TFA would have such a sense of outrage and urgency if this hadn't been bubbling up for some time. It was on the cover of the NY Times magazine back in 2001 or so, and that article illustrated the possible risk and stated that more comprehensive studies were underway. Those studies have since been completed, and no matter how you cut it, suggest a risk. Maybe not the smoking gun that everyone needs to put this to bed, but enough of a risk that the drug companies themselves could no longer claim the lack of risk. So they removed it from the US supply, where the threat of litigation is great.

The outrageous part of it is that the former Director of the US Pediatric Vaccination program went on record (in 97 or so) stating that we since it's not a critical component of the vaccines (it makes it cheaper to produce), and it may be a risk, it should be removed while further studies are completed. The drug companies refused to consider that possibility, as that would be close to an admission of liability.

No tinfoil hats needed here.

Interesting article...

[benjamindees]

Searching for children who had not been exposed to mercury in vaccines -- the kind of population that scientists typically use as a "control" in experiments -- Olmsted scoured the Amish of Lancaster County, Penn., who refuse to immunize their infants. Given the national rate of autism, Olmsted calculated that there should be 130 autistics among the Amish. He found only four. 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.

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:Experimenter Bias

[QuantumG]

It's called the Expectancy effect and was discovered by Rosenthal and Fode in 1963. Obviously it is not something that can be proven, but it is something that can be observed and has been time and time again since.

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.

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:Art Bell

[avi33]

And I don't see how they can't be held liable if a link isn't found. After all, if a woman is a crackhead or drinks a lot, she can be held accountable for her child's defects (and negligence).

A crackhead can't get a rider written into the Patriot Act or an Omnibus spending bill, as the pharmaceutical industry has.

Re:Duh!

[Anonymous Coward]

IAAP (Psychologist), and I've worked with hundreds of children with all sorts of neuropsychological problems, many of these being Autistic-Aspergerish in nature.

I am not commenting directly on your son's friend's case, as I haven't even met them, and all sorts of things happen to cause problems for children. Heavy metals do cause massive neurological problems in children, and I have seen the effects. Having said that:

It is extremely common in the Autism-Asperger's communities for families to come up with all sorts of explanations, and to be victims of all sorts of charlatanry. These families love their children, and are deeply troubled by the problems they and their children have due to Autism-Asperger's spectrum problems. The children are generally wonderful and normal in more ways than not, but wrestle with serious social and emotional difficulties that pain the families to watch. These families will do anything that might work, and because they often have the money, can do anything that might work. As a result, they become the victim of all sorts of wild speculation and hoodwinkery.

In my experience, one of the most common examples of this charlantry is heavy metal testing. It's not uncommon that parents will hear about some place to do heavy metal testing. They'll do the test, and some "expert" will send a report to them on it. Generally these reports always claim that there's elevated levels of some heavy metal in the child. However, if you go to some independent source, and have them review the report, they'll tell you that the levels are well within--even well below average levels for children. Often the elevated "heavy metals" listed won't just be well below average levels, but won't be heavy metals at all, or will be metals that are actually beneficial medically or, at least, unrelated in any sense to any documented illness.

Nevertheless, because they have this "report" to hold onto, parents will explain to others how their child was "tested and found to have elevated sensitivity to/levels of/exposure to heavy metals." These parents aren't stupid, or irresponsible, they're just victims of people who are taking advantage of their distress and desparation.

You don't have to be a large greedy corporation to make money off of people's misery without scientific data to back you up.

In brief....

[RatPh!nk]

Ok, I am a 2nd year medical student and a researcher here at my university. I have a B.S. in Biochemistry, so I'd like to think I know a little about something :) First the molecule itself, thimerosal To say this molecule contains mercury is akin to saying triclosan has chlorine (it does). You are talking about breaking a C-Hg or a S-Hg bond which unless enzymatically activated, may be tough for your body to pull off due to the bond energies involved. Also, you would need an enzyme with some specificity for this molecule, or a specific transporter to move this across the endo/epithelial borders. It raises some questions even at face value, to say the least.
Here is the brunt of the IOM study/panel:

A 14-person panel of experts urged more research on autism but said further pursuit of possible links between vaccines and the devastating neurological disorder is probably not worth the money and effort. Reports published in 2001 by the same committee found no connection between the MMR vaccine and autism, and insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative added to multiple-dose vials of vaccine. Since then, enough new studies have been published to confidently reject both theories, the panel said. Especially convincing were a Danish study showing no difference in the rate of autism between children who got thimerosal-containing vaccines and those who did not and a British study showing no relationship between the introduction of MMR and autism rates, or between the timing of a vaccination and the onset of autism symptoms. "The vaccine hypotheses are not currently supported by the evidence," wrote the panel, which consisted of physicians, neuroscientists, epidemiologists, statisticians and a nurse.

Skeptism is how science progresses. If you have read the "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" (had to do it for a class), you would see this is how science is forwarded. That said, studies has been published in both Europe and the U.S. clearly showing no link. Skeptism, when shown to be unfounded needs to be put to rest. Literally millions of lives have been saved by vaccination programs worldwide.

The current theory favored by many experts is that autism is a genetically-based disorder that occurs before birth.
Studies of persons with autism are finding abnormalities in brain structures that develop in the first few weeks of fetal development.

The original report, published in the Lancet in 1995 included a editorial piece criticizing it, partly due to its very small study population (12 patients). Another facet of the story that is oft left out of the discussion is that the hypothesis, which had no data associated with it, was that perhaps the MMR vaccination prevents gut absorption of minerals and vitamins which caused the autism.

Anyway, there is alot of data involving this, which I have referenced below. I would like to note that I have been taking this primarily from a piece written by Dr. Barrett. The collection is quite complete and slightly longish. Have a go at it.

References

• A question of harm. CNN & Time broadcast, Oct 3, 1999.
• Liam's mother Shelley H. Reynolds founded and serves as president of Little Angels, an organization intended to "bring the issues of autism from individual homes to the forefront of national dialogue." Dr. Cave is a board member described on the Web site as "a leader and a fighter for the alternative therapies that seem to work with many of our children. She believes in using drugs as a last resort, concentr

Re:My personal experience with my son and MMR.

[Dahan]

I'm sorry to hear that your son's development has been set back by something. However, I doubt it has anything to do with thimerosal, seeing that the MMR vaccine used in the US, MMR II from Merck, has never contained thimerosal. Thimerosal was used in DTaP (diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis), hepatitis B, and influenza vaccines.

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".