YIKES...Mercury and autism: a damaging delusion by Dr Fitzpatrick

[Guest guest]

Whoa.......lots of anger/hostility ......down right mean!

http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CAB30.htm

Mercury and autism: a damaging delusion

A new book by a New York journalist falls for some contagious myths about the

dangers of vaccines.

by Dr Fitzpatrick

Evidence of Harm: Mercury in Vaccines and the Autism Epidemic: A Medical

Controversy, by Kirby, St 's Press, New York, April 2005.

As the parent of an autistic child, and as a doctor distrustful of government

and corporate involvement in healthcare, I might be expected to respond

positively to this book. If there was convincing evidence that vaccines

containing the mercury-based preservative thimerosal cause autism, perhaps I

would join those currently applauding Kirby's book on his coast-to-coast

US promotional tour. But since there is no such evidence, I fear that his

misguided endorsement of the anti-mercury cause can only compound the damage

that this campaign has already done, both to families affected by autism and, by

undermining public confidence in the childhood immunisation programme, to the

welfare of children in general.

Kirby, a freelance journalist in New York, presents this 'medical controversy'

as a confrontation between two camps. On the one side are heroic, suffering,

struggling parents and their courageous supporters; on the other are cold,

scheming, faceless bureaucrats of the medical establishment, big pharma and big

government. Kirby's character sketches leave readers in no doubt about his

allegiances.

Leading 'Mercury Mom' Lyn Redwood is introduced as 'an attractive woman, with

cocoa-coloured hair and soft, almost cat-like brown eyes'. Fellow campaigner

Sallie Bernard cuts 'a handsome figure' in 'a white suit with black piping and

matching scarf, her light blond hair clipped short'. Liz Birt, a Chicago

attorney who speaks several languages, appears in a 'dark red jacket' with 'an

unflinching face'. Bono is 'a petite Southern charmer'; her husband

is 'a gentle giant of a man with dark brown eyes, brown hair messed up on his

head', 'bookish glasses' and a 'goofy grin'. These talented, attractive,

affluent campaigners live in stylish suburban homes, which Kirby describes in

detail, in true celebrity magazine style.

By contrast, Dr Marie McCormick, of the Harvard School of Public Health, who

chaired last year's Institute of Medicine (IoM) investigation into thimerosal,

is introduced as 'a middle-aged woman who came across - to the parents at least

- as stern'. Kirby reports that they nicknamed her 'Church Lady' - after the

priggish Dana Carvey character on Saturday Night Live. She is further accused of

being 'less than honest' at a press conference, of being 'curt and hostile' and

- in a supreme irony - of having the 'zeal of a true believer'. Immunisation

specialist , who presented compelling evidence from the UK

against the mercury theory at the IoM inquiry, has 'an educated British accent

and could charitably be described as aloof'. All of this could be dismissed as

merely trashy journalism were it not for the fact that Kirby's pantomime heroes

and villains are engaged in a real human drama, one in which the stakes, for all

concerned, are high (1).

'Curiously', writes Kirby, 'the first case of autism was not recorded until the

early 1940s, a few years after thimerosal was introduced in vaccines'. But why

is this curious? He might just as well state that the identification of autism

followed Pearl Harbor or the success of Gone with the Wind. Indeed it is clear

that this coincidence attracted no curiosity at all for several decades - until

it was noted in an anti-vaccine tract in 1985 (2). Though in recent years some

parents of autistic children have come to blame mercury-containing vaccines for

their children's condition, their belief is based on a combination of

coincidence and conjecture.

It is true that mercury is potentially toxic to the developing infant brain and

that, as babies were given more vaccines, the total dose of mercury received

increased (though it remained at trace level, and it has now fallen as

immunisation authorities have, in deference to popular anxieties, shifted to

non-mercury vaccines). Yet, exhaustive studies, carried out in the USA, the UK

and elsewhere, and surveyed by the US Institute of Medicine in an authoritative

report last year, have failed to reveal any link between exposure to thimerosal

and autism (3). The so-called 'epidemic of autism', which some parents blame on

vaccines, is better explained by the increased recognition of the condition

among both parents and professionals and by the expansion of diagnostic

categories. Though campaigners claim that the symptoms of mercury toxicity are

similar to those of autism, on closer inspection, they are quite distinct.

Mercury poisoning typically causes an unsteady gait and slurred speech,

visual disturbances and numbness in fingers and toes. None of these features is

characteristic of autism.

