Could Thimerosal Be Worse Than We Thought? (Yazbak)

[Guest guest]

Well done Yatzbach.H. H.Fudenberg, M.D.,DDG.IOM

Inman, SC 29349

(864) 592 8076

Website nitrf.org

EOHarm From: vaccineinfo@...Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 18:31:21 +0100Subject: Could Thimerosal Be Worse Than We Thought? (Yazbak)

http://www.redflagsdaily.com/yazbak/2005_oct05.html

Dr. Yazbak, a pediatrician, now devotes his time to the research of

autoimmune regressive autism and vaccine injury.

Could Thimerosal Be Worse Than We Thought?

By Red Flags Columnist, F. Yazbak, MD, FAAP

(tlautstudyaol)

[Guest guest]

Hello,

Just to note as a courtesy to list members that this article is a year

and a half old.

Lenny

>

> http://www.redflagsdaily.com/yazbak/2005_oct05.html

>

> Dr. Yazbak, a pediatrician, now devotes his time to the research of

> autoimmune regressive autism and vaccine injury.

>

> Could Thimerosal Be Worse Than We Thought?

>

> By Red Flags Columnist, F. Yazbak, MD, FAAP

> (tlautstudy@...)

>

> In " Trust me: I have the statistics to prove it, " (1) I described the

> findings published on July 29, 2005 in the Mortality and Morbidity

Weekly

> Report of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) under the

> title " National, State, and Urban Area Vaccination Coverage Among

Children

> Aged 19-35 Months — United States, 2004. " (2)

>

> It was evident that the CDC took great pride in the achievements of its

> National Immunization Program (NIP) and particularly in the results of a

> 2004 vaccination survey, which showed that the 80.9 percent vaccination

> coverage for the 4:3:1:3:3 series of children aged 19-35 months had

> exceeded the Healthy People 2010 goal.

>

> That particular vaccination series consists of >4 doses of DT

> (diphtheria-tetanus) or DTaP; >3 doses of poliovirus vaccine; >1 dose of

> any measles-containing vaccine, usually MMR (measles, mumps,

rubella); >3

> doses of Hib (Haemophilus influenzae vaccine; and >3 doses of

hepatitis

> B vaccine.

>

> As I described, the results of the survey were much publicized by

the media

> — unlike the findings of a study published within a few days, which

no one,

> including myself, heard about. That second and very important study

by E.

> T. Luman, L. E. Barker et al, " Timeliness of childhood immunizations: a

> state-specific analysis, " was published in the August issue of the

American

> Journal of Public Health (p. 1367 -74). The lead author and two of her

> co-authors are employed by the NIP/CDC and are, therefore, unlikely to

> report inaccurate shortcomings of vaccination programs. (3)

>

> The implications of their paper are critical. If injected mercury is

one of

> the many causes of autism,as I believe, then what the Luman study

suggests

> is that the neurological damage from ethyl mercury is even greater than

> anyone suspected.

>

> Let me explain.

>

> The recommended U.S. 2005 Childhood and Adolescent Immunization Schedule

> clearly illustrates the fact that the CDC not only recommends

vaccinations

> but also specifies when those vaccinations should be administered.

>

> image of schedule

> see full size version here (4)

>

> As its name implies, the mandated " Schedule " is essentially that — a

> schedule. The CDC recommends that vaccinations be administered at

specific

> times as demonstrated by the stripes in color and by its statement under

> the chart.

>

> Many older parents and physicians would remember the days when series of

> vaccinations were actually repeated because one " shot " was missed or too

> much time had elapsed between doses.

>

> It is, therefore, at least surprising — if not outright shocking —

to find

> out that after careful review and examination of the timeliness of

vaccine

> administration among children aged 24 to 35 months for each state of the

> United States and the District of Columbia, Luman and associates

concluded

> that:

>

> " Receipt of all vaccinations as recommended ranged from 2 percent

> (Mississippi) to 26 percent (Massachusetts), with western states having

> less timeliness than eastern states. "

>

> At 25.5 percent, Massachusetts was the only state with a vaccination

rate

> above 20 percent for the 4:3:1:3:3 series.

>

> Five states had vaccination rates exceeding 15 percent: Connecticut

> (19.7),Rhode Island (19.2), land (18.5), Delaware (17.3) and South

> Carolina (17.2).

