Clearly, the media can serve to protect the public interest but more often than not they fail to do so. Read More
A Gut Feeling for Immune Dysregulation & Neuroinflammation in Autism by Aristo Vojdani, PhD, MSc, MT and Jama Lambert
Just to let everyone know, ProCon.org, a nonpartisan 501(c)3 nonprofit public charity dedicated to promoting critical thinking, created a website http://vaccines.procon.org to explore the core question "Should any vaccines be required for children?"
The site contains pro and con arguments, an overview and background information about the debate as well as extensive citations for further reading.
The site contains some very interesting facts: Did you know that childhood vaccinations in the U.S. prevent about 10.5 million cases of infectious illness and 33,000 deaths per year?
Did you know that 30,000 cases of adverse reactions to vaccines have been reported annually to the federal government since 1990, with 13% classified as serious, meaning associated with permanent disability, hospitalization, life-threatening illness, or death?
Read all about the debate surrounding vaccines at Vaccines ProCon.org. It's a great balanced resource.
Will check it out but this statement
"The site contains some very interesting facts: Did you know that childhood vaccinations in the U.S. prevent about 10.5 million cases of infectious illness and 33,000 deaths per year?"
Where is this supporting data?
Deaths were nearly nil for the diseases with vaccines associated with them, when the vaccine was invented for the disease. So I don't know how it can say they prevent 33,000 deaths per year.
And is it good to prevent infectious illness by injecting toxins? Infectious illnesses serve a purpose by helping the immune system develop and also giving immunity to them and vaccines do not.
The statement footnote indicates "Economic Evaluation of Routine Childhood Immunization with DTaP, Hib, IPV, MMR and Hep B Vaccines in the United States". When I google on that I get
Every Child by Two - Economic Value of Vaccines (a known pro vaccine source)
But I don't find it there..............
"Did you know that 30,000 cases of adverse reactions to vaccines have been reported annually to the federal government since 1990, with 13% classified as serious, meaning associated with permanent disability, hospitalization, life-threatening illness, or death?"
from fda website..............
Britain - rarely more than 10% reported
US - less than 1% reported
Another major concern with any spontaneous reporting system is underreporting of adverse events (16, 30-32). It has been estimated that rarely more than 10% of serious ADRs, and 2-4% of non-serious reactions, are reported to the British spontaneous reporting program (30). A similar estimate is that the FDA receives by direct report less than 1% of suspected serious ADRs(32). This means that cases spontaneously reported to any surveillance program, which comprise the numerator, generally represent only a small portion of the number that have actually occurred. The effect of underreporting can be somewhat lessened if submitted reports, irrespective of number, are of high quality. "
So 30,000 is only 1% so 3 million would be a better estimate?
are irritation at the injection site. Hopefully you can churn out about a 1000 words or so in replying to that. The longer you are here the longer you post to a thread with not a ton of traffic. If you want to spread the word further try the Science Blog Collective. They love anti-vaxxers there.
She must be quite a threat to constitute such attention that brings such back lash against her so regularly.
I think you'd farebetter to address the content of her information, piece by piece, instead of attacking her so much. It would do a lot for your credibility. You never know who's watching.Someday your actions may come back & bite you in the butt, Bill.
Speaking of irritation at the injection site. Do you know when an animal is struck by cancer that the first sign is usually at the injection site?
Yes & that says a lot, does it not? With so many suffering & dying from differing types of disease & many kinds of cancer that have been on the rise & right in step with the rise in vaccinations, it sure does, doesn't it?
I was devastated to learn a vaccination booster was responsible for killing my chihuahua;
I learned, many times, when animals are struck with cancer, the first sign is at the injection site. Just like in the case of my precious dog.
I didn't associate the fact until recently reading at that site. My loving pet who trusted me to take care of him passed out & almost died immediately after getting it.
Life saving measures were took which cost a small fortune but was worth every penny. Looking back, I think that veterinarian should have taken care of him for that week free of charge. Ignorant of facts, me. I shouldn't have paid him. He must have known the dangers & fact we could be beginning a road of sorrow in a nightmare that was about to sneak up on us.
Vets have known too many boosters are dangerous & shorten the lifespan of animals as many articles have been appearing for about five years now, that I've seen.
