No surprise: Doctor who espoused vaccine-autism link manipulated data.

[TheMightyFavog]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5683671.ece

THE doctor who sparked the scare over the safety of the MMR vaccine for children changed and misreported results in his research, creating the appearance of a possible link with autism, a Sunday Times investigation has found.

Confidential medical documents and interviews with witnesses have established that Andrew Wakefield manipulated patients’ data, which triggered fears that the MMR triple vaccine to protect against measles, mumps and rubella was linked to the condition.

The research was published in February 1998 in an article in The Lancet medical journal. It claimed that the families of eight out of 12 children attending a routine clinic at the hospital had blamed MMR for their autism, and said that problems came on within days of the jab. The team also claimed to have discovered a new inflammatory bowel disease underlying the children’s conditions.

However, our investigation, confirmed by evidence presented to the General Medical Council (GMC), reveals that: In most of the 12 cases, the children’s ailments as described in The Lancet were different from their hospital and GP records. Although the research paper claimed that problems came on within days of the jab, in only one case did medical records suggest this was true, and in many of the cases medical concerns had been raised before the children were vaccinated. Hospital pathologists, looking for inflammatory bowel disease, reported in the majority of cases that the gut was normal. This was then reviewed and the Lancet paper showed them as abnormal.

[Davis_X_Machina]

1. Better duck.... n/t

[LostinVA]

2. Big surprise -- not

Thanks for posting.

[flvegan]

3. In early.

:popcorn:

[Dr. Strange]

26. Stop manipulating the popcorn.

[sharp_stick]

4. Research has shown over and over again

that there is no link between autism and MMR. The problem is that the proponents of the "link" demand that a negative be proven and when it can't be pretend that is proof that there is a massive conspiracy between all the governments of the west, the pharmaceutical companies, pediatricians, peer review journals and the guy down the block that tries to explain it to them.

Nothing will change this opinion now, it's pretty much set in stone and like all good conspiracy theories will continue to spread.

on edit: can't wait to watch the responses, this could get interesting unless it gets locked. In that case IBTL!

[TZ]

7. They can't even get their arguments straight on this

Most anti-vaxxers think its thimerosol in vaccines that cause autism but MMR NEVER had thimerosol in it.
The claims Wakefield make have no scientific basis..in fact its known that a mother GETTING rubella can raise the risk of a child becoming autistic after birth. So Wakefield has in his nuttery actually likely increased autism rates!

[madrchsod]

15. hard or german measles is a disease that responsible for mental retardation

pregnant women who contracted measles were a high risk for mentally retardation and other birth defects. since the vaccine has been used the level of birth defects has fallen in the united states

[TZ]

5. Andrew Wakefield has also been smacked down by

European autorities for UNETHICAL use of patients/medical testing. Thats right, he's not above doing illegal research on CHILDREN.
The man is a slimy bastard and I hold him responsible for every child that dies is hurt from MMR due to his fear mongering.

[proud2BlibKansan]

6. Good find

In early too. LOL

[Lyric]

8. Not a surprise at all.

He was only ever a tool in the pocket of paranoid parents who wanted something, ANYTHING, to blame for autism. Sad.

A 2007 hearing with the General Medical Council is examining charges of professional misconduct against Wakefield and two colleagues involved in the Lancet paper.

The charges include:
--He was being paid to conduct the study by solicitors representing parents who believed their children had been harmed by MMR, and failed to disclose this in his IRB.
--He ordered investigations "without the requisite paediatric qualifications".
--Acting "dishonestly and irresponsibly" in failing to disclose how patients were recruited for the study, and that some were paid to take part.
--Performing colonoscopies, colon biopsies and lumbar punctures ("spinal taps") on his research subjects without proper approval and contrary to the children's clinical interests, when these diagnostic tests were not indicated by the children's symptoms or medical history.
--Conducting the study on a basis which was not approved by the hospital's ethics committee.
--Purchasing blood samples - for £5 each - from children present at his son's birthday party, as described by Wakefield himself in a videotaped public conference.

Wakefield denies the charges. On 27 March 2008, Wakefield began his defence in the hearing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield#Professional_misconduct_charges

Those poor kids. Colonoscopies and lumbar punctures are awful for consenting adults. Imagine the hell for an autistic child forced to undergo it--and all for nothing. :(

[madrchsod]

9. i`m 62----

all the shots my mom ,dad,sisters,and i had mercury in them. we all lived in a house that burned coal up to the late 50`s. why does`t my sisters ,parents,and my generation have the spike that is happening today?

so is mercury the only chemical responsible for altering a genetic code?

scaring people into not taking shots to prevent diseases that ravaged my parents generation is criminal. i have had the luxury of living my life without the fear. i wonder why people who refuse to vaccinate their children are willing to take the risk?

[TZ]

12. alot of those people have benefited from those vaccines

without realizing it..They never lived through small pox ravaging who groups of people. Or when measles was the number one killer of people in the world. Or polio's awful toll. Because of that they can rationalize in their mind that those diseases weren't so bad and its okay to let them thrive. They are under the mistaken impression that somehow the vaccine is worse than the disease. Its very sad. Alot more diseases could be extinct if not for these people.

FYI, MMR never had mercury/thimerosol in it, anyway.

[madrchsod]

17. when i was a kid a house on our block had a red sign on the front door

i asked my dad--contagious disease--

like my dad said...the good old days were`t so good because of all the diseases that could kill him!

[eridani]

39. Not to mention the mercurochrome that was slathered liberally on every ouchie

Organic mercury, yet.

[varkam]

51. Ah, but now is the age of teh internets.

Where you can get your MD and PhD from GoogleU in a matter of minutes!

[wildeyed]

190. The people who don't immunize their children get protection from those of us who do.

Herd immunity. It is not completely fair. There is a risk, ever so slight, with immunizations. I take it for the greater benefits they provide. I think that if the people who don't immunize thought they were seriously facing a deadly contagious disease, they would make different choices.

[slackmaster]

10. Does this mean vaccine/autism enthusiasts will have to expand the conspiracy?

Or will they contract it?

[MineralMan]

14. Tinfoil conspiracies never die...

They just get stronger. Obviously, the powers that be are hiding something. They're always hiding something. Why can't they reveal the truth? I'm going to call Art Bell this very minute.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

29. Expand...good conspiracies never go away and the autism one is a doozy

[Brazenly Liberal]

11. An incredibly sad situation

We will probably never know the full extent of the damage done by this hoax. Money diverted from more realistically promising research, children whose health, even lives were put at risk because they or someone near them skipped vaccinations.

[mr blur]

13. Wakefield's name is mud over here in the UK

He's responsible for more Daily Mail-like panic and general ignorance than just about anyone.

Last I heard he was finding more sympathetic ears in...the US

[MajorChode]

19. It's amazing that people over here have no clue of his quackery

But Americans tend to be much less informed than Europeans so I suppose I shouldn't be so surprised.

[Posteritatis]

22. Plenty of them don't *want* to have a clue about his quackery (nt)

[MajorChode]

23. Yep, as is the case with all foil hatters

I compare them to 3 year olds. If you tell them something they don't want to hear, it doesn't matter how many times they are told as they will never listen. However if you tell them something they DO want to hear, they only have to be told once.

