Advertisement

Archive for Saturday, September 9, 2006

Truth on autism

September 9, 2006

Advertisement

To the editor:

I looked at the statistics from the study cited in The Associated Press story "Study links autism risk to fathers' age" (Journal-World, Sept. 5). The rate of autism was one in 1,200 compared with the U.S. rate of one in 166. Of the 110 cases studied, 34 were in the 15-29 paternal age group, 62 in the 30-39 group, 13 (or 5 percent) in the 40-49 bracket, and one case with a father over 50.

This is a typical study paid for by those who are trying to cover up the truth about the cause of autism. There is a parallel to the increased use of mercury-containing vaccines and the explosion in cases of autism and other neurodevelopmental and childhood disorders including cancer, diabetes, epilepsy, asthma and attention deficit disorder. This explosion took place in the early '90s with the addition of seven mercury-containing shots in the first year of life with the addition of Hepatitis B and HIB. The liability for those who have caused this iatrogenic disease is in the trillions of dollars.

There is legislation, HR 5940, pending in Congress to resolve the controversy about mercury in vaccines. This legislation proposes a comprehensive study comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated populations.

Mercury in vaccines causes mercury poisoning. Mercury poisoning symptoms parallel the symptoms of autism. My son has mercury poisoning, not old father's disease! The parents and taxpayers, who are paying for the damage, deserve the truth.

Linda Weinmaster,

Lawrence

Comments

oldgoof 8 years, 3 months ago

Saying that the truth is that autism comes from thimerisol is quite a stretch of the actual evidence. And if it is the 'truth,' why do these people want yet another study?

Why? Because our premiere national medical institutions have all studied the issue and dismiss this conjecture. Hmmmm.

But if another study will shut them up, why not. Go ahead. But I fear like all good conspiracies, this too will not settle the question for these people, for they already know the truth.

Kelly Powell 8 years, 3 months ago

A.d.d is a myth....face it your kids are just stupid...no shame in that, we have survived as a race for a long time with a large % of us being stupid and with the invention of windows xp we can do it easier.

Jamesaust 8 years, 3 months ago

"Mercury poisoning symptoms parallel the symptoms of autism."

False. One might also wonder why the characteristics of autism are attributed to thimerosal, where mercury is a component, when the the characteristics of mercury poisoning are both well-known and DIFFERENT. Autism is a highly specialized illness (hence, the lack of identification until the 20th century). Mercury poisoning is a broad neurological illness, recognized even pre-civilization. How would mercury indiscriminately attack the neurological system but mercury-contained thimerosal would attack only certain select systems?

Its akin to saying that immersing a computer keyboard in H20 will cause the electrical system to short and the keys will stop working but if the immersional liquid is H2O2 (hydrogen peroxide) then only the "h" key and sometimes the "p" key stop working.

Deserve the truth? Jack Nicholson never put it so well.

Jamesaust 8 years, 3 months ago

I might note that HR 5940 has been referred to the Energy and Commerce Committee, where no action has - or will - be taken before the Congressional session ends in January.

sd123 8 years, 3 months ago

Linda et el,

Autism is an ORGANINC disorder of the brain. It is determined the MOMENT the sperm fertilizes the egg. If your child has brain damage due to the amount of mercury he/she was exposed to, then your child has "Brain damage as a result of mercury poisoning." Not a true diagnosis for Autism! People, either know ALL the facts or stop spouting off at the mouth. This group of parents who are chasing someone to blame need to get the facts about what the problem is with their own child/ren so the parents of childern with AUTISM can move forward on trying to find the best methods that work for them.

