Autism’s Theoretical Causes: Mercury Amalgam Fillings and Anti-D Injections: An Editorial
Photo: Getty Images
In my previous article I discussed mercury and vaccines as possible causes of autism. Now, I will look at elements that babies are exposed to in the womb that may predispose them to getting autism.
Mercury Amalgam Fillings
Mothers who have mercury fillings, which contain 50 percent mercury, when pregnant, or who have them before pregnancy, may have an increased risk of having a child with autism. Although mercury fillings have been used for more than 150 years, the safety of such a practice was not studied until recently.
A review published in 2009 found that:
"Mercury from maternal amalgam fillings leads to a significant increase of mercury concentration in the tissues and the hair of fetuses and newborn children. Furthermore, placental, fetal, and infant mercury body burden correlates with the numbers of amalgam fillings of the mothers. Finally, mercury levels in amniotic fluid and breast milk correlate significantly with the number of maternal dental amalgam fillings." (1)
So pregnant women who have mercury fillings could end up leaching mercury into their amniotic fluid and passing it through the placenta to give their babies' bodies burdensome amounts of mercury before they are even born.(6)
If the mother has the fillings removed during pregnancy, this can make the situation worse and cause more mercury to be released. When she begins to breast feed, her baby gets additional mercury from the milk. A study in sheep found that after ewes were given new amalgam fillings and they nursed foster lambs, the lambs received some of this mercury.
"Neonatal uptake of mercury (Hg) from milk was examined in a pregnant sheep model, where radioactive mercury (Hg203)/silver tooth fillings (amalgam) were newly placed. A crossover experimental design was used in which lactating ewes nursed foster lambs. Results from the animal studies showed that during pregnancy, a primary fetal site of amalgam Hg concentration is the liver and after delivery, the neonatal lamb kidney receives additional amalgam Hg from mother's milk.
We value and respect the experiences of all of our HERWriters, but everyone is different. Many of our writers are speaking from personal experience, and what's worked for them may not work for you. Their articles are not a substitute for medical advice although we hope you can gain knowledge from their insight.
Add a Comment34 Comments
A Mark Geier study? Really, Joanna? Did Michele Blacksberg, RN, actually read your draft before signing off?
September 22, 2011 - 7:48amThis Comment
There's more than one study cited and Mark is a doctor whether or not you agree with him. Yes she did vet my article. My personal observation is that anything involving mercury is immensely threatening to some, no matter the source. I think it's the fact that it may be iatrogenic that makes people defensive.
September 22, 2011 - 8:27amYou describe Geier et al (2009) as a review when it is titled "A prospective study of prenatal mercury exposure from maternal dental amalgams and autism severity." A review article normally examines all the published evidence for and against a hypothesis. Geier et al (2009) is a study of human subjects that is testing the hypothesis that there is a connection between mercury exposure and autism. We can argue about the merits of this particular study but I hope we can agree that it is not a review.
This is important because you quote directly from the introduction to suggest that based upon a review of the literature Geier et al (2009) found that,
"Mercury from maternal amalgam fillings leads to a significant increase of mercury concentration in the tissues and the hair of fetuses and newborn children. Furthermore, placental, fetal, and infant mercury body burden correlates with the numbers of amalgam fillings of the mothers. Finally, mercury levels in amniotic fluid and breast milk correlate significantly with the number of maternal dental amalgam fillings."
No they did not. Geier et al (2009) did not examine "mercury concentration in the tissues and the hair of fetuses and newborn children." Nor did they examine the correlation between "placental, fetal, and infant mercury body burden [and] the numbers of amalgam fillings of the mothers. Nor did they test whether "mercury levels in amniotic fluid and breast milk correlate significantly with the number of maternal dental amalgam fillings."
What they did was to take 100 people with an ASD and look for correlations between the severity of their autism and the number of dental fillings their mothers had, either prior to or during their pregnancy. They acknowledge that they did not measure mercury exposure but instead took the number of fillings as a proxy measure of exposure. We do not know when these fillings occurred in relation to their pregnancies and we do not know whether they used mercury amalgams. And, neither it seems, do the authors.
"In addition, since information on the numbers of fillings but not information on: their size (surface area), the nature of the amalgam alloy used, or the location of the amalgam in the mouth was available to researchers in this study, the effects of: the amalgam size (surface area) of the fillings; the intrinsic mercury release rates for the amalgam composition installed; and chewing friction, are confounders that further reduce the magnitude of the observed effects." (Geier et al 2009)
All we can conclude from Geier et al (2009) is that there may be a relationship between maternal dental health and the severity of ASD. Given that Dr Geier already has a reputation for misrepresenting the facts, http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/217/ for you to misrepresent him even further does nothing to support your case.
