Measles - what next?

re: Measles - what next?

Harradine — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 17:59:36 GMT

This is a very irresponsible piece of writing.

Surely you understand the difference between a virus, a bacteria and a pathogen?

One of the risks of measles in young infants in neurological damage- a risk far, far greater than vaccination.

If you want to spread measles and damage child health, this would be a good article to write.

re: Measles - what next?

Lemurtail — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 15:15:19 GMT

Unfortunately even vaccination may NOT protect against measles. I was vaccinated against measles, rubella, whooping cough and tetanus. I subsequently caught measles and whooping cough, the latter being so severe I was left with a tendency to asthma and bronchitis which I had not suffered from before. I also caught rubella, in spite of a booster. As an adult I suffered a reaction to a tetanus booster and had a paralysed left arm for 6 months. I don't trust vaccines, full stop!

Incidentally none of my children were vaccinated after my 1st child's reaction to the MMR. Also she had been in perfect health prior to then but, in the days following the jab, developed asthma which she has to this day. None of my 3 kids caught anything worse than german measles (even the child who was vaccinated against it) - and then it was a simple matter of just ensuring they were kept well away from vulnerable people. The GP only diagnosed imy son's as rubella once I told him he hadn't been vaccinated - it makes me wonder how many vaccinated kids are still getting these conditions but whose medical records only show "mystery virus". Hmm?

re: Measles - what next?

dar — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 20:38:24 GMT

Follow the Money...the enforced jabs [armed militia were flanking the parent&child lineups] in Maryland a few months ago metted the Board of Education approx $12,500/kid

re: Measles - what next?

styrofoam — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 23:20:35 GMT

You stick to the cooking dear, you are deluded and dangerous!

Lemurtail, measles jab does not stop you getting measles, but prevents people dying of it and getting brain damge.

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 18:25:06 GMT

Chances of getting autism or some other debilatory condition are much higher than the chances of dying from measles. Measles kills one in ten thousand of those who contract it while autism from vaccinations affects one in one hundred sixty six.

re: Measles - what next?

Vegas — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 02:43:09 GMT

Richard - all you need is some evidence for that assertion and you will be away.

So, Annemarie PhD. Learnt a bit about cooking and can name a few nutrients and suddenly you know how to stop measles. Utterly amazing.

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 18:56:29 GMT

Vegas

pls. look here :

http://www.whale.to/v/measles_deaths.html

re: Measles - what next?

CoconutOilGuy — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 02:31:47 GMT

Hello. I believe that the risks of vaccination FAR outweigh the benefits, if any at all, it offers. For a more in depth look into the shocking world of vaccination, please visit http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/07/14/vaccine-nation.aspx?source=nl

Cheers,

Frederick

www.coconut-oil-central.com

Your Drugstore in a Bottle

re: Measles - what next?

harradine — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 11:46:10 GMT

"I believe that the risks of vaccination FAR outweigh the benefits"

Well, you're demonstrably wrong. The risks of vaccination are far outweighed by the risks of not vaccinating. History is not that long ago and measles actually causes serious brain infections in roughly 1000 times more children than vaccination does.

So, whatever you may choose to believe, reality is and was completely different. Vaccination has fallen and guess what, measles is coming back and kids are dying again from it. Well done.

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 05:30:56 GMT

One person has died from measles in the UK in the last ten years and how many from the MMR jab?

Hundreds? Plus the thousands of autistic kids that will cost the taxpayer billions over their lifetimes.

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 13:23:36 GMT

Except of course that MMR does not cause autism. After a decade of research, we can be pretty sure of that.

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 15:37:50 GMT

Andy if you look carefully at the published studies and ignore the PharmaCo spin, you will see that the Wakefield hypothesis has been substantiated numerous times, most recently by Hornig et al.

The various epidemiological studies are all severely flawed. Even the Cochrane review admits that safety studies of vaccines are unworthy, but the funders of Cochrane, the government health authorities backed by Pharma cash, spun the conclusions to favour vaccination.

re: Measles - what next?

Harradine — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 18:29:09 GMT

No, the published literature has never been able to replicate Wakefields sinlge case series, (it wasn't even an study, just a handful of cases and demonstrated no link). Plus he was since found to be on the pay roll of laws firms trying to access legal aid money to develop a case, which ubsequently was thrown out by the courts (nothing to do with pharma) for being of no grounds whatsoever.

You cite Hornig. Youy mean this study? The one that shows no association?

Hornig M, Briese T, Buie T, Bauman ML, Lauwers G, et al. (2008) Lack of Association between Measles Virus Vaccine and Autism with Enteropathy: A Case-Control Study. PLoS ONE 3(9): e3140. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0003140

This would be harmless if it weren't convincing people not to have their kids vaccinated. But your evidence is that pharma must be behind covering up this association that has been tested, tested and retested and never shown.

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 03:38:21 GMT

Basically Harradine the Hornig study confirmed the results of O'Leary's Dublin lab, which found measles virus in the guts of the original Wakefield subjects and also in subsequent studies by Uhlmann and others.

Previously Wakefields paper had been trashed by those who said the lab results were substandard, but if you accept the lab results from the Hornig paper then you have to accept the results from Wakefield and others who came to similar conclusions.

There is a good discussion here:

http://www.jabs.org.uk/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2943

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 19:28:29 GMT

Richard - Is it not one of the International Ruled of the Internet that quoting whale.to means you have lost the argument? And as for suggesting that a "good discussion" occurred on JABS is just unbelievable. A cursory glance at that site reveals nothing but foaming mouths.

Let us stick to the science rather than the mad-as-a-box-of-frogs notice boards.

You asked us to look at Hornig study. Can you confirm it is the one Harraldine has referenced? Is it the one that concluded, "This study provides strong evidence against association of autism with persistent MV RNA in the GI tract or MMR exposure."? How does this support your assertion that "the Wakefield hypothesis has been substantiated numerous times, most recently by Hornig et al."?

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 03:54:06 GMT

Andy

If you know how to read a paper, you know that the data is important, the conclusions are merely spin, they may or may not be supported by the data.

Don't judge a book by its cover. Look at the data and the arguements. that applies to whale.to and JABS as much as the Lancet and NEJM.

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 07:06:07 GMT

Well, Richard. Perhaps you would like to share with us your reasons for coming to the opposite conclusion to the authors from their own data? What has convinced you about the data that justifies a complete about face? Interested in what you think.

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 14:09:14 GMT

Andy

I urge you to read this cogent and perspicacious criticism of the Hornig paper by the noted autism parent Dr. John Stone on the BMJ website.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/337/oct01_3/a1856

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 16:11:08 GMT

If Mr Stone's response is so perspicacious, why not summarise his criticism here? I did ask you what you thought thought?

As far as I can see, Stone's response is totally specious and does not warrant a different conlcusion to the authors'. Stone appears to see agreement between laboratories as a problem. He also then makes a wierd point about two positive results but fails to say why this makes the paper's conclusions wrong. Finally, he grasps as straws by claiming the study legitimises Wakefield's initial research and then appears to claim that this means that Wakefield's current troubles with the GMC are therefore ungounded. But this is not why the GMC are investigating him. Utterly specious.

As a later commenter on the paper notes, "Further evidence of John Stone's stubborn refusal to objectively accept the science of the issue is his inexplicable interpretation of the recent study by Hornig, et. al., which contradicts Wakefield in every way. "

Stone is incoherent, not cogent. Richard, would you care to clarify your beliefs in your own words? Why, as you have asserted, does the Hornig paper substantiate the Wakefield hypothesis?

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 20:04:09 GMT

Two points.

1)Hornig only tested 5 patients who developed regressive autism after MMR vaccination and one had evidence of measles virus RNA in his biospy.That is much too small a sample to draw any statistical conclusions from.

2) the Uhllman study 2002 found 75 of 91 subjects with regressive autism after MMR had measles RNA in their biopsies. The criticism of this study was that the samples were tested at O'Leary's lab in Dublin and supposedly the lab procedures there were substandard and the results could not be trusted.

The Hornig study sent blinded test samples to O'Leary's lab and found that the results were perfect and in accordance with other labs. This vindicates Uhlmann's 2002 paper results, and ultimately Wakefield's hypothesis.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=11950955

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 21:42:12 GMT

So, Richard. Let me get this straight before we go any further. You claim that "the Wakefield hypothesis has been substantiated numerous times, most recently by Hornig" and then you tell me that the Hornig study was of "too small a sample to draw any statistical conclusions from". How do you square your two statements?

Do you also not think that in six years, the O'Leary lab may well have improved its performance in light of the extensive criticism?

The thing you are missing is evidence that MMR causes autism. Want another shot?

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 04:00:56 GMT

The part of the Hornig study that substantiates Wakefield is where they rigorously test the laboratories that they send the samples to, and give a clean bill of health to the O'Leary lab, thus exonerating the Uhlmann 2002 paper which was a follow up to Wakefield 1998.

The small sample size of 5 patients who developed regressive autism after MMR is much too small to justify the claim of the paper that no link could be found between MMR and autism. The correct claim would be that there is no evidence either way from this study.

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 11:11:17 GMT

Thank you Richard for making your position clearer, although it now appears to contradict what you aid earlier. To repeat, you claimed that the "the Wakefield hypothesis has been substantiated numerous times, most recently by Hornig". You do not appear to be making that claim now as you are not saying the Hornig result is evidence of the Wakefield hypothesis. What you appear to be saying is that the originally heavily criticised lab is now exonerated as it it now gives consistent results. But this ignores two vital points. The consistent results now refute the measles-MMR hypothesis and that it is extremely likely that the lab improved its results after a six year gap during which it was heavily criticised. You appear to simply just wish that this proves the lab's original results were good. Do you not see the problem here? The original lab results were conclusively shown to be thoroughly flawed and unreliable. It looks like they have cleaned up their act.

You then claim that the small number (5) of patients who developed regressive autism is much too small to be significant. Well, if the Hornig study had replicated the results of the earlier Uhlmann paper, that number would be much higher. The fact that it was not and that the difference is statistically significantly is strong evidence to reject the MMR-MV hypothesis. There was no evidence of a correlation between onset of autism and mmr timing. That is a very strong result of the paper - not a weakness. Now admitedly the study size is small, but is four times larger than the original Wakefield study and was much tighter in blindings and methodology. Crucially, there was enough statistical significance to come to a firm conclusion.

Of course, the Uhlmann paper was criticised for many other shortcomings. All in all the Wakefield hypothesis is in tatters. But that it science. Wakefield was right to raise the question. The people in the wrong are those who, despite the evidence now, refuse to let it go and so continue to endanger children.

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 13:52:30 GMT

Taken as a whole, the Hornig paper

1) does not support the purported conclusion that there is no association between MMR and regressive autism. The original Wakefield hypothesis was that there was an association between MMR vaccination, gut disease and regressive autism in some patients ie. the ones Wakefield originally studied.

The hypothesis was never that all autism is caused by MMR vaccination.

In order to study such a hypothesis it would be necessary to study a group of patients who had regressive autism after MMR vaccination. To be reliable this group would have to be around 60 patients, and there would have to be an adequately matched control group of the same size.This was not done

2) The work done by O'Leary's lab has now been exonerated, which also exonerates

Wakefields original 1998 paper and Uhlmann's 2002 paper.

Putting the two results together, no proof that MMR is not linked to Autism, and

previous papers lab work must be taken as good, then the only conclusion is that the Wakefield hypothesis has been confirmed.

There can be no other conclusion

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 15:17:15 GMT

Richard. That is a remarkable contorting of facts and logic to come to your conclusion.

Let's look at your assertions. In the first one you claim that the Hornig paper "does not support the purported conclusion that there is no association between MMR and regressive autism." But that is asking the paper to prove a negative. I cannot logically and absolutely prove that there is no elephant in my garage. But I can provide very good evidence that there is not one there. The Hornig paper cannot prove there is absolutely no link, but it is very good evidence that there is no link. It most definitely does not provide a "substantiation" as you originally claimed (but now appear to back away from). Being unable to absolutely not prove a negative is most definitely not support of the alternative positive conclusion. Do you understand this? In order to prove the Wakefield hypothesis you will need some good positive evidence (like a photo of an elephant in my garage. Where is this evidence?)

Your suggestion for a trial shows that you probably do not understand what the Hornig study did. They made no assumptions about whether autism followed MMR but looked to see if there was a correlation. They found none. What would you sugest the match controls were like? What hypothesis are you trying to answer in your proposed study? My guess is that it is different to the Hornig/Wakefield hypothesis.

Your second assertion that "The work done by O'Leary's lab has now been exonerated" is simply not true - as I have pointed out to you? Did you not read what I said? All we can now is that the O'Leary's lab provided consistent results in the Hornig trial which showed no correlation between MMR, autism and MV. In an ealier trial, the lab had been demonstrated to produce clearly substandard work. The most obvious explanation is that they have cleaned up their act. To claim that this supports the earlier Uhlmann paper is just perverse!

You say that "There can be no other conclusion". Well, there quite clearly can be. The consensus based on a decade of evidence now is that the measles/autism hypothesis is wrong. The only interesting question left is why some people like you, Richard, cling so desperately to it.

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:19:00 GMT

The original Wakefield study were children whose regressive autism followed MMR vaccination. That is what should be tested. The Hornig study did not test this. The Hornig study claims to show a lack of association but they tested the wrong hypothesis.It is very simple.

The Hornig study explicitly exonerates O'leary's lab work in the text of the paper.

"Our results differ with reports noting MV RNA in ileal biopsies of 75% of ASD vs. 6% of control children [10], [41]. Discrepancies are unlikely to represent differences in experimental technique because similar primer and probe sequences, cycling conditions and instruments were employed in this and earlier reports; furthermore, one of the three laboratories participating in this study performed the assays described in earlier reports. Other factors to consider include differences in patient age, sex, origin (Europe vs. North America), GI disease, recency of MMR vaccine administration at time of biopsy, and methods for confirming neuropsychiatric status in cases and controls." [1]

As Yazbak says:

"Because this CDC–sponsored study proved that:

“Results were consistent across the three laboratory sites.”

In other words: That Dr. John J. O’Leary’s Histopathology Laboratory at Trinity

College Dublin consistently returned findings that were identical to those of the

highly specialized laboratories at Columbia University and the certainly highly

motivated facility of the Measles, Mumps, Rubella, and Herpesvirus Laboratory

Branch of the CDC in Atlanta, Georgia."

The recent study in fact supports Andrew Wakefield’s findings."

http://www.jabs.org.uk/pages/yazbak%20on%20cdc%20study.pdf

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 18:34:11 GMT

I am not sure how you can assert that Hornig tested the wrong hypothesis since it was the same one put forward by Wakefield and tested in the original paper. In order to test this it is not necessary to have only children whose regressive autism followed MMR vaccination. One can look at corelations and differences between children whose autism symptoms started at varying times. This is what Hornig did and found no association.

Yazbak starts off on a bad track by trying to associate the Hornig study with some sort of conspitacy involving the CDC. As you must well know, Hornig has been the darling of the anti-vax movement with research on autism. Hornig produces a negative result and the wolves turn on her. It really is shameful.

As for the O'Leary lab results, you will be no doubt aware that the lab originally produced no evidence of satisfactory control samples to demonstrate procedures in the lab were sufficient to produce good results. In the Hornig study proper, blinded control samples were forced on all three laboratories - and voila - the postive association dissapears for the O'Leary lab. The case is remeniscent of when proper controls were forced on the Benveniste experiments with homeopathy. Proper blinding - proper controls - no effect.

How do you rule out that better procedures are not responsible for the lab giving a negative result where once they were positive? How do you explain their now negative findings?

You really are barking up the wrong tree if you believe that the Hornig paper proves Wakefields hypothesis and as you originally said "the Wakefield hypothesis has been substantiated numerous times, most recently by Hornig". It just simply is not true, no matter how much you wriggle. Where are these other 'numerous' examples? Are they any better?

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 19:15:36 GMT

If parents are observing that their children developed regressive autism after receiving MMR vaccination, why would you choose to study children who developed regressive autism before MMR vaccination?

The observed fact that autism can develop without MMR vaccination does not rule out the hypothesis that MMR can cause regressive autism.

It was a mistake by the O'Leary lab not to produce control samples in the original study, but when they did do so, their results were the same as the other labs tested.

As for procedures changing at the O'Leary lab, the Hornig paper says -and I have already quoted this passage above..

"Discrepancies are unlikely to represent differences in experimental technique because similar primer and probe sequences, cycling conditions and instruments were employed in this and earlier reports;"

On other words, lab procedures were exactly the same. Exactly.

The results of Uhlmann and Wakefield stand.

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 20:04:43 GMT

Richard, parents observe their children developed regressive autism after receiving MMR vaccination but that does not mean that MMR causes autism. Equally most autism symptoms appear after parents have given their children their first teddy bears. But stuffed toys do not cause autism. In order to see if MMR has anything to do with autism it is necessary to look at differences between emergence of symptoms, timings of MMR and presence of MV etc. Hornig concluded there was no correlation.