Dixie Jones 8 years, 3 months ago

i too have a child with autism , dont know where he got it from and never will know . all i know is i wouldnt change a thing about him , yes i would like him to be "normal" but i take what god has given me as a gift from god and trust he trusted me enough to take care of this beautiful being. early childhodd education has helped us greatly if we would not have put him in preschool at 2.5 yrs old i dont beleive he would be where he is today a healthy 5th grader who needs a para 60% of the time and one awesome kid indeed.. stop pointing fingers and move on and worry more about helping your kid to be sucessful. that would be more helpful than anything you would ever do for your gift from god.

gr 8 years, 3 months ago

Peaches,

I'm glad you think having a damaged kid is a gift from God. Likewise, I suppose that some would think a gift from God is their child who has been in a tragic accident and lost their limbs.

While it is good to look for the blessings in all of life and make the best of bad situations, to say that the affects of sin is a "gift from God" is a little bit of a stretch.


For all of you who think autism isn't caused by injection of toxic metals:

I don't know if it is or isn't. But, you sure seem to be defending a horrifying practice. Could someone tell me why mercury, A KNOWN TOXIN, is allowed to be injected into people? For those to reply that all things are toxic at some level, could you show us what the safe level for injecting mercury is?

Kodiac 8 years, 3 months ago

Gr,

From the FDA site....

"Thimerosal has been removed from or reduced to trace amounts in all vaccines routinely recommended for children 6 years of age and younger, with the exception of inactivated influenza vaccine (see Table 1). A preservative-free version of the inactivated influenza vaccine (contains trace amounts of thimerosal) is available in limited supply at this time for use in infants, children and pregnant women. Some vaccines such as Td, which is indicated for older children (> 7 years of age) and adults, are also now available in formulations that are free of thimerosal or contain only trace amounts. Vaccines with trace amounts of thimerosal contain 1 microgram or less of mercury per dose."

See the web site http://www.fda.gov/CBER/vaccine/thimerosal.htm#intro

for more details.

prioress 8 years, 3 months ago

Bllsht; read the research before you pop off in the paper, LTE person.

gr 8 years, 3 months ago

Well thanks for that dandy information, Kodiac. Not a new page to me - maybe you.

So, what IS the safe level for injecting mercury?

Did you find this interesting from the site:

"It is important to note that the FDA does not license a particular preservative; rather, the product containing that preservative is licensed,"

The product (flu vaccine, etc) is licensed, but not the preservatives. Preservatives are needed, therefore, they are beyond question? 'That's all we have' type of mentality? (Been there before, haven't we)

"A vaccine containing 0.01% thimerosal as a preservative contains 50 micrograms of thimerosal per 0.5 mL dose or approximately 25 micrograms of mercury per 0.5 mL dose."

Question: Is 25 micrograms safe?

How many times? - that is, is it accumultive? I think so.

The part that was relevant which you either didn't find, or didn't bother listing:

"Various agencies have developed guidelines for safe exposure to methylmercury, " "These exposure levels range from 0.1 µg/kg body weight/day (EPA) to 0.47 µg/kg body weight/day (WHO)2."

A 25kg kid would range from 2.5 µg to 11.75µg. But, each injection contains 25µg!

But, is ethyl the same as methyl? Different forms may not be toxic? Guess dentists would agree with that.

I'm glad to hear they did studies on 22 individuals and found no harm using a 1% solution - at least not for the one day of observation in a study not designed to measure toxicity.

Also, I'm glad to hear they did animal studies and found what level caused death. It appeared the ethyl version was less toxic. Woopee. No mention what long term effects on the animals, or their mentality, of those which didn't die.

What I see blatantly missing is a statement that it's safe. They seem to be skirting the issue. However, to their credit, they do provide enough information for someone to make an informed decision. Consider this statement: "However, depending on the vaccine formulations used and the weight of the infant, some infants could have been exposed to cumulative levels of mercury during the first six months of life that exceeded EPA recommended guidelines for safe intake of methylmercury."

But, don't forget, we aren't supposed to be seeing how much a toxic metal we can inject into kids and see if they can tolerate it. This isn't about a toxic compound, but a KNOWN toxic element. Just because it's in a compound doesn't mean it can't be freed up through any number of body processes.

