|
Vaccine Autoimmune Project for Research and Education (VAP)
|
|
Mercury and Autism in the United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom, the issue of mercury in pediatric vaccines and autism has been consistently overshadowed by the longer-standing measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) controversy, which has rumbled in the British media since the publication of Andrew Wakefield’s famous Lancet paper in February 1998. (1) The mercury issue came to light publicly here on May 27, 2001 — two years after the United States — in a report by Rosie Waterhouse in the Sunday Times, (2) though it was not a front-page matter and was largely overshadowed by the last weeks of the 2001 general election campaign. At first, it seemed to be having some impact on policy, however. A week after the first article, the newspaper reported: “The government’s medicines safety watchdog has taken action to warn patients and GPs of potential serious reactions to vaccines containing a preservative which is almost 50 percent mercury. Manufacturers have been told to add a warning to the summary of product characteristics for all vaccines with thiomersal [the U.K. licensed brand name for thimerosal]. A warning will also be added to the patient information leaflet.” (3) In retrospect, the one-sided implication of this is clear. While moral pressure continued to be applied on general practitioners and parents to accept the vaccine, the licensing authority, the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) — later, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, or MHRA — had moved to protect themselves and the manufacturers legally, and to give the impression that something was actually being done to protect the public. But it acted only after the matter became public knowledge, although officials had known about the problem for several years. On June 17, 2001, the Sunday Times went on to report that the World Health Organization (WHO) was launching an inquiry into the safety of thimerosal led by epidemiologist Elizabeth Miller, head of the immunization division of the U.K. Public Health Laboratory (PHLS): (4) “She will analyze records of 500 GP practices to check for a link between the use of vaccines that contain the preservative thiomersal — which is almost 50 percent mercury — and a range of neuro-developmental disorders which include autism. “There has been a big rise in the number of children exhibiting mild to severe neurological problems such as dyslexia and autism. This follows the introduction of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine in 1988 and a sharp rise in the number of mercury-based vaccines given. “The number of vaccinations that can be given before the age of two has risen from about eight in 1980 to 22 now. “A key factor may be that mercury-based vaccines are being given to babies as young as two months old, when their bodies are less able to cope with it…. “Vaccines containing mercury include the triple DTP injection against diptheria, tetanus and whooping cough and some licensed brands of Hib, a meningitis vaccine. Mercury is not used in the MMR vaccine.” Another four weeks elapsed, however, before a letter from Miller, outlining the official position, appeared in the paper: (5) “Your articles, Autism linked to mercury vaccine (May 27) and Inquiry launched into vaccine ‘link’ with autism (June 17) implied that there has been increasing use of thiomersal-containing vaccines in the U.K. since 1988. In fact, the thiomersal content of vaccines given in the routine vaccination program has not increased over the past decade. The only vaccines for children used in the routine program that contain thiomersal are DPT (diptheria, tetanus, pertussis) and DT. Because of theoretical concerns that the small amount of mercury in thiomersal could be harmful, both European and United Kingdom regulators have recommended that manufacturers phase out its use wherever possible as a precaution. “As a further precautionary measure, the Public Health Laboratory Service, on behalf of the World Health Organization, will be undertaking research into any negative effects of thiomersal-containing vaccines in the near future. “Several studies and research papers have found no evidence that the MMR vaccine, which contains no thiomersal, is a factor in the cause of autism.” There are numerous anomalies and holes in Miller’s response:
So flawed is this submission that it would tend to confirm the substance of Rosie Waterhouse’s report, rather than confute it. One question that emerges from this is how routine was the “routine program” or, to put it another way, were variations from it common? Part of the answer comes in a table once published by the Department of Health and now only available online on Red Flags, (8) which gives the take up numbers for infant vaccines (figures are for those completing the schedule) in the period 1988-89 to 1997-98. This shows that administration of the component vaccines of the DPT was very far from standard, particularly at the beginning of the period. For instance, in 1988-89, the uptake of the historically controversial pertussis vaccine was 517,000, against 604,000 for diptheria and 644,000 for tetanus: a 25 percent variation. This narrowed year on year, till it had virtually levelled off between the three in 1996-97:
