The Age of Autism: Hot potato on the Hill
By DAN OLMSTED
The newly proposed legislation to study the autism rate in never-vaccinated
American kids could settle the debate over vaccines and autism once and for
all. Does that mean it will never happen?

This week U.S. Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., stepped out front on the issue.
She announced at a briefing at the National Press Club that she is drafting
legislation to mandate that the federal government find the answer to that
question.

Notice the word "mandate" -- as in "direct," which is the language the bill
uses. As in, quit making excuses and just do it.

Bureaucrats and lobbyists and "experts" sometimes forget that the power in
this country resides with the people, who express their will through their
elected representatives. This may sound rather grand, but the point is that
legislators are not some "special interest" who must be humored while the
permanent ruling class goes on its merry way.

That's why putting a bill before the Congress -- which Maloney says she will
do by the end of April after getting as much public comment as possible --  
could be a bigger threat than people realize.

After all, as Maloney said this week, "Maybe someone in the medical
establishment will show me why this study is a bad idea, but they haven't
done it yet."

Maloney, who credits this column with the idea to look at the
never-vaccinated, also critiqued the studies that supposedly have ruled out
any link between vaccines -- particularly the mercury-based preservative
thimerosal -- and autism.

"The one major government study to date, the Institute of Medicine's 2004
review, has been met with skepticism from a lot of people," she said. "There
are serious questions about the data set and methodology.

"Meanwhile, there is new biological evidence published in top journals, and
from major U.S. universities, to support the mercury-autism hypothesis. Just
last week we saw the study out of UC Davis, which found that thimerosal
disrupts normal biological signals within cells, causes inflammation and
even cell death.

"In short," the congresswoman concluded, "I believe that there are still
more questions than answers. But answers are what we desperately need."

Surely everyone's in favor of answers, aren't they? Well, no, they're not.
Already, doubts are being raised about whether there are enough
never-vaccinated kids to do such a study (there are); whether it's worth
doing (it is); and what the results would really show (well, let's find
out).

In fact, if the feds hadn't been contentedly dozing for the last decade as
the autism rate inexplicably soared, we'd already have our answer.

Back in 2002 a woman named Sandy Gottstein, who does not even have an
affected child, came all the way from Anchorage, Alaska, to raise this issue
at a congressional hearing.

"My question is, is the National Institutes of Health ever planning on doing
a study using the only proper control group, that is, never-vaccinated
children?" Gottstein asked.

Dr. Steve Foote of NIH responded: "I am not aware of a proposed study to use
a suitably constructed group of never-vaccinated children. ... Now CDC would
be more likely perhaps to be aware of such an opportunity."

Responded Dr. Melinda Wharton of the CDC: "The difficulty with doing such a
study in the United States, of course, is that a very small portion of
children have never received any vaccines, and these children probably
differ in other ways from vaccinated children. So performing such a study
would, in fact, be quite difficult."

Another futile effort is recounted in David Kirby's book, "Evidence of
Harm," which recounts parents' compelling stories that their children's
regressive autism was triggered by vaccine reactions.

The book -- just out in paperback and winner of this year's prize from the
prestigious Investigative Reporters and Editors -- describes how in 2004 Lyn
Redwood of the advocacy group SafeMinds sent a list of proposed studies to
Rep. Dave Weldon, R-Fla.

Weldon, a strong advocate of banning thimerosal, sent the list on to Dr.
Julie Gerberding, director of the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. Redwood's proposal No. 1: "An investigation into the rates of
neurodevelopmental disorders including autism in vaccinated and unvaccinated
populations (e.g., Amish, Christian Scientists.)"

Last year this column set out to test that theory among the Amish, in an
unvaccinated subset of homeschooled kids and in a large medical practice in
Chicago with thousands of never-vaccinated children. In this admittedly
unscientific and anecdotal reporting, we didn't find very many kids with
autism.

