Re: Huffpost - Resending as text only

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

Do you know if this report will be made available to the public soon??

Tim Booton

>

>

> <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/bad-news-for-mercury-

defe_b_3

> 6152.html> Bad News for Mercury Defenders

> Kirby

> Next June, when the Vaccine Trial of the Century gets underway in

> Federal Claims Court, government lawyers will defend the direct

> injection of toxic mercury into infant children by repeating the

> well-worn mantra that " five large population studies " in Europe and

the

> US have completely exonerated the vaccine preservative thimerosal

as a

> possible cause of autism.

> But now it seems they may need to tuck a " Plan B " into their Federal

> briefcase.

> Yesterday, UPI Senior Editor Dan Olmsted reported in his " Age of

Autism "

> column that an NIH-led panel of experts has " identified several

serious

> problems " plaguing the database used to produce the US vaccine

study -

> the lynchpin of the " five large population studies " showing that

organic

> mercury is just fine to shoot into kids.

> The expert panel report, signed by NIH Director Dr. Elias A.

Zerhouni,

> was sent to Congress in response to a query from Sen. ph

Lieberman

> and seven colleagues last February. They wanted to know if the US

> database, the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), could be used to

compare

> autism rates in kids before, during, and after the gradual removal

of

> thimerosal, which began in roughly 2000.

> Unfortunately, the answer was a resounding " not really. " A laundry

list

> of " weaknesses " and " limitations " associated with the database would

> render such a comparative analysis " uninformative and potentially

> misleading, " the panel said, (though it did suggest some excellent

ways

> to re-approach the data going into the future).

> Some weaknesses had to do with changes in medical practices over

time.

> But many of the limitations sprang directly from the poorly

designed VSD

> study itself (which, by the way, cost taxpayers many millions of

dollars

> a year).

> The panel was concerned about the way that autism diagnoses were

made,

> and how accurately they were recorded by participating HMO's. It

also

> questioned whether those HMO's offered adequate services for autism

> families, who might have sought alternative healthcare in more

> specialized settings.

> These and other problems could easily have contributed to an

> " under-ascertainment " of autism cases within the VSD. As I report

in my

> book " Evidence of Harm, " most of the VSD kids lived in California,

where

> autism rates at the time were about 30-40 per 10,000 children. But

> within the VSD itself, the reported rate was just 11.5 per 10,000.

> The panel cited many other problems with the original VSD study

design,

> particularly what it called " a large proportion, around 25%, of

births

> excluded from the analysis. "

> Government researchers claim they excluded one-quarter of the kids

to

> eliminate " statistical noise. " But the panel argued that these same

> children " may represent a susceptible population whose removal from

the

> analysis " might unintentionally reduce " the ability to detect an

effect

> of thimerosal. "

> And there were still more " serious problems " to deal with.

According to

> the panel, a proper study design should include prenatal factors

such as

> maternal receipt of thimerosal-containing Rhogam (immune globulin)

or

> " other vaccinations given during pregnancy, " (including, by the

way, the

> annual flu shot).

> Finally, panel members worried that thimerosal alone did not paint

the

> full picture of " the cumulative exposure of a child to organic

> mercurials through diet or other environmental sources. " In other

words,

> panelists said, we need to look at " total mercury burden " when

assessing

> autism risks, and not just the shots.

> All of these problems, as the panel put it mildly, " reduce the

> usefulness " of the VSD to prove or disprove a link between

thimerosal

> and autism, (which happens to be precisely what the anti-mercury

group

> SAFE MINDS told the government seven long years ago).

> Which brings us to another problem. The VSD study is constantly

held up

> by public health officials as EXHIBIT A in the defense of injecting

> mercury into little kids.

> The study is perpetually cited by the CDC -- which conducted the

study

> -- as the justification for keeping a neurotoxin in flu shots that

the

> agency is currently imploring upon pregnant women and six-month-olds

> (who receive mercury on flu-shot days in quantities several times

over

> the EPA limit).

> The VSD is cited by the American Academy of Pediatrics as proof that

> mercury in vaccines is healthy for kids, even while warning us that

> mercury in the air, water and fish is not. It is cited by drug

companies

> who stand to lose billions and billions of dollars in litigation a

link

> to thimerosal is ever determined. It is cited by incoming House

> Government Reform Chairman Henry A. Waxman, an avid vaccine

supporter,

> who now has the power to investigate this potential medical and

> political scandal, but almost certainly will chose not to do so.

