Flu Shots
Ross at the Bloviator is recommending flu shots:
I can't stress this strongly enough. It should be considered for anyone 6 months of age and older. This flu season is already shaping up into a doozy, and the peak flu times are still ahead.
Ross may be right. The flu can be serious business. There have already been a number of deaths from flu this year and, as Ross points out, we are just now entering the prime flu season. Every mainstream health organization of which I am familiar concurs with Ross’ advice.
My wife and I have read all of those recommendations. We have read about the deaths in Colorado. We know the doctors’ and CDC’s position on the issue and yet, we still hesitate to have our kids get the shot. Last year, we hesitated, delayed and dithered until flu season passed and our kids got neither a flu shot nor the flu. We have been trying to decide on whether or not to have them get vaccinated this year for months. We just can not decide.
We hesitate because the standard flu shot contains thimerosal. A number of people think that mercury in thimerosal causes autism. We have worked long and hard to try to help our son climb out of the well of full spectrum autism. Although our successes have been limited, we have had some successes. We do not want to lose them by exposing him to more mercury.
The CDC, the doctors, the FDA and the entire public health establishment tells us that the flu vaccine is safe. Why all the worry? Well, the CDC, the doctors, the FDA and the entire public health establishment assured us that the infant vaccine regimen was safe and they had not even bothered to add up a row of numbers to determine how much mercury they were putting into my son.
They broke their bond of trust with us then. How can we trust them now?
Even now, more than seven years after they began injecting Bobby with mercury, they still argue that it has not been proven that mercury causes autism. While that may be true for the moment, I would feel better if they came forward with affirmative proof that it does not.
Ross is probably right and you should get your kids vaccinated. Nonetheless, if I had a six month old boy, I would be really worried. If anyone one knows of a place to get thimerosal-free flu shots in the Atlanta area, please leave a comment or an email.
In the meantime, all this blogging is keeping me from some really important worrying.
Comments
The new flu vaccine, administered by nasal spray instead of injection, does not contain thimerosal but, it is a live virus and not recomended for under five.
Posted by: curiouser | December 5, 2003 09:21 PM
The strain of flu that is causing the most problems this year, the Fujian flu, is not included in this year's flu vaccination. I haven't gotten the flu vaccination and I'm not planning to.
Posted by: Bernie Simon | December 5, 2003 09:55 PM
Although the Fujian influenza is not in the vaccine, the Panama virus is. Both are type A influenza H3N2 (surface antigens hemagglutinin and neuraminidase), and it is thought that the vaccine will offer partial protection. All of this was in the LA Times this morning (12/5; laexaminer@laexaminer.com pwd laexaminer).
I wish I had the kind of insight that you need to guide you in this decision, Dwight. I have followed your writing at PLA and here, and can only try to imagine the difficult decisions and responsibilities that you face every day.
My understanding is that the flu vaccine is really designed for use by people 65 and over, although it should protect others as well. As far as thimerosal safety issues, you probably won't find much help from the medical establishment, as many if not most physicians believe that it is/was harmless.
It seems to me that there isn't any way to really know what the risks are in your case in particular, because the link between thimerosal and autism is not well established, nor is there any way to really know what effect an additional dose might have. However, the risks of influenza are very real, and very well understood. If your son is at greater than average risk from respiratory infections, it is probably something to consider very strongly.
BTW, in case you were wondering where I get off giving this sort of advice, I am a microbiologist, teaching at CSU San Bernardino. I am NOT a physician, though, and would never presume to tell anyone what medical decisions to make. This is just my considered $0.02, coming from a fellow concerned parent (girls, 4 and 10 months) trying to decide what to do about flu shots.
Finally (whew!), there seems to be some risk of a shortage of flu shots, so it may be a moot point in short order.
Posted by: Paul Orwin | December 6, 2003 12:48 AM
Just a quick update/sheepish correction. I had not read further down on your blog to see the newer mercury/autism/thimerosal epidemiology data. I must say that I find those to be pretty compelling. I studied mercury toxicity as an undergrad, so I was already aware of the general toxicity (especially of organomercurials), so I always found it a pretty solid hypothesis. It is nice (perversely!) to see these sorts of hypotheses borne out by research. I hope that you and other parents of autistic children are able to win your battles, wherever you fight them. If it makes you feel any better (doubtful), the Climate Change approach of Luntz et al really isn't working at all, except to give cold comfort to people unwilling or unable to see what is right before their eyes.
