Archive | Thimerosal RSS feed for this section

A multicenter blinded analysis indicates no association between chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis and either xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus or polytropic murine leukemia virus

19 Dec

There was much discussion of the possible imprtance of the xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus (XMRV) in conditions such as chronic fatigue syndrome or myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME), prostate cancer and autism. To be clear, the possibility of an autism association was made in the press, not in the research literature. For XMRV in general, there was much discussion in the press, in journals and online as it became clear over time that there were possible problems with the analyses that led to the main papers on the topic. The present study includes work by a multi-site team including the principle author of the original study linking XMRV with CFS/ME.

If one can boil a large, multi-site study result into one line, it would be this:

Here, the original investigators who found XMRV and pMLV (polytropic murine leukemia virus) in blood of subjects with this disorder report that this association is not confirmed in a blinded analysis of samples from rigorously characterized subjects

I.e. there is no link between XMRV and CFS/ME.

Here is the abstract, and the full paper is online as well:

The disabling disorder known as chronic fatigue syndrome or myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) has been linked in two independent studies to infection with xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus (XMRV) and polytropic murine leukemia virus (pMLV). Although the associations were not confirmed in subsequent studies by other investigators, patients continue to question the consensus of the scientific community in rejecting the validity of the association. Here we report blinded analysis of peripheral blood from a rigorously characterized, geographically diverse population of 147 patients with CFS/ME and 146 healthy subjects by the investigators describing the original association. This analysis reveals no evidence of either XMRV or pMLV infection. IMPORTANCE Chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis has an estimated prevalence of 42/10,000 in the United States, with annual direct medical costs of $7 billion. Here, the original investigators who found XMRV and pMLV (polytropic murine leukemia virus) in blood of subjects with this disorder report that this association is not confirmed in a blinded analysis of samples from rigorously characterized subjects. The increasing frequency with which molecular methods are used for pathogen discovery poses new challenges to public health and support of science. It is imperative that strategies be developed to rapidly and coherently address discoveries so that they can be carried forward for translation to clinical medicine or abandoned to focus resource investment more productively. Our study provides a paradigm for pathogen dediscovery that may be helpful to others working in this field.

There was a lot of hope in the CFS/ME community that this was a breakthrough that could lead to a treatment. Unfortunately, the answers they seek are elsewhere.

As this is an autism-focused site, allow me to bring this back to autism. Unlike CFS/ME, there were no papers claiming an association between autism and XMRV. Instead there were public comments by the researcher involved and inflammatory journalism. In a search for XMRV autism the first article I get is: Is Autism Associated with A Viral Infection?, by David Kirby published at the Huffington Post. Mr. Kirby’s article was probably the first that pushed the (now failed) XMRV/autism hypothesis strongly into the public’s eye. Mr. Kirby was well known for some time previous for his work promoting the idea that vaccines cause autism. In specific, he was a major proponent of the idea that thimerosal in vaccines caused autism, having published a book Evidence of Harm: Mercury in Vaccines and the Autism Epidemic. For his Huffington Post article on XMRV, Mr. Kirby had some rather irresponsbile speculations from XMRV researcher Judy Mikovits and the founder of her reseach institute Annette Whittemore. From those quotes, Mr. Kirby proceeded to present the XMRV news story in his own way, as a series of speculative questions to create an impression built like a house of cards. The impression he left the reader with was that the XMRV story helped to explain a possible link between autism and vaccines. Following a quoted statement by Mikovits, Mr. Kirby wrote

So there you have it – a possible explanation of regressive autism in a significant number of cases associated with immune system deregulation triggered by vaccination.

Of course, much more work is needed to nail down the exact significance of such an association. For example, is the virus implicated in the cause of autism, or do children harbor the virus as a result of autism?

Notice that he doesn’t say, “much more work is needed to show that this is a real association“. No, rather than stress again that the hypothesis was poorly supported, he jumps to assuming the association and asking what significance it has. Classic David Kirby.

To be fair, the comments by Mikovits and the founder of the research center where she worked (Annette Whittemore) fed directly into his story. To say it again, those statements by Mikovits and Whittemore were irresponsible given the early stage this work was in. But even with those statements, Mr. Kirby had no justification to go into this speculative paragraph:

The discovery raises more questions than it answers. What, exactly, is it about immunization that might switch on XMRV viral expression? Could the effect of heavy metals upon cytokine balances be at play? Where did this retrovirus come from, and how did it apparently become so prevalent in children with autism? Did these children inherit the virus from a parent, or was there some other unexplained route of transmission? Why has the NIH said nothing about XMRV in association with autism, and did Dr. Insel know about these findings without sharing them with the IACC

Again, we see the series-of-questions approach that is Mr. Kirby’s style. He isn’t saying immunization switches on XMRV viral expression (whatever he meant by “XMRV viral expression”. It sounds technical though). He’s posing it as a question. Notice how he brought in his mercury hypothesis, but as “heavy metals”. “Could the effect of heavy metals upon cytokine balances be at play?”. This is a great example of a sciency-sounding sentence that has no substance. Whoever was his editor at the Huffington Post should have shot that back with “do you even know what your talking about here?” But if the editor at the Huffington Post was doing his/her job, this article (and many more by Mr. Kirby) wouldn’t have been published there anyway. It is worth noting that by the time this article was written, the evidence was overwhelmingly against the idea that mercury in vaccines raised autism risk, but this was Mr. Kirby’s way of loosely tying his failed hypothesis to his then current speculation.

To pull the last sentence out of Mr. Kirby’s paragraph: “And why had the NIH said nothing about XMRV?”. Perhaps because they were more responsible than Mr. Kirby.

As a point of fact, XMRV is not prevalent in autistics (Lack of infection with XMRV or other MLV-related viruses in blood, post-mortem brains and paternal gametes of autistic individuals and PCR and serology find no association between xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus (XMRV) and autism.) In fact, as will be discussed below, it appears to not infect humans. Unfortunately, Mr. Kirby has not seen fit to post corrections. To the XMRV story or others.

The impression Mr. Kirby created with his story was strong. For example, he gathered 298 comments to his article, largely focused on vaccines. Here’s the last one, prominently at the top of the list:

David: As big as this autism story is, it is only one toe of the elephant. Here is another: There are no protections in place to prevent more XMRV from entering the nation’s blood supply. There is as of yet no XMRV screening test for donated blood. And — I just called my local Red Cross – there is as of yet nothing to prevent people diagnosed with CFS from donating blood. We are all at risk.

The elephant: How did our government let this potentially deadly retrovirus spread unchecked for twenty-five years? XMRV has, so far, now has been found to occur in people with autism, lymphoma, a severe form of prostate cancer, atypical MS, ME/CFS, and fibromyalgia. Twenty-three years ago the CDC was first informed of an outbreak of what we now know to be an XMRV-associated local epidemic. Eighteen years ago a study showed a retrovirus was associated with ME/CFS.

