Bryan,

Are you aware if the study was ever submitted to a peer review journal for publication?  If it was never submitted then that will explain why it was not published in one.  

From Wakefield's original Lancet study..

"This study was supported by the Special Trustees of Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust and the Children's Medical Charity."

So not supported by a vaccine manufacturer either.  This hardly guaranteed media obscurity at all (in fact he held a press conference shortly after publication.)

Thanks Brayn, I imagined you were above that sort of thing!

Its an interesting study and definitely worth a closer look.  I only asked since your article suggests that the reason why this survey has not been published or received widespread acceptance is because it was commissioned by parents rather than industry.  I disagree with that since it may not have been submitted to a journal at all. Perhaps it would have been published if it had been submitted, perhaps it would not (many studies fail peer review).  Do you know if it was submitted to a journal?  

As I pointed out, the majority of studies (Wakefield's included) become published despite having no links to industry (although as it turned out since, Wakefield's work was funded by plaintiff's lawyers, untilmately via the legal services commission/legal aid).

I am not disputing the data (I haven't looked at it yet), just your conclusion that studies that are not industry funded automatically are not published or do not receive widepsread attention.  In fact, the overhwleming majority of published peer-reviewed scientific studies recieve no industry funding (its a well known fact in science that if one wishes to be a published researcher steer well clear of a job in industry!)

Yes, that is definitely true- manufacturers of drugs and vaccine are responsible for conducting safety and efficacy tests.  Its a regulatory requirement and they legal route for medicines to be licenced (and with good reason).  It seems sensible that manfuacturers should at least fund their own studies since they will gain from the sale of their products.

A clinical trials register would go some way to ensuring that any trials which produce negative data are also disclosed (and therefore prevent such data from being hidden from the medical/scientific community and media attention).  Also, postmarketing surviellance is vital to spot any adverse effects that testing fails to uncover.

I agree, this group probably did not attempt to get this study published via peer review, but I don't know the answer to that either.  If it was a properly conducted study with valid methodology and interpretation, I don't see any reason why it would not be published.  I certain applaud their efforts to gather data to support their theory.  

"So, why haven't we heard anything about this study, which is a significant addition to the debate?  Well, it was carried out by parents, it wasn't published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it wasn't funded by a manufacturer of one of the vaccines, a combination that guarantees media obscurity."

the real reason is the fact it shows vaccine autism.

Pharma don't research vaccine truth as it would blow vaccination clean out the water along with Allopathy following not far behind. They don't ever do vaccine studies with 100% unvaccinated controls, and they filter out any ones they think might react, then they give it to all and sundry.  While they claim effectiveness on antibody levels which aren't a sign of immunity.

"I can't bring myself to call you 'pharma troll', it's far too rude and disrespectful."

LOL. Pharma Troll is a label, not a term of abuse.  

We know vaccines are the main cause of autism, as well as being completely ineffective http://www.whale.to/b/hoax1.html, and being the main killer of children today--MMR kills more kids than measles would be doing by a long street http://www.whale.to/vaccines/measles.html.

Perhaps you should tell your readers that?  

Whale,

Do you, in all honestly, think you are helping in any way?

(Sorry Bryan, I know you are above this.  But I will speak up for you as first and foremost not from this camp.  You and I can disagree all we like, but Whale.. no.)

Can we both agree that this is a pile of nonsense and move on?

With all due respect.

H

"Can we both agree that this is a pile of nonsense and move on?"

Sounds like Blair!   I know your game and you know I know your game, it suits Bryan to remain oblivious, for obvious reasons.  

Afraid not, the truth is going to come out sooner or later, whatever pharma tango you want to dance with Bryan.  You can't answer the measles stat that invalidates measles vax (you jump to Africa), nor the obvious fact MMR kills more kids than measles would be doing.  http://www.whale.to/vaccines/measles.html

Quite apart from the easily proven smallpox vax hoax, the killer of millions http://www.whale.to/a/smallpox_hoax.html which would kill vaccination just by itself, as would the57 year old vitamin C cure for infections http://www.whale.to/a/levy4.html

"I think that the biological case against Thimerosal is so dramatically overwhelming anymore that only a very foolish or a very dishonest person with the credentials to understand this research would say that Thimerosal wasn’t most likely the cause of autism."--- Dr. Boyd E. Haley http://www.whale.to/vaccines/vax_autism_q.html

"Truth has to be repeated constantly, because Error also is being preached all the time, and not just by a few, but by the multitude.  In the Press and Encyclopaedias, in Schools and Universities, everywhere Error holds sway, feeling happy and comfortable in the knowledge of having Majority on its side."----Goethe

So... a bunch of parents who were worried that vaccines damaged their children got together and did a study that confirmed their suspicions...

