"There Is No Proof that Cigarettes Cause Cancer"

It took fifty years before the courts finally acknowledged that cigarette smoking causes cancer.

There were billions of dollars at stake.

The dozens of court decisions that there "was no proof" were supported by physicians, expert witnesses of all types and hundreds of millions of dollars spent on attorneys.

Experts and doctors alike stated over and over again that we need not continue studying this issue because there was just no proof.

Let me state very simply, vaccines can cause autism.

No real scientist would encourage us to stop studying this possibility.

The proof is not there yet. It will be found. Let's hope it doesn't take another fifty years and hundreds of court cases to convince the government and the public. Private industry is once again duping the FDA, doctors and the public. The conflicts of interest are obscene and illegal.

The diseases against which we vaccinate are still dangerous and still present in other countries and in America but simple risk/benefit analysis would show that the risks from the way vaccines are manufactured and administered far outweighs the risks of harm from these relatively rare illnesses.

If Dr Offit had been a witness back then, might he have suggested that people could smoke 10,000 cigarettes?

Children's lives are at risk and we can't allow this whitewash.

JNG MD

Comments

[Nick Carlson]

I'm a civil engineer, not a doctor, so my only horse in this race is to ask you fine people to stop misrepresenting what EPA's "MCL" means.

The Maximum Contaminant Level is only defined for drinking water, based on both the health risks from long-term exposure and accretion over the period of years or even a lifetime of drinking/b­athing/gen­eral exposure to tap water, and the technological feasibility of physically removing the contaminant from drinking water. It is a benchmark for wastewater remediation engineers, not medical advice.

Referring to the "MCL" of ingredients in any other substance, including vaccines, is fallacious and incorrect.

[sdtech]

To be clear, it is definitely EPA’s horse in this race to protect children and pregnant women from mercury poisoning by ingestion of mercury in drinking water.


Please read pages 3.1 through 3.35 of the EPA-823-R-01-001 January 2001 Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human Health: Methylmercury U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC


See http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/methylmercury/pdf/mercury-criterion.pdf


And the MCL criterion is NOT a bench mark for wastewater.

The MCL criterion is an enforceable standard “called a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL)” for drinking water supplies.

See http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw000/contaminants/dw_contamfs/mercury.html .

[nowGo4ward]

What limits have been established on bolus dose exposure to sodium ethylmercu­rithiosali­cylate via injection sometimes in conjunction with aluminum salts, etc., also taking into account that other sources of mercury exposure are often present?

[sdtech]

NowGo4ward:
The USEPA set limits in drinking water per the above discussion on MCL of 2 parts per billion.
The USEPA also addressed ingestion of methyl mercury in fish “Outbreaks of methylmercury poisonings have made it clear that adults, children, and developing fetuses are at risk from ingestion exposure to methylmercury. During these poisoning outbreaks some mothers with no symptoms of nervous system damage gave birth to infants with severe disabilities, it became clear that the developing nervous system of the fetus may be more vulnerable to methylmercury than is the adult nervous system.”
See http://www.epa.gov/mercury/effects.htm
So the USEPA has also set recommended limits for ingestion of one tenth of a microgram of methylmercury per kilogram of body weight per day for protection of women and children from mercury poisoning due to ingestion.
See http://www.epa.gov/NCEA/iris/subst/0073.htm
And the USEPA banned mercury as a preservative in latex paint in 1990 to protect children from mercury poisoning.
See http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/mercury.html
But to answer the question about FDA, there are no established limits set for thimerosal, ethyl mercury, or elemental mercury due to vaccines. No one has a clue as to what levels are safe.

[sdtech]

Samuel99 and DrZP.

Karen Wetterhahn gave her life doing research on damage from heavy metals. Mercury is the most insidious and dangerous of heavy metals.

Look at
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0CE5DC143DF930A35753C1A961958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all .

Anyone in the health profession should not advocate injecting children with MERCURY, a known neurotoxin, just because ironclad proof as to how many and which of the billions of brain cells in a child are damaged.

PRIMUM NON NOCERE!!

[DrZP]

First, mercury poisoning does not cause autism, it causes mercury poisoning. Although the symptoms overlap, they are different disease.

