Another piece in the jigsaw?

John Stone

Indeed, this is the year the autism scandal will begin to unravel. After the Poling there remain another 5,000 autism cases pending in the US vaccine court. One already awaiting decision is an MMR case involving measles virus containing CSF samples, although not apparently specifically pertaining to the gut. http://www.ageofautism.com/2008/03/the-short-good.html The gut issue will be addressed in the Cedillo case which was heard last summer, but with a decision not expected till the autumn.

Mark H

Thank you again Melanie, Lets hope the GMC and Government are not able to ignore this important case. Get ready for the claims that see is not really autistic.

Carol

Thank you, Melanie. Here in the U.S., anyone questioning the wisdom of SO many 'jabs' in such tiny children is considered fringe or lunatic. I am neither, but my daughter developed serious immune system problems immediately after massive inoculations at 24 months. When I was a kid, we got shots, but nothing like this barrage. Please keep up the reporting on this issue. Thank you.

bones

"Second, in the US the MMR vaccine (like many others) contains thimerosal, or mercury, which campaigners have long accused of causing vaccine–related damage but which is absent from the MMR vaccine in the UK." No it does not. None, nada, zip, zero, zilch...you should get your facts straight. Or, at the very least, seek them out in the first place. Who pays you to write this stuff...???

Jack Humphries

The fortess walls set by big pharma and government allies, to prevent a trusting public gaining the truth on vaccine dangers, are fast crumbling. Contrary to best public interest new rules have been surrepticiously foistered on the public to indemnify big pharma against the possibly enormous harms they have perpetrated against global childhood. Isn't it time big pharma was brought under strict control IN the public interest by those responsible to protect US?

Raymond Gallup

There will be a ruling in three months on 3 vaccine cases in the US Federal Court per......... "After 4,665 pages of testimony the first three test cases of a planned nine ended with closing arguments totaling 36 pages.......... The decision now rests with the Special Masters, who should issue a ruling sometime in the next three months." at........... http://www.ageofautism.com/2008/03/the-short-good.html#more Meanwhile more families will be applying for Social Security (SSI) and Medicaid/Medicare benefits as well as residential centers/group homes for their child with autism. This will bring the "Dark Tower" down as well because the public will be involved in paying for this Autism Apocalypse. See......Eric's Story at http://www.vaproject.org/ Raymond Gallup highnoon@gti.net

ThoJ

Bones is right--claiming that anyone uses thimerosal in an MMR is a clear demonstration of ignorance. MMR is a weakened virus vaccine. Thimerosal would kill those weakened viruses. Add to that the fact that we don't have proof yet of what the court ruled, only Mr. Kirby's interpretation. Also, we don't know if what this says about multiple vaccines or single vaccines. You start a paragraph with "We don't know whether it was one of these vaccines or the fact that they were in combination" and end with "This suggests that, in some children, multiple vaccines overload immune systems that are particularly vulnerable." It is not very consistent. It is possible that any vaccination could have caused an injury in this child. It is just as possible (and even noted in the one court document already leaked) that a fever from a regular infection could have caused the crisis which led to her condition. Lastly, where does the concept of her immune system "collapsing" come from? The statements by Mr. Kirby are that it was overstimulated and this lead to a mitochodndrial dysfunction. That is not an "immune system collapse"

John Stone

Bones is correct about US MMR not containing thimerosal. However, in the Hannah Poling case it made very little difference since MMR was administered with thimerosal containing vaccines, so she would have had the benefit or otherwise of both simultaneously. I think people have to understand that there is a fundamental problem with vaccine culture - it does not matter which products, if something goes wrong it is always instantly deniable. This actually makes the products far more dangerous because they are never properly tested or monitored, and the danger escalates as the number of vaccines increase. Moreover, the pharmaceutical industry and its placemen on government bodies have ambitious plans for expanding the schedule, even now. You will also find that if you point out the risks, or report adverse events, people get very hot under the collar, which is institutionally and scientifically prejudicial. If they were concerned about safety they would listen and investigate. Instead they get angry and dismissive.

Frank Pulley

Melanie made it clear at the outset that her analysis in not designed to defend Dr Wakefield against allegations of possible venality and obfuscation, but to examine the research into the possible links between the triple jab, autism and serious gut damage. She has adduced her evidence with characteristic skill and diligence. But having read the allegations made by Brian Deer (See: http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-summary.htm) and (http://briandeer.com/wakefield-deer.htm), Dr. Wakefield does seem to have muddied the waters himself with some of his questionable behaviour. Given that Melanie is right in her suspicions of high-level chicanery on the part of government and political medics and researchers, Dr Wakefield, if Deer is right, made a broomstick and pointed hat for himself. Does anyone know what the pedigree and possible motives may be of Mr Deer, an investigative journalist, if his data, or the analysis thereof, is questionable? I have a deep personal interest in this issue as I lost a family member as a result of Asperger's syndrome and its ramifications and am appalled with the claims and counter claims surrounding this issue. How can anyone ever plumb these murky depths of vested interest and politics to assuage parental fears?

Clifford G. Miller

* for 10 years New Old Labour have insisted there was no evidence of link between MMR and autism * but the case of this little 9 year old girl Hannah Poling in the US was conceded by the US overnment experts - they chose not to fight it * so this case is the first publicised case where any government has conceded any kind of causal link - and new information suggests there have been others in the US still unpublicised * it is not just MMR - vaccines in general are implicated * this child had a close clinical investigation - - it is the one thing the UK MMR parents have been calling for for their children - that is the one thing the governments and others have steadfastly refused to do - an inference can be drawn from that - they knew what they were going to find - most if not all of the physical problems these kids have are going without proper investigation or treatment by the NHS - there is an absence of good science to the government's denials * this little girl, Hannah Poling, developed a broad range of symptoms of the autistic spectrum very soon after the vaccines * with medical help she has recovered from many of them * because she now has fewer symptoms, the bad guys are claiming she is not autistic - but what they do not realise is by doing so they are admitting autism is a physical disorder which is curable - and it is preventable * the standard of proof applied in this special Federal Court in these vaccine damage cases is exactly the same as in the UK Courts - a preponderance of evidence - and unlike all other US courts but just like most of our civil courts, there is no jury, there are only judges

edward

Would anyone like to comment on this little snippet?
Unhappy that his own laboratory had rebutted his MMR-autism theory, Wakefield told Chadwick to send his samples from autistic kids to physician Dr Hisashi Kawashima in Tokyo, with whom Wakefield published a paper claiming to have found vaccine-strain measles virus. But after Chadwick gave a statement, reporting contamination in Kawashima's lab [as would be alleged later in John O'Leary's], Wakefield formally withdrew reliance on the much-quoted paper - leaving more anti-MMR "science" in ruins

John Stone

Edward Sounds like innuendo to me. You cannot even quote properly. We do not know who said it (though we can guess) and we have no means to verify the construction of events, or if they even occured at all. I do not believe Chadwick was called against Wakefield by the prosecution at the GMC.

Laura

All Melanie has ever asked on this issue is that questions are allowed to be asked. It's the closing down of debate that is so objectionable. What a journalist is supposed to do but ask about the truth? If you want someody who writes on her computer everyday: "All is for the best in this best of all possible worlds." How scary to find the world is so full of Dr Panglosses and how grateful I am Melanie isn't one of them.

Richard K

Melanie, I agree with you almost always when you comment about Israel or politics in general. Please stick to those topics. When your veer off into science in your discussions of autism, vaccines, or drugs (particularly marijuana), you reveal your monumental ignorance in these areas. It makes it difficult for an informed reader to take you seriously regarding other matters.

Raymond Gallup

More about vaccines and our son Eric in the following books: Milestones Normal Speech and Language Development Across the Lifespan http://www.pluralpublishing.com/publications_mnsaldatl.htm and Families of Adults With Autism: Stories and Advice for the Next ... Chapters 8 and 9 http://www.jkp.com/catalogue/book.php/isbn/9781843108856

John Stone

Richard K Do you know anything about this subject? Apart being grandly assertive you have not done anything to indicate it. There is a lot going on here that ought to be being reported. You will find in advance of the defence in the GMC hearing that the press have gone awfully silent. Will they report fairly what Wakefield has to say? The public simply are not to be trusted. Nor will they be told what is happening in the US. But can we trust Dr Ben Goldacre?: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/335/7618/480

Tom

The "Back to Sleep" Campaign which supposedly prevents SIDS causes massive developmental delays in newborns which cause autism-like symptoms. People are confusing the side effects of the SIDS "Back to Sleep" Campaign with autism. They just are a lot a like but are not the same thing.

