or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Misleading reports about autism data
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Misleading reports about autism data - Page 2  

post #21 of 586



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AbbyGrant View Post

 

 

South Korea had the highest autism rate last I heard. 

 

http://www.autismsupportnetwork.com/news/new-study-finds-autism-rates-south-korea-now-1-38-children-38994322

 

IIRC, Japan was pretty high too, but I'll come back to post a source.  Have to feed the kids. 



Wow.  Thanks for the info.

 

 

I took a quick peek at Korea's schedulele - they also vaccinate very early and heavily. 

 

 http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/704919_13

 

I will dig up Japans in a few hours (I am at work right now - naughty me!).  It  will be interesting to see their vaccination rate and autism rate.

 

I wonder if there are any countries with low mandatory vaccines and high autism rates? 

 

 

 


Edited by purslaine - 4/17/12 at 2:48pm
post #22 of 586

An article about research into the "genetic" cause of Autism: Autism Is A Research Growth Area: No Profit In Finding the Cause.

post #23 of 586

Are there any studies at all on aluminum in vaccines given to infants, and the effects of that on the developing brain?  i know there are some adult studies out there that correlate aluminum cookware and other aluminum exposure thru out a lifetime that claims to be a component for Alzheimers/dementia related brain disease.  Could the accumulation of aluminum received in vaccines, play any part at all in the autism debacle?  or could the random DNA that the mother got in her vaccines in her lifetime somehow mutate the gene code in the child after conception?  

post #24 of 586

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=autism-rise-driven-by-environment

 

Another article for those of us interested in looking at possible environmental causes of autism.

post #25 of 586

     Quote:

Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=autism-rise-driven-by-environment

 

Another article for those of us interested in looking at possible environmental causes of autism.


That's about the study from UC Davis that Taximom5 referenced in her earlier post. It does not suggest vaccines but other possible environmental factors. I think there's some merit to the idea of environmental triggers.

post #26 of 586


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AbbyGrant View Post

     Quote:


That's about the study from UC Davis that Taximom5 referenced in her earlier post. It does not suggest vaccines but other possible environmental factors. I think there's some merit to the idea of environmental triggers.


I know it is not about vaccines but other things that might be environmental triggers.

 

That's Ok - any exploration of possible environmental triggers is a good thing, IMHO.  

 

I found it interesting that according to the article much of the research money  went towards studies that focused on genetics, with little $$ focused on environmental triggers.  As I do believe there is likely an environmental component to autism it makes little sense to me.  Maybe genetics are just more controllable than environment (oh - you carry the gene - think twice about procreating versus stay away from these environmental toxins that are everywhere).  Genetics is easier.  Perhaps the scientific community also feel closer to pinning down the genetics versus the environmental causes - hence the money goes there?  I just don't know.  

 

 

 


Edited by purslaine - 4/17/12 at 7:15pm
post #27 of 586

From Kathy's article:

 

"That means the rest [autism diagnoses] is unexplained and likely caused by something that pregnant women or infants are exposed to, or a combination of genetic and environmental factors."

 

"Many researchers have theorized that a pregnant woman's exposure to chemical pollutants, particularly metals and pesticides, could be altering a developing baby's brain structure, triggering autism."

 

I believe vaccines are just one of many possible causes. There are so many dangerous chemicals in our environment and food supply (don't forget to research GMO), resulting in a toxic overload.

post #28 of 586

Perhaps there should be a spin off in a more appropriate forum to continue the more general "what causes autism" discussion.

post #29 of 586
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbbyGrant View Post

Perhaps there should be a spin off in a more appropriate forum to continue the more general "what causes autism" discussion.


I already did this last year, and I don't think it went well.....
Does anybody else want to tackle this one? I'm too hotheaded to do it, and I always say something inappropriate. My ideas are usually frowned upon, even by those who don't vaccinate.
post #30 of 586

       Quote:

Originally Posted by BeckyBird View Post

I already did this last year, and I don't think it went well.....

 

I have to go to bed, so I've only read the first couple of pages, but so far I think it's pretty fascinating.  smile.gif
 

 

post #31 of 586
edited - thanks for clarifying taxi, sorry if i overreacted too.

 


Edited by slmommy - 4/18/12 at 5:05am
post #32 of 586
Thread Starter 
My intent was not to blame mommas for their children's autism, but to sarcastically reference the "causes" of autism that have most recently been studied. Really--the latest studies on autism risks have been pointing at overweight mothers, older parents, closely spaced pregnancies, and living near highways.

