Sixth study in recent months links mercury in flu shots to brain damage, autism
Monday, March 28, 2011
Ethan A. Huff, staff writer
http://www.naturalnews.com/031870_flu_shots_brain_damage.html
(NaturalNews) The toxic effects of the mercury, also known in vaccines as Thimerosal, have once again been confirmed, this time by researchers from the University of Brazil. Marking the sixth major study in recent months to condemn the use of mercury in medicine, the new study reveals that mercury causes serious brain damage, and is linked to autism and other developmental diseases in children and Alzheimer's disease in adults.
Dr. Jose Dorea and his colleagues conducted an extensive, peer-reviewed analysis of various studies and available information in major databases that address the effects of low-dose Thimerosal, or ethylmercury, on neural tissue and behavior. They found conclusively that Thimerosal accumulates in brain tissue, negatively affects brain development, and harms brain cells.
"Mercury is known to cause serious harm, especially to fetuses and children because of their smaller size," said Lisa Sykes, president of the Coalition for Mercury-free Drugs (CoMeD), a non-profit group dedicated to removing mercury from medicine. "Why remove Thimerosal from pediatric vaccines only to inject it into pregnant women and children with recommended flu shots? They removed Thimerosal from other vaccines, so it should also be removed from flu shots."
Several other recent studies confirm the numerous dangers posed by mercury, including one recently published in the Folia Neuropathologica that links the toxin directly to autism. Mercury is also known to disrupt proper immune function, damage DNA, inhibit healthy embryonic development, and cause cancer.
The vast majority of the flu shots administered in the US still contain Thimerosal, as they come from multi-dose vials that require a preservative in order to prevent contamination. However, CoMeD says there is no reason to continue using Thimerosal since safer alternative preservatives already exist and are currently in use in many pediatric vaccines that used to contain Thimerosal.
Showing posts with label Autism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Autism. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
'Vaccines court' rejects mercury-autism link in 3 test cases
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-sci-autism13-2010mar13,0,5900639.story
'Vaccines court' rejects mercury-autism link in 3 test cases
The finding supports a broad scientific consensus that the mercury-containing preservative thimerosal does not cause autism, and will likely disappoint parents who are convinced otherwise.
Thomas H. Maugh II and Andrew Zajac
March 13, 2010
Reporting from Washington and Los Angeles
The federal "vaccines court" ruled Friday in three separate cases that the mercury-containing preservative thimerosal does not cause autism, a finding that supports the broad scientific consensus on the matter but that greatly disappointed parents who are convinced that their child's illness was caused by vaccines.
The court had ruled 13 months ago that a combination of the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine, commonly known as the MMR vaccine, and thimerosal does not cause the disorder, so the new ruling may finally close the bulk of litigation on the matter. The earlier ruling has been appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals, and this one most likely will be also, but most experts think the court will uphold the decision.
A claim that the MMR vaccine alone causes autism has been withdrawn by parents.
More than 5,300 parents had filed claims with the vaccines court, a branch of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, seeking damages because they believed their children had developed autism as a result of vaccinations. And they reacted bitterly to Friday's ruling.
"Find me another industry where the U.S. government defends their product in court and funds the science that exonerates them," said J.B. Handley, a founder of Generation Rescue in Sherman Oaks and father of a child with autism. "The average citizen has no hope."
The cases that three judges, called special masters, chose to rule on as test cases were considered among the strongest, so the outlook appears grim for others making the same claim. Each ruled on one case.
Special Master Denise K. Vowell wrote in one of the decisions that "petitioners propose effects from mercury in [vaccines] that do not resemble mercury's known effects in the brain, either behaviorally or at the cellular level. To prevail, they must show that the exquisitely small amounts of mercury in [vaccines] that reach the brain can produce devastating effects that far larger amounts experienced prenatally or postnatally from other sources do not."
She also dismissed claims that some groups of children are unusually susceptible to the effects of mercury. "The only evidence that these children are unusually sensitive is the fact of their [autism] itself."
In a separate ruling, Special Master George L. Hastings wrote: "This case . . . is not a close case. The overall weight of the evidence is overwhelmingly contrary to the petitioners' causation theories."
Commenting on the rulings, Dr. Paul Offit of the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia said in a news conference that the idea that vaccines or thimerosal cause autism "had its day in scientific court and was shown not to hold up. . . . The ruling clearly supported the science, fortunately." Offit, inventor of the rotavirus vaccine and author of five books on the vaccine controversy, is a strong proponent of vaccination and has been vilified by many parents.
Parents and advocacy groups argued that the ruling represents a conspiracy to protect vaccination programs. "The courts won't concede something that will bring down the vaccination program," Handley said.
