MMR & autism Not just bad science but also falsified

verysillyguy06

Nicki wrote: »

I haven't read the other thread, and as this one is about autism and mmr, I assumed that's what we were discussing. I personally haven't heard of anyone who doesn't vaccinate due to a fear of encephalitis, so don't feel able to explore that argument any further at the moment!

http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2011/01/06/rebuttal-of-bmj-lancet-paper-wakefield-fraud-claims-naa-uk-news-release/


Public Statements By US Agencies & Officials:-
1) The current President of Merck’s Vaccines Division, Julie Gerberding confirmed vaccines can cause autism to CBS News when she was Director of the US $ 11 billion pa budget US Centers for Disease Control in relation to the case of Hannah Poling [a 9 year old US girl awarded US$ 20 million compensation in 2010 over her lifetime for autistic condition caused by 9 vaccines administered in one day] that:

“Now, we all know that vaccines can occasionally cause fevers in kids. So if a child was immunized, got a fever, had other complications from the vaccines. And if you’re predisposed with the mitochondrial disorder, it can certainly set off some damage. Some of the symptoms can be symptoms that have characteristics of autism.“
HOUSE CALL WITH DR. SANJAY GUPTA – Unraveling the Mystery of Autism; Talking With the CDC Director; Stories of Children with Autism; Aging with Autism – Aired March 29, 2008 – 08:30

A new paper in Journal of American Medical Association confirms [contrary to US health officials claims] that mitochondrial dysfunction is not rare but common in children like 9 year old US girl Hannah Poling. The new paper confirms these children:

“were more likely to have mitochondrial dysfunction, mtDNA overreplication, and mtDNA deletions than typically developing children.“
Mitochondrial Dysfunction in Autism JAMA. 2010;304(21):2389-2396. doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.1706

That this can occur was also confirmed in a peer reviewed medical paper about Hannah Poling’s condition in the Journal of Child Neurology which states:-

Young children who have dysfunctional cellular energy metabolism therefore might be more prone to undergo autistic regression between 18 and 30 months of age if they also have infections or immunizations at the same time.

Developmental Regression and Mitochondrial Dysfunction in a Child With Autism (Journal of Journal of Child Neurology / Volume 21, Number 2, February 2006)

It was conceded by US officials that Hannah Poling had a mitochondrial dysfunction.
2) That Autistic conditions can result from vaccination was confirmed by the US Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) to Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News in relation to 1322 cases of vaccine injury compensation settled out of court by the US Government in unpublished settlements [see text of email exchanges between US HRSA and Attkisson - attached]:-

“We have compensated cases in which children exhibited an encephalopathy, or general brain disease. Encephalopathy may be accompanied by a medical progression of an array of symptoms including autistic behavior, autism, or seizures.”
Vaccine Case: An Exception Or A Precedent? – First Family To Have Autism-Related Case “Conceded” Is Just One Of Thousands – CBS News By Sharyl Attkisson WASHINGTON, March 6, 2008

It should be noted that the US Government admits to compensating 1322 children who developed very serious medical conditions following brain damage caused by vaccines.
3) Dr Bernadine Healy a former Director of the US National Institutes of Health, responsible for US$ 30.5 billion annual budget expenditure on health research stated to CBS news:-

“I think that the public health officials have been too quick to dismiss the hypothesis as irrational,” Healy said.
“But public health officials have been saying they know, they’ve been implying to the public there’s enough evidence and they know it’s not causal,” Attkisson said.
“I think you can’t say that,” Healy said. “You can’t say that.”

CBS News Exclusive: Leading Dr.: Vaccines-Autism Worth Study Former Head Of NIH Says Government Too Quick To Dismiss Possible Link – WASHINGTON, May 12, 2008

Dr Healy is is a Harvard and Johns Hopkins educated physician, cardiologist and former head of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). She has been a professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins, professor and dean of the College of Medicine and Public Health at the Ohio State University, and served as president of the American Red Cross.