That's certainly not conclusive, but we did conclude there are plenty of
never-vaccinated kids in this country, and not all of them are riding around
in buggies and reading by candlelight. The total number of appropriate
"controls" -- reasonably typical never-vaccinated kids -- is well into the
tens of thousands, at least.

Nor is the issue pro-vaccines vs. no vaccines, as some who oppose such a
study are subtly suggesting. It's safety vs. complacency.

After all, the CDC switched to an inactivated polio vaccine in 2000 when it
became clear that the live polio virus was causing a handful of polio cases
each year. And kids today are still protected from polio -- only now with
zero chance of actually contracting it from the vaccine.

Switching to a safer vaccine did not cause a collapse in public confidence
in childhood immunizations -- probably quite the contrary.

Expect to hear all kinds of excuses, including that one, from the powers
that be as to why such a conclusive study couldn't, shouldn't and really
mustn't be done. Then ask yourself, Why?

Copyright 2006 by United Press International. All Rights Reserved.

That should solve the problem by having politicians do it.
They already solved the problem of illegal immigration and now they are
moving on to bigger problems.

Better:

http://photoninthedarkness.blogspot.com/2006/03/how-to-seek-and-not-f...

How to Seek and Not Find
Dan Olmsted, UPI's Senior Editor for autism-mercury {*filter*}, has gone
on record (twice) saying that autism is only seen in vaccinated Amish
children. He even performed an "exhaustive" search of the Lancaster
County Amish communities looking for autistic children. His failure to
find any (other than children who had been vaccinated) is further
evidence - he claims - that vaccination and, more to the point, the
thimerosal in vaccines is responsible for causing autism.

This rather simplistic view of sociology, neurodevelopment and genetics
has been heralded, nay, brayed to the world as "proof" that mercury
causes autism. Now we are presented with another possible explanation of
Mr. Olmsted's amazing findings.

In the 30 March 2006 edition of The New England Journal of Medicine (not
up the "standards" of Medical Hypotheses, to be sure, but a solid
journal nonetheless), a group of researchers from the Clinic for Special
Children in Strasburg, Pennsylvania (which provides services to a large
number of Amish and Mennonite children) report a genetic mutation which
causes:

"...seizures that progress to autism and retardation" (see here for a
nice review of the article)

This mutation is seen in much more often in Amish and Mennonite
children, primarily because of their very small gene pool (see here and
here for a review). This is not the only genetic disorder seen more
frequently in these populations. And this is not to say that this is the
same sort of autism generally seen in the general population (it's not).

However, it seems passing strange that Mr. Olmsted, in his extensive
canvassing of the Lancaster County Amish communities, did not run across
a few of these children. They are, after all, autistic, even if they
weren't vaccinated.

Three possibilities leap to mind (there may be others):

[a] Mr. Olmsted didnt look all that carefully for autistic children,
having already concluded that there wouldn't be any.

[b] Mr. Olmsted found these autistic children, but didn't count them -
either because he (as a trained neurologist and developmental
pediatrician) didn't feel that they had real autism or because it
conflicted with his forgone conclusion.

[c] The Amish families - being somewhat suspicious of "outsiders" (not
without good reason) - didn't confide the details of their family
medical issues with Mr. Olmsted.

My money is on [a], with a bit of [c] thrown in for good measure.

One thing my thesis advisor told me early in my education:

"If you don't look for contradictory data, you won't find it. But your
critics will."

When I got up this morning I was feeling a pain in my neck. I called my
Congresscritter's office for advice.

I was just about to post something to say that the pro-vaccine side
would be ripping any such study apart before it ever got underway.
Looks like I was right.

You've missed a possible [d]  It is possible that the genetic condition
does not pose a problem *until* the vaccine is injected.  These
children may be more suseptible to the down sides of mercury (and other
potential ingredients) than most children.  I suppose a good way to
know for sure would be if we actually found some non-vaccinated Amish
children that had autism.  Then we could compare the rates of the
non-vaccinated autistic children with the vaccinated autistic children.
 The outcome would be strong evidence either way.