[Posteritatis]

24. Well, of course! Wakefield's faking the data was just correcting reality's lies!

;)

[MajorChode]

25. Him getting caught was correcting his own lies

Reality never came within a cab ride of what he claimed.

[LeftishBrit]

42. Very true!

America can keep him if it likes!

[mzmolly]

64. Do you have any additional information on his contributions daily mall like panic?

I'm truly curious to know more about his medical claims?

Thanks :hi:

[Danger Mouse]

16. Maybe this will shut those 'vaccines are EVIL!!!!1' whackjobs up for awhile, then.

Heh.
This guy seems like a real dirtbag.

[TZ]

18. Thats what makes me furious about the people who support him

All the tinfoil hatters claim its a cover up by Big Pharma yet WAKEFIELD indulges in all the unethical behavior they accuse the Pharmaceuticals of..the unnecessary medical procedures on children is VERY reminescent of Nazi type behavior..:puke:

[sniffa]

20. This still doesn't address the link between flu shots

and adult-onset autism.

[MajorChode]

27. It doesn't address the unicorn phenomenon either

And what about those goddam UFOs? Nothing at all was mentioned.

[The Straight Story]

32. And what about Chavez? They still cannot catch him doing anything wrong

No amount of news reports, etc - he is like a ufo - no eye witness is right, film is either shaky or faked, and therefore they do not exist.

[wolfgangmo]

93. When you rail about logical inconsistencies

Maybe you shouldn't be using straw men arguments?

Just sayin'.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

73. Adult-onset Autism new one to me.

[Mike 03]

117. I would sure appreciate a link to a study on this one. NT

[varkam]

188. I think the comment was made with tongue firmly in cheek.

Or, for fuck's sake, I hope it was.

[stray cat]

21. Somebody wanted some attention and started a movement that wasted alot of research dollars

that could have been used to actually do something about autism

[lumberjack_jeff]

28. Then let's find the real environmental trigger. n/t

[TZ]

30. lets stop making assumptions about the causes of autism

without actually have studied the science and genetics behind it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

35. An environmental trigger is not an assumption. It's demonstrable.

http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/162/11/1026
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2008/11/10/cornell.researchers.study.showing.evidence.a.major.environmental.trigger.autism
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13905-insecticides-in-pet-shampoo-may-trigger-autism.html?feedId=online-news_rss20
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=autism-rise-driven-by-environment

The key is figuring out what that trigger is.

[TZ]

54. dude I explained this to you

not all autism is the same. Many are genetic in basis. Are you at ALL familiar with Downs Syndrome which is chromosomal in origin?
There is about a billion studies where they've actually isolated genetic causes.
Triggers could be as simple as allergies or a severe cold. Your its teh evil chemicals is waaaay oversimplifying this.

[lumberjack_jeff]

105. Are you suggesting that Down syndrome is an ASD?

If so, you both still wrong and are ill-equipped to be explaining anything.

There is undoubtedly a genetic component to autism spectrum disorders. There is equally undoubtedly an environmental reason that the disorder was 600% more prevalent in California in 2000 than in 1990.

There is no such thing as a genetic epidemic.

[tigereye]

92. it would be nice if there were simply one trigger, but I suspect that is not

the case. Rain? Pet Shampoos? Those I had not seen. What about all the kids that are exposed to rain or pet shampoos, or any other number of chemical factors who don't develop autism? I agree that there are environmental/chemical/ toxicity factors that likely will be found to contribute, but I suppose I tend to lean more toward genetic factors.


I noticed this article near your links, and thought it raised interesting ideas about a different area for treatment...

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-switch-to-turn-off-autism

[lumberjack_jeff]

108. I'm cognizant of the difficulty figuring out which are triggers...

... and which are red herring. I don't underestimate the challenge.

Very large scale studies are going to be required to figure out how the trigger(s) act to cause the disease, and to identify and counsel prospective parents who carry genes which would make their children vulnerable to the trigger(s)

[tigereye]

132. yeah, but it seems like a lot of folks are vulnerable - more than one would

expect. I'm really looking forward too, to the new DSM to see how the ASD will be re-categorized to reflect all the new research.


I went to a great conference in the fall here at CMU in Pgh, where Grandin as well as some big gun researchers were speaking- lots of great info about genetic studies, social processing, brain imaging studies, historical info about Asperger's D/O, etc. There is so much new and interesting research out there it is hard to keep track of it all.

[lumberjack_jeff]

166. I'm envious, and I'm also grateful to the people working the problem.

I'd love to meet Grandin... and learn about the latest.

[SidDithers]

31. But Jenny McCarthy says there is a link...

and who you gonna believe? Science?

Sid

[Joe Chi Minh]

34. What? You mean, as financed by Big Pharma?

[LeftishBrit]

44. Or, as in Wakefield's case, financed by Big Lawsuit?

[varkam]

50. Silly Brit...

don't you know then when you're one the side of Truth(tm) and Justice(tm) that any potential multi-million dollar conflict of interest is just a happy coincidence?

[Joe Chi Minh]

115. If only the questionable motivation behind a Big Lawsuit could cancel out the incontrovertible

moral turpitude of Western Big Business. Alas, an imperfect world would be something of an understatement.

Sometimes medical researchers have been known to act morally, but when does morality trump profits in Big Business? Not a rhetorical question, by the way.

[progressoid]

173. Heh. Even Oprah is getting a little put off by Jenny

I saw an episode while waiting for my car tune up. She looked a little uncomfortable with Jenny's "enthusiasm" for finding the culprits.

[Joe Chi Minh]

33. What about the Gulf War cocktail of drugs? Was that quackery/ conspiracy nuts?

I think you're all Big Pharma lobbysists. When Blair or Cherie were asked if they'd given their kids the MMR vaccine, they wouldn't answer.

We're so sophisticated over here in Europe, that was the repsonse of our premier, and our parliament won't serve GM food in its resaurants. Neanderthals all.

It sounds as if this could be bona fide, but don't run away with the idea that Big Pharma or Western Big Business, generally, wouldn't murder your children if they thought they could make a mint and get away with it.

They used our servicemen as radiation guinea-pigs when exploding our first A-bomb. Penny couldn't get away quick enough, before the detonation.

[LeftishBrit]

46. Big Pharma lobbyists? you can FUCKING TAKE THAT BACK!

A lot of us are PATIENTS or RELATIVES OF PATIENTS who depend on modern vaccines and other aspects of western medicine for our lives!

[Joe Chi Minh]

120. I too depend on modern medicine for my life, dimwit!

[LeftishBrit]

177. OK - then don't call me a Pharma lobbyist, and I won't call you one! Agreed?

[varkam]

47. "I think you're all Big Pharma lobbyists"

You might want to loosen that tin foil hat a little bit.

It's cutting off the flow of blood to your brain.

[Joe Chi Minh]

119. A very incisive comment, Varka. Straight to the marrow of the issue.

[TZ]

56. thats right when science isn't on your side scream SHILL!