Yes, it was a big mistake to miss out controls. And when they put controls in, their huge correlation disappeared and was consistent with other labs. What does this suggest? Big mistakes, contamination, poor procedure first time around? The big question you have failed to address is why the hornig results are negative. Why when the O'leary labs conducted controlled tests did the results disappear? You appear to be ignoring this elephant in the room (or garage).

You mistake lab procedures for experimental techniques. The techniques were the same (because Hornig wanted to replicate Uhlmann) but obviously the procedures (including the use of appropriate controls) were very different.

To conclude that the "results of Uhlmann and Wakefield stand" can only be justified if you can explain why the new results (with proper controls) are invalid and so different from the Uhlmann results. You are failing terribly to do so.

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 21:02:41 GMT

They are not invalid, only insufficient. Five subjects are not enough to get any kind of proper statistics. It is ludicrous!

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 21:10:15 GMT

There were not five subjects. That is a misrepresentation. But there were 5 that fit within particular group that you have arbitrarily targeted. The overall results were statistically significant, as described in the paper. However, you twist it, the paper is not a support of the Wakefield hypothesis. Why will you not address this central point? Are you afraid of admitting you were wrong?

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 03:49:07 GMT

Let us suppose only 10% of children with regressive autism got it from the MMR vaccination. That would still be tens of thousands of children.

If you select a population of children with regressive autism to test you have no chance of finding MV RNA in the guts of those who did not have the MMR vaccination.

You can either choose a very large population and hope you have enough of that subset who acquired autism from the MMR, or you can deliberately choose that subset.

Obviously you need more than five subjects in your study for it to have any validity.

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 04:14:26 GMT

Richard - you really need to get over the "five subjects in your study" because it is not true. But I can see where you are going. As the evidence base is so weak for the MMR-autism hypothesis you can cling to it by claiming that only fewer and fewer cases are caused by it. No matter how good the evidence against the link, you could continue to claim a smaller effect. Its a sort of 'god of the gaps' argument for the belief in god.

The upshot of this sort of argument is that you do not have any evidence yourself, but continue to retreat into smaller areas of scientific ignorance. It is a rather different stance than the one you were taking a shrt while ago where "the Wakefield hypothesis has been substantiated numerous times, most recently by Hornig".

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 14:48:33 GMT

The Hornig paper does not disprove the Wakefield hypothesis, its very structure makes that impossible. The portion of the Wakefield paper that exonerates the O'Leary lab ipso facto supports the Wakefield hypothesis.

The only way you can try to invalidate it is to mis-state it. If you go back to the original 1998 paper in the Lancet, Wakefield wrote:

"Onset of behavioral symptoms was associated, by the parents, with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination in eight of the 12 children, with measles infection in one child, and otitis media in another".

So obviously the hypothesis requires that MMR predate the onset of regressive autism, and those are the subjects that need to be tested for MV RNA in their guts.

As for other papers there are several:

Kawashima H., Takayuki M., Kashiwagi Y., Takekuma K., Hoshika A., Wakefield AJ. Detection and sequencing of measles virus from peripheral blood mononuclear cells from patients with inflammatory bowel disease and autism. Digestive Diseases and Sciences. 2000;45:723-729

Uhlmann V., Martin C, Shiels, Wakefield AJ, O.Leary JJ. Possible viral pathogenesis of a novel paediatric inflammatory bowel disease. Molecular Pathology 2002;55:84-90

Bradstreet JJ., El Dahr J., Anthony A., Kartzinel J., Wakefield AJ, Detection of Measles Virus Genomic RNA in Cerebrospinal Fluid of Children with Regressive Autism: a Report of Three Cases Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. 2004.9:39-45

O'Leary JJ, Uhlmann V, Wakefield AJ. Measles virus and autism. Lancet. 2000;356:772 (letter)

Stott C., Blaxill M., Wakefield AJ. MMR and Autism in Perspective: the Denmark Story. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 2004;9:89-91

Wakefield AJ, Stott CM, Limb K. Gastrointestinal Comorbidity in Children with Autistic Spectrum Disorder and Re-Exposure to Measles-Containing Vaccines. Medical Veritas. 2006(3)796-802.

Ashwood P, Anthony A, Torrente F, Wakefield AJ., Spontaneous mucosal lymphocyte cytokine profiles in children with regressive autism and gastrointestinal symptoms: Mucosal immune activation and reduced counter regulatory interleukin-10. Journal of Clinical Immunology. 2004:24:664-673

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 19:05:56 GMT

Richard - I am beginning to think you are playing games now. Let's replay the thread:

A - MMR does not cause autism.

R - Yes it does. The Wakefield hypothesis has been substantiated numerous times, most recently by Hornig et al.

A - Not it has not. Hornig comes to the opposite conclusion that there is no evidence

R- look closer at the data!

A - I have. There is no association.

R- But the O'Leary lab gave good results in Hornig. Therefore, its earlier work must have been OK.

A - No it does not mean that. O'Leary was running no controls. Now they are, the results are negative and consistent with other labs

R - But Hornig did not have enough children.

A - I thought you said that it agreed with earlier studies. Now it cannot agree because it is underpowered!???

R - But Hornig was measuring the wrong things.

A - It was you who said it confirmed the Wakefield hypothesis. Have you changed your mind? Of course it was testing the same hypothesis.

R - But a different experiment needs to be done.

A - Why? The current experiments test the Wakefield hypothesis quite well.

R - But look at all these other studies!

A - But the new studies you have introduced do not test the original Wakefield hypothesis. One is by an exorcist. One is a letter. One looks at autoimmune hypothesis. yada yada yada.

What you are doing RIchard is shifting the goal posts at every turn. You fail to acknowledge your basic mistakes and pretend the criticisms do not exist.

For example, you have completely failed to answer the big obvious question of why the O'Leary lab now does not support the MMR-autism link now that (we both) agree its methods and procedures are much better. Why will you not answer this? I think we know...

Richard - your problem is that you are a True Believer - you know the answer - and no amount of evidence or logic will ever convince you otherwise. This would be funny, but when people like the cook who wrote this blog think reduced vaccination rates are a good thing, then we are messing with kids lives. Its pretty serious and I suggest you have a long hard think about it all.

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 23:48:29 GMT

The response from Thoughtful House :

In the study published yesterday, conducted by three independent laboratories, only 5 of the 25 children developed these symptoms after the MMR vaccine and therefore, only these five are comparable to the 2002 study. This new study confirmed that results from the laboratory of Professor John O’Leary (one of the collaborators on the new study, and senior author of the 2002 study) were correct, and identical to the results obtained by the laboratories of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Dr. Ian Lipkin of Columbia University.

In that this new study affirms the reliability of Professor O’Leary’s laboratory and therefore of his previous findings, a major impact upon the current hearings in vaccine court is likely, wherein the government’s defense relies largely on the claim that Professor O’Leary’s finding of measles in the intestinal biopsy of Michelle Cedillo (a child with severe autism and epilepsy) was unreliable. The historical reliability of the measles assay used in Professor O’Leary’s laboratory is now confirmed.

The authors of the PLOS1 study make the erroneous claim that epidemiological studies have not supported an MMR-autism link, when in fact the CDC’s own study published in 2004 shows a significant association between autism and younger age at the time of MMR vaccination.

http://www.ageofautism.com/2008/09/autism-research.html

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 08:00:11 GMT

Ah yes. Thoughtful House. Executive Director Dr Andrew Wakefield. Give me a break.

The silliness of these objections is exactly the same no matter who is uttering them.

Will you answer the golden question? Why the O'Leary lab now does not support the MMR-autism link now that its methods and procedures are much better and consistent with other labs?

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 13:59:16 GMT

There is no evidence that the O'leary lab has changed its procedures, for better or for worse.

I don't believe O"Leary has an official position on the MMR autism link, but he does stand behind the results of his lab.

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 16:19:32 GMT

Richard - you have still failed to answer the question. But first, it is just not true that the O'Learly lab had not changed its procedures. Part of the Hornig protocol was to force blinded controls on all three labs. This had not happened in the previous study. This forced the O'Leary lab to ensure that its results were up to scratch. Their results agreed with the other two labs and the data showed no correlations between MMR, timings of immunisation and autism and GI problems. When the lab made no controls, the results showed a huge positive correlations. Will you admit you have got this bit wrong?

So Richard, for the umpteenth time. If you are so confident in all the results that came of the O'Leary lab, why did the Hornig stidy fail to replicate the earlier study?

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 16:53:30 GMT

No, there is no evidence it is just you saying it must be so.

I keep telling you, not a big enough population. Rule of thumb for this type of clinical study. You need about 60 subjects in each group, experimental and control.

The original Wakefield study examined children who had suffered regressive autism AFTER mmr vaccination. For a valid study you need sixty children who have been vaccinated for MMR and developed regressive autism AFTER vaccination.

re: Measles - what next?

Harradine — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 18:00:28 GMT

Where did you get the 60 number from? I would say that is far too small a number.

Wakefield didn't have 60. Not was it a trial. It was a small case series. It generated a hypothesis, which is fine, but which has subsequently been tested and not stood up.

So the hypothesis doesn't appear to be correct. But lots of people believe it and so they would if they had kids and didn't want to risk it. Doesn't make it true though.

What's the difference between "children who had suffered regressive autism AFTER mmr vaccination" and "children who have been been vaccinated for MMR and developed regressive autism AFTER vaccination"?

Unless you mean that the study should be prospective rather than retrospective, which I agree with, but is not what you have said. You are describing purely retrospective study methods which, although a step up from a case series (provided you have more cases) are more valuable, but not at all like prospective studies.

You sounds a bit muddled. Ok, from scratch. Describe your IDEAL study methodology to test the hypothesis that mmr vaccination can lead to regressive autism.

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 19:50:55 GMT

For medical studies where you are looking for internal validity you need 50-100 subjects. I said 60, I should have said between 50 and 100. If it was an epidemiological study then you would want thousands.

There is no difference. That was my point

You need to recruit 50-100 children with autism who developed if after MMR vaccination. Then you need to find an equal number of controls without autism matched for age, sex,etc.

Then you need to do biopspies on both groups and examine for MV RNA at a reputable lab like O'leary's.

This exactly what was done in Uhlmann's 2002 study.

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 20:28:09 GMT

Richard, I have a feeling you do not understand statistics. Yes, most of the time, you do need large (50+) numbers of subjects. This is because you are looking for often small effects and so you need large statistical powers. But when you are trying to replicate a huge effect (and Ullmann's results were huge) lower statistical power is adequate. The number of subjects in the Hornig trial was sufficient to duplicate the earlier work. And they failed to duplicate the huge effect found by Ullmann. Indeed, they found no hint of a correlation.

O'Leary's lab was found to have done substandard analyses with no controls. When that was corrected, the huge difference disapeared.

And I note, yet again, you have failed to answer the golden question. You keep saying the O'Leary labs results were vindicated. So, why the big difference. Why do you cling to the earlier results which were flawed and poorly controlled and yet dismiss the latter, better controlled results? The answer is not in the statistics. If it is - then actually show the maths rather than just waive your hands around.

Why will you not answer the question?

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 20:35:40 GMT

I reject your characterization of the results from O'leary's lab used to denigrate the Uhlmann study.

I am not an expert, I do not claim to be one, but even I can see the difference between a sample size of 5 and of 50.

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 20:38:23 GMT

Andy

Do you have any evidence to show that the O"Leary lab had changed its procedures between the Uhlmann study and the Hornig study? Does John O'Leary say they have changed theirmethods?

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 22:29:27 GMT

Well, there are a number sources. The court papers here where Dr Bustin was an expert witness gives a very interesting account of the failures of Uhlmann in describing their controls.

ftp://autism.uscfc.uscourts.gov/autism/transcripts/day08.pdf (pp1940)

You can find a layman's discussion on this Austism blog...

http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=566

But more importantly, the Uhlmann and Hornig papers themselves are the main sources of evidence that the O'Leary lab was forced to undertake controls before analysis and all the samples were blinded so that they could not 'misnterpret' them. This was not done with Ullmann.

I guess you have read the papers?

Now. Are you going to answer the question? If the O'Leary results are so good, why did the Hornig paper not confirm the Ullmann paper? You know I am going to keep asking to see how mny times you try to duck.

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 22:35:01 GMT

Oh and Richard. The number 5 is a result not sample size. Do we have to spell it out to you?

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 22:43:20 GMT

No its not a result. It is a subset of the larger sample. it is a subset which most closely resembles the composition of the original Wakefield and Uhlmann studies.

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 22:58:38 GMT

Thank you Andy

I wonder how much Bustin got paid for his 1500 hours of work to discredit the autism MMR hypothesis?

I realize it was an error for O"Leary not to use controls in his original work. If the lab SOP stayed the same, then the controls were effectively done at the time of the Hornig analysis, which retroactively corroborates Uhlmann. If Hornig et al felt that lab procedures were the difference between their results and Uhlmann, why do they not mention it in their discussion?

re: Measles - what next?

Brandon — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 23:32:29 GMT

Richard,

Don't get upset with Andy and Harradine. It is pathological. They cannot help it. They are well know for their attempts to discredit anybody here who challenges the establishment.

You are a great logical thinker. Use that to analyse Andy's and Harradine's posts here and you will see what I mean.

They are "the professional spin doctors".

re: Measles - what next?

harradine — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 23:49:18 GMT

I disagree.

The IDEAL design to determine whether MMR can cause regressive autism in children takes many more children than 60, 100 or even 1000 children.

IDEALLY. One would need a , you guessed it, large scale double blind placebo controlled trial (DBPCT). Why was this not obvious Richard? It is SO obvious.

However, since it is so well established that vaccination prevents childhood illness, it is not ethical to have a placebo group. i.e. an vaccinated group. Although, these days, since so many parents are willing to go for that, perhaps they are willing to let their children be used in the placebo group.

OK. so we have a group of parents who are not willing to have their kids vaccinated- call them controls. And a group of kids who are vaccinated. Even then, this is not true and fair since either group tends to be different in other ways. It gets messy. Its impossible to do. So we use population based studies (DBPCTs can't be done ethically).

Prospective ones can though. Richard. Do you know what prospective means, in this context?

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 23:58:38 GMT

Hi there Brandon. I think Richard may need some more help with his logical thinking.

The '5' was a result - read the paper -

"Ileal and cecal tissues from 25 children with autism and GI disturbances and 13 children with GI disturbances alone (controls) were evaluated by real-time reverse transcription (RT)-PCR for presence of MV RNA in three laboratories blinded to diagnosis, including one wherein the original findings suggesting a link between MV and ASD were reported. The temporal order of onset of GI episodes and autism relative to timing of MMR administration was examined. We found no differences between case and control groups in the presence of MV RNA in ileum and cecum. Results were consistent across the three laboratory sites. GI symptom and autism onset were unrelated to MMR timing. "

No spin there. Sorry to disappoint you Brandon.

Bustin as one of the worlds foremost experts on PCR. You appear to be accusing him of being corrupted by being paid for his testimony? Do you have any evidence for that or is that just your spin? Do have any reason to doubt his testimony? Any arguments to suggest that he is wrong and deliberately misrpresenting the Ullman work? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. You are really scaping the barrell here. That is pretty disgraceful in my book. Are you in the slightest bit ashamed about how low you are prepared to go in order to persist in your beliefs?

Now. moving on, will Richard answer the question? If the O'Leary results are so good, why did the Hornig paper not confirm the Ullmann paper?

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 01:39:58 GMT

Bustin is certainly an expert but I fear he may not be impartial.

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

The experimental design in the Horniq paper was poor so it would be impossible for it to confirm or deny the Wakefield hypothesis, but the remarksks on the lab procedure confirm Uhlmann.

re: Measles - what next?

harradine — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 11:15:15 GMT

If I am a professional spin doctor will someone please pay me! But ad hominem noted Brandon.

Richard you are talking about a very small scale retrospective observational study as your idea of the IDEAL method to determine whether or not mmr leads to regressive childhood autism. This is a weak method or study. Its no wonder you get confused about medical evidence if you put so much faith in its weaker experimental designes

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 11:39:28 GMT

Richard "I fear [Bustin] may not be impartial."

If you have any evidence for that you might be onto something. That JABS wishes to smear him by implication is typical of their work. No evidencve though.

There are so many people into the anti-vax and alt med movement who just prefer cheap smears and attacks rather than discussion. Just look at how Brandon waded in here and accused me aof being a spin doctor - but failed to back this up with any evidence. In this discussion, where have I spun anything?

So, sticking to denate. Richard - can you be precise about which aspect of the Hornig experimental design was so poor. If you wish to invoke statistical power, can you spell out exaclty why it was underpowered.