Something confuses me, though.  Are you saying that the mercury in
vaccines is OK?

Max.

Yes. There is NO evidence that it causes any problems. I know that there
are hundreds, thousands, of claims, etc. but, when the veneers are
stripped away, NO EVIDENCE.

1 - I believe that if my above suggestions were followed it would be
strong evidence... either way.  If there are similar rates of autism in
the unvaccinated Amish children as there are in the vaccined ones, that
would be damning evidence against anti-vaccine groups.  I haven't dug
in to the report about the Amish, but how can one assume that the
person conducting the study didn't look hard for Amish children with
autism?  It sounds to me like conjecture.  Was there any evidence that
he didn't do so?  I've dealt with Amish before.  They're very friendly
people and, in my experience, very accomodating.

2 - I find it hard to believe you'd say there is NO EVIDENCE, when the
very nature of mercury is evidence in itself.  Mercury is a known and
confirmed neurotoxin.  I'd find it hard to believe that you don't
already know that, but I'll post some links just in case:

http://www.epa.gov/mercury/health.htm

http://www.nrdc.org/health/effects/mercury/effects.asp

And as far as saying there's NO evidence, well that's just not true
either.  You'd sound more credible if you said there's conflicting
evidence or maybe no CLEAR evidence... but obviously there is SOME
evidence, otherwise the uproar wouldn't be so loud... and I wouldn't be
able to find pages like this:

http://www.autismwebsite.com/ari/vaccine/thimerosalreferences.htm

The web site says that's a "partial list."

So, you'd be better received if you didn't speak in such absolute
language... especially when evidence that differs from your position is
so easy to find.

Max.

Same with mercury in fish and lead in pipes, but the side of caution should
be taken.

[   ]

The newly proposed legislation to study the autism rate in never-vaccinated
American kids could settle the debate over vaccines and autism once and for
all. Does that mean it will never happen?

This week U.S. Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., stepped out front on the issue.
She announced at a briefing at the National Press Club that she is drafting
legislation to mandate that the federal government find the answer to that
question.

Notice the word "mandate" -- as in "direct," which is the language the bill
uses. As in, quit making excuses and just do it.

Bureaucrats and lobbyists and "experts" sometimes forget that the power in
this country resides with the people, who express their will through their
elected representatives. This may sound rather grand, but the point is that
legislators are not some "special interest" who must be humored while the
permanent ruling class goes on its merry way.

That's why putting a bill before the Congress -- which Maloney says she will
do by the end of April after getting as much public comment as possible --
could be a bigger threat than people realize.

After all, as Maloney said this week, "Maybe someone in the medical
establishment will show me why this study is a bad idea, but they haven't
done it yet."

Maloney, who credits this column with the idea to look at the
never-vaccinated, also critiqued the studies that supposedly have ruled out
any link between vaccines -- particularly the mercury-based preservative
thimerosal -- and autism.

"The one major government study to date, the Institute of Medicine's 2004
review, has been met with skepticism from a lot of people," she said. "There
are serious questions about the data set and methodology.

"Meanwhile, there is new biological evidence published in top journals, and
from major U.S. universities, to support the mercury-autism hypothesis. Just
last week we saw the study out of UC Davis, which found that thimerosal
disrupts normal biological signals within cells, causes inflammation and
even cell death.

"In short," the congresswoman concluded, "I believe that there are still
more questions than answers. But answers are what we desperately need."

Surely everyone's in favor of answers, aren't they? Well, no, they're not.
Already, doubts are being raised about whether there are enough
never-vaccinated kids to do such a study (there are); whether it's worth
doing (it is); and what the results would really show (well, let's find
out).

In fact, if the feds hadn't been contentedly dozing for the last decade as
the autism rate inexplicably soared, we'd already have our answer.

Back in 2002 a woman named Sandy Gottstein, who does not even have an
affected child, came all the way from Anchorage, Alaska, to raise this issue
at a congressional hearing.

