Citizen in Action en Belfort-group coördinator Gerry Nelissen schreef in zijn artikeltje Negen redenen om je niet tegen de Mexicaanse griep in te laten enten het volgende: “het Mexicaansegriepvaccin in flacons van tien doses bevat kwik (thiomersal) als bewaarmiddel. Thiomersal wordt ervan verdacht aan de basis te liggen van gevallen van autisme.” Vorige week besliste een speciale rechtbank in de US echter (voor de zoveelste keer) dat een verband tussen Thimerosal en autisme absoluut niet bewezen is.

De drie afzonderlijke beslissingen van de speciale rechters (12 maart 2010) zijn uiterst nuttige en leerrijke documenten geworden, en we hadden dan ook verwacht dat de Belfort-group deze teksten aan een grondig onderzoek ging onderwerpen, of alvast in de eerste plaats haar bezorgde achterban omtrent dit vonnis ging informeren. Op de websites van de Belfort-group, alsook op de websites van hun ‘alternatieve media’ partners, blijft het echter oorverdovend stil over deze belangrijke evolutie in de Thimerosal controverse.

Het bewijst eens te meer dat groeperingen als de Belfort-group uiteindelijk helemaal niet geïnteresseerd zijn in de wetenschap achter hun schadelijke claims, laat staan in het beschikbaar maken van informatie die hun samenzweerderige theorieën mogelijks onderuit haalt. Deze mensen gaan a priori uit van hun grote gelijk, en belichten de materie waarmee ze bezig zijn dan ook uiterst eenzijdig. Het had nochtans een goede gelegenheid kunnen zijn om de “integriteit” die de Belfort-group zo hoog in het vaandel draagt eens wat meer eer aan te doen. Of zoals de blogger op Vaccines Are Safe And Effective het uitdrukt:

The March 12, 2010 decisions of the vaccine court present those who believe that thimerosal caused autism with a huge test of their courage and morality. Are they willing to sit down and spend the time necessary to work through at least one of the vaccine court decision rejecting the existence of a link between thimerosal and autism? Because the decisions are not that difficult to read and they go through argument after argument raised by those who blamed the thimerosal in vaccines and explain why they are rejected. It will be very hard for the true believers to read these decisions, but if you are the parent of an autistic child and the child is undergoing treatment because of a concern with the thimerosal in vaccines, you owe your child the mental pain (no joke) of slowly but surely working through the decisions.

Hieronder de inhoudstafel van het Hasting-King vonnis. Alle beslissingen van de rechters kunnen hier geconsulteerd worden.

---

Hastings-King Decision

I. THE APPLICABLE STATUTORY SCHEME AND CASE LAW 2

II. FACTS 5

A. Jordan’s early period 5
B. Symptoms and diagnosis of autism 6

III. BACKGROUND: THE CONTROVERSY CONCERNING VACCINES AND AUTISM, THE “OMNIBUS AUTISM PROCEEDING,” AND THE PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THIS CASE 7

A. Autism described 7
B. Increase in diagnoses, and inception of controversies about potential vaccine causation 7
C. The Omnibus Autism Proceeding 8

1. Inception of the Omnibus Autism Proceeding 8
2. Plan adopted for hearing the petitioners’ causation theories 10
3. Execution of Omnibus Autism Proceeding plan to date 11
4. Note concerning usage of an “omnibus proceeding” 13
5. Additional procedural history of this King case 14
6. The scope of the record 15

IV. ISSUES TO BE DECIDED 16

V. PETITIONERS HAVE NOT DEMONSTRATED THAT THIMEROSAL-CONTAINING VACCINES CAN CONTRIBUTE TO THE CAUSATION OF AUTISM 18

A. Introduction 18

1. Thimerosal in vaccines 18
2. Petitioners’ theory summarized 19
3. Respondent’s argument, and points in dispute, summarized 19
4. Organization of my analysis 21

B. Qualifications and experience of the experts 21

1. Petitioners’ experts 21

a. Dr. Marcel Kinsbourne, M.D. 21
b. Dr. H. Vasken Aposhian, Ph.D. 21
c. Dr. Richard Deth, Ph.D. 22
d. Dr. Elizabeth Mumper, M.D. 22
e. Dr. Sander Greenland, Ph.D. 22

2. Respondent’s experts 23

a. Dr. Michael Rutter, M.D. 23
b. Dr. Robert Rust, M.D. 23
c. Dr. Eric Fombonne, M.D. 24
d. Dr. Catherine Lord, Ph.D. 24
e. Dr. Jeffrey Brent, M.D., Ph.D. 25
f. Dr. Thomas Kemper, M.D. 25
g. Dr. L. Jackson Roberts, M.D. 26
h. Dr. Steven Goodman, M.D., Ph.D. 26
i. Dr. Patricia Rodier, Ph.D. 26
j. Dr. Jeffrey Johnson, Ph.D. 27
k. Dr. Dean Jones, Ph.D. 27
l. Dr. Richard Mailman, Ph.D. 27
m. Dr. Manuel Casanova, M.D. 28
n. Dr. Bennett Leventhal, M.D. 28

3. The respondent’s experts have far superior qualifications and experience. 28

a. Primary experts 28
b. Expertise concerning specific topics 30

4. Summary concerning qualifications of experts 31

C. Primary reasons for rejecting petitioners’/Dr. Kinsbourne’s overall “general causation” theory 31

1. Dr. Kinsbourne’s opinion supports only part of petitioners’ general causation theory. 32
2. Dr. Kinsbourne testified only that his theory was “possible,” not that it was “probable.” 33
3. No medical doctor testified that thimerosal-containing vaccines can contribute to causing autism, while providing an overall explanation as to why such causation might occur. 35
4. Dr. Brent’s points 35
5. Studies of toxic effects of mercury contradict petitioners’ theory. 37
6. Petitioners’ theory seems improbable in light of accepted scientific understandings concerning the causation of autism. 38

a. Three basic scientific understandings concerning the causation of autism 38
b. The petitioners’ argument in this regard 39
c. The accepted scientific understandings make petitioners’ theory seem unlikely. 39

i. General discussion 39
ii. Possibility of causation by postnatal factors in general 40
iii. Summary concerning impact of accepted science on petitioners’ general causation theory 41

7. Dr. Kinsbourne’s claim to offer his theory as a mechanism only for “regressive autism” is problematic. 42

a. Regression in autism, and “regressive autism,” described 42
b. Dr. Kinsbourne did not explain why he offers his theory as to “regressive autism” only. 43
c. Dr. Kinsbourne’s theory seems inconsistent with the phenomenon of sudden regression. 44
d. The evidence does not support the idea that “regressive autism” is a distinct sub-type of autism that would have a
different set of causes. 44
e. Summary concerning “regressive autism” 47

8. The fact of a regression does not indicate an environmental cause for the autism. 47
9. It is not clear whether neuroinflammation plays a causal role in autism. 48
10. Even if neuroinflammation causes autism, there is no good evidence that the thimerosal in thimerosal-containing vaccines
could cause autism. 50
11. Other problems with Dr. Kinsbourne’s theory 52

a. Dr. Kinsbourne’s reliance on Aschner articles is misplaced. 52
b. The process theorized by Dr. Kinsbourne would result in neuronal death. 53
c. Dr. Kinsbourne’s theory is inconsistent with the improvement commonly seen in autism. 53
d. Dr. Kinsbourne’s theory has not been submitted for publication. 54

12. Summary concerning primary reasons for rejecting petitioners’ overall causation theory 54

D. Flaws in Dr. Aposhian’s testimony 54

1. Assertions concerning “genetic hypersusceptibility” and “mercury efflux disorder” 55

a. “Genetic hypersusceptibility” theory 56
b. “Mercury efflux disorder” theory 57

i. Hair studies 57
ii. Adams tooth study 59
iii. Bradstreet chelation study 59
iv. Porphyrin studies 60

c. Summary concerning “genetic hypersusceptibility” and “mercury efflux disorder” theories 60

2. Dr. Aposhian’s “six pillars” 61

a. Chelation as an allegedly effective treatment 61
b. Hornig study 62
c. Courchesne article 62

3. Adult monkey study articles 63
4. Burbacher infant monkey study 65
5. Failure to explain relationship to regression 66
6. Amount of thimerosal necessary to trigger neuroinflammation process 66
7. Summary concerning Dr. Aposhian 69

E. Flaws in Dr. Deth’s testimony 69

1. General problems with Dr. Deth’s theory 70
2. The studies on which Dr. Deth relied do not support his theory. 71

a. Limits on the usefulness of in vitro experiments 72
b. Chauhan and Ming studies 72
c. Dr. Deth’s own experiments 72
d. James articles 74
e. Hornig article 75

3. Dr. Deth’s argument concerning treatment 76
4. Failure to explain relationship to regression 76
5. Summary concerning Dr. Deth 76

F. Dr. Mumper’s view concerning “general causation” 78
G. Epidemiology 79

1. All competent epidemiologic studies have found no association between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism. 79

a. Hviid study 79
b. Madsen study 80
c. Verstraeten study 80
d. Stehr-Green study 81
e. Andrews study 81
f. Fombonne study 82
g. Schechter and Grether study 82
h. Jick and Kaye study 83
i. Heron and Thompson studies 83
j. Summary concerning studies listed above 84

2. Studies by the Geiers 86
3. The petitioners’ argument that the epidemiologic studies are irrelevant. 88

a. Dr. Greenland’s point regarding “clearly regressive autism” 88
b. Analysis of Dr. Greenland’s point 90

i. In a narrow technical sense, Dr. Greenland’s point has validity. 90
ii. The petitioners’ apparent narrowing of their “general causation” argument, to focus only on a newly-theorized subgroup of “clearly regressive autism” rather than “regressive autism,” is inconsistent with most of the petitioners’ own expert testimony. 91
iii. There is no evidence for the proposition that there is an association between thimerosal-containing vaccines and “clearly regressive autism.” 93

c. Summary concerning “irrelevancy” argument 93

4. Case law concerning epidemiologic evidence 94
5. Summary concerning epidemiology 96

H. Conclusions of the Institute of Medicine committee, and other medical groups 96

I. Summary concerning “general causation” issue 99

VI. PETITIONERS HAVE NOT DEMONSTRATED THAT THIMEROSAL-CONTAINING VACCINES SUBSTANTIALLY CONTRIBUTED TO
THE CAUSATION OF JORDAN KING’S AUTISM 100

A. I have rejected petitioners’ “general causation” theory. 101
B. Relative expertise of the competing experts 101
C. Dr. Mumper’s reliance on the testing of Jordan was misplaced. 102

1. Deficiencies in the laboratories 102
2. Even if the laboratories were reliable, the tests in question would still not offer evidence that thimerosal-containing vaccines played any role in Jordan’s autism. 104

a. Mercury testing 104
b. Other testing 107

3. Summary concerning laboratory testing results 108

D. Jordan’s purported positive responses to treatment 108
E. References to other exposures besides thimerosal-containing vaccines 109
F. Question of whether Jordan was developmentally normal prior to his regression 109
G. Absence of a specific, identified cause for Jordan’s autism 111
H. Dr. Mumper’s failure to relate her causation views to “regressive autism” 111
I. Summary concerning “specific causation” 112

VII. PETITIONERS’ CASE FAILS THE ALTHEN TEST 112

A. The Althen test 112
B. Application of Althen Prongs 1 and 2 to this case 113
C. Discussion of Althen Prong 3 114
D. Summary concerning application of Althen elements to this case 115
E. Legal arguments raised by petitioners 115

VIII. CONCLUSION 116