WSJ - Politics of Autism - (long)

[Guest guest]

Here is my response. Sorry it is a bit long:

Tuesday, December 30, 2003 2:31 p.m.

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

The Politics of Autism

Lawsuits and emotion vs. science and childhood vaccines.

Response from Ed Bowden Jr. – Yardley, PA 19067

Believe me, as a parent of a child diagnosed with autism; I would

rather that this not be a political issue. I would rather " science

and medicine " initiate impartial and meaningful research into the

causes of autism and the undeniable increase in the incidence of

autism that are truly free of any conflicts of interest. Hopefully

that would lead to breakthroughs in treatment that would help my son

get better. Unfortunately I have yet to see any research

from " science and medicine " that meets these simple criteria.

In this case the definition of " science and medicine " seems to be

anyone on the payroll of the pharmaceutical industry. The only

research I have seen from " science and medicine " are biased studies

with a clear conflict of interest that set out to disprove what is

considered by many to be an unpleasant theory.

I have always enjoyed and appreciated the WSJ but allowing this piece

of obvious pharmaceutical industry propaganda to be published without

identification or context is irresponsible at best. Please have the

guts and commitment to print responses that you get on this piece in

order to maintain the integrity of your publication.

I'd like to offer some points of rebuttal on the information

contained in the piece. Caution: I am not a scientist just a parent

who is trying to stay on top of the subject matter in order to best

help my son. However I think my rebuttals are relevant and present

points that should be addressed.

If autism's origin is solely genetic, why has the incidence rate

skyrocketed over the last decade or so? Could there be an

environmental trigger that pushes genetically susceptible kids into

autism? The environmental trigger would have to be some toxic

substance that kids have been almost universally exposed to over the

last decade or so at an increasing rate for this theory to be

plausible. Any ideas? Nonetheless this is great news; please list

the studies that have isolated the genes.

Could the sudden growth spurt of the head be related to inflammation

of the brain due to mercury toxicity? Even Courchesne, the lead

author of this study was quoted in the LA Times as stating that this

theory is not incompatible with an environmental trigger to autism.

In the Rochester study, why was blood tested when we know that

mercury toxicity cannot be accurately measured from blood samples.

Mercury only stays in the blood stream for a relatively short amount

of time before it seeks out and inhabits tissue (like the brain for

example)? Were these children tested directly after receiving

mercury-containing vaccines?

Thimerosal has not been completely removed from vaccines, flu and

tetanus vaccines both still contain it. Why is this so hard to get

straight? It is listed as an ingredient on the package inserts for

God's sake and included in the Physician's Desk Reference for 2003.

Also thimerosal-containing vaccines were not recalled, they were

simply allowed to exist until they were used up. So thanks to its

preservative powers, thimerosal-containing vaccines were still

administered to children long after it was considered to be removed

from other vaccines. Thereby clouding the removal date for many

vaccines and potentially skewing future analysis.

The CDC and Denmark studies are so flawed and laced with missing

information, presumably in an effort to protect a conflict of

interest, that they are transparent and have really helped to raise

the issue more than anything else. For a very well constructed

analysis of both studies please refer to the Safe Minds website.

(http://www.safeminds.org)

What deal are you referring to regarding Senators Snowe, , are

Chafee? I am not aware of any deal that was made. The proposal was

removed from the legislation because it was politics at its worst and

didn't represent the best interest of the people. We all welcome an

open and honest review of the issue, regardless of the outcome.

However we demand integrity in the analysis.

Regarding Senator Frist, he is a very large recipient of

pharmaceutical industry funds, near the top in the Senate. Think he

may have some " passion " about why the vaccine makers are innocent?

Think he sees things clearly or is he seeing things through green-

colored glasses? And how is his motivation any better than the

motivation of the trial lawyers? At least the trial lawyers motives

are clear and upfront.

The piece completely ignores the multitude of research that does

support the theory that mercury causes developmental disorders, such

as autism, in children. The piece suggests that parents are overly

emotional and ignoring science. Go to the medical search

engine " Pubmed " and type in thimerosal. You will get over 900

references to peer reviewed medical papers. All of these papers deal

with the toxicity of thimerosal. The only science that defends

thimerosal are the studies you reference in the piece and all of

these are fraught with questions, debate over the conclusions and

conflicts of interests.

Autism is a condition that now affects about 1 in 150 kids by most

estimates. Shouldn't autism be at the top of everyone's list in

terms of funding for research, awareness, and treatment? Yet autism

continues to be a " dirty " word, surrounded by uncertainty, denial and

a lack of focus.

I am not against vaccination. I am against the use of thimerosal

until is proven to be safe. (Why are we so concerned with ingesting

tuna, which may or may not contain trace amounts of mercury but we

don't think injecting mercury directly into our children is a

problem?) I would like to see more testing of vaccines in general to

ensure safety. However if vaccines are tested with the proper level

unprejudiced thoroughness and deemed safe it is obviously a great

scientific achievement and universal benefit to society.

Its funny, this is not the first time I have seen the suggestion that

some parents of kids with autism are using their child's affliction

as some sort of get-rich-quick scheme. I can't think of another

childhood affliction where the victims (children and parents) are so

vilified. My wife and I did not have our son or any of our children

as part of some sort of get-rich-quick scheme; to the contrary

children are expensive. Children with autism are very expensive;

they need therapy, special diets, dietary supplements, medicines,

vitamins, and numerous medical tests (none of which are usually

covered by tradition health insurance). Not only can't we get an

answer on what has made our children sick we also can't get any

guidance (other than from a select few healthcare practitioners and

researchers) or financial assistance for treatment. Maybe this has

something to do with our " passion " .

If mercury from vaccines, increases of which have paralleled the

increase in the incidence of autism, is not the cause then what is?

What studies are being undertaken by " science and medicine " to find a

cause? Do you think OJ is still looking for 's killer?

My son suffers from " regressive autism " or Pervasive Development

Disorder (PDD) or Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Meaning he

developed very normally for the first 15 – 18 months of his life and

then began to regress. Regressive autism is a relatively new

phenomenon within the era of autism. However it now accounts for the

vast majority of cases.

One of the treatments that he has undergone is called chelation.

Chelation is the removal of heavy metals from the body via the use of

binding agents. My son regularly undergoes urine tests to see what,

if any, metals are being removed from his body. Mercury regularly

shows up, at very high levels, in the urine tests. He has gotten

much better since we started chelation. His therapists have adjusted

the goals in his ABA therapy program upward several times since we

started chelation. I am grateful for the progress and hopeful for

his future but I am left with questions. Why does my son have

extremely elevated levels of mercury in his urine? Why does he get

better when it is removed? Why is it not OK to eat tuna for fear of

trace amounts of mercury but it is OK to inject mercury directly into

our children? I have more questions but answers to these would be a

great start.

I am open to any explanation for my son's condition that can be

scientifically proven through impartial research conducted with

integrity and free of any conflicts of interest.

I would rather have my son back than a scapegoat.

Sincerely,

Ed Bowden Jr.