MMR & autism Not just bad science but also falsified

melancholly

poet123 wrote: »

S
ETA, even if you consider it doesnt meet scientific standards (which I agree it doesnt) surely it must give pause for thought, these are real children, real families, there is something causing this, and if the evidence is out there in a collection of individual cases, then to me, more needs to be done to join up the dots and find the cause.

there are real families dealing with this... trying to find a reason for what's happened, when in all probability that will never be clear. i don't think aggressively pursuing a legal settlement is a healthy approach (and i think it is an indication of the litigious nature of the US!). helping families is vital; i think i've said that already. the suggestion that a decision by the parent to give their child the vaccination has 'caused' the situation is, in my opinion, not helpful. it's a sticking point that prevents further development of the field. there isn't any factual evidence for the link and when it is so strongly emphasised, it is a distraction that undermines public confidence in healthcare, science and government in damaging and unjustified ways.

ford_prefect_3

conradmum wrote: »

I should imagine it was because with the previous approach there were still children being deformed in the wombs of women on whom the rubella vaccination hadn't worked. Immunising half of a population allows the disease to still circulate in the community.

There are many things that were done differently in the past. That doesn't make them the best way.

I'm sure the Government does want to save money, and they're doing that by minimising the numbers of disabled babies being born.

Imagination is a wonderful tool, just ask anyone who has read CS Lewis.

However, the reality is very different to your imagined reasoning.

Women who havent been innoculated against rubella still risk catching it if exposed to the disease which hasnt been globally eradicated for the simple reason we dont have global herd immunity and we have aeroplanes!

Your cost saving scenario is somewhat blighted by the costs associated with both vaccination in general and the cost of ADR treatments as well. Ironically, ADR's are quite big killers in the ONS figures.

conradmum

ford_prefect wrote: »

Imagination is a wonderful tool, just ask anyone who has read CS Lewis.

However, the reality is very different to your imagined reasoning.

Women who havent been innoculated against rubella still risk catching it if exposed to the disease which hasnt been globally eradicated for the simple reason we dont have global herd immunity and we have aeroplanes!

Yes, this is true. Just ask the citizens of countries that eradicated measles by having a high level of uptake of MMR, only to have it reintroduced from countries where uptake was reduced due to irresponsible scaremongering (like ours). However, comparing the potential impact of half the population being unvaccinated to the number of tourists who happen to be infected with rubella on arrival is pretty silly.

ford_prefect wrote: »

Your cost saving scenario is somewhat blighted by the costs associated with both vaccination in general and the cost of ADR treatments as well. Ironically, ADR's are quite big killers in the ONS figures.

You said earlier that requiring males to have mmr was a cost-saving exercise. Please try to make up your mind on what argument you're trying to make and then I'll be happy to answer you.

poet123

I really cant see any further point in continuing this discussion, we are all firmly entrenched in our respective camps. The only difference is that those who still see cause for further research are prepared for all avenues to be explored. We do not arrogantly dismiss the idea that certain subsets of children could be predisposed to vaccine damage, because the truth is we don't know, you don't know, it seems no one knows, so to me that would be a valid sphere of research.

Nor do we villify and insult those who make different choices to ours. We leave that to those who sneer at the so called "anti vax brigade" and tar them all with the same brush regarless of the broad spectrum of opinion contained therein. I have never been anti vax, but I am anti intolerance, anti rudeness, and anti the inability to accept the sincerely held opinions of others, many of whom are deeply affected by this question.

We will all have to wait and see what the future holds, as you say one side or the other will be proven correct, and at that point, when the additional causes of all this neurological damage is fully known (because let's not forget vaccine damage is very real and accepted) we can all assess our choices and consider whether we made the correct ones.

Until then, none of us knows which side of the vaccine question is the right side, whatever we may say, or however stridently we may say it.

The only other thing I will say about the Kennedy article;

http://www.robertfkennedyjr.com/articles/2005_june_16.htm

is that it is clear that at that point ( the time of the meeting) many of the top officials;

Top officials such as;

"only private invitations to 52 attendees. There were high-level officials from the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration, the top vaccine specialist from the World Health Organization in Geneva, and representatives of every major vaccine manufacturer, including GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Wyeth and Aventis Pasteur. All of the scientific data under discussion, CDC officials repeatedly reminded the participants, was strictly "embargoed." There would be no making photocopies of documents, no taking papers with them when they left."


believed the data showed that Thimerosal was at the very least questionable and at the worst a causative agent.

