The debate that won't go away

Water

"last week it emerged that doctors in the south-east of England were giving children two doses of MMR in a three-month interval (the usual regime is at 13 months and then aged 3) to prevent a measles outbreak spreading beyond the capital." Very interesting thank you, looking forward to Kirbys speech.

Richard Koeppel M.D.

Please, Melanie, stick to politics! Your lack of understanding of science is truly monumental.

Water

Koeppel please state why she's gone wrong, I'm no scientist though it would be interesting to hear.

Jerry

Melanie
Hold on - while in so many areas you are a voice of reason, in the case of MMR you seem to have discarded your critical faculties and leapt into bed with the world of conspiracy theorists.
Take the study you report. I have not seen a abstract of the reported paper given by Hewitson as it hasn't been published never mind peer reviewed, but I question whether any "significant" result can be obtained by a study so unbalanced that the control group was 3 and the vaccine group was 13. Also, the study is referred to a "double blind"; sorry you can't by definition do double blind studies on non-human primates. This is exactly the sort of (sloppy) research publication by press-release which feeds all manner of cranky beliefs about the harm caused by this and other vaccines.
There isn't a shred of credible scientific evidence for a link between MMR and autism (I speak as an immunologist with no links to pharma or the vaccine industry). You mention "suspicion gathering momentum"; the scientific method does not work on the basis of suspicion, it works on the basis of evidence. Please rejoin the age of reason.

Tony

Let me second Richard Koeppel in saying that Melanie’s understanding of Science is execrable. Ironic really, since in a previous post she lambasts the poor state of GCSE Science teaching. But whether its epidemiology, immunology, evolutionary biology or climate physics, she just makes an embarrassment of herself.

See here (and links therein):

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/05/beware_and_get_ready_my_uk_readers_part_3.php

John Stone

Water raises an interesting issue: in fact, the measure is more extreme that has often been quoted. The recommendation, as reported by the BBC, was that infants be re-vaccinated one month after the original shot, or at the latest 3.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7408278.stm

The report also admitted that the Health Protection Agency were unable to link the current outbreak with low MMR uptake. This was also quietly conceded in an earlier BBC report, which nevertheless did not miss an opportunity to have swipe at Andrew Wakefield:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7226763.stm

But the probable message is that the vaccine is simply not working.

Meanwhile with the media with its usual balance failed to report almost any of the 6 weeks of evidence that Wakefield presented at the GMC, except to repeat allegations, and a single comment out of context. You cannot say for sure what will happen, because the case was political and should never have been brought, but it has been unravelling week on week. It should be of the greatest public concern that the allegations of Lancet editor Richard Horton that he had not known of Wakefield's involvement in the MMR litigation, which sparked the investigation, have been thoroughly shown up:

http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/documents/vaccines/JABS%20Briefing%20Note,%209%20April%202008.pdf

If the evidence had gone the other way the usual channels would have made sure everyone knew about it.

Dr Caroline Traa (BSc, PhD)

Dear Melanie, Thanks from all the many parents of vaccine damaged children for having the courage to report on this issue that so many would like us to just shut up about. If this had happened to your child I think you would want research done, questions asked and answers given.... Its not imagination, come live in my house for a week and that will be startlingly evident....

Simon Brock

Over the last twenty years there has been an increase in the diagnosis of autism. I believe that some of this has been by better diagnosis and recognition of milder forms of the condition. In that time, there has also been a move from single vaccines to multi-vaccines. Also, if you look on certain web sites, some of these vaccines contain mercury based chemicals which some believe might be another factor.

However, to say there is a link between certain forms of vaccines and autism has not been proved. Just because the use of a particular form of vaccination has increased and the diagnosis of autism has increased does not mean there is a link. For example, in that time, the use of mobile phones has also increased but no one has tried to link that to the diagnosis of autism.

Into this we have to add the Andrew Wakefield factor. He has always believed there was a link and has spent over ten years attempting to find a link. Unfortunately it seem that his drive to find the link may have led to him acting in an unprofessional way. His original 1998 study was based on results from just twelve children who had been vaccinated with MMR -- a very poor statistical sample. He may have also carried out unnecessary procedures on children and bought blood samples from children at his son's birthday party (briandeer.com/wakefield-deer.htm).

Whether there is a link or not, this story presents two problems. Firstly what was probably a poor paper in the Lancet was misrepresented by various newspapers who did not understand what it said. Just because it is published in an academic journal does not mean it is right -- a problem well known to any academic but not often realised by others. Secondly, this supposed link has led to a fall in the number of children who have been vaccinated. While no parent would like their children to be diagnosed as autistic, measles kills children.

W MARCHANT

We were told by VDPU if parents were unlikely to re-attend thenbabes should be given the same as my child which was 7in 1 MMR-DPT and Oral pOLIO

deborah Nash

After more than 10 years the MMR controversy goes on and until someone looks at our damaged children the self proclaimed science experts should not decry others for keeping the subject in the public eye. As Dr Bernadine Healey stated, only by investigating those children who regressed soon after vaccination, can causality be proved.

John Stone

I count 5 autism studies reviewed by Cochrane on MMR in 2005. I quote its verdict on each:

"The study demonstrates the difficulties of drawing inferences in the absence of a non-exposed population or a clearly defined causal hypothesis". (Re: Taylor 1999)

"The number and possible impact of biases in this study was so high that interpretation of the results is impossible". (Re: Fombonne 2001)

"The interpretation of the study by Madsen was made difficult by the unequal length of follow up for younger cohort members as well as the use of the date of diagnosis rather than onset of symptoms of autism". (Re: Madsen 2002)

"Probable bias in enrollment...and cases may not be representative of the rest of the population of the city" (Re: De Stefano 2004)

"The study appeared carefully conducted and well reported, however, GPRD-based MMR studies had no unexposed (to MMR) representative controls. In this study the approximately 4% to 13% seemed to be unexposed controls regarded by the authors as representative. Such a small number may indicate some bias in the selection of controls." (Re: Smeeth 2004)

The review also stated:

"The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing, are largely inadequate. The evidence of adverse events following immunisation with MMR cannot be separated from its role in preventing the target diseases."

http://mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD004407/frame.html

So, there you have it. You have the scientific view that the available data is "largely inadequate" and the institutional sentiment that we should jab on regardless. The review is packed with impenetrable bureaucratic doubletalk. Melanie was the only journalist in 2005 to get into some of this matter. And I bet you the 'know-it-alls' here haven't even looked.

Jean Muscroft

thankyou Melanie, for helping to bring this issue out in the open. Where is the evidence and research that shows that our present full vaccination programme is safe? where is it? have these studies ever been done or are our children being used as guinea pigs?

Jean Muscroft
parent of a recovered ASD teenager

Susan

It doesn't matter that Melanie is not a scientist. She is the only mainstream columnist to comment open-mindedly on matters to do with the MMR undaunted by bullying from the D of H and the pharmceutical cos. How unlike other journos who, after 5 minutes research on the web, feel able to pontificate and berate parents who know only too well what has happened to their child. No - the debate won't go away because everyone now knows an affected child and we still have a govt who won't take a fair, independent and properly funded look at the evidence.

John Stone

I think I found out where Melanie went wrong: she mis-spelt Dr Healy's name. Anyhow, you can view the entire Healy interview here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/12/cbsnews_investigates/main4086809.shtml

It is evident that Dr Healy has made her assessment and is leaving the sinking ship. She warns of risks to different sub-groups of children, the possibility of different vaccine induced mechanisms triggering autism, and she warns of the problems of the ever accumulating schedule. She censures the US Institute of Medicine Review of MMR and thimerosal for refusing to investigate sub-groups (as Andrew Wakefield did), and for indeed ruling it out, while relying on epidemiology. Much of the epidemiology, as we have observed, was highly flawed anyway.

This is someone who really thinks the game is up.

Robin

Wasn't it scientists who siad it fine for pregnant women to take Thalidomide?

Isn't scientists who say it's okay to give out a statin over the counter? Some of those customers will be women who are pregnant without knowing.

Statins can produce horrendous side-effects in unborn children.

Scientists don't always tell the truth, especially about drugs.

Unfortunately for Richard Koeppel, the existence of www.pubmedcentral.hiv.gov means that virtually all published medical papers are available to anybody to read - not least of all an excellent, investigative journalist.

field

Melanie -

Superb - keep up the good work in ensuring that this debate does not go away.

Richard Koeppel M.D. says:

"Please, Melanie, stick to politics! Your lack of understanding of science is truly monumental"

This is precisely the sort of medical arrogance that is endangering our children. I am afraid that if doctors and government want to infect our children with potentially harmful organic material they must demonstrate its safety. Assurances of safety are not enough.

Tony -

Thanks for the links. Firstly I was very happy to see that several of the vax-fanatics on that site seemed rather depressed and of the view that the anti-vaxers were winning the
debate. Secondly, this was a timely reminder: "To put deaths from measles into perspective, the year the MMR was introduced there were 16 deaths. Deaths from asthma currently stand at around 1500 annually..." We should always remind ourselves exactly what this "scourge" that is being eliminated amounts to.

Angus Files

Well said Melanie thanks for all the support in today’s silenced media ,Where are those big editors of the past who would print our stories and to hell with the government and what was politically correct. Thanks on behalf of the children/adults with autism parents and carers and the worrying thing of all the damage continues with unsafe vaccines still being used all for corporate gain.

MMR RIP

Angus Files

Jerry S

Its not really worth responding to most of the rubbish written here except to state the blindingly obvious old cliched logical fallacy "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". There are always going to be questions of the epidemiology because it is notoriously difficult to prove causality of rare events. But what do the critics of MMR propose? Abandoning immunisation is unthinkable - you people should try spending some time like me in the worlds poorest countries where infectious disease ravages old and young alike. Single vaccinations? Yet for single vaccination the epidemiological evidence base is even weaker and there is no evidence at all from immunological theory that the combination of vaccines should have any detrimental effects.
We live in a society where mistrust of science is at an alarming and high level, but people ask yourselves this; why would it be in the interst of medical science to cover up problems with MMR? We know that vaccines can have harmful consequences; as an example DTP causes serious and often fatal complications in 1 in a million doses; nobody is hiding this fact. Comparisons with thalidmide are spurious, and show an ignorance of the history. Thalidomide was shown by scientists to be teratogenic; it was the manufacturer that suppressed this data. There is no comparison to the situation with modern vaccines; indeed an unscrupulous manufacturer would relish the opportunity to promote single vaccination and thus sell 3 times as many doses.

joe

explain how they did exactly what he said in 1953, they would do

just this week ABC said they were going to run a series on what has happened to our children’s brains.

