Skip to main content

Blaming Mercury / Thimerosal

Today the media are reporting an analysis of autism rates in California since the removal of thimerosal from most vaccines. The autism rate, or more accurately the rate of diagnoses, is still climbing in the state.

Study challenges drug's role in autism
By Jia-Rui Chong, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
5:15 PM PST, January 7, 2008

The prevalence of autism in California children continued to rise after many vaccine manufacturers started to remove the mercury-based preservative thimerosal in 1999, suggesting that the chemical was not a primary cause of the disorder, according to a study released Monday.

The analysis found that from 2004 to 2007, when exposure to thimerosal dropped significantly for 3- to 5-year-olds, the rate continued to increase in that group from 3.0 to 4.1 per 1,000 children.

"If mercury exposure in vaccines was a major cause of autism, then the number of ... affected kids should have diminished once they were no longer exposed to thimerosal," said Dr. Robert Schechter, lead author of the study and a medical officer at the state Department of Public Health. "That is not what we found."

The study, published in the Archives of General Psychiatry, is the latest in a series that has investigated the connection between thimerosal and autism. The majority have found no association.

But the latest findings failed to convince some parents and advocacy groups that have long blamed mercury, a neurotoxin, for the disorder.

"This study presents a greatly over-simplified explanation of a very complex problem," said Claire Bothwell, chairwoman of the board at the National Autism Association, which works on behalf of families with autism. "Rising numbers do not confirm that thimerosal never had a role."

These advocates make me want to scream. They either do not understand the science or they are simplifying the standard caveats in scientific research. I fear the desire to blame someone, anyone, for autism is leading some groups and individuals to reach statistically implausible

Maybe thimerosal and other factors are triggers for a genetic predisposition. Maybe. But that is a huge maybe.

Let's be brutally honest: the only people likely to benefit from blaming mercury are lawyers and a handful of "experts" (using the term loosely) promoting alternative therapies.

No, drug companies are not always honest. There have been and are catastrophic conditions caused by exposure to various chemicals in medications. I am not about to claim the drug companies should be trusted. Unfortunately, any testing is going to be paid for by the
drug companies — you can't bill taxpayers for every drug test. Such testing should be done by government and university labs, paid for via special patent fees.

I have no doubt some environmental factors are at work, but I also think way too much attention is being given to a single suspect... one that looks increasingly unlikely based on statistical epidemiology. It's time to start looking for other environmental agents, from pesticides to heavy metals in drinking water, and stop suffering from tunnel vision.

Better diagnostic criteria, improved awareness of autism, and other factors are merging to create an increase in the "autism rate" in the United States. We must admit causal factors are only a part of the increase.


  1. no, we can not expect a precipitous fall in any the numbers of people having any disease believed to be resulting from mercury exposure when we suddenly remove mercury from vaccines. mercury exists elsewhere as well, and mercury already infused repeatedly over the years is stored and is released over time. Surely, we don't expect that in the immediate post period (after withdrawing mercury from vaccines) that all will be we? That is pure fantasy and has nothing to do with the reality that finds mercury absorption to be reduced over time...and that time depends on the amount of exposure and if the patient is being treated for mercury toxicity - which should hasten the time whereby the patient becomes mercury free (yet some patients under treatment actually show an increase in mercury toxicity as a result of treatment, howbeit temporarily). One thing for sure, you wont have to worry about mercury if you don't ingest it. It's so maddening to hear people talk about how ...just a little... mercury won't hurt us. Ok, may that person please take my share. You can bet that if im asked to take something that is contaminated with mercury, that I will say, "No, thank you!"

    Stephen Bolen

  2. As I state in the post, I don't question environmental triggers exist, but I fear the volume of attention on mercury is at the expense of other possible factors.

    We constantly see contradictory stories on mercury absorption rates, mercury in fish (think tuna and NYC's recent study), mercury in soil samples, etc. While all of this research in important, I wonder about other links, which are out there to find but lack money to research.

    Example: Clusters of autism in Central California might be linked to farming and the various chemicals used. There are also high levels of selenium in California, which are definitely linked to deformed hatchlings and neurological damage to other wildlife.

    But we have only one major study of the autism clusters in the San Joaquin Valley (where I am from). We should know if selenium or other deposits are to blame. Or, if farming techniques are to blame, we should know that.

    Yet, money for research continues to focus on MMR and mercury. We need a much broader approach to research.


Post a Comment

Comments violating the policies of this blog will not be approved for posting. Language and content should be appropriate for all readers and maintain a polite tone. Thank you.

Popular posts from this blog

Autism, Asperger's, and IQ

"Aren't people with Asperger's more likely to be geniuses? Isn't genius related to autism?"

A university student asked this in a course I am teaching. The class discussion was covering neurological differences, free will, and the nature versus nurture debate. The textbook for the course includes sidebars on the brain and behavior throughout chapters on ethics and morality. This student was asking a question reflecting media portrayals of autism spectrum disorders, social skills difficulties, and genius.

I did not address this question from a personal perspective in class, but I have when speaking to groups of parents, educators, and caregivers. Some of the reasons these questions arise, as mentioned above, are media portrayals and news coverage of autism. Examples include:
Television shows with gifted characters either identified with or assumed to have autistic traits: Alphas, Big Bang Theory, Bones, Rizzoli and Isles, Touch, and others. Some would include She…

Listen… and Help Others Hear

We lack diversity in the autism community.

Think about what you see, online and in the media. I see upper-middle class parents, able to afford iPads and tutors and official diagnoses. I see parents who have the resources to fight for IEPs and physical accommodations.

I see self-advocacy leadership that has been fortunate (and hard working, certainly) to attend universities, travel the nation (or even internationally), and have forums that reach thousands.

What I don't see? Most of our actual community. The real community that represents autism's downsides. The marginalized communities, ignored and excluded from our boards, our commissions, our business networks.

How did my lower-income parents, without college educations, give me a chance to be more? How did they fight the odds? They did, and now I am in a position of privilege. But I don't seem to be making much of a difference.

Demand that your charities seek out the broadest possible array of advisers and board members.…

Life Updates: The MFA Sprint

Life is okay, if more than a little hectic at the end of this first month.

With one month down, I'm 11 months away from my MFA in Film and Digital Technology. Though things might happen and things do go wrong, so far I'm on schedule and things are going well —— though I'm exhausted and working harder than I did for any other degree. Because the MFA requires projects every week, this isn't as easy to schedule as writing. Even researching a paper can be done from the comfort of home, at any hour.

You cannot make movies by yourself, at any time of day. It doesn't work that way. Filming takes time, and often requires a team of people. It's not comparable to working alone on a degree in writing or rhetoric.

The team-based nature of film is exhausting for me, but I enjoy the results. I also like the practical nature of the skills being taught. You either learn how to adjust ISO, f/Stop, shutter speed, and other variables or you don't. You can have theories …