I would like to know too why you have so much faith in the Ullmann paper when you yourself have know acknowledged that the lack of controls was an "error". It is not just an error, it is fundamental flaw which renders the paper worthless. It is basic science to have adequate controls (no matter what sort of experiment) and to report these faithfully.

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 11:39:53 GMT

That was "debate" not "denate" obviously.

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 14:04:38 GMT

Andy, I think you understand my argument perfectly, you just won't accept it.

You have not presented any evidence that O'leary changed his lab procedures and you have not presented any evidence that Bustin was impartial. His investigations into the Unigenetics lab were paid for by the Pharma companies that were opposing the UK MMR litigation.

Harradine if you want to show causality, and not just association you have to do the kind of clinical study I suggested. 60 subjects in each group would not be "very small" it would be more than adequate for that kind of study. Even then it would be expensive and Pharma would not fund it, so there needs to be some kind of independent funding agency to make sure that unconventional ideas are tested.

Bernardine Healy the former head of the CDC in the US said:

"The question has not been answered." It doesn't get much clearer than that. The question of whether vaccines can trigger autism in a susceptible subgroup has not been answered. Let's repeat for emphasis: The question has not been answered.

"One should never shy away from science. One should never shy away from getting causality information." Yet that is what is happening, she says.

"I think the government or certain public health officials within the government have been too quick to dismiss the concerns of these families without studying the population that got sick." Healy says we need to take 300 children whose parents say they regressed right after a vaccine and figure out what happened. This is the opposite of the nonsense that because autism and vaccination both occur in the first two years of life, it's just a coincidence. It's the opposite of slipshod epidemiology that "proves" there's no problem at the population level. We are not talking about populations, we're talking about people. We're not talking about a herd, we're talking about a child.

"I think public health officials have been too quick to dismiss the hypothesis (vaccines can trigger autism) as irrational without sufficient studies of causation." We need more science, in other words."

http://www.ageofautism.com/2008/09/olmsted-of-auti.html

re: Measles - what next?

andy — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 19:01:03 GMT

so, resorting to popular appeal now. It does not any better.

As for your ridiculous claim that I should provide evidence that Bustin is impartial -that is just ridiculous. He is a very respected scientist and it is up to you to substantiate your insulting claim that he has been corrupted. Pointing out where his testimony is blatantly wrong would be a start. And to claim that I have not proven that the procesures were not different between the two papers is just bizarre. You admit the lack of controls yourself. Are you just playing silly buggers now?

Richard. You started with an unsubstantiated assertion that the measles NMR link had been replicated. You have been proven wong and yet keep blustering. What us it about alt med types that they do not know when they have been soundly beaten. And when are you going to answer my question?

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 02:10:58 GMT

Andy

Sometimes you have to step back and try and look beyond one paper and see the totality of the evidence as it is and not as it is presented.

The MMR-autism link postulated by Wakefield was corroborated by Uhlmann who found MV RNA in 75 of 91 subjects. Unfortunately because O'Leary's lab neglected to do positive controls as part of their SOP, an expert paid by the Pharma companies that had every reason to want to discredit the lab, did not give the lab a passing grade. However if the data was contaminated why such a difference between the examined groups and the matched controls? The control group only had measles RNA in 5 of 60 patients. These results are simply not compatible with contamination.

The Hornig paper simply looked at the wrong population. The 5 children who suffered regressive autism after MMR were too small sample to give statistically meaningful results. The exemplary way in which the Hornig study handled its PCR analysis, testing positive and negative controls at three different labs, serves to exonerate O'Leary's lab's results in 2002.

So looking at the totality of the data and not at particular aspects of one paper, the Hornig study affirms Uhlmann which affirms Wakefield and there are several others which I referenced above.

re: Measles - what next?

Maz — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 17:02:54 GMT

If there was no link between MMR and Autism why did the US Court of Federal Claims pay out compensation to one child for developing autism as a direct result of recieving the Measles Vaccine?

"In sum, DVIC has concluded that the facts of this case meet the statutory criteria for demonstrating that the vaccinations CHILD received on July 19, 2000, significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder, which predisposed her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism, and manifested as a regressive encephalopathy with features of autism spectrum disorder." Quoted from the court papers

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 12:22:31 GMT

Richard - you have a remarkable ability to claim black is white. I am humbled by your skill. Truly.

Let's start off with a few things. You quite rightly say the Uhlmann results suffered from lack of controls. But then you go on to try to tie it into an expert 'being paid by the Pharma companies' somehow makes this criticism irrelevant. It does not. Not doing controls is a major criticism and it matters not one jot who points this out. I find it thoroughly distasteful that there is an implicit smear in what you say - that somehow Bustin was corrupted by being paid to tell a court how PCR should be done. Of course not. You admit yourself that the controls should have been done. You are stooping a bit low here.

And it is ironic of course, because Wakefield is currently on trial at the BMA for not declaring his own conflict of interests and not stating that he was working for lawyers in an autism case. There is a big difference here. Bustin had no conflict of interest to testify. Wakefield had a huge undeclared interest. And, of course, you do not bring this up. Is it a one way street for you?

Now Uhlmann reports they found 75 of 91 subjects with measles RNA in their guts. If this is a good result then the Hornig study should easily have been able to replicate and confirm this result. They did not. Indeed, they found no statistical association between presence of MV RNA and symptoms and correlation between the timing of symptoms and MMR. If the Uhlmann result is good then it would have shone like a beacon on the Hornig results - they saw nothing. Of the five children whose symptoms started after MMR the Uhlmann results suggest they should have seen about 4 matches and if MMR was responsible then there should have been many more than 5 in that group.

The implications are simple .The Uhlmann and Hornig results do not agree and one of them is wrong. Who to believe? On just about every count, the Hornig paper scores much higher on measures of quality - it was blinded, had multiple independent labs, had a full suite of controls and was case controlled. As you say yourself - "exemplary". In no way can the quality of the Hornig paper suggest that the Uhlmann results were high quality too. This is just a bizarre assertion on your part as the quality was quite demonstrably poor in every regard. Having no blinded controls means your experiment can go wrong in many ways: contamination and other poor lab practices, subjective influence and even (sometimes) fraud. As my link above points out, it is almost certain that O'Leary was not detecting MV RNA in his 75 positives. The only reasonable conclusion is that the lab massively cleaned up is act in between studies.

And Richard, this is the central point that you have repeatedly failed to address - why the difference? The answer is simple - because the initial assays were uncontrolled rubbish. If they were good, then Hornig would have replicated them.

You tell me to look at the totallity of data - that is what I have done here - to try to understand why Uhlmann and Hornig disagree. You, in contrast, cherry pick to try to use the excellence of Hornig to try to exonerate the Uhlmann results without confronting the awful truth that Hornig negates Uhlmann. But I guess reason will not change your mind. You know the answer and want to find any glimmer of hope to cling to your beliefs. If you came to these two studies fresh without any preconceived ideas, which would you trust - the high quality latter results, or the uncontrolled, poor quality former results?

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 12:31:54 GMT

Maz - your answer is in your quote. This child was exceptional and suffered from a rare predisposition and in no way is generally applicable across the population, even if the jabs genuinely aggrevated her condition.

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 04:29:36 GMT

Bustin, by his own admission spent 1500 hours at hundreds of £ per hour at the behest of big Pharma trying to discredit Wakefield. How is that not a conflict of interest?

Did any impartial body review Bustin's work before he testified in court? Its a travesty.

Wakefield,in contrast was merely trying to help out the parents, abandoned by their own government, who had been forced to watch their children descend into regressive autism, all in aid of Pharmaco profits.

If Uhlmann's samples were contaminated, why only the autism group and not the control group? It defies belief.

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 10:21:12 GMT

Richard - this really is cowardly. Before one can accuse someone of perverting their evidence (which I guess you are) you should be able to specifically point out where their evidence is flawed. Then it is legitimate to look for conflicts of interest to help understand why someone might hold or espouse false beliefs. Since you have failed to demonstrate that Bustin's evidence is flawed, you are taking part in a cowardly and libelous attack. It is quite simply shameful.

It is normal for expert witnesses to be paid for their work - especially if that work requires significant time. As such, being paid for expert testimony is not in itself grounds to suspect conflict. Bustin literally wrote the textbooks on PCR - who would you suggest review that work? Would that review work also be paid for? Would that not create another conflict in your eye? Should that review be reviewed too? The key question to ask about Bustin is what he would gain from the outcome of the trial, one way or another. Does he have an interest in the verdict going in a particular direction? Could you establish that? (I suspect you will clutch at straws - and before you embark on more smearing - morally you should identify the false testimony before continuing).

Wakefield, by contrast, was putting forward his own pet theories and making huge amounts of money from legal fees that he did not declare when writing papers that would have supported his legal work. He had a massive financial interest in discovering a relationship between MMR and autism and getting results published in the peer-reviewed literature. Once again, your ability to call black white really impresses me. Do you get up early to practice?

And so, your personal incredulity in not being able to wonder how Uhlmann got the wrong results makes no difference. Unblinded and uncontrolled experiments have a big habit of giving bad results. All too common. This is exactly why you should have blinded and controlled experiments. Otherwise, why do you think people bother? Maybe you have never done an experiment in your life and/or been honest enough to recognise the problem. The history of science is littered with similar experiment producing startling results only to vanish when proper protocols were enacted. Look up N-rays, Benveniste, martian canals, polywater. People see what they want to see.

It is interesting to look at what is happening here. People want to believe that MMR is bad for some reason (maybe it fits with their personal philosophy and preconceptions about the world) and are prepared to shoehorn any fact into this belief. Inconvenient truths (such as the Hornig paper) are ignored or bludgened to death to fit back into the word belief. The cook who wrote this blog article is guilty of this. Looking back, I notice she casually dismisses a hundred years of medical microbiology (again with an act of personal incredulity). Ignorance trumps knowledge and reason. Richard, do you also subscribe to her views that germ theory is wrong?

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 22:07:45 GMT

Andy

The usual protocol is for conflicts of interest to be declared at the outset.

the special masters at the autism omnibus hearing did not indicate that they would accept Bustin's testimony and I suspect this is why. Bustin pocketed more than Wakefield is alleged to have done.

Even if one doesn't believe that MMR causes autism in susceptible people, the risk/benefit ratio is too high to accept. Numerous infants have died because of MMR vaccination.

I refer you to Jackie Fletcher writing in the BMJ:

"I also think it is a bit hypocritical to accuse Bill Welsh of downplaying the lethality of measles when the government and medical profession downplay the real risks of vaccine reactions to support the MMR OR NOTHING policy which clearly undermines Dr Flegg's herd immunity theory. One has to ask the question: where does the Department of Health's interests lie? Is it to protect the nation's health, or to protect officials, and the pharmaceutical industries' lucrative patents for new combination jabs?

Dr Flegg is making assumptions about the 30 deaths following MMR and MR vaccines. He is doing what many health professionals seem to do; he has no personal knowledge of the individual cases but immediately jumps to the conclusion that they are all coincidences, easily explained by background prevalences. Where is his evidence for these assumptions?

JABS has received reports from the parents of these 30 children. Four of these children have been assessed by the Government's Vaccine Damage Payment Unit and tribunals have awarded payments. Some of these children died from vaccine induced SSPE after being given a number of measles containing vaccines. Twelve of the children died under the age of two years and were therefore ineligible for assessment by the VDPU. There is an absurd clause which does not allow claims to be investigated until the child passes its second birthday. Just remind me Dr Flegg, when are most baby vaccines given?"

30 deaths of innocent babies, andy, how can you ever justify that?

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/337/oct01_3/a1856#203919

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 23:00:55 GMT

Wow! Was that 'whoosh' the sound of goalposts wizzing over my head once more? Abandoned Hornig now?

Let's get Bustin/Wakefield out of the way. Do you understand why Wakefield is being invstigated by the GMC? It is not that he had a conflict of interest - it is that he failed to declare it - and failed to obtain consent for what he did to the children. A lack of openess and medical ethics. Do you appreciate this? And you have still failed to show how Bustin's evidence has been corrupted by being paid. Or said exactly what his wrong doing is. You appear to be just to be happy to smear.

And as for JABS - the collected anecdotes of that group do not add up to evidence. Jackie Fletcher did not 'write in the BMJ'. She sent in a rabid response - the equivalent of a blog comment. Are you now stooping to JABS anecdotes for your evidence? Have you ever read what amounts to debate on that site?

'Think of the children!' That is the level of your evidence now. Show me Jackie Fletcher's data and you may redeem a smidgen of credibility.

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 00:20:37 GMT

Andy

Obviously you only believe something if it fits your pre-conceived worldview.

I believe we have exhausted the MMR/autism discussion.

You also fail to address the substance of jackie fletcher's complaint. Thirty children have died needlessly so the government can save face and Pharma can keep their profits. Do you not have anything to say about this sordid affair?

re: Measles - what next?

harradne — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 08:46:11 GMT

Everyone knows that pharma compnaies are basically profit generating, massive companies. They are guily of some good science and some bad. I could go on all day about how much I dislike Big Pharma. I once worked for a lega team in product liablity so I do understand their failts!

But, ahem, this does not mean that alternative therapies work. It would be refrshing if we could have sensible conversations. One would be "lets discuss the wrongs of big pharma" and I am more than happy to give you some vicious dirt on that.

The other would be "do homeopathy and other forms of alternative medicine work beyond placebo"? So far, no one can say they do with any evidence. But on this forum an interesting debate.

I've forgotten the number of times I have been accused of being an 'agent of pharma' because I question homeopathy!

The problem, decide which conversation you want to have. Is it about pharma or alternatives. All too often proponents o alternatives, when asked for evidence, simply start to attack big pharma, as you are doing now. That is not evidence that alternatives work! It wouldn't matter a hoot if big pharma was directly responsible for the holocaust, the credit crunch and Russell Brands gaff. This does not make homeopathy work any better.

So, stick to the issue. Alternative therapies are so because they act through placebo responses. Why is this something that its supporters are so blind to, when it is reality? Its nothing to be ashamed of, just discussed.

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 09:27:03 GMT

Richard - I have not addressed Fletcher's complaint because there is nothing to address. You misrepresented her comment as 'written in the BMJ'. Ha Ha. Children die and get ill. Some will die or get ill close to their immunisation jabs. That does not mean that these deaths have anything to do with the jabs. When you have some data, then it can be addressed.

It is interesting to watch your retreat. You started with bold assertions that "the Wakefield hypothesis has been substantiated numerous times" which we have clearly shown not to be true and you are now scrabbling around in the comments sections of web sites to back up your assertions.

When you have some credible data, then perhaps we can have a discussion. In the meantime, I suggest that you have nothing but deep prejudice and fearmongering. And it is that fearmongering that leads people like the cook who wrote this blog article to write seriously misinformed nonsense. This is the real danger here - that people believe the ignorant and those with misguided convictions and distrust their health workers advice about how best to care for their children. Deeply irresponsible.

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 14:00:24 GMT

It has been substantiated numerous times, its just that people like you don't accept the evidence,because it comes from people you don't like. That is why I suggested the discussion has been exhausted.

In a clinical trial, death is an unambiguous outcome. There is no doubt about it.

Thirty innocent children have died. Jackie says in the BMJ that she has the details.

To deny that this is true is like denying the holocaust.

re: Measles - what next?

harrsdine — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 18:40:56 GMT

Richard. Never interrupt you enemy when he is making a mistake.

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 19:35:38 GMT

"Thirty innocent children have died". But you are only presuming anecdotally the reason. Show me the data.

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 04:26:35 GMT

I referenced jackie's BMJ piece above where she says she has the data the government is suppressing. I suggest you contact her.

The government itself estimated in 1990 that 70 deaths were associated with the MMR and DTP vaccination.

"New information just obtained under FOIA shows in 1990 in the UK there were at least 7,480 adverse vaccine reactions and 1,990 serious ones with approximately 70 deaths associated with triple vaccines (DTP and MMR). To get a rough idea of the figures for the USA, multiply by 5 as the US has a larger population.

Currently the chance of anyone dying of natural measles in England and Wales if there were no vaccinations is less than 1 in 55 million. I have hard scientific fact to back that up if anyone wants it. The chance of being struck by a bolt of lightning is over 30-60 times higher - also that is backed up by recorded scientific observations.

See Jack Ashley MP's 1990 correspondence with British government Minister Virginia Bottomley MP just released to me (see full date order bundle attached) shows there were 7480 reported adverse vaccine reactions, of these 1990 were serious ones including 70 reported deaths relating to vaccines including MMR and DTP. "

http://www.whale.to/vaccine/miller333.html

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 09:47:58 GMT

Richard - you say "I referenced jackie's BMJ piece above where she says she has the data the government is suppressing. I suggest you contact her." This is a classic trick for those who cannot substantiate their beliefs. You try to get me to do the legwork to support your incredible assertions. It does not work like that.