As shown by;

"According to a CDC epidemiologist named Tom Verstraeten* see link below. who had analyzed the agency's massive database containing the medical records of 100,000 children, a mercury-based preservative in the vaccines -- thimerosal -- appeared to be responsible for a dramatic increase in autism and a host of other neurological disorders among children. "I was actually stunned by what I saw," Verstraeten told those assembled at Simpsonwood, citing the staggering number of earlier studies that indicate a link between thimerosal and speech delays, attention-deficit disorder, hyperactivity and autism. Since 1991, when the CDC and the FDA had recommended that three additional vaccines laced with the preservative be given to extremely young infants -- in one case, within hours of birth -- the estimated number of cases of autism had increased fifteenfold, from one in every 2,500 children to one in 166 children. Even for scientists and doctors accustomed to confronting issues of life and death, the findings were frightening. "You can play with this all you want," Dr. Bill Weil, a consultant for the American Academy of Pediatrics, told the group. The results "are statistically significant." Dr. Richard Johnston, an immunologist and pediatrician from the University of Colorado whose grandson had been born early on the morning of the meeting's first day, was even more alarmed. "My gut feeling?" he said. "Forgive this personal comment -- I do not want my grandson to get a thimerosal-containing vaccine until we know better what is going on."



So what were their first thoughts? This apparently;

"But instead of taking immediate steps to alert the public and rid the vaccine supply of thimerosal, the officials and executives at Simpsonwood spent most of the next two days discussing how to cover up the damaging data. According to transcripts obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, many at the meeting were concerned about how the damaging revelations about thimerosal would affect the vaccine industry's bottom line."


So, regardless of the outcome of the subsequent studies which may have exonerated the component, it is clear that safeguarding was foremost in their minds......but safeguarding the Pharmas, not the children they were charged to protect. That was nothing short of scandalous, and I am incredulous anyone can deny that is the case.

It doesnt fill me with confidence.:(

ETA

http://post-licensure-evaluation-2011.iabs.org/docs/Programme.pdf ****

shows that TomVerstraeten is still a respected member of the medical community, anbd a panellist at an upcoming seminar to evaluate vaccine safety.

ford_prefect_3

donteatthat wrote: »

Just been having a quick flick through the latest developments!
I never understood why only the girls were vaccinated against rubella at school. My step-sister has only one arm as a result of her mother catching rubella whilst pregnant. I would think the reason for the change in policy is not only due to cost-saving element by having "one-jab-fits-all" but that if the program worked and enough people were vaccinated then rubella could be eradicated. As boys could pass it on then why would they not be vaccinated in order to prevent the spread and the subsequent birth defects? After all it could affect their off-spring so I find ford prefect's comment strange. It would be rare for someone to be unfortunate and catch rubella whilst pregnant I suppose, but if they do then the outcome can be very sad. Poet123, earlier you asked me if there could be a worse consequence of an infection than death (or something to that effect). Personally I do feel that there are worse things than death, particulary having to live with severe disabilties. I have recently faced this question when I delivered my baby 12 weeks prematurely and not being sure how things would turn out for him. Premature babies follow the same immunisation program as full-term babies, and their is no higher incidence of problems which would cast doubt on the immature immune system theories.

What has happened to your step sister is very unfortunate.

The reason only girls where immunised against Rubella is that its not a life threatening disease in its own right (compared to mumps and measles and others) but that there is a risk if a woman contracts it when pregnant.

Complete eradication of a disease can only occur if the whole planet is immunised and the disease is stopped in its tracks, a good example if foot and mouth in animals, it can be stopped with vaccination but vaccinated animals cant be sold so instead we kill and burn them!

In terms of Wakefields "theories" which turned out to be rubbish there is an interesting editorial on Medscape where I have lifted this paragraph from:

"So what did we learn from this? What disappoints me about the British Medical Journal editorial was that the focus was on fraud -- that essentially this man should not be believed because he was fraudulent. But to me it doesn't matter whether you're fraudulent and wrong. In this case, the only thing that matters was that he was wrong and that his paper certainly did a lot of damage. Thousands of parents in England chose to not vaccinate their children. Hundreds were hospitalized and 4 were killed. Three in Ireland and 1 in London died because their parents feared the MMR vaccine more than they feared the measles. You could argue that the Wakefield paper killed 4 children."

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/735439?src=mp&spon=17

And these are the stats on measles cases in the UK from the HPA:

1998
56
1999
92
2000
100
2001
70
2002
319
2003
437
2004
188
2005
78
2006
740
2007
990
2008
1348*

So the peak of the Wakefield panic increased the cases to 1350 and there was 4 deaths in the UK which is pretty much the same death rate as it has been for a long time as measles deaths are so low its difficult to trend.

