Wampum

Autism, Thimerosal and the Luntz’ Strategy

Is global warming real? Do human activities cause global warming? Those are questions of science. To Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster, those were not the right questions. The right questions involved how to manipulate both science and public opinion to avoid political damage while promoting the financial interests of GOP supporters.

Last spring a memo about global warming, written by Luntz surfaced. The

Guardian reports as follows:

The US Republican party is changing tactics on the environment, avoiding "frightening" phrases such as global warming, after a confidential party memo warned that it is the domestic issue on which George Bush is most vulnerable.

The memo, by the leading Republican consultant Frank Luntz, concedes the party has "lost the environmental communications battle" and urges its politicians to encourage the public in the view that there is no scientific consensus on the dangers of greenhouse gases.

"The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science," Mr Luntz writes in the memo, obtained by the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based campaigning organisation.

"Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.

"Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate."

In order to effectively implement the Luntz strategy, two things were needed. First, a body of information purporting to be science had to be developed. That posed no problem as the parties interested in denying the existence of global warming were wealthy and quite willing to fund “studies” that would help them hold off environmental regulation.

As one report has noted:

Non-profit organizations with ties to energy interests are promoting a controversial new study as proof that prevailing views of global warming are wrong.

The scientists who wrote the study contend that the global warming of recent decades is not without precedent during the past 1,000 years, as other scientists have claimed. In fact, they say the Earth was even warmer during what is known as the "medieval warm period" between A.D. 900 and 1300.

The paper has touched off a worldwide storm of e-mail among climate scientists, some of whom have proposed organizing a research boycott of two journals that published the study.

The links among authors of the new study, the non-profit groups and the energy interests illustrate a three-way intersection of money, science and policy. Energy interests underwrote the study and help finance the groups that are promoting it.

The study also illustrates a strategy adopted by some energy companies in the late 1980s to attack the credibility of climate science, said John Topping, president of the Climate Institute and a former Republican congressional staffer who founded the institute in 1986.

By relying on the news media's inclination to include both sides of a story, the industries were able to create the impression that scientists were deeply divided over climate change, Topping said. "It was all very shrewdly done," he said.

The second need is for politicians willing to carry the water of the interest groups by pretending that the science is in doubt. In the global warming context, Exhibit A is Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe. Inhofe has called global warming a “hoax.” He took to the Senate floor to promote the theory the medieval warm period.

The Luntz strategy has been largely successful as the scientific debate over global warming rages, glaciers melt, and policy changes are stalled.

I fear that the same phenomenon is now occurring with respect to the issue of whether or not mercury in vaccines causes autism.

I first wrote about autism and thimerosal last year in a post entitled Autism, Pure Rage and Thimerosal. In that post, I expressed anger over the fact that the public health system (including government agencies such as the FDA and the CDC as well as private concerns such as Lilly) had allowed my autistic son and 30,0000,000 other American children to be exposed to levels of mercury that exceed EPA safety standards. The mercury exposure was the result of the inclusion of the preservative thimerosal (which is about 50% mercury by weight) in a number of infant vaccines.

At the time I wrote that post, my son was seven and half years old, was unable to speak and was still in diapers. Now, a year later, my son is eight and a half years old, remains almost completely non-verbal and we still change diapers every day. I remain enraged by the possibility that his autism could easily have been prevented had the public health system done its job.

My anger resurfaced when I read an article by Annette Fuentes entitled Autism in a Needle. I located that article via Elayne Riggs. Jim Capazzola also has some thoughts on the issue that are well worth reading, here and here.

When I first wrote about thimerosal, I noted that science had not conclusively determined whether or not mercury in vaccines causes autism. I pleaded, perhaps naively, for more and better studies.

There have been a number of studies linking thimerosal to autism. A hair sample study suggests that autistic kids have trouble excreting mercury and, therefore, that the mercury may stay in their brain.

Fuentes reports on a study that shows that the type of mercury used in thimerosal is toxic:

Boyd Haley, chair of the department of chemistry at the University of Kentucky and an expert on toxic metals. “Some parents of autistic children called me and asked me to look at thimerosal. We did some experiments with human brain tissue and it was dramatic,” Haley said. “It penetrates the proteins in the brain. It is toxic to neurons and enzymes.”

An epidemiological study published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons concluded:

Our previous studies comparing … (vaccines) with and without thimerosal have shown a statistically and clinically significant increase in neurodevelopmental disorders in those vaccinated with thimerosal-containing vaccines. Our current study not only shows that those vaccinated with thimerosal containing … (vaccines) have higher rates of speech disorders, autism and heart arrest overall, but also that the relative risk of each of these disorders correlated with increased doses of mercury contained in childhood vaccines…

Fuentes also points to a study published in Medical Hypothesis which concluded that:

the symptoms of mercury poisoning mirrored those of autism and concluded that early exposure to mercury from thimerosal had caused many cases of autism, while genetic and environmental factors made some children more vulnerable than others.