My attempt at sarcasm (which was aimed at those funding the research, NOT at Abby) was obviously poorly done, so--

Abby, I sincerely apologize.
post #33 of 586

Sorry I'm so slow, but lots of other things to do. Here are my responses to Taximon (from several posts up at this point). Taximom's bits are in bold, the rest includes me from the first post and here. Hope it's clear! ;) 

 

 

Taximom5: As I explained in the original post, thimerosal-preserved, pediatric vaccines from multi-use vials  continued to be sold and distributed to US pediatricians AFTER 2001, who used them as long as their expiration date permitted, as late as 2004.  In addition, thimerosal-preserved flu shots are ROUTINELY used in infants as young as 6 months, unless the parents request thimerosal-free in advance, and pay the difference. The flu shots began to be recommended to pregnant women and children in 2002.

 

In a separate discussion of this issue I've been having, someone claimed that thimerosol was starting to be removed in the 1980s, and was well in decline over the 1990s in the lead up to the official recommendation. They said this was mostly due to the availability of different preservatives, and also the combining of multiple vaccines into single shots (so they all could use one "dose" of preservative). I don't have any references either to support your statement or his, but they are quite contradictory.... 

 

"In 2011-2012, out of 13 flu vaccination formulations, 4 contain thimerosol (which is 30% of them; and is only those sold in multi-dose vials where risk of infection is high and therefore the antibacterial properties of thimerosol are needed). http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/vaccine/vaccines.htm

I have yet to find information on the usage rates of the different vaccination formulations, but I cannot find any suggestion that 90% contain thimerosol. What I did find was a press release from "Put Children First" from 2006 which claimed the 90% figure, but gave no data, and NVIC also claim 80-90% on their "Mercury in Vaccines" page, but again no data."

 

You seem to have difficulty in discerning the difference between "vaccination" and "shot."  A shot refers to vaccination delivered via needle, as opposed to an inhaled mist.  Both are vaccinations.   Please reread my original post and notice that I wrote "90% of vaccine SHOTS are preserved with thimerosal."  This is significant, because the FluMist vaccine, which never contained thimerosal, is contraindicated in children under the age of 3 and in pregnant women, many of whom receive flu shots at their local grocery/pharmacy/Kmart/Walmart/Target--and as of fall 2011, most chains did not use thimerosal-free shots.

 

Oh you're right - one of the formulations at the link I have was mist. So that's 4/12 shots having thimerosol. That's still only 33%. My question stands as to where your figure of 90% comes from. 

 

 

"If the autism study dates follow the pattern in the table here http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html the next report will be published in 2014 based on data collected in 2010, before any change to the ASD diagnosis information, and based on children born in 2002, after thimerosol was removed from all childhood vaccines. It will be interesting to see the outcome of that. A study based on new guidelines if they are implemented this year would not be published until 2016 (if it continues to be 4 years between data collection and study publication". 

 

If the autism study dates follow the pattern, then the rate in 2014 will be about 1/66, with the rate of autism in boys in New Jersey being something like 1/15.

 

How can you predict the results of a study not yet done. I just meant the next results would be released in 2014, we'll have to wait to see what the actual autism rate is until then. 

 

"Independent studies show no link between thimerosol containing vaccines and autism, for example: 

" In our study of MCO (managed care organization) members, prenatal and early-life exposure to ethylmercury from thimerosal-containing vaccines and immunoglobulin preparations was not related to increased risk of ASDs (autism spectrum disorders)."

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2010/09/13/peds.2010-0309."

 

You are incorrect in stating it the way you do, which implies that there are not independent studies showing a link between vaccines and autism.  In fact, there are several.  They have been posted on this forum several times.  Do you disagree with those studies? 

 

http://www.annalsofepidemiology.org/article/S1047-2797(09)00207-5/fulltext

 

That's a paid journal I don't have access to. However I found a skpetical review of it on LeftbrainRightBrain.co.uk (http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2009/09/another-weak-study-proves-vaccines-cause-autism/) which questioned the sample size. They say the autism group contained only 33 boys, 9 of which were given the HepB vaccination with thimerosol, my understanding of errors on sample fractions gives that as 27+/-9%, which is consistent with the vaccinated fraction they found in the much larger sample on non-autistic boys (17%). Also there were issues with the age range, with some of the boys having been of an age that they would never have been given the Hep B vaccine as it was not yet introduced, so the review compares it to correlations of the amount of cable TV being watched by children and autism rates..... 