That site is extremely educational. It's dedicated to a beloved pet who died like mine and many others but was created for humans as well as animals.
It has many good sources and references, (studies, too), to prove its credibility concering research on vaccinations & truth behind them. The history of vaccinations is there, too.
I took my 10 year old daughter to the doctor last summer for her first Gardasil shot. Two days later she came down with a 103F fever and a sore throat. I took her back to the doctor. She had strep throat, completely unrelated to the vaccine.
And I never reported it to VAERS.
Is a fantastic development. It's amazing that we can vaccinate against such a common cause of cancer. I'm glad my daughter will be able to have it.
Even the researcher who helped develop Gardasil has spoke out in truth about it. You can find that information among the links in the following write up of proof to the facts.
Use any search engines you like to see many pages of articles that tell what this atrocity is really about. Even a dummy after investigating what's written in the archives of history for posterity would know enough to be very afraid of this one. Type in, "truth about Gardasil" & see for yourselves.
If you Bill % ANB love your daughters you'll search this matter out carefully.
Current official reports of death & injury to date aren't in to my knowledge, at least not for us to see. I have looked & looked & they're just not out there yet. The CDC always tries to discount or say the vaccine had nothing to do with most reported incidents but they have had to admit to so many deaths.
If there actually were no more deaths then officially reported already, that still doesn't mean these girls won't be struck with sickness & chronic disease further up the road, especially since we now know vaccinations do cause cancer & other medical conditions.
Many who have been educated about the serious side effects who already received the shots are very worried, now.
The reports on statistics you'll find here are old & won't count the many deaths & injuries of all those who have fallen through the cracks & have gone unreported.
When this atrocity first came out Governor Perry from Texas tried to mandate it & activists went into high gear.
They went after Perry with fury & pointed out Gardasil was untested & a dangerous risk for no good reason as the effectiveness wasn't even
known, yet & still isn't.
How many little girls at that age are promiscuous anyway & it's common knowledge & fact the shots would wear off by the time the girls were old enough to become sexually active. Now they're targeting our boys with it, too. Just crazy!
Recommending them for little girls starting at 9 years old? My God they're nuts & must think we're stupid. At least they hope we are.
Activists challenged the Governor at that time & told him his 11 year old daughter would have to go first in a personal & open letter to him for the public to see.
Many activists in many groups email blitzed the media & elected officials for help on this one & made many waves.
Texas lawmakers rejected Gov. Rick Perry's anti-cancer vaccine order Wednesday [4/25/2007]
They stopped the mandate but since then the "One Less" commercials trying to sell this poison have dominated the airwaves & they could not care less of the harm being let loose on innocent girls & trusting parents who unknowingly offer up their daughters as the guinea pigs they have been for much too long.
Yes, "ONE LESS" all right as you'll hear the Mothers distress in repeating that one less phrase for what it really means, if one follows the links here.
Here's the sad memorial for the young ladies who have died & two links to two articles where people can learn from to help make the correct & an informed decision on this horrid matter;
For the final blow to shut down the possibility of making the wrong decision are these two articles written by Marcia Yerman who tries to promote this most dangerous toxic shot of Gardasil. The education in truth will be found in the comment section of her deceptive articles & will leave no room for doubt in the minds of anyone seeking the truth.
The third & final article in the series never manifested.
The doctors she promised to interview in the last article in this three part series was never written & I don't think it will be after all this time.
Maybe she couldn't find any doctors who would be willing to lie about this any more or any ignorant enough on the facts to speak out on behalf of Gardasil?
I think it says a lot & is a big "tell" that those doctors were never interviewed.
I really dislike Marcia for her repeated attempts to push this toxin for the corporate big boys & big pHARMa.
I dislike her, also, for her stupidity or maybe even evil ways for what she's tried to do in helping kill & damage our children by helping to trick trusting parents into offering up their babies as sacrifices in the name of greed to those that know what they're doing to "US" who we trusted & thought had our health & best interests at heart.
Marcia & I are both bloggers at HuffingtonPost.com & she does not play fair.
Here's her second article:
"Discredited Defamation: The Fallacious Case against Dr. Andrew Wakefield by Polly Tommey"
Here's more proof of the witch hunt this has been. The good doctor has been black balled by special interests and words now coming out, big time.