> And, most importantly, the VSD study was the cornerstone of a 2004

> report issued by the Institute of Medicine which not only ruled

against

> a thimerosal-autism link, it took the extraordinary step of calling

for

> a prompt end to all research into the matter. (And this despite an

> honest admonition from the VSD's lead investigator that his study

was

> " neutral, " and that it " found no evidence against an association. " )

> Which leads us to Vaccine Court. Armed with the new NIH panel

report,

> lawyers for families seeking monetary relief can now effectively

disarm

> the most powerful arrow in the government's mercury-defense quiver -

> even before the opening gavel.

> This means that government lawyers will have to rely more heavily

on the

> four remaining population studies, all conducted in Europe. Two were

> done in Denmark, where autism record keeping changed so radically

during

> the study period that it " may have spuriously increased the apparent

> number of autism cases, " after mercury was removed from Danish

vaccines,

> according to the authors themselves.

> In fact, Dr. Irva Hertz-Picciotto, the UC public health

professor

> who chaired the expert panel, told Olmsted that the US study was

> actually " an improvement on other studies including the two in

Denmark,

> both of which had serious weaknesses in their designs. "

> Then there is the fourth study, from Sweden, which only looked at

autism

> cases that were diagnosed in hospital settings - a very low and

wildly

> varying number each year. Of the five population studies, this is

the

> probably the weakest and most easily dismissed, which is why you

almost

> never hear about it.

> That leaves the UK (a recent Canadian study not presented to the IOM

> failed to prove or disprove a direct link between childhood autism

and

> thimerosal use in Canada, despite claims to the contrary).

> There were actually two studies conducted in Britain (whose rates of

> thimerosal exposures and autism spectrum disorders roughly

paralleled

> our own). Remarkably, both of them showed that children who got

mercury

> in their shots were LESS likely to develop autism, leading the

authors

> (some of who had reported conflicts of interest with vaccine

makers) to

> conclude that thimerosal had an apparent " neuro-protective " effect.

> That's right, according to the Brits, mercury is a wonder drug for

kids.

>

> That ought to impress the judge.

> With so many holes shot through their " five large studies " defense,

the

> government lawyers will be left to argue that autism is purely

genetic,

> that there is no environmental component, and that the rates of

illness

> have not " really " gone up. We are simply better at recognizing and

> diagnosing the disorder, that's all.

> Well, if that is the case, the mercury-defense lawyers should have

no

> problem proving it. All they need do is produce irrefutable evidence

> that 1-in-166 American adults of ALL ages (and 1-in-104 men) fall

> somewhere within the autism spectrum disorder, at the same rate as

kids.

> But they can't, and they won't.

> The government wants to defend its use of mercury in vaccines based

on

> evidence drawn solely from epidemiological data ( " population

studies " ),

> and highly questionable data at that. But they are trying to win

their

> case in a Federal Court, and as Special Master Hastings, the

presiding

> judge, must surely know, epidemiology is " not acceptable " to

disprove

> causation, according to the Federal Court System.

> Instead, one must also consider biological studies (animal,

clinical,

> test tube) when assessing causation. And that's where the plaintiffs

> will come to court armed with reams of published evidence -

produced at

> Harvard, Columbia, , etc., and printed in prestigious

journals - to

> suggest a highly plausible biological mechanism that would link a

known

> neurotoxin with a neuro-developmental disorder, one that has become

> epidemic, (and expensive) in America.

> Does the NIH report make it easier to claim that thimerosal harmed

kids?

> Of course not. But it sure does make it harder to argue - let alone

> prove in a court of law - that it did not.

>

[Guest guest]

Listmates -- do go over to Huffington and leave a comment for !

Lots of docs and ND's will be slamming him. They've done it to me on

my posts there. Register and give him your support! I

promise,registering on HuffPo won't turn you into a liberal if you're

something " else " You can do it!

www.huffington.com You'll see his post on the left, down a bit.