The band played on.

Yes, let’s spread fear about the blood supply, based on news reports, speculation and bad science.

Some of the authors of this present XMRV and CFS/ME study were also involved in a separate major multisite study on MMR and autism. I am referring to a study intended to replicate the key findings of some of Andrew Wakefield’s research. That study, by Mady Hornig, W. Ian Lipkin and others, Lack of association between measles virus vaccine and autism with enteropathy: a case-control study been re-interpreted by some as supporting Mr. Wakefield’s work. Some have gone so far as to claim that Mr. Lipkin’s team is signalling support for Mr. Wakefield’s work by citing it in other studies. It’s a stretch, a mind boggling stretch, and it’s wrong.

From the CFS/ME paper:

Sensitive molecular methods for microbial discovery and surveillance have enabled unique insights into biology and medicine. However, increased sensitivity for bona fide signal increases the risk that low-level contaminants may also be amplified. This can lead to spurious findings that pose challenges for public health and require an expensive and complex pathogen dediscovery process. Examples wherein authors of this paper have been engaged in this process include refutation of associations between enterovirus 71 and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (24) and MMR vaccine and autism (25).

Lipkin and Hornig consider their work to be a “refutation” of the association between MMR and autism. But don’t take that one sentence from the paper as the only proof. Here’s an interveiw with Prof. Lipkin at Nature.

Had we done this when Andrew Wakefield [the former medical researcher who proposed that autism was caused by vaccines] came out with the initial report about the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism, and had something this definitive, there are many more children who would have been vaccinated against measles during the ten years it took us to finally complete the MMR–autism work. So I think it’s crucial that we don’t do things in a half-baked fashion, so we can test hypotheses and move on to new ones.

The interviewer even includes the MMR refutation as part of a question: “You have disproved the autism–MMR connection and other controversial disease links.”

In general, what can one say about XMRV? Aside from the drama involved in the story (which I did not discuss in detail in this article), and the questions about CFS/ME, autism, prostate cancer and more, what can we say? Prof. Lipkin says it very clearly in the interview:

We did not find any genetic sequences [of XMRV or related viruses] in the people with CFS or the controls. As far as we know, there is no human being that is infected with XMRV.

But there were papers (some now retracted) claiming some links between XMRV and human disease? What about those? Another quote pulled from the interview:

I think the explanation is that there was contamination. I don’t see any reason to invoke anything beyond that.

For this you have to give Judy Mikovits some credit. She worked with the team that was attempting to replicate her results. Contrast this with, say, Andrew Wakefield. A man whose hospital offered him the opportunity to replicate his own results, and he quit rather than accept that offer. A man who has repeatedly denied the science which has been clearly against his hypothesis. A man who denies the fact that he acted unethically in many ways in conducting his research. Judy Mikovits made some mistakes, both scientific and socially, but she seems to be part of the solution.

But that’s a bit of a sideshow. The main conclusion is that XMRV is not involved with autism. Or, apparently, any human disease.

With apologies for revisiting David Kirby and Andrew Wakefield.

—
By Matt Carey

AAP opposes worldwide ban on thimerosal

17 Dec

In a series of articles released today, the American Academy of Pediatrics outlines its opposition to a proposed UN treaty which, if approved, would ban the preservative thimerosal from vaccines worldwide. The ban is also opposed by the World Health Organization and the US Public Health Service. It is estimated that multidose vaccines with thimerosal as a preservative are used in 120 countries to immunize approximately 84 million children, saving about 1.4 million lives each year.

The AAP’s opposition reverses the professional organization’s call in 1999 for the removal of thimerosal from the US pediatric vaccine schedule. That action is frequently cited by anti-vaccine groups as evidence that health officials know that vaccines cause autism and other neurological conditions. But Dr. Louis Z. Cooper and Dr. Samuel L. Katz, co-authors of  one of today’s articles, directly take on that concern:

Had the AAP (and, we suspect, the USPHS) known what research has revealed in the intervening 14 years, it is inconceivable to us that these organizations would have made the joint statement of July 7, 1999. The World Health Organization recommendation to delete the ban on thimerosal must be heeded or it will cause tremendous damage to current programs to protect all children from death and disability caused by vaccine-preventable diseases.

The 1999 domestic ban surfaced during a Nov. 29 congressional hearing on autism, where representatives of both parties repeated long-debunked anti-vaccine talking points. Rep. John Tierney (D-MA) asked the CDC’s Dr. Colleen Boyle why thimerosal was taken out of childhood vaccines if there were no concerns about its safety. Boyle wisely agreed to get back to him with an answer. An anti-vaccine hearing is no place for reasoned discussion.

In another article, researchers Katherine King, PhD, MSc; Megan Paterson, and Shane K. Green, PhD; reaffirm that “there is no credible scientific evidence that the use of thimerosal in vaccines presents any risk to human health.” They continue:

Extensive pharmacologic and epidemiological research has shown early, theoretical concerns about links to autism or other neurodevelopmental disorders to be false. Indeed, the exculpatory strength of the data now available on thimerosal is well evidenced by recent statements from the Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety, US Institute of Medicine, and American Academy of Pediatrics, all of which have concluded that thimerosal exposure through vaccination is not harmful to human health.

The AAP’s latest action is a shot across the bow to anti-vaccine groups. The UN’s proposed thimerosal ban has been championed by Mark Geier, the disgraced Maryland geneticist best known for chemically castrating disabled children. Two years ago, he told a group of African delegates gathered for a session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee in Japan that thimerosal “is favored by the pharmaceutical industry because it is cheap and enables the industry to keep making vaccines in old and dirty factories.”

Geier is a regular at Jenny McCarthy’s annual anti-vaccine conference, where he receives standing ovations from anti-vaccine parents. Ten states have either revoked his medical license over the last two years, or allowed it to expire, for Geier’s ethical lapses which included lying about his qualifications risking children’s health with unproven medical treatments.

—
By AutismNewsBeat

Congressman Dan Burton: It is time to re-engage on the autism epidemic

25 Apr

Dan Burton is a U.S. Congressman, a legislator elected to represent the state of Indiana to the U.S. House of Representatives. Mr. Burton was once a frequent name in the discussion about autism. His grandson is autistic and Mr. Burton championed the idea that mercury, in specific the vaccine preservative thimerosal, was a possible cause of autism. Mr. Burton hosted congressional hearings on the matter which fueled the discussion. Much of this is documented in David Kirby’s 2005 book Evidence of Harm: Mercury in Vaccines and the Autism Epidemic: A Medical Controversy.

When Congressman Burton was holding meetings In the early 2000’s, there was not a great deal of scientific data on the idea that mercury could be behind an autism epidemic. There was correlation–autism prevalence estimates by various sources showed rising rates coincident with the increased exposure from infant vaccines during the 1990’s.

