UPDATE: This is a popular with people asking the question, "Can I get the flu shot while pregnant". If you are one of those, after reading this post check here.
An interesting question arose out of the discussion of the California Autism numbers, specifically what the CDC recommendation this year that pregnant women get the flu shot will do to the autism rates. I noted that apparently only 13% of moms are paying heed to this recommendation.
I received an email from a woman who has started asking other mom's if they got the flu vaccine while they were pregnant, and if so, is the child they were carrying at the time healthy into their third or fourth year.
She found 20 women that had gotten the flu shot, and only one has a healthy child. All of the others have severe health problems including allergies, asthma and respiratory infections that required multiple hospitalizations or ER visits, ADD, full blown Autism, blindness, vision problems that required a patch over one eye to be worn, peanut allergies and cerebral palsy.
There no way that this can be a representative sample, but it makes me want to see a real study. If you know of one, pass it on.
So in the interest of curiosity, are there any mom's out there who got the flu shot while pregnant and have a child that is still healthy by age 3 or 4? If so email me, this mom wants to talk to you.
January 12, 2006
California Autism Numbers 4th Quarter 2005
NOTE: All the discrepancies that I was worried about have been checked out and this is the best version of the data available.
California has released their autism numbers and the increase in cases continues to drop.
The excel spread sheet that I am tracking this on is posted here if you would like to download it, check my work, make your own graphs, whatever.
There is much conjecture as to which way the trends will continue. Speculation from proponents of the mercury theory has been that the 2006-2007 will be when rates will drop more dramatically as three and four year olds, who have the highest rate of diagnosis, will have been born in 2003, when most high dose mercury vaccines had cleared the shelves. We will keep posting the numbers to see if things go this way.
The new talk is about what the CDC decree that all pregnant women and children over 6 months of age should get flu shots (most of which are full dose mercury shots) will do to the numbers if the mercury theory is indeed correct. I read that expectant mothers are shying away from getting the shot (I think the article said only 13% of moms are opting for it, but don't quote me on that) but those little ones are so vulnerable, will that 13% be effected at higher rates? We will have to wait another three or four years to find out.
Update:
Someone emailed me this question, and I thought I would post my answer here as a reminder of the context in which these should be viewed:
At this point we do have enough information to see that there was a trend up in the 90's and there is now a trend down. There is certianly enough information to postulate that the drop in vaccine hg correlates with the drop in the increase in autism cases, and that the two may be related. It is now the government's job to do their due dillagence and take a more detailed look at the information they already have, and see if this theory holds up when you look at the number of new diagnosis by birth year. Then if it still holds up, they need to get their asses in gear and to a Verstraeten type study, except with out the fraud this time.
Update:
From the Schafer Report:
California has released their autism numbers and the increase in cases continues to drop.
The excel spread sheet that I am tracking this on is posted here if you would like to download it, check my work, make your own graphs, whatever.
There is much conjecture as to which way the trends will continue. Speculation from proponents of the mercury theory has been that the 2006-2007 will be when rates will drop more dramatically as three and four year olds, who have the highest rate of diagnosis, will have been born in 2003, when most high dose mercury vaccines had cleared the shelves. We will keep posting the numbers to see if things go this way.
The new talk is about what the CDC decree that all pregnant women and children over 6 months of age should get flu shots (most of which are full dose mercury shots) will do to the numbers if the mercury theory is indeed correct. I read that expectant mothers are shying away from getting the shot (I think the article said only 13% of moms are opting for it, but don't quote me on that) but those little ones are so vulnerable, will that 13% be effected at higher rates? We will have to wait another three or four years to find out.
Update:
Someone emailed me this question, and I thought I would post my answer here as a reminder of the context in which these should be viewed:
Ginger, To what do you attribute the percentage change (negative) in the year 2000?
I don't know what to attribute that to for sure.
California made an adjustment in diagnostic inclusion criteria at some point, resulting in fewer children receiving services, and I can't remember if it was in 2000 or not. If so that would certainly explain the dip.
But bottom line, these numbers really should only be used for looking at wide trends. If things are generally moving up or moving down. They are not broken down into new diagnosis v. adults, by birth year, by people moving into and out of the state, etc, and those are the things that we would need to have information on in order to really interpret well the impact that mercury in vaccines has on autism. These numbers are just one big blob of people who are getting autism services by the state, so looking at a big dip in one quarter will probably only tell us something about the way the numbers were collected, rather than what the true picture of autism cases are.
If you look at the huge drop in 4th quarter '98 for example and then the huge jump in 1st quarter '99, it makes me think that the computers were down in December of 1998 and people's paperwork was not processed, and they caught up in January or something. These two quarters show dramatic change, but if you averaged these two out and looked at them in context they would actually follow the trend. The same with 1999 and 2000 on the yearly graph at the bottom. The spike in 1999, the plateau in 2000, taken together they follow the trend.
I am hoping that the government will actually publish a study that looks at the number of new diagnosis charted by birth year, but I am not going to get my hopes up.
At this point we do have enough information to see that there was a trend up in the 90's and there is now a trend down. There is certianly enough information to postulate that the drop in vaccine hg correlates with the drop in the increase in autism cases, and that the two may be related. It is now the government's job to do their due dillagence and take a more detailed look at the information they already have, and see if this theory holds up when you look at the number of new diagnosis by birth year. Then if it still holds up, they need to get their asses in gear and to a Verstraeten type study, except with out the fraud this time.
Update:
From the Schafer Report:
California Reports: New Autism Cases at 4 Year Low
From California autism advocate Rick Rollens.
According to information released today by the California Department of Developmental Services (DDS), the number of new cases of professionally diagnosed full syndrome autism (NOT including any other autism spectrum disorder) entering California's developmental services system in 2005 was the smallest number of new cases since the year 2001.
The DDS year end report for 2005 documents that during 2005, California added 2,848 new cases of autism to it's system. Not since 2001 (2725 new cases) has California added less new cases of full syndrome autism to it's system. Every year since the all time record year of 2002 there has been a slow, steady decline in the number of new cases of autism entering California's 37-year old developmental services system.
Between 1979-80 and the end of 2002, California's developmental services system experienced unprecedented record increases in the number of new cases of autism every year over the previous year. The 1990s saw an explosion of new cases of professionally diagnosed full syndrome every single year culminating in the record year 2002 with 3,132 new cases.
Prior to the start of the modern day autism epidemic, autism accounted for less then 3% of all the new intakes coming into California's system which also includes mental retardation, epilepsy, and cerebral palsy. Today, autism accounts for 60% of all new intakes, and is the number one disability entering California's developmental services system. 18 years ago there were 2,773 persons with autism in the system, today there are 29,424.
Children under the age of 3 years old with full syndrome autism are NOT included in the DDS reports, but instead are enrolled in the Early Start Program.
Nearly two-thirds (2 out of 3 ) persons in the system with autism are between the ages of 3 and 13 years old, with nearly 8 out of 10 under the age of 17 years old.
(Rollens comments: For those who continue to believe in the fantasy that we have NOT experienced an epidemic of autism, might I ask one simple question: If the incidence of autism hasn't increased dramatically over the past 20 plus years, then where are all the adults with full syndrome autism? Surely if there is no real increase then we should see roughly the same number of adults with autism as we do children. I am sure it is about as easy today, as it has been in the past, to somehow misplace or not recognize thousands of adults with full syndrome autism...about as easy as missing a train wreck. Sorry but no Ph.D. or MD required to recognize either one.)
So Sorry for the Blog Neglect
I have been off living life for the last month or so and there is so much that I have not shared with you. The 4th quarter California numbers are in, as is the coroners report on the chelation death in PA and there is scads to say about Bill Frist and his liability protection love for Pharma. Not to mention the wonderful success of Chandler's B12 shots.
I am back at my post and will be catching you kids up on all this over the next week or so.