Answer

Russell being quoted as saying we would put mercury in vaccines, and other compounds to produce a partial lobotomized state

Russell
who advocated the use of vaccines to induce partial chemical lobotomies and create a servile zombie population

remember this sloagan "EVERY CHILD BY TWO"
“Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible.” - Bertrand Russell

often wondered why every child by two now I guess I know

“from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable,”

1953. Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society: "...the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology.... The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen. As yet there is only one country which has succeeded in creating this politician’s paradise
Looks like certain powerful people duped the main stream
medical community and yes our children have become experiment and this book written in 1953 is our proof.

In his own words not mine " When the technique has been perfected you would not need policeman or armies"

Is this the new world order they keep saying we need ? ? ? ?

PRETTY DAMING STUFF

Dawn Crim

Vaccines cause a lot more than just Austim. My hearing was damaged from a rubella vaccine last year. My teenager's vision was damaged from one dose of Hep B at 6 mo. old (I have before/after pictures for proof). My infant (other child)last year suffered from high-pitched screaming, congestion, convulsions, developmental delays and regression in milestones (he stopped performing certain tasks). The extent of his injuries may not be evident until the school years. I just cannot believe how ignorant I was to vaccinate in the first place. I just trusted the medical community and thought they had all the answers - now I know they just have blind faith in "the system". Most doctors know nothing about vaccines. I will no longer vaccinate my pets, myself or my family because I know that vaccines are a joke and what it really boils down to is a whole lot of money. Vaccines are a very profitable business - for the vaccines and all of the life-long problems that they cause (you then need prescription drugs).

field

Angus Files -

To add to your post. There is now a kind of inbuilt commercial imperative operating. The drug companies can make HUGE amounts of money - several billion dollars - if they can persuade governments around the world to vaccinate for a particular pathogen. So they have a clear prejudicial interest in pushing these vaccines on parents via government pressure. They also have undue influence over the medical trials, through a variety of means e.g. cosy relationships with nominally "independent" researchers and charitable foundations that are under their effective control.

We need to reset our thinking on vaccines:

1. Let's set the risks on context. The risk of any particular healthy child with good nutrition, clean water and hygienic living conditions dying from something like mumps or measles or being seriously incapacitated is close to zero.

2. Let's accept that ALL vaccines can damage children. Drug companies admit this in the USA quite readily (because not to do so would expose them to huge damages in court). It depends on the child and the vaccine but no vaccine is "safe" in any meaningful sense.

3. Not all vaccinations eliminate the risk of infection. Flu jabs for instance are not a complete safeguard.

3. Let's have a proper risk assessment - a Royal Commission if necessary - of the benefits and risks of vaccination for each pathogen. Clearly if there were a vaccine for AIDS then you would wish to recommend that for anyone indulging in anal intercourse for instance.

A rigorous analysis would probably still find in favour of polio and tetanus vaccines.

But I would not be surprised to find that there is a law of diminishing returns operating here and ultimately we may feel that we should restrict vaccinations to a small number.

USA Dad

"I think that the public health officials have been too quick to dismiss the [autism link to vaccination] hypothesis as irrational."

That was said by the former President of the NIH, America's most prestigious health institute. You Brits may want to listen more closely to what she has to say, and perhaps less closely to any who remain close-minded.

USA Dad

Anthony

To suggest there is an official head of steam turning against the MMR vaccine in the USA is hyperbole. What we have is a perfect storm of dubious research, an individual vaccine compensation case which tells us nothing about the MMR-autism hypothesis and an ex-member of the National Institute of Health in the US who has a track record of being anti-evidence based medicine.

Of course, Melanie, with her scientific illiteracy, past-form on promoting the last bout of the autism-MMR vaccine hoax, and conspiracy-fueled mistrust of vaccines sucks it right up. Nothing learned at all.

John Stone

JerryS

The trouble is that Cochrane, after sifting 5,000, studies could not find any which you could rely on - which is an utter condemnation of the science, and the culture which produced it. What they omitted to mention in their critique of the Madsen study was that the flaws led to a huge underestimate of the association between MMR and autism:

"The interpretation of the study by Madsen was made difficult by the unequal length of follow up for younger cohort members as well as the use of the date of diagnosis rather than onset of symptoms of autism". (Re: Madsen 2002)

When the Madsen paper was published Prof Samy Suissa, an epidemiologist from McGill university, wrote to NEJM suggesting that correctly calculated, the vaccinated subjects, instead of being 8% less likely to be autistic, were in fact 45% more likely:

http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/stott.pdf

NEJM refused publication, and Madsen et al have steadfastly refused to answer the point ever since.

John Stone

Anthony

Have you noticed that Brian Deer has not published a single article since the beginning of the GMC hearing?

Anthony

John,

You fail to note that the same Cochrane review, that you continue to bring out as support for your case, stated that:

"No credible evidence of an involvement of MMR with either autism or Crohn’s disease was found."

In fact, the science has now moved on since the Cochrane report. The MMR vaccine-autism hoax has now been exposed by a series of studies and revelations about the original research (most notably the false positives). The fact you continue to link to the rightwing fringe "journal" JPanDS, which has zero credibility in scientific circles is noted.

John Stone

Anthony

You have demonstrated just how misleading Cochrane is (quite scandalously). If the autism studies were as poor as they say, the fact that they did not provide "credible evidence of an involvement of MMR with... autism" is of no scientific weight, while possibly being true. The mention of Crohn's disease is also misleading since Wakefield described a new condition, ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, not Crohn's disease. These are slippery formulations.

You introduce a further red-herring. Irrespective of the controversial status of JPandS, Prof Suissa allowed his letter to be re-produced there. Are you disputing the letter?

It has been alleged that there were false positives, however the matter is still disputed, and the tests have been replicated. Expect more publications, and evidence in the US vaccine court.

http://www.jabs.org.uk/pages/yazbak-expert.asp

joe

Anthony answer my post about Russell, you cannot change the fact that it was written in 1953
and carried out in the late 80's early 90's. Is it hard finding out you have been fooled.
Think about another statement
"we have a axas of Evil Iran Iraq north Korea" written 10 years or so before G.W.Bush said those exact words that put us in war. Seems these people tell on them selves, after all "and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible.” - Bertrand Russell

John Stone

Joe

I have to admit I do not really think much of the Russell as a piece of thinking - more a piece of Sci-Fi from the age of Aldous Huxley and George Orwell. Today, you still alter the way people think by misinformation and indoctrination, not by vaccinating them, though you will almost certainly damage their brains in some numbers by the latter method.

Cybertiger

It is good to see Black Toad of Triangle Hall (aka Anthony) defending the overwhelming safety of vaccines against the right wing scienceless fringe at The Spectator. Croak on Toady!

http://www.blacktriangle.org/

Julie

Jerry,

You wrote: 'There isn't a shred of credible scientific evidence for a link between MMR and autism.' If the scores of children with autism here in the UK were finally investigated, one could possibly find a link. To date these scores of children are still waiting. Could someone please explain why the investigation has NEVER taken place. I think everyone is too afraid to investigate for fear of eventually being hauled up in front of the GMC.

Best regards,

Julie

Dawn

Vaccines CAN and DO cause DAMAGE. If they didn't, .75 cents from the sale of every vaccine would not be going into the VACCINE INJURY COMPENSATION FUND (which has paid out BILLIONS) for injuries (to include death). Open your phonebook and contact any vaccine-injury related attorney...they will give you the low-down on just how many people have been harmed! Check out VAERS - that alone is shocking considering less than 10% of reports are filed according to the CDC. Check out the package insert on every live-virus vaccine - according to the drug manufacturers, the person vaccinated is contagious for up to 6 weeks!! I have heard the most ridiculous responses as to why vaccines are good for you. Prove it!! If vaccines are safe, PROVE IT! Every package insert states the following disclaimer: Carcinogenesis, Mutagenesis, and Impairment of Fertility: No studies have been done. Um, o.k. They are safe? How do they know if no studies have been done? I find it VERY alarming that many doctors reported A.L.L. Leukemia within 1-2 months after the vaccine(s) and the doctors felt the vaccines were to blame. Don't believe me? Check out VAERS.

http://us.gsk.com/products/assets/us_infanrix.pdf (page 7 to view ex. of new warning)

http://vaers.hhs.gov/pdf/PackageInserts.pdf (to view all vaccines)

http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/v/varivax/varivax_pi.pdf (page 7 for risk of transmission)

Are doctors and nurses really that stupid? They honestly do not see anything wrong with .5 ml being safe for all ages, heights, and weight? The same amount of formaldehyde, live-viruses, aluminum, mercury, anti-freeze, and all of the other countless neurotoxins are safe for all in the same size dose?

I recently heard from a chemist who deals with a lot of these same chemicals in his lab (they are stored in bottles with the skull and crossbones). He had no CLUE that these toxins were in vaccines. As soon as he learned of this, he refused to vaccinate his infant.

Wake up people!!

John Stone

Jerry S

Incidentally, there is a difference between disregarding scientific method, and being sceptical about governments, the pharmaceutical and bio-tech industries and the institutions in their pay. If you are not sceptical about those, you simply have not got your head screwed on.

For some years we have been living with the absurd propositon that vaccine science is as secure and immutable as the laws of physics. It is nothing like, and the emperor gets more and more exposed by the day.

colmcq

I didn't think it was possible for anyone to cram as many anti-science and anti-vax cannards into one response, but you have proved me wrong!

well said Dawn!

Christine

There are no canards in what Dawn has written. It is true that vaccines are not evaluated for the potential to cause carcinogenicity, genotoxicity, and mutagenicity, etc., and it seems that they do not have to be, as they get approval without this necessary testing being done. Perhaps it is already known what the result will be, if this "testing" is done.

John Stone

Just to remark on Colmcq. Someone apparently sensible talks about the trail of devastation left by vaccines in her life and about the industry behind it, and he who was not there and didn't see the damage chips in with petty, derisive comments. Colmcq is himself the victim of a belief system: Dawn's experiences cannot be real or significant, because it is not part of the belief. The anti-science comes from Colmcq because his science is circular, untested by people's real experiences.

Cybertiger

"Colmcq is himself the victim of a belief system:"

It's the Economy, stupid! *

colmcq (aka saunders) is a tragic victim of the gods. colmcq is a worshipper of Science and Vaccines. * colmcq is a polytheistic believer in what have obviously become false idols. Clearly, colmcq sups with the Devil.