"My question is, is the National Institutes of Health ever planning on doing
a study using the only proper control group, that is, never-vaccinated
children?" Gottstein asked.

Dr. Steve Foote of NIH responded: "I am not aware of a proposed study to use
a suitably constructed group of never-vaccinated children. ... Now CDC would
be more likely perhaps to be aware of such an opportunity."

Responded Dr. Melinda Wharton of the CDC: "The difficulty with doing such a
study in the United States, of course, is that a very small portion of
children have never received any vaccines, and these children probably
differ in other ways from vaccinated children. So performing such a study
would, in fact, be quite difficult."

Another futile effort is recounted in David Kirby's book, "Evidence of
Harm," which recounts parents' compelling stories that their children's
regressive autism was triggered by vaccine reactions.

The book -- just out in paperback and winner of this year's prize from the
prestigious Investigative Reporters and Editors -- describes how in 2004 Lyn
Redwood of the advocacy group SafeMinds sent a list of proposed studies to
Rep. Dave Weldon, R-Fla.

Weldon, a strong advocate of banning thimerosal, sent the list on to Dr.
Julie Gerberding, director of the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. Redwood's proposal No. 1: "An investigation into the rates of
neurodevelopmental disorders including autism in vaccinated and unvaccinated
populations (e.g., Amish, Christian Scientists.)"

Last year this column set out to test that theory among the Amish, in an
unvaccinated subset of homeschooled kids and in a large medical practice in
Chicago with thousands of never-vaccinated children. In this admittedly
unscientific and anecdotal reporting, we didn't find very many kids with
autism.

That's certainly not conclusive, but we did conclude there are plenty of
never-vaccinated kids in this country, and not all of them are riding around
in buggies and reading by candlelight. The total number of appropriate
"controls" -- reasonably typical never-vaccinated kids -- is well into the
tens of thousands, at least.

Nor is the issue pro-vaccines vs. no vaccines, as some who oppose such a
study are subtly suggesting. It's safety vs. complacency.

After all, the CDC switched to an inactivated polio vaccine in 2000 when it
became clear that the live polio virus was causing a handful of polio cases
each year. And kids today are still protected from polio -- only now with
zero chance of actually contracting it from the vaccine.

Switching to a safer vaccine did not cause a collapse in public confidence
in childhood immunizations -- probably quite the contrary.

Expect to hear all kinds of excuses, including that one, from the powers
that be as to why such a conclusive study couldn't, shouldn't and really
mustn't be done. Then ask yourself, Why?

Copyright 2006 by United Press International. All Rights Reserved.

Perhaps, but, the vaccine-causes-autism crowd will never give it up.
They will find a way to trash the study. Every study that shows that
they are wrong, they trash. Period. And, the trashing is specious.

If there are similar rates of autism in

Yes, his report is conjecture. Firstly, he does not described what
efforts he made. Second, how many discreet Amish, or Old Order
Mennonite, populations did he check? There are other methodological
problems. Note that he is a reporter, not a scientific researcher.

Was there any evidence that

More importantly, as I briefly outlined, is there any evidence that he
really looked?

I've dealt with Amish before.  They're very friendly

They are a fairly closed society who are not very trusting out outsiders.

Toxicity is dose dependent, and depends on the actual chemical. Thus, 1
mg. of substance X, is not necessarily as toxic as 1 mg. of substance Y,
even though both are mercury compounds.

I am not surprised that you skipped over this.

  I'd find it hard to believe that you don't

Yes, Methyl Mercury is a highly toxic chemical found in the environment
and is consumed by humans when we eat such things as fish. However, not
all fish are equally toxic. For instance, the yellow fin tuna contains
far less methyl mercury than albacore. The difference been chunk light
and chunk white.

However, the page is not really relevant to the point. You see, and I
doubt it, Thimerosal is NOT Methyl Mercury. It is a different compound
called Ethyl Mercury, which has different chemical properties, and
toxicity, than MM.

