That was the title of Fiona Godlee's webcast from the National Institutes of Health, Fogarty International Center, Tuesday, 6 September 2011. Dr. Godlee is the editor-in-chief of the British Medical Journal (BMJ) and published the three part series by Brian Deer exposing the fraudulent research of Dr. Andrew Wakefield. Her talk can be viewed in its entirety here.
She reviewed the key points of Mr. Deer's protracted investigation of Dr. Wakefield's MMR research and the painstaking measures the BMJ took to review and validate Mr. Deer's reports. She raised concerns of fraud in science and what medical/scientific journals could do to prevent such an occurrence from happening again. She also discusses the role of the media and their contribution to the legitimising of Dr. Wakefield's, now retracted, Lancet report. Dr. Godlee also makes an intriguing proposition for improving public health communications by entreating investigative journalists to work with epidemiologists. We have already seen the success of solid science reporting by the likes of Brian Deer and Seth Mnookin so it is a feasible proposition.
Dr. Godlee provides an honest and thorough analysis of fraud in science/medicine and public health communications deficits along with some criterion to prevent fraudulent scientific reporting. All in all, an informative talk and interesting points made during the question and answer session. Jake Crosby from the Age of Autism made an embarrassing showing by introducing himself as "Jacob Crosby from the George Washington School of Public Health and Health Services", not disclosing himself as a student and implying he represented the school as faculty or staff. Not to mention, I doubt the George Washington School of Public Health and Health Services sent Mr. Crosby as their representative, but rather, he attended as Age of Autism's lackey. Mr. Crosby also missed the point of a "question and answer" session and launched into a churlish diatribe of fraud allegations against Brian Deer which can be viewed at the 54:04 mark on the webcast.
I don't know that Mr. Crosby was trying to misrepresent himself as a faculty or staff member of GW, but I doubt that anyone in the room (or watching the podcast) was confused on the issue. Mr. Crosby makes it abundantly clear, in what he says, how he says it and even in how he dresses, that he's merely an opinionated (and misinformed) amateur.
ReplyDeleteIf I were one of Mr. Crosby's faculty advisors (FSM preserve me from such a fate!), I'd have a quiet talk with him about not letting his "feelings" interfere with rational thinking, a skill he needs to learn if he is to ever complete his graduate work. Of course, having seen Mr. Crosby writings on numerous occasions, I suspect that he feels graduate school is a mere formality - that he already knows all he needs to know about epidemiology and public health.
Unfortunately, I suspect that Mr. Crosby will ultimately find graduate school quite frustrating unless he experiences a significant attitudinal change. I hope his epiphany comes before the GW faculty request that he take his "expertise" on the road.
Prometheus
Oh you noticed his "professional" attire as well? Positively shameful. I believe he was trying to present as impressive credentials as he could but I agree that he didn't fool anyone.
ReplyDeleteI suspect that he feels graduate school is a mere formality - that he already knows all he needs to know about epidemiology and public health.
What an astute conjecture. "Scientific advisor" for Generation Rescue in his future? Although, again I agree that his standing at GW could be jeopardised if he continues his shenanigans, especially in their name.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=l67fWVrw8xU - not fraud. calmly telling the truth, over and over. calmly explaining everything that needs explaining.
ReplyDeleteYes Anonymous, psychopathic liars are often calm and composed. Wakefield can explain everything he wants as calmly as he wants but he is missing crucial evidence for his assertions and his fraud has been cleanly and brilliantly exposed.
ReplyDelete"clearly and brilliantly?" Do you live in the UK? Do you know what the red books are? Do you now how referrals are done? Do you know what information goes into a referral letter to a specialist? Do you know how these case study papers are put together? Moreover, DID YOU LISTEN TO WHAT HE SAID? All 45:23 minutes of it? And better still, did you listen to how many in the audience, the AAPS, were agreeing with him,applauding him? Wakefield IS the new Semmelweis. The only fraud is Brian Deer, and Fiona Godlee's a fool for following him. And this blog? Idiocy. Simple as.
ReplyDeleteno wonder the AAPS clap
ReplyDeletehttp://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/02/the_journal_of_american_physicians_and_s.php
gotta try to discredit them just cos they stand with Wakers. How *small* of you.
ReplyDeleteno, actually, I am discrediting them because they are right-wing, anti-vaccine, misogynistic, nationalist organisation. That they support Wakefield just sort of fits their established profile.
ReplyDeleteand that is just *your* opinion. One woman spouting tripe on a blog on the intarwebs. I bet they dont lose any sleep over it!
ReplyDeleteTwo women, actually. And I am sure they are not losing any sleep - not with that sort of misanthropic mind set (remember, they are against general medical care in the US). Now, if those are the kind of folk you like to associate yourself with, the right-wing, misogynistic, nationalist kind, then that is your prerogative. But them clapping for Wakefield certainly does not count as an esteem point.
ReplyDeleteI know them from reading what Jane Orient wrote on the Healthfraud listserv over ten years ago. She is really out there.
ReplyDeleteOther notable folks who are involved with AAPS are Andrew Schlafly (Conserpedia) and Peter Duesberg (HIV/AIDS denier). There is more information in this article: Strange Bedfellows.
"clearly and brilliantly?" Do you live in the UK? Do you know what the red books are? Do you now how referrals are done? Do you know what information goes into a referral letter to a specialist?
ReplyDeleteYes, I know how referrals are done and more importantly, all of this was discussed in the GMC trial as well as the BMJ articles. Funny how Wakefield didn't even defend himself for either. He didn't have a defence now did he?
Do you know how these case study papers are put together? Moreover, DID YOU LISTEN TO WHAT HE SAID? All 45:23 minutes of it? And better still, did you listen to how many in the audience, the AAPS, were agreeing with him,applauding him? Wakefield IS the new Semmelweis. The only fraud is Brian Deer, and Fiona Godlee's a fool for following him. And this blog? Idiocy. Simple as.
Spoken like a true believer. Listening to Wakefield proves what exactly? If you choose to be entranced by a pathological liar, that's your business but the rest of us see Wakefield clearly for what he is. He didn't lose his license for nothing or is that an inconvenient fact you care to dismiss?
Catherina outlined what a laughable organisation the AAPS is and no one in the medical/scientific communities take them seriously at all. A perfect fit for Wakefield. Again, if Mr. Deer is the fraud, then where are the charges against him?
No, not Wakefield, but BMJ and dishonest journalist Brian Deer (probably paid for by lobbyst) are FRAUD.
ReplyDeleteAn Elaborate Fraud, Part 8: In Which The British Medical Journal Tries to Debunk a Clear-Cut Case of Regressive Autism - AGE OF AUTISM
http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/11/an-elaborate-fraud-part-8-in-which-the-british-medical-journal-tries-to-debunk-a-clear-cut-case-of-regressive-autism.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed
We Support Dr. Andrew Wakefield
http://www.wesupportandywakefield.com/
Being myself a scientist, have had a look at this case recently, and now i expect some serious reflection on this issue "Wakefield is fraud" on your blog. Thanks for attention.
Ray
====
cited from comments section
ReplyDeleteDeer has completely lost it this time. If I had to name the three most vocal and ardent vaccine-damage deniers I could think of, it would be P.R.Offit, Goldacre and Fitzpatrick, yet here he is castigating them for going soft. He obviously wants all the credit for this ghastly smear for himself, and I've never seen a supposed news item with such a high proportion of "I"s, "me"s and "my"s in it.
Deer's work will be trashed comprehensively in due course, but here's some points for starters:
- The children's records are supposed to be confidential, and the parents certainly haven't given Deer permission to see them. He won't say how he got them, protecting his source, who has broken patient confidentiality and probably the law
- As is normal practice, the RFH team didn't see the patient records from the referring doctors either, and took their medical histories afresh. So it's not surprising there are discrepancies, but it couldn't possibly be fraud because there was nothing to falsify
- Dr Wakefield didn't even take the medical histories. If he subsequently altered them, didn't any of the other 12 co-authors or the parents notice ?
- The parents of all 12 children support Dr Wakefield. None have complained about him, but many have complained about Brian Deer and his misrepresentations.
- Deer has only interviewed one parent, using a false name "Brian Lawrence". They wouldn't have given him the time of day otherwise.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2011/jan/12/andrew-wakefield-fraud-mmr-autism
CBS News Exclusive: Leading Dr.: Vaccines-Autism Worth Study Former Head Of NIH Says Government Too Quick To Dismiss Possible Link – WASHINGTON, May 12, 2008
ReplyDeletehttp://tinyurl.com/59wns7
Dr Healy is is a Harvard and Johns Hopkins educated physician, cardiologist and former head of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). She has been a professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins, professor and dean of the College of Medicine and Public Health at the Ohio State University, and served as president of the American Red Cross.
But before any of that the it was confirmed the large increases in autistic conditions cannot be being caused by genetics. This was by Dr Francis Collins current and 16th Director of the US$ 30.5 billion annual budget US National Institutes of Health. When Director of the US National Human Genome Research Institute Collins confirmed in public to the US House of Representatives in May 2006 that recent increases in chronic diseases like diabetes, childhood asthma, obesity and autism must have an environmental [external] cause and cannot be purely genetically [internally] caused conditions:
Recent increases in chronic diseases like diabetes, childhood asthma, obesity or autism cannot be due to major shifts in the human gene pool as those changes take much more time to occur. They must be due to changes in the environment, including diet and physical activity, which may produce disease in genetically predisposed persons.“
Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D.,
Evidence to US House of Representatives Committee May 2006
http://tinyurl.com/66vwtxo
And now mainstream journals confirm what Mr Andrew Wakefield and the Royal Free Team of specialists found in the Lancet paper in 1998, particularly:-
- medical consensus statement Jan 2010 confirming autistic children do have bowel conditions:
PEDIATRICS Vol. 125 Supplement January 2010, pp. S1-S18 Evaluation, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Gastrointestinal Disorders in Individuals With ASDs: A Consensus Report;
- JAMA 1 Dec 2010 confirming Gerberding’s claim to CNN that Hannah Poling’s mitochondrial dysfunction was “rare” is not true and that mitochondrial disorders are common in autistic children but not in non autistic:
Mitochondrial Dysfunction in Autism JAMA. 2010;304(21):238
We will note that most of "Anonymous" cites were not actual peer reviewed journals.
ReplyDeleteAnd the one she did cite is seriously cherry picked, and actually addresses the issues that the gastrointestinal issues are from behavioral issues, not just because the children are autistic.
Try harder, sweetie.
Actually show us those issues started with the first introduction of an MMR vaccine in the USA in 1971 with peer reviewed papers. Just make sure you don't use news articles, random websites (like Age of Autism) and personal anecdotes.
Ray - we are scientists and have certainly looked at the issue at length. Age of Autism blogs are certainly not scientific sources and neither is the "We support Andy Wakefield" site. I am not sure what you want to us to discuss there...
ReplyDeleteDeer is a fraud because he is harder than Paul Offit, Michael Fitzpatrick and Ben Goldacre? Interesting thought. Not sure what this contributes to the BMJ series though.
ReplyDeleteAs for Deer getting his hands on confidential information - this discussion reminds me of the school canteen worker who got dismissed for breach of a pupil's confidentiality, because she had told parents their daughter was being bullied (which was true, but school employees were not supposed to talk about pupils outside work).
Being myself a scientist, have had a look at this case recently, and now i expect some serious reflection on this issue "Wakefield is fraud" on your blog. Thanks for attention.
ReplyDeleteRay, anyone who appeals to their own authority as a scientist, defends Wakefield and uses AoA as a source, I'm sorry to say, can't be much of a scientist.
He obviously wants all the credit for this ghastly smear for himself, and I've never seen a supposed news item with such a high proportion of "I"s, "me"s and "my"s in it.
ReplyDeleteThat's an awful lot of bluster with not a whit as to why it's a "ghastly smear".
Deer's work will be trashed comprehensively in due course, but here's some points for starters:
Wakefield has had plenty of time and opportunity to exonerate himself yet he fails to do so and only keeps digging a larger hole for himself, namely the Dhillon notes discussed in BMJ. Dhillon himself has weighed in and has shed some interesting light on the matter, as well as furiously attempting to deflect such negative attention from himself. To quote Mr. Deer on the matter, "You got to love these people."
