a)
Suit links autism to vaccines
HELP
OR HARM: One study points to Thimerosal, a preservative that
contains mercury, as the culprit.
By
HENRI BRICKEY / The Press-Enterprise
Just
after turning a year old, Evan began to withdraw into his own
world. He would
sit by himself and become fixated on the red light
on the family TV.
He
became emotionally detached from his parents and would cry uncontrollably
for hours.
When
Evan turned 2, Ivy and Nathanial Seeds took their son to a neurologist.
He was diagnosed as autistic. The Seeds
are
convinced that vaccinations
containing Thimerosal that were given to Evan in the first
year of his life contributed to her son's autism.
Her concerns are shared by many parents, doctors and scientists
who have been part of a contentious debate about a mercury-based
preservative
in childhood vaccines.
In
May, the Institute of Medicine, a nonprofit institution that
advises the National Academy of Sciences
on health policies,
concluded there
is no connection between Thimerosal and autism. The announcement
was based largely on a series of studies conducted in the
United States
and Europe since 2001 that compared the rate of autism in
children who were vaccinated against children who weren't vaccinated.
"The
overwhelming evidence from several well-designed studies indicates
that childhood vaccinations are not associated with autism," said
Marie McCormick, professor of Maternal and Child Health
at Harvard who also chairs the Institute of Medicine's
Immunization Safety
Review Committee.
 |
Valerie Berta / The Press-Enterprise |
Ivy and Nathaniel Seeds say the mercury-based preservative in
childhood immunizations made their son autistic.
|
It's the same stance
many pediatricians and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
take.
A new scientific
report linking a preservative in childhood vaccines
to autistic-like symptoms in mice is the kind of evidence Temecula
attorney Ralph Peters' says he was waiting for.
He represents dozens
of Inland parents who have autistic children, however many experts
disagree with Peters.
Two years ago,
Peters was one of about five attorneys nationwide claiming an autism
epidemic caused by mercury
in childhood vaccinations
has
disabled a generation of children. Today, nearly 40 lawyers across
the nation are suing vaccine manufacturers on the grounds that
Thimerosal, a common preservative used in the vaccinations, can
cause neurological
disorders such as autism. Thimerosal is an organic preservative
containing 50 percent ethyl mercury. It has been used in vaccines
since the
1930s.
The Centers for
Disease Control says mercury contained in Thimerosal is not to blame
for autism.
The Institute of
Medicine's announcement was a setback to his case, the Temecula attorney
said. But Peters, 49, points to
a study released
in June by researchers at Columbia University concluding
low doses of mercury - like the amount used in children's vaccines
- can
lead to autistic-like symptoms in mice with certain genetic
characteristics. Peters says the study shows autism isn't naturally
occurring.
The Columbia study,
which was funded in part by grants from autism support groups as
well as The Ellison Medical Foundation,
injected
several groups of mice with Thimerosal at levels equivalent
to the amount given to human children. Most of the mice
emerged from the
test unharmed. One group of mice that was genetically sensitive
to mercury
showed "profound behavioral and neuropathology disturbances," the
study reported.
Peters said the
study helps show that autism results from a combination of genetics
and environmental
factors.
"
Obviously, this is not a case of Darwinian selection," Peters
said.
Ivy Seeds of Corona
is one of the parents suing the pharmaceutical companies. She says
the Columbia study
may be the first
step in making a solid connection between Thimerosal
and autism.
"
I hope that it propels them to do more research and prove that Thimerosal
is terrible for our children," said Seeds.
Some
medical experts warns that the Thimerosal controversy
could end up harming children if parents fail to
immunize their children
over
fears of autism.
"
These vaccines are preventing real diseases with really serious consequences," McCormick
said.
Temecula pediatrician
Donna Krepak says more parents are asking questions before vaccinating
their children
nowadays.
But only
about 1 percent
of parents that come into her office ask if
vaccines
will give their children autism, Krepak said.
"
The risks of getting these diseases are much more risky than getting
autism from a vaccine," Krepak said. "You
can't be afraid of everything, otherwise
you would stay in your house and never go
outside."
