Study â??Disprovingâ?� Mercury-Autism Link Published in Journal with Financial Ties to...

Study â??Disprovingâ?� Mercury-Autism Link Published in Journal with Financial Ties to Vaccine Manufacturers [align=left]Mike Adams
News Target
Thursday, January 10, 2008[/align]
(NewsTarget) While the mainstream press is widely reporting a new study "disproving" any link between autism and mercury-containing thimerosal in vaccines, no one has bothered to point out that the study was published in a medical journal stacked full of ads from the very same drug companies that manufacture and market vaccines. The Journal, the Archives of General Psychiatry, is the pro-drug psychiatric arm of the American Medical Association, a pill-pushing organization tarnished by a history of conspiracy against alternative medicine and the promotion of toxic substances like cigarettes with full-page ads in its flagship publication, JAMA.

From the outset, the fact that this study appears in a pro-drug, pro-psychiatry journal should bring pause to any scientific-minded person. There is obviously a serious conflict of interest here, especially if this study is to be taken as "fact" and applied to public health policy. There also need to be a close look at any financial links between the researchers involved in this study and various vaccine manufacturers, as virtually all pro-drug "science" (if you can call it that) being published these days is influenced by Big Pharma money.

The only truly honest, independent, peer-reviewed medical journal operating today is PLoS Medicine, an open-source journal that takes no money from drug companies. Notice that the autism/mercury link study did not appear in PLoS Medicine? No, it had to be published with a home field advantage in a pro-drug publication that maintains a strong bias in favor of pharmaceuticals and chemicals.


Junk science and faulty conclusions

Aside from these obvious and worrisome conflicts of interest, the conclusions being made about autism and vaccines in the mainstream media are simply not supported by the study. The (distorted) logic we're hearing goes like this:

Yes, vaccines used to contain mercury. And yes, all those little kids were injected with mercury. And yes, autism rates skyrocketed. But then when the mercury was taken out of the vaccines, the autism rates didn't come back down. Therefore, the logic goes, vaccines are safe!

This is such sloppy cause/effect logic that it makes the idiot CNN Health editors who published a story about "junk foods being good for your waist" look like sheer geniuses!

What's wrong with the logic? Consider the use of mercury in the vaccines: It was used as a preservative chemical to prevent vaccine spoilage. When the mercury was removed, it was replaced with other preservative chemicals that are also toxic to the human nervous system. Thus, the continuing increase in autism rates following vaccination may be due to the toxic chemicals that replaced thimerosal. While mercury injections probably initiated the increase in autism, the toxic substance has been replaced with other dangerous chemicals that are continuing to increase the risk of autism.

Here's an example to explain this a bit more:

We all know that sodium nitrite in processed meat causes cancer, right? Well, let's say that for ten years, somebody feeds all the kids sodium nitrite and cancer rates skyrocket. Then, they take all the sodium nitrite out of the food and replace it with a different cancer-causing chemical that they keep feeding the kids. Guess what? The cancer rates don't come down. Therefore, the logic goes, sodium nitrite didn't cause cancer in the first place!

Notice that when mercury was removed from vaccines (which is not entirely true, by the way, bringing into question yet more details about this study), the rates of autism did not drop? This means the vaccines remain dangerous to children. Autism continued to climb right alongside vaccination rates, indicating the possibility that something in the vaccines (or a combination of various chemicals) may very well be responsible for the increase. Based on the fact that thimerosal was replaced with other toxic chemicals in the vaccines, there is absolutely no scientific way to clear thimerosal of any harmful effects. There are too many variables operating now, and no study can isolate one variable (thimerosal) out of many and prove it to be harmless.

The truth is that scientists have no idea what's causing autism. They acknowledge the alarming increase in the rates of autism now being observed in the population, but with this new study, they claim, "Mercury is safe!"

Let me add this study to the enormous stack of other B.S. studies from modern medical researchers. Let's see, I have a study here that declares aspartame to be safe. A second study in my database says that Vioxx is safe. Another study says Teflon is safe. And yet another study claims that cigarette smoke doesn't cause lung cancer or heart disease! In fact, for virtually every toxic chemical created by industry, there's a B.S. study proclaiming its safety! The history of science is full of such nonsense, all funded or influenced by the corporations that manufacture and sell these toxic chemicals or drugs.

The fact that industry has managed to create yet another study declaring a toxic substance (thimerosal) to be safe when injected into children is certainly not surprising. This is an industry that is not bound by the rules of logic, ethics or common scientific sense. It simply finds ways to influence researchers, cherry pick studies and distort science to get whatever results it wants. That's how we're now hearing things like, "Mercury is safe to inject into children!" -- an idea that's utterly absurd at any dose.

What the mercury / vaccine study actually proves

Even if you believe the results of this study, it only demonstrates that removing mercury from vaccines does not reduce vaccine toxicity to children. Autism rates are still on the rise, right along with vaccination rates. Multiple toxic chemicals and substances are contained in vaccines, and the mercury in thimerosal may have simply been one factor among many.

The only reasonable, scientifically-minded conclusion we can draw from the study is that removing mercury from vaccines does not reduce autism in children. If removing thimerosal from vaccines made them safer, we should have seen autism rates go down, but we did not! Autism rates continued to climb in direct correlation to vaccination rates, indicating that mercury is not the only toxic substance causing neurological problems in children.

Notice, carefully, that this is nothing close to what's being reported in the mainstream media, where headlines are blaring junk science nonsense like, "Vaccines pose no risk for autism" (San Jose Mercury News) and "Thimerosal Does Not Cause Autism" (Slashdot, which should know better). Even WIRED News got it wrong with: "California Study Finds No Link Between Vaccines, Autism."

The correct headline should be, "Removal of Mercury From Vaccines Fails to Halt Rise in Autism."

