Don't Just Dismiss the Vaccine-autism Link

By Bobbie Manning and Robert Krakow

August 25, 2006

In their Aug. 18 editorial page column "Act could turn the tide on common birth defect," Peter Hotez and Rosalynn Carter anticipate the Combating Autism Act's promise in disproving the role of vaccines in causing autism. As Boyd Haley, professor of chemistry of the University of Kentucky has commented, "The article is totally devoid of any scientific credibility."

Hotez and Carter reveal the poisonous agenda of those who would use government funds to bury the inconvenient theory that mercury in vaccines has caused the autism epidemic. Their main interest is to develop and promote vaccines.

It is troubling that anyone would advocate using public money to improperly influence research of a threatening hypothesis. The purpose of the Combating Autism Act should be to find the causes of and treatments for autism, not protect the vaccine program.

The authors misleadingly claim the thimerosal-autism link has been disproved. The U.S. study that inadequately examined this issue failed to make clear comparisons between children receiving thimerosal and those receiving none. Its lead author concluded that "an association between thimerosal and neurological outcomes could neither be confirmed nor refuted, and therefore, more study is required."

The Institute of Medicine has reported limitations in the studies on which the authors rely, and concluded in a vaccine safety report that the hypothesis that thimerosal causes autism cannot be excluded for a subset of genetically susceptible individuals. The directors of the National In- stitutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control have testified in Congress in accord with the IOM assessment.

Hotez and Carter misrepresent research by claiming that "autism genes produce effects that lead to an excessive increase in head size at about one month of age, well before a baby receives its first set of pediatric vaccines." Yet thimerosal-containing Hepatitis B vaccine, RhoGam, and flu shots given to pregnant women all result in prenatal or newborn exposures to children.

Contrary to the authors' claim that autism is a "genetic disorder," genetics alone cannot explain autism. Recent research confirms that autism develops in many cases after 18 months of age. In most cases, children are not born with autism; science points to complex genetic susceptibilities triggered by environmental toxins.

The leading researcher on enlarged head size in autism has stated that environment plays a role. Increased head size occurs postnatally when provoked by toxic exposures. Prenatal exposure to drugs can cause autism. Concordance of autism among identical twins is incomplete.

The claim that the thimerosal theory has caused vaccine shortages is baseless fear-mongering. Prior to 2004, infants were rarely given the flu vaccine - yet there was then no flu epidemic or hysteria about vaccine shortages. Vaccine manufacturers can produce the ample supplies of thimerosal-free vaccines. The claimed suppression of vaccination rates never happened; despite widespread media reports of the autism-thimerosal link, vaccination rates are at historical highs in the U.S.

A 2003 congressional report concluded that thimerosal did pose a risk and was related to the epidemic of autism. The report stated that the epidemic might have been prevented "had the FDA not been asleep at the switch regarding the lack of safety data regarding injected thimerosal and the sharp rise of infant exposure to this known neurotoxin. Our public health agencies' failure to act is indicative of institutional malfeasance for self-protection and misplaced protectionism of the pharmaceutical industry."

Hotez's and Carter's suggestion that the Combating Autism Act can serve to refute the thimerosal theory casts suspicion on the intent of those who would implement the act. The act should not be used as a bludgeon to beat back a theory that threatens vested interests. Rather, the act should promote honest, unbiased and conflict-free science. If research funded by the bill is to be used improperly, as the authors suggest, the bill should die an ignominious death.

On the other hand, if research funded by the act is insulated from bias, honest answers regarding autism's cause might be obtained. We must eschew an agenda aimed at covering up another "inconvenient truth."

Our children deserve a bill aimed squarely at combating autism, not one pretending to do so by countering one uncomfortable theory about autism. If the bill becomes law, let oversight be vigilant, let honest research flow, let the chips fall where they may.

Source: The Register-Guard