bmj.com Rapid Responses for Tanne, 329 (7466) 588

Rapid Responses to:

NEWS:
Janice Hopkins Tanne
Thiomersal doesn't cause developmental disorders
BMJ 2004; 329: 588-b [Full text]

Rapid Responses: Submit a response to this article

Rapid Responses published:

Health officials can believe anything they like: John Stone (10 September 2004)

Extremists: Dr John MM Rumbold (11 September 2004)

Re: Health officials can believe anything they like: eamonn clarke (11 September 2004)

Re: Re: Health officials can believe anything they like: John Stone (12 September 2004)

Re: Extremists: Magda Taylor (13 September 2004)

Re: The effects of toxic metals in autistic children: Dr Ellen C G Grant, Dr John McLaren-Howard, Laboratory Director, Biolab Medical Unit, 9 Weymouth Street, London W1W 6DB, UK (13 September 2004)

Evidence - chaos or Chaos?: Lisa C Blakemore-Brown (14 September 2004)

Re: The effects of toxic metals in autistic children: John Stone (14 September 2004)

Re: Extremists: Carol Johnston (14 September 2004)

Re: Re: Re: Health officials can believe anything they like: eamonn clarke (14 September 2004)

Little empirical observation: C Johnson (14 September 2004)

Health officials can believe anything they like - and so can Eamonn Clarke: John Stone (14 September 2004)

Off The Map, Out of Sight and Never Considered: Paul Shapiro (14 September 2004)

Re: Health officials can believe anything they like - and so can Eamonn Clarke: Lisa C Blakemore-Brown (14 September 2004)

Catching up with my reading: eamonn clarke (15 September 2004)

Two hundred tons of mercury per year, just to top up medical sphygmomanometers.: Phillip J. Colquitt (15 September 2004)

Things can hurt me: Lucas McCarty (16 September 2004)

Re: Things can hurt me: Carol Johnston (17 September 2004)

Re: Extremists: Ruth E Acaster (19 September 2004)

Re: Re: Extremists: Tony Floyd (20 September 2004)

Thimerosal Benifits: Michael, F. Wagnitz (22 September 2004)

Another customized study: Robert R. Bloch (22 September 2004)

Re: Extremists: C Johnson (22 September 2004)

Surely we are losing sight of what we all want?: Samantha Line (22 September 2004)

Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want?: John Stone (22 September 2004)

Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want?: Ruth E Acaster (22 September 2004)

Re: Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want?: Samantha Line (23 September 2004)

Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want?: Lucas McCarty (23 September 2004)

Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want?: MC Feliciello (23 September 2004)

Children of loving mothers: Dr. Herbert H. Nehrlich (23 September 2004)

Re: Re: Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want?: John Stone (24 September 2004)

Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want?: John Stone (24 September 2004)

Junk science?: Mark Struthers (27 September 2004)

Only Thiomersal or other factors too?: Chitra Pillai (27 September 2004)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want?: Adam Jacobs (27 September 2004)

Has Adam Jacobs completely missed the point?: John Stone (27 September 2004)

Re: Evidence - chaos or Chaos?: stephen i black (27 September 2004)

Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want?: Michael, F Wagnitz (27 September 2004)

Re: Evidence - chaos or Chaos?: John Stone (28 September 2004)

Re: Has Adam Jacobs completely missed the point?: Adam Jacobs (28 September 2004)

Is there a rise in autism?: eamonn clarke (28 September 2004)

Re: LOSING SIGHT OF WHAT WE ARE LOSING SIGHT OF: Clifford G. Miller (28 September 2004)

Re: Re: Evidence - chaos or Chaos?: Samantha Line (28 September 2004)

Re: Has Adam Jacobs completely missed the point?: Graeme Johnston (28 September 2004)

Adam Jacobs' novel direction: John Stone (28 September 2004)

Re: Re: Evidence - chaos or Chaos?: John Stone (28 September 2004)

Basic Fundamental Question: L. Travis Haws (29 September 2004)

Graeme Johnston's Silicon Valley geeks: John Stone (29 September 2004)

Re: Michael Wagnitz, 27 September: John Stone (29 September 2004)

Swimming at the shallow end of the gene pool: Adam Jacobs (29 September 2004)

Re: Evidence - chaos or Chaos? Might As Well Be As the Science is Out to Lunch: Clifford G. Miller (29 September 2004)

Re: Has Adam Jacobs completely missed the point? WHY NOT, EVERYONE ELSE IS: Clifford G. Miller (29 September 2004)

Re: Re: Evidence - chaos or Chaos?: C Johnson (29 September 2004)

FIRST THINGS FIRST - STUDY THE MMR KIDS AS LIVING EVIDENCE: Clifford G. Miller (29 September 2004)

Re: Eamonn Clarke "Is there a rise in autism?": John Stone (29 September 2004)

stephen i black and the GPRD: a competing interest: John Stone (1 October 2004)

Who benefits from vaccines?: Carol Johnston (1 October 2004)

MRC seeks public involvement: eamonn clarke (2 October 2004)

Re: Who benefits from vaccines?: jan M perkins (3 October 2004)

Re: Re: Who benefits from vaccines?: Ruth E Acaster (5 October 2004)

Cynic or cynical of thimerosal?: John P Heptonstall (14 October 2004)

Re: Cynic or cynical of thimerosal?: John Stone (15 October 2004)

Re: Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want?: Camille Clark (29 October 2004)

Re: Re: Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want?: John Stone (29 October 2004)

Re: Re: Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want?: Dr John Rumbold (29 October 2004)

Re: Re: Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want?: L. Travis Haws (29 October 2004)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want?: John Stone (1 November 2004)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want?: Dr John Rumbold (1 November 2004)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want?: John P Heptonstall (1 November 2004)

Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want?: Theo Fenton (1 November 2004)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want?: L. Travis Haws (3 November 2004)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want?: Dr John Rumbold (7 November 2004)

Re: Cynic or cynical of thimerosal?: John P Heptonstall (8 November 2004)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want?: L. Travis Haws (10 November 2004)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want?: John P. Heptonstall (10 November 2004)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want?: Aasa H. Reidak (11 November 2004)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want?: Dr John Rumbold (11 November 2004)

Off topic but topical - flu vaccine: Peter Flegg (11 November 2004)

Re: Off topic but topical - flu vaccine: John P Heptonstall (11 November 2004)

Re: Rumbold: John Stone (12 November 2004)

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want?: L. Travis Haws (12 November 2004)

Re: Stone: Dr John Rumbold (15 November 2004)

thimerosal neurotoxicity: Donna M Arnold (10 December 2004)

What about other sources of mercury?: Peter Flegg (16 December 2004)

Re: What about other sources of mercury?: John Stone (17 December 2004)

Re: Re: What about other sources of mercury?: John Stone (19 December 2004)

Re: Re: What about other sources of mercury?: John P. Heptonstall (20 December 2004)

Re: Re: What about other sources of mercury?: Aasa H. Reidak (20 December 2004)

Re: What about other sources of mercury?: Peter Morrell (20 December 2004)

Re: What about other sources of mercury?: Jayne LM Donegan (21 December 2004)

Where is the support for using mercury in licensed pharmaceutical products?: John Stone (21 December 2004)

Re: Re: What about other sources of mercury?: Peter Flegg (25 December 2004)

Peter Flegg's defence is a non-sequitur: John Stone (26 December 2004)

Re: Re: Re: What about other sources of mercury?: John P. Heptonstall (29 December 2004)

Re: Cynic or cynical of thimerosal?: John Stone (31 December 2004)

Your life in their hands...: John Stone (10 February 2005)

Re: Re: Cynic or cynical of thimerosal?: John P. Heptonstall (28 February 2005)

Re: Re: Re: Cynic or cynical of thimerosal?: John P. Heptonstall (1 March 2005)

They've suddenly realised: IT COSTS MONEY: John Stone (2 March 2005)

They've suddenly realised: IT COSTS MONEY II: John Stone (4 March 2005)

Mercury damage to IQs and lives is incalculable: Ellen C G Grant (4 March 2005)

Re: Mercury damage to IQs and lives is incalculable: Aasa H. Reidak (5 March 2005)

Dental mercury is too toxic: Ellen C G Grant (7 March 2005)

Thimerosal is TOXIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!: Donna M Arnold (2 April 2005)

Re: Thimerosal is TOXIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!: John Stone (3 April 2005)

Re: Thiomersal is toxic: Graeme Johnstnon (3 April 2005)

Re: Re: Thiomersal is toxic: John P Heptonstall (4 April 2005)

Re: Re: Thiomersal is toxic: C Johnson (4 April 2005)

Thimerosal is Toxic: Donna M Arnold (4 April 2005)

Graeme Johnston's toxic red-herrings: John Stone (4 April 2005)

Re: Re: Thiomersal is toxic: L. Travis Haws (4 April 2005)

Re: Thiomersal is toxic: Graeme Johnston (4 April 2005)

The collapse of moral integrity in government, and at the top of the medical profession: John Stone (5 April 2005)

Heron et al: Rhetoric and Substance: John Stone (6 April 2005)

The Lost Generation: An Appeal to the Medical and Political Establishment: John Stone (8 April 2005)

Thimerosal and Autistic Symptoms: an MSDS from Amersham/US Bioscience: John Stone (8 April 2005)

Further Thimerosal Issues: John Stone (10 April 2005)

Thimerosal inhibits DNA methylation: Donna M Arnold (13 April 2005)

Re: The collapse of moral integrity in government, and at the top of the medical profession: John Stone (14 April 2005)

Re: Re: Thiomersal is toxic: John P. Heptonstall (15 April 2005)

A calculation relating to "low doses" of mercury: John Stone (15 April 2005)

Re: Thiomersal is toxic: Graeme Johnston (16 April 2005)

Re: Re: Thiomersal is toxic: Stevie M Gamble (17 April 2005)

'The Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry' and the lack of independence of the Pediatrics reports: John Stone (19 April 2005)

Re: Re: Thiomersal is toxic: John P. Heptonstall (19 April 2005)

Re: Thiomersal is toxic: Graeme Johnston (20 April 2005)

Mercury amalgams and other teething troubles: Mark Struthers (20 April 2005)

A challenge to Heron and Golding: John Stone (20 April 2005)

Re: Re: Thiomersal is toxic: John P. Heptonstall (22 April 2005)

1988-91, the missing years: a letter from Prof Miller to the Sunday Times: John Stone (22 April 2005)

NIH New study on THIMEROSAL!: Donna M Arnold (22 April 2005)

New evidence inviting perhaps more spin?: Paul G Champion (22 April 2005)

Thimerosal and Blood and Brain Mercury Study: Alex Snelgrove (25 April 2005)

The official response to the Burbacher study: John Stone (26 April 2005)

The official response to the Burbacher study II: John Stone (28 April 2005)

The official response to the Burbacher study III: John Stone (2 May 2005)

No report of the Burbacher study: John Stone (2 May 2005)

Re: A challenge to Heron and Golding - and Andrews et al: John Stone (5 May 2005)

Re: No report of the Burbacher study: John P Heptonstall (14 May 2005)

Thimerosal is a neurotoxin injected into infants: Donna M Arnold (26 May 2005)

Mercury dose in UK injection double that previously disclosed in some cases: John Stone (15 June 2005)

Old article/responses but still pertinent: Jas Singh (15 November 2009)

Health officials can believe anything they like 10 September 2004

John Stone,
none
London N22
Send response to journal:
Re: Health officials can believe anything they like

This is a perverse way to investigate sick children. Why does the British Government pay out good money for such absurd exercises in self- justification?
Will the data be made available for independent assessment?
Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child

Extremists 11 September 2004

Dr John MM Rumbold,
n/a
West Midlands
Send response to journal:
Re: Extremists

It is clear that for the diehard antivaccinists no study will change their mind. Nearly all doctors are part of the conspiracy. I will gladly deputise for the antivaccinists if they ever want to go on holiday as it is very predictable what they will say about a particular issue.
Anti-vaccinists are now being marginalised as the public see how much research demonstrates the safety of vaccines, so we will see a rise in their activism.
Competing interests: None declared

Re: Health officials can believe anything they like 11 September 2004

eamonn clarke,
gp
cambs
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Health officials can believe anything they like

And so can anyone. Isn't it wonderful?
Competing interests: gp, parent, pro-vaccines, paid to vaccinate people, etc etc

Re: Re: Health officials can believe anything they like 12 September 2004

John Stone,
none
London N22
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Health officials can believe anything they like

Eamonn Clarke responds to the title of my posting and ignores the text. Previously, under presently removed postings Dr Clarke went some way to admitting to me the uselessness of deciding these matters with epidemiology. In fact it is pure whimsy to decide it any other way but by looking at the children - it would not be inherently costly or difficult to investigate heavy metal toxicity in autistic children compared with a normal control group which is the last thing the Department of Health or the Medical Research Council are going to try. The danger is that they might actually discover something instead of producing another circumstantial, inpenetrable, unverifiable, time and money-wasting study.
Competing interests: As above

Re: Extremists 13 September 2004

Magda Taylor,
Director of The Informed Parent
P O Box 4481, Worthing, West Sussex, BN11 2WH
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Extremists

There are extremists in all areas of life - there may be a few extreme anti-vaccinists but equally there are a few extreme vaccinists too. Parents who have witnessed with their own eyes the damage the vaccines have caused to their children will not easily be reassured by all these 'so-called' studies. Vaccine damage is world-wide now, just go into any so-called normal school and you will see a wide range of conditions, from various allergies, asthma and a whole range of learning difficulties, ADD, behavioural problems etc. This is all the subtle damage that continues to increase as we continue to add more and more vaccines into the schedule. If Dr Rumbold and Dr Clarke are happy to have their own children vaccinated - well that is for them to decide. As for those parents who have studied the subject and have come to a very different decision - their decision should be respected. These decisions are not made lightly and I have observed over the 13 years I have been involved in the subject that many of the parents who take the time to look into this issue become more knowledgeable than their own GPs/health visitors/practice nurses. Regarding 'conspiracy theories' I feel that Dr Viera Scheibner's comment about that pretty much somes up my own personal thoughts. Dr Scheibner highlights that conspiracies require intelligence and that she prefers to talk more about ignorance and stupidity. I am not sure why Dr Rumbold feels that anti-vaccinists are being marginalised. I have observed quite the contrary - more and more parent groups are springing up through out the world and more parents are beginning to question the issue. Interestingly enough the anti-vaccination movement in Britain during the 1800s was headed by a number of medical doctors.
Surely we all share a common goal - good health!! It's fine going around blaming this virus and that bacteria for our health problems, but isn't it about time that we were adult about this and took responsibility for our own health. Health is the best immunity - good nutrition, exercise, fresh air, clean water, reasonable living conditions, emotional stability etc. I would urge all so-called 'health professionals' to study health. How can injecting a cocktail of virus, bacteria, mercury/aluminium products, formaldehyde, not forgetting the various animal and bird products, into a young babies body be a health procedure?? Especially when antibody levels are not an indication of immunity, I would urge all health professionals to start doing their own independent study of the subject - they may be surprised. There are many parents out there who now have to deal with the day to day care of their damaged child - I can understand why some will be very angry. They were not anti-vaccinists, they trusted their health professionals and handed their babies over to be so-called immunised. They were let down and now they have to live with the consequences, so try and understand their position. When I became a parent 16 years ago I did not have an opinion on vaccination, I just thought you had to do it and so started the programme. This is why so many parents have their children vaccinated. However once I started to study the subject and gain some knowledge I made very different decisions and now I would not hesitate to say that I am totally opposed to the whole vaccination procedure, and I say this not in an exteme manner but in a calm and confident tone.
Competing interests: None declared

Re: The effects of toxic metals in autistic children 13 September 2004

Dr Ellen C G Grant,
physician and medical gynaecologist
20 Coombe Ridings, Kingston-upon-Thames, Surrey, KT2 7JU, UK,
Dr John McLaren-Howard, Laboratory Director, Biolab Medical Unit, 9 Weymouth Street, London W1W 6DB, UK
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: The effects of toxic metals in autistic children

John Stone is concerned that expensive epidemiological investigations may mislead by failing to investigate the biochemistry of either "healthy" or autistic children.
Our studies in 1981 and 1989 found significantly higher concentrations of copper and cadmium in hair in dyslexic children compared with matched controls.1,2 Sweat zinc was severely deficient in the dyslexic children, being 66% lower than that for control children. However, the control children in 1989 had much lower average zinc level than the children tested for laboratory reference range purposes 10 years before in 1979.2,3 Zinc deficiency allows accumulation of toxic metals which may be important causes of the increase in autism, asthma, dyslexia and hyperactivity in the past few decades.4,5
Biolab Medical Unit offers analyses of all toxic metal levels in blood, metal sensitivity tests and the effects of toxic metal substitution on proteins and some binding sites.6,7 Dr John McLaren- Howard presented the results of testing 61 autistic children at a Biolab Workshop for Doctors in June 2004, as he was attempting to find out which nutritional tests should be recommended. Among the 42 boys and 19 girls most were deficient in zinc and magnesium. Many were also deficient in copper, chromium, manganese, molybdenum and B vitamins. Therefore, essential fatty acids were also likely to be deficient. 16 children had DNA-adducts in leucocytes to malondialdehyde, 12 to cadmium, 9 to nickel. Three of the 61 children had DNA-adducts to mercury and one had DNA- adducts to lead. 37 children had antigliadin IgG antibodies, while 30 children had malabsorption detected by a D-xylose test. Malabsorption was most common in those with Asperger's type syndrome, 16 out of 18 children.
The zinc and magnesium lowering effects of maternal use of progesterones and oestrogens, parental smoking and alcohol use and parental dental mercury and other dental metal levels like nickel and tin, need to be looked at in larger studies. Mercury is a toxic metal whether it is in dental amalgams or in vaccines. If 5% of autistic children show evidence of signs of mercury exposures, this still means large numbers of children have been adversely affected. Clearly the increasing incidence of childhood diseases needs proper biochemical scientific investigations.
1 Capel ID, Pinnock MH, Dorrell HM, Williams DC, Grant ECG. Comparison of concentrations of some trace, bulk and toxic metals in the hair of normal and dyslexic children. Clinical chemistry 1981; 27: 879-81
2 Grant ECG, Howard JM ,Davies S, Chasty H, Hornsby B, Galbraith J. Zinc deficiency in children with dyslexia: concentrations of zinc and other minerals in sweat and hair. BMJ 1989;296:607-9.
3 Howard JM. Serum, leucocyte, sweat and hair zinc levels � a correlation study. J Nutr Environ Med 1990; 1:119-126.
4 Grant ECG. Autism, epidemiology and toxic metals http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters/327/7428/1411#43876, 17 Dec 2003
5 Grant ECG. Zinc and essential fatty acids in asthma http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters/329/7464/489#72650, 31 Aug 2004
6 McLaren Howard J. The Detection of DNA Adducts (Risk Factors for DNA Damage). A Method for Genomic DNA, the Results and Some Effects of Nutritional Intervention. J. Nutr. & Env. Medicine. 2002; 12: 19-31.
7 McLaren Howard J. DNA adducts in smokers. BMJ Rapid Responses, 14/1/2004 (http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletter)
Competing interests: None declared

Evidence - chaos or Chaos? 14 September 2004

Lisa C Blakemore-Brown,
Psychologist
UK based
Send response to journal:
Re: Evidence - chaos or Chaos?

It's time for that paradigm shift that we've been leaping toward for some time now. But we are stuck, and it's anyone's guess what will sneak up on us to trigger that leap.
Scientific 'evidence' has been sold to the public and the Press as solely and only epidemiology. This is, of course, absurd, and well known by those of us 'at the coal face'.
It is our duty as clinicians to use our clinical judgement, taking various 'threads' or variables, into account, as well as the canvas or context, simplistically speaking, to explain the particular tapestry (1) which is presented to us in order to help us with the decisions we must make about the individual we are in the job to help.
Then if and when we see many examples of 'unusual' presentations, it is our duty to inform and disseminate this information through seminars, articles etc. and in some cases, through alerts to Government departments and our own professional bodies if it seems that there are unethical restrictions preventing such open discourse.
It has become increasingly astonishing to me, that there is no room or place for any discourse on 'unusual' presentations if the following tapestry applies:
1. They appear to be temporarily associated with vaccines 2. There appears to be a pattern with other 'unusual cases' 3. The clinician actually writes and says that.
Unusual presentations can be written about, of course, and we are allowed to discuss and write about the fascinating aspects of autism, the joy an Autistic child can bring, and it's even OK now to discuss genetics.
But woe betide the professional who dares to mention ... vaccines as a possible causal factor in some cases and clusters.
The blindingly obvious reactions to any triple vaccines - including both the DPT and the MMR (2)in many children are tossed aside along with the children themselves.
The ensuing chaos, based on ignoring these individuals and clusters, continually citing epidemiology as the only 'evidence' is palpable,(3) both in terms of the destruction of those children and their families and in the cost to the State of educating and looking after them for the rest of their lives.(4) There is a further process of destruction taking place - that of science itself.
The Canadian cardiologist, VS Rambihar, discusses the multiple valid perspectives in Chaos Theory, in which even one individual's experience is and must be regarded as valid. In a personal communication he said 'I share your concern that individuals and subgroups become submerged into the averaging in epidemiological studies'. We both recognise that 'even the tightest epidemiology may be completely wrong in any individual'. (5)
My 'tapestry' metaphor, at one level of explanation, aims to allow for that individuality to be interwoven into any given person's 'tapestry'. The threads/variables may appear to be exactly the same as another person, but there may be subtle differences which will entirely alter the ultimate emergent weave. This is how we can each be so individual.
If the similar component parts were the sum total of who we were as people - we would all be clones! Of course we are not, our individual rich tapestries define us, and are respectful of us. Years ago, the indigenous American descendant of a Medicine Man, right down in the Grand Canyon, after swapping his petroglyphs for my Tapestry book,told me a story about how his great grandmother would gather all the children around her feet as she wove a basket. He was one of those children.
She had pulled the strands of plant from the edges of the Canyon. When she finished weaving the basket, she handed it round to show the children and said:
'This is a living thing. Respect it'.
I said `Thats just like one way of looking at the 'tapestry' metaphor - it's about recognising and respecting individuality. But there are other similarities, for instance, it's also about how weaving itself (like the to and fro of reciprocal interaction, tragically missing in autism) promotes mutual respect as we engage with other'. He said `I know, thats why I want the book and that's why I told you the story'. His second name was Whatoname and I will never forget his wisdom, especially as it is so disappearingly scarce nowadays.
How can we ever address the experiences of individuals if we are not allowed to and must always and only turn our heads toward epidemiology? How can we ever learn? How can science move on if political interference prevents honest and open debate? How can we ever respect people?
'Epidemiology works on average for a population and can say nothing about the individual except in a probabilistic fashion. And in this regard unlikely things do happen' (6)
If we want to descend even more into chaos and moral oblivion, we can ignore individuals, ignore Chaos and complexity in practice and evidence - and kiss goodbye to ethical scientific practice and to any chance of advancement in science and society.
1. Blakemore-Brown LC Reweaving the Autistic Tapestry Jessica Kingsley Publishers 2002
2. Blakemore-Brown LC A Case Study - Read it then tell me there's no connection bmj.com 6th September 2004
3. California's experience: 'Chaos' Bucks County Courier Times http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/111-09122004-364443.html
4. High Cost Education Bucks County Courier Times http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/111-09122004-364395.html
5. Personal communication with VS Rambihar 2004
6. VS Rambihar MD Cardiologist Evidence Based Practice IN CONTEXT 2003
Competing interests: Expert in Autistic Spectrum Disorders

Re: The effects of toxic metals in autistic children 14 September 2004

John Stone,
none
London N22
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: The effects of toxic metals in autistic children

Ellen Grant and John McClaren-Howard's Response is very interesting. Their answer suggests a complex of issues, and if it is right opens up an array of questions about the relation between neural impairment and environmental factors. Of course, it does not directly answer the question what the impact of an entirely unwanted dose of ethyl mercury might be on an 8 week old baby, but it does help to suggest that when it comes to autism such environmental factors could be hugely influential.
It remains the case that the idea that you could show by epidemiology that subjecting small infants to significant amonts of known toxins is safe is deeply suspect - this is surely the strategy of people trying get themselves off the hook after the event. And those that argue that it is, or ever was safe also endorse the safety of the rest of the immunology programme.
Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child

Re: Extremists 14 September 2004

Carol Johnston,
Carer
Carshalton, Surrey
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Extremists

Thought I'd do a quick reply whilst waiting for the paint to dry on my placard - ready for the next demo - whilst sipping my herbal tea.
When intelligent argument fails why not resort to name calling like "anti-vaccinists" and "extremists".
This somewhat primitive, yet effective method, creates diversion whilst getting a reaction.
As a child, when called names, I would respond "sticks and stones".
Why is it anyone who questions vaccination is termed an "extremist"? How frustrating for the professionals when parents like myself ask "What happened, why did my son/daughter go into massive developmental regression in the wake of a vaccine?
Because I question, seek answers I am termed an "extremist".
For the record some of the most cutting comments I have seen have been from professionals in defence of these vaccines. In response to a benign almost polite statement questioning the safety of a vaccine!
Just what is it that causes intelligent professionals to respond in such a way. Perhaps, maybe somewhere, deep down, there is recognition of truth and to openly admit - even to themselves the damage they have caused thousands of children - cannot be a comfortable thought.
The tactic adopted - denial at all costs - backed up by pointless epidemilogical studies, hoping that parents like myself will run out of the will to question and just put-up and shut-up, knowing that due to the demands of caring for our damaged children parents are fighting with one hand tied behind their backs.
However, even though some days I do think what is the point - one look at my kids and energy and hope springs eternal. A parent fighting for their child is a formidable force. Even if the whole world tells me that there is no proof this will not change what I saw happen with my own eyes. The government know that the welfare of our children stops us from taking more extreme action. But nonetheless the sense of outrage and anger is there. My children have been hurt by the MMR vaccine and they have been treated diabolically by those who should have listened when the first study by Andrew Wakefield first highlighted concerns regarding the role of combined vaccines in autism and PDDs.
No matter what anyone calls me - fact is that my children regressed after MMR.
As Madga says, "Surely we all share a common goal - good health!! ...... Health is the best immunity - good nutrition, exercise, fresh air, clean water, reasonable living conditions, emotional stability etc. "
As Joe Public becomes more informed and starts to turn away from vaccines and the numerous drugs to treat the conditions resulting from this damage - this will effect the profits of the drugs companies.
Many parents have turned away vaccines because the whole issue is becoming too politicised with spin from the government. The more studies like this seek to re-assure worried parents, the more many question 'just why the need to time and time again, deny the role vaccines in autism and reassure parents into accepting vaccines?' - "no smoke without fire" - there has to be something for the debate to have been raging as long as it has - they are not prepared to gamble the health of their children on spin from a government which has proved time and time again that it is more than capable of misleading the public.
I was never one for conspiracy theories - but the way in these children who have regressed have been ignored, raises the question(s) - why dont the MRC commission a study to clinically examine and look at these children to ascertain what exactly happened to them? Just what is it they are afraid of finding - perhaps the truth?
If it was not the vaccines that triggered autism in my children then what was it? Perhaps it is because parental anecdotal evidence points to vaccines as a trigger. Is that why the research is not being carried out on these children?
I for one would welcome conclusive proof that I could not have prevented the damage my children have suffered.
Until then studies such as this that just seek to deny the roles vaccines play in regressive autism without offering an alternative credible cause, are spin and a complete waste of taxpayers money! They serve a purpose in that for a time it diverts energies away from pressure to find a reason why this has happened to so many children. If study after study produced points to there being no link, then perhaps people will eventually stop listening to the voices of parents like myself and begin to believe the spin. However, one factor is that whilst more children are vaccinated then more will join the ever growing ranks of children damaged and their parents, once having come to terms with what they have seen will join the fight for justice and recognition for their damaged children.
These studies are a delaying tactic at best. Eventually the truth of what children like mine have suffered will become apparent to the world.
I may be an extremist to you but with all due respect, I am not the one who is commiting bio-terrorism on the immature immune system of infants.
What if there is a link? The benefits outweigh the risks argument does not apply here. A vaccine given to a healthy child then causes irreparable damage (which we all know they can do) but on a scale never before equalled in human history.
Mine is the voice of one parent. One way or another the truth will become apparent. It would be best for the government to be involved in finding that truth. It would be a good for later damage limitation, because they could always point to a positive response to parental concerns like mine. However, it seems that successive governments have not learnt from the mistakes of the past, like thalidomide and BSE (apologies, I can imagine the groans at the same old examples highlighted but history teaches us that we need to listen in order to arrive at truth).
Best go now, my placard is dry and my herbal tea is cold. Time for my medication, opps meditation - and to commune with the shrubs in my garden - we dont have any trees!
Vegetable rights and peace!
Competing interests: Parent of 2 ASD children post-MMR

Re: Re: Re: Health officials can believe anything they like 14 September 2004

eamonn clarke,
gp
cambs
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Health officials can believe anything they like

But I believe I did. And I don't believe epidemiology is useless in this debate. I think that large epidemiological studies are very useful to people who believe in that sort of thing (me, for instance). Likewise, I think that observational and recall studies are useful to people who believe in them. After all it was that form of study that 'proved' that breast cancer was caused by trauma to the breast.
The point I was trying to make in my previously deleted posts was that people believe what they believe and that there are closed minds on both sides of the argument. Calls for the one definitive study 'to rule them all' are useless. We both know that any such study will be torn to shreds by its opponent.
Having said that, I will defend the Medical Research Council and point out that they are funding a study into MMR and autism. (1) Also, an earlier paper suggests to me that perhaps we should be turning our attention away from mercury and on to lithium? (2)
Finally, I am happy to see our previous correspondence has been restored. (3) I was beginning to wonder if I was the BMJ impostor, and if so how I would know? I had recently dreamt of electric sheep.
1. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/1/2
2. Wecker,L., Miller,S.B., Cochran,S.R., Dugger,D.L. & Johnson,W.D.Trace element concentrations in hair from autistic children. J. Ment. Defic. Res. 29 ( Pt 1), 15-22 (1985).
3. Responses to http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7442/773
Competing interests: GP and parent who is happy to have his children vaccinated.