- The children's records are supposed to be confidential, and the parents certainly haven't given Deer permission to see them. He won't say how he got them, protecting his source, who has broken patient confidentiality and probably the law
Oh do try to follow along will you? Mr. Deer was originally provided the children's medical records when Wakefield stupidly tried to sue Mr. Deer. They were provided to him for his defence since they were pivotal to Wakefield's claim of false reporting on the part of Mr. Deer.
Mr. Deer could not use them because Wakefield dropped his suit against Mr. Deer (and had to pay him no less). Mr. Deer was able to use them for the BMJ series since they became a matter of record during the GMC hearing. I should think that the children's records would appease the Wakefield supporters, but since they don't support Wakefield's claims, here you all are caterwauling about Mr. Deer's access to them when Joe Blow off the street attending the GMC hearing could have just as easily used them too.
- As is normal practice, the RFH team didn't see the patient records from the referring doctors either, and took their medical histories afresh. So it's not surprising there are discrepancies, but it couldn't possibly be fraud because there was nothing to falsify
- Dr Wakefield didn't even take the medical histories. If he subsequently altered them, didn't any of the other 12 co-authors or the parents notice ?
This too was addressed in the GMC transcripts, please avail yourself of a copy. Wakefield most certainly did have medical histories on the children, how else could he have "recruited" them? Do you honestly believe that parents involved in a lawsuit claiming MMR caused their children's autism are going to go against a man who is going to help their case? Do you think they give a rat's bum about ethics when they consented to have unnecessary and dangerous medical procedures performed on their children because they "know the truth"?
- The parents of all 12 children support Dr Wakefield. None have complained about him, but many have complained about Brian Deer and his misrepresentations.
- Deer has only interviewed one parent, using a false name "Brian Lawrence". They wouldn't have given him the time of day otherwise.
Are we playing "name that canard"? The parent of the American child did complain, incidentally, the one not involved with the UK MMR lawsuit. Why didn't Wakers call them as witnesses during the GMC hearing? Anyone for that matter. These parents still think that Wakers did them a favour by listening to them and validating their beliefs, can you imagine how psychologically devastating it would be for them to admit they were wrong and what they subjected their children to?
Let’s just look at the facts here:
ReplyDeleteThere are two main sources behind the idea
that Dr. Wakefield is “discredited.” One is a
freelance journalist, Brian Deer; the second is
the editor of The Lancet, Dr. Richard Horton.
Between them, these two men sowed the seed
of the “discredited” myth over a few days many
years ago in February 2004. The full story will be
made public in the near future, having already
been presented in evidence to the UK’s General
Medical Council. However, as far as anyone
being “discredited” is concerned, it goes as
follows.
In the days leading up to Deer’s initial
“revelations” about Andrew Wakefield and
others in The Sunday Times in February 2004, a
meeting took place between Deer and Horton
in which Deer made a number of claims. These
all centered on a paper written by Dr. Wakefield
and colleagues, which was published in The
Lancet in 1998. In the now notorious paper,
Wakefield et al. had reported on a possibly
novel form of bowel disease, with autisticlike developmental regression, in 12 children
referred to the gastrointestinal department
of London’s Royal Free Hospital. Eight of the
children, according to their parents or general
practitioner, had the onset of developmental
regression soon after their MMR vaccine.
Despite what is usually inaccurately reported
in summary, the paper actually concluded that:
“We did not prove an association between
measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and the
syndrome described … further investigations
are needed to examine this syndrome and its
possible relation to the vaccine.”
In the February 2004 meeting, the major
issues of relevance to Dr. Horton were three
specific claims made by Deer. First, he claimed
that The Lancet study was funded by Legal Aid
money. Second, he claimed that the children
reported in The Lancet were sourced by lawyers.
Third, and perhaps most crucially, Deer claimed
that Dr. Wakefield had hidden his involvement
with Dawbarns, the firm of lawyers involved
in the MMR litigation, from The Lancet and Dr.
Horton.
On hearing these claims from Deer, Horton
was apparently horrified, and within hours of
the meeting he stated publically that the 1998
paper was “fatally flawed.” He further claimed
that had The Lancet been aware of Wakefield’s
involvement with Dawbarns at that time the
paper would never have been published. This
statement about the “fatally flawed” paper was,
therefore, the seed of the “discredited” myth
that prevails and is clearly influencing many
more people today
Let’s fast forward to the GMC hearing, which
has been investigating these claims for nearly
three years. What do we find?
First, it has been demonstrated beyond
doubt that The Lancet study was not funded by
Legal Aid. Not one penny of Legal Aid money
was used for the study. Second, it has been
shown that the children in the study were
not sourced by lawyers. None of the children
reported in The Lancet study were involved
in any legal action at the time of their referral
to the Royal Free Hospital. Third, despite Dr.
Horton’s protestations, we now know that
The Lancet had been told, in communications
between Dawbarns and Horton in 1997, about
Dr. Wakefield’s involvement with litigation.
Documented details of this communication,
which took place in April 1997, well before the
publication of The Lancet paper, were provided
in evidence at the GMC (see below).
http://www.wesupportandywakefield.com/documents/Autism%20File%20USA-PollyPiece.pdf
Actually, RM, the main evidence against Wakefield is that he was wrong. This blog has two entries showing that he has not been independently replicated.
ReplyDeleteAnd what really caused questions about Wakefield was the press release when he recommended that single vaccines be used, even though there was no evidence in the paper he was touting.
There was also no evidence in the years of MMR use in the USA and other countries starting in 1971. If you have any documentation written between 1971 and 1997 of anything claimed by Wakefield, please present it.
There were plenty of questions before 2004. Both Dr. Ben Goldacre and Dr. Michael Fitzpatrick wrote about it (especially after the dreadful TV movie "Hear the Silence in 2003).
The Royal Free offered Wakefield money to replicate his findings, but he refused. So someone else did, and failed to find what Wakefield had:
Autism and Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccine: No Epidemiological Evidence for a Causal Association.
Taylor B et al.
Lancet 1999;353 (9169):2026-9
Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Bowel Problems or Developmental Regression in Children with Autism: Population Study.
Taylor B et al.
BMJ 2002; 324(7334):393-6
You will notice that all of those are before 2004. Your blind devotion to Wakefield is very sad.
I think we should separate "Wakefield" from the general issue of vaccine safety in order to sort
ReplyDeletefacts. Wakefield problem is about that 1998 paper with a too small dataset and what irrational
followed, like a wrong assumption "vaccines = 100 % of all causal factors of autism", or the
other hand "Wakefield is a fraud, now lets forget all vaccine safety concerns!".
No, its not like that.
So I am not a Waker ("vaccines = 100 % of all causal factors of autism, lets forget vaccination),
just supporting you data in order for you not to fall to category "Wakefield is a fraud, now lets
forget all vaccine safety concerns!"
We should separat "Wakefield" in the debate on vaccine safety otherwise it would like be retarded
debate on anthropogenic global warming (industrial carbon dioxide emission versus Sun) or even
WMD in Iraq, and war (who has seen it there).
So it should be discussed separately. Stay calm and think.
I have seen not only anectodal reports about vaccine damages, but also real biochemical blood
tests of affected children.
For example. A clear heavy metal induced neurotoxicity = case of particular ASDs autism. Please read it. I know there is neurodiversity in autism, but these cases are clear nosological unit.its neurotoxicity linked to toxic metals, and from vaccines (aluminium).
http://www.rescuepost.com/files/autismfile_us32_lisamize.pdf
in such cases of "autism" high levels of aluminium (real biochemical blood tests) are found in blood and metal chelators are efficien in the treatment, together with gluten diet as this children have bowel disorder of immunological origin as other biochemical blood tests suggests. And this aluminium is from vaccines.
At least organic form of mercury was removed from the vaccines - do you agree that organic
ReplyDeletemercury is neurotoxic ? its extremely neurotoxic.
(ethyl mercury from thimerosal if i am correct, i have seen neurons next to a drop of organic
mercury under microscope, neurons die off around like a burning plastic straw).
There is also aluminium metal, also proved neurotoxic. If you inject 0,5 mg of aluminium ionts
per component of multivalent (eg Infanrix) to 5-10 kg of a baby.. is it safe ? One European
national vaccine official told me there is official debate on aluminium, so i hope so.
We can find more safer replacements for clearly neurotoxic aluminium like the thimerosal was
replaced.
This is something of a problem like formerly lead in gasoline, benzene in a shawing lotion,
heroine in cough medicine, even the thalidomide or the admision after decades from the medical
establishment that smoking cause lung cancer, after decades.. and we have found that main
cancerogen next to PAHs is actually the radioactive polonium absorbed by tobacco plants,
something what was supressed by tobacco companies in the scare of cold war 60s altough they
knowed about it, biomedical scientists included.
i am just reviewing this issue and it seems like this:
some portion of children are damaged by the unsafe vaccines. And i am afraid that it is direct
chemical toxicity (aluminium) or neuroimunotoxic(microglia), and in this case all the children
receive impairment dependent on theirs genetics.
For example mercury:
Most important, however, is one’s genetically programmed ability to rid the body of mercury. The
brain has a house-cleaning protein that removes dangerous waste products, which comes in three
varieties: APO-E2, APO-E3, and APO-E4. The APO-E2 protein can carry 2 atoms of mercury out of the
brain; APO-3, one; and AOP-E4, none. The genes we acquire from each parent determine which two we
have. People with two APO-E4 proteins (and thus no APO-E2 or -E3) have an 80 percent chance of
acquiring Alzheimer’s disease. And according to one study, autistic children have a huge
preponderance of APO-E4 protein in their brains.
I know one pediatric practitioner whose child patient died directly after vaccine administration
in the ambulance, he admited.
If you put ten vaccines a day to a patient there is a large chance of immediate encephalopathy
and there are also these "anectodal" reports going to hundred of counts of immediate toxic or
encephalopatic reaction to vaccines icluding autistic regression immediately linked to vaccine
administration.
And now something to the vaccination safety and infectious disease outbreak safety.
ReplyDeleteThere is a toxicological and immunological based reasoning that if you postpone vaccination past 2 years of life then you avert something like like 50-60 % percent of possible toxicological based on body weight/aluminium ratio and the fact of infant immature immune system toxic shock, ie neuroimotoxicity (microglia mechanism, still reviewing the issue)
I have asked one national vaccine official and except for dyptheria vaccination could be safely postponed past 2 years of life and project this protective measure into population with retained prevention of IDs outbreaks.
If you are infectious disease scientist..
i have noticed another problem ( and the national vaccine official admited it).. this is Hepatitis B vaccination of infants with regard to the fact that later this immunity is lost in the child (but this is problem of lack of efficiency of vaccines) and next to the fact thats this disease is linkend with intravenous drugs abuse and unsafe sex in US, Canada, Europe - whats the reason the vaccinate infants with hepatitis B even in the multivalent...
So Wakefield is a fraud, discredited so lets forget all common sense and vaccine safety reasons, and science with a projected hysteria ?
And earn money on useless infants hepatitis b vaccination ?
if you are IDs scientist, can you clear this hep. B issue in infants vaccine for me ?
i see the industry, not the science in that.
I have a subsription of Vaccine journal, must have a look if aluminium is really mentioned or they are scared next to a "discredited" Wakefield...
RM, you seem to be cutting and pasting a bunch of random stuff that have very little to do with the topic. This is evident from the wonky formatting, and that you are mentioning things that have nothing to do with any MMR vaccine.
ReplyDeleteThe MMR vaccine that has been used in the USA since 1971 has never contained thimerosal nor aluminum adjuvants. And neither has any form used in the UK. Just mentioning them indicates you have no idea what you are writing about. I suggest you stop spamming this blog with your nonsense.
Chris: I am posting arguments separately on Wakefield/MMR and separately on general vaccine safety issue (aluminium neurotoxicity e.g.) but its related. You are calling me names("try harder sweetie"), that i am writing "nonsense"...
ReplyDeletecan you be more serious please ?
You can argument to this article, this is clearly to the topic.
ON SECOND LOOKING
INTO THE CASE OF
DR. ANDREW J. WAKEFIELD
http://www.wesupportandywakefield.com/documents/AutismFile_US31_Wakefield.pdf
this is to the topic Wakefield, but i have just also made the side remarks on aluminium/neurotoxicity, hepatitis b and so. It has not the "label" here, but its connected to vaccines (aluminium) safety concerns related to some ASDs cases with clearly neurotoxic etiology as presented.
Btw i dont know why my posts are deleted... i am scientist.
RM, a few items; please refrain from using "retarded" as a pejorative, secondly, please stop using the "Science" website as a hyperlink from your UN as I doubt you are affiliated with them and lastly, please put a coherent post together if you care to keep posting here.