Vaccine court special masters are protecting the vaccine program at the expense of children harmed by inoculations, said Mary Holland of the Coalition for Vaccine Safety, an umbrella organization of autism groups that says it is focused on improving vaccine safety science.
"I'm sure they sincerely believe they're protecting the public health because they think that if people believed vaccines caused diseases, they would stop vaccinating children," Holland said. "They bend over backwards to not acknowledge vaccine injury."
Largely because of parental fears, thimerosal was removed from all childhood vaccines by 2001, except for multidose vials of influenza vaccine. Despite that action, the prevalence of autism has continued to grow, and it is now thought to affect as many as one in every 100 children, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The vaccine court was established in 1986 because vaccine manufacturers were facing many liability suits that threatened their ability to continue manufacturing the medicines. The court holds no-fault hearings to determine whether a child has been harmed by a vaccine. Compensation comes from a $2.5-billion fund based on a 75-cent surcharge on each dose of vaccine.
The court has made many awards to parents who successfully showed that their children were damaged neurologically or otherwise by vaccinations -- a rare, but nonetheless real event -- but has refused to accept claims that autism is caused by vaccination.
The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear an appeal from Pittsburgh parents who want to sue vaccine manufacturer Wyeth directly because their daughter suffered a series of debilitating seizures after being vaccinated. They argue that they cannot get a fair hearing in the vaccine court.
thomas.maugh@latimes.com
azajac@latimes.com
Trine Tsouderos in Chicago contributed to this report.
'Vaccines court' rejects mercury-autism link in 3 test cases
The finding supports a broad scientific consensus that the mercury-containing preservative thimerosal does not cause autism, and will likely disappoint parents who are convinced otherwise.
Thomas H. Maugh II and Andrew Zajac
March 13, 2010
Reporting from Washington and Los Angeles
The federal "vaccines court" ruled Friday in three separate cases that the mercury-containing preservative thimerosal does not cause autism, a finding that supports the broad scientific consensus on the matter but that greatly disappointed parents who are convinced that their child's illness was caused by vaccines.
The court had ruled 13 months ago that a combination of the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine, commonly known as the MMR vaccine, and thimerosal does not cause the disorder, so the new ruling may finally close the bulk of litigation on the matter. The earlier ruling has been appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals, and this one most likely will be also, but most experts think the court will uphold the decision.
A claim that the MMR vaccine alone causes autism has been withdrawn by parents.
More than 5,300 parents had filed claims with the vaccines court, a branch of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, seeking damages because they believed their children had developed autism as a result of vaccinations. And they reacted bitterly to Friday's ruling.
"Find me another industry where the U.S. government defends their product in court and funds the science that exonerates them," said J.B. Handley, a founder of Generation Rescue in Sherman Oaks and father of a child with autism. "The average citizen has no hope."
The cases that three judges, called special masters, chose to rule on as test cases were considered among the strongest, so the outlook appears grim for others making the same claim. Each ruled on one case.
Special Master Denise K. Vowell wrote in one of the decisions that "petitioners propose effects from mercury in [vaccines] that do not resemble mercury's known effects in the brain, either behaviorally or at the cellular level. To prevail, they must show that the exquisitely small amounts of mercury in [vaccines] that reach the brain can produce devastating effects that far larger amounts experienced prenatally or postnatally from other sources do not."
She also dismissed claims that some groups of children are unusually susceptible to the effects of mercury. "The only evidence that these children are unusually sensitive is the fact of their [autism] itself."
In a separate ruling, Special Master George L. Hastings wrote: "This case . . . is not a close case. The overall weight of the evidence is overwhelmingly contrary to the petitioners' causation theories."
Commenting on the rulings, Dr. Paul Offit of the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia said in a news conference that the idea that vaccines or thimerosal cause autism "had its day in scientific court and was shown not to hold up. . . . The ruling clearly supported the science, fortunately." Offit, inventor of the rotavirus vaccine and author of five books on the vaccine controversy, is a strong proponent of vaccination and has been vilified by many parents.
Parents and advocacy groups argued that the ruling represents a conspiracy to protect vaccination programs. "The courts won't concede something that will bring down the vaccination program," Handley said.
Vaccine court special masters are protecting the vaccine program at the expense of children harmed by inoculations, said Mary Holland of the Coalition for Vaccine Safety, an umbrella organization of autism groups that says it is focused on improving vaccine safety science.
"I'm sure they sincerely believe they're protecting the public health because they think that if people believed vaccines caused diseases, they would stop vaccinating children," Holland said. "They bend over backwards to not acknowledge vaccine injury."