...but they have failed to get it published in a scientifc journal because

(a) they are the victims of the great BIG PHARMA CONSPIRACY

or (b) they are not trained scientists and the study is flawed

Forgive me for being somewhat skeptical.

Bryan, you have a habit ofnot linking to the studies you quote.  This is either lazyness, forgetfulness or a deliberate attempt to hide the truth.  Why are you afraid to let people see the study for themselves?  

Is it because option (b) is actually correct?

you can read the survey at the following website: http://www.generationrescue.org/survey.html

This is a very complete survey which takes into account long term damage, something which initial research into vaccine safety didn't do.

It also uses a huge number of children - luckily they managed to find enough unvaccinated children to carry out the survey - what would happen if we all followed exactly what we were told and achieved 95% vaccination levels - no one left to compare the side effects to!!

If the medical establishment is so convinced that this survey is not substantial and conclusive maybe they should carry one out for themselves - unfortunately I am losing all belief in the honesty of the pharmaceutical industry so I think I might actually believe the results of this survey over and above any the pharma industry presented me with.  

Getting things published in refereed journals is not easy. Quite a few years ago a group from a non-prestigious university  took an article that had been published in a refereed journal by someone from a prestigious university. It was in social studies. They changed the title, the first paragraph and rewrote the conclusions slightly. They then sent it off for possible publication in all the relevant refereed journals.

Only two referees spotted that it had been published before. Of the remainder, most of the comments were very negative - including one saying that the quality was nothing like as good as would be acceptable for publication!

At that time the authors were looking, not at all successfully, for a refereed journal who would publish their findings!

Let's face it, most referees in the field of drug reactions will be funded directly or indirectly by the drug companies. Does anyone really imagine that they would be happy to agree to the publication of such negative research (so far as the drug companies would be concerned)?

Refereed journals are not a level playing field by any evaluation. To be fairer the referees should not know who submitted an article, nor the institution they came from. A sort of double-blind test. It still would not be fair, but at least fairer than the present system. The old-boy network still reigns supreme.

Hello, Bryan.  I've a strong and very personal interest in this issue, as there is no doubt in my mind that my son's schizophrenia was caused by a DPT vaccine - but I'll spare you the details now.

I have written on the subject on News Target, Dissecting a Thimerosal Study (http://www.newstarget.com/022237.html), showing how the latest study that "proves" thimerosal is harmless is utter nonsense, and I'd like to follow up with more about the study you cite.  Can you provide any more info about it?  It sounds good, but there isn't enough in your commentary for me to document it thoroughly.

If you could contact me at heidi@ourgaia.com, I'd appreciate it.

"(a) they are the victims of the great BIG PHARMA CONSPIRACY."

That is what I call 'appeal to incredulity'.

That is usually the reason http://www.whale.to/b/hoax.html

Longest running conspiracy I have found.

"or (b) they are not trained scientists and the study is flawed "

Doubtful.  Plenty of scientific evidence http://www.generationrescue.org/studies.html http://www.whale.to/vaccines/vax_autism_q.html

Real people study http://www.whale.to/vaccine/olmsted_h.html

Plus the thousands of victim evidence http://www.whale.to/vaccine/mmr5.html

and all the studies offered to 'prove' safety are fradulent or chosen to conceal the truth http://www.whale.to/vaccine/mmr54.html

Generation Rescue - June 26, 2007 Autism Higher in Vaccinated Boys http://www.generationrescue.org/survey.html

Whale, you are pikcing and choosing evidence to support your firmly held, dogmatic and unchangable beleif.  You ignore any and all evidence that vaccines are effective or safe (or acuse the evidence of being part of a great conspiracy to use vaccines to exterminate people/insert chips into their bodies)

We have to look at all the evidence when assessing whether a drug is safe or effective.  if we leave any evidence out, then we risk either causing harm, unecessarily or denying benefit unecessarily.  You approach of simply beleiving first and foremost that all "conventional medicine is wrong and here are the quotes to prove it", which refusing to acknowledge or accept any of vast body of evidence that medicines are effective is where you divert from rational thought.

The generation rescue study is just one piece of evidence in a much larger body or work, a cold, independant appraisal of which demonstrates that there is no link between MMR and autism.  But of course, this study should not be ignored and should be appraised critically in the same way as any other study should be.