ReplyDeleteWhy are you censoring this ? I am using my real initials RM but i wont use my full name or name my institution.
ReplyDeleteTell me, why are you censoring this post ?
There is no link between vaccines and autism?
in February 2008, journalist David Kirby broke the Hannah Poling story. The US Department of Health and Human Services secretly conceded [ie. no court hearing] in a US Federal Court that Hannah’s symptoms of autism were caused by 9 vaccines [ie. not just MMR] she had in one day [The Vaccine-Autism Court Document Every American Should Read - David Kirby - Huffington Post - February 26, 2008].
http://tinyurl.com/66l5tq3
Then public statements by the US Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) were broadcast by Sharyl Attkisson on CBS News about 1322 cases of vaccine injury compensation settled out of court by the US Government in unpublished settlements:-
“We have compensated cases in which children exhibited an encephalopathy, or general brain disease. Encephalopathy may be accompanied by a medical progression of an array of symptoms including autistic behavior, autism, or seizures.”
Vaccine Case: An Exception Or A Precedent? – First Family To Have Autism-Related Case “Conceded” Is Just One Of Thousands – CBS News By Sharyl Attkisson WASHINGTON, March 6, 2008
http://tinyurl.com/ys4sn3
[see text of exchanges between HRSA and Attkisson - http://tinyurl.com/6c9pshv]:-
Then Dr Sanjay Gupta interviewed US Centers for Disease Control Director Julie Gerberding on CNN. Gerberding confirmed vaccinations could cause autistic conditions:
"Now, we all know that vaccines can occasionally cause fevers in kids. So if a child was immunized, got a fever, had other complications from the vaccines. And if you’re predisposed with the mitochondrial disorder, it can certainly set off some damage. Some of the symptoms can be symptoms that have characteristics of autism. “
HOUSE CALL WITH DR. SANJAY GUPTA – Unraveling the Mystery of Autism; Talking With the CDC Director - March 29, 2008
http://tinyurl.com/62jcexb
Then Dr Bernadine Healy a former Director of the US National Institutes of Health [US$ 30.5 billion pa budget for health research] in a CBS interview with Sharyl Attkisson confirmed it was premature to dismiss the link between vaccinations and autistic conditions:-
"I think that the public health officials have been too quick to dismiss the hypothesis as irrational,” Healy said.
“But public health officials have been saying they know, they’ve been implying to the public there’s enough evidence and they know it’s not causal,” Attkisson said.
“I think you can’t say that,” Healy said. “You can’t say that.”
Why are you censoring this ? I am using my real initials RM but i wont use my full name or name my institution.
ReplyDeleteTell me, why are you censoring this post ?
I haven't censored you yet and won't as long as you abide by my requests. You can post here anonymously so no need to use hyperlinks that you aren't affiliated with. I'll consider it spam if you do.
Try using actual scientific publications to argue your claims. Hannah Poling is not an example of "vaccines cause autism", nor are the rantings of a bimbo news anchor or Dr. Healy who has never done anything peripherally related to vaccines.
By the way, your timeline and claims about Richard Horton are wrong; he actually threw Deer out of his office when originally confronted about the Lancet study problems. It was only after the GMC hearings that he suddenly decided that he wouldn't have accepted the paper had he known and retracted it. Wakefield was being paid by Legal Aid Services to conduct the Lancet research, a huge conflict of interest he declined to reveal.
You missed the reason I told you to try harder. The links you were posting were not real science, and the links you are now using are even less so.
ReplyDeleteI said "We will note that most of "Anonymous" cites were not actual peer reviewed journals."
News reports are not peer reviewed journals. Random websites are not peer reviewed journals. It is clear you are just cutting and pasting from various websites without any thought to the science. You are now just spamming this blog.
In my previous post I posted two peer reviewed papers. Here is another one:
Lack of Association between Measles Virus Vaccine and Autism with Enteropathy: A Case-Control Study.
Hornig M et al.
PLoS ONE 2008; 3(9): e3140 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0003140
Notice that it includes the title, journal, date and author. Without too much trouble you can find it at PubMed.gov and read it, since it is not behind a paywall. You will see that it is a good faith attempt to independently replicate Wakefield.
This is not my blog, but I suggest if you wish to continue to comment that you stay on topic, be coherent, cease cutting/pasting behavior, check the formatting in preview, and post actual scientific papers to make your point.
The facts are that some fraction of vaccinated children - and i agree there is no relation to MMR viruses or Measles virus particulary - suffered autoimmune GIT/brain disease or encephalopathy, directly linked to the vaccines. It could be between 1:100-1:200 of every vaccinated infant who will not withstand the shock to the immature immune system and will develop the disorder.
ReplyDeleteSo its not MMR in particular, but every vaccination of infants under 2 years age in general.
No no, Wakefield is not discredited... BMJ lead by the Deer even the Lancet lead by the journalist Deer are scam, cover up of the truth that vaccination of infants bring harm to the immature immune systems which in genetically susc. leads to GIT/brain disorder including ASD regression.
I think Deer was paid by the industry and medical establishment (ie Offit, Goldacre, Fitz) shows callous disregard for the vaccine harm because of industry influence, ie cover up for money. This is really evil.
My opinion is that vaccination should be postponed past 2 years of age except if possible (except of pertussis, dyphteria there is no real danger in such a shift) and genetical test should be done to determine who is genetically susp. to such a shock to immune system from vaccines resulting in disorders ADDs related to vaccines included.
The children should be spared, not experimented on as is the case of hepatitis b vaccination in infants...
who is leading the agenda here ? its industry not science nor the medical doctors.. this multibillion dollar industry and the establishment dont care much
Wakefield was not wrong. BMJ is scam, fraud, unscientifically covering up the issue of vaccine safety. Wakefield was the only person who has pointed in the scientific paper to the vaccine safety, it was the beginning, he was not conluding it was Measle virus, no its not, its the vaccinating susc. immature immune systems in general, bringing the harm.
ReplyDeleteThank You for the platform, i will start a new blog with a label "just the vax" in that. I wont stand censoring my original posts about scietific papers if you continue to censor me.
You must be sick to delete this if you understand what i am writing about or simply dishonest.. admit you were duped by cheap Deer/BMJ,.. i have presented you the facts from the beginning. are you working in industry ? (you will be fired immediately btw) i am not, i am independent academic scientist studying drug safety. I know for sure Offit knows what i am writing about here and any other scientist who reads the papers or can read the papers on (neuro)immunology and does not disregard clinical data like bloodtests from the affected kids.
ReplyDelete[citation required]
ReplyDeleteRM, my guess is that Paul Offit has no knowledge of your incoherent ramblings on our blog...
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be very interested in the debate, but as Chris and SM have tried to very patiently explain, debate here (and elsewhere) goes like this:
coherently formulated argument [genuine scientific publication supporting said argument], coherently formulated argument [genuine scientific publication supporting said argument], coherently formulated argument [genuine scientific publication supporting said argument], own summary
Do you want to give that a try?
No no, Wakefield is not discredited... BMJ lead by the Deer even the Lancet lead by the journalist Deer are scam, cover up of the truth that vaccination of infants bring harm to the immature immune systems which in genetically susc. leads to GIT/brain disorder including ASD regression.
ReplyDeleteI can only respond to those statements that I can somewhat parse. Look, Wakefield et al. have had years to replicate their findings, produce their samples for others to look at and sue Deer and BMJ for libel. They have done nothing of the sort, in fact, numerous publications have since come out finding that MMR is not associated with GI issues, nor regressive autism.
I think Deer was paid by the industry and medical establishment (ie Offit, Goldacre, Fitz) shows callous disregard for the vaccine harm because of industry influence, ie cover up for money. This is really evil.
Which, of course, you would have to believe to make your narrative fit. The rather pesky detail that you fail to acknowledge is that this so-called cover up would have to be perpetuated by every single public health agency, physician and scientist in the world.
My opinion is that vaccination should be postponed past 2 years of age except if possible (except of pertussis, dyphteria there is no real danger in such a shift) and genetical test should be done to determine who is genetically susp. to such a shock to immune system from vaccines resulting in disorders ADDs related to vaccines included.
Your opinion is just that and not supported by disease epidemiology nor pathology. Furthermore, what genetic tests would you propose be performed to identify "susceptible" children?
Wakefield was not wrong. BMJ is scam, fraud, unscientifically covering up the issue of vaccine safety. Wakefield was the only person who has pointed in the scientific paper to the vaccine safety, it was the beginning, he was not conluding it was Measle virus, no its not, its the vaccinating susc. immature immune systems in general, bringing the harm.
ReplyDeleteThen let Wakefield come forth and sue Deer and BMJ; the UK is a very plaintiff-friendly system. Bring it on. All one has to do is search PubMed and Web of science to see the many publications that have examined vaccine safety and complications. How in the bloody hell do you think we know what vaccines are contraindicated if none of this has been done. And guess what? None of those scientists have been made pariahs, must be something about your Saint Andy. I wonder what that could be?
You must be sick to delete this if you understand what i am writing about or simply dishonest.. admit you were duped by cheap Deer/BMJ,.. i have presented you the facts from the beginning. are you working in industry ? (you will be fired immediately btw) i am not, i am independent academic scientist studying drug safety. I know for sure Offit knows what i am writing about here and any other scientist who reads the papers or can read the papers on (neuro)immunology and does not disregard clinical data like bloodtests from the affected kids.
Look dumbass, no one has censored you here, nor deleted any of your posts. If you're any kind of scientist, I'm a monkey typing Shakespeare. Given your level, or lack thereof of coherent prose, I sincerely doubt Dr. Offit or even the janitor in his building are remotely interested in your "independent research". But hey, publish your findings and I would be glad to review them and post about it here.
Science Mom: If you're any kind of scientist, I'm a monkey typing Shakespeare. Given your level, or lack thereof of coherent prose,
ReplyDeleteRM never responded to any of the actual papers I posted from Taylor or Hornig (the latter who has been paid by SafeMinds for the research on "autistic mice").
I assume the reason that only pertussis would get a pass for children under age two was because somehow the true Japanese experience sunk in (Expert Rev Vaccines. 2005 Apr;4(2):173-84. by Watanabe), or more likely news of the infant deaths in California. I am personally offended since rotavirus sent my son to the hospital not long after his first birthday. And ignores the horrible meningitis from haemophilus influenzae type b.
(I just finished reading Alexandra Fuller's book, Cocktail Hour Under the Tree of Forgetfullness. There is a heart wrenching story of a brother she never met dying as an infant from meningitis.)
Unfortunately RM may be one of many engineers I have seen who claim to be "scientists", and whose research is limited to the University of Google. It causes me much embarrassment as an engineer. I would never call myself a scientist.
SM, Chris, Catherine: calm down, do not call me names (sweetie, dumbass, Google engineer so far) and do not delete my correctly formated posts on scientific papers please - what will follow this week. I want point to the real state of science in the Wakefield related vaccine research and vaccine safety. I have all the papers subscribed so there will be no problem if only you do not delete/censor my posts. This will be a longer debate.
ReplyDeleteI see the inconsistency in Wakefield research but it does not mean that vaccine safety issue related to GIT/brain immunological disorders and aluminium metal toxicity including ASDs was clear. Not at all.
So stop calling me names please and deleting my valid posts. Stay calm, my review of the related papers (also the retracted papers) is on the way to this blog for benefit of us all.
It takes a time to read the papers.
---
I correct this sentence if you cant parse it:
There is a toxicological and immunological based evidence that if you postpone vaccination past 2 years of life then you avert something like 90% percent of possible toxicological damage - based on body weight/aluminium ratio and the auto-immunological damage based on the fact that infant immune system is immature and receives auto-immunological toxic shock, i.e. neuroimotoxicity (e.g.microglia overactivation mechanism, still reviewing the issue in the papers).
My excuses for bad typing. I promise to hold the standard in posting here.
The former bad typed quick post.
"There is a toxicological and immunological based reasoning that if you postpone vaccination past 2 years of life then you avert something like like 50-60 % percent of possible toxicological based on body weight/aluminium ratio and the fact of infant immature immune system toxic shock, ie neuroimotoxicity (microglia mechanism, still reviewing the issue)"
The following peer-reviewed papers support the findings of the original work by Wakefield and colleagues at the Royal Free Hospital in the UK:
ReplyDelete1) Furlano R, Anthony A, Day R, Brown A, Mc Garvey L, Thomson M, et al. Colonic CD8 and T cell filtration with epithelial damage in children with autism. J Pediatr 2001;138:366-72.