>

> In 22 states, vaccination rates on schedule were under 10 percent.

>

> The findings above are derived from information obtained through the

> 2000-2002 National Immunization Survey (NIS). It is unlikely that

the rates

> significantly improved by the 2004 survey. An important point to be

made is

> that if vaccination timeliness has been improving, then the thimerosal

> discussion that follows is even more pertinent.

>

> The CDC publishes state-specific vaccination coverage rates yearly to

> assist state health departments in assessing their vaccination

programs and

> the level of disease susceptibility in their state. The surveys from

which

> the rates are derived are usually conducted when the children are 19

to 35

> months of age, and simply indicate whether the child did or did not

get all

> the required vaccinations — not if he or she received them on the

> recommended time schedule. Included children could have received some

> vaccines before they were due or others, months after they were

supposed to

> be given. In both situations, according to the CDC, such vaccination

> practices were sub-optimal.

>

> A national study revealed that in 2002, 73 percent of children in

the U.S.

> received their " 4:3:1:3:3 series " by age 19 to 35 months but only 13

> percent received all their vaccinations at the recommended ages.

>

> For higher accuracy, Luman and associates analyzed the schedule in days,

> rather than in weeks or months. They concede, for example, that because

> they interpreted the recommendation concerning the age of two months as

> equating to an age range of 59 through 91 days, they may have actually

> slightly overestimated the number of children who were vaccinated at the

> recommended ages.

>

> The authors also evaluated a more " lenient " timeliness estimate based on

> minimum ages at which doses are considered valid and minimum acceptable

> intervals between doses of vaccines administered in multiple doses. That

> more lenient definition of acceptable timeliness for the 4:3:1:3:3

series

> produced higher estimates, ranging from 12 percent in Mississippi to 39

> percent in Massachusetts.

>

> Percentage-wise, more children were vaccinated according to the

schedule if

> fewer doses of the antigen were required. The percentage of children

> receiving the one-dose MMR on time varied from 64 percent in Montana

to 84

> percent in Hawaii. On the other hand, for DTP

> (diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis, four doses) the range was 17 percent in

> Mississippi to 43 percent in Massachusetts. And for HIB (three

doses), it

> went from 11 percent in Mississippi to 45 percent in Massachusetts.

>

> The range for all three poliovirus vaccine doses went from 38 percent in

> Alaska to 58 percent in Rhode Island. For all three hepatitis B vaccine

> doses, it varied from 49 percent in Vermont to 82 percent in Rhode

Island.

>

> Some 24 percent of children in Massachusetts, versus 65 percent of

those in

> Mississippi, had missed at least one dose in the 4:3:1:3:3 series by the

> age of 24 months. The range of children under two, who received at least

> one vaccine dose late, varied from a low of 50 percent in

Massachusetts to

> 73 percent in New Jersey. When it came to one invalidly early dose, the

> range varied from a low of 5 percent in Alabama to a high of 14

percent in

> D.C.

>

> This important study by Luman did not receive the attention it

deserved for

> reasons unknown. Maybe someone thought that its timing — shortly

after the

> recent victory celebration — was wrong, or decided, erroneously,

that its

> results were not so relevant after all.

>

> But it certainly seems strange that the CDC, though aware of what this

> comprehensive study was likely to reveal, approved and funded it only to

> " bury " its results.

>

> For those of us interested in the vaccine-autism and specifically the

> thimerosal– autism connection, this " quiet " study is very relevant and

> quite alarming.

>

> There has been intense concern regarding the spectacular increase in

autism

> rates after the introduction of the HIB vaccination mandate in the late

> `80s and that of the hepatitis B vaccination in the early `90s.

Parents of

> affected children were specifically alarmed about the vaccines

administered

> at the age of two months when the infant was likely to receive 62.5µg of

> (ethyl) mercury within a few minutes (DTP/DTAP: 25µg, HIB 25µg and Hep B

> 12.5µg) and about the total mercury loads of 187.5µg over the first six

> months of life.