But this isn’t the early 2000’s. A lot has been learned since Mr. Burton held his hearings. And the knowledge gained points away from thimerosal as a cause if autism Mr. Burton himself is set to retire this year. Yesterday Mr. Burton wrote about his previous efforts and a new initiative he has proposed in a blog article: It is time to re-engage on the autism epidemic. And by epidemic, Mr. Burton appears to mean the failed mercury-induced-autism-epidemic. From his article:

Unfortunately, a great deal of misinformation has been thrown around in public and private about the Committee’s focus on mercury in medicines as a possible factor in the autism epidemic. I’m not a scientist, but the Committee heard from many credible scientists and experts who are convinced that mercury is a contributing factor; and the theory is no less worthy of exploration than the theories being propounded today that the pregnancy weight of the mother or the age of the father at conception influences whether a child becomes autistic. When you have no idea what is causing a disease, policymakers and scientists should never be afraid to investigate any plausible theory. In fact, researching possible environmental factors is a central component of today’s research on autism.

Mr. Burton’s attempt to compare the mercury hypothesis to recent results falls flat. For one thing, there is evidence that factors such as parental age may increase the risk of autism. Multiple studies indicate increased risk. On the other side, there is no real evidence to suggest that mercury increases the risk of autism, and a great deal of evidence to the contrary.

As already noted: a lot has been learned since Mr. Burton held his hearings 10 years ago. But today, as it was 10 years ago, scientists and policymakers are not afraid to investigate the hypothesis that mercury caused an autism epidemic. We’ve seen paper after paper come out of those efforts. Accepting results is not fear. Far from it.

Mr. Burton states:

The other issue we dealt with is how do we help the millions of individuals and families afflicted with this disease. Autism has no cure and it is not a life-threatening disease. That means that the autistic children of today will be the autistic adults and autistic seniors of tomorrow. Our nation is ill prepared to deal with the complex challenges posed by a generation of autistic individuals.

It strikes this reader that the leadership of the past, which certainly includes Congressman Burton, was afraid to tackle a basic question: what is an accurate count of the number of autistic adults? The autistic children of yesterday *are* the autistic adults of today. How many are there? What do their living conditions look like? What successes and failures can we learn from the lives of those autistics, and the way the rest of society supported them? What health issues are there for autistics as they age?

The sad fact is we don’t really know.

Some researchers in the U.S. have looked for, and found, misdiagnosed autistics in some populations. The U.S. has mounted a project to explore autism prevalence and other issues in older cohorts, but that work has just begun. Researchers in the U.K. have delved into the questions of adult prevalence and living conditions, five years ago.

The U.S. is ill prepared, and precisely because of the leadership Mr. Burton offered. Instead of accepting even the possibility that there were misdiagnosed or undiagnosed adult autistics, attention was focused on asking the same question again and again: is mercury behind the rise in autism prevalence? Time and again the answer came back no.

And, now, we are going to ask yet again. Mr. Burton mentions in his article a bill he sponsored: H.R. 3489: White House Conference on Autism Act of 2011. Yes, a bill from last year. It was introduced to committee on Nov. 18th of last year and has had no action since. In other words, a bill which is all but dead.

The bill calls for a conference. A meeting. To generate a report. The conference has no charge other than this. It is reminiscent of Mr. Burton’s hearings. People gathered. People were selected specifically to speak based on their views that mercury could cause autism. Reports were generated. This is action? Leadership?

Who will be a part of this conference? Mr. Burton’s bill spells out who should be a part of this committee:

(1) at least 1 shall be a parent or legal guardian of individuals with autism or other pervasive developmental disorders;

(2) at least 1 other shall be knowledgeable about autism intervention programs and systems, including complementary and alternative therapies;

(3) at least 1 other shall be knowledgeable about programs specifically designed to meet the unique educational needs of children and adults with autism;

(4) at least 1 other shall be knowledgeable about programs specifically designed to meet the unique housing needs of children and adults with autism;

(5) at least 1 other shall be knowledgeable about programs specifically designed to train and educate law enforcement and criminal justice officials to respond to the unique needs of children and adults with autism; and

(6) at least 1 other shall be knowledgeable about environmental or toxic exposure of adults and children as it relates to the development of autism.

A lot has changed since Mr. Burton held his first hearings on autism. One thing that has changed: autistics have rightfully fought for and won the right to be represented in autism discussions. Mr. Burton’s bill does not represent that shift.

Mr. Burton’s words do not acknowledge that the question of whether there was a mercury-induced-epidemic of autism has been answered.

Let’s put it simply. Mr. Burton: the answer is no. Thimerosal didn’t cause an autism epidemic.

Why the next CDC autism rates spells bad news for the mercury hypothesis

22 Mar

A recent article on Disability Scoop discussed an upcoming CDC autism report. The MMWR’s(Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports) from the CDC have been one of the standards for autism prevalence for years. Each CDC prevalence estimate is calculated for a group of 8 year olds born in a certain year. For example, the last estimate was “Prevalence of Autism Spectrum Disorders — Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, United States, 2006” for children born in 1998.

Every time a new CDC autism MMWR has come out, the prevalence estimates are higher. Every timer there are groups that point to the rising number of vaccines and mercury exposure from those vaccines. People point out that there is a correlation between mercury exposure (thimerosal) and the autism rates. The MMWR’s so far have been all for children born in the 1990’s, a period when the number of vaccines and the thimerosal exposure from those vaccines was increasing.

Here are the autism prevalence estimates from recent CDC reports:

2006 (birth year 1998) 9 per 1000
2004 (birth year 1996) 8 per 1000
2002 (birth year 1994) 6.6 per 1000
2000 (birth year 1992) 6.7 per 1000

Following this trend, the next report will be for children born in 2000, age 8 in 2008. From the perspective of testing the vaccine hypothesis, in particular the mercury/thimerosal hypothesis, this is the start of a new era. In 1999 the AAP recommended that thimerosal be removed from vaccines. By 2001, all infant vaccines with the exception of influenza were produced only in thimerosal-free versions. This means that children born in 2000, the cohort the CDC will likely report upon, received, on average, a lower exposure to thimersal than the previous groups.

If the mercury hypothesis were correct (and there already a great deal of evidence to say that it is *not* correct) the autism rate should go down. At the very least, it should stay the same as the group before–about 0.9%.

Of course we will hear claims like “but not all the thimerosal containing vaccines were gone for this group” and “but what about the influenza vaccine?” and more obvious excuses in case (at it seems likely) the prevalence goes up again.

All of these avoid the fact that the average thimerosal exposure will be much lower for this group than the previous (1998 birth year) group. The excuses amount to…well…how about a visual?

With thanks to Reuters for the image I am using.

Yes, goal posts will move. Nice idea putting them on wheels. Could save a lot of effort, but those promoting the mercury idea are already used to moving goalposts.