Between 1998 and
2002, California's autistic population nearly doubled - from
10,360 to
20,377, according
to the Department
of Developmental
Services. California's population increased
less than 10 percent overall in the same
time.
Others in the scientific
community say rising levels of autism are a result of
better methods
of diagnosing
the
disorder.
Seeds blames the
high number of vaccines given to her son, at least in part, for
his autism.
Seeds' son Evan,
4, received
27
vaccines
in two years - all of which were recommended
by pediatricians
for Evan's
protection, according to Seeds, 42.
Up until about
20 years ago, children received fewer than 10 vaccinations in the
first
few years of their
life, according
to the National
Vaccine Information Center. In the
1980s and '90s, the number of required
vaccinations roughly doubled. Today,
many children are given 22 shots
by the
time
they reach the first grade, according
to the Association of
American Physicians and Surgeons.
As more vaccines
came onto the market, more Thimerosal was being injected
into children,
leading some
to say the accumulation
of mercury has
lead to a nationwide autism epidemic.
In 1999, the American Academy
of Pediatrics asked vaccine manufacturers
to stop the use of Thimerosal in
childhood vaccines
as
a precautionary
step.
Many other vaccines
have followed suit, creating Thimerosal-free
vaccines. But without a recall
from the Federal Drug
Administration, remaining
stocks of Thimerosal-laced vaccinations
can remain in circulation until
2005, according to Sensible
Action for Ending Mercury-Induced
Neurological
Disorders, a leading autism support
and advocacy
group.
Stockpiled vaccinations
for Japanese encephalitis and tetanus still
contain Thimerosal, according
to the
group. Flu vaccines
are still
manufactured using the Thimerosal
preservative, according to
the National Vaccine Information
Center.
As long as there's
still Thimerosal in any vaccination, Seeds said
she'll continue
to
pursue her suit
against the pharmaceutical
companies.
"
I want justice," she said. "I don't want any family to come
into my autistic world
with me. It's hell."
Schwan Park of
Temecula contacted Peters three
months ago -
about a year after
his 2 -year-old
son Max
was diagnosed
with
autism.
Park, 38, said
he knows battling the pharmaceutical
companies
won't be easy.
He said that he
doesn't expect to win
any money in court.
"
By the time all is said and done, we're not going to get anything," Park
said
The suit is
a way to warn other parents
about are
risks associated
with vaccines,
several
of which
still contain
Thimerosal.
The
issue has caught the attention of
the government.
The U.S. Office
of Special Counsel -
an independent
agency that
investigates
whistleblower
complaints
and abuses
of authority
- has asked
congress to
investigate
the Department of
Health
and Human
Services'
administration
of the country's
vaccine
program.
"
It appears that there may be sufficient evidence to find a substantial
likelihood
of a subsequent and specific danger to public health caused by
the use of Thimerosal/mercury in vaccines because of its inherent
toxicity," Special
Counsel Scott
Bloch said
in a letter
sent to Congress
the day after
the Institute
of Medicine
issued its
report.
If
congress
follows
Bloch's recommendation,
it will
not be
the first
time lawmakers
ponder
the Thimerosal
and
autism
connection.
Assemblywoman
Fran
Pavley, D-Agoura
Hills,
is sponsoring
a bill
that
would
ban Thimerosal
from
all childhood
vaccination
by 2006.
"
I'm always for precaution as it relates to any potential problems that
young
children face," said Pavley. "While the science is
still
out, doesn't it make sense to make all vaccinations Thimerosal
free?"
Pavley's
bill
was
endorsed
10-2
June
23
by
the
state
Senate
Committee
on
Health
and
Human
Services.
In April,
the Iowa
Senate approved
a bill
that would
prohibit anything
more than
trace amounts
of mercury
from being
used in
immunizations beginning
in 2006.
At least
two other
states -
Missouri and
Nebraska -
are considering
similar bills.
Since
Peters filed
his first
case against
the manufacturers
of childhood
vaccines in
2002, his
client list
has grown
to almost
200 parents
who claim
Thimerosal is
at least
partially to
blame for
the children's
autism.
While
there is
no dollar
amount attached
to each
suit, Peters
says, based
on the
cost of
treating the
disease and
emotional suffering
endured by
the parents,
each family
should be
eligible for
much more
than $1
million if
Thimerosal is
proven to
cause autism.