Mike Stanton
September 24, 2011 - 3:50pmThat fact that Mark Geier has an MD degree is irrelevant to the question of whether he is qualified to comment on vaccine safety. His expert opinion on vaccines and autism is routinely disallowed in court. His studies are regarded as worthless by bona fide researchers with the training and experience to be taken seriously. There's an excellent chance that by this time next year, Mark Geier won't be licensed to practice medicine in any state.
Do you have any credible evidence that the small amount of thimerosal once found in scheduled childhood vaccines was associated with autism? Can you explain why autism prevalence hasn't plummeted since thimerosal's removal from the pediatric schedule? I'm not interested in your "personal observation." You're a science writer for EmpowHer. Data please.
September 24, 2011 - 5:02pmAs I already explained with links in the other thread, they removed it in some vaccines but added it in to other vaccines (for instance, they put in a DTaP vaccine with most thimerosal removed but at the same time added routine yearly flu vaccine for children, containing thimerosal).
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5001a3.htm (2001 schedule).
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5316-Immunizationa1.htm (2004 with flu vaccines added in).
And even the ones that say they are 'thimerosal free' aren't always. Some brands still use trace amounts of less than 3mcg per shot but are labelled as thimerosal free.
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipie...
His expert opinion is dis-allowed because no one wants to hear opposing evidence.
September 25, 2011 - 6:56amDr Geier's testimony was disallowed because the courts repeatedly found that he was not qualified to testify. the judges gave precise reasons why his testimony was inadmissible. Here are two examples.
“[T]he court has found, however,that Dr. Geier’s testimony must be excluded because he is not qualified as a pediatrician, neurologist, toxicologist, or epidemiologist, and because his opinion is not reliable… [T]here is no evidence that Dr. Geier has either the training or the background to diagnose autism or to treat autism in any child." http://www.neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/132
“[U]pon being subjected to extensive cross examination, much of Dr. Geier’s analysis, based upon his collective review of a motley assortment of diverse literature, proved, in the Court’s view, to be overstated… . For example, in examining Dr. Geier’s methodology, the Court notes that Dr. Geier could not point to a single study, including anything that he had published, that conclusively determined that the amount of thimerosal in RhoGAM when given not to the fetus but to the mother, as in this case, could cause autism… This Court must find more than the ‘hypothesis and speculation,’ engaged in by Dr. Geier in this instance, in order to allow Dr. Geier to rely upon the methodology he used in forming a conclusion based upon his review of the literature presented to the Court… [T]he Court finds that Dr. Geier’s literature review, in this instance, does not meet the Daubert standard of being both derived by the scientific method and relevant to the ‘task at hand.’”
September 25, 2011 - 2:36pm“…[T]he Court is particularly concerned as to a potential bias in Dr. Geier’s methodology and ultimate conclusion given the recency of Dr. Geier’s research into the cause of autism, which he admittedly began in only the last two and a half years, a time period that also represents the pendency of this lawsuit… [T]he Court finds that Dr. Geier (1) was not specifically qualified to perform a differential diagnosis of a pediatric neurological disorder, and, that (2) he did not properly perform the differential diagnosis given his failure to consider within his analysis the high probability that an unknown genetic cause cannot be ruled out as the specific cause of Minor Child Doe’s autism.” http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/102/
Well, Geier has testified in 90 medical damage hearings and only been dis-allowed for 10, according to a Wikipedia smear article against him. He's been studying these issues since 1971 so I'm sure he's more qualified than even you to talk on this issue.
They are going to crack down on him because they do with any doctor who questions vaccines on any level. Practically every doctor that I have heard about who publically supports families of vaccine damaged children, has an investigation opened on them. They welcome people in to be vaccinated and say you are a good parent for doing it but when something goes wrong they slam the door in your face.