David

This is indeed the year things are happening, Mr Stone. First from the United States we had evidence that removal of thimerosal from vaccines did not reduce rates of autism as predicted by the mercury militia. This was followed by revelations that the type of mercury in vaccines, ethyl mercury, has a very brief half life of under 4 days. The thimerosal/mercury/autism hypothesis is currently in meltdown, forcing its previous proponents to start blaming anything else they can think of in vaccines, just to preserve their cognitive dissonance about the subject. Then in the UK we have had two major research papers already this year, one showing no link to measles vaccine in autistic spectrum and regressive autism, and another showing that autistic children have no markers of "leaky gut" syndrome, the cornerstone of the Wakefield MMR/autism hypothesis. And today we read that alcohol use in pregnancy can cause autism (another one of many things that cause the syndrome, despite the insistence of antivaccinationaists that autism is all due to vaccination). The case of Hannah Poling in the USA was unique, and it is accepted that anything causing a fever might have precipitated her regressive neurological symptoms in the face of a rare underlying genetic metabolic disorder. Vaccines are a possible factor, and giving the family the benefit of the doubt in a court of law to enable compensation to be awarded seems fair, but is hardly a basis for future claims that vaccines cause autism.

Mark W

Having worked with people with ASD for many years and seen "causes" come and go (including "refrigerator mothers"), I am horrified to see MP championing the dangerous side of this debate. I though the "I'm only asking questions" excuse was the province of anti-Semites and other deluded people. Melanie, I have for many years relied on your political analysis. When you stray into an area I know fairly well, I begin to doubt the general reliability of your writing.

John Stone

David How can you say the Poling case was unique except that all our poor children are unique? Since the Poling case nine more autism cases that were conceded by the US vaccine court over the last 18 years have come to light, all different -there may be many more hidden, and certainly many more to be decided: and probably many different histories in which health and development were perturbed by vaccines, including MMR. These are things you would prefer the public not to know about. A recent Generation Rescue study - independently carried out in California and Oregon - shows that vaccinated children were two and half times more likely to be autistic than non-vaccinated children (quite apart from other health and developmetal problems). http://www.generationrescue.org/survey.html But the Department of Health will alway get it wrong because they always look deliberately in the wrong place, and this is what the Baird study shows once again. http://adc.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/adc.2007.122937v1 Instead of dealing in ad hominem, David, could we please deal with the specifics.

Antoine

hence, Mark - what might that suggest about her political judgement?

John Stone

David The incidence of high fever with the old whole-cell pertussis vaccine was recently quoted as one in 330: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/336/7639/302#191996 I doubt whether we have any figures at all for mitochondrial dysfunction (let alone for autistic children), but it is uncertain whether Hannah Poling problem was exacerbated or caused by the vaccine reaction. I have been told by a consultant doctor that she comes across mitochondrial dysfunction very commonly. Is the Department of Health looking at these issues - I should not think so. I wonder if there is any research to show Hannah Poling's problems are rare? Does the DH really wanted to get to the bottom of the causes of the autism crisis? The have surely been running away from the obvious for two decades.

John Stone

David PS High fever at an admitted one in 330 - as a reaction to pertussis whole-cell vaccine would have provided nearly 8,000 instances in the UK annually, but the DH went on doing it for decades. Now you admit that this very common reaction is dangerous.

John Stone

Perhaps David is also aware of the fact that health officials deliberately ignored a sudden doubling in the rate of autism diagnosis in NE London synchronous with the introduction of the accelerated DPT schedule in 1990 (which brough vaccination forward from 3, 5 and 10 months to 2, 3 and 4 months): http://adc.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/88/8/666#2773

Jackie Fletcher

In the last three weeks it has been revealed that the US Government has made vaccine damage awards to at least 10 children who became autistic some with bowel problems and/or seizure disorders following various combinations of vaccines, including MMR alone and still the US Government officials try to denounce the payments as unrelated to the vaccine problems - the vaccines haven't caused autism even though vaccine damage payments are made to children who have become autistic following vaccines - You figure? In the meantime the UK DoH officials say these awards have no bearing on UK children even though they have been given similar vaccines made by similar manufacturers. This mitochondrial dysfunction is, apparently, so rare it makes the case in the US unique. How do they know this? Bear in mind that there are another 5,000 US cases pending. In the UK in 1997 the then health minister and her senior medical advisors were given a list of children's adverse reactions and individual details and a clinical investigation was called for. This would have been useful on at least two fronts: firstly to determine how many were or were not vaccine related and secondly if any common traits were to be identified these could potentially be screened for which would surely improve vaccine safety for future children. This request was ignored. Adverse reactions are not collected effectively through the passive surveillance scheme. Without an accurate collective system we do not have and never can have accurate safety data. So how do the powers-that-be know that the parents are wrong when they have no accurate safety data? And which of these powers-that-be are personally responsible for failing to have an accurate surveillance system in place? I know of one child who died a number of years ago shortly after MMR was given. The toddler went into seizures, then became comatose and died. The infant was found to have measles virus in the damaged organs and was also found to have mitochondrial dysfunction. The family applied to the UK Vaccine Damage Payment Unit and was told the case could not be investigated because the child had died before the age of two years. There is a clause which prevents assessment of a suspected vaccine damage case until a child passes its second birthday. Just remind me, when are most childhood vaccines given in the UK? And if the child dies before the age of two were is it assessed? Not the purpose built Government Vaccine Damage Payment Unit that's for sure. So the issue of mitochondrial dysfunction and vaccines which could have been recognised at the very least when this UK child died all those years ago was not investigated and not learned on. Who actually cares about the vaccine-damaged child?

Clifford G. Miller

The problem with David's propositions (March 23rd 2:05am) are simple. Despite the denials for the past ten years, the first time we see autistic children having detailed clinical examinations, and their cases getting into the US courts, the cause of their autism is found to be the vaccines. And it is not just MMR and it is not just mercury - it is vaccines period. And the Hannah Poling case is not isolated nor is it the rare case it is being made out to be by government spin. We repeatedly see flash-in-the-pan medical papers put out by the establishment in a blaze of publicity. None of them are detailed clinical examinations of children. And when the furore has died down, so do the papers with them. They do not withstand scrutiny. That applies to Cochrane, Fombonne, Madsen, Pichichero, Rutter & Honda and many others. The list is long. The only people with a credibility problem are the medical profession, the drug companies, the Department of Health, the NHS and our very own Head of Immunisation, desk doctor, David Salisbury. And one thing they all have in common, and that is they rely on statistics that are 30 to 60 years out of date. By 2007 the chance of anyone dying of measles even if no one was ever vaccinated fell to less that 1 in 55 million - and that one person would be someone very sick indeed, who could die from anything at any time. This is about child health safety. The risks of vaccinating 600,000 children with nine shots of vaccine before they are 5 months old and then hitting them with more later has no safety data to support it. When last August Dr Jayne Donegan was comprehensively acquitted and her defence found proven beyond reasonable doubt, we looked at nearly 400 medical references from 5 medical and scientific experts. Not one paper dealt with or established the safety of a single childhood vaccine. Instead, we heard how adverse reactions to vaccines are severely under reported and how for example the British Medical Association and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain recommended in their publication the British National Formulary not vaccinating against mumps. They state "Since mumps and its complications are very rarely serious there is little indication for the routine use of mumps vaccine". Ethically that puts all doctors in the UK in a difficult position. And their position in law might prove more difficult still.

Cybertiger

Like all medical establishment pirates, 'David' is looking the other way ... and expecting to get away with the charade of medical evidence ... and all the booty. But the murcury militants are on to him and soon he will be walking the plank ... blindfold into vaccinatory oblivion.

David

Sorry John, I don't see a single ad hominem in my post. Read it again. Your point about fever is quite irrelevant - unless you think that vaccination reactions are the only cause of a febrile illness in a child? The old pertusis vaccine caused fever in 1 child in 330, as you say. The incidence with the new acellular vaccine is even less. The incidence of fever with pertussis itself is 100%. Infections and fever are common in kids - there are hundreds of viruses and bacteria that do this as part of normal development. Infections such as measles, rubella, pertussis, mumps, HiB etc will always provoke high and often prolonged fevers. If you argue that mitochondrial dysfunction is not a rare condition, and that fever can precipitate autistic symptoms in these children, then you have just paradoxically argued yourself into a slam-dunk reason for giving these children vaccines to prevent the very infections that might precipitate autism. Case closed.

slippinaway

When was the last time a person, an infant, naturally encountered measles, mumps and rubella all in one day? Wait, that's not enough, lets add some polio, some chickenpox, some pertussis toxin, some HiB and some HepB to the mix. Oh, wait, let's add some thiomersal and aluminum flavoring to awaken the immune senses. Well, I guess thiomersal will have to be replaced, but aluminum should suffice for now. Quite a cocktail. I'm sure David would willingly add some more to the brew for us.