This more in line with this thread then?

poet123

melancholly wrote: »

i guess i assumed that you had to.... since no-one else has produced ANY evidence of a concerning link.... it does seem that you do not trust any evidence against a link, despite the source though.

so does that mean that you're basing your opinion on an absolute lack of any scientific evidence (legal cases aside - if it isn't published in a peer reviewed journal, with clear methods and statistics so that other people can interrogate the results, then it's very difficult to judge it fairly)? i'm surprised.

it's actually a sad state of how modern medical science is viewed tbh, and perhaps i understand why to a degree, but taking a few legal cases are more representative of 'the truth' than a decade of good quality research is a shame....

but i am very glad that public health decisions are made by people looking at hard evidence from science, rather than hunches. removing the emotion from the situation is important so that all sides can be weighed up. in this debate, it's fair to say that both sides can't really appreciate the data that the other side presents - it's deadlock!

No, I have a simple belief that we medicate too much in many ways and that by doing so for "normal"childhood illness we lower the ability of the developing immune system to acquire, and rely on, natual immmunity.

I had personal experience of Measles as had many in my family, and whilst we were ill, it was a mild illness from which we quickly recovered. Additionally, we all rarely needed antibiotics and rarely needed to see a doctor. I believed we had good naturally acquired immunity and that we benefitted from that.

I wanted that for my children, and as they have achieved the ages of 27,24,22, and 14 and between them they have taken two doses of antibiotic, rarely get colds, and have never had flu it seems to have worked.;)

They have however been vaccinated against Meningitis, and Polio as I judged the risk of those to be higher, and the timescale for action too finite.

Indeed, the most recent case of any of them needing a doctor was when one of them got a fungal infection for which the doctor, instead of prescribing a topical cream (which was available) prescribed a more invasive drug. My son suffered an anaphalactic shock, the effects of which were long lasting, and he has since had a much lower immunity as he has had mouth ulcers and other associated issues which have been attributed to that incident.

Public health decisions are made by those charged to do so, family health decisions are also made by those charged to do so.....parents. I am quite happy with that.:)

poet123

Nicki wrote: »

As the parent of a severely disabled child myself obviously I would be very sorry to learn if anyone's child had also been diagnosed with a disability. My understanding and belief however is that no actual scientific link has been found between mar and autism, so whilst I would be sorry to learn the child had been diagnosed and would support the parent whatever they thought the cause for this was, in the absence of proper evidence I personally would not feel the fact of vaccination was relevant.

Evidence is available though that some children are damaged by MMR, we just dont know why or through what mechanism.

I am very sorry your child is disabled and I have no idea what the disabilty is, but if it was found that it stemmed from a pre disposition to be materially affected by a component of the MMR would you feel guilt? or would you comfort yourself with the knowledge that you did what you believed best?

Would you attack others who had their doubts but acted differently because of that guilt? or would you accept that we all do the best we can in good faith?

My sincerely held view is that every child damaged by something touted as safe and necessary is a child too many, and that we owe to those children, and those that are still to suffer, to find the cause and guard against it happening again.

Nicki wrote: »

Which bit of my language was judgmental or emotive in your view? You posted a view which was that so long as your child was ok, you cared not a jot for the children who could not be vaccinated due to underlying health conditions. That's fairly brutal language itself. Is it not valid to explore whether you and your children would genuinely hold such a selfish viewpoint if the consequences fell on someone known well to them, rather than an anonymous hypothetical risk?

The suggestion of pyschological trauma that could be inflicted by a child who felt responsible for the death of a peer (due to their parents choice not to vaccinate) is emotive and judgemental.

That the risk of death is minimal is evidenced by the measles fatality stats, so again an emotive construct re the child.

You also err again by saying I "care not a jot" I do care, but I would be less than honest if I said I would put that before the gut feeling that vaccination was not the best course of action for my children.

