Well I am still not sure if there is a link between thimerosal and autism, but the Kennedy article (see below) is crap.
I have read about half the Simpsonwood transcript (warning, very large .pdf file) and it is not nearly as alarming as the Salon article would have you believe. I still have a ways to go, but so far there just is not much there. Let this be a lesson, always check the primary source before shooting off your mouth.
One of the points that have been made in the various readings I have done is that autism rates in Canada (which outlawed thimerosal "years ago") have remained constant with the increase in autism here in the US. Unhelpfully I have not seen a link to confirm this, but if it is true (and I really have no reason to doubt it) that would be pretty strong evidence that whatever environmental component there is to autism, thimerosal is not it.
Thanks to Orca for pointing out some additional reading. I still want to compare the autism rates in the US and Canada, something I hope to finish up this weekend. So look for an expanded article on Monday.
I still have a strong feeling that loading up infants with a mercury based product is not a good idea and I know that Eli Lilly itself reported adverse reactions to patients who used thimerosal based products, but as of right now I see nothing concrete. I am not real happy with Robert Kennedy either, it does no one any good to report on something as important as vaccinations with half cocked opinions and hysterical language. I lost a lot of respect for the guy.
In any case I am out of here till Monday, and maybe we can put a final nail in this particular coffin.
For those of you that have been following this blog for far longer than is perhaps healthy for you, I would like to take a trip down memory lane. You might remember back in November of 2002 I did an article on the additive Thimerosal. I was looking at the possible links between Thimerosal and Autism. Unfortunately I could not find as much information as I would like but what I did find, I found very disturbing.
The whole reason I started down this road was because of an article written by Dwight Meredith of P.L.A (which is not being updated anymore) entitled "Autism, Pure Rage and Thimerosal". The information in that article came as a complete surprise to me. As a skeptic and science booster, I (along with most of my fellow skeptics) thought that people sowing doubt about vaccines were of the same nut class as those that spoke to Mary, Mother of God and who saw UFO's cavorting in the skies over Washington DC. So I read with a great deal of interest.
If being a skeptic is to mean anything, it has to mean the ability to change one's mind when evidence comes in. Without this very important skill, you are not a skeptic you are a scoffer.
So after checking it out for myself, I wrote about it. Here and here.
At the time I wrote these articles I did not realize I was missing a very important piece of the puzzle, the CDC's Verstraeten epidemiological study. The reason that I was missing this study (indeed, I did not even know it existed) was that the CDC, the FDA, vaccine specialist from the World Health Organization in Geneva, and representatives of every major vaccine manufacturer, including GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Wyeth and Aventis Pasteur, were too busy trying to prevent it's release to the public.
This startling information comes by way of an article in Salon written by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. entitled "Deadly Immunity". Just a choice tibit:
In June 2000, a group of top government scientists and health officials gathered for a meeting at the isolated Simpsonwood conference center in Norcross, Ga. Convened by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the meeting was held at this Methodist retreat center, nestled in wooded farmland next to the Chattahoochee River, to ensure complete secrecy. The agency had issued no public announcement of the session -- only private invitations to 52 attendees. There were high-level officials from the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration, the top vaccine specialist from the World Health Organization in Geneva, and representatives of every major vaccine manufacturer, including GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Wyeth and Aventis Pasteur. All of the scientific data under discussion, CDC officials repeatedly reminded the participants, was strictly "embargoed." There would be no making photocopies of documents, no taking papers with them when they left.
The federal officials and industry representatives had assembled to discuss a disturbing new study that raised alarming questions about the safety of a host of common childhood vaccines administered to infants and young children. According to a CDC epidemiologist named Tom Verstraeten, who had analyzed the agency's massive database containing the medical records of 100,000 children, a mercury-based preservative in the vaccines -- thimerosal -- appeared to be responsible for a dramatic increase in autism and a host of other neurological disorders among children. "I was actually stunned by what I saw," Verstraeten told those assembled at Simpsonwood, citing the staggering number of earlier studies that indicate a link between thimerosal and speech delays, attention-deficit disorder, hyperactivity and autism. Since 1991, when the CDC and the FDA had recommended that three additional vaccines laced with the preservative be given to extremely young infants -- in one case, within hours of birth -- the estimated number of cases of autism had increased fifteenfold, from one in every 2,500 children to one in 166 children.