David

Sorry John, I don't see a single ad hominem in my post. Read it again. Your point about fever is quite irrelevant - unless you think that vaccination reactions are the only cause of a febrile illness in a child? The old pertusis vaccine caused fever in 1 child in 330, as you say. The incidence with the new acellular vaccine is even less. The incidence of fever with pertussis itself is 100%. Infections and fever are common in kids - there are hundreds of viruses and bacteria that do this as part of normal development. Infections such as measles, rubella, pertussis, mumps, HiB etc will always provoke high and often prolonged fevers. If you argue that mitochondrial dysfunction is not a rare condition, and that fever can precipitate autistic symptoms in these children, then you have just paradoxically argued yourself into a slam-dunk reason for giving these children vaccines to prevent the very infections that might precipitate autism. Case closed.

Sue

yes my son had this!!!! and still does!

Jackie Fletcher

David With regard to fever related illnesses and vaccines that can provoke fevers in children with mitochondrial dysfunction: the whole point is to make sure we aren't damaging children in the process of vaccination otherwise whether it was the illness or a vaccine the result is still a damaged infant. Not all diseases currently vaccinated against carry the same risk of contraction or long-term problems for each person. However, with vaccinations the DoH policy of one-size-fits-all will undoubtedly expose more at-risk infants to side effects they would not otherwise have been expected to encounter. The DoH needs to stop playing games with children's lives and provide a full range of choice and accurate information about the illnesses so parents can make a truly informed decision based on the needs of their own child.

John Stone

David Apart from anything else you are not comparing like with like. You are comparing the risk of exposure to childhood infections with deliberately exposing infants to multiple infections simultaneously, irrespective of their medical histories, beginning in the UK at two months (and even with premature babies like Sally Clark's child, who was effectively only five weeks when he was administered 5 vaccines, and died 4-5 hour later). http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/cartoons/30630/part_2/what-killed-sally-clarks-child.thtml These are supposed to be tested and monitored products, but the usual advice if there is an adverse reaction is to disregard it and come back for next dose. There is almost never any follow up. If there was a correlation between infants who had reactions and autism, the DH is geared for not picking it up - and perversely designed studies instigated to fend off public concern after the event are no substitute for the absence of proper procedures in the first place. It is a matter of history in the case of Andrew Wakefield that the DH's attitude was from the beginning antagonistic, rather than concerned. And the basic attitude to anyone expressing concern is that they are talking nonsense. You may be right that people overestimated the mercury factor (though the issue is far from dead), but the ever increasing accumulation of vaccines without testing of their combined impact is just as striking when you look at the rise of autism. And it was surely negligent to let mercury exposure build as the programme expanded: not reassuring of care or competence at all. In the UK the mercury was not removed till October 2004 (if it was immediate), while in the US it is thought that stock also may have been in use up to 2004, and it is being re-introduced with flu shots. The programme keeps on expanding: in the US MMR is now administered with a chicken pox vaccine. But actually we are only just beginning. The pharma apparently plan a four-fold expansion of the paediatric vaccine market in the next decade: http://www.drugresearcher.com/news/ng.asp?n=81478&m=1DRGN20&c=lplynyschajsutd I have to say that the public posture of the DH is not credible. The attitude is always dismissive, not to say gung-ho. I recall David Salisbury announcing on TV that infant immune system was capable of sustaining a thousand vaccines. "The immune system of a baby has got huge spare capacity to deal with challenge. If we didn't, the human race wouldn't survive. But let's look specifically at vaccine. This has been studied carefully. A baby's immune system could actually tolerate perfectly well 1,000 vaccines". http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/329/7463/411#74897 However, every time you add another one you increase the risk of adverse reaction both individually and in combination (this is a mathematic proposition), and no one I hope would add in small pox or anthrax lightly, but Salisbury talks as if they are all the same. 1,000 illnesses, but which?

David

It is quite clear what problems the anti-vaccine lobby is facing, The mercury = autism theory has run out of steam and the putative links between MMR and autism are breaking with every new study that is published. The Hannah Poling case shows the desperation of the anti-vaccination lobby to pin the blame for autism on vaccines – any theory will do, as long as vaccines can be blamed somehow. To remind you and everyone else, Hannah Poling’s autism-like symptoms were, on the balance of probability, thought to be due to a worsening of her rare underlying genetic mitochondrial dysfunction when she developed a fever following vaccination. This could have been the consequence of ANY fever (and might even have been the result of one of her frequent ear infections). Now the risk of getting a fever is far greater if one gets the natural illness (eg measles) rather than the vaccine, so for children with mitochondrial disorder it makes perfect sense to vaccinate. Do it in planned stages if you will with liberal antipyretic cover, but vaccination may actually end up protecting the child more than will be the case if she/he is left to acquire the infections naturally. John, I am surprised that you call vaccinations "infections". I thought you knew more about vaccines than that. As you should realise, most vaccines contain only tiny fragments of the particular pathogen in question. Sometimes just a few synthesised surface peptides are all that are needed to fool the body into a specific humoral immune response that will also end up providing protection against infection with the whole original organism. It is not by any stretch of the imagination an "infection". Talk of exposing infants to "multiple infections simultaneously" is nonsense. Often natural infection with the "whole" organism stimulates several disparate host immune responses to different antigenic parts of the organism, resulting in more blanket immune stimulation and more in the way of host responses like fever (as well as causing the disease). Vaccination is far simpler and cleaner a way to induce immunity. David Salisbury’s claim about a "thousand vaccines" is not a particularly useful or accurate analogy, I will admit. He was trying to point out that the immune system faces many challenges on a daily basis in the form of thousands of antigens from the environment and exposure to the thousands of micro-organisms that we co-exist with.

Clifford G. Miller

David keeps referring to the "anti-vaccine lobby" (Mar 24 2:23am) Wake up man! This is about child health safety, giving children harmful drugs for drug company profit and ignoring the consequences and the absence of need for the vaccines. Saving the NHS the cost of a trip to the doctor if a kid gets some symptoms of a well-known very mild disease like mumps is not justification for allowing wholesale adverse reactions to go unchecked and unreported and very serious harm being caused for many children for life. It is also not justification for being 30 to sixty years out of date with your statistics. "anti-vaccine lobby" indeed. What total nonsense.

Isabella Thomas

David, Have you read the drug companies vaccine damage drug adverse reaction leaflet and then the adverse reaction leaflet that is not given to parents? Compare it to the Department of Health one given to parents? Why are they both so different? Why do you call parents of vaccine damage children anti-vaccine? We gave our children all their vaccines up to the point of damage believe me. We are responsible parents. Why don't you stand with us in calling for the Department of Health to medically examine our children believed to be vaccine damaged. Not once have parents been approached by the Department of Health. Do you know we have had to take our children to the USA for urgent treatment and some parents have had to mortgage their homes to do this. A consultant in a top London Hospital apologised to my son for not given him proper medical treatment and said 'We will have to change the criteria of the way we treat autistic children' He admitted the lack of treatment was because of the way Dr. Wakefield and others were treated. I then asked him if there was any research on our children's conditions and was told no. The medication our children are on is trial and error and we would just have to wait and see how the illness progresses. David, would you be happy with this if it was your child? Would you be happy for your child's medical notes from another hospital to go missing and then the temporary notes (twice) to also go missing? This has not just happened to my children but others also. None of our children are getting popper medical treatment in this country because they are vaccine damaged and doctors are too scared to treat them especially if they have autism enter-colitis. Would you believe a consultant said to me that a diagnosis of crones would be better for my son. But the bowel disease has symptoms of crones and colitis. David, the high fever you seem to be interested in is not just a normal high fever our children get after their vaccines. The fever was so high in one of my children that he had a 'high pitch cry' like a cat cry. Some other 'so called normal' symptoms our children have after a vaccine reaction are excessive thirst, high fevers lasting up to a week at a time, rashes, jaundice, fits, aggression, bowel changes, pain in stomach, arms and head, very bad leg cramps, exhaustion, severe reflux vomiting, dizzy spells, memory loss and relapse to name but a few. Some of the children are now reaching adulthood and can talk. Before you start to attack us just remember what we have to live with and what our children have to live for the rest of their lives. This is an up hill struggle to help our children and get treatment for them. Don't you think we would love this to be caused by anything but the vaccines we took them to have. It is not just us but now thousands of parents all over the world with children with the same symptoms. I know you are an intelligent man and do not believe all of us parents are lying. What would we gain? What would the Department of Health and the drug companies gain if we were proved right? Really think about this, to them it is acceptable for damaged children to fall along the way for what they see as the greater good. What if one of those children was yours. Do we put on our children's tomb stones 'For the greater good' No. we are left with children who are suffering so much in pain and what the future holds for them god only knows but I can tell you one thing no matter how much we are attacked and no matter how many so called studies come out stating there is no vaccine damage we and our families will spend the rest of our lives fighting for justice for our very special children. Right is might.

