Comment on: Fombonne article - Pediatrics 2006 118(1): e139-e150 - thimerosal aspects
Finally, I took time to respond to one brief portion of Fombonne et al.
Teresa Binstock
* * * *
Fombonne et al's newest article (1) prompts
questions: Is the article a scientific document? The
answer appears to be No, it is not. If not, then what
is the article's purpose?
In this email, a brief part of the article is illustrative. Consider a
quote from page e141:
"By and large, biological studies of ethylmercury exposure have
also failed to support the thimerosal hypothesis. (25,39,40) Despite the
accumulation of negative studies, concerns from the public have not been
entirely alleviated, and fears continue to be fueled by well-publicized
media accounts of a spectacular nature. (41,42)"
Fombonne et al's intentions are elucidated by the citations chosen and
omitted in support of the statement that "biological studies of
ethylmercury exposure have also failed to support the thimerosal
hypothesis". Fombonne et al deliberately fail to mention the increasing
number of studies that affirm biological plausibility (eg, 101-111), and
the article's peer-reviewers (if any) and editors of the journal
"Pediatrics" allowed Fombonne et al (1) to be published without
correcting Fombonne et al's omission of these
important references (101-111).
Were Fombonne et al (1) a peer-reviewed scientific study, they would have
been required to mention studies contradicting the preferred position of
Fombonne et al. In numerous journal articles, researchers assert a
preferred position and add "But see...", and there list citations with
findings contrary to the researchers' preferred position. Furthermore,
Fombonne et al refer to Kirby's work as a "media account" and by those
words fail to convey the significance of the numerous peer-reviewed
citations included within "Evidence of Harm...".
The fact that Fombonne et al fail to mention and fail to present the
peer-reviewed cites affirming the thimerosal hypothesis' biological
plausibility (eg, 101-111) indicates that Fombonne et al (1) is not a
scientific article but instead merits consideration as a political
treatise reinforced by economic incentives, not the least of which is
Fombonne's reputation as a court witness hired by vaccine manufacturers.
Since Fombonne's statement as quoted above is substantially misleading and
conveys a conclusion contrary to fact, the Fombonne et al article (1) may
merit the judgement Purposefully Fraudulent. In fact, we ought consider
whether Fombonne and his coauthors (1) -- in complicity with the editors
of the journal "Pediatrics" and the directors of the corporation known as
the "American Academy of Pediatrics" -- have committed an act of
scientific fraud for the purpose of altering public perceptions regarding
vaccinations.
Furthermore, Fombonne et al misconstrue the IOM's 2004 hearing as a
biological study and fail to mention that the hearing's conclusions were
predetermined by the CDC, which funded the hearing (discussed in 112,
113-114). Thus the Fombonne et al article (1) appears to be part of a
larger collusion wherein some officials seek to enforce the idea that
injecting thimerosal does no harm, despite a growing body of evidence
that thimerosal injections are injurious.
Teresa Binstock
Researcher in Developmental & Behavioral Neuroanatomy
References: Cites 1,25,39-41 are numbered as in Fombonne et al, cites
101-114 are added in this email.
1: Fombonne E, Zakarian R, Bennett A, Meng L, McLean-Heywood D.
Pervasive developmental disorders in Montreal, Quebec, Canada: prevalence
and links with immunizations. Pediatrics. 2006 Jul;118(1):e139-50.
25. Institute of Medicine. Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and
Autism. Washington, DC: National Academics Press; 2004.
Ip P, Wong V, Ho M, Lee J, Wong W.
39. Mercury exposure in children with autistic spectrum disorder:
case-control study. J Child Neurol. 2004 Jun;19(6):431-4.
40. Pichichero ME, Cernichiari E, Lopreiato J, Treanor J. Mercury
concentrations and metabolism in infants receiving vaccines containing
thiomersal: a descriptive study. Lancet. 2002 Nov 30;360(9347):1737-41.
41. Kennedy RF Jr. [Rolling Stone article]
42. Kirby D. [Evidence of Harm...]
101: Havarinasab S, Hultman P. Alteration of the spontaneous systemic
autoimmune disease in (NZB x NZW)F1 mice by treatment with thimerosal
(ethyl mercury). Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2006 Jul 1;214(1):43-54. Epub
2006 Jan 27.
102: Mutter J, Naumann J, Schneider R, Walach H, Haley B. Mercury and
autism: accelerating evidence? Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2005
Oct;26(5):439-46.
103: Burbacher TM, Shen DD, Liberato N, Grant KS, Cernichiari E, Clarkson
T. Comparison of blood and brain mercury levels in infant monkeys exposed
to
methylmercury or vaccines containing thimerosal. Environ Health Perspect.