The IoM received extensive submissions from anti-mercury campaigners and, at

their request, surveyed a number of laboratory studies claiming to demonstrate

mercury-induced damage in autistic children, or 'autistic-like' behaviour in

mice. The committee's experts found these studies scientifically incoherent and

methodologically flawed. 'In the absence of experimental or human evidence that

vaccination affects metabolic, developmental, immune or other physiological or

molecular mechanisms that are causally related to the development of autism',

the committee concluded, 'the hypotheses generated to date are theoretical

only'. Noting that while the risks of vaccination were speculative, the benefits

were proven, the IoM vigorously upheld the current immunisation programme.

It appears reasonable that a toxic heavy metal might possibly cause brain damage

leading to autism, at least in susceptible individuals. Yet on closer

examination this theory is revealed as misleading and specious, with a capacity

to deceive those whom it influences. Captivated by the Mercury Moms, Kirby

appears to have been seduced by the plausibility of the mercury-autism theory,

which he proceeds to promote with a zeal that runs far ahead of the scientific

evidence. His account reveals a number of problems.

The first is that of expertise. To explore the intricacies of the mercury-autism

controversy requires some familiarity with a range of medical and scientific

disciplines, including immunisation and public health, epidemiology, autism and

toxicology. With a degree in liberal arts and little experience in science

reporting, Kirby is ill equipped for this task. Hence he resorts simply to

presenting - in great detail - the case made by anti-mercury parents and by a

handful of researchers aligned with the campaign. (In fairness, he often also

presents the opposing case, but the reader is left in no doubt where his

sympathies lie - and the result is that many of his 400-plus pages are difficult

for the lay reader to interpret.)

But parents of autistic children are in no stronger a position than Kirby to

acquire the wide range of scientific expertise required. Indeed, given the

burden of caring for their children, it is even more difficult for them. At

best, parents can acquire a 'narrow-band competence' that may allow them to

select information that supports an established conviction, and - as Kirby

demonstrates - this may be effective for producing campaigning propaganda. But a

narrow and selective approach can lead to the sort of dogmatic outlook that he

also reveals among parent activists - an outlook that is inimical to scientific

inquiry.

Campaigning parents are likely to respond sympathetically to offers of support

from researchers whose work appears to provide evidence for their campaign's

claims - even if this work is not recognised by scientific peers who are in a

stronger position to evaluate it. When campaigning parents, who are inevitably

lacking in scientific expertise, become involved in commissioning research, the

results are unlikely to have scientific value. Kirby's account reveals the

reliance of the anti-mercury campaign on some research that appears to be of

poor quality and some that is simply junk science (4). It is striking that

research carried out with the support of parent campaigners invariably provides

further confirmation of the campaigners' claims. Some of these researchers make

extravagant claims for the explanatory power of their theories - and for the

therapeutic value of interventions based on them.

As Kirby reports, parents involved in the anti-mercury campaign often also

pursue a range of esoteric investigations and treatments for their children,

including chelation therapy to eliminate mercury, injections of vitamin B12 and

various dietary exclusions and supplements. These costly treatments are often

provided by doctors involved in the anti-mercury campaign. Yet, though Kirby

relates a number of stories of children improving dramatically on these

treatments, neither the efficacy nor the safety of these techniques has been

confirmed. When Kirby reports that one family involved in the campaign has spent

more than $500,000 on such treatments, he appears oblivious to the dangers to

vulnerable parents of quacks and charlatans peddling miracle cures.

From the perspective of the Mercury Moms, official health agencies such as the

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Food and Drug

Administration, are involved in a conspiracy to conceal evidence of the harm

caused by thimerosal. Yet it is difficult to emerge from Kirby's exhaustive

account without some sympathy for these bodies and their senior staff who have

clearly gone to great lengths to listen and respond to parental concerns. If the

authorities had failed to investigate campaigners' claims they would have been

accused of irresponsibility; but when campaigners discovered that the

authorities had been investigating allegations about mercury, this only served

to confirm allegations of a cover-up. If the authorities had continued to use

thimerosal in vaccines, campaigners would have continued scaremongering; when

they withdrew thimerosal, this was adduced as proof that mercury was harmful.