John Stone

David, I am glad you credit me with knowing something about this. But look how many questions I have placed before you which you have not addressed. Of course, I understand the theory and I suppose everyone does: that this is a controlled form of exposure which is safer than natural exposure, and that vaccination is the sensible choice. But there is no way of telling this if you run away from monitoring and investigating the consequences, and your previous reply acknowledges that this is the attitude. Frankly, it is hit and run. Even your data about effectiveness may be dodgy because of the pervasive scientific bias. Indeed, you could probably always dig out a few more cases of measles to whack Wakefield with. http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/news.php?start=1960&end=1980&view=yes&id=2348#newspost Of course, the vaccine safety movement in the US is not in crisis, it is getting more confident by the day. Many of us tried to warn that it was problem of the culture and not just of the mercury, which was a symptom of the culture. And the culture, let us be clear, is of over-whelming scientific bias, and aggressive assertion and denial, which long ago spun out of control.

John Stone

David Incidentally, I believe Salisbury had in mind the Offit doctrine, often cited as hard science by health officials, that even ten or a hundred thousand vaccines would be safe. I am glad you agree with me that this is wild, but it has been integral to the ideology.

field

David - I find your approach quite insulting. Firstly, you seem to be suggesting that because a genetic condition is involved in the vaccine damage it somehow doesn't "count". Secondly, you seem to think that people who are sceptical of the claimed benefits of vaccination in a modern developed country are so stupid that they could never work out there may be a link between vaccine damage and genetic conditions. For the record: I'm not that stupid. Third, you seem to think that no harm can result from the entry of mercury into the body system. Do you wish to confirm that is the case? And if mercury in the body is safe why has it now been removed from vaccines? Fourth, do you deny that vaccine manufacturers in the USA actually admit the risks of vaccine damage in their accompanying literature? (Not sure what the position is in UK.) Do you accept that when a DH spokesperson says a vaccine is "safe" they are therefore telling an untruth. I'd like to conclude with the general observation that it is very difficult for people without medical training to enter this debate, but I have occasionally slogged through the details of these surveys periodically touted by the UK authorities as definitive proof of no link between vaccines and ill health or autism. It quickly becomes apparent the evidence is never as presented - even the authors put all sorts of caveats on their survey results that the Department of Health misleadingly pass over. And of course those surveys or trials that do suggest a link are ignored or buried. We need trust between government, doctors and the public. That trust has been comprehensively broken, now that we have more information on the subject. To develop a new relationship based no trust we need:- 1. An end to statements that vaccines are "safe". They are not. The issue is simply whether the negative health effects that result from not pursuing a vaccine strategy outweigh the ill effects that result from vaccination. Government must be honest on that. 2. The government and health professionals must stop lying about the effects of childhood diseases. They must tell the truth about the effects on normal healthy children in a society where they have good nutrition, clean water, hygienic living conditions and good housing and where modern medicine can intervene if they do become very ill. The answer of course is that VERY VERY few children will develop serious reactions. But of course it will be an inconvenience for GPs having to deal again with these childhood maladies. 3. An end to persecution of doctors and others who go against the consensus on vaccines. 4. Take the pharmaceutical industry out of the policy debate. They have a vested financial interest in vaccination and should be allowed no part in the decision making process. I think if the above was done we could begin to have a rational debate about what vaccinations, if any, to give and when.

slippinaway

But wait David, even reading the FDA's statement on the new ProQuad vaccine which adds varicella to the MMR to create MMRV, one will find that in the period 5 - 12 days post-vaccine, febrile seizures are 2.5 times greater in the MMRV group as compared to seperate MMR and V. It also states that for MMR, there is one more febrile seizure for every 3 - 4,000 MMR vaccinees than for the no vaccine group. Sure blows a giant hole in the 1,000's of innoculations in a day theory. Now, let's throw in some polio and HepB etc. etc. etc. on the same day. Oh, your "clean" vaccines have also been known to cause disease, even mutate into a similar wild version and cause an outbreak. Then, in the natural course of many of these diseases there is subclinical spread (95% or greater of polio is subclinical). Please plug this into your theoretical fever incidence. And, plug into your theory, massive under-reporting/denial of adverse vaccine reactions. Then elaborate David...as of now, your informed consent is far from informed. But wait again David, thiomersal has been demonstrated to cause mitochondrial dysfunction in both neuronal cell and immune Tcell lines. Even in nanomolar concentrations. So, if it was a genetic dysfuntion, a place to look is at the parents who were insidiously and increasingly innoculated with thiomersal containing vaccines. No David, thiomersal is far from off the hook.

John Stone

David Just to recap, you are in error, David Salisbury quite specifically said "1,000 vaccines". Indeed, the Offit doctrine of 10,000 vaccines apparently underpinned UK government science when I challenged MMR the Facts about a statement by Chief Medical Officer, Sir Liam Donaldson in 2004, as I reported in BMJ Rapid Responses: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/329/7456/0-g#65659 And it was my impression that the Offit article: 'Addressing Parents’ Concerns: Do Multiple Vaccines Overwhelm or Weaken the Infant’s Immune System?' was part of the international health official's dogma: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/109/1/124 So, I find it interesting that you are distancing yourself from this opinion.

Stan

Good points in this thread. To me, the main issue is that the PTB decided long ago that the benefits of their wondrous new medical modality of vaccines so far outweighed the risks of them that some kids would just have to be sacrificed for the good of the whole - and then failed to institute the long-term studies of the effects because of their belief system. And then the side effects started becoming more and more prominent - allergies/asthma/anaphylaxis, type 1 diabetes, a whole host of autoimmune diseases including MS, and a whole range of Minimal Brain Disorder (MBD) conditions like ADD/ADHD and dyslexia and dyspraxia and yes, the ASD, that it started getting difficult to hold the public still for their children's jabs; but they persevered in their good intentions - and ignored the risk/benefit ratio, because of hubris or greed or what all, and arrogantly increased the vaccine schedule to the point where too many kids were getting too sick to keep the whole thing as quiet as they could any longer, with too many parents making too much noise esp. about their ASD canaries in the coalmine. No, the massive amount of chronic illness & disease is not all due to vaccines; there are many environmental triggers, including pesticides and coal-fired power plants and antibiotics and a lot else. But the medical-pharmaceutical-government complex is guilty of a major lack of proper oversight. And that is in ignoring all the evidence that has been coming in for years that vaccines are not as safe as they were touted by the PTB to be - and parents have been right to blow the whistle, and demand safer vaccines, or they would go on strike with the welfare of their kids on the line, and to hell with your herd immunity figures.
It's not as if there aren't a considerable number of treatments for the childhood diseases, and which don't have the damnable side effects to them that the vaccines have. But that's for another space and time. This time here is just to say in sum that the road to hell is paved with good intentions - esp. if you don't notice where it's leading, when there are warning markers all along your merry way.

Joan Campbell

Fantastic article by a proper journalist. One who asks questions from all sides and writes the truth. Thank you Melanie.

EyeSee

Shortly after one of our children received the MMR jab we moved from Suffolk to Bucks. On registering with a doctor we were told that an MMR had been arranged. We said that he had already had it and the reply was, 'that wont matter, best to be on the safe side'. MMR might be safe and it might not, one thing is clear; the health 'profession' is cavalier with our safety. Clearly the second jab was to earn the surgery their fee.