Second, just because a substance is toxic at a certain level does not mean it is toxic at every level. I think Samuel99 explained that quite eloquently recently. Any chemical, including water, can be dangerous to a person at sufficient doses. The important question is if the current doses of mercury within vaccines is dangerous. The answer is no.

[sdtech]

Return to the post below on February 18, 2009 i.e. “Here is one scientist who is not satisfied with the existing studies.”

Samuel99 stated “Presumably, the analysis did not identify an increased risk.”

Look at the posted link for “Thimerosal VSD Study, Phase I, Update 2/29/00, CONFIDENTIAL DO NOT COPY OR RELEASE,” Verstraeten, Robert Davis, Frank DeStefano.

Look at graphs 3 and 16.

[samuel99]

And in other news, a Korean woman gave her life (inadvertently) to the study of damage from acetic acid (Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine: Vol. 124, No. 1, pp. 127–129).

Anyone in the health profession should not advocate ingestion of ACETIC ACID, a known poison.

CONSUMO NULLUS PATATINE ET ACETUM

(with apologies to classics scholars)

[sdtech]

Epidemiological conclusions DO NOT deny evidence of harm. And scientists do not say there is NO evidence of harm.

[sdtech]

As Will Rogers said “Everything is funny as long as it is happening to somebody else”

[sdtech]

Presently there is an autism epidemic.

Look at
https://www.ideadata.org/TABLES31ST/AR_1-7.xls .

The IDEA data shows 25,000 seven year olds listed with autism in the 2007-2008 school year.

Should our generation simply stand on the sidelines, observe this horrible epidemic, and then point out that prior generations defeated another?

It is far beyond the time to take a more responsible approach to vaccines and the ingredients that may cause damage to children both born and unborn.

[DrZP]

If there is a direct causal relationship, than your arguments about vaccinating would be sound. The studies are equivocal. A question, what if the rise in autism rates are due to something else, not vaccinations. If you stop vaccines now, you would cause a public health fiasco, for no benefit.

You talk about an epidemic, but many have pointed to other factors that may account in the increased prevalence:

http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2008/rise_in_autism.html

Now, I know that changing criteria is a controversial issue, and many believe that it cannot account for the rising autism rates. But, again, there is conflicting science. BUT, a simple fact is that a PART of the rise in prevalence can be accounted by more social awareness AND less stringent diagnostic criteria.

Is it possible that the increase in prevalence cannot be fully explained by this, sure, I do not know the data that well. Could vaccines still be problem? We do not know, no definitive study to date.

Autism is becoming a public health concern. I agree, we cannot stand on the sidelines while our children carry the burden of inaction. None the less, we do not know what is causing the rise in disease prevalence. Before we act, me must identify the cause. What if it were something else? If we act prematurely and take the wrong intervention, we put children, both born and unborn, at risk of DYING of infectious agents.

[sdtech]

This is standing on the sidelines and watching.

The referenced study is based on 38 adults. This small group is not a reasonable sample size to conclude anything. One of the authors acknowledged as much.

In South Dakota flu shots were given to 91,000 kids from six months old to 18 years old. The multi dose flu shot has 25 micrograms of mercury per ½ milliliter. Each of these children would have to weigh 950 pounds not to exceed the USEPA Safe Drinking Water Act maximum contaminant level of mercury.

And the MULTIDOSE flu shot with mercury is cheaper than the mercury free flu shot by about $3.00 each.

Look at
http://www.rxpgnews.com/medicalnews/healthcare/usa/article_4171.shtml .

The estimated cost is 3.2 million dollars for lifetime care giving costs per child.

For the most part--parents, health professionals, and our “free press” are standing on the sidelines and watching neurotoxins injected into children. While most parents are not informed, the rest of us know or should know better.

[samuel99]

After years of effort, no ingredients in vaccines have been identified that cause autism. Arbitrary changing of vaccine protocols based on unverified hunches will only serve to undermine confidence, and is contrary to public health interest. In fact, the removal of thimerosal has had negative effects on public health for this reason. It is time to invest efforts into finding the real cause of autism. To quote Alison Singer, who has a child with autism, and who recently resigned as CEO of Autism Speaks: “If you keep looking under the same rock, you're going to keep finding the same thing.[...] every dollar spent looking where we know the answer isn't is one less dollar we have to spend where we might find new answers”

[Twyla]

Samuel99 - Clearly you are completely close minded to any information that we present. Once again, see comments by the former director of the NIH saying that public health officials have intentionally avoided researching whether subsets of children are “susceptible” to vaccine side effects - afraid the answer will scare the public.

