Wampum

Sunshine can be the best medicine

On Monday, the Institutes of Medicine will gather for another "Immunization Safety Review meeting on Vaccines and Autism" in Washington, DC. When the IOM last met to look at this issue, they agreed that much of the breaking research indicated that the link between autism and ethylmercury was "biologically plausible", but since the research was still in its infancy, there was no real "evidence" to support the hypothesis.

Since that time, a number of European countries have published epidemiological studies which appear to refute any such link. However, as many world renowned epidemiologists have pointed out, the studies are themselves incomplete, rely on faulty data, and funded by pharmaceutical companies.

More recently, the US CDC presented its own findings, which also seemed to point away from an association. However, recent actions of the CDC have caused even conservative Republican members of Congress to take notice. Representative and physician David Weldon (R-FL), was first introduced to the thimerosal controversy three years ago when he was placed on the Government Reform committee chaired by fellow Republican Dan Burton. Burton believed his only grandson's autism was caused by the high doses of ethylmercury he received in his immunizations as an infant, and he defied his party's leadership for two years by holding hearing upon hearing investigating the possible link and BigPharma's role. In 2003, Republican House leadership, removed Burton from any position where he could continue to wreak such havoc and embarrass the deep-pocket drug company contributors.

However Weldon hasn't given up, and two weeks ago released a letter to the IOM strongly requesting that they postpone the February 9th meeting. Weldon cited unethical behavior on the part of vaccine researchers, manipulated data, refusal to hand over information, and political bias. I've included the complete letter in the extended entry, and strongly urge readers to review it. It is truly an indictment not only of the CDC, but the National Immunization Program (NIP) and in the end, the Institutes of Medicine itself.

The IOM has refused, however, Rep. Weldon's request to postpone its meeting. It is very important, though, that these proceedings do not happen in relative secrecy as they have in past years, namely due to lack of interest by the media. This is where the public may be able to change this "tradition", and bring the "suspicious" (Weldon's term) actions of the CDC, NIP and IOM out into daylight.

Thus, please contact C-SPAN and urge them to cover the IOM meetings on February 9th, 2004.

Immunization Safety Review meeting on Vaccines and Autism
The National Academy of Sciences, Auditorium
2100 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20418

C-SPAN's phone is 202-737-3220

Or you could fax them at 202-737-6226. Here's a sample fax (from the National Autism Association)

To: C-Span FAX: 202-737-6226 Attn: Assignment Desk

On Monday, February 9, 2004, the IOM will be holding an Immunization
Safety Review meeting on Vaccines and Autism.
I am writing to request that you consider covering this extremely
important event.
For information, please visit http://www.iom.edu/project.asp?id=4705.

Respectfully,
Your Signature

Please understand that this meeting may lead the IOM to declare that there is no proof of a link between autism and ethylmercury in vaccines, DESPITE the research published yesterday by a group of highly respected university scientists which asserted that not only is there a link, but they believe they understand the mechanism through which the toxins cause such damage. Of course, the research not only implicated vaccines, but lead, arsenic, aluminum and other sources of mercury, including the more common form of methylmercury, found today in many fish and wildlife due to contamination by mid-Western coal-burning power plants.

Please call or write. If anyone has an email address, I'll take that as well.

Appendix: Letter from Rep. David Weldon, M.D. (R-FL) to the Director of the IOM, released January 21, 2004:

Dear Dr. Gerberding:

I am writing to ask that you postpone the February 9, 2004, Institute of Medicine (IOM) Immunization Safety Review Committee meeting. Pressing forward with this meeting at this time, I believe, will further undermine the credibility of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) on matters of vaccine safety and do damage to the reputation of the IOM. I believe the proposed date of this meeting, which you have the ability to change, is in the best interests of no one who is seeking the truth about a possible association between vaccines and neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism.

Recent actions and statements by officials within the CDC’s National
Immunization Program (NIP) office, the timing of the IOM meeting, and the
agenda for the IOM meeting raise serious questions about the purpose, value
and objectives of this meeting.

Presently, the NIP is engaged in what amounts to an investigation of their own actions, which does not create an air of confidence.

The actions of the CDC regarding their November 3, 2003, article in Pediatrics raise serious concerns about the objectivity of the CDC’s top vaccine safety officials and the value of their input on this issue. They are the very ones driving the IOM meeting and agenda.