The problem is, it is difficult (and I am trying) to take you seriously after you have so misrepresented your case. Right from the "the Wakefield hypothesis has been substantiated numerous times" through to the "written in the BMJ" you regularly either over egg your position or just say things that are plainly wrong.

Because of this, I am sure you can understand, that when you make a claim, it is thoroughly reasonable of me to ask for some evidence to back this up. You are now deep into the realms of anecdotes and conspiracy web sites (the government is suppressing it!!!! yeh, right. The government could not suppress a jack-in-the-box). We have come a long way from discussing evidence in journals. We are now wondering if the MMR files are being kept next to the secret history of UFOs).

So for example, where are the documents that Miller refers to? Can we judge the evidence for ourselves or do we have to depend on activists interpretations? Will the number of deaths increase as you produce more anecdotes? First 30, now 70 in just one year.

The swerving of goalposts is making me giddy.

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 21:05:29 GMT

*sigh*

do I have to explain everything?

Healthy children get MMR jab. Children die. Health authorities do not recognize the MMR jab as contributing to death, for various bureaucratic reasons- children were under two - they died of SIDS you can't access legal aid money to challenge the government if the child is dead-stuff like that. So the official statistics show no deaths due to MMR. The job of collecting this information which should have done by the Health authorities is left to advocacy groups like JABS. If you search the government archives, these deaths have been reassigned to various categories.

The figure of 70 is deaths attributed to DTP and MMR from the time of introduction of these vaccines up to 1990-so not just one vaccination and not just one year.

Interesting that a FOIA request had to be generated to get this information.

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 22:17:46 GMT

How do JABS know the deaths were due to vaccines?

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 03:36:57 GMT

From the personal accounts of the parents.

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 10:11:24 GMT

And there is the basic flaw in the whole JABS campaign. Parents blame MMR. They do not know that it caused the problems. Mere temporal correlation is not the same as causation.

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 14:42:14 GMT

How can you tell if it is never investigated? The health authorities say it is coincidence or SIDS or child abuse they refuse to entertain the probability that it is vaccine related.

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 18:01:37 GMT

Richard - you have failed to address the central point here. Somehow you believe two incompatible things (again.) Yes, originally, no one knew if MMR caused autism - Wakefield came up with a hypothesis that it did. But somehow - magically - parents at JABS 'know' that the harm to their children was caused by MMR. How?

I asked how JABS know deaths were caused by vaccines. You answered - because of the accounts of the parents. So, how do the parents know?

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 21:38:14 GMT

How? By observation. Under the precautionary principle and keeping in mind the hippocratic oath, all deaths associated with vaccination must be assumed to be caused by that vaccination unless conclusively proven otherwise.

Its called putting the health of the patient first.

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 21:52:35 GMT

So, Richard. Why does the precautionary principle apply? If they know the cause, there is no need to be precautionary - you just need to act. Being precautious means you have doubt, but should act until you understand?

So, which is it? Are parents just guessing and wanting to be precautious. Or do they know MMR harms people?

And if they are being precautious, why not stop at MMR? What other factors might there be that we need to be precautious about? Bottle milk? Chemicals in matresses? Baby monitors? Teddy bears? Why stop at MMR?

I thought you said the parents know?

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 21:55:02 GMT

And what observations led these parents to conclude MMR harmed their children?

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 04:16:55 GMT

How do you act when the authorities don't recognize the hazard? The proper reaction would be to stop all MMR vaccinations. Forever. The risks are simply too high.

Andy I honestly fail to see what you are talking about. Teddy bears? Baby monitors?

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 06:31:55 GMT

My point is simple. How do the parents know that MMR has caused their children's harm and not some other potential risk factor. There are peope out there (for example) that have blamed autism on WiFi and EMF (e.g. from baby monitors)

(see http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2007/11/19/228184/wi-fi-linked-to-childhood-autism.htm)

As discussed earlier, symptoms of autism may have first occured shortly after the child was given a teddy bear. Has some strange imported chemical in the fur caused a problem? Not completely implausible.

So, how do the parents know that MMR is the problem and not some other risk factor? If you want to invoke the precautionary principle (which shows you think we do not know the cause) why stop at MMR? There are lots of other things you could blame and so invoke precaution as the best policy?

So, to repeat: how do parents know MMR is the cause of their childs problems?

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 07:15:20 GMT

Or the theory du jour: rain causes autism.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7703072.stm

So, why do the parents believe MMR and why not rain?

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 05:12:46 GMT

Cause and effect. Andy. Cause is MMR. Effect is autism or even death.

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 06:28:21 GMT

Richard. Come on. Surely you cannot be serious. Cause and Effect? How do the parents know that MMR is the cause (as opposed to rain or wifi)?

re: Measles - what next?

harradine — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 13:50:18 GMT

Richard, vaccination is not used for fun. It used for a reason. It would be completely unethical to use any form of vaccination unless it was of benefit.

Stop using MMR, as you suggest, and you WILl see a resurgence of measles, mumps and rubella. These illnesses will return, many children will become ill. Most of course will recover, but many will have damage to their hearing, to their nervous system, prenatal rubella syndrome will return, mumps will return with susebquent damage to (mostly male) adults. And all the less serious effects associated with these illness, which would again bne common place.

You need a good reason to take such action and as yet there is none. No link between MMR and autism has ever been shown. That's the point. The cauase and effect part you mention have not been established and when looked at carefully, the relationship is not causal.

But of course if you simply ignore all this and frighten the life out parents by telling them that a link has been shown, contrary to all available evidence, then of course they will withhold vaccination from their children as is their proper right, and we will see the diseases recurring. Perhpas after a generation when parents learn just how stupid that is (when neurophathies in children become roughly 1000 times more common for example), then the will remember just why vaccination was done in the first place and support it again.

Shall we without diphtheria vaccine too? What about polio? Surely if we just pop into Holland & Barret and buy some vitamins, we can eradicate polio all over again. Surely.

re: Measles - what next?

Harradine — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:00:03 GMT

Regarding rhe courts attitude to the MMR case, it was heard. The High Court through the case out for having no basis to claim.

All the evidence wass looked at and the conclusion was that there is no link between MMR and autism so it was dropped. A handful of individual cases proceded on the basis of damage (not autism) which is exacltly what you would expect.

Let me guess- the courts are also under the influence of Big pharma? Or the case was lost before it started.

There is no link between MMR and autism. By continue to deny this evidence that has been valuidated internationally, accepted by the courts, accepted by independent academics, accepted by independent peer review, this distracts from the true causes of autism, which are being ignored while this daft debate rangles on.

We even has people suggested that the very act of vaccination itself should be stopped! What's next? Remove sanitation and clean water!? Ban anaesthetic?

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 16:42:30 GMT

Observation is the very corner stone of science, Harradine.

There is also the question of prior plausibility. it seems unlikley that teddy bears could cause neurologic changes in the brain, but we know infectious diseases caused by viruses can do so -and you are injecting vulnerable infants with a virus.

Unfortunately there is a big group think kind of thing going on, similar to the mindset that let to the Iraq war. Government health authorites are filled with people who have links to pharmacos and pharma money even funds the regulators. They know implicitly that if vaccines were ever examined judiciously their house of cards, would collapse so they just make sure the proper questions are never asked.

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:15:03 GMT

Richard - I have asked half a dozen times now - you cannot have missed it. How do the JABS parents know MMR caused harm to their children?

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 17:24:29 GMT

Observation.

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 10:30:21 GMT

Richard, I am not sure your one word answer is going to be enough. So, bu 'observation' how do the JABS parents deduce that it was MMR and not WiFi, Teddy bears, rainfall or TV watching that caused their autism?

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 14:24:13 GMT

I told you before, prior plausibility.

We know that viral infections can havee neurological effects. You are injecting an innocent infant with a virulent pathogen and then you see them regressinto autism.

Its like a mad scientist experiment gone horribly wrong.

the medical establishment refuses to consider the possibility except for a few brave doctors like Wakefield who dared to defy convention.

re: Measles - what next?

harradine — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 15:41:47 GMT

NMR does not involve virulent strains! My god, what on earth are you talking about? Your level is ignorance shines through.

Obviously you don't know the first thing about vaccination.

What do you mean 'innocent infant'? What other sort is there?

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 16:04:48 GMT

You appear to be swerving again. First you say observation and then you say 'prior plausibility'. And I note how you revert to emotive language - 'innocent', ' mad'.

So let me challenge the idea that we can think MMR causes autism simply due to 'prior plausibility'. Firstly, the virus strains used in MMR are attenuated. That means they have been cultured so as not to be virulent in humans. So, your statement about 'injecting an innocent infant with a virulent pathogen' is simply not true. Nonetheless, there may be some strange thing going on, so is there any evidence to support the view that MMR could somehow be triggering autism?

There have been lots of studies... e.g.

Kaye et al, 2001 looked at autism rates after introduction of MMR and saw no correlation between the increases in reports of autism and take up rates of MMR.

Taylor et al, 1999 found no observable increase in autism directly after the introduction of MMR vaccination in 1988.

Dales et al, 2001 saw no correlation after MMR was introduced to california.

A Finnish study looked at 1.8 million children who received the MMR jab and found no increase in the rates of autism or bowel disease amongst those vaccinated.

Taylor et al. 2002 looked at medical records and concluded that the proportion of children with autism or bowel disorders has not changed since the MMR was introduced.

A Japanese study in 2005 found reports of autism rising after MMR was withdrawn.

...and of course Uhlmann which we know concluded "This study provides strong evidence against association of autism with persistent MV RNA in the GI tract or MMR exposure."

Prior plausibility might one have just existed. It does not anymore. It cannot be why a rational parent would blame MMR for autism in a child?

My guess is that JABS parents believe that MMR causes autism because of the irrational, wrong and emotive language used by people like you "innocent" "virulent" "mad scientists" "brave doctors like Wakefield" and so on. Vaccination is an alien concept to them. Humans have a tendency to fear what thy find disgusting or do not understand.

That is all there is to the MMR debate - fear, disgust, irrational belief, a desire to blame, emotion - not knowledge. The continued rhetoric of groups like JABS do enormous amounts of harm - they frighten parents, they misdirect effort, they distract from finding real causes and understanding and they will undoubtedly lead to measles epidemics with harmed and dead children that need not have been.

Its a game of high stakes and its about time JABS and co moved on to more fruitful concerns.

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 16:44:30 GMT

I meant the "Hornig" paper, of course when I said "Uhlmann"

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 15:36:25 GMT

You are being reductionist like too many scientists, Andy.

To build a case you need observation AND prior plausibility. Then you need a mechanism and clinical evidence to support that mechanism.

The problem is the medical establishment has tried to refute the MMR/autism connection with flawed epidemiological studies. Epidemiology can never show causation and the lack of an adequate unvaccinated control group makes the studies rubbish.

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 17:58:19 GMT

Andy and harradine

You might be interested in the discussion going on at onmedica. It is being excerpted at JABS by the eminent physician Dr. Mark Struthers, because of censorship at onmedica.

A number of commenters including Dr. John Stone and Jackie fletcher have pointed out the utter futility of the GMC case against Wakefield and the complete lack of evidence in the Hornig study refuting Wakefield.

Interesting reading.

http://www.jabs.org.uk/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1379&whichpage=3

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 20:29:04 GMT

Richard. It is not clear how I am being reductionist. And it is not clear how you can claim prior plausibility. There is now zero plausibility in the MMR mechanism. Just because parents may distrust MMR does not make it plausible. You have failed to say how MMR is more plausible than any other cause (including teddy bears).

But you are right that 'epidemiology can never show causation'. The lack of 'control' groups does not undermine epidemiological studies. That is not their nature. All such studies can show is a correlation that might be worthy of further study. What such studies quite clearly show is that there is no correlation. Autism rates appear to show no correlation with MMR uptake. That is indisputable now, from multiple independent studies.

But my guess is that you will find some daft way to dispute it.

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 21:42:08 GMT

Andy I pointed out that viruses including measles are known to cause neurological disorders. Teddy bears cannot do this.

If you are going to criticize my posts, at least read them.

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 21:56:42 GMT

Richard - what is most interesting is that in order to invoke prior plausibility you had to resort to emotive language - "virulent pathogens", "innocent children". MMR contains attenuated viruses - they are most definitely not virulent. They are used so as to make it trivial for the immune system to deal with them and to develop a natural immunity. You have not admitted your error.

The reason is simple. Your 'prior plausibly' is merely an emotional response. You reject the teddy bear theory because it does not invoke a gut level response. But that does not man that it is equally as plausible.

I do read your posts and they are littered with misinformation and logical mistakes that you never acknowledge.

Your body is full of viruses. Most of them utterly benign. We have evolved to cope with the vast majority of viruses out there. Some are kileld quickly. So me persist with no harmful effects. The presence of a virus is not in itself sufficent cause to worry about harm. A few cause problems. Attenuated virsuses designed for vaccines are not one of them. You have no prior probability and cannot demonstrate any.

Prove me wrong. Be specific. What factors about the strains in the MMR vaccine lead you to believe we should be worried? The more facts you can give, the more plausible you will sound. Or will you just resort to vague handwaving - "viruses!, nasty! evil scientists! poor babies!"

re: Measles - what next?

harradine — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 22:00:39 GMT

Richard,

Glad to hear you know the names of different kinds of evidence. Yes, observation, yes clinical, yes mechanistic.

Now, do you know how they all fit together? Any idea whose terms you are borrowing?

Any idea of the methods behind them?

re: Measles - what next?

Harradine — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 22:04:03 GMT

Observation, observation, observation. It is true.

That's how much of science works. You make an observation. For example. Some children who have had MMR develop autism.

Ergo MMR causes autism. Seems pretty obvious.

Lets look at it more befire we deny kids of a jab that prevents measles mumos and rubella.

Do we know that MMR causes autism, or just is given to most kids, and some kids develop autism? How could we tell?

re: Measles - what next?

Harradine — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 22:05:27 GMT

Could it be, that some kids will develop autism, who have been vaccinated? Do you understand the difference?

If not, really give it some thought because it is important.

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 03:28:33 GMT

Okay should I have said 'viral diseases' like measles can cause brain damage??

So injecting said viral disease directly into the bloodstream of a tiny baby, might just possibly have untoward consequences. As opposed to teddy bears.

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 03:30:21 GMT

How could we tell Harradine? Stop vaccination for five years then look at the results.

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 10:05:04 GMT

The 'experiment' has been done. The Japanese withdrew MMR and saw no difference in the rates of autism.

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 16:44:20 GMT

Oh, By the way. I do admire you Richard for how your use hyperbolic adjectives to help your arguments - the next brilliant one was 'eminent' when describing the GP Dr Struthers. I did look at your thread and saw immediately he was calling other doctors 't*ss**s', 'brainless molluscs' and comparing them with the SS. Very eminent indeed.

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 21:16:50 GMT

Andy

I knew you would reply with the Japanese MMR experience. The problem is that after the Japanese stopped MMR,they administered measles, mumps and rubella separately in the same visit. So what's the difference?

What you need to do is stop all vaxes for five years, then look at the total incidence of infant mortality from all causes as well as chronic neurological disorders like autism.

Dr. Struthers may be a bit rough hewn around the edges but obviously he cares about his patients , and isn't cowed by medical orthodoxy.

re: Measles - what next?

Richard — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 23:38:34 GMT

Your answer is a classic example of the anti-vax shifting goal post. They complain like mad that MMR is causing autism and that parents need the choice of vaccination. But when MMR is proven to not be the cause of autism, they shout about it being all vaccines. This rather demolishes your idea that MMR was plausible - you have to starts shifting plausibility around as soon as evidence come in.

The power of the epidemiology studies is that they have come from many angles. The fact that reported autism continues to rise as vaccine levels slightly decline just blows the whole concept out of the water.

Come on. Isn't it time you gave up your stance? Trying the old' Struthers' cares' is just the last straw. Are you saying that other doctor's do not? Isn't it just a little bit more plausible that the GP struthers is just plain wrong? What sort of doctor goes round calling other doctors *** and moluscs just for disagreeing with him?

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 00:43:24 GMT

Okay then just stop all measles vaccinations for five years and look at neurological disorder rates.

I was thinking of the deaths and complications from other vaccinations and thinking that the epidemiological evidence would show a bigger shift if you stopped all vaxes, but of course that isn't going to happen.

So just stop measles vacs. Thats fine with me.

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 07:15:34 GMT

Since you have failed to offer any convincing reason why vaccines are a bad idea, doing your experiment can only be described as grossly irresponsible. How many very ill children and deaths would be acceptable in your 'experiment'?

re: Measles - what next?

harradine — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 10:39:39 GMT

But Richard you still seem to think that a vaccine is a live virus...

"injecting said viral disease directly into the bloodstream of a tiny baby, might just possibly have untoward consequences"

This is just good old fashioned ignorance. The irony of it is that this has nothing to do with vaccination, but is precisely what it being advocated by opponents of vaccination- that we should stop vaccinating children and return to the days when 'tiny babies' were exposed to live virus (by way of transmision) with no vaccination.