Hope the new year is treating you right!
I am back at my post and will be catching you kids up on all this over the next week or so.
Hope the new year is treating you right!
January 8, 2006
"Time to Jesus"
Tonight is one of those hallmark evenings.
Every night I put Chandler to bed and pray for him. I usually ask him to hold my hand, and he does, but other than laying still and looking at me while I am praying for him, he has not given me any other hint that he gets what I am doing.
But tonight I tucked him in and before I had gotten to the prayer, he looked at me and said, “Time to Jeshush”. Hoping that he said what I thought he did, I asked him, “Time to pray?” His reply was to say the prayer I usually say for me.
“Dear Jeshush, Thank you for Chandler. Diggadiggadiggadigga. The End.”
He filled in the middle part where I usually change it up with babble, but other than that he had it down.
Then I got lots more “Time for bed, night night” type talk than usual.
I live for moments like this with him.
Every night I put Chandler to bed and pray for him. I usually ask him to hold my hand, and he does, but other than laying still and looking at me while I am praying for him, he has not given me any other hint that he gets what I am doing.
But tonight I tucked him in and before I had gotten to the prayer, he looked at me and said, “Time to Jeshush”. Hoping that he said what I thought he did, I asked him, “Time to pray?” His reply was to say the prayer I usually say for me.
“Dear Jeshush, Thank you for Chandler. Diggadiggadiggadigga. The End.”
He filled in the middle part where I usually change it up with babble, but other than that he had it down.
Then I got lots more “Time for bed, night night” type talk than usual.
I live for moments like this with him.
January 6, 2006
The Age of Autism: CDC Probes Vaccines
The Age of Autism: CDC probes vaccines
By DAN OLMSTED
UPI Senior Editor
The CDC is continuing to investigate whether a mercury preservative in childhood immunizations has caused cases of autism -- despite the fact a report it paid for said such research should end.
The agency wants to determine whether exposure to the vaccine preservative, called thimerosal, can be linked to autism spectrum disorders, Glen Nowak, director of media relations at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, told Age of Autism on Friday.
The study includes 300 children with ASDs, 200 of whom have full-syndrome autism, as well as a comparison group of children who do not have the disorders.
In 2004 a CDC-funded report by the independent Institute of Medicine concluded there was no evidence of a vaccine-autism link and efforts should go instead to "promising" autism research.
"Further research to find the cause of autism should be directed toward other lines of inquiry," the immunization review panel said. "It's really terrifying, the scientific illiteracy that supports these suspicions," said Dr. Marie McCormick, chairwoman of the IOM panel, in a New York Times article in June.
And the head of the CDC's immunization program said the same year that only "junk scientists and charlatans" take such a link seriously.
Nevertheless, spokesman Nowak said the CDC -- which sets the childhood immunization schedule that states adopt -- has not eliminated thimerosal as a suspect.
"We do agree the preponderance of evidence to date suggests there is no association between thimerosal and autism," said Nowak when asked why the CDC was continuing to pursue the issue. But he said CDC Director Dr. Julie Gerberding is committed to exploring all possibilities until the cause or causes of the disorder are identified.
"Dr. Gerberding has made it clear the CDC has not ruled out anything as possible causes of autism, including thimerosal," Nowak said. "Science is a dynamic process. We have continued to fund studies to look at the role, if any, of thimerosal."
The study was designed in 2003 and data collection -- which includes evaluation of each child and their immunization history -- began last year, Nowak said. A letter dated Nov. 8 and an accompanying brochure were provided by a parent who received them.
"In this study, the CDC wants to find out if children who received vaccines and medicines with Thimerosal as infants are more likely to later have developmental problems such as Asperger's Syndrome or autism," says the letter, sent on behalf of the CDC by a research firm and Kaiser Permanente, one of three HMOs involved.
"Your participation in this study may help doctors learn about the possible risks of vaccines and medicines that contained thimerosal."
The mother who received the letter expressed dismay because most medical experts and federal health authorities have reassured parents thimerosal does not cause autism and is not responsible for the large increase in diagnoses beginning in the 1990s.
In 1999 the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics urged manufacturers to phase out thimerosal from childhood immunizations as soon as possible, based on the concern that the total amount of mercury received by a child could exceed some government guidelines.
But, citing five subsequent epidemiological studies, the CDC and other health authorities now say there is no evidence of an association.
The CDC continues to recommend flu shots -- most of which contain thimerosal -- for pregnant women and for children 6 to 23 months of age. The agency has declined to express a preference for the thimerosal-free version, citing concern that it might cause some parents to forego immunizing their children against flu if they cannot obtain it.
In addition, tens of millions of children around the world are being injected with thimerosal-containing vaccines, based heavily on the assurances of U.S. health authorities that it is safe and does not cause autism.
Results of the study should be available in September 2007, Nowak said.
By DAN OLMSTED
UPI Senior Editor
The CDC is continuing to investigate whether a mercury preservative in childhood immunizations has caused cases of autism -- despite the fact a report it paid for said such research should end.
The agency wants to determine whether exposure to the vaccine preservative, called thimerosal, can be linked to autism spectrum disorders, Glen Nowak, director of media relations at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, told Age of Autism on Friday.
The study includes 300 children with ASDs, 200 of whom have full-syndrome autism, as well as a comparison group of children who do not have the disorders.
In 2004 a CDC-funded report by the independent Institute of Medicine concluded there was no evidence of a vaccine-autism link and efforts should go instead to "promising" autism research.
"Further research to find the cause of autism should be directed toward other lines of inquiry," the immunization review panel said. "It's really terrifying, the scientific illiteracy that supports these suspicions," said Dr. Marie McCormick, chairwoman of the IOM panel, in a New York Times article in June.
And the head of the CDC's immunization program said the same year that only "junk scientists and charlatans" take such a link seriously.
Nevertheless, spokesman Nowak said the CDC -- which sets the childhood immunization schedule that states adopt -- has not eliminated thimerosal as a suspect.
"We do agree the preponderance of evidence to date suggests there is no association between thimerosal and autism," said Nowak when asked why the CDC was continuing to pursue the issue. But he said CDC Director Dr. Julie Gerberding is committed to exploring all possibilities until the cause or causes of the disorder are identified.
"Dr. Gerberding has made it clear the CDC has not ruled out anything as possible causes of autism, including thimerosal," Nowak said. "Science is a dynamic process. We have continued to fund studies to look at the role, if any, of thimerosal."
The study was designed in 2003 and data collection -- which includes evaluation of each child and their immunization history -- began last year, Nowak said. A letter dated Nov. 8 and an accompanying brochure were provided by a parent who received them.
"In this study, the CDC wants to find out if children who received vaccines and medicines with Thimerosal as infants are more likely to later have developmental problems such as Asperger's Syndrome or autism," says the letter, sent on behalf of the CDC by a research firm and Kaiser Permanente, one of three HMOs involved.
"Your participation in this study may help doctors learn about the possible risks of vaccines and medicines that contained thimerosal."
The mother who received the letter expressed dismay because most medical experts and federal health authorities have reassured parents thimerosal does not cause autism and is not responsible for the large increase in diagnoses beginning in the 1990s.
In 1999 the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics urged manufacturers to phase out thimerosal from childhood immunizations as soon as possible, based on the concern that the total amount of mercury received by a child could exceed some government guidelines.
But, citing five subsequent epidemiological studies, the CDC and other health authorities now say there is no evidence of an association.
The CDC continues to recommend flu shots -- most of which contain thimerosal -- for pregnant women and for children 6 to 23 months of age. The agency has declined to express a preference for the thimerosal-free version, citing concern that it might cause some parents to forego immunizing their children against flu if they cannot obtain it.
In addition, tens of millions of children around the world are being injected with thimerosal-containing vaccines, based heavily on the assurances of U.S. health authorities that it is safe and does not cause autism.