* By convention, deities, even false ones, are capitalized.

colmcq

Mr Stone, with that last comment you sum up with almost perfect terms why you and the other rabid antivaccination conspiratori have no handle on reality or the scientific method. If I had the time or the inclination I could pull to shreds Dawn's arguments; luckily for you I have neither. Besides, this kind of territory has been well trod before:

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/11/cries_the_antivaccinationist_why_are_we.php

John Stone

Colmcq

There you go again, just invective. If anyone wants to see my webpage:

http://www.vaproject.org/stone.htm

David

Ms Philips, you point to "cases" (plural) in the USA where vaccinations have "aggravated an underlying mitochondrial weakness". There was only one case, that of Hanah Poling, and it was accepted that with her underlying mitochondrial dysfunction that almost anything could have triggered a deterioration. This could easily have been an intercurrent infection (something that incidentally David Kirby seems to accept), but it was decided on the balance of probabilities that vaccines may have been the trigger in her case. I know of no other "cases" where vaccines have been determined to be the trigger. If you do, perhaps you could share them with your readers, or publish them in the scientific literature?

I also see you have no idea exactly why Andrew Wakefield is appearing before the GMC. It certainly has nothing to do with his hypothesis about MMR.

This is the second article I have read of yours. Both have contained factual errors. The first required significant editorial corrections by you after I pointed out your mistakes. I wonder if you will do the same again now? I thought one of the primary tenets of good journalism was honesty, truth and accuracy. Seems I was wrong.

John Stone

David

The Telegraph article reports evidence that mitochondrial may be implicated in many autism cases. The US department of health conceded the Poling case before it could be heard and has so far refused to release the files. It looks a pretty dodgy situation.

Cybertiger

@colmcq

It is my powerful belief that Orac, the American God of all insolent respectfulness, has an enormous jet of methane emanating from his rodent's posterior.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/about.php

The Arse is burning, stupid!

John Stone

In my previous post "mitochondrial" should have been "mitochondrial dysfunction".

Kibitzer

Jerry
I can appreciate your anger. As an immunologist, who has spent time in developing countries plying your trade, you know the value of vaccines. But please listen to what's going on here. Parents have seen the results of various vaccines, or combinations, on their children. The medical professionals immediately circle their wagons, saying 'the vaccine didn't cause that', because they don't want anything jeopardising their vaunted medical modality. But that response is to put off the day of the creation of safer vaccines. Which is sorely needed. You seem to actually believe that, eg, the DPT shot only has a serious consequence in '1 in a million doses'. You can't have researched this matter, of the downside of vaccines, very deeply if you believe that. We're not just talking about full-blown encephalitis with vaccines, as a risk. We're talking about a whole host of subclinical encephalitis conditions, including ADD/ADHD & dyslexia & dyspraxia & yes, the ASD (& PDD-NOS etc.) phenomenon; not to mention allergies/anaphylaxis, asthma, CFS/ME, convulsions/seizures/epilepsy, type 1 diabetes, MS & other autoimmune diseases/conditions - in short, the risks of vaccines are far larger than the officials are willing to admit to, because of this circle-the-wagons mentality. It has to stop, and the situation looked at with greater awareness than it has been heretofore. Parents will not settle for less anymore - because the damage done by vaccines has become too obvious, with the increase in the v. schedule.
In the meantime, whilst parents are beginning to vote with their feet, measles can be successfully treated with vitamin A/cod liver oil; polio with large doses of vitamin C; the DPT triad with colloidal silver, &/or other natural anti-virals and -bacterials, like olive leaf extract, grapefruit seed extract, astragalus, a number of mushrooms - the list goes on. Humanity will not be helpless in the face of a return of the childhood diseases until the vaccines for them can be made safer - and that whole question of their safety looked at squarely, not brushed aside by true believers trying to protect their turf from mere laypersons.
And incidentally, Wakefield et al's findings about the presence of the measles vaccine virus in the damaged guts of autistic children has been replicated (eg, V.K. Singh). Is this proof of causation? No. But it's a signal, that the medical profession should have been looking closer at this matter than they have been. And let the chips fall where they may. Because nothing is more important than the truth of things. That's the true scientific attitude. Not this smokescreen-defence mentality that the allopathic medical profession has been living behind for too long now.

Jerry S

Well now I 've heard it all. Polio treated with vitamin C megadoses! So thats fine - all the time we could have replaced vaccination with vitamins. Come back Adelle Davis, all is forgiven. Edward Jenner and Louis Pasteur what idiots you were! Being in this discussion is bad for ones health.

field

I agree Kibitzer, the commercial "vax and vax again" lobby is losing ground in the face of reality and research.

As long as the medico-commercial complex lie about vaccines - making absurd claims of "safety" and effectiveness with government complicity we will never have a rational risk-assessed cost-benefit analysis of the benefits of vaccination. I certainly think vaccines have been useful in the past and remain so in countries with no clean water supply, poor sanitation, endemic malnutrition and substandard housing - but we have none of those (accept to some extent a self-inflicted malnutrition).

We need to do the following:

1. Remove the vested interests of the commercial drugs companies (and their associates) from the assessment of vaccination risk.

2. Have a full assessment of risk and benefit.

3. Agree an effective minimum of vaccinations which should then become a legal requirement unless people opt out via an application to a Magistrates Court. (I think it is quite immoral for government to load the responsibility onto parents when it is pushing certain vaccines, given that parents cannot have the specialist knowledge to make the decision - but this approach will mean it is not compulsory).

4. Agree a moratorium on all new vaccines unless a "preponderance of benefit" is clearly evident.

Edmundwest

Melanie, Wakefield is not a brave beacon of truth fighting the establishment. Rather his work is largely an affront to decent honest scientists. In my opinion he has been the agent for an INCREASE in the disease burden in society - even in his home city of Bath there has been an outbreak of measles. And why? Well, because people have been put off the MMR by Wakefield and others who continue to manufacture theories on the basis of poor science. Please don't let yourself get caught up in the world of fantasy science that Wakefield promulgates.

tom p

There's a reason why the debate won't go away. It's because people like you, who understand nothing about science but have access to the media keep banging on and on and on about it, getting it mopre wrong each time.

There's a very good reason why you're becoming known as Mad Mel.

Garulon

"He had no CLUE that these toxins were in vaccines. As soon as he learned of this, he refused to vaccinate his infant.

Wake up people!!"

Does it ever worry the antivax crowd that so many er, fringe views seem to be in their set?

David

Kibitzer, you claim "measles can be successfully treated with vitamin A/cod liver oil; polio with large doses of vitamin C; the DPT triad with colloidal silver, &/or other natural anti-virals and -bacterials, like olive leaf extract, grapefruit seed extract, astragalus, a number of mushrooms - the list goes on. Humanity will not be helpless in the face of a return of the childhood diseases"

If I didn't know better I would think you are deliberately trying to make the anti-vaccination cause look even more silly than it already is.

I think we can all see where you are coming from. In your parallel universe there will be no need for vaccines or pharmaceutical drugs.... Happy, laughing, rosy-cheeked children will playfully romp through daisy meadows, their faces glowing with good health from all the grapefruit seed extract they have consumed.

Unfortunately, in the real world, these childhood diseases are devastating, and were responsible for killing 40% of 5 children before their 5th birthday, and crippling another 20% through brain damage or paralysis from polio. One only has to look at the catastrophic consequences of failing to vaccinate - Take the polio epidemic in Nigeria for example, or diphtheria and pertussis in the ex-Soviet republics. Tell these children all they needed is olive oil and see how far you get.

Vaccines provide the mainstay of protection against these deadly diseases, and no-one in their right mind can fail to appreciate this. You probably have grown up in a time when these diseases are rare, and therefore their serious consequences seem to be invisible. However, it is precisely because of widespread vaccination that this is the case. A return to the dark ages is the last thing we want to see.

EyeSee

Politics isn't science, so when a politician says that something is absolutely safe you can be pretty sure he's lying. Why do they force the single jab? Why do they protest so much at contrary research? And if the politicians wife suddenly ups and says their baby had the jab, you know it isn't true!

joe

Did you guys in th UK know
this????

Not one case Hannah Poling
and most certainly not rare
after reading this maybe

1-in-50 GENETIC RISK?

On Tuesday, March 11, a conference call was held between vaccine safety officials at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, several leading experts in vaccine safety research, and executives from America's Health Insurance Plans, (the HMO trade association) to discuss childhood mitochondrial dysfunction and its potential link to autism and vaccines.

It was a sobering event for all concerned, and it could soon become known as the Conference Call heard 'round the world.

The teleconference was scheduled by a little known CDC agency called the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) Network, a consortium of six research centers working on "immunization-associated health risks," in conjunction with the CDC's Immunization Safety Office and the health insurance lobby -- whose companies cover some 200 million Americans.

The hot topic of the day was mitochondria - the little powerhouses within each cell that convert food and oxygen into energy for use by the body. Recent news events have implicated mitochondria in at least one case of regressive autism, following normal development.

Some researchers on the call reported that mitochondrial dysfunction is probably much more common than the current estimate of 1-in-4,000 people. The potential implications for autism, then, are staggering.

"THE CLOCK IS TICKING"

One person on the call (those interviewed for this article asked to remain anonymous) told me that, "the CDC people were informed, in no uncertain terms, that they need to look into this issue immediately, and do something about it." The clock is ticking, they were told, and if they don't respond, the information will be made public.

Still, the doctor said, he was enormously impressed by the "seriousness" with which CDC officials treated the possibility of a link between mitochondria, autism and possibly vaccines as well.

But on March 6, CDC Director Dr. Julie Gerberding claimed that Hannah's case was a rare, virtually one-of-a-kind incident with little, if any relevance to the other 4,900 autism claims currently pending in the court -- or to any other case of autism for that matter.(There were conflicting accounts about whether Gerberding was on the call or not).

Since then, however, Dr. Gerberding and other CDC officials were made aware of a Portuguese study, published last October, which reported that 7.2% of children with autism had confirmed mitochondrial disorders. The authors also noted that, "a diversity of associated medical conditions was documented in 20%, with an unexpectedly high rate of mitochondrial respiratory chain disorders."

"Apparently, the Portuguese study really got their attention," one of the participants said. "It's a highly significant finding. And it's worrisome enough to definitely look into. I think the CDC people know that."

They also know that some reports estimate the rate of mitochondrial dysfunction in autism to be 20% or more. And the rate among children with the regressive sub-type of autism is likely higher still.

Vaccine safety officials on the March 11 call may have been open to discussing mitochondria and autism, but they were probably highly unprepared for what was to come next.