If anyone beleives there is an inherent bias against the publication of negative data, it should be remembered that Wakefield had his original case series study published in a medical journal depsite serious conflicts or interest, major breaches of ethical standards (removing tissue samples with no clinical reason to and no ethical approval or permission to do so) and yet this was a study which was providing data against a drug (MMR).  Hard to imagine how that would have slipped through if a great pharma conspiracy to control all publication really is at work.

I can fully understand the sceptism of trained scientists in accepting research like this but should they not also be equally scathing of research that is scientifically more robust but politically/commercially more contaminated? They can put some of that mighty brain power into being a bit more cynical about the objectives of the research in the first place - on both sides of the debate.

Afterall Nazi scientists discovered a direct link between smoking and cancer over six decades ago yet the smoking ban in England was err ...this year!

It could take a generation before the conclusive evidence is out there and we make changes to protecting our children's health. A good start would be a more open minded and independent scientific community. Anyone know how we start that one?

"Wakefield had his original case series study published in a medical journal depsite serious conflicts or interest, major breaches of ethical standards (removing tissue samples with no clinical reason to and no ethical approval or permission to do so) and yet this was a study which was providing data against a drug (MMR).  Hard to imagine how that would have slipped through if a great pharma conspiracy to control all publication really is at work."

If there wasn't a conspiracy Wakefield would be up for a Prize for services to children, not up afore a kangaroo court bent on pulling his licence and sending out a warning to other potential whistleblowers.

Luckily we have Martin Walker's spotlight exposing the whole sordid laughable pathetic and criminal charade of medical politics, just the latest in the 200 year Allopathic crime againts humanity http://www.whale.to/v/gmc_wakefield.html

where you can read each lie against Wakefield exposed one by one

I log just a few earlier attempts http://www.whale.to/a/persecuted_doc_h.html

Which includes trying Hadwen for manslaughter to shut him up, plus numerous murders and attempted murders http://www.whale.to/b/assassinations_q.html#Medical_

on top of killing 25,000 infants every year in just the UK with smallpox vaccination around 1880, 6,000 in 1921 http://www.whale.to/a/deathssmallpox.html

and very convenient early deaths of numerous people like Dr Willner, an AIDS whistleblower.

"Whale, you are pikcing and choosing evidence to support your firmly held, dogmatic and unchangable beleif. "

I think anyone can see overwhelming evidence against measles vaccine http://www.whale.to/vaccines/measles.html

I do encourage anyone such as yourself to offer some sort of reply but you just jumped to Africa and some set of dubious stats from vaccine promoters such as WHO who have been well fingered as running a genocidal drug programme, no doubt part of Kissingers well proven objective of depopulation http://www.whale.to/v/biowarfare.html

which is just a distraction, anyway, from the killer stat of 99.4% decline in measles deaths before vaccination

plus the killer proof that Vitamin c cures measles

plus the obvious MMR death stats, all 3 facts (not dogma) expose MMR

and that is even before we get onto MMR autism.  

So, no matter how much you waffle about dogma, anyone can see, who wants to see, the obvious facts about MMR as well as vaccine autism.

I think I am being pretty polite considering the facts of the situation going back 200 years.  Bryan lobbed a side swipe at me for using the words pharma shill exposing his complete lack of knowledge on medical politics.  Ignorance has its uses, I guess.

" Afterall Nazi scientists discovered a direct link between smoking and cancer over six decades ago yet the smoking ban in England was err ...this year!"

There must be some other agenda on the smoking front, I did read somewhere smoking intefers with implants, whcih is the more likely reason, given all the other well proven attempts to kill us all off http://www.whale.to/b/covert_q.html

you would have to be well naive to think they give a rat's ass about our health, they just killed 1 million Iraqis, after they killed 500,000 of their kids through sanctions http://www.whale.to/b/sanctions_kill_500000.html

then chucked 200 tons of depelted radiation on them just in Bagdhad http://www.whale.to/b/depleted_uranium.html

All those warning words on the packets are hypnotic commands they hope to get into your subconscious.

They imported 600 *** into the USA after the war, one headed up NASA, another the CIA and another, Mengele, probably headed up the MkUltra progarmme.  All of the Nazi psychiatrists who ran the death programme carried on after the war http://www.whale.to/b/nazi_allopathy.html along with IG Farben completely untouched.

cancer was cured years ago by numerous people such as Gerson and Kelly http://www.whale.to/a/cancer_c.html

yet they let a million or so die every year from that curable disease after sending them on their way a lot quicker with radiation and chemo.