Results of the study should be available in September 2007, Nowak said.
January 5, 2006
CDC Updates Kids' Vaccine Schedule to Include New Shots
How much is to much? And for whom?
It seems like Paul Offits vision of 100,000 vaccines for every child might be a reality someday.
It seems like Paul Offits vision of 100,000 vaccines for every child might be a reality someday.
Thursday, January 05, 2006
By Miranda Hitti
WebMD
The CDC has updated its vaccine recommendations for kids and teens.
The changes include new vaccines. “Thanks to new vaccines, we can now protect children and adolescents from more diseases than at any time in our history,” says the CDC’s Anne Schuchat, MD, in a news release.
“In almost every case, vaccines are the best and most effective way to prevent the harm that is caused by these infectious diseases,” she says. Schuchat directs the CDC’s National Immunization Program.
Here’s what you need to know about the new recommendations for children and teens.
Vaccination Delays Put Many Children at Risk
Whooping Cough Booster for Preteens
A new booster vaccine for whooping cough (pertussis), tetanus, and diphtheria should be given to the following groups:
--All 11- and 12-year-olds who completed earlier vaccinations and haven’t gotten a tetanus-diphtheria booster shot.
--All 13- to 18-year-olds who completed childhood vaccinations but didn’t get the booster shot when they were 11 or 12.
The new vaccine replaces a previous booster shot that didn’t cover whooping cough. Whooping cough is highly contagious disease of the respiratory tract. It’s most dangerous in babies, but it’s been on the rise in adults.
Children and teens aged 7-18 who missed childhood vaccines can take the whooping cough/tetanus/diphtheria shot to catch up or for regularly scheduled boosters. The CDC recommends waiting five years after the last tetanus/diphtheria dose before using the whooping cough/tetanus/diphtheria vaccine as a booster dose.
The CDC first announced its recommendation about the new booster vaccine in July.
Meningitis Vaccine for Adolescents
A meningitis vaccine called Menactra, which was approved by the FDA a year ago, is also recommended for:
--All 11- and 12-year-olds
--Adolescents entering high school who haven’t already gotten the vaccine
--All college freshmen living in dorms (who have the additional option of getting a different meningitis vaccine)
--Other adolescents who choose to get the vaccine to reduce their risk
The CDC first announced its Menactra recommendationsin May.
In October 2005, the FDA, the CDC, and Menactra’s maker, Sanofi Pasteur, warned that five U.S. teens developed a serious neurological conditioncalled Guillain-Barré syndrome after being vaccinated with Menactra.
At the time, a Sanofi Pasteur news release stated that there was no proof that Menactra was responsible for those teens developing Guillain-Barré syndrome.
New Children's Vaccine Targets 4 Diseases
Influenza Vaccine for More Kids
Influenza vaccination is now recommended for children who are at least 6 months old and have certain health problems; specifically, those conditions that can compromise children's respiratory systems or raise the risk of choking.
Hepatitis A Vaccine for 1-Year-Olds
The CDC recommends that all babies get vaccinated against hepatitis A between 12 and 23 months.
The vaccine is given in two doses. Those doses should be given at least six months apart, the CDC says.
Hepatitis B Vaccine for Almost All Babies
The CDC is emphasizing the importance of vaccinating infants against hepatitis B.
The vaccine can only be delayed “in rare circumstances,” the CDC states.
Delays are only permitted if a doctor orders the vaccine to be withheld and the baby’s medical record includes a lab report showing that the mother has tested negative for hepatitis B.
Learn More About Hepatitis
By Miranda Hitti, reviewed by Louise Chang, MD
SOURCES: CDC, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Jan. 6, 2006; vol 54: pp Q1-Q4. News release, CDC.
FDA to Look at Deaths From ADD Meds
FDA to Examine New Ways to Study ADD Drugs
Jan 4, 7:35 PM (ET)
By ANDREW BRIDGES
WASHINGTON (AP) - Reports of sudden deaths, strokes, heart attacks and hypertension in both children and adults taking drugs to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder are spurring new government study into the medications' safety.
Sales of drugs to treat ADHD have increased sharply in recent years, with use growing at a faster rate among adults than children, according to a recent study by Medco Health Solutions, a prescription benefit manager. Spending on ADHD drugs soared from $759 million in 2000 to $3.1 billion in 2004, according to IMS Health, a pharmaceutical information and consulting firm.
The Food and Drug Administration said it had received reports of what it called "serious adverse events" - including deaths - in association with the therapeutic use of the drugs. The agency considers the reports "rare though serious," FDA spokeswoman Susan Bro said Wednesday.
The FDA's Canadian counterpart, Health Canada, yanked the ADHD drug Adderall XR from the market for six months last year in response to reports of 20 sudden deaths and 12 strokes in adults and children using the drug. A number of the cases involved children with structural heart defects.
The panel eventually concluded there was inadequate evidence of increased harm from Adderall XR compared with other available therapies - a conclusion the FDA also reached based on data on hand.
Now the U.S. regulatory agency is asking its Drug Safety and Risk Management advisory committee to examine ways of studying further the potential cardiovascular risks of the drugs. The few studies that have looked at longer-term use of ADHD drugs provide little information on those risks, the FDA said.
"It almost sounds like cox-2 inhibitor redux," said committee chairman Dr. Peter Gross, referring to cox-2 painkillers like Vioxx and Bextra pulled from the market because of evidence they can raise the risk of a heart attack or stroke.
The committee is to meet Feb. 9 and 10 in Gaithersburg, Md.
"The issue of drug treatment of attention deficit disorder in children has been a controversial one without this issue of cardiovascular risk too. It adds another concern to what will certainly be an interesting conversation," said Arthur Levin, the FDA committee's consumer representative.
A posting to the FDA Web site did not identify any of the drugs by name. However, the most commonly used ADHD drugs include Adderall XR, made by Shire Pharmaceuticals, and Ritalin, made by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. Various other companies make generic versions of Ritalin as well.
Shire spokesman Matthew Cabrey said the company hadn't been told of the meeting but added it may send representatives. Novartis did not immediately return a call seeking comment.
The committee's Feb. 10 meeting will include updates on FDA actions on cox-2 drugs as well as a recently begun patient, doctor and pharmacist registry program for the anti-acne drug Accutane and its generic competitors.
Separately, the committee also will discuss the FDA's Drug Safety Oversight Board, an internal, government employee-only panel created nearly a year ago.
The board is supposed to monitor FDA-approved medicines once they're on the market and update physicians and patients with emerging information on risks and benefits.
Gross said he had concerns about the board's impartiality and independence, as well as its relationship to his committee and the very similar work it does.
Jan 4, 7:35 PM (ET)
By ANDREW BRIDGES
WASHINGTON (AP) - Reports of sudden deaths, strokes, heart attacks and hypertension in both children and adults taking drugs to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder are spurring new government study into the medications' safety.
Sales of drugs to treat ADHD have increased sharply in recent years, with use growing at a faster rate among adults than children, according to a recent study by Medco Health Solutions, a prescription benefit manager. Spending on ADHD drugs soared from $759 million in 2000 to $3.1 billion in 2004, according to IMS Health, a pharmaceutical information and consulting firm.
The Food and Drug Administration said it had received reports of what it called "serious adverse events" - including deaths - in association with the therapeutic use of the drugs. The agency considers the reports "rare though serious," FDA spokeswoman Susan Bro said Wednesday.
The FDA's Canadian counterpart, Health Canada, yanked the ADHD drug Adderall XR from the market for six months last year in response to reports of 20 sudden deaths and 12 strokes in adults and children using the drug. A number of the cases involved children with structural heart defects.
The panel eventually concluded there was inadequate evidence of increased harm from Adderall XR compared with other available therapies - a conclusion the FDA also reached based on data on hand.
