LYNNE MIELKE From the community
Ties between autism, mercury are clear
AS A physician who specializes in treating autism and the mother of an autistic child, I would like to express my opposition to the viewpoint in Dr. Rahul Parikh's editorial, "Junk science vs. real thing in autism trial."
Parikh implies that the research showing a link between autism and vaccines is wrong and that the vaccine preservative Thimerisol (which is about 50 percent mercury) is safe.
It is no surprise that pediatricians as a group have been slow to acknowledge the evidence that vaccines may play a role in the causation of autism in some children.
After all, it is pediatricians who administer those vaccines. Many vaccines still contain Thimerisol, although it is less now than in the peak mercury years -- the decade of the '90s.
No one questions that pregnant and nursing women should avoid mercury pollution, mercury-containing seafood and should not have dental work involving amalgam silver-colored fillings, which are also about 50 percent mercury.
But some doctors still say that injecting a pregnant woman or a newborn baby with a mercury-containing vaccine is OK.
Many toxins are implicated in the causation of autism, not just mercury, but it is certainly one of the worst.
Veterinarians realized how toxic Thimerisol is and removed it from animal vaccines years ago.
There are significant differences in how people react to the same toxin. A good example is cigarette smoking.
Some people who smoke get lung cancer, but others will get emphysema or heart disease. Not everyone who is exposed to mercury and other toxins will become autistic.
Genetic predisposition, timing of exposure, amount of exposure and type of exposure all interact to produce a unique symptom complex.
Toxins also have been implicated in the causation of ADD, sensory integration problems, and language and learning disorders, among other things.
One in six children now has some sort of neurologic problem. If that is not an epidemic, I don't know what is.
Most of the studies claiming that vaccines are not related to autism were done by researchers with financial ties to vaccine manufacturers -- a clear conflict of interest.
Most of those studies are epidemiological studies done on large populations that could easily miss an issue that affects about 1 in 150 children.
Epidemiological studies are retrospective and are the easiest type of research to manipulate statistics to get the outcome you want.
The designs of those studies were extremely flawed, as the group SafeMinds has clearly shown.
The science showing direct harm on a cellular level from Thimerisol is biological, prospective science and has been done by many fine upstanding clinicians and scientists who have risked their careers to publish unpopular findings.
The link between toxic exposure and autism is clear, not only from the science that shows it, but also because the treatments that address that exposure and its many consequences improve the level of functioning of autistic children.
Unfortunately, families of autistic children are victimized twice -- first from the poisonings that damaged their child, and then from the doctors who misinform their patients that there is no science behind treatments that work.
There are huge financial and political forces against this truth because the liability and the stakes are so high. What gets lost are the needs of the affected families who struggle with heartbreak every day under incredibly difficult circumstances, with very little help from the government and insurance industry, and often even their doctors.
Mielke is a physician in Pleasanton.
http://www.contracostatimes.com/columns/ci_6600802
3 comments:
Thanks for bringing my attention to Dr. Mielke's excellent commentary on Dr. Parikh's editorial. It was pointed and full of common sense.
Dr. Mielke's full-of-common-sense letter mentions the "peak mercury years -- the decade of the '90s".
This means that now, in 2007, we must expect a decline in autism prevalence among young children, mustn't we? And do we?
About "the science showing direct harm on a cellular level from Thimerisol", I'd ask, What about the doses of Thimerosal used in these studies? You can scientifically prove that salt and sugar, at high enough doses, do direct harm on a cellular level, too. Or have we forgotten that the dose makes the poison?
"The link between toxic exposure and autism is clear, not only from the science that shows it, but also because the treatments that address that exposure and its many consequences improve the level of functioning of autistic children" - any references, please?
In my country, where Thimerosal is NOT used in mandatory childhood vaccines (and very few people immunize their children against flu), I can assure Dr. Mielke that there are plenty of autism parents who are very interested in any treatment that would help their children.
Preferably not by "addressing" nonexistent exposure to thimerosal.
The strongest argument against believing that vaccinations have anything to do with autism is that when the rate of giving thimerosol-containing vaccines went sharply down, the rate of autism did not.
I'm an internist and emergency doc who does not have any vested interest in pharma or in administering vaccines. I did vaccinate my own child, who is as a result protected against the array of infectious diseases that vaccines mercifully protect us from.
Post a Comment