Polly is just one witness who's been threaened with the closing of her magazine should she publish or associate with Dr. Wakefield as she has in the past. Polly tells of others, too, who have been threatened in the same manner.
She says she won't be bullied. Those who have been doing the bullying are soon to be exposed & facing their day in court as soon as this whole matter gets to the high court as promised here;
"False Testimony Denies Dr Wakefield a Fair Hearing at MMR GMC Witchhunt"
People are painting signs everywhere that say, "Google,"Truth about vaccinations"
I had a friend that saw one a while back that was painted on a bridge that went across the expressway.
How great is that? People are educating others on the streeats now instead of just in cyberspace so it won't be long now until justice is done & the guilty involved in the cover up have to face the music.
The message is people should not label others anti-vax as Bill & others have been doing here.
People commenting & debating in the many blogs here in cyberspace aren't all anti-vax but know something's up & they want answers. It isn't fair to label them all anti-vax.
I'm not anti-vax, either. Not yet. I am leaning that way due to the track record I'm researching & learning about, though.
One commenter put it well & in nut shell & I'm borrowing it because it hits the nail on the head perfectly.
"You can have people take vaccination against serious disease seriously.
Or, you can sell people dangerous and unnecessary vaccines against less dangerous illnesses and have people lose all faith in vaccination.
You can't have both."
Yes, I lean towards becoming anti-vaccine but the verdict isn't in yet because I want to believe they have done some good. I know vaccinations began with good intention but I also know it went real bad along the way due to the greed of man.
We have so many good people, doctors & scientists coming forward in truth, even back when vaccinations first came about, who have tried to warn us about the danger of injecting these toxins.
Great website to share & help educate others;
From that website & FYI, in case the website link won't work, which happens a lot;
"DOCTORS AND SCIENTISTS CONDEMN VACCINATION"
DOCTORS AND SCIENTISTS CONDEMN VACCINATION
"There is a great deal of evidence to prove that immunisation of children does more harm than good."
Dr J Anthony Morris, former Chief Vaccine Control Officer, US Food
and Drug Administration
"The greatest threat of childhood disease lies in the dangerous and
ineffectual efforts made to prevent them through mass immunisation."
Dr R. Mendelsohn, Author and Professor of Paediatrics (How To Raise A Healthy Child In Spite Of Your Doctor)
"In our opinion, there is now sufficient evidence of immune malfunction following current vaccination programmes to anticipate growing public demands for research investigation into alternative methods of prevention of infectious disease."
Dr's H. Buttram and J. Hoffman (Vaccinations and Immune Malfunctions)
"All vaccination has the effect of directing the three values of the blood into or toward the zone characteristics of cancer and leukemia...Vaccines DO predispose to cancer and leukaemia."
Professor L.C. Vincent, Founder of Bioelectronics
"Every vaccine carries certain hazards and can produce inward reactions in some people...in general, there are more vaccine complications than is generally appreciated."
Professor George Dick, London University
"Official data have shown that the large-scale vaccinations undertaken in the US have failed to obtain any significant improvement of the diseases against which they were supposed to provide protection."
Dr A. Sabin, developer of the Oral Polio vaccine (lecture to Italian doctors in Piacenza, Italy, Decemebr 7th 1985)
"In addition to the many obvious cases of mortality from these practises, there are also long-term hazards which are almost impossible to estimate accurately...the inherent danger of of all vaccine procedures should be a deterrent to their unnecessary or unjustifiable use."
Sir Graham Wilson (The Hazards of Immunisation)
"Laying aside the very real possibility that the various vaccines are
contaminated with animal viruses and may cause serious illness later in life (multiple sclerosis, cancer, leukaemia, etc) we must consider whether the vaccines really work for their intended purpose."
Dr W.C. Douglas (Cutting Edge, May 1990)
"The only wholly safe vaccine is a vaccine that is never used"
Dr James A. Shannon, National Institute of Health, USA
With reference to Smallpox;
"Vaccination is a monstrosity, a misbegotten offspring of error and
ignorance, it should have no place in either hygiene or medicine...Believe not in vaccination, it is a world-wide delusion, an unscientific practise, a fatal superstition with consequences measured today by tears and sorrow without end."