Kirby reproduces campaigners' allegations against former CDC staffer Dr

Verstraeten, based on minutes of an internal discussion of preliminary results

of his study of thimerosal, held at Simpsonwood in Georgia in June 2000. Yet

Verstraeten's response (also reproduced by Kirby) to allegations that the data

in his final report had been doctored to conceal an association between

thimerosal and autism seems entirely convincing. It appears that campaigners

were aggrieved that Verstraeten moved on to work for a drug company that makes

vaccines. But given the reliance of vaccine research on vaccine manufacture, it

would be difficult to find anybody with experience in clinical trials or other

research into vaccines who did not have some relationship with the

pharmaceutical industry.

Kirby follows his Mercury Moms in condemning pharmaceutical companies for

poisoning children with mercury, and for conspiring with federal authorities and

regulatory agencies to conceal their malfeasance to avoid paying compensation to

their alleged victims. Though the increasingly unpopular drug companies provide

a convenient focus for parental anger, there is little evidence to support the

wild allegations made by campaigners and no reason why companies should pay

damages in relation to unsubstantiated claims. Indeed, the real problem facing

the government is supply shortages resulting from the reluctance of

pharmaceutical companies to continue producing vaccines. For some time an area

of low investment and low profitability, vaccine production is increasingly

threatened by the climate of risk aversion and litigiousness - as the

anti-mercury campaign aptly illustrates.

Kirby offers a poignant account of how 'out of a hodgepodge of desperate and sad

people' there emerged 'a community of brave souls united in grief and hope' in

the anti-mercury campaign. He also records how these parents have entered into

the grip of a delusion (one he too now shares) and have adopted an outlook that

is embattled and embittered and, in some cases, frankly paranoid. The result is

a campaign that is increasingly harmful both to their families, and to the wider

cause of families affected by autism.

In my experience, both members of the public and public authorities are

generally sympathetic to the plight of parents of children with autism and other

disabilities. Kirby's account of the tantrums and tirades of anti-mercury

campaigners suggests that there is some danger that the public's good will is

being abused and exploited as a license to behave badly. He reports the

experience of the Wall Street Journal, which found itself confronted with a

'hornets' nest of moral intimidation' when it published a critical commentary on

the anti-thimerosal campaign. Journalists received threats and harassment, and

prominent supporters of childhood immunisation were 'targeted as baby-killers

and compared to Hitler' (5).

The convergence, revealed in Kirby's book, between autism parent activists and

anti-vaccine campaigners, is one of the great misfortunes of recent years. It

will not benefit our children and, if it leads to the return of almost forgotten

but still lethal infectious diseases, it may well harm the children of others.

Fitzpatrick is author of MMR and Autism: What Parents Need to Know (buy

this book from Amazon (UK) or Amazon (USA)).

Buy Evidence of Harm: Mercury in Vaccines and the Autism Epidemic: A Medical

Controversy, by Kirby, from Amazon UK or Amazon USA

(1) Followers of the MMR controversy in Britain will recall the deployment of

similar caricatures by the anti-MMR campaign, in Mills' 2002 special

report for Private Eye, 'The Story So Far', and in the Channel Five's 2003

docudrama Hear the Silence

(2) Coulter, HL, Fisher, BL, DPT: A Shot in the Dark, 1985. Barbara Loe Fisher

is a leading anti-vaccination campaigner and a prominent supporter of the

anti-mercury campaign.

(3) Immunisation Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism, Institute of Medicine, 2004

(4) For a critique of researchers associated with 'unorthodox biomedical'

theories of autism, see MMR and Autism: What parents need to know, pp86-94; on

the work of professional anti-vaccine litigants Mark and Geier, see

pp174-176

(5) As I have received abusive correspondence in strikingly similar terms from

anti-vaccine campaigners, I can confirm the authenticity of these accounts.

Reprinted from : http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CAB30.htm

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Heres his Email Address!!

Fitz@...

Important article re Fitz:

Monbiot: 'Invasion of the entryists'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1102753,00.html

Donna

> Whoa.......lots of anger/hostility ......down right mean!

>

> http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CAB30.htm

>

>

> Mercury and autism: a damaging delusion

> A new book by a New York journalist falls for some contagious

myths about the dangers of vaccines.

> by Dr Fitzpatrick

> Evidence of Harm: Mercury in Vaccines and the Autism Epidemic: A

Medical Controversy, by Kirby, St 's Press, New York,

April 2005.