That page also refers to Methyl Mercury.

Strange that you do not know the difference.

So you say. I claim, and maintain, that there is no evidence that Autism
is caused by exposure to mercury.

Why hedge when the evidence doesn't?

but obviously there is SOME

Yes, it is a partial list of crap. Rimland, et al, are paid witnesses in
the Omnibus Autism Lawsuit.

As for the Geiers, their "research" is so methodologically flawed that
it would be humorous if it were not being relied upon by people to
advocate against vaccination.

If you want documentation of these facts, do a Google Search and look it
up. Suffice it to say that the list is {*filter*}and the studies showing that
have been posted and discussed. Sorry you could not keep up.

I would not call it evidence. Far from it.

Incorrect. The mercury in fish is Methyl Mercury which is far more toxic
than that in vaccines. No comparison.

Lead poisoning from pipes is well documented.

Better:

http://photoninthedarkness.blogspot.com/2006/03/how-to-seek-and-not-f...

How to Seek and Not Find
Dan Olmsted, UPI's Senior Editor for autism-mercury {*filter*}, has gone
on record (twice) saying that autism is only seen in vaccinated Amish
children. He even performed an "exhaustive" search of the Lancaster
County Amish communities looking for autistic children. His failure to
find any (other than children who had been vaccinated) is further
evidence - he claims - that vaccination and, more to the point, the
thimerosal in vaccines is responsible for causing autism.

This rather simplistic view of sociology, neurodevelopment and genetics
has been heralded, nay, brayed to the world as "proof" that mercury
causes autism. Now we are presented with another possible explanation of
Mr. Olmsted's amazing findings.

In the 30 March 2006 edition of The New England Journal of Medicine (not
up the "standards" of Medical Hypotheses, to be sure, but a solid
journal nonetheless), a group of researchers from the Clinic for Special
Children in Strasburg, Pennsylvania (which provides services to a large
number of Amish and Mennonite children) report a genetic mutation which
causes:

"...seizures that progress to autism and retardation" (see here for a
nice review of the article)

This mutation is seen in much more often in Amish and Mennonite
children, primarily because of their very small gene pool (see here and
here for a review). This is not the only genetic disorder seen more
frequently in these populations. And this is not to say that this is the
same sort of autism generally seen in the general population (it's not).

However, it seems passing strange that Mr. Olmsted, in his extensive
canvassing of the Lancaster County Amish communities, did not run across
a few of these children. They are, after all, autistic, even if they
weren't vaccinated.

Three possibilities leap to mind (there may be others):

[a] Mr. Olmsted didnt look all that carefully for autistic children,
having already concluded that there wouldn't be any.

[b] Mr. Olmsted found these autistic children, but didn't count them -
either because he (as a trained neurologist and developmental
pediatrician) didn't feel that they had real autism or because it
conflicted with his forgone conclusion.

[c] The Amish families - being somewhat suspicious of "outsiders" (not
without good reason) - didn't confide the details of their family
medical issues with Mr. Olmsted.

My money is on [a], with a bit of [c] thrown in for good measure.

One thing my thesis advisor told me early in my education:

"If you don't look for contradictory data, you won't find it. But your
critics will."

"Mark Probert" LIED again

http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/thimerosal.htm

http://www.altcorp.com/DentalInformation/thimerosal.htm

To use your words *Get an education*

http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/2432386.html

http://www.southend.wayne.edu/modules/news/article.php?storyid=2370

http://thestar.com.my/health/story.asp?file=/2006/3/29/health/1378797...

http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/ng.asp?n=66510-tuna-mercury-fish

and lead in pipes,

Lead is not the subject.

 but the side of caution should

When reading your posts...................

Sure it is.

EVERY one from the twenties, thirties and forties has lead poisoning, NOT.
levels, levels, levels.

No one has shown any connection with fish eating and mercury poisoning other
than it is there and not the safest..

Again I say, even so, the basics are there and to err on the side of caution
is best.