2) Torrente F., Machado N., Perez-Machado M., Furlano R., Thomson M., Davies S., Wakefield AJ, Walker-Smith JA, Murch SH. Enteropathy with T cell infiltration and epithelial IgG deposition in autism. Molecular Psychiatry. 2002;7:375-382.
3) Ashwood P, Murch SH, Anthony A, Hayes C, Machado MP, Torrente F, Thomson MA, Heuschkel R, Wakefield AJ., Mucosal and peripheral blood lymphocyte cytokine profiles in children with regressive autism and gastrointestinal symptoms: Mucosal immune activation and reduced counter regulatory interleukin-10. Gastroenterol. 2002;122 (Suppl):A617
4) Ashwood P, Anthony A, Torrente F, Wakefield AJ. Spontaneous mucosal lymphocyte cytokine profiles in children with autism and gastrointestinal symptoms: mucosal immune activation and reduced counter regulatory interleukin-10. J Clin Immunol. 2004;24(6):664-73.
5) Wakefield AJ., Puleston J. Montgomery SM., Anthony A., O’Leary J.J., Murch SH Entero-colonic encephalopathy, autism and opioid receptor ligands. Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics. 2002;16:663-674
6) Wakefield AJ. The Gut-Brain Axis in Childhood developmental Disorders. Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition. 2002;34:S14-S17
7) Uhlmann V, Martin CM, Sheils O, Pilkington L, Silva I, Killalea A, Murch SH, Wakefield AJ, O’Leary JJ., Potential viral pathogenic mechanism for new variant inflammatory bowel disease. Molecular Pathology 2002;55:84-90
8) Ashwood P, Anthony A, Pellicer AA, Torrente F, Wakefield AJ. Intestinal lymphocyte populations in children with regressive autism: evidence for extensive mucosal immunopathology. Journal of Clinical Immunology, 2003;23:504-517.
9) Torrente F, Anthony A, Heuschkel RB, Thomson MA, Ashwood P, Murch SH. Focal-enhanced gastritis in regressive autism with features distinct from Crohn's and Helicobacter pylori gastritis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99:598-605
10) Ashwood P, Wakefield AJ. Immune activation of peripheral blood and mucosal CD3+ lymphocyte cytokine profiles in children with autism and gastrointestinal symptoms. J Neuroimmunol. 2006;173(1-2):126-34.
11) Wakefield AJ, Ashwood P, Limb K, Anthony A. The significance of ileo-colonic lymphoid nodular hyperplasia in children with autistic spectrum disorder. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2005 Aug;17(8):827-36.
The following two peer-reviewed papers from the Royal Free Hospital in the UK were withdrawn for political reasons, but the science remains valid and relevant
1) Wakefield AJ, Murch SM, Anthony A et al., Ileal- lymphoid- nodular Hyperplasia, Non- specific Colitis, and Pervasive Developmental Disorder in Children, The Lancet, 1998, 351(9103): 637– 41.
2) Wakefield AJ, Anthony A, Murch SH, Thomson M, Montgomery SM, Davies S, Walker-Smith JA. Enterocolitis in children with developmental disorder. American Journal of Gastroenterology 2000;95:2285-2295.
The following peer-reviewed papers provide further support for gastrointestinal disturbances involving the immune system in autism.
ReplyDelete1) Jyonouchi H., Sun S., Lee H. 2001. Proinflammatory and regulatory cytokine production associated with innate and adaptive immune responses in children with autism spectrum disorders and developmental regression. J. Neuroimmunol. 120(1-2):170-9
2) Jyonouchi H, Geng L, Ruby A, Zimmerman-Bier B. Dysregulated Innate Immune Responses in Young Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders: Their Relationship to Gastrointestinal Symptoms and Dietary Intervention. Neuropsychobiology. 2005;28:5177-85
3) Jyonouchi H, Geng L, Ruby A, Reddy C, Zimmerman-Bier B. Evaluation of an association between gastrointestinal symptoms and cytokine production against common dietary proteins in children with autism spectrum disorders. J Pediatr.2005;146(5):605-10.
4) Jyonouchi H, Sun S, Itokazu N. Innate immunity associated with inflammatory responses and cytokine production against common dietary proteins in patients with autism spectrum disorder. Neuropsychobiology. 2002;46(2):76-84.
5) Vojdani A, O'Bryan T, Green JA, McCandless J, Woeller KN, Vojdani E, Nourian AA, Cooper EL. Immune response to dietary proteins, gliadin and cerebellar peptides in children with autism. Nutr. Neurosci. 2004;7:151-61.
6) Whiteley P, Haracopos D, Knivsberg AM, Reichelt KL, Parlar S, Jacobsen J, Seim A, Pedersen L, Schondel M, Shattock P. The ScanBrit randomised, controlled, single-blind study of a gluten- and casein-free dietary intervention for children with autism spectrum disorders. Nutr Neurosci. 2010;13(2):87-100.
7) Knivsberg AM, Reichelt KL, Høien T, Nødland M. A randomised, controlled study of dietary intervention in autistic syndromes. Nutr Neurosci. 2002;5(4):251-61.
8) Balzola F, et al. Beneficial behavioural effects of IBD therapy and gluten/casein-free diet in an Italian cohort of patients with autistic enterocolitis followed over one year. Gastroenterology 2008;4:S1364.
9) Valicenti-McDermott M., McVicar K., Rapin I., et al., Frequency of Gastrointestinal Symptoms in Children with Autistic Spectrum Disorders and Association with Family History of Autoimmune Disease. Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics. 2006;27:128-136
10) Chen B, Girgis S, El-Matary W. Childhood Autism and Eosinophilic Colitis. Digestion 2010;18:127-129
11) Sandler R, Finegold SM., Bolte ER., et al. Short-term benefit from oral vancomycin treatment of regressive-onset autism. J Child Neurol. 2000;15:429-435
You are proving that you are not reading our comments. I already told you this blog has two articles that the Gish Gallop you just employed are not independent replications. I said "This blog has two entries showing that he has not been independently replicated." on November 19, 2011 at 1:44 PM.
ReplyDeleteOne of them is here. I suggest you click on it and read it. You might also try reading for comprehension the other comments that have been directed towards you.
Please stop spamming this blog.
In addition, Science Mom said "But hey, publish your findings and I would be glad to review them and post about it here."
ReplyDeleteRay, RM, Anonymous: the next post will explain exactly what kind of scientist you are. Especially the ones who said "Being myself a scientist, have had a look at this case recently" and "i am independent academic scientist studying drug safety."
Chris: 1) Yes, I will make the post using Lancet, Plos One and other papers from scientific journals, correctly formated post, citing directly the papers and comment on that. It takes time, fortunately i have many biomedical journals subscribed.
ReplyDelete2) I am also interested in Wakefield case, if he is really guilty at GMC trial at what points and how its related to the state of vaccine science, i.e. published/retracted papers. I dont believe journalist Deer who is forming yours conlusions.. i want review the real evidences, real data, real facts, real state of science as published.
I want to make some conlusions from my review, Wakefield case included. And i wont base my conlusions on believing journalist Deer. This is very serious issue.
And yes, MMR virus is not causal factor in etiology of ASDs.
What is an MMR "virus"?
ReplyDeleteSo exactly what kind of scientist are you?
Chris: Measles virus, Mumps virus, Rubeola virus (those viruses are not causal factors for enteropathy and ASDs says the papers, nothing else so far).
ReplyDeleteI have not too much time to argue with You as i must work on my own peer-review publications directly in my scientific field not related to the vaccines, and it will take time to read all the papers on this serious issue of vaccines and Wakefield case.
Btw i dont support Wakefield, i support vaccine safety.
Consider the option that too early/heavy or unsafe vaccination schedule(immunologic shock to the immature infant immune system) or unknown viral factors
(as it was with Simian virus 40 in early polio vaccines for example for the unknown viral factors http://www.sv40foundation.org/)
consider the possibility that vaccination done primitively-improperly compromised Your sons immune system and he got rotavirus infection with complications, and he wont get it if vaccinations were done more properly/safely or consider the parents of kids who got encephalopathy directly from too much unsafe vaccine shots.
Hence my vaccine safety review Chris.
So you really don't know the difference between a virus and a vaccine? And you are unaware that Simian Virus 4 contamination was removed about fifty years ago?
ReplyDeleteSo what kind of scientist are you? Please just post your college degrees. I am really curious, especially with the lack of coherence in that last paragraph.
I have a BSAA, Bachelor of Science in Astronautics and Aeronautics. I am not a scientist, but I have noted you keep posting anti-vax errors, from the mentioning of ingredients not in the MMR to the most recent nonsense.
Look at what kind of reference you used for the SV40 canard. This would be better: Contamination of Poliovirus Vaccines With Simian Virus 40 (1955-1963) and Subsequent Cancer Rates. Here are some excerpts:
Poliovirus vaccine contaminated with live simian virus 40 (SV40), a macaque polyomavirus that is tumorigenic in rodents, was used extensively in the United States between 1955 and 1963. Simian virus 40 DNA has recently been detected in several rare human tumors, including ependymomas, osteosarcomas, and mesotheliomas.
And it concludes: After more than 30 years of follow-up, exposure to SV40-contaminated poliovirus vaccine was not associated with significantly increased rates of ependymomas and other brain cancers, osteosarcomas, or mesotheliomas in the United States.
Really, what kind of scientist relies so much on the University of Google and not real scientific literature? Have you ever used PubMed? Did you notice that the cites in that web page were all old, and did not include many that are listed in PubMed, including comments of the studies? That is called cherry picking.
Deers/BMJ fraud Part 1
ReplyDeleteIn its attack on Dr. Andrew Wakefield in January 2011, The British Medical Journal said he “manufactured” data to fabricate a link between the measles-mumps-rubella shot and the onset of autism in 12 children, setting off a worldwide vaccine scare.
Author Brian Deer questioned whether the children even had the disorder. If they did not, of course, that would be a devastating blow to Wakefield’s work. “First to crack was ‘regressive autism,’ the bedrock of his allegations,” wrote Deer, based on his seven-year investigation of Wakefield’s 1998 report. Just one child -- Case 2 -- clearly had regressive autism, he asserted.
But that charge is false. Take Child 11, whose circumstances we described in the last article in this series. Child 11 clearly had regressive autism – just as he clearly developed autism after the MMR shot, not before it, as Deer falsely reported in the BMJ.
Once again, only Brian Deer claims otherwise.
http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/11/an-elaborate-fraud-part-8-in-which-the-british-medical-journal-tries-to-debunk-a-clear-cut-case-of-regressive-autism.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete(as it was with Simian virus 40 in early polio vaccines for example for the unknown viral factors http://www.sv40foundation.org/)
ReplyDeleteWhat kind of a scientist does not check sources against the more recent literature? How come that website left out the removal of SV40 virus from the polio vaccines in 1963? Why did they leave out more recent papers like Is There a Role for SV40 in Human Cancer??
It says: The longstanding debate began with the discovery of SV40 as a contaminant in poliovirus vaccine stocks that were used to inoculate approximately 100 million children and adults in the United States between 1955 and 1963...
It concludes: Although many people may have been exposed to SV40 through their inoculation with the polio vaccine, there is inadequate evidence at this time to suggest widespread SV40 infection in the population or increased tumor incidence among those individuals who received contaminated vaccine. Recent studies suggest that flawed detection methodology may account for most, if not all, positive correlations of SV40 in human tumors to date.
Seriously, you are relying on a biased website which missed the most recent findings. That is called cherry picking. A trained scientist should have at least compared the cites on the website with PubMed, and looked into further cites.
I am going ask again, what kind of scientist are you? Why should we accept your sloppy research over actual microbiologists, immuniologists, pediatricians, etc? Especially with the lack of coherence in your penultimate paragraph?
My last comment was for RM.
ReplyDeleteAnd Age of Autism editor's last name is spelled "Olmsted." If you are going to pretend to be someone you are not, at least try to spell his name correctly.
Thats really interesting on whom you are basing your confidence. Brian Deer "forming the scientific consensus", really ?
ReplyDeleteAn Elaborate Fraud, Part 1: In Which a Murdoch Reporter Deceives the Mother of a Severely Autistic Child
http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/07/an-elaborate-fraud-part-1-in-which-a-murdoch-reporter-deceives-the-mother-of-a-severely-autistic-chi.html
"more than seven years before the BMJ article, Deer was not working for the journal. He was on assignment for The Sunday Times of London.