Even for scientists and doctors accustomed to confronting issues of life and death, the findings were frightening. "You can play with this all you want," Dr. Bill Weil, a consultant for the American Academy of Pediatrics, told the group. The results "are statistically significant." Dr. Richard Johnston, an immunologist and pediatrician from the University of Colorado whose grandson had been born early on the morning of the meeting's first day, was even more alarmed. "My gut feeling?" he said. "Forgive this personal comment -- I do not want my grandson to get a thimerosal-containing vaccine until we know better what is going on."
But instead of taking immediate steps to alert the public and rid the vaccine supply of thimerosal, the officials and executives at Simpsonwood spent most of the next two days discussing how to cover up the damaging data. According to transcripts obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, many at the meeting were concerned about how the damaging revelations about thimerosal would affect the vaccine industry's bottom line.
Go read the whole thing and be prepared to weep.
At the time I said that I felt in my gut that there was a link, at least the government and Eli Lilly, the company that developed Thimerosal sure did act like there was a link. Turns out they were acting even more gulity than I thought.
I also mentioned some email I got from various people asking me if I really thought that Eli Lilly would poison people. After all, the management of Eli Lilly had children and grandchildren. They got vaccines just like everyone else. Why would they use something that was a known poison in vaccines? This is what I said at the time:
...grow up and live in the real world. Ever hear of tobacco companies? Chemical companies? Asbestos? Silicate dust? Lead? Please, companies have been poisoning us for years, regardless of family and friends. We have what I like to call "The Evil of Inertia". Ely Lilly develops a mercury based preservative that they can use in vaccines. They don't really test it all that well before going ahead and using it. They invest x number of dollars in all phases of creating this preservative and getting it into vaccines. Then when other people start to test, they find that this preservative is actually dangerous to use, but that it's danger will be difficult to prove. Could take years. To take the preservative out would cost x number of dollars, it might cause lawsuits. Best just to hide what little evidence there is and deny there is a problem. This happens with depressing regularity.
I have been told, mostly by libertarians, that capitalism should be amoral. This is a stupid assertion that they never try to back. When I point out that such a stand actually causes capitalism to be immoral, using the above examples (all caused by a desire to maximize profit) I never get an answer. Pharmaceutical companies are not in the biz to better mankind. If they were, more people would be able to afford the medicine that they need. They exist to make money, the more money the better.
I am a believer in the precautionary principle. All this means is that I believe that before we put dangerous substances in something as common as vaccines, we should test, test, then test some more. Not one drop goes in till we are as sure as is scientifically possible that inclusion will not have a negative impact. The problem with this is that it cost money, it has a negative impact on profits. So far too often a company will say "We have already invested so much dough in this and that, if we don't use it we lose money. So what the hell".
Here is the real bottom line folks. For better than ten years we injected a substance known to be dangerous in and of itself, in to 30,000,000 infants. Forget everything else, this is a disaster just waiting to happen. The real question in all this is "What the fuck were they thinking?"
I think that is just as good a place to leave off as it was the last time.
With the best of intentions yesterday I had planned to post. Then suddenly my internet connection (from the usually reliable Road Runner) started acting skippy. I could partially connect to some websites, and could not connect to some websites at all. Yet when I pinged various websites I would have no problem, trace routes proved to be the same, no delay that was really outrageous. How very strange. So I call up the usually reliable Road Runner to find out what was going on. I talked to a very nice support person who, while not exhibiting a level of knowledge commensurate with his job, at least was willing to work with me for 45 minutes as we tried various fixes. At the end he told me he was going to "kick me upstairs" (which usually means second tier or network support) because there were things they could try that he could not. Not a problem, at this point I am willing to try anything.