Healy said that there is a completely expressed concern that they don't want to pursue a hypothesis because that hypothesis could be damaging to the public health community at large by scaring people. "First of all," Healy said, "I think the public’s smarter than that. The public values vaccines. But more importantly, I don’t think you should ever turn your back on any scientific hypothesis because you’re afraid of what it might show."

CBS News stated that the government has paid more than 1,300 brain injury claims in vaccine court since 1988, but is not studying those cases or tracking how many of them resulted in autism. The government told CBS News: “Some children who have been compensated for vaccine injuries…may ultimately end up with autism or autistic symptoms, but we do not track cases on this basis.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/12/cbsnews_investigates/main4086809.shtml

Millions has been spent on studying genes and the brain. An very tiny fraction of this has been spent on the immune system and vaccines in relation to autism.

[Asuka]

Let's say it all together, kids!

Correlation =/= causation. Maybe if we all say it enough we'll remember it.

This is bad science, it is completely circumstantial and does not take other factors into account. First of all we have the recent establishment of ASD, the autistic spectrum disorder, which is an umbrella term for a wide variety of symptoms and behaviors. Second, we have the fact that most of the studies conducted cover a larger variety of control groups, and third - more cases are reported.

That's a shift in social paradigm combined with a wider definition of what constitutes autism. It is not any indication that numbers are going up.

If you want to tell me that vaccines are evil, I'll just point you to my mother-in-law, an RN who caught polio as a child right before the Salk vaccine was instated and has been confined to a wheelchair for most of her life. She'd be happy to educate you. Or perhaps we could go for a lovely walk down to the local cemetery and wander through all the tiny headstones there, and I could regale you with tales of the periodic diptheria epidemics that put most of those poor babies in those graves in the first place?

My *God,* your priorities are out of order.

[DrZP]

Starting with the 1916 polio epidemic, the US had an epidemic every summer until the vaccine. In 1952, there were ~58,000 cases of polio infection reported, with 3,145 deaths and 21,269 cases of mild to sever paralysis. The majority of infected individuals were children between the ages of 5 and 9.

After the introduction of widespread vaccination, the number of cases dropped to 10 cases per year within a few years.

Vaccines have worked. The infectious burden of these diseases is real. We cannot in good conscience stop vaccinations with proof of their risks.

[DrZP]

There is a type in the above statment. The last sentence should read:

We cannot in good conscience stop vaccinations WITHOUT proof of their risks.

Sorry for the mistake.

[Twyla]

Fine, vaccinate against polio. Does that have any bearing on the question of whether it is safe to give two dozen vaccines to an infant by the age of two, and another dozen before school starts?

Does the severity of polio mean that all infants should receive a hepatitis B vaccine on the date of birth, even though hardly any infants are at risk for this disease? Even though on the date of birth the kidneys and liver are not yet fully functioning and the baby's health status is unknown?

Doctor Gordon did not say to do away with all vaccines. He talked about "the risks from the way vaccines are manufactured and administered" We cannot in good conscience continue to ignore those who suffer adverse reactions to vaccines. Vaccine problems must be better understood and addresses.

[sdtech]

The average water intake for a child per day is 0.029 liters per kilogram-day.
See http://www.lbl.gov/ehs/esg/tritium/tritium/TritAppB.html
That estimate means that a 25 pound child drinks 330 milliliters per day. Then 330 milliliters at 2 parts per billion (MAXIMUM MERCURY) is 0.658 micrograms. The flu shot has 25 micrograms of mercury. So that means the child would have to weigh 950 pounds not to exceed the USEPA safe level of mercury from the same intake.
Water supplies may likely report NO detectable levels of mercury.
One can look at mercury toxicity from every direction and see the same result. The unregulated levels in flu shots are not even close to a safe established level.
Once again, in the CDC document, the word mercury is ABSENT.

And parents and pregnant women need to know!

Thanks again, Dr. Gordon.