One doctor reported his findings from a five-year study of children with autism, who also showed clinical markers for impaired cellular energy, due to mild dysfunction of their mitochondria.

The biochemistry of 30 children was studied intensively, and in each case, the results showed the same abnormalities as those found in Hannah Poling, participants said. Each child had moderate elevations or imbalances in the exact same amino acids and liver enzymes as Hannah Poling.

All thirty children also displayed normal, healthy development until about 18-24 months of age, when they quickly regressed into clinically diagnosed autism (and not merely "features of autism"), following some type of unusual trigger, or stress, placed on their immune system.

Researchers explained on the call that some data show that mitochondrial dysfunction can convert into autism "in numbers that make it not a rare occurrence," one participant told me. They explained this as "a distinct syndrome; not a mixed bag at all. Every kid had mild mitochondria dysfunction and autistic regression."

Another surprise came when one researcher announced an "inheritance pattern" that linked each case through the genetics of the father: In families where two cousins had autism, the genetic link was always through the father.

This unexpected discovery would clearly implicate nuclear DNA inheritance, and not mitochondrial DNA, which is inherited only through the mother.

"It's not in the mitochondrial DNA, and it's not rare," one participant confirmed. In fact, he said, many people probably carry the nuclear DNA mutation that confers susceptibility to mitochondrial dysfunction, they just don't know it.

1-in-50 GENETIC RISK?

On the call, speculation on the prevalence of a genetic mutation that could confer mild mitochondrial dysfunction in the general population ranged from about 1-in-400, to a staggering 1-in-50, or 2% of all Americans.

The mercury-containing vaccine preservative, thimerosal, for example, "can definitely kill cells in vitro through the mitochondria," one teleconference participant told me. "And some people are beginning to suspect that the dose of hepatitis B vaccine given at birth might be interfering with proper mitochondrial function in certain children."

While the cause of mitochondrial dysfunction is up for the debate, so too is its potential effect on regressive autism.

All the researchers I spoke with agreed that, in many cases, there was an underlying, asymptomatic mitochondrial dysfunction, aggravated by some other stressful event imposed on the child's immune system, resulting in autism.

But at least two of the 30 kids with mito deficiencies were pushed over the edge into autism by their vaccines, and some researchers feel the number is probably much higher than that in the larger population.

"Vaccines, in some cases, can cause an unusually heightened immune reaction, fever, and even mild illness," one participant said. "A normal vaccine reaction in most kids would be very different in a kid with a metabolic disorder. We know it happened to at least two kids in this study, and I'm certain there are many more Hannahs out there."

One theory currently in circulation about what happened to Hannah and other children like her, is an apparent "triple domino effect." According to this hypothesis, it takes three steps and two triggers to get to some types of autism, and it goes like this:

STEP ONE: Child is conceived and born healthy, but with an underlying nuclear DNA genetic susceptibility to mitochondrial dysfunction, inherited from dad.

TRIGGER ONE: An early environmental "adversity" occurs in the womb or during the neonatal period, perhaps caused by prenatal exposure to heavy metals, pollutants, pesticides and medicines. Or, it occurs in early infancy, through environmental toxins, thimerosal exposure, or even the Hepatitis B vaccine "birth dose." This trigger results in:

STEP TWO: Child develops mild, usually asymptomatic mitochondrial dysfunction (though I wonder if the ear infections and eczema so common in these cases might also be symptoms of mito problems).

TRIGGER TWO: Child, now with an underlying mitochondrial dysfunction, suffers over-stimulation of the immune system beyond the capacity of his or her metabolic reserves. This stress is either via a viral febrile infection, or from multiple vaccinations, as in the Poling case. This trigger results in:

STEP THREE: Acute illness, seizures, encephalopathy, developmental regression, autism.

Such a scenario might help explain why autism has increased right along with the addition of more vaccines to the national schedule.

And it might help explain why autism rates are not plummeting now that thimerosal levels have been significantly reduced in most childhood vaccines.

It's possible that exposures from the flu shot, and residual mercury left over in other vaccines -- perhaps in synergistic effect with aluminum used as an "adjuvant" to boost the immune response - might "contribute to the toxic mix that causes childhood mitochondrial dysfunction in the first place," one of the doctors said.

Garulon

"Why do they force the single jab?"

It's less distressing than three jabs, I guess. Why? Do you have evidence that three jabs will be safer than one jab?

"Why do they protest so much at contrary research?"

You mean Wakefield unethically paying kids a fiver to suck their blood at a birthday party? Because it's UNETHICAL I imagine.

"And if the politicians wife suddenly ups and says their baby had the jab, you know it isn't true!"

How do you know this isn't true? Because their kid isn't autistic? Millions of people have vaccinations every year without becoming autistic, it's not like there's any evidence that having vaccinations causes autism, just some genetically defective parents whining that Big Pharma "broke their baby" somehow.

Rich Scopie

A point to note - Wakefield is under investigation for unethical conduct, not for his discredited claims. Ms Philips is well aware of this, and it is downright dishonest of her to claim otherwise.

Olly

David and Jerry -

Thank you for your patient attempts to deal with this torrent of nonsense. Mel's crackpot, armchair views on science have made her blog a rallying point for cranks, conspiracy theorists and wingnuts of every ilk.

plh

"It doesn't matter that Melanie is not a scientist." --Susan.

Perhaps not but it does matter that instead of writing harmless "Einstein was wrong" nonsense on her own private website and competing with other cranks for a place on crank.net, she is writing medical science nonsense in the mainstream press and competing with other science journalists for the attention of parents.

Cybertiger

"A point to note - Wakefield is under investigation for unethical conduct, not for his discredited claims." -- 'Bit' Rich Scopie

Please note - Professors Walker-Smith and Murch did not (allegedly) pay kids a fiver to suck their blood at a birthday party. Can scrofulous Scopie explain why they are being persecuted by the GMC?

joe

Is there a problem with your reading skills here the CDC is being warned, do you not understand warnings?
you should be worried about this statement, and you are not

they are speaking of the CDC

"and if they don't respond, the information will be made public"

we should be demanding to see the information they are talking about

the problem with you medical people is that the damage is so large you can't turn back on your beliefs, and live with your selves. get past your medical degrees and your god complex and have some compassion for the millions that vaccines have damaged

Some researchers on the call reported that mitochondrial dysfunction is probably much more common than the current estimate of 1-in-4,000 people. The potential implications for autism, then, are staggering.

"THE CLOCK IS TICKING"

One person on the call (those interviewed for this article asked to remain anonymous) told me that, "the CDC people were informed, in no uncertain terms, that they need to look into this issue immediately, and do something about it." The clock is ticking, they were told, and if they don't respond, the information will be made public.

Still, the doctor said, he was enormously impressed by the "seriousness" with which CDC officials treated the possibility of a link between mitochondria, autism and possibly vaccines as well.

John Stone

Unfortunatley Melanie is right: there is a problem, aand the vaccine lobby are managing it, not with scientific evidence, but the pomposity and spurious moral dudgeon displayed here. Every time the express their contempt for what they are told by a distressed parent they only further prove the point. They control the evidence with sarcasm, and bullying. This is how scientific consensus is now maintained, but it is breaking down.

David

Seems like the antivaccination lobby want to have their cake and eat it too.

In the antivaccine world, if the CDC ignore the clamours about spurious vaccine-autism links, this is taken as clear "proof" they are part of the conspiracy of silence on the issue.

If OTOH the CDC express interest in looking at the issue, that is claimed as definite "proof" there is a problem. No matter what anyone does, it is always reinterpreted as evidence supporting a vaccine-autism link. And whatever the scientists determine, it is always spun and reinterpreted to show what the antivaxers want. Which is to blame vaccines, at all costs.

It doesn't seem to matter what new insights are provided about the aetiology of autism, vaccines always get the blame. A genetic component?- vaccines did it. A metabolic dysfunction?- vaccines did it. An intercurrent infection? - vaccines did it. Environmental exposure to toxins?- vaccines did it. No hypothesis is too implausible, no chain of causation too convoluted. It never stops, and never will.

Vaccines did it.

John Stone

David

1) Autism incidence is many times the level of two decades ago.

2) The CDC are responding to the pressure of events. They are still not credible.

plh

Mr Stone, your and Melanie's serious distortions of the science and gross misrepresentation of the "scientific view" on this matter:

'I count 5 autism studies reviewed by Cochrane on MMR in 2005....So, there you have it. You have the scientific view that the available data is "largely inadequate"'

make it very hard to feel anything other than contempt and moral dudgeon.

“In particular we conclude that all the major unintended events, such as triggering
Crohn’s disease or autism, were suspected on the basis of unreliable evidence,” says
lead author Dr Vittorio Demicheli who works at Servizo Sovrazonale di
Epidemiologia, Alessandria, Italy.

http://www.cochrane.org/press/MMR_final.pdf

joe

Let's talk about the IOM report
the way you explain it, science is science
This is a heck of a way to start a non bias committee
to look at something this important, and they wonder why we don't trust them!!!

From the minutes of the meeting

Dr. McCormick, for example, in speaking of the CDC, noted that the agency
"wants us to declare, well, these things are pretty safe on a population basis."

then she says, "what walt wants walt generally gets"

This is thier actual findings

From the minutes of the meeting

"We've got a dragon by the tail here," states a committee member in the
transcript. "At the end of the line, what we know is - and I agree -
that
the more negative that presentation [the report] is, the less likely
people
are to use vaccination, immunization, and we know what the results of
that
will be. We are kind of caught in a trap. How we work our way out of
the
trap, I think, is the charge."
They were More worried about the vaccination uptake than
terribly vaccine damaged children.

And they wonder why we don't trust them !!!

It was reported that the IOM CDC contract orderd them to clear Thimerosal and MMR this was reported by someone there

the following is how they handeled the acusation

When byronchild asked CDC spokesperson Curtis Allen for a copy of the
contract that would detail the agreement between the IOM and the CDC,
Allen
stated that the contract would be available only in a heavily
"redacted" or
blacked-out format.

The IOM stated "no comment" to byronchild about the leaked transcript
or its
use in the pending civil court case. NOW THAT's REAL SCIENCE !!

AND THEY WONDER WHY WE DON'T
TRUST THEM !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

joe

Let's talk about the IOM report
the way you explain it, science is science
This is a heck of a way to start a non bias committee
to look at something this important, and they wonder why we don't trust them!!!