Then I was introduced to Joe. Joe, it seemed, was an expert at discerning a problem without even discussing it with a customer. His first words upon picking up the phone were:
"I see you have a problem with your browser. We are not really able to fix problems with your OS".
Puzzled, I explained to him that the problem was not with my OS but something to do with the connection. In my usual gentle and non-confrontational manner as I could manage:
"What? What the hell are you talking about? I don't have a problem with my OS, the problem is at your end".
Needless to say the conversation went down hill from there. Now understand, Joe treated me this way for one reason and one reason only. Joe gets extra points for getting the customer off the phone, and answering the next call, whereas he does not get extra points for actually helping the customer. At least, this is the way it works in most support centers. The more Joe showed contempt for the idea that he should actually help his customer with their problem the more angry I became. The upshot came when he asked me what I thought the problem was and how did I suggest he fix it. I screamed over the phone "I imagine the problem is with my connection or the way your server is handling http request, and as to how you are supposed to fix it, that YOUR FUCKING JOB"!
I was quite surprised and very disappointed in Joe. Support people would do well to learn that not every customer that calls is a complete buffoon. Sometimes you would do well to just shut up and listen. You might even learn something. I would also like to add that this is totally atypical of Road Runner support, which to this date I have found to be extremely professional and very helpful.
But everything seems to be running fine now so on with the show!
Well Michael Jackson was found not guilty of child molestation (though I can't help but feel in my heart what he was found not guilty of was being a weirdo, which was the true charge). Now bear in mind that I only used half my brain to pay attention to the court case, but from what I heard, Jackson deserved to be acquitted. It sure seemed to me that the family that brought the charges against Jackson were not the most credible of witnesses. I found it interesting that even though the prosecution was allowed to discuss prior "bad acts" the most it did was seem to convince the jury that, if Jackson was guilty of child molestation it was not in this case, and it was this case they were asked to decide on. Good for them.
What is it about feminism that so threaten the male animal? I found two instances of such over the past few days. One was a right wing website, so the vitriol came as no surprise. It was unintentionally funny to read feminist after feminist write in the comments that they were misunderstood, that they were not men hater, or any kind of hater, all they were concerned with were issues of equality. What was the price for such nice, kindhearted concern? To be repeatedly called "Whiny" "Bitch", "Whore", "Man Hater" "Lesbian-in-Disguise" and every other derogatory word that man can think of to refer to women. However I have come to expect such hypocrisy by wingers.
Harder to accept is when a well known progressive does the same thing. Case in point, Zúniga Moulitsas the ad he chose to run on his website, The Daily KOS. The ad was for the new reality show "The New Gilligan's Island". I admit that I don't know anything about this show, other than the fact that it is premised on a really lame show. The word "Gilligan" is enough to insure I will stay away. But in any case, the ad featured two women, Ginger and Mary Ann, - as Moulitsas himself admits - "throw pies at each other, wrestle each other in a sexy, lesbianic manner, then having water splashed on their ample, fake bosoms". Apparently some people objected to the nature of the ad. Moulitsas sees no problem with sexy women acting "lesbianic" on a TV show. Well fair enough, in the long run neither do I. Boring as hell (I will never understand the male desire to see women do anything "lesbianic". It is not so much a turn off, as it is simply boring) but ultimately I have no problem with it.
But Moulitsas takes it two steps farther than that. He uses these complaints to unleash what can only be called a screed against his perception of what modern feminism is:
I find such humorless, knee-jerk reactions, to be tedious at best, sanctimonious and arrogant at worst. I don't care for such sanctimony from Joe Lieberman, I don't care for it from anyone else. Some people find such content offensive. Some people find it arousing. Some people find it funny. To each his or her own.
