Rosie Waterhouse

Monday 1st July 2002



Observations on autism by Rosie Waterhouse

At a congressional inquiry in Washington into autism, five of
America's most senior public health officials have been grilled about
whether vaccines might be causing what the government reform
committee chairman, Dan Burton, called an "epidemic" of autism in
children.

They were presented with a dossier of exhibits comprising copies of e-
mails, confidential minutes of meetings and other incriminating
documents, which one congressman, Dave Weldon, said amounted to
evidence of a cover-up. The public health authorities knew of the
possible health risks from mercury in vaccines years ago, the
documents showed, and had an emergency plan to remove it.

A secret study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC), which was never published, showed children who had received
vaccines containing thimerosal - a preservative that is almost 50 per
cent mercury - were more than twice as likely to develop autism as
children who had not.

The hearing, on 19 June, was part of an two-year investigation into a
dramatic rise in autism in the United States, from one in 10,000
children reported ten years ago to one in 250 now.

The session was called to review research into possible causes of
autism, including the MMR vaccine and mercury. Mercury, the most
toxic substance humans are likely to be exposed to, is present in
some vaccines, but not the MMR.

In Britain, too, we are witnessing a significant increase in the
number of children diagnosed with autism, from one in 2,200 estimated
by the National Autistic Society in 1988 - when the MMR vaccine was
introduced - to one in 166 now.

Here, as in the US, a growing number of parents believe their
children were born and developed normally, but became autistic and
suffer the additional burden of a painful inflammatory bowel
disorder, because of vaccines. Many are taking legal action against
the manufacturers.

They will be using research that they claim supports their case,
including studies by Dr Andrew Wakefield, a consultant
gastroenterologist who first raised the possibility that the MMR
vaccine may be a contributory cause of autism and bowel disease in
children brought to his clinic at the Royal Free Hospital in London.

Wakefield has since been forced out of his job because government
ministers and health advisers have criticised his research
as "unscientific". But at the congressional inquiry in June, three
other scientists presented research findings that partially supported
Wakefield.

Dr Arthur Krigsman, of the New York University School of Medicine,
has conducted tests on 43 autistic children. He found that 90 per
cent of them had the same inflammatory bowel disorders as Wakefield
reported.

Two of the researchers, Dr Vera Stejskal, professor of immunology at
the University of Stockholm, and Dr Jeff Bradstreet, a paediatrician
from Florida, put forward the hypothesis that, in some genetically
predisposed children, an accumulation of mercury damages the brain
and lowers immunity. This means that the body cannot cope with the
three live viruses in the MMR vaccine, thus triggering autism.

In March, the British government announced a £2.5m research programme
into possible causes of autism. But the minister responsible, Jacqui
Smith, ruled out looking at whether MMR was implicated, because, she
said, that had already been investigated. But not thoroughly. Not
independently.

Next year, the British and American lawsuits begin. So far, all the
available studies into whether mercury and/or MMR cause autism, have
failed to prove a link. But they haven't disproved one either. We
need a thorough, independent, public or parliamentary inquiry, along
the lines of a US congressional hearing, to tell us about the
possible hazards of the government's vaccination programme - and
whether it is causing autism.

Rosie Waterhouse is a reporter on the Sunday Times Insight team


http://www.melisa.org/hottopics/thim.html

No more amalgam, Norway's government tells its dentists
The following edited article is from Maryanne Rygg, Norway

A long-awaited breakthrough in the war against amalgam was announced
on 31 May.

The director for the Norwegian Directorate of Health and Social
Welfare said on Norwegian radio that the health authorities now
recommend that dentists no longer use amalgam on their patients. He
said that the new guidelines are based on newer research that has
revealed how mercury leaks from amalgam in the mouth of patients.

The Norwegian Directorate of Health and Social Welfare has announced
that it will be sending its new guidelines for use of dental
materials out for hearing in a couple of weeks, and expects them to
take effect from 1 January 2003.

The announcement was called a "U-turn" by the Norwegian radio. The
current president of the Norwegian Dental Association was also
interviewed, and said that the Norwegian Dental Association was
satisfied that the guidelines stop short of a full ban on amalgam,
and that freedom of choice is still possible. He also said that there
has been controversy around the use of amalgam for 100 years, and
that the Dental Association would not defend amalgam "at any price".
The current president of the Norwegian Dental Association works in an
amalgam-free dental practice, and has not used amalgam for many years.

The ten-page document is still labeled as confidential, until it is
sent out for hearing in a couple of weeks. We have been told that it
will be published (in Norwegian) on the website of the Norwegian
Dental Materials Adverse Reaction Unit
(www.uib.no/bivirkningsgruppen/), but it has not appeared there as
yet. It is expected to be published on the website of the Norwegian
Dental Patient Association ( http://www.tenneroghelse.no ).

It appears that this document contains many statements that the anti-
amalgam movement has claimed for years. Now they have publicly
endorsed the claims, although there are still a few sentences in the
ten-page document that will continue to be disputed. Although the
document states that the overall aim is to phase out the use of
amalgam, the guidelines do stop short of a complete ban. It is
advice, rather than instruction. It will still be possible for adult
patients who insist on amalgam to receive it. However, when the
statements about amalgam which are contained in this document are
made public, it would be a strong disincentive for anyone to choose
to have amalgam installed in their mouth.


http://www.melisa.org/hottopics/newnorway.html



http://www.newstatesman.co.uk/site.php3?
newTemplate=NSArticle_Ideas&newDisplayURN=200207010008