Read with Care: New Study on Thimerosal and Neurodevelopmental Disorders
May 19, 2008 by Kristina Chew, PhD
Filed under Health
There’s a new study published in the Journal of Neurological Sciences that reports an association between increased mercury (Hg) exposure from thimerosal-containing vaccines and neurodevelopmental disorders (go here for a pdf file). The study has three co-authors, Heather A. Young, Assistant Professor of Epidemiology in the George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services, and David A. Geier and his father, Dr. Mark Geier. The Geiers have frequently been consultants in “vaccine-biologic cases before the no-faulty NVICP [National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program] and in civil litigation,” and Dr. Geier has also been an “expert witness,” as noted in the an Acknowledgment at the end of the new study.
Regular observers of developments in the autism treatment subculture also know that Mark and David Geier are seeking a patent for an experimental treatment for autism, the Lupron protocol; Kathleen Seidel has chronicled their presentations and publications about autism, vaccines, mercury, and more, as well as some significant misrepresentations therein.
It is further noted in those Acknowledgments to the study that funding for it came from the Autism Petitioners’ Steering Committee of the NVICP. The Petitioners’ Steering Committee represents parents and is chaired by lawyer Clifford Shoemaker—-yes, the same lawyer who specializes in vaccine-injury litigation and who subpoenaed Seidel, whom he has referred to as a “mother and housewife. (As did the Geiers and the Rev. Lisa Sykes in certain legal documents filed about Seidel’s articles on vaccines and autism.)
Just a few conflicts of interest to keep in mind as you read the new study.
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right? Conflict of interest is all we get from any study these days. Drug companies with a huge monetary vested interest fund studies that say mercury is safe, so forgetaboutit. Tobacco companies fund studies that smoking is safe and doesn’t cause cancer so puff away, you’re safe. Anti-vaccine lawyers fund studies that say vaccines are 100% sure to brain damage your child to varying degrees so whatever you do, don’t get vaccinated!
Until funding ceases to come from drug companies, all gov. studies will have a conflict of interest. The only studies I know of that are unbiased are coming from China. Those are the studies I consider valid, and they universally suggest fluoride lowers IQ and causes brain damage and mercury does the same. Big fat period.
The leading pro-vaccine researchers have just as many conflicts of interest. . Paul Offit gets royalties from a retrovirus vaccine he invented and Eric Fombonne is paid handsomely or giving expert testimony on behalf of vaccine manufacturers.
Neither side has a compelling case for its beliefs. There is no case for vaccines causing most cases of autism and it is equally absurd to accept the argument that no child has ever suffered a neurological impairment, or even death after a vaccination.
For each side to accuse the other of being in it for greed is the reddest of red herrings and doesn’t serve either side in the debate.
You’ll notice that this study hasn’t gotten much coverage. That would be because the authors include Geier & Geier. Anything by Geier & Geier is automatically suspect these days, and it’s not because of something simple like “conflicts of interest.” I’m not sure who this Dr. Young is and how she came to be associated with Geier & Geier.
That said, I don’t doubt for a minute that an association was found between thimerosal exposure and autism in VSD for the cohort noted. Between 1990 and 1996 thimerosal exposure increased fairly gradually. During the same period of time, the administrative prevalence of autism increased as well. An association is expected.
What does this tell us? The authors apparently found an expected coincidental correlation. In fact, from prior papers by Geier & Geier, it’s clear they knew which years would be best to check.
I think, given the public discourse about vaccines, mercury/thimerosal and autism, the fact that funding was provided by the Petitioners Steering Committee makes this study questionable from the start.
“Neither side has a compelling case for its beliefs. There is no case for vaccines causing any cases of autism and it is equally absurd to accept the argument that no child has ever suffered a neurological impairment, or even death after a vaccination. Thank goodness no one standing in opposition to the Geier’s actually has.
Fixed that for you RAJ.
My children have never received a thimerosal-containing vaccine.
Since the only thing available by open access is the abstract, it is difficult to read, let alone comment, pro or con, on the full content of the paper itself.