Largely because of parental fears, thimerosal was removed from all childhood vaccines by 2001, except for multidose vials of influenza vaccine. Despite that action, the prevalence of autism has continued to grow, and it is now thought to affect as many as one in every 100 children, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The vaccine court was established in 1986 because vaccine manufacturers were facing many liability suits that threatened their ability to continue manufacturing the medicines. The court holds no-fault hearings to determine whether a child has been harmed by a vaccine. Compensation comes from a $2.5-billion fund based on a 75-cent surcharge on each dose of vaccine.
The court has made many awards to parents who successfully showed that their children were damaged neurologically or otherwise by vaccinations -- a rare, but nonetheless real event -- but has refused to accept claims that autism is caused by vaccination.
The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear an appeal from Pittsburgh parents who want to sue vaccine manufacturer Wyeth directly because their daughter suffered a series of debilitating seizures after being vaccinated. They argue that they cannot get a fair hearing in the vaccine court.
thomas.maugh@latimes.com
azajac@latimes.com
Trine Tsouderos in Chicago contributed to this report.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Who's Afraid Of The Truth About Autism?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jenny-mccarthy/whos-afraid-of-the-truth_b_490918.html
Jenny McCarthy
Author, model and autism activist
March 9, 2010
Who's Afraid Of The Truth About Autism?
Parents of recovered children, and I've met hundreds, all share the same experience of doubters and deniers telling us our child must have never even had autism or that the recovery was simply nature's course. We all know better, and frankly we're too busy helping other parents to really care.
Corner one of the hundreds of doctors who specialize in autism recovery, and they'll tell you stories of dozens of kids in their practice who no longer have autism. Ask them to speak to the press and they'll run for the door. They know better.
Most doctors in our community share a common trait: their own child regressed into autism. They fixed their kid first and knew they'd have to spend their lives helping parents do the same, accepting the loss of "mainstream" status in their field.
Who's afraid of autism recovery? Perhaps it's the diagnosticians and pediatricians who have made a career out of telling parents autism is a hopeless condition.
When I first went public with my son Evan's story, I just planned to talk about the "R" word -- Recovery. But soon I was spending most my time talking about the "V" word -- vaccines.
It's hard to address one without the other because so many of the parents of recovered children I know, myself included, blame vaccines for their child's regression into autism and use vaccine injury as the roadmap to treat their child.
The idea that vaccines are a primary cause of autism is not as crackpot as some might wish. Autism's 60-fold rise in 30 years matches a tripling of the US vaccine schedule.
With so many kids with autism, the environment has to be to blame, and vaccines are an obvious culprit. Almost all kids get vaccines -- injected toxins -- very early in life, and our own government clearly acknowledges vaccines cause brain damage in certain vulnerable kids.
Take those simple facts, along with tens of thousands of parental reports of regression after vaccination, not to mention a growing list of court cases where our government paid claims to children with autism acknowledging vaccines as the trigger, and the case we Moms are making makes sense.
Time magazine's article on the autism debate reports that the experts are certain "vaccines don't cause autism; they don't injure children; they are the pillar of modern public health."
I say, "that's a lie and we're sick of it."
How do you say vaccines don't cause autism when only a single vaccine -- MMR -- has ever been looked at for its relationship to autism? What about the other 10 vaccines our children receive through 36 doses? If Viagra is considered safe, is Vioxx then safe too, or do you need to test both?
Even with the MMR, studies only compare kids who have otherwise been fully vaccinated. Is that really an honest way to evaluate the issue? How come no one has ever looked at unvaccinated kids to compare their autism rates? It could be so easy.
How do you say vaccines don't injure kids, when a government website shows more than 1,000 claims of death and over $1.9 billion paid out in damages for vaccine injury, mostly to children?
Perhaps its better to say vaccines have both benefits and risks? Who's afraid of being honest about the good and the bad of vaccines?
In the recent case of Dr. Andrew Wakefield, why did the press constantly report that his 1998 study said the MMR caused autism when anyone could read the study and know that it didn't? And, why did we never hear that the actual finding of Dr. Wakefield's study -- that children with autism are suffering from bowel disease -- has been replicated many times?
How come the press never interviewed the parents of the 12 children in Dr. Wakefield's study? In a letter they wrote:
All of the investigations [by Dr. Wakefield] were carried out without distress to our children, many of whom made great improvements on treatment so that for the first time in years they were finally pain free...We are appalled that these doctors have been the subject of this protracted enquiry in the absence of any complaint from any parent about any of the children who were reported in the Lancet paper.
Who's afraid of the truth about Dr. Wakefield? Could it be the vaccine industry's spokespeople trying to put the vaccine-autism genie back in the bottle?
There's something wrong with this generation of kids. They aren't healthy. The LA Times just reported that, "more than a quarter of all US children have a chronic health condition [ADHD, autism, asthma]...a significant increase from the rate seen in earlier decades." One quarter of our kids?