>

> As the parent of an autistic child, and as a doctor distrustful of

government and corporate involvement in healthcare, I might be

expected to respond positively to this book. If there was convincing

evidence that vaccines containing the mercury-based preservative

thimerosal cause autism, perhaps I would join those currently

applauding Kirby's book on his coast-to-coast US promotional

tour. But since there is no such evidence, I fear that his misguided

endorsement of the anti-mercury cause can only compound the damage

that this campaign has already done, both to families affected by

autism and, by undermining public confidence in the childhood

immunisation programme, to the welfare of children in general.

>

[Guest guest]

I’m confused.

1) I haven’t read MMR and Autism – What is IT”S proclamation?

2) I think he underestimates parents, us so-called “lay people”. I

think we know and understand more and are willing to LEARN more about our

children’s medical needs than anyone. And again, what was HIS book about?

Was IT about educating “parents” about MMR and Autism? Seems so, as the

title states.

3) His statement about pharm. Companies progressive reluctance to

manufacture vaccines says what? It’s the parent’s fault? Couldn’t one say

that these companies care more about the bottom line than they do about “…

the return of almost forgotten but still lethal infectious diseases.”?

4) He gives no indication in his article of what he DOES think are the

causes of Autism.

Just thinking out loud…..

~Penny ~

JAX Management, Inc.