2005 Aug;113(8):1015-21.
104: Havarinasab S, Hultman P. Organic mercury compounds and
autoimmunity. Autoimmun Rev. 2005 Jun;4(5):270-5. Epub 2005 Jan 5. Review.
105: Havarinasab S, Haggqvist B, Bjorn E, Pollard KM, Hultman P.
Immunosuppressive and autoimmune effects of thimerosal in mice. Toxicol
Appl Pharmacol. 2005 Apr 15;204(2):109-21.
106: Singh VK, Rivas WH. Detection of antinuclear and antilaminin
antibodies in autistic children who received thimerosal-containing
vaccines. J Biomed Sci. 2004 Sep-Oct;11(5):607-10.
107: Hornig M, Chian D, Lipkin WI. Neurotoxic effects of postnatal
thimerosal are mouse strain dependent. Mol Psychiatry. 2004
Sep;9(9):833-45.
108: Waly M, Olteanu H, Banerjee R, Choi SW et al. Activation of
methionine synthase by insulin-like growth factor-1 and dopamine: a target
for neurodevelopmental toxins and thimerosal. Mol Psychiatry. 2004
Apr;9(4):358-70.
109: Havarinasab S, Lambertsson L, Qvarnstrom J, Hultman P.
Dose-response study of thimerosal-induced murine systemic autoimmunity.
Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2004 Jan 15;194(2):169-79.
110: Vojdani A, Pangborn JB, Vojdani E, Cooper EL. Infections, toxic
chemicals and dietary peptides binding to lymphocyte receptors and tissue
enzymes are major instigators of autoimmunity in autism. Int J
Immunopathol Pharmacol. 2003 Sep-Dec;16(3):189-99.
111: Baskin DS, Ngo H, Didenko VV. Thimerosal induces DNA breaks,
caspase-3 activation, membrane damage, and cell
death in cultured human neurons and fibroblasts. Toxicol Sci. 2003
Aug;74(2):361-8. Epub 2003 May 28.
112.
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/letters/2005/06/22/iom_thimerosal/index1.html
113. http://www.nomercury.org/iom.htm
114.
http://www.nomercury.org/iom/iom.pdf
Canada
50
Posts
|
Posted - 10/29/2006 : 04:17:14
http://www.jabs.org.uk/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=372
|
|
I am surprised that Teresa
Binstock did not make mention of the fact that Eric Fombonne did not
have a look at any of the actual vaccine records of the subjects in his
study.Any elementary school teacher, in Ontario, Canada anyway, can tell
what vaccines their students have had because photocopies of their
vaccine records are available with their registration information in
their OSR (or Ontario Student Record) files. These records may not be up
to date, because some of the students have received additional
vaccinations afterwards, like flu,chicken pox and meningitis vaccines
which are not listed on our official childhood immunization schedules.
Certain populations have also received vaccines as infants, which are
not listed on our province's immunization schedule, and the same could
be true in our neighbouring province, Quebec. I know that in Ontario,
many children received hepatitis b vaccines as infants, and these
vaccines likely contained thimerosal because thimerosal-free hepatitis b
vaccines did not even become licensed in Canada until cerca 2000/2001,
years after Fombonne claimed that vaccines in Quebec were free of
thimerosal. If Fombonne was comparing numbers of children diagnosed with
ASD to what was happening on the childhood immunization schedule in
effect in Quebec at the time, he may as well have been comparing apples
with oranges. Even here in Ontario during those years, many children
were receiving vaccines which were not listed on the official childhood
vaccination schedule. Quebec also has a sizable immigration population,
and the vaccines many immigrants get are not the same which are offerred
to children who are born here to parents who were also born in Canada.
My children were never even
offerred the hepatitis b vaccines that many children in their birth
cohorts had in another part of town, namely in Chinatown. Over the last
6 or 7 years, I have found out that many of my previous students have
received additional vaccines, outside of our childhood immunization
schedule, as infants. Too many of these children are experiencing speech
and language, reading, and learning difficulties. I wish that someone
would do an objective study which looks at students' vaccination and
educational profiles. So far, I have not found any. Eric Fombonne hopes
that his recent study will put the vaccine issues to rest, but his study
is not capable of doing that, for the simple reason that he did not even
examine his subjects' vaccine records. He is making judgments about the
safety of vaccines WITHOUT looking at anyone's actual vaccine records,
and is basing his study on what the childhood immunization schedule was
at the time. In my mind, his "ecological" study is no better than the
stupid TV and autism study. I know for a "fact" that what is in an
immunization schedule does not necessarily equate with vaccines received
by actual real live schoolchildren. Often, they have received more
vaccines than are listed on the official schedule. |