new study looks at both pre and post natal exposure to ethlymercury - Page 3

[CherryBomb]

Originally Posted by carriebft

There are also those of us who don't agree with the idea that the ingredients in vaccines are toxic to our health or that they are poison or even toxic in the amounts that are present. toxicity is dose dependent. even water can be toxic.

Interesting study, thanks for linking it!

[amnesiac]

Many posts have been removed from this thread which were either in violation of our guidelines or which were responding to such posts. I am returning the thread this one time for further discussion on the new study regarding the role of pre & postnatal exposure to vaccines/thimerosal in subsequent development of autism.

In order for the thread to remain open for discussion, it needs to remain on topic regarding the vaccine issue. Any further violations of our guidelines will result in either closure or removal of the thread. Please keep in mind:

We expect and insist that all members post here with an open mind and a willingness to learn - even from the new member. There should be an understanding that a large number of Mothering community members are against vaccinations so when you do come here to post to ask your questions, and you have an intention to vaccinate, members here will feel a need to inform you of the concerns about vaccinations. While no one should be labeled as irresponsible or uninformed for deciding to vaccinate, neither should parents here who have chosen to not vaccinate be accused of irresponsibility, not caring for their child, or presenting a threat to others. Please respect each other and refrain from statements that are condescending, hurtful, judgmental, and belittling. We will not tolerate such things and because this issue has reached an extreme we will be more pro-active and quick to warn everyone for such behavior, which could ultimately lead to your loss of posting privileges here in Vaccinations.

Also remember:

Through your direct or indirect participation here you agree to make a personal effort to maintain a comfortable and respectful atmosphere for our guests and members. Please avoid negative characterizations and generalizations about others to respect the diversity of our online community.
...
Do not post in a disrespectful, defamatory, adversarial, baiting, harassing, offensive, insultingly sarcastic or otherwise improper manner, toward a member or other individual, including casting of suspicion upon a person, invasion of privacy, humiliation, demeaning criticism, name-calling, personal attack or in any way which violates the law
...
Do not post or start a thread to discuss member behavior or statements of members made in other threads or to criticize another discussion on the boards. Do not post to a thread to take direct issue with a member. If you feel a member has posted or behaved inappropriately in a discussion, communicate directly with the member, moderator or administrator privately and refrain from potentially defaming discussion in a thread

[ema-adama]

Originally Posted by Astral Mama

I'm sorry, I've tried to explain it twice. I don't see how I can be clearer. But I'll try once more:

Thank you for taking the time to reply, again.

It's not directly relevant to this question whether some people excrete mercury more or less quickly than others (or anything else specific about how the body handles mercury.)

Why not? Surely exposure is only part of the picture? Why would you expect a uniform response across the population when exposed to anything?

The question is whether mercury exposure leads to ASDs.

That is the question this study addresses, yes.

An interesting sub-question is whether mercury exposure leads to ASDs in some people but not others. (Whether that's because they excrete it more slowly, or, say, have some slightly altered protein or neurotransmitter that is somehow inactivated by mercury, or whatever else -- differing sensitivity to mercury could be caused by any number of different specific mechanisms.)

I agree. It is an interesting question/subquestion. And one that I think is relevant.

The real question is not about whether some people excrete mercury more slowly, it's about whether or not some people develop ASDs because of exposure to mercury.

I am not sure why you mean by 'the real question'? Is it an irrelevant question to ask if some people who were exposed to mercury were at more risk of damage due to a 'glitch' in their biology? If so,why?

But the thing is, even if it's only a subgroup, unless it was a very, very minuscule group, or the effect was very, very tiny, it would have shown up in this or some of the many other studies that have been done on thimerosal and ASDs, because at least some of those people would have been included in the study groups and they would have been disproportionately diagnosed with ASDs, thus resulting in a correlation between thimerosal exposure and ASD diagnosis. There isn't a correlation, in this study or in the other studies that have been done.

I guess the part I am not understanding is how a correlation can be found between two phenomena without knowing if one of the phenomena exists or not. How could this study (or previous ones) have found this correlation if they were not measuring for it/did not even know if it is a real phenomena or not?
Also considering that 4 million new babies are born every year in the US, how many children would need to be in a study to get accurate data? Can 256 children represent the Autistic population in the US (approximately 750 000 from what I understand)?

There's no value in studying excretion of mercury -- at least not for this purpose -- because it doesn't actually get at the question (to whit: does mercury cause autism.)