Care in
residential schools
for autistic
children can
cost up
to $100,000
a year,
according to
the CDC.
Peters
compares his
efforts to
that of
attorneys who
took on
asbestos cases
more than
30 years
ago. Attorneys
and some
members of
the medical
community struggled
for decades
to show
that asbestos
is harmful
to people's
health before
winning a
large product-liability
lawsuit in
1971. Peters
says proving
a generation
of American
children are
suffering from
mercury-tainted vaccinations
is
meeting similar
resistance from
the scientific
and medical
communities.
"
It's becoming a battle of the scientists," Peters said.
Special
note: Thanks to the SEEDS FAMILY for this wonderful article.
It received a lot of notice in the papers and in the autism world!
b)
Charismatic Doctor at Vortex of Vaccine Dispute
Experts
Argue Over Findings, but Specialist Sees Possible MMR Link to Autism
By
Glenn Frankel Washington Post Foreign Service Sunday, July 11, 2004;
Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41450-2004Jul10.html
LONDON
-- The first lesson a doctor needs to learn, says Andrew Wakefield,
is to listen to his patients. And so when Rosemary Kessick brought
in her son William in 1996, Wakefield listened carefully.
She
described how William had deteriorated at age 15 months from a healthy
developing
toddler into a withdrawn, incommunicative
child who screamed throughout the night, and how his bowels seemed
on fire
with constant diarrhea and pain. All of this had started, she
said, within days after William received the MMR -- an injection
known
here
as the "triple jab," designed to vaccinate youngsters
against measles, mumps and rubella.
In
the end Wakefield, a specialist in intestinal disease, did more than
just listen. Working with
colleagues, he came up with
the
hypothesis that William and other victims were suffering from
a unique form
of intestinal disorder related to their autism that might have
been triggered
by the MMR. He also claimed that the vaccine might be one reason
for the soaring rates of autism in the developed world over
the past two
decades.
Public
health officials insist he is wrong. While Wakefield continues publishing
reports supporting his theory, study after
study has
failed to find a link between autism and MMR, and large numbers
of doctors
question his work.
But
many parents have rallied to his side; vaccination rates in Britain
have fallen steeply, and measles rates
have begun
to climb.
Feeling
hounded from his job in Britain, Wakefield is finding a
new and receptive audience in the United States, where for now,
at least,
MMR vaccination
rates remain stable. For parents and for much of the media,
he has become a familiar archetype: the courageous lone
crusader for truth
and justice up against an uncaring, faceless medical establishment
and a greedy pharmaceutical industry.
Now
his credibility has taken another blow, from a Sunday Times newspaper
report that
Wakefield failed to disclose
that his
work had been supported
by funds from a group of parents filing a lawsuit against
the vaccine companies. Wakefield has vehemently denied
any conflict
of interest,
but the editor of the Lancet, a distinguished medical
journal, now says he would not have published Wakefield's groundbreaking
1998
report had he known about the funding.
Ten
of the 13 physicians involved in the original report have withdrawn
their support,
and the cabinet secretary
in charge
of Britain's
national health service has called for an investigation.
The
Wakefield story is about public health and risk and the abiding
mistrust that many people hold toward
government
officials, especially
when it comes to issues of health and safety. It
is also about how the media can transform complex matters
of
public policy
into simple
narratives with heroes and villains. And it is about
one charismatic doctor who contends he holds the
key to unlocking
a medical
mystery and that many of his colleagues are either
too craven
or too
frightened to seek the truth.
A
Study Is Launched
Tall,
square-jawed and soft-spoken, Wakefield, now 47, was once a golden
boy in the medical world.
He trained
at St.
Mary's Hospital
in London
as a gastrointestinal surgeon, then spent several
years doing research in Toronto, where he helped
develop
a novel theory
on the causes
of intestinal disease. By the early 1990s he
was back in London, directing
the inflammatory bowel disease study group at
the Royal Free Hospital, one of Britain's premier teaching
and
research facilities.
Richard
Horton, a former colleague who now edits the Lancet, once described
him as "committed,
engaging and charismatic. He asks big questions
about diseases, and his ambition often brings
quick and impressive results."