Fundings got nothing to do with it, a bad study is a bad study, never mind how it got to be published and publicised, the bad science ought to be enough in itself to condemn it, not it’s authors antecedents.
I mean I thought everybody knew by now it was the pet shampoo what dun it
And I thought it was just us mere mother/housewives!
Ah yes the mere mothers and housewives:) Well, Joseph has said quite rightly that there is an increase in the administrative prevalence of ASD in those years? Anybody got access to the rest of the paper? For those of us having experience with Geier pere et fils publications, there is an urge to dismiss the paper out of hand knowing the sleight of data handing they routinely employ. However, each paper should stand or fall on its merits. So, for those with access, how’s this one holding up?
They are imputing cases! Good grief I think I’ll just make up numbers and publish! I can’t wait to read the rest of this…
C
“For example, 37% of autism cases in the study were diagnosed after 5 years old with about 50% diagnosed after 4.5 years old. This is a conservative estimate since it includes the 2 years (1995–1996) that had shorter follow-up times. Examination of the distribution of age of diagnosis by birth year for autism revealed that only about 15% of cases were diagnosed after 5 years of age in the 1995 birth cohort while the 1996 cohort had no cases diagnosed after 5 years of age and only 3.5% of cases diagnosed between 4.5 and 5 years of age. Based on the average age at diagnosis for all cohorts, the 1995 count of autism cases was increased by 45 cases with the assumption that all of these would have been added in the 5 year+ age group (bringing this percentage close to the overall average of 37% diagnosed after 5 years of age). The same was done for 1996, but the number of cases was augmented by 80 because it was assumed that these would be diagnosed in the 4.5 to 5 and 5+ groups essentially bringing the percentage diagnosed after age 4.5 close to the overall average of 50% diagnosed after 4.5 years of age. The new augmented frequency counts of cases in 1995 and 1996 birth cohorts were then used as the new case counts in the analysis.”
I was able to access the PDF file for the entire paper—let me know if the links posted don’t work.
Hi Kristina,
Maybe I can read it through institutional access, but as far as I can tell, the current direct link makes the article, pdf, full figures and references available only after purchase.
I find it intersting that some folks in comment land instantly jump on the current eddy in complaints and run with it until another new eddy shows up in the stream.
In our area (Sorry K, inc scary stuff, and late happy birthday C! Upcoming Friday for mine.) we are advised not to eat fish from our local lakes and streams more than once a month, or more than once a year, depending on the amount of heavy metals in/around the particular body of water.
My problem with this study would be right along those same lines, you can’t check the heavy metal exposure Just with VSD or VAERS. Heck, I am not opposed to someone eventually determining that lets say DDT or PCBS or Elmer’s Glue was the problem, most likely along with some genetic predisposition, or finding out that ultimately our combination of genetic factors makes us have our level of difference all by itself. But for them to keep trying to tie this to thimerasol or vaccine exposure over this period of years, leaves me with sheets of testosterone clogging my thoughts. (Bad perserveration joke… /selfslap lol.)
“What does this tell us? The authors apparently found an expected coincidental correlation. In fact, from prior papers by Geier & Geier, it’s clear they knew which years would be best to check.”
The only years that can be checked and controlled for diagnostic change would be prior to 1994 (DSM-III). All causation studies are time sensitive to the DSM/ICD criteria to determine the population.
The only years that can be checked and controlled for diagnostic change would be prior to 1994 (DSM-III).
No, changes in the numbers of diagnoses occur every year. They apparently even occurred before the 1990s. You’re confusing changes in criteria with changes in the numbers of diagnoses.
But between 1990 and 1995, just about, there’s another thing that changed: the exposure of thimerosal about doubled. So if you wanted to find a correlation between autism and thimerosal, which cohort would you choose?
@Regan,
try this link.
Out of the 53 references, 8 are the Geiers’ own publications. Citations include:
So the Holmes baby hair study with co-authors Mark Blaxill and Boyd Haley, and another article co-author with Lisa Sykes.
