Quantcast
Welcome Guest  —  One member and 111 guests online
WELCOME TO THE SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN COMMUNITY
Please join the conversation!

Feel free to explore the site and create an account (click on "Log In" on the upper right hand side).

Uncover cool stories and news and participate in lively discussion that will force you to think.

Be inspired, launch a blog, and stake your place in the realm of the new, new media.
Sciam Observations
Nevermind the scientific consensus. Down with vaccines!
Global warming and evolution, meet vaccines. The scientific community seems to be largely aligned on all of your sides: exists and needs to be dealt with; no controversy to be taught; and doesn't cause autism.

That won't stop the U.S. judicial system from being plagued by claims that what scientists have found through careful study is incorrect--and that restitution be delivered.

Apparently, a school board in Chesterfield County, Va., is ordering new textbooks and it's feeling the heat from community members, who are encouraging them to splurge and get books with a few extra pages on intelligent design.

On Monday, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims will host lawyers representing one of 4,800 children living with autism, whose families have filed claims alleging that vaccines are the causal culprit. This despite the Institute of Medicine, a part of The National Academies, releasing eight reports over three years on the subject. The final word was that there is no link between the development of autism and vaccines (specifically, measles-mumps-rubella and others that contained the organometallic, mercury-containing compound thimerosal).



From the description of the Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism:

...the body of epidemiological evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism. The book further finds that potential biological mechanisms for vaccine-induced autism that have been generated to date are only theoretical.


According to an AP story on the lawsuit, one parent, who has filed a claim "believes those findings were preordained by the federal government."

Frankly, amidst charges of the government's sweetheart deals with firms like Haliburton and VaxGen, an untested, but well-connected company given a dubious anthrax vaccine contract in 2004, and its bending over to the whims of the Exxons, it's not hard to understand that parent's sentiment. For one, his son was handed a tough life to live--one that impacts his parents as well. Two, it's not entirely unreasonable to suspect the government of mischief or playing buddy to the pharmaceutical companies. But, this is a scientific consensus--one from a respected body, to boot.

Paul Offit, chief of infectious diseases at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and a co-inventor of a vaccine for rotaviruses (which cause gastrointestinal issues), wrote a sort of pre-elegy to vaccines in the Boston Globe's "Ideas" this past Sunday. He rattles off stats about how many lives they've saved, and how they're our brightest hopes in fighting AIDS and bioterrorism.

He also makes a pretty salient point:

Finally, vaccine makers removed thimerosal from vaccines routinely given to young infants about six years ago; if thimerosal were a cause, the incidence of autism should have declined. Instead, the numbers have continued to increase. All of this evidence should have caused a quick dismissal of these cases. But it didn't, and now the court has turned into a circus. The federal and civil litigation will likely take years to sort out.


Looks like that time starts...now.
25 Comments
So, is there a legitimate gripe in the research done here? --
http://thenewsroom.com/details/305956?c_id=je
This reminds me of the breast implant fiasco. Sometimes I think that "expert witnesses" should be licensed by a non-biased peer oversight process. It is difficult for a jury not to be swayed by emotionally charged anecdotal evidence when the real evidence is so difficult to sort out by anyone without a background in the field - much less anyone with no science background at all.
"Very tiny amounts of mercury . . . "?


But what if the amounts are not so tiny, and yet the baby is?


How about 87 times the amount acceptable from eating fish?


87 TIMES THE AMOUNT.



http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-vaccine8feb08,0,624328.story?coll=la-home-headlines
'91 Memo Warned of Mercury in Shots By Myron Levin, Times Staff Writer
February 8, 2005

A memo from Merck & Co. shows that, nearly a decade before the first public disclosure, senior executives were concerned that infants were getting an elevated dose of mercury in vaccinations containing a widely used sterilizing agent.

The March 1991 memo, obtained by The Times, said that 6-month-old children who received their shots on schedule would get a mercury dose up to 87 times higher than guidelines for the maximum daily consumption of mercury from fish.
You quoted Offit as saying, "vaccine makers removed thimerosal from vaccines routinely given to young infants about six years ago" but that isn't at all true.

First of all, the "removal" was only a recommendation or suggestion in the beginning.

Second, doctors were free to use up the stock of mercury-containing vaccines sitting on their shelves. And some of them (one that I know of boasted about it) continued to buy the mercury-contain vaccines as long as they possibly could.

And finally, from the L.A. Times:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-merck7mar07,1,738151.story

Merck Misled on Vaccines, Some Say
The firm supplied shots containing a mercury compound after saying it had halted its use.
By Myron Levin
Times Staff Writer
March 7, 2005

Drug maker Merck & Co. continued to supply infant vaccine containing a mercury-based preservative for two years after declaring that it had eliminated the chemical.

In September 1999, amid rising concern about the risks of mercury in childhood vaccines, Merck announced that the Food and Drug Administration had approved a preservative-free version of its hepatitis B vaccine. "Now, Merck's infant vaccine line," the company's press release said, "is free of all preservatives.

But Merck continued to distribute vaccine containing the chemical known as thimerosal, along with the new product, until October 2001, according to an FDA letter sent in response to a congressional inquiry.

The thimerosal-containing supplies had expiration dates in 2002.

Merck executives confirmed the details in the FDA letter but defended the accuracy of Merck's announcement in 1999, saying the company had indeed begun to produce preservative-free vaccine.