Writing for the New York Times last week, Nicholas Kristof asked the question, "Do Toxins Cause Autism?" and went on to say, "suspicions are growing that one culprit may be chemicals in the environment."
Is it possible all these things are related? Could we afford to give fewer shots slightly later and possibly reduce these chronic conditions? How do you go on a hunt for toxins and not consider vaccines?
The parents of children with autism aren't crazy. We're recovering our kids. We're trying to help other parents do the same, and we hope new parents can avoid our fate.
There has to be room for moderation on vaccines, for a recognition that one size does not fit all, for an honest dialogue around risks and benefits, and for a willingness to maybe delay or scale back some vaccines. How come many other countries give their kids one-third as many shots as we do?
Health authorities said autism was caused by cold mothers; parents proved them wrong. They said kids didn't regress into autism; parents proved them wrong. They said kids with autism weren't more sick with gastrointestinal issues; parents proved them wrong. They said autism was genetic and this epidemic wasn't real; parents proved them wrong. Is now the time to bet against the parents?
Who's afraid of the truth? Usually the people it would hurt the most.
Jenny McCarthy
Author, model and autism activist
March 9, 2010
Who's Afraid Of The Truth About Autism?
Parents of recovered children, and I've met hundreds, all share the same experience of doubters and deniers telling us our child must have never even had autism or that the recovery was simply nature's course. We all know better, and frankly we're too busy helping other parents to really care.
Corner one of the hundreds of doctors who specialize in autism recovery, and they'll tell you stories of dozens of kids in their practice who no longer have autism. Ask them to speak to the press and they'll run for the door. They know better.
Most doctors in our community share a common trait: their own child regressed into autism. They fixed their kid first and knew they'd have to spend their lives helping parents do the same, accepting the loss of "mainstream" status in their field.
Who's afraid of autism recovery? Perhaps it's the diagnosticians and pediatricians who have made a career out of telling parents autism is a hopeless condition.
When I first went public with my son Evan's story, I just planned to talk about the "R" word -- Recovery. But soon I was spending most my time talking about the "V" word -- vaccines.
It's hard to address one without the other because so many of the parents of recovered children I know, myself included, blame vaccines for their child's regression into autism and use vaccine injury as the roadmap to treat their child.
The idea that vaccines are a primary cause of autism is not as crackpot as some might wish. Autism's 60-fold rise in 30 years matches a tripling of the US vaccine schedule.
With so many kids with autism, the environment has to be to blame, and vaccines are an obvious culprit. Almost all kids get vaccines -- injected toxins -- very early in life, and our own government clearly acknowledges vaccines cause brain damage in certain vulnerable kids.
Take those simple facts, along with tens of thousands of parental reports of regression after vaccination, not to mention a growing list of court cases where our government paid claims to children with autism acknowledging vaccines as the trigger, and the case we Moms are making makes sense.
Time magazine's article on the autism debate reports that the experts are certain "vaccines don't cause autism; they don't injure children; they are the pillar of modern public health."
I say, "that's a lie and we're sick of it."
How do you say vaccines don't cause autism when only a single vaccine -- MMR -- has ever been looked at for its relationship to autism? What about the other 10 vaccines our children receive through 36 doses? If Viagra is considered safe, is Vioxx then safe too, or do you need to test both?
Even with the MMR, studies only compare kids who have otherwise been fully vaccinated. Is that really an honest way to evaluate the issue? How come no one has ever looked at unvaccinated kids to compare their autism rates? It could be so easy.
How do you say vaccines don't injure kids, when a government website shows more than 1,000 claims of death and over $1.9 billion paid out in damages for vaccine injury, mostly to children?
Perhaps its better to say vaccines have both benefits and risks? Who's afraid of being honest about the good and the bad of vaccines?
In the recent case of Dr. Andrew Wakefield, why did the press constantly report that his 1998 study said the MMR caused autism when anyone could read the study and know that it didn't? And, why did we never hear that the actual finding of Dr. Wakefield's study -- that children with autism are suffering from bowel disease -- has been replicated many times?
How come the press never interviewed the parents of the 12 children in Dr. Wakefield's study? In a letter they wrote:
All of the investigations [by Dr. Wakefield] were carried out without distress to our children, many of whom made great improvements on treatment so that for the first time in years they were finally pain free...We are appalled that these doctors have been the subject of this protracted enquiry in the absence of any complaint from any parent about any of the children who were reported in the Lancet paper.
Who's afraid of the truth about Dr. Wakefield? Could it be the vaccine industry's spokespeople trying to put the vaccine-autism genie back in the bottle?