Suppose we have a disposal problem of mercury or some other toxin. Shall we put small "safe" amounts into the water supply to get rid of it? (But, that's another story)

Granted, there is a supposed purpose to putting mercury in vaccines. But, if there are alternatives, if there is a question of it's safety, why is it still being done? Why do you want to defend such a macbre practice?

williaa 8 years, 3 months ago

There are several theories as to why the sudden spike in autism diagnoses: 1. the spectrum has been broadened to include Aspergers and other forms of PDD, which, means more children are getting diagnosed 2. Birth to three services are in place and are catching more kids and diagnosing earlier 3. Stress levels in our country are causing higher levels of cortisol which affects brain chemistry 4. The Back To Sleep initiative to prevent SIDS has parents scared to place their infants on their stomaches, which decreases the amount of developmentally appropriate activities infants are doing 5. etc., etc. You pick the theory you believe in. Vaccines are a just a quick and easy blame

Kodiac 8 years, 3 months ago

Gr,

I never said anything regarding my position on mercury in vaccines. You asked some questions, I saw a possible resource that may provide answers to those questions. I think you need to calm down just a bit Gr before you go and rip my head off. It would seem to be a touchy subject with you. It also appears that you have already made up your mind regarding this issue calling it a "macbre practice" (macabre maybe is what you meant).

I think that you have at least alluded to the problem with the uncertainty in research which has all been with the methylmercury and not with the ethylmercury from which thirmersol is deravitized. The FDA site does say that thirmersol has been studied extensively it is considered to be very safe. They also give you links to a lot of other sites containing safety information about thirmersol of which I have not really explored. They also indicate that the use of thirmerol has been eliminated or greatly reduced in most vaccines and even the ones that do have it there are some non-thirmesol alternatives for those vaccines albeit limited but they are there.

I do find myself agreeing with williaa in that people do have tendency to jump the gun a bit and try to find an easy blame for some fairly complex problems.

gr 8 years, 3 months ago

Kodiac,

I guess I did get un-calmed. Except the "touchy subject" was not so much with the subject at hand as it was with a reoccurring theme with you. I asked a question of why was mercury being injected and what was the safe level. You yet again spouted off with non relevant information. Maybe you were attempting to say it wasn't being used, but it IS still being used - just not as much.

I've "made up my mind" only after reading quite a bit of information on it. I also "made up my mind" after knowing all the publicity about the hazards of mercury. Now, maybe the publicity was wrong, in which case, is another problem.

The FDA site does NOT say that thimerosal is safe. - They have found no ill effects. - More research is needed. Not exactly ease of mind.

Links? Like the NIH that says, "This study was not designed to measure any type of damage due to mercury exposure."

============

williaa,

You answered the question as to whether autism as been confirmed to be ONE of the problems of injecting mercury into people. You neglected to substantiate a good reason why a toxic element is being injected into people.

Kodiac 8 years, 3 months ago

Gr says " asked a question of why was mercury being injected and what was the safe level. You yet again spouted off with non relevant information."

Tell me Gr how is it "non relevant" to point to an FDA site that talks specifically about thimersol in vaccines. I think this paragraph is extremely relevant....

"Thimerosal has been removed from or reduced to trace amounts in all vaccines routinely recommended for children 6 years of age and younger, with the exception of inactivated influenza vaccine (see Table 1). A preservative-free version of the inactivated influenza vaccine (contains trace amounts of thimerosal) is available in limited supply at this time for use in infants, children and pregnant women. Some vaccines such as Td, which is indicated for older children (> 7 years of age) and adults, are also now available in formulations that are free of thimerosal or contain only trace amounts. Vaccines with trace amounts of thimerosal contain 1 microgram or less of mercury per dose."