That works. I suppose NIH, CDC, THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION, THE UN are all in the pocket of Big Pharma right?
Blair is an idiot and a Bushie lapdog..I wouldn't take his opinion on anything.
So experiementing on children is Okay with you? Which is what Wakefield did? Wow, thats very..Nazi like of you.

[Joe Chi Minh]

118. What was the nature of these experiments? I don't recall ever expressing an opinion

on that accusation, assuming it is probably true.

So you think Blair is not an idiot and Bush a lapdog (or vice versa?) You must be a half-wit to think the UN has clean hands and always acts honourably.

Incidentally, the unprincipled and overly ambitious people are anything but unknown in professional Establishments. Particularly, the medical Establishment - which is why some of the most vicious attacks imaginable have been made by the latter on innovative thinkers, who effectively threaten their status and prestige.

[Joe Chi Minh]

36. Why would the Lancet report contradict the pathologists? Are you saying the Lancet

got it wrong.

My curiosity is prompted by the culture of big business and indeed government in the UK of vilifying whistle-blowers. That particular doctor was sacked and vilified right from the outset. Even killing them in the case of the effects of the treatment of cattle for warble-fly, re the BSE. Or was that the US, where we know that there's a time-hallowed nexus between government, big business and organised crime? I think they might have occurred here, too.

[4 t 4]

37. ?

HomeSearch
Your Guide to Health-Related Education and Training Send This Page to a Friend



General Medical Council Lists Questionable
UK-Based Foreign Medical Colleges
Stephen Barrett, M.D.
To practice medicine in the United Kingdom, it is necessary to register with the General Medical Council. Registration is available at different levels, depending on the stage of medical training the applicant has reached and where the applicant qualified. Graduates of medical schools in the UK or from certain European Economic Area member states can apply for provisional registration. Those who have completed a year of clinical training or who hold a primary medical qualification in compliance with European Medical Directive 93/16/EE can apply for full registration. International medical graduates (IMGs) can apply for limited registration. Those who have completed specialist training can apply for specialist registration.

The United Kingdom has 24 recognized medical schools. It also has some nonrecognized foreign schools that offer courses primarily or exclusively in England, award their degrees in the country where the school is headquartered, and falsely claim that their course of study leads to a Primary Medical Qualification. However, such graduates are not eligible for registration or for the Professional Linguistic Assessment Board (PLAB) test, which is the main route by which IMGs demonstrate that they have the necessary skills and knowledge to practice medicine in the United Kingdom. In 2006, the GMC released a list of these nonrecognized schools. Because the list may not be complete, the GMC accepts no liability for any action or decision based on it.

European College of Medicine, London (ECM)
Grace University School of Medicine, London
London College of Medicine
London School of Medicine
London Medical School
School of Health and Neural Sciences, Nottingham
American International School of Medicine, UK satellite campus
St. Christopher's College of Medicine, Luton
Kigezi International School of Medicine, Cambridge
Medical College London, Montserrat
Graduates of these schools are also ineligible for licensure in the United States.

This page was posted on April 17, 2005.

Make a Donation | Search All of Our Affiliated Sites | Home


Sponsored Links to Recommended Companies

Vonage: Save money on unlimited phone service. Extraordinary value. Free 30-day trial.
Netflix: Free 2-week trial of DVD rentals by mail; over 85,000 titles available.
Amazon Books: Internet's leading source of books, electronics, tools, toys, and many other consumer goods.
Believe: A hilarious movie about multilevel marketing.
ConsumerLab.com: Evaluates the quality of dietary supplement and herbal products.
Healthgrades: Check your doctors' training, board certifications, and disciplinary actions.
Outdoor lighting by Arcadian: Best prices and services on outdoor lighting fixtures.
OnlyMyEmail: Award-winning anti-spam services.
Herbal Medicine, 3rd edition. Excellent reference book, discount-priced.
10 Types: Website

[Joe Chi Minh]

38. "Hospital pathologists, looking for inflammatory bowel disease, reported

in the majority of cases that the gut was normal. This was then reviewed and the Lancet paper showed them as abnormal."

?

[muriel_volestrangler]

53. The Lancet did withdraw Wakefield's paper

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(04)15715-2/fulltext

http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-retraction.htm

Dr Andrew Wakefield mounted his defence in the Sunday Telegraph after the Lancet medical journal said it should not have published the study in 1998.
...
The General Medical Council confirmed it is to investigate claims by the Lancet that Mr Wakefield had a conflict of interest over the research.
...
Last week Dr Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, told the BBC he had discovered that the researchers had a "fatal conflict of interest".
...
Dr Wakefield had been commissioned by the Legal Aid Board to do a separate study to the one reported in the Lancet, said Dr Horton.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3510721.stm

[mzmolly]

63. Yes, suddenly the Lancet became concerned with a "conflict of interest".

:freak:

[varkam]

67. Did Wakefield's co-authors also become concerned with a conflcit of interest?

Oh noes! The Conspiracy got to them, too!

:rofl:

[mzmolly]

69. I would imagine the pressure

got to them? The three are on trial at present. ALL accused of wrong doing. Funny huh? :rofl:

[muriel_volestrangler]

74. You still make no sense

Seriously, you seem to have some hidden message, but you're not getting it across. Yes, the point is that their claims in the paper are unfounded, and dangerous. What's funny?

[mzmolly]

76. I was chuckling

for the same reason Varkam was. Given you have trouble understanding my posts, you may wish to stop trying.

[varkam]

79. Oh, my dear mzmolly, you misunderstand.

By his "co-authors" I meant the twelve docs that worked on the study - not just the three that are accused of wrong doing. Realize that the rest of them retracted their own results from Lancet.

And yes - it's HILARIOUS.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[mzmolly]

86. Thirteen worked on the study and were pressured

to retract their findings. Ten of the researchers did so, at least partially, three are on trial for misconduct. Funny, in a tragic sort of way yes. No matter the truth, this is a tragic story.

[varkam]

87. Oh noes! The Conspiracee *did* get to them!

Yeah - I especially think it's tragic in light of the two children that died after not being vaccinated for measles in the UK.

Thank you, Dr. Wakefield.

I think it's funny that the Lancet is somehow the bad guy, in your mind, when Wakefield is being brought up on a host of misconduct charges (most of them not related to his making-shit-up).

Oh wait, I forgot, he's a persecuted scientific hero. Kind of like Galileo. Only not.

[mzmolly]

88. How about those who

die as a result of vaccination? Again, who do I send my thank you note to?

[varkam]

89. So let me get this straight...

you're fine with doctors making shit up so long as it agrees with your pet hypothesis, even if it kills people? You seem to have missed the point where those deaths were the result of fear-mongering and lying (and not to mention the financial incentives for Wakefield to have done so).

Should we stop all vaccination? Would you be able to stand the stench?

[mzmolly]

95. You don't have anything "straight"

in your synopsis of my opinion. Unless of course you're saying it's ok to kill people because they agree with YOU?

You have lowered yourself with this kind of commentary Varkam. I am disappointed.

[varkam]

100. Well, I'm really not concerned what you think about me.

I'm sure you'll understand if I save the tears for another day.