And what if the CDC also reports on birth year 2002 (they have reported two birth cohorts at the same time in the past)? Those goalposts might to have to move quite a bit.

Now consider a different perspective. Consider that each CDC report has been an undercount. They don’t do a “whole population” survey like was done in Korea recently. They don’t test all children, they rely upon records already in existance. The last CDC report found that about 23% of the children identified as autistic in the study did not have a diagnosis before the study. Clearly the United States has not been identifying all the autistics in the population. Given this, the rising autism prevalence estimates (and, yes, they are *estimates*) could be seen as an accomplishment. This is a position put forth by Prof. Richard Grinker. The rising prevalence estimates reflect a the U.S. getting better at identifying the autistic students in our schools.

Heavy Metal in Children’s Tooth Enamel: Related to Autism and Disruptive Behaviors?

11 Jul

The idea that mercury causes autism has been around for over 10 years now. The data have been overwhelmingly against the hypothesis. The risk of autism doesn’t increase with thimerosal exposure from vaccines (e.g. Prenatal and infant exposure to thimerosal from vaccines and immunoglobulins and risk of autism and a number of other studies.) There are still groups which promote the idea, and there are still studies being performed. Case in point, a new study: Heavy Metal in Children’s Tooth Enamel: Related to Autism and Disruptive Behaviors?

The idea is straightforward and one that has been used to promote the idea of vaccine/thimerosal causation. If baby teeth have a different level of mercury, that might say something about whether the child was (a) exposed to high levels of mercury and/or (b) whether the child was more or less able to excrete mercury.

Here is the abstract of the study:

To examine possible links between neurotoxicant exposure and neuropsychological disorders and child behavior, relative concentrations of lead, mercury, and manganese were examined in prenatal and postnatal enamel regions of deciduous teeth from children with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASDs), high levels of disruptive behavior (HDB), and typically developing (TD) children. Using laser ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry, we found no significant differences in levels of these neurotoxicants for children with ASDs compared with TD children, but there was marginal significance indicating that children with ASDs have lower manganese levels. No significant differences emerged between children with HDB and TD children. The current findings challenge the notion that perinatal heavy metal exposure is a major contributor to the development of ASDs and HDB.

Basically, the levels of mercury and lead were the same for autistic kids as for non-autistic kids. There may be lower levels of manganese.

This isn’t the strongest, nor is it the last, study on mercury and autism. But, yet again, the evidence comes in against the idea that autism is caused by mercury.

Underimmunization in Ohio’s Amish: Parental Fears Are a Greater Obstacle Than Access to Care

29 Jun

With apologies for opening the subject of the Amish and autism once again, a recent paper in the journal Pediatrics explores vaccination and the Amish: Underimmunization in Ohio’s Amish: Parental Fears Are a Greater Obstacle Than Access to Care. Seth Mnookin has already discussed this at The Panic Virus at PLoS blogs in Anecdotal Amish-don’t-vaccinate claims disproved by fact-based study.

What is worrisome here is the fact that the nderimmunization amongst the Amish is resulting from parental fears. In a very different study from 2001, Haemophilus influenzae Type b Disease Among Amish Children in Pennsylvania: Reasons for Persistent Disease, most Amish parents who chose to not vaccinate were citing availability and convenience rather than fear as the reason.

To repeat–in 10 years the reasons for non-vaccinating amongst the Amish have changed from convenience to fear. We can’t say exactly why, but it seems quite plausible that the focus on autism, vaccines and the Amish could have played a role.

Given that the “Amish Anomaly” notion seems destined to linger on, I have written up another summary of the history and the facts of the story.

Dan Olmsted, now the owner of the Age of Autism, was once an editor for UPI. It was during his UPI time that he took on the autism/vaccine question that has since dominated his professional life. Back in 2005 he ran a series of stories which investigated the proposed link between autism and vaccines and, in specific, mercury. It was right around the time that the David Kirby/Lyn Redwood book “Evidence of Harm, Mercury in Vaccines and the Autism Epidemic: A Medical Controversy.” was published. This was likely the high water mark for the public’s acceptance of the vaccines-causation idea.

One of the ideas that Mr. Olmsted explored was that of the Amish. He started with the belief that they don’t vaccinate and set out to investigate whether this correlated with a lower autism prevalence. The idea of the Amish being a largely unvaccinated population was set out years earlier. David Kirby describes in Evidence of Harm how Lyn Redwood of SafeMinds discussed this in a presentation she made to congress in the year 2000.

Mr. Olmsted described his investigation starting in a piece, The Age of Autism: Mercury and the Amish . There was plenty of data even then which Mr. Olmsted could have considered which went against his hypothesis. Since then even more data has mounted against the idea.

And, yet, it persists. Often the “Amish don’t vaccinate and they don’t have autism” story pops up in internet discussions following news stories. Books have incorporated the idea. Of course it ends up in alternative medicine books on autism such as Kenneth Bock’s “Healing the New Childhood Epidemics: Autism, ADHD, Asthma, and Allergies”. The idea can be found in other boos as well, including “Timeless Secrets of Health and Rejuvenation” (2007) and “Cry for Health: Health: the Casualty of Modern Times” (2010). Again, this is a reason to revisit the debunking of this myth. The myth lives on, even in the face of facts.

In his 2005 UPI article, Mr. Olmsted started out with the assumption that the Amish don’t vaccinate. He set out to see if he could find autistics amongst the Amish, but didn’t look into the vaccination question with any depth:

So I turned to the 22,000 Amish in Lancaster County, Pa. I didn’t expect to find many, if any, vaccinated Amish: they have a religious exemption from the otherwise mandatory U.S. vaccination schedule.

As is well known now, the Amish do not have a religious exemption from the vaccine schedule. They do not have a religious prohibition against vaccination.

This was something Mr. Olmsted could easily have confirmed at the time. He might have checked the 1993 book Amish Society by John Andrew Hostetler (1993), in which he would have found the following statements about medicine:

“Some are more reluctant than others to accept immunization, but it is rare that an Amish person will cite a biblical text to object to a demonstrated medical need…” ….””If the Amish are slow to accept preventive measures, it doesn’t mean they religiously opposed to them…”

He might have made more than a cursory effort to contact people at the Clinic for Special Children in Strasburg, Pennsylvania. The Clinic, aside from serving special needs children (including autistics) runs vaccine clinics and has for some many years. In a piece explaining Mr. Olmsted’s failures, Mark Blaxill (also of the Age of Autism) explained that the Clinic did not return Mr. Olmsted’s phone call. No mention is given why Mr. Olmsted didn’t go to the clinic in his visits to Lancaster County

Had Mr. Olmsted done so, he would have known that this statement, again from his 2005 piece, was incorrect when he relied on a source who claimed a very low immunization rate:

That mother said a minority of younger Amish have begun getting their children vaccinated, though a local doctor who has treated thousands of Amish said the rate is still less than 1 percent.