Professor Chas Rauta, University of Perguia, Italy , (New York Medical Journal July 1899)
"Vaccination does not protect, it actually renders its subjects more
susceptible by depressing vital power and diminishing natural resistance, and millions of people have died of smallpox which they contracted after being vaccinated."
Dr J.W. Hodge (The Vaccination Superstition)
"It is nonsense to think that you can inject pus - and it is usually from the pustule end of the dead smallpox victim … it is unthinkable that you can inject that into a little child and in any way improve its health. What is true of vaccination is exactly as true of all forms of serum immunisation, if we could by any means build up a natural resistance to disease through these artificial means, I would applaud it to the echo, but we can't do it."
Dr William Howard Hay (lecture to Medical Freedom Society, June 25th 1937)
"Immunisation against smallpox is more hazardous than the disease itself."
Professor Ari Zuckerman, World Health Organisation
With reference to Whooping Cough;
"There is no doubt in my mind that in the UK alone some hundreds, if not thousands of well infants have suffered irreparable brain damage needlessly and that their lives and those of their parents have been wrecked in consequence."
Professor Gordon Stewart, University of Glasgow (Here's Health, March 1980)
"My suspicion, which is shared by others in my profession, is that the
nearly 10,000 SIDS deaths that occur in the US each year are related to one or more of the vaccines that are routinely given to children. The pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine is the most likely villain , but it could also be one or more of the others."
Dr R Mendelsohn, Author and Professor of Paediatrics (How To Raise A Healthy Child In Spite Of Your Doctor)
"The worst vaccine of all is the whooping cough vaccine...it is responsible for a lot of deaths and for a lot of infants suffering irreversible brain damage.."
Dr Archie Kalokerinos, Author and Vaccine Researcher (Natural Health Convention, Stanwell Tops, NSW, Australia 1987)
With reference to Polio;
"Many here voice a silent view that the Salk and Sabin polio vaccine, being made of monkey kidney tissue has been directly responsible for the major increase in leukaemia in this country."
Dr F. Klenner, Polio Researcher, USA
"No batch of vaccine can be proved to be safe before it is given to
Surgeon General Leonard Scheele (AMA Convention 1955, USA)
"Live virus vaccines against influenza and paralytic polio, for example, may in each instance cause the disease it is intended to prevent..."
Dr Jonas Salk, developer of first polio vaccine (Science 4/4/77 Abstracts)
The End of Science History
Those who imagine that this liquidation of a person’s work from the record is a novel technique invented solely for the use of pharmaceutical companies in relation to Dr Wakefield, should take a look at the shenanigans that surrounded the 1985 Australian Royal Commission on Agent Orange and dioxin on Australian personnel during the Vietnam War.  Agent Orange was a herbicide dropped by the US and their allies on forested areas of Vietnam so as to expose insurgent fighters and groups. Agent Orange contained dioxin in large quantities. Shortly after involvement in dropping Agent Orange in Vietnam, US and Australian troops and even the dogs used by the military showed serious adverse reaction to the chemical. The Vietnamese are still having to cope with familial genetic damage caused by Agent Orange forty years later.
The Australian Royal commission was from the start a ‘get-up’. Two Swedish doctors, Lennart Hardell and Olaf Axelson, had some years before the commission managed to get dioxin-based herbicides banned in Sweden. Hardell gave evidence to the Royal Commission but he paid dearly for this privilege. The judge’s final verdict that there was no evidence that exposure to Agent Orange, including TCDD (Dioxin), was a health hazard turned out to be an almost verbatim account of a Monsanto submission on the issue.
Read more: http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2010/02/wakefields-research-from-the-la...
Where basically the post has nothing to do with your comment, here is the text of the post that describes how Wakefield has started his own journal to republish his paper. People reading your posating here might be interested in your comments and how they were responded to at LB/RB:
The Lancet is one of the medical community’s premier journals. As such, tetting a paper into such a journal is a big accomplishment for any medical researcher. When Dr. Andrew Wakefield chose to submit his 1998 study to The Lancet, it is likely he wanted to put it in as high a profile journal as possible. One can speculate how the Andrew Wakefield of 1998 would have viewed publishing his work in Medical Veritas, a newer journal which, well, is not generally highly regarded. Somehow, this observer thinks Dr. Wakefield would not have welcomed a suggestion to submit to Medical Veritas had it existed at the time.