The Sunday Times is owned by Rupert Murdoch, part of the News International division that has come under a Watergate-size cloud in England for its newsgathering tactics – fraudulently obtaining confidential information, bribing police, hacking 9,000 phone numbers, gaining access to bank accounts, and using large financial settlements to keep some victims quiet.
Deers modus operandi is described in the series, just have a look at that.
Chris: thanks for pointing the paper on SV40 and cancer. I am not claiming that SV40 contamination continues nor claiming it as child cancer causal factor. I have only mentioned the possibility of viral contamination and frankly, from such a cases from pharmaceutical biosecurity level III/IV facilities as is this following case, i am not so assured about competent conduct of some vaccine manufacturers in this respect of viral contaminations and it seems like that viral contamination clearance is not 100 % to this day. An unintentional accident..
ReplyDeleteBaxter Sent Bird Flu Virus to European Labs by Error (Update2)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aTo3LbhcA75I
And sorry, i will have time to read the vaccine papers on the next work-week. But if you look at the Plos One paper about MMR you have suggested here, in the comments section, there is a useful comment on methodology of that paper from molecular biologist questioning that paper, so i dont take that Plos One Hornigs paper too much seriously next to the Wakefield 1998 paper.
http://www.plosone.org/article/comments/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0003140;jsessionid=C30280629FC1E3507BB3B461179A079C
man - we are being spammed and there is no end to it, it seems.
ReplyDeleteListing Over 1900 reported cases of direct vaccine damage
ReplyDeletehttp://www.followingvaccinations.com
Catherina, have you read what Dr. Crislip wrote in his article "Random Flu Thoughts" at ScienceBasedmedicine? Especially the section titled "Dumb Associations"?
ReplyDeleteOh, Anonymous, your anecdotes are nothing compared to the days before the measles vaccine. Here is some data from the CDC Pink Book Appendix G from just a few of the years where the data starts:
Measles:
Year___Cases____Deaths
1950____319124____468
1951___530118____683
1952___683077____618
1953___449146____462
1954___682720____518
1955___555156____345
1956___611936____530
Total__3831277___3624
Now compare that to the actual number of cases found to have merit here.
If you have any real evidence that the MMR that has been used in the USA since 1971 causes more damage than measles, mumps and rubella, please present it. Remember to just post the journal, title, date and authors of the peer reviewed papers that support your statements.
No damage from still dangerously unsafe MMR vaccine, really ?
ReplyDeleteFamily win 18 year fight over MMR damage to son: £90,000 payout is first since concerns over vaccine surfaced
Read more:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1307095/Family-win-18-year-fight-MMR-damage-son--90-000-payout-concerns-vaccine-surfaced.html#ixzz1eO1eWAQl
What if there is needed only a bit of research on mechanism of such a damage to develop safe M/M/R vaccinations, but the science and development of vaccine safety is stopped by Murdoch/GSK paid Deer "appearing" in BMJ..
i recommend you to think rationally, critical thinking...
The following peer-reviewed papers support the findings of the original work by Wakefield and colleagues at the Royal Free Hospital in the UK:
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, Catherina has already taken down those "supporting" works
here and
here There is no independent confirmation of Wakefield's work, in fact, independent replications of his work can't find any measles vaccine virus, nor "autistic enterocolitis" because, you know, it's hard to independently replicate fraud.
Nice catch Chris, it appears as though the Wakefield acolytes are getting terribly desperate and even think that Olmsted carries some kind of clout. Not that this stunt can make "I can't find any autistic Amish" Olmsted look any worse.
The Daily Mail is not a peer reviewed paper.
ReplyDeleteHow does that compare to the real damage from measles? And that was due to the mumps component that was never in the American MMR, and is now not in the UK vaccine.
So that one case trumps the very real deaths of children in Ireland, the UK, Japan, and Germany since 1998?
I repeat: If you have any real evidence that the MMR that has been used in the USA since 1971 causes more damage than measles, mumps and rubella, please present it. Remember to just post the journal, title, date and authors of the peer reviewed papers that support your statements.
Chris: Why we cannnot develop and use safe MMR vaccinations ? Must we sacrify some percentage of our kids to the unsafe vaccines, necessarily ?
ReplyDeleteWe could have safe MMR vaccinations, but there is a criminal resistance (Deer is clearly such a case) to such vaccine development.
Have you ever read about anthropogenetic global warming solely "caused" by carbon dioxide industrial emissions ? There was a whole "scientific unit" paid by UK tax payers fixing the data on the AGW, but they were as scientific as Brian Deer.
And this AGW problem is very simmilar type of problem in scientific world like the current vaccine safety thanks to Deer or Offit( You could criticize Offit for his ridiculous books full of nonsenses he authored appealing on peer-reviewed research Chris..), underdeveloped vaccine safety issue and political/religious resistance to the debate on that issue is like a God Moloch, but in fact it is another thalidomide in the history.
Anonymous: Chris: Why we cannnot develop and use safe MMR vaccinations ?
ReplyDeletePlease provide the journal, title, date and authors of the peer reviewed papers that support your statements.
Actually, I should ask you which MMR vaccine are you referring to? The ones used in the UK prior to 1992, or the one used after 1992?
ReplyDeleteYou see, the problem with young Master Fletcher is that he had the vaccine with the Urabe mumps strain. That is the one that caused too many cases of meningitis (but fewer than actually getting mumps). So they switched to only using vaccines with the Jeryl Lynn mumps strain, which has been the one used in the USA since 1971.
So, yes, they switched to a safer MMR vaccine.
So from now on, you need to be specific about which MMR vaccine you refer to. I'd also be curious as to which specific MMR vaccine Wakefield studied for his now withdrawn Lancet paper? Did he even know that the MMR vaccine the American child received was different than the MMR vaccine received by the older children in the case series?
That also brings out this very interesting editorial and comment: MMR vaccine—worries are not justified
You see, when Wakefield made a call to go to single vaccines, the single mumps vaccine parents often got was the more dangerous Urabe mumps version: A few years after MMR was introduced, several vaccines were in use from different vaccine manufacturers. It became clear that two MMR vaccines containing a particular type of mumps virus, Urabe, were causing a small increased risk of meningitis.29 This was carefully investigated and these MMR vaccines were withdrawn. However, some children having the separate vaccines have been given the Urabe single mumps vaccine.
What would happen if we couldn't get all our scheduled vaccinations, and only got a dozen vaccines like JAPAN, DENMARK, NORWAY, SWEDEN, or ICELAND
ReplyDeletehttp://deathbyvaccination.com/
What I know about Autism, vaccines, the media, the government and big Pharma
http://www.kodawe.com/?page_id=684
Chris: BMJ (employer of Deer who is forming your BMJ based unscientific consensus based on Deers scam, and former employee of Murdoch connected to Watergate sized scandals in UK and to GSK corporation thru his son James Murdoch) is not credible nor scientific journal at all.
ReplyDeleteThis Hornig MMR paper (lack of methodology) is openly debunked here by molecular biologist:
Lack of Association between Measles Virus Vaccine and Autism with Enteropathy: A Case-Control Study
http://www.plosone.org/article/comments/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0003140;jsessionid=8D065F2865AE11A89F82956349B01636
Btw GSK corporation is MMR manufacturer. (James Murdoch on the GSK board - Rupert Murdoch massmedia owner - Brian Deer)
ReplyDeleteAnd now have look at this FACTS...
An experiment to eliminate measles has left 1 in 38 children with AUTISM in South Korea.
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/05/09/autism.study/index.html
This information is being covered up by the AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS (AAP).
MMR Vaccine Experiment Causes Autism Pandemic
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&cp=30&gs_id=3i&xhr=t&q=Autism+%22South+Korea%22+%221+in+38%22&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=Autism+%22South+Korea%22+%221+in+38%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=a4bf1f75d531ad22&biw=1298&bih=684
you should make a serious reflection in your thinking here considering these facts. You have not presented any paper backing your consensus so far.
link the papers disproving this facts.. and not Deer/BMJ please, those are not scientific papers.
The Plos One paper is unacceptable. Have you read the other two Lancet papers on MMR, are you standing by those papers ?
Link another papers backing up your MMR vaccine safety belief.
Dr Andrew Wakefield Defends His Research (valuable fact-based, science-based presentation)
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6DuBR_xGQg
Offits school paper; "science"; pure evil
ReplyDeleteNeuropathology of vaccination in infants and children
Lucy B. Rorke-Adams, Geoffrey Evans, Robert E. Weibel, Rosemary Johann-Liang
The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Department of Pathology 324 South 34th St 5NW14, Main Philadelphia, PA 19104 United States
Health Resources and Services Administration, National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, United States
Received 1 February 2011; revised 25 July 2011; Accepted 26 July 2011. Available online 18 August 2011.
Abstract
Aims
Documentation of clinical-pathological features of 37 infants/children whose parents alleged a relationship between vaccination and death or permanent central nervous system (CNS) damage, and sought compensation through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.
Scope
Of the 5545 claims filed during the 10-year period (1990–1999), CNS tissue was available for evaluation by a pediatric neuropathologist in 37; 33 died and 4 had a biopsy or lobectomy.
Most commonly implicated vaccines were DTP/DTaP, followed by MMR and IPV/OPV, but almost all of the vaccines currently given to infants/children were alleged to be responsible for the illness/death.
No lesions were found in 5 of 37 (13.5%). The most frequent abnormality consisted of acute anoxic encephalopathy (14 of 37 – 37.8%), consequent to several different causes, such as positional asphyxia, cardio-respiratory arrest during status epilepticus, etc. The remaining children manifested other lesions, including inflammation (5 of 37 – 13.5%), vascular and developmental anomalies (4 each of 37 or 10.6%), cerebral edema and system degeneration (2 each of 37 or 5.4%), and one case of heavy metal exposure in a child living near an abandoned mine (2.2%).
Conclusions
There was no obvious relationship between type of vaccine (or vaccines simultaneously administered) to time of onset of symptoms, nature of symptoms or the lesions found.
Highlights
► We evaluate CNS pathology of 37 children receiving standard vaccine. ► Clinical features correlated well with pathologic features. ► Vaccines do not cause permanent/lethal CNS damage.
Keywords: Neuropathology; Vaccination; Infants/children
This information is being covered up by the AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS (AAP).
ReplyDeleteWhere? I do not see anything but news reports, youtube videos, a google search and one real paper that does not support your argument. It just shows you cut and pasted without reading it, which is why it is mostly incoherent. The Korea paper has nothing to do with vaccines (it basically shows that it has something to do with how you count), and trying to prove it with the University of Google was not helping your argument.
If you are going to declare that Hornig's paper is not acceptable, you will have to explain why clearly and with real references.
Again, you are going to have to stick with an MMR vaccine, and specify which MMR vaccine (just specify the mumps strain) in your comments. Just post the journal, title, date and authors of the peer reviewed papers that show a specific MMR vaccine presently used on the pediatric schedule in either Europe or the USA is more dangerous than measles.
And remember there are severe issues with measles in at least one in a thousand cases (up to one death in five hundred cases, paper listed below).
Do not use anything but the following format:
On-time vaccine receipt in the first year does not adversely affect neuropsychological outcomes.
Pediatrics. 2010 Jun;125(6):1134-41. Epub 2010 May 24.
Smith MJ, Woods CR.
Measles hospitalizations, United States, 1985-2002.
J Infect Dis. 2004 May 1;189 Suppl 1:S210-5.
Lee B, Ying M, Papania MJ, Stevenson J, Seward JF, Hutchins SS.
Epidemiology Program Office, and National Immunization Program, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, USA.
Acute measles mortality in the United States, 1987-2002.
J Infect Dis. 2004 May 1;189 Suppl 1:S69-77.
Gindler J, Tinker S, Markowitz L, Atkinson W, Dales L, Papania MJ.
National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Subacute sclerosing panencephalitis: more cases of this fatal disease are prevented by measles immunization than was previously recognized.
J Infect Dis. 2005 Nov 15;192(10):1686-93. Epub 2005 Oct 12.
Bellini WJ, Rota JS, Lowe LE, Katz RS, Dyken PR, Zaki SR, Shieh WJ, Rota PA.
Respiratory and Enteric Viruses Branch, National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, USA.
Pediatric hospital admissions for measles. Lessons from the 1990 epidemic.