From the minutes of the meeting

Dr. McCormick, for example, in speaking of the CDC, noted that the agency
"wants us to declare, well, these things are pretty safe on a population basis."

then she says, "what walt wants walt generally gets"

This is thier actual findings

From the minutes of the meeting

"We've got a dragon by the tail here," states a committee member in the
transcript. "At the end of the line, what we know is - and I agree -
that
the more negative that presentation [the report] is, the less likely
people
are to use vaccination, immunization, and we know what the results of
that
will be. We are kind of caught in a trap. How we work our way out of
the
trap, I think, is the charge."
They were More worried about the vaccination uptake than
terribly vaccine damaged children.

And they wonder why we don't trust them !!!

It was reported that the IOM CDC contract orderd them to clear Thimerosal and MMR this was reported by someone there

the following is how they handeled the acusation

When byronchild asked CDC spokesperson Curtis Allen for a copy of the
contract that would detail the agreement between the IOM and the CDC,
Allen
stated that the contract would be available only in a heavily
"redacted" or
blacked-out format.

The IOM stated "no comment" to byronchild about the leaked transcript
or its
use in the pending civil court case. NOW THAT's REAL SCIENCE !!

AND THEY WONDER WHY WE DON'T
TRUST THEM !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anthony

"Autism incidence is many times the level of two decades ago."

This is a highly debatable point, and likely to be due to increased interest in the diagnosis of autism and awareness.

field

I think any fair minded observer reading this thread will be struck by the stark contrast between the reliance on invective displayed by the vax fanatics and the genuine attempt to address the evidence shown by those who oppose, or are sceptical about the alleged benefits of, vaccination.

Leslie Feldman

Vaccines and mitochondrial disorder, familial genetics, older paternal age, and a family history of autoimmune disorders are all causes of the disorders called "autism". http://autism-prevention.blogspot.com/

John Stone

plh

No it is the serious distortions of Cochrane we need to worry about. You quote a press release as if it was science. The press release says something different from the review, which is in itself riven with contradictions and doubletalk. In particular Dr Demicheli had no business telling people that the reviewed studies were good when the text of the review was dismissive about nearly all of them, and declared them to be collectively "largely inadequate". This ought to be the subject of public disquiet.

Anthony

John,

The issue of JPANDS and the Suissa letter is discussed here:

http://www.blacktriangle.org/blog/?p=1798

Natasa

Thank you Melanie for writing about these important issues. The silence of the most of UK media is staggering.

colmcq

That's a pretty good takedown Anthony, maybe now John Stone can finally just let it go.

Singularity

@John Stone: Interesting that Dr Ben Goldacre of the Guardian has erased his notorious taunt - "personal anecdotes about your MMR tragedy will be deleted for your own safety" - from his blog

http://www.badscience.net/?page_id=7

Even the cached Google pages recording the insult have disappeared, suggesting (state sponsored?) interference with the historical record.

Perhaps he was asked to remove the offensive statement following your questions on ethics and conflict of interests here:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/335/7618/480

In 2002, Goldacre wrote in the Guardian:

"I know from experience that there are occasions, regrettably, when I need to admit someone to a psychiatric ward against their will. I am comfortable doing that, because I work in a culture where it is only done in the patient's best interests, and there are checks and balances to prevent a compulsory admission being done inappropriately."

At that time the Guardian was happy to declare: "Ben Goldacre is a psychiatrist working in London."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2002/jul/16/mentalhealth.lifeandhealth

How long before that article is made to vanish into thin air?

Spongebob

"The issue of JPANDS and the Suissa letter is discussed here:"

Discussed? It's just your opinionated drivel, as usual.

Are you sure that you are not a $$ ?

John Heptonstall

Jerry S said "you people should try spending some time like me in the worlds poorest countries where infectious disease ravages old and young alike. "

.....apparently forgetting that in some of those countries there was no gender difference whereas after vaccination the communities suffered gender skewing, the long term effects of which are unknown; also vaccines were introduced in 'trials' that were not controlled, not randomised, lacking consideration of the most basic confounders, and into poverty stricken communities whose authorities are notoriously corrupt.

What confidence can anyone have in stats therefrom, or those who would 'take advantage of' such peoples?

See Aaby et al 2002 and 2003

Anthony

Well, SpongeBob...

I have no links to the pharmaceutical industry, and I'm certainly not a two dollar bill.

Being accused of being opinionated on Melanie Phillips' blog, is like being accused of being half-naked on a nudist beach.

If it's drivel, then post your epidemiological thoughts here.

Give my love to Patrick Star!

joe

Anthony do you just ignore when
some one points out that the CDC cut a deal with the IOM.
The IOM informed the CDC they need to seek good counsel. Doe's this not anger you that they found it easier to lie to the world than to tell the truth. And if not why not???

plh

Mr. Stone, The press release only says something different from the review if you mistakenly think that robust criticism of aspects of each of the studies reviewed means that no conclusions can be drawn from them at all. In fact 31 of 139 studies were deemed to be sufficiently free of bias and error for that purpose. To claim that Demicheli had no business saying so is absurd, as is the claim that the review is "riven with contradictions and doubletalk".

Even if all the studies had been too poor to draw conclusions from, or the review itself had been inadequate, the idea that the public should be disquieted about a link between MMR and autism by that fact - which would simply amount to an absence of additional evidence either way - is also absurd.

Frank Pulley

Can someone explain why the moderators pass duplicated comments, when the commentator in question presses the 'Post your comment' button twice - usually I suspect due to slow response from the blog software? It is distracting and therefore irritating, particularly when reading interesting exchanges such as on this thread.

Spongebob

"I have no links to the pharmaceutical industry"

ROTFL

"If it's drivel, then post your epidemiological thoughts here."

Epidemiology, ah yes! I see what happens to my child only to be told that epidemiologically it could/would/did never happen. Thank God for epidemiology - it has shown me the error of my ways.
BTW how's your new mate Epi-wonk-anobi?
Do all you shills have a social networking site because you all pop-up together and all x-ref each other (allbeit the 6/7 or so of you)

Grace A.

Am I right in believing that most of the recent cases of measles have come up in children who had already been vaccinated with the MMR? What does this say about the effectiveness of the vaccine? And can we accept the argument that all children must be vaccinated to maintain herd immunity? We are being taken for a big ride on the safety of vaccines, and the future sadly will prove this. No studies have been done on the synergistic effects of three compounds put together, only the rush to re-license them in a 3 vaccine, when the license for the individual ones were about to expire. Have you read the briliant book Health Wars by Phillip Day? What an eye opener. Governments and drug companies will have much to answer for in the years to come. Every day in Britain 19 children are diagnosed with autism, and yet we hardly have any autistic adults!! Does this not sound odd? When did MMR become available?

Veronica

You cannot compare the effects of an outbreak of measles in Africa with the UK. Many children in Africa are starving and have little or no chance of fighting even a minor infection or disease.

In the early 1950s during an outbreak of polio in my town the only children that died or were crippled from the disease were the chidren from the poor families living three or four to a bed in the slum area. Those poor souls only had basic food like bread and dripping to eat with little or no fresh meat or veg. They had outdoor toilets with no hand washing facilities so disease spread quickly. The better off kids who played with them were either not affected by the polio or quickly recovered from it. When it came to Measles we were given post war National Health orange juice and cod liver oil to boost our immune systems and sent out by our mothers to "Measles Parties" to get life long immunity. Autism, was rare back then and ADHD, ADD was unheard off. A healthy diet and good hygiene is the best defence against disease it certainly worked for all my siblings and friends back then.

John Stone

Anthony works for the MHRA which is entirely funded by the pharma, although he is apparently paid by the NHS (which has no connections to the pharma at all!). I raised an eyebrow when Anthony, in his Black Triangle blog claimed not to understand epidemiology - odd since the defence of MMR seems to rest entirely on rather dodgy epidemiology, but anyhow it is also rather surprising that Prof Suissa's error, if it was such, seems to have been replicated Cochrane. Also the Madsen data was separately obtained by Goldman and Yazbak, and Stott et al

http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/goldman.pdf

http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/stott.pdf

and they were able to confirm that Madsen et al had messed up their data set at first hand.

Anthony is, of course, wrong about the proliferation of autism preceding the modern vaccine schedules. The projects of denying an increase in autism and the project of denying that vaccine causes autism has always gone hand in hand (as I discovered early on when corresponding the DH). I think this was one of the first pieces they sent me (I wasn't so keen on the vaccine explanation in those days):

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/107/2/411

But see also:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/clifford.g.miller/pandemic.htm#Scottish_Autism_Audit_Cannot_Find_Enough

plh

I have quoted exactly what Cochrane said about 5 "good" autism studies above.

I wish everybody a very good night.

John Stone

WITH APOLOGIES, I am resubmitting my post from the small hours with corrections:-

Anthony works for the MHRA which is entirely funded by the pharma, although he is apparently paid by the NHS (which has no connections to the pharma at all!). I raised an eyebrow when Anthony, in his Black Triangle blog claimed not to understand epidemiology - odd since the defence of MMR seems to rest entirely on rather dodgy epidemiology, but anyhow it is also rather surprising that Prof Suissa's error, if it was such, seems to have been replicated by Cochrane. Also the Madsen data was separately obtained by Goldman and Yazbak, and Stott et al

http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/goldman.pdf

http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/stott.pdf

and they were able to confirm that Madsen et al had messed up their data set at first hand.

Anthony is, of course, wrong about the proliferation of autism preceding the modern vaccine schedules. The projects of denying an increase in autism and the project of denying that vaccine causes autism have always gone hand in hand (as I discovered early on when corresponding with the DH). This is a link to one of the first pieces they sent me (I wasn't so keen on the vaccine explanation in those days):

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/107/2/411

But see also:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/clifford.g.miller/pandemic.htm#Scottish_Autism_Audit_Cannot_Find_Enough

plh

I have quoted exactly what Cochrane said about 5 "good" autism studies above (May 26, 7.52pm).

John Stone

With reference to the Fombonne article cited above:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/107/2/411

Fombonne's fallacy (a Medical Research Council project) is evident: he is citing the absence of controlled data to challenge the prima facie view that autism is rising. Unfortunately, those of us who have to fight for services for our children as they become young adults are well aware of the fact that there are not really half-a-million ASD adults in the land, demanding specialist services on a historical basis. And if you tell adult services that this a normal situation, this will only create bemusement, because they have neither the infrastructure or the knowledge to deal with problems that they have never seen before. And we have been deliberately left in the pickle by government propaganda.

Isabella Thomas

http://emc.medicines.org.uk/emc/assets/c/html/DisplayDoc.asp?DocumentID=17514

In children who have not had measles but have received measles vaccine there have been rare reports of gradual mental deterioration, fits and sudden jerking of a single muscle or group of muscles.