There's something wrong with this generation of kids. They aren't healthy. The LA Times just reported that, "more than a quarter of all US children have a chronic health condition [ADHD, autism, asthma]...a significant increase from the rate seen in earlier decades." One quarter of our kids?
Writing for the New York Times last week, Nicholas Kristof asked the question, "Do Toxins Cause Autism?" and went on to say, "suspicions are growing that one culprit may be chemicals in the environment."
Is it possible all these things are related? Could we afford to give fewer shots slightly later and possibly reduce these chronic conditions? How do you go on a hunt for toxins and not consider vaccines?
The parents of children with autism aren't crazy. We're recovering our kids. We're trying to help other parents do the same, and we hope new parents can avoid our fate.
There has to be room for moderation on vaccines, for a recognition that one size does not fit all, for an honest dialogue around risks and benefits, and for a willingness to maybe delay or scale back some vaccines. How come many other countries give their kids one-third as many shots as we do?
Health authorities said autism was caused by cold mothers; parents proved them wrong. They said kids didn't regress into autism; parents proved them wrong. They said kids with autism weren't more sick with gastrointestinal issues; parents proved them wrong. They said autism was genetic and this epidemic wasn't real; parents proved them wrong. Is now the time to bet against the parents?
Who's afraid of the truth? Usually the people it would hurt the most.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Andrew Wakefield, Scientific Censorship
http://www.generationrescue.org/wakefield_statement2.html
Andrew Wakefield, Scientific Censorship, and Fourteen Monkeys
A statement from Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey
Los Angeles, February 5, 2010
Dr. Andrew Wakefield is being discredited to prevent an historic study from being published that for the first time looks at vaccinated versus unvaccinated primates and compares health outcomes, with potentially devastating consequences for vaccine makers and public health officials.
It is our most sincere belief that Dr. Wakefield and parents of children with autism around the world are being subjected to a remarkable media campaign engineered by vaccine manufacturers reporting on the retraction of a paper published in The Lancet in 1998 by Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues.
The retraction from The Lancet was a response to a ruling from England's General Medical Council, a kangaroo court where public health officials in the pocket of vaccine makers served as judge and jury. Dr. Wakefield strenuously denies all the findings of the GMC and plans a vigorous appeal.
Despite rampant misreporting, Dr. Wakefield's original paper regarding 12 children with severe bowel disease and autism never rendered any judgment whatsoever on whether or not vaccines cause autism, and The Lancet's retraction gets us no closer to understanding this complex issue.
Dr. Wakefield is one of the world's most respected and well-published gastroenterologists. He has published dozens of papers since 1998 in well-regarded peer-reviewed journals all over the world. His work documenting the bowel disease of children with autism and his exploration of novel ways to treat bowel disease has helped relieve the pain and suffering of thousands of children with autism.
For the past decade, parents in our community have been clamoring for a relatively simple scientific study that could settle the debate over the possible role of vaccines in the autism epidemic once and for all: compare children who have been vaccinated with children who have never received any vaccines and see if the rate of autism is different or the same.
Few people are aware that this extremely important work has not only begun, but that a study using an animal model has already been completed exploring this topic in great detail.
Dr. Wakefield is the co-author, along with eight other distinguished scientists from institutions like the University of Pittsburgh, the University of Kentucky, and the University of Washington, of a set of studies that explore the topic of vaccinated versus unvaccinated neurological outcomes using monkeys.
The first phase of this monkey study was published three months ago in the prestigious medical journal Neurotoxicology, and focused on the first two weeks of life when the vaccinated monkeys received a single vaccine for Hepatitis B, mimicking the U.S. vaccine schedule. The results, which you can read for yourself here, were disturbing. Vaccinated monkeys, unlike their unvaccinated peers, suffered the loss of many reflexes that are critical for survival.
Dr. Wakefield and his scientific colleagues are on the brink of publishing their entire study, which followed the monkeys through the U.S. childhood vaccine schedule over a multi-year period. It is our understanding that the difference in outcome for the vaccinated monkeys versus the unvaccinated controls is both stark and devastating.
There is no question that the publication of the monkey study will lend substantial credibility to the theory that over-vaccination of young children is leading to neurological damage, including autism. The fallout from the study for vaccine makers and public health officials could be severe. Having denied the possibility of the vaccine-autism connection for so long while profiting immensely from a recent boom in vaccine sales around the world, it's no surprise that they would seek to repress this important work.
Behind the scenes, the pressure to keep the work of Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues from being published is immense, and growing every day. Medical journals take extreme risk of backlash in publishing any studies that question the safety of the vaccination program, no matter how well-designed and thorough the research might be. Neurotoxicology, a highly-respected medical journal, deserves great credit for courageously publishing the first phase of this vaccinated monkey study.