>

> As I said above, if injected mercury is one of the many causes of

autism,as

> I believe, then the Luman study suggests that the neurological

damage from

> ethyl mercury is even greater than anyone suspected. That's because most

> babies who developed autism had actually received fewer vaccines and

less

> mercury during the first six months of life than previously calculated.

>

> Similarly, if the MMR vaccine is responsible for autistic regression

in a

> certain percentage of affected children, as mounting evidence seems to

> indicate, then it would be reasonable to expect that there would

have been

> more cases of regressive autism if all infants in the U.S. received

their

> MMR vaccination immediately after their first birthday. Preliminary

results

> from my study of Australian women, who received rubella and MMR

boosters as

> adults, suggest that their children, who did not receive the MMR

> vaccination or received it at the age of five, were much less likely to

> regress than their counterparts in the U.S., who were vaccinated

just after

> their first birthday.

>

> In other words, if thousands of infants developed autism, when they

had not

> received their vaccinations on time, would more have been affected

if they

> had been obsessively vaccinated on schedule?

>

> Is it possible that parents who carefully had their

genetically-predisposed

> infants vaccinated on schedule increased their likelihood to develop

autism?

>

> * * *

>

> Prematurely-born infants are smaller and more delicate than full-term

> newborns, yet the recommendation has been and still is " that preterm

> infants less than 37 weeks gestation and infants of low birth weight (<

> 2500 g) should, with few exceptions, receive all routinely recommended

> childhood vaccines at the same chronologic age as should full-term

infants.

> Gestational age and birth weight are not limiting factors when deciding

> whether a clinically stable premature infant is to be immunized on

> schedule.… Vaccine dosages normally given to full-term infants

should not

> be reduced or divided when given to preterm and low-birth-weight

infants.…

> Medically stable preterm infants who remain in the hospital at 2

months of

> chronologic age should be given all vaccines recommended at that

age.… All

> immunizations required at 2 months of age may be administered

> simultaneously to preterm and low birth weight infants. " (5)

>

> Obviously, many smaller pre-term infants weigh much less than 2,500 g

> (grams) or 5.5 lb. (pounds) at birth. They are classified as being

of very

> low birth weight (under 1,500 g or 3.3 lb.) and of extremely low birth

> weight (under 1,000 g or 2.2 lb.). Even infants born at 25 weeks

gestation

> and weighing 500 g (1.1 lb.) are now surviving in increasing

numbers. Most

> of these infants still weigh less than average at six months of age.

>

> Prior to 1999, many preterm infants, some very small, received their

first

> battery of thimerosal-containing vaccines at the chronological age

of two

> months and actual gestational age of a few days, while they were

still in

> the nursery. Because of their small weight, they obviously absorbed

> proportionately more ethyl mercury than a baby who weighed nine

pounds at

> birth. More importantly, because of their prematurity and its associated

> debilitation and complications, these infants required more doctors'

visits

> and, in all likelihood, received their subsequent vaccinations and the

> complete increment of 178.5 µg of mercury by the age of six months and

> exactly on schedule — while the majority of full-term healthy

children did

> not, as clearly demonstrated by Luman.

>

> * * *

> In the U.K., the vaccination schedule for DTP — the vaccine that

contained

> mercury — was changed a few years ago from 3, 5 and 10 months to 2,

3 and 4

> months in order to assure better compliance.

>

> In the United States, pediatric vaccinations are recommended at 2, 4

and 6

> months of age to achieve optimal immunity.

>

> On Feb. 9, 2004, the Institute of Medicine's Immunization Safety Review

> Committee decided that thimerosal did not cause regressive autism.

One of

> the arguments used to support that decision was that thimerosal

could not

> possibly be a factor because autism had increased in both the U.S.

and the

> U.K. in similar fashion, while the amount of mercury administered to

> British infants was only 75µg during the first crucial six months of

life,

> compared to the 187.5µg that babies in the U.S. routinely received.

>

> The Luman study now invalidates that argument because, in fact, most

babies

> in the U.K. are likely to have received the 75µg of mercury in just

60 days

> (from age 60 to age 120 days) while U.S. children may not have been

given —

> as we have now learned— all their vaccines and their total quota of

187.5µg

> of mercuryin 180 days. Even if all vaccinations had been administered on

> time, the average daily mercury burden of American babies would still be

> less than the 1.25µg of mercury that an infant in the U.K. averaged from

> age two to four months.

