|
Headline:
Wins award for most conflicts with seven different vaccine companies
mentioned. But, study doesn't even look at autism as an outcome, so
doesn't apply to this debate at all. Had a panel member dissent from
study conclusions, a bad sign. May be interesting to some, but not
anyone studying autism.
Actual Question This Study Asked & Answered:
Q: Did exposure to thimerosal in early childhood impact certain neurological outcomes, but not autism?
A: No.
Did the study look at unvaccinated children?
No.
Conflict of Interest (from the study itself):
"Dr. Thompson reports being a former employee of Merck; Dr. Marcy,
receiving consulting fees from Merck, Sanofi Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline,
and MedImmune; Dr. Jackson, receiving grant support from Wyeth, Sanofi
Pasteur, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis, lecture fees from Sanofi
Pasteur, and consulting fees from Wyeth and Abbott and serving as a
consultant to the FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory
Committee; Dr. Lieu, serving as a consultant to the CDC Advisory
Committee on Immunization Practices; Dr. Black, receiving consulting
fees from MedImmune, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Merck and grant
support from MedImmune, GlaxoSmithKline, Aventis, Merck, and Novartis;
and Dr. Davis receiving consulting fees from Merck and grant support
from Merck and GlaxoSmith- Kline. No other potential conflict of
interest relevant to this article was reported."
[Seven separate vaccine manufacturers are mentioned -- a record!]
Ability to Generalize:
Yes, but unhelpful for the autism debate, because autism was not considered.
Post-Publication Criticism:
Moderate. One of the original board members of the study dissented (see below).
Scoring (Out of 40 possible points):
Asked the Right Question: 0
Ability to Generalize: 4
Conflict of Interest: 0
Post-Publication Criticism: 1
Total Score: 5
Choice Excerpt from the Study:
"Of 3648 children selected for recruitment, 1107 (30.3%) were tested.
Among children who were not tested, 512 did not meet one or more of the
eligibility criteria, 1026 could not be located, and 44 had scheduling
difficulties; in addition, the mothers of 959 children declined to
participate."
Meaning:
Participation level was low, could have excluded children with adverse outcomes.
Guest Critic #1: Sallie Bernard, SafeMinds, who was a panelist for the study
To the Editor: Thompson et al. (Sept. 27 issue) 1
report the results of a study investigating the neuropsychological
outcomes of early exposure to thimerosal. As a dissenting member of the
panel of external consultants for this study, I object to the authors'
conclusion that there is no causal association between thimerosal and
children's brain function. The sample comprised children who were least
likely to exhibit neuropsychological impairments. Specifically, children
with congenital problems, those from multiple births, those of low
birth weight, and those not living with their biological mother were
excluded. The sample was skewed toward higher socioeconomic status and
maternal education -- factors that are associated with lower rates of
neurobehavioral problems and higher intervention rates and that were not
measured. The sampling frame included only children enrolled from birth
in the health maintenance organization (HMO) and still enrolled after 7
to 10 years, excluding children in higher-mobility families, who tend
to have lower academic and behavioral function. 2
Children with neurobehavioral problems may have been less likely to
remain with the HMO. Only 30% of families selected for recruitment
participated, a low rate for scientific research. Among the families
selected for recruitment, 26% refused to participate. Another 28% "could
not be located," which included families that did not respond to
multiple recruitment attempts (internal documentation from the study
contractor, Abt Associates) -- another form of refusal.
Sallie Bernard, B.A.
SafeMinds
Aspen, CO 81611
sbernard@safeminds.org
References
1. Thompson WW, Price C, Goodson B, et al. Early thimerosal exposure
and neuropsychological outcomes at 7 to 10 years. N Engl J Med
2007;357:1281-1292. [Free Full Text]
2. Rumberger RW. Student mobility and academic achievement. In: Child
& adolescent development. MentalHelp.net. January 23, 2003.
(Accessed December 12, 2007, at http://mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=doc&id=2084&cn=28.)
Guest Critic #2: Autism Speaks
Autism Speaks Statement Regarding "Early Thimerosal Exposure and Neuropsychological Outcomes at 7-10 years" in the New England Journal of Medicine September 26, 2007
This afternoon the New England Journal of Medicine published
a CDC study examining the hypothesis that exposure to thimerosal during
early development is associated with neuropsychological deficits in
children. The authors of the report, entitled "Early Thimerosal Exposure
and Neuropyschological Outcomes at 7 to 10 Years," concluded that
findings from the study do not "support a causal association between
early exposure to mercury from thimerosal-containing vaccines and immune
globulins and deficits in neuropsychological functioning at age of 7 to
10 years."
While the study conclusions are supported by the data presented, the
study had significant limitations that argue for the need for additional
study. The researchers acknowledged there are limitations to the study,
including a 30% recruitment rate, which did not allow them to
adequately control for potential selection bias, and difficulty in
controlling for treatment or intervention, such as speech therapy, which
could potentially lessen or compensate for the possible negative
effects of thimerosal exposure.
Among the 42 neuropsychological parameters examined, only a small
number of very modest associations were detected. For instance, higher
thimerosal exposure was found to be associated with poorer performance
in some areas, such as behavioral regulation and tics in boys, and
better performance in other measures, such as performance IQ and fine
motor coordination. The authors highlighted these findings in their
discussion because similar associations had been reported in a few
earlier studies and suggested "the potential need for further studies."
Since the reported associations are weak and essentially equally divided
between positive and negative effects, the investigators concluded that
they are more likely due to chance or statistical artifacts and do not
lend meaningful support to a causal connection between thimerosal and
neuropsychological deficits in children.
Although the general study conclusions are supported by the data
presented and are consistent with past findings, given the significant
study limitations and some of the intriguing albeit inconclusive
associations involving behavioral regulation and tics, this study isn't
and shouldn't be seen as the "last word" on the topic. If anything, it
is a great example why we must take a systematic, rigorous approach to
the science involved if there is ever going to be hope for a compelling
and satisfactory answer. Just as important is the understanding that in
science, it is rare that any given study would deliver a definitive
conclusion. The prudent and scientifically responsible thing to do is to
evaluate multiple lines of evidence and look at the totality of the
data before drawing any conclusion, especially when it comes to
something as complex a scientific challenge as this.
While the study does not specifically examine the link between thimerosal and autism spectrum disorders,
it does explore neuropsychological functioning, such as language
development, attention, and fine motor coordination, that are affected
in some individuals with autism. The Centers for Disease Control are
currently studying the potential association between autism and
thimerosal and are expected to report findings next year.
From www.autismspeaks.org
|