The press has been deeply misled in the way The Lancet retraction, and Dr. Wakefield's mock trial, have been characterized. Led by the pharmaceutical companies and their well-compensated spokespeople, Dr. Wakefield is being vilified through a well-orchestrated smear campaign designed to prevent this important new work from seeing the light of day.
What medical journal would want to step in front of this freight train? Moreover, why now, after 12 years of inaction, did The Lancet and GMC suddenly act? Is it coincidence that the monkey study is currently being submitted to medical journals for review and publication?
We urge the media to take a close look at the first phase of the monkey study discussed above and to start asking a very simple question: What was the final outcome of the 14 primates that were vaccinated using the U.S. vaccine schedule and how did that compare to the unvaccinated controls?
The U.S. vaccine schedule has grown from 10 vaccines given to our children in the 1980s to 36 today, perfectly matching the dramatic rise in autism. The work of Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues deserves to be shared with the world to further, rather than censor, scientific progress.
Andrew Wakefield, Scientific Censorship, and Fourteen Monkeys
A statement from Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey
Los Angeles, February 5, 2010
Dr. Andrew Wakefield is being discredited to prevent an historic study from being published that for the first time looks at vaccinated versus unvaccinated primates and compares health outcomes, with potentially devastating consequences for vaccine makers and public health officials.
It is our most sincere belief that Dr. Wakefield and parents of children with autism around the world are being subjected to a remarkable media campaign engineered by vaccine manufacturers reporting on the retraction of a paper published in The Lancet in 1998 by Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues.
The retraction from The Lancet was a response to a ruling from England's General Medical Council, a kangaroo court where public health officials in the pocket of vaccine makers served as judge and jury. Dr. Wakefield strenuously denies all the findings of the GMC and plans a vigorous appeal.
Despite rampant misreporting, Dr. Wakefield's original paper regarding 12 children with severe bowel disease and autism never rendered any judgment whatsoever on whether or not vaccines cause autism, and The Lancet's retraction gets us no closer to understanding this complex issue.
Dr. Wakefield is one of the world's most respected and well-published gastroenterologists. He has published dozens of papers since 1998 in well-regarded peer-reviewed journals all over the world. His work documenting the bowel disease of children with autism and his exploration of novel ways to treat bowel disease has helped relieve the pain and suffering of thousands of children with autism.
For the past decade, parents in our community have been clamoring for a relatively simple scientific study that could settle the debate over the possible role of vaccines in the autism epidemic once and for all: compare children who have been vaccinated with children who have never received any vaccines and see if the rate of autism is different or the same.
Few people are aware that this extremely important work has not only begun, but that a study using an animal model has already been completed exploring this topic in great detail.
Dr. Wakefield is the co-author, along with eight other distinguished scientists from institutions like the University of Pittsburgh, the University of Kentucky, and the University of Washington, of a set of studies that explore the topic of vaccinated versus unvaccinated neurological outcomes using monkeys.
The first phase of this monkey study was published three months ago in the prestigious medical journal Neurotoxicology, and focused on the first two weeks of life when the vaccinated monkeys received a single vaccine for Hepatitis B, mimicking the U.S. vaccine schedule. The results, which you can read for yourself here, were disturbing. Vaccinated monkeys, unlike their unvaccinated peers, suffered the loss of many reflexes that are critical for survival.
Dr. Wakefield and his scientific colleagues are on the brink of publishing their entire study, which followed the monkeys through the U.S. childhood vaccine schedule over a multi-year period. It is our understanding that the difference in outcome for the vaccinated monkeys versus the unvaccinated controls is both stark and devastating.
There is no question that the publication of the monkey study will lend substantial credibility to the theory that over-vaccination of young children is leading to neurological damage, including autism. The fallout from the study for vaccine makers and public health officials could be severe. Having denied the possibility of the vaccine-autism connection for so long while profiting immensely from a recent boom in vaccine sales around the world, it's no surprise that they would seek to repress this important work.
Behind the scenes, the pressure to keep the work of Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues from being published is immense, and growing every day. Medical journals take extreme risk of backlash in publishing any studies that question the safety of the vaccination program, no matter how well-designed and thorough the research might be. Neurotoxicology, a highly-respected medical journal, deserves great credit for courageously publishing the first phase of this vaccinated monkey study.
The press has been deeply misled in the way The Lancet retraction, and Dr. Wakefield's mock trial, have been characterized. Led by the pharmaceutical companies and their well-compensated spokespeople, Dr. Wakefield is being vilified through a well-orchestrated smear campaign designed to prevent this important new work from seeing the light of day.
What medical journal would want to step in front of this freight train? Moreover, why now, after 12 years of inaction, did The Lancet and GMC suddenly act? Is it coincidence that the monkey study is currently being submitted to medical journals for review and publication?