He also made a misleading statement:

When German measles broke out among Amish in Pennsylvania in 1991, the CDC reported that just one of 51 pregnant women they studied had ever been vaccinated against it.

What is left vague in this statement was the fact that the 51 pregnant women were those who contracted German measles. Not surprising that those infected were largely unvaccinated. This doesn’t tell us what fraction of the whole population were vaccinated though, and is quite misleading.

One might wonder why Mr. Olmsted was not aware that the Amish participated in the eradication of Polio. Conversely, he might have questioned how polio was eradicated if the Amish did not vaccinate. Here is a March of Dimes photo from a 1959 vaccine clinic:


(from March of Dimes By David W. Rose, 2003)

An article available to Mr. Olmsted at the time of his 2005 article, Haemophilus influenzae Type b Disease Among Amish Children in Pennsylvania: Reasons for Persistent Disease, discussed the reasons why Amish parents did not vaccinate their children. While some did cite “religious or philosophical objections”, the majority said they would vaccinate if “vaccination were offered locally”:

Among Amish parents who did not vaccinate their children, only 25% (13 of 51) identified either religious or philosophical objections as a factor; 51% (26 of 51) reported that vaccinating was not a priority compared with other activities of daily life. Seventy-three percent (36 of 49) would vaccinate their children if vaccination were offered locally.

Since Mr. Olmsted’s original series, more data has come in refuting the “Amish Anomaly”. In 2006, a paper was published: Vaccination usage among an old-order Amish community in Illinois. Here is the abstract:

The Old-Order Amish have low rates of vaccination and are at increased risk for vaccine-preventable diseases. A written survey was mailed to all Amish households in the largest Amish community in Illinois inquiring about their vaccination status and that of their children. In this survey, the Amish do not universally reject vaccines, adequate vaccination coverage in Amish communities can be achieved, and Amish objections to vaccines might not be for religious reasons.

It is clear that the Amish do vaccinate and that it would have been simple for Mr. Olmsted to find accurate information about this at the time. It was certainly more difficult for Mr. Olmsted to ascertain what the prevalence of autism might be amongst the Amish. He made the assertion: ““there are only a few of them [autistic Amish] in the United States”.

Of the “few” Amish autistics Mr. Olmsted could find, six were being treated by Lawrence Leichtman. The children were unvaccinated but the doctor who reported them to Mr. Olmsted attributed their autism to high mercury levels. This is not surprising as Dr. Leichtman was one of the early alt-med practitioners working in autism, being part of the secretin fad of the 1990’s. One wonders if the “elevated mercury” levels in these children would stand up to tests performed by qualified medical toxicologists.

Another six autistic Amish, nearly under Mr. Olmsted’s nose at the time of his article, were being treated by the Clinic for Special Children in Lancaster, PA. Six children who had PDD or Autism were at that time being treated and written up for a study in the New England Journal of Medicine. They were missed by Mr. Olmsted. He has since argued that these children are syndromic and, thus, somehow not as relevant to his story. Those arguments aside, this was a clear miss for Mr. Olmsted.

In 2010, a study was presented at IMFAR: Prevalence Rates of Autism Spectrum Disorders Among the Old Order Amish

Preliminary data have identified the presence of ASD in the Amish community at a rate of approximately 1 in 271 children using standard ASD screening and diagnostic tools although some modifications may be in order. Further studies are underway to address the cultural norms and customs that may be playing a role in the reporting style of caregivers, as observed by the ADI. Accurate determination of the ASD phenotype in the Amish is a first step in the design of genetic studies of ASD in this population.

A preliminary number of 1 in 271 is a far cry from “little” or no autism amongst the Amish. Given the limitations of working within a community like the Amish, it is surprisingly close to the 1 in 100 often cited as the autism prevalence estimate for the general U.S. population. The study was being prepared for submission when I checked with the lead author last fall. It will be interesting to see what the final number is obtained for the prevalence.

The IMFAR abstract was available, I believe, before Dan Olmsted’s book, The Age of Autism, went to press. Instead of including this information, he chose to paint autism as rare amongst the Amish using quotes he obtained in 2005 and unsupported statements like, “the most aggressive possible count of autistic Amish comes to fewer than 20 cases, which would give us a rate of no more than 1 in 10,000.” It seems unlikely, given the low sales figures, that The Age of Autism will be reprinted. If that should happen, I wonder if Mr. Olmsted will correct this misinformation. The facts are clearly against him. Certainly, his review of internet sources and cursory tour of Lancaster County hardly counts as “aggressive”.

The “Amish don’t vaccinate and don’t have autism” idea was never very well supported. Now, with more data in, it is just plain wrong. It would be a good and honorable thing for Mr. Olmsted himself to make this clear. Good. Honorable. And not going to happen.

The Autism-Vaccine Debate: Why It Won’t Go Away

11 Feb

Who said it was? Backstory: “The Autism-Vaccine Debate: Why It Won’t Go Away” is a recent blog post by David Kirby at the Huffington Post. Yes, he’s come back to talk about autism and vaccines.

I say again: who says the debate is going away? The scientific debate on the main issues: thimerosal and the MMR is over. That scientific debate has been over for some time. The rising autism “rate” wasn’t caused by mercury. It wasn’t caused by MMR. Autism isn’t a “novel” form of mercury poisoning. These facts don’t stop activist groups and online discussions, or the debate elsewhere for that matter.

The debate isn’t going away, but is is morphing. From the piece by David Kirby:

There is clearly no single cause of autism, and we are not going to find answers looking only at genes, or for that matter, only at thimerosal or MMR.

David Kirby’s main contribution to the discussion was his book: Evidence of Harm, Mercury in Vaccines and the Autism Epidemic: A Medical Controversy. Mr. Kirby has been a major proponent of the mercury hypothesis since he started on that book, fed by research garnered by SafeMinds founder Lyn Redwood. The book wasn’t about “vaccines” and the autism epidemic, or “environmental causes of an autism epidemic”, it was about “mercury in vaccines and the autism epidemic”.

The debate isn’t going away, but it is getting weaker. And it’s just moving a few goalposts: Let’s play down mercury. Let’s play down MMR. It’s the “Autism-vaccine” debate, not “Mercury in vaccines and the autism epidemic”.

Mr. Kirby does in this blog post what he has done so well for the past few years. He puts the current talking points out there, nicely packaged. Here’s a good example, where he even manages to include a plug for the latest pseudo-research. It’s amazing, really:

That’s because evidence of a vaccine-autism link did not come to them via a 12-year-old study published in a British medical journal, nor from Hollywood celebrities: Not very many had heard of Wakefield until recently.