[samuel99]

Flu vaccines for children under 6 do not contain more than 1 microgram of mercury per shot. Since 2001. So, using your numbers, a 25-pound child gets less mercury from one shot than it is permitted to drink in 2 days. But the child drinks water every day, 365 days per year. And the likely form in water (dimethylmercury) is much more toxic than thimerosal. So, considering only mercury, drinking water at its safe limit is at least 180 times more dangerous for a child than getting an annual flu vaccination.

The FDA also has a total average safe intake level, which is 0.1 microgram per kg per day (1 microgram for a 25 pound child), so the child's shot is actually within the DAILY limit, and 365 times below the annual limit.

Even considering the 25 micrograms that is used in some vaccines for older people, the amount of mercury amounts to at most a few weeks of water intake at the safe limit. If you got flu shots every week, you might have a case.

[sdtech]

Samuel99:

Look at
http://www.state.sd.us/news/showDoc.aspx?i=10320 .

It claims that 91,000 children from 6 months old to 18 years old just got flu shots. These are almost entirely the multidose shots with 25 micrograms of mercury per shot, at no extra charge.

Please give your family members and friends the benefit of your knowledge. Check with your health care provider. Unless your state bans mercury in vaccines, they will get the cheaper multidose shot which contains 25 micrograms per 0.5 ml of vaccine. But if you or your friends or family members don’t ask you will not know.

And a pregnant mother or parent of a child UNDER 6 years has the right to know there is an alternative of mercury free vaccine and make an informed decision.

For now, thank you for your comments.

[sdtech]

Also, the fact is that children under six years and pregnant women are told that it is safe to get a flu shot with mercury. But they won’t know the shot contains mercury. The word thimerosal is used. The word mercury is ABSENT. See http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/vis/downloads/vis-flu.pdf

So if they don’t ask they won’t know. So much for informed consent!

[samuel99]

The amount is less than is permitted in 500 mL water. Ask them if they know that mercury is permitted in their drinking water.

[Doybia]

This is great Samuel. You are obviously very knowledgeable about thimerosal. Please supply some clinical and laboratory study citations on the safety of this substance being used in vaccines. Not, of course, epidemiological studies, which are not an appropriate method for determining the safety of an injected toxin, but clinical and laboratory studies. And while you are at it, find some for aluminum. Not for adult mice being injected with aluminum (as happily cited by Dr. Offit) but for babies, human babies, getting vaccines with aluminum. There must be lots of studies because vaccine safety is so exhaustively demonstrated...

[sdtech]

Regarding high dose comparisons, look the MSDS for dimethylmercury. It says “Skin Absorption, May be fatal if absorbed through skin.”

Look at the Dartmouth documents on Karen Wetterhahn at
http://www.udel.edu/OHS/dartmouth/drtmtharticle.html
and
http://dujs.dartmouth.edu/spring-2008-10th-anniversary-edition/remembering-karen-wetterhahn

Two drops of dimethylmercury gives 0.1 milliliters or 300 milligrams. Now 300 milligrams divided by 70 kilograms gives 4.2 milligrams per kilogram for a lethal exposure by skin contact. So mercury is far more toxic at high concentrations than table salt or alcohol.

And then look at a low concentration dose comparison for drinking water standards set by the USEPA. There is a limit of 2 parts per billion in drinking water. Compare that to the FDA unregulated level of 50 thousand parts per billion in a flu shot. With this higher low level dose it is not a matter of if any brain cells are killed but rather how many.



.

[samuel99]

sdtech: Regarding high dose comparisons, look the MSDS for dimethylmercury.

There is no dimethylmercury in vaccine.

sdtech: So mercury is far more toxic at high concentrations than table salt or alcohol.

Dimethylmercury! But yes, thimerosal is also far more toxic than table salt or alcohol. But far less of it is used. You’ve got to follow through on your logic. As I’ve already demonstrated, a flu shot contains a far smaller fraction of the lethal dose of thimerosal than a tsp of cough syrup contains of the lethal dose of alcohol. So, if you’re going to go by lethal doses, cough syrup is more dangerous than the mercury in vaccines.

sdtech: There is a limit of 2 parts per billion in drinking water. Compare that to the FDA unregulated level of 50 thousand parts per billion in a flu shot.