We urge the media to take a close look at the first phase of the monkey study discussed above and to start asking a very simple question: What was the final outcome of the 14 primates that were vaccinated using the U.S. vaccine schedule and how did that compare to the unvaccinated controls?
The U.S. vaccine schedule has grown from 10 vaccines given to our children in the 1980s to 36 today, perfectly matching the dramatic rise in autism. The work of Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues deserves to be shared with the world to further, rather than censor, scientific progress.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Autism ruling fails to convince many
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/02/12/court.autism.reactions/
Autism ruling fails to convince many vaccine-link believers
Story Highlights
Families dealing with autism have mixed response to Thursday's ruling
Scientific community says no credible research supports autism-vaccine link
Advocacy groups question credibility of the vaccine court
By Madison Park
CNN
2-12-9
A special court's Thursday ruling that no proven link exists between autism and certain early childhood vaccines seems to have done little to change the sometimes-passionate opinion fueling the debate.
Amanda Guyton, a mother of a 6-year-old boy with autism, was "incredibly happy" with the decision and said it reaffirmed her belief that her son's autism has nothing to do with vaccines.
"We're ready for them to get on real research like educational strategies and help for kids," she said. "An awful lot of money and effort and time were spent on vaccines when three or four studies said no, there isn't a link."
Meanwhile, John Best, the father of a 12-year-old boy with autism, said: "The whole thing stinks."
Guyton and Best were not involved in the cases, but were following the news because of their interest in autism.
Three families -- the Cedillos, the Hazlehursts and the Snyders -- had sought damage awards from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program for their children who have autism, a disorder that the parents contend was triggered by the vaccine against measles, mumps and rubella combined with vaccines containing thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative.
The panel of "special masters" ruled that these petitioners had not presented sufficient evidence to prove that the childhood vaccines caused autism in their children.
A vocal segment of autism parents has contended that childhood vaccinations recommended by the government cause the disorder. Health agencies and the scientific community have disputed that notion. In defending its conclusion that no link exists, the Institute of Medicine cited five large studies that have failed to prove any connection between autism and thimerosal and 14 large studies finding no link between the MMR vaccine and autism.
"As the scientific community has been saying for a long time, there is no good, credible, reproducible research that supports the hypothesis that MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine causes autism," said Dr. Max Wiznitzer, an autism expert at Rainbow Babies and Children's Hospital in Cleveland, Ohio.
Wiznitzer testified in two of these three lawsuits brought against the government's National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.
"What the decision tells us is that these vaccinations are safe," he said. "The medical evidence tells us there is no association between vaccines and autism. This is one more piece that helps confirm that conclusion."
The defendant, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, released a statement Thursday: "Hopefully, the determination by the Special Masters will help reassure parents that vaccines do not cause autism."
Meanwhile, some autism advocacy groups such as SafeMinds also criticized the HHS saying the "deck is stacked against families when they enter 'vaccine court.'"
National Autism Association president Wendy Fournier agreed.
"If you have a vaccine injury, you're forced to sue Health and Human Services instead of suing the manufacturers. It's the government that oversees these court cases," said Fournier, who is the mother of a 9-year-old girl with autism. "The conflict of interest is so huge in so many levels by having the government responsible for not only promoting vaccine program, but also responsible for overseeing the safety."
Fournier said her daughter was a happy, healthy toddler who developed autism after receiving shots. She said she's heard countless similar stories from other parents.
The special court denied Mike and Theresa Cedillo's claim that vaccines caused autism in their daughter, Michelle, 14, who can't walk without help and receives nourishment from a feeding tube.
"We're obviously really disappointed," Theresa Cedillo said.
Tom Powers is an attorney for a litigation steering committee representing thousands of families that fall into three categories: those that claim that MMR vaccines and thimerosal-containing vaccines can combine to cause autism; those who claim thimerosal-containing vaccines alone can cause autism; and those who claim that MMR vaccines, without any link to thimerosal, can cause autism.
"We're disappointed in the outcome of the court's decision," he said. "However, these decisions are the first step in a long process. The whole process was designed to raise every possible issue in these cases -- hear all the evidence in these cases, knowing that ultimately appeals courts will be making the final decisions."
This week's ruling brought a different outcome from the Hannah Poling case. In November 2007, the Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation concluded that the Georgia girl's illness that had predisposed her to symptoms of autism was "significantly aggravated" by the vaccinations she received as a toddler and that her family should therefore be compensated.
But Thursday, Special Master George L. Hastings Jr. wrote in his ruling in the Cedillos case, "The evidence advanced by the petitioners has fallen far short of demonstrating such a link" between autism and vaccinations.