David

It is hardly my job to answer all of the many questions thrown at me by other respondents here, especially as most of them have no direct bearing on the Phillips article or on things I have said. So please don’t accuse me of “failing to respond”. (However I am flattered so many look to me for enlightenment on the subject of vaccines) Regarding the Melanie Phillips article and the Hannah Poling case, I never said the Salisbury statement about “a 1000 vaccines” was “wild”. Salisbury (and Offit) used the term to try and describe the immunological capacity in terms of a vaccine-delivered antigen challenge. The numbers for an antigen challenge were converted by Offit into a “vaccine equivalent” in order to assist with people’s understanding of the numbers and the principles involved. It may not have been the most useful analogy, and as has been shown, it is capable of being misinterpreted, misrepresented and misused. However I have absolutely no disagreement with the science here – what the Offit paper shows is that the infant immune system has the capacity to respond to up to one hundred billion different antigens at any time. Taking into account the circulating B cells and calculating the quantity of antibody per immunologically-distinct epitope, the conclusion was that an infant could mount a response to the antigens present in “10 000 vaccines”. My point about Hannah Poling is that she developed her symptoms after a fever that was probably provoked by a vaccine reaction. This is not disputed by me. Even though Melanie Phillips admits that “Precisely what caused Hannah Poling’s catastrophic reaction, therefore, cannot be established”, she accuses the vaccines of causing an “immune system collapse” in Hannah, stating that “multiple vaccines overload immune systems”. This is nonsense. Hannah received at most 117 vaccine antigens, while forty years ago infants received over 3000. I quite recognise the reality that vaccines may cause febrile reactions, but my point is that a febrile reaction (and therefore the risk of precipitating autism like symptoms in a child with underlying mitochondrial disorder) is far less likely to occur with today’s vaccines compared to ones we used 40 years ago, and far, far less likely to occur than if the child acquired the infections in question naturally. So in a world where we are concerned about children’s health and well-being, we should ensure that in those who may be vulnerable to the adverse effects of fever we do everything in our power to limit the risk of naturally acquired febrile illnesses through judicious, step-wise administration of vaccines against the commoner vaccine-preventable illnesses with suitable prophylactic cover of antipyretics.

John Stone

David: It seems to me that certain people are going out of their way to be misunderstood. For example, here is an extract from a webpage of Offit's very own Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (remarkably called CHOP for short):

"But it should be the least of your worries. "Children have an enormous capacity to respond safely to challenges to the immune system from vaccines," says Dr. Offit. "A baby's body is bombarded with immunologic challenges - from bacteria in food to the dust they breathe. Compared to what they typically encounter and manage during the day, vaccines are literally a drop in the ocean." In fact, Dr. Offit's studies show that in theory, healthy infants could safely get up to 10,000 vaccines at once."

http://www.chop.edu/consumer/jsp/division/generic.jsp?id=81553

But Salisbury himself told me an increasing vaccine load would increase the risk of adverse reaction, so the concept of overload is a red-herring, as well as also an untested hypothesis presented as fact.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/329/7463/411#74897

Given the heavy-handed treatment of Wakefield the blithe disregard of reality here is breathtaking. And this is the stuff that our health offiicials spout.

Clifford G. Miller

David (March 25th @ 3:43pm) illustrates the nature of the problem the public has to contend with in terms of people who talk about issues and use terms they do not understand themselves, including the "science" word. Regrettably, the medical profession is littered with people who think they know more than everyone else and that they are smarter. Here is an illustration, courtesy of David, that they are not.

David refers vaccine patent holder Dr Paul Offit's untested and unproven medical theory as "science".

Medicine is not science and untested unproven medical theories are never science.

If we are playing "science" then have to show that, as David says, the "infant immune system has the capacity to respond to up to one hundred billion different antigens at any time".

However, if this were more than an untested unproven medical (and not scientific) theory, then David should be able to name and identify the "100 billion antigens". This might take some time. Naturally, it will take him some time to name or otherwise uniquely identify the 100 billion antigens. And therein lies his problem. If he cannot identify the 100 billion antigens and show they are each equivalent in effect to something like, measles virus, then the theory is in tatters and it cannot be in anyone's terms "science".

However, while we are waiting, we can line up David's next task. He needs to show us the infants which have had the "100 billion" "vaccine equivalent" "antigens" and let us know how they fared. Remember, we are pretending to be "scientists", so it is an important part of the scientific proof to produce the experimental results.

But we must still go further, even though it is going to take David a bit of a while to catch up to this point.

Because we are playing "science" we now need to demonstrate that each one of the "100 billion antigens" are equivalent, to say, the effect of measles vaccine virus. Or should we suggest Urabe strain mumps vaccine virus? That is well proven to be very harmful to those with undeveloped, compromised or impaired immune systems. And of course, with current vaccination policies, they will get the vaccines too.

Regrettably, by now David will be a long way behind. But that does not matter. While David is busy identifying his "100 billion vaccine virus equivalent antigens" let us press on.

How much of the 100 billion antigens do we give to each child? Do we just give one bit or multiple bits of antigen? If we give two bits, does each child get 200 billion bits? Or do we need to give each child the vaccine virus equivalent of one dose of vaccine? For Urabe Am9 that is 20,000 TCID50, or should it be 1000 TCID50 of the Schwarz measle vaccine virus strain?

I know, it is going to take a bit of a while to test each one of the "100 billion antigens" for their equivalence to Urabe or Schwarz strains vaccine viruses.

However, assuming David gets this far, we could find we might be giving each child a 5 ml dose of vaccine containing 20,000 TCID50 x 100 billion bits of "vaccine equivalent antigens". Hmmm, doesn't sound too safe to me.

And boy, this is going to take us a long time to work out just how much to give of each of the "100 billion antigens".

Then we have to get the 100 billion x 20,000 TCID50 or whatever, measure them out and mix them all get them into a syringe and inject the lot into an infant.

Yep, that is right. Because we are playing "science", we need to see if what Paul Offit claims is true can be replicated.

So whose infant do we choose? Well it cannot be Leo Blair as he is no longer a baby? What's that you say, David? We have to give it to lots of infants all at once?

But if that is the case and we want to be sure the theory works, then we have to give it to all infants regardless of personal clinical circumstances, because that is what is done with vaccines.

So, David, by the time you have gotten to this stage, which dumb schmuck parents are you going to get to volunteer their precious infant for this experiment? And remember, as this is science, we have to do the experiment to attempt to prove Paul Offit's theory, because we are playing "scientists".

And this is where the theory all falls down because the research ethics committee will refuse approval. So tell me, how exactly did Paul Offit manage to prove his unproven untested medical theory exactly and remain within the bounds of the ethical? Isn't he the Rotavirus patent holder?

John Stone

As a demonstration of the robustness of the Offit hypothesis I publish the results of a search completed on the US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), of Offit's patent rotavirus vaccine Rotateq (ROTHB5):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Offit

Readers should bear in mind that usually only about 10% of events are acknowledged or reported on VAERS. Nevertheless we have a grand total of 2270 reports:

http://tinyurl.com/3a5n9t

which resulted in 523 hospitalisations (25% - a huge proportion):

http://tinyurl.com/3ysn8g

and 58 deaths (more than 25% of hospitalisations die - again high)

http://tinyurl.com/3xstxj

Congratulations Paul!

Hilary Butler.

Most medical people have dismissed the gene “aberration” of the Poling case, as being totally irrelevant to the majority of the population.

Here’s an experiment for readers.

Go to www.clinicaltrials.gov and look up any vaccine trial involving either babies or infants. The section you should read carefully is the “exclusion” criteria. Note that some of those exclusions include conditions which parents have. Read that list carefully and then ask yourself this. If a study was conducted in the middle of London today, how many baby’s born in London, would be eligible for that trial?

Now, move on through the three phases where the same exclusion criteria apply. Just say the vaccine passes over David’s desk and he certifies it as safe. In particular, of course, it will be recommended for people with chronic illness or immunodeficiencies, because they would (by logic) be more at risk of the disease. “But”, I hear you say, “none of the vaccine were tested for safety in those children!... they were all excluded from the trial.”

You are correct.

Now to the supposition that chronic conditions, immunodeficiencies, mitochondrial disorders are irrelevant to vaccine reactions. The medical literature makes it clear that both disease, non-response to vaccines, and vaccine reactions are epigenetically driven. The field “vaccinomics” is looking at this.

Go here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez and put in this number into the box. 17895626 and read it. Tells you a bit but not much. Get the whole paper though and a different story unfolds. Complications to disease, and death, are genetically driven. Those same people don’t respond to vaccines. Get another article 17971814. Again, the abstract is so-so, but the full text is much more interesting. Here we find admission that reactions to vaccines are genetically driven as well.

That stands to reason doesn’t it.