>

> Another more global aspect of the situation is slowly becoming

apparent and

> disturbing.

>

> While the United States, Britain, the rest of the Western World and

the Far

> East are moving away from mercury in vaccines, the World Health

> Organization (WHO) and the vaccine manufacturers are sending tons of

> vaccines with thimerosal to Africa, where an accelerated schedule of

> pediatric vaccinations is recommended. Infants in those poor

countries will

> be receiving, for the foreseeable future, vaccines containing 187.5

µg of

> mercury by the age of 14 weeks. Since the 1930s, no other infants,

anywhere

> in the world, have ever received 187.5µg of ethyl mercury in 98 days.

>

> Though no one knows how susceptible African babies are to mercury,

it seems

> illogical — if not immoral — to administer vaccines to them that we

do not

> dare use anymore and that will expose them to larger amounts of

thimerosal

> in the first 100 days of their lives than ever permitted in the rest

of the

> world.

>

> * * *

>

> Conclusions:

>

> Thimerosal in vaccines may have been more toxic than previously

estimated.

>

> The timeliness of pediatric vaccinations in the United States was not

> discussed at the Institute of Medicine's Immunization Safety Review

> Committee meeting of Feb. 9, 2004.

>

> A reliable, recently released CDC study has now exposed this serious

> omission and suggested that an important confounder in the

> thimerosal-autism controversy was never considered.

>

> * * *

>

> References:

>

> 1. http://www.redflagsdaily.com/yazbak/2005_aug17.php

> 2. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5429a1.htm

> 3. Luman ET, Barker LE, McCauley MM, Drews-Botsch C. Timeliness of

> childhood immunizations: a state-specific analysis. Am J Public Health.

> 2005 Aug; 95(8): 1367-74.

> 4. http://www.cdc.gov/nip/recs/child-schedule.PDF

> 5. American Academy of Pediatrics Red Book — 2003 (p. 66)

>

>

> --------------------------------------------------------

> Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath

> Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Nevada City CA & Wales UK

> $$ Donations to help in the work - accepted by Paypal account

> earthmysteriestours@... voicemail US 530-740-0561

> (go to http://www.paypal.com) or by mail

> Vaccines - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm or

> http://www.wellwithin1.com/vaccine.htm

> Vaccine Dangers On-Line course -

http://www.wellwithin1.com/vaccineclass.htm

> Reality of the Diseases & Treatment -

> http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccineclass.htm

> Homeopathy On-Line course - http://www.wellwithin1.com/homeo.htm

> NEXT CLASSES start by email September 5 or 6

>

[Guest guest]

sorry, should have said, as no date on it.

just thought I'd share these since the conversation about tuna and thimerosal.

Sheri

At 12:33 AM 8/28/2007 -0000, you wrote:

>

>Hello,

>Just to note as a courtesy to list members that this article is a year

>and a half old.

>

>Lenny

>

>

>

>>

>> http://www.redflagsdaily.com/yazbak/2005_oct05.html

>>

>> Dr. Yazbak, a pediatrician, now devotes his time to the research of

>> autoimmune regressive autism and vaccine injury.

>>

>> Could Thimerosal Be Worse Than We Thought?

>>

>> By Red Flags Columnist, F. Yazbak, MD, FAAP

>> (tlautstudy@...)

--------------------------------------------------------

Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath

Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Nevada City CA & Wales UK

$$ Donations to help in the work - accepted by Paypal account

earthmysteriestours@... voicemail US 530-740-0561

(go to http://www.paypal.com) or by mail

Vaccines - http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm or

http://www.wellwithin1.com/vaccine.htm

Vaccine Dangers On-Line course - http://www.wellwithin1.com/vaccineclass.htm

Reality of the Diseases & Treatment -

http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccineclass.htm

Homeopathy On-Line course - http://www.wellwithin1.com/homeo.htm

NEXT CLASSES start by email September 5 or 6

[Guest guest]

http://www.redflagsdaily.com/yazbak/2005_oct05.html (URL no longer works)

Dr. Yazbak, a pediatrician, now devotes his time

to the research of autoimmune regressive autism and vaccine injury.

Could Thimerosal Be Worse Than We Thought?