Wiznitzer said the ruling sent a message.
"Instead of spending resources investigating ideas that are hypothetical and have no proven value, we need to invest our time and resources into projects that will better determine the reasons for autism and the interventions that are best needed," he said.
CNN's Miriam Falco and David Martin contributed to this report.
Autism ruling fails to convince many vaccine-link believers
Story Highlights
Families dealing with autism have mixed response to Thursday's ruling
Scientific community says no credible research supports autism-vaccine link
Advocacy groups question credibility of the vaccine court
By Madison Park
CNN
2-12-9
A special court's Thursday ruling that no proven link exists between autism and certain early childhood vaccines seems to have done little to change the sometimes-passionate opinion fueling the debate.
Amanda Guyton, a mother of a 6-year-old boy with autism, was "incredibly happy" with the decision and said it reaffirmed her belief that her son's autism has nothing to do with vaccines.
"We're ready for them to get on real research like educational strategies and help for kids," she said. "An awful lot of money and effort and time were spent on vaccines when three or four studies said no, there isn't a link."
Meanwhile, John Best, the father of a 12-year-old boy with autism, said: "The whole thing stinks."
Guyton and Best were not involved in the cases, but were following the news because of their interest in autism.
Three families -- the Cedillos, the Hazlehursts and the Snyders -- had sought damage awards from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program for their children who have autism, a disorder that the parents contend was triggered by the vaccine against measles, mumps and rubella combined with vaccines containing thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative.
The panel of "special masters" ruled that these petitioners had not presented sufficient evidence to prove that the childhood vaccines caused autism in their children.
A vocal segment of autism parents has contended that childhood vaccinations recommended by the government cause the disorder. Health agencies and the scientific community have disputed that notion. In defending its conclusion that no link exists, the Institute of Medicine cited five large studies that have failed to prove any connection between autism and thimerosal and 14 large studies finding no link between the MMR vaccine and autism.
"As the scientific community has been saying for a long time, there is no good, credible, reproducible research that supports the hypothesis that MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine causes autism," said Dr. Max Wiznitzer, an autism expert at Rainbow Babies and Children's Hospital in Cleveland, Ohio.
Wiznitzer testified in two of these three lawsuits brought against the government's National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.
"What the decision tells us is that these vaccinations are safe," he said. "The medical evidence tells us there is no association between vaccines and autism. This is one more piece that helps confirm that conclusion."
The defendant, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, released a statement Thursday: "Hopefully, the determination by the Special Masters will help reassure parents that vaccines do not cause autism."
Meanwhile, some autism advocacy groups such as SafeMinds also criticized the HHS saying the "deck is stacked against families when they enter 'vaccine court.'"
National Autism Association president Wendy Fournier agreed.
"If you have a vaccine injury, you're forced to sue Health and Human Services instead of suing the manufacturers. It's the government that oversees these court cases," said Fournier, who is the mother of a 9-year-old girl with autism. "The conflict of interest is so huge in so many levels by having the government responsible for not only promoting vaccine program, but also responsible for overseeing the safety."
Fournier said her daughter was a happy, healthy toddler who developed autism after receiving shots. She said she's heard countless similar stories from other parents.
The special court denied Mike and Theresa Cedillo's claim that vaccines caused autism in their daughter, Michelle, 14, who can't walk without help and receives nourishment from a feeding tube.
"We're obviously really disappointed," Theresa Cedillo said.
Tom Powers is an attorney for a litigation steering committee representing thousands of families that fall into three categories: those that claim that MMR vaccines and thimerosal-containing vaccines can combine to cause autism; those who claim thimerosal-containing vaccines alone can cause autism; and those who claim that MMR vaccines, without any link to thimerosal, can cause autism.
"We're disappointed in the outcome of the court's decision," he said. "However, these decisions are the first step in a long process. The whole process was designed to raise every possible issue in these cases -- hear all the evidence in these cases, knowing that ultimately appeals courts will be making the final decisions."
This week's ruling brought a different outcome from the Hannah Poling case. In November 2007, the Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation concluded that the Georgia girl's illness that had predisposed her to symptoms of autism was "significantly aggravated" by the vaccinations she received as a toddler and that her family should therefore be compensated.
But Thursday, Special Master George L. Hastings Jr. wrote in his ruling in the Cedillos case, "The evidence advanced by the petitioners has fallen far short of demonstrating such a link" between autism and vaccinations.
Wiznitzer said the ruling sent a message.
"Instead of spending resources investigating ideas that are hypothetical and have no proven value, we need to invest our time and resources into projects that will better determine the reasons for autism and the interventions that are best needed," he said.
CNN's Miriam Falco and David Martin contributed to this report.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