Anyway, all this doesn't really change what I wrote about Flu shots, but I just thought I should add a few more words.
Posted by: Paul Orwin | December 6, 2003 12:56 AM
One more post, only to keep contradicting myself. Here is a bit of the abstract of a CDC study that finds no link between thimerosal containing vaccines (TCVs) and autism or autism spectrum disorders
Title:Safety of thimerosal-containing vaccines: a two-phased study of computerized health maintenance organization databases.
Verstraeten T, Davis RL, DeStefano F, Lieu TA, Rhodes PH, Black SB, Shinefield H, Chen RT; Vaccine Safety Datalink Team.
Pediatrics. 2003 Nov;112(5):1039-48.
Abstract:BJECTIVE: To assess the possible toxicity of thimerosal-containing vaccines (TCVs) among infants. METHODS: A 2-phased retrospective cohort study was conducted using computerized health maintenance organization (HMO) databases. Phase I screened for associations between neurodevelopmental disorders and thimerosal exposure among 124 170 infants who were born during 1992 to 1999 at 2 HMOs (A and B). In phase II, the most common disorders associated with exposure in phase I were reevaluated among 16 717 children who were born during 1991 to 1997 in another HMO (C). Relative risks for neurodevelopmental disorders were calculated per increase of 12.5 micro g of estimated cumulative mercury exposure from TCVs in the first, third, and seventh months of life. RESULTS: In phase I at HMO A, cumulative exposure at 3 months resulted in a significant positive association with tics (relative risk [RR]: 1.89; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05-3.38). At HMO B, increased risks of language delay were found for cumulative exposure at 3 months (RR: 1.13; 95% CI: 1.01-1.27) and 7 months (RR: 1.07; 95% CI: 1.01-1.13). In phase II at HMO C, no significant associations were found. In no analyses were significant increased risks found for autism or attention-deficit disorder. CONCLUSIONS: No consistent significant associations were found between TCVs and neurodevelopmental outcomes. Conflicting results were found at different HMOs for certain outcomes. For resolving the conflicting findings, studies with uniform neurodevelopmental assessments of children with a range of cumulative thimerosal exposures are needed.
(Orwin now) I make no claims about how definitive this is, only that there are still researchers providing real (not, to my knowledge, trumped up) evidence for and against this association of TCVs with autism. I would be very interested in any thoughts on this or other recent studies.
Posted by: Paul Orwin | December 6, 2003 01:06 AM
Wow, I should really read all the details in your posts, since you've got me arguing with myself now! I didn't realize that you had already cited the paper above.
All this is really making me wish I had time for blogging, because I think this is worth delving into more deeply, from the perspective of the working scientist. Maybe when I get tenure!! (d'oh)
Posted by: Paul Orwin | December 6, 2003 01:47 AM
I hear you. I read alot about the emerging concerns over mercury and autism while pregnant with my daughter a few years ago. We're lucky to live in a state (Colorado) where we can selectively vaccinate, and we've done so, choosing to give her the vaccines that we personally determine are worth some risk, refusing others. We're also lucky on the flu vaccine it seems, as when I got my shot last month, I asked about thimerosol and was assured it wasn't included in our vaccine.
I find these decisions- the weighing of risks, with incomplete information-- some of the hardest parenting decisions to make.
Good luck to your family. Be healthy.
Posted by: luz paz | December 6, 2003 10:30 AM
I'm sure you know much more about autism and its possible risk factors than I do, but if the kids in question were old enough for you to even consider getting them a flu shot last year, then surely they are now at least 1.5 years old, and, more than likely, closer to 2.5 years old.
Whereas I thought the more controversial shots containing thimerosal were administered to children at around 5-7 months of age, if I'm not mistaken. It's quite plausible to me that things events which occur at 7 months could have a risk of causing autism, but an event at 1.5 years old... That is getting quite close to when the first signs of autism usually show up. But maybe you are worried about mercury in general.
Posted by: ma2000 | December 12, 2003 02:52 AM