On the day the Pediatrics study was released, a top CDC researcher and
a coauthor of the study was quick to declare in news articles that appeared
across this nation, "The final results of the study show no statistical association between thimerosal vaccines and harmful health outcomes in children, in particular autism and attention-deficit disorder." Unfortunately, the study does nothing of the sort, and when called to account eight weeks later, this CDC official was forced to recant. When asked if the children in the study were too young to have received an autism diagnosis, this coauthor stated that yes they were too young. He went on to admit that the study also likely mislabeled young autistic children as having other disabilities thus masking the number of children with autism. There are a host of other flaws in the study that are raised in the attached articles and letters to Pediatrics, which I urge you to personally review.

The CDC’s top vaccine officials spent four years developing this study, and it is a seriously flawed study by their own admission. The fact that the CDC’s top vaccine safety research officials produced such a seriously flawed study does not build confidence in the ability of the CDC to conduct proper vaccine safety monitoring or investigations of past decisions. Even worse, some critics have leveled serious charges that perhaps officials within the NIP manipulated data to "disprove" a theory they find objectionable. A review of the NIP’s July 2000 Simpsonwood meeting, the various iterations of the Pediatrics study, and internal e-mails appear to give support to this claim.

In his December 17, 2003, letter to Pediatrics, Dr. Neal Halsey outlined a number of concerns about the study. Furthermore, in extensive discussions my staff has held with the CDC, your staff made it clear that the CDC will not hand over - to already approved independent researchers - the raw data used by CDC in developing the Pediatrics study. CDC is providing only limited access to the altered data. The NIP’s failure to provide the raw data for reviewing only raises further suspicions.

It appears to me not only as a Member of Congress but also as a physician that some officials within the CDC’s NIP may be more interested in a public relations campaign than getting to the truth about thimerosal. At present, I have lost confidence in the ability of officials at the CDC to give an honest evaluation of the matters at hand. It is not just me raising these concerns about public confidence, but also Dr. Neal Halsey who in his letter conveys his concerns about loss of confidence in the NIP.

Further eroding the CDC’s objectivity is the apparent bias in the information shared with the public on the CDC’s NIP website. A review of the information on the website regarding possible associations between thimerosal and autism and the MMR and autism demonstrates a clear bias towards building confidence in the safety of vaccines rather than providing an objective presentation of the data. The CDC’s website presents a very selective reporting of the science. The information provided to the public generally ignores and discounts studies raising safety concerns while focusing instead on highlighting epidemiology studies favoring their position.

Given these concerns, the CDC’s contributions to the IOM discussion would be viewed as suspect and non-objective. Furthermore, the fact that this meeting is being held at this time and according to the parameters put forth by the NIP officials is disturbing. I have already heard concerns expressed by those in the general public that the timing of this meeting is being driven by a desire to short-circuit important research and draw premature conclusions. If the purpose of this meeting is to seriously consider and address these concerns, then this will not be accomplished.

I have reviewed the research recommendations set forth in the IOM’s earlier reports on these issues. The federal government has invested very few resources into examining these areas of research. Furthermore, the research that has been conducted to date by the NIP seems to be tainted by a desire to disprove a theory that they find objectionable.

Additionally, I am concerned that the agenda set forth in the meeting is inadequate and incomplete. With respect to the MMR/autism concerns, the
IOM is dedicating one hour. Two witnesses are woefully inadequate to update
the committee on the research to date. The time set aside for a discussion
of epidemiology relating to thimerosal and autism is heavily biased against
those who have raised these concerns and will not allow for a fair and
balanced discussion of the literature. The time set aside for a discussion
of the biological mechanisms of thimerosal and autism is inadequate to allow
a full discussion of the issue. To consider two issues of such significance
in only seven hours does not serve the public interest. To the outside
observer it does not appear to be a serious effort to examine these critical
issues. Any conclusions drawn from this meeting, including any report
issued, will be viewed as suspect given the very limited time dedicated to
examining very incomplete information.

Again, I am very concerned that the drive to conduct this meeting at this time and force a report by this summer may not only further undermine confidence in the CDC, but it may also harm the IOM’s very good reputation.

I ask that you give these concerns your highest consideration and that you postpone the meeting until after additional research has been conducted. Given the slow pace of research and lack of federal support for this research, conducting this meeting prior to late 2004 to early 2005 is premature. The value of any such report at this time would be very limited. We must give the research time to progress if the report is to give meaningful insight into this matter.

David Weldon, M.D.

Posted by MB Williams at February 6, 2004 07:23 PM | TrackBack