Chavez GF, Ellis AA.
West J Med. 1996 Jul-Aug;165(1-2):20-5.
Measles epidemic from failure to immunize.
Dales LG, Kizer KW, Rutherford GW, Pertowski CA, Waterman SH, Woodford G.
West J Med. 1993 Oct;159(4):455-64.
Impact of specific medical interventions on reducing the prevalence of mental retardation.
Brosco JP, Mattingly M, Sanders LM.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2006 Mar;160(3):302-9. Review.
Encephalopathy after whole-cell pertussis or measles vaccination: lack of evidence for a causal association in a retrospective case-control study.
Ray P, Hayward J, Michelson D, Lewis E, Schwalbe J, Black S, Shinefield H, Marcy M, Huff K, Ward J, Mullooly J, Chen R, Davis R; Vaccine Safety Datalink Group.
Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2006 Sep;25(9):768-73.
Hornigs paper methodology is debunked here
ReplyDeletehttp://www.plosone.org/annotation/listThread.action?inReplyTo=info:doi/10.1371/annotation/d4f7a862-6b49-4f37-8924-0a0929ccc46e&root=info:doi/10.1371/annotation/d4f7a862-6b49-4f37-8924-0a0929ccc46e
MMR vaccine is simply terribly unsafe vaccine. It could be improved but nothing happen thanks to such good doctors as is Offit/Merck and other personas, Deer included and btw enough evidence was linked here to be patently evident that BMJ is complete fraud and Wakefield dispension of medical practioner licence and retraction of 2 papers was purely political issue by establishment/corporate configuration, and i have not seen any reflection on that from your side here yet... and this is directly to the topic on Wakefield/MMR. I have all the papers subsribed including pathetic journal Vaccine and currently i am pissed off by the very amount of pharma-corporate ghoswritten piles of papers and crappy/flawed science. Ironically, Wakefield was falsely accused of such a practice by Murdochs journalist Deer and in the the reality this is the practice of the "PROffitists".
ReplyDeleteAcknowledgements (Neuropathology of vaccination in infants and children)
The authors thank Dr. Paul Offit for his critical evaluation and insight.
What sick joke by Offit that paper is.
That is a comment on the paper from someone who is not an expert in the field. It has also been answered. Did you read the response?
ReplyDeletePlus, I might add: the same criticisms can be made for Wakefield's now retracted Lancet paper. It is hypocritical to claim that the Hornig paper is not valid due to a small sample size, when it was much larger than twelve.
And again, you need to prove that an MMR vaccine presently approved for a pediatric vaccine schedule in Europe or the USA is more dangerous than actually getting measles.
Please post the title, journal, date and authors of the papers that show a particular MMR vaccine in use today in either Europe or the USA causes severe neurological impact or death at a greater rate than one in a thousand.
MMR vaccine is simply terribly unsafe vaccine.
ReplyDeleteWho wrote that? Please cite the source.
What sick joke by Offit that paper is.
Please post the title, journal, date and author of what you are quoting.
Chris, everybody:
ReplyDeleteGRAPHICAL EVIDENCE SHOWS VACCINES DIDN'T SAVE US
http://www.vaclib.org/sites/debate/web1.html
http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/
This is about corrupt medical establishment - or to be correct from the point of view drug safety researcher - its mainly about vaccines (small defenseless and healthy children) and psychofarmaceuticals/psychiatry (compromised individuals) (Vioxx was an exception to such a cowarldy/evil medical/corporate practise, but also problem with statins concerning its dementogenic properties is to come to hit public). Enviromental toxicity (drug exposure, vaccines included) is the issue here.
Again, that is not a peer reviewed journal article. Those are both biased anti-vax websites.
ReplyDeleteJust post the title, journal, date and authors of the papers that show a specific MMR vaccine that is presently on the pediatric schedule in either Europe or the USA is more dangerous than measles.
GRAPHICAL EVIDENCE SHOWS VACCINES DIDN'T SAVE US
ReplyDeleteAgain, that is a common theme. I have actually asked the guys at Childhealthsafety to answer the following question, and they never gave a real answer.
So I will not pose it to you: Please tell us why the rate of measles incidence in 1970 is only 10% of what it was in 1960 in the USA. The census data follows. But use your own words, and stick to only that decade and to just the USA (it seems that Mr. Stone and Mr. Miller thought that Wales and England were in the USA, please don't repeat their error).
From http://www.census.gov/prod/99pubs/99statab/sec31.pdf
Year.... Rate per 100000 of measles
1912 . . . 310.0
1920 . . . 480.5
1925 . . . 194.3
1930 . . . 340.8
1935 . . . 584.6
1940 . . . 220.7
1945 . . . 110.2
1950 . . . 210.1
1955 . . . 337.9
1960 . . . 245.4
1965 . . . 135.1
1970 . . . . 23.2
1975 . . . . 11.3
1980 . . . . . 5.9
1985 . . . . . 1.2
1990 . . . . .11.2
1991 . . . . . .3.8
1992 . . . . . .0.9
1993 . . . . . .0.1
1994 . . . . . .0.4
1995 . . . . . .0.1
1996 . . . . . .0.2
1997 . . . . . . 0.1
Really, please tell us why measles morbidity dropped by 90% in that one decade, and has never been half as high as it was in 1970. Use your own words, document you references properly and be very clear.
I want you to do the research yourself using PubMed, and not to rely on random (and biased) websites.
Neuropathology of vaccination in infants and children
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21854821
Post here the papers on vaccine safety please, epecially MMR and papers proving that Wakefield was wrong (please no BMJ/Deer, and the Plos ONE paper you cant use, too, it says nothing conclusive according to comments).
Btw is this "credible" conclusion or a joke ?
Conclusions
There was no obvious relationship between type of vaccine (or vaccines simultaneously administered) to time of onset of symptoms, nature of symptoms or the lesions found.
Highlights
► We evaluate CNS pathology of 37 children receiving standard vaccine. ► Clinical features correlated well with pathologic features. ► Vaccines do not cause permanent/lethal CNS damage.
------
I dont accept flawed or corrupt papers, and this paper by Offits is clearly flawed/corrupted.
Again, that paper says " Vaccines do not cause permanent/lethal CNS damage."
ReplyDeleteYou said: I dont accept flawed or corrupt papers, and this paper by Offits is clearly flawed/corrupted.
How are you qualified to make that determination? I cannot get anything but the abstract, do you have the full paper? Why should we care about your opinion?
I dont know why are you asking me such a wierd question as i am pro-vaccine myself, or more correctly, my task is to work on drug safety, but to answer your question:
ReplyDeletei am not questioning vaccine efficiency and usefullnes and the enormous health benefit thereof, but pointing to the underdeveloped (still cleary neurotoxic aluminium and still high rate of adverse reactions and vaccine related deaths per 100 000 - questioning vaccine safety, and this vaccine safety issue is supressed by corrupt and criminal individuals as is Offit/Merck ( Merck US MMR manufacturer) or Deer/Murdoch/GSK ( GSK UK MMR manufacturer), if you are engineer you must have enough critical thinking abilities to understand my argument, that this is about underdevoloped and suppressed vaccine safety, i have not come here as pharmaceutical expert to question vaccines, but to point on corrupt suppresion of vaccine safety as it done by a corporate lobby. I am not arguing with You about fundamental role of vaccines in infectious disease prevention, but underdeveloped vaccine safety !!!!!!!
Chris - do you want to email me (catherinajtv at gmail dot com) for the full text?
ReplyDeleteOh, and: thank you - you are very patient :)
How are you qualified to make that determination? I cannot get anything but the abstract, do you have the full paper? Why should we care about your opinion?
ReplyDeleteChris: thank you for a debate. I have presented enough data here poiting to the issue of underdeveloped vaccine safety, Wakefield and so.
I think its You who is not qualified for the debate here (no access to paper, has not read the the papers, no biomedical backgroud), so i think you have got enough data including comment on the Plos One article and explanation of Wakefield issue.
Its rather symptomatic that you are not aware about BMJ/Deer scam and gov-corporate corruption/politics behind it.
I wont send you the paper by email, ask someone you know who send you the paper, it seems like you have not read any paper behing "paywall". I think on every major US university is complete access to the literature. You are not scientiets Chris, so is Orac :D And frankly, i have looked at it only recetly, i was studying psychotropic drugs.
BMJ/Deer/Murdoch/Offit are criminals. So is your former US president Bush and his cronies.
Its your kind who is doing political/religious debate from the vaccines while absolutely refusing to acknowledge a need for a development of vaccine safety and vaccination schedule in the cover up/scam of industry.
No, i am not, nor is Wakefield and the majority of decent and well educated people including complete majority of biomedical scientists questioning the enormous vaccine benefit, but the alarming and corrupt state of affairs in the vaccine safety.
Wakefield was never questioning vaccinations, but the vaccine safety. He was also genuinely thinking about developing safer MMR vaccines.
By the 2010, we have seen a trend of worsening of the vaccine safety - namely (bird,swine) flu and Gardasil (Gardasil is terribly unsafe vaccine, even leading possible directly to the cervix cancer and still not fully tested) and hepatitis B vaccine for the infants in the multivalent. This is clearly corruption of involved medical community, FDA caused by corporate pharmaceutical conglomerates. Corruption. Many scandals. Vaccines and psychopharmaceuticals (Vioxx if you know, example of Mercks corporate deception, but vaccines are aimed at defenseless children (and naive parents - yes we are sacrifing our children health for corporate profit as the impact of unsafe vaccine harm is distributed, that means there is degree of damage to patient and immune system and quantitative severity of impairment by toxic vaccines ) and also dementogenic psychopharmaceutical drugs aimed on compromised mental health patients. Vaccines and psychiatry those are the only corrupt and predatory fields in the practice of medicine -for a corporate profit.
MMR vaccine is simply terribly unsafe vaccine. It could be improved but nothing happen thanks to such good doctors as is Offit/Merck and other personas, Deer included and btw enough evidence was linked here to be patently evident that BMJ is complete fraud and Wakefield dispension of medical practioner licence and retraction of 2 papers was purely political issue by establishment/corporate configuration, and i have not seen any reflection on that from your side here yet... and this is directly to the topic on Wakefield/MMR. I have all the papers subsribed including pathetic journal Vaccine and currently i am pissed off by the very amount of pharma-corporate ghoswritten piles of papers and crappy/flawed science. Ironically, Wakefield was falsely accused of such a practice by Murdochs journalist Deer and in the the reality this is the practice of the "PROffitists".
ReplyDeleteAcknowledgements (Neuropathology of vaccination in infants and children)
The authors thank Dr. Paul Offit for his critical evaluation and insight.
What sick joke by Offit that paper is.
Anonymous - you are spamming, but just to entertain you:
ReplyDeleteMMR vaccine is simply terribly unsafe vaccine.
how is it "terribly unsafe"? It is 1000x safer than the diseases. Every year, it saving countless lives - see for example:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14613687
It could be improved
enlighten us - how?
but nothing happen thanks to such good doctors as is Offit/Merck
you do realise that the current MMR vaccine used is MMR2, the other commonly used MMR vaccine is Priorix and there were a number of older, unsafer MMR vaccines - how does this match your claim that the MMR is not being improved?
and other personas, Deer included
What does Brian Deer have to do with vaccine development?
and btw enough evidence was linked here to be patently evident that BMJ is complete fraud
Sorry, but arguments like "the hairdresser of my boss' wife's third cousin has a financial interest" don't count.
and Wakefield dispension of medical practioner licence and retraction of 2 papers was purely political issue by establishment/corporate configuration,
based on what evidence? Wakefield's support for Wakefield? Because that is what you linked...
and i have not seen any reflection on that from your side here yet...
That is because you have not followed the links to my older blog posts that Chris has already posted twice
and this is directly to the topic on Wakefield/MMR.
as are my older blogposts
I have all the papers subsribed including pathetic journal Vaccine
reading helps - subscription alone is not enough
and currently i am pissed off by the very amount of pharma-corporate ghoswritten piles of papers and crappy/flawed science.
yes, so are the evidence-based bloggers
Ironically, Wakefield was falsely accused of such a practice by Murdochs journalist Deer and in the the reality this is the practice of the "PROffitists".
hu?
Acknowledgements (Neuropathology of vaccination in infants and children)
The authors thank Dr. Paul Offit for his critical evaluation and insight.
and?
What sick joke by Offit that paper is.
Anonymous, you are repeating yourself.