Vaccines save lives. Lots of them. Whole bunches and bunches of them. Just gobs and gobs of people are alive right now thanks to vaccines. Taking the your "logic" out to it's natural extension, it seems that you would want a complete ban on them - so I'm just wondering if that body count would be acceptable to you. I mean, and that's with me granting your premise that vaccines kill people.

Nevermind that, though - you seem to have dodged the point about the good doctor making shit up that resulted in a drop of MMR uptake rates in the UK to below 80% and two kids dying as a result. Any thoughts? Comments? Or can St. Wakefield do no wrong?

[mzmolly]

106. Well then, I shant await another apology via PM from you. However, the point about the Dr.

is subject to opinion. In fact, a link posted my muriel v has some background that leads me to believe the Dr. has reason to believe in his findings.

That said, my only desire is to see open investigation and debate on vaccination vs. the "VACCINES SAFE LIVES SO STFU" mantra.

Again, my perspective is that in order to know the benefits of vaccination, we should honestly measure the cost. And, if at all possible we should work to reduce said costs. However without open dialog that will not happen. If people are essentially told they can't speak without being assigned motives like "you want to end vaccination and kill people" we have a problem with that honest, open dialog thing. If there is nothing to hide, we should welcome inquiry.

That said, I'm done.

[varkam]

150. You misunderstand why I sent one in the first place.

I wanted to hold myself to a higher standard. After dealing with folks in the health scare lounge for a while, I don't think that higher standard is warranted seeing as how I'm just going to get called a shill or a republican no matter how nicely I try to put things.

That said, my only desire is to see open investigation and debate on vaccination vs. the "VACCINES SAFE LIVES SO STFU" mantra.

I contend that it has been investigated and the only "debate" that anti-vaxxers want to see is the kind where they get to shout down anyone who doesn't agree with them by accusing them of having corrupt motives at best, and sending them death threats at worst. If that's your idea of debate, then I really want to part of it.

Again, my perspective is that in order to know the benefits of vaccination, we should honestly measure the cost. And, if at all possible we should work to reduce said costs. However without open dialog that will not happen. If people are essentially told they can't speak without being assigned motives like "you want to end vaccination and kill people" we have a problem with that honest, open dialog thing. If there is nothing to hide, we should welcome inquiry.


And, again, you seem to be missing the point about a doc lying, causing an unfounded health-scare, which can be directly implicated in the deaths of at least two children (not to mention a many-thousand fold increase in measles pre and post publication).

[mzmolly]

153. I'm sorry that

you've failed at that higher standard goal as I did not call you a Republican shill.

As to the rest of your banter, it's really not worthy of a reply given you conveniently fail to absorb what is being said.

Again, cheers.

[varkam]

154. If you don't want to address the whole lying and death thing, I understand.

It's pretty hard to address.

[mzmolly]

155. I don't care to address it AGAIN in this thread,

no.

Speaking of a failure to address XYZ, enjoy your new lowered standard for conduct.

[varkam]

156. Oh, can you point me to where you responded to the lying and death thing?

Inquiring minds want to know.

And haven't you been "done" with me for like four or five posts now?

[mzmolly]

157. Gee for someone who wants me to be done you sure have lots of questions.

The answer to your last one is NO.

NOW, I'm done.

[varkam]

158. Quite the contrary - I enjoy batting it back and forth with you.

Why else would I do it?

And I've read most of your responses in this thread, but I can't seem to find the one where you specifically address the connection between Wakefield's complete lack of scientific integrity and the deaths of two UK children. Perhaps I just missed it.

[mzmolly]

162. Kinda'

like I missed your evidence that Dr. Wakefield killed two children.

Off to ignore with you as I no longer respect your new lower standards for conversation. And, as I've attempted to say before :hi:

[varkam]

163. Did you read the article?

Cause that's where I was getting my bodycount of two from....

Funny how debating someone into a corner gets you placed on ignore. Oh well. It is a loss that I will mourn for moments.

[alarimer]

175. An open debate on vaccines is like an open debate on evolution

Both are proven. There is no debate except in the anti-vaccine activists minds or in the creationist minds, respectively.

This argument is exactly like the creationists "teach the controversy". Just as there is no controversy over the truth of evolution, there is no controversy over the safety and efficacy of vaccines. None whatsoever.

[Joe Chi Minh]

140. So does laudanum. Not an intelligent point.

[varkam]

145. "Not an intelligent point" - Couldn't have said it better myself. eom

[Joe Chi Minh]

146. That's for sure.

[varkam]

148. Indeed. eom

[varkam]

84. If by "all" mean mean 13, including Wakefield, then you would be wrong.

As 13 != 3.

[muriel_volestrangler]

72. Why the quote marks? Why the 'freak' smiley?

I can't understand what you're saying.

[mzmolly]

75. I guess

I'll not attempt much further communication if you can't understand what I'm saying.

Peace

[Joe Chi Minh]

110. Thank you, Muriel. Failing to declare the conflict of interest seems,

at best, foolish, but the controversy as to the truth of his findings apparently remains. Strange that his opponents should be so certain his research is fatally flawed, instead of showing interest in its verification or repudiation.

Do you remember our Health Minister, I think, saying in this very context that parents were like commandos, shock troops or some such. The term we normally use is "guinea-pigs".

[muriel_volestrangler]

127. There's been plenty of work about verifying his research

It's all shown that he was wrong. Things like that happen sometimes, and it comes from things like slightly sloppy test design, or because the number of cases involved was so small that it happened by chance.

Any member of the public would have had very good reason to believe that MMR caused autism, because the media distorted the scientific evidence, reporting selectively on the evidence suggesting that MMR was risky, and repeatedly ignoring the evidence to the contrary. In the case of the PCR data, the genetic fingerprinting information on whether vaccine-strain measles virus could be found in tissue samples of children with autism and bowel problems, this bias was, until a few months ago, quite simply absolute. You will remember from earlier that Wakefield co-authored two scientific papers - known as the “Kawashima paper” and the “O’Leary paper” - claiming to have found such evidence, and received blanket media coverage for them. But you may never even have heard of the papers showing these to be probable false positives.

In the Journal of Medical Virology May March 2006 there was a paper by Afzal et al, looking for measles RNA in children with regressive autism after MMR vaccination, using tools so powerful they could detect measles RNA down to single-figure copy numbers. It found no evidence of the vaccine-strain measles RNA to implicate MMR. Nobody wrote about this study, anywhere, in the British media (except for me in my column).

This was not an isolated case. Another major paper was published in the leading academic journal Pediatrics a few months later, replicating the earlier experiments very closely, and in some respects more carefully, also tracing out the possible routes by which a false positive could have occurred. For this paper by D’Souza et al, like the Afzal paper before it, the media were united in their silence. It was covered, by my count, in only two places: my column, and a Reuters news agency report. Nowhere else (although there was a post on the lead researcher’s boyfriend’s blog where he talked about how proud he was of his girlfriend).

Journalists like to call for “more research”: here it was, and it was ignored. Did the media neglect to cover these stories because they were bored of the story? Clearly not. Because in 2006, at exactly the same time as they were unanimously refusing even to mention these studies, they were covering an identical claim, using identical experimental methodology: “US scientists back autism link to MMR” said the Telegraph. “Scientists fear MMR link to autism” squealed the Mail.

http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/the-medias-mmr-hoax/

Ben Goldacre wrote that before the accusations of tampering with the data came out. I suspect he won't be so lenient on Wakefield if they are proved. But his point about the media coverage being hopelessly misleading on this still stands.