Nicki

My child is autistic but her autism only began to manifest itself many many months after she had het mmr so I am confident that the two things are unrelated.

One thing which puzzles me about the anti-vac camp is this. If there is genuinely evidence of a link between the mmr and autism or any other disability, and if it is true that measles, mumps and rubella are all mild harmless childhood diseases, why then does the government promote a universal vaccination programme and engage in a cover up of the scientific data? The cost to the government of the programme must be vast and I just can't see why they would bother if the immunisations are harmful to the individual child and have no wider societal benefit. After all, we don't vaccinate against other illnesses such as hepatitis or chicken pox on a routine basis unlike some other countries. Presumably therefore the governments medical advisers are convinced there is a public benefit in the mmr.

poet123

Nicki wrote: »

My child is autistic but her autism only began to manifest itself many many months after she had het mmr so I am confident that the two things are unrelated.

With respect that was not the question I asked, and as you have now confirmed the disability it seems even more pertinent. To reverse the hypothetical situation you gave to me, how would you feel if down the line the condition was proven to be due to the MMR? would you feel guilt? and how do you answer the other questions posed?

Nicki wrote: »

One thing which puzzles me about the anti-vac camp is this. If there is genuinely evidence of a link between the mmr and autism or any other disability, and if it is true that measles, mumps and rubella are all mild harmless childhood diseases, why then does the government promote a universal vaccination programme and engage in a cover up of the scientific data? The cost to the government of the programme must be vast and I just can't see why they would bother if the immunisations are harmful to the individual child and have no wider societal benefit. After all, we don't vaccinate against other illnesses such as hepatitis or chicken pox on a routine basis unlike some other countries. Presumably therefore the governments medical advisers are convinced there is a public benefit in the mmr.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1644663.stm

http://www.bmj.com/content/324/7337/609.2.extract/re

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1158655/Why-giving-children-chicken-pox-jab-YOU-shingles.html


It puzzles me too that there is no urgency to vaccinate against Chicken pox which actually kills far more people in the UK, and has the same set of complications.

See links above.

However, it is also a matter of public record that many of those charged to make these decisions are also involved with the big Pharmas, and they dont give the vaccines away they sell them.

It is also interesting to note that both UNICEF and the WHO use the monovalent form of the measles vaccine in their mass vaccination progs not the MMR, and state the vaccine is just as effective as the combined form.

melancholly

poet123 wrote: »

No, I have a simple belief that we medicate too much in many ways and that by doing so for "normal"childhood illness we lower the ability of the developing immune system to acquire, and rely on, natual immmunity.

I wanted that for my children, and as they have achieved the ages of 27,24,22, and 14 and between them they have taken two doses of antibiotic, rarely get colds, and have never had flu it seems to have worked.;)

They have however been vaccinated against Meningitis, and Polio as I judged the risk of those to be higher, and the timescale for action too finite.

well i think few people would disagree that antibiotics are handed out like sweets these days, but that isn't the same as mistrusting this particular vaccine for the particular autism concern iywim.

in terms of vaccinations, i think herd immunity is a major issue and while it's great that your children are ok, good general public health requires population level vaccination, particularly for immuno-compromised populations. i guess i see the 'greater good' arguement, particularly with diseases where people can be asymptomatic carriers.

i had measles, mumps and rubella as a child... not that i particularly remember them, but i think an 'i'm ok thanks' attitude can be dangerous. they can be very dangerous and i guess i feel lucky that my experiences were relatively mild.

i do see a slight inconsistency in your thinking; my plan has worked for my kids, so i don't care about herd immunity, but i want to argue for the greater good in terms of alleged MMR damage (i'm being trivial in my comment, but it's just to illustrate the point, it isn't meant to be insulting - i just can't see how those two views can sit so comfortably together).