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16264412

The abstract of this one states "Several epidemiological studies failed to find a correlation between mercury exposure through thimerosal, a preservative used in vaccines, and the risk of autism." Is that part of their conclusions wrong? 

 

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/07/01/autism_mercury_and_politics/

 

This isn't a study, it's an opinion piece by "Robert Kennedy Jr. is senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council". A similar article was apparently retracted by both Salon.com and Rolling Stone Magazine. (http://www.care2.com/causes/salon-retracts-controversial-article-by-robert-kennedy-jr-linking-vaccines-to-autism.html). 

Robert Kennedy also claimed (thanks Google) to be unqualified to comment on the link between autism and vaccines in an episode of the Daily Show (http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/07/kennedy_admits_.html). 

 

 http://nbjour.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/ten-lies-told-by-those-who-say-mercury-in-vaccines-is-safe-refuted-by-a-mother-who-knows-better/

 

"A mother who knows better" - than actual scientific studies. That's pretty much all I have to say. If you're happy with that then I probably should give up. Probably should anyway - I'm supposed to be working on my research not reading all these links! 

 

You are also incorrect as charactarizing the study you linked as "independent."  Perhaps you forgot to look at the author affiliations?

  •  

 Yeah I'm not sure what I meant by independent. What would you mean? Science is funded in many and messy ways. My point is just that there are a lot of people researching this who work at all sorts of different places and these studies do not find any links. Not all of them could possibly be being paid of by "big pharma" to make these results. 

 

"I also should reference the wikipedia page on Thimerosol: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal. If you think they have their facts wrong you can try to edit it following their rules for properly referencing the source of your facts."

 

If you trust Wikipedia's page on thimerosal over the studies I have referenced above, do feel free to give your children thimerosal-preserved flu shots as well as other thimerosal-preserved vaccines, which many pediatricians give to older children, such as the DT instead of TDaP as a tetanus booster.  Or perhaps you have already done so?

 

I have no problem giving my children thimerosol containing vaccines. The amount of mercury is so tiny that it is dwarfed by the rest of their environmental exposure. Flu shots are not as common in the UK as in the USA, but my daughter had them while we lived in the USA. I do not know if it was a multi-vial with thimerosol or not. But if you want to continue the anecdote, she's of above average intelligence with no signs of ASD at age 5. 

 

As I said before if you do not trust Wikipedia you can edit it yourself. 

post #34 of 586
Thread Starter 


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 

 

 

 

In a separate discussion of this issue I've been having, someone claimed that thimerosol was starting to be removed in the 1980s, and was well in decline over the 1990s in the lead up to the official recommendation. They said this was mostly due to the availability of different preservatives, and also the combining of multiple vaccines into single shots (so they all could use one "dose" of preservative). I don't have any references either to support your statement or his, but they are quite contradictory.... 

 

Since you call yourself "prosciencemum," I would assume that you understand the need for accuracy and transparency here.

 

No, thimerosal was not "removed" in the 1980's.  That is a misleading statement, implying that there was awareness in the 1980's of potential harm from thimerosal in vaccines, and that they were purposely reformulated with the purpose of removing thimerosal, which was certainly NOT the case.    (Interestingly, there WAS awareness of harm from thimerosal used in things like eyedrops and contact lens solutions, and thimerosal WAS banned by the FDA in OTC products beginning in 1998--not in the 1980's.  See http://www.pathfindersforautism.org/articles/view/a-timeline-of-the-thimerosal-controversy)  What happened with vaccines in the 1980's was that the MMR--a live-virus vaccine that cannot contain thimerosal and still be effective--replaced the separate, thimerosal-preserved measles, mumps and rubella shots. 

 

"In 2011-2012, out of 13 flu vaccination formulations, 4 contain thimerosol (which is 30% of them; and is only those sold in multi-dose vials where risk of infection is high and therefore the antibacterial properties of thimerosol are needed). http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/vaccine/vaccines.htm

I have yet to find information on the usage rates of the different vaccination formulations, but I cannot find any suggestion that 90% contain thimerosol. What I did find was a press release from "Put Children First" from 2006 which claimed the 90% figure, but gave no data, and NVIC also claim 80-90% on their "Mercury in Vaccines" page, but again no data."