ReplyDeleteWhy should we take your barely literate incoherent rants seriously? You have not posted any real scientific literature to support your opinion.
What is your educational background? I am just an engineer.
Redeem yourself and answer this question: What caused the measles morbidity to plummet 90% between 1960 and 1970 in the USA as noted in the census data?
Myths: The Lancet Paper…
ReplyDelete- was funded by the Legal Aid Board (LAB)
False – Not one penny of LAB money was spent on The Lancet paper. An LAB grant was provided for a separate viral detection study. This latter study, completed in 1999, does disclose the source of funding. The Lancet paper had been submitted for publication before the LAB grant was even available to be spent.
- my involvement as a medical expert was kept “secret”.
False – At least one year before publication, my senior co-authors, the head of department and the dean of the medical school, and the CEO of the hospital were informed by me. This fact was also reported in the national press 15 months prior to publication.
- children were “sourced by lawyers to sue vaccine manufacturers
False – Children were referred, evaluated, and investigated on the basis of their clinical symptoms alone, following referral from the child’s physician.
- children were litigants
False – At the time of their referral to the Royal Free, the time material to their inclusion in The Lancet paper, none of the children were litigants.
- I had an undisclosed conflict of interest
False – The Lancet's disclosure policy at that time was followed to the letter. Documentary evidence confirms that the editorial staff of The lancet was fully aware that I was working as an expert on MMR litigation well in advance of the paper’s publication.
- did not have Ethics Committee (EC) approval
False – The research element of the paper that required such an approval, detailed systematic analysis of children’s intestinal biopsies, was covered by the necessary EC approval.
- I “fixed” data and misreported clinical findings
False – There is absolutely no basis in fact for this claim and it has been exposed as false.
- findings have not been independently replicated
False – The key findings of LNH and colitis in ASD children have been independently confirmed in 5 different countries.
- has been retracted by most of the authors
False – 11 of 13 authors issued a retraction of the interpretation that MMR is a possible trigger for syndrome described. This remains a possibility, and a possibility cannot be retracted.
- the work is discredited
False – Those attempting to discredit the work have relied upon the myths above. The findings described in the paper are novel and important.
Catharina wrote: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14613687
ReplyDeleteIn addition to the experience in France there are these papers:
Impact of Vaccines Universally Recommended for Children—United States, 1900-1998
Historical Comparisons of Morbidity and Mortality for Vaccine-Preventable Diseases in the United States
And there are more:
An economic analysis of the current universal 2-dose measles-mumps-rubella vaccination program in the United States.
Zhou F, Reef S, Massoudi M, Papania MJ, Yusuf HR, Bardenheier B, Zimmerman L, McCauley MM.
J Infect Dis. 2004 May 1;189 Suppl 1:S131-45.
Impact of specific medical interventions on reducing the prevalence of mental retardation.
Brosco JP, Mattingly M, Sanders LM.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2006 Mar;160(3):302-9. Review.
Encephalopathy after whole-cell pertussis or measles vaccination: lack of evidence for a causal association in a retrospective case-control study.
Ray P, Hayward J, Michelson D, Lewis E, Schwalbe J, Black S, Shinefield H, Marcy M, Huff K, Ward J, Mullooly J, Chen R, Davis R; Vaccine Safety Datalink Group.
Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2006 Sep;25(9):768-73.
Then there this older paper:
ReplyDeleteBenefits, Risks and Costs of Immunization for Measles, Mumps and Rubella
And a paper on measles vaccine strategies, improving the vaccines and the various measles vaccine strains:
Measles Control in the United States: Problems of the Past and Challenges for the Future
Now, again, Anonymous: what is your educational background and why should we value your opinion?
Chris: i dont know why you are repeatedly asking that question, as nobody is questioning here reason for continuation vaccinations and its impact of IDs eradication. Now read four times aloud repeatedly this: Vaccine safety.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, thousands of children in U.S. are damaged by the vaccines every year.
Nowadays, safety of MMR (Priorix) is improved (thanks to Wakefield?).
But guess what ? Swine flu vax for pregnant women(thousands of abortions is U.S.), dangerous Gardasil vaccine and hepatis B for infants in multivalent appeared.
Hep B: look at this site, they state they are not anti-vaccine, but call on vaccine safety.
Offit: "The kid (infant) can get 100 000 shots a day and its perfectly okay."
I comment on this: 1)The vaccinations should be moved past 2. year of age as it is possible and safe except for whooping cough (as i was told by one national vaccine expert in EU counry, i am not pulling it out of my ass), because of the herd immunity - in this shift we eliminate something like 60-90 % (my rough estimate) of possible cases of serious vaccine damage/ASDs to the immature infant immune system.
2)+ neurotoxic aluminium removal/replacement
3)+ inhalational vaccines and other improved methods of drug-delivery.
4)+ some special precaucions.
I repeat, thousands of children are severely damaged every year in U.S. because of 1,2,3,)
Cat: you are right, Priorix should be safer. Its not 1990, but 2011. Thanks to Wakefield. But this is only one vax, MMR.
Chris: do not ask me on MMR effectiveness again please. You should read my objections and reflect on that. Look at unsafe Gardasil, Hep B vax, and Swine flu vax insted. Nobody here is denyig infectious diseases. And do not be so gullible. Its 100% sure that heavy and premature vaccinatios are damaging infants, compromising infant immune system, and severely harming thousands of infants in U.S. Your son acquiring rotavirus infection with complications was very probably immunocopromised by premature heavy vaccinations.
And this all folks.
The End of thread.
BE HONEST AND DO NOT DELETE THIS !!!!
ReplyDeleteMyths: The Lancet Paper…
- was funded by the Legal Aid Board (LAB)
False – Not one penny of LAB money was spent on The Lancet paper. An LAB grant was provided for a separate viral detection study. This latter study, completed in 1999, does disclose the source of funding. The Lancet paper had been submitted for publication before the LAB grant was even available to be spent.
- my involvement as a medical expert was kept “secret”.
False – At least one year before publication, my senior co-authors, the head of department and the dean of the medical school, and the CEO of the hospital were informed by me. This fact was also reported in the national press 15 months prior to publication.
- children were “sourced by lawyers to sue vaccine manufacturers
False – Children were referred, evaluated, and investigated on the basis of their clinical symptoms alone, following referral from the child’s physician.
- children were litigants
False – At the time of their referral to the Royal Free, the time material to their inclusion in The Lancet paper, none of the children were litigants.
- I had an undisclosed conflict of interest
False – The Lancet's disclosure policy at that time was followed to the letter. Documentary evidence confirms that the editorial staff of The lancet was fully aware that I was working as an expert on MMR litigation well in advance of the paper’s publication.
- did not have Ethics Committee (EC) approval
False – The research element of the paper that required such an approval, detailed systematic analysis of children’s intestinal biopsies, was covered by the necessary EC approval.
- I “fixed” data and misreported clinical findings
False – There is absolutely no basis in fact for this claim and it has been exposed as false.
- findings have not been independently replicated
False – The key findings of LNH and colitis in ASD children have been independently confirmed in 5 different countries.
- has been retracted by most of the authors
False – 11 of 13 authors issued a retraction of the interpretation that MMR is a possible trigger for syndrome described. This remains a possibility, and a possibility cannot be retracted.
- the work is discredited
False – Those attempting to discredit the work have relied upon the myths above. The findings described in the paper are novel and important.
"Underreporting is an inherent problem of passive surveillance systems, including VAERS. The degree of underreporting varies according to the adverse event. For example, one study estimated that 68% of cases of vaccine-associated polio are reported to VAERS, but only 4% of MMR-associated thrombocytopenia are reported. This variability in underreporting can make it hazardous to assume that the relative frequencies of adverse events in VAERS reflects their relative rates of occurrence. In addition, for new products on the market, increased reporting of adverse events may occur; this has been termed the "Weber effect." (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS): Usefulness and Limitations by M. Miles Braun, MD MPH
ReplyDeleteMeasles mortality chart 1901-1999 (notice the declining trend before MMR vaccine introduction its due to improved nutrition, sanitary conditions, antibiotics; and then the eliminination by the MMR vaccine)
ReplyDeletehttp://childhealthsafety.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/0707275measleslog.jpg
Anon - no one is deleting your posts - it is best to let fanatics ramble.
ReplyDeleteYour Wakefield defends Wakefield C&P is very cute, but not supported by the intersubjective reality (also known as facts).
Wakefield made Priorix? Really?
Have a look at the posts about Micha, Natalie and Angelina - they are dying because of measles. If we did not have MMR, we would have hundreds like them to mourn every year.
On the other hand, thousands of children in U.S. are damaged by the vaccines every year.
ReplyDelete[citation needed]
Nowadays, safety of MMR (Priorix) is improved (thanks to Wakefield?).
The switch of MMR vaccines occurred in 1992. I see you are not even reading what I have written, nor clicked on any of the links. That was explained on the post I made on November 21, 2011 8:27 PM (note that the link was way before 2004, I suggest you read it).
Anonymous, you are posting the same nonsense as before. Especially that ChildHealthSafety link, here is an explanation of its validity --- click on that link!
Now, what is your eduction? Why should we value your opinion when you cannot post a proper cite, still post off topic items on things that do not pertain to any MMR vaccine (aluminum), do not read the responses, do not read any of the links and are incoherent?
I will continue to ask for your educational background until you give an answer.
you speak of vaccines as if they are a monolith. I've said it already, but here it is again: Not all vaccines have the same importance to public health. So, sure it sounds really scary when you say the result of eschewing vaccines is risking "death and life long disability". The truth is many of the vaccines infants and toddlers receive are for non-deadly diseases, like chicken pox, rotavirus, hepA and hepB (which involves blood contact for infection and is generally transmitted through sex or injection drug use). I don't want to argue the deadliness or seriousness of various childhood diseases (nor would I want any child to suffer these) but it is wrong to treat all vaccines as if they have the same importance as, say, the Polio vaccine. They don't.
ReplyDeleteFresh dispute about MMR ‘fraud’: Nature News 9 November 2011 | Nature 479, 157-158 (2011).
ReplyDelete(Ask someone to send you that nature paper if you cant get it. I wont)
Journalist Brian Deer Drops BMJ Editor Dr Fiona Godlee Head First in Brown Stuff Over Wakefield Fraud Allegations
http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2011/11/14/bmj-editor-head-first-in-brown-stuff/
Anonymous, you have continually shown that you do not understand what constitutes actual scientific evidence (I've read the Nature article, it is an editorial, not a peer reviewed paper). So I will ask these questions again, because you have not actually answered them:
ReplyDelete1) Why was measles morbidity in 1970 only 10% of what it was in 1960 in the USA?
2) What actual scientific evidence shows that any MMR vaccine presently used in either Europe or the USA is more dangerous than measles?
3) What is your educational background? Just list your post high school diplomas. Mine is a BSAA, which translates to a Bachelor of Science in Astronautics and Aeronautics from a College of Engineering. In reality that means I am am really good at applied mathematics, but not so much in biology. Yet I have managed to spot your errors quite quickly. So, really, what is your educational background?
Anonymous: So, sure it sounds really scary when you say the result of eschewing vaccines is risking "death and life long disability". The truth is many of the vaccines infants and toddlers receive are for non-deadly diseases, like chicken pox, rotavirus, hepA and hepB (which involves blood contact for infection and is generally transmitted through sex or injection drug use).
ReplyDeleteThis article is specifically about Wakefield's affect on the varieties MMR vaccine. Your statement is essentially changing the subject. I mentioned earlier that you should restrict your comment to only the MMR vaccines presently used in Europe and the USA.
Again, please present the title, journal, date and authors of the peer reviewed journals that support the answers to the questions you were actually asked.
I attended Beloit Barber College for two semesters, then transferred credits for the Poughkipsie Online University (the fifth fastest growing cybercommuting institution for the east coast). I learned good science classes.
ReplyDeleteNow that I believe!
ReplyDeleteFamily to Receive $1.5M+ in First-Ever Vaccine-Autism Court Award
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20015982-10391695.html
"vaccines can and do cause autism. Just because every pharma-funded study has the conclusion written before the study begins, doesn't make it real science."
Anonymous, do you even know what real scientific literature looks like? What do they teach you at the Poughkipsie Online University?