DOES M-M-R™ II HAVE ANY SIDE-EFFECTS?
• Because M-M-R™ II is slightly acidic, you or your child may feel a slight burning or stinging sensation in the area where the injection was given. This occurs commonly but should not last longer than 5 minutes.
Some people may have any of the following:
• fever (with temperature more than 38.3°C) and skin rash. If these are going to happen, it will most likely be five to twelve days after the injection.
• the area around the injection site may become red, swollen, tender or painful.
The following can also occur:
• Sore throat, feeling generally unwell, fainting, irritability.
• Swollen painful salivary glands in front of the ears, feeling or being sick, diarrhoea.
• Swollen glands in the armpits (if the injection was given into the arm) or in the groin (if the injection was given into the leg).
• A reduction in the number of platelets in the blood causing easy bruising, purple spotted skin rash, nose bleeds or heavy menstrual periods in women.
• Allergic reactions such as itchy generalised skin rash, swelling of the face and throat, difficulty in breathing, blue discolouration of the tongue or lips, low blood pressure and collapse.
• Painful joints and/or swollen joints. This does not usually last very long and is more likely to occur in adult women. If this does occur, it is most likely to happen two to four weeks after your vaccination. These are caused by the rubella part of the vaccine.
• Painful muscles.
• Fits (convulsions), with or without fever.
• Headache, dizziness, tingling sensation, inflammation of the nerves causing pain and tenderness and loss of function of muscles.
• Guillain-Barré Syndrome (a general nerve disease)
• Loss of co-ordination, unsteadiness.
• Cough, runny nose.
• A purple spotted skin rash and red blotches which may spread and form lumps or blisters, a rash with small fluid-filled spots, swelling of the skin.
• Inflammation of nerves in the eye, inflammation of the innermost layer of the eye one to three weeks after the injection causing headache and visual disturbance, inability to move the eye causing double vision.
• Ear infection and inflammation of the covering of the eye and eyelid causing red sticky eyes.
• Deafness.
• Painful testicles.
It is possible, but highly unlikely, that M-M-R™ II could cause inflammation of the brain leading to headaches and drowsiness. It should be remembered that this is more likely to be caused by the measles disease itself (one per 2000 cases of reported measles) than by the measles vaccine (one case per million doses given). As with any live vaccine, administration of MMR™ II to patients with a weakened immune system may be associated with particular risks. A type of brain inflammation, that may be associated with inflammation of the lungs and can be fatal, has occurred extremely rarely in patients with severely weakened immune systems, after receiving a measles-containing vaccine.
In children who have not had measles but have received measles vaccine there have been rare reports of gradual mental deterioration, fits and sudden jerking of a single muscle or group of muscles. It is thought that this occurs once in one million vaccine doses given. This compares with 6 to 22 cases per million cases of measles (that is, measles has a higher risk of causing these symptoms than the measles vaccine).
Most people do not have any serious or long-lasting reactions to M-M-R™ II. However, if you are worried about any of these, or you or your child experience any other unpleasant effects after your vaccination, tell your doctor or nurse.

Anthony

John,

On my blog I state "I do not profess to be an expert in epidemiology" in the context of introducing a quote from a retired Professor and senior epidemiologist at the CDC, which is somewhat different from your claim that I said I do not understand epidemiology. In fact, I teach students pharmacoepidemiology and attend pharmacoepidemiological conferences. Call it an attempt at modesty and humility. You may have heard of those words at some point in your life, they are perhaps worth bearing in mind next time you start pontificating about epidemiology studies about which you have zero understanding.

For the record, Quack science published in a right wing crank journal by people like Yazbak and Stott is hardly evidence against MMR vaccine. Indeed, you've already seemingly accepted that Suissa made an error, which passed by Stott and Wakefield.

You merely accept the data (or rather opinions and incorrect representations of data) that back up your pre-existing beliefs, and sagely present it as though you do have insight and understanding. What a ridiculous facade you maintain.

The defence of MMR vaccine does also not rest solely on epidemiological studies, as you well know (but chose not to mention). It also rests on the virological studies that have been unable to replicate Wakefield's work. It also rests on the fact that a member of Wakefield's team has already exposed that Wakefield's samples including false positives (a point you have never sucessfully explained away).

As regards the ad homenen attacks on my reputation, with regard to the pharmaceutical industry, it really is desperate stuff. I have a part-time job funded by the NHS in the West Midlands. Only a portion of that post is funded (indirectly) by MHRA money. The idea that this means I am at the beck and call of some great big pharma vaccine conspiracy is laughable and borders on paranoia. I have already documented to you on numerous occasions my opposition to the pharmaceutical industry in some areas, including tackling the chairman of the ABPI in the pages of a journal. My opposition to the anti-vaccine movemment predates my involvement with the MHRA by some years.

This would be funny, if it wasn't for the fact that by propagating this nonsense people like yourself, and Melanie Philips, are endangering the health of children.

John Stone

Anthony now admits that his post is partly funded by the MHRA. So, some progress. Otherwise, I have never seen such a barrage of red-herrings and falsifications (oh well, perhaps I have).

I came to my views with care, and over time. It is not true that Wakefield's tests have not been replicated: they have and I believe we will see publications.

Anthony complains about ad hominem attacks on his reputation. I, personally, have been careful to state nothing more than I know (and goodness me he has just owned up to more), but he indulges in much cruder ad hominem when he just calls all dissidents "quacks".

I also think that he gives the game away in his position as a "yellow cards" adviser if he has an a priori position that vaccines are as a category safe, when actually they are much less well tested and monitored than other pharmaceutical products. The fact that Anthony is doing the monitoring does not inspire confidence.

Anthony

"Anthony now admits that his post is partly funded by the MHRA."

Admits? I have told you on numerous occasions that I work for a unit that is partially funded by the MHRA to promote the reporting of adverse reactions by the public and healthcare professionals. I have also put this down as a conflict of interest in published papers related to MMR vaccine. If only the people you supported had been so open with their funding, eh? Don't try to make out you have prised some deep dark secret out of me.

Perhaps if I had taken £100,000 from lawyers you might trust my opinion more?

"ARC is also employed on a part-time basis at the Yellow Card Centre West Midlands, a regional education centre of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). The viewpoints expressed in this commentary are those of the authors and are not necessarily endorsed by the MHRA."

I also do not have, and never have had, an a priori view that vaccines are "safe". I have a view that vaccines do not cause autism on the basis of the evidence we have (even in 1998, there was not sufficient evidence to support Wakefield's view about MMR vaccine).

I fully accept, as do all regualtory bodies in the world and the companies who produce them, that vaccines do have adverse effects. Indeed, someone has already pasted into this thread company data on adverse events proving that point.

I even accept that vaccine safety could be improved, as do the experts you denigrate working in vaccine safety. They even publish papers to that effect - although of course you are ignorant of them.

None of that means however that there is ANY reliable and robust evidence that MMR vaccine is related to autism. If studies did arrive that confirmed such a link, then I would revise my opinion. I revise my opinion on other pharmaceutical products safety all the time based on new evidence, I treat vaccines no differently.

You do.

David Gorski

That monkey study that you mention appears to be bad science at best, and dishonest, litigation-generated "research" at worst. Also, its lead investigator, Laura Hewitson, has serious and apparently undisclosed conflicts of interest, including the fact that she is a litigant in the Autism Omnibus. See:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=100

John Stone

Anthony

I believe you previously stated that your post was entirely funded by the NHS, whereas now you are saying that it is in part funded by the MHRA, which is entirely funded by the pharmaceutical industry. The Commons Health Committee reported 3 years ago:

"The industry is by no means solely to blame for the difficulties we describe. The regulatorsand prescribers are also open to criticism. The regulator, the Medicines and Healthcareproducts Regulatory Agency (MHRA), has failed to adequately scrutinise licensing dataand its post-marketing surveillance is inadequate. The MHRA Chairman stated that trustwas integral to effective regulation, but trust, while convenient, may mean that the regulatory process is not strict enough. The organisation has been too close to the industry, a closeness underpinned by common policy objectives, agreed processes, frequent contact, consultation and interchange of staff. We are concerned that a rather lax regime isexacerbated by the MHRA’s need to compete with other European regulators for licence application business."

Report: The Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmhealth/42/42.pdf

Anthony uses the term "anti-vaccine movement" but let us be clear that though there are a few voices - and they are not necessarily dishonourable ones - who oppose the principle of vaccination, most people we are talking about are people who have swallowed the official scientific propaganda and have lived to regret it, unheeded but also openly insulted and mocked by Anthony and his ilk.

If Anthony was really concerned about vaccine damage he would be listening to people with care and respect, and would welcome Wakefield's investigations.

And Anthony does treat vaccine differently, since he holds an a priori view that vaccine does not cause autism, though Dr Healy has suggested that there might be a variety of mechanisms whereby it might and sub-groups of children who are not being invstigated who should be as matter of course and according to fundamental medical ethics, and that public bodies have been wrong not to investigate them, placing too much emphasis on epidemiology. But like the said bodies Anthony already knows what the answer is going to be and he can go on ignoring the patients and their families indefinitely, according to principles which are both circular and inherently unscientific.

field

Thanks for that quote Isabella. That's why I always say that when a Government Minister or the Chief Medical Officer of the time or whoever declares MMR is "safe" they must be telling a conscious lie because they know the makers admit to all these many dangerous side effects. And that is discounting the autism link.

Minister and medics need to stop lying. Once they stop lying we can BEGIN to have a rational debate about the merits and demerits of vaccination.

David

Posters on this thread have pointed out the recognised side effects of vaccines, as though these provide unquestionable grounds to avoid giving them to our children.

However the side effects from the live vaccine components in MMR are much less frequent and less severe than the effects of acquiring the disease naturally.

There seems to be a perverse "group think" among antivaccinationists that when a vaccine causes, say, encephalitis, that this is a horrendous and avoid-at-all costs complication. Yet they are blithely willing to subject their children to the far far greater hazard of the encephalitis that would occur when they catch the natural disease. Paradoxically, antivaccinationists always seem to think that the "natural" infections are merely trivial inconveniences for a child with no ill effects whatsoever, and yet the vaccines (which generate immunity, and which obviously can cause very mild forms of the disease) are an anathema, and are regarded as the equivalent of giving one's child a dose of ebola virus.

Won't someone please think of the children?

Cybertiger

@David

"Won't someone please think of the children?"

You wouldn't, perchance, be Professor David Southall, Child Protector and Witchfinder General of all England and beyond?

Anthony

"I believe you previously stated that your post was entirely funded by the NHS"

It is.