But they can’t have their cake and eat it. So lets look at this David’s way.

If the reason a person who gets a complication to a disease, or dies, is “genetically” driven, then that’s not the fault of the disease is it, because the disease would do nothing in people who didn’t have those gene polymorphisms.

As far back as 1992, Gadjusek spoke about this fact:

http://www2.unescobkk.org/eubios/HGR/HGRCG.htm

<<< In most infections only a rare individual becomes ill or suffers rare complications, and that individual may be genetically predetermined, it usually is. For example, HTLV-1 infects 1-2 million Japanese, but only one in over a thousand gets adult advanced T cell leukemia after 40 years, and fortunately only about one in a thousand gets HAM, HTLV-1 associated myolopophy. Those unfortunate rare individuals are the problem, not the problem of the innocuous, or carriers, the other one thousand who die without ever knowing that they had it, and having no ill effect. The same can be said for poliomyelitis, where it takes 1,000 infected cases in order to induce a paralysis, the others don't know they were infected.>>>

(Actually the first mention of it in medical literature was related to polio in the early 1950's)

On the gene logic, it’s not the fault of the polio virus that the person got paralytic polio. It’s the fault of their genes. Now that I know this, logic would say that if I chose not to have a vaccine for something I probably won’t get, because 999 out of 1,000 people don’t have the “gene” necessary to get paralytic polio, that should be my right. After all, my genes might not predispose me to polio, but they might just predispose me to serious reactions to vaccines! I have an immunodeficiency, David, and have had serious reactions to three vaccines: TB, rubella and tetanus.

And I’m in that very group of people who would have not been “allowed” into any vaccine trials precisely because I had a condition which just might make the vaccine look bad. Vaccines have always been trialled in a “self-selected” uber-healthy, miniscule group of people, who represent only a tiny proportion of the total population.

Think about that before you tell parent of vaccine damaged children here, that genes, epigenetics and vaccinomics is irrelevant, okay?

Because behind closed doors, Gregory Poland wouldn’t agree with you. Not that he’d admit that in public.

John Stone

I omitted to mention that the toll from Rotateq is in only two years since it was introduced in 2006.

David

I hope Clifford Miller is not accusing me of using science terms that I do not understand – the irony in that would be delightful. He seems, as many others are, to be struggling to understand the infant immune system. Perhaps I can help. As appealing as the notion might be of a tiny, vulnerable, perfect child complete with its vulnerable, immature immune system and who has never been exposed to any nasty things in its life being injected with a cocktail of lethal vaccine components and antigens, nothing could be further from the truth. It might suit Miller in his vaccine damage court cases (vested interests, anyone?) but is totally unrealistic.

Offit in his paper refers to the capacity of the infant immune system to respond to antigens. The science he refers to is well established. By 14 weeks gestation, the fetal immune system produces T and B cells capable of responding to a large variety of circulating protein antigens. It is not necessary to name each and every individual antigen, as he sarcastically tries to say – studies show that whatever the antigen challenge is, there is a detectable host response. There is a large range of antibody responses in the newborn, and immunological priming occurs, whereby an immune response is generated to foreign antigens that acts as a good basis for future responses to the same antigen. Neonates also produce specific Th1 cell subsets with a role in cellular immunity and Th2 subsets to promote humoral responses.

At birth, the neonate is exposed to an environment swamped with millions of different foreign antigens, primarily protein in nature. The infant skin and gut become colonised within hours by millions of bacteria, each of which may have hundreds of different antigenic proteins or polysaccharides on its surface. Is the infant immune system “overloaded” or “overwhelmed”? No.

Admittedly, the infant immune system is less well able to deal with carbohydrate antigens – responses to these take longer to develop, and is the reason why some vaccines work after birth, yet others which contains polysaccharide antigens (i.e. sugars) are less effective. Infants are therefore more vulnerable to infections like Pneumococcus and Haemophilus, which have polysaccharide surface antigens. Fortunately protein conjugated vaccines against these organisms can induce a response that is greater than would be the case if the infection is acquired “naturally”, serving as a good example of how “natural” immunity is not always best, particularly if it is suboptimal in the first place.

It is evidence from genetics, that field so beloved by Hilary Butler, that provides an indication of the potential range of antibody responses in the infant. It seems hardly rocket science to conclude that for an infant who is exposed to hundreds, if not thousands of new antigenic challenges each day, the addition of a few more is unlikely to cause the immune system to catastrophically collapse.

Please note I am just talking of the ability to respond to a challenge. I am not trying to deny that a vaccine challenge can cause an unwanted or severe reaction in the child. This can happen, and is the sign of a robust immune system, not a weakened one. My point about Hannah Poling is that an unwanted “reaction” accompanied by a fever which is capable of precipitating stress on mitochondrial function is far more likely to occur with natural infections with diseases such as measles or pertussis than it is with the vaccines. Why will none of you address this point?

Clifford G. Miller

David says March 26th, @ 6:50pm "I hope Clifford Miller is not accusing me of using science terms that I do not understand".

Clifford Miller is not accusing.

He has just demonstrated in the clearest possible terms that:

- David does not understand what "science" is;

- that hs is unable to distinguish between science and medicine

- and between unproven untested theory and fact.

So when David uses the word "science", we can rest assured that he does not know what he is talking about.

And as we can see, he can and does talk until he is blue in the face about "science", whilst demonstrating a singular lack of understanding, he will just have to be blue.

And look at how long he has gone on for this time - and at the end of it he changes the subject again. Pity, 'cos I was enjoying it when he talks "science". He's just so cute when he does that, even when an odd shade of blue. But it is impossible to take him seriously, especially when he looks, well, ..... blue.

I look forward to another nonscience lecture. Just keep it coming, son. Its a great show.

slippinaway

But wait David; in all your lenghty discourse to attempt to prove you know what your talking about you forgot the key ingredient.

The key ingredient being virulence factor. You failed to comprehend just how well Clifford demonstrated that you completely failed to quantify and qualify the antigen (bacteria, virus, neurotoxin, animal proteins and histocompatibility complex...) and it's own virulence or ability to cause disease, autoimmune reaction, cell death.

So, Offit's own patented Rotavirus vaccine caused thousands of reactions in two years. Twenty five percent of which ended up in the hospital and ten percent of hospitalees died. So, according to you and Offit's "proven" research, the Rotavirus must have presented thousands of billions of antigens to those thousands which were adversely effected as they didn't handle "the challenge".

Wait again David, as Clifford stated, each infant is unique as well...immunilogically and clincially. So, please quantify and qualify that as well. It is somewhat done in the clinical trials. Clinical trials which are likely not very externally valid to the general population due to the lengthy exclusion criteria.

Keep trying David, you might get it eventually.

John Stone

David:

Let me pose something very simple. If the infant immune system has this remarkable ability to withstand challenge, why do infants get ill, and why would it be necessary to vaccinate them?

Oresme

David said:
"At birth, the neonate is exposed to an environment swamped with millions of different foreign antigens, primarily protein in nature. The infant skin and gut become colonised within hours by millions of bacteria, each of which may have hundreds of different antigenic proteins or polysaccharides on its surface. Is the infant immune system “overloaded” or “overwhelmed”? No."

If we took those millions of antigens and instead of them going to the skin and the gut, we put them in a needle and injected them into the infant, do you think the immune system would respond in the same manner?

David

Mr Clifford, I see you do not wish to address the issue under discussion, preferring to preen and wink at your cronies in the gallery. Is this how you run your court cases? Is the "science" a bit beyond you? Why are you unable to respond with facts, only baseless opinions and emotive language? It seems your ignorance is only exceeded by your pomposity.

John Sone, as my post quite clearly states, what I am referring to is the ability of the immune system to recognise an immunological challenge. The whole point of the immune system is to stimulate an effective "memory" - once it has been primed it will enable the body to successfully avert the infection in the future (assuming it survives the first assault unscathed). The whole point of vaccines is to provide a way of stimulating protective immunity in advance of the real challenge, so the host can resist the harmful effects of a subsequent infection. Unlike Mr Miller, you are not ignorant of these facts; don't be disengenuous.

field

Two very interesting points have emerged from this thread for the pay person:-

1. People with genetic conditions are being specifically excluded from trials, thus rendering them meaningless.

2. GPs are not always (ever? very frequently?) recording instances where parents note a change for the worse in their child following on a vaccination. Call me cynical but I suspect we can be pretty sure no Minister's letters have ever gone out to health authorities stressing the utmost importance of recording and passing on informatino on all such instances.