Merck continued to supply the preservative-containing version "during the transition period to ensure an adequate supply of vaccine to help protect the nation's children," said spokeswoman Mary Elizabeth Blake. She said package labels disclosed which lots of vaccine were preservative-free.

< snip >
Theres more mercury in tuna fish than in the mma vaccine.
I'm sorry Katherine but your comment is silly. The reason that Diphteria, tetanus, polio and many others do not kill children any more is because these children are immunized. Suggesting that these infectious diseases could "morph" into autism makes no sense, I'm not even sure what you meant by that. If you want to go without vacines, I suggest you first go visit African countries where they vaccines have not been use widely for long, you'll see first hand what such a population looks like. That said, it is true that the pharma industry, and its relationship with physicians, must be scutinized.
Very tiny amounts of mercury do not harm the human body, just as very tiny amounts of radon/chlorine/ do not. It's not simply "Mercury == BAD!", it's "Mercury at x PPM for y hours == BAD!".

As far as vaccinating a person, one must balance the risk of disease exposure with the risk of getting sick from a vaccine. Ironically, as we begin to avoid vaccines, the risk of disease exposure increases.
From what I understand, antibiotics are being rendered useless as the microscopic creatures morph and eat them for breakfast.

Why are we trusting the pharmaceutical industry at this point after all the information to date regarding their ethics and capabilities?

Why is there mercury in the immunizations at all anyway? It doesn't matter that there is a small amount. It matters that it is harmful and I doubt there is evidence it should be included at all.

I do not trust the pharmaceutical industry to protect my children and grandchild. I do not trust that the Pediatricians know what they are administering, because they trust the pharma industry to handle all that.

How many cases of smallpox and diptheria do we have that they should be immunized against at this point? Isn't it possible that those diseases have been transformed into something else at this point, such as.....possibly autism?
Six-month-old children who received shots could get a mercury dose up to 87 times higher than guidelines for the maximum daily consumption of mercury from fish, according to the March 1991 memorandum obtained by the Times.


= = from = =
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/08/health/main672371.shtml
"Theres more mercury in tuna fish than in the mma vaccine."

First let's correct that.

There's more mercury in tuna fish than in the MMR vaccine.

Well, yeah, there is. There was never any mercury in the MMR.

However, mercury in vaccines is INJECTED.

Mercury in tunafish is INGESTED.

Injecting something into the bloodstream is a whole different kind of chemistry than eating something.

How much research has been done on the effects of INJECTING mercury into humans (or lab rats, or whatever)?

Mercury can cross the placenta; that's why they advise pregnant women not to eat (INGEST) tuna.

So . . . can INJECTED mercury mess up the blood-brain barrier? (If you say no, how do you know? Does anyone know?)
Another "Don't worry, be happy, trust us" article. There also was once a "scientific" consensus on
- lead paint and leaded gasoline
being perfectly safe,
- DDT and hormone replacement therapy
being the best things since the sliced
bread.
1. I know three families with stories that all go something like this (and my occupation would not contribute to the probability of me finding out about these families): My child was perfectly normal. Immediately after receiving a vaccine she writhed in agony for several days and the doctors said she probably had a stomach bug. When she came out of it she was obviously not right, and eventually diagnosed with autism.

2. The conflict of interest in pharmaceutical companies and FDA is obvious and was recently proven. There is every reason to distrust them.

3. Pretty much every defense of vaccines I ever see (and this article is no exception) contains the logical falacy of defending the safety of thimerosal and then concludes from that that vaccines are safe. Thimerosal is not the only possible danger in a vaccine. There could be allergies to proteins in the organisms, infections from live organisms, etc.. These are very real dangers and NEVER mentioned in articles such as this. It is unlikely the writer didn't think it necessary to mention.

4. Every study I've seen claiming there is no correlation, is flawed in some way. Each is funded via a conflict of interest, uses questionable gathering of data, questionable statistical analysis, or illogical conclusions.

5. This article, like so many others, conveniently neglects to mention the profound increase in autism in the last couple decades. It is highly unlikely that the writer of this article neglected to mention it because he didn't think it was all that important in this context. Therefore the only other possibilities are that the writer didn't know about it (proving his incompetence), or didn't want it known (proving his corruption).

6. SOMETHING is causing that fantastic increase in autism, and it isn't the alignment of the planets. It is obviously some recently released toxin that is ingested or aspirated. So the question is: Why do we hear so much from the medical industry defending one substance--thimerosal--but never hear of studies attempting to find the toxin causing that profound increase in autism? The only reasonable explanation is that the medical industry is more interested in selling vaccines than in solving health problems.

I do NOT speak of individual caregivers, here. I'm talking about the business end of the medical industry.
I think it's great that people are questioning the role of the pharmaceutical companies in the vaccine process because any conflict of interest in a truly objective scientific process must be eliminated. That said, we are also able to detect different levels or stages of autism at an increasing rate -- in 2005, NIMH estimated 1/1000 kids "had autism. In Feb 2007, it rose to 2-6/1000 kids. I surmise that if we delve into autism deep enough, eventually everyone will be able to assess their own level, although 994/1000 kids would not find a learning deficiency that they couldn't cope with on their own.
Also, there is also an apparent link between autism and a high amount of television-watching while young.

Could that be due to the mercury content of CRT televisions? Maybe the mercury vapor in a cathode ray tube is "attaching" to the photons that are hitting our eyes and going directly to our brains via the optic nerve. 10 bucks to anyone that attempts this one for a junk-science thesis. :D
Pages: 2 - [ 1 2 | Next ]

ADVERTISEMENT