Frequent readers to LeftBrainRightBrain, or most places autism is discussed for that matter, will know that Dr. Wakefield’s study has been retracted by the editors at The Lancet.
Frequent readers here may be also familiar with the magazine, Medical Veritas as it has been the home for a number of questionable autism/vaccine articles. If you aren’t familiar with Medical Veritas, let’s just say that Medical Veritas is not in the same league as the Lancet, to put it mildly.
Why bring these two very disparate journals into this blog post? Well, Medical Veritas has offered to republish Dr. Wakefield’s study:
So with zero confidence in The Lancet, Dr. Horton, those paying his salary, and those criticizing him for his actions, Medical Veritas editors are inviting Dr. Wakefield to re-publish his controversial paper in their next issue.
Wow. What a strange move, and on so many fronts. The most obvious being—what sort of standards does Medical Veritas show when it is willing to publish a paper that has been found to be so fatally flawed? It is really hard to consider that this offer was serious. The Royal Free Hospital, Dr. Wakefield’s employer, assigned the copyright to his paper to The Lancet. The study, even retracted, likely remains the property of The Lancet. Also, it isn’t Dr. Wakefield’s right to decide for his coauthors whether to submit to another journal.
The strangeness goes on and on. Let me just pick out one more oddity of this offer by “the editors” of Medical Veritas. Dr. Wakefield is one of the editors. Yes, one read is that Dr. Wakefield has basically invited himself to reprint “his” paper in Medical Veritas.
Just when you thought the story of the Wakefied/Lancet paper couldn’t get stranger.
that link was in there inadvertantly because had also shared the info with them & then cut and pasted it here(and they are a pretty disturbed group over there in the UK)
This is the link to the important info
you certainly are a strange one Bill
Just sharing about other shenanigans
Lancet is a British Journal - Wakefield was in Britain
Royal Free also was trying to improve its standing
Lots could be answered here if you, Bill, could read it:
But that would be too easy and might challenge all that you think that you know. Plus its quite a few pages and might take 15 or 20 minutes.
Lots of censorship out there and so you publish wherever you can to get the word out. Most of us don't put much stock in any of these journals or the lie of peer review, anymore.
The Lancet is among 2,000 science journals published by the Reed-Elsevier-ChoicePoint conglomerate. The UK-based company sells more than 250,000 articles annually. Through its vast network of publications, combined with ChoicePoint's "intelligence services," control over scientific knowledge and medical practices are certain and have become disastrous. Medical intelligence and health practices have been monopolized and corrupted to the detriment of world health and every doctor and patient.
ChoicePoint was purchased by Reed-Elsevier in 2008 for $3.6 billion in cash. The conglomerate is a "prime intelligence service" supplying governments and multinational corporations with genetic and demographic data, including confidential social security numbers and voter records. The company is best known for administering the corrupted data used to certify George Bush' s contested 2000 presidential election.
Reed-Elsevier's archives contain seven million publications read by doctors and scientists whose faith in their "intelligence" is fundamental to every aspect of public policy and governmental decision-making. The impact of this corruption of information, censored studies, and promoted pseudoscience, is shocking. Social progress in general, and public health policies in particular, are sabotaged by this breach of faith, ethical misconduct, and manipulation of basic knowledge needed to serve humanity in every way.
Relatedly, the leading vaccine maker, Merck & Co., was sued in Australia after Merck paid Elsevier to publish the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine. The periodical appeared to be a peer-reviewed academic journal, but only contained articles promoting Merck's drugs. Merck first denied claims that the articles in this "complimentary publication" were authored by Merck's ghost-writers. Company officials defended saying all reprints came from peer-reviewed medical journals.
Elsevier issued a statement last week acknowledging that its Australian office had created paid-for compilations “that were made to look like medical journals and lacked the proper disclosures” of their drug company sponsors and calling such practices “unacceptable.” A company spokesman said Elsevier believed that one of the Merck issues was distributed to 20,000 doctors in Australia while other issues went to about 10,000 doctors.
why you really can't rely on your so-called respected journals..........ghostwriting, biased research done by those with pHARMa links and more.
Ghostwriting Is Called Rife in Medical Journals
ix of the top medical journals published a significant number of articles in 2008 that were written by ghostwriters, according to a study released Thursday by editors of The Journal of the American Medical Association.