Hilary Butler

David.

***<<>>***

Did you READ the article PMIDs I put up? Vaccinomics, is in the process of admitting how little they know, and their admissions about that, show just how little they understand either disease or infection, let alone antibodies…. You talk as if that's all done and dusted, when the debate hasn't even begun in medical circles. Vaccinomic admits the many goose chases they are being led on, for precisely that factor.

Why do you think that antibodies is the only meaningful part of the immune system?

***<<< It seems hardly rocket science to conclude that for an infant who is exposed to hundreds, if not thousands of new antigenic challenges each day, the addition of a few more is unlikely to cause the immune system to catastrophically collapse.>>>*** It's also not rocket science to see that those hundreds of thousands of antigens are processed via the Waldeyer's ring, without the addition of excipient.

And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to wake up to the fact that if you stuck those same hundreds of thousands of antigens into a body via hundreds and thousands of syringes with all the addition excipients and adjuvants to force the immune system to do “something” unnatural, even though you know not what…, the response of the body would be vastly different.

Can you progress please, from Error 404 to logic 101?

***<<>>>****

I note that. A challenge which isn't replicated in any way shape or form when the same plus excipients, is injected into a baby. So why are you comparing an ant with a scorpion?

***<<< I am not trying to deny that a vaccine challenge can cause an unwanted or severe reaction in the child. This can happen, and is the sign of a robust immune system, not a weakened one. >>>>***

Please put up for me a list of PMID numbers of controlled trials which show that encephalopathy and other serious vaccine reactions are proof of a much better robust immune system!

Were your logic even marginally sane, doctors would be telling parents to expect serious reactions as a measure of the goodness of their child’s immune system.

Based on your 404, children who have no side effects at all, plainly don't have an immune system worth thinking about.

***<<<>>>****

What an astonishing statement David.

Oh hang on, I get it now. All natural immunity is "sub-optimal*???!!!!!

I get it now. Like Frazer said PMID 16920633, immunity to HPV’s which have protected 99.9% of women for ever is “weak” and Gardasil, which provokes levels 10-20 times higher than “natural” immunity is “strong”. The medical mantra always being “more is better.” More antibodies is better than less. More reactions are better than fewer.

But didn't you just say how wonderfully a baby's immune system functioned? But not with LPS or their relatives huh?

Perhaps you should go and discuss that amazing concept with Lipsitch, because I'm sure that when it comes to the polysaccharide-type antigens he would not agree with you. And neither would evolution. But before you do that, you should read up a bit more.

If you have no idea where to start, start here http://medicine.plosjournals.org/archive/1549-1676/2/1/pdf/10.1371_journal.pmed.0020015-L.pdf
before you talk to Lipsitch. Natural immunity is never sub-optimal. For the majority of people it works just fine. A disease state is never determined solely by the bacteria alone, which you of all people should know. Were that so, no babies would ever have survived and you would not be here today.

Clifford G. Miller

The above demonstrates that rotavirus vaccine patent holder Paul Offit's theory and David's version of it (100 billion vaccine equivalents rather than Offit's 10,000) are both bunk nonscience, comme d'habitude.

[Offit - http://www.whale.to/v/offit1.html]

To summarise how ridiculous it all is, as David is so sure the infant immune system has this remarkable ability to withstand challenge, it should therefore be unnecessary to vaccinate. So his position is pointless. It is a circular argument.

According to David the child can without vaccination withstand 100 billion naturally occuring vaccine equivalent antigens administered all at the same time. Obviously, no need to vaccinate, then.

But if the infant immune system does not have this quality, then the administration of one or multiple vaccine viruses poses a threat to the health and safety of the infant.

What is insidious about this argument, and it is no more than that as shown here, is that it is used to argue there is no need to test single or multiple antigen vaccines for safety.

This then assists to create an environment in which drug companies can roll out more and more multiple antigen vaccines and use them on infants with immature immune systems without the need for full and rigorous safety scrutiny.

Ergo, we have cases like Hannah Poling. And as with all circular arguments, we have now come full circle, back to where we started.

And that exemplifies that this is all about child health safety. Our kids, all of our kids, need to be protected from government, from drug companies and from the bunk nonscience theories bandied around like confetti to push more and more harmful pharmaceuticals on populations which do not need them and are better off without them.

David

Perhaps I was too kind in calling Mr Miller ignorant of the facts. The term is nor pejorative, merely descriptive of one's state of knowledge. However, since I have patiently explained the difference between the ability to recognise a challenge to the immune system and the ability to "withstand" that challenge a couple of times now, only for Mr Clifford to ignore what was said, he cannot use ignorance as an excuse.

David

Oresme, you asked;

If we took those millions of antigens and instead of them going to the skin and the gut, we put them in a needle and injected them into the infant, do you think the immune system would respond in the same manner?

The idea of injecting something into a child on the face of it seems unnatural and counterintuitive. People play on this emotive imagery, which appears to contradict common sense. Yet infants not only are exposed to millions of antigens by ingestion and exposure to other mucosal surfaces, they are exposed each time they get a small scrape on their skin which allows dirt and bacteria entry into the tissues. Most of these points of entry are too small to be visible - we don't have to rip the skin off our knees coming off a bike to do this.

Even when antigens are ingested rather than injected, they are presented to the immune system in the wall of the gut and taken up by macrophages and other "antigen-presenting cells" which then circulate through the body, enabling the immune system to respond. So oral ingestion does lead to a systemic immune response.

Another thing to remember is that we are talking about injecting only handful of antigens at a time, not millions as you imply.

John Stone

David:

There is quite a lot of text above but I cannot locate your distinction between recognising challenges and withstanding them. Of course, as you recognise you are being challenged, but it is not too clear whether you are withstanding it.

As it is nothing you have talked about demonstrates the intrinsic safety of vaccines - they are supposed to be tested and monitored like other pharmaceutical products, but are only inadequately. Indeed, you would be very swift to deny widespread damage (often claimed by parents) but when you do so you resort to the theory, and not to close examination of the cases. This is apart from anything else systematic institutional bias, which nullifies any scientific claims.

I cannot see anything that demonstrates the inherent safety of the method, beyond the protestation of good intentions. Also you might overestimate the dangers of disease (very good examples are measles, mumps, whooping cough) or the likelihood of catching them (polio comes to mind), but you might also underestimate the risk of "tricking" the immune system, which might have different results from the naturally occuring disease. And the alacrity with which professionals walk away at the suspicion that anything might have gone wrong is not encouraging. Or even worse, the parent gets the blame (Sally Clark). Not, we believe an isolated incident.

Hilary Butler

David, you did NOT read the Lipsitch paper I put up for you to read. While oral ingestion might lead to a “systemic” immune response, it does not always lead to a humoral response. In fact, polysaccharide presentation more often than not, doesn’t lead to antibody formation at all, and the systemic response is usually silent. According to the paper I put up for you by Frazer, the same applies to HPViruses, (polio viruses and a whole raft of other pathogens.)

I’m not playing on any emotive imagery talking about syringes. I’m talking fact. You are also insinuating that the presentation to APC in the gut, is identical to the process from a vaccine, when the two are vastly different. If APC presentation was the same in both processes, vaccines wouldn’t need adjuvants. Why don’t you explain to people here, how Aluminium works as a vaccine adjuvant, and where Al goes in the body once it’s injected. Explain, how it gets to the brain from a vaccine injection via neurons, and how long that process takes in animal experiments. It's not been done in humans, for obvious reasons. Unless you want to volunteer for the first brain biopsy.

Does a normal infection in the throat do that? Explain to everyone the fact that Aluminium triggered APC’s don’t switch off the same way as normally triggered APC’s, presumably in people with key polymorphisms..., Explain to people here that that fact alone, should ring alarm bells for someone with Lupus. What’s lupus? Why won’t APC’s in Lupus shut down? When did Lupus start to be a major problem? What might the link be, between Lupus and vaccines? Might some people have a polymorphism whereby an aluminium triggered APC is locked in the “on” position? What might be the result of that? To some Neuroimmunologists I know, this is neuroimmunology 101 stuff.

I repeat. An infection in the Waldeyer’s ring does not require an adjuvant or any other excipients of any kind. Injected vaccines do. and injected antigens, plus adjuvants and excipients, usually provoke exaggerated or skewed immune responses, not all of them "healthy". And here’s something else interesting. While the medical profession KNOWS that the process is completely different to a natural infection, beyond the need for an adjuvant to “switch” on the APC’s in the body, and the end-point of antibody formation, immunologist’s don’t know what happens in between! In fact, there is debate even about the antibodies produced! Here’s your proof, and these facts still stand 8 years later. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2000-05/NS-Whal-2305100.php Were this not true, and had the second to last paragraph of this 2000 press release been noted seriously as a huge big red warning flag, the recent Merck HIV trials disaster might not have happened.