[Joe Chi Minh]

131. "Any member of the public would have had very good reason to believe

that MMR caused autism, because the media distorted the scientific evidence, reporting selectively on the evidence suggesting that MMR was risky, and repeatedly ignoring the evidence to the contrary."

Well, I hope you're right, Muriel, but I can't feel as confident as you at present, not only because we're more used to officialdom lying and covering up, to protect the corporations concerned and/or the government from extremely costly lawsuits, such as the Merxx one. Also, as long as those two eminent experts support that doctor, I'd feel uncomfortable about it.

Nothing new about the media "sensationalizing" for effect though, as appears to have happened. Stirring emotions sells papers, etc.

[wolfgangmo]

97. Steve Barrett

IS a shill. His big international office is in the basement of his house and a bug question remains as to where he gets the money to be the instigator of lawsuits in multiple states at a time.

He hasn't had a license in decades.

I would take anything he writes with a huge grain of salt.

[varkam]

48. Yes, actually - the results were retracted from the Lancet.

Not that it matters to you...

[LeftishBrit]

40. Not surprised. The work was rubbish anyway, as he had no control group

His main argument was that some of the kids had measles virus in their gut - but he didn't check on how many non-autistic children might have had measles virus in their gut.

How it ever got published is beyond me.

[4 t 4]

41. Sorry but I don't trust

General Medical Council at all their For-Profit!

[LeftishBrit]

43. I formed my opinion by reading Wakefield's writings myself, thank you very much!

In any case, the 'General Medical Council' in Britain is not for-profit, as we have a National Health Service. There is some private practice here; but almost all childhood vaccinations are administered on the NHS.

[4 t 4]

45. Sorry but your wrong

their sponsored by Advertising With MediLexicon International Limited

We manage campaigns for a range of blue chip clients that vary in size from $500 to $500,000. We sell advertising space direct and also via media agencies. A popular service we offer to advertisers is the ability to geo-target visitors from specific countries, or exclude visitors from specified countries. This allows advertisers to run very specific campaigns on our sites.

[muriel_volestrangler]

52. You have mistaken a web page that mentions the GMC, for one of theirs

You did a cut and paste from here: http://www.credentialwatch.org/non/gmc.shtml

It would have helped if you had given the link; "credentialwatch.org" is not connected with the GMC. It's American. It's someone (Stephen Barrett, an American psychiatrist) who has copied a list of dubious 'medical schools' from a list the GMC produced.
[br />The GMC is the official body that registers and regulates doctors in the UK, with its role deinfed under various laws. Far from being 'for-profit', it's actually a registered charity. If it's adverts that worry you, you'll notice a complete absence of them on their site.

[4 t 4]

55. Oh that's right I forgot Doctors are never bought by big Pharm.

GMC
How are we made up?

Our governing body, the Council, has 35 members:

-- 19 doctors elected by the doctors on the register

-- 14 members of the public appointed by the Privy Council

-- 2 academics appointed by educational bodies - the universities and medical royal colleges
http://www.gmcpressoffice.org.uk

[TZ]

57. oh thats right every fucking scientist in NIH, WHO, and CDC

all of whom have repudiated Wakefield are paid shills right? Fucking moron. Have you even bothered to read the scientific data?

[Joe Chi Minh]

138. "Oh thats right every fucking scientist in NIH, WHO, and CDC

all of whom have repudiated Wakefield are paid shills right?"

Got it on one! You're sharper than I thought. I shall see you get promoted. And maybe even get a bonus.

[muriel_volestrangler]

60. So are you saying you don't trust any doctor?

OK, (a) that presumably includes Dr. Wakefield; (b) if you have given up trusting doctors, that's good - it means they have more time to help the rest of us. I wish you luck in your quest to keep healthy without any input from doctors.

[Joe Chi Minh]

142. Isn't Eton a registered charity, Muriel? There are some strange ones, for sure.

[muriel_volestrangler]

183. The point is that 4 t 4 hadn't the faintest idea of what the GMC is

They took the first web page they found with some words from the GMC, and assumed that was the GMC. They've continued to cut and paste irrelevant details of the make-up of the Council; when the issue is the professional research standards of Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues. On those standards, they've been able to say nothing (nor have they, for instance, suggested how medical research should be regulated, other than the GMC approach). They are just throw a few buzzwords around, in the hope that someone on DU won't read what's actually going on, but will instead assume that this is some Evil Establishment group.

[TZ]

58. and you got your MD from where?

Google? George Bush's Science Academy? You are treating science the same way Bush did. Ignoring anything that contradicts your worldview.

[4 t 4]

61. I'm sorry but the jury is

still out when it comes to the science on Autism. No need to be snarky and rude

[Maru Kitteh]

113. Dangerous ignorance, such as is displayed here, deserves the contempt it engenders

The "jury" is most definitely NOT out on this.

Vaccines save lives. Vaccines do not cause autism. These are facts and the uninformed, Google University woo-woo tinfoil bullshit nonsense that seeks to deny these facts endangers more children every single day. It's unconscionable and it must be confronted and stopped.

[mzmolly]

123. I enjoy the "dangerous ignorance" here even more when it is coupled with massive egotism and a

self righteous tone.

Speaking of google, it might behoove you to familiarize yourself with "Hannah Polling" before feigning superior knowledge on matters such as these?

What "endangers children" is the attempt to silence honest inquiry, thus preventing the potential ability to improve vaccination, that such investigation might afford.

I do applaud your ability to communicate with a great deal of self important puffery, however. BRAVO!

[Mike 03]

124. Thank you for your spark of sanity and knowledge. NT

[Joe Chi Minh]

143. "Vaccines save lives." What a foolish truism to peddle on here, as if

it has the lightest relevance to a particular vaccine or cocktail of vaccines.

[Mike 03]

121. The jury is still out, but some hypothetical causes have been eliminated.

This one is a dead end. Why is it so hard to some people to accept this?

[LeftishBrit]

179. It is indeed out on the science of autism...

but there is pretty strong evidence that it isn't caused by MMR. In Japan, MMR was removed from the vaccination schedule for several years, and then reintroduced, and none of this affected autism rates.

Saying, "Autism isn't caused by the MMR vaccine" is not the same thing as saying "We know everything about autism" or "Autism isn't important" or "No environmental factors could be involved in autism".

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

191. "The jury is still out."

- George W. Bush, on evolution.

[Joe Chi Minh]

141. "Your child WILL receive our cocktail of vaccines or he will not have any!

Do you understand me? We can be nice... or we can be... not nice..."

[wolfgangmo]

99. Wakefield had no control natural in his study and

Didn't compare it to other groups outside his study.

This is exactly like chemo studies. Chemo agents have never been compared to other therapies, but only to other chemo agents to establish efficacy.

This is not to say that they don't work, but it is sloppy science.

[varkam]

49. Wakefield lied. People died.

At least one case of measles due to not vaccinating in the UK was fatal, IIRC. Though who knows what his real body count is.