7.6 percent in The Lancet
The reprint and journal supplement revenue combined with the vast revenue from pharmaceutical advertising has created a dangerous dependence between industry and the medical societies that own the journals. Editors from several top medical journals have expressed alarm over these relationships. Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, has written that journals "have evolved into information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry" (Horton, 2004). Richard Smith, former editor of the British Medical Journal and chief executive of BMJ Publishing, echoes this complaint that medical journals have become a marketing arm of the pharmaceutical industry (Smith, 2005)
In its most extreme form, ghostwriting involves slapping the name of a scientist as an author on the piece who played no role in writing the article. Typically the sponsors of the ghostwritten articles are pharmaceutical companies. Read about a bevy of examples here and here and here.
“The pharmaceutical industry relies on ghost-written publications in peer-reviewed journals as part of their marketing plans,” said Fugh-Berman. “Physicians rely on information in the medical literature to make treatment decisions, so hidden sponsorship of articles—and lectures at medical conferences—is not only unethical, but can compromise patient care.”
In her commentary, Dr. Fugh-Berman reports that she was approached by a medical education company working for a well-known pharmaceutical manufacturer. The company asked her to lend her name as “author” to a completed manuscript that reviewed herb-warfarin interactions. The pharmaceutical manufacturer was developing a competitor to warfarin and had apparently commissioned the article to highlight problems with warfarin.
Fugh-Berman says that the true sponsorship of articles is often fuzzy because pharmaceutical companies hire medical education companies to act as intermediaries with researchers. She says that the current voluntary standards for declaring conflicts of interest to readers of medical journals and audiences at medical conferences are inadequate, and that a public database detailing physicians’ and researchers’ conflicts of interest is needed.
and from another post on your blog..........how many times can the name GLAXO come up? (one of the makers of MMR)
Brian Deer, the journalist who tendered the initial complaint to the General Medical Council, has described himself on his web site as a journalist who investigated claims made by parents of vaccine damaged children. He has written a number of articles in defense of vaccines manufactured by GSK and had been aided in his research into Dr Wakefield by Medico Legal Investigations, a company that is completely funded by the Pharmaceutical Industry. There are clearly matters of conflict of interest even in the initial stages of the prosecution.
In 2004, the High Court Judge Sir Nigel Davis, in a closed hearing, rejected the appeals made on behalf of vaccine damaged children whose legal aid had been withdrawn for a coming court case, which would ultimately represent some 2,000 cases. Weeks after this decision had been made, it was reported that the Judge had failed to disclose that his brother was a non-executive board director of GSK, defendants in the case. The case had been in progress for nearly ten years and was only months away from it's hearing in the High Court. The science lobby groups funded by the drug companies and especially Lord Dick Taverne the founder of Sense About Science and previously a major PR handmaiden for the pharmaceutical industry had campaigned heavily to get legal aid taken from the parents. After it was publicized about the conflict of interest, Brian Deer accused him of being 'cruel' to
the scions of the Davis family.
During Dr Wakefield's defense case the fact that Richard Horton's line manager at the Lancet, the Director of the Elsevier publishing company, was also a non executive director of GlaxoSmithKline, was reinforced. Dr Horton gave evidence claiming that Dr Wakefield had failed to provide him with evidence of his conflict of interest in relation to money that the Legal Aid Board had granted the Royal Free Hospital. This evidence did not seem to coincide with the historical record. Dr Horton made no declaration at the beginning of his evidence that he was on speaking terms with one of the GSK directors or indeed that such a person acted as his line manager at the Lancet.
Dr Kumar is the Chair of the GMC fitness to practice panel that heard the case of Dr Wakefield, Professor Walker-Smith and Professor Simon Murch. Kumar has numerous financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry including stock holdings with Glaxo, the manufacturer of the MMR.
Pediatric MMR Vaccination Safety
Mark R. Geier, MD, PhD; David A Geier
The purpose of this study was to analyze the incidence of serious neurologic disorders in a comparative examination
between MMR vaccine and a vaccine control group. The
Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) database was
analyzed for the incidence rate of permanent brain damage, cerebellar
ataxia, autism and mental retardation reported following
MMR vaccine and diphtheria, tetanus and whole-cell pertussis
(DTwcP) containing-vaccines from 1994 through 2000 in the US.