By
the time Kessick came to see Wakefield with her son
William, he had already begun to theorize
about
a link
between the
rising numbers
of children with Crohn's disease, an inflammatory
intestinal disorder, and the introduction
of the MMR vaccine a
few years earlier. William's
case, Wakefield says, helped convince him
that there could be a connection between the vaccine
and autism
as well.
Frustrated
to the point of rage by what she saw as a general lack of understanding
in
the medical
profession,
Kessick
had schooled
herself
in the disorder. She discovered that autism
comes in many shapes and sizes, but its
most general
characteristic is
profound
isolation --
an autism sufferer cannot communicate with
or understand others. Some children seem
to suffer from autism
at
birth,
while in
others it develops
in the first few years of life.
Kessick
also learned that autism rates were rapidly rising -- although
there is
no agreement
on exactly
how fast
or why. Many
experts
argue that improved diagnosis and deeper
awareness among professionals have led
to more accurate
and earlier identification
of the
problem. Others
contend that the absolute number of cases
is rising, not just medicine's ability
to find
them. In their
view, something
in
the environment
must be to blame.
Based
upon William's nightmarish decline, Kessick was certain that the
MMR vaccine
was at least
one of the
environmental
factors. Most of the doctors she saw
dismissed her as an obsessed and
guilt-stricken
mother looking for an answer to an
unsolvable mystery. "Most of
them were like, 'Oh, don't worry your
little head about the MMR,'" she
recalled.
Wakefield
ran a battery of tests on William and concluded that
Kessick
might well
be right about
the MMR. He
persuaded his
colleagues at
the Royal Free to launch a study
of William and 11 other autistic children
with similar disorders.
They
published their findings in the Lancet in February 1998. In the
article,
they
noted that
most of the
parents claimed
their children's development had
regressed within days or weeks
of receiving
the triple
jab. The study itself drew no conclusion
except that further investigation
was
needed. Still,
Horton, the editor, was
sufficiently uncertain
about
the findings that he commissioned
a critical commentary that ran
in the
same issue.
But
at a press conference announcing the report, Wakefield went a major
step beyond
what the
study said. Asked
about the MMR,
he told
reporters
there was "sufficient concern
in my own mind" that
he would recommend children only
receive individual vaccine injections
-- not
triple jabs -- until the matter
was resolved.
One
of his colleagues on the paper, pediatric gastroenterologist
Simon
Murch, immediately
jumped in to insist that
Wakefield was mistaken. "If
this precipitates a scare and
immunization rates go down," Murch
warned, "as sure as night
follows day, measles will return
and children will die."
Murch
proved to be right. Wakefield's
remarks were highlighted
in front-page headlines
here the next
day. The British
public, which
has grown increasingly
suspicious of the medical
establishment and the government after outbreaks
of mad cow
and foot-and-mouth
disease,
took notice.
By
2003 the MMR vaccination rate had fallen to 79 percent
-- well
below
the 95 percent
level experts
say is needed
to eradicate
measles
in
the general population.
Last year, British health officials
reported
442 cases of
measles, more than
three times
the number in 1996.
Career
Turning Point
Wakefield
went on to publish a series of papers seeking
to reinforce
his
thesis and saying
that he and other
researchers had discovered
measles viruses in
the bowels of autism victims.
In 2001
he co-authored
a paper
called "Through
a Glass Darkly" contending
that the MMR vaccine
had been introduced
without thorough safety
tests.
But
other researchers were failing to reproduce
his
results and
various epidemiological
studies of large,
controlled
populations failed
to uncover a link
between MMR and autism. The
Institute
of Medicine
in Washington,
part
of the National
Academy of
Sciences,
has compiled 14 large-scale
studies in the United
States, Canada
and Europe
that all exonerate
the vaccine.
Wakefield suggests
each study has been
flawed
either because of
its methodology or because
its authors massaged
the
findings to get the
answers
they sought.
David
Salisbury, head
of Britain's
national
immunization
program,
said he understands
why Wakefield's
views gained traction
with the public. "Unfortunately
we have a long
tradition of vaccine
scares
in this country," he
said in an interview, "and
people no longer
accept the rather
patronizing 'Do
as I say because
I'm the doctor.'"