HYPERLINK " http://www.jaxmgt.com " http://www.jaxmgt.com

Furthering the cause of Autism Awareness

~~~~~~~~~~~

What would happen if the autism gene was eliminated from the gene pool?

You would have a bunch of people standing around in a cave, chatting and

socializing and not getting anything done.

Temple Grandin

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

_____

From: teresa [mailto:redhead60707@...]

Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 7:01 PM

abmd ; amyc444@...;

autism-awareness-action ; autism treatment ;

autism_and_vaccinations ; chelatingkids2 ;

eoharm ; momamissionpossible ;

vaccineinjuredpoliticalaction

Subject: [ ] YIKES...Mercury and autism: a damaging delusion by

Dr Fitzpatrick

Whoa.......lots of anger/hostility ......down right mean!

HYPERLINK

" http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CAB30.htm " http://www.spiked-o

nline.com/Printable/0000000CAB30.htm

--

No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.

Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.9 - Release Date: 5/12/2005

--

No virus found in this outgoing message.

Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.

Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.9 - Release Date: 5/12/2005

[Guest guest]

--- try this link...

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/men/news/health/s/158/158089_doctor

s_demand_hep_b_jabs_for_kids.html

In EOHarm , " redhead60707 " <redhead60707@y...> wrote:

> --- Also, their " immunisation programme " wants to add Hep B so

> another reason for the poisonous Dr. Fitzpatrick to rant and

negate

> mercury-thimerosal-vaccine autism issues and glorify the herd

> immunity program.

>

> Doctors demand Hep B jabs for kids

>

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/men/news/health/s/158/158089_doctor

> s_demand_hep_b_jabs_for_kids.html

>

>

>

>

> In EOHarm , teresa <redhead60707@y...> wrote:

> > Whoa.......lots of anger/hostility ......down right mean!

> >

> > http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CAB30.htm

> >

> >

> > Mercury and autism: a damaging delusion

> > A new book by a New York journalist falls for some contagious

> myths about the dangers of vaccines.

> > by Dr Fitzpatrick

> > Evidence of Harm: Mercury in Vaccines and the Autism Epidemic: A

> Medical Controversy, by Kirby, St 's Press, New York,

> April 2005.

> >

> > As the parent of an autistic child, and as a doctor distrustful

of

> government and corporate involvement in healthcare, I might be

> expected to respond positively to this book. If there was

convincing

> evidence that vaccines containing the mercury-based preservative

> thimerosal cause autism, perhaps I would join those currently

> applauding Kirby's book on his coast-to-coast US promotional

> tour. But since there is no such evidence, I fear that his

misguided

> endorsement of the anti-mercury cause can only compound the damage

> that this campaign has already done, both to families affected by

> autism and, by undermining public confidence in the childhood

> immunisation programme, to the welfare of children in general.

> >

> > Kirby, a freelance journalist in New York, presents

this 'medical

> controversy' as a confrontation between two camps. On the one side

> are heroic, suffering, struggling parents and their courageous

> supporters; on the other are cold, scheming, faceless bureaucrats

of

> the medical establishment, big pharma and big government. Kirby's

> character sketches leave readers in no doubt about his

allegiances.

> >

> > Leading 'Mercury Mom' Lyn Redwood is introduced as 'an

attractive

> woman, with cocoa-coloured hair and soft, almost cat-like brown

> eyes'. Fellow campaigner Sallie Bernard cuts 'a handsome figure'

> in 'a white suit with black piping and matching scarf, her light

> blond hair clipped short'. Liz Birt, a Chicago attorney who speaks

> several languages, appears in a 'dark red jacket' with 'an

> unflinching face'. Bono is 'a petite Southern charmer'; her

> husband is 'a gentle giant of a man with dark brown eyes,

> brown hair messed up on his head', 'bookish glasses' and a 'goofy

> grin'. These talented, attractive, affluent campaigners live in

> stylish suburban homes, which Kirby describes in detail, in true

> celebrity magazine style.

> >

> > By contrast, Dr Marie McCormick, of the Harvard School of Public

> Health, who chaired last year's Institute of Medicine (IoM)

> investigation into thimerosal, is introduced as 'a middle-aged

woman

> who came across - to the parents at least - as stern'. Kirby

reports

> that they nicknamed her 'Church Lady' - after the priggish Dana

> Carvey character on Saturday Night Live. She is further accused of

> being 'less than honest' at a press conference, of being 'curt and

> hostile' and - in a supreme irony - of having the 'zeal of a true

> believer'. Immunisation specialist , who presented

> compelling evidence from the UK against the mercury theory at the

> IoM inquiry, has 'an educated British accent and could charitably

be

> described as aloof'. All of this could be dismissed as merely

trashy

> journalism were it not for the fact that Kirby's pantomime heroes

> and villains are engaged in a real human drama, one in which the

> stakes, for all concerned, are high (1).

> >

> > 'Curiously', writes Kirby, 'the first case of autism was not

> recorded until the early 1940s, a few years after thimerosal was

> introduced in vaccines'. But why is this curious? He might just as

> well state that the identification of autism followed Pearl Harbor

> or the success of Gone with the Wind. Indeed it is clear that this

> coincidence attracted no curiosity at all for several decades -

> until it was noted in an anti-vaccine tract in 1985 (2). Though in

> recent years some parents of autistic children have come to blame

> mercury-containing vaccines for their children's condition, their

> belief is based on a combination of coincidence and conjecture.

> >

> > It is true that mercury is potentially toxic to the developing

> infant brain and that, as babies were given more vaccines, the

total

> dose of mercury received increased (though it remained at trace

> level, and it has now fallen as immunisation authorities have, in