Little empirical observation 14 September 2004

C Johnson,
parent
LA9
Send response to journal:
Re: Little empirical observation

I don't know whether toxins like thiomersal in vaccines cause neurological damage; but my first common-or-garden layman's question would be, why on earth wouldn't they?
I have three children, and all have been through the full UK mass vaccination programme so far. The eldest, who has had both MMR and the booster, was floored by chicken pox last year. My mother - in her sixties and worked all her life in medicine - says she's never seen a case like it. His younger brother, who has been exposed to less of the programme, faired a bit better. His younger sister, who has been exposed to even less, sailed through the disease like it wasn't there.
My little empirical observation tells me that the mass vaccine programme scuppers my children's natural immunity to diseases which, if well nourished and otherwise healthy, they could deal with better themselves. I can't find out if my hunch is right because research into the possibility will not get funding in the present political climate. The political industry's answer might be to add a mass chicken pox vaccine programme... to protect the children, you understand; and then yet more vaccines for yet more common diseases which the growing vaccinated population can no longer cope with by themselves. I wonder if we'll look back in twenty years and rue the destruction of the population's ability to fight disease?
My children will not be having any more vaccines from this blind programme. We will treat them as individuals and vaccinate accordingly. E.g. I won't stick Hepatitis B into them as I don't expect them to engage in unprotected sex or intravenous drug abuse any time soon. I'll talk to them about such dangers instead.
Competing interests: None declared

Health officials can believe anything they like - and so can Eamonn Clarke 14 September 2004

John Stone,
none
London N22
Send response to journal:
Re: Health officials can believe anything they like - and so can Eamonn Clarke

It would be a misunderstanding of my present concern to assume that I believe the rise in autism is necessarily entirely bound up with vaccination. However, I cannot accept that a programme which systematically injected millions of infants with substantial doses of mercury was being responsibly implemented. For years it was just blithely implemented without the least concern and any government sponsored investigation showing that it was all safe after the event is self- evidently compromised and suspect. Who are they to tell us?
Likewise any government sponsored investigation into MMR which systematically excludes the evidence of parents (Carol Johnston is the obvious present example) is also self-evidently compromised and suspect.
Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child

Off The Map, Out of Sight and Never Considered 14 September 2004

Paul Shapiro,
Grandpa To Vaccination Damaged Mathew
Great Neck, New York, USA 11021
Send response to journal:
Re: Off The Map, Out of Sight and Never Considered

To all the genius' involved with developing, over seeing, approving, mandating, promoting, living off vaccines and vaccination, please address and justify, "the one size fits all" vaccination mentality and policy.
Please explain to this grandparent of a vaccine damaged grandson, why the size of the vaccine dose along with the toxic poison thimerosal is not adjusted proportionate to the weight and/or the development of the child. I never quite understood why the brilliant scientific and medical community fail to explain why it is this way?
Competing interests: None declared

Re: Health officials can believe anything they like - and so can Eamonn Clarke 14 September 2004

Lisa C Blakemore-Brown,
Psychologist
UK based
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Health officials can believe anything they like - and so can Eamonn Clarke

This week, pregnant women have been told that they should not touch even a drop of alcohol during pregnancy, as this could harm the unborn baby and lead to behavioural problems as the child grows.
Yet injecting mercury - and more - into the arms of infants - and maybe pregnant mothers - is waved away as perfectly safe, and if there are reactions - including `behavioural` problems - heads shake and `no explanation` can be given.
Can Health officials explain how they reach both of these positions?
Without wanting to appear cynical, could it be that the reason the former association is given a high profile is to set the stage for blame of the mother - yet again - for the alarming rise in behaviour problems since the late eighties???
So when a child is found to have a behaviour problem, the system (health, social and education workers) can easily be brainwashed into construing such presentations as causally related to abuse of the child through alcoholic poisoning during pregnancy - but by some miracle heavy metals don't even touch the sides.
Competing interests: Expert in Autistic Spectrum Disorders

Catching up with my reading 15 September 2004

eamonn clarke,
gp
cambs
Send response to journal:
Re: Catching up with my reading

Oops! Astute readers will have noticed that the MRC funded study that i referred to in my last posting is now completed and published. It was the Lancet paper of last week by Smeeth et al which found no relationship between MMR and pervasive developmental disorders.
MMR vaccination and pervasive developmental disorders: a case-control study. Smeeth et al. Lancet 2004; 364: 963-69
Competing interests: gp, parent, immuniser

Two hundred tons of mercury per year, just to top up medical sphygmomanometers. 15 September 2004

Phillip J. Colquitt,
Technician and RN
Independent Comment
Send response to journal:
Re: Two hundred tons of mercury per year, just to top up medical sphygmomanometers.

At least that was the figure I gave, in an e-letter to the editor of the Canadian Medical Journal last year, based on published reports in science journals[1].
With health care workers being major quicksilver (elemental mercury- HgO) users, polluters, and indifferent �exposers� of themselves and their clients, as applies to blood pressure machines, it is not at all surprising to find them defensive about all medical uses of mercury.
It may even be convenient for health care workers to focus on dental restorations, vaccine additives, even though they know that they are not being comprehensive in evaluating mercury exposure.
The problem with mercury probably starts in the science lab, where quicksilver has traditionally been used, and left in the hands of nerds who perhaps don�t understand the concept of personality, and thus the related concept of personality change. Causes of this change become non- issue.
[1] Phillip J. Colquitt (13 January 2003).Labeling All Sphygmomanometers. Canadian Medical Journal - Free and full text. Accessed 15 September 2004. http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/eletters/168/1/78#221
Competing interests: Mercury exposure

Things can hurt me 16 September 2004

Lucas McCarty,
Youth Worker
Harrogate area
Send response to journal:
Re: Things can hurt me

I had previously believed that it was impossible to 'make' an Autistic, I still do; all Autistics are different but everyone of us has elements that make us all the same(same form of atypical implicit learning, most believe that's what Autism is). If a vaccine caused damage, the damage wouldn't be both so specific and so messy at the same time, if Mercury was harmful in such a small dose, wouldn't it gradually kill?
I did find it curious however that of all the other born Autistics I've seen and of all the vaccine Autistics I've seen, the latter groups seems to be entirely made up of low-functioners whilst the former, like myself, seem to be doing better.
There are some things my body will not tolerate even in the most miniscule amounts and the reaction is quite violent, but there are plenty of Autistics that don't feel a thing but may have intolerances to things I don't.
I'm sitting on the fence, but I would like to know if vaccines can or can't harm those who are born Autistic, I get the feeling that is what is happening. Children are born Autistic but the parent doesn't notice, then they react with a vaccine and have a regression. Has anyone looked into that possibility?
Competing interests: Autistic

Re: Things can hurt me 17 September 2004

Carol Johnston,
Carer
Carshalton, Surrey
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Things can hurt me

I was interested to read Lucas McCarthy's response. Its enlightening to hear the view of an autist themselves.
I have oftened wondered how an autist viewed the subject of vaccine induced autism.
The impression I get that many high functioning autists (Aspergers) do not consider their autism to be a disability - indeed many regard their autism as an intregral part of their makeup - which they would not be without. History appears to be littered with autists who have made outstanding contributions to mankind, ie Albert Einstein, Issac Newton etc. etc. - an autists ability to have a single mindedness about a certain topic can be a gift!
However at the opposite end of the spectrum are children like my son.
Maybe my children have a genetic pre-disposition to autism. Perhaps is it a part of the "sensitivity" that Mr McCarthy mentioned.
This combination of genetics and sensitivities make for a vulnerablility that leads to catastrophic regression caused by "environmental" trigger and can leave a child in a Dante's Nightmare existence unable to communicate and living in this world but not as part of it - reduced congnitive ability continually needing support and help to do even basic human functions.
My understanding is there are two types of autism. Classic and "late onset regressive" autism. The latter are often severe. My son exhibits many autistic traits but he also mimics behaviours similar to a little boy (of a close friend) who has severe cerebral palsy caused by bleed on the brain.
It seems autism is down to a number of reasons. Genetics , brain trauma, a serious viral infection, birth trauma, medical intervention and/or exposure to toxins.
I share Mr McCarthy's views in that he states:
"I did find it curious however that of all the other born Autistics I've seen and of all the vaccine Autistics I've seen, the latter groups seems to be entirely made up of low-functioners whilst the former, like myself, seem to be doing better."
My daughter was not severely affected as my son. Perhaps by virtue of her sex and a slightly different mixture of genetics? There do seem to be varying degrees of this "late onset" autism. The one thing they share is the regression and onset of physical and behavioural symptoms. Many of these children improve by a properly managed diet and removing foods which act as toxins to them (casein and gluten).
Maybe without MMR my son would have been a high functioning aspergers individual but because of his sensitive constitution the vaccines irritated his body to the point of a severe regression.
My understanding is that mercury is toxic in very small amounts and the symptoms of mecury poisioning are similar to severe autism.
Another query I have with autism is the appearance of clusters.
I live in Carshalton in St Helier, Wrythe and Wandle valley wards, there are 35 - ASD children on the "I Count" disability register in a very small geographic area. Looking at the map of the borough they appear to be in clusters. I know 5 children in my road alone (not on register) and two low functioning little boys in the road off of mine. Only one of these other children is on the Register. [page 24 of report]
On page 29 of the register if gives ASD/Aspergers as a general percentage of the population 0-19 years. For my borough, Sutton it says the following:
Sutton: Total no. of ASDs 114 - % of register registrations = 20.84 % of general population 0-19 years = 0.25.
Okay maths was never a strong point with me, but these statistics are saying that a quarter of the all children in sutton between ages of 0-19 years have ASDs and are on the register - is that only me that finds that alarming? And of course we have to remember the children that are not on the register.
If genetics were solely responsible for these childrens' ASDs, would they be in clusters? Or is it that Sutton is over diagnosing ASDs?
What is that these children have in common. Could they all perhaps be using the same surgeries?
I attach a link to the website to obtain a copy of the report. Perhaps someone else looking at the report could perhaps put my mind at rest that we do not have an epidemic of ASDs in my local area.
A copy of the report can be seen at:
http://www.registerservices.nhs.uk/sutton/suttonkidsrpt.php
Competing interests: Parent of 2 ASD kids

Re: Extremists 19 September 2004

Ruth E Acaster,
full-time mother
Worthing, West Sussex
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Extremists

Gosh, I'm sorry Dr Rumbold but I found your rapid response really amusing! I am a 'normal' parent, when my daughter was born I instinctively wanted to do my upmost to establish good health for her. Being of average intelligence and an inquisitive mind I questioned my health visitor when my daughter was due to have her first vaccinations. She provided insufficent information and so I took it upon myself to explore the subject. After thorough research I came to the conclusion that I would not allow her to be vaccinated.
The decisions I have made are well informed and if questioned I can calmly and confidently explain why I have not vaccinated my child. Am I an 'extremist' because I made a decision that is not the norm?
Competing interests: None declared

Re: Re: Extremists 20 September 2004

Tony Floyd,
Medical Student
Newcastle University
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Extremists

Ruth Acaster recently made some valuable points:
> when my daughter was born I instinctively wanted to do my upmost to establish good health for her.
I believe that her head is very much screwed on correctly and that she under-sells herself by claiming to be of 'average intelligence.'
Not satisfied with the information from her health visitor she then stated that she:
> took it upon myself to explore the subject.
I am fascinated to know what sources she used to self-educate. I've been interested in this topic for many years, researching it during a Science degree and for many years prior to commencing a Bachelor of Medicine. Only the last of which seems to attract the label of 'well you must be part of a conspiracy' - but that's another story.
It is quite likely that she has read the same books and/or visited the same web sites that I have over the past 10 or so years. One that I am a fan of as I have found that the articles do support the points made is that of Dr Ed Friedlander. Although you'll find that even with the evidence sitting in front of you in the form of the original article there are many that will argue with you until they are black and blue in spite of the facts. So I'm not surprised that the Doctor you responded to used terms like 'extremists'.
I do not think it is right to call the Ruths of this world extreme or anything other than an appropriately concerned parent. If her health visitor failed to satisfy her quest for information then he or she should have at least directed her to some other source rather than let her leap head-first into to the sea of misinformation that is the internet or populist media.
She might like to review a web pages such as the one I've mentioned (1). I would encourage her to choose an article that is represented differently by two web sites seek out that article to truly make her own mind up. She may then view some of the many sources of information with an increasingly healthy scepticism.

***
References:
(1) http://www.pathguy.com/antiimmu.htm

Competing interests: None declared

Thimerosal Benifits 22 September 2004

Michael, F. Wagnitz,
Chemist
Madison,53715
Send response to journal:
Re: Thimerosal Benifits

Thank you for discussing the article "Thiomersal doesn't cause developmental disorders" which was published by the American Academy of Pediatrics via their Journal "Pediatrics". The article says that chidren injected with thimerosal (50% organic mercury) are less hyper, more alert, have better fine motor skills and have more advanced speech. When I went to research this product for purchase, the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) said it causes "severe mental retardation in children", Extremely Toxic!". I double checked the spelling! Are you sure this product is good for children?
Competing interests: Father of daughter diagnosed with PDD-NOS

Another customized study 22 September 2004

Robert R. Bloch,
n/a
412 Lora Street, Neptune Beach, Florida 32266 USA
Send response to journal:
Re: Another customized study

The idea that one must pare down so many subjects in order to achieve the "surprising" result suggests that there was an original finding that the authors could not bare.
In this latest study, for example we read:
"After adjustment for birth weight, gestation, gender, maternal education, parity, housing tenure, maternal smoking, breastfeeding, and ethnic origins....."
Parity? Oh, come now. Why does one adjust the subjects thus? Perhaps one might as well re-adjust this study for "cherry-picking" and find the original outcomes were quite different.
So much prejudice is likely to not serve any purpose other than creating another bombastic news article which in the future will be used in defense of the indefensible.
In light of the fact that thimerosal is finally being discontinued in the United Kingdom, and that the President of the United States is now, in fact, on the record supporting at least the removal of thimerosal from vaccines makes one question why such frivolous research is being conducted and propagated in the media.
This study for practical purposes is moot.
Competing interests: Father of an Autistic Child.

Re: Extremists 22 September 2004

C Johnson,
parent
LA9
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Extremists

Tony Floyd is interested to know which sources Ruth Acaster chose to self-educate. I can tell him mine: the personal testimony of parents who believe their children were damaged or killed by vaccines.
Noticeable is parents' reluctance to accept that vaccines hurt their children. They do not want to believe that by taking their children to clinics and holding them down for the needle, they played a part in their child's tragedy. It is the evidence of their experience which determines their belief.
Also noticeable is the earnest wish that they had not been so trusting of a mass vaccination programme which fails to treat their children as individuals; and the urgent desire to warn other parents of the dangers in blind acceptance of such a flawed approach.
I am also struck by the clarity and detail in their testimony. These people are not hysterics or fools.
Finally, I am struck by the little regard their highly significant experience receives. Their children's suffering is terribly inconvenient for the mass immunization programme. Better that they be discredited as "anti-vaccinists" and "militants". Better yet, accuse them of causing the damage themselves; steal their children or lock them up for SBS.
There is indeed a lot of conflicting data on the internet. Personal testimonies are powerful amid the professional egos and political- industrial campaigns. They also might be accurate, and deserve methodical research.
Competing interests: None declared

Surely we are losing sight of what we all want? 22 September 2004

Samantha Line,
Research student in neuroscience
New college, Oxford, OX1 3BN
Send response to journal:
Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want?

I feel that all this furore over vaccination is distracting us from what we set out to do in the first place � establish the factors that contribute to the development of autism and other developmental disorders. Isn�t it time to accept that the evidence that vaccines are a cause of developmental disorders is weak, and put our energy into researching more likely factors? The evidence in favour of the importance of genetics in the aetiology of developmental disorders is, in my opinion, far stronger than the evidence in favour of environmental factors, and has been highlighted by a number of large and quite robust studies (1, 2, 3, 4 � see 5 for a good recent review).
So why the lack of focus on genetic factors by parents and the media? In the words of a mother I spoke to recently � �we have been blamed enough without people saying that our son�s illness is because we have given him faulty genes�. I can see how a parent might arrive at this opinion but it is just silly � if anything genetic evidence absolves parents of blame as it supports the view that they did nothing �wrong� in the rearing of their children � the illness was not caused by some vaccine that they agreed to give the child or faulty parenting (neither of which I believe are aetiological possibilities worth giving much thought). Perhaps another important reason that so many parents blame vaccines for causing their children�s illness is the simple need to blame someone. This is a common attitude in today�s society and in many ways a natural one. In this case, in the absence of anyone else to blame, it is the doctors (who actually set out to protect their patients against deadly diseases) and the government who bear the brunt of the public�s anger.
Unfortunately in life bad things happen and many of these are no one�s fault. The move to blame doctors and the government is only taking the focus away from what we all want - the identification of factors that contribute to the aetiology of autism and other developmental disorders.
Competing interests: None declared

Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want? 22 September 2004

John Stone,
none
London N22
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want?

Ms Line seems to have left her citations off the end of her post but the patronising politician's style of title says it all, and frankly it does not sound like she has been listening. What she may think and what many parents have seen are rather different things. Perhaps she could answer - as a student neuro-scientist - since when mercury has not been a deadly neuro-toxin? Perhaps she can tell us in her experimental experience just how much she would recommend for a two month old infant? This is not about looking for people to blame, it is about simple common sense.
Competing interests: As above

Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want? 22 September 2004

Ruth E Acaster,
Full-time mother
Worthing, West Sussex
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want?

What we all want, or what we should all have, as parents, is unbiased information, backed up by statistics, before we make the important decision as to whether we vaccinate our children, or not. Also, when we have made a decision, in my case, based on lots of research, our GP's and HV's should respect the choices that we have made. I've taken my daughter to our GP twice, on both occasions I have been harrassed because I have not had her vaccinated.
Autism and other developemental problems and the link with the MMR vaccine needs obviously extensive research, along with the other possible factors mentioned in the last Rapid Response. Samantha Line quotes 'It is the doctors (who actually set out to protect their patients against deadly diseases)',it is well documented in many books, and by the Office of National Statistics that vaccines played no part in reducing death rates for the diseases which we now vaccinate against.
I have not had the opportunity to read the inserts that comes with the different vaccines but as I understand it, like most medicines, there are a list of side-effects, (the side-effects that they will admit to anyway!) If anyone could provide me with details I would be most grateful!
Competing interests: None declared

Re: Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want? 23 September 2004

Samantha Line,
Research student in neuroscience
New college, Oxford, OX1 3BN
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want?

I did indeed leave my refs off, very sorry!
Here they are:
1) International Molecular Genetic Study of Autism Consortium (2001). "A genomewide screen for autism: strong evidence for linkage to chromosomes 2q, 7q, and 16p." Am J Hum Genet 69(3): 570-81.
2) Bailey, A., A. Le Couteur, et al. (1995). "Autism as a strongly genetic disorder: evidence from a British twin study." Psychol Med 25(1): 63-77.
3) Buxbaum, J. D., J. M. Silverman, et al. (2001). "Evidence for a susceptibility gene for autism on chromosome 2 and for genetic heterogeneity." Am J Hum Genet 68(6): 1514-20.
4) Ramoz, N., J. G. Reichert, et al. (2004). "Linkage and association of the mitochondrial aspartate/glutamate carrier SLC25A12 gene with autism." Am J Psychiatry 161(4): 662-9.
5) Muhle, R., S. V. Trentacoste, et al. (2004). "The genetics of autism." Pediatrics 113(5): e472-86.
First off I would like to say that these are my opinions only - others feel differently and indeed I know there are many different sides to this issue. Secondly I'd like to say this is not my field of research, and that I am writing merely as an interested member of the public - I also have no vested interest in one side of the argument or another.
I agree that mercury is a neurotoxin and this does raise questions about thimerosal. However, in the absence of credible evidence to the contrary it seems that the very small amounts of thimerosal that have been used in vaccines are not significant enough to harm cognitive development.
Having said this, I accept that adverse effects of thimerosal may have gone unnoticed due to their small size and confounding by other aetiological factors. My point is simply that with all this furore about thimerosal and other vaccines (which at most have a small aetiological contribution) little attention is being paid to more major aetiological factors. Surely no one can be claiming that thimerosal/vaccines alone are responsible for causing developmental disorders?
One point that I don't understand is why doctors and scientists are being treated with such animosity and suspicion. Researchers are trying to discover the causes of developmental disorders just like families are � they have no vested interest in whether or not thimerosal is one of these. I think it's also fair to say that the overwhelming majority of doctors are trying very hard to do what's best for their patients based on the (constantly changing) information available to them � in this case they are attempting to protect children against some nasty infectious diseases, not expose them to unnecessary risks.
Competing interests: None declared

Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want? 23 September 2004

Lucas McCarty,
youth worker
Harrogate area
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want?

Samantha, I'm Hyperlexic, your writing shows no sign that you have read anything anyone else has had to say. You are resorting to a fallacy that has it's roots in soothsayers: the historical masters of verbal misdirection.
Watch, I'll do the same thing: "Why is it parents prefer a dead child with Measles to a healthy Autistic like me?"
Do you see how dishonest yet effective that was? Hate and fear The Strawman in all his forms.
I'm quite the conspiracy theorist myself, not that I listen to conspiracy theories themselves; I listen to the people doing the debunking, that way I can tell if it's true or not depending on how rubbish the debunking is. The debunking being done by parents is very good, the debunking being done by 'the other people' is lazy and self- important nonsense from people who genuinely consider themselves above the rest of us(I can tell just by their writing).
Just to note: I do NOT want anyone to find the cause of Autism, I don't want anyone to 'fix' it. I kind of want to survive as an Autistic, how selfish of me for wanting what I see as an important part of the human race to not be extinguished. In the US, now they have a pre-natal test for Down's Syndrome, the government has stopped all funding into research for the condition because they can get rid of them now. I see Autistics being treated the same way some time soon.
Competing interests: Autistic

Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want? 23 September 2004

MC Feliciello,
n/a
Leeds
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want?

In 1998, my GP was all that I could hope for in the limited circumstances, he knew my worries based on my experience of a friends child suffering vaccine damage, subsequently diagnosed Autistic in the early 90's. My sons Doctor respected my wishes to wait until my son was of an age to start nursery education prior to receiving his first MMR, as he was more than likely protected due to extended breastfeeding and maternal immunity as I had contracted measles as a child.
At my son�s routine assessment at the age of three, my GP read the available research papers I offered him, though this merely backed up a position of caution I had taken prior to my Childs birth in '95.
He was honest, he did not know, he could not guarantee that the MMR would not cause Autism, he suspected that it may have that consequence in a small number of children who had an as yet unidentified fragility as might the DTP. I asked for single vaccines and he explained that current policy would make it very difficult if nigh impossible for him to provide them.
Ultimately the Hobson's choice was mine and the perceived need for my son�s vaccination prior to increased contact with his peer group far outweighed my hesitancy at that time. I took that option on my son's third annual review. I would rather the choice and greater information regarding safety data had been accessible for both myself and my GP, yet I cannot say with hand on heart that my actions would have been markedly different except to seek out private single vaccination or that my GP's evaluation of risk/benefit ratio would have altered.
I, like other parents I�m in contact with, are not certain of the cause of our children�s condition but have deep suspicion of the nature of cumulative stress from several environmental sources to a developing immune system, particularly if there is a family history of Autoimmune disease.
As long as the woolly umbrella condition of Autism as it has become is still classified as merely a complex communication disorder and sidelined to the Mental Health Services; as long as the needs of the herd outweigh the individual catastrophe, as long as politics dictate what evidence is acceptable or even available, I don�t believe they or I will ever know. MCF
Competing interests: Parent of child diagnosed ASD

Children of loving mothers 23 September 2004

Dr. Herbert H. Nehrlich,
Private Practice
Bribie Island, Australia 4507
Send response to journal:
Re: Children of loving mothers

I wonder how many mothers would have liked to be in Maddalena Feliciello's shoes during those days when the decision making was on her shoulders. With an abysmal lack of information and the matter-of-fact expectation for her to draw the card out of the unfamiliar deck, she would have agonised over this crucial decision and most likely still suffers from the effects today.
As she rightly points out, the information that was not available to her or her doctor then, is today being treated as if it were 'controversial' or somehow irrelevant.
Yes, the herd has priority and the individual is only a small, insignificant part of the herd.
As a correspondent in this space recently put it: The small number of people leaving the hospital feet first in a pine box is, really, quite irrelevant.
A mother is expected to sit home during war time to hope and pray that her soldier sons will make it back alive. They are fighting for some purposes dreamed up by men in safe palaces. A mother must also put her trust in the medical profession, after all, doctors know what is good for people.Her children receive drugs that may be harmful.
One would think that everyone who even knows one mother would do his utmost to keep her children out of harm's way.
Take the example of Dr. Archie Kalokerinos. This Australian pioneer wrote in the early seventies about his experiences with the Aborigines in the Kimberleys.He was expecting a high mortality in Aboriginal children as a result of vaccination. When he avoided this by supplying vitamin C he should have had reason to rejoice at his discovery. Rejoice he did but his voice was one of a very few. After he left the settlement, the Vitamin C was discontinued and the children started dying again 'without further interference'. Dr. Frederick Klenner, pioneer in Vitamin C therapy, experienced the same reluctance in the 1930's; he cured serious illness through massive doses of ascorbate. This was over 70 years ago but we have apparently learned very little.
In an article Dr. Klenner stated: "There are some physicians who would stand by and see the patient die rather than use ascorbic acid, because in their finite minds it exists only as a vitamin."
Competing interests: None declared

Re: Re: Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want? 24 September 2004

John Stone,
none
London N22
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want?