(i do though think it's unfair to suggest, in however minor a form, that a parent might have to feel guilty for giving their child mmr - that's a very sensitive area to approach, especially when you think that autism used to be put down to bad mothers - entirely inaccurately. there's plenty of guilt in that area already so i'm a little uncomfortable with the way that was phrased)

donteatthat

Does chicken pox have the same set of complications? Please qualify that and not with law suits. The complications of chicken pox are less serious than for measles, mumps and rubella, which can cause horrific complications in immunosupressed people, including deafness, birth defects and death. Hepatitis A is like food poisoning in its mode of spread and also not usually serious. Hepatitis B is spread by blood, saliva or sexual contact so is usually not of concern to people working outside healthcare, which is why vaccination is routine if you work in healthcare, and you must seroconvert or show signs of seroconversion in order to continue in your job.
Similarly, flu vaccines are given to those who are at risk of developing serious complications from infection and that includes people who have diabetes and asthma.
As I said before, mass vaccination programs are not just about protecting yourself/your own kids. They are also about preventing spread of infection so that those at risk of catching a disease and suffering the adverse complications are not exposed to it in the first place. It is all very well feeling proud that your own kids only caught a "mild" form of the disease and using that to back up your own justification that it was right not to include them in the vaccination program as they have such a strong immunity whilst the child in remission from leukaemia in their class catches it and becomes infertile.
I'm not sure that until relatively recently there was a vaccine for chicken pox though.

melancholly

poet123 wrote: »

However, it is also a matter of public record that many of those charged to make these decisions are also involved with the big Pharmas, and they dont give the vaccines away they sell them.

It is also interesting to note that both UNICEF and the WHO use the monovalent form of the measles vaccine in their mass vaccination progs not the MMR, and state the vaccine is just as effective as the combined form.

perhaps if scientific research didn't require private funding since state funding is so low, that wouldn't be a problem! it's very important that people declare any conflicts of interest (cf Wakefield!) and that they aren't everyone! that's a misrepresentation.

the mass immunisation is also related to how many people would complete all doses for multiple vaccines on multiple occasions; this is a real public health consideration. i also assume that charitable organisations use generic forms of vaccines as they are cheaper! i think you're taking some facts that aren't telling the whole story - all these things have to be considered or you end up comparing apples with oranges.

poet123

melancholly wrote: »

i do see a slight inconsistency in your thinking; my plan has worked for my kids, so i don't care about herd immunity, but i want to argue for the greater good in terms of alleged MMR damage (i'm being trivial in my comment, but it's just to illustrate the point, it isn't meant to be insulting - i just can't see how those two views can sit so comfortably together).

I dont see the dichotomy at all. I took a decision, I stood by that and it worked out, had it not I would have had to live with the consequences. When measles is contracted the stats show it is usually a mild disease (in healthy kids, in developed countries)an adverse reaction to a vaccine is is usually life changing.

melancholly wrote: »

(i do though think it's unfair to suggest, in however minor a form, that a parent might have to feel guilty for giving their child mmr - that's a very sensitive area to approach, especially when you think that autism used to be put down to bad mothers - entirely inaccurately. there's plenty of guilt in that area already so i'm a little uncomfortable with the way that was phrased)

I was simply reversing the question that had been asked of me (with the same attendant implications) and the the lack of sensitivity of such a suggestion was afforded a robust defence by the questioner.

Are there two rules?

melancholly

poet123 wrote: »

I was simply reversing the question that had been asked of me (with the same attendant implications) and the the lack of sensitivity of such a suggestion was afforded a robust defence by the questioner.

Are there two rules?

i'm not trying to suggest two rules and i'm not trying to defend anyone else's posts. just putting over my opinion that it's a very difficult subject to broach and is probably best avoided as it makes an emotive subject worse. just my opinion, hence i tried to phrase it as delicately as possible since tone can't be interpreted and for anyone else posting, it could be a slippery slope.... hope that makes sense.

i bet we all wish we could make rules for forums...