Why stop vaccination and risk much more neurological damage to kids when their isn't one shred of evidence that is poses a risk of autism? What would be the point? It would only to to satify people who don't understand the sitation anyway, and lets face it, even if measles and neurological illness were to skyrocket, that wouldn't change their minds anyway. they would simply blame big pharma/doctors, scientists, anyone and everyone of a giant conspiracy.

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 18:04:05 GMT

How many children die from vaccinations? We don't even know, because the figures are not collected in any kind of rigorous manner.

Jackie says they know of 30 parents whose child died after MMR vaccination. If only 10 % of adverse reactions are reported, that is 300 deaths.

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 18:08:52 GMT

Harradine

MMR vaccine is a live virus

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 18:28:24 GMT

And yet you have still failed to convincingly explain how Jackie knows these deaths are due to MMR.

Your hypocrisy is staggering. You use emotive please to think of the innocent children when urging us to believe MMR causes harm - and yet without a seconds though you suggest we give up immunisation to see if autism drops.

Why should we take you seriously? Why should we take any of the JABS community seriously? All we have is hyperbole, exaggeration, extreme rudeness (like Dr Stuthers), sloppy thinking,a refusal to admit your errors and hypocrisy.

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 04:38:04 GMT

Minority View said:"The problem is challenge, rechallenge, which is considered to be proof of connection in both science and law. There are children who regressed after MMR, then improved, then received MMR and regressed again. Are you absolutely sure you've got this figured out?"

Janet said:"Thomas, it was'nt I who first believed the MMR was the cause but my former GP and the authorities."

http://www.jabs.org.uk/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3174&whichpage=2

Jackie fletcher said:.For interventions, it is not usually a medico-legal requirement to mention extremely rare complications (as in the case of vaccines),..' Vaccines are given to children not otherwise expected to catch any of the diseases. Vaccines are also given in combination shortly after other vaccines. The UK vaccination programme is very congested for under 18 month old babies? From a medico-legal point of view it's the safest time to administer all of these vaccines. If the child dies under two years following a vaccine the family cannot have it investigated by the Government VDPU nor can the family pursue a case through the courts against the manufacturer. The side effects I quoted led to the deaths of some of JABS children which were accepted by Government tribunals and vaccine damage payments awarded. "

" The incidence of any reaction to the combination MMR is being deliberately hidden through the lack of an efficient adverse event reporting system. Also, '..the "side effects" of the diseases M, M and R include death, meningitis, encephalitis, chest infections, sterility, congenital rubella, brain damage and these occur at rates way in excess of any side effects from the vaccine..' All these problems are associated with the MMR vaccine too! The only lie being perpetrated is to what extent the MMR vaccine matches the actual disease for complications for children based on sex and age. A prime example is rubella which is hazardous to a foetus. Rubella vaccine is associated rarely with encephalitis, guillain-barre syndrome, arthritis etc. If the infant/child is not in danger from rubella why should they be exposed to any risk from a vaccine? "

"The fact is I recorded the parent's accounts of their children regressing into autism and bowel disorders following MMR vaccines when they contacted the JABS group from the early 1990s. You need to open your mind and see the vaccine programme as a whole. Rubella is already associated with autism. If a pregnant woman contracts rubella in the first trimester the child may be born autistic - medics have no problem making this link. Measles and mumps can both cause meningitis and encephalitis (as you agreed) which can lead to a number of serious long-term problems such as brain damage, epilepsy, acquired autism. The vaccine viruses are capable of causing the same problems as the natural diseases. "

John Stone said: " I pointed out above that Cochrane, underneath the policy message, had stated that MMR safety studies both before and after marketing were "largely inadequate". It also individually gave the six autism studies reviewed short shrift. This was not, of course, what the media were told, and none of them bothered to read it (I very much doubt whether you have). The reality of this is to perpetuate high negligence, while the damage is never examined (as a matter of policy). "

Jackie Fletcher said:b"You want to know where I am coming from? I have a 17 year old son who was brain damaged after a serious reaction to MMR/Hib vaccines. A reaction witnessed by an independent medic with experience in paediatric intensive care. It came as a massive shock to find the symptoms and problems my son had were those rarely reported in the vaccine product sheets. I had not made an informed consent as I had been informed that MMR had been given in millions of doses over twenty years in the USA without any problems and the diseases were deadly. During hospital emergencies we met many other families where the same had happened. We were all classed as coincidences. My son's case was supported by medical expert reports so is factually based against MMR. "

http://www.jabs.org.uk/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1379&whichpage=4

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 07:45:39 GMT

I am not sure why you posted all this - perhaps as evidence that Jackie 'knows' MMR causes autism. Too much to take to bits - but it is full of sloppy thinking. I do particularly like the appeal to have an open mind.

In short, it all looks like JABS believes that MMR causes harm because the diseases being protected against cause harm. Thus, the attenuated virus must be doing something, stands to reason, dunnit guv? Sweep up some parents who are convince by this and that is JABS case. Ignore all other evidence. And just keep banging on.

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 14:32:49 GMT

You wanted to know how the parents know that MMR causes autism and death.

A number of cases were confirmed by the attending physician but the medical authorities ignored their testimony.

What about this, Andy:

"Minority View said:"The problem is challenge, rechallenge, which is considered to be proof of connection in both science and law. There are children who regressed after MMR, then improved, then received MMR and regressed again. "

Care to refute this?

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:58:36 GMT

Yes richard - it is just anecdote. Just because a 'physician' said it is just an attempt to impose authority on the anecdote. All I need to do is ask the how the physician knew that MMR caused the problem? How could they be sure? You just do not get that mere temporal correlation is not proof. How many children would have gone through this cycle of illness without MMR? We do not know.

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 04:17:46 GMT

Challenge-dechallenge-rechallenge (CDR) is a medical testing protocol in which a medicine or drug is administered, withdrawn, then re-administered, while being monitored for adverse effects at each stage. The protocol is used when statistical testing is inappropriate due to an idiosyncratic reaction by a specific individual, or a lack of sufficient test subjects and unit of analysis is the individual. During the withdraw phase, the medication is allowed to wash out of the system in order to determine what effect the medication is having on an individual.

CDR is one means of establishing the validity and benefits of medication in treating specific conditions as well as any adverse drug reactions. The Food and Drug Administration of the United States lists positive dechallenge reactions (an adverse event which disappears on withdrawal of the medication) as well as negative (an adverse event which continues after withdrawal), as well as positive rechallenge (symptoms re-occurring on re-administration) and negative rechallenge (failure of a symptom to re-occur after re-administration). It is one of the standard means of assessing adverse drug reactions in France.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenge-dechallenge-rechallenge

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 04:21:46 GMT

In many children, two regressions have been clearly documented by health-care providers, photographs and videos. The first regression occurred shortly after the first MMR vaccination and the second, much more severe, after the MMR booster at age 4 or 5, following a period of relative improvement. This biphasic course, or challenge-dechallenge-rechallenge, has been accepted as evidence of causation by the courts and by a special committee of the Institute of Medicine.

http://www.taap.info/Alive%20and%20Well.asp

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 06:44:11 GMT

Richard, yes but...

This is not CDR - this a post hoc analysis of a couple of case reports - utterly different and statistically laughable both from a numbers pespective and application. If you don't understand what I mean - a CDR is utterly invalid if is applied after the event. I suspect you do not understand why this should be though. In very simple terms - it is shooting a gun at a barn and then drawing a target around the holes and claiming to be a sharp shooter. Here, someones has observed varying symtoms and then claimed to be doing a CDR analysis. Basic schoolboy error - but we expect that from the JABS crowd.

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 18:16:30 GMT

No. The Texas sharpshooter fallacy applies to data mining of statistical evidence.

Challenge dechallenge rechallenge is clinical evidence.

You would never design a trial like that if you thought there was even a small chance of giving the subject autism. Effects can only be found retrospectively and serendipitously because the parents had videoed their child's development

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 19:42:24 GMT

Richard - you are quite simply wrong and cannot see it. CDR might be valid if you decide to apply the methodology before you acquire your data. If you apply to pre-existing data you are just finding post hoc reasons. All you are doing is looking for children who have experience the right sort of symptoms you wanted and then said 'TaDa!' CDR! What about the countless children who do not experience the same pattern? You really are taken in by these people, aren't you?

You are a beautiful mine of fallacies and misconceptions. In what sense does videoing a child help? It is not as if we disbelieve parents in their stories about symptoms - it is just we doubt their explanations. This is the heart of what I have been trying to get out of you. noone doubts the experiences of the patients. But how do they arrive at their explanations? Why MMR and why not WiFi? Is it simply because they are more afraid of MMR and so latch onto it as an explanation?

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 21:05:47 GMT

No, its exactly the same kind of evidence gleaned in larger observational studies. where they follow a group of people for years and try to correlate their ailments with their lifestyle.

In this case the group is children , and the factors that are asociated are double MMR, autism and the challenge dechallenge rechallenge pheonomenon.

re: Measles - what next?

Richard — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 22:15:44 GMT

Richard - imagine if you will that MMR does not cause autism ( I know this might be hard, but try for a second or two). With the millions of children given the vaccine, a few will (just by chance) exhibit an onset of symptoms after both jabs that looks like it is a response to the vaccine. Along comes a doctor and says "hey - look! a challenge dechallenge rechallenge phenomenon! This is Texan sharpshooter thinking. In order for CDR analysis to be valid, you have to declare what you intend to do before you take the measurements - just as you should draw the target on the barn, before you shoot.

An other example. Someone wins the lottery. They declare when given the check "I dreamed I would win!". Did they have a vision of the future? No rational person would believe so - it is post hoc thinking. Another - the Titanic sinks. Several people alert the papers that they dreamt a big ship would sink. Psychic? Of course not. (Do you need it spelling out why these events are not evidence of psychic phenomena?)

If the doctor had declared that they want to study children and their responses to MMR and then saw a correlation between previously defined symptom sets and timings of vaccines, then you would have a valid test. (See Hornig et al.)

Are you getting it yet?

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 04:06:26 GMT

No you don't have it right Richard.

The Texas sharp shooter fallacy is a post hoc drawing of the target around any random cluster of events. You cannot say beforehand where the target will be.

The MMR/autism challenge-dechalllenge re-challenge is a specific sequence of events event you are looking for in the mass of data. You know in advance what event you are looking for. You see the target before you shoot.

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 07:23:22 GMT

Richard - you are almost there now. What you have described is exactly the sharpshooter fallacy since you are trawling through 'a mass of data' looking for a pattern that looks like a CDR response. You do not see the target before you shoot - you select the shots that line up in a nice neat cluster to make it look as if you can hit a target. It is like shooting at a barn hundreds of times and then drawing the target around a few shots that have clustered together and then saying 'at least some of the time I am an accurate shot'. What you are describing is a result that says ' at least some of the time MMR causes autism'.

The big question is - what about all the gunshots that you haven't selected and the mass of data that does not show a CRD response? You are cherry picking the result you want. This is JABS in a nutshell.

Are you beginning to see the error yet?

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 22:24:30 GMT

No. If you formulate the hypothesis before you examine the data, then it isn't post hoc.

The other strength of CDR is, it isn't a single event that is correlated with a trigger but a sequence of events. Much less likely to happen by chance.

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 22:54:51 GMT

Richard - I am sorry to keep on, but you really, really do not get this.

When you have a whole load of data (e.g. children with autism, bullet holes in barn doors) you cannot trawl that data for a subset that fits your hypothesis. Random associations will occasionally look like the data you want, just as Hamlet asserted the cloud looked looked like a camel, then a weasel and finally a whale. In short, you cannot decide what your experiment was after you have the data. It makes it statistically invalid. Another example - you cannot decide that a lottery winner was a thief because the chances of them actually winning the lottery are 14 million to 1. Nor can you jail a doctor because 10 people have died unexpectedly on her ward. There will always be a few unlucky doctors that have lots of unexpected deaths. To decide after the event that they are murderers is not valid. (People get jailed for this sort of thing because people do not understand statistics, e.g. the Sally Clark tradegy)

If however, you make your assertion that you are going to test, and then do your experiment - e.g. CDR, then you have some evidence. Just like you drew a target on the barn and then fired your shots. CDR has not taken place here. It has happened in retrospect.

Perhaps you would like to reference the scientific paper that showed that this was a genuine CDR and not just an ad hoc analysis performed after the event?

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 00:05:05 GMT

What we are doing is a giant CDR experiment with the double dose MMR regime. When we see the CDR autism response in a significant number of patients we can be assured that the MMR jab is causing autism.

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 13:14:05 GMT

Now you looking at CDR the right way around. Good.

But you come to an unsupportable conclusion. How do you know the autism response is caused by MMR and not just an artifact of looking at huge numbers of children and seeing random associations? You cannot.

This sort of experiment has been done on massive scales now. It is called epidemiology - and the results of such studies - as listed above - conclusively demonstrate absolutely no response that can be attributed to MMR.

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 00:04:23 GMT

epedimiology cannot by its very nature show causation, while CDR can.

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 08:45:11 GMT

Epidemiology is very good at showing there is an effect that needs explaining and it shows no effect for MMR and autism - the same as CDR. But you obviously disagree.

Perhaps then you would then like to do two things:

1) Explain how CDR can show causation

2) Point to any published work on CDR applied to MMR.

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 15:34:25 GMT

1) The Institute of Medicine acknowledges the causal significance of CDR evidence in case reports, noting that the recurrence or non-recurrence of the adverse event—rechallenge—will have a major impact on causality assessment. Likewise, the FDA agrees and adds, “Assessment of temporal relationships and dechallenge/rechallenge information is usually considered your strongest evidence of a causal association. And the Stephens textbook states that a positive rechallenge is “probably the strongest proof of a causal relationship.” If giving

the drug a second time is not done owing to ethical considerations, then three cases of challenge-dechallenge only can prove causality, on at least a probable, more likely than not basis, if not beyond a reasonable doubt.

http://www.donaldmiller.com/On%20Evidence%20talk%20to%20Seattle%20Surgical.pdf

2) Strong Evidence Mercury & Vaccines Cause Autism

A Population Level Rechallenge in Japan

The Honda/Rutter Japan Paper

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/clifford.g.miller/hondarutter.html

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 20:12:36 GMT

Richard - you really are the funniest person I have ever debated with. I ask you to point to any paper that shows a CDR experiment applied to MMR. Instead, you point to an anti-vax web page that discusses the Japanese Study. Let us remind ourselves the conclusion of that paper that was entitled: "No effect of MMR withdrawal on the incidence of autism: a total population study."...

"The significance of this finding is that MMR vaccination is most unlikely to be a main cause of ASD, that it cannot explain the rise over time in the incidence of ASD, and that withdrawal of MMR in countries where it is still being used cannot be expected to lead to a reduction in the incidence of ASD."

Once again you have taken peer reviewed published science that shows there is no link between MMR and autism and allowed yourself to be convinced by contorted logic that it proves the opposite.

I do also love the way you slip into the MMR/mercury conflation. This makes me think that there is dishonesty here as anyone interested in he MMR story will know that the MMR vaccine has never contained thimerasol.

http://www.fda.gov/cber/vaccine/thimerosal.htm#t1

As you have said yourself - MMR involves injecting an "innocent infant with a virulent pathogen " (You were wrong about this - the virus is attenuated - not virulent - and you never acknowledged your error). The point is that MMR is a live vaccine - mercury would kill it.

I would suggest you have been well and truly busted.

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 21:18:12 GMT

As always, Andy, read before you criticize.

"'The Honda/Rutter paper is:-

"No effect of MMR withdrawal on the incidence of autism: a total population study." Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry (2005).

When the flaws are identified and corrected, the paper provides what seems unusually strong proof, not normally seen, implicating vaccines as a cause of Autistic Spectrum Disorders (ASD). The paper, when corrected with the missing data, shows ASD numbers increased and decreased in direct proportion to the total number of measles and MMR vaccines given to children.

We see here not just evidence of dechallenges and rechallenges on a population level but a "dose-response" relationship. This is conclusive evidence of a causal association. A dose-response relationship on a population level is rare if not unprecedented because the kind of close numerical correspondence seen here is not usually found.

The Honda/Rutter paper when corrected provides strong proof implicating MMR and single measles vaccines as a cause of ASD. It also implicates rubella and JE (Japanese Encephalitis) vaccine containing the vaccine ingredient and known toxic mercury containing neurotoxin, thiomersal (a.k.a. thimerosal). "

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 15:53:55 GMT

Oh, Richard, I did read what you posted. And yet again you have taken peer reviewed work that shows no link between MMR and autism and then pointed to some self published web site that uses hand waving, special pleading and post hoc analysis to attempt to prove the opposite. It fools no-one. Once again, do you have any peer reviewed published research to prove your CDR theory? Can you show where these 'important' corrections to Honda/Rutter have appeared? No. They are nonsense and a deliberate attempt to confuse.

