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.

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: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.