Young, Geier, and Geier have this to say about the birth cohort between 1990 and 1996 and changes in the diagnostic criteria in 1994:
The last sentence is confusing me—–the Geiers seem to be saying that since changes were made in the DSM-IV in 1994, these changes (a broadening of the criteria for an autism diagnosis) would not have had a effect on the children in the study—would not be a reason for high numbers of children diagnosed with autism. But it seems that those DSM-IV criteria would of course be applied in regard to the children in the study. (I think.)
“No, changes in the numbers of diagnoses occur every year.”
I am not confused about what I stated, diagnostic changes only occure with the publication of new DSM and that would be 1994, DSM-IV. To control for the change, only count in your population those diagnosed under DSM-III. That could run into 1995 for the “less aware” professionals able to qualify a diagnosis.
I’m referring to increases in the administrative prevalence of autism. They occur every year, even between 2007 and 2008. I’m sure you are aware of this. (If there are increases in administrative prevalence, one could also infer their are increases in diagnoses).
If VSD recorded all autistic people under some criteria, your argument might make sense, Chuck. But it obviously can only record diagnoses that have been reported.
If, when, anyone reads the full article—note how the words “autism” and “neurodevelopmental disorder” are used not exactly consistently throughout.
Also, while the study might be referred to as “linking autism and thimerosal,” the study’s authors have been more careful with their choice of words. The article’s title is:
“Thimerosal exposure in infants and neurodevelopmental disorders: An assessment of computerized medical records in the Vaccine Safety Datalink”
And that’s what is discussed in the article, a certain assessment of the computerized medical records in the VSD—-no less and no more.
Read with Care
A good comment.
BIAS – this study would be expected to find a link between autism and vaccinations naturally because the two are linked.
If it is fraudulent what can be done about it? Answer NOTHING!
I say this because Dr Verstraeten wrote an article that showed the opposite effect. He proved that the worlds most toxic element when in vaccines actually improved the infant babies intelligence quotient. Now previously the same person had agree with the current findings of the Geiers using the best database available to the USA government.
There is a big difference in the two reports as the Verstraeten team had the full access to ANY data they required. The Geier team have not only been blocked but refused permission to see data they need to produce the best possible paper.
The Geier paper is poor by virtue of Government interest, blocking and obfuscation.
Before criticising the Geier for their attempts to overcome these problems.
Shouldnt we be asking why there is such obfuscation and what is the reason.
The history of tobacco, lead and asbestos show the lengths to which powerful interests are naturally able to use their power.
Personally I would not be interested in doing this study with a gun held to my head, I would concentrate on telling the world that papers produced with a gun to my head might not be the best papers I could write.
I commend the Geiers for the doggedness in the face of major government and industry pressure as well as the little fish that follow the Whales and Orcs.
Just why do we continue to include thimerosal in our current vaccines (as at May 2008) at levels that have been filmed showing the total destruction of a brain cell AND then in the next breath LIE and say they no longer put the toxic stuff in vaccines?
I concur the administrative amount of ASD jumped tremendously due to DSM-IV.
Every study that uses an existing ASD diagnosis and covers a time span before and after 1994 has inherent population errors in the study.
Every study that uses an existing ASD diagnosis and covers a time span before and after 1994 has inherent population errors in the study.
I honestly believe DSM-IV has little to do with it. If there had been no DSM-IV, there would still have been a huge increase in diagnoses of autism in the 1990s. It can’t be any other way given that the current information revolution started in the 1990s.
You emphasize “conflicts of interest” in these studies. Yet, you don’t seem to mind the conflicts of interest that the government’s thimerosal studies were riddled with, including not allowing anybody to see the data they used to come up with their conclusions that thimerosal had no impact on autism rates. At least be as critical of the studies that agree with your predetermined conclusions as you are of those that do not.
When one reads the study, some serious questions are raised about how the data was handled; Epi Wonk considers this and also the “ecological fallacy.”