That looks pretty convincing until you look at the figures in point 3 of the notes on the ages of victims:

1. Measles cases in England and Wales by age breakdown are as follows:
   - Under 1 - 112
   - 1 to 3 years, 6 months - 265
   - 3 years, 7 months to 11 years - 432
   - 12 - 18 years - 286
   - 18 years and over - 252
   - Age unknown - 1

So of the victims in the 1348 nearly 660 of them where too young for MMR or where from the Era pre Wakefield.

Whats interesting is that the case figures rise in the years after single jabs where effectively banned on the NHS. You have to wonder if the rise was more to do with removal of choice and less to do with autism panic.

http://www.hpa.org.uk/NewsCentre/NationalPressReleases/2009PressReleases/090206Agencypublishesannualmeaslesfiguresfor2008/

Interestingly and one for Nicki, in 2008 about 130 people died from ITP and related conditions and 4 people died from measles itself.

ford_prefect_3

conradmum wrote: »

Yes, this is true. Just ask the citizens of countries that eradicated measles by having a high level of uptake of MMR, only to have it reintroduced from countries where uptake was reduced due to irresponsible scaremongering (like ours). However, comparing the potential impact of half the population being unvaccinated to the number of tourists who happen to be infected with rubella on arrival is pretty silly.



You said earlier that requiring males to have mmr was a cost-saving exercise. Please try to make up your mind on what argument you're trying to make and then I'll be happy to answer you.

We have never eradicated measles, I would refer you to both the HPA figures on measles cases and the ONS figures on death rates. Its a myth that you can eradicate disease in the manner you imagine.

MMR was introduced as a cost saving measure over single jabs, it saves in transport, storage and delivery to the patient in terms of hardware and doctors visits.

It would be less cost effective to have an MM vaccine just for boys and an MMR for girls so it was lumped into a one size fits all approach. Nothing to do with clinical need and all to do with economics in terms of delivery.

If you care to look at the goverments own figures for measles post Wakefield measles cases rocketed when access to single jabs was removed by the NHS.

donteatthat

Ford prefect thanks for the stats. I might be being dim, but how were 660 people under the age for MMR if the first dose is given from 1 year old? From what I recall the vaccination program was rolled out to rapidly include children of all ages?

verysillyguy06

ford_prefect wrote: »

We have never eradicated measles, I would refer you to both the HPA figures on measles cases and the ONS figures on death rates. Its a myth that you can eradicate disease in the manner you imagine.

MMR was introduced as a cost saving measure over single jabs, it saves in transport, storage and delivery to the patient in terms of hardware and doctors visits.

It would be less cost effective to have an MM vaccine just for boys and an MMR for girls so it was lumped into a one size fits all approach. Nothing to do with clinical need and all to do with economics in terms of delivery.

If you care to look at the goverments own figures for measles post Wakefield measles cases rocketed when access to single jabs was removed by the NHS.

I totally agree. Even the herd immunity is been too low for the last ten years to really do much

ford_prefect_3

donteatthat wrote: »

Ford prefect thanks for the stats. I might be being dim, but how were 660 people under the age for MMR if the first dose is given from 1 year old? From what I recall the vaccination program was rolled out to rapidly include children of all ages?

Sorry, didnt make that totally clear.

Wakefield published in 1998 so for the 2008 stats 10 years later anyone over the age of 11 would have been innoculated pre the scare and those under 1 wouldnt have started yet. Interestingly according to the NHS information children under 1 are immune to measles mumps and rubella and so dont need the jab until 13 months but I guess no one told the 112 inconvenient under 1's that did get measles!

So 286 aged 12 to 18 and the 250 over 18 can be discounted as can the 112 pre 1 years old.

Wakefield published in 1998 yet cases post 1998 fluctuated up and down from 56 to 400 and back down again until 2006 when they rose dramatically.

1998
56
1999
92
2000
100
2001
70
2002
319
2003
437
2004
188
2005
78
2006
740
2007
990
2008
1348*

conradmum

poet123 wrote: »

I really cant see any further point in continuing this discussion, we are all firmly entrenched in our respective camps. The only difference is that those who still see cause for further research are prepared for all avenues to be explored. We do not arrogantly dismiss the idea that certain subsets of children could be predisposed to vaccine damage, because the truth is we don't know, you don't know, it seems no one knows, so to me that would be a valid sphere of research.

Neither of us know about anything else that may cause autism either. In the area of vaccination, correlation has been substantively disproved. When you say all avenues, you don't actually mean all avenues, you mean the avenues that the public dictate. All avenues could mean anything at all, and there simply isn't enough money in existence to fund research in anything that could be related to autism.

poet123 wrote: »

Nor do we villify and insult those who make different choices to ours. We leave that to those who sneer at the so called "anti vax brigade" and tar them all with the same brush regarless of the broad spectrum of opinion contained therein. I have never been anti vax, but I am anti intolerance, anti rudeness, and anti the inability to accept the sincerely held opinions of others, many of whom are deeply affected by this question.