Samantha,
Reasons for hostility:
1) You cannot explain the rise in autism by genetic factors isolated from environment, and it is very odd how new emphasis gets put on the genetic dimension in the face of this rise.
2) Despite public and parental concern all the big research money goes on genetics - so you have your own way whatever we think already.
3) Quick resort to epidemiology to prove that vaccine is not significant, rather than studying the condition of children with neural and gastric impairments.
4) Transparent poor quality, and inconclusiveness of said epidemiology.
5) Failing to monitor vaccination and adverse effects.
6) Arrogant disregard of parents who report and in many cases document adverse effects.
7) Brutal disregard for the medical condition of children many of whom have painful degenerative conditions.
8) Persecution and professional exclusion of anyone - notably Andrew Wakefield - who tries to investigate the possibility of vaccine damage.
9)Huge vested interests both institutional and industrial, and a lack of independence in the licensing and monitoring of products.
10) Inability of the medical establishment to discuss head on and in a fair way any of these issues. Example: you play the DOH line making light of the possibility of mercury damage because of the small quantity involved (how small is small with such a toxic substance?) but this is a debating trick: it is not a scientific argument.
Competing interests: As above

Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want? 24 September 2004

John Stone,
none
London N22
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want?

I should particulary have mentioned under Reason 8 Jayne Donegan. There is really no point in pretending to be nice when people with differering, but perfectly cogent views, are persecuted in this way.
Competing interests: As above

Junk science? 27 September 2004

Mark Struthers,
GP
Bedfordshire, UK
Send response to journal:
Re: Junk science?

John Stone referred to the persecution of Dr Jayne Donegan for her differing but perfectly cogent views on vaccination and its dangers. Her views, backed by meticulous research of the medical evidence, differ from those of Dr Michael Fitzpatrick who is also a London GP. He chose to denigrate Dr Donegan and those who seek to inform the public that vaccines may not be completely safe, in an article in �The Guardian� this month. [1]
In the summer of last year, a domestic dispute over the administration of vaccines led amazingly to the high court and then to appeal. Two mothers lost a legal battle to prevent their daughters receiving the MMR after a dispute with the girls� fathers. The learned judge, Lord Justice Sedley dismissed Dr Donegan�s evidence as �junk science� at the subsequent appeal. The two girls aged five and ten were then immunised against the wishes of their mothers. Lord Justice Sedley evidently believed the junk that the risks of not immunising these children �were real and in many instances serious�. [2]
Lord Justice Sedley will no doubt be aware of the cases of Sally Clark and Angela Cannings (and others). Is he aware that it was �junk science� that led to wrongful murder convictions, eventually quashed on appeal? Is this the same junk science that sent Alan Yurko to jail in Florida for life without possibility of release? And where do these learned judges on both sides of the Atlantic learn their science? And who will pay the enormous cost of their lack of learning and discrimination? Judges seeking information about Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS) � and immunisation too � "would be well advised to shop elsewhere".
Samantha Line naively wonders why doctors and scientists are treated with such animosity and suspicion. I want to understand the hostility some doctors and scientists and their lawyer chums aim at those who challenge vaccination with real and cogent science. Perhaps Samantha could explain. Is it something in the genes I wonder?
Meanwhile, I believe that more should be done to prevent doctors from denigrating their colleagues, in accordance with the GMC�s �Good Medical Practice�. �This is unethical behaviour, and the GMC should be acting against them.� �Other doctors lend credibility to allegations in the eyes of the public.� [3]
[1] �Jabs and junk science� Michael Fitzpatrick The Guardian Wednesday 8 September 2004.
[2] �Mothers lose MMR appeal. Press Association. The Guardian Wednesday 30 July 2003.
[3] �Death of no comment? Caroline White. BMJ 13 March 2004 http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7440/649
Competing interests: I am a middle aged man and a doctor too - 'looking back in anger'

Only Thiomersal or other factors too? 27 September 2004

Chitra Pillai,
Lecturer
G.S.M.C, Mumbai
Send response to journal:
Re: Only Thiomersal or other factors too?

After reading the article, the rapid responses to it and also having analysed the current scenario in autism, certain questions arise in my mind.
1. Is autism being over diagnosed now?
2. Was it not present in the past or was it not diagnosed?
3. Does the style of living anything to do with it? ( Developed countries showed a rise in autism earlier than a country like India which is developing fast- and autism is found quite common in India nowadays. Is it because of something in the lives in present day or better diagnosing capacity?)
4. I do not want to create a furore/anger/scare by asking this but I want somebody to clarify if any environmental factor or exposure to rays from computers or television or any such gadgets constantly used in everyday life has something to do with this - Like does it affect the germ cells?
Competing interests: None declared

Re: Re: Re: Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want? 27 September 2004

Adam Jacobs,
Director
Dianthus Medical Limited, London SW19 3TZ
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want?

According to John Stone, 'You cannot explain the rise in autism by genetic factors isolated from environment'. I have to take issue with this statement.
Now, as far as I am aware, no studies have shown that the rise in autism is due to genetic factors. If that represents the genuine lack of such studies, rather than my incomplete knowledge of the literature, then on one level Stone's assertion is absolutely true, as there is no evidence that genetic factors explain the rise in autism.
However, that is only part of the story. One might also ask 'What is the evidence that the recent increase in the prevalence of autism is nothing to do with genetic factors?' I am not aware of any study refuting the hypothesis that genetic factors are responsible. Again, it is possible that the study has been done and I have not read it, so if John Stone or anyone else knows of such a study, perhaps they could supply the reference.
If the study genuinely hasn't been done, then it would seem premature to jump to conclusions about whether or not genetic factors could explain the recent rise in autism. I would prefer to keep an open mind until I have seen the studies.
Competing interests: My company provides consultancy services to pharmaceutical companies.

Has Adam Jacobs completely missed the point? 27 September 2004

John Stone,
none
London N22
Send response to journal:
Re: Has Adam Jacobs completely missed the point?

There is an unscientic presumption, as I understand it, behind many studies that autism ought to be static in occurence - hence the "change in diagnosis" argument, which is always in my experience poorly documented or not documented at all. Admittedly there tend to be inadequate controls over the documentation of what I take to be a real rise, but then whose fault is that?
Adam Jacobs will surely stand as something of an innovator if he is going to argue that autism is increasing relative to the population, although genetically determined.
Competing interests: As above

Re: Evidence - chaos or Chaos? 27 September 2004

stephen i black,
management consultant
london sw1w 9sr
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Evidence - chaos or Chaos?

Reading the whole set of responses to this piece I am deeply disturbed by two trends: the hostility to epidemiology and the lack of any mention of risk tradeoffs.
The tenor of much of the debate (not just the anti-vaccinators) seems to be that we can't trust statistical evidence or the lack of it. There is a disturbing willingness to denigrate statistics and supplant the numbers with personal experience. But how are we to tell the difference between the true and the untrue? There are a lot of coincidences in the world and science has to have some way to filter important correlations from those mere accidents. Unfortunately a lot of epidemiology is badly done and can be legitimately criticised (the anti-vaccinators have a point). But what do they propose? We can't base major decisions just on collections of anecdotes (though they can and should drive further epidemiological studies).
It's particularly important to have some basis to decide what causes harm and what does not when we have to judge the balance of risks. No vaccine (or medicine) is free of side effects or risks. When society choses to impose vaccination it does it because vaccination is regarded as safer than not vaccinating not because vaccinating is entirely safe. But the professionals don't like to make this sophisticated argument in public (its regarded as too complicated). The failure to publicise the tradeoff has undermined the debate and debased trust between the professionals and the public. Vaccines may be justified and accepted by most even when there is a finite amount of associated risk. Denial of the risk to simplify the messages sent to the public has proved foolish and counterproductive.
Wouldn't it improve the quality of this debate if both sides could agree exactly what level of evidence would persuade them to change their point of view instead of undermining the only reliable sources of objective knowledge we have?
Competing interests: None declared

Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want? 27 September 2004

Michael, F Wagnitz,
Chemist
Madison, WI 53715
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want?

A couple of things that may interest you. Since 1991, when the number of thimerosal containing vaccines in the U.S. were more than tripled, the number of children diagnosed with autism in Wisconsin schools increased 12,483% (1992-2002). This is according to the U.S. Department of Education. Can you explain how a genetic epidemic occurs? Also, thimerosal is listed on vaccines at a concentration of 0.01%. This is the minimum amount. Is this why you refer to the amount as very small? Mercury is monitored in units of parts per billion (ppb). Can you convert a 0.01% solution to ppb? The answer is 100,000 ppb (I'd be more than happy to provide the math). Drinking water is considerd polluted at 2 ppb of a less toxic form of mercury.
Competing interests: Father of daughter diagnosed with PDD-NOS

Re: Evidence - chaos or Chaos? 28 September 2004

John Stone,
none
London N22
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Evidence - chaos or Chaos?

I find no evidence from Stephen Black's comments that he has either read or understood at all what is being said here by critics of vaccination safety. Clearly serious and sophisticated objections have been made about accuracy, objectivity, methodology and verifiability of the epidemiological studies which have been presented as confirming the relative or complete safety of these products. Quite a lot of the more technical aspects of this discussion may be better understood in the light of other threads, notably currently:
Mayor: Study shows no link between MMR vaccination and autism http.//bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/329/7467/642
Tanne: MMR are vaccine is not linked with autism says study http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/325/7373/1134/a
Stephen Black may not realise from the very inadequate report above that the Department of Health study by Andrews et al used the General Practitioners Research Database which has come in for such criticism as a source, notably by John Heptonstall and myself under other headings. He may also like to study the correspondences:
Watts: The new MMR? http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/328/7442/773
Elliman and Bedford: Misconceptions about the new combination vaccine http;//bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/329/7463/411
Competing interests: As above

Re: Has Adam Jacobs completely missed the point? 28 September 2004

Adam Jacobs,
Director
Dianthus Medical Limited, London SW19 3TZ
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Has Adam Jacobs completely missed the point?

I'm not quite sure of the relevance of John Stone's comments about whether increases in autism are a result of a change in diagnosis. I have never said that I don't believe the rise in the prevalence of autism is real. Maybe it is diagnosed more readily now than it used to be, but I would never dream of claiming that changes in diagnosis account for all of the increase.
As for the second point, I am not claiming that the rise in autism definitely has a genetic basis. I'm just saying that it is a plausible hypothesis which deserves consideration until such time as well conducted scientific studies refute it. As I said in my previous post, I prefer to keep an open mind.
Competing interests: As stated previously

Is there a rise in autism? 28 September 2004

eamonn clarke,
gp
cambs
Send response to journal:
Re: Is there a rise in autism?

A common theme in this debate seems to me to be attempts to explain the recent 'epidemic' of cases of autism and ASDs. Certainly there seems to be a lot of autism about, with all the associated special needs, familial grief and concern that the condition causes. But is there a true rise in the prevalence?
Wing(1&2) and Fombonne(3) have both pointed out that changes in diagnostic criteria may account for a significant part of the apparent rise. In particular there have been major changes to the diagnostic classification of ASDs in 1980,1987 & 1994(3); each of which widened the criteria beyond that specified by Kanner in 1943.
Jick and Kaye(4) used the General practice research database to show that the rise in cases of autism was associated with a fall in cases diagnosed as Behaviour or Development problems. And Heussler(5) carried out a very interesting review where a team of consultants experienced in the diagnosis of autistic disorders studied the data from the British cohort study of 1970. In 1970 the study showed a prevalence of ASDs of 0.45 per 1000 but using modern diagnostic criteria the prevalence was 3.76 per 1000 which is similar to what many accept as the current prevalence.
What can we make of that? Well, I know that some of us will begin one of Berne's games; others will no doubt be unhappy with some of the names mentioned above; and some of us will recall that we have been here before with an apparent epidemic partly caused by a change in diagnostic labelling. For instance Asthma, which rose dramatically when the label 'Wheezy bronchitis' fell out of favour and the word asthma lost its stigma. It is also relevant that the apparent prevalence of asthma rose when management options improved.
I know that the debate and disagreement will continue but FWIW I believe that we all encountered lots of children with ASDs in 1970, we just chose to label them as something else.
(1) Wing, L. Autistic spectrum disorders. http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/312/7027/327
(2)Wing,L.The epidemiology of autistic spectrum disorders; Is the prevalence rising? Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev. 2002;8(3):151- 61
(3) Fombonne,E. The Prevalence of autism. JAMA.2003;289(1):87
(4) Jick, H.Pharmacotherapy. 2003 Dec;23(12):1524-30.
(5) Heussler, H. BMJ. 2001 Sep 15;323(7313):633. http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/323/7313/633?maxtoshow=
Competing interests: GP, vaccinator, parent, etc

Re: LOSING SIGHT OF WHAT WE ARE LOSING SIGHT OF 28 September 2004

Clifford G. Miller,
Lawyer, graduate physicist & former examining University lecturer in law
Beckenham, Kent, England, BR3 3LA
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: LOSING SIGHT OF WHAT WE ARE LOSING SIGHT OF

Dear Sir,
As I sit on this barrel, observing but steadfastly not climbing in, something deep down is becoming clearer ........... the sounds of scraping.
This is a rare opportunity to make a serious point in an accessible manner, and for which opportunity I am obliged to Mr Adam Jacobs, Director of Dianthus Medical Limited for his contribution (1) which made it possible.
Mr Jacobs counsels us he must take issue with Mr Stone's statement (2): 'You cannot explain the rise in autism by genetic factors isolated from environment'. If he must take issue, he must. But do not expect too many to take this seriously (reasons to follow).
Mr Jacobs further questions whether there are any studies to support this statement. However, it is important to note it is made in the context of a rise over ten years in total numbers of school pupil cases of autism in the US from over 12,000 in 1993 to over 118,000 in 2003. A number of papers further indicate the UK has a similar annual rate of incidence running at around 14 cases/10,000. At those rates, after a generation or so more, the UK could have nearly 100,000 ASD cases and the USA 5-6 million.
Autism is now epidemic (3) and the US Department of Health and Human Services, the CDC and the AAP have circulated an Autism A.L.A.R.M. reporting an incidence of 1 in 166. (4)
Mr Jacobs "would prefer to keep an open mind" until any studies have been produced to him. Well, that is going to be a very long time, as is quickly demonstrated by a brief reading of the evidence to Congress by the former Coordinator, Network On The Neurobiology And Genetics Of Autism of the US NIH's National Institute Of Child Health And Human Development (5).
Or to explain this in a different but more accessible (but exaggerated) manner, let us use a loosely framed Gedanken experiment, and apply a similar order of magnitude of genetic adaptation to the �loads-a- money� UK of the 1980's. During that time we would have developed a generation with ten heads (to work out how to grab as much as we can) and twenty pairs of arms (to do the grabbing).
As we are on the topic of calling for studies, I agree there should be more. We should start with clinical case histories of the children. I suggest we start with those in Hansard of Michael and Terry Thomas and (the then) little Oliver Thrower (6). I suggest we should also apply to those case histories some sound standard pharmacology in the form of challenge-dechallenge-rechallenge (�CDR�) and challenge-dechallenge (�CD�) as used by all the best drug safety regulators in the world and which is also part of the clinical trial furniture of adverse reaction reporting (7). That will quickly show this MMR/autism debate is nothing of the sort, and never was.
We should also call for the kinds of studies proposed to Congress by Ms Bristol-Powers (5), the aforementioned US NIH Coordinator, in the month before she was struck down by an uncommon but debilitating illness and her proposed studies replaced with other studies. A characteristic of the replacement studies is that they appear to be designed to make as much use of as many US tax dollars as possible by hitting the nail everywhere except in the most obvious place.
We should also then require our regulators apply proper standards of proof and evidence, as I have pointed out before (8) and that we should change the law to ensure that public officials who fail to do so and so fail to take proper measures for the safety of the public will face jail terms (9).
I confess Mr Jacobs' ability to generate at least ten times more words in responses than he uses in his contributions is admirable. It keeps so many employed that could it be the consequence of some clever wager with a client that he is winning? I wish him well and that perhaps someday his competing interests (providing consultancy services to pharmaceutical companies) will compete more fully for his time, so all can have more rest and less test.
1) Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want? http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/329/7466/588-b#75855
2) http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/329/7466/588-b#75386
3) Yazbak FE:Autism in the United States: A Perspective. JAmPhysSurg 2003; 8(4):103-107 http://www.jpands.org/vol8no4/yazbak.pdf
Yazbak FE: Autism seems to be increasing worldwide, if not in London. BMJ 2004 Jan 24; 328(7433):226-7. http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7433/226-c
4) Autism A.L.A.R.M., January 2004 http://www.medicalhomeinfo.org/screening/Autism%20downloads/AlarmFinal1.jpg
5) http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t000718a.html TESTIMONY ON "MERCURY IN MEDICINE" BY MARIE M. BRISTOL-POWER, Ph.D., COORDINATOR, NETWORK ON THE NEUROBIOLOGY AND GENETICS OF AUTISM NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT NATIONAL INSTIUTES OF HEALTH U.S. DEPARMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
6) 1. Health Select Committee Sixth Report 1998/99 - David Thrower�s Memorandum Appendix I � Degeneration of Oliver Thrower Into Autism � Case History
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmhealth/549/99072718.htm
2. Hansard 19th November 2003 - Norman Baker MP - debate regarding MMR and the effects on Michael and Terry Thomas, two of the four sons of Isabella Thomas:-
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/cm031119/debtext/31119 -42.htm#31119-42_head0
(if the immediately above link does not work remove the space before ' -42.htm#31119-42_head0' which the BMJ software might introduce erroneously).
7) MMR KIDS - LIVING SCIENTIFIC PROOF MMR CAUSES AUTISM http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/329/7459/239#68276
8) UNRELIABILITY OF SCIENTIFIC PAPERS AS EVIDENCE http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters/328/7440/602-c#52948, 11 Mar 2004
9) JAIL NEEDED FOR HEALTH OFFICIALS - FITZPATRICK NO LONGER RELEVANT http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters/328/7455/1571#67305, 14 Jul 2004
Competing interests: Close relative with life threatening food allergy.

Re: Re: Evidence - chaos or Chaos? 28 September 2004

Samantha Line,
Research student in neuroscience
New college, Oxford, OX1 3BN
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Evidence - chaos or Chaos?

"It's particularly important to have some basis to decide what causes harm and what does not when we have to judge the balance of risks. No vaccine (or medicine) is free of side effects or risks."

This is a very good point that I frequently make. The only treatment (drug/vaccine/intervention) with absolutely no risk is one that has no effect (i.e. no treatment). You have to balance risks. If you are not willing to do this then I suggest next time you have a serious illness you refuse all medical treatment!

Right now there is no perfect drug, and to be honest I doubt there ever will be. However, researchers are constantly working to refine treatments and minimise side-effects - they're doing their best!

I have no stats to back me up, but I have to say that I think the broadening of the diagnostic criteria for autism and autistic spectrum disorders can account for a very large part (if not all) of the rise in the incidence of these disorders in recent years. After all, the concept of autism was first suggested in 1943(1), and it's natural for it to only catch on slowly as a diagnostic category used by GPs. In the past children with autism-related disorders and learning disabilities were just labelled as "retarded", "anti-social" or "stupid". (Incidentally, I have a learning disability, as does my father. Unlike me though, he certainly had no hope of being diagnosed as a teenager during the 60s!)

In addition, it's worth noting that developmental disorders that were once blamed on vaccines/thiomersal have now been shown to be entirely genetic. This is true of Angelman syndrome (2), which, although it has a complex inheritance pattern (due to imprinting), is now known to be the result of a genetic mutation in a defined chromosomal region. Don't be so quick to write off genetics - especially when dealing with such a heterogeneous population.

(1) Kanner, L. (1943) Autistic disturbances of affective contact. Nerv. Child 2: 217-250

(2) Online Mendelian Inheritance In Man, entry #105830
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/dispomim.cgi?id=105830
Competing interests: None declared

Re: Has Adam Jacobs completely missed the point? 28 September 2004

Graeme Johnston,
Student
MK7 6AA
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Has Adam Jacobs completely missed the point?

On 27th September, John Stone wrote in a rapid response that:

"Adam Jacobs will surely stand as something of an innovator if he is going to argue that autism is increasing relative to the population, although genetically determined".

The idea isn't as crazy as it superficially seems, and has been around for a while -- see here for example.

Competing interests: None declared

Adam Jacobs' novel direction 28 September 2004

John Stone,
none
London N22
Send response to journal:
Re: Adam Jacobs' novel direction

Adam Jacobs is suggesting something apparently new: that the rise in autism could be genetically determined. This is perhaps as an alarming idea as environmental toxicity, but much stranger. I wonder whether he could outline any mechanism which he thinks could bring this about?
Competing interests: As above

Re: Re: Evidence - chaos or Chaos? 28 September 2004

John Stone,
none
London N22
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Evidence - chaos or Chaos?

The message then from Samantha Line is that our children may very well have suffered irreparable damage from vaccine, but we ought to be grateful because the medical profession are all jolly good chaps doing their best. The fundamental lack of care for what happens if things do go wrong is what I take away from this. As for the balance of risks, she makes no attempt to answer points 3 to 10 of my letter above of 24 September. Perhaps she was hoping that everyone had forgotten about it.
Competing interests: As above

Basic Fundamental Question 29 September 2004

L. Travis Haws,
Dentist
Lakewood CO 80228
Send response to journal:
Re: Basic Fundamental Question

Editor: Thiomersal is used a a preservative in vaccines. Mainly to prevent biologic processes such as proliferation, replication or multiplying of disease causing pathogens. To keep them in an attenuated static state via bacteriocidal or bacteriostatic mechanisms.
That begs the following basic fundamental question. Knowing that thiomersal (ethyl mercury) can rather easily cross the BBB (blood brain barrier), what prevents it from preventing the migration, proliferation, differentiation and organization of neurons and nuclei within an infants brain that is undergoing critical stages of development in its early formidable years?
It's extremely sad to say that it appears none of the experts even consider such as they scramble to do epidemiological after epidemiological study (studies which by the way can easily be manipulated as one excludes or includes this or that group/data etc). Nor does the extensive group of experts recently summoned by the CDC and FDA, in June 2000 at the Simpsonwood Resort in Norcross, Georgia seem to know.
The Simpsonwood meeting was held to discuss the initial raw findings of another epidemiological study looking at thiomersal exposure and renal and neurological developmental disorders.
The initial unpulished study/data that found a positive statistically significant correlation between various thiomersal exposures and disorders such as neurodevelopmental disorders in general, tics, language and speech delay, ADD and unspecified developmental delay can be seen here: http://www.safeminds.org/legislation/foia/VSD_VerstraetenJune2000.pdf
The transcript of the numerous Simpsonwood meeting experts discussing the above findings and how manipulating data changes the outcome can be seen here: http://www.safeminds.org/legislation/foia/Simpsonwood_Transcript.pdf
Some pertinent "bullet-points" of the above transcript can be seen here: http://www.safeminds.org/legislation/foia/Simpsonwood_Overview.pdf
It would appear, from the above, that our publich health officianodos don't really have a biological, physiological, pathological or biochemical understanding of ethyl mercury. Nor its half-life, excretion rate etc. etc. When can we expect this kind of research from those claiming to be the experts and the ones that care? The kind of research that is sorely needed!
Bear in mind, this is JUST ONE of the numerous potential toxins aside from the man-made mutated pathogens themselves. Pathogens that seem to be in a constant state of flux. Perhaps we should prescribe a cubic centimeter a day of anti-freeze to our children. It would certainly give those "preventable" diseases something to think about. Whether or not they want to use us as a host to go about their business. Maybe the anti- freeze would shut the back-door the vaccine isn't guarding. The back-door the mutated strain can open.
Then again, certainly we'd be smart enough to investigate the effects of a cc of anti-freeze prior to such a recommendation?
Or, maybe we'll wait decades to research such, and then divert true research as we pursue epidemiology. Oops, I'm sorry, true research has been done on many of the vaccines, and shown encephalitis, severely stress induced breathing, vaccine virus strain in the gut and CSF, immune complex hemorrhage/brain inflammation, immune suppression etc. etc. etc., but such research is quickly swept under the rug and purveyors of such are shot with denigrated silver bullets.
And we call ourselves a civilized society?
Competing interests: None declared

Graeme Johnston's Silicon Valley geeks 29 September 2004

John Stone,
none
London N22
Send response to journal:
Re: Graeme Johnston's Silicon Valley geeks

I have no idea whether this is the sort of thing Adam Jacobs had in mind (BBC story of 12 August 2002 http://news.bbc/1/hi/health/2192611.stm) but an obvious objection is that although it might cause a local cluster of disability it certainly would not cause a global rise. I remember when it was reported how frivolous (perhaps rather tasteless too) it seemed.
Competing interests: As above

Re: Michael Wagnitz, 27 September 29 September 2004

John Stone,
none
London N22
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Michael Wagnitz, 27 September

An excellent point. For instance in Heron and Golding we read that: "It has been suggested that low doses of ethyl mercury might have a similar effect on childhood cognitive developement as methyl mercury..." [1] But "high doses" would probably have represented the situation more truthfully: either I suppose is unscientific but "low" certainly denotes bias.
[1] Heron J, Golding J and the ALSPAC study team, Thimerosal exposure in infants and developmental disorders, A prospective cohort study in the United Kingdom does not support a causal association, Pediatrics Vol 114 No 3, 2 September 2004, p577-583.
Competing interests: As above

Swimming at the shallow end of the gene pool 29 September 2004

Adam Jacobs,
Director
Dianthus Medical Limited, London SW19 3TZ
Send response to journal:
Re: Swimming at the shallow end of the gene pool

Those who believe that recent rises in the prevalence of autism must be caused by vaccines often put forward the argument that genetics cannot possibly be responsible because the changes have happened too fast to be a result of evolution. Superficially, that argument sounds convincing, but it doesn�t stand up to close scrutiny.
Human evolution in the 21st century is not quite the same as the traditional Darwinian version. Throughout almost all of human history, the probability of passing your genes on to the next generation was largely determined by whether you lived long enough to reach reproductive age. Any selective pressures that made some genes more or less likely to affect this were mostly constant from one generation to the next, so changes in the gene pool were slow.
That�s not how it works any more. In developed countries, practically everyone lives to reproductive age. Whether you pass on your genes is now largely determined by choice, thanks to the relatively recent phenomenon of readily available and reliable contraception. If any genes were associated with an increased probability of choosing to be a parent, those genes would have an evolutionary advantage. Add to that the fundamental changes in society that have taken place in recent decades in terms of balancing work and raising families, and you have new selective pressures and thus a recipe for faster changes in the gene pool than at any other time in human history. If, for whatever reason, those who carried genes that predisposed to autism were more likely to choose to become parents, it is entirely plausible to suggest that the increased prevalence of autism is determined entirely by genetics. Who knows, increases in autism may be only the first of many rapid changes in the gene pool that result from the new selective pressures on genes.
It has also been suggested that the particularly high prevalence of autism in Silicon Valley is due to genetic factors, as a result of a high concentration of computer personnel in the area (see link in Graeme Johnston�s contribution above, and many thanks to Graeme for saving me the task of looking it up). The theory goes that those carrying autism genes are often particularly successful in the computer industry. One could also speculate that the emergence of the computer industry has given such people more chances to have successful careers than they had hitherto, and again, it is plausible to suggest that this could affect the probability that they will have children.
I should stress that I have no evidence to support the idea that autism genes lead to an increased desire to reproduce or that they are more common now in the population than they were a generation ago. But I do maintain that it is a plausible hypothesis, and I am unaware of any evidence against it. It ought to be possible to design studies to look at the prevalence of autism genes (assuming that they can be identified) across generations, or to compare parents with those who don�t have children, which would either confirm or refute the hypothesis. Unless and until those studies are done, it would be unwise to rule out the possibility that increases in the prevalence of autism have a genetic basis.
Competing interests: As stated previously.