Your statement of "but it IS still being used - just not as much." is a very subjective Gr. What do you mean by "not as much". They went from 25 µg per dose to 1 µg or less in those vaccines they do contain it. In fact you can at least seek vaccines alternative that do not have thimersol at all for the thimersol containing vaccines. Of course you can always choose to not get the Flu vaccine which apparently is one of the last ones to contain this thimersol.

Or how about From the CDC.....

"Today, with the exception of some influenza vaccine, NONE of the vaccines used to protect preschool children against 12 infectious diseases contain thimerosal as a preservative. (Those with a concentration of less than 0.0002% contain what is considered "trace," or insignificant, amounts.) Certain Influenza (flu) vaccines and tetanus-diphtheria vaccines (Td) given to children age 7 and older contain thimerosal as a preservative."

Is this relevant Gr? I think it is. You asked about mercury in vaccines and here is statement saying that most vaccines do not contain them.

As far as the "RECURRING" theme, frankly my dear I don't give a d*mn. In my opinion, our history is irrelevant to the topic at hand......

Kodiac 8 years, 3 months ago

Also notice on the same FDA site a Table 3 listing the vaccines and mercury content. Of the 45 vaccines listed, only 6 vaccines contained the 25 µg/mL dose or higher of thimerosal and those vaccines do have thimerosal-free alternatives. Gr, you make it sound like this practice is in full-swing but apparently there has been a push within the FDA to actually ELIMINATE this preservative because of the uncertainty surrounding it.

I actually find this in itself somewhat curious because if there are no studies that actually connect thimerosal to autism and it has been used since the 1930s, why the push to eliminate it?

I certainly don't mean to offend anyone who has autistic children so I am sorry if this comment seems insensitive, I also question whether or not there has been a "rise" in autistic cases in the human population. I have read some reports that there has actually been no increases of autism in the human population and that it only appears to be that way due to differences in the way the medical community is diagnosing autism and its related problems in more recent times compared to the past.

I guess that to me only points back to the complexity of the overall problem.

Wilbur_Nether 8 years, 3 months ago

Unfortunately, many people have little skill in reading or interpreting research. Too often, we take correlation to be proof.

gr 8 years, 3 months ago

Kodiac,

I've taken a few deep breaths and have tried to "calm down". I'm sorry I came across as going to rip your head off.

"I think this paragraph is extremely relevant...."

Ok, a few more deep breaths. The site may be relevant, but how so is that paragraph relevant?

"Your statement of "but it IS still being used - just not as much." is a very subjective" Well, why do you suppose that is? Could it be that the site is very subjective? This is what got my ire up. I got this feeling that we were going to go through and analyze every statement to death when it should be quite apparent.

The question I asked was why was mercury still being used and what was the safe level. "They went from 25 µg per dose to 1 µg or less in those vaccines they do contain it", even if true, did not answer either question. "1 µg or less" is still being used. However, your statement is false. Check out your Table 1. "25 µg/0.5 mL dose" which you even admit later. Now, why did you say, "They went from 25 µg per dose to 1 µg or less in those vaccines they do contain it."? Did you note the disclaimer in the table: "Recommended for Children 6 Years of Age and Younger"? Did you look at Table 3 where several vaccines had .01% which translates to 25 µg/0.5 mL dose? I see you did.

I don't think it would be truthful to say, "They went from 25 µg per dose to 1 µg or less in those vaccines they do contain it", nor would "the Flu vaccine which apparently is one of the last ones to contain this thimersol" be true. But, I must admit, something I'm do not find nice to think about are the alternatives: "2-phenoxyethanol and formaldehyde, Phenol, Benzethonium chloride (Phemerol), 2-phenoxyethanol". The only hope is that some of these one could hope would break down into non-harmful products. For example, Phenol is a pretty bad thing. But, if broken down into it's elemental forms, would only be carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. Unlike, mercury, which can't break down into a more elemental state.

"Or how about From the CDC..... Is this relevant Gr? I think it is. You asked about mercury in vaccines and here is statement saying that most vaccines do not contain them."