Or, "Removing Mercury From Vaccines Does Not Make Them Safer."

Nobody reported that. Apparently, telling the truth about research involving vaccines is not a popular option in the mainstream media (MSM). Businessweek, publishing a HealthDay report by Randy Dotinga, invokes particularly bad logic with this opening statement, "Adding to a growing body of evidence that rejects the idea that immunizations boost autism rates, a new study finds no proof that incidences of the disorder dropped after makers of most childhood vaccines stopped using a mercury-based preservative in their products."

Huh? How does a study focused only on mercury "reject the idea that immunizations boost autism rates?" Did the author of that report not notice that autism rates continue to increase as vaccination rates go up? Eliminating one chemical from the causative factors does not in any way clear the safety of all the other chemicals or ingredients used in vaccines.

The mainstream media, which repeatedly demonstrates astonishing ignorance on issues of nutrition and health, also seems to have very little ability to interpret scientific studies and reach reasoned conclusions about what those studies do or do not prove.

Was the vaccine study another example of corrupt science?

Besides, this entire discussion is based on the idea that we can trust the research in the first place. If there's one thing we've learned about modern medicine since watching all the Vioxx scandals, Avandia cover-ups and scientific corruption in research circles, it's that drug companies can help create whatever research conclusions they want.

And let's face it: Big Pharma will always produce science that protects its profits. Gee, Big Tobacco came up with all sorts of research that said tobacco smoke wasn't harmful and nicotine wasn't addictive. Some of that research appeared in peer-reviewed medical journals, too. Does that mean the research was scientifically accurate and "conclusive?" Of course not. It was just plain old junk science, hijacked by a powerful corporation with a clear profit motive.

If all that sounds familiar, it's because drug companies are playing the same game with science today that Big Tobacco played decades ago: Influence the science, bury the bad news and propagandize the good news. It's the oldest play in the spin book, and Big Pharma has patterned it perfectly from Big Tobacco.

You see, the relevant question in this discussion is not simply whether mercury-containing vaccines cause autism. The question at hand is whether we can even trust the "science" being conducted on this subject. Do the researchers who conducted this study have any financial ties to the manufacturers of those vaccines? Have they received any speaking fees? Do they own stock in those companies? If so, this completely discredits their research due to obvious conflicts of interest.

Now, I don't have any direct evidence that the researchers in this particular mercury vaccine study were corrupted or influenced by Big Pharma, but as an honest, independent think who knows the truth about drug companies, the mainstream media and the profit motive behind much of the science appearing in the press today, I maintain a default position of skepticism when it comes to reading these studies.

By default, I distrust the drug companies and any so-called "research" that claims injecting mercury into the bodies of children is harmless. That should be the default position held by any rational person who understands basic human biochemistry. Toxic chemicals and heavy metals must be distrusted from the outset.

The drug and chemical industries, notably, take precisely the opposite approach. To them, all chemicals and drugs are safe until proven dangerous. This is how dangerous drugs get released into the marketplace and only recalled after tens of millions of prescriptions have been written and many thousands of people have died. The drug companies routinely treat the population as drug testing guinea pigs, and the used of vaccines on children is no different.

I find it interesting that genuine scientific skepticism seems to vanish when the topic shifts to pharmaceuticals. Sure, all the skeptics and quack critics will go to town on topics like acupuncture, mind-body medicine or even the efficacy of botanical medicines, but when the discussion turns to things like mercury in vaccines or amphetamine drugs for kids with ADHD, all such skepticism immediately vanishes. They accept the safety and efficacy of such treatments without question. Rational thought is rapidly discarded. Vaccines simply must be safe. Why? Because everybody else in the medical industry says so!

Were the journalists injected with mercury, too?

With this whole charade about a study "disproving" any link between mercury and vaccines, the modern medical industry has once again shown its infantile intellect and its utter lack or scientific integrity or clear-headed skepticism. Is this study really the best they can come up with? A study that shows absolutely no drop in autism rates when ingredients are reformulated in vaccines? A study that didn't even attempt to take into account the other toxic ingredients in vaccines?

This is the new standard of "conclusive" science in medicine today?

Give me a break. The only thing that can be conclusively derived from observing all this is that mainstream media journalists continue to function at a very low level of scientific literacy, lacking any skills of mental reason by which scientific studies might be assessed. There is no thought that has gone into the media's reporting of this story; only bandwagon parroting of each other's bad conclusions of a study that, in reality, proves nothing. It's yet another hilarious mainstream media circle jerk, and the fact that so many people keep buying this dim-witted reporting just proves that this nation remains woefully deficient in basic science education.

One point worth mentioning here is that there is absolutely no requirement to have any real understanding of science, medicine, chemistry or physics to graduate from a top-notch journalism school. And when journalists have no idea what they're talking about, they go the default route and simply rewrite whatever was e-mailed to them in the corporate press release! Thus, modern skills of journalism do not require any independent thought whatsoever. They only require the ability to rephrase something already told to them by the spinmeisters at Corporation X.

Correct me if I'm wrong: Is there a single mainstream reporter -- even one? -- that reported the correct conclusion from this vaccine research?

I challenge you to find one. I've looked. There isn't one.

The dumbing down of the mainstream media is now complete. I can't wait to see what headlines will come next:

"Prescription Drugs That Killed Patients Found Innocent Since Patients Did Not Come Back to Life After the Drugs Were Removed"

Or:

"Radiation From Mammograms Found Harmless Because Death Rates Continued to Climb Even After Mammography was Halted"

Or my favorite: "Ephedra Herb Banned After Ten Deaths; Drugs Are Safer Because They Only Kill 100,000 Americans a Year"

I'm beginning to wonder if all the journalists have been injected with mercury.