Statistically significant increases in the incidence of serious neurologic disorders following pediatric MMR vaccine in comparison to
DTwcP vaccine were found. The potentially globally destructive effects of natural measles, mumps and rubella infections means that
continued vaccination is necessary, but improvements in MMR vaccines
are needed to improve its safety. Int Pediatr. 2003;18(2):203-208.
I have doubts about you being one of those who purposley works to stifle us from telling the truth. I think you realy believe all you have been brainwashed in. I have hope you will wake up & unlike many, actually research the information we send to you & help us. I don't think you're one in the pockets of those who pay others to taint anything alternative that would disrupt their greedy life styles.
Some, no, many of our comments would be deleted if you were one out to slay anything that threatens the corporat big boys like big pHARMa.
I sure hope I'm right!
No Parent Ever Complained to GMC: Public Statement from Lancet Families Supports The MMR3
The Wakefield Saga: 2004 All Over Again
"Finally, what convinces me most of all that this is a minor stumbling block for us in the autism community and that the controversy will continue as heated as ever, is the fact that none of us or our children are going away. Vilifying Andrew Wakefield isn’t going to stop us. Pretending that it does, is a joke.
Unless and until health officials can point to independently done studies disproving a link, the war will continue, unabated.
Where is research that we’ve demanded for years?
I personally promise to go quietly away if anyone can come up with an actual study comparing autism rates in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated populations of children and show me there is no difference.
I will never write another word on this topic if someone produces a study looking at regressive autism and can tell me what changed these children so suddenly that they lost learned skills. This is the research the former head of the National Institutes Health, Dr. Bernadine Healy, called for on CBS News in 2008.
I want to see a study showing us adults with autism just like we see in our children. I don’t want to hear about a study where researchers talked to possible autistic adults on the phone. I want to see the same signs of classic autism among adults that kids have.
If officials can’t produce these studies, no one, including Dr. Schaffner, has the right to say that vaccines “are out of the picture.” "
Anne Dachel is Media Editor of Age of Autism.
I tried to step back from this specific example for a minute and consider in a larger picture of various things that have reported in the press in a short-hand or scientific digest form, the points of view, and how they've panned out/are panning out in the long view.
Controversy has an emotional component, and controversies as fanned by notoriety are not unique,
This thread is stuck on the MMR imbroglio, but it is an example of similar which may not have been as heady because of being preinternet or not as immediate to as large a group of people. When is the argument scientific or rhetorical?
I think the larger picture of why these develop, whether they stay or go as part of the public discourse, and the main topic of how does/does the media play an aiding and abetting role in creating controversy is the one that is interesting - as is whether scientists in the general sense consistently hold themselves aloof from participation, perhaps have a misunderstanding of the rules of the game from the public perspective or sometimes use it to promote a particular point of view (sometimes intentionally and sometimes perhaps with those human desires for a little bit of celebrity)? This is posed in the general case (and I imagine has been studied by those interested in the topic of media and journalism). Are any of your citations relevant to that general case?
I'm not entirely informed on that topic and will carve out some time to look into it. However, there is this interesting post by Amy Tuteur on Science-Based Medicine:
Here is the focal quote from a study (see link) describing trends in medical press releases.
"Of all 113 releases about human studies … [f]orty percent reported on inherently limited studies (for example, sample size <30, uncontrolled interventions, … or unpublished meeting reports). Fewer than half (42%) provided any relevant caveats…
Among the 87 releases about animal or laboratory studies, most (64 of 87) explicitly claimed relevance to human health, yet 90% lacked caveats about extrapolating results to people…
Twenty-nine percent of releases (58 of 200) were rated as exaggerating the finding’s importance…
Almost all releases (195 of 200) included investigator quotes, 26% of which were judged to overstate research importance…
Although 24% (47 of 200) of releases used the word “significant,” only 1 clearly distinguished statistical from clinical significance. All other cases were ambiguous …"
It certainly seems that there is a problem in conveying the limitations of studies.
Thanks for the comment Regina. Some sanity in this sea of not so sane.
"Thanks for the comment Regina. Some sanity in this sea of not so sane."
You know, these kind of condescending, dismissive remarks certainly do not shed a good light on you and your practice.