If you want to play unpublished critiques, here is another of the one you put forward...

http://pyjamasinbananas.blogspot.com/2008/06/briffas-devastating-critique.html

In this review you can see in the comments, the (almost undoubted) author of your analysis wriggling as they refuse to ackmowledge their obvious error but instead try to bluster it out.

And you are busted for trying to bring in the mercury link. That is what they worry about in the US and it has nothing to do with MMR. It just shows once again how quickly you move goalposts to attemp to score goals.

re: Measles - what next?

Will — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 18:52:37 GMT

You are talking trash, Andy. You are unable to think and argue logically. Get out of your box man. You are embarrassing yourself.

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 05:19:40 GMT

Will.

Wonderful contribution. Care to point out any logical falacies or factual errors I have made?

re: Measles - what next?

Will — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 16:36:37 GMT

That's not possible, Andy. There are too many errors in your thinking. I can explain it only in one of three ways:

1. You are not intelligent enough to sustain a more complex chain of arguments in which case you have to be forgiven

2. you have malicious intentions

3. Both

In any event, trash belongs on the garbage heap.

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 18:07:12 GMT

So, you cannot point out even a single error? Instead, you resort to simple abuse.

Go on. Just one thing that I have said that is wrong. Can you engage in a respectful way, Will?

From my end, it looks like when the anti-vaxers have run out of steam and been shown to have baseless and daft arguments, the only thing left is ad hom attacks. Is that all you have left?

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 04:48:27 GMT

Obviously mercury isn't used in the MMR jab. Mercury is a potent toxin that would kill the virulent pathogen being forcibly injected into innocent children.

Unfortunately for your side Andy, even co-opted government health authority scientists are starting to realize the game is up.

"The list is significant, and growing (see below). And to it, should be added Dr. Peter Fletcher, former Chief Scientific Officer at the Department of Health in the UK - (which, if I'm not mistaken, is roughly the same as our head of the FDA).

An editor at the Age of Autism site, Anne Dachel, wrote to Dr. Fletcher to seek his reaction to the stories about reportedly high rates of autsim among Somali children in Minneapolis.

Here was his reply:

"I have always thought since I first heard about the Somali children that this really proves the causal role of vaccines. The Amish children who have no vaccines have no autistic-like disorders and the Somali children who are newly exposed to aggressive vaccine programmes have exceptionally high levels! What more evidence is needed?" "

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/former-uk-science-chief_b_146717.html

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 08:00:36 GMT

I see "drive by" Will does not want to substantiate his claims. No surprise there.

Richard - back to the 'innocent children" gambit?

Before I take apart the Fletcher opinion, it would be interesting to see if yo are capable of any critical appraisal of you own position and evidence base?

Before we go on, can you think of reasons why the evidence from the Huffington Post might not be conclusive? What would we need to do to confirm? What confounding variables and information might there be? Why should be trust Fletcher's word etc?

It will be telling to see what you can come up with.

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 13:54:15 GMT

BTW. "Measles cases reach 13-year high"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7753210.stm

Over a thousand cases this year alone in the UK. Will all the anti-vaxers here step forward and take a bow.

After that, I would be really interested if Richard can think of ways his latest "bombshell" might not be conclusive? Are you capable of critical appraisal. Can you anticipate my objections? There are many - and they will be forthcoming...

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 18:17:09 GMT

Andy

I expect you will duck and weave and obfuscate. I don't blame you. The phony consensus that the MMR is safe is starting to leak at the seams. The list of doubters is growing.

"During 2008, all of the following groups and individuals have advocated or considered exploring possible links between vaccines and autism:

1) Both Presidential Candidates

2) Director of the CDC

3) Former head of the NIH and American Red Cross

4) Chair of the U.S. House Science Subcommittee on Investigations

5) Dr. Jon Poling, Pediatric Neurologist

6) HHS Vaccine Safety Working Group

7) CDC Vaccine Safety Research Agenda

8) Medical personnel at HHS Vaccine Injury Compensation Program

9) Members of the Strategic Planning Workgroup of the IAC Committee

10) Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment Network - CISA

11) Autism researchers at Johns Hopkins University Medical School

12) America's health insurance companies

13) Autism Speaks

14) The United Mitochondrial Disease Foundation

15) Dr. Peter Fletcher, former Chief Scientific Officer at the UK Department of Health"

The autism omnibus hearings are going to have a decision on the Cedillo test case by January and it is expected to favour the plaintiffs. A new administration the US is likely to clean house at the FDA and the CDC. The era of compulsory vaccination is coming to a close.

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 01:38:36 GMT

Andy

There is an excellent discussion of measles mortality vs. vaccination in the BMJ by Hillary Butler

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/337/oct01_3/a1856

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 19:15:00 GMT

Richard - it is rather ironic that you accuse me of "ducking and weaving and obfuscation" (once again, without substantiation) when you immediately embark on your own ducking and weaving and obfuscation by refusing to acknowledge my reasonable request that you try to anticipate the problems with your Dr. Peter Fletcher argument and then obfuscate by suggesting that all these authoritative bodies are somehow interested in possible links between vaccines and autism. Of course many bodies are - it has been an important question to answer with so much at stake and so much misinformation about. The risks are high as the current measles outbreaks testify. But the research is now in and it shows there is no such link.

So, back to your Dr. Peter Fletcher argument. And please be quite specific if you want to accuse me of ducking and weaving and obfuscation because I believe I am tackling your points head on and honestly. Firstly, you start off by an appeal to authority by saying that 'the game is up' because 'important' people say so. The authority of the speaker is immaterial. Only their evidence counts. But before looking at the evidence, since you bring it up and it appears to be vital to the strength of your point, let's examine your authority claim a little closer.

Dr. Peter Fletcher is not "the same as our head of the FDA". He was a civil servant in the '70s and was a principal scientific officer in the Department of Health. One of his responsibilities was to as an assessor to the Committee on Safety of Medicines. Now he is a paid-for advocate of the anti-MMR litigation gravy train.

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/3611/

He first came to MMR prominence when he reviewed the original Wakefield paper. After becoming an expert witness (fees £40,000) he has been a high profile anti-MMR advocate whilst refusing to be challenged by anyone critical of Wakefield.

Not sound so grand or uninterested now?

As for the Somali children 'proof', where is this published so we can examine it? Such a claim that Somali that autism is only present when the children arrive in the USA is absurd and would need a staggering amount of proof. Somalia is one of the poorest countries in the world with a health care system that ranks as 179 out of 190 surveyed by the WHO. When those children arrive in a country with a mediocre to good health care system (the USA ranks 37th just above Cuba) then you can expect vastly greater diagnosis of autism - not necessarily a real increase. Somalia has essentially no health care system and so reported autism rates can only be vastly under estimated.

Couple this with child mortality rates and life expectancy. Somalia has the 206th worst life expectancy by country in the world. Moving to America would suddenly place them in the top 50 best countries (America is a 46th according to the CIA World Factbook). I would expect even greater rates of diagnosis of these children had moved to a country with a good health care system, such as France, Italy, the UK or even Morocco or Saudi Arabia.

Dr Fletcher would need extraordinary evidence to show the increased rates were not due to massively better diagnostic capability of the US health care system. Where is this? Has Dr Fletcher allowed his critical abilities to become clouded by the associations he keeps?

My guess is that the Amish 'stories' to can be similarly explained by a community that famously cuts itself off from outside influence and interference and modern ways. Under reporting of health issues must be common. It is also worth noting that the Amish have been susceptible to Polio outbreaks since they refuse vaccination.

So what you have here is exactly what Anne Dachel said she had - stories. There is no evidence here and no reason to believe that "the game is up". That you could not or would not anticipate these staggering weaknesses in this argument just shows how blind you are to the weakness of your own position.

re: Measles - what next?

Will — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 22:33:52 GMT

Andy,

The game is up. Your last contribution is exactly of the trash quality I would expect from somebody like you. Anybody who falls for your non-sense deserves nothing less than being debilitated by big pharma's toxic products.

re: Measles - what next?

Will — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 05:03:46 GMT

Drive-by-Will. Merely calling my contribution trash does not make it so. If you are new in town, debates typically take place by explaining why you might hold such a view. Can you explain why my contribution is trash? Can you put together a coherent argument? Or will you just disappear again and wait to drive by again?

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 05:29:31 GMT

That was me above obviously - not Will. Early morning slip of the keyboard. Will are you still there? Can you substantiate your claims please?

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 19:59:17 GMT

Baby died after MMR jab

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/healthy-baby-died-after-mmr-jab-1048237.html

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 20:28:35 GMT

So, Richard. You choose to ignore my demolishing of your Fletcher argument and then move onto the next incredibly weak and nonsensical argument.

So, a baby dies. The parents believe it was MMR to blame. So which is it Richard? MMT causes autism or MMR kills babies? Can you stick to a story?

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 17:43:08 GMT

Obviously its both, Andy.

"Sarah found him around twenty minutes later, having beforehand directed clingy Meg to "get into mum's bed for a cuddle" not making the connection for Meg's distress. Then she went to get Georgie, found he was cold, his arms either side of his head, bubbles at his mouth his teeth firmly clenched, dead. A fit? She took him downstairs wrapped in a blanket and laid him on the sofa and rang the emergency services. Police and paramedics arrived to a distraught household, they tried to resuscitate him but failed he was declared deceased at 8.25am on January 19th 2006, 10 days after his MMR. His lungs and blood showed measles virus, he had an enlarged spleen which means he was fending off a virus – or three.

I have never been to an inquest before. I am the Mum of a boy who became severely autistic after his MMR. I sat next to Jackie Fletcher, of JABS a remarkable lady and mother to Robert who has a most profound disability after his MMR too. We have reason to believe that the faith and trust we parents place in those guardians of public health on immunisations has become much more about their own protection than our childrens’. We have been betrayed. We trusted their word and gave the vaccine they recommended. So much more depth and honesty is deserved when it goes wrong but in this case it would be admitting to murder if they knew about adverse reactions yet persisted with their safety assurances. Unfortunately I predict that no-one will be held accountable and the death put down to an “unascertained cause”. "

http://www.jabs.org.uk/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3259

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 23:09:48 GMT

There are few people who agree with you. Do you think posting all that emotive stuff from a distressed parent proves anything.

It now looks as if the coroner has concluded that the baby died of natural causes unrelated to the MMR jab.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/gloucestershire/7765512.stm

I fully expect to see you come up with some conspiracy theory now.

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 23:56:30 GMT

Unfortunately they couldn't come up with any explanation - "Sudden Unexpected Death in Childhood, due to an unascertained disease" - and of course it couldn't be the MMR jab because that would be liability for Pharma and embarrassment for the government. The MMR jab was the only possible causative event and it was swept under the rug.

Its not fooling anybody.

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 08:37:47 GMT

Ahhh - quick to the conspiracy! So, the coroner is in league with the pharmaceutical companies? How does that work? Are coroners paid lackeys of Big Pharma?

You know, sometimes things happen in life that we cannot easily explain. Science is quite happy to admit that. It appears to me that many in the alt med world cannot accept this and quickly paste over uncertainty with whatever ad hoc explanations are lying around. It does not make them real.

re: Measles - what next?

Will — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 10:15:00 GMT

And who exactly are you, Andy, to decide what is real and what is not real? Your unscrupulous thinking and arguing makes you a disgrace to mankind and represents the very source of the pharmacological genocide that has been taking place for decades. You are a heck of a messed up guy. For God's sake, go and get some help. It's painful to see somebody falling so low. Take care of yourself.

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 12:17:27 GMT

Good to see you again Drive-by-Will. I see you are back to making unsupported assertions and insults.

My question would be who do you think you are to decide that MMR causes autism when there is no good evidence available to suggest such a thing? All the evidence presented so far has been absurd. And when this is pointed out, you pop along ans suggest I need 'help'.

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 00:26:51 GMT

Its not me asserting that coroners are paid by Pharma. Are you saying that?

Its more like group think and paradigm stickyness.

The general public, parents especially are more and more concerned that the health authorities aren't telling it like it is. Any health professional that departs from the party line is ostracized and persecuted like Wakefield.

Any disinterested observer reviewing the Georgie Fisher case would conclude that MMR was the cause of death. Only those with a pre-ordained agenda could see it differently.

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 01:06:54 GMT

Well that is just not true is it, Richard. Ben Goldacre has a good take on it in today's Guardian. He notes that

"On Tuesday, the Telegraph, the Independent, the Mirror, the Express, the Mail, and the Metro all reported that a coroner was hearing the case of a toddler who died after receiving the MMR vaccine, which the parents blame for their loss. “Toddler ‘died after MMR jab’” (Metro), “‘Healthy’ baby died after MMR jab” (Independent), you know the headlines by now. I wouldn’t want you to think the MMR story had died, just because a few kids have died of measles.

On Thursday, the coroner announced his verdict: that the vaccine played no part in this child’s death. So far, of the papers above, only the Telegraph have had the decency to cover the outcome. The Independent, the Mirror, the Express, the Mail, and the Metro have all decided that their readers are better off not knowing. Compare here and here. Tick, tock."

The media give a one sided view and people like you lap it up.

You might like to read the rest, especially about the bits that suggest MMR might have an overall protective benefit on childrens' immune systems...

http://www.badscience.net/2008/12/its-not-my-fault-i-fall-into-repetitive-self-parody-you-started-it/

There is a lot there you might like to try and absorb. Most importantly, the paper that shows the O'Leary lab was giving rubbish results...

http://www.badscience.net/wp-content/uploads/erp_mmr.pdf

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 08:38:56 GMT

It looks as if O'Leary will be retracting his earlier results in light of the discovery that he was measuring DNA when in fact the measles virus RNA based...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/dec/09/medical-research-mmr-vaccine

re: Measles - what next?

harradine — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 01:07:16 GMT

Apologies for intercepting your thread..

I've lived in London for 13 years and Speakers Corner has always been a place where I have felt like history was being kept alive.

I have to be honest, I've not been there for a while and it has gone down hill in recent years. I mean really down hill. (I was there today and there was ONE guy talking about snogging Paris Hilton...)

Just one speaker, and he was truly dire. Made London and the UK look like crap.

Now, much as I love this forum, I believe in 'flesh speak'.

So who is with me? I am prepared and willing to turn up to speakers corner, Hyde Park, next Sunday and try me best to keep this tradition alive. I am more than happy to stand up and talk- that comes easy to me. But is anyone here with me?

This is a serious request. I wasn't sure where else to ask. Even if you don't want to speak, please come along. This is a very old tradition which seems to have died. I for one would like to keep it alive and will stand up and do my part.

All support welcome. Any Londoners here, please come along to keep Speaker's Corner alive.

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 17:49:18 GMT

Funny you should mention Dr. Goldacre, somebody who, like Bustin, admits taking Pharma cash.

Is it surprising that either one of them is pro-MMR?

The people with vested interests keep supporting MMR and otherjabs like gardasil, but people whose interests are children, ie.parents, are turning the other way.

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 19:18:25 GMT

Would you care to substantiate your claim that Goldacre 'takes pharma cash'?

You imply that they are both corrupted by money. Can you back up this rather disgraceful claim?

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 04:31:30 GMT

As commented on by John Stone in the BMJ:

"We can all benefit from Ben Goldacre's wisdom. For instance, in 2004 Goldacre received the Association of British Science Writer's (ABSW) award for "the best feature on a science subject in a national or regional newspaper (2003) [1] for an article on MMR: 'Never mind the facts' [2]. The major sponsor of the award of £2000 was MMR manufacturer and defendent Glaxo SmithKline [1]. This has not been disclosed in many Guardian articles mentioning MMR, nor was it recently Goldacre's BMJ piece 'MMR, the scare stories are back' [3]."

"Ben Goldacre won the same award again for 2005 for the article 'Don't

dumb me down', which also referred to his previous award winning article

on MMR [1,2]. On this occasion sponsorship of the award had passed to

agricultural bio-tech company Syngenta [1], which perhaps Goldacre ought

to disclose when engaging in polemics to do with food and nutritionists

such such as 'Tell us the truth about nutritionists'[3]"

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 17:34:31 GMT

Yet again Richard, you amaze me. You claim that Goldacre "admits taking Pharma cash" and the best evidence you can come up with is that he has won a couple awards as a journalist. You really are amazing. Once again, I take my hat off to you in your ability to believe things on the flimsiest of non-existent evidence.

But let's look at your claim. Obviously, you feel that somehow this has corrupted his work? Can you explain precisely how? Do you have the intellectually honesty and courage to say exactly what you mean?