Today's 'science' is not really science because real science is re-evaluated constantly, ideas are openly discussed and debated, that is the nature of science. But with this particular issue there is no room for debate or discussion of any kind. Opposing evidence is ignored or explained away, those presenting with injuries are treated with contempt because their very presence challenges the status quo, doctors who dissent (and there are MANY) are struck off or they attempt to strike them off. The government took liability for MMR after the first brand caused outbreaks of meningitis in Canada. The drug manufacturer told them they wanted immunity if they wanted to market it in the UK. Is that really the actions of a community that wants to help children? So the pluserix MMR then caused meningitis in the UK and was withdrawn again. If anything is found wrong with vaccines, it's the government who is liable, not the vaccine companies and I think that's one of the reasons why scientific debate is no longer allowed. This is political.
As for 'neuro diversity', I don't believe in that theory (although I do intend to write an article on it even so). It runs contrary to the theory of evolution. Since humans first developed we have become progressively more advanced, we developed walking upright and speech and better cognitive function and have improved with each new species of human. Evolution goes forward. It says here:
'Charles Darwin simply brought something new to the old philosophy -- a plausible mechanism called "natural selection." Natural selection acts to preserve and accumulate minor advantageous genetic mutations. Suppose a member of a species developed a functional advantage (it grew wings and learned to fly). Its offspring would inherit that advantage and pass it on to their offspring. The inferior (disadvantaged) members of the same species would gradually die out, leaving only the superior (advantaged) members of the species.'
http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/
Having autism puts people at a disadvantage. I'm not talking about aspergers syndrome or high functioning autism, where the person can basically live a normal life (my own daughter was strangled on her cord in a hospital delivery, born blue, was different from birth and diagnosed with aspergers which I believe was caused by suffocation, yet she now lives a normal life). I'm talking about full blown autism where the child has no communication, has no bowel control, has seizures, developmental arrest, abdominal disease causing constant pain. A lot of these children are mentally disabled. None of these things are advantagious to the species. They can't grow up, lead independent lives, have jobs, get married etc and they require round the clock care. If they were in the wild like other animals are, they would be eaten.
I'm not being remotely discriminatory to disabled people, I am one (cerebral palsy and osteoarthritis and sensory processing faults), but the fact remains if I had to live in the wild I would not be able to hunt and I would probably be killed by other animals.
Genetic evolution would not go backwards and create lots of children who are unable to fend for themselves. Neuro diversity would go forward and instead create super smart humans.
September 26, 2011 - 1:38amJoanna,
the authorities are cracking down on Dr Geier because of his untested and damaging Lupron Protocol - not because of his court activities as an expert witness. There are high profile doctors in the USA who question vaccines and are not investigated: Bob Sears, Jay Gordon, Jerry Kartzinel, Bryan Jepson etc.
His role as an expert witness was only questioned when he stepped beyond his areas of expertise to dabble in the field of autism.
Regarding slamming the door on victims of vaccine injury, I must disagree. Your vaccine injury compensation scheme is one of the most generous in the world. The claimants costs are paid whether they win or lose and the standard of proof, "50 per cent plus a feather" is far more lenient than the "beyond reasonable doubt" of the UK system.
Your claims about science do not stand up to scrutiny. It was pro vaccine scientists who raised the alarm over thimerosal. Pro vaccine scientists banned Rotashield because of the real but minuscule risk of intussusception.
Regarding immunity, civil courts were handing out punitive damages to vaccine manufacturers that threatened to close down the vaccine indutry. Governments took on the burden of compensation because they wanted to preserve the vaccine programme. The irony is that the original DTP cases that threatened to bring down the system and forced the government to act were not caused by DPT at all. The real reason was a genetic disorder, Dravet's Syndrome that causes epilepsy and mental retardation in children and emerges around the time of the DPT vaccination. Hence the mantra of pro vaccine scientists, "Correlation is not Causation."
Neurodiversity is not a theory. It is a fact. There is not a single standard model for neurological development. There is diversity. And without diversity there can be no evolution. Some examples of diversity will turn out to be evolutionary cul-de-sacs. But we cannot know in advance. High functioning autism may be the next step in evolution. It may not. Evolution favours those best placed to exploit their environment. If the environment rewards smarts then smarts will prevail. But not necessarily.
I am glad you support evolutionary theory. But I suggest you look elsewhere for your information. The site you linked to is actually a Creationist website.
September 26, 2011 - 4:31pmAt least Geier is trying to help recover autistic children. The standard medical model says that autism is a mental disorder that is incurable and nothing can be done other than things like speech therapy and special ed. I know parents who have children who are now off the spectrum due to biomedical and other interventions. The medical model for autism also refuses to treat children's bowel disease which they say isn't related to autism but which lots of autistic children suffer from, so I don't think they are right on that one. One parent I know (whose child was one of the 12 in the Wakefield case series) told me that when her child had a life threatening bowel emergency and she took him to ED, she was told 'We will treat the emergency, not the condition'. They are too scared to touch these children because it is too political. Autistic children with bowel disease can't get treatment in the UK. Parents are told that having bowel problems is just a symptom of autism and the doctors do nothing about it. They have to go to the States to get the right care.