I can't wait til people start defending him by claiming that the media is in on the conspiracy, too.

[mzmolly]

59. Reposting what I did in the health forum.... For the record, Wakefield denies the accusations. Also,

the Times report appears to contradict itself?

In most of the 12 cases, the children’s ailments as described in The Lancet were different from their hospital and GP records.

The article goes on to state ...

in many of the cases medical concerns had been raised before the children were vaccinated.

What "concerns" had been raised prior to vaccination if there were no prior like, ailments on the record?

I think we need to make up our minds? Either Wakefield's report lacked evidence or the evidence was manufactured.

I will await the verdict in the pending court case before believing that Wakefield and his colleagues, schemed to mislead the world on the MMR vaccine.

[4 t 4]

62. Agreed

[muriel_volestrangler]

65. "different from records" doesn't mean "no prior ailments"

and I can't fathom why you would think it would. It mean Wakefield lied about what the ailments were.

[mzmolly]

70. In context the claims appear contrary?

"However, our investigation, --- reveals that: In most of the 12 cases, the children’s ailments as described in The Lancet were different from their hospital and GP records. Although the research paper claimed that problems came on within days of the jab, in only one case did medical records suggest this was true, and in many of the cases medical concerns had been raised before the children were vaccinated."

The implication is (a) the children's ailments were different than those described by in the research, and (b) related medical concerns were raised before the children were vaccinated.

If the concerns described in medical records differed, why are any concerns raised prior to vaccination noteworthy?

Edited for an attempt at clarity.

[muriel_volestrangler]

80. Details are here, if you want them:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5683643.ece

[mzmolly]

94. Thank you. In spite of the title, your link appears to be a more balanced perspective

than the original topic of discussion.

A very interesting read, especially this portion.

In Wakefield’s view, the Lancet paper was accurate, including reasonable reassessment of findings. Other doctors, including an experienced pathologist concurred with his judgment on the revised reports of nonspecific colitis, he has said.

Behavioural diagnoses, meanwhile, involved a confusing array of technical names, and he trusted what the parents told him. The fact that they said the problems followed MMR implied that regression was involved.

When our allegations were put to him last week, he did not respond, but his lawyers replied on his behalf. They said the GMC hearings were nearing conclusion and our revelations risked prejudicing these proceedings.

“You also know that, at this juncture in the GMC process, it would be inappropriate for Dr Wakefield to give a detailed response to you,” they said. “He has denied the allegations and gave a detailed response over many days to the GMC panel.”

Many of the parents of the original 12 children continue to support him and campaign vigorously on his behalf. But others whose children took part in the Lancet project are too burdened and traumatised for campaigning.

If Wakefield acted without honor, it's horrendous. And if he did not, it's even more so. Reading the above it appear to me that Mr. Wakefield may have reason to believe in his findings?

Peace

[muriel_volestrangler]

103. This kind of thing doesn't worry you?

The boy’s medical records reveal a subtly different story, one familiar to mothers and fathers of autistic children. At the age of 9½ months, 10 weeks before his jab, his mother had become worried that he did not hear properly: the classic first symptom presented by sufferers of autism.

Child One was among the eight reported with the apparent sudden onset of the condition. So was the next child to be admitted.

This was Child Two, an eight-year-old boy from Peter-borough, Cambridgeshire, diagnosed with regressive autism, which, according to the Lancet paper, started “two weeks” after his jab.

However, this child’s medical records, backed by numerous specialist assessments, said his problems began three to five months later.

And it goes on. I'm not impressed by Wakefield saying "I trusted some confused and worried parents to report the medical details, vital to the entire concept, right to me". Blaming the parents for his academic paper, that caused thousands of cases of measles, is pretty low.

[mzmolly]

111. Of course that's worthy of concern. However doesn't this concern you?

Other doctors, including an experienced pathologist concurred with his judgment on the revised reports of nonspecific colitis, he has said.

Doesn't it concern you that this data may be subject to interpretation yet it is being used to make claims such as "MMR doctor Andrew Wakefield fixed data on autism"?

I also don't know that one can honestly blame Wakefield for causing thousands of cases of Measles when the vaccine itself wanes in efficacy? Wakefield may have "fixed data", and he may believe in his research. I'll await more information before passing judgment.

In closing I ask, would it be more disturbing if a Dr. and his formerly esteemed colleagues fixed data, or if they were being essentially silenced and dragged before a court due to unpopular findings? Obviously either scenario is troubling.

As I've indicated to Varkam, I'm out. These conversations are always futile. However, I'm glad I had an opportunity to advocate on behalf of open conversation and inquiry in regard to vaccination.

G'night. :hi:

[muriel_volestrangler]

122. The state of the nonspecific colitis is a minor matter

The claims of fixing are about the time that symptoms of autism were first seen, or whether it was regressive autism or not.



Yes, I can honestly blame Wakefield for this. Him, and the papers who spread the fears; and Tony Blair, who refused to say whether he was going to give his own infant son the MMR jabs, which really got the papers into scaremongering mode. The conflict of interest with the lawyers paying him was bad enough; if he made up data too, then he leaps into the lead for bearing responsibility for some deaths, and for many illnesses.

"would it be more disturbing if a Dr. and his formerly esteemed colleagues fixed data, or if they were being essentially silenced and dragged before a court due to unpopular findings?"

Fixing the data is much, much worse. Anyway, this isn't about 'unpopular findings'. Wakefield's findings were wrong, as many subsequent studies have shown; but that just led to many articles saying "Wakefield was wrong". He's in front of the GMC because of apparent breaks in the ethics of how he conducted the study.

[mzmolly]

130. One might also attribute the trend to better surveillance.

In 1995 Europe placed greater effort into tracking measles:

http://www.euvac.net/graphics/euvac/background.html

Sorry to pop back in but I wanted to offer another view for consideration.

[varkam]

66. I'm not seeing the contradiction.

[mzmolly]

71. Oh well...

:hi:

[varkam]

77. You could try...you know...explaining what you take to the be contradiction.

I'm starting to get the sense that it would just make you look foolish, however.

[mzmolly]

81. I felt that the bold quotations were quite apparent.

However you can read post #70 for another attempt on my part.

[varkam]

82. "If the concerns described in medical records differed, why are any concerns raised prior to...

...vaccination noteworthy?"

Well, if concerns were raised prior to vaccination then it would seem that it would take a violation of the laws of physics if the vaccinations caused those concerns. Normally, in order for thing A to cause event B, thing A has to occur prior in time to event B. If there were health concerns (event B) then it would seem unlikely that vaccines (thing A) would cause them.

With the records differing from what Wakefield published: it appeared that they were changing data that they didn't like (i.e. saying one child had a chronic bowel syndrome when the hospital records indicated no such thing).

I don't see how you're having trouble understanding why those two claims aren't mutually exclusive.

eta: And note that his current trial seems unrelated to the recent revelations.

[mzmolly]

90. You just proved my point.

Perhaps re-reading what I noted, along with your response will clarify? If not, I'm afraid I can't help you out.

[varkam]

91. I'm afraid you're not making any sense.

How did I just prove your point if my point was that the two aren't mutually exclusive? (read: not contradictory).