By Red Flags Columnist, F. Yazbak, MD, FAAP

(tlautstudy@...)

In “Trust me: I have the statistics to prove it,“

(1) I described the findings published on July

29, 2005 in the Mortality and Morbidity Weekly

Report of the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention (CDC) under the title “National,

State, and Urban Area Vaccination Coverage Among

Children Aged 19-35 Months — United States, 2004.” (2)

It was evident that the CDC took great pride in

the achievements of its National Immunization

Program (NIP) and particularly in the results of

a 2004 vaccination survey, which showed that the

80.9 percent vaccination coverage for the

4:3:1:3:3 series of children aged 19-35 months

had exceeded the Healthy People 2010 goal.

That particular vaccination series consists of >4

doses of DT (diphtheria-tetanus) or DTaP; >3

doses of poliovirus vaccine; >1 dose of any

measles-containing vaccine, usually MMR (measles,

mumps, rubella); >3 doses of Hib (Haemophilus

influenzae vaccine; and >3 doses of hepatitis B vaccine.

As I described, the results of the survey were

much publicized by the media — unlike the

findings of a study published within a few days,

which no one, including myself, heard about. That

second and very important study by E. T. Luman,

L. E. Barker et al, “Timeliness of childhood

immunizations: a state-specific analysis,” was

published in the August issue of the American

Journal of Public Health (p. 1367 -74). The lead

author and two of her co-authors are employed by

the NIP/CDC and are, therefore, unlikely to

report inaccurate shortcomings of vaccination programs. (3)

The implications of their paper are critical. If

injected mercury is one of the many causes of

autism,as I believe, then what the Luman study

suggests is that the neurological damage from

ethyl mercury is even greater than anyone suspected.

Let me explain.

The recommended U.S. 2005 Childhood and

Adolescent Immunization Schedule clearly

illustrates the fact that the CDC not only

recommends vaccinations but also specifies when

those vaccinations should be administered.

image of schedule

see full size version here (4)

As its name implies, the mandated “Schedule” is

essentially that — a schedule. The CDC recommends

that vaccinations be administered at specific

times as demonstrated by the stripes in color and

by its statement under the chart.

Many older parents and physicians would remember

the days when series of vaccinations were

actually repeated because one “shot” was missed

or too much time had elapsed between doses.

It is, therefore, at least surprising — if not

outright shocking — to find out that after

careful review and examination of the timeliness

of vaccine administration among children aged 24

to 35 months for each state of the United States

and the District of Columbia, Luman and associates concluded that:

“Receipt of all vaccinations as recommended

ranged from 2 percent (Mississippi) to 26 percent

(Massachusetts), with western states having less

timeliness than eastern states.”

At 25.5 percent, Massachusetts was the only state

with a vaccination rate above 20 percent for the 4:3:1:3:3 series.

Five states had vaccination rates exceeding 15

percent: Connecticut (19.7),Rhode Island (19.2),

land (18.5), Delaware (17.3) and South Carolina (17.2).

In 22 states, vaccination rates on schedule were under 10 percent.

The findings above are derived from information

obtained through the 2000-2002 National

Immunization Survey (NIS). It is unlikely that

the rates significantly improved by the 2004

survey. An important point to be made is that if

vaccination timeliness has been improving, then

the thimerosal discussion that follows is even more pertinent.

The CDC publishes state-specific vaccination

coverage rates yearly to assist state health

departments in assessing their vaccination

programs and the level of disease susceptibility

in their state. The surveys from which the rates

are derived are usually conducted when the

children are 19 to 35 months of age, and simply

indicate whether the child did or did not get all

the required vaccinations — not if he or she

received them on the recommended time schedule.

Included children could have received some

vaccines before they were due or others, months

after they were supposed to be given. In both

situations, according to the CDC, such vaccination practices were sub-optimal.

A national study revealed that in 2002, 73

percent of children in the U.S. received their

“4:3:1:3:3 series” by age 19 to 35 months but

only 13 percent received all their vaccinations at the recommended ages.

For higher accuracy, Luman and associates

analyzed the schedule in days, rather than in

weeks or months. They concede, for example, that

because they interpreted the recommendation

concerning the age of two months as equating to

an age range of 59 through 91 days, they may have

actually slightly overestimated the number of

children who were vaccinated at the recommended ages.