Now the U.S. regulatory agency is asking its Drug Safety and Risk Management advisory committee to examine ways of studying further the potential cardiovascular risks of the drugs. The few studies that have looked at longer-term use of ADHD drugs provide little information on those risks, the FDA said.
"It almost sounds like cox-2 inhibitor redux," said committee chairman Dr. Peter Gross, referring to cox-2 painkillers like Vioxx and Bextra pulled from the market because of evidence they can raise the risk of a heart attack or stroke.
The committee is to meet Feb. 9 and 10 in Gaithersburg, Md.
"The issue of drug treatment of attention deficit disorder in children has been a controversial one without this issue of cardiovascular risk too. It adds another concern to what will certainly be an interesting conversation," said Arthur Levin, the FDA committee's consumer representative.
A posting to the FDA Web site did not identify any of the drugs by name. However, the most commonly used ADHD drugs include Adderall XR, made by Shire Pharmaceuticals, and Ritalin, made by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. Various other companies make generic versions of Ritalin as well.
Shire spokesman Matthew Cabrey said the company hadn't been told of the meeting but added it may send representatives. Novartis did not immediately return a call seeking comment.
The committee's Feb. 10 meeting will include updates on FDA actions on cox-2 drugs as well as a recently begun patient, doctor and pharmacist registry program for the anti-acne drug Accutane and its generic competitors.
Separately, the committee also will discuss the FDA's Drug Safety Oversight Board, an internal, government employee-only panel created nearly a year ago.
The board is supposed to monitor FDA-approved medicines once they're on the market and update physicians and patients with emerging information on risks and benefits.
Gross said he had concerns about the board's impartiality and independence, as well as its relationship to his committee and the very similar work it does.
January 4, 2006
Evidence Of Harm to Make News in 2006
From David Kirby:
“EVIDENCE OF HARM” TO MAKE NEWS IN 2006
Bestselling Book About Mercury, Vaccines and Autism in Paperback this February; Author Named “Person of the Year” by Nation’s Leading Autism Magazine;
Movie Rights Optioned by Hollywood’s Participant Productions
NEW YORK – The New York Times bestseller “Evidence of Harm – Mercury in Vaccines and the Autism Epidemic, A Medical Controversy,” continues to make news in 2006, and was just named the 5th best selling science book for 2005 by Amazon.com.
“Evidence of Harm” will be issued in PAPERBACK this February, with a new postscript that updates readers on every aspect of the growing controversy over the past year -- including new science and new political developments. It also includes recent media coverage, and an update on the lives of the parent activists profiled in the book.
Meanwhile, author David Kirby has just been named “PERSON OF THE YEAR” by Spectrum, the nation’s largest and most influential autism magazine. Kirby, who will appear on the cover of the February issue, will be honored by the magazine at a reception in Long Island, NY, this spring.
Finally, “Evidence of Harm” has been optioned by a rising MOVIE COMPANY: Los Angeles-based Participant Productions. Formed to produce films on important current topics, Participant has released titles that earned strong buzz in 2005. Its movies have been nominated for eight Golden Globe Awards, including Best Drama for “Good Night and Good Luck,” Best Dramatic Actress (Charlize Theron) for “North Country,” and Best Director (George Clooney) for “Syriana.”
Two respected producers have signed onto the Evidence of Harm project: Nick Wechsler, who recently produced “North Country,” and Ross Bell, producer of “Fight Club.”
“Evidence of Harm” is the story of parents with autistic children who suspected that their illness sprang from unsafe levels of mercury in their vaccines. These parents take on Big Business, Big Science and Big Government in order to learn the truth. Ultimately, they uncover compelling evidence that Thimerosal could very well have played a role in the disease. Despite industry and government resistance, the parents, joined by medical, scientific, legal, and political allies, are getting closer to establishing their claim.
DAVID KIRBY has been a contributor to The New York Times for seven years, where he covers science and health, among other subjects, and has been a writer for over fifteen years. He lives in Brooklyn, New York.
PRAISE for Evidence of Harm:
“Kirby follows the tug of war between government health agencies and the parents and their supporters. Kirby does an admirable job of clarifying most of the scientific background (but) doesn't offer his own verdict on the debate -- although he makes the unassailable point that American health agencies lagged in calculating the amount of mercury being injected into babies.” – The New York Times & The International Herald Tribune
“Kirby's portrayal manages to make his protagonists seem far from crazy. They have been derided as dangerous anti-vaccination zealots, but Kirby sets their focus on the mercury-based vaccine preservative thimerosal against ‘modern science's near-religious faith in all things genetic.’ The battle rages on, and while Evidence of Harm offers no prospect of a truce, it does provide crystal clarity on an often misunderstood side of the argument.” – The Washington Post
“Evidence of Harm is a gripping investigation. Much like the 9/11 commission's report, it is an alarming page-turner. Keep your eye on California, where autism cases are closely tracked. If autism-related diagnoses decline over the next year or two following the introduction of thimerosal-free vaccines, the finding will further fuel this simmering controversy.” – Newsday
“One controversy looks likely to fester. Big Pharma would love to put it to rest, but the publication of a well-researched book is likely to push it to the fore. It isn’t a stretch to say Big Pharma’s fortunes are tethered in part to the Amazon.com sales rank of Evidence of Harm. If a link is found, the potential liability makes asbestos litigation look like belonging to a small claims court. Whichever side the reader ends up believing, Evidence of Harm makes one thing clear: this is an issue that will not go away.” – Financial Times
“Kirby delivers a well-written story that weaves in startling facts and takes you on a roller-coaster ride into the homes of families devastated by autism. It tells tales of government bureaucracy and political cronyism that, if true, are appalling. It took me several weeks to read Evidence of Harm. Maybe it was the detail-filled narrative from the parents' point of view that made me put the book down every so often and walk away. I shared their pain, their anger, their feeling of helplessness.” – Bloomberg News
“Avoiding hyperbole while writing about a possible medical catastrophe is no easy task, but David Kirby has created a fine balance of investigative and personal detail in Evidence of Harm. He creates a picture that is as terrifying as anything dreamed up by Hitchcock. Kirby's in a delicate position, searching for the truth between frantic parents (he focuses on the founders of political action group Safe Mind) and the self-protective pharmaceutical industry (the author thanks the nameless person who placed a pro-Eli Lilly litigation rider into the Homeland Security Act of 2002). The book is never dull--there is a continual urgency in the material that resists pedantry. However undecided the experts, readers will likely land firmly in one angry camp or the other. – Amazon.com
“Perhaps, as evidence accumulates, the thimerosal theory may be validated. Perhaps not. Inquiry into the etiology and treatment of autism continues, though the seeming finality of the IOM report may stifle important research into environmental causes. Kirby’s book, as biased as it is, prompts us to dig deeper into this vital issue. One can only hope that medical and lay readers alike will react to the book responsibly, with both skepticism and an open mind.” – The Lancet
“An engrossing David and Goliath story in which the giant is an amalgamation of big government bureaucrats and pharmaceutical lobbyists. Walking the middle line, Kirby’s book remains one of the most thoroughly researched accounts of the thimerosal controversy thus far. It's accessible in its handling of medical topics and compelling in its recounting of the parents' fight to advance their agenda in the face of both political and scientific roadblocks..” – Publishers Weekly (Starred Review) ***
“A riveting new book that examines this controversial but biologically plausible link, Evidence of Harm lines up the known evidence while telling the stories of a handful of determined parents forced to become their own detectives. You'll get eye-opening glimpses into the trenches where once normally developing kids slip into the shuttered world of autism and where their parents refuse to be bounced off the walls of seemingly impenetrable bureaucracies. Highly recommended.” – Knight Ridder Newspapers
CONTACT:
Elizabeth Coxe, – 646) 307-5563 – elizabeth.coxe@stmartins.com
David Kirby – 718-230-4250 – dkirby@nyc.rr.com
A Moment of Silence for Liz Birt
From the National Autism Association:
http://nationalautismassociation.org/liz/liz.htmWe invite the online community to come together tonight, January 4th at 9pm eastern to light a candle in Liz's honor and collectively observe a moment of silence, prayer and reflection.