Yes, thimerosal is present in adult vaccines at 25000 times the concentration permitted for dimethylmercury in water. But (1) we ingest 6000 times more water in one day, so 4 days of water can safely contain the mercury in one vaccine dose; a years worth is 80 times more; (2) thimerosal is much less toxic; (3) MMR is mercury free, and all vaccines for children under 6 contain at most 1 microgram of mercury per dose, which is less than the recommended average daily intake from all sources for a 10 kg infant, and the amount you could get by drinking a 500 mL glass of USEPA safe water.

[samuel99]

This is progress. Your previous post suggested that questions of dose and chemistry had not occurred to you. Now, try consistent comparisons.

The rat LD50 for ethanol is about 7g/kg. A dose of cough syrup might be a gram or two, of which 10% can be ethanol. So, one dose is about .1/7 = .014 of the per kg rat LD50. (There is far more in a dose of Nyquil.)

The rat LD50 for thimerosal is 75 mg/kg. A vaccine dose contains at most 50 micrograms of thimerosal, or .05/75 = .00067 of the per kg rat LD50, or about 20 times less than the alcohol fraction.

Now, I don't think the lethal doses are particularly relevant in comparing toxicity at low levels, but you brought them up.

[sdtech]

First, looking at a MSDS for ethyl alcohol, the oral lethal dose is ORL-CHD LDLO 2000 mg per kg. And looking at the msds for chlorine gas, the warning is to evacuate all personnel from affected area in the event of a release. And looking at the MSDS for NaCl, the oral lethal dose is ORL-MAN LDLO 1000 mg per kg.

And for organic mercury, looking at the EPA Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human Health, it states that a “chemistry professor inadvertently spilled drops (0.4-0.5 mL) of dimethylmercury from her pipette into her latex gloves...” and experienced severe neurotoxicity and died.

See page 2-1 at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/methylmercury/pdf/mercury-criterion.pdf .

But….looking at neuron damage done on the cellular level by mercury, there is no established safe level. Mercury kills brain cells. And flu shots with thimerosal have 50 parts per million mercury.

[samuel99]

"drops (0.4-0.5 mL) of dimethylmercury […] and died."

Dimethylmercury is much more toxic than thimerosal, which metabolizes to ethylmercury.

“[...] mercury, there is no established safe level”

There are trace amounts in the atmosphere and water, and I consider them safe. But if you're going to quote the health officials, they do give safe levels for mercury content, and as I said elsewhere, a 100-g serving of fish at the recommended safe level contains 8 times the mercury of a single dose of vaccine, and 200 times more than in children’s vaccine with the highest mercury concentration, and in a more toxic form.

"And flu shots with thimerosal have 50 parts per million mercury."

Some do, but not the ones given to children under 6. MMR vaccines are thimerosal-free. Some children's flu vaccines may contain up to 1 microgram thimerosal per dose (25 times less than the level you quote). The average daily safe level (EPA) is 0.1 microgram/kg (or about 1 microgram per child). That means 365 micrograms per year is considered safe.

Considering that since 2001, thimerosal has not been used in the MMR vaccine, and in drastically reduced concentrations in any vaccines, but the autism diagnoses have continued to increase, it seems to me you are barking up the wrong tree.

[sdtech]

Here is early evidence of brain injury from mercury exposure.

“The first documented widespread human methylmercury poisoning occurred in Minamata, Japan, between 1953 and 1960. Over time the source of the poisoning was traced to consumption of contaminated fish and seafood from Minamata Bay...Examination of the brains of severely affected patients who died revealed marked atrophy of the brain (55% normal volume and weight), with lesions in the cerebral cortex and cerebellar cortex, and changes in the nerve fibers, cystic cavities, and spongy foci (Harada, 1995). Microscopically, entire regions of the brain were devoid of neurons, granular cells in the cerebellum, Golgi cells, and Purkinje cells.”


See http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/methylmercury/pdf/mercury-criterion.pdf

EPA-823-R-01-001, January 2001 Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human Health: Methylmercury Final Office of Science and Technology Office of Water U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, DC 20460 Page 3-3.