The authors also evaluated a more “lenient”

timeliness estimate based on minimum ages at

which doses are considered valid and minimum

acceptable intervals between doses of vaccines

administered in multiple doses. That more lenient

definition of acceptable timeliness for the

4:3:1:3:3 series produced higher estimates,

ranging from 12 percent in Mississippi to 39 percent in Massachusetts.

Percentage-wise, more children were vaccinated

according to the schedule if fewer doses of the

antigen were required. The percentage of children

receiving the one-dose MMR on time varied from 64

percent in Montana to 84 percent in Hawaii. On

the other hand, for DTP

(diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis, four doses) the

range was 17 percent in Mississippi to 43 percent

in Massachusetts. And for HIB (three doses), it

went from 11 percent in Mississippi to 45 percent in Massachusetts.

The range for all three poliovirus vaccine doses

went from 38 percent in Alaska to 58 percent in

Rhode Island. For all three hepatitis B vaccine

doses, it varied from 49 percent in Vermont to 82 percent in Rhode Island.

Some 24 percent of children in Massachusetts,

versus 65 percent of those in Mississippi, had

missed at least one dose in the 4:3:1:3:3 series

by the age of 24 months. The range of children

under two, who received at least one vaccine dose

late, varied from a low of 50 percent in

Massachusetts to 73 percent in New Jersey. When

it came to one invalidly early dose, the range

varied from a low of 5 percent in Alabama to a high of 14 percent in D.C.

This important study by Luman did not receive the

attention it deserved for reasons unknown. Maybe

someone thought that its timing — shortly after

the recent victory celebration — was wrong, or

decided, erroneously, that its results were not so relevant after all.

But it certainly seems strange that the CDC,

though aware of what this comprehensive study was

likely to reveal, approved and funded it only to “bury” its results.

For those of us interested in the vaccine-autism

and specifically the thimerosal­ autism

connection, this “quiet” study is very relevant and quite alarming.

There has been intense concern regarding the

spectacular increase in autism rates after the

introduction of the HIB vaccination mandate in

the late ‘80s and that of the hepatitis B

vaccination in the early ‘90s. Parents of

affected children were specifically alarmed about

the vaccines administered at the age of two

months when the infant was likely to receive

62.5µg of (ethyl) mercury within a few minutes

(DTP/DTAP: 25µg, HIB 25µg and Hep B 12.5µg) and

about the total mercury loads of 187.5µg over the first six months of life.

As I said above, if injected mercury is one of

the many causes of autism,as I believe, then the

Luman study suggests that the neurological damage

from ethyl mercury is even greater than anyone

suspected. That’s because most babies who

developed autism had actually received fewer

vaccines and less mercury during the first six

months of life than previously calculated.

Similarly, if the MMR vaccine is responsible for

autistic regression in a certain percentage of

affected children, as mounting evidence seems to

indicate, then it would be reasonable to expect

that there would have been more cases of

regressive autism if all infants in the U.S.

received their MMR vaccination immediately after

their first birthday. Preliminary results from my

study of Australian women, who received rubella

and MMR boosters as adults, suggest that their

children, who did not receive the MMR vaccination

or received it at the age of five, were much less

likely to regress than their counterparts in the

U.S., who were vaccinated just after their first birthday.

In other words, if thousands of infants developed

autism, when they had not received their

vaccinations on time, would more have been

affected if they had been obsessively vaccinated on schedule?

Is it possible that parents who carefully had

their genetically-predisposed infants vaccinated

on schedule increased their likelihood to develop autism?

* * *

Prematurely-born infants are smaller and more

delicate than full-term newborns, yet the

recommendation has been and still is “that

preterm infants less than 37 weeks gestation and

infants of low birth weight (< 2500 g) should,

with few exceptions, receive all routinely

recommended childhood vaccines at the same

chronologic age as should full-term infants.