Some of these parents actually keep up with the science, including a new review of autism studies in the Journal of Immunotoxicology which concludes: “Documented causes of autism include genetic mutations and/or deletions, viral infections, and encephalitis following vaccination.”

Simply amazing. People haven’t heard of Wakefield, but they know about a paper that just came out yesterday in a relatively obscure medical journal? It’s product placement. Very slick. Mr. Kirby plugs this paper as though it is as natural as all the judges on “American Idol” drinking from great big red Coca Cola cups.

He also gets in the “the discussion isn’t all about Wakefield” theme that is in the current responses to the disclosure of fraud in Mr. Wakefield’s research. “Not many people had heard of Wakefield until recently.” As a side note, the obscure Mr. Wakefield appears on 30 pages of Mr. Kirby’s book, Evidence of Harm.

Let’s check whether people have heard about Mr. Wakefield. According to a recent Harris poll (one that Mr. Kirby cites, by the way):

In the new Harris Interactive/HealthDay poll, 69 percent of respondents said they had heard about the autism-vaccination theory — but only half (47 percent) knew that the original Lancet study had been retracted, and that some of that research is now alleged to be fraudulent.

The question “Are you aware that the medical journal that published the paper linking vaccines to autism has now withdrawn the paper, and a published account describes the research as fraudulent?” 47% of people asked said yes.

That’s a pretty big number of people who not only (a) knew about Mr. Wakefield’s paper but also (b) knew it had been retracted and described as fraudulent. What other research paper would the public know about in such great numbers, 12 years after publication?

To state the obvious, yes, Mr. Wakefield and his research was known. Well known. It has been a big piece of the vaccines-cause-autism debate.

Here’s the table from that Harris poll question, showing that 47% of people had heard about the retraction and fraud. Even more important, take note of the fact that people who are informed about the retraction and the fraud are much less likely to believe that vaccines cause autism (click image to make big):

Yep, 65% of people who have heard about the retraction and fraud say that the vaccines-cause-autism idea is “not true”. Mr. Wakefield’s work was known and important to the vaccines-cause-autism cause.

Mr. Kirby then goes into the standard talking points of the day: only two vaccines (MMR) and one ingredient (thimerosal) have been explored for relationship to autism, followed closely by a denial that any of those studies were of any value because they are performed by people who have a “vested interest”.

Of course, “vested interests” in those promoting the vaccine hypothesis, both professional and financial (of which Andrew Wakefield is only the most prominent example) are ignored. As we quickly see as Mr. Kirby warns us that the expected SafeMinds response is on the way to the recent paper showing no link between thimerosal exposure and autism.

Mr. Kirby finishes with “The CDC estimates that there are about 760,000 Americans under 21 with an ASD. Even if just 1 percent of those cases was linked to vaccines (though I believe it is higher), that would mean 7,600 young Americans with a vaccine-associated ASD. ”

Yes, Mr. Kirby is adapting. Adapting in much the way that I have said the vaccine-causation community needs to adapt in order to stay alive. They need to abandon the “epidemic” rhetoric. Claim that if there are people with vaccine-induced autism, the number is very small, too small to be picked up by epidemiology.

Rather than really adapt, Mr. Kirby wants to play both sides of this. He wants to say, “what if the number is really small” and say that the data available show that the rise in autism prevalence is correlated with vaccines.

At the risk of being accused of “product placement” myself, I can’t help but bring up an incident discussed in the book “The Panic Virus“. I don’t have the book handy, so I apologize if I get this not 100% accurate. Seth Mnookin tells of talking to Dr. Jon Poling, father of Hannah Poling, during an AutismOne conference. While Dr. Poling is telling Mr. Mnookin that, yes, the concession in the vaccine court isn’t about causation, David Kirby is giving his talk saying exactly the opposite.

One question I know I will face soon is: why do I bring up David Kirby again? Why not move on from the vaccine debate. In the end it is because of statements like this:

In my opinion, many children with autism are toxic.

After over five years as a self-described member of the autism community, David Kirby still uses damaging language. Children are not “toxic”. Even children who have demonstrated heavy metal poisoning (which autism is not) are not “toxic”. If you touch them, you don’t get poisoned. They are “intoxicated”. But, that doesn’t read well, does it? I’ll say it again, autism is not a form of mercury poisoning. I really don’t need my kid labeled “toxic”.

I don’t know if David Kirby is “anti vaccine” or not. If you notice, I rarely use the term. I don’t care if David Kirby is anti vaccine. It isn’t the label “anti-vaccine” that matters. David Kirby is intellectually dishonest and his actions are irresponsible. On a more personal note, he puts forth an image of autism that is damaging to my kid.

Sloppy science – a perfect example of how the anti-vaccine crowd will listen to anything

11 Feb

Both Age of Autism and David Kirby have recently reported on a new review paper with Age of Autism describing it as ‘pretty interesting’ and David repeating a part of the abstract:

Documented causes of autism include genetic mutations and/or deletions, viral infections, and encephalitis following vaccination.

So, should we all in the skeptic camp be reaching for our humble pie and our knife and fork? Not exactly. Lets take a look at the contents of this paper. Lets start here:

The vaccine organism itself could be a culprit. For example, one hypothesis of the cause of autism is that the pertussis toxin in the DPT vaccine causes a separation of the G-alpha protein from retinoid receptors in genetically at-risk children (Farfel et al., 1999; Megson, 2000). The pertussis toxin creates a chronic autoimmune monocytic infiltration of the gut mucosa lamina propia and may disconnect the G-alpha protein pathways, leaving some G-alphamodulated pathways unopposed. In turn, the non-specific branch of the immune system is turned on and, without retinoid switching, cannot be down regulated.

Wow, blinded with the cool science yet? No, me neither. Go back to line one where it says ‘one hypothesis’. All that follows from that point is mere opinion. There’s no science to back it up.

Another organism of suspect is the live measles virus…

Yeah except its really not. The issues with the Wakefield hypothesis are so many and so thoroughly debunked, it really isn;t worth my time or yours going through them again and again.

There is evidence that Thimerosal (which is 49% ethyl mercury) is indeed harmful. Since the 1930s, Thimerosal has been extensively used as an antibacterial agent in vaccines (Geier et al., 2007). Thimerosal has been implicated as a cause of autism. Not only is every major symptom of autism documented in cases of mercury poisoning but also biological
abnormalities in autism are very similar to the side effects of mercury poisoning itself (Bernard et al., 2001)

Oh dear. Reliance on more thoroughly debunked rubbish in the form of well, anything by the Geier’s and the ridiculous Bernard ‘paper’. I’m happy to go through why these are rubbish but I think I’d be preaching to the converted.

The rest of the paper is a rogues gallery of debunked and fringe science. Helen Ratajczak cites the Geier’s numerous times, DeSoto and Hitlan, Nataf and Rossignol to name but a few. This isn’t a paper so much as an advert for the sort of poor science that was examined in the Autism Omnibus proceedings and roundly rejected by the Special Masters. For goodness sake, she even cites David Ayoub of the Black Helicopter infamy.