If you don’t know what happens to vaccines in the body, and you have no idea about the significance of mitochondrial disorders, or immunodeficiencies, how can you then say that vaccines don’t trigger serious disease! There are a huge number of ways that people’s immune systems are uniquely different, but vaccine trials never take those into account. Bizarre, don’t you think? You know, or at least you should do, that people who cannot make antibodies at all, not only mount effective immunity against HPviruses, but also against, measles, polio, chickenpox and a whole range of other viruses. And the same applies to bacterial infections, because for them, they don’t need fancy T-cells, or antibodies either, but if they haven’t got neutrophils with enough vitamin C to ensure correct chemotaxic messaging, they’re a goner.

Yes, I know that up until 10 years ago, the skin was thought to be just a barrier, and nothing else, but you know now, that that is not the case at all. You know that the Skin Associated Lymphatic Tissue (old term I know, but useful) system is well able to mount a complete immune response without reference to antibodies. You also should know that SALT has a unique immune function with regard to infection, including secondary infections with things like chickenpox. Which requires fever, dermcidin and cathelicidin. The system works, … at least it does when you doctors don’t insist on antipyretics to douse the temperature!

And again, the antigen presentation system from scrapes on the skin or secondary skin bacterial infections, is completely different from a DPT in a needle, isn’t it?

Not emotion. Simple fact.

The fact is that immunologists know their basic understanding of infection processes and cellular and humoral immunity is rudimentary at best. Yet doctors say to parents that vaccines are the best tested substances injected into children. Which doesn’t say much for the rest actually. Vaccinomics exists today, because epigenetics has put dirty great rents in what you doctors previously thought you knew about immunology. Which presumably, is why you won’t talk about it. You have no answers for parents of vaccine damaged children, because you never asked the right questions. And you never asked the right questions, because you didn’t want to know. If you had wanted to know, vaccine trials would have at least had some logical basis for participant selection. And maybe Hannah Poling might not be how she is today.

Please withdraw your incredulous statement that serious or any vaccine reactions are proof of a healthy strong immune system. That is simply fiction.

Oresme

David: First of all thank you for validating me in such tiny print. Were you hoping no one would notice? LOL

Secondly, you said this.
"Another thing to remember is that we are talking about injecting only handful of antigens at a time, not millions as you imply."

You seem to be backpedaling on your argument. First you agree with Dr. Offit that a baby's immune system can handle thousands, even millions of antigens so receiving 10,000 vaccines on the same day is no big deal. Now you're trying to say that it's only a handful of antigens at a time implying that the number is important. Which is it? Do you think a baby's immune system can handle the 10,000 vaccines Dr. Offit says it can or not?

John Stone

QUOD ERAT DEMONSTRANDUM: the theoretical foundations of vaccine policy are a delusion.

David

Oresme, I am not the one claiming the number of antigens is important - it is those who claim vaccines overwhelm the immune system who insist on this.

I have shown the number of antigens is irrelevant as far as a functioning immune system is concerned. I also pointed out, for the sake of clarity and in the hope that others here can see the bankrupcy of their arguments, that only a handful of antigens is ever given. This is far less than was given in vaccines 30 or 40 years ago when autism rates were lower, and is far fewer than any naturally-occuring infection provides.

It is interesting to note that even David Kirby has come to the same conclusions as myself on the subject of febrile episodes being a potential cause of deterioration in children with underlying mitochondrial disorders. Any fever or infection might do this. He has stated:

"First and foremost among them: What to do about vaccinating children with known mitochondrial dysfunction?
In many respects, these kids should be first in line for vaccination, to prevent some illnesses that might trigger an autistic regression during the window of vulnerability."

As John Stone says, QED.

John Stone

David, you are quoting out of context:

"In many respects, these kids should be first in line for vaccination, to prevent some illnesses that might trigger an autistic regression during the window of vulnerability. On the other hand, with multiple vaccinations, such as the case with Hannah, there is also a risk of overtaxing the immune system, and likewise triggering regression into autism."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/the-next-big-autism-bomb_b_93627.html

Kirby seemed to be highlighting what for Joe-public might appear a paradox, that while seeking greater safety you might in reality be upping the risk. He has not come to any conclusion, he is simply posing the problem - he sits, rhetorically at least on the fence, suggesting that the conventional view might have to be revised.

But actually, even from the perspective of traditional mainstream medicine, the possibility that you might not rush in to vaccinating an immune compromised infant seems more like commonsense than lunacy.

Indeed, if you tried to introduce the WHO schedule here, with 20 vaccines between birth and 14 weeks, with 187.5 micrograms of mercury, you probably would not get very much support, although our babies would probably stand up to it better than the immune compromised infants of the developing world, surviving with inferior hygeine and nutrition.

Janet

Now, now, David, you should not be quoting David Kirby out of context. There is no way he would have written what you quoted, without adding additional comments. Here is the rest of that quote:
“On the other hand, with multiple vaccinations, such as the case with Hannah, there is also a risk of overtaxing the immune system, and likewise triggering regression into autism.
What's needed most urgently, if possible, is a quick, affordable and efficient method of testing children for low cellular energy, perhaps before vaccination even begins.”
For a more accurate picture of David Kirby's thoughts on vaccines, mitochondrial dysfunction, and vaccines, one could read his piece at The Huffington Post re "The Next Autism Bomb":
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/the-next-big-autism-bomb_b_93627.html

Clifford G. Miller

David, (Mar 28 @11:45pm).

Welcome back. Bit shorter than I was expecting this time though.

Anything else to say? Anything to add? Yawn.

Are you feeling OK? You look peeky. Tune into some blues. Come back when you have a bit more blush in your cheeks.

Keep it up fella. You are doing really well.

John Stone

And the latest tonight, Julie Gerberding, Director of the Centers for Disease Control is looking wobbly. There is one disease she has failed to control:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/can-vaccines-cause-autism_b_94040.html

Dad Fourkids

David, you said "I have shown the number of antigens is irrelevant as far as a functioning immune system is concerned. I also pointed out, for the sake of clarity and in the hope that others here can see the bankrupcy of their arguments, that only a handful of antigens is ever given. This is far less than was given in vaccines 30 or 40 years ago when autism rates were lower, and is far fewer than any naturally-occuring infection provides."

How van there haev been more antigens given 30-40 years ago, when most vaccines given to children today were developed less than 25 years ago? 40 years ago the only vaccines given to children were smallpox, DPwT, polio and measles for a total of 7 jabs. Today they are to get DTaP, Hep B, IPV, MMR, V, HiB, Prevnar, and flu, for as total 24 jabs.

Methinks you have mispoken. Whether by mistake or design remains to be seen.

David

How van there haev been more antigens given 30-40 years ago, when most vaccines given to children today were developed less than 25 years ago? 40 years ago the only vaccines given to children were smallpox, DPwT, polio and measles for a total of 7 jabs. Today they are to get DTaP, Hep B, IPV, MMR, V, HiB, Prevnar, and flu, for as total 24 jabs.

@Dadfourkids:
The Offit paper explains about vaccines and antigens - the 2 are not synonomous. There are fewer antigens today, primarily because smallpox is now off the schedule and the old whole cell pertussis vaccine is replaced by an acellular vaccine. This latter vaccine contains 5 antigenic components, in contrast to the 3000-odd that were in the old vaccine. So no, I was not mispoken.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/109/1/124

Regarding the Kirby quote, it was interesting that he accepts that vaccination might be the logical way to avert precipitating problems in susceptible children like Hannah Poling. I am well aware he did go on to say that on the other hand multiple vaccines would risk overtaxing the immune system. Well since we know this last part is not actually true, surely you have to consider the merits of his first statement?

Oh, and Clifford, I must say you are looking lovely today.

lisa

I don't know why so many people here are wasting their time trying to rebut "David." He is obviously a lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry. There are many such lobbyists now being paid to search for online discussions of this topic and post scathing remarks about the "anti-vaccine" lobby. Yes, they are paid to do this. It is their job. You are wasting your time with them. They have no interest in the truth. The truth is not what pays their bills.

His_wife51

A single mom and federal information-technology specialist, suddenly she was unable to live in her own home. ,