Gestational age and birth weight are not limiting

factors when deciding whether a clinically stable

premature infant is to be immunized on schedule.…

Vaccine dosages normally given to full-term

infants should not be reduced or divided when

given to preterm and low-birth-weight

infants.… Medically stable preterm infants who

remain in the hospital at 2 months of chronologic

age should be given all vaccines recommended at

that age.… All immunizations required at 2 months

of age may be administered simultaneously to

preterm and low birth weight infants.” (5)

Obviously, many smaller pre-term infants weigh

much less than 2,500 g (grams) or 5.5 lb.

(pounds) at birth. They are classified as being

of very low birth weight (under 1,500 g or 3.3

lb.) and of extremely low birth weight (under

1,000 g or 2.2 lb.). Even infants born at 25

weeks gestation and weighing 500 g (1.1 lb.) are

now surviving in increasing numbers. Most of

these infants still weigh less than average at six months of age.

Prior to 1999, many preterm infants, some very

small, received their first battery of

thimerosal-containing vaccines at the

chronological age of two months and actual

gestational age of a few days, while they were

still in the nursery. Because of their small

weight, they obviously absorbed proportionately

more ethyl mercury than a baby who weighed nine

pounds at birth. More importantly, because of

their prematurity and its associated debilitation

and complications, these infants required more

doctors’ visits and, in all likelihood, received

their subsequent vaccinations and the complete

increment of 178.5 µg of mercury by the age of

six months and exactly on schedule — while the

majority of full-term healthy children did not,

as clearly demonstrated by Luman.

* * *

In the U.K., the vaccination schedule for DTP —

the vaccine that contained mercury — was changed

a few years ago from 3, 5 and 10 months to 2, 3

and 4 months in order to assure better compliance.

In the United States, pediatric vaccinations are

recommended at 2, 4 and 6 months of age to achieve optimal immunity.

On Feb. 9, 2004, the Institute of Medicine’s

Immunization Safety Review Committee decided that

thimerosal did not cause regressive autism. One

of the arguments used to support that decision

was that thimerosal could not possibly be a

factor because autism had increased in both the

U.S. and the U.K. in similar fashion, while the

amount of mercury administered to British infants

was only 75µg during the first crucial six months

of life, compared to the 187.5µg that babies in the U.S. routinely received.

The Luman study now invalidates that argument

because, in fact, most babies in the U.K. are

likely to have received the 75µg of mercury in

just 60 days (from age 60 to age 120 days) while

U.S. children may not have been given — as we

have now learned— all their vaccines and their

total quota of 187.5µg of mercuryin 180 days.

Even if all vaccinations had been administered on

time, the average daily mercury burden of

American babies would still be less than the

1.25µg of mercury that an infant in the U.K.

averaged from age two to four months.

Another more global aspect of the situation is

slowly becoming apparent and disturbing.

While the United States, Britain, the rest of the

Western World and the Far East are moving away

from mercury in vaccines, the World Health

Organization (WHO) and the vaccine manufacturers

are sending tons of vaccines with thimerosal to

Africa, where an accelerated schedule of

pediatric vaccinations is recommended. Infants in

those poor countries will be receiving, for the

foreseeable future, vaccines containing 187.5 µg

of mercury by the age of 14 weeks. Since the

1930s, no other infants, anywhere in the world,

have ever received 187.5µg of ethyl mercury in 98 days.

Though no one knows how susceptible African

babies are to mercury, it seems illogical — if

not immoral — to administer vaccines to them that

we do not dare use anymore and that will expose

them to larger amounts of thimerosal in the first

100 days of their lives than ever permitted in the rest of the world.

* * *

Conclusions:

Thimerosal in vaccines may have been more toxic than previously estimated.

The timeliness of pediatric vaccinations in the

United States was not discussed at the Institute

of Medicine’s Immunization Safety Review Committee meeting of Feb. 9, 2004.

A reliable, recently released CDC study has now

exposed this serious omission and suggested that

an important confounder in the thimerosal-autism

controversy was never considered.

* * *

References:

1. http://www.redflagsdaily.com/yazbak/2005_aug17.php

2. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5429a1.htm

3. Luman ET, Barker LE, McCauley MM,

Drews-Botsch C. Timeliness of childhood

immunizations: a state-specific analysis. Am J

Public Health. 2005 Aug; 95(8): 1367-74.

4. http://www.cdc.gov/nip/recs/child-schedule.PDF

5. American Academy of Pediatrics Red Book — 2003 (p. 66)