When it comes to this paper – handle with extreme caution. Its toxic rubbish.

Chatting with Seth Mnookin

18 Jan

I don’t want to call what follows an interview as:

a) I’m not that grand
b) It was more friendly than that

So what follows was a meandering email chat Seth and I had about the release of The Panic Virus (Amazon UK, US and CA) and the content in it.

KL: You mention in the book that one reason for writing it was that as a new dad you were keen to explore the issue of vaccination in relation to autism. Do you feel that you’ve come away from the writing process with a greater personal (as a dad) idea(s) of what the vax/anti-vax opposing beliefs are?

SM: Actually, I started the book before I was a father…and before my wife was pregnant. I think it was one of the reasons I was so curious about the topic: I hadn’t experienced the debate on a personal level and so I found it hard to understand how different people I respected could disagree so strongly about the facts.

I’m not sure whether this is a result of the writing/research process or of my becoming a dad, but I feel like I have an understanding of where both sides are coming from–and why they get so frustrated. I can’t pretend to know what my reaction would be if I believed that vaccines had harmed my child.

KL: Do you feel you share the sense of frustration that ‘pro-vaccine’ people have now the book is completed?

SM: That’s a hard question to answer. Overall the situation is extremely frustrating. I feel frustration that the issue has been so poorly covered by the media, and I think our handling of the story has as much as (or more than) anything else to do with where we’ve ended up. I’m also frustrated by the handful of self-anointed experts, like Bob Sears, who give the impression that heeding their (or parents’/patients’) instincts are the proper way to go about dealing with medical decisions.

But I think one of the things that makes this such an intractable issue is that there are not a lot of opportunities for people on opposing sides to sit down and have an actual, human-to-human conversation — at this point emotions are so pitched and the stakes are so high (or feel so high) that a sort of bunker mentality has set in. I was lucky: I cam to this without a horse in the race, as it were, so I was able to have what I think were open and honest conversations with people that I know disagree strenuously with the conclusions I ultimately arrived at.

KL: Thats an interesting thought. At what point in writing the book did you think ‘I know I’ve reached my own conclusions’?

SM: I don’t think there was one point at which I felt like I’d made up my mind about the issues that came up because it didn’t feel to me that there was any one single issue. It’s part of what I found interesting and bewildering about this whole thing. I went to an AutismOne conference in Chicago, and after watching a presentation by Mark and David Geier, I knew I had some real concerns about their approach to treatment. There were some other presentations I saw that I knew from the outset were just factually incorrect, and there were claims about government conspiracies to poison children that I found to be…well, I guess unconvincing is a good word to use.

But I certainly didn’t feel like I knew enough at that point to say whether some of the other treatments that came up had validity, and I didn’t feel like I could say with any confidence whether some of the theories regarding causality had any grounding in fact. There’s a lot of very complicated science involved, so when David Kirby stood in front of an auditorium and talked about mitochondrial disease and genetic susceptibility, I hadn’t done enough research at that time to know whether what he was saying made sense or not.

I did find the all-or-nothing quality to the debate to be disturbing. At AutismOne, it was made very clear to me that I’d be judged in absolutes: If I expressed skepticism about the Geiers, the assumption was that I didn’t think anything else that was being discussed at the conference had any type of validity.

I was open about this when I spoke with people. If I was interviewing someone and the Geiers came up — and I don’t mean to pick on them, but they’re a good example of this because they’re such prominent figures — I’d say that I found their approach to science unconvincing.

I think that there is, among some people at least, a feeling that it’d be better for everyone involved if that with-me-or-against-me attitude wasn’t quite so prevalent. I spoke with Jane Johnson about Andrew Wakefield’s departure from Thoughtful House after the GMC decision was released early last year. I really like Jane — she’s smart and thoughtful and very generous with her time and every time I spoke with her she made me think about things in new ways. And when I asked her why Wakefield had left she didn’t say that it had anything to do with the contents of the GMC ruling, which I really respected: There was not really any new information in the report. Instead, she said that he had become too much of a lightening rod and that Thoughtful House wanted to do more work with Texas medical authorities. I don’t want to misquote her, and these aren’t her words, but she essentially went on to say, This doesn’t all need to be about vaccines. There’s lots of other work to be done here that has nothing to do with vaccines. That’s an attitude I wish more people had.

KL: I know you didn’t set out to write a book about *autism* as such but it seems to attract authors – do you think you’ll always maintain a passing interest in the autism/vaccine issue now?

SM: I think I’ll maintain more than a passing interest in the issue. It’s hard to learn about it – and certainly hard to write about it – without become passionately involved in it, so it’s hard to imagine my not continuing to have some connection to a lot of these issues moving forward.

Don’t Take the Risk: Get the Facts on SafeMinds

1 Dec

No matter what your position is on SafeMinds, I bet you found that title somewhat overly sensational. You may have thought that there was a not-so-hidden message in it. I’d love to know what your initial reaction was. Think it over before going on.

Here is one of the banner icons from the SafeMinds website. “Don’t Take The Risk” (big letters) above “Get the Facts on the Flu Vaccine” (smaller letters, below). What message does this send?

So, once again I’ll ask you to think about your initial reaction to the title of this blog post. If you found it sensational, if you found it leading, what do you think about the SafeMinds banner?

That banner is from the site you go to if you follow their advice to get more information at “safemindsflu.org”. You may recall that SafeMinds was collecting donations to fund the placement of their advertisement about flu vaccines, an ad that asked you to go to safemindsflu.org. As it turns out that fundraising effort was at least partially for naught. You can read about it in Orac’s Something to be thankful for: No anti-vaccine propaganda with my Harry Potter, or at skepchick’s Let’s all go to the movies and save ourselves some lives.

As you might guess from Autism News Beat’s, AMC says no to shouting fire in a crowded theater, AMC movie theaters decided that they would pass on the opportunity to show the SafeMinds advertisements.

Why? Well, according to a comment left on the AMC community discussion forum by an AMC employee:

Ryan Noonan, Official Rep, replied 12 hours ago
Thank you for your feedback.

I understand there’s a lot of passion on both sides of this issue, however, as an entertainment company, AMC feels our movie screens are not the proper forum for this debate.

Quite right: public service announcements aren’t for the promotion of a debate. As if to prove AMC’s decision correct, the forum then devolved into the usual debate on mercury in vaccines, with much of the usual misinformation and, as Mr. Noonan notes, name-calling:

Thank you all for taking the time to post. As I have addressed, AMC Theatres have not and will not be airing any spot about this topic. While we appreciate the feedback received, we consider this matter closed.