If it was pro-vaccine scientists who raised the alarm over thimerosal then why would they take most of it out with one hand and put it back in with the other hand? There is study after study citing concern about thimerosal, even up to 2011, they make a big hoo ha over reducing it in the childhood schedule and then they add in yearly flu shots and H1N1 shots and Hep B shots with thimerosal. And then they say that autism has continued to climb when they are still giving thimerosal containing vaccines. Seems a bit under-hand and deceitful to me.
Regarding DPT, they WOULD say that, they have an industry to protect, which appears to be more important than the children.
Check out this: The US Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) sets a lower bar for evidence of vaccine-related harm than would be accepted in civil courts, but that's what it takes for the program to succeed in helping to protect the vaccine supply, according to a report by two Canadian analysts.
The VICP was established by a 1986 law designed to protect vaccine makers from most lawsuits alleging vaccine-related injury, while giving people claiming such injuries an opportunity to get a fair hearing and potentially receive compensation from the government. Compensation funds come from a tax on vaccines. The law made it harder for plaintiffs to prove claims that healthcare providers failed to warn of adverse events.
They argue that if the vaccine court had the same evidence standards as civil courts, petitioners would be more likely to file civil lawsuits, since damage awards in that arena are potentially greater. Also, plaintiffs who fail to win compensation in the VICP are unlikely to go to the civil courts, with their tougher standards. The compensation program thus "will likely divert hundreds if not thousands of autism cases from proceeding to civil litigation," the article says.
http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/other/news/sep2711vicp.html
It's not about helping victims of vaccines, it's about protecting the vaccine supply and the manufacturer's and preventing patients from taking them to court. That is just wrong on so many levels. If I had a botched childbirth I would expect to be able to take the hospital to court, a proper court.
I hardly call £120,000 a generous compensation. If you have a brain damaged child that needs 24 hour care, disability aids, medical equipment etc etc, that money is not going to pay for their life time care, and these kids should be compensated for life. Most parents have to give up their career to look after their damaged child and they aren't compensated for that. And you can't get any compensation at all in the UK system if your child died as a result of vaccines, under the age of 2 years. Since most of the vaccines are given at less than 2 years old, this is crazy. A dad who lost his 17 month old daughter showed me a letter saying they could not consider his claim because she was under 2 when she died!
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/BenefitsTaxCreditsAndOth...
They just think up ways to avoid taking responsibility for something they caused.
People can believe in evolution and God, you know. I believe in God, I think he invented evolution :)
Try telling health visitors there is no standard neurological model for development. Just take a look at 'the red book' of any child and you will see there are standards they work to. When my son didn't say 50 words at 2 years old (he only said 2 words), they said he 'failed' his development check. He also didn't draw so he failed that too. I'm not saying we can't all be different, but evolution wouldn't make us go backwards. They wouldn't make us unable to tend to our toilet needs, unable to communicate, unable to live without help. Nature always kills off the weakest. I know I would die in the wild. Nature is about improving the species. You said it yourself that evolution favours those best placed to exploit their environment, and autistic children can't do that, not classically or regressively autistic children anyway.
September 29, 2011 - 5:19amIn an earlier article in this series http://www.empowher.com/autism/content/autisms-theoretical-causes-geneti... you wrote,
"So the neurologically normal babies who had been exposed to mercury in the womb via their mother’s fillings or anti-D injections, and after birth in the form of vaccines, had a higher level of mercury showing in their hair. Autistic babies exposed to the same things did not show this same level of mercury because they hadn’t excreted it from their bodies. (4)"
(4) Reduced levels of mercury in first baby haircuts of autistic children, International Journal of Toxicology. Web. 8 September 2011. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12933322
Yet in the current article you argue that "Mercury from maternal amalgam fillings leads to a significant increase of mercury concentration in the tissues and the hair of fetuses and newborn children."
So which is it to be? Are mercury levels high in hair and tissues or are they high in tissues and low in hair in accord with the "poor excretor" theory you referenced in the earlier article. Both cannot be simultaneously true. Where you wrong then or now?
September 24, 2011 - 4:18pm