Re: Evidence - chaos or Chaos? Might As Well Be As the Science is Out to Lunch 29 September 2004

Clifford G. Miller,
Lawyer, graduate physicist, former examing university lecturer in law
Beckenham, Kent, BR3 3LA
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Evidence - chaos or Chaos? Might As Well Be As the Science is Out to Lunch

Dear Sir,
I am grateful to Samantha Line, Research student in neuroscience, New College, Oxford, OX1 3BN for her recent contribution (1) in which she says:-
"I have no stats to back me up" and then, without any material references either goes on to propound a theory explaining the rise in the incidence of autism and autistic spectrum in recent years.
If we are to progress, surely our research students must be taught not to operate on the basis of speculation, but fact, evidence and science?
There are so many research papers now in which the conclusions are simply not based on the data cited in the papers nor are they justified by any scientific method or analysis. See an example I gave in MEDICAL 'SCIENCE'? INFECTED BEYOND CURE (2).
1) http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/329/7466/588-b#76123
2) http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/329/7463/411#71472
Competing interests: Close relative with life threatening food allergy.

Re: Has Adam Jacobs completely missed the point? WHY NOT, EVERYONE ELSE IS 29 September 2004

Clifford G. Miller,
Lawyer, graduate physicist, former examining university lecturer in law
Beckenham, Kent, England BR3 3LA
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Has Adam Jacobs completely missed the point? WHY NOT, EVERYONE ELSE IS

Dear Sir,
The contribution of Mr Graeme Johnston, student of MK7 6AA (1) helpfully exemplifies the limited utility of anecdotal evidence in newspapers and the like about science.
He cites a 2002 media report entitled 'Autism link to 'geek genes' (2). If the title is not enough to put this contribution into context, even cursory consideration indicates this was no higher than speculation.
If Mr Johnston is not a student of the sciences, then his enthusiasm for the press as a source of scientific reference, and medical knowledge, however misplaced, is understandable.
On the basis of the same report one could equally put the premise that the brains of children of highly intelligent people develop more quickly and at an earlier age in infancy than others and are therefore more susceptible to damage caused to development by environmental factors.
See how easy it is? And that is before lunch too.
1) Has Adam Jacobs completely missed the point?
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/329/7466/588-b#76129
2) Wednesday, 14 August, 2002, 09:25 GMT 10:25 UK BBC News website
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2192611.stm
Competing interests: Close relative with life threatening food allergy.

Re: Re: Evidence - chaos or Chaos? 29 September 2004

C Johnson,
parent
LA9
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Evidence - chaos or Chaos?

Stephen Black writes: "Denial of the risk to simplify the messages sent to the public has proved foolish and counterproductive."
Absolutely, you have hit the nail on the head. Here are some other policies which further undermine public confidence:
Combining vaccines for less threatening diseases with those of more threatening ones; for example, MMR: while one can argue a case for vaccinating young children against measles, the same level of risk can not be argued for rubella. Previously rubella was offered to girls only, and not until they neared child-bearing age, and they were tested for immunity first. This programme was administered through schools; but it probably cost more.
Prioritising the herd over the individual; the notion that one child may be sacrificed for the benefit of another is very ugly. As individual families discover this logical conclusion to the herd immunity argument, confidence is inevitably undermines.
Glossy DOH leaflets with pictures of healthy, smiling babies which state categorically that the only side-effects of the promoted vaccination are mild. Knowing that governments don't make vaccine-damage payouts for nothing, parents know that when these leaflets come through their door the governemt is simply lying to them.
Competing interests: None declared

FIRST THINGS FIRST - STUDY THE MMR KIDS AS LIVING EVIDENCE 29 September 2004

Clifford G. Miller,
Lawyer, graduate physicist, former examining university lecturer in law
Beckenham, Kent, England BR3 3LA
Send response to journal:
Re: FIRST THINGS FIRST - STUDY THE MMR KIDS AS LIVING EVIDENCE

Dear Sir,
Re: Swimming at the shallow end of the gene pool
I fear it is the red herring which is swimming here. Being genetically predisposed to avoid the main issues it flourishes in those conditions. Its prevalence here seems to be increasing as the arguments on the main issues become all the sharper and those against weaker.
There are more pressing studies to be done than the one propounded by the most recent contribution (1) of Mr Adam Adam Jacobs, Director of Dianthus Medical Limited. These are:-
a) on the affected children; b) the application of CDR and CD to their case histories; c) the studies that were proposed by a specialist scientist and official of the US NIH and which studies should have been undertaken but have not been. For a full reference of where to find a description of those studies see (2).
Mr Jacobs' contribution does, however provide welcome opportunity to illustrate the increasing incidence of the red herring in these waters and also to refocus on the issues.
To put his contribution into context, unsupported as it is by any references or science as Mr Jacobs readily admits, he says 'I should stress that I have no evidence to support the idea that autism genes lead to an increased desire to reproduce or that they are more common now in the population than they were a generation ago. But I do maintain that it is a plausible hypothesis..."
That is fine, but lets do the pressing stuff first shall we?
1) Swimming at the shallow end of the gene pool http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/329/7466/588-b#76218
2) Re: LOSING SIGHT OF WHAT WE ARE LOSING SIGHT OF
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/329/7466/588-b#75967
Competing interests: Close relative with life threatening food allergy.

Re: Eamonn Clarke "Is there a rise in autism?" 29 September 2004

John Stone,
none
London N22
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Eamonn Clarke "Is there a rise in autism?"

It demonstrates the limits of Eamonn Clarke's evidence that he can do the atmospherics of "Is there a rise in autism?" but he cannot deliver the evidence that there is not. In none of the cited papers does evidence exist beyond the level of a hypothesis, and a predispositon to believe in it. The situation over the Jick and Kaye study where I have pointed repeatedly to deficiencies in record keeping on the General Practitioners Research Database - for which I have never had any conscientious response - strikes me as particularly shameful. To quote from my original posting:
"Using the UK General Practioners Research Database the authors document the increasesd incidence in autism (some confusion between year of birth and year of diagnosis) from 1.6/10,000 in 1993 to 9.5/10,000 in 1999. During the same period (birth cohorts of 1993-6) Lingam et al record a steady incidence of 2.6/1000 excluding Asperger Syndrome in a North East London population. The probability is that all that Jick and Kaye have documented is improved but very inadequate recording over the period." [1]
If this is the quality of evidence which is being produced in support of a certain case then there has to be something wrong.
[1]http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/328/7442/773#59578
Competing interests: As above

stephen i black and the GPRD: a competing interest 1 October 2004

John Stone,
none
London N22
Send response to journal:
Re: stephen i black and the GPRD: a competing interest

Stephen I Black's email address is with PA Consulting. PA Consulting are management consultants for the Medicine Control Agency (MCA I), for which they have won a 2004 Gold Award with the Management Consultancies Association (MCA II) ("implementing major strategic change through groundbreaking outsourcing"). MCA I manage the General Practitioners Research Database, the asset value of which may well be dropping as a result of correspondence on this site (see http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/329/7467/642 etc.).
Source: http://www.paconsulting.com/news/award_winning_work/2004/cs_medicines_control_agency_mca.htm
Competing interests: As above

Who benefits from vaccines? 1 October 2004

Carol Johnston,
Carer
Carshalton, Surrey
Send response to journal:
Re: Who benefits from vaccines?

This may come as a surprise to some posters but we all agree about one thing!
We all agree there are risks associated with vaccination just as there are with any other medical procedure or drug.
However there is an important difference between vaccination and other medical procedures. In that a higher standard of safety is generally expected of vaccines because, in contrast to most drugs, which are administered to ill people for curative purposes, vaccines are generally given to healthy people to prevent disease. Public tolerance of adverse reactions related to products given to healthy people, especially healthy infants, is substantially lower than to products administered to people who are already sick. This lower risk tolerance by the public for vaccines translates into a need to investigate rarer possible causes of adverse events following vaccinations than would be acceptable for most other pharmaceutical products.
The truly shameful reality of all this is that vaccine reaction is often ignored, dismissed and hardly ever reported using the the Yellow Card System. It seems pharmacovigilance does not apply it seems to vaccines.
For example the MMR saga. You have thousands of parents all telling a similar stories yet nothing is done. The accounts of parents are dismissed as "anecdotal" and the government and pharmaceutical companies trot out epidemilogical study after study to deny any link but yet fails to suggest any reasons why these perfectly healthy children deteriorated following vaccination.
Parental concerns are dismissed, parents are blamed in a lot of cases of fabricating their children's illness or accused of abuse or just plain bad parenting. All the while our children suffer.
I am very reluctant to go to my GP for anything to do with my severely autistic son. I am told to talk to him more to encourage his speech. Then I am told that it is probably genetic, even with no history of autism or related disorders in the extended family.
In the meantime who benefits from these vaccines. The herd, the pharmaceutical companies and the bonus paid to GPs to vaccinate.
My son had mumps last year, he developed a measles like rash and high temperature following his MMR, my daughter had mumps when she was 3.
All in all my kids have not done well at all out of a programme which was meant to prevent serious lifelong disability.
Neither of my children will be having another vaccine.
If everyone including the manufacturers admit to there being risks then where are the safeguards for these children and their families?
It is shameful the way these chldren have been treated.
All those who post in support of vaccines spouting about "benefits outweighing risks", you all seem to be very quiet on the subject of just what do with those who do succumbe to that risk. What do you all suggest?
Do you think it is right the way these infants have their lives ruined and then are further ignored in the most shameful manner and remember because no one will admit to the damage done by these vaccines these children are not looked at or treated by the NHS. They are left to suffer in silence. The only help available is alternative medicine.
Shame on all of you. The next time you spout the virtues of vaccination, and gloss over those "risks" spare a thought for the damaged children you all would like to forget about.
Because night after night my non-verbal, severely autistic son is screaming in pain. Unable to tell me "Mummy it hurts" when you are all congratulating yourselves on another study proving no link perhaps I should phone you up and you can listen yourself to my son screaming in pain.
However, that might disturb your peaceful night's sleep.
Competing interests: 2 ASD children post MMR

MRC seeks public involvement 2 October 2004

eamonn clarke,
gp
cambs
Send response to journal:
Re: MRC seeks public involvement

I thought that Mr Stone and other correspondents might be interested in the second article in this week's Minerva. http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/329/7469/808
Competing interests: "Previously on the BMJ"

Re: Who benefits from vaccines? 3 October 2004

jan M perkins,
professor
49340
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Who benefits from vaccines?

I have really appreciated the recent exchanges - particularly as many of those on all sides have listened and responded fairly.
One huge problem for those with children who regressed is the refusal of most medical practitioners to listen to their stories or examine their children.
Carol Johnston has several times mentioned a challenge rechallenge regression post-MMR in one of her children. I have not noted any attempt to explain how this could have happened.
I am labelled by many as an anti-vaccinationist because I refused my son's booster shots. I watched him lose the ability to recognize himself in the mirror after his first. Not a pleasant thing or one that could be misinterpreted.
Yet I am vaccinated more than anybody else I know other than active- duty military. Even as I saw what happened to my son, I paid out of pocket for the expensive, and now discontinued, Lyme Disease series. Despite a severe but limited reaction to the first shot (which the health department nurse refused to report) I completed the series. I judged that the risk was worth it considering my location and lifestyle at the time. I have been vaccinated against all the usual things except for those diseases I had as a child (MMR diseases I had as wild illnesses), and all the usual travel things, including rabies, cholera, smallpox, yellow fever, TB (many, many times as it never 'took') . . . My other child, having done well after his initial shots has had his boosters.
Yet because I refuse to vaccinate my now severely autistic son any further after his experience, with my decision confirmed after seeing a very well documented series of challenge rechallenge cases presented, I have apparently become a kook.
Never mind my son's case. Never mind my brother - not autistic but left severely disabled by an "atypical encephalitis" that hit after his MMR - just coincidence we were told. As the youngest he was the only one of my siblings to have the MMR. Never mind the other red flags in the family history suggesting caution.
My son also went from 75th percentile in weight and height to 25th as he became autistic and developed gut problems. Apparently as well as not noticing that he was autistic I didn't notice that the doctors recording the first year and a half couldn't measure correctly, because now I am told he is just a small child and must always have been so.
Just bad genes? Well thanks to a couple historians in the family I know that indeed there was one relative with some neurological problems in the 18th century - after he hit his head on a stone wall subsequent to being thrown. But that's the extent of known problems.
Back to reality - there is a strong suggestion of a subtype in autism of individuals vulnerable to both gut disease and related autism. There is a theoretical model in other forms of inflammatory bowel disease with increased links to exposure to wild viral infections at an early age *and* in close proximity. There are emperical suggestions which may be used to guide pratictioners in protecting those who may be vulnerable. None of the epidemiological studies have been of sufficient power or had the correct design to identify such a subgroup.
Until children with autism and gut pathology can actually get the care and study they need parents like myself will remain unconvinced.
jan perkins
Competing interests: son who regressed post-mmr

Re: Re: Who benefits from vaccines? 5 October 2004

Ruth E Acaster,
Full-time mother
Worthing, West Sussex
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Who benefits from vaccines?

Nobody benefits from Vaccines apart from the people making money from them.
I do not think Jan, that there will, in the forseeable future, be a study that links MMR with Autism. Simply because when these studies are carried out generally they have an aim, and that it to discount any link. If they do discover a link, as Andrew Wakefield did, they have mud dug up about them in an attempt to make the study unworthy.
It's pretty sad but often when a child is vaccinated and has a bad reaction, parents are lead to believe that it just a coincidence. If an unvaccinated child was to have measles and have a reaction then it is more than likely blamed on the disease. The final scenario is if a fully vaccinated child is seen by a GP because, for example, they are showing whooping cough symptoms, it may possibly be noted down as croup!!
My daughter is 6 and totally unvaccinated.
Competing interests: None declared

Cynic or cynical of thimerosal? 14 October 2004

John P Heptonstall,
Director of The Morley Acupuncture Clinic and Complementary Therapy Centre
LS27 8EG
Send response to journal:
Re: Cynic or cynical of thimerosal?

Sir
Mercury, whether in methyl or ethyl form, is a known neuro/nephrotoxin; �toxicity may be similar for ethyl and methyl mercury�; �delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions from thimerosal exposure are well -recognised� Ball et al 2001. �There is an established link between exposure to mercury and impaired childhood cognitive developments and early motor skills� Heron et al 2004.
The US EPA maximum recommended level for exposure to mercury is 0.1 ug/kg/day, the WHO 0. 47ug/kg/day. Each shot of DTP/DT vaccine contains 25ug of ethyl mercury which vaccinators inject into babies and young children despite those maximum safety limits expressed by the EPA and WHO which are expressed as weight of toxin, per weight of person per day. Then why do Andrews et al 2004 and Heron et al 2004 not assess the exposure of babies and young children to ethyl mercury in vaccines according to weight of toxin per weight of child on the vaccination day? They assess exposure by age and accumulation of ethyl mercury over time, not consistent with the exposure criteria published by EPA and WHO.
A 2 month old child weighs on average 3 to 5kg, a 3 month old 4.3 to 6.8 kg, a 4 month old 5 to 7.4kg, a 6 month old 5.9 to 8.8kg. Preterm children are generally lighter. According to the EPA and WHO safety levels heavier body weight reduces toxic potential from mercury so lower weight children should be more susceptible to mercury vaccines than heavier children. Andrews et al did not confound for weight. There are other confounders like genetic susceptibility to mercury toxin and a 1st dose induced sensitivity to mercury toxin. SIDS often occurs around 3 months of age coincident with 2nd dose of DTP; the 0.1ug/kg/day EPA maximum exposure level is exceeded in babies and young children at every 25ug ethyl mercury vaccine shot by 50 to 83 times for a 1 month old baby, 37 to 58 times for a 3 month old, 34 to 50 times for a 4 month old and 28 to 42 times for a 6 month old. This is absolutely scandalous and exposes the gross failure of authorities tasked to protect the public from toxic exposure. The same authorities neglected to inform parents about the massive overexposure to ethyl mercury in DTP/DT vaccines such that parents were unable to provide proper informed consent for child vaccination; vaccinators invariably injected highly toxic mercury into infants and children without truly informed consent.
The WHO, which publishes a maximum exposure limit of 0.47ug/kg /day for mercury yet coerces governments to vaccinate children with toxic levels far in excess of its own safety margins, should be investigated for failing to apply those safety margins by placing billions of children and babies at probable harm.
Andrews et al, Heron et al, may have excluded important confounders and used data which is incapable of identifying the toxic effects of ethyl mercury and the disorders specified. They argue that ethyl mercury in vaccines causes no harm, and suggest that the neuro/nephrotoxin might offer some protection against the development of neurological damage in the very young. I suspect that the body of scientists, some with links to pharmaceutical companies who expose babies and children to mercury levels far in excess of EPA and WHO maximum safety levels, have designed studies expecting to exonerate thimerosal/ethyl mercury and obscure the truth.
Furthermore
1. Andrews et al conclude that ethyl mercury in vaccines at existing levels is safe and that it can add protective value against some adverse neurological developments as shown by a �reducing trend for developing ASDs with the increasing accumulation of mercury through 3 doses at monthly intervals� in the study. Could the �reducing trend� with age for developing ASDs be due to the protective effects of growth, therefore increased body weight, at successive exposures to 25ug toxic mercury?
2. Andrews et al say the preterm cohort has an �increased risk of general development disorders compared to term children� (4.2%: 2.0%). Does this also suggest that the preterm cohort, weighing less than term children, had an increased risk of general development disorders due to lower body weight at vaccination? (The birth date for preterm children is usually given as day of birth, not full gestation date).
3. There is a probability that vaccine actions/reactions vary according to brand and batch according to the noted JABS organisation. Both studies fail to account for these confounders.
4. Both studies fail to account for probable confounding from vaccine schedules superimposed on the DTP schedule eg. Hib, MMR, MMR1, MMR2, MR, Men C, OPV, DT, BCG, some of which, according to JABS, parents implicated in the onset of their childrens� disorders.
5. Validation checks were carried out on accuracy of GPRD diagnoses and codes largely through correspondence with general practices with a dismal failure rate of 20% that is offered by Andrews et al as a limitation of the study.
6. Limiting the validation further are the tiny �random subsets� � whatever they are � of the order of a few tens of diagnosed outcomes used for analysis to validate records of disorders. The study cohort of over 100,000 surely limits such tiny �random subsets� which cannot validate GPRD-recorded diagnoses.
7. Heron et al subjects analysed as a subset, as all children in the Avon study, recorded levels of cognitive and behavioural development that were judged from questionnaires sent to mothers at intervals between 6 months and 7 � years of age from mothers opinion and information. Heron et al state that �children�s cognitive and behaviour development was not assessed directly as this might �introduce subjectivity�� and what of mothers� subjectivity?
8. Table 4 shows 95% CI for HR by dose to 4 months eg. for Tics 1st dose 0.17, 0.03-1.04, 2nd dose 1.14, 0.35-3.73, 3rd dose 1.12, 0.34-3.77, also for GDD, ADD and UDD. Contrary to Tics figures, the HRs for other disorders reduce at each successive dose, as therefore does the CI range. This is said to show a reducing risk for those conditions with increasing doses - perhaps this shows a reducing trend per increasing weight of child? One must also remember that each CI range also evidences greater risk to some than others; children with HR>1 are hidden by those of �less risk� and those with �protective effect�.
9. Andrews et al exclude from main analysis a group consisting of those with prenatal, perinatal, postnatal and �within 6 months� outcomes. Cynics might suggest this was done to hide cases of acute ethyl mercury poisoning that occurred in postnatal and �outcome within 6 months� children. Combining them with prenatal and perinatal babies further obfuscates.
10. In UK/Europe �smoking mothers� relate to 11.7% of all SIDS deaths. Smoking mothers have lower birth weight children. Is the low birth weight, hence lower weight at vaccinations of these children the factor in SIDS not smoking per se, and therefore an increased risk of toxicity to mercury in the lower weight smoker�s child? Do smoking mothers confound this study?
11. Young children and babies might suffer exposure to mercury through breast milk if, coincident with vaccination, mother regularly ate fish contaminated with mercury or if she had dental treatment for mercury amalgam fillings. Each filling releases about10ug methyl mercury into mother�s blood stream every day. So mothers� dietary fish and dental visits, coincident with vaccination, breast and formula feeding might confound the study.
12. The excluded group of children, postnatal and �outcomes�, who might have suffered mercury damage from vaccines number about 524, which is but a tiny fraction of the 103,043 cohort but it is a fair proportion of the approximately 5,000 with various outcome conditions. It might confound analyses. Andrews et al state the exclusions were made �because the presence of such a condition is likely to affect both vaccination and future neurodevelopment outcomes� � isn't that what the study should be searching for?
13. Heron et al stated, �outcome questionnaires were less likely to be returned for children with low mercury exposure�, children whose �demographic status was associated with poor developmental outcomes�. This is likely related to children who probably suffered an adverse event for which parents refused to consent to further thimerosal-containing DTP vaccinations.
14. �A limitation of our study was the inability to adjust for many potential confounding factors, such as unrecorded medical conditions and socio-economic factors. The UK Longitudinal study did have information available on potentially confounding variables�in that study early thimerosal exposure generally showed no association or was protective�this suggests that additional adjustment for confounding in the GPRD study would have a relatively small effect�. The AVON Study referred to (Heron et al) also follow children from 6 months and may have erred, as may Andrews et al by avoiding acute cases of the first 6 months. If so can it validate the latter?
15. Andrews et al expect validation of their study as �all the neurological development disorders were more common in boys than girls� yet testosterone enhances the neurotoxicity of mercury so boys would be expected to succumb more often to mercury poisoning than girls, increasing the probability that ethyl mercury poisoning may be evident amongst the outcomes group.
16. Andrews et al identify outcomes that may suggest nephrotoxic, neurotoxic, psychotic, behavioural, emotional, cognitive deficiency, and other events possibly even social deficiencies, yet they are combined for analysis. Can this make good statistical sense or does it obfuscate more than enlighten?.
17. The age births from1988 to 1997, GPRD records to 1999. Many developmental disorders like autism are not diagnosed for a number of years. Until the mid 1990s in the UK it was still common for autism to remain undiagnosed until age 7 or 8 years � my own son is an example. The 103,043 cohort probably hides many children with undiagnosed developmental disorders that could have been caused by mercury toxicity; there may be a number of the cohort incubating or hiding disorders due to other causes, including other vaccines eg. MMR.
18. If a child suffers a bad reaction to a vaccination � and one expects that ethyl mercury in vaccines might cause acute events such as seizures, meningitis, encephalitis, developmental inhibition, speech/language impairment etc. � one then expects a parent to refuse further consent. If the first dose injures, there will be no second; if the second does injures, there would be no third etc. after each dose there will be a reducing trend for further vaccination in injured children, but the uninjured �survivors� continue with next dose. Those who continue attain �less risk� as they survived the previous dose. Those who remain in the main cohort left DTP behind but they may not be free of outcomes as they were only followed up for 4.7 years � too little time for diagnosis and recording of some developmental disorders. Hidden cases might confound the study.
19. Heron et al adjusted for birth weight only, not weight at vaccination. Why ignore this essential ingredient of any study into toxic events?
20. The preterm group is said to have had lower exposure to vaccines, and had greater risk of outcomes, yet Andrews et al admit that the group was too small to validate that statement. With �HRs not significantly different from 1�data not shown�not large enough cohort to identify small effects but with direction of effects similar to term cohort� Andrews et al again try to �validate the invalidatable�. With HRs near 1, there must be a number of pretermers who saw significant risk at HR>1. Why not study those?
21. Andrews et al conclude differently to the US VSD study which found a risk from mercury in vaccines. They say that, other than for Tics the study does not confirm the US findings. The main difference is that the UK cohort had a similar thimerosal exposure to 4 months of age but the US exposure increased from 4 to 7 months in American children so �if the increased risk in the US study were attributed only to the additional thimerosal exposure after 4 months, it is possible the UK study is not able to detect the risks found in the US study which had a longer follow up time�..preliminary results from the US study were probably attributed to confounding or chance�. Then again, to follow our logic, perhaps the continuation of harm was caused when the increasing weight of the children, after 4 months of age, was insufficient to outweigh the increasing weight of ethyl mercury per dose those defenceless children were exposed to?
22. Andrews et al try to attain validation of GPRD records by referring to �other validation exercises found the GPRD accurate� omitting that it is relatively easy to diagnose and record the types of condition those �validation exercises� used. With ASDs and other neurodevelopment disorders it is far more difficult and no study has successfully validated the GPRD in that regard.
23. Andrews et al attempted validation using the Denmark study Hvlid et al JAMA 2003 as an example. When compared with Madsen et al 2004, it was found to have generated a figure for ASDs in the population that was 100% different from that generated by Madsen et al, yet both used the same national database. Can Hvlid et al be relied on to validate Andrews et al?
24. Parker et al 2004 looked at published data to find studies supporting a link between thimerosal vaccines and ASDs/NDDs. They say, �epidemiological studies that supported the link were of poor quality and can�t be interpreted.. having significant design flaws that invalidate results�. What would satisfy this research team drawn from the US CDC (two) and Colorado Hospital/ University (two) all of whom are likely supporters of vaccination?
25. All three studies (Andrews, Heron, Parker) support mercury exposure way beyond expressed safety limits and were published in Pediatrics, Vol 114, No.3, September 2004 despite them being carried out by teams nations apart.
When Andrews et al tell us that mercury protects children, it sounds ludicrous from what is known of mercury and its effects on children and adults. We must consider that Andrews et al may have got it totally wrong. Have they actually shown that mercury becomes less toxic with growth/weight, therefore increasing age of the child? Perhaps the most telling statement Andrews et al make about validation is that � lack of specificity limits the study as it biases against finding an association�. I must agree.
One wonders how so many good and kind physicians allow babies and young children to be injected with excessive highly toxic doses of a known neuro/nephrotoxin without question? What would these kindly professionals do about defenceless third world children who unwittingly stand in line for their next dose of future misery?
Regards
John H.
Competing interests: None declared

Re: Cynic or cynical of thimerosal? 15 October 2004

John Stone,
none
London N22
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Cynic or cynical of thimerosal?

I would just like to add a footnote to John Heptonstall's remarkable dissection of the Pediatrics papers on thimerosal (which surely deserve the detailed and urgent attention of the authors). These papers - the two main ones sponsored by the British Government - were scheduled for publication immediately after the announcement of the withdrawal thimerosal/thiomersal from infant vaccine in the UK. Even if the results were to be taken and trusted at face value, the policies were still pursued for many years by governments and health officials without the support of evidence that these levels were safe. It is surely impossible to say retrospectively that they acted responsibly, even if they now try to argue that no damage was done.
I think there should be more than the odd raised eyebrow at the date of publication. If the papers had been published ahead of the change in policy perhaps far more public scrutiny of their principles, motivation and methodology would have occurred.
Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child

Re: Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want? 29 October 2004

Camille Clark,
student
95616 USA
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want?