KIM

kimstagliano.blogspot.com

> >

> >

> > <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/bad-news-for-mercury-

> defe_b_3

> > 6152.html> Bad News for Mercury Defenders

> > Kirby

> > Next June, when the Vaccine Trial of the Century gets underway in

> > Federal Claims Court, government lawyers will defend the direct

> > injection of toxic mercury into infant children by repeating the

> > well-worn mantra that " five large population studies " in Europe

and

> the

> > US have completely exonerated the vaccine preservative thimerosal

> as a

> > possible cause of autism.

> > But now it seems they may need to tuck a " Plan B " into their

Federal

> > briefcase.

> > Yesterday, UPI Senior Editor Dan Olmsted reported in his " Age of

> Autism "

> > column that an NIH-led panel of experts has " identified several

> serious

> > problems " plaguing the database used to produce the US vaccine

> study -

> > the lynchpin of the " five large population studies " showing that

> organic

> > mercury is just fine to shoot into kids.

> > The expert panel report, signed by NIH Director Dr. Elias A.

> Zerhouni,

> > was sent to Congress in response to a query from Sen. ph

> Lieberman

> > and seven colleagues last February. They wanted to know if the US

> > database, the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), could be used to

> compare

> > autism rates in kids before, during, and after the gradual

removal

> of

> > thimerosal, which began in roughly 2000.

> > Unfortunately, the answer was a resounding " not really. " A

laundry

> list

> > of " weaknesses " and " limitations " associated with the database

would

> > render such a comparative analysis " uninformative and potentially

> > misleading, " the panel said, (though it did suggest some

excellent

> ways

> > to re-approach the data going into the future).

> > Some weaknesses had to do with changes in medical practices over

> time.

> > But many of the limitations sprang directly from the poorly

> designed VSD

> > study itself (which, by the way, cost taxpayers many millions of

> dollars

> > a year).

> > The panel was concerned about the way that autism diagnoses were

> made,

> > and how accurately they were recorded by participating HMO's. It

> also

> > questioned whether those HMO's offered adequate services for

autism

> > families, who might have sought alternative healthcare in more

> > specialized settings.

> > These and other problems could easily have contributed to an

> > " under-ascertainment " of autism cases within the VSD. As I report

> in my

> > book " Evidence of Harm, " most of the VSD kids lived in

California,

> where

> > autism rates at the time were about 30-40 per 10,000 children. But

> > within the VSD itself, the reported rate was just 11.5 per

10,000.

> > The panel cited many other problems with the original VSD study

> design,

> > particularly what it called " a large proportion, around 25%, of

> births

> > excluded from the analysis. "

> > Government researchers claim they excluded one-quarter of the

kids

> to

> > eliminate " statistical noise. " But the panel argued that these

same

> > children " may represent a susceptible population whose removal

from

> the

> > analysis " might unintentionally reduce " the ability to detect an

> effect

> > of thimerosal. "

> > And there were still more " serious problems " to deal with.

> According to

> > the panel, a proper study design should include prenatal factors

> such as

> > maternal receipt of thimerosal-containing Rhogam (immune

globulin)

> or

> > " other vaccinations given during pregnancy, " (including, by the

> way, the

> > annual flu shot).

> > Finally, panel members worried that thimerosal alone did not

paint

> the

> > full picture of " the cumulative exposure of a child to organic

> > mercurials through diet or other environmental sources. " In other

> words,

> > panelists said, we need to look at " total mercury burden " when

> assessing

> > autism risks, and not just the shots.

> > All of these problems, as the panel put it mildly, " reduce the

> > usefulness " of the VSD to prove or disprove a link between

> thimerosal

> > and autism, (which happens to be precisely what the anti-mercury

> group

> > SAFE MINDS told the government seven long years ago).

> > Which brings us to another problem. The VSD study is constantly

> held up

> > by public health officials as EXHIBIT A in the defense of

injecting

> > mercury into little kids.

> > The study is perpetually cited by the CDC -- which conducted the

> study

> > -- as the justification for keeping a neurotoxin in flu shots

that

> the

> > agency is currently imploring upon pregnant women and six-month-

olds

> > (who receive mercury on flu-shot days in quantities several times

> over

> > the EPA limit).