> deference to popular anxieties, shifted to non-mercury vaccines).

> Yet, exhaustive studies, carried out in the USA, the UK and

> elsewhere, and surveyed by the US Institute of Medicine in an

> authoritative report last year, have failed to reveal any link

> between exposure to thimerosal and autism (3). The so-

> called 'epidemic of autism', which some parents blame on vaccines,

> is better explained by the increased recognition of the condition

> among both parents and professionals and by the expansion of

> diagnostic categories. Though campaigners claim that the symptoms

of

> mercury toxicity are similar to those of autism, on closer

> inspection, they are quite distinct. Mercury poisoning typically

> causes an unsteady gait and slurred speech,

> > visual disturbances and numbness in fingers and toes. None of

> these features is characteristic of autism.

> >

> > The IoM received extensive submissions from anti-mercury

> campaigners and, at their request, surveyed a number of laboratory

> studies claiming to demonstrate mercury-induced damage in autistic

> children, or 'autistic-like' behaviour in mice. The committee's

> experts found these studies scientifically incoherent and

> methodologically flawed. 'In the absence of experimental or human

> evidence that vaccination affects metabolic, developmental, immune

> or other physiological or molecular mechanisms that are causally

> related to the development of autism', the committee

concluded, 'the

> hypotheses generated to date are theoretical only'. Noting that

> while the risks of vaccination were speculative, the benefits were

> proven, the IoM vigorously upheld the current immunisation

programme.

> >

> > It appears reasonable that a toxic heavy metal might possibly

> cause brain damage leading to autism, at least in susceptible

> individuals. Yet on closer examination this theory is revealed as

> misleading and specious, with a capacity to deceive those whom it

> influences. Captivated by the Mercury Moms, Kirby appears to have

> been seduced by the plausibility of the mercury-autism theory,

which

> he proceeds to promote with a zeal that runs far ahead of the

> scientific evidence. His account reveals a number of problems.

> >

> > The first is that of expertise. To explore the intricacies of

the

> mercury-autism controversy requires some familiarity with a range

of

> medical and scientific disciplines, including immunisation and

> public health, epidemiology, autism and toxicology. With a degree

in

> liberal arts and little experience in science reporting, Kirby is

> ill equipped for this task. Hence he resorts simply to presenting -

> in great detail - the case made by anti-mercury parents and by a

> handful of researchers aligned with the campaign. (In fairness, he

> often also presents the opposing case, but the reader is left in

no

> doubt where his sympathies lie - and the result is that many of

his

> 400-plus pages are difficult for the lay reader to interpret.)

> >

> > But parents of autistic children are in no stronger a position

> than Kirby to acquire the wide range of scientific expertise

> required. Indeed, given the burden of caring for their children,

it

> is even more difficult for them. At best, parents can acquire

> a 'narrow-band competence' that may allow them to select

information

> that supports an established conviction, and - as Kirby

> demonstrates - this may be effective for producing campaigning

> propaganda. But a narrow and selective approach can lead to the

sort

> of dogmatic outlook that he also reveals among parent activists -

an

> outlook that is inimical to scientific inquiry.

> >

> > Campaigning parents are likely to respond sympathetically to

> offers of support from researchers whose work appears to provide

> evidence for their campaign's claims - even if this work is not

> recognised by scientific peers who are in a stronger position to

> evaluate it. When campaigning parents, who are inevitably lacking

in

> scientific expertise, become involved in commissioning research,

the

> results are unlikely to have scientific value. Kirby's account

> reveals the reliance of the anti-mercury campaign on some research

> that appears to be of poor quality and some that is simply junk

> science (4). It is striking that research carried out with the

> support of parent campaigners invariably provides further

> confirmation of the campaigners' claims. Some of these researchers

> make extravagant claims for the explanatory power of their

theories -

> and for the therapeutic value of interventions based on them.

> >

> > As Kirby reports, parents involved in the anti-mercury campaign

> often also pursue a range of esoteric investigations and

treatments

> for their children, including chelation therapy to eliminate

> mercury, injections of vitamin B12 and various dietary exclusions

> and supplements. These costly treatments are often provided by

> doctors involved in the anti-mercury campaign. Yet, though Kirby

> relates a number of stories of children improving dramatically on

> these treatments, neither the efficacy nor the safety of these

> techniques has been confirmed. When Kirby reports that one family

> involved in the campaign has spent more than $500,000 on such

> treatments, he appears oblivious to the dangers to vulnerable

> parents of quacks and charlatans peddling miracle cures.

> >

> > From the perspective of the Mercury Moms, official health

agencies

> such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and

> the Food and Drug Administration, are involved in a conspiracy to

> conceal evidence of the harm caused by thimerosal. Yet it is

> difficult to emerge from Kirby's exhaustive account without some

> sympathy for these bodies and their senior staff who have clearly

> gone to great lengths to listen and respond to parental concerns.

If

> the authorities had failed to investigate campaigners' claims they

> would have been accused of irresponsibility; but when campaigners

> discovered that the authorities had been investigating allegations

> about mercury, this only served to confirm allegations of a cover-

> up. If the authorities had continued to use thimerosal in

vaccines,