Michael, F Wagnitz, wrote: " A couple of things that may interest you. Since 1991, when the number of thimerosal containing vaccines in the U.S. were more than tripled, the number of children diagnosed with autism in Wisconsin schools increased 12,483% (1992-2002). This is according to the U.S. Department of Education."
This is beautiful example of the gross misuse of statistics. For an analysis of how Wisconsin came to have a 7,928% increase in the same time period (1992-2000) that Massachussets had only a 10% increase, California had a 422% increase and that Illinois had a 64,800% increase, please read this: http://www.geocities.com/autistry/conspiracy.html
"Can you explain how a genetic epidemic occurs?" I can tell you how the appearance of an epidemic can occur and how hysteria can be manufactured. Perhaps I have already done that with the above linked to letter to Mr. Schafer. I wrote it.
http://www.autism-watch.org/general/edu.shtml
The above link is to another analysis of the same data, not by me.
I can further explain how sociological phenomena can contribute to a change in gene frequencies in a population that can lead to a greater number of autistic children. Hint: more Broader Autism Phenotype and Asperger's type adults are breeding these days than they used to.
Parents used to paint thimerosol on their kids wounds all the time. Why didn't that contribute to the "epidemic"? Why wasn't there a massive drop in the numbers of autistic kids when it was taken off the market. Why didn't parents notice that some of their kids autistically regressed after having mercurochrome or merthiolate painted on open wounds. The mercury fear is overblown. The levels of mercury recommended as safe are set very low deliberately to leave a large margin of safety.
Thimerosol has been an additive to contact lense cleaning solutions for a long time, at least in the United States. Why is noone screaming about contact lense solution, surely there are parts per billion in it. Surely pregnant women have used it.
Camille Clark non-damaged autistic adult parent of 2 adults, one ASD and one normal
Competing interests: None declared

Re: Re: Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want? 29 October 2004

John Stone,
none
London N22
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want?

There is not only of course the question of thimerosal being in use for in excess of 60 years, there is also the question of how much and at what age (and the clinical condition of the subject). There may be all sorts of factors at work in the proliferation of autism but it certainly is not clear why Ms Clark's intuitions should be enough to discount genuine concern about the use of a neuro-toxin in vaccine.
Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child

Re: Re: Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want? 29 October 2004

Dr John Rumbold,
n/a
West Midlands
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want?

I have several times tried to post on JABS explaining about the different toxicities of mercury via different routes and in different routes but my submissions have not been posted.
There is widespread misinformation about the components of vaccines for example there is a belief that the tiny amount of neomycin in some vaccines is sufficient to wipe out gut bacteria in the same way it does when given orally in much higher doses. By rather tenuous logic, some anti -vaccine campaigners maintain that because oral neomycin can cause malabsorption of pyridoxine, neomycin in vaccines must be a cause of epilepsy since pyridoxine is given to children with pyridxine-responsive epilepsy (therefore epilepsy is due to pyridoxine deficiency). This is the sort of junk science we must fight.
Competing interests: None declared

Re: Re: Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want? 29 October 2004

L. Travis Haws,
Dentist
Lakewood CO 80228
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want?

Editor: I find Camille Clarke's beliefs of thiomersal quite intriguing and rather irrelevant. First of all, she talks about it being used as a "band-aid" on wounds and secondly talks about thiomersal in contact lens solution (of which many of the products are marketed as "thiomersal free" for a selling point).
Could Camille Clarke please show us how many infants (you know, the infants with immature nervous systems that are in a fragile state of development) are regularly getting lacerations from playing in the thicket? Or could she please let us know how many infants are wearing contacts these days? Could Camille Clarke please then compare this with the constant assault our infants and children endure via "protective" jabs.
Then, perhaps Camille Clarke could explain the quite eery way the CDC and FDA handled yet another epidemiological analysis of thiomersal at the Simpsonwood meeting as shown below.
The initial unpulished study/data that found a positive statistically significant correlation between various thiomersal exposures and disorders such as neurodevelopmental disorders in general, tics, language and speech delay, ADD and unspecified developmental delay can be seen here: http://www.safeminds.org/legislation/foia/VSD_VerstraetenJune2000.pdf
The transcript of the numerous Simpsonwood meeting experts discussing the above findings and how manipulating data changes the outcome can be seen here: http://www.safeminds.org/legislation/foia/Simpsonwood_Transcript.pdf
Some pertinent "bullet-points" of the above transcript can be seen here: http://www.safeminds.org/legislation/foia/Simpsonwood_Overview.pdf
Indeed Camille Clark, many parents within these forums would feel greatly blessed to be in your shoes (have aspergers etc.), but they are not. They are fed a "catch-all" diagnosis of autism when more appropriately it should have been labeled as it is...neurologically or bowell damaged status post vaccination. Then again "life isn't fair" now is it. Thank God for people that stand up to the status quo as hopefully our next generation will be dealt a more fair hand.
By the way Camille, popular science does not equate to correct science (to respond to your response to Carol Johnston) and has been shown over and over to be quite hazardous and disastrous (what happened to Vioxx very recently--one of countless examples). I'm still waiting to fall off the edge of the flat earth. Freud used to also be quite popular for his ideas, but he liked the white snow up his nose. Your point about Wakefield not being popular is scary. Then again, perhaps you've allowed the media to scare you into rushing to get the flu jab. Another scary fact in that the flu shot has been shown to be ineffective in infants 6-24 months: http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/InfluenzaVaxInfants.pdf
I'll catch up with you next week, I have to go get my flu shot lest I die?
Competing interests: None declared

Re: Re: Re: Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want? 1 November 2004

John Stone,
none
London N22
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want?

I agree with Dr Rumbold, we really must try to root this kind of thing out.
Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child

Re: Re: Re: Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want? 1 November 2004

Dr John Rumbold,
n/a
West Midlands
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want?

Mr Haws comments that popular science is not always correct. I agree - this is what we have been trying to tell anti-MMR campaigners for years. They appeal to the public with fallacies of post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Andrew Wakefield presented his research to the public rather than to his peers.
The flat earth theory was not in fact popular science as anyone looking at the horizon will imagine. The fact that science can and does change its mind is reassuring, but Mr Haws uses the popular argument that this means that scientists are therefore misguided. When Mr Haws presents some convincing science I and many others would be glad to reassess our views - but would Mr Haws be willing to reassess his?
Competing interests: None declared

Re: Re: Re: Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want? 1 November 2004

John P Heptonstall,
Director of The Morley Acupuncture Clinic and Complementary Therapy Centre
Leeds LS27 8EG
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want?

Sir
Perhaps John Rumbold can explain why when the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a maximum safety exposure limit per day for mercury as 0.1 micro gram per kilogram bodyweight per day (0.1ug/kg), drugs companies are allowed to produce for injection and vaccinators to inject babies and infants (on numerous occasions) with doses of mercury in a day that are 50 to 100 times that maximum safety level (in DPT/DT/Hep B and Flu vaccines - 25ug in each)?
Could it be that direct entry into a babies/infants bloodstream is over 100 times safer than breathing the vapour?!
Regards
John H.
Competing interests: None declared

Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want? 1 November 2004

Theo Fenton,
Consultant Paediatrician
CR7 7YE
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want?

The US Enivonmental Protection Agency's reference dose (RfD) of 0.1 microgram/kg/day refers to the dose that the EPA considers safe for DAILY ingestion by pregnant women. It does not follow that the daily dose must never be exceeded. There is plenty more detail here.
The vaccines which Heptonstall mentions are, of course, not meant to be injected directly into the bloodstream.
Competing interests: None declared

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want? 3 November 2004

L. Travis Haws,
Dentist
Lakewood CO 80228
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want?

Editor: I think Rumbold misunderstands me. Nowhere did I say popular science was misleading by virtue of being popular. My point was that I wouldn't so readily hang my hat on popularity or main stream. As popular peer "reviewed" literature commonly falls short and is then distorted via the transfer of public health official information to the media. Perhaps Rumbold feels that Vioxx has credible backing--still? Then again, like the CDC, FDA and IOM coverups, for example, it's a little hard to know what you're prescribing, especially if you rely on theirs or big pharma's research. How often has popular "science" been linked to serious conflicts of interest and misrepresentations? Far too often I'm afraid.
If Rumbold has read any of my several posts (many of which are thoroughly cited), I invite him to clarify the errors of my ways or the lack of credibility to the sources. This post of which Rumbold replied, cited initial significant statistics produced by the CDC and FDA that were manipulated to produce a "legal free" result. Too bad legal free for CDC means more vaccine damaged children for the entrusted public. Maybe Rumbold didn't have time to peruse the links provided, so could only comment on a closing statement?
I don't expect to see much support for Rumbold's arguments as I have yet to see anything but stereotypical attacks. As for reassessing my views, I have. I used to believe my spoon fed knowledge that witheld much of the facts. I was 100% behind vaccines, I was 100% behind HIV etc., I even prescribed Vioxx (wish I had access to the unadulterated version of the "safety" data). I had to read about potential adverse vaccine reactions myself despite having my children vaccinated. Now that I am free of educational test taking and realized much of what I was taught was dogma, I think quite critically over what my popular and eminent expert momma duck tries to feed me.
Then again, perhaps Rumbold would like me to reassess my views and take MMRthefacts website advise and prescibe medications to which patients have had an adverse reaction. Does that require having a crash cart, defibrillator, tracheal tube and epinephrine on hand? And if it's not an acute reaction, what do I need on hand to prevent neurological regression, asthma, many forms encephalitis, thrombocytopenia, lowered lymphocyte levels, stressed breathing, seizures etc. etc. etc.?
And when the patient or parents notice the severe iatrogenic changes, is my answer to their fears to cite adulterated CDC epidemiology and coincidence instead of the countless known severe reactions?
Competing interests: None declared

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want? 7 November 2004

Dr John Rumbold,
n/a
West Midlands
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want?

It is irrational to connect the current position re Vioxx with MMR. It is even more ludicrous to suggest that anyone is prescribing Vioxx still. The withdrawal of Vioxx demonstrates the continuing process of evaluation that characterizes scientific medicine.
Competing interests: None declared

Re: Cynic or cynical of thimerosal? 8 November 2004

John P Heptonstall,
Director of the Morley Acupuncture Clinic and Complementary Therapy Centre
Leeds LS27 8EG
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Cynic or cynical of thimerosal?

Sir
To update the current position on my critique of the Andrews et al study, which is present in the main in my rapid response "Cynic or cynical of thimeroral?" and which I posted in the rapid response section for the authors on Pediatrics Journal website, there has been absoultely no response from the authors to accept or deny any of the points I raised.
I find this lack of reaction extremely odd.
Perhaps the most potentially damning indictment of Andrews et al could be their decision to focus on accumulation, with age, of toxic ethyl mercury from DTP/DT vaccines as opposed to the expected effects of acute toxicity that are suggested by the recommended safety levels for exposure (for example that of the US Environmental Protection Agency of 0.1ug/kg/day) based on weight of person per day's exposure level, and the apparent avoidance of focus on acute reactions to this deadly toxin by Andrews et al. This seems to be analgous to studying the effect in children of three massive doses of any toxin, say for example cyanide, given at 2, 3 and 4 months, ignoring all acute reactions of death and debility within the first 6 month period, and mainly focussing on 'survivors' who survived beyond 6 months.
Unless Andrews et al have nothing to say either to rebut my points or to support their own design, one must question the apparent disregard they show for public questioning of their work which is highly supportive of the injecting of a proven highly dangerous toxin into children and adults who partake of vaccination globally. If their conclusions are wrong and the increase in toxin by age is not, as they would have us believe, of benefit but is harmful - in that they misinterpreted a reduction in danger by weight of child as a reduction in danger by increased exposure over time, they have a duty of care to the public to ensure their interpretation is correct in light of my question and does not lead to more death, and destruction of health.
I would gladly welcome Andrews et al to point out the errors in my critcisms.
Regards
John H.
Competing interests: None declared

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want? 10 November 2004

L. Travis Haws,
Dentist
Lakewood CO 80228
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want?

Editor: It seems Mr. Rumbold misunderstands yet again. The Vioxx iatrogeny quite rationally demonstrates and reemphasizes countless times that we have been "duped" by the "officiality" of the officials and their "supportive" data. The comments were very clearly not just aimed at MMR, but pointing out just another instance of widespread manipulation, misinterpretation of data, cover-ups and unwillingness to do the proper research etc. A small glimpse of large scale poor research. Other areas to find such "high quality" research, with horrific societal ramifications, are along the lines of proponents of SBS and MSbP. In fact, the only time I discuss MMR was in relation to Rumbold's request that I reassess my views.
Interesting how Rumbold has no explanation for the manipulated CDC data regarding the neurotoxin thiomersal. In fact, I've posted those links several times, and you would of thought the pro-vaccine lobby would try to defend it. Perhaps they are wishing it will all just fade into the background.
Again, Vioxx was just used as another example of manipulated, and/or intentionally ignored data. And Rumbold states that removal of Vioxx from the market (maybe Rumbold is unaware of the internal e-mails stating the concern for adverse heart effects prior to the sale of Vioxx) "demonstrates the continuing process of evaluation that characterizes scientific medicine". Sounds more like a CSI (crime scene investigation) evaluation and if the Vioxx iatrogeny is an example of how Rumbold characterizes the process of scientific medicine, then I...well...I'm...not sure how to respond. Did I just stutter?
P.S. I'm still waiting for the massive flu outbreak that will manifest itself from the shortage of flu vaccines in the U.S. as it was mediatized today that the numbers of flu cases are suprisingly low, and was followed with...you can hopefully still get a flu vaccine? What does that mean for flu vaccines role in a positive or negative effect on disease transmission. I can think of one effect, but will defer. Hopefully not to many 6-24 month olds got the vaccine as it was recently demonstrated to be ineffective for that age group.
Competing interests: None declared

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want? 10 November 2004

John P. Heptonstall,
Director of The Morley Acupuncture Clinic and Complementary Therapy Centre. Practitioner of TCM -acu
LS27 8EG
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want?

Sir
Interestingly, my mother spent last week in an 'acute respiratory' ward and reports that 3 of 8 elderly ladies in that ward suffering acute respiratory problems all cited flu jabs the day before onset as the cause of their acute illness.
Regards
John H.
Competing interests: None declared

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want? 11 November 2004

Aasa H. Reidak,
Elementary Teacher
Toronto, ON M5S 2K2
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want?

If the withdrawal of Vioxx demonstrates the continuing process of evaluation that characterizes scientific medicine, I would be somewhat concerned about the timeliness of the withdrawal of Vioxx from the market. Vioxx was withdrawn from the market fairly recently.
Last Easter weekend, a doctor prescribed Vioxx for me, albeit somewhat reluctantly. For whatever pain I was experiencing at the time, he also told me that Advil may take care of it just as nicely, with less chance of nasty side effects. So, I left his office and the pharmacy with both Advil and Vioxx in hand. I was hoping to spend Easter weekend out in the country with relatives, and I decided to get both medications, just in case,as I was feeling quite a bit of pain and discomfort at the time and medical care is not easy to access where we were planning to go.
Strangely enough, it was my own over 80-year-old mother,who talked me out of taking any of the Vioxx pills. Even though English is a second (or third) language for her, and she has no computer at her disposal, she seemed quite familiar with the potential hazards of Vioxx. Thanks to her recommendations, I took the Advil and that was enough to deal with the pain I was experiencing at the time.
Now, if an 80-plus-year-old grandmother knows enough about Vioxx to discourage its use for others at least half a year before Vioxx is withdrawn from the market, how can we rest assured that the continuing process of evaluation which supposedly characterizes scientific medicine is working well? Something is not right here. There must have been sufficient "bad news" about Vioxx much earlier, before it was withdrawn from the market. Both my mother and the doctor I saw, were concerned about the same potential side effects and/or adverse reactions.
Competing interests: Some of my children have been diagnosed with ASD.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want? 11 November 2004

Dr John Rumbold,
n/a
West Midlands
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want?

If Haws had read my post carefully he would not have come to the conclusion I misunderstood him. I made the point that it was ludicrous to suggest anyone was still prescribing Vioxx, a point I stand by. I said that the removal of Vioxx showed the process of reevaluation (something that the anti-vaccination lobby say medicine will not do for MMR, worth much less money to drug companies), NOT that pharmacovigilance worked perfectly as Haws seems to suggest I said. I never said that the removal of Vioxx could not and should not have been achieved earlier.
There are two posts above(Haws' and Heptonstall's) alluding to lack of reaction to anti-vaccinationists' points. This is a tactic of a few single issue lay campaigners - to post on a topic and then declare their point proved beyond doubt when noone bothers to reply to them. Not very mature in my opinion.
Competing interests: None declared

Off topic but topical - flu vaccine 11 November 2004

Peter Flegg,
Physician
Blackpool, UK, FY3 8NR
Send response to journal:
Re: Off topic but topical - flu vaccine

I apologise if this comment is off topic, but as John Heptonstall first raised the issue of flu vaccination (10th Nov) I thought it merited a response.
Heptonstall mentions the "interesting" observation that 3 of 8 ladies in the respiratory ward associate their recent illness with flu jabs. This type of temporal "post hoc ergo propter hoc" rationalisation is commonly seen in clinical practice - sometimes it is correct, sometimes not.
Perhaps he can still pass on the good news to his mother's fellow inpatients that their flu jabs might well save their lives. A recent Dutch study estimates that one death is averted per 302 vaccinees (1).
I think a denominator of 26071 patients provides a more robust data set than 3 anecdotal cases. In the study, flu vaccination was associated with a reduction in mortality of 10%, with further revaccination being associated with a reduction in mortality risk of 24%.
(1) Voordouw ACG et al. Annual Revaccination Against Influenza and Mortality Risk in Community- Dwelling Elderly Persons. JAMA. 2004;292:2089-2095.
Competing interests: None declared

Re: Off topic but topical - flu vaccine 11 November 2004

John P Heptonstall,
Director of the Morley Acupuncture Clinic
Leeds LS27 8EG
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Off topic but topical - flu vaccine

Sir
Perhaps the physicians responsible for the 3 ladies arrived at the same opinion as Flegg, therefore ignored the ladies' evidence, failed to inform the authority of possible severe adverse reactions to the flu jabs (a responsibility of every physician is to report possible ADRs or the public experience is not accounted for and statistics are meaningless) and perhaps to identify the flu jab virus to inform future use.
I do not believe those ladies would welcome criticism of their experience - they were quite vocal about it.
Did 'improved mortality' follow hospitalisation for acute adverse reactions - or were those patients on the wrong side of the 95% confidence interval?
Regards
John H.
Competing interests: None declared

Re: Rumbold 12 November 2004

John Stone,
none
London N22
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Rumbold

Deplorable to read yet another ad hominem attack on John Heptonstall, who is not by any stretch of the imagination a "single issue campaigner". I wonder how much mercury Dr Rumbold considers good for a two month old infant, and on what basis? These are evidently serious questions. No one asked to have their child injected with mercury. These Government funded studies (Andrews et al and Heron et al) purport to demonstrate that this was a safe practice after the event, because no one bothered to find out if it was safe before the event - and they come out just as the practice ceases.
Dr Rumbold perhaps come close to being a "single issue campaigner", the bulk of his contributions seemingly being attacks on "single issue" and "lay" campaigners. He seems to trade very heavily on his medical qualification rather than any scientific arguments. It is obviously the case that John Heptonstall's technically specific questions require a courteous answer. This sort of attack surely shows the mainstream medical profession in a very unattractive light.
Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want? 12 November 2004

L. Travis Haws,
Dentist
Lakewood CO 80228
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Surely we are losing sight of what we all want?

Editor: I'm still stuttering to find a reply to Rumbold. First, I did not ever imply that anyone was still prescribing Vioxx as Rumbold asserts. I quite clearly only wondered if Rumbold himself (no-one else) still thought Vioxx still had backing. Backing from the manufacturers research. More attempts to muddy the waters by Rumbold as he really has no counter argument. Unfortunately, the manufacturers knew about the problem long ago and the FDA didn't help stop it either. (1) So, now Rumbold tries to clear himself by stating that in this case "scientific reevaluation", according to Rumbold's definition, was not timely enough.
Contrary to Rumbold's belief, I didn't claim to prove anything by the lack of response to abhorant handling of public health issues by our officionados. The CDC, Vioxx, Seroxat etc. etc. etc. proved the point, over and over, by themselves that often their reputation and sales are more value than ours and our childrens health. And we're supposed to have faith, considering the recent actions by the CDC, FDA and Big Pharma (not the first time we've seen such behaviors) in public health mandates? I have nothing but the best interest of my children and their children in mind. Not covering my butt or saving face. Unlike many in the child "protection" industry. Thus, I will now try and be "mature" and bid Rumbold farewell. I'm am interested in debating the facts, not being led astray by ad-hominem attacks and side-stepping of the issues.
1) http://www.newstarget.com/002155.html
Competing interests: None declared

Re: Stone 15 November 2004

Dr John Rumbold,
n/a
West Midlands
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Stone

Fortunately it is a simple matter for readers to peruse the wide range of subjects I have posted on. Also it seems ludicrous to denounce an allegedly ad hominem attack by lauching one of your own!
Competing interests: None declared

thimerosal neurotoxicity 10 December 2004

Donna M Arnold,
Parent
Monore NC 28110
Send response to journal:
Re: thimerosal neurotoxicity

I am a mother who was injected with Mercury Via RhoGam..My son is profoundly mercury poisoned...Here is the newest study done on Thimerosal and a fetal brain.
Neurotoxicology
Volume 26, Issue 1, January 2005, Pages 1-8
*Thimerosal Neurotoxicity is Associated with Glutathione Depletion: Protection with Glutathione Precursors * *S.J. James, William Slikker III, Stepan Melnyk, Elizabeth New, Marta Pogribna and Stefanie Jernigan *
<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=IssueURL&_tockey=%23TOC% 236641%232005%\ 23999739998%23526592%23FLA%23Volume_26,_Issue_1,_Pages_1-148_% 28January_2005%29&\ _auth=y&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1412 460&md5=f8a\ 923f46f2c434e94eccda821d95a36>
Competing interests: None declared

What about other sources of mercury? 16 December 2004

Peter Flegg,
Physician
Blackpool, UK, FY3 8NR
Send response to journal:
Re: What about other sources of mercury?

It is right that vaccines should be free from potentially toxic additives such as mercury (even if the case of thiomersal this is in the form of ethyl rather than methyl mercury). However, there are many other �medical� sources of heavy metals that are available in a totally unregulated and uncontrolled manner, and the use of these substances by the unsuspecting public is steadily growing. Usually neither the manufacturers nor distributors of these of these substances have the faintest idea of how badly their products are contaminated. Moves to protect patients from this potential harm would I am sure be welcomed by everyone. Either these products should be banned or we should see the introduction of strict quality controls in manufacture, storage and dispensing of these products to ensure their freedom from any contaminants.
I refer of course to some herbal remedies, many of which provide the unwary ingester with thousands of times the acceptable maximum daily intake of lead, mercury and arsenic(1), and have resulted in clinical cases of poisoning. Surely these must be of concern if one is to propose that neurodevelopmental abnormalities are linked to heavy metals?
(1). Saper RB et al. Heavy Metal Content of Ayurvedic Herbal Medicine Products. JAMA. 2004;292:2868-2873
Competing interests: None declared

Re: What about other sources of mercury? 17 December 2004

John Stone,
none
London N22
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: What about other sources of mercury?

A complete list of the many dozens of US licensed pharmaceutical be containing thimerosal can be found at:
http://www.fda/cder/fdama/mercury300.htm
http://www.fda/cber/vaccine/thimerosal.htm
http://www.fda/cber/blood/mercplasma.htm
A while back my son was prescribed some thimerosal containing eye drops for conjunctivitis by the school doctor. There are of course many sources of environmental mercury, notably fish. Richard Mills, research director of the National Autistic Society told Jane Feinman in The Times ('Heavy Metal Danger', 13 August 2004): "that though there is no single cause of autism "no one can seriously suggest now that heavy metals are not implicated in some way"". This was rather a belated admission from the society the week after it was announced that mercury was to be removed from infant vaccine, but welcome.
I do not know why Peter Flegg picks on Chinese medicine.
Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child

Re: Re: What about other sources of mercury? 19 December 2004

John Stone,
none
London N22
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: What about other sources of mercury?

Peter Flegg's reference was of course to Indian medicine not Chinese.
The conclusion from this must surely be that most doctors - including Peter Flegg - continue to prescribe mercury containing products unawares, and without regard to the possible hypersensitivity of individual patients.
Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child

Re: Re: What about other sources of mercury? 20 December 2004

John P. Heptonstall,
Director of The Morley Acupuncture Clinic and Complementary Therapy Centre. Practitioner of TCM -acu
LS27 8EG
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: What about other sources of mercury?

Sir
I think John Stone's response to the strangely obtuse statement from Peter Flegg hits the mail on the head - the pharmaceutical trade, through government collusion or crass ignorance, has for decades been applying toxic heavy metals (not least mercury) in scientifically established intoxicating doses through its medicines and vaccines to young and old alike; it continues to do so without remorse despite the developed understanding of potentially devastating effects on humans these metals cause.
To select herbal medicines, for which I would challenge Flegg to provide proof of any substantial damaging effects to humans caused by the application of herbal remedies by qualified herbalists, highlights his extreme myopic view about healing interventions in general and an apparent ignorance of the carnage the medicine he practices, by heavy metal intoxications and other routes, began to cause from the time chemical science started to dismantle nature and produce substances from the residue it calls medicine. One would prefer that people like Flegg, who might have a genuine interest in identifying dangerous medicines, first focus on their own speciality to reduce that acknowledged carnage to improve the balance between safety/efficacy and morbidty/mortality. I do not see how he can do this whilst wasting so much time attacking forms of medicine which, to date, have shown to be relatively harmless when precribed by qualified practitioners.
Although John Stone misinterpreted Ayuveda as Chinese I think China would happily be associated with such an impressive Indian doctrine for healing just as India would be happy to associate one of its magnificent cultural achievements with China - historically their peoples have developed and shared aspects of healing and other arts for millennia.
John Stone's comment about belatedness of an NAS admission also hit a note. I have experienced the apparent indifference displayed, by the private body which purports to serve autistic persons and their families in the UK, when it was placed in the predicament of either providing support and service to an autistic client (my son) or its accredited service provider (his then placement), and subsequent ignorance of its own complaints procedure in follow-up. The belated NAS response on heavy metals is not surprising to me, I now take all NAS proclamations with a pinch of salt.
Regards
John H.
Competing interests: None declared

Re: Re: What about other sources of mercury? 20 December 2004

Aasa H. Reidak,
elementary school teacher
Toronto M5B 2H9
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: What about other sources of mercury?

Another source of mercury is dental amalgams. Dental amalgams emit mercury vapor. Mercury vapor gets into the bloodstream and can cross the placental barrier and affect the fetus. Dr. Jill James has measured the amount of mercury found in the hair of children diagnosed with autistic spectrum disorders and also in neurotypical peers. She found that in the control or neurotypical group, the amount of mercury in the hair of the children varied in positive relationship to the number of maternal dental amalgams. She found that the children diagnosed with ASD had much lower levels of mercury in their hair, no matter how many amalgams their mothers had. Dr. Boyd Haley, a chemist who has been studying the effects of mercury for cerca four decades, believes that children with ASD cannot excrete mercury as effectively as those who do not exhibit signs of neurological disorders. He believes that mercury toxicity plays an important part not only in neurological disorders affecting children but also in the development of disorders which affect adults, such as Alzheimer's Disease. Below, I'll post some links where readers can access more information about the work of these researchers.
Regarding the thimerosal used in flu vaccines, Dr. H. Hugh Fudenberg, an immuno-geneticist with close to 850 papers in print in peer-reviewed journals, found that if individuals had had five consecutive flu shots (between the years 1970-1980, the years studied), their chances of getting Alzheimer's Disease later in life increased 10-fold, when compared to individuals who had either 0, 1, or 2 flu shots during that same time period. Dr. Hugh Fudenberg has served on four Expert Committees of the World Health Organization, including 20 years on the Expert Advisory Panel on Immunology. In that capacity, he recommended the removal of thimerosal from vaccines.
Mercury Toxicity: Dependence on Dose, Diet, and Genetic Susceptibility, a powerpoint presentation by Dr. Boyd Haley, can be found at http://www.lsro.org/presentation_files/amalgam/2003_12_12/haley.ppt
Mercury & Heavy Metals as a Cause in Alzheimer and Autism - Interview with Dr. Boyd Haley, PhD (Parts 1 and 2) at http://www.cincinnatihyperbarics.com/radioshows.html
References to Dr. Jill James' work can be found in Dr. Richard Deth's powerpoint presentation, A Molecular Mechanism for Mercury-induced Neurodevelopmental Toxicity, at http://www.cleanwateraction.org/mercury/pdf/Deth_Molecular-Mechanism.ppt
More information about Dr. Jill James' studies can be found at http://ewg.org/reports/autism/printerfriendly.php
As a postscript here, I recently asked my mother about what she knew about Vioxx that prompted her to dissuade me from taking the Vioxx I had been prescribed last Easter (which I wrote about in an earlier posting in this same thread). I had assumed that she had learned something from her doctor or from the news that there may be problems with Vioxx. I was quite surprised when she told me that she had figured this out for herself. My mother received a prescription for Vioxx from her family doctor in 2000. She found that her lower legs became very swollen when she started taking the medication. When she stopped taking Vioxx, the swelling receded. Later, when she tried to take the medication again, the swelling again occurred. When she discontinued the medication, the swelling again disappeared. Luckily for her, she had the sense to call her doctor and tell him that she did not want to be on this medication anymore because it was affecting her badly.
Competing interests: Have children who have been diagnosed with autistic spectrum doisorder

Re: What about other sources of mercury? 20 December 2004

Peter Morrell,
Hon Research Associate, History of Medicine
Staffordshire University, UK
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: What about other sources of mercury?