> > The VSD is cited by the American Academy of Pediatrics as proof

that

> > mercury in vaccines is healthy for kids, even while warning us

that

> > mercury in the air, water and fish is not. It is cited by drug

> companies

> > who stand to lose billions and billions of dollars in litigation

a

> link

> > to thimerosal is ever determined. It is cited by incoming House

> > Government Reform Chairman Henry A. Waxman, an avid vaccine

> supporter,

> > who now has the power to investigate this potential medical and

> > political scandal, but almost certainly will chose not to do so.

> > And, most importantly, the VSD study was the cornerstone of a 2004

> > report issued by the Institute of Medicine which not only ruled

> against

> > a thimerosal-autism link, it took the extraordinary step of

calling

> for

> > a prompt end to all research into the matter. (And this despite an

> > honest admonition from the VSD's lead investigator that his study

> was

> > " neutral, " and that it " found no evidence against an

association. " )

> > Which leads us to Vaccine Court. Armed with the new NIH panel

> report,

> > lawyers for families seeking monetary relief can now effectively

> disarm

> > the most powerful arrow in the government's mercury-defense

quiver -

> > even before the opening gavel.

> > This means that government lawyers will have to rely more heavily

> on the

> > four remaining population studies, all conducted in Europe. Two

were

> > done in Denmark, where autism record keeping changed so radically

> during

> > the study period that it " may have spuriously increased the

apparent

> > number of autism cases, " after mercury was removed from Danish

> vaccines,

> > according to the authors themselves.

> > In fact, Dr. Irva Hertz-Picciotto, the UC public health

> professor

> > who chaired the expert panel, told Olmsted that the US study was

> > actually " an improvement on other studies including the two in

> Denmark,

> > both of which had serious weaknesses in their designs. "

> > Then there is the fourth study, from Sweden, which only looked at

> autism

> > cases that were diagnosed in hospital settings - a very low and

> wildly

> > varying number each year. Of the five population studies, this is

> the

> > probably the weakest and most easily dismissed, which is why you

> almost

> > never hear about it.

> > That leaves the UK (a recent Canadian study not presented to the

IOM

> > failed to prove or disprove a direct link between childhood

autism

> and

> > thimerosal use in Canada, despite claims to the contrary).

> > There were actually two studies conducted in Britain (whose rates

of

> > thimerosal exposures and autism spectrum disorders roughly

> paralleled

> > our own). Remarkably, both of them showed that children who got

> mercury

> > in their shots were LESS likely to develop autism, leading the

> authors

> > (some of who had reported conflicts of interest with vaccine

> makers) to

> > conclude that thimerosal had an apparent " neuro-protective "

effect.

> > That's right, according to the Brits, mercury is a wonder drug

for

> kids.

> >

> > That ought to impress the judge.

> > With so many holes shot through their " five large studies "

defense,

> the

> > government lawyers will be left to argue that autism is purely

> genetic,

> > that there is no environmental component, and that the rates of

> illness

> > have not " really " gone up. We are simply better at recognizing and

> > diagnosing the disorder, that's all.

> > Well, if that is the case, the mercury-defense lawyers should

have

> no

> > problem proving it. All they need do is produce irrefutable

evidence

> > that 1-in-166 American adults of ALL ages (and 1-in-104 men) fall

> > somewhere within the autism spectrum disorder, at the same rate

as

> kids.

> > But they can't, and they won't.

> > The government wants to defend its use of mercury in vaccines

based

> on

> > evidence drawn solely from epidemiological data ( " population

> studies " ),

> > and highly questionable data at that. But they are trying to win

> their

> > case in a Federal Court, and as Special Master Hastings, the

> presiding

> > judge, must surely know, epidemiology is " not acceptable " to

> disprove

> > causation, according to the Federal Court System.

> > Instead, one must also consider biological studies (animal,

> clinical,

> > test tube) when assessing causation. And that's where the

plaintiffs

> > will come to court armed with reams of published evidence -

> produced at

> > Harvard, Columbia, , etc., and printed in prestigious

> journals - to

> > suggest a highly plausible biological mechanism that would link a

> known

> > neurotoxin with a neuro-developmental disorder, one that has

become

> > epidemic, (and expensive) in America.

> > Does the NIH report make it easier to claim that thimerosal

harmed

> kids?

> > Of course not. But it sure does make it harder to argue - let

alone

> > prove in a court of law - that it did not.

> >

>