Please click here to download a song chosen for Liz by Sam, an 11 -year-old boy with autism.
The Age of Autism: Red Flag on Gold Salts
The Age of Autism: Red flag on gold salts
By DAN OLMSTED
UPI Senior Editor
A number of readers have raised concerns that gold salts -- which may have improved the mental functioning of the first child diagnosed with autism -- are untested and unproven as a treatment and can be dangerous.
"I think you should be careful about showing too much enthusiasm about gold salts," wrote Dr. Marvin J. Schissel. "My recollection is that they were used for arthritis about half a century ago, but not since."
"Don't rush to the gold salts thing," wrote James Blanco, who forwarded several cautionary studies, including a 1993 French report, "Neurological complications caused by gold salts."
"Gold therapy is responsible for many neurological complications," the study said. And in a September 2005 article in the journal Autoimmunity, researchers from the Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, University College Cork, Ireland, noted:
"Gold salts have long been used in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. However, the basis for their therapeutic immune-modulating properties has never been satisfactorily explained. Furthermore, treatments are often marred by the development of adverse immune reactions such as hypersensitivity and even exacerbation of autoimmunity."
The issue of gold salts and autism arose after our report in August that the first child diagnosed with the disorder appeared to improve markedly after being treated with gold salts for an attack of juvenile rheumatoid arthritis at age 12. Donald T., as he is known in medical literature, still lives in the small Mississippi town where he grew up and first came to scientific attention in 1938.
The arthritis cleared up, and so did the "extreme nervousness" and excitability that had afflicted him, his brother told us. Donald also became "more social." He went on to college, where he was invited to join a fraternity; worked as a bank teller; and now, at age 72 and in retirement, pursues his love of golf and travels the world.
One autism researcher -- who believes most autism cases were triggered by mercury, and in particular a mercury preservative that was used in childhood immunizations beginning in the early 1930s -- tested gold salts in his laboratory following our report. He said last month that the substance can "reverse the binding" of mercury to a chemical compound.
But that scientist, University of Kentucky Chemistry Professor Boyd Haley, cautioned that no one should try gold salts to treat autism before proper studies are done.
"Please note that I am not recommending using gold salts to treat autistics, but it would certainly be worth a project if carefully monitored by a physician in a good clinic," Haley said.
An article in 2002 in the International Journal of Neuroscience, co-authored by four researchers at the Meridian Institute, made a similar case for testing gold salts as a "nervine" -- a treatment to relieve mental conditions -- and also noted the risk of side effects.
"The therapeutic and adverse effects of gold in living organisms are varied and paradoxical," the authors wrote. The primary side effects are dermatological and gastrointestinal, "yet gold-containing drugs have numerous rarer side effects, and can cause or exacerbate the same disorders for which they are effective in therapy."
For example, they noted "gold-containing drugs have been used in place of steroids in therapy for asthma ... but in other cases have been responsible for respiratory disorders and even death."
As for effects on the brain and nervous system, "Three forms of gold-induced neurological side effects have been recognized: (1) painful neuropathy, sometimes accompanied by insomnia and anxiety, (2) peripheral motor neuropathy, and (3) encephalopathy with symptoms including depression, delirium, and exogenous psychoses."
The upshot? More scientific and clinical studies. "This research has the potential for re-establishing gold as a significant therapeutic agent in a much wider range of disorders than those for which it is currently used. And it could help in sorting out valid from invalid claims of benefits from supplementation."
The authors said even the side effects might point to gold as a useful tool in treating neurological conditions if properly administered: "Adverse effects of drugs can be an indicator of related therapeutic effects at lower dosages."
Clearly, given the serious risks, figuring this out is a job best left to the experts.
--
E-mail: dolmsted@upi.com
By DAN OLMSTED
UPI Senior Editor
A number of readers have raised concerns that gold salts -- which may have improved the mental functioning of the first child diagnosed with autism -- are untested and unproven as a treatment and can be dangerous.
"I think you should be careful about showing too much enthusiasm about gold salts," wrote Dr. Marvin J. Schissel. "My recollection is that they were used for arthritis about half a century ago, but not since."
"Don't rush to the gold salts thing," wrote James Blanco, who forwarded several cautionary studies, including a 1993 French report, "Neurological complications caused by gold salts."
"Gold therapy is responsible for many neurological complications," the study said. And in a September 2005 article in the journal Autoimmunity, researchers from the Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, University College Cork, Ireland, noted:
"Gold salts have long been used in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. However, the basis for their therapeutic immune-modulating properties has never been satisfactorily explained. Furthermore, treatments are often marred by the development of adverse immune reactions such as hypersensitivity and even exacerbation of autoimmunity."
The issue of gold salts and autism arose after our report in August that the first child diagnosed with the disorder appeared to improve markedly after being treated with gold salts for an attack of juvenile rheumatoid arthritis at age 12. Donald T., as he is known in medical literature, still lives in the small Mississippi town where he grew up and first came to scientific attention in 1938.
The arthritis cleared up, and so did the "extreme nervousness" and excitability that had afflicted him, his brother told us. Donald also became "more social." He went on to college, where he was invited to join a fraternity; worked as a bank teller; and now, at age 72 and in retirement, pursues his love of golf and travels the world.
One autism researcher -- who believes most autism cases were triggered by mercury, and in particular a mercury preservative that was used in childhood immunizations beginning in the early 1930s -- tested gold salts in his laboratory following our report. He said last month that the substance can "reverse the binding" of mercury to a chemical compound.
But that scientist, University of Kentucky Chemistry Professor Boyd Haley, cautioned that no one should try gold salts to treat autism before proper studies are done.
"Please note that I am not recommending using gold salts to treat autistics, but it would certainly be worth a project if carefully monitored by a physician in a good clinic," Haley said.
An article in 2002 in the International Journal of Neuroscience, co-authored by four researchers at the Meridian Institute, made a similar case for testing gold salts as a "nervine" -- a treatment to relieve mental conditions -- and also noted the risk of side effects.
"The therapeutic and adverse effects of gold in living organisms are varied and paradoxical," the authors wrote. The primary side effects are dermatological and gastrointestinal, "yet gold-containing drugs have numerous rarer side effects, and can cause or exacerbate the same disorders for which they are effective in therapy."
For example, they noted "gold-containing drugs have been used in place of steroids in therapy for asthma ... but in other cases have been responsible for respiratory disorders and even death."
As for effects on the brain and nervous system, "Three forms of gold-induced neurological side effects have been recognized: (1) painful neuropathy, sometimes accompanied by insomnia and anxiety, (2) peripheral motor neuropathy, and (3) encephalopathy with symptoms including depression, delirium, and exogenous psychoses."
The upshot? More scientific and clinical studies. "This research has the potential for re-establishing gold as a significant therapeutic agent in a much wider range of disorders than those for which it is currently used. And it could help in sorting out valid from invalid claims of benefits from supplementation."
The authors said even the side effects might point to gold as a useful tool in treating neurological conditions if properly administered: "Adverse effects of drugs can be an indicator of related therapeutic effects at lower dosages."
Clearly, given the serious risks, figuring this out is a job best left to the experts.
--
E-mail: dolmsted@upi.com
December 31, 2005
FDA to Check Tuna for Mercury
FDA to check tuna
U.S. to investigate mercury levels in canned fish
By Sam Roe
Tribune staff reporter
Published December 31, 2005
The Food and Drug Administration will investigate whether tens of millions of cans of tuna sold each year contain potentially hazardous levels of mercury.
Responding to a Tribune series this month on mercury in fish, the FDA said it will review the possibility that there are elevated mercury levels in some cans of "light tuna," one of America's best-selling seafoods and a product the agency has recommended repeatedly as a low-mercury choice.