Some things you might like to address: firstly, here is the announcements of both awards...

http://www.sciencewritersawards.co.uk/science/past/2003/index.htm

and

http://www.sciencewritersawards.co.uk/science/past/2005/index.htm

You can see the lists of judges on both - mostly science writers (as this is their award), politicians and broadcasters. Are these people too in the pockets of "Pharma cash"?

What about some of the other writers and winners mentioned here? How about David Attenborough? Is he too thoroughly corrupted? Adam Hart-Davis? Go on. Have you the courage to say how all this is corrupting? And how does a sponsoring company that makes seeds for farmers and garden centres corrupt a writer writing about MMR? And the prizes of £2000. Is this what "Pharma cash" splashes out on its henchmen?

Just like this entire thread. Your assertions cannot be backed up with any credible evidence. Just like your amazing start to this thread that claimed "the Wakefield hypothesis has been substantiated numerous times, most recently by Hornig et al" you are unable to provide any evidence for your beliefs that is not completely laughable.

Are you sincere enough to explain yourself or will you withdraw the allegations that Goldacre "takes Pharma cash"?

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 05:36:08 GMT

Andy sometimes you can't see the forest for the trees.

Goldacre wins a science award for his article on MMR and autism. The sponsors of the award, the source of the cash prize given to Dr. Goldacre is the very Pharma Co that is a defendent in the MMR lawsuit.

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 09:26:58 GMT

But Richard, what you are implying is extraordinary. Are You implying that somehow the sponsors influenced the judges to make Goldacare receive the award? And that was his reward for writing about MMR. And are you implying that what Goldacre wrote was deliberately skewed so that he would be rewarded?

What exactly are you saying?

Because if you cannot clarify exactly what you mean, it just looks like some journalist won a writers award, alongside David Attenborough and other well known figures. In other words. Unless you are able to make specific allegations, your arguments look petty, weak and cowardly - and meaningless.

re: Measles - what next?

Richard Ponsonby — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 17:06:55 GMT

Andy

Do you think if he had written that there were links between MMR asnd autism he would have received a reward from Glaxo SmithKline, one of the defendants in the MMR suit?

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 20:36:04 GMT

I think it would have been embarrassing for GSK, but they were not the body doing the choosing, were they? I see you have not answered (again) my question. Precisely, what is your allegation here?

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 17:30:01 GMT

goldacre is hardly the one likely to subvert the dominant paradigm is he?

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 17:44:07 GMT

Dr. Horton and Dr. Wakefield

http://www.ageofautism.com/2008/12/smoke-and-mirrors-dr-richard-horton-and-the-wakefield-affair.html

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 22:58:04 GMT

Richard - I dare you to read Goldacres book - Bad Science - where he spends a good part of it attacking pharmaceutical companies.

Still cannot make your allegations clear? Read his book and then set out your stall.

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 16:44:43 GMT

Andy

the medical establishment is a spider web of interconnected vested interests. Pharma Cos, Health authorities, the medical profession itself all consist of the same people supported by the massive profits of the Big Pharma and all in a position to keep those profits flowing.

Even if there isn't an explicit quid pro quo between people like goldacre and Pharma, he knows it ultimately pays his bills and without it he would be nothing. A little nit picking here and there establishes his anti-authoritarian credentials, without being an actual heretic.

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 23:33:01 GMT

So, you have not read his book then. And I bet you are too scared to too!

re: Measles - what next?

Richard Ponsonby — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 06:07:28 GMT

No I haven't read it. The reviews have been mixed and his smarmy humour puts me off. I might read if my local library gets it. I am certainly not going to enrich Big Pharma even more by buying the book.

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 08:16:31 GMT

Richard

Once again you are reduced to making unsubstantiated, nonsensical accusations. How on earth will buying this book enrich 'Big Pharma'? Earlier, the best you could come up with was that once upon a time Goldcare won a writing competition.

How would buying the book 'enrich Big Pharma'??

I have read the book and it is scathing of the way pharmaceutical companies misrepresent and distort data about their drugs. It is damning - hardly 'nit picking'. Also, It shows how the alternative medicine industry and the conventional medicine industry use exactly the same tricks to promote their products. The bit you would not like though is that is dissects the whole MMR hoax and shows how it was perpetuated by ignorant or politically motivated journalists and daft pressure groups, in spite of the ever growing evidence that MMR was not the cause of autism or any other imagined illness.

re: Measles - what next?

Richard Ponsonby — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 21:52:08 GMT

The problem of course is that Dr. Goldacre and Bad Science are as much part of the problem as Big Pharma. The whole medico-legal complex is suffused with vested interests and the main interest is the status quo. It must be preserved.

Goldacre is unable to admit that if the corrupting influence of the Pharma Cos is to be overthrown, much of what is sacred in modern medicine goes with it."Science" has got to the point where it can see that vaccination is not all that it is trumped up to be, but it is unable to take the next step and sort the wheat from the chaff.

Obviously polio and smallpox vaxes worked and were very effective, but the law of diminishing marginal returns means that things like the MMR jab kills more than it cures. Its like arsenic or electro shock. Its archaic and needs to be replaced. If vaccination studies and trials were run by a neutral non-commercial body whose main priority was public safety and not profit, vaccinations would be few in number, and the public would be taught proper nutritional and other modalities to protect their health.

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 10:17:10 GMT

Happy New Year to you.

You would have an important point if anything you said was true.

Once again, a string of unsubstantiated assertions. MMR kills more than it 'cures'? We have demonstrated you have no evidence for this. Even better, you contradict yourself. You say 'the status quo must be preserved?' Why? Medicine is most definitely not in a status quo. New evidence emerges all the time. Medicine realises mistakes were made and it changes practices. Look at sites such as Cochrane or Bandolier and all you see is assessments of evidence. Do you see arsenic or electro shock in widespread use? No? Why? Because medicine evolves. SSRIs are a good example. We now know that they are not that good for mild to moderate depression. Prescribing habits change.

And Cochrane and Bandolier are 'neutral non-commercial bodies' who assess evidence dispassionately. In the UK we have NICE - a body that does much to annoy pharma companies as it waits for good evidence before making clinical recommendations in the NHS. NICE is watched all around the world for its decisions as they can be relied upon to be free of the Pharma bullshit that clouds so many of the issues.

Alternative Medicine has no such systematic way of "sorting the wheat from the chaff." Can you think of any alt med modality that has been dropped as a result of its poor evidence base? You ask for the public to be taught "proper nutritional" modalities. All the large recent vitamin pill studies have drawn blanks on showing benefits from taking most vitamin pills. Do we see nutritional therapists changing their advice? No of course not. They take commissions from selling pills. It is not in their interests to listen to evidence. Instead we see the nutritional bodies pathetically and unethically trying to rubbish sound research to deliberately confuse the public.

Richard - you are part of the problem. Do you ever pause to reflect that might be true?

re: Measles - what next?

Richard Ponsonby — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 05:54:36 GMT

Andy

When science was an amateur activity untainted by commercial practices, it could change when new fact were uncovered. Those days are long gone. If big Pharma could patent arsenic or electroshock and make billions from it, do you think it would ever be abandoned? Of course not.

Modern medicine is a closed loop of circular reasoning held together by the spiderweb of vested interest that has developed over the last fifty years. Now when facts are uncovered, the medico-legal establishment does its best to suppress them. This is most apparent by the selection of what can be considered evidence. In medicine's golden age, it progressed by doctors making and recording observations about their patients and treatments. What worked and what didn't work.

Now the evidence of thousands if not millions of parents and hard working GPs and nurses is completely disregarded and even consultants like Wakefield are derided if their facts don't support the status quo. Epidemiology and statistics trumps the first hand experience and observations of those at the bedside.

Did you see that Wakefield has been awarded the Galileo award? I wonder what you will say when he is vindicated before the GMC hearing?

http://www.ageofautism.com/2008/12/age-of-autism-awards-2008-galileo-award-dr-andrew-wakefield.html

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 16:10:39 GMT

Richard - I think you have a view of medicine rather clouded by your perceptions of Big Pharma and I guess the American Health model.

For your views to be correct, you would have to assume that Big Pharma controlled the delivery of medicine. It does not, but it would love to. You must also assume that all medics are bound by some sort of commercial corruption by Big Pharma.

I would suggest that America comes closest to this model, but even there it is far from complete. America is near unique in the world in its delivery of health care with its private insurance based model, private doctors and its allowance of direct to consumer marketing by pharmaceutical companies. This of course, binds heath care provision much closer to pharma than anywhere else in the world. The rest of the world looks on rather agog at the situation America has got itself into with its vastly expensive system and underperforming and unequal provision. Life expectancy in America is about 37th (IIRK), just a place above Cuba - and the costs are vastly higher than the rest of the western world with big pharma and insurance companies sucking money out of Americans pockets. Despite this, America stills spends more on public provision on health care than the UK but fails to provide universal coverage. We wonder why Americans put up with it - but another debate.

So, you thesis fails because, say here in the UK, doctors do not receive incentives from drug companies, nor do drug companies advertise direct to consumer. We have public and accountable bodies that arbitrate what medicines are useful based on published evidence and can negotiate huge discounts which keep costs down. In such an environment, it is far far harder for pharma to influence prescribing habits and distort research. They try - but are kept much more at arms length.

As for the Galileo award - what a laugh!! I think it was Robert Park who said "Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment, you must also be right." Wakelfield has been shown to be wrong and feels persecuted because of this. He is no Galileo. And the award is from Age of Autism? You really have to be joking, right?

re: Measles - what next?

Richard Ponsonby — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 04:22:04 GMT

Andy, you admit that the American medical system is corrupted by Pharma dollars, do you not find it ironic that it will be the next jurisdiction where MMR meets its downfall?

Have you noticed the fake consensus over vaccination starting to fall apart under the barrage of irrefutable fact? First the Hannah Poling case and this year the Cedillo test case will be decided and it doesn't look good for the vaccinators.

I find your use of life expectancy tables amusing if a little out dated. The US is down the list at 48, but the UK is only in 36th place, not really that good a result, is it?

The top six countries are Macau, Andorra, Japan, Singapore, San Marino, Hong Kong. Four of the six are Oriental countries that rely on traditional Chinese medicine as much as they do western medicine and Japan famously abandoned the MMR vaccination yeas ago.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

Have you taken note, Andy of the complaint filed with the GMC against 11 prominent doctors involved in the MMR fiasco, by Bill Welsh, an autism grandparent? Welsh outlines five areas of concern.

"The inexplicable, and unforgivable, failure to react appropriately when it was established in 1998 that autistic children had a novel form of bowel disease/ inflammation.

An insistence on an “MMR or nothing” policy in face of the initial, and accumulative, scientific and anecdotal evidence re MMR’s lack of safety for a sub-set of children.

A refusal to press for proper investigation, using the most appropriate scientific means of research, of the claims of thousands of parents that the MMR vaccine had damaged children.

The promulgation, in conjunction with the Health Protection Agency, of information relating to MMR vaccine safety that is likely unreliable and potentially misleading in that context.

The recommendation that unethical treatments be given to children when there is no clinical need and irrespective of whether the child might be prone to adverse reactions. "

it will be interesting to see if the GMC responds to this complaint or sweeps it under the table at the behest of the Pharma Cos.

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 16:24:49 GMT

Richard, we might agree on much when discussing the bad things pharmaceutical companies have done. Where we obviously differ is that you appear to equate modern medicine with pharmaceutical companies rather than see them as one component within that world. That they are like every other commercial entity in the world and attempt to advertise misleadingly, show data that favours them and try to hide data that doesn't (and so on) is obvious. Name me a company that does not do this. (And I would argue Alt Med is far worse as it has none of the checks and balances around it that surround real medicine).

But this truth does not automatically mean that MMR is bad, drugs do not work and alternative medicine is good. What it does mean is that we need to be cautious (as always) in interpreting data from them. My point is that pharma is not the only source of data and that they do not have the power to corrupt all sources of data (and that America probably has the hardest time due to its unique, extremist, expensive and unequal method of funding health care).

Your method of thinking is trasparent:

1) Assert loudly your belief without substantiation

3) Search for any glimmer of supporting evidence of your worldview.

3) Ignore and do not look for any evidence that may counter that.

4) If there is counter evidence, blame it on the corruption of Big Pharma.

You last post displayed this admirably. Let's see..

You assert that there is now "irrefutable fact" against vaccination. You are on your own in believing this. Throughout this entire thread you have utterly failed to provide any convincing evidence against MMR. Most of what you have put forward is utter distortion and obfuscation. (e.g. your Hornig fiasco)

You then claim that most of the top 6 countries in the world use TCM. You ignore the more obvious conclusion that binds the top 7 (bar japan) is that they are all enclaves, city states and tax havens. As you may well know, one of the best predictors of longevity is wealth. These places tend to have high per capita incomes, can often select who is resident and who is not and have advantages of support from wealthy neighbours and former or current colonists. For example, I have worked in Singapore and it is a country of great wealth and ostentation, and where the latest gadgets, cars and luxuries are far more important than pretend medicines.

Creating longevity in large, diverse countries is much harder. Japan does very well, but it does have excellent social health care provision. Other Western countries, such as France are very good too with superb social health care provision. The UK lags a little, but it is interesting to note that the health cost burden per individual is only $2,300 compared with $5,700 in the USA, and the UK still achieves better results.

Oh and yes, I made a minor mistake - I was thinking of the UN Health Care rankings that put the US in pos 37th.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

If Traditional Chinese Medicine was so good, you might expect China to rank highly, it lags at position 103.

And no, I have not taken note of the complaint to the GMC. Making complaints is cheap. making malicious complains, unethical. You appear to have already made up your mind though regardless of the findings? Everything to you is a conspiracy. There is not a jot of evidence to suggest the GMC will be influenced by Big Pharma in this case. It is all in your mind.

It may just well be that MMR is safe, you know.

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 14:20:37 GMT

Did you see the news today?

'Unprecedented' rise in measles

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7819874.stm

Are we all feeling a nice warm, proud feeling of achievement here?

re: Measles - what next?

Richard Ponsonby — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 18:03:26 GMT

You will note that no deaths from measles were reported.

Are you a doctor Andy? Are you worried by Bill Welsh's complaint?

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 19:29:18 GMT

Why should I be worried? Let's see what happens.

And yes, deaths have started in the past few years after measles was almost eliminated. There have been one in 2006 and one last year. If measles gets a grip, we can expect many more. Many other children have been hospitalised. These are real, preventable deaths. Do you feel comfortable being so glib?

re: Measles - what next?

Richard Ponsonby — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 20:53:10 GMT

Are the deaths from MMR real preventable deaths? Or just statistics? Or collateral damage?

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 22:33:37 GMT

What do you mean by that? Statistics? Collateral damage?

Collateral damage against what?

I must say, I find your cavalier attitude alarming. Measles is on the rise. MMR uptake is lower than it needs to be. People like you are to blame. And you jus tdo not get the simple facts.

re: Measles - what next?

Richard ponsonby — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 05:29:34 GMT

Any premature death is a tragedy. You claim there have been what, two, deaths from measles in recent years. There have been over 30 deaths attributable to vaccinations in recent years. Of course the government doesn't recognize them as vaccine caused deaths because by some quirk of British law, any death under the age of two can not be caused by a vaccine.

Are these deaths any less real to the grieving families than the two that are alleged to be from measles? Do you want to talk to the families and explain to them how their children died to save the lives of others and incidentally line the pockets of big Pharma? Do you?

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 09:09:53 GMT

So, back full circle to you simply asserting that MMR kills babies. Your law is bad. This is not true. Even if it was true, the Government and any number of scientists could take action. You live in a fantasy world.

As a matter of interest, how many measles deaths would be OK before you changed your mind?

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 09:23:24 GMT

Oh and by the way. When you say 30 deaths due to vaccinations - do you mean all vaccinations or just MMR? How many deaths do you believe have been due to MMR? What is the evidence that the childrens' deaths was due to MMR? (with references please).

And please answer my previous question: how many measles deaths is OK for you before you become troubled?

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 05:24:48 GMT

"About Your Claim For a Vaccine Damage Payment.

We received your claim for a payment under the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 on 30/05//2006.

I am sorry to tell you that your claim has been unsuccessful.

This is because claims can only be considered once a child reaches two years of age.

Unfortunately, Anna was under the age of 2 when she passed away.

Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 sect 2(1 )(c)"

http://www.jabs.org.uk/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1691&whichpage=2

Its hard to get good numbers on deaths due to vaccination as the HPA doesn't consider them to be possible and salts away the deaths in various other categories. Jackie says she has contacted somewhere around 30 parents whose children died ater vaccination.

If you take the estimate that only 10% of adverse effects are reported that could be as many as 300 deaths.

One measles death troubles me more than 300 vaccination deaths troubles you.

The health authorites are so keen on one size fits all vaccination to maintain the mythical 'herd immunity', that the suppress the contraindications to vaccination. There are number of children who absolutely should not be vaccinated, those with compromised immune systems, previous exposure to viruses, but in the quest for 100% compliance they are just statistics.