The question I asked was why was mercury still being used and what was the safe level. Your quotes from the FDA and CDC say trace (I agree, "trace" may (or may not) not be important) amounts do exist (hence my statement, "just not as much") and Flu vaccines contain significant amounts.

"it has been used since the 1930s," Maybe there has been no connection to autism, but did you notice no studies to determine the toxicity? Were you also aware that mercury was used in the past to "cure" everything? So, "why the push to eliminate it?" They found out mercury was "bad". And, if the FDA sees a need to eliminate it, why do they still allow large amounts in Flu vaccines?

"frankly my dear I don't give a d*mn." Ha, Ha. Does sound like "our history" does enter into it. ;-)

gr 8 years, 3 months ago

Kodiac,

In addition to the other things, I guess I find it frustrating why the autism folks are so dead set on establishing a link. I could care less whether mercury causes autism or not. Since mercury has been known to cause health problems, targeting only a certain problem seems silly. The important thing is, why is mercury still (yes, STILL) being injected into people?

You pointed out there were alternatives. Are parents and vaccinators made aware of alternatives? Are they given choices? I would imagine some places like county health centers offer one choice.

=============

Hello Wilbur..........

Do you have anything worthwhile to add in response to the question of why is mercury still being used in vaccines and what is the safe level?

gr 8 years, 3 months ago

Again, Bob. That answers the question as to whether there has been a confirmed link of mercury with autism. But, the question is, why is mercury still being used in vaccines and what is the safe level?

I believe mercury has been established as a poison. Well, duh, it kills the microbes! Do you need a "critical peer review" to show that mercury is a toxin?

Show me a peer review study which determines the toxic affects and damage of mercury? The NIH site says, "This study was not designed to measure any type of damage due to mercury exposure." Maybe there is one you know of? If not, why are there no studies of such readily available. Something seems blatantly missing here. Of course, research could just be difficult.

If there are alternatives, why is mercury still being used? If there aren't any alternatives, why is mercury still being used - because, 'that's all we have'? Would you object if they used nuclear waste, only small amounts mind you, to kill the microbes? We are exposed to small amounts from the sun, you know. And, it would help solve our nuclear waste disposal problem!

Kodiac 8 years, 3 months ago

Gr,

I guess I have to ask why you keep referring to "This study was not designed to measure any type of damage due to mercury exposure". I mean it is only one study. There are other studies being done that probably would be more relevant to the question YOU are asking. That statement from the study you keep referring to is merely telling you that they were not trying to answer the question of mercury "damage" but rather the kinetics of thimersol in animals as compared to methyl mercury. They concluded that methyl mercury cannot be used as reference to determine what happens with thimerasol. This is the question they were asking and not whether or not it was damaging. So it puzzles me why you keep bringing this up.

Did you look at other articles and/or studies?

I found this one http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/107/5/1147

It is review article that has lists articles concerning toxicity and safe levels in their references. They conclude...."Our review revealed no evidence of harm caused by doses of thimerosal in vaccines, except for local hypersensitivity reactions. However, some infants may be exposed to cumulative levels of mercury during the first 6 months of life that exceed EPA recommendations. Exposure of infants to mercury in vaccines can be reduced or eliminated by using products formulated without thimerosal as a preservative."

Is this what you are looking for?

gr 8 years, 3 months ago

Kodiac: "is merely telling you that they were not trying to answer the question of mercury "damage" "

Well, I keep bringing it up since you appeared to imply they did research on it. They weren't even answering the question. As I was telling Bob. Where is the other research. I'll have to look at your link. First look, looks like maybe this is one.

And, Bob, the site you gave is the one we are talking about.

Both of you, or anyone else. Forget whether mercury causes a specific damage. Why is mercury still being put into people? Is it like Bob says, that it's somehow better than doing nothing?