The Tribune revealed that the U.S. tuna industry is using a potentially high-mercury tuna species, yellowfin, to make about 15 percent of the 1.2 billion cans of light tuna sold annually. Most of these cans are not labeled yellowfin, making it impossible for consumers to know which cans might be high in mercury.
In an interview, David Acheson, the FDA's chief medical officer, said the agency had been unaware that some canned light tuna was made with a species that often is high in mercury.
"We will definitely look at it through our office of seafood and determine whether there is something that requires further pursuit," Acheson said. He could not say exactly what the investigation would entail or whether the agency would conduct additional testing of canned tuna.
The chief lobbying group for the leading tuna producers--StarKist, Bumble Bee and Chicken of the Sea--said the industry would cooperate with the FDA inquiry. The executive director of the U.S. Tuna Foundation, David Burney, said canned light tuna was not a health risk and that its mercury levels were well below government limits. "It's a non-issue," Burney said.
But top consumer and environmental groups called on the tuna industry to stop using yellowfin in canned light tuna.
"It's unforgivable," said Linda Greer, a toxicologist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, a leading conservation group. She said it was ironic that "efforts to recommend canned light tuna to people is undermined by industry shoving contaminated fish into the wrong cans."
Almost all of the mercury that people are exposed to comes from eating fish tainted with the toxic metal. Because mercury can harm the developing central nervous system, young children and fetuses are most at risk.
Children exposed to dangerous levels of mercury can suffer subtle learning difficulties, including delays in walking and talking. Adults can experience headaches, fatigue, loss of concentration and numbness in the hands and feet.
While the mercury content in canned yellowfin tuna varies, the industry said the average is about three times higher than that of regular canned light, which generally is made with skipjack, a smaller tuna species with lower mercury levels.
Canned yellowfin, the industry said, has about as much mercury as canned albacore, a product the federal government has warned at-risk groups about because of high amounts of the toxic metal. In 2004, the FDA and the Environmental Protection Agency jointly warned young children, pregnant women and women of childbearing age to not eat more than 6 ounces of canned albacore per week.
But no warning exists for canned yellowfin.
The FDA-EPA warning also states that canned light tuna is low in mercury and therefore a wise choice for at-risk groups.
Canned light tuna does have relatively low amounts of mercury on average, but the levels can vary widely. John Stiker, a former Bumble Bee executive, said the use of yellowfin in canned light might result in some cans testing high. A can of light tuna with low levels of mercury might consist of skipjack, Stiker explained, while a can testing high might be solely yellowfin.
`Just plain wrong'
Michael Bender, head of the Mercury Policy Project, a non-profit advocacy group based in Vermont, said the tuna industry's practice of putting yellowfin into canned light without appropriate labels is "just plain wrong."
"If the public doesn't know what species they are eating, they have no way to tell if the product has low, medium or high amounts of mercury," he said.
Caroline Smith DeWaal, food safety director for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, said the revelation that yellowfin is in light tuna makes the federal government's mercury warning "even less protective."
The Tribune series reported that about 180 million cans of light tuna are made with yellowfin each year. Half of those cans are marketed as a gourmet product. StarKist calls its product "Gourmet's Choice," Chicken of the Sea markets a "Tonno" product under the Genova label and Bumble Bee offers a "Tonno in olive oil" variety. Of those, only Genova identifies its product as yellowfin.
As part of its series, the Tribune bought 18 cans of gourmet tuna from area stores and tested them for mercury. The results showed low levels of the toxic metal: 0.06 parts of mercury per million parts of fish tissue, far lower than the 0.35 parts per million average reported by the tuna industry.
Stiker said he was surprised by the results and speculated that Chicago had received shipments of gourmet cans made with small, young yellowfin that would be low in mercury because the toxic metal accumulates up the food chain.
Industry fights warnings
In recent years the tuna industry, fearing class-action lawsuits and a drop in sales, has opposed government efforts to warn consumers about mercury in tuna, federal records show. The industry is especially concerned about warnings regarding canned light tuna, which accounts for 65 percent of all cans of tuna sold. Albacore makes up 35 percent.
Since the Tribune series was published, the Tuna Foundation has defended the use of yellowfin in light tuna.
In an interview, Burney, the foundation director, said gourmet canned tuna is not light tuna but rather "a completely different product."
But gourmet cans prominently say "light tuna" on the labels.
Burney responded to that discrepancy by saying the gourmet canned product "is set off by itself in the stores if you go and get it. It's not set with the cans of light-meat tuna."
But when the Tribune bought gourmet tuna at 18 groceries for its mercury testing, each store sold the gourmet cans alongside the other cans of tuna, which often have similar labels.
The biggest difference is often price: The gourmet version can sell for $1 more.
Burney said consumers who buy light tuna to avoid mercury exposure will not purchase the gourmet cans.
"I think price alone would stop you from getting it," he said, "and I think that it is only sold to people that know what they are getting."
The Tribune also reported that some yellowfin not used in gourmet cans is packaged and sold as regular canned light. Stiker told the Tribune that the industry often catches more yellowfin than it can sell in its gourmet line. So the remainder is sold as regular light tuna without any special labels.
Until recently, Stiker had been Bumble Bee's executive vice president of corporate development and a leading industry spokesman. He left the company Dec. 9, two days before the Tribune published its mercury series. Stiker and Bumble Bee said he was leaving on good terms to head a small coffee company.
Spokesman contradicted
When the Tribune first contacted the Tuna Foundation in July for comment regarding the mercury issue, the lobbying group referred the newspaper to Stiker. But the Tuna Foundation now says it disagrees with a statement Stiker made repeatedly in interviews with the newspaper: that it is an industrywide practice to put yellowfin that cannot be sold as a gourmet product into regular canned light.
StarKist and Chicken of the Sea referred questions to the Tuna Foundation. Burney said that while he did not know for sure how Bumble Bee handled yellowfin, StarKist and Chicken of the Sea did not add any fish to regular canned light that would raise the average mercury levels.
He said that when those two companies catch tuna, they separate the large yellowfin from the small ones on the boats. The large yellowfin, which can be higher in mercury, are sent to canneries to be packed as a gourmet product. The small yellowfin, he said, are mixed with skipjack of comparable size and mercury levels, in order to make regular canned light.
Stiker declined to comment on the Tuna Foundation questioning his statements. "I'm done on this topic," he wrote in an e-mail.
----------
sroe@tribune.com
U.S. to investigate mercury levels in canned fish
By Sam Roe
Tribune staff reporter
Published December 31, 2005
The Food and Drug Administration will investigate whether tens of millions of cans of tuna sold each year contain potentially hazardous levels of mercury.
Responding to a Tribune series this month on mercury in fish, the FDA said it will review the possibility that there are elevated mercury levels in some cans of "light tuna," one of America's best-selling seafoods and a product the agency has recommended repeatedly as a low-mercury choice.
The Tribune revealed that the U.S. tuna industry is using a potentially high-mercury tuna species, yellowfin, to make about 15 percent of the 1.2 billion cans of light tuna sold annually. Most of these cans are not labeled yellowfin, making it impossible for consumers to know which cans might be high in mercury.
In an interview, David Acheson, the FDA's chief medical officer, said the agency had been unaware that some canned light tuna was made with a species that often is high in mercury.
"We will definitely look at it through our office of seafood and determine whether there is something that requires further pursuit," Acheson said. He could not say exactly what the investigation would entail or whether the agency would conduct additional testing of canned tuna.
The chief lobbying group for the leading tuna producers--StarKist, Bumble Bee and Chicken of the Sea--said the industry would cooperate with the FDA inquiry. The executive director of the U.S. Tuna Foundation, David Burney, said canned light tuna was not a health risk and that its mercury levels were well below government limits. "It's a non-issue," Burney said.
