On July 26, 2001, the Institute of Medicine will conduct hearings into thimerosal-containing vaccines and the neurodevelopmental outcomes of exposure to them. As a part of their preliminary research, the Immunization Safety Review Committee questioned Dr. László Magos, author of "Physiology and Toxicology of Mercury" and an internationally known expert in field.

While many of the answers that Dr. Magos gave were so scientifically complex that the lay person could never hope to comprehend them, I found it interesting that two of these answers, perhaps the most important two, were perfectly plain, clear and understandable to anyone reading his statement.

• Have there been any studies, including animal studies, which have looked specifically at infant ethylmercury exposure and the effect on neurological development? "No, it has not been studied."
• What is thought to be currently the best hypothesis (if any) regarding the mechanism of neurotoxic mechanism of neurotoxicity of organic Hg (mercury)? "Unfortunately, there is no answer. Chang (1996) suggested four "major thoughts" on the mechanism of actions. These "thoughts" have not reached the level of a hypotheses, and even less the level of 'the best hypothesis'."

Why are these questions so important? The answer is simple. They provide a clue into the direction that researchers and government agencies need to go, if we are to ever learn the true relationship between mercury based substances such as thimerosal and their effects on the lives of our children when they are ingredients in the vaccines we are routinely administering.

How can we ever believe the reports that attempt to validate the use of vaccines which contain thimerosal, when there have been NO STUDIES done on this important question, according to Dr. Magos? And how can we believe the theories that have been proposed on how mercury works to damage the neurological system of the body, when there hasn't even been a hypothesis made on this question. As I remember my studies of the "scientific method," a hypothesis must be made and tested and the tests replicated, before a theory can be advanced. We are not at the point of having a hypothesis, let alone enough material to propose a theory.

As parents, we know what happened to our children. We know when their development began to regress, but our knowledge is not enough to base policy on, according to the experts. They say we must have hard facts and research studies before our "anecdotal evidence" can be believed. Yet the scientific community has failed to provide the same standard of evidence in support of their opinions. Hearings and inquiries are not enough. Neither are statements that defend the status quo and tout the safety of vaccines. Until that research is done, the public will have every right to be skeptical about the statements that come out of the medical community regarding the safety of these vaccines.

Previous Articles

Autism/PDD 101

 

Recent Discussions

Autism/Pervasive Developmental Disorders

Join these forum conversations

schoo,wants to bus my daughter

sons school keeps losing him

gluten free lunches

I'm new here - many questions

Autism Awarness License Plates

 

 

Subscribe to the About Special Needs Kids Newsletter
Name	Email