While one agrees with Peter Flegg that Mercury should indeed be eliminated from pharmaceutical products like vaccines as far as possible, yet his attack on Ayurvedic medicine should be read in the light of the colossal disparity between the tiny numbers of those who use that mode of therapy and the millions who accept vaccinations from childhood onwards, in some countries legally enforced, not realising that they are blithely accepting a perfectly legal form of Mercury poisoning. Therefore, the relative doses of Mercury ingested in Ayurvedic remedies and vaccines do not really bear any reasonable comparison.
Second, one must note Flegg's baffling failure to even mention the other major legal source of Mercury toxicity in society. I refer of course to dental amalgam fillings. In comparison to vaccines and amalgam fillings, any threat to one's health from using Ayurvedic remedies is so miniscule as to be unworthy even of mention, unless of course one really wishes to stir up some fictitious and overblown fears in the populace?
The attack therefore seems to reveal an underlying motivation to smear natural medicine with the same damaging and highly lucrative pharmaceutical ineptitude that is really stock-in-trade, everyday, run-of- the-mill allopathic poisoning, such as anti-retroviral HIV therapy, the known side-effects of which include headache, fatigue, insomnia, nausea, granulocytopenia, anaemia, neutropenia, myalgia [1].
Far from hearing Dr Flegg ranting and raving about, or wringing his hands in horror at, these appalling side-effects in this journal, in fact we find him on record in BMJ as recommending them. What can have inspired this tremendous inconsistency in his attitude to legal allopathic poisoning, on one side, which he defends and praises, and alleged Ayurvedic poisoning, on the other, which he condemns?
Therefore, I think his bizarre attack on Ayurvedic medicine ought to be taken with a very large pinch of salt, in the context of which it comprises a spectacular failure, because it is doomed both as ill-informed and misguided.
[1] http://www.crha-health.ab.ca/clin/sac/sideeffe.htm
Competing interests: None declared

Re: What about other sources of mercury? 21 December 2004

Jayne LM Donegan,
GP & Homoeopath
London NW4 1SH
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: What about other sources of mercury?

Reading the BMJ News article reporting that thiomersal containing vaccines �do not cause behavoural problems or developmental delay in young children�, and the responses it generated reminded me of the following quote from Herbert Shelton � a natural hygienist from the 1930�s (USA).
�Quack is from the German word for mercury or quicksliver � Quecksilber. The term was applied to Paracelsus and his followers because of their extensive use of this metal.
Originally the word quack was applied to those who poisoned their patients with mercury. Now it is falsely applied to those who refuse to poison their patients.
Every intelligent patient reader will recognise to whom the term really belongs(1).�
Plus ca change, plus c�est la meme chose.
(1) Shelton HM, �Syphilis � Werewolf of Medicine� 1962; p75, published by Health Research Books POB 850, Pomeroy, WA 99347 USA
Competing interests: None declared

Where is the support for using mercury in licensed pharmaceutical products? 21 December 2004

John Stone,
none
London N22
Send response to journal:
Re: Where is the support for using mercury in licensed pharmaceutical products?

Since no one speaks in favour of the use of mercury in these products is it not more than time it was removed?
Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child

Re: Re: What about other sources of mercury? 25 December 2004

Peter Flegg,
Physician
Blackpool, UK, FY3 8NR
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: What about other sources of mercury?

I see that my attempts to enlighten readers of the existence of heavy metals in toxic concentrations thousands of times above the acceptable limits in some herbal remedies has brought the inevitable and entirely predictable response from the expected quarters. Rather than accept the message and recognise there may be a problem, however unpalatable, the reaction has been to dismiss the issue as trivial, rubbish the message as a �bizarre attack� or an �obtuse statement�, or to criticise the messenger.
The message is not mine, but one from the Journal of the American Medical Association. If there is an issue with its scientific content, or the message it conveys, I suggest this is taken up in correspondence with the journal, not with me. The issue of herbal remedies is not �miniscule�- three quarters of the world�s population depend upon some form of herbal medicine, and if significant quantities of toxic contamination can be found in 20% of a sample in one country, I wonder what the global burden might be. Or should we gullibly embrace the ridiculous concept that since herbal medicine is �natural� it must be harmless, and brush any safety issues under the carpet?
Peter Morell accuses me of failing to �rant and rave� about orthodox medicine�s toxicities. That is an entirely different issue � evidently he hopes to distract people�s attention away from the subject under discussion. (Also he should be wary of criticising HIV drugs � an area of medical practice he has no experience in and has gained his "knowledge" by reading the internet postings of HIV dissidents. The reality is that the benefits of HIV therapy vastly outweigh their disadvantages).
John Heptonstall challenges me to �provide proof of any substantial damaging effects to humans caused by the application of herbal remedies by qualified herbalists.� I accept that herbal remedies are by and large safe, but there have been many well-documented cases of organ toxicity reported in the medical literature (and I would be happy to dig out the references should he wish me to). I am concerned about inapparent toxicities � how does one know when a remedy is really safe, or inadvertently been contaminated by something such as lead or mercury, the effects of which may not be easily detected? This is why I called for quality control and regulation of a burgeoning industry.
The other issue is what constitutes a �qualified herbalist?� In 2004, Dr Foster compiled the Complementary Therapists Guide. As part of the assessment to establish criteria for best practice, practitioners were asked about certain standards. Of the 5 established criteria, only 1% of herbalists volunteered the information that they met at least 4 of the 5 criteria, and an astounding 73% met none or only one of the criteria. If these are the standards one can expect from qualified herbalists, what would �unqualified� herbalists be like? John Heptonstall will no doubt be familiar with this report - he is in it (he states his acupuncture practice met all 5 best practice criteria; Well done.)
Merry Christmas one and all.
Competing interests: None declared

Peter Flegg's defence is a non-sequitur 26 December 2004

John Stone,
none
London N22
Send response to journal:
Re: Peter Flegg's defence is a non-sequitur

Peter Flegg is distracting us. There is obviously a great ethical divide between the merchandising of products in which toxic substances are included deliberately and licensed, and other products which are unfortunately undeliberately contaminated by industrial waste (although no doubt inadequately monitored). Unfortunately, I will have no idea when I buy a tin of tuna what level of toxicity I or my child will be exposed to, while I have never actually attempted to treat him with Indian herbal remedies. But why pick on Indian herbalists when the entire world is disgustingly contaminated. And whose fault is it really?
Flegg has direct responsiblity for the products he prescribes. Would he - for example - be happy to prescribe an autsitic child thiomersal containing eye-drops? Would he mention the concern to the parents?
Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child

Re: Re: Re: What about other sources of mercury? 29 December 2004

John P. Heptonstall,
Director of The Morley Acupuncture Clinic and Complementary Therapy Centre. Practitioner of TCM -acu
Leeds LS27 8EG
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Re: What about other sources of mercury?

Sir
Yes I would like Peter Flegg to meet the challenge (as he puts it) and provide one or two references that "he would be happy to dig out the references should he wish me to")..
Thanks
Regards
John H.
Competing interests: None declared

Re: Cynic or cynical of thimerosal? 31 December 2004

John Stone,
none
London N22
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Cynic or cynical of thimerosal?

Just to note that following John Heptonstall's Rapid Response under this heading of 8 November 2004 (above) about his eletter to Pediatrics ('Does weight confound?', 30 October 2004) Nick Andrews and Elizabeth Miller did in fact reply (10 November), although not to a further post of his (24 November). Clearly some further elucidation would be welcome.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/eletters/114/3/584
Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child

Your life in their hands... 10 February 2005

John Stone,
none
London N22
Send response to journal:
Re: Your life in their hands...

According to a newly released document Merck were alerted to concerns about raised levels of mercury in vaccine in the US as long ago as 1991. To quote the report by Myron Levin in yesterday's LA Times (8 February):
"The March 1991 memo, obtained by the Times, said that six-month-old children who received their shots on schedule would get a mercury dose up to 87 times higher than the health guidelines for the daily consumption of mercury from fish.
""When viewed in this way, the mercury load appears rather large", said the memo from Dr. Mauric R. Hilleman, an internationally renowned vaccinologist. It was written to the President of Merck's vaccine division...
"US health officials disclosed for the first time in 1999 that many infants were being exposed to mercury above health guidelines through routine vaccinations. The announcemount followed a review by the Food and Drug Administration that was described at the time as a first effort to assess the cumulative mercury dose."
Both the LA Times report and the document can be downloaded from http://www.safeminds.org.
Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child

Re: Re: Cynic or cynical of thimerosal? 28 February 2005

John P. Heptonstall,
Director of The Morley Acupuncture Clinic and Complementary Therapy Centre. Practitioner of TCM -acu
LS27 8EG
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Cynic or cynical of thimerosal?

My critique of the study cited by Tanne has still not received a final response from Andrews et al, the authors.
One assumes that such a study would have great impact on the public perception of thimerosal dangers in vaccines - any reasonable person is likely to suspect that injecting 50 to 100 times the maximum daily safe dose of mercury into babies and young children might have severe consequences for those children, so that reaonable suspicion might be alleviated by such a study. Failure to answer essential questions about the accuracy and effectiveness of such a study must disturb that person.
Coincident with Andrews et al, UK's Smeeth et al reported that thimerosal appears to be safe for use in vaccine schedules for UK children but it now appears that they may have overlooked espects of thimerosal use in UK vaccines that may invalidate those studies:-
They assumed that children in their cohort would have had only 1 to 3 thimerosal containing vaccines throughout the period of GPRD record use but there are those who could have been vaccinated with perhaps twice as much thimerosal...for example those children who because of acute illness or developing neurological problems might have had their pertussis vaccine doses delayed therefore have received only 1 to 3 DT vaccines, all of which would likely have contained 25ugm thimerosal in each.
To catch up, the UK Department of Health specified that either another DTP could be used to attain the 3 dose D and T required by schedule, then the P vaccine injected through a single antigen vaccine Per/Vac, up to the 3 dose level. Consequently a child who had say 3 doses of DT (total 75 ugm mercury) would then be given 3 doses of Per/Vac which might provide up to another 75ugm mercury - a total of 150 ugm mercury per child. Smeeth et al do not appear to have accounted for these children despite the DoH specifying in the BNF that a single antigen UNLICENSED P vaccine should be used for those children and CROWN IMMUNITY given to the vaccinator/supplier....in every case ON A NAMED BASIS ONLY.
Therefore it ought to be possible to identify all children given unlicensed P vaccines in the UK through the 90's, vaccines for which the supplier received Crown immunity, to acertain if their possible double total dosage of toxic mercury resulted in any long term additional health risks.
Each child from the early 90s was also expected to attain a 3 dose level of Hib vaccine - some Hib were mixed with tetanus or diphtheria vaccines, or both plus pertussis, and the final product might contain mercury to some level; for the UK it is not entirely certain whether they were mercury free or not and some vaccines are listed as 'free' despite traces or a few ugm of mercury (despite the EPA safe maximum daily level being only 0.1 ugm per kgm body weight) being found therein.
Do these facts have anything to do with why Smeeth et al and Andrews et al decided not to respond?
Regards
John H.
Competing interests: None declared

Re: Re: Re: Cynic or cynical of thimerosal? 1 March 2005

John P. Heptonstall,
Director of The Morley Acupuncture Clinic and Complementary Therapy Centre. TCM Practitioner
LS27 8EG
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Cynic or cynical of thimerosal?

I must apologise for taking Smeeth et al's 'name in vain'; I have just noticed that I inaccurately referred to 'Smeeth et al', where I meant to refer to 'Heron et al' (the team which used the Avon longitudinal study data) as in my original "Cynic or Cynical..." response.
In fact Smeeth et al focussed on the MMR vaccination issue - not the thimerosal issue. Ironically Smeeth et al have also still not responded to my critqiue of their study.
Regards
John H
Competing interests: None declared

They've suddenly realised: IT COSTS MONEY 2 March 2005

John Stone,
none
London N22
Send response to journal:
Re: They've suddenly realised: IT COSTS MONEY

A new study by the Mount Sinai Center for Children's Health and Environment calculates that mercury exposure in the womb costs the US economy $8.7b annually in lost earnings. How utterly pathetic that this information has to be presented in financial terms to make any political difference (if it does) [1].
[1] Devlin Barrett: 'IQ loss linked to mercury costs $8.7b',28 February 2005: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=539956
Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child

They've suddenly realised: IT COSTS MONEY II 4 March 2005

John Stone,
none
London N22
Send response to journal:
Re: They've suddenly realised: IT COSTS MONEY II

It looks by the way that this is a serious underestimate of the cost because the study only focusses on the earning capacity of the damaged person, not to the cost to their family, or to educational, social and medical care costs.
Of course, I am not indifferent to the costs but "they" only start worrying about it if "they" have to pay. It's alright if it is my family, or yours.
Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child

Mercury damage to IQs and lives is incalculable 4 March 2005

Ellen C G Grant,
physician and medical gynaecologist
Kingston-upon-Thames, KT2 7JU, UK
Send response to journal:
Re: Mercury damage to IQs and lives is incalculable

A mother had many teeth filled with mercury amalgam in her teens and twenties and gave birth to three children when she was still in her 20s. All were dyslexic, two of them being severely affected which impaired their otherwise exceptionally high IQs. After 50 years of daily episodes of severe tiredness, and after not completely successful attempts to remove concealed mercury amalgams, the mother became allergic to the remaining metals in her teeth, with a burning tongue and lip swelling.
Tests revealed:-
Blood mercury 6 ug/l (population mean 1.9)
Lymphocyte sensitivity test for inorganic mercury 380 (normal below 100)
Urine mercury level 9 ug/l
Mercury/creatinine ratio 4.32 nmol Hg /nmol of creatinine (usual level < 2.0)
Six months after all metals were removed from her mouth and daily use of Chlorella chelation and essential nutrient supplementation, the mother�s results were:-
Lymphocyte sensitivity test for inorganic mercury 44 (normal below 100)
Urine mercury level 3 ug/l
Mercury/creatinine ratio 2.3 nmol Hg/nmol of creatinine (usual level < 2.0)
The tests were performed at Biolab Medical Unit, London. The patient wonders why toxic mercury is still being used by dentists.
Competing interests: None declared
Editorial note
The patient whose case is described has given her signed informed consent to publication.

Re: Mercury damage to IQs and lives is incalculable 5 March 2005

Aasa H. Reidak,
elementary teacher
Toronto M5B 2H9
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Mercury damage to IQs and lives is incalculable

At first, I was somewhat surprised to find Ellen Grant implicating maternal dental amalgams as a possible contributor to various neurological disorders on this site. This possibility or perhaps reality, is something which I have learned more about since last year, since I attended a lecture where Dr. Boyd Haley, an American biochemist who has studied the effects of mercury for several decades, outlined how ethylmercury in vaccines (in the form of thimerosal) and methylmercury in the form of maternal dental amalgams may be contributing to the development of various neurological disorders. Dr. Boyd Haley showed those of us, who attended his November 11th lecture last year, how thimerosal contributes to the destruction of neurons, how the presence of testosterone intensifies the effects of thimerosal, and he also shared with us results of studies which showed that mercury vapor from maternal amalgams can cross the placental barrier and affect mercury levels in the hair of neurotypical children (Jill James' studies). It seems that mothers with more amalgams correlated positively with children with higher levels of mercury in their hair, as long as they were neurotypical. However, the same did not hold true for children who were later diagnosed with autism. Their hair contained less mercury and it is suspected that many of them are retaining more mercury and that this chemical may be wreaking more damage within their bodies. Ethylmercury, once it has broken down within the body, becomes "hydrophobic" and makes its way to various fatty tissues and organs, including the brain, where it causes damage, including the denuding of neurofibrils.
Competing interests: Have a mouthful of amalgams and several children diagnosed with ASD

Dental mercury is too toxic 7 March 2005

Ellen C G Grant,
physician and medical gynaecologist
Kingston-upon-Thames, KT2 7JU, UK ellengrant@onetel.com
Send response to journal:
Re: Dental mercury is too toxic

Aasa Reiddak was surprised by the case history about mercury amalgams and developmental dyslexia. Dr John McLaren-Howard and I posted Biolab findings in 61 autistic children previously on this site on 13 September, 2004.
Three of the 61 children had DNA-adducts in leucocytes to mercury, 16 to malondialdehyde, 12 to cadmium, 9 to nickel and one to lead.1 Lymphocyte sensitivity tests (results below 100 are regarded as normal) are more sensitive than serum levels for detecting harmful effects of metals. The mother of the dyslexic children had definite sensitivities to inorganic (dental) mercury and nickel (380 and 220) and mild sensitivities to vitallium (dental Cr/Co) silver, cobalt, and tin (165, 160, 155, 115) before the removal of all dental metals. Organic mercury (from fish) lymphocyte sensitivity was 90 but fell to 17 after chelation. All the metals retested for lymphocyte sensitivity produced low normal results (86 -1) after chelation.
The work of Haley and colleagues is very interesting. In a group of 94 autistic children, hair mercury levels varied significantly across those mildly, moderately, and severely autistic, with mean group levels of 0.79, 0.46, and 0.21 ppm, respectively.2 Hair mercury levels among controls were significantly correlated with the number of the mothers' amalgam fillings and their fish consumption as well as exposure to mercury through childhood vaccines, correlations that were absent in the autistic group. Hair excretion patterns among autistic infants were significantly reduced relative to control.
In 1981 we had found, in the hair of 73 dyslexic children, significantly higher levels of cadmium and lead, but not mercury.3 Were some of the dyslexic children mildly autistic perhaps? In 1983 Rimland and Larson review 51 hair mineral analysis studies and found that high levels of cadmium, lead and mercury were associated with undesirable behaviour.4 In 1988, using a mineral profile of sweat, hair and serum, most of 26 dyslexic children were zinc deficient in their sweat and had significantly lower levels of zinc, chromium, copper and higher levels of lead and cadmium in their sweat compared with their matched controls. Sweat mercury was not tested. In the hair of dyslexic children, mercury, copper, lead, and cadmium levels were significantly higher compared with controls. 5
Haley and colleagues carried out an experimental study in rats because mercury vapour (Hg0) is continuously released from "silver" amalgam tooth fillings and is absorbed into brain. The rats were exposed to Hg0 4h/day for 0, 2, 7, 14 and 28 days at 250 or 300 micrograms Hg/m3 air, concentrations present in mouth air of some humans with many amalgam fillings.6 Average rat brain Hg concentrations increased significantly (11 -47 fold) with duration of Hg0 exposure. By day 14 Hg0 exposure, photo affinity labelling on the beta-subunit of the tubulin dimer in brain homogenates was decreased 41-74%. The identical neurochemical lesion of similar or greater magnitude is evident in Alzheimer brain homogenates from approximately 80% of patients, when compared to human age-matched neurological controls. The authors concluded that chronic inhalation of low-level Hg0 can inhibit polymerization of brain tubulin essential for formation of microtubules.
It is a pity to waste money on misleading, repetitive and irrelevant epidemiological studies. There is enough hard evidence that mercury amalgams should no longer be used.
1 Grant ECG, McLaren-Howard J. Re: The effects of toxic metals in autistic children http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters/329/7466/588-b#74117, 13 Sep 2004.
2 Holmes AS, Blaxill MF, Haley BE. Reduced levels of mercury in first baby haircuts of autistic children. Int J Toxicol. 2003; 22: 277-85.
3 Capel ID, Pinnock MH, Dorrell HM, Williams DC, Grant ECG. Comparison of concentrations of some trace, bulk and toxic metals in the hair of normal and dyslexic children. Clinical chemistry 1981; 27: 879-81.
4 Rimland B, Larson GE. Hair mineral analysis and behaviour: An analysis of 51 studies. J Learning Disabilities 1983:16: 1-4.
5 Grant ECG, Howard JM ,Davies S, Chasty H, Hornsby B, Galbraith J. Zinc deficiency in children with dyslexia: concentrations of zinc and other minerals in sweat and hair. BMJ 1989; 296: 607-9.
6 Pendergrass JC, Haley BE, Vimy MJ, Winfield SA, Lorscheider FL.Mercury vapor inhalation inhibits binding of GTP to tubulin in rat brain: similarity to a molecular lesion in Alzheimer diseased brain. Neurotoxicology 1997; 18: 315-24.
Competing interests: None declared

Thimerosal is TOXIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 2 April 2005

Donna M Arnold,
MOM
nc 28110
Send response to journal:
Re: Thimerosal is TOXIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MSDS for Thimerosal:
http://chemdat.merck.de/pls/pi03/web2.sear...imerosal&lang=4
Click the T+ right next to the poison skull and bones symbol and the warning reads:
Hazard symbol: T+ = Very toxic Criteria: Inhalation, swallowing, or absorption through the skin in very small amounts can cause considerable damage to health, and may sometimes be lethal. In the event of serious evidence of severe, possibly irreversible damage to health by single, repeated, or prolonged absorption. Precaution: All contact with the human body must be avoided. If you feel unwell, seek medical advice immediately!
--------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------
2003 Thimerosal MSDS: Danger! Poison! May be fatal if inhaled, absorbed through skin or swallowed. Contains material which may cause damage to the following organs: kidneys, respiratory tract, skin, eyes, central nervous system. Section 8 - Exposure Controls: Personal Protection: Splash goggles, Full suit, Dust Respirator, Boots, Gloves, a self-contained breathing apparatus. Section 11 - Toxicology Information: Acute Oral Toxicity. Extremely hazardous in case of skin contact (permeator). May be fatal if absorbed. Extremely hazardous in case of inhalation. May be fatal if inhaled. Extremely hazardous in case of ingestion. May be fatal if swallowed. Danger of cumulative effects.
http://www.setonresourcecenter.com/MSDS/EM...026/wcd026b4.pd f
Would any of you like to have your pregnant wife injected with thimerosal??? What about your new infant???
Please STOP injecting thimerosal into pregnant women and infants!!
Competing interests: Mother to a mercury poisoned child

Re: Thimerosal is TOXIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 3 April 2005

John Stone,
none
London N22
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Thimerosal is TOXIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We should be grateful to Donna Arnold. This is the substance that our health officials in the UK still argue is safe to inject into two month old infants [1], and which the Bush administration is trying to rehabilitate and make compulsory in the US. Additionally, I note that though the substance has been removed from infant vaccine in the UK Heron et al, who were also reported by Janice Hopkins Tanne above, argue that it should continue to be used in "developing countries" [2].
Nevertheless, given the very high level of toxicity described in the Merck safety advice [3] the authors of these studies might be concerned about the appropriateness of their methodology if they failed to detect any adverse effects on the populations being studied.
[1] Andrews N, Miller E, Grant A, Stowe J, Osborne V and Taylor B, 'Thimerosal in Infant Development Disorders: A Retrospective Cohort Study in the United Kingdom does not Support a Causal Association', Pediatrics Vol 114 No 3, 3 September 2004 p. 584-91.
[2] Heron J, Golding J and the ALSPAC study team, 'Thimerosal in Infant Development Disorders: A Prospective Cohort Study in the United Kingdom does not Support a Causal Association', Pediatrics Vol 114 No 3, 3 September 2004, p. 577-83.
[3] http://chemdat.merck.de/pls/pi03/web2.zoom_in?text=817043&screen=140&cid=1012806736&pg=0&s=8170437lang=4
Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child

Re: Thiomersal is toxic 3 April 2005

Graeme Johnstnon,
Student
MK7 6AA
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Thiomersal is toxic

If Ms Arnold returns to the Merck website and types "nicotine" into the "Quick search" box she'll be greeted by exactly the same warnings.