We will all have to wait and see what the future holds, as you say one side or the other will be proven correct, and at that point, when the additional causes of all this neurological damage is fully known (because let's not forget vaccine damage is very real and accepted) we can all assess our choices and consider whether we made the correct ones.

Still you adhere to the adhere to the notion that mmr may cause autism. If that was the case, why has the rate of autism continued to rise in Japan when the mmr was withdrawn in 1993, and why has the rate of autism continued to rise here in the UK despite the reduced uptake due to the scare? This would apply whether there are subsets of children affected or not.

When the most basic, commonsense arguments go unanswered or twisted, that is when it becomes difficult to remain respectful of people's stances. Rather than answering the question, we get stories of how individual children have suffered. Those stories are tragic, but they don't answer extremely basic large, statistical facts. We're either talking in the sphere of scientific study or we aren't. If you want me to agree that a court case found a particular causation more likely than another, I will agree with you. When you try to tell me that this demonstrates some kind of scientific fact, I will lose respect for your argument.

poet123 wrote: »

Until then, none of us knows which side of the vaccine question is the right side, whatever we may say, or however stridently we may say it.

The only other thing I will say about the Kennedy article;

http://www.robertfkennedyjr.com/articles/2005_june_16.htm

is that it is clear that at that point ( the time of the meeting) many of the top officials;

Top officials such as;

"only private invitations to 52 attendees. There were high-level officials from the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration, the top vaccine specialist from the World Health Organization in Geneva, and representatives of every major vaccine manufacturer, including GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Wyeth and Aventis Pasteur. All of the scientific data under discussion, CDC officials repeatedly reminded the participants, was strictly "embargoed." There would be no making photocopies of documents, no taking papers with them when they left."


believed the data showed that Thimerosal was at the very least questionable and at the worst a causative agent.

As shown by;

"According to a CDC epidemiologist named Tom Verstraeten* see link below. who had analyzed the agency's massive database containing the medical records of 100,000 children, a mercury-based preservative in the vaccines -- thimerosal -- appeared to be responsible for a dramatic increase in autism and a host of other neurological disorders among children. "I was actually stunned by what I saw," Verstraeten told those assembled at Simpsonwood, citing the staggering number of earlier studies that indicate a link between thimerosal and speech delays, attention-deficit disorder, hyperactivity and autism. Since 1991, when the CDC and the FDA had recommended that three additional vaccines laced with the preservative be given to extremely young infants -- in one case, within hours of birth -- the estimated number of cases of autism had increased fifteenfold, from one in every 2,500 children to one in 166 children. Even for scientists and doctors accustomed to confronting issues of life and death, the findings were frightening. "You can play with this all you want," Dr. Bill Weil, a consultant for the American Academy of Pediatrics, told the group. The results "are statistically significant." Dr. Richard Johnston, an immunologist and pediatrician from the University of Colorado whose grandson had been born early on the morning of the meeting's first day, was even more alarmed. "My gut feeling?" he said. "Forgive this personal comment -- I do not want my grandson to get a thimerosal-containing vaccine until we know better what is going on."



So what were their first thoughts? This apparently;

"But instead of taking immediate steps to alert the public and rid the vaccine supply of thimerosal, the officials and executives at Simpsonwood spent most of the next two days discussing how to cover up the damaging data. According to transcripts obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, many at the meeting were concerned about how the damaging revelations about thimerosal would affect the vaccine industry's bottom line."


So, regardless of the outcome of the subsequent studies which may have exonerated the component, it is clear that safeguarding was foremost in their minds......but safeguarding the Pharmas, not the children they were charged to protect. That was nothing short of scandalous, and I am incredulous anyone can deny that is the case.

It doesnt fill me with confidence.:(

ETA

http://post-licensure-evaluation-2011.iabs.org/docs/Programme.pdf ****

shows that TomVerstraeten is still a respected member of the medical community, anbd a panellist at an upcoming seminar to evaluate vaccine safety.

What is your basis for accepting all this as truth. Are there any links in the article to the research mentioned? Were the studies published in peer-reviewed journals? Are there records of the meetings held? How do you know any of it happened, other than the fact that this man has written it down.

As I said before, thimerosal was removed from vaccines in the US in 2000. Since then autism rates have continued to rise. That is a fact. Not a speculation, not a conspiracy theory, not a an article. It's easily accessible information out there in the public domain. The least informed layman would understand from that that thimerosal does not cause autism.

Yet, rather than believe that, you revert to this article. Then you ask me to respect your argument.