 

Then maybe we need to find some data on usage rates of the different formulations.  There could be 100 different flu vaccination formulations rather than 13, but if the 4 thimerosal-preserved ones are the ones in general usage, while the others are "special order only" (which is often the case), then it doesn't matter how many other thimerosal-free versions exist if they're not usually used. If neither you nor I seem to be able to find such data, that makes it difficult to come to a conclusion.  The pharmacies, Wal-Marts, Rite-Aids, CVS stores, K-Marts, and Targets are where most people in my area go for their flu shots--and the ones in my area do not even order thimerosal-free shots unless you request in advance, and pay the difference in price (they are much more expensive).  

 

 

 

If the autism study dates follow the pattern, then the rate in 2014 will be about 1/66, with the rate of autism in boys in New Jersey being something like 1/15.

 

How can you predict the results of a study not yet done. I just meant the next results would be released in 2014, we'll have to wait to see what the actual autism rate is until then.

 

 I should have said, "if the autism study dates and data follow the pattern."  I am assuming the same growth rate, as it has been consistently about 12%.

 

 

http://www.annalsofepidemiology.org/article/S1047-2797(09)00207-5/fulltext

 

That's a paid journal I don't have access to. However I found a skpetical review of it on LeftbrainRightBrain.co.uk (http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2009/09/another-weak-study-proves-vaccines-cause-autism/) which questioned the sample size. They say the autism group contained only 33 boys, 9 of which were given the HepB vaccination with thimerosol, my understanding of errors on sample fractions gives that as 27+/-9%, which is consistent with the vaccinated fraction they found in the much larger sample on non-autistic boys (17%). Also there were issues with the age range, with some of the boys having been of an age that they would never have been given the Hep B vaccine as it was not yet introduced, so the review compares it to correlations of the amount of cable TV being watched by children and autism rates..... 

 

LeftbrainRightBrain is more extremist in their approach to vaccines than any vaccine safety organization I have ever seen.  They not only spout the beliefs that vaccines are safe and effective, and that vaccine-induced harm is vanishingly rare, but they viciously trash anyone who disagrees with them. They don't consider that there might be any truth to the thousands of us who try to tell people what kind of reactions we and our children have had to vaccines.  The attitude there is a revolting combination of snarkiness, intimidation, condescension, and arrogance, and utterly lack empathy/sympathy for those who have had adverse reactions to vaccines.

 

Snarkiness is deemed to be "good clean fun" by many people on the internet these days--but if you are a victim of both vaccine reaction and snarkiness against vaccine critics, it's not  good, it's not clean, and it's not fun.  It's downright evil. Perhaps you might imagine how your own loved one might feel if he or she were in my position.

 

For obvious reasons, I personally find LBRB extremely offensive, as offensive as whale.to.  (Yes, I find whale.to extremely offensive, and I never quote them.) I don't think they should be quoted or referenced in this discussion, any more than whale.to.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16264412

The abstract of this one states "Several epidemiological studies failed to find a correlation between mercury exposure through thimerosal, a preservative used in vaccines, and the risk of autism." Is that part of their conclusions wrong? 

 

Not any more wrong than epidemiological studies paid for, directed by, interpreted by, and marketed by tobacco companies, stating "several epidemiological studies failed to find a correlation between cigarettes and lung cancer."  And not any more wrong than vaccine "safety" studies that don't allow at-risk patients in their studies, yet recommend those same vaccines for at-risk patients, and not any more wrong than vaccine "safety" studies which claim "as safe or safer than placebo" without declaring that the "placebo" isn't a true placebo, but something that can and does cause harm to a subgroup.  Epidemiological studies are not designed to find at-risk subgroups.

 

In other words, that part of their conclusion is not exactly wrong, but is extremely misleading.

 

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/07/01/autism_mercury_and_politics/

 

This isn't a study, it's an opinion piece by "Robert Kennedy Jr. is senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council". A similar article was apparently retracted by both Salon.com and Rolling Stone Magazine. (http://www.care2.com/causes/salon-retracts-controversial-article-by-robert-kennedy-jr-linking-vaccines-to-autism.html). 

Robert Kennedy also claimed (thanks Google) to be unqualified to comment on the link between autism and vaccines in an episode of the Daily Show (http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/07/kennedy_admits_.html). 