ReplyDeleteMMR Causes Autism – Another Win In US Federal Court
ReplyDeletehttp://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2009/06/14/juliawinsmmrcase/
CALL ON VACCINE / VACCINATION SCHEDULE SAFETY
ReplyDeletePossible delayings of vaccinations past 2. year of age spares the main proportion of risk to the infants immature immune system (infant is safely separated) According to EU National vax official : Except of pertussis (whooping cough) its epidemiologically safe. But the infant must be separated. CDC: MMR vaccinated kids are infectious for at least 21 days, i.e. MMR vaccine is the vector in infecting unvaccinated population.
“Doctor’s MMR fears” Sunday Express – UK – [Exclusive - 5 July 2009 by Lucy Johnston Health Editor]
ReplyDelete3,000 babies a year could have condition that puts them at risk from jab, says expert.
Fresh fears for the safety of MMR vaccinations will be raised this week with a claim that more than 3,000 British babies could be at risk of autism and even death each year.
The claim centres on a condition that affects one in 200 people.
In a new edition of his book, The Truth About Vaccines, Dr Richard Halvorsen collates the latest studies that suggest children with the condition have developed autism after jabs.
The London-based doctor, who offers parents single jabs as an alternative to MMR, said:
“If we could find susceptible children we could prevent them from being damaged by vaccines. At the moment we don’t know how many children are at risk…It seems to me the establishment are just scared to utter any breath that vaccines can be a problem.”
The condition, mitochondrial dysfunction, describes the failure of parts of the victim’s cells which produce energy. A recent Newcastle University study found at least one in 200 people harbours a mitochondrial mutation.
http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2009/07/06/docsmmrfears/
Medical ghostwriting and dangerous misinformation
ReplyDeletehttp://www.anti-agingfirewalls.com/2011/08/22/medical-ghostwriting-and-dangerous-misinformation/
Dr. Profit fits here, pompous, arogant pusher of bogus.
Offit: " No problem, 100 000 vaxs a day to the infant and its perfectly ok." or "Diet measures in the therapy of autism are nonsense."
That guy is completely corrupted by Merck.
I have read this bio about Dr. Offit. He is not corrupted by money, but he is corrupted thru his unscientic attitude, he is simply biased and the true science is the unbiased investigation of every phenomena (e.g. vaccine damage, mechanism of vaccine damage, genetics of vaccine damage and so). He is simply wrong.
ReplyDeleteBtw, vaccines can cause neurological disorder only in the max 1:200 range (mitochondria mechanism, microglia mechanism and so), so its only a fraction of all ASDs, but thats not all the damage positively caused by the vaccines, there are other syndromes of immunologic/immunotoxic origin.
And this is simply disregarded, and still not prevented, but it will be as the true science (not the ghostwritten) is explaining all that.
So vaccines are causing indirectly only a fraction of ASDs disorders/encephalopathies. Its same like drug safety, for example like in oncology, the older drugs are replaced by drugs with better profile, more effective and safer drugs and some cancers could be 100 % succesfully cured and this same approach should apply to every single vaccine and in this manner ew could have tens of vaccine to many possible etiologically related disease and even some forms of cancer.
Offits bio
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/10/24/stomping-through-a-medical-minefield.html
I understand him. I think (as a scientist) he is as a medical doctor (and they are many like him) perpetuating error in logic and disregarding the unnecessary sad "externalities" of vaccine damages: those are empty space in the practice and technology of vaccination. The factors in this issue: premature vaccinations of infants, underdeveloped vaccine technology, disregarded genetical abnormalities in vaccinated children (like the mitochondria abnormalities and other still scientifically undescribed mechanisms), hence the unsafe vaccines.
Vaccines are great invention. Unfortunaly and completely unnecessary, the state of vaccine safety is underdeveloped and some unskillfull approaches including that of Dr. Offit ( or BMJ clowns) are covering this up and thus retarding the progress of medicine.
Pharmaceutical scientist
Hornigs paper methodology is debunked here
ReplyDeletehttp://www.plosone.org/annotation/listThread.action?inReplyTo=info:doi/10.1371/annotation/d4f7a862-6b49-4f37-8924-0a0929ccc46e&root=info:doi/10.1371/annotation/d4f7a862-6b49-4f37-8924-0a0929ccc46e
Have another go at your alleged "debunk", which isn't at all and is a criticism of the methods, which are answered in the very next response. If you use those as criticisms of the Hornig et al. paper, there is no way you can defend Wakefield's papers. So which is it?
Pharmaceutical Scientist (not), do not use associations that are not yours. You can comment anonymously so there is no need for fraudulent associations. Last warning or you will be banned from commenting.
ReplyDeleteBE HONEST AND DO NOT DELETE THIS !!!!
ReplyDeleteMyths: The Lancet Paper…
Let's see, a bunch of rubbish published by Wakefield and you buy into it. Fine science education you're receiving there. I'd demand my money back. Also, not interested in opinion pieces by Child Health Safety who have their heads so far up Wakefield's arse, they can't see the light of day. Please post original citations, drunken and incoherent ramblings by Clifford Miller and John Stone are not acceptable sources.
So Anonymous/RM/Ray has identified himself as a Pharmaceutical scientist who owns the URL of Nature Magazine. Except this person is barely literate, the only time his posts are coherent is when he cuts and pastes from others, he has not read nor understood the responses and has not given proper scientific citation (despite being told that news reports and random websites are not acceptable). Plus it is pretty obvious he does not own the URL of the Nature Publishing Group.
ReplyDeleteIn short, Ray/RM/Anonymous can only debate with lies. He is not a Pharmaceutical scientist, but a liar.
Which is also an apt description of John Stone and Clifford Miller: Lies, misrepresentation, and abuse.
SM: Hornings paper is proving nothing. Nobody ever claimed in the paper such a nonsense (used by Offit in his obscurant demagoguery) that vaccines=autism. Btw have you noticed the BMJ fraud or do you stand still past the article you have written: "Lessons from MMR scare" about Wakefield. ?
ReplyDeleteChris: you are very abusive, arogant person. You should go back to the site you have came from e.g. "Lies, misrepresentation, and abuse".
You see, i am not discussing here anything with you, you are only annoying element. I did it once posting to you the Measles mortality chart and gave up. You have not any paper at hand nor have read any paper nor you have any background in biomedical sciences, just you are incestantly and repeatly asking for bibliographic data on papers you cant read nor you can understand at all. Btw I am not responding to your moronic slander anymore.
Its very probable if not manifest, from the immunological/allergological point of view (clinical experiences and epidemiology is simply pointing to) that premature/unsafe/toxic vaccinations (e.g. aluminum and other adjuvants , except of bening formadelhyde, btw why you have not here some articles on aluminum or thimerosal and other adjuvants, and not a single one article on immunology proving vaccine safety in the respect of this)that premature/unsafe/toxic vaccinations cause large increase of (auto)immunological diseases.
ReplyDeleteFor example, this study ( look up the original study, as i wont bother to feed scifinder data here).
Just have a look on the tables and links. Then you look it at up at pubmed, or prove me wrong, but with the argument/paper to this topic in this link( its about auto-immumune pathologies vaxed/nonvaxed as comparison):
New Survey Shows Unvaccinated Children Vastly Healthier – Far Lower Rates of Chronic Conditions and Autism
http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2011/08/26/new-survey-shows-unvaccinated-children-vastly-healthier-far-lower-rates-of-chronic-conditions-and-autism/
---
You are posting here BMJ and then you are asking me for papers, you are joking ScienceMom. I have came here with hope to catch up with a scientist, but found here only abuse and no response to my posts (and this is not fault of my grammar/syntax) so i am here at wrong place.
Dear Liar, my name is not Becky.
ReplyDeleteI also showed you why the measles mortality chart you gave was bogus, as did Becky's blog post. You actually refused to even try to answer my question based on the census data. I have posted several papers that you have ignored, and yet you have yet to post one proper cite (the debunked Gish Gallop you cut and pasted does not count).
You are continuing to lie. Don't let the virtual door hit you on the behind.
Where are the incorrect data on this weblog of pro-vacccine safety blogers ?
ReplyDeletehttp://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com
If you have seen any inconsistences, incorrect or false claims on this blog, please let me know and correct it here, as i will stop to link the blog for general public.
On the other hand, i have seen incorrect data/false claims on this blog in this thread and came here to link you on the journalist Deer/BMJ scam (have seen any reflection so for, only numerous insults), and also i have added/shared my notes on vaccine safety.
You are even lying about leaving!
ReplyDeleteHow do you know when John Stone and Clifford Miller are lying: they blog at childhealthsafety. See Anti-Vaccine Fail.
Here, try answering the question they refused: Why is the morbidity of measles in 1970 only 10% of what it was in 1960 in the USA? Provide actual documentation for your answer. Here is the data:
From http://www.census.gov/prod/99pubs/99statab/sec31.pdf
Year.... Rate per 100000 of measles
1912 . . . 310.0
1920 . . . 480.5
1925 . . . 194.3
1930 . . . 340.8
1935 . . . 584.6
1940 . . . 220.7
1945 . . . 110.2
1950 . . . 210.1
1955 . . . 337.9
1960 . . . 245.4
1965 . . . 135.1
1970 . . . . 23.2
1975 . . . . 11.3
1980 . . . . . 5.9
1985 . . . . . 1.2
1990 . . . . .11.2
1991 . . . . . .3.8
1992 . . . . . .0.9
1993 . . . . . .0.1
1994 . . . . . .0.4
1995 . . . . . .0.1
1996 . . . . . .0.2
1997 . . . . . . 0.1
Clifford Miller is written up here. He also provided some laughs here.
ReplyDeleteAnd here is more on the less than dynamic duo at Childhealthsafety, John Stone and Clifford Miller.
ReplyDeleteAnd even if Stone and Miller weren't anti-vaccine cranks, it is just a website. You have been asked multiple times to cite actual scientific literature. But have failed to even grasp that concept.
Like you have failed to stop posting after you claimed you were leaving.
If the logarithmic Measles mortality chart per 50 million is not accurately computed, you can delete it from here, it was useless to post it anyway in a useless reaction to the abusive layman Chris asking me unsubstantiated question on MMR. I have stressed more than 3 times that i am not anti-vax, anti-immunization or vax-autism biased unit.
ReplyDeleteI am not questioning the vaccinations per se at all, nor i claim vaccines=autism, i ve just posted to this thread to point:
1) Deer/BMJ scam
2) to point on the supressed/underdevoloped/covered up side of vaccine safety "story".
I am scientist and vaccine safety sceptic (as i have proper education for that and access to the literature and clinical data), not the infectious disease sceptic.
I have found this site for the general public (btw on the child health safety weblog except for the allegedly incorrectly computed logarithmic Measles mortality graph, i have found no further inconsistencies so far)
ReplyDeletei have found this informative website for general public pointing to a humble fact, that there is something wrong with the current vaccine safety, especilly the new products this blog is not mentioning (Gardasil,Hip B and so), but also notoriously from the parents of damaged children reports( 1:200 mitochondria genetic abnormality) with the MMR
http://deathbyvaccination.com/
Have a look at the site and please point me the possible inconsistencies there, especially about the vaccines.
It is just a biased website (did you notice its name?). It is not scientific evidence, and is barely legible.
ReplyDeleteIts possible that this chart is incorrect, but you must have a look at the data. Personaly i will look up and download the vaccinated/unvaccinated peer reviewed study and copy-paste it here if you dont mind.
ReplyDeleteWhat would happen if we couldn't get all our scheduled vaccinations, and only got a dozen vaccines like JAPAN, DENMARK, NORWAY, SWEDEN, or ICELAND????
http://deathbyvaccination.com/
Vaccines
2009 Autism 2011 Vaccinations before age 5
2009 Deaths per 1000 under 5 yrs old, 2009 Autism Rate in 2011 Lifespan Ranking
2009 Lifespan Ranking
2011
Iceland 11 3.9 1 in 1,1000 1 3
Sweden 11 4.0 1 in 862 2 8
Japan 11 4.2 1 in 475 4 1
Norway 13 4.4 1 in 2,000 5 13
Denmark 12 5.8 1 in 2,200 18 36
United States 36 7.8 1 in 91 34 39 ¯
South Korea 36 n/a 1 in 38
Why can you not grasp simple concepts? Biased websites are not real data, especially when they do not provide verifiable sources for their information. You need to learn about real scientific cites.
ReplyDeleteAnd you are straying way off topic. Really, what is your actual educational background?
Chris - Anon's background is irrelevant - he is spamming the heck out of this thread with links to anti-vaccine websites and irrelevant drivel. I am closing this thread to comments.
ReplyDelete