[samuel99]

And in other news, alcohol causes liver cirrhosis and brain damage (particularly via fetal alcohol syndrome), but is used in cough syrup. Chlorine gas is fatal at 0.1% concentration, but chlorine used in swimming pools and drinking water (not to mention comprising 60% of table salt by weight).

[AutismNewsBeat]

Did Minimata see a dramatic increase in autistic disorder among children born from 1953-1960?

Why not?

[Doybia]

Okay, all of the people who are sure that vaccines are safe, please post the study that looked directly at the children whose parents believe they are vaccine damaged. Not an epidemiological study, but a study that actually examines the sick children. Not a study that looks retrospectively at medical records, but a study that looks at, examines, tests and evaluates the sick children. Where is this study?

When people point to problems with toxic peanuts, or with cigarettes, the difference in both cases is that people with lung cancer or people poisoned by toxic food can get an actual diagnosis. A doctor will take a case history and ask: When did you start smoking? How long did you smoke? What other risk factors did you have?

All those parents with children who appear to be vaccine damaged, please speak up? Did your child's pediatrician take a case history? How about the CDC? Did they contact you after you reported vaccine damage to take a case history? Did they send you to a university clinic? If these children have been examined and it is clear that there is no connection that is one thing. But if the connection has been dismissed without ever looking at the children, then yes, indeed, that mountain of studies "proving" that there is no connection between vaccines and autism is crap. You don't disprove a connection by carefully looking away from the injured population. Unless you are trying to pretend they don't exist.

[samuel99]

You are asking the wrong people. Ask the scientists who suspect that vaccines are dangerous, why they don’t perform such a study.

[Twyla]

Samuel99, scientists are not gods. They are only human. If the scientists who don't believe vaccines cause autism are so great, howcome they have not found other causes and cures for autism?

There actually are many people with medical and scientific degrees who believe that vaccines can cause autism and that autism can be treated biomedically. This is not just a "parents vs. science" issue.

Argue the information. It's not enough just to say, "Well scientists believe X so if you are not a scientist just leave this in the scientists' hands."

Ever heard of the Semmelweiss reflex? How many years did it take for obstetricians to realize that midwives were right to wash their hands before delivering babies? The scientists and doctors at the time thought that germs were a silly superstition.

Veterinarians are not so closeminded about these issues. Apparently the vested interests defending vaccines are not as strong when it comes to animals. Here's an interesting comment from a vet: http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/02/liberating-the-liberals.html

[Doybia]

Okay Samuel. You admit that the sick children haven't been studied. The reason why doesn't matter, just the fact. The fact is that the children in the case haven't been examined by the mainstream scientists, who are claiming that there is no connection between vaccines and autism, without looking at all of the evidence. And you are swallowing this procedure (or non-procedure) without a burb. I'm very impressed by your reasoning.

Let's imagine the same scenario, only in connection with food poisoning. A whole bunch of people come down with stomach ailments, after eating out at local restaurants. The restaurants deny any problem. Luckily for the restaurants, they have the government and the doctors on their side and none of the sick people are able to find a medical person willing to examine them and run tests. The government does spend a bunch of money examining the epidemiology of stomach ailments and eating out in another country (Denmark) and concludes that eating out generally doesn't cause problems. Convincing, isn't it?

[samuel99]

"Let me state very simply, vaccines can cause autism."

For years, mothers and nuns used to state very simply, masturbation can cause blindness. Somehow, stating something, no matter how simply, does not make it true. Evidence helps.

[sdtech]

Here is once scientist who is not satisfied with the existing studies.

“In conclusion, we can state that this analysis does not rule out that receipt of thimerosal­-containin­g vaccine in children under three months of age may be related to an increased risk of neurologic development disorders. Specific conditions that may warrant more detailed study include autism, dyslaia, misery and unhappiness disorder and attention deficit disorder.”

“Thimerosal VSD Study, Phase I, Update 2/29/00, CONFIDENTIAL DO NOT COPY OR RELEASE,” Verstraeten, Robert Davis, Frank DeStefano, page 9. See http://www.safeminds.org/research/library/20010229.pdf .

Four years later in 2004, Dr. Verstraeten repeated that concern in a published letter stating that “more study is required.” See PEDIATRICS Vol. 113 No. 4 April 2004, pp. 932 at http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/113/4/932 .