[mzmolly]

96. I'll let the record

of conversation speak for itself.

[varkam]

98. Are you sure you want to do that?

:rofl: I mean, I'm fine with it. You might just want to clarify how my making the exact opposite point that you made somehow proves your point. I guess that happens in the same world where vaccines cause things that occur prior to the vaccination.

[mzmolly]

102. Most definitely.

You keep on pretending that you "made the exact opposite point" however. It fits right in with the pretense that mercury is not a neuro-toxin if it's in a vaccine.

[varkam]

104. How does whether or not mercury is a neuro-toxin have anything to do with...

the Times "contradicting" itself?

[mzmolly]

116. Obviously,

that statement was made in the broader context of the conversation.

[varkam]

160. I'm trying to pin you down into a statement that's not as vague as the clouds, mzmolly.

You said there was a contradiction, and I'm ask you to clarify. Is that too difficult for you to do? Because I re-read the conversation, and I still have no clue what the supposed contradiction is. I'm not dumb, so I would merely like you to be clearer in your statements.

[uppityperson]

137. "if you don't understand what I will only hint at, I won't explain it to you" syndrome?

Good luck getting a clarification.

[mzmolly]

159. Actually, it's closer to "it was clear the first time I explained it, but feel free to continue

feigned ignorance, while spinning" syndrome.

[varkam]

161. It seems I'm not the only one who has no clue what you're trying to say.

It must be a conspiracy.

[uppityperson]

164. How about this: internet communications can be unclear for a number of reasons.

Something you think is clear may not be to someone else since we all start from different places and with different assumptions we may not even know we have. I find it best to assume that someone doesn't understand and explain further. I have had to say "assume I am stupid because I really don't understand" to some posters because sometimes I really don't get it.

I did this a couple wks ago to someone who likes "face palm" answers, but finally had it explained to me what was meant. At which point I did do a "face palm" on myself because it was obvious, once I figured out I was looking at it sideways.

Sometimes repeating works, and it also can work with those who are trying to spin.

[mzmolly]

68. In an effort to be fair, I'd like to add this to the record. " MMR doctor defends his research"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7314144.stm

"The doctor who first linked the MMR vaccine to autism has defended the way he carried out his research and his motivation for doing so.

Dr Andrew Wakefield said he adhered to official guidelines in his research, which led to the publication of the 1998 Lancet paper.

He said he had wanted to help treat and prevent autism after being approached by worried parents.

Dr Wakefield, and two colleagues, deny charges of professional misconduct."

.........

"Also facing professional misconduct charges are Professor John Walker-Smith, and Professor Simon Murch."

The trial in this case is ongoing.

[4 t 4]

83. part of the GMC is made up of the

-- 14 members of the public appointed by the Privy Council

Its members are largely senior politicians




Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about the British Privy Council. For Canada's, see Queen's Privy Council for Canada.
United Kingdom

Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council is a body of advisors to the British Sovereign. Its members are largely senior politicians, who were or are members of either the House of Commons of the United Kingdom or House of Lords.

[muriel_volestrangler]

85. It's Random Irrelevant Fact Day on DU!

What wild and whacky red herring will we see next?

"The current queen is Elizabeth II". Will that do?

[4 t 4]

107. you don't think it matters that

in part

GMC is made up of the
-- 14 members of the public appointed by the Privy Council

Its members are largely senior politicians

senior politicians
senior politicians

How are your politicians working for ya here in your own country-feeling good about them right about now.

[muriel_volestrangler]

112. Appointed by elected politicians? Yes, that is a pretty good way

of making up a body to control a vital profession. The professional expertise comes from the doctors; those appointed can give the viewpoints from outside the profession.

What would you do - appoint 24 unqualified people at random, like a jury?

In the meantime, you appear to be disregarding the apparent lying by Dr. Wakefield in his paper. Isn't that the worrying thing here?

[Lance_Boyle]

78. better hurry up and make RFK, Jr Sec of HHS

He'll set the record straight on hero Wakefield and the evil pharma industry making billions off of those poison vaccines... :sarcasm:

[wolfgangmo]

101. Evil pharma doesn't make money off vaccines.

They make money off the american public by overcharging them and marketing their drugs for conditions they have never been tested for.

[4 t 4]

114. Evil pharma doesn't make money off vaccines.

Are you kidding ? how do you think the flu vaccine started ?

[Mike 03]

109. This is a relatively big story. I'm glad this has come out and perhaps it can finally put to

rest the hypoethesis that has taken us so far off track in discovering the real causes of autism.

Also, this excuses a lot of the intelligent, well-intended people who fell for this. If you can't consider scientific data as accurate, what can you trust? It's like WorldCom's balance sheet. They say it's true, but it is a lie.

Now let's find out what the real cause is.

[Joe Chi Minh]

125. Here's a nice little reminder, folks:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=222x52710

[4 t 4]

126. Thank you

no matter what any of us thinks. The jury is still out on all of the information. Can't we all just get along

[Joe Chi Minh]

128. Oh. No! Mustn't do that! "We've made up our minds, and finding out we were wrong

would just be ...er... wrong."

Never mind about the poor wee souls who might be afflicted by autism, and their parents. I can't tell you how pleased I would be if he were to be proved wrong! It's not a matter of winning arguments, you mutts.

In their furious urgency for a "done deal", they remind me of Paulson's clamour for the bail-out or the world would end within the week. (Something like that).

[uppityperson]

139. Seeking real answers to causes doesn't mean we don't care about autism at all.

that seems to be what you are saying. That since vaccines haven't been shown to cause autism, and research on other possibilities may now get done more, that for some reason we don't care about people with autism.

Seems like a backwards conclusion.

[mzmolly]

144. Well said!

:toast:

[LeftishBrit]

178. How about the poor wee souls with autism who may not have had the best prevention or treatment

because too many resources for research on the causes of autism have been diverted into this one issue of vaccines?

[4 t 4]

129. you know there is a way to

disagree with someone without being disrespectful. I hate to say it but when I see Ignored I love it! It tells me one less idiot to disrupt real dialog.It may be different if it is so obvious as to something like the world is flat (which at one time was believed by some) but short of something that stupid why do so many people think they are the absolute and final say on the topic ?

[Joe Chi Minh]

134. You tell me. They've made up their mind, and that's that.

[mzmolly]

133. Shhhhhhhhhhhhh

Don't confuse big pharma with big pharma ever again!

:sarcasm:

[Joe Chi Minh]

135. I'll ty not to. But it's very difficult.

[4 t 4]

136. Sweet a couple of voices of reason?

[truedelphi]

167. I wuz confused, and now I am not. Big Pharma is not Big Pharma

And for some strange reason, I doubt the entire scenario offered up as truth in the OP!

[mzmolly]

172. Hello TD.

:hi:

Agreed.

[earth mom]

147. Thanks for posting that. Big Pharma is nothing more than greedy bastards who will do anything

to push their products.

Make no mistake-the Autism cover up is alive and well in the UK as well as the USA. :grr:

[varkam]

151. What planet do you live on, again?

Perhaps it's a planet where the FDA has anything to do with a doc in the UK making shit up.