This is the part I am not understanding. It is subtle, but I think the question is probably CAN mercury cause Autism, and if so, under what conditions? Ruling out exposure alone within a relatively small sample does not rule it out altogether, or does it?

If there's some significant subpopulation that is liable to get autism from mercury exposure, a study like this wouldn't necessarily show that -- instead, it would show that the general population was liable to get autism from mercury exposure, because a random group of participants would include some mercury sensitives.

I have read this a couple of times and I am still not sure I understand what you are saying. I will try and paraphrase.
Should a study be done that compares how well individuals in a sample excrete mercury, this would be not be valuable as it might suggest that mercury sensitivities are not associated with Autism, but something that exists in the population with no correlation to Autism?

I'm not trying to have it both ways. I don't understand why you find those two simple facts contradictory. I never said whether or not the actual rate of autism in the population was increasing.

Repeating your statement without explaining it does not help me understand. However, I accept that I do no need to understand everyones point of view.

Perhaps there are others on this thread who understand more clearly what you are saying and can explain it to me more successfully.

Something that is on my mind with regards to the 'only the exposure is the relevant question.'
Prior to the vaccine being introduced, Hib was something pretty much every child was exposed to. Was exposure alone responsible for developing Hib Meningitis? No, only a very small percentage of children (20 - 60 cases per 100 000) were developing Hib meningitis, pointing to something specific to the child/Hib interaction, and not exposure alone. Taking a sample of 1000 children would not have helped identify who was at risk for Hib meningitis.

Anyway, I realise I am not about to crack the answer to these questions, but I am concerned that the action points given in the first article posted in this thread:

# Discuss with parents that data from a recent case control study indicates no increased risk of autism from prenatal and infant vaccination with thimerosal-containing vaccines.


# Further discuss with parents that this latest study adds to data collected from four previous studies, all of which fail to demonstrate any connection between the development of autism and prior exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines.

could be misleading. I do not know how many parents would know to ask whether exposure alone is what predicts whether a child develops Autism or not.

[heathergirl67]

Ema-adama: I'm not sure if this is exactly what Astral Mama is trying to say, but I'll take a stab at it.

Astral Mama: Please feel free to correct me where need be.

Let's assume that some kids will be negatively impacted by recieving thimerosol to the point that it turns them autistic. It could be because they don't excrete it properly, they're allergic to it, it reacts with an enzyme in their blood, whatever. The reason why doesn't matter, let's just assume that being exposed makes certain kids autistic.

If that were the case, a study like the one done would show that the moms who got less thimerosol= less kids with autism. Moms with more thimerosol= more kids with autism. Whatever the reason behind why the kids react that way to thimerosol, that would be the result. Since it's not the result, it doesn't matter what the theory is regarding the problems with some kids and thimerosol because the numbers show that that problem simply doesn't exist.

[Qalliope]

Originally Posted by heathergirl67

Let's assume that some kids will be negatively impacted by recieving thimerosol to the point that it turns them autistic. It could be because they don't excrete it properly, they're allergic to it, it reacts with an enzyme in their blood, whatever. The reason why doesn't matter, let's just assume that being exposed makes certain kids autistic.

If that were the case, a study like the one done would show that the moms who got less thimerosol= less kids with autism. Moms with more thimerosol= more kids with autism. Whatever the reason behind why the kids react that way to thimerosol, that would be the result. Since it's not the result, it doesn't matter what the theory is regarding the problems with some kids and thimerosol because the numbers show that that problem simply doesn't exist.

Certainly that seems to be what the authors of the study are proposing, but I don't agree with the conclusion based on the data presented. For one, the differences in the amount of exposure between the two groups was tiny. And yes, the mean exposure in the control group was slightly higher in most categories, but not all. Heck, in the comparison against the kids with ASD with regression, the prenatal exposure was almost double for the case children. *gasp* Of course that only amounts to a difference of 1.6 micrograms or so. Given the other 100 to 245 micrograms given through the child's first 20 months of life, I don't think this could reasonably be considered the deciding factor. My point is that the tiny differences seen in the chart don't tell me anything. Both the control and case groups received levels of cumulative mercury exposure generally considered to be unsafe. And unless you have one side that was exposed to much less mercury than that, a study like this means jack squat to me.

Second, if children who ultimately regress into autism are vulnerable for some reason, then their threshold of what could be considered safe for them might be considerably lower. I am guessing that is what eda-adama was getting at.