Despite those studies, the debate over thimerosal and autism continues. The circumstances are ripe for a repeat of the global warming debacle.

First, certain parties are very interesting in preventing a causal link from being found. The first such group includes the very people who should be protecting our kids, namely the FDA, the CDC and various other groups in the public health area. Fuentes reports on a memo that suggests that our government agencies are more interested in covering their rears than in finding the truth:

Last year, the staff for Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.) obtained an internal e-mail written June 29, 1999, by former FDA scientist Peter Patriarca. In that e-mail Patriarca offered his colleagues a “pros and cons” assessment of the thimerosal statement shortly before its release:

Will raise questions about FDA being ‘asleep at the switch’ for decades, by allowing a potentially hazardous compound to remain in many childhood vaccines, and not forcing manufacturers to exclude it from new products. Will also raise questions about various advisory bodies about aggressive recommendations for use. We must keep in mind that the dose of ethyl mercury was not generated by ‘rocket science’: conversion of the % of thimerosal to actual ug [micrograms] of mercury involves 9th grade algebra. What took the FDA so long to do the calculations? Why didn’t CDC and the advisory bodies do these calculations while rapidly expanding the childhood immunization schedule?

Does that memo sound like Mr. Patriarca was more interested in science or the potential fallout from the establishment of a link between thimerosal and autism?

The second group with a vested interest consists of the drug companies that make thimerosal and vaccines. A finding that thimerosal causes autism would not only expose such companies to massive potential legal liabilities, it would also cut off the market in other counties for vaccines containing thimerosal. As Fuentes has pointed out, “for U.S. pharmaceuticals . . . the global market for vaccines containing thimerosal is a goldmine.”

The second ingredient, politicians willing to carry the drug company's water is also present. The drug companies give lavishly to the GOP. Last year’s attempt to sneak liability protection for manufacturers of thimerosal into the Homeland Security Bill amply demonstrates that a number of politicians are quite willing to carry water for the drug companies regardless of the science. See here, here, here, here, here, and here for details.

The question remains, are the parties interested in keeping the denial of a link between autism and thimerosal plausible actually influencing the science?

A number of studies suggesting the absence of a link have been funded directly or indirectly by the drug companies. Some of the studies suggesting that no link exists are so badly designed to answer any question relevant to the debate that it may appear that the purpose of the study was less to advance knowledge in the area than to provide a quick headline and a talking point.

Then there is the example of Dr. Thomas Verstraeten. According to Fuentes, Dr. Vesrtraeten was asked to perform a study for the CDC in 1999:

The CDC launched its own study of thimerosal safety in vaccines in fall 1999, tasking Dr. Thomas Verstraeten to analyze the agency’s Vaccine Safety Datalink, which gathers information on vaccine safety from several health maintenance organizations. Verstraeten’s first report in February 2000 found a statistically significant risk for neurological developmental disorders at age 3 months as the amount of thimerosal that babies received increased. And he found a risk of autism 2.48 times greater for infants getting higher amounts of thimerosal in vaccines, compared to infants who received thimerosal-free vaccines. A June 2000 analysis by Verstraeten found a link between thimerosal and language, speech and developmental delays during the child’s first 6 months. Verstraeten’s initial findings were never publicly released, and SAFE MINDS obtained copies of his reports only through Freedom of Information Act filings in 2001.

Dr. Verstraeten then went to work for a vaccine manufacturer, GlaxoSmithKline. Last month, Dr. Verstraeten published an article in the journal Pediatrics. In that study, he used the very same CDC data base as in his earlier work. The newer study, however, found no evidence of a link between thimerosal and neurological damage in children.

The same researcher, the same data base but completely different results. One can not help but wonder if Dr. Verstraeten was hired to work for Glaxo in a scientific capacity or as an advocate.

I do not mean to suggest that all the studies suggesting a link between autism and thimerosal are pure and that all of the studies suggesting no link are corrupt. Some of the researchers in the studies suggesting no link have axes to grind as well. The line between science and advocacy appears to have been blurred. I am skeptical of both sides.

That in itself is a real shame. I have no personal stake in the outcome of the research. I am not now nor shall I ever seek any compensation from anyone as a result of Bobby having been given vaccines containing thimerosal. Research in the area is of only academic interest to me because our path is set and no scientific findings are likely to change our course.

Nonetheless, I know first hand the costs of autism. I do not wish a single child or a single family to unnecessarily incur those costs. The way to minimize those costs is through honest scientific research. Discovery must trump advocacy.

The reasoning and (lack of) morality of the Luntz memo on global warming should not be applied to autism research. With regard to the current state of the science, I think, as Mr. Luntz put it, that "the scientific debate is closing … but not yet closed.”

To the extent that any parties to the debate succeed, as Mr. Luntz advised, to “continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate," so as to prevent science from discovering truth, the price will be paid by autistic children, their families and the larger society. That is not a prospect likely to help any autistic kids.

Posted by Dwight Meredith at December 1, 2003 10:37 PM | TrackBack