Per Get Satisfaction’s community guidelines, discussion about topics unrelated to AMC Theatres, as well as name calling are against Get Satisfaction’s community guidelines. Despite numerous requests to refrain from debating issues not related to AMC Theatres, there continues to be discussion and debate about vaccination. Because this is not the proper forum for this debate, I am deleting this thread, as well as any subsequent discussion about this topic in this community.

The advertisement was to put both SafeMinds and their position in the public eye. Those who wanted to could then read more on the SafeMindsFlu.org website. Here is an example of what you will find there. Under the heading “If You Are Pregnant or Have Small Children . . .”

Look at the evidence and decide if you consider the influenza virus a true threat to your family. Also consider the evidence regarding, the effectiveness of the flu vaccine in actually preventing influenza.

If you do decide to vaccinate, insist on mercury–free influenza vaccines for yourself and your children.

Do not combine the flu vaccine with other vaccines.

Do not let yourself be pressured into receiving a vaccine that you don’t want; insist that your doctor or pharmacist find you a mercury-free vaccine

Let’s look at those points.

1) “Look at the evidence and decide if you consider the influenza virus a true threat to your family.” Well, unless you are immune to influenza, then, yes, it is a threat to your family. The question is how much of a threat, not whether it is a threat. The second part is valid, consider the effectiveness of the vaccine. I would add, consider that any medical procedure, including vaccines, carries some risk.

2) “If you do decide to vaccinate, insist on mercury–free influenza vaccines for yourself and your children.” Sounds like they’ve made up your mind for you on the mercury discussion.

3) “Do not combine the flu vaccine with other vaccines.” Why would that be? Especially, why would that be from the position of mercury exposure? If, as SafeMinds claims, this discussion is about reducing the exposure to mercury, why avoid, say, a mercury free flu shot in combination with a mercury free measles/mumps/rubella shot?

4) “Do not let yourself be pressured into receiving a vaccine that you don’t want; insist that your doctor or pharmacist find you a mercury-free vaccine “. But do let yourself get pressured by SafeMinds, as they have already made up your mind that you must have mercury-free vaccines.

SafeMinds goes on:

All vaccines pose some risk, with or without mercury content. However, the influenza vaccine is of great concern, as many brands contain high levels of mercury. SafeMinds recommends that consumers read package inserts for any vaccine prior to immunization.

No idea given as to what constitutes a “high level” of mercury. Given that SafeMinds bills themselves as an autism organization, one would assume that flu vaccines have a low level of mercury. Why? Because the level of mercury in a flu vaccine doesn’t cause autism. (It is worth noting that no level of mercury exposure has been shown to cause autism).

There are valid questions that should be raised about any medical procedure, vaccines included. One reason why SafeMinds gathers so much criticism is that they do not act as a vaccine safety organization. Instead, they are an organization which uses vaccine safety information and questions.

SafeMinds cites studies in Pediatrics, some authored by employees of the CDC or vaccine manufacturors to support some of their claims that the influenza vaccine may not be effective in pregnant women and their infants. Those familiar with SafeMinds will find this ironic as any of those affiliations appear to be a basis to immediately disregard any paper that goes against the SafeMinds positions.

Another example of the methods used by SafeMinds which are deservedly criticized is their approach to the issue of the flu-mist vaccine. They give citations which conclude that the flumist vaccine (which is thimerosal free) is more effective than the injected vaccine. However, SafeMinds stops short of a clear statement such as, “Ask for the nasal spray version of the vaccine”. Why? They have no problem making a clear decision for their readers in regards to avoiding mercury. Why not recommend a vaccine that they claim is safer and more effective? Why not recommend a vaccine? Many critical readers would question whether SafeMinds is, as they would like to say, an organization promoting safer vaccines or if they are, instead, an organization which can not bring itself to recommend a vaccine because they will not support a vaccination.

Can you “get the facts” from SafeMinds? Well, you won’t get all the facts in any place as there is so much material. But, one paper I couldn’t find on the SafeMinds website was this very recent one:

Eick, A., et al, Maternal influenza vaccination and effect on influenza virus infection in young infants.

Here’s the abstract:

Objective To assess the effect of seasonal influenza vaccination during pregnancy on laboratory-confirmed influenza in infants to 6 months of age.

Design Nonrandomized, prospective, observational cohort study.

Setting Navajo and White Mountain Apache Indian reservations, including 6 hospitals on the Navajo reservation and 1 on the White Mountain Apache reservation.

Participants A total of 1169 mother-infant pairs with mothers who delivered an infant during 1 of 3 influenza seasons.

Main Exposure Maternal seasonal influenza vaccination.

Main Outcome Measures In infants, laboratory-confirmed influenza, influenzalike illness (ILI), ILI hospitalization, and influenza hemagglutinin inhibition antibody titers.

Results A total of 1160 mother-infant pairs had serum collected and were included in the analysis. Among infants, 193 (17%) had an ILI hospitalization, 412 (36%) had only an ILI outpatient visit, and 555 (48%) had no ILI episodes. The ILI incidence rate was 7.2 and 6.7 per 1000 person-days for infants born to unvaccinated and vaccinated women, respectively. There was a 41% reduction in the risk of laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infection (relative risk, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.93) and a 39% reduction in the risk of ILI hospitalization (relative risk, 0.61; 95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.84) for infants born to influenza-vaccinated women compared with infants born to unvaccinated mothers. Infants born to influenza-vaccinated women had significantly higher hemagglutinin inhibition antibody titers at birth and at 2 to 3 months of age than infants of unvaccinated mothers for all 8 influenza virus strains investigated.

Conclusions Maternal influenza vaccination was significantly associated with reduced risk of influenza virus infection and hospitalization for an ILI up to 6 months of age and increased influenza antibody titers in infants through 2 to 3 months of age.

So, vaccinating a pregnant mother reduces the risk of the infant getting the flu (and getting hospitalized as a result). That is contrary to the message I see coming from SafeMinds. They do host another, older study that showed no statistically significant difference in children of vaccinated or unvaccinated mothers. Will they update their webpage to include this new study?

SafeMinds does bring up some valid questions on vaccine safety. And, contrary to how they like to present the discussion, vaccines (and all medical procedures) are not above challenge. However, they tend to use safety questions more as a tool rather than as honest discussion points. Perhaps I missed it, but can you find them bringing up these questions? How can we make influenza vaccines more effective? Isn’t that a laudable goal? Isn’t a universal influenza vaccine be a good goal, rather than the current method of trying to guess which specific strains will be in circulation for the upcoming season? Why haven’t simple safety improvements been made sooner. Changes such as the move to cell-based cultures over egg based cultures which run the risk of allergic reactions. Note that a new flu vaccine plant was being built in the US which would make the move to cell based cultured vaccines. Instead they concentrate on mercury and autism–mercury being the most thoroughly studied vaccine ingredient when it comes to autism (as in, multiple studies, large studies, good studies, have failed to find a link).

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →