First do no harm

This is my response to a blatantly pro-mercury "parent" on Huffington's blog today. In reality, I believe this "parent" is a pharmaceutical exective.
*********
For the record, my son's head circumference-for-age percentile has always been normal utilizing the CDC growth chart commonly used by pediatricians. His head size is now and always has been normal. Those remarks were not only vicious but patently false.

Ironically, the same cruel remarks and many of the same asinine arguments now being made by the person hiding behind the moniker "concerned parent" were made by someone who calls themselves “the autism diva" on other blogs and this person continually refers to herself in the third person. Although the e-mail reply address of “concerned parent” is arthurstroud@aol.com, I can not help but note the distinct similarities in their posts. Just one of those things that make you go…hmmmmmm.

How easy it is to be cruel and make unsubstantiated remarks when one hides behind the cowardly mask of anonymity. At least, I put my identity and credentials on my posts. I have shown that I have no hidden agenda or financial motive. Can the same be said of the proponents of injecting mercury into children? I think not.

Can one claim I have a bias? Probably, my child was harmed by the mercury in his vaccines. I don’t think any child should suffer as I watched my son suffer. I am prejudice for protecting children over protecting government programs. If the program or a product of the program is flawed; fix it. Denial does not solve problems. Honesty and transparency is imperative for the trust which many parents and medical professionals feel has been betrayed.

For those of you who are not convinced of the connection between Thimerosal and neurodevelopmental damage, in the complete absence of proof of safety, such as toxicology or pharmacokinetics, why insist on waiting until you are convinced of harm before supporting the effort to make these life-saving vaccines without mercury? Why not use the precautionary principle which states, “When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof.” It is quite similar to a basic tenet of medicine, Primum non nocere, which is a Latin phrase that means "First, do no harm." In the simplest of terms…better safe than sorry.

As we have seen with lead, tobacco and asbestos, many in government and industry repeatedly denied for years any evidence of harm or culpability. They even produced “scientific” studies (conveniently failing to reveal they paid for those studies) stating the same tired lines now used with Thimerosal; “there is no evidence to accept or reject that tobacco [or lead, asbestos, etc.] has caused harm in humans.” History has proven them false and conflicted. Thimerosal will be the same. But how many children will be harmed before history catches up to their deception?

Some of you are right when you state this comes down to money. To many in this argument, it does. According to the CDC vaccine price list, the retail price difference between a flu vaccine that contains mercury and one that does not is $3.80. I would gladly have paid $4.00 (or even more) to provide my child with a vaccine without mercury. My point is simply that I was never given the choice. I was never informed his vaccines contained mercury. I never gave my consent for my child to be exposed to a substance in his vaccines that I, as a medical professional, know to be harmful to humans.

The question remains, why are the CDC, the American Academy of Pediatrics and vaccine manufacturer’s fighting so hard to justify the use of mercury in vaccines *now* when they all agreed in 1999 to its removal. The answer perhaps lies in a May 21, 2002 memo of the World Health Organization (WHO) documenting a meeting with vaccine manufacturers and high ranking officials from WHO, CDC, FDA and other regulatory agencies in Europe. Their conclusion was to “develop a strong advocacy campaign to continue the use of thiomersal” for primarily financial reasons. The implementation of that memo is why we are seeing the sudden attempted rehabilitation of thimerosal as a vaccine preservative. In fact, the Advisory Committee on Immunizations Practices (ACIP), which operates under the auspices of the CDC, added the influenza vaccine containing mercury into the recommended childhood immunization schedule in 2004. In internal e-mails, meeting minutes and transcripts from CDC, WHO and AAP that I have reviewed, the reason is clear. Money.

Have we, as a society, truly placed a greater value on money than the health and safety of our children? Sadly, it would appear so.

The origins of most of these differences of opinions can be summed up quite simply. The government (CDC, FDA, etc.) is fighting to protect the reputation of the National Immunization Program; the pharmaceutical industry is fighting to protect their profits; the medical community (AMA, AAP, etc.) is fighting to protect themselves from malpractice claims and the parents are fighting to protect their children. Ask yourself which is the worthier battle?

It is difficult to fathom any logical reason someone would condone the purposeful exposure of a dangerous neurotoxin to a pregnant woman or child. Attempting to paint those who oppose mercury in vaccines as “anti-vaccine” is a cop-out and nothing more than a smokescreen in a pitiful attempt to dismiss legitimate concerns. I know why my wife and I, along with thousands of other parents and medical professionals, are fighting so diligently to get mercury out of vaccines and make them safer and to protect *your* children. Why are you fighting so hard to keep mercury in vaccines?