"It could take a generation before the conclusive evidence is out there and we make changes to protecting our children's health. A good start would be a more open minded and independent scientific community. Anyone know how we start that one?"

There is conclusive 150 year old evidencehttp://www.whale.to/a/smallpox_hoax.html vaccination is a complete hoax and the main cause of death and disease in children.  Along with conclusive evidence bottlefeeding is unsafe.  Avoid those 2 and you wont have unhealthy kids, also avoid cell phone towers too.

Scientists are very skeptical of each other, very.  That's why before they can publish anything, it has to go through a process or being torn to pieces by other scientists (who normally work in the same field and have every reason to prevent competing research from being published).

The default setting in a scientist's mind is that any claim is rubbish unless it can stand up to continued and repetitive scrutiny.  If a new claim it appears, it will not be beleived blindly, it will have to demonstrate that it is real over and over and over again before it is accepted.  

Most scientific claims fail this test and disappear into obscurity.  That's why scientce is such a tough job- its very hard to provide such good evidence and only the best labs can acheive it usually.

So skepticism is definitely not witheld solely for alternative practicioners.  Its is applied across the board.  The only reason why scientists appear so especially skeptical of alternative medicine is probably 1) most on this forum have only ever come across the scientific process when it applies to alternative health claims and simply don't have enough comtact with the daily nuts and bolts of science to realise they are skeptical of everything and 2) most alternative medicine claims have been tested, tested and tested again and still can't provide that key evidence (or often deny they even have to.

Read any decent scientif study and the are invariable divided into sections like introduction, results and discussion.  The discussion section always point out "what could be wrong with this study, what did we fail to do, what criticism will we face".  This normally exists because referees have presented those criticism, not blindly accepted the data.

A better understanding of basic scientific method would enlighten much view in this discusssion.  It has nothing specific against alternatives.  Its is a skeptical process per se, otherwise it is not science.

And lets not forget, very bad science does exist- and does get published.  That's why their is a hierarchy even within published scientific research.

When I read a study, even if it is in a reputable scientific journal, I am immediately skeptical of it as all good scientists have to be.  There is an awful lots of nonsense out there and only the very best evidence is at all convincing.

That's not easy to do.  In fact, it is very hard to do.  As we often say nature does not give up her secrets easily.  Its takes clever experiment, repeated over and over via many different methods, preferable by diverse research groups with varied geographical locations and funding sources before good scientists will say "fair enough, that claim is more than likely true"

Contrast this with much of the evidence presented here, which laregly amounts to "I read in this book by someone with a PhD who says that he has a cure for XYZ, so I beleive him"

I'm all for skepticism. Professionally I would be a dead duck without it.  I promote it, endorse it and support it.  That extends to drug companies, my fellow researchers (in neuroscience), alternative health practicioners, absolutely everyone.  

"I read in this book by someone with a PhD who says that he has a cure for XYZ, so I beleive him"

Oh really.   I don't believe you so why should I believe anyone else? Try and digest that bit of logic, although it might blow a few gaskets.

Reality check: You allopaths can't cure anything, yet your med gets used exclusively.  You are the leading cause of death in the first world.  While your well proven vaccine hoax is the leading cause of death and disablity in children today, and costs an arm and a leg along with all your other useless med like chemo, in fact we could cut 90% off the NHS budget if we chucked it all in the sea, and we would all live years longer, 4 times as long for cancer as Hardin Jones proved awhile back.

As to the unproven bull, just one Vitamin C cure for infections is well proven http://www.whale.to/w/vitamin_c.html

and anyone who isn't pharma brainwashed could see nutrients are real medicine not something made up out of coar tar, oil or whatever poison you make drugs up out of.

The trouble with your argument is the fact it is so easy to shred from numerous angles, your Pasteurian disease theory is just laughable, for one, and the well documented history of medicine another--try and meditate on these two phrases--'overwhelming evidence' and 'bleeding obvious'.

Eg the medical monopoly http://www.whale.to/a/allopathy_h.html

AIDS Conspiracy

Junk food conspiracy

The Vitamin C Conspiracy

The Cancer Conspiracy

The MMR Conspiracy http://www.whale.to/b/hoax.html

and then you look at the psychopaths running the world eg Iraq, and all their other rackets and you would have to be well naive to believe in your nonsense over medicine, which is run and owned by them, isn't it.  