"whereas now you are saying that it is in part funded by the MHRA"

The unit I work in receives funding from the MHRA to promote the reporting of adverse drug reactions.

"which is entirely funded by the pharmaceutical industry."

You could argue that traffic wardens are in part funded by road tax provided by road users. That does not stop the Police issuing speeding tickets.

The conflict of interest, with regard to the Pharmaceutical industry link, you are accusing me of is incredibly tenous. Unlike the direct conflicts of interest that those you support have and refuse to acknowledge.

"Anthony uses the term "anti-vaccine movement" but let us be clear that though there are a few voices - and they are not necessarily dishonourable ones etc"

I think the term anti-vaccine movement correctly sums up the views that are overwhelmingly represented at the JABS site. I believe any rational and objective person would agree.

"If Anthony was really concerned about vaccine damage he would be listening to people with care and respect, and would welcome Wakefield's investigations."

Indeed, it was Jenner's initial care and knowledge of patients that noted that cowpox could act as a vaccine. However, let's be clear, while listening and caring are important in thew treatment of individuals (and I did use to be involved in the direct care of patients until fairly recently), they are not necessarily the best tools to discover an association between a vaccine and an event. Indeed, there is nothing inherently wrong with investigating concerns as Andrew Wakefield did, although there are concerns about the motivations behind the "study" he performed.

However, what Wakefield did was make an extraordinary claim which his data did not support, and unfortunately he has been unable to retreat from his position as further data has undermined his hypothesis. That is why he is reduced to publishing in crank journals like JPANDS.

"he [Anthony] holds an a priori view that vaccine does not cause autism, though Dr Healy has suggested etc"

No, I hold a view that there is no evidence that MMR vaccine causes autism, and that Wakefield's initial study did not suggest this either, and that plenty of evidence that does not support MMR vaccine being a factor involved in autism has accumulated.

Healy has track record of being anti Evidence Based Medicine, although it is amusing that you suddenly start using argument by a position of authority when it suits.

"principles which are both circular and inherently unscientific"

Oh come off it John, this thread has already exposed your unscientific stance. A stance you share with Melanie Phillips as it happens.

http://www.blacktriangle.org/blog/?p=1626

Cybertiger

Dr Briffa is a very decent war correspondent. Here, he's written a useful piece on the 'war on MMR'.

http://www.drbriffa.com/blog/2008/05/30/why-the-mmr-autism-war-is-not-over/

I feel sure Dr Anthony (aka BlackToad) will be impressed ...

Singularity

Anthony

Healy calling for research that takes account of individual susceptibility in mass immunisation schedules is hardly "anti Evidence Based Medicine". Healy said, "Yes, vaccines are extraordinarily safe and bring huge public health benefit,... But vaccine experts tend to look at the population as a whole. . . . And population studies are not granular enough to detect individual metabolic, genetic, or immunological variation that might make some children under certain circumstances susceptible to neurological complications after vaccination."
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/health_science/daily/20080529_Autism_theory_gains_support.html

Anthony

Careful Dr Struthers, it is only a matter of time before Melanie spots yur contributors to the New Statesman blog!

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/martin-bright/2007/12/labour-telegraph-zionist

John Stone

Anthony demonstrates how insolent and hard nosed public bodies have become to counter-evidence and to members of the public themselves. It does not matter how often damage happens, it is just coincidence (and the coincidence gets bigger the more of it you get - but who's counting?)

Well actually, I have produced a lot of evidence - but mostly my alleged scientific incompetence is simply manifested by showing lack of deference to institutions which have failed. And every time Anthony fails to listen he makes the point that his confidence in vaccine is maintained by disregarding the experience of ordinary people.

In what other instance would reported events be disregarded on statistical grounds (burglaries don't often happen in x so no burglary occured), or because the mechanism is not well established. This is a lamentable situation. Hit and run stuff.

Anthony

"In what other instance would reported events be disregarded on statistical grounds (burglaries don't often happen in x so no burglary occurred), or because the mechanism is not well established. This is a lamentable situation. Hit and run stuff."

This is absolute rubbish John.

Like burglaries, autism is a reality. On that presumably we agree. We are not arguing about the existence of autism, but what the cause is.

The correct analogy is an attempt to find out who is performing the burglaries, notably better recored since the Police improved their procedures. The newspapers report the burglaries extensively, and outraged citizens allege it is the suspicious looking gypsies down the road, who people who have always been suspicious of. However, every time the Police investigate, they find the gypsies have sound alibis, and their fingerprints are not found at the crime scene.

Rather than asking the Police to investigate who might be behind the burglaries, the locals continue to blame the gypsies. They provide more and more elaborate explanations for how the suspicious looking gypsies might be behind the robberies, and note that they must get their money from somewhere.

Meanwhile the burglaries continue, and valuable Police time is taken up with your crank 999 calls.

plh

"In what other instance would reported events be disregarded on statistical grounds (burglaries don't often happen in x so no burglary occured)"

In the instance that it became fashionable to report missing socks as burglaries. Armed with his knowledge of other explanations for a missing sock, and finding that there was no evidence of the existence of one-sock burglars, the exasperated police chief might well appeal to statistics when asked why he was not recording such reports as burglaries.

Cybertiger

Dr Anthony (aka BlackToad of ToadHall) offers certain proof that he is as boneheaded as Madeleine Albright - but what has that got to do with the 'war on vaccines'?

David

@ Cybertigerrrr
"You wouldn't, perchance, be Professor David Southall, Child Protector and Witchfinder General of all England and beyond?"

I wonder how many people called David there are in the UK. Perhaps I am actually David Salisbury, or maybe even David Cameron? And just why is it relevant?

You have made 4 submissions to this thread. None of them has contributed anything to the debate. All of them are ad hom interjections to pour totally uncalled for derision on other posters who support vaccination.

Do you have an opinion on vaccines and autism? Have you anything meaningful to contribute to the debate? Does anyone really care? The answer to all the above questions is no.

John Stone

Anthony's answer is quite interesting in that it manages to elide parents' concerns about vaccine with ignorant prejudices and racism. But the real problem is not the self-confirmatory views of parents who actually chose to have their children vaccinated, but his self-confirmatatory views and the institutions for which he works. The problem we have here is far more like the police refusing to investigate the police than the police refusing to investigate the gypsies.

plh on the other hand is offensive in suggesting this is a trivial problem.

Singularity

plh

So, healthy children who regress into postvaccination autism are the ethical and scientific equivalent of "missing socks"?

You plumb depths previously reached only by psychiatrist Ben "your MMR tragedy will be deleted" Goldacre.

Tony

Anthony,

You have the patience of a saint to keep talking to these people.

John Stone is a recognisable type. I’ve met his sort before when I’ve engaged in on-line debates with creationists. In the end it doesn’t matter how good your arguments are, they just KNOW in their bones that they are right and that’s that.

Come to think of it, it’s surely interesting how many of these contrarian anti-science viewpoints co-cluster – eg Melanie Phillips herself is a neo-creationist (maybe soon we'll be treated to Melanie explainig why HIV cannot possibly be the cause of AIDS).

In the case of creationists, it’s clearly a religious thing that’s their problem. With John, I don’t know.

But the general pubic need to appreciate that if we really do want to understand the causes of autism, then we have to go where the evidence leads. Spending huge amounts of money chasing some will-of-the-wisp idea about MMR vaccine and autism, when that hypothesis (tenuous to begin with) has already been comprehensively debunked, means that same amount of money is not available to examine more friutful avenues of research.

But it’s worse. Anthony’s analogy of burglaries and the gypsies is spot on, and should be a warning of how ‘gut feeling’ based on personal anecdote alone is absolutely NOT the way to conduct medical research.

John Stone

Anthony's answer is quite interesting in that it manages to elide parents' concerns about vaccine with ignorant prejudices and racism. But the real problem is not the self-confirmatory views of parents who actually chose to have their children vaccinated, but his self-confirmatatory views and the institutions for which he works. The problem we have here is far more like the police refusing to investigate the police than the police refusing to investigate the gypsies.

plh on the other hand is offensive in suggesting this is a trivial problem.

field

Anthony's attempt to hijack John Stone's analogy only serves to illustrate the deep cynicism of the vax fanatic lobby.

John Stone's analogy was perfectly reasonable. We do indeed have a situation where the authorities are denying there is a problem. If the Police were denying that burglary was a problem the absurdity of the claim would be obvious to all. The complexity of the science and physiological reactions disguises the position in relation to vaccines but anyoen who spends any time looking into this subject soon sees that there has been a massive cover-up of the evidence.

Isabella Thomas's post showed that despite the absurd claims that vaccines are "safe" the manufacturers admit to a whole series of potential serious side effects.

Lets start with that: vaccines are NOT safe. They carry risks - very serious risks - of physiological damage. No one can gainsay that.

From that starting point we should then begin an appraisal of the risks balanced against those associated with non-vaccination - and for each disease.

plh

Mr. Stone, Singularity, Who first suggested the burglary analogy? And do you really (and suddenly) now not understand that there is no moral content in an example used purely to illustrate a statistical or scientific point (and which you asked for, for pete's sake)? Or are you just pretending to be unable to make the distinction in order to express your ersatz moral outrage for effect?

Singularity

My contempt for politicians and statisticians who refuse to take seriously the moral claims of individuals harmed by utilitarian public health measures is perfectly echt, thankyou, plh.

John Stone

plh

You were not making a scientific or statistical point, you were patently trying to suggest that the parents of autistic children concerned about vaccine damage were the equivalent of people who would phone up the police about missing socks.

field

Phl -

Come off it. You were making a polemical point, not a scientific one.

Are you really going to stand by your daft statement that "there is no moral content in an example used purely to illustrate a statistical or scientific point"

If we were discussing gender equality and you kept quoting statistics and scientific studies pointing to enhanced performance of males over females are you really going to claim that these have no value implications? - especially if they are not the whole story (although accurate)?

Ministers and medics have quoted studies selectively; they have presented statistics in a way that make vaccine damage sound like a small problem (are we talking "0.009% of the population adversely affected" or are we talking "5,000 young infants crippled for life"); and they have failed to inform the public about salient facts (e.g. it was NEVER before mentioned that vaccines had mercury in them, for the very good reason that no parent with any intelligence would allow their child to be vaccinated with mercury).

We have every right to be sceptical.

When I hear a Minister admit that most deaths from measles and mumps occur in children whose immune system have already been highly compromised by other diseases or radiation treatment THEN I will know they are STARTING to tell the truth.