However, even in 1996-97, as a Department of Health web document shows, the pattern may not have been that clear-cut: “Data collected from form
KC50 and COVER (cover of vaccination evaluated rapidly) is presented in this
document. Ninety six percent of children had been inoculated against polio,
tetanus and diptheria before the age of two. The target of a 90 percent uptake
for each vaccine was reached by all but three health authorities. During the
year, 878,000 reinforcing doses given against diptheria, 901,000 against
tetanus and 910,000 against polio. There were, in fact, many licensed mercury-containing single vaccine products on the market, particularly toward the end of the period, none of which suggests a uniformly low-dose program based on the DPT and DT. At least 80 mercury-containing vaccines were licensed between 1993 and 2001, although none had been in the previous seven years. (10) Pertussis actually had a bad reputation at the beginning of the period, but it does not seem that there was an identity of uptake of diptheria and tetanus through the use of the DT either. On the other hand, in 1997-98, pertussis uptake was exceeding the uptake of the other two by about two percent (589,000 as against 576,000 for diptheria and 578,000 for tetanus) and this could only be achieved by the use of single-vaccine shots. This suggests statistically significant variations from the “routine program” leading to frequent additional mercury exposure in infants. (There are further anomalies in the historic record, which will emerge in part II of this series.) The position became even more anomalous as it gradually emerged over the following months that, unlike the United States, there was no immediate attempt or intention to remove thimerosal from the recommended pediatric vaccinations pending the outcome of the investigation and further research. In fact, thimerosal continued to be used in the DPT vaccine in the United Kingdom until its phasing out of the schedule in October 2004. (11) With remarkable strategic placement, however, it was not until the imminent removal of mercury from U.K. infant vaccine, more than three years later in September 2004, that two British government studies — including the one announced in the Sunday Times in June 2001, which had been presented in camera to the WHO as early as June 2002 — were published in Pediatrics. (12, 13) The PHLS study had also been presented at the US Institute of Medicine Special Committee on Immunization in February 2004. But it was only with the publication of the study that it became possible to assess its methodology and conclusions, by which time it had been standing as guarantor for the WHO mercury policy for more than two years, (as is stated at the end of the published version): “The results of the two United Kingdom studies were presented to the WHO Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety in June 2002. These studies contributed to the conclusion that there is currently no evidence of mercury toxicity in infants, children or adults who are exposed to thimerosal in vaccines, and that there is no reason to change current immunization practices with thimerosal-containing vaccines on grounds of safety. This conclusion is particularly important for developing countries that administer thimerosal-containing DTP vaccines according to the expanded immunization schedule.” (12) However, the study apparently makes a false claim about the relationship between the U.K. and the WHO schedule: “Because the United Kingdom changed to an accelerated 2/3/4 month DTP immunization schedule in 1990 (replacing the former 3/5/10 month schedule) and because vaccinations are generally given on time in the United Kingdom, a substantial proportion of children in the GPRD cohort will have had a cumulative Hg exposure of 150 µg of thimerosal (75 µg of Hg) by 4 months of age. This level of Hg exposure, although lower than the maximum of 187.5 µg received in the United States by 6 months of age, is similar to the level received by 3 to 4 months of age in the United States. It is also the same as the amount of thimerosal used by developing countries that follow the expanded immunization schedule.” (My italics) (12) This claim is contradicted by a contemporaneous U.K. Committee on Safety in Medicines document that states: “The early childhood vaccination regimen recommended by the WHO involves exposure of 187.5µg EtHg in the first 14 weeks of life (table 2). Until recently, the same level of exposure had been recommended (sic) within the first six months of life in the U.S. schedule.” Incredibly, the PHLS study was initiated, funded and accepted by the World Health Organization, although the official level of U.K. exposure at 14 weeks was secretly known to be only just over one quarter of the exposure of the WHO schedule, while the study itself states that the level was “the same.” Some of the hidden history of how this came about will be explored in part two of this investigation: The Long Arm Of The CDC. * * * * References:
First published on Red Flags | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|