[...]
And I certainly won't let the sanctimonious women's studies (he strikes out "women's studies" in an update) set play that role on this site. Feel free to be offended. Feel free to claim that I'm somehow abandoning "progressive principles" by running the ad. It's a free country. Feel free to storm off in a huff. Other deserving bloggers could use the patronage.
Wow! Now as I said above, I don't have a problem with the ad. Hell I don't have a problem with the most raunchy of porn, I consume the stuff like most people eat popcorn. But I have never, ever mistaken my own point of view to be the only point of view that could possibly be correct. And the people who wrote in the comments complaining had good points.
See Moulitsas would like to make this a celebration of feminine sexuality. Nonsense. As was pointed out again and again and again, the ad had absolutely zero to do with female sexuality, and everything to do with getting the horny 21-38 set to watch a stupid TV show. If you can't see how that is objectifying and not freeing, then I am sorry there is no help for you. The ad does nothing more than reduce women to tits and ass. And sure I realize I just described 99% of televised fare but that does not mean people should turn a blind eye to such things. The excuse "everybody else does it" did not work when I was a kid and I should have no expectation that it will work now that I am an adult.
After you read the article be sure to delve into the comments because I tell ya boys, it is enough to make one ashamed of one's own sex. Note that the most reasonable voices are those that are complaining, those that step up to defend Moulitsas act just like...well just like men!
Would I have taken down the ad? That is a very hard question, maybe, maybe not. What the critics of the ad had to say made a lot of sense to me. I like to think I have...ahem...big enough balls to admit that I was being a tad thoughtless to a portion of my readership. It could be a chance for some serious introspection which should always be welcome.
Too bad Moulitsas did not take it as a similar opportunity!
(via Mad Kane, and thanks for the happy bday wish!)
Yep that's right, today "A Skeptical Blog" is three years old. And even though I don't update as often as I like, I still love the old place.
So draw up a chair, have a piece of birthday cake and draw a glass o' beer. Things will get hopping around here again I promise.
Three years is a long life for a blog and it seems only yesterday that I was reading Andrew Sullivan and thinking "I could do this better than this guy". Unfortunately I came to find out a blind monkey could write a blog better than Sullivan, and it would make more sense. So my small contribution has not made a huge splash as of yet...
Not that it matters all that much to me. I have said it before (many times in fact) and I will say it again (many more times in fact) I do this because I love to write, not for the fame, money, or girls it could bring me (and after three years, I can attest I have received very little of any of the three). So in spite of some gaps in the updates, "A Skeptical Blog" will keep chugging along.
One of the things that have kept me busy was an extremely complicated and stupid civil court case. After just over a year, I am finally done with it, things came out completely in my favor, and this should free up a bit of time for me to start posting again. Perhaps one day I will explain more, perhaps not. Believe me when I say it was hopelessly bizarre, and what should have been done in two months stretched out for over a year. There are times I think that terminal stupidity should be punished by death, but then I remember I oppose the death penalty and I calm down again. In any case, now that it is over I should be able to write a bit more, if not more regularly.
So go forth and celebrate the day. Take a homeless man to lunch. Hire a black, hispanic, oriental, middle eastern, female, gay or any other person that is not of white European straight male stock. Shake your fist at the powers-that-be, both in your state house and in the White House. Question Authority (I always thought that was excellent advice, even if it did come from a bumper sticker).
No no, I have not forgotten "A Skeptical Blog". I have had a period of extreme work, and since I like work...
I will finish up my article on the Intelligent Design movement this week, and the good news is that things look to be a bit light for the rest of the month so perhaps I can start posting regularly again.
And since I am not posting much today go over to The Rittenhouse Review and give this a read. Jim Capozzola is asking that we remember Roy Hallums, since no one in the main stream media (MSM) seems to care.
So hang on and give me one more day. Tomorrow we will get started in earnest.