Still,
says Salisbury,
the MMR has passed
every test. "It's
now been looked
at by studies
from numerous
industrialized
countries conducted
in many different
ways and they
all
come to the same
conclusion --
we can find no
evidence of an
MMR-autism link," he
said.
Britain's
health service
has refused
to provide
the more
expensive single
jabs
Wakefield
had recommended,
arguing there
was no
reason to believe
single vaccines
would be less
likely to cause
an adverse
reaction than the triple
jab,
and that by
dragging out vaccinations
over two
years, fewer
children would
get
the full series
and many would
be
left exposed
for longer
periods. Those who want
single
jabs must
go to private
doctors and
pay up to $300
per shot,
whereas
the MMR
is free.
Sometimes
the authorities
have been
heavy-handed. Some children
whose
parents refused
to have them
vaccinated
have been
struck off patients'
lists at
local clinics.
When one
local general practitioner
started
offering
patients
single jabs, the authorities
hauled him
before
the General
Medical Council
and threatened
to take
away his
license. The
council dismissed
the case.
Last
fall the quasi-official
Legal Services
Commission
pulled
the plug on funding
the legal
case
of Kessick
and nearly
1,000 other
plaintiffs
on grounds
the case
was likely
to fail.
After
spending
about
$26 million
on
research
and other
preparation,
the commission
declared, "There
remains
no acceptance
within
the
worldwide
medical
authorities
that MMR
causes
the symptoms
seen
in the
children
involved
in this
action."
Wakefield
said
his funding
and responsibilities
were
curtailed to
the point
that
in 2001 he
left
the Royal
Free.
He now gets
most
of his
funding
from
Visceral,
a nonprofit
research
group
he set up
in 1994.
"
This is where one's career starts to go downhill," he said in
a recent
interview. "It's one thing to describe
a new
disease. But this is a case where the medical profession was wrong
and the parents
were
right. What was I supposed to say when the parents pointed to the MMR
-- 'Look, I'm terribly
sorry
but that's inconvenient so please go find another doctor'? "
But
while
Wakefield's
credibility
with
his
medical
colleagues
plummeted,
his
popularity
with
parents
and
the
media
continued
to
rise.
The
medical
writer
for
the
Sunday
Telegraph
newspaper
won
a
British Press
Award
in
2002
for
her
coverage
of
Wakefield's
work.
Each
positive
story
about
him
was
promptly
posted
on
the
growing
network
of
web
sites
of
autism
support
groups.]
"
The media kept presenting this as a 50-50 proposition, claiming that
the medical community was split down the middle on the MMR, when
in fact almost all the science was on one side," said Fiona
Fox, director of the Science Media Centre, which works with journalists
reporting on science-related stories. "I
think the public were ill-served by the media in this debate."
The
government's case
was not
helped when
Prime Minister
Tony Blair,
citing privacy
considerations, refused
to reveal
whether his
own son
Leo, born
in 2000,
had received
the triple
jab. Blair
insisted that
the vaccine
was safe,
but parents
continued to
shy away.
Last
December Britain's
Channel Five
television aired "Hear the
Silence," a 90-minute docudrama that depicted the harrowing
experiences of Kessick and other parents of autistic children
and celebrated Wakefield's
campaign on their behalf. The network organized a discussion
program afterward and invited representatives from both
sides to appear. Public
health officials pulled out at the last minute, arguing
that a debate would only lend credibility to the anti-MMR
side. "We felt we'd
be giving respectability to a program that was not respectable," Salisbury
said.
The
pullout left
a handful
of non-experts
to make
the pro-MMR
argument, led
by Michael
Fitzpatrick, a
general practitioner
whose son
is autistic.
He says
he got
involved in
the controversy
after the
mother of
an autistic
child told
him she
blamed herself
for allowing
her child
to receive
the triple
jab. "What really annoyed me was Andy Wakefield setting
himself up as spokesman for the parents when in fact
what he was doing was visiting guilt upon many parents," said
Fitzpatrick, who has just published a book, "MMR
and Autism: What Parents Need to Know."
"
People are anxious, they're frightened and so it's easy for many to
adopt the default position and do nothing," Fitzpatrick
said.