They did have unique access to an interesting data set. What questions would have made this study better? Maybe it would have been helpful if we knew why the autistic children had been exposed to less mercury overall. Did some of the parents stop vaccinations after their child began to regress? How about finding out how many of the parents in the control group vs. the case group noticed vaccine reactions prior to the regression and of what severity? Table 2 shows the minimum exposure to be 0 in all categories. Does that mean there were unvaccinated individuals in each group? It would be interesting to see how many. Although in such a small study, I can't imagine it would be statistically significant. Maybe offering a different model of the data would have told us more? Measuring the ability to excrete mercury would, I agree, be cool to look at, but was probably well outside the scope of this study. I just feel like they missed an opportunity to make any really useful observations.

[Otto]

Originally Posted by ema-adama

OK, I still am not understanding why measuring mercury in and not mercury out, can give you any indication of how mercury is being excreted. How would you know if a child has problems excreting mercury if you only know how much went in?

There are a number of things to be considered here. First, this issue has been studied (e.g., here); ethyl mercury is largely, and among children quickly, excreted in the stool.

So, great, one has the basis for a test of impaired mercury excretion, even if it's not really applicable to the study at hand, right? If it's abnormally low after a known dose, the question becomes where it's hiding. The liver and blood are obvious places. Liver biopsies are going to be a hard sell, but still.

So what if there were another way to follow up a finding of poor stool excretion? Fortunately, there is a population with known impairment of mercury excretion, those with polymorphisms in the genes GSTT1 or GSTM1. Where do they put it? In the blood, and thereby it diffuses into the hair (which is not an active excretion mechanism).

This, however, represents a problem for the "poor excretor" hypothesis as posited in terms of autism, which is based on lower levels of mercury in hair tests (hence such wild claims as the Geiers' "brain testosterone sheets," which are needed to play "hide the missing mercury" and thus, e.g., sell Lupron).

[ema-adama]

Heather, if that is what Astro Mamal is saying, that the data does not show any relationship between exposure to thimerasol and diagnosis of Autism, I would expect that to be supported by a larger sample. As in the Hib example I gave, if we are talking +-50 per 100 000 cases, you would need a massive sample to see any pattern. Clearly not every child who was exposed to thimerasol was diagnosed with Autism. And of the children who were diagnosed with Autism, there are a multitude of reasons that are known already. I would not expect to see thimerasol being an issue in every Autism diagnosis. So, we start talking about very small numbers.

But here is the problem. Even if we are talking tiny numbers like cases per 100 000, over 4 million (birth cohort per year in the US), that can add up.

This is not to say that I or anyone else can make a claim that thimerasol is implicated in the diagnosis of Autism. It is to say that we do not have enough information.

I can understand a concern that by even admitting to one case, there is a fear that a large number of families with Autistic children will perhaps feel that thimerasol is the root cause for their child's diagnosis. And it could create a hysteria in the media and homes across the world. Which I can understand authorities wanting to avoid. But the fact remains, there is not enough evidence to support any claims being made on thimerasol. Studies that look reassuring on the surface, are being used in such as way as to smudge the issues.

I do not know what the solution is. The PR around this issue is basically making it difficult to really ask the necessary questions. And I really do understand the need to reassure the public. And the probability that the number of children with an Autism diagnosis related to thimerasol could be very small, if there is even a causal relationship. However, I am troubled by the possibility that in a small number of children it was an issue, and those children are being missed.

Final thoughts.

This is a study funded by the CDC, a body that has an interest in reassuring the public that vaccines are safe and effective. I do not think this needs to make them an unreliable source, but knowing that they have a history of selectively providing information to parents (the differences between the pink book and the parent pages as a starting point), makes it worthwhile to look into the claims being made to parents, IMO anyway.

It is also worth noting other sources of funding from different pharmaceutical companies. Again, this does not need to invalidate the study, but should be taken into consideration. It is too easy to discredit studies (either way) by just dismissing the authors. Although I am aware that different people have different biases that make them more critical of some authors than others.

I think it is a pity that the issues that need to be discussed are brushed away essentially due to PR efforts on both sides. I also think it is a pity that those who are knowledgeable and working in the field are not more patient in their explanations. Questioning the claims being made does not make the questioner an idiot.

Otto, when I have more time to look into the details of what you have posted, I am happy to post any thoughts I might have.