As you would say, "not an intelligent point."

[Joe Chi Minh]

149. Peter Hitchens has written on the topic in today's Mail on Sunday:

"The Health Protection Agency has been trying to crank up a scare about measles for some time, in the hope of frightening doubters into letting their children have the MMR vaccine.
We’re also now told that the vaccine is proven to be safe.
Well, tell that to Heather Edwards, whose son Josh developed severe bowel problems and autism after his first MMR, and then suffered the same thing redoubled after the second jab.

Coincidence? Twice? Maybe. We’ll never know.

Poor Josh, though much-loved, is now in a terrible way, desperately thin and missing much of his insides.

Are the authorities really so sure the MMR is completely safe?

Well, listen to Vivienne Parry, a member of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, who candidly admitted back in 2007: ‘There’s a small risk with all vaccines.

'No one has ever said that any vaccine is completely without side effects. But we have to decide whether the benefits outweigh the risks.

'If we had measles, it would kill lots of children. If you have a vaccine, it will damage some children, but a very small number.’
Will measles kill lots of children? I doubt it.

In very rare cases, it can lead to fatal complications but in general it doesn’t.

It is precisely because the authorities insist."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1138723/PETER-HITCHENS-Snow-surrender--I-saw-roaming-polar-bears-ravening-timber-wolves-just-final-proof-nation-soft-slush.html

[varkam]

152. The Daily Mail? Speaking of making shit up...

:rofl:

[LeftishBrit]

182. Will your next post be on something that Rush Limbaugh said in his latest talkshow?

The Daily Mail/ Mail on Sunday is a right-wing sensationalist rag, that occasionally takes time out of its crusades against immigrants, gypsies, people on benefits, and left-wingers to spread fear about science and medicine.

ETA: And Peter Hitchens in particular is a RW nut. He does criticize the war in Iraq on isolationist grounds; but he is anti-secular, in favour of more intrusion of religion into public life, against comprehensive education, gay marriage, sex education, too much help for the poor etc. One of his most notorious comments was "The middle classes are not good because they are better off. They are better off because they are good." (Note to Americans here: the British use of the term 'middle class' would correspond to 'upper middle class' in America.)

[Zhade]

165. The anti-vaxers will just say this isn't true. Denial is very powerful.

NT!

[bottomtheweaver]

169. What anti-vaxers? The objections are to the mercury-based preservatives

not to the vaccines. Don't buy the hype.

[LeftishBrit]

180. The MMR never had mercury-based preservatives, and Wakefield's allegations are about the vaccine

itself.

The mercury-based preservative issue is a separate one; and most vaccines nowadays don't contain them.

[bottomtheweaver]

168. Not this again. The link is to the mercury preservatives, not to the vaccines themselves.

Misleading headline, dishonest article, untrustworthy source. But drink your kool-aid if it makes you feel better. :crazy:

[bottomtheweaver]

170. "Government Concedes Vaccine-Autism Case in Federal Court - Now What?"

The Huffington Post
Posted February 25, 2008
by David Kirby

After years of insisting there is no evidence to link vaccines with the onset of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), the US government has quietly conceded a vaccine-autism case in the Court of Federal Claims.

The unprecedented concession was filed on November 9, and sealed to protect the plaintiff's identify. It was obtained through individuals unrelated to the case.

The claim, one of 4,900 autism cases currently pending in Federal "Vaccine Court," was conceded by US Assistant Attorney General Peter Keisler and other Justice Department officials, on behalf of the Department of Health and Human Services, the "defendant" in all Vaccine Court cases.

The child's claim against the government -- that mercury-containing vaccines were the cause of her autism -- was supposed to be one of three "test cases" for the thimerosal-autism theory currently under consideration by a three-member panel of Special Masters, the presiding justices in Federal Claims Court.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/government-concedes-vacci_b_88323.html

[LeftishBrit]

181. Wakefield linked it to the vaccine itself. Not mercury-based preservatives ...

which in any case have never been in the MMR.

[muriel_volestrangler]

184. Then you write to Wakefield, and tell him he's wrong

Wakefield has never blamed mercury; he blames the measles component of the MMR vaccine. You appear to want to fight a completely different battle. Maybe you should start your own thread, if you have a completely different point from what's being discussed here.

[bottomtheweaver]

185. Tell it to the judges presiding over the "Vaccine Court"

because they've already decided against you. Sorry.

[bottomtheweaver]

186. 'The claim, one of 4,900 autism cases currently pending in Federal "Vaccine Court," was conceded

by US Assistant Attorney General Peter Keisler and other Justice Department officials, on behalf of the Department of Health and Human Services, the "defendant" in all Vaccine Court cases.'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/government-concedes-vacci_b_88323.html

Looks like the catapulters lost.

[muriel_volestrangler]

187. "Against me"? I'm British. This is about the evidence from Wakefield

All the evidence has shown that Wakefield was wrong. You are talking about a different claim. There is no 'vaccine court' involved here. The GMC is still investigating Wakefiled for the ethics of his research (such as performing unnecessary operations without informed consent).

You do know what Wakefield says, don't you?

[bottomtheweaver]

171. Kick to let our hardworking catapulters take a bow.

I guess you'll just have to start another thread tomorrow. And another, and another, and another. . . .

[varkam]

189. The truth hurts, don't it?

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[alarimer]

174. The anti-vaccine people will only see this as evidence of a conspiracy against them.

They are scientifically illiterate and prone to paranoia.

These are people who only hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest, even if the evidence shows that one of their main cheerleaders is a complete fraud, who may also be responsible for deaths due to reduced vaccination rates on account of his fraud.

[truedelphi]

176. Oh NOES. The latest study says that the awful horrid Wakefield study

Was not only not peer reviewed, it was contaminated. Holy moly - we better not believe that Anti-Christ Wakefield. He must have paid the Senators who had him come to the US Senate Government Oversight Committee. He must have paid those dozens of parents who also attended. After all, those parents must have all been paid off by Trillionaire Wakefield to state at this Senate hearing that their children were immediately affected by the MMR injection. Like parents everywhere, they love money more than truth!<sarcasm intended>

Now why does this remind me so very much of the MTBE situation? Big Oil needs a cheap way to get rid of a waste product. It teams up with the environmental movement - like the Sierra Club and the Resource Defense COuncil. Then they get legislation mandating that a "new cleaner" gasoline come into existence - mandated existence.

But low and behold, MTBE has a drawback. The substance eats away at the polymers, and then it seeps from the gas supply tanks beneath the gas stations into the creeks and bays and lakes.

Citizens are alarmed. Only they have no one to turn to - the environmental groups have all sided with the oil giants. The media is controlled by the Big Oil people - so it avoids the truth also.

Luckily Gov Davis of California appoints a wonderful Blue Ribbon team headed by John Froines to study the matter. This blue ribbon panel concludes that MTBE is toxic and most likely a major carcinogen. But that does not stop the Media, controlled as it is, from still spouting lies. Who cares about Truth when you need to respond to pressure from advertisers, or lose valued income?

It's all about who controls the advertising. And your researchers, like Froines and like Wakefield, never have the Trillions in advertising that Big Oil and Big Pharma have at their disposal.