But top consumer and environmental groups called on the tuna industry to stop using yellowfin in canned light tuna.
"It's unforgivable," said Linda Greer, a toxicologist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, a leading conservation group. She said it was ironic that "efforts to recommend canned light tuna to people is undermined by industry shoving contaminated fish into the wrong cans."
Almost all of the mercury that people are exposed to comes from eating fish tainted with the toxic metal. Because mercury can harm the developing central nervous system, young children and fetuses are most at risk.
Children exposed to dangerous levels of mercury can suffer subtle learning difficulties, including delays in walking and talking. Adults can experience headaches, fatigue, loss of concentration and numbness in the hands and feet.
While the mercury content in canned yellowfin tuna varies, the industry said the average is about three times higher than that of regular canned light, which generally is made with skipjack, a smaller tuna species with lower mercury levels.
Canned yellowfin, the industry said, has about as much mercury as canned albacore, a product the federal government has warned at-risk groups about because of high amounts of the toxic metal. In 2004, the FDA and the Environmental Protection Agency jointly warned young children, pregnant women and women of childbearing age to not eat more than 6 ounces of canned albacore per week.
But no warning exists for canned yellowfin.
The FDA-EPA warning also states that canned light tuna is low in mercury and therefore a wise choice for at-risk groups.
Canned light tuna does have relatively low amounts of mercury on average, but the levels can vary widely. John Stiker, a former Bumble Bee executive, said the use of yellowfin in canned light might result in some cans testing high. A can of light tuna with low levels of mercury might consist of skipjack, Stiker explained, while a can testing high might be solely yellowfin.
`Just plain wrong'
Michael Bender, head of the Mercury Policy Project, a non-profit advocacy group based in Vermont, said the tuna industry's practice of putting yellowfin into canned light without appropriate labels is "just plain wrong."
"If the public doesn't know what species they are eating, they have no way to tell if the product has low, medium or high amounts of mercury," he said.
Caroline Smith DeWaal, food safety director for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, said the revelation that yellowfin is in light tuna makes the federal government's mercury warning "even less protective."
The Tribune series reported that about 180 million cans of light tuna are made with yellowfin each year. Half of those cans are marketed as a gourmet product. StarKist calls its product "Gourmet's Choice," Chicken of the Sea markets a "Tonno" product under the Genova label and Bumble Bee offers a "Tonno in olive oil" variety. Of those, only Genova identifies its product as yellowfin.
As part of its series, the Tribune bought 18 cans of gourmet tuna from area stores and tested them for mercury. The results showed low levels of the toxic metal: 0.06 parts of mercury per million parts of fish tissue, far lower than the 0.35 parts per million average reported by the tuna industry.
Stiker said he was surprised by the results and speculated that Chicago had received shipments of gourmet cans made with small, young yellowfin that would be low in mercury because the toxic metal accumulates up the food chain.
Industry fights warnings
In recent years the tuna industry, fearing class-action lawsuits and a drop in sales, has opposed government efforts to warn consumers about mercury in tuna, federal records show. The industry is especially concerned about warnings regarding canned light tuna, which accounts for 65 percent of all cans of tuna sold. Albacore makes up 35 percent.
Since the Tribune series was published, the Tuna Foundation has defended the use of yellowfin in light tuna.
In an interview, Burney, the foundation director, said gourmet canned tuna is not light tuna but rather "a completely different product."
But gourmet cans prominently say "light tuna" on the labels.
Burney responded to that discrepancy by saying the gourmet canned product "is set off by itself in the stores if you go and get it. It's not set with the cans of light-meat tuna."
But when the Tribune bought gourmet tuna at 18 groceries for its mercury testing, each store sold the gourmet cans alongside the other cans of tuna, which often have similar labels.
The biggest difference is often price: The gourmet version can sell for $1 more.
Burney said consumers who buy light tuna to avoid mercury exposure will not purchase the gourmet cans.
"I think price alone would stop you from getting it," he said, "and I think that it is only sold to people that know what they are getting."
The Tribune also reported that some yellowfin not used in gourmet cans is packaged and sold as regular canned light. Stiker told the Tribune that the industry often catches more yellowfin than it can sell in its gourmet line. So the remainder is sold as regular light tuna without any special labels.
Until recently, Stiker had been Bumble Bee's executive vice president of corporate development and a leading industry spokesman. He left the company Dec. 9, two days before the Tribune published its mercury series. Stiker and Bumble Bee said he was leaving on good terms to head a small coffee company.
Spokesman contradicted
When the Tribune first contacted the Tuna Foundation in July for comment regarding the mercury issue, the lobbying group referred the newspaper to Stiker. But the Tuna Foundation now says it disagrees with a statement Stiker made repeatedly in interviews with the newspaper: that it is an industrywide practice to put yellowfin that cannot be sold as a gourmet product into regular canned light.
StarKist and Chicken of the Sea referred questions to the Tuna Foundation. Burney said that while he did not know for sure how Bumble Bee handled yellowfin, StarKist and Chicken of the Sea did not add any fish to regular canned light that would raise the average mercury levels.
He said that when those two companies catch tuna, they separate the large yellowfin from the small ones on the boats. The large yellowfin, which can be higher in mercury, are sent to canneries to be packed as a gourmet product. The small yellowfin, he said, are mixed with skipjack of comparable size and mercury levels, in order to make regular canned light.
Stiker declined to comment on the Tuna Foundation questioning his statements. "I'm done on this topic," he wrote in an e-mail.
----------
sroe@tribune.com
Autism: An Epidemic Is Finally Acknowledged
Autism: An Epidemic Is Finally Acknowledged
Government agency takes first step to protect our children
James Ottar Grundvig
Special to The Epoch Times
Dec 30, 2005
BEVERLY HILLS: Actor Dustin Hoffman speaks at the 2005 Cure Autism Now's 10th Anniversay Gala last November. Hoffman is known for his convincing portrayal of a man stricken with autism in the film Rain Man.
The year 2005 will be a year to remember in the autism epidemic: The debate came to a head between parents of autistic spectrum disorder (ASD) children and the federal government, which has long denied an autism epidemic exists.
The ebb and flow has turned in the favor of these long-neglected children, who today number well over one million in the United States alone. Governmental agencies in charge of children's health and the pediatric-psychiatry-pharmaceutical axis had erected a wall to protect their errant policies regarding baby vaccinations. In 2005 that wall began to shows signs of cracking.
Turning Points
The turning point came not as a single event, but a timely confluence of several streams. In April, New York Times contributing writer, David Kirby, came out with the book "Evidence of Harm" that tied the increase in vaccines to the rise in autism. Others, like Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and radio show host Don Imus drove the vaccines-mercury-autism debate home last summer. The efforts of these high-profile individuals combined with those of autism not-for-profit organizations and parents like myself—who have filed a deluge of vaccine-injury cases on behalf of their children in the "vaccine court" created in 1986 by Congress—to help remove the shadow of ignorance from autism. The prevailing hypothesis that autism is a psychological disease rooted solely in genetics was debunked.
In 2005 Iowa and California became the first states to ban thimerosal, the mercury-based preservative used in many baby vaccines. For a long time, most parents of ASD kids have suspected that thimerosal was the major culprit in the sharp rise of autism cases, particularly the regressive form of the disorder. New York State jumped into the act by passing a law that will ban thimerosal from vaccines. The only problem: the law won't go into affect until 2009. Better late than never. I suspect those states, which will undoubtedly be followed by others in the coming years, realized that with the spike in autism comes a spike in costs for special education and healthcare that has placed an enormous burden on the tax coffers. Yet none of those states' actions against thimerosal would have been necessary if the federal government, namely the CDC and FDA, had acted in 1999.
Where Has the Federal Government Been?