 

 http://nbjour.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/ten-lies-told-by-those-who-say-mercury-in-vaccines-is-safe-refuted-by-a-mother-who-knows-better/

 

"A mother who knows better" - than actual scientific studies. That's pretty much all I have to say. If you're happy with that then I probably should give up. Probably should anyway - I'm supposed to be working on my research not reading all these links! 

 

The "mother who knows better" LIVED it.  Then again, I might not have been so quick to believe her story, had I not lived it, too.  I, too, was told that 1) reactions like that don't happen and 2) oh, yeah, guess you did have a reaction, but it's vanishingly rare, don't worry about it. It wasn't until I found out that others--SO MANY OTHERS--had the same reactions that it occurred to me that maybe a mother COULD know better, maybe there really what I'd been taught about vaccines was lies and propoganda, that the end result was not my health but $$ for Big Pharma.

 

It's really sad--most of us simply don't believe it until it happens to us or to our own children.

 

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

--Martin Niemoller (should be an umlaut over the o, but I don't know how to find one on my computer, sorry!)

 

You are also incorrect as charactarizing the study you linked as "independent."  Perhaps you forgot to look at the author affiliations?

  •  

 Yeah I'm not sure what I meant by independent. What would you mean? Science is funded in many and messy ways. My point is just that there are a lot of people researching this who work at all sorts of different places and these studies do not find any links. Not all of them could possibly be being paid of by "big pharma" to make these results. 

 

Why not?  We know enough about Vioxx, Lipitor, etc., and the outright lies and corruption that prevented the publication of severe adverse effects there. There were a lot of people researching those drugs, who worked at all sorts of different places, and doctors  were initially told that THE STUDIES DID NOT FIND ANY LINKS.  Why would vaccine manufacture--by the same companies, but with even bigger financial ramifications--be any different?

 

I have no problem giving my children thimerosol containing vaccines. The amount of mercury is so tiny that it is dwarfed by the rest of their environmental exposure. Flu shots are not as common in the UK as in the USA, but my daughter had them while we lived in the USA. I do not know if it was a multi-vial with thimerosol or not. But if you want to continue the anecdote, she's of above average intelligence with no signs of ASD at age 5. 

 

I'm truly glad your daughter is doing well developmentally and health-wise.  There is no worse nightmare than watching your child regress and suffer--unless it's watching your child regress and suffer, KNOWING at least one major contributing factor, but not being able to convince people that that's what happened. 

I can't remember where I read this comparison, but it was apt, and I paraphrase it here:

 

When you child is hit by a car, nobody questions you when you say, "Help my child--he was hit by a car!"  There is absolutely no hesitation getting an ambulance, getting him to the ER, recomending the specialists who can possibly save his limbs or even his life, getting tests, casts, painkillers--whatever is necessary to help hiim. This is modern medicine at its best, truly.

 

Nobody says,"no, cars don't DO that," or "well, it's a one-in-a-million fluke." Nobody says, "what did you DO to this child?"  Nobody says, "don't worry, he'll grow out of it," or "no, he's not in pain, children hit by cars just act like that."  AND NOBODY PRETENDS THAT THE CAR DIDN'T HIT HIM.

 

As I said before if you do not trust Wikipedia you can edit it yourself. 

 

I won't bother; someone from LBRB will just re-edit it.



 

post #35 of 586

Quote:

Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 

In a separate discussion of this issue I've been having, someone claimed that thimerosol was starting to be removed in the 1980s, and was well in decline over the 1990s in the lead up to the official recommendation. They said this was mostly due to the availability of different preservatives, and also the combining of multiple vaccines into single shots (so they all could use one "dose" of preservative). I don't have any references either to support your statement or his, but they are quite contradictory.... 


Yeah, from what I've read, this is not true. No one (officially) seemed to care or even start to think to look into the issue until 1997/8. I believe it was the EPA who started expressing concerns about the cumulative ethylmercury exposure of the pedi schedule (depending on which brands of vax) would surpass their guidelines for methyl mercury exposure around 1999?

 

post #36 of 586
Thread Starter 

 

 

from http://www.pathfindersforautism.org/articles/view/a-timeline-of-the-thimerosal-controversy:

1980: The FDA begins a review of over-the-counter (OTC) products containing thimerosal.

1982: The FDA proposes a ban on thimerosal in OTC ointments, citing its possible toxicity and ineffectiveness.

January, 1991: The CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices adds Haemophilus influenzae B (Hib) to its recommendations for childhood immunization. Ten months later, they recommend Hepatitis B vaccinations for children. Thimerosal is used as a preservative in multidose vials of both vaccines.