> campaigners would have continued scaremongering; when they

withdrew

> thimerosal, this was adduced as proof that mercury was harmful.

> >

> > Kirby reproduces campaigners' allegations against former CDC

> staffer Dr Verstraeten, based on minutes of an internal

> discussion of preliminary results of his study of thimerosal, held

> at Simpsonwood in Georgia in June 2000. Yet Verstraeten's response

> (also reproduced by Kirby) to allegations that the data in his

final

> report had been doctored to conceal an association between

> thimerosal and autism seems entirely convincing. It appears that

> campaigners were aggrieved that Verstraeten moved on to work for a

> drug company that makes vaccines. But given the reliance of

vaccine

> research on vaccine manufacture, it would be difficult to find

> anybody with experience in clinical trials or other research into

> vaccines who did not have some relationship with the

pharmaceutical

> industry.

> >

> > Kirby follows his Mercury Moms in condemning pharmaceutical

> companies for poisoning children with mercury, and for conspiring

> with federal authorities and regulatory agencies to conceal their

> malfeasance to avoid paying compensation to their alleged victims.

> Though the increasingly unpopular drug companies provide a

> convenient focus for parental anger, there is little evidence to

> support the wild allegations made by campaigners and no reason why

> companies should pay damages in relation to unsubstantiated

claims.

> Indeed, the real problem facing the government is supply shortages

> resulting from the reluctance of pharmaceutical companies to

> continue producing vaccines. For some time an area of low

investment

> and low profitability, vaccine production is increasingly

threatened

> by the climate of risk aversion and litigiousness - as the anti-

> mercury campaign aptly illustrates.

> >

> > Kirby offers a poignant account of how 'out of a hodgepodge of

> desperate and sad people' there emerged 'a community of brave

souls

> united in grief and hope' in the anti-mercury campaign. He also

> records how these parents have entered into the grip of a delusion

> (one he too now shares) and have adopted an outlook that is

> embattled and embittered and, in some cases, frankly paranoid. The

> result is a campaign that is increasingly harmful both to their

> families, and to the wider cause of families affected by autism.

> >

> > In my experience, both members of the public and public

> authorities are generally sympathetic to the plight of parents of

> children with autism and other disabilities. Kirby's account of

the

> tantrums and tirades of anti-mercury campaigners suggests that

there

> is some danger that the public's good will is being abused and

> exploited as a license to behave badly. He reports the experience

of

> the Wall Street Journal, which found itself confronted with

> a 'hornets' nest of moral intimidation' when it published a

critical

> commentary on the anti-thimerosal campaign. Journalists received

> threats and harassment, and prominent supporters of childhood

> immunisation were 'targeted as baby-killers and compared to

Hitler'

> (5).

> >

> > The convergence, revealed in Kirby's book, between autism parent

> activists and anti-vaccine campaigners, is one of the great

> misfortunes of recent years. It will not benefit our children and,

> if it leads to the return of almost forgotten but still lethal

> infectious diseases, it may well harm the children of others.

> >

> > Fitzpatrick is author of MMR and Autism: What Parents

Need

> to Know (buy this book from Amazon (UK) or Amazon (USA)).

> >

> > Buy Evidence of Harm: Mercury in Vaccines and the Autism

Epidemic:

> A Medical Controversy, by Kirby, from Amazon UK or Amazon USA

> >

> > (1) Followers of the MMR controversy in Britain will recall the

> deployment of similar caricatures by the anti-MMR campaign, in

> Mills' 2002 special report for Private Eye, 'The Story So

> Far', and in the Channel Five's 2003 docudrama Hear the Silence

> >

> > (2) Coulter, HL, Fisher, BL, DPT: A Shot in the Dark, 1985.

> Barbara Loe Fisher is a leading anti-vaccination campaigner and a

> prominent supporter of the anti-mercury campaign.

> >

> > (3) Immunisation Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism, Institute

of

> Medicine, 2004

> >

> > (4) For a critique of researchers associated with 'unorthodox

> biomedical' theories of autism, see MMR and Autism: What parents

> need to know, pp86-94; on the work of professional anti-vaccine

> litigants Mark and Geier, see pp174-176

> >

> > (5) As I have received abusive correspondence in strikingly

> similar terms from anti-vaccine campaigners, I can confirm the

> authenticity of these accounts.

> >

> > Reprinted from : http://www.spiked-

> online.com/Articles/0000000CAB30.htm

> >

> > __________________________________________________

> >

[Guest guest]

Maybe we should apply for custody and claim his

father, the doctor, isn't seeking proper medical

treatment for him!!!!!!!!!!!!

--- quantumerik <erik@...> wrote:

> I am truly concerned for Dr. Fitpatrick's son. He's

> doomed having a father so desperate to

> defend the substance that injured his child.

>

>

>

>

>

> > Whoa.......lots of anger/hostility ......down

> right mean!

> >

> >

>

http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CAB30.htm

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Quote:

" In my experience, both members of the public and public authorities

are generally sympathetic to the plight of parents of children with

autism and other disabilities. "

Jeez thanks,... that is bloody condenscending but where I come from

sympathy sits between sh*t and syphillis in the dictionary.

I am so sick and tired of medical people boo hoooing our " plight "

whilst sitting on their all knowing laurels and spouting crap like

this. Us poor mislead parents are just grasping at straws because

we are beside ourselves with grief. blah blah blah

> > > Whoa.......lots of anger/hostility ......down

> > right mean!

> > >

> > >

> >

> http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CAB30.htm

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

> __________________________________________________

>