Seven years ago, those agencies were warned, informed, and had ample opportunity to ban the known neurological toxin, but failed to do so. Because of their inaction, tens of thousands of babies born since 2000, including my son, won a most unfortunate lottery. America's ASD children were given vaccines with just enough thimerosal to shutdown their ability to filter out heavy metals, while simultaneously poisoning their brains and central nervous systems.
Instead, the CDC suggested to the pharmaceutical companies, like Merck (maker of the hepatitis B "birth dose" vaccine) and Eli Lilly (grandfather of thimerosal, invented in the 1920s), to remove gradually this known toxin from vaccines. Of course, Merck & Co.'s suppression of the bad reports on the painkiller Vioxx, and subsequent attempts to keep Vioxx out of the courts and the press, provides an example of how Big Pharma can't be trusted. And the CDC's actions on thimerosal suggested the government might be too close sometimes to that industry.
So it came as a shock this December to learn that ASD children were receiving an early holiday present, gift wrapped by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). Although barely covered in the news, the NIMH finally admitted that autism is an epidemic. And genetics alone can't cause epidemics, since genes only mutate from one generation to the next. The cause for the epidemic might still be an issue, but such a revelation in the wake of all those denials is the jump-start that is needed to make other guardians of our healthcare system look at the very least foolish, and at the worst promoters of terrible propaganda.
An Opportunity for Change
How should the Pediatric Association of America, which continues to state that vaccines are safe, take this news? And what about the legions of psychiatrists and psychologists who have long sold the mantra that there wasn't an epidemic, only people who were not properly trained in the past to diagnose autism in children? What do I think? They should be ashamed of themselves for choosing to protect vaccines over the health of children.
I grew up in a small town in Westchester County, north of New York City. In the 1960s, there were no children on the spectrum there, and that was for kindergarten through 12th grade. In the past year I learned that beside myself, three other students within two grades of my own (the average grade size was 120 kids per class) have ASD children. For me, nothing has been more powerful than that fact. All the denials, disinformation, and twisting of numbers of the amount of thimerosal in a given vaccine couldn't cloud the truth. Autism is an epidemic.
For the New Year, there will still be people, companies and agencies that deny there is an epidemic, let alone one caused by the over-use of vaccinations. Some are ignorant; while many will do anything to protect the status quo, due to the financial windfall that the twenty-plus vaccines given to each newborn baby within its first two years brings to the vaccine-makers.
Now is time for the CDC, FDA, the White House, and our congressmen and senators to join the NIMH and admit that autism is an epidemic. It is time for the news media, which have too often under-reported this plague of the twenty-first century, to do the same. Then maybe the frontline defenders of children—pediatricians and child psychologist—can come clean and join in chorus with the parents. That would be an enormous first step in defeating autism.
Until that day, there will be an epidemic. And it's not going away until those in charge of the American healthcare system admit they have crisis on its hand.
Its name is autism.
James Ottar Grundvig lives and works in New York City. He is the father of an autistic child.
Government agency takes first step to protect our children
James Ottar Grundvig
Special to The Epoch Times
Dec 30, 2005
BEVERLY HILLS: Actor Dustin Hoffman speaks at the 2005 Cure Autism Now's 10th Anniversay Gala last November. Hoffman is known for his convincing portrayal of a man stricken with autism in the film Rain Man.
The year 2005 will be a year to remember in the autism epidemic: The debate came to a head between parents of autistic spectrum disorder (ASD) children and the federal government, which has long denied an autism epidemic exists.
The ebb and flow has turned in the favor of these long-neglected children, who today number well over one million in the United States alone. Governmental agencies in charge of children's health and the pediatric-psychiatry-pharmaceutical axis had erected a wall to protect their errant policies regarding baby vaccinations. In 2005 that wall began to shows signs of cracking.
Turning Points
The turning point came not as a single event, but a timely confluence of several streams. In April, New York Times contributing writer, David Kirby, came out with the book "Evidence of Harm" that tied the increase in vaccines to the rise in autism. Others, like Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and radio show host Don Imus drove the vaccines-mercury-autism debate home last summer. The efforts of these high-profile individuals combined with those of autism not-for-profit organizations and parents like myself—who have filed a deluge of vaccine-injury cases on behalf of their children in the "vaccine court" created in 1986 by Congress—to help remove the shadow of ignorance from autism. The prevailing hypothesis that autism is a psychological disease rooted solely in genetics was debunked.
In 2005 Iowa and California became the first states to ban thimerosal, the mercury-based preservative used in many baby vaccines. For a long time, most parents of ASD kids have suspected that thimerosal was the major culprit in the sharp rise of autism cases, particularly the regressive form of the disorder. New York State jumped into the act by passing a law that will ban thimerosal from vaccines. The only problem: the law won't go into affect until 2009. Better late than never. I suspect those states, which will undoubtedly be followed by others in the coming years, realized that with the spike in autism comes a spike in costs for special education and healthcare that has placed an enormous burden on the tax coffers. Yet none of those states' actions against thimerosal would have been necessary if the federal government, namely the CDC and FDA, had acted in 1999.
Where Has the Federal Government Been?
Seven years ago, those agencies were warned, informed, and had ample opportunity to ban the known neurological toxin, but failed to do so. Because of their inaction, tens of thousands of babies born since 2000, including my son, won a most unfortunate lottery. America's ASD children were given vaccines with just enough thimerosal to shutdown their ability to filter out heavy metals, while simultaneously poisoning their brains and central nervous systems.
Instead, the CDC suggested to the pharmaceutical companies, like Merck (maker of the hepatitis B "birth dose" vaccine) and Eli Lilly (grandfather of thimerosal, invented in the 1920s), to remove gradually this known toxin from vaccines. Of course, Merck & Co.'s suppression of the bad reports on the painkiller Vioxx, and subsequent attempts to keep Vioxx out of the courts and the press, provides an example of how Big Pharma can't be trusted. And the CDC's actions on thimerosal suggested the government might be too close sometimes to that industry.
So it came as a shock this December to learn that ASD children were receiving an early holiday present, gift wrapped by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). Although barely covered in the news, the NIMH finally admitted that autism is an epidemic. And genetics alone can't cause epidemics, since genes only mutate from one generation to the next. The cause for the epidemic might still be an issue, but such a revelation in the wake of all those denials is the jump-start that is needed to make other guardians of our healthcare system look at the very least foolish, and at the worst promoters of terrible propaganda.
An Opportunity for Change
How should the Pediatric Association of America, which continues to state that vaccines are safe, take this news? And what about the legions of psychiatrists and psychologists who have long sold the mantra that there wasn't an epidemic, only people who were not properly trained in the past to diagnose autism in children? What do I think? They should be ashamed of themselves for choosing to protect vaccines over the health of children.
I grew up in a small town in Westchester County, north of New York City. In the 1960s, there were no children on the spectrum there, and that was for kindergarten through 12th grade. In the past year I learned that beside myself, three other students within two grades of my own (the average grade size was 120 kids per class) have ASD children. For me, nothing has been more powerful than that fact. All the denials, disinformation, and twisting of numbers of the amount of thimerosal in a given vaccine couldn't cloud the truth. Autism is an epidemic.
For the New Year, there will still be people, companies and agencies that deny there is an epidemic, let alone one caused by the over-use of vaccinations. Some are ignorant; while many will do anything to protect the status quo, due to the financial windfall that the twenty-plus vaccines given to each newborn baby within its first two years brings to the vaccine-makers.
Now is time for the CDC, FDA, the White House, and our congressmen and senators to join the NIMH and admit that autism is an epidemic. It is time for the news media, which have too often under-reported this plague of the twenty-first century, to do the same. Then maybe the frontline defenders of children—pediatricians and child psychologist—can come clean and join in chorus with the parents. That would be an enormous first step in defeating autism.
Until that day, there will be an epidemic. And it's not going away until those in charge of the American healthcare system admit they have crisis on its hand.
Its name is autism.
James Ottar Grundvig lives and works in New York City. He is the father of an autistic child.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)