Many of us here have done extensive research and you just dismiss our posts as part of a 'sea of not so sane'.
I was trained allopathically as a pediatric nurse, graduating in 1971.
What I saw over that next decade of the 80s caused me to question a lot and look for answers to things I was never taught in my quality nursing program. I took to medical libraries to start researching.
And of course with the advent of the internet, it made a lot much easier.
So you can be dismissive, but it shows a lot more about you than it does me (and others on here).
Well, I'm not going to make any sweeping claims about my sanity, but thanks for the pointer to that blogpost by Amy Tuteur- that's very timely and appreciated because I was musing over that particular study with some folks yesterday and correlation between popular press and the research article itself, as well as preceding work, and whether the most direct statement is necessarily the most accurate or fairly representative.
I need to look at that post more carefully because besides the people picking up on wire service there is the matter of institutional releases, and one that seems to happen a lot - being quoted out of context. Thanks.
The objections to the explicit contrast between post types is amusing but condescending. I had something to pass along to you Regina, could you contact me off the blog via email?
So many here have the right to express their views, whether contrasting to anothers' perspective or in agreement with them.
There is no doubt that there are many important perspectives, regarding the angles raised here, to be considered, analyzed, discussed and shared.
One thing to keep in mind is, I feel, to clearly ascertain the differences between an individual for whom Autism is an intrinsic part of their being (e.g. genetics) and for the individuals who, perhaps because of the affectation of an environmental onslaught of some kind, contributes to the display or presentation of autistic characteristics (e.g. behaviours).
A balanced perspective, an open mind and a true willingness to consider all points of view (even all the studies conducted - whether ethical or not, accurate or not, qualitative or not, and so on) is imperative to achieving true knowledge.
It is true that some individuals (whether they be scientists/researchers or the even unsung enquiring mind who quietly goes about researching all the information available, as well as trusting their own instincts - whether because of personal experience and/or just an amazing ability to just 'know') have been prematurely 'shut-down' by the ones with the loudest 'voice' or the most to lose ($?), have a closed mind or reel at the thought of being challenged in their views. It doesn't mean that the one with the loudest 'voice', for example, really has a firm grasp on the reality of a situation/issue.
So as to not become self-serving, narrowminded, ignorant of the global picture, paralyzed in our own 'holding-pattern' of confirmed beliefs, we must respectfully 'listen' to all aspects or avenues of information. Some views will be right on the mark and some will be away with the fairies. Many will have honorable intentions and some want their 15 minutes of fame (sometimes at the cost of another).
There are many persons who just want make a change to benefit an autistic persons' (Autism collective community); there are those who may be eyeing off the next Nobel Prize; there are those who want to right wrongs; the intentions, therefore can be numerous.....
A little challenge for our thinking here - Ask yourself (no one individual being 'spoken to' here) what your intentions are towards the Autistic community (and their carers) in persuing answers to the many topics surrounding Autism (generally speaking).
Eg. Do you want to improve the quality of an Autistic persons' life experience and contribute positively?
Do you want to earn a living from it?
Does all that you do, honour the dignity and personhood of the Autistic individual?
Do you just want to make a noise/hear your own voice?
Do you have a genuine compassion and concern for the proper, ethical and humane treatment of all humans?
Are you really passionate about righting perceived or actual wrongs?
And so on.............
I feel that vaccs. have prevented/averted much human disaster. I also feel that there may be complications resulting from the components of the vaccs. Sometimes, as with many other important scenarios, 'man' can be damned if 'he/she' does, or damned if 'he/she' doesn't. It is a complex situation.
I don't see too much of a rip-roaring debate here, jsut an important need to share information, deal with the facts and reach for the truth in all things.
Wishing you all well.
This reply to Autism News Beat, who earlier said Helen Keller's deafblindness was caused by measles. Not true. According to her biographers, she was struck at age 19 months by "an illness described by doctors as "an acute congestion of the stomach and the brain", which might have been scarlet fever or meningitis"
Btw, when I get email notifications about your many replies to my comment, it brings me back to your article, not the reply, and i have to wade through the comments to find it. Rather time consuming, sorry.
More information about formatting options
Bill Ahearn is Director of Research at the New England Center for Children, a private nonprofit educational facility for children with autism.
When and how should we open up to loved ones?