This
is exactly
how one
mother reacted.
Michelle Ellis,
who was
invited to
listen to
the arguments
at the
discussion program,
said afterward
she respected
the case
of the
pro-MMR team
but was
still not
willing to
vaccinate her
two young
sons. "Statistics don't work for me
here," she said.
The
broadcast in
many ways
marked the
apex of
Wakefield's popularity.
But while
one part
of the
media was
building him
up, another
was preparing
to pull
him down.
Last
November a
Sunday Times
journalist who
identified himself
as Brian
Lawrence paid
a visit
to Kessick's
home north
of London.
He spent
nearly six
hours questioning
her about
William's autism,
Wakefield and
the entire
MMR controversy.
Afterward, she
said, she
felt like
she had
been grilled
like a
witness under
cross-examination.
She
said that
Lawrence didn't
seem to
believe anything
she told
him.
Her
suspicion was
not far
off. "Brian Lawrence" was
actually Brian Deer, a prize-winning investigative
journalist with a reputation for breaking stories
about the pharmaceutical
industry. Deer said he used a false name -- Lawrence
is actually his middle name -- because he didn't want
Kessick to check his web site
and find out that one of his specialties was tracking
down false claims of damage from vaccines.
Parents'
Court Case
Suspended
Deer
said he
had planned
to attend
the trial
of a
major MMR
lawsuit due
to begin
in April.
When it
was suspended
indefinitely,
he
decided to
launch his
own probe.
He found
Kessick, like
many of
the plaintiffs,
to be
sympathetic people
but less
than reliable
witnesses. He
concluded that
they wanted
to believe
MMR had
caused their
children's autism
and that
they may
have bent
the truth
to prove
it.
"
I took her through her evidence as she would be asked in court," he
recalls. After about several hours, he says, he told her she and
the other plaintiffs could never win their case.
Wading
into the
huge volume
of records
in the
case, Deer
discovered something
Wakefield had
neglected to
tell the
Lancet: that
the Royal
Free Hospital
had received
some $90,000
in funding
from the
plaintiffs
for Wakefield's
help in
doing a study
of 10
of the
victims. Four
of the
plaintiffs, including
William
Kessick, were
among the
dozen patients
included in
the Lancet
article.
Rather
than showing
up at
the Royal
Free as
consecutive referrals
from
disinterested
general
practitioners,
Deer
alleged, the
Lancet 12
had
been carefully
chosen to
prove Wakefield's
theory
and help
lend
credence to
the lawsuit.
Wakefield
insisted he
had done
nothing wrong
-- that the
Lancet study
and the
legal case
had been
kept entirely
separate. But
Lancet editor
Horton said
his former
colleague should
have
disclosed the
potential
conflict
before the
original study
was published. "If we had known
the conflict of interest Dr. Wakefield had in this work,
in my judgment it would have been rejected," Horton
told the BBC.
A
few
weeks
later,
10
of the
13 doctors
on the
original
study
issued
a "Retraction of an interpretation" in which
they declared that "no causal link was established
between MMR vaccine and autism." Wakefield
refused to
sign.
The
retraction
was "absolute nonsense, just spin," he
says. "There's
absolutely
no doubt they've been under
huge pressure
and it's very sad. We did
discuss this in detail and
I said, 'Guys, I can't sign
up to this'."
Wakefield
lost other
allies
as
well. John
O'Leary,
an
Irish microbiologist
who has
been one
of his
key collaborators,
pronounced
himself "shocked
and disappointed" that
Wakefield had not declared
the potential conflict.
But
Wakefield's
core
supporters,
such
as
Rosemary
Kessick,
continue
to
believe
in
him.
Robert
Sawyer,
chief
executive
of
Visceral,
Wakefield's
research
group,
says
donations
are
still
coming
in.
But
he
expects
to
move
Wakefield's
research
unit
to
Texas
over
the
next
few
years.
The
United
States,
with
its
privatized
health
care
system
and
entrepreneurial
spirit
is
much
more
fertile
ground
than
Britain
for
a
medical
pioneer
like
Wakefield,
Sawyer
said.
© 2004 The Washington Post Company