Anyway, nobody was denying that mercury salts are toxic; it's what makes them effective preservatives. Tiny amounts are added to some vaccines to kill any live bacteria, fungi, viruses, protozoa etc that might be present as contaminants. Fortunately, humans (even babies) aren't microbes so can tolerate the tiny amounts of mercury present.
Competing interests: None declared

Re: Re: Thiomersal is toxic 4 April 2005

John P Heptonstall,
Director of the Morley Acupuncture Clinic
Leeds LS27 8EG
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Thiomersal is toxic

Will Graeme Johnston concede that each jab a tiny British child is given that typically contains 25 micrograms of ethylmercury (DTP, D, T, P) exceeds the US Environmental Protection Agency MAXIMUM safe exposure level of 0.1 micrograms per kilogram body weight per day (a safety level accepted by the UK) an enormous number of times?
For example, each baby weighing say 5 kg (which receives DTP/D/T/P within the first weeks of life; DTP typically at 2, 3 and 4 months of age - total 3 doses) would receive a jab carrying about 50 times the MAXIMUM safe level of mercury each dose. Smaller babies might receive up to 100 times the MAXIMUM safe amount of mercury, according to the EPA, per day.
If a child is given in one day 50 times the MAXIMUM safe daily level of paracetamol would that child be in danger?
Does Graeme believe those babies are in no danger from mercury toxicity?
If they are in danger, what symptoms would parents need to look out for to suspect a toxic reaction?
Regards
John H.
Competing interests: None declared

Re: Re: Thiomersal is toxic 4 April 2005

C Johnson,
parent
LA9
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Thiomersal is toxic

I'd be grateful if Graeme Johnston would point me to the published results of experiments which show what level of mercury exposure humans can tolerate with no measurable ill effects; particularly experiments carried out on human infants and the brain thereof.
Competing interests: None declared

Thimerosal is Toxic 4 April 2005

Donna M Arnold,
MOM
Monroe 28110
Send response to journal:
Re: Thimerosal is Toxic

Mr.Graeme,
You would not inject pure nicotene into infants, Why would it be safe to inject Thimerosal into infants? Thimerosal can be lethal just from inhaling it. What has happpened in America. Last year the CDC sent a A.L.A.R.M to pediatricians across America, 1 out of 6 children in America has some form of Behavior/Developmental disorder, This does not include all the children with Asthma, Cancer, Kidney disease, Liver disease, diabetes ect....America has a epidemic going on.
In January 2004, the nation's pediatricians received an autism ALARM [an acronym for an American Academy of Pediatrics communication program - - also sent out by CDC] stating Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) were affecting 1 in 166 children (90 percent of them are boys). Behavior/Developmental disorders were affecting 1 in 6 children. Both are epidemic. Autism rose over 1000% 1991-2004. It's now 1 in 149 children with ASD.
http://www.medicalhomeinfo.org/screening/Autism%20downloads/AutismAlarm.pdf
--------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------
Thimerosal Induces DNA Breaks, Caspase-3 Activation, Membrane Damage, and Cell Death in Cultured Human Neurons and Fibroblasts David S. Baskin1, Hop Ngo and Vladimir V. Didenko
After in vivo administration, ethylmercury passes through cellular membranes and concentrates in cells in vital organs, including the brain, where it releases inorganic mercury, raising its concentrations higher than equimolar doses of its close and highly toxic relative methylmercury (Magos et al., 1985).
http://toxsci.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/74/2/361
--------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------
OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assesment) reports;
"The scientific evidence that PMA and Thimerosal cause reproductive toxcitity is CLEAR and VOLUMINOUS.
The evidence for its reproductive toxcitity includes severe mental retardation or malformations in human offspring who were poisoned when thier mothers were exposed to ethylmercury or thimerosal while pregnant."
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/CRNR_notices/pdf_zip/hgbayer1.pdf -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
In America, Pregnant women are advised to get the flu vaccine. The Flu vaccine contains 25 mcg of mercury. The EPA limit for ingesting mercury is 6 mcg.
The HepB vaccine that one day old infants recieve contains 12.5 mcg of mercury, A new born baby would have to weigh 275 lbs for this to be a safe level.
Like I said earlier PLEASE stop injecting thimerosal into pregnant women and infants!
Competing interests: Mom to a Mercury poisoned child

Graeme Johnston's toxic red-herrings 4 April 2005

John Stone,
none
London N22
Send response to journal:
Re: Graeme Johnston's toxic red-herrings

You really wonder what motivates Graeme Johnston.
1) New born (US) and eight week old infants are not generally injected with nicotine, though it is considered to be prejudicial to their health.
2) The amount of thimerosal/thiomersal received by infants in their first six months while commonly sub-lethal is not by any other human measurement "tiny". See for example my post above regarding Maurice Hilleman's memo to Merck back in 1991 ('Your life in their hands...', 10 February 2005)*.
*For a detailed analysis (just published) see F Edward Yazbak 'The Mercury Memo', http://www.redflagsweekly.com/yazbak/2005_mar31.html
Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child

Re: Re: Thiomersal is toxic 4 April 2005

L. Travis Haws,
Dentist
Lakewood CO 80228
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Thiomersal is toxic

Is Graeme Johnston implying nicotine is neurotoxic as well as carcinogenic? It is not recommended for a pregnant mother to smoke (or smoke near infants and toddlers), nor be around second hand smoke. Would Graeme Johnston also say all is well in such a situation? No problem, the little tot can take it.
If one looks at the Safety Data Sheets on the same website, it is interesting to note that thiomersal is cytotoxic while nicotine is not noted as being cytotoxic. As well, thiomersal toxicity is mainly manifested as neurological.
Details of the Simpsonwood meeting (CDC, FDA etc.) reveal a linear relationship between thiomersal exposure and an array of neurodevelopmental disorders. Thank goodness for the Freedom of Information Act, or the massaged data may never have been uncovered. Additionally, it has been recently revealed that, back in 1999, a Merck official had concerns infants may be getting 8 TIMES the EPA limit. As well, it is known that excretion of the toxin is variable amongst people. But that's irrelevant with herd mentality...now isn't it. Heavy metal accumulation and free radicals...no problemo. Clemetson and Kalokerinos et al's advice for Vitamin C should continue to be negligently ignored.
One would hope a student, and part of the future generation, as Graeme Johnston would have more critical analysis before making such a bold statement.
If I misunderstood and Graeme Johnston meant to imply that thiomersal was carcinogenic as well as neurotoxic, then you have my apologies.
Competing interests: None declared

Re: Thiomersal is toxic 4 April 2005

Graeme Johnston,
Student
MK7 6AA
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Thiomersal is toxic

Mr Haws seems to be saying that nicotine is carcinogenic, but I think this is very far from certain -- though I believe there may be some evidence that it can increase the growth rate of certain tumours. However, there's no doubt that tar is carcinogenic.
Mr Heptonstall confuses the the EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) recommendations regarding exposure every single day with what is safe for occasional dosing. The EPA figures can't be used for that.
Competing interests: None declared

The collapse of moral integrity in government, and at the top of the medical profession 5 April 2005

John Stone,
none
London N22
Send response to journal:
Re: The collapse of moral integrity in government, and at the top of the medical profession

It demonstrates the total collapse of moral authority in government and the medical profession that seriously concerned parents find themselves debating ever more absurd technical objections with a student who claims no status in the subject. Even supposing the US Environmental Protection Agency recommendations only suggest an average safe daily intake the disproportion involved here is obscene - we are not talking two or three times the recommendation but 250. What kind of folly is this? If you found a vitamin and mineral supplement which listed an ingredient at 250 the Recommended Daily Allowance you would not take it. But here we are not even talking about a normally beneficial substance, but 250 times the safe level of a neuro-toxin given to an 8 week old baby.
Thimerosal is not only an extremely toxic substance the quantities that were injected into our children in the first six months of their lives were huge by any normal safety parameters. The only rational conclusion we can draw from the Pediatrics papers - quite apart from their obvious methodological flaws - is that they were wrong.
When are British Government officials like Dr David Salisbury and Prof Elisabeth Miller going to come and explain to us all what they knew about this subject when, and why they apparently took no action for several years? When is the British Medical Association Ethics Committee going to express any concern about the matter at all? When is Sir Michael Rutter of the Institute of Psychiatry going to ring the alarm bells about an epidemic in autism?
Frankly, the public have been abandoned, and there is going to be a reckoning some day soon. This will not be resolved by cover up. Someone better do some thinking.
Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child

Heron et al: Rhetoric and Substance 6 April 2005

John Stone,
none
London N22
Send response to journal:
Re: Heron et al: Rhetoric and Substance

As presented Heron et al [1] investigate whether low dosages of thimerosal can cause developmental disorders:
"It has been suggested that low doses of ethylmercury might have a similar effect on childhood cognitive development as methylmercury; however, there is little evidence to support this claim. Moreover, ethylmercury is more quickly metabolized and evacuated from the body than methylmercury."
However, what they describe are surely, if anything, very large doses of mercury:
" Current guidelines on safe exposure to thimerosal have been extrapolated from data on methylmercury and are varied, from 0.1 �g/kg/day of the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States to 0.47 �g/kg/day of the World Health Organization.5 Before the change to thimerosal-free vaccines, US children could have been exposed to levels as high as 187.5 �g by the time they were 6 months of age, exceeding the Environmental Protection Agency guidelines. In the United Kingdom, the only vaccines that contain thimerosal and have been routinely used in the past 2 decades are whole-cell diphtheria/tetanus/pertussis (wDTP) vaccine or diphtheria-tetanus (DT) vaccine and any combination vaccine containing wDTP or DT. Although the United Kingdom exposure is lower by 6 months, the accelerated United Kingdom primary immunization schedule of 2/3/4 months means that a maximum exposure of 75 �g may be received by 4 months of age. "
Should they not therefore have been deeply troubled by their negative results (noting, however, the study was funded by the Department of Health)?
[1] Heron, J and Golding, 'Thimerosal Exposure in Infants and Developmental Disorders: A Prospective Cohort Study in he United Kingdom Does Not Support a Causal Association', Pediatrics Vol 144, No 3 September 2004, p577-83
Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child

The Lost Generation: An Appeal to the Medical and Political Establishment 8 April 2005

John Stone,
none
London N22
Send response to journal:
Re: The Lost Generation: An Appeal to the Medical and Political Establishment

In the preceding posts it has been shown that the mercury containing preservative thimerosal is a powerful neuro-toxin, that the quantities injected into the world's children has been definably large not small, and that the official epidemiology which discovers no effect is highly implausible. Can those that are important in the medical and political establishment, please not stand on their dignity, but show that they are magnanimous and gracious enough to admit that terrible mistakes have been made in order that no more damage is done, and so that those who have been damaged can be helped.
Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child

Thimerosal and Autistic Symptoms: an MSDS from Amersham/US Bioscience 8 April 2005

John Stone,
none
London N22
Send response to journal:
Re: Thimerosal and Autistic Symptoms: an MSDS from Amersham/US Bioscience

According to a Material Safety Data Sheet from Amersham/US Bioscience:
"Chronic ingestion or excessive dosage may cause numbness, tingling of hands, feet, lips, ataxia, painfuls joints, constriction of visual fields, impaired hearing, emotional disturbances, spastic movements, incontinence, groaning, shouting, dizziness, lacrimation,hypersalivation, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and constipation."
http://www.nomercury.org/science/documents/MSDS-Amersham_12-03-02.pdf
A very interesting compilation of MSDS's can be found at:
http://www.nomercury.org/msds.htm
We need to know why our children in the UK were receiving a large dose of this substance until October last year? We need to know why this is still being given to children in developing countries? We need to ask why the Bush administration are trying to legislate to re-introduce and enforce its use in the US under it its new anti-terror legislation?
http://www.nomercury.org
Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child

Further Thimerosal Issues 10 April 2005

John Stone,
none
London N22
Send response to journal:
Re: Further Thimerosal Issues

1) No one has challenged my submission that children have been subjected to a large dose of a toxic substance, not a small one. I am surprised that proponents of vaccination are not keen to distance themselves from the use of a heavy toxic content as an aberration. Surely the acceptability of this as a practice - if no longer in UK infant vaccine but in other products and in developing countries - on its own throws the entire ethics and integrity of the vaccine programme into question?
2) As a matter of basic ethics should not the presence and quantity of the mercury/thimerosal content be spelt out to parents in an intelligle form (i.e. in relation to established safety recommendations). Should not this be publicly admitted to those who have been persuaded to give their children these products, and to those who have had them, and not just mentioned in passing in an epidemiological paper?
3) Can anyone explain why - in the present advanced state of scientific knowledge - that some other means of preseving vaccine is either not available, or could not be devised?
Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child

Thimerosal inhibits DNA methylation 13 April 2005

Donna M Arnold,
MOM
Monroe NC 28110
Send response to journal:
Re: Thimerosal inhibits DNA methylation

Thimerosal inhibits DNA methylation. Mercury can reduce methylation of DNA, thereby releasing genes from their usual imprinting. We cannot develop and function normally without DNA methylation.
The ethylmercury-containing preservative thimerosal inhibited both IGF-1- and dopamine-stimulated methylation with an IC(50) of 1 nM and eliminated MS activity. Our findings outline a novel growth factor signaling pathway that regulates MS activity and thereby modulates methylation reactions, including DNA methylation.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14745455&dopt=Abstract
Competing interests: Mom to a mercury poisoned child

Re: The collapse of moral integrity in government, and at the top of the medical profession 14 April 2005

John Stone,
none
London N22
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: The collapse of moral integrity in government, and at the top of the medical profession

I am grateful to John Heptonstall who has pointed to my mathematical naievety in this post a few days ago. He assures me that one dose of DPT (UK) would only exceed the US Environmental Protection Agency guidelines by 25 to 50 times, though it could be much more in a pre-term infant.
Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child

Re: Re: Thiomersal is toxic 15 April 2005

John P. Heptonstall,
Director of The Morley Acupuncture Clinic and Complementary Therapy Centre. Practitioner of TCM -acu
LS27 8EG
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Thiomersal is toxic

Graeme Johnston writes
"Mr Heptonstall confuses the the EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) recommendations regarding exposure every single day with what is safe for occasional dosing. The EPA figures can't be used for that".
I don't think so Graeme. I can find nothing in the US EPA statements on maximum limits for exposure to toxic mercury that says that increasing that exposure limit occasionally is safe, or that exposure levels 50 to 100 times it's maximum limit is 'safe for occasional dosing' of anyone - baby, young child or adult.
The EPA figure is a MAXIMUM limit for exposure; it is 0.1 micrograms per kilogram body weight per day, not per several days, or multiples of 0.1 over several occasional doses.
Perhaps Graeme can explain how he translates the US EPA maximum limit for exposure to mercury per kilogram per day as safe at 50 to 100 times that limit occasionally?
I think he should also bear in mind that 0.1ug/kg/day is not a "safe" limit; no-one knows what is safe, it is a limit designed to take current limited evidence into account. The UK takes that US limit on board but in a more cautious way prefrring to take it as 'presumed tolerance', not "safe".
Regards
John H.
Competing interests: None declared

A calculation relating to "low doses" of mercury 15 April 2005

John Stone,
none
London N22
Send response to journal:
Re: A calculation relating to "low doses" of mercury

Using US CDC growth charts [1,2] I have calculated by how many times approximately UK vaccination practice exceeded the US Environmental Protection Agency's reference dose (RfD) for mercury: "Currently, US EPA uses an RfD of 0.1 micrograms/kg bodyweight/day as an exposure without recognised effects" [3]. Each shot of DPT given at 2,3 and 4 months contained approximately 25 micrograms of mercury, which is 250 times 0.1 microgram [4]. In order to calculate the excess dose you need to divide 250 by the weight of the infant in kilograms.
2 months: weight range 3.8-6.4kg: excess dose 40-66 times EPA RfD for mercury
3 months: weight range 4.5-7.4kg: excess dose 35-56 times EPA RfD for mercury
4 months: weight range 5.2-8.3kg: excess dose 30-48 times EPA RfD for mercury
By what right were these doses given to our children?
[1]http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/growthcharts/set1clinical/cj41l018.pdf
[2] http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhanes/growthcharts/set1clinical/cj41l017.pdf
[3]http://www.epa.gov/mercury/exposure.htm
[4] Information from Heron et al: 'Thimerosal Exposure in Infants and Development Disorders: A Prospective Cohort Study in the United Kingdom Does Not Support a Causal Association" Pediatrics, vol. 114 no. 3, September 2005.
Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child

Re: Thiomersal is toxic 16 April 2005

Graeme Johnston,
Student
MK7 6AA
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Thiomersal is toxic

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Mercury Study Report to Congress is several hundred pages long. It contains discussions about the meaning of the reference dose (RfD), and how this figure was arrived at.

Pages 6-29 to 6-32 of volume VII contain much of the information that Mr Heptonstall asks about, and make it clear that it's is wrong to consider the RfD to be the maximum limit for exposure on any given day.

Competing interests: None declared

Re: Re: Thiomersal is toxic 17 April 2005

Stevie M Gamble,
retired HMIT
EC2Y 8BL
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Thiomersal is toxic

Graeme Johnston, Student, in his Rapid Response of 16th April, cites the 1997 US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Mercury Study Report to Congress as authority for his contentions that the mercury content in vaccinations used in babies and young children is known to be safe.
I have difficulties in finding the evidential basis for his argument. That report contains, in volume 5, the EPA�s analysis of the Health Effects of Mercury and Mercury Compounds, see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t3/reports/volume5.pdf
The volume makes no reference of any kind to the intentional injection of mercury into babies and young children, for medical purposes or otherwise; indeed, it doesn�t appear to have occurred to the researchers that anyone would do such a thing. One cannot, therefore, rationally claim that the report provides any evidence to support his contention that the mercury content in vaccinations used in babies and young children is known to be safe.
Incidentally, Volume 5 of the report does contain three references to Pink�s Disease, otherwise known as Acrodynia; at PDF document pages 69, 141, and 255. A search on Acrodynia produces 15, with duplication. There are no references of any kind to bronchiectasis.
The association between mercury and bronchiectasis had been known long before the publication of the report and any minimally competent investigator would have found and cited the relevant information. Hendry et al�s paper �Was Young's syndrome caused by mercury exposure in childhood?� was published in the BMJ in1993 (1993;307:1579-82.), four years before the publication of the EPA report, though the hypothesis had been around for decades before that. Young�s Syndrome is confined to mature males, for obvious reasons, but I know of no evidence to suggest that females are, in some mysterious fashion, immune to the effects of mercury.
I do appreciate that Graeme Johnstone, as a student, may be unaware of the effects of bronchiectasis; I would suggest therefore that he researches that topic. I have severe bronchiectasis myself, idiopathic, diagnosed as a small child around the same time as mercury-containing products were being withdrawn from use in babies and young children. About half the diagnosed cases in my age group also have no known cause, a factor which makes the British Lung Foundation�s aim of preventing the occurrence of bronchiectasis even more challenging than appears at first sight. I find it irrational to the point of incomprehensibility that a medical intervention designed to improve the human lot should be supplemented by a substance known to be strongly associated with a progressive condition for which there is no cure, and not much in the way of effective therapies.
Stevie Gamble
Competing interests: Her Majesty�s Inspectors of Taxes are clustered at the rational and investigative end of the human spectrum, and are rigorously trained to develop and augment those skills. I may therefore have unusually high expectations of evidence-based analytical thinking in decision making.

'The Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry' and the lack of independence of the Pediatrics reports 19 April 2005

John Stone,
none
London N22
Send response to journal:
Re: 'The Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry' and the lack of independence of the Pediatrics reports

Given the strictures of the House of Commons Health Committtee [1] about independence I note that this is far from manifest in the the two Pediatrics papers reported. The Heron paper is funded by the Department of Health [2], and the Andrews paper is co-authored by Prof Elisabeth Miller of the Immunisation Department (Health Protection Agency) [3]. Both papers can be sourced to the agencies which implemented the programme reviewed.
According to my previous calculations - and using their figures - for many years a two month old infant received under the government programme 40-66 times the officially safe daily dose of mercury, a three month old infant 35-56 times the safe dose and a four month old infant 30-48 times the safe dose [4]. On what basis do we now accept their word that this did no damage?
The problems of competing interests have been manifest all along but surely the new criteria should disqualify these studies from further scientific consideration.
[1] http://www.parliament.the-stationery- office.co.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmhealth/42/42.pdf
[2] Heron et al: 'Thimerosal Exposure in Infants and Developmental Disorders: A Prospective Cohort Study in the UK Does Not Support a Causal Association' Pediatrics vol 114 no3, September 2004, p. 577-83
[3] Andrews et al: Thimerosal Exposure in Infants and Developmental Disorders: A Retrospective Cohort Study in the UK Does Not Support a Causal Association'Pediatrics vol 114 no3, September 2004, p. 584-91
[4] Above: 'A calculation relating to "low doses" of mercury' 15 April 2005.
Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child

Re: Re: Thiomersal is toxic 19 April 2005

John P. Heptonstall,
Director of The Morley Acupuncture Clinic and Complementary Therapy Centre. Practitioner of TCM -acu
LS27 8EG
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Thiomersal is toxic

Sir
Graeme Johnston previously stated I �confuse the EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) recommendations regarding exposure every single day with what is safe for occasional dosing" and continues "The EPA figures can�t be used for that.�
I challenged him to provide relevant EPA information to support his statement as I find no mention of an accepted level for �occasional dosing� in any US EPA data. Why would a statutory body identify a �maximum daily exposure limit� then accept �occasional dosing� above that limit � and especially at doses that are proven to be massively over that limit such as the 50-100+ times given to babies and young children in vaccinations?
Graeme Johnston provides a reference, pages 6-29 thro� 6-32 of Vol. VII of the US EPA Mercury Study Report to Congress that he states �make it clear that it�s wrong to consider the RfD to be the maximum limit for exposure on any given day�. I can find not one jot of evidence in that reference in support of his statement nor is there any mention of vaccination, let alone mercury exposure through vaccination. It reports on studies into fish eating habits of Americans and explains how the maximum daily exposure level of 0.1ug/kg body weight/day was determined; and I note that exposure to mercury via diet is not the same as injecting the toxic metal directly into the human body as it would escapes many of the checks and balances a healthy body initiates before a toxin arrives in the bloodstream via digestion.
Nowhere does the EPA report the acceptance of occasional excesses of exposure. It describes how the higher percentiles (~90th-99th ) of fish consumers may be exposing themselves to as much as 3.5 times (adults) and 4.6 times (their children, whose exposure increases due to their lighter bodyweight per serving of fish) the EPA maximum exposure limit of 0.1ug/kg/day due to regular fish eating (eg Anglers, Alaskans, Orientals, Samoans); and arrived at these exposure level measures by evaluating sub- acute dietary exposure over a month period for analysis.
I note that the maximum dosage to which those individuals are exposed through chosen diet pales to insignificance compared to the highly dangerous levels US and UK children are/were irresponsibly, without informed consent, exposed to through vaccinations such as DTP (UK/USA), Influenza and Hepatitis B (USA) vaccines. For many babies and young children that exposure is more than 100 times the US EPA maximum exposure limit, on more than one occasion, with the express knowledge of authorities whose duty it is to serve and protect those babies and children.
The EPA describes how it arrived at that maximum limit. �The RfD of 0.1ug/kgbw/day is based on a �benchmark� dose of 1.1 ug/kg/day. This �benchmark dose� reflects the lower bound of a 95% confidence interval for a 10% prevalence of effects. The effects on which the �benchmark� dose for methyl mercury are based were clinically evident developmental deficits in children following in utero exposure to methyl mercury. The RfD was derived from the �benchmark� dose of 1.1 ug/kg/day through application of a composite uncertainty factor of 10.�
In other words the US EPA recognises a 10% prevalence of �developmental deficits� in US children relate to a 1.1ug/kg/day exposure to mercury a fetus suffers from maternal intake of mercury. It allowed a factor of 10 safety margin, without knowing for sure if that is sufficient, to arrive at the 0.1 ug/kg/day maximum exposure limit. If 10 times that limit equates with 10% of all fetuses having 'developmental deficits' then what would 50 or 100 times that limit, on more than one occasion, equate with in terms of development deficits of US and UK babies and young children? In addition, the US EPA estimates, in the same reference, that �as many as 20% of US children ages 3 through 6 years have daily exposures, through fish and shellfish in their diets, to methyl mercury greater than the RfD�. That is without the additional burden of vaccine-supplied mercury at 25ug per dose for which any human being, to attain parity with the US EPA maximum limit, must weigh 250kg (550lbs)! ie. Any child weighing less than 550lbs is placed at an immediate unacceptable (to the US EPA and UK CoT) risk on receiving a vaccine containing 25ug mercury.
The EPA estimate virtually GUARANTEES that 20% of all American children aged 3 to 6 years will have already exceeded their maximum daily dose of mercury through diet before being vaccinated with a mercury- containing vaccine for which the child needs to weigh 550lbs to remain below the maximum exposure level. Is it surprising so many children are suffering mercury-induced developmental deficits?
I suggest Graeme reads the reference he supplied again. If he disagrees with anything I state above let him explain how � statements without explanation ought to be unacceptable in this medium. I also ask that he provide the EPA statement that says it is safe to occasionally dose above its expressed maximum daily exposure limit. I note that the US EPA maximum limit is accepted for UK citizens by the UK Committee on Toxicity and is reported as the Provisional Weekly Tolerable Intake; nowhere can I find the US EPA maximum exposure limit defined �safe�.
Regards
John H.
Competing interests: None declared

Re: Thiomersal is toxic 20 April 2005

Graeme Johnston,
Student
MK7 6AA
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Thiomersal is toxic

I agree with Mr Heptonstall (or is it Dr Heptonstall -- he puts MD after his name on his website). The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has NOT produced figures for what doses of mercury it considers safe for occasional dosaging. That is why I said that the EPA figures can't be used for that.
The EPA quotes a Reference Dose (RfD) -- the dose it considers a safe amount for ingestion on every single day of an individual's life. Unlike Heptonstall, the EPA does not call the RfD the "maximum daily dose", as that's not what it is.
Heptonstall notes that the RfD refers to dietary mercury rather than injected mercury, and seems to suggest that digestion might render dietary mercury less toxic. However, unless alchemy plays a part somewhere it is still Hg.
Competing interests: None declared

Mercury amalgams and other teething troubles 20 April 2005

Mark Struthers,
GP
Bedfordshire mark.struthers@which.net
Send response to journal:
Re: Mercury amalgams and other teething troubles

I've been a doctor for 23 not trouble free years and would still call myself a humble student. I learnt a lot from retired tax inspector Stevie Gamble in his rapid response of 17 April. I had never heard of �acrodynia� and had only a dim recollection of �Pink�s disease� � and then only for its pinkness! I was not aware of any link between mercury poisoning and bronchiectasis and hadn�t a clue about the connection of Young�s syndrome with male infertility. Investigating these personal deficiencies under my student cap led me to a 1996 BMJ editorial on the declining sperm count and how environmental chemicals may be to blame.
�Until recently, for example, the cause of Young's syndrome remained obscure. Young's syndrome occurs in men with bronchiectasis and is characterised by azoospermia due to epididymal obstruction. No link has been found with mutations of the cystic fibrosis gene. The syndrome was particularly prevalent in Britain and Australia between 1960 and 1980 but is now rarely seen. In 1993 Hendry et al noted that many men with Young's syndrome had a history of Pink's disease in infancy. Pink's disease disappeared around 1960 with the removal of mercury from teething powders, and the disappearance of Young's syndrome some 30 years later raises the strong possibility that exposure to mercury in infancy may have caused both Pink's disease and Young's syndrome through mechanisms yet to be elucidated.� [1]
Mercury is known to be a potent neurotoxin. Therefore, the intelligent student can only speculate at the damage that might accrue from injecting mercury directly into the bodies and circulatory systems of tiny babies, male or female of the species.
The weakness of the Y chromosome, the decline of the sperm count and the vulnerability of the male reproductive system to environmental factors reminded me of an intriguing, mercurial novel by crime writer P.D.James, written more than a decade ago. [2] �The Children of Men� was a distinct and fascinating departure from her usual genre.
Due to a catastrophic reproductive failure, the year of the last human birth in 1995 was known as �Year Omega�. Omega was spoken of �in terms of a disease, a malfunction which would in time be diagnosed and then corrected, as man had found a cure for TB, diphtheria, polio and even in the end, although too late, for AIDS.� As all attempts to find a cause for the plague of infertility that swept the world came to nothing, interest in sex gradually waned and extinction faced the human race. The book features the chillingly named despot Xan Lyppiatt, the Warden of England and Theo Faron, Oxford academic and bronchiectatic.
Theo leads a solitary, self-absorbed life in a world of state sanctioned euthanasia and mindless violence - a world without hope or compassion. Theo, a teacher and of course a doctor too, is approached by a group of anarchic dissenters and becomes embroiled in unimaginable horrors and agonising choices that may change the future of mankind in the years after 2021.
I recommend this book. P.D. James wrote a riveting read that made me think about our threatened species clinging to the fringes of life by virtue of decaying sperm and the frailty of the Y chromosome. Seldom has such a gloomy prediction of the future been offered with such zest and imagination.
Over my chequered career, my near quarter century as a doctor, I have begun to realise how much I don�t know, how much I never knew and just how much I�ve forgotten. Doctors must never stop learning: all doctors are students. Some, of course, have a lot to learn in the open university of life, in the eternal sunshine of the spotless mind.
[1] D.M. de Kretser. Declining sperm counts. BMJ Feb 1996; 457-458 [2] P.D. James. The Children of Men. �5.59 from Amazon.co.uk. Can be obtained within 24 hrs.
Competing interests: None declared

A challenge to Heron and Golding 20 April 2005

John Stone,
none
London N22
Send response to journal:
Re: A challenge to Heron and Golding

A challenge to Heron and Golding from myself based on manufacturers warnings and the levels of thiomersal present in the UK DPT vaccine has now been puplished in the on-line edition of Pediatrics, under the title: 'Heron and Golding: erroneous premise, anomalous results'. It can be viewed at:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/eletters/114/3/577#1346
An answer from the ALSPAC team is eagerly awaited.
Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child

Re: Re: Thiomersal is toxic 22 April 2005

John P. Heptonstall,
Director of the Morley Acupuncture Clinic
Leeds LS27 8EG
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Re: Thiomersal is toxic

I�m at a loss as to what point Graeme Johnston is now trying to make. I�ve rebutted every point he made so far, points for which he produced no relevant evidence and for which his rhetoric now belies his original statements. Is it his attempt to exit from the discussion with as little embarrassment as possible?
He now says he �agrees with me� that the US EPA has �no figures for safe occasional dosing of Hg�, and qualifies his �agreement� saying, �that is why I said that the EPA figures can�t be used for that�; but he originally used the latter to qualify his contention that �I confuse the EPA recommendations regarding exposure with what is safe for occasional dosing� � which I never did, and with which he now has agreed because �the EPA has no figures for safe occasional dosing�.
He continues quoting the EPA RfD as a �dose it considers a safe amount for ingestion every single day of an individual�s life� � but why would the EPA reach such a conclusion when it does not even conclude that Hg is �safe� at any dose - I would like to see Graeme's evidence.
He says �unlike me the EPA does not call it�s limit of 0.1ug/kgbw/day a �maximum daily dose�, as that�s not what it is�, yet where is the evidence for his statement that �that is not what it is�. Unless the EPA has a limit that exceeds 0.1ug/kgbw/day are we not talking a �maximum�?
He says, �I seem to suggest that digestion might render dietary mercury less toxic� � which I neither said nor suggested. I would however suggest that unless Graeme has anything of relevance to the discussion on thimerosal to offer, supported with valid evidence, he leaves the discussion to those who have.
Finally, I am happy to be referred to as Mr, Dr. or John as all are equally valid Graeme.
Regards
John H.
Competing interests: None declared

1988-91, the missing years: a letter from Prof Miller to the Sunday Times 22 April 2005

John Stone,
none
London N22
Send response to journal:
Re: 1988-91, the missing years: a letter from Prof Miller to the Sunday Times

This is the text of a letter from Prof Elizabeth Miller to the Sunday Times of July 15, 2001:
"YOUR articles, Autism linked to mercury vaccine (May 27) and Inquiry launched into vaccine 'link' with autism (June 17) implied there has been increasing use of thiomersal-containing vaccines in the UK since 1988. In fact, the thiomersal content of vaccines given in the routine vaccination programme has not increased over the past decade. The only vaccines for children used in the routine programme that contain thiomersal are DTP (diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis) and DT. Because of theoretical concerns that the small amounts of mercury in thiomersal could be harmful, both European and United Kingdom regulators have recommended that manufacturers phase out its use wherever possible as a precaution. As a further precautionary measure the Public Health Laboratory Service, on behalf of the World Health Organisation, will be undertaking research into any negative effects of thiomersal-containing vaccines in the near future. Several studies and research papers have found no evidence that the MMR vaccine, which contains no thiomersal, is a factor in the cause of autism.
Dr Elizabeth Miller Head of Immunisation Division, Public Health Laboratory Service."
I note:
a) Prof Miller says (as of July 2001) that the thiomersal content of vaccines had not increased over the past decade, but this does not include the first three and a half years of the period mentioned (January 1988 to July 1991).
b) The concern that thiomersal is toxic is not theoretical but real. For instance an Eli Lilly safety warning (1991) states:
"Exposure to mercury in utero and in children can cause mild to severe mental retardation and mild to severe motor coordination impairment"
Page 3, Section, Health Hazard Information [1]
c) The statement that there are small amounts of mercury in thiomersal is incorrect: the figure is always given as 49%.
d) As previously stated the dosage in British infant vaccine would seem to exceed present US Environmental Protection Agency safety guidelines for mercury by 40 to 66 times at two months, 35-56 times at three months and 30-48 times at four months.
e) The Department of Health failed to phase out thiomersal in the UK until October 2004, but it will apparently remain in use in developing countries upon the recommendation of the two Pediatrics studies reported above by Janice Hopkins Tanne.
[1] http://www.nomercury.org/science/documents/MSDS-Eli_Lilly- 1991.pdf
Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child

NIH New study on THIMEROSAL! 22 April 2005

Donna M Arnold,
MOM
Monroe NC 28110
Send response to journal:
Re: NIH New study on THIMEROSAL!