[samuel99]

"Here is once scientist who is not satisfied with the existing studies. [...] we can state that this analysis does not rule out that receipt of thimerosal­-containin­g vaccine in children under three months of age may be related to an increased risk of neurologic development disorders."

Yes, well, no analysis could ever rule out an increased risk of anything. Presumably, the analysis did not identify an increased risk.

"Four years later in 2004, Dr. Verstraeten repeated that concern in a published letter stating that "more study is required.""

There is nothing stopping the dissatisfied scientists from performing more study. What is holding him back? Fear of fame?

[CaroKnows]

There have been scientists that have done just what you ahve asked. Oddly, whenever their studies are published and released, they are labled as "junk science," including those that are peer-reviewed.

For example, the Poling study that investigated Mitochondrial Dysfunction is considered by vaccine defenders to be junk science because they claim that Dr. Poling has a conflict of interest. However, what they fail to disclose in their criticism is that Dr. Poling revealed said conflict of interest at the start of the study, and it was still approved for funding. It is a very interesting read, by the way. I highly recommend it.

[samuel99]

"And, this epi study has NEVER been done: a comparison of health outcomes in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated kids."

This sort of plea appears in every autism forum, but I don’t understand it.

If the people making the plea are non-experts, on what basis should we take their view of needed studies over that of experts who are presumably satisfied with the existing studies.

If they are experts, then why don’t *they* perform the studies? Vaccine activists frequently claim there are many bona fide scientists who believe there is a link. So, why on earth don’t they do the studies all the activists insist must be done?

It seems to me there is considerable fame and fortune (not to mention hero-worship by thousands of autism families) to be gained by being the first to conclusively identify a vaccine-autism link. William Mcbride won money and prestige (and prizes) for discovering that thalidomide causes birth defects. And Wakefield seems to have made a fortune just chasing after the link in vain. What is holding them back?

[CaroKnows]

I cannot speak for all doctors and scientists who agree that there is a link. However, seeing the way that those that have found the link and investigated it are treated, I'm sure quite a few of them are afraid of losing their livelihood. Look at those who disagree with the current vaccination schedule. The vaccine defenders treat them much like you are all treating Dr. Gordon, Dr. Healy, Dr. Poling, etc.

I won't even go into details about the witch-hunts that go on against those that pursue it further.

[DrZP]

Well, it is not a witch hunt, as much as a concern for irresponsible medical practices.

It is one thing to have an opinion based upon ideology, another to give a medical recommendation. Although these invdividuals feverently believe in their cause, there just is no data to support the arguement that vaccines do more harm the help. On the contrary, the data points to the opposite.

Although it unfair to prevent studies to be performed that assess these concerns, it is morally wrong, and medically negligent, to pass medical judgment without the proper evidence. Particularly when that opinion is so far from current best practice models and places children at risk for dangerous disease.

If the public has a concern about the safety of vaccines, then it is prudent that the appropriate well designed studies be performed to ascertain the truth. But, anecdotal stories cannot replace good science and proper clinical trials. Therefore, please do not rely upon such data to make a decision that could hurt more children than prevent the risk of vaccines.

[samuel99]

This comes full circle to the conspiracy theory that Gordon was claiming in the title article. To me, it is simply not believable for 3 reasons:

1) Lack of examples in the last century of virtually unanimous conspiracies (by government and the medical establishment) to suppress medical results that later turned out to be true. Gordon tried to claim smoking provided an example, but it doesn’t hold up, as I've argued elsewhere in this forum.

2) The many examples of scientific breakthroughs in the last century or more that were completely contrary to mainstream thought and were almost immediately embraced and celebrated. The most celebrated scientists are the ones who overturned prevailing ideas. I can't think of any that were discredited like Wakefield. (I've mentioned the relevant examples of thalidomide and vioxx before, which, even if the revelations took longer than they should have, took only a few years, and opposition never reached the sort of consensus that vaccine safety has reached.

3) The absence of motivation for a conspiracy. Of course there is big bad pharma, but enough medical research is done without industry funding, and the promise of fame and fortune is great enough that a unanimous façade could not survive. Moreover, government has a strong economic interest, not to mention public health interest, in finding the cause and treatments for autism.