John Stone

An earlier comment of mine seems to have got lost:-

"Tony (May 30th, 2008 8:58pm)
has just performed a classic piece of witchfinding. Please note how little of this is to do with any scientific method but rather to do with identifying a social type on a purely associative basis. Again it is indicative of the problem, in which rhetoric and propaganda stand in for proper method and due care.

"What I have done is point to (1) the fact that cases are systematically ignored (2) the scientific record for safety is full of anomalies and weak (3) investigating the problem lies largely in the hands of those responsible for the policy.

"All of these things are true and yet autism parents and the public are simply expected to swallow it."

I make no comment about what type Tony is, but I should have added point (4) anyone dissenting is subjected to sarcasm and bullying. This is apparently a model for the conduct of modern science.

field

Very well put John Stone.

Not only that but they can be subject to career victimisation.

Does anyone seriously believe that Dr. Wakefield would be up before the GMC had his studies concluded that vaccination was completely harmless? You'd have to have a dummy in your mouth and cr*p in your nappy to believe that.

Tony

John,you are obsessed with the idea that the MMR vaccine causes autism. This hypothesis has been tested and there is no evidence for it. At some point, rational people have to let go. You apparently cannot let go and therefore, quite frankly, come across as a bit of a crank.

Field, you know perfectly well that Wakefield is not up before the GMC for proposing the MMR vaccine-autism link (see previous posts from eg: from David).

Look, obsessively chasing what is very, very likely to be a dead-end will inevitably frustrate the exploration of more likely research avenues into the causes of autism. It’s that simple.

Frank Pulley

"Our lives in their hands!"

Medics in their ivory towers
Are often wicked quacks and fakes.
They usurp nature's healing powers
And quickly bury their mistakes.

plh

John Stone, field, "You were not making a scientific or statistical point," etc.

Oh yes I was and I am genuinely surprised if you cannot see that: such examples and analogies are used and abused all the time to make statistical or scientific points, no moral context is associated with the nature of the setting, and it is hard to believe you haven't come across this form of argument before.

Nevertheless, if you really can't or won't make the distinction, even - bewilderingly - when the example or analogy was drawn at your own suggestion and you are told that that is what was being done, you have closed the debate as far as I'm concerned.

John Stone

plh

No, the example is in dubious taste and insulting, even if you believe that the increase in autism is an artefact of diagnostic culture - which I do not.

My latest reply to Tony (at the time of posting) is being held back, or has gone missing for some reason.

John Stone

Tony

My first response seems to have gone missing - perhaps it will still turn up. I have fully explained my doubts about the science, and you have not explained the basis of your certainty.

Regarding the circumstances of the hearing, the following links may be helpful:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/329/7477/1293#88789

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/329/7477/1293#88915

Note, Blair's remarks suggest that he is in some way party to the move against Wakefield, and he offers it as an argument for accepting the safety of MMR.

CDIG Newsletter, Sir John Grimley Evans, 'Morality and Respectability, the Face and the Mask' p.8

http://www.cochrane.org/newslett/CDCIG_Mar_2004.pdf

This is an ugly business, but if the hearing was going well for the government it would be reported every day on the BBC.

field

Phl -

Your comments are very naive and simplistic.

If I was talking to the family of a murder victim and started referring to their dead relative as "a now decomposing collection of several trillion organic cells of varying chemical composition and duration" I would be uttering a scientific truth, but in context I would also be saying something about my values. It's simple. If you can't grasp that, that's your problem.

plh

Mr Stone, "No, the example is in dubious taste and insulting"

The example was yours in origin. The "dubious taste" of that example - if that is how you wish to interpret it - was of your invention. Your failure to understand that no moral context is meant, implied or relevant to a point of science or statistics is excusable, but your failure to accept that fact having been told that that is how such matters are discussed, is not. Furthermore, (and as I said before), it is very hard to reconcile the words of someone who purports to be competent to criticise the scientific literature (which he quotes profusely) with his other statements which imply a complete lack of familiarity with scientific argument.

John Stone

plh

The difficulty with your analogy is that missing socks might easily get overlooked as problem, but children with intractable cognitive disbilities are unlikely to. The result of all this alleged "better identification" is not better interventions leading to young adults comfortably merging into society, but unprecedented numbers of young adults for which social services are unprepared either with infrastructure or knowledge. Meanwhile we live with the fiction that autism always existed at this rate:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/clifford.g.miller/pandemic.htm#Scottish_Autism_Audit_Cannot_Find_Enough

To put it in practical terms, this is costly difficult stuff. If it was merely a question of re-diagnosis these older adult cases they would still stand out a mile, if they existed. Of course, there will be a few, but half-a-million?

field

To put it in practical terms, this is costly difficult stuff. "If it was merely a question of re-diagnosis these older adult cases they would still stand out a mile, if they existed. Of course, there will be a few, but half-a-million?"

Yes - it's not unlike the missing 900,000 unregistered, unreported and unburied cadavers in Iraq which the Lancet said should be found somewhere (presumably hidden by the Americans since no one else would have such a motive!).

Let's hear the vax fanatics tell us where all these cases of autism are to be found in the older pre-mass vaccination population.

bfg

Theory: Vaccinations are the primary cause of food allergies. Infant formula, infant vitamins, and antibiotics that contain peanut products directly or indirectly may be secondary causes.

BACKGROUND: This study began as a "wild idea" that vaccinations or medicine could be causing peanut allergy. It soon turned into a horrible realization. A very small amount of food proteins from many sources are considered inert ingredients that fall under trade secret protection and are not on the vaccine inserts. Various studies have shown that injecting an animal with protein is one method of inducing an allergy. Every study done of food allergy that could be located does not disprove this theory. There was a study done on Indonesian and Thai children that has been frequently quoted as saying that there are no peanut allergies in Thailand or Singapore in spite of the high consumption of peanuts. Evidence was presented that Singapore has a major problem with peanut allergy. The study itself says that many children reacted to peanuts in a skin prick test and that it eliminated a number of children from the study. The "hygiene theory" was examined and found to have no merit. Evidence of a long list of food protein that can be used in vaccine production has been found in various patents on-line. The increased childhood vaccination schedule coincides with the increase in food allergies in industrialized nations. The lower incidence of food allergies in less industrialized nations also coincides with a lower vaccination rate. The lower incidence of food allergies in the Hispanic population of the United States also coincides with a lower vaccination rate. The evidence of food allergy in animals has only been found in vaccinated animals. Evidence of ingredients that can be one of the patented adjuvants with various food oils has been presented. Evidence that "pharmacy grade" peanut oil still contains peanut protein has been presented. Package inserts have been examined and found to have ingredients that do not disclose its actual composition. EVERY SINGLE FOOD ALLERGY THAT I HAVE FOUND, I HAVE ALSO FOUND THAT FOOD LISTED AS AN INGREDIENT IN A VACCINE OR MEDICAL PRODUCT.

Many of these pages were copied from my blog. The blog grew too big and was too hard to follow. The links listed below link to the article in my blog. Use the buttons to the right to go to the article on this website. If you'd like to leave a comment, you can do so on the blog or you can e-mail me by way of the contact page- bfg

1. Vaccines are given to create an immune response from the body. It only makes sense that the body treats anything in the vaccine as an invader that needs to have an antibody created to combat it. That is why we give vaccines. But if the vaccine has a trace of food in it such as egg or peanut, it only makes sense that the vaccine can cause a food allergy.

2. Peanut oil is used in vaccines in adjuvants or as a vaccine carrier. The ingredients of adjuvants or vaccine carriers are not listed individually on the package insert. So the physician would have no way of knowing that there was peanut oil in the vaccine. The ingredients of adjuvants is considered a "trade secret" and has the protection of many governments not to be revealed.

3. Peanut allergy decreases in populations that have decreased percentage of vaccinated children. There are a number of studies that link vaccinations to allergies.

4. Peanut allergy is almost unknown in Israel. The population eats lots of peanuts. Israel produces sesame oil. Israel manufactures its own vaccines. Sesame is a major allergy there. Hypothesis: Sesame oil is used instead of peanut oil in the vaccines used in Israel.

5. Study that is frequently cited saying that Indonesia and Thailand people do not suffer from peanut allergies was erroneous. Many children in the study reacted to peanuts in the skin prick test. The study relied on parents of report food reactions. I found a Thai parent quoted on the Internet saying that her child had a peanut allergy. I also found a physician from Singapore stating that peanut allergy is a major problem there.

6. The “hygiene” theory points out that there is less food allergy in underdeveloped countries. They speculated that the people and environment is less clean so it is the early exposure to bacteria, etc. that protects against allergies. However, children as young as 8 months have been diagnosed with peanut allergy and it is only since 1990 that peanut allergies have become a huge problem. The populations in the underdeveloped countries are also not as compliant with childhood vaccinations which would account for less peanut allergy.

7. The United States and China are major producers of peanut oil and vaccinations. There are many patents for products used in vaccines that contain peanut oil.

8. The secondary causes of peanut allergy are due to young children having a “leaky gut”, immature digestive system. Introducing foods too soon can lead to allergies. Medicines given with traces of peanut protein could lead to an allergy. Also antibiotics kill off good bacteria as well as bad and can lead to an overgrowth of yeast which can cause food allergy type problems. I don’t know if any infant formula in the United States contains peanut oil. One website said it was more of a problem in Europe.

9. Our vaccinated animals are getting food allergies Dogs are allergic to peanuts. Searching the Internet - I found a wild elephant allergic to wheat; the elephant had been immunized. (Wheat germ oil is used as a carrier of vaccines. Wheat protein is used to manufacture vaccines/medicines.)

10. The statistics for allergies is appalling!! The allergy epidemic increased with every new mandate for more childhood immunizations.

11. How pure can we make peanut oil? I assume it is highly refined but it only would take a teeny weeny bit of peanut protein in a vaccine to create a problem. That is, of course, assuming that it is ONLY the peanut protein that causes the allergy. Using my “guessing” math, only 1 shot out of 1680 would need to be contaminated to create a peanut allergy in 1 in 70 people in Great Britain.

12. Vaccine adjuvants/ vaccine carriers contain many other oils/ingredients. These other ingredients could account for allergies to other foods. Fish oil is used. Shellfish can be mixed in with the fish by-products which are used to make fish oil. Wheat germ oil, corn oil, soy oil are used. Milk and eggs are also used in the production of vaccines. I expect that the oils are mixed in the vaccines so that you might get a vaccine with peanut oil and soy oil in it or any number of other oils.

I keep looking but so far, I have been unable to DISPROVE my theory. And perhaps that is because VACCINES ARE A MAJOR CAUSE OF FOOD ALLERGIES!!