Suppose they DID test for damage. And the results show completely no detections of any damage. My question still stands, why are we putting mercury, which is a known toxin, into people's bodies when there is no evidence the action of mercury itself does any good (supposedly like "Radiation Txs"). (sorry for the run-on)

Wilbur_Nether 8 years, 3 months ago

gr asked me "Do you have anything worthwhile to add in response to the question of why is mercury still being used in vaccines and what is the safe level?" Other than being completely humiliated that I failed to meet gr's standard of "worthwhile"--how will I live with myself?--that ain't the dog I have in this fight. I'm not trying to answer those questions, gr. I want people to learn how to read and interpret research so they can both stop misrepresenting it and recognize when others are misrepresenting it. And recognize why it is unreasonable to expect black-and-white answers to complex questions such as "why is mercury still being used in vaccines and what is the safe level?"

gr 8 years, 3 months ago

Ahhh.

"And recognize why it is unreasonable to expect black-and-white answers to complex questions"

I guess I made the mistake in thinking it was a black-and-white answer of not intentionally injecting a poisonous element into people's bodies for no direct benefit.

I guess I made the mistake of assuming research into whether there is "proof" of a direct link between a known poisonous substance and a specific problem is non-relevant. For instance, if you eat arsenic, does it matter what symptoms you exhibit - or is it more important that should you stop eating it?

I guess I can add no further information to this conversation to convince anyone why it is not appropriate to inject a known toxic substance into people. I can only imagine this would be the exact same conversation if we were talking about mad cow disease.

I read recently that Canada was going to seriously think about not feeding cows to cows, not using ground up dead cows in feed and pet products. At least they are going to think about it! For several years, if not decades, it has been determined that feeding cows to cows can result in spread of these prions which cause mad cow disease and possibly be transmitted to humans. One way to prevent this problem is to stop feeding cows to cows. But, it still is happening. Why not just stop! Now, one difference (at least I hope) with feeding dead cows versus injecting mercury is the problem of what to do with dead cows. How do you get rid of all the waste products of dead cows? One way is to just keep them in a recycling loop of feeding them to live cows. Otherwise, there would be a serious waste problem. However, does the same apply to mercury? I would think not. At least I hope not.

But, if I cannot convince anyone that intentionally injecting a known toxic substance which cannot be broken down into anything less than its elemental toxic form, is something which should stop immediately, then it is highly improbable I could convince anyone of more complex issues.

gr 8 years, 3 months ago

Kodiac,

The article from your link was a good one. However, there are a lot of unknowns. There just hasn't been enough research to determine if there is damage nor the amount of damage from vaccines. An important point from the article is the following: "Although acknowledging the limitations of available data and the uncertainties inherent in our risk assessment, we cannot exclude the possibility of subtle neurodevelopmental abnormalities from the cumulative exposure to thimerosal in vaccines."

There was a list of links at the bottom of more recent studies. I haven't read them all, but one that may be of interest is, http://www.ebmonline.org/cgi/content/full/228/6/660 where it says, "An association between neurodevelopmental disorders and thimerosal-containing DTaP vaccines was found, but additional studies should be conducted to confirm and extend this study." But, then it also has links - some in agreement (original authors' defense), some against (VAERS bias).

There is something the article brings out which is what you raised in relation to the autism people. There are alternatives. While I don't understand why they are allowed to keep using a known toxic element, people can choose not to be exposed. Now, these are big IFs, but if people want to ensure their kid is not exposed to mercury from vaccines, and if they take an active approach in ensuring it, and if they are permitted to make those choices, and if they choose not take the flu vaccines which contain mercury, then their kids should be able to escape exposure from mercury in vaccines. Then, if enough people are concerned about mercury exposure and take steps to prevent their kids from being exposed, and if autism is one of the symptoms from toxicity of mercury, it would be reasonable to expect a decrease in autism.

Either way, after the alternatives came into existence, it would be hard for people with autistic kids to blame it on mercury exposure in vaccines. Or, they haven't been active in searching out the best for their kid's health.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.