[samuel99]

"We have an autism epidemic. The huge increase during the past 20 years was recently confirmed in a study at UC Davis. [...] This increase has paralleled the huge increase in the number of vaccines received by babies and children during the same time period."

Actually it hasn’t, or there would be evidence for a link. Vaccination rates have not increased since the early 90s, and lately they have decreased, and the use of thimerosal has dropped steeply. Yet, as the UCD study shows, autism diagnoses continue to increase unabated. For a disease triggered within weeks of immunization, a plateau should have been reached years ago.

"Thousands of credible parents are telling stories of children having vaccine reactions followed by regression into autism. [...] This is evidence that needs to be studied. Instead, it is being igored by the CDC, FDA, and AAP."

You shouldn’t ask scientists who are satisfied with the existing studies to do more. Instead, ask the scientists who think there is a link (like Wakefield) to do studies. In fact, they are doing them, but so far, they have failed to find evidence, even up to the rather weak standard of civil court (preponderance of evidence).

[Twyla]

The number of vaccines on the CDC's schedule has continued to increase since 1990. For example:
- Hepatitis B for newborns added in 1991
- varicela about 1998
- rotavirus a year or two ago
- flu shot (usually containing thimerosal) recently added annually starting at age 6 months (and for pregnant women!)
- Hib and Pneumonococcal -- I believe within the past ten years.

And supposedly there are more vaccines for babies in the works. If we continue adding more without addressing the concerns of parents who have seen adverse reactions, more and more adverse reactions will occur. Unfortunately, it seems that it will take a worsening of this tragedy to cause more of the general public, scientists, doctors, and our government to realize that there are problems created by overvaccination.

Our government agencies have a database of children for whom adverse reactions have been reported. This database is not accessible to, for example, Dr. Wakefield. Dr. Wakefield does not deserve the criticisms he has received. He is an excellent conscientious doctor who has done significant research which should be built upon instead of maligned. But our government agencies are entrusted with responsibility for the safety of the vaccine schedule and out children's health. This responsibility cannot be foisted off onto the private sector, even though the private sector also plays an important role.

There is significant evidence. Read Dr. Bryan Jepson's book "Changing the Course of Autism".

[samuel99]

Those seem like pretty long time gaps: 7 years, 10 years. That should be plenty of time to see plateaus for a disease triggered within weeks of vaccination.

And these vaccines are all different. What are the chances they all have the same side effects?

The autism diagnosis rate increases on a beautifully smooth curve, without any significant response to changes in the vaccination regimen, like removal of thimerosal in 2001, or any of the changes you mention here and elsewhere, or to the changes in the percentage of people who get vaccinated.

For a real correlation, check out the smoking/lung cancer curves with a 20 year time lag. Smoking starts increasing ~1910, lung cancer ~1930; smoking levels out around 1945; cancer 1965; smoking starts to drop (among males in NA); cancer follows suit. With the short-term trigger, and the dramatic increase observed in autism, the vaccine-autism link should be much more obvious. Why is it completely absent?

[samuel99]

Twyla: If we continue adding more without addressing the concerns of parents who have seen adverse reactions, more and more adverse reactions will occur.

This is a statement of faith. Evidence indicates that addressing the concerns of parents increases the incidence of measles, without having any effect at all on the incidence of autism.

Twyla: Dr. Wakefield does not deserve the criticisms he has received. He is an excellent conscientious doctor who has done significant research which should be built upon instead of maligned.

Wakefield is not a god; he is only human. Is there any reason I should accept your view of Wakefield above say the Lancet editor who said Wakefield’s research was fatally flawed and should not have been published; or 10 of his co-authors who retracted the central interpretation of the paper; or the British General Medical Council, which has laid a raft of charges of misconduct against him; or virtually every subsequently published study on the subject which has contradicted his results; or the Sunday Times which lists chapter and verse of his many many transgressions and conflicts, and for which Wakefield withdrew litigation, and paid damages? So many of his transgressions are such simple matters of fact, that if untrue would have been long since dismissed by simple documentation. They haven’t been.

From what I’ve read, Wakefield is a fraud, who thinks nothing of endangering the health of children for his own interests, and unfortunately, the internet is full of devoted, gullible accomplices.