"A solution to cancer would mean the termination of research programs, the obsolescence of skills, the end of dreams of personal glory, triumph over cancer would dry up contributions to self-perpetuating charities....It would mortally threaten the present clinical establishments by rendering obsolete the expensive surgical, radiological and chemotherapeutic treatments in which so much money, training and equipment is invested....The new therapy must be disbelieved, denied, discouraged and disallowed at all costs, regardless of actual testing results, and preferably without any testing at all." Robert Houston and Gary Null http://www.whale.to/c/null.html

Whale, honestly it seem like you and I and always going to disagree.  I don't beleive there is an AIDS conspiracy.  There is a vast abundance of evidence spanning nations and decades that vaccination works, (rather than places mechanical robot like decives in people).  

Its one conspiracy after another Whale.  And all mixed up with a political fear.  I will admit that I applaud your tenacity, but some of your aguments have as much evidence as a crock of gold atthe end of each rainbow, that the devil exists.  Just a point of view I am at odds with.

We're dominating these boards and not really getting anywhere at all to be fair.  All good recreational fun.  But its getting a bit, well, tired.

I think in the interests of progressing the debtate, we should simply agree to very much disagree.  I don't beleive in orgonite because there is only evidence against its effects.  Your wild claims about vacination are political, not scientific.  You present quote as evidence.  I could go on and on and on, but I think I already have.

You call me a troll, but I realise that perhaps that is what you are and I am just feeding one.  I came on this fourm because a someone close to me stopped taking a medicine that they really needed becuase they read Lynne McTaggart's book.  I am also a scientist, and I am trying to fairly present how science works, which is not really something found on this forum.

But I can see that you have not reached your opinions via reason, so no amount of my trying to reson with you will change that.  

Science does its best.  It has prevented countless deaths and if we imagine a world without it, we imagine a world with a much reduced lifespan.  Foreget hatred of commerce, governments, industry.  Science is a method.  It can be applied either very well or very badly and everywhere in between.  It can be manipulated by politics and it can exist independantly of politics, religion or social trends.

Its obvious you find great gratification from your point of view and the evidence you present appeals to you.  I just emplore you to extend critical thought to everyone, everything you beleive in, just as you would science.  Never be cynical, it is an irrational position.  But be skeptical of absolutely everything, including the books you read, the people you speak to, the evidence you see.  Embrace reason, do not fear it.  No government or drug compnay can own reason.

if you aint a troll and are a scientist, then you are a fantastic testament to medical brainwashing.  They say the academic ones are the easiest to hypnotise, and then you have the biggst groupthink on the planet.  The more I meet the academic intelligent the more I realise emotional intellgence is just or more important.

" I don't beleive there is an AIDS conspiracy"

" I don't beleive in orgonite"

Just (church) belief.  I know EXACTLY what you believe in as everyone in the Church of Allopathy believes EXACTLY the same stuff.  See Lindlay above.  

Shaw said what some see as cynicism is just accurate observation.  Your denial of the truth appears as cynicism.  

"Science does its best.  It has prevented countless deaths."

Once more.  Allopath medical science kills 780,000 every year in the USA http://www.whale.to/a/dean.html

Smallpox vaccine science---you can just see the 10 or so statistical examples http://www.whale.to/a/smallpox_stats_h.htm that disprove that.  Army, Navy etc, all just by themselves.

And if you used a non-disposable needle now you would be had up for malpractice, yet for over 100 years they cut unsterile pus into babies arms, 75% taken from the arms of smallpox victims, rest from calves bellies, using non sterile ivory points used on hundreds of people in many cases. http://www.whale.to/vaccines/lymph_h.html

I think the last example is the best to demonstrate your complete medical brainwashing.  

In 1993, a TV documentary covered this exact same issue re: vaccinations required by the law/school systems and [just like] "Mothers Against Drunk Drivers" these mothers (whose children had severe reactions to DPT shots: made deaf, blind and/or permanent neurological side-effects, on chronic medication the rest of their lives) united to do research and found out to their horror that the pharmaceutical industry "accepts" such 8,000 "casualties" annually from their vaccines - stating that the vast numbers of children protected means the mean-annual-average of 8,000 who are adversely affected is considered an "acceptable" risk statistic.  The mothers were able to directly like the "bad batches" of vaccine directly to the children affected and were astounded to also find out that not only did the pharmaceutical industry know of these "bad batches" they REFUSED TO RECALL THEM because the cost of doing so would cut too deeply into their profit structure.  So how is it that the car industry has to recall faulty autos but the pharmaceutical industry can blatently get away with bad batches of vaccine and not be hauled onto the lawsuit red carpet -- to really play havoc with their profit struturing?