November, 1997: Congress passes the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act, requiring the study of mercury content in FDA-approved products. The review discloses the hitherto-unrecognized levels of ethylmercury in vaccines.

April, 1998: The FDA's proposed ban on thimerosal in OTC products goes into effect.

post #37 of 586

Quote:

Taximom5: The flu shots began to be recommended to pregnant women and children in 2002.

 


ethylmercury DOES cross placenta. Most of the talk I've seen surrounding possible danger of thimerosal stresses more danger to preemies and very young babies. I can only imagine fetal exposure would be even worse. 

I think also a lot of pregnant women are starting to get Tdap, pretty sure no thimerosal there - but aluminum, which also can cross placenta.

 

Taximom, I read this after you put it up on another thread: http://www.cogforlife.org/ratajczakstudy.pdf and while she addresses many different possibilities (many vax related):

 

Due to the extensive parallels between autism and mercury poisoning, the likelihood of a causal relationship is great. More evidence linking autism with mercury poisoning is the timing of inclusion of Thimerosal in vaccines in the 1930s closely preceding the discovery of autism in 1943 (Kanner, 1943).

 

 

post #38 of 586

Quote:

Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

This isn't a study, it's an opinion piece by "Robert Kennedy Jr. is senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council". A similar article was apparently retracted by both Salon.com and Rolling Stone Magazine. (http://www.care2.com/causes/salon-retracts-controversial-article-by-robert-kennedy-jr-linking-vaccines-to-autism.html). 

Robert Kennedy also claimed (thanks Google) to be unqualified to comment on the link between autism and vaccines in an episode of the Daily Show (http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/07/kennedy_admits_.html). 

 


I think you are talking about Simpsonwood, which was what Kennedy based his article on, but apparently he didn't do a great job and there were false facts in his article.

 

Here is the original transcript, it is worth a read prosciencemum, but it is very long.

http://www.safeminds.org/government-affairs/foia/Simpsonwood_Transcript.pdf

this site has a summary of sorts

http://www.aapsonline.org/vaccines/cdcfdaexperts.htm

 

 

Quote:

 But from all of the other studies of toxic substances, the earlier you work with the central nervous system, the more likely you are to run into a sensitive period for one of these effects, so that moving from one month or one day of birth to six months of birth changes enormously the potential for toxicity. There are just a host of neurodevelopmental data that would suggest that we’ve got a serious problem. The earlier we go, the more serious the problem.”

“The second point I could make is that in relationship to aluminum, being a nephrologist for a long time, the potential for aluminum and central nervous system toxicity was established by dialysis data. To think there isn’t some possible problem here is unreal.”

 

 


Edited by slmommy - 4/18/12 at 1:52pm
post #39 of 586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

 

 

from http://www.pathfindersforautism.org/articles/view/a-timeline-of-the-thimerosal-controversy:

1980: The FDA begins a review of over-the-counter (OTC) products containing thimerosal.

1982: The FDA proposes a ban on thimerosal in OTC ointments, citing its possible toxicity and ineffectiveness.

January, 1991: The CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices adds Haemophilus influenzae B (Hib) to its recommendations for childhood immunization. Ten months later, they recommend Hepatitis B vaccinations for children. Thimerosal is used as a preservative in multidose vials of both vaccines.

November, 1997: Congress passes the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act, requiring the study of mercury content in FDA-approved products. The review discloses the hitherto-unrecognized levels of ethylmercury in vaccines.

April, 1998: The FDA's proposed ban on thimerosal in OTC products goes into effect.


And this all begs the questions:

If thimerosal in vaccines is safe as they claim, then why has it been gradually removed?

If it's not safe, why won't they admit to harm it has caused?

If it's not safe, why is it still in the flu vaccine not just given to, but recommended to pregnant women and children as young as 6 months?

 

post #40 of 586

       Quote:

Originally Posted by Bokonon View Post

 

And this all begs the questions:

If thimerosal in vaccines is safe as they claim, then why has it been gradually removed?
 

 

According to the PHS and the AAP, to reduce the possibility that children exceed FDA guidelines of methyl mercury (they did not differentiate between ethyl and methyl) through cumulative exposure

 

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4826a3.htm

 

Just passing along the info. Make of it what you will. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
This thread is locked  
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Misleading reports about autism data