The newest study funded by the NIH on thimerosal, Just became available online today..
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2005/7712/7712.pdf
NIH-funded study that was published
online today in the journal of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences;
Burbacher and his colleagues
show that more inorganic mercury accumulates in the brain after thimerosal exposure
through injection than after exposure to methylmercury in food. The accumulation of
mercury in the brain after injection with thimerosal occurred even though ethylmercury is
cleared from the blood faster than methylmercury.
I wish someone could explain to me why Mercury was INJECTED into pregnant women and infants.
Donna
Competing interests: Mom to a mercury poisoned child

New evidence inviting perhaps more spin? 22 April 2005

Paul G Champion,
n/a
Southall UB2 4UP
Send response to journal:
Re: New evidence inviting perhaps more spin?

How much am I bid that DoH will try and put the opposite spin on this when they brake the news?

From a new study published just yesterday (21st April 2005) by Thomas Burbacher et al.

The Good news:
The study [1] shows Thimerosal is eliminated from the 'blood' more quickly than methyl mercury.

The Bad News:
More of it (proportionally) ends up in the brain as inorganic mercury.

The Good news:
It very slowly gets cleared from the brain.

The Bad News:
The half life (time it takes for the concentration to reduce to half its original value) is quite long. Long enough for more injections containing Thimerosal to push it up even higher.

Therefore, one conclusion of study is that accumulation of mercury in an infant brain is likely to occur with Thimerosal.

1] Comparison of Blood and Brain Mercury Levels in Infant Monkeys Exposed to Methylmercury or Vaccines Containing Thimerosal by Thomas M Burbacher et al. Doi:10.1289/ehp.7712; The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institute of Health, US Department of Health and Human Services.

Direct link to publication via Environmental Health Perspectives:
Http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2005/7712/7712.pdf

Competing interests: None declared

Thimerosal and Blood and Brain Mercury Study 25 April 2005

Alex Snelgrove,
Caregiver
NZ3036
Send response to journal:
Re: Thimerosal and Blood and Brain Mercury Study

The proportion of inorganic Hg in the brains of vaccinated monkeys was much greater than that in the MeHg infants (1) and the average concentration of inorganic Hg in the brains of vaccinated monkeys did not change for the duration of the study (2). The persistence of inorganic Hg causes a significant increase in microglia and a decline in astrocytes.(3)
Given that the number of microglia cells significantly increase in the presence of injury or disease (4); marked activation of microglia has been demonstrated in the brains of autistic patients (5); and, in the presence of toxins produced by microglia, astrocytes which normally nurture and protect neurons (6) and play an important role in the processing of information for memory (7), start to harm neurons (6), who can say that Thimerosal is safe for the brains of developing infants and doesn�t cause developmental disorders?
Burbacher et al certainly don�t. They admit there is �limited knowledge of the toxicokinetics and developmental neurotoxicity of thimerosal� and they would like to see more research.
So would I.
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2005/7712/7712.pdf Comparison of Blood and Brain Mercury Levels in Infant Monkeys Exposed to Methylmercury or Vaccines Containing Thimerosal; Thomas M. Burbacher, Danny D. Shen, Noelle Liberato, Kimberly S. Grant, Elsa Cernichiari, and Thomas Clarksondoi:10.1289/ehp.7712
(1) �There was a much higher proportion of inorganic Hg in the brain of thimerosal infants than MeHg infants (up to 71% vs. 10%). Absolute inorganic Hg concentrations in the brains of the thimerosal-exposed infants were approximately twice that of the MeHg infants�. (P.17)
(2) �The inorganic form of Hg was readily measurable in the brain of the thimerosal exposed infants. The average concentration of inorganic Hg did not change across the 28 days of washout and was approximately 16 ng/ml (see figure 9). This level of inorganic Hg represented 21 % to 86% of the total Hg in the brain (meanSE = 704%), depending on the sacrifice time. These values are considerably higher than the inorganic fraction observed in the brain of MeHg infants (6% to10%).� (P. 15)
(3) �Stereologic and autometallographic studies on the brains of these adult monkeys indicated that the persistence of inorganic Hg is associated with a significant increase in the number of microglia in the brain, while the number of astrocytes declined.�(P.18)
(5) �It is important to note that a recent publication has demonstrated �an active neuroinflammatory process� in brains of autistic patients, including a marked activation of microglia (Vargas et al. 2005).� (P.18)
(4) http://www.neurological.org.nz/html/article.php?documentCode=40
�...microglia cells live in the brain in smallish quantities - until you have an injury or disease like Alzheimer's, in which case they rush to the injured area, divide like crazy, start eating everything in sight and making chemicals that seem to be highly toxic to nerve cells.�
(6) http://apu.sfn.org/content/Publications/BrainBriefings/hiv- assault.html
�The infected macrophages and microglia also appear to produce additional factors - chemokines and cytokines - that can affect neurons as well as other brain cells known as astrocytes. The affected astrocytes, which normally nurture and protect neurons, also may now end up harming neurons.�
(7) http://apu.sfn.org/content/Publications/BrainBriefings/astrocytes.html
�Astrocytes play an active role in brain function by influencing, and possibly even directing, the activity of neurons. Glutamate release from neurons triggers astrocytes to produce trophic factors, which then help neurons process information for memory.�
Competing interests: Normally-developing son gradually regressed and became "autistic" - after vaccination at 24 months

The official response to the Burbacher study 26 April 2005

John Stone,
none
London N22
Send response to journal:
Re: The official response to the Burbacher study

Paul Champion raised the issue of how the Department of Health would respond to the Burbacher study. According to the BBC report:
"a spokeswoman for the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, the UK drugs regulator, said mercury was being phased out of the UK vaccine programme after advice from the World Health Organisation.
"She said there was no proof of a safety concern, and the UK was just acting as a precaution, adding mercury was only taken out if it did not compromise the jab.
"There is strong evidence to show that thimerosal in vaccines does not cause neurodevelopmental problems.""[1]
The strategy would appear to be to blank the new study, just as it was when the Hornig paper was published last June when the BBC reported:
"A Department of Health spokesman said: "Vaccine safety is of paramount importance and all vaccines used in the UK are tested for their safety and efficacy."" [2]
In both cases we get the unreassuring and uncorroborated assertion that the British Government health officials know best, and they do not even have to take a look at the new study. Would we not expect a responsible agency to say that they are looking at the new study and examining policy in the light of it?
There are some further puzzling features to the MHRA statement.
"a spokeswoman for the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, the UK drugs regulator, said mercury was being phased out of the UK vaccine programme after advice from the World Health Organisation."
To set this remark in context we have to return to Prof Miller's letter to the Sunday Times of 15 July 2001:
"Because of theoretical concerns that the small amounts of mercury in thiomersal could be harmful, both European and United Kingdom regulators have recommended that manufacturers phase out its use wherever possible as a precaution. As a further precautionary measure the Public Health Laboratory Service, on behalf of the World Health Organisation, will be undertaking research into any negative effects of thiomersal-containing vaccines in the near future."
The result of that research was the Pediatrics paper, Andrews et al the conclusion of which was (referring to the Department of Health funded Heron paper as well):
"The results of the 2 United Kingdom studies were presented to the WHO Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety in June 2002.8 These studies contributed to the conclusion that there is currently no evidence of mercury toxicity in infants, children, or adults who are exposed to thimerosal in vaccines and that there is no reason to change current immunization practices with thimerosal-containing vaccines on grounds of safety. This conclusion is particularly important for developing countries that administer thimerosal-containing DTP vaccines according to the expanded immunization schedule." [3,4]
So, remarkably, while in September 2004 the British Government were - after an unexplained three year delay - phasing out the use of thimerosal in infant vaccine at the behest of the World Health Organisation, they were also simultanously advising the WHO to continue using thimerosal on the poor children of the developing world.
Might we suspect them of a perverse sense of humour? To return to the MHRA spokeswoman:
"She said there was no proof of a safety concern, and the UK was just acting as a precaution, adding mercury was only taken out if it did not compromise the jab."
Perhaps, then, thimerosal will soon be making a comeback in the UK infant vaccine schedule by popular demand.
[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4472485.stm
[2] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3788443.stm
[3]Nick Andrews, MSc, Elizabeth Miller, MBBS, FRCPath, FFPHM, Andrew Grant, PhD, Julia Stowe, BA, Velda Osborne, BSc|| and Brent Taylor, PhD, MBCHB,"Thimerosal Exposure in Infants and Developmental Disorders: A Retrospective Cohort Study in the United Kingdom Does Not Support a Causal Association" PEDIATRICS Vol. 114 No. 3 September 2004, pp. 584-591 (doi:10.1542/peds.2003-1177-L)
[4]Jon Heron, PhD and Jean Golding, DSc and the ALSPAC Study Team, "Thimerosal Exposure in Infants and Developmental Disorders: A Prospective Cohort Study in the United Kingdom Does Not Support a Causal Association",PEDIATRICS Vol. 114 No. 3 September 2004, pp. 577-583 (doi:10.1542/peds.2003-1176-L)
Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child

The official response to the Burbacher study II 28 April 2005

John Stone,
none
London N22
Send response to journal:
Re: The official response to the Burbacher study II

Note, however, Elizabeth Miller's statement in the Sunday Times letter (15 July 2001):
"both European and United Kingdom regulators have recommended that manufacturers (sic) phase out its (thimerosal's) use wherever possible as a precaution"
She does not suggest for a moment that this comes at the instigation of the World Health Organisation which apparently looks to her own Public Health Laboratory for further advice:
"As a further precautionary measure the Public Health Laboratory Service, on behalf of the World Health Organisation, will be undertaking research into the negative effects of thiomersal-containing vaccines in the near future."
Contrast, however, the MHRA statement to the BBC last week which places the responsibility for phasing it out in the UK firmly at the door of the WHO:
"a spokeswoman for the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, the UK drugs regulator, said mercury was being phased out of the UK vaccine programme after advice from the World Health Organisation." [1]
On the other hand when a recently a friend wrote to the MHRA about the licensing of thimerosal in vaccine she got quite a different answer back:
"Our Agency is responsible for the licensing of medicines, but not for policy issues or or initiative such as Thiomersal content, I suggest you re- direct your enquiry on to the Immunisation Policy branch of the Department of Health at the email address DHMail@dh.gsi.gov.uk who will address the concerns you have raised." (copy supplied)
And these are the people that we entrust our children's health and safety to.
Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child

The official response to the Burbacher study III 2 May 2005

John Stone,
none
London N22
Send response to journal:
Re: The official response to the Burbacher study III

To summarise:
1) In July 2001 the Head of the Immunisation Division, Public Health Laboratory, Elizabeth Miller (EM) says that the Medicine Control Agency (subsequently merged into the MHRA) has asked manufacturers to phase out thiomersal/thimerosal in UK infant vaccine.
2) Nothing happens for three years until a Department of Health announcement in August 2004 that it will be withdrawn in October.
3) EM says also in July 2001 that the World Health Organisation (WHO) has asked the UK Public Health Laboratory to study the negative effects of thiomersal.
4) Two epidemiological studies are presented to the WHO in August 2002, the Andrews study (of which EM is co-author) and the Heron study. Andrew is funded by the WHO and Heron by the UK Department of Health. Both advise that thiomersal is safe. Presumably the WHO continues to use thiomersal in infant vaccine as a result.
5) The two studies are only published in September 2004 in Pediatrics, while thiomersal is being phased out in the UK[in spite of (4)].
6) In February 2005 the MHRA, in spite of (1), tell an enquirer that licensing thiomersal has nothing to do with them and refers her to the Immunisation Policy branch of the Department of Health.
7) In April 2005 the MHRA, again in spite of (1), tell the the BBC that thiomersal has been phased out on the advice of the WHO.
Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child

No report of the Burbacher study 2 May 2005

John Stone,
none
London N22
Send response to journal:
Re: No report of the Burbacher study

The British Medical Journal has failed to print a news report of the Burbacher study [1]. Clearly if the two Pediatrics epidemiological studies reported above by Janice Hopkins Tanne in September were newsworthy then this one should have been too. Many of the world's infants are still being injected with thimerosal and both those doing it and the parents who are being persuaded to offer their children for vaccination have the right to know. How can this be right?
[1] http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2005/7712/7712.pdf Comparison of Blood and Brain Mercury Levels in Infant Monkeys Exposed to Methylmercury or Vaccines Containing Thimerosal; Thomas M. Burbacher, Danny D. Shen, Noelle Liberato, Kimberly S. Grant, Elsa Cernichiari, and Thomas Clarkson
Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child

Re: A challenge to Heron and Golding - and Andrews et al 5 May 2005

John Stone,
none
London N22
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: A challenge to Heron and Golding - and Andrews et al

There has so far been no response to my published challenge to Heron and Golding in Pediatrics of 19 April, and I have today posted an updated challenge. I have also published a challenge in the journal to Andrews et al relating to the unusual history of their paper.
Here are the details:
'Heron and Golding: erroneous premise, anomalous results' (19 April 2005)
'Re: Heron and Golding: erroneous premise, anomalous results an update' (3 May 2005)
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/eletters/114/3/577#1346
'Puzzling Circumstances' (1 May 2005)
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/eletters/114/3/584#1356
I continue to look forward to their replies.
Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child

Re: No report of the Burbacher study 14 May 2005

John P Heptonstall,
Director of the Morley Acupuncture Clinic
Leeds LS27 8EG
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: No report of the Burbacher study

I also await the BMJ response on the Burbacher study with great interest - it is probably the most significant of its kind this decade.
I believe that the recently published study by Thomas Burbacher et al directly and indirectly provides more strong evidence of the following: -
1. Ethylmercury, a major constituent of thimerosal preservative used in several types of vaccine for decades, is not the �theoretical risk� to public health our Department of Health executives would have us believe. It is a real and present danger that may have cost millions of children and their families their birthright of health and happiness.
2. The clear and present danger posed by ethylmercury should have been strongly suspected by scientists working in the vaccine field for decades � during the recent decade their suspicions ought to have developed into danger signals.
3. Many scientists have been employed by the Department of Health to serve the UK public, a department which has unswervingly placed vaccination of children with massively toxic (according to maximum exposure level limits set by the US EPA and acknowledged by UK authorities) levels of ethylmercury despite warnings from EPA scientists and others, families and victims of vaccine damage that vaccines were causing serious neurological problems in recipients too young to speak to defend themselves. They may have committed many thousands of children and their families in the UK to avoidable mortality and morbidity.
4. Those scientists and that UK Department � recently criticised by Parlts for being too close to Big Pharma � have worked alongside, been funded by, and have funded projects by Big Pharma designed to develop the distribution of ethylmercury-containing vaccines more widely, and have authorised licensing of such products, such that their liability for deaths end serious physical and mental injury to perhaps millions of people must become probable. They are therefore unlikely to condemn their past, and in some cases present, actions through the kind of openness and honesty to vaccine investigations that are required since Burbacher study revelations were released.
5. One must qualify the actions of the WHO and its scientists in the same light � their liability extends way beyond a single country and its inhabitants; they may now realise they could be held responsible for a global epidemic of vaccine-induced illness and death on a scale unimaginable � in that event, their openness and honesty must be expectedly unlikely.
6. Consequently the only way to the truth is for a completely independent global body, under the UN, to be set up to thoroughly investigate the scale, form and position of global health in relation to severe persistent vaccine damage � time is of the essence because the most vulnerable are at risk, especially those impoverished countries� children, from these atrocities.
Why should this single study directly or indirectly evidence these points? I will expand�
Burbacher et al provides several major realisations about the role ethylmercury has been, and is still for many of the world�s children (and adults), playing via vaccine deployment.
1. Ethylmercury, contrary to statements made by Health Department scientists passed on to unsuspecting medical professionals around the country thence to patients, children and to parents of vulnerable children, has greater potential for damaging the brain than methylmercury.
2. Pro-vaccine scientists used the unproven, and most probably inaccurate, argument that ethylmercury is less toxic to the brain, and hence less likely to cause neurological damage, than methylmercury; and in so doing they have misled enormous trusting populations that have seen an enormous rise in neurological damage amongst their children.
3. That as recent as 2003 scientists were quoting (eg Magos 2003), and Health Department scientists were repeating their quotes, advice that ethylmercury was much safer than methylmercury in terms of neurological toxicity because it had been shown to disappear from the blood more rapidly than methylmercury. But those scientists had never demonstrated, nor properly evaluated, the relationship between ethylmercury and methylmercury after absorption by the brain - the Burbacher study being first to inform clearly such events.
4. Therefore scientists responsible for public safety have failed to perform their duty adequately; they did not practise scientific rigor before repeating unproven opinion for which they ought to have been capable of applying critical appraisal on behalf of the public.
5. Ethylmercury changes in the brain into an inorganic form significantly more readily (21-86% over several jabs), at a greater concentration, and at a much greater percentage of it�s original quantity than methylmercury and the inorganic form persists in the brain over many months; it actually increases in concentration and amount over 6 months so by 6 months there may be 200% as much as at 1 month.
6. If the first jab does not kill or maim that increasing persistence from organic to inorganic mercury (21 to 86% over several jabs) might eventually cause a child�s demise.
7. Parents described many autistic children as having changed after a vaccine � but the change being gradual such that over several months the child lost abilities gained to the point of vaccination. The build-up of inorganic mercury over 6 months � despite the vaccination having ended 6 months before � suggests that the slow onset of the type of neurological disorders referred to as autistic spectrum disorders (ASDs) may be developing almost sub-clinically during that 6 months gradual increase in neurotoxin.
8. Inorganic mercury causes an increase in microglia and decline in astrocytes, both being associated with neuroinflammation, in the brain and Vargas et al found a marked activation of microglia in autism � which to any reasonable person (let alone scientist) must induce suspicion that inorganic mercury in the brain is probably associated with autism.
9. For example infantile spasms (juvenile epilepsy) has been associated with ethylmercury-containing DTP vaccine as well as autism for many years. Infantile spasms are associated with gradual retardation of cognitive and some physical functions developing over months rather than weeks or days.
10. The US EPA studied levels of methylmercury from diet in American citizens and their work has long been published and available to vaccine scientists. The maximum exposure limit of 25ug/kgbw/day was set from the studies that found that at 10x that concentration a foetus was greatly susceptible to neurological damage. The study reports a large percentage of the population is already at the maximum daily limit for toxicity along with their children from diet, a fair proportion of those exceed that level significantly; then vaccine scientists advise all members of a population to introduce ethylmercury-containing vaccines, that are themselves causing a 50 to 100x intake of toxic mercury into babies and young children which, if taken by a child or adult already beyond maximum exposure through diet, will obviously increase their risk of death and serious neurological damage very significantly.
11. Aluminium is known to increase the toxicity of mercury, and vice versa, by scientists yet toxic mercury is accompanied in vaccine schedules by vaccines containing aluminium.
12. Ethylmercury invades the kidneys significantly more than methylmercury.
In view of the recent data on mercury-containing vaccines I think that any health department with scientific acumen, and which takes its public responsibilities seriously, ought to provide the following answers on mercury-containing vaccines to typical questions expected from prospective vaccinees
1. Q. Does the vaccine contain any potentially dangerous material? A. It contains ethylmercury that is a known neuro and nephrotoxin.
2. Q. Isn�t that dangerous for me/my child? A. The amount in the vaccine will exceed, greatly if a baby or young child, the recommended daily maximum exposure level set by the US EPA and equivalent UK authority.
3. Q. My child weighs 25kg, how much would the vaccine exceed EPA maximum exposure levels for mercury? A. By about 10 times.
4. Q. Is there any risk from additional mercury I hear we can gain from diet, environment and mercury amalgam fillings if the vaccine amount is added on top? A. It depends on your intake; about 1 in 3 of the population may already exceed the EPA daily exposure levels in that way.
5. Q. Doesn�t that increase the risk of neurological damage to my child dramatically from vaccination? A. Yes.
6. Q. Will the vaccinator consider my child�s risk of already exceeding mercury toxic levels through diet, amalgams and environment before proceeding to vaccinate? A. No.
7. Q. Are there any other additives in vaccines that may add to that risk? A. Aluminium is known to significantly increase the toxic effects of mercury and it accompanies many vaccines your child may require concurrently.
8. Q. Is the risk of not having the vaccine greater than taking those risks you point out? A. Statistics seem to suggest the risks from the disease are greater than the vaccine.
9. Q. But I read about childhood diabetes, cancers, leukaemias, MS, autism all dramatically increased, could vaccines cause these? A. I do not think so but I cannot be sure.
10. Q. Is it reasonable for me to subject my child to a known neurotoxin at 10x the maximum limit for daily exposure, concurrently with aluminium and other additives that may increase the toxic load on my child, who eats a lot of fish and seafood weekly therefore may already carry a toxic load of mercury? A. You have to make that decision.
Regards
John H.
Competing interests: None declared

Thimerosal is a neurotoxin injected into infants 26 May 2005

Donna M Arnold,
MOM
NC 28110
Send response to journal:
Re: Thimerosal is a neurotoxin injected into infants

I also would like to know when is the BMJ going to report on the [1]Burbacher study? This is a very important study that was funded through the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Doctors who had/have been injecting [2]pregnant women and infants with thimerosal have a right to know about this study and should be made aware that thimerosal in the vaccines does make its way to the brain of a fetus and infants.
What happens when thimerosal is in the brain? Does thimerosal cause damage? Can thimerosal (a neurotoxin) once it makes its way into the brain of a fetus or a small newborn cause any damage?
There have been studies that show [3]Thimerosal does indeed cause DNA Breaks. And there was a study done last year showing [4]thimerosal does indeed interferes with folate-dependent methylation.
This is so important, YET the medical journals are not reporting on this. My question is why?? Thimerosal does inhibit DNA Methylation which can cause DNA Breaks on chromosomes.
[1] http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2005/7712/7712.pdf
[2] http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/CRNR_notices/pdf_zip/hgbayer1.pdf
[3] http://toxsci.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/74/2/361
[4] http://www.nupr.neu.edu/2-04/deth_article.pdf
Competing interests: Mother to a mercury poisoned child

Mercury dose in UK injection double that previously disclosed in some cases 15 June 2005

John Stone,
none
London N22
Send response to journal:
Re: Mercury dose in UK injection double that previously disclosed in some cases

According to information made available by the Department of Health under the Freedom of Infomation Act, the weight of mercury in DPT vaccine could have been double that mentioned in the Heron and Andrews papers reported by Janice Hopkins Tanne [1].
According to a JCVI minute of 9 October 2000:
"The estimated potential thiomersal exposure through the UK programme was calculated to range between 0.15 and 0.30 mg (equivalent to 75-150 micrograms of mercury)"
An MCA briefing document (7 June 2001) in relation Sunday Times enquiries proposes the line:
"Thiomersal-containing vaccines have been in use for over 60 years and evidence does not support a causal link with autism. Indeed, reported rates of autism have been continuing to rise over the past decade as thiomersal content in routine UK childhood programme has fallen."
Interesting to note the apparent admission that the autism rate has been rising, but also that the data used in the Andrews study only goes up to 1997, and the Heron study only covers children born in in 1991-2. [2]
This means that for a normal weight two month old the weight of mercury in a single shot may have been 132 times the US Environmental Protection Agency reference dose [2].
[1] Janice Hopkins Tanne: 'Thiomersal doesn't cause developmental disorders' 11 September 2004,http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/329/7466/588-b
[2] John Stone: 'Please can we have the correct information about dosage?' 12 June 2005, http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/eletters/114/3/584#1375
Competing interests: Autistic son

Old article/responses but still pertinent 15 November 2009

Jas Singh,
Engineer
Canada
Send response to journal:
Re: Old article/responses but still pertinent

I stumbled on this article and its responses while researching the effects of thimerosal/thiomersal in infants. There's a lot of fear mongering currently going on about H1N1 here in Canada -- all the children in the 6 months to 5 years age group, are being administered a vaccine (GSK's Arepanrix) that contains AS03 (squalene, tocopherol, polysorbate 80) as an adjuvant and thimerosal (5 microgram) as a preservative. The alternative (on request) is a non-adjuvanted version with 50 microgram Thimerosal in it. Talk about being between a rock and a hard place! As a parent, I am loath to having anything that contains mercury injected into my son.
Competing interests: A concerned parent, undecided on whether to give H1N1 vaccine to my 9 month old infant