The emininent health journalist and whistle blower Martin Walker has written an excellent summary of this problem.

http://www.box.net/shared/qp9ac8mq1x

I suggest you read it Andy. It may open your eyes.

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 22:35:04 GMT

More hogwash.

If your quote is right it does not mean that British law "doesn't recognize them as vaccine caused deaths". It means there is an early cut off age. The act quite clearly recognised vaccine damage and death contrary to what you assert.

It is completely absurd to compare the real deaths caused by measles and your made up number of 300 vax induced deaths. Because that is what it is: imaginary. The 'Jackie 30' are unverified. Your x10 factor is plucked out of a hat without justification. Complete imagination.

Herd immunity is not a fiction. Indeed, it is the lack of sufficient vax coverage that killed one of the chilren. They were immune compromised and so could not be vaccinated. Their protection depended on the responsible actions of other parents to have their own children vaccinated. Your campaign kills children - as simple as that.

And as for the 'eminent' journalist Martin Walker - who is he? Which eminent publications does he write for? Or does he have to scrabble to get anything published and resorts to self-publication of his own works of fiction. Is he to be relied upon, or are his works so riddled with misinformation as to make him a laughing stock?

Can you justify 'eminent'?

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 00:53:45 GMT

Your justification makes no sense. If an innocent child is murdered by Big Pharma before having reached the age of two, the vaccine damage payment program, will not even consider it a vaccine damage nor pay a claim. Why Andy, can you answer me that? Perhaps because the number of claims would bankrupt the exchequer?

Martin Walker: "Previously, in his 25 years as a journalist with The Guardian newspaper, he served as bureau chief in Moscow and the United States, as well as European editor and assistant editor.

A regular broadcaster on the BBC, National Public Radio and CNN, and panelist on Inside Washington and The McLaughlin Show, he is also a senior scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington DC, a senior fellow of the World Policy Institute at the New School for Social Research in New York, and a contributing editor of the Los Angeles Times's Opinion section and of Europe magazine.

His books include "Waking Giant: Gorbachev and Perestroika," "The Cold War: A History," "Clinton: The President They Deserve" and "America Reborn," published in May 2000 by Knopf. His latest novel "Bruno, Chief of Police" will be published in the U.S. in 2009 by Knopf and in Germany by Diogenes."

Sounds very eminent indeed , Andy,

But that is irrelevant. Did you read his work detailing the shameful activities of Britain's vaccine regulators?

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 22:09:58 GMT

Ha Ha Ha

I think you mean Martin J Walker, no relation to Martin Walker the eminent US journalist.

Martin J Walker is self publishes incoherent and crudely researched rants that appear to have impressed you.

Ha Ha Ha

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 00:54:00 GMT

I thought it was the Martin Walker from the Grauniad. Are you sure?

Did you read his article?

What about the fact that governmentt has been forced to open its MMR files?

"The UK’s Daily Mail newspaper reports today that the British government was desperately trying to prevent secret files on the proven dangerous Pluserix MMR vaccine from being released publicly under the UK’s Freedom Of Information laws. In a recent case they have been forced to open the files up to scrutiny:-"

"The UK’s Department of Health and others appear to have been reckless as to the safety of British children over the manner in which Glaxo company, Smith Kline & French Laboratories Ltd’s Pluserix MMR was introduced and used on British Children in 1988

the problems with Pluserix MMR were known to the supplier, Glaxo company Smith Kline & French Laboratories Ltd from the experience of its introduction to Canada, in 1986, where Pluserix was marketed under the name “Trivirix”

Trivirix (Pluserix) was withdrawn from use in Canada in 1988 because it was dangerous, causing high levels of adverse reactions in children

the high levels of British adverse reactions to the vaccine were apparent and known about at British Ministerial level in 1990, as shown by ministerial correspondence"

So right from the start the interests of Big Pharma was put ahead of the health of the public. Why do you suppose the government is opposing opening these files?

Because the whole case for mass vaccination is about to blow up in their face?

http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2009/01/13/secret-british-mmr-vaccine-files-forced-open-by-legal-action/

re: Measles - what next?

bfg — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 15:35:45 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 16:54:24 GMT

For completeness...

The court has now ruled on Dr Bustin's testimony

"having had an opportunity to observe Dr. Bustin during his testimony in the Cedillo hearing, the undersigned found Dr. Bustin to be a credible and very knowledgeable witness, who demonstrated a learned facility with the subject matter of his testimony….

As discussed in this ruling, Dr. Bustin’s testimony regarding the reliability of the test results obtained by the Unigenetics laboratory are particularly relevant in this case. The testimony of other witnesses in this case together with Dr. Bustin’s own presentation as a witness militates in favor of a finding that his testimony is scientifically reliable."

It looks like the court has ruled that MMR is not a cause of autism...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090212/ap_on_he_me/austism_ruling

Court says measles vaccine not to blame for autism

Are we at last going to see an end to this nonsense and start protecting kids without having to fight dangerous idiots who think it harms them?

re: Measles - what next?

Richard Ponsonby — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 14:34:49 GMT

Money talks.

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 17:06:00 GMT

"Money talks."

You have absolutely no shame.

"This case, however, is not a close case. The overall weight of the evidence is overwhelmingly contrary to the petitioners’ causation theories. The result of this case would be the same even if I totally ignored the epidemiologic evidence, declined to consider the video evidence, and/or excluded the testimony of Dr. Bustin. The result would be the same if I restricted my consideration to the evidence originally filed into the record of this Cedillo case, disregarding the general causation evidence from the Hazlehurst and Snyder cases. The petitioners’ evidence has been unpersuasive on many different points, concerning virtually all aspects of their causation theories, each such deficiency having been discussed in detail above. The petitioners have failed to persuade me that there is validity to any of their general causation arguments, and have also failed to persuade me that there is any substantial likelihood that Michelle’s MMR vaccination contributed in any way to the causation of any of Michelle’s own disorders."

Let's hope the ""MMR causes autism" hypothesis rests in peace. To continue to argue so, puts children's lives at risk and is continuing to exploit the parents of autistic children. Or will the small number of anti-vaxxers let their pride and arrogance rule and compel to them to continue their destructive quest?

re: Measles - what next?

Beth — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 20:22:44 GMT

As a parent of a child who developed a severe reaction within 2 hours of receiving his MMR shot I know how dangerous a vaccination can be. My son got a fever of 107 and stopped breathing. Thank goodness I am a nurse and able to do CPR on him or he would not be alive. A friend of mine also vaccinated her son with the same lot vaccine. He started bleeding from every orafice, eyes, nose, ears and penis. They took him to Children's Hospital in Philadelphia, PA and he was put on life support. After thousands of dollars worth of testing they were told he was brain dead. They made an agonizing decision to pull the plug but he kept breathing. He is still alive but blind and paralized from his neck down and requires constant care. Their medical bills were over $500,000 for the first year alone.

Since then I have found some excellent books on the subject. Dr. Viera Scheibner, Ph. D. "Vaccination, 100 Years of Orthodox Research shows that Vaccines Represent a Medical Assault on the Immune System" shows the connection of vaccines and SIDS. Please check out Dr Sherri Tenpenny's books and must watch video which uses CDC reasarch against itself.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7018835240451107552

Instead of endlesslly disputing scientific research let's step back and look at the big picture. Chronic diseases like allergies ,asthma and cancer in children has tripled since we started vaccinations and the death rate of chidren has not decreased. Kids are now just dying from horrible chronic diseases instead of acute ones. In Dr. Tenpenny's books she uses the statistics of the CDC to prove that the acute diseases we are vaccinating against were dying out way before the start of vaccinations. Dr Richard Moskowitz , MD a Harvard graduate has written about the connection of vaccines and chronic diseases.

The current statistics for autism in my State of NJ are 1 in 94 girls and 1 in 64 boys! There were not any cases of autism in China in 1999 when we they first started using our thinerosal containing vaccines. Now there are 1.8 million cases of autism reported in China In David Kirby's book he reported investigating autism in the Amish community. He only found 3 cases, all of which had been vaccinated.

Can you tell me kids are healthier now than they were before the vaccination program began? Also using a little common sense can you really believe that substances like thimerosal, aluminum, formaldehyde, polysorbate 80 and DNA from aborted fetus' can be good for our children?

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 00:53:34 GMT

Yes Beth. Kids are much healthier and safer than they have ever been and vaccination plays a huge role in that. Quite simply, I think you are being hoodwinked by a few cranks.

For example, can you substantiate your claim that there were no cases of autism in China before 1999? Or that "autism in my State of NJ are 1 in 94 girls and 1 in 64 boys!"

I think you will find the true facts are rather different.

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 02:37:31 GMT

You see Andy it doesn't matter how many thousands Pharma spends on "expert witnesses" they can't silence the parents who have seen their children destroyed before their very eyes.

re: Measles - what next?

Beth — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 17:02:36 GMT

Dear Andy, I admit I don't have all the scientific research that you do but here is published research from the CDC backing my claims. Hopefully we are all on the same page wanting what is best for our children. Thank you for your willingness to look at both sides of the story. I as a parent have to do the research and be responsible for whatever consequences follow. I have been caring for my vaccine damaged son for 26 years and have 4 more healthy unvaccinated children. Like so many parents I vaccinated my first child believing that he would be safe and protected from childhood diseases. Unfortunately my son paid a huge price. He became violent and hyperactive immediately after he came back to life. He screamed uncontrolably for most of the day and would wake every hour during the night for a full year after the vaccination.Prior to it he was a heathy, happy calm child. At 2 years old he was the first case of Lyme disease in the Philadelphia area. The "expert" Drs. were unable to diagnose it for 2 years until I found an article on Lyme disease and showed it to them. They wanted to tie him down and give him IV antibiotic daily for 4 months. Instead I took him to a MD Homeopathic Dr. who treated him. His Lyme symptoms improved dramatically and he became less violent and able to focus better. I know you don't believe in Homeopathy but as my Dad always said, "The proof is in the pudding." It is devasting for a parent to make a choice that ends up damaging our children for life. That is why so many parents of autistic children are looking for the truth.

Please read the links below. Thank you for your time.

http://www.childrens-specialized.org/press/pdf/Star%20LedgerNJshowshighrateofautism.pdf

Do U.S. Drug Companies Export Autism?

Due to the concerns of Kennedy and thousands of like-minded parents, vaccine manufacturers have begun to phase thimerosal out of injections given to American infants. Unfortunately, though, they have continued to export their back stock of tainted vaccines to developing countries, according to Kennedy. For instance, autism was virtually unknown in China prior to the introduction of thimerosal by U.S. drug makers in 1999; today approximately 1.8 million Chinese children suffer from the disorder. Even so, industry groups complain that a direct link between autism and thimerosal has not been definitively proven.

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 22:50:48 GMT

Beth. Whilst I full accept that your testimony is heartfelt, I am afraid it cannot stand as proof that vaccines cause damage to kids. With millions being vaccinated, a few will get ill near the time of the vaccination. It does not mean that the vaccine caused the illness. It is the same with the fact that there are lottery winners who swear it was their 'lucky numbers' that did it for them. It does not mean that using your lucky numbers will cause you to win the lottery. It is mere coincidence. But to the lottery winner, or the parent, that has an ill child, accepting this can be very hard.

The scientific studies have failed to show any relationship between vaccines and damage such as autism. For example, Austism levels in Japan continued to increase after MMR was dropped. A decade after the discredited idea that MMR causes autism was first formulated, there is still no evidence that this is true and tons to show that it is false.

All we have left now is a few anecdotes and people like Richard screaming loudly. Richard has no evidence - just conviction and conspiracy theories. Evidence means nothing to him. Everything is framed within his worldview of conspiracy. Organisations like JABS are now doing untold damage by continuing to push discredited and half baked theories loudly onto vulnerable parents. We are seeing measles return to the UK and deaths are hot on its heals.

People like homeopaths claim to know all the answers. They are misleading themselves and others. The truth is that we do not know the causes of autism and it is only scientists who are wise enough to say that. The apparent increases we see may simply be due to differences in how we measure. Autism is a spectrum - from very very mild symptoms, up to very disabling symptoms. Where you draw the line for 'autism' is arbitrary and greatly changes the rates that are observed. We live in a medicalised society where we want to put labels on all sorts of behaviours. This could be the only explanation required to explain the apparent rise. But in the meantime, many quacks, both unconsciously and fraudulently, are exploiting worried parents for their own ends.

Thimerasol was never in MMR. The antivax movement likes to conflate ideas and create a confusopoly of dissent. Prove that one area (e.g. MMR) is not to blame and they shapeshift to other worries (mercury). There is no coherence in the antivax movement, just an irrational desire to be 'right'. Far from drug companies 'exporting autism' what we see is antivaxxers exporting ignorance, risk and disease - all without reason. JABS, and their allies, ought to be hanging their heads in shame at the deadly mischief they have caused, all through their own sense of self importance. Fortunately, they have been busted and their time in the limelight has come to an end.

re: Measles - what next?

Jiri — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 00:41:18 GMT

Dear Andy, What pharmaceutical company are you working for or being paid by??? No normal person would be fighting as hard as you are for a lost cause. You're talking about conspiracy theories, not knowing that studies done by big pharma companies or sponsored by them are conspiracies themselves, (it's your job to pretend not to know.) You're blind and deaf to anything anybody says. Are you one of the people who talks how good vaccines are, but never used them for themselves or their family members?

What good is it to give vaccination to a newborn baby for Hep B? Are you abusing your child that we have to protect them from sexually transmitted diseases? What about polio vaccines being introduced after the disease almost disappeared and Gardasil the biggest conspiracy ever published. Are you getting your annual flu shot??? That would explain your brain damage. I really admire Richard for his patience. He is doing his best but we need an army of guys like him.

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 02:19:28 GMT

Jiri - you lose. Accusing me of working for a pharma company? Ha Ha. That is the only way you antivaxxers can think. Everything is driven by money.

Let me tell you. I am driven by evidence. I am fully vaccinated up. I often work in poor countries and I ensure all my jabs are up to date. That is what the evidence tells me is the best thing.

Please point out where my discussion of evidence is wrong. But you wont. Instead of debating facts, you resort to fantasy. Conspiracy theories and wild imagination. The antivaxxers are purely driven by their own sense of self importance and a messiah complex. Get over it. You are risking peoples' lives.

re: Measles - what next?

Jiri — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 14:28:35 GMT

Let's start with something like this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg-52mHIjhs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1Hw-Q23S_s

What's your comment Andy?

re: Measles - what next?

Brandon — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:00:28 GMT

If anybody feels pressured by presumed authorities or anybody else into vaccinating their children, go and tell them that you will get your children vaccinated after they have gone to see their solicitor to sign a sworn statement (affidavit of fact) stating that vaccines are safe and do not cause any form of mental or physical harm. Then let them sign an indemnity contract in which they agree to pay you £10,000,000 in compensation in case the child is permanently disabled as a result of vaccinations. That'll shut them down real fast.

An affidavit is a sworn statement made and signed by someone who has first hand knowledge, not hearsay. Since I have not found any of the sickness professionals wanting to sign such an affidavit, perhaps people should ask Andy if he will be so good and sign one including the indemnity contract. Andy seems to have a lot of first hand knowledge regarding events and situations which he is not involved in. On the other hand, since he has professed to be fully vaccinated, Andy might want to undergo a general physical and mental health evaluation first in order to assure everyone that in fact, he is:

1. competent to sign such documents.

2. He is a clairevoyant who has the verified ability to have first hand knowledge about events and situations he is not involved in.

I believe that this should not be all that big a comittment for somebody who has so much first hand knowledge.

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 22:14:19 GMT

Brandon

That is just such a daft argument. I am not sure what you do for a living Brandon - probably something not too sophisticated - but would you sign a similar declaration that your job was absolutely safe and indemnify anyone you came into contact with personally for £10,000,000? Would a taxi driver? A refuse collector? Postman?

Nothing in life is without risk. We live with risk. The point is with MMR is that the risks of harm are much, smaller than the risks of being unprotected against dangerous diseases. The stupidity of your stance is that it is a one sided contract - the benefits of immunisation are not being taken into account.

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 22:24:38 GMT

Jiri - these two videos have nothing to do with whether or not MMR is safe. Innuendo. Nothing more.

If you have some evidence that MMR is not safe, then perhaps you would like to discuss that.

re: Measles - what next?

Jiri — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 00:51:20 GMT

I'm aware of that. I'm just trying to start somewhere. We can agree on one thing Big pharma is corrupted, that means if they are involved in any independent research one may say it is not trustworthy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZArebYZzdc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5WNLOjmAiw&feature=related

What do you think about it Andy?

re: Measles - what next?

Brandon — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 10:53:16 GMT

Andy,

As I said before, a health evaluation might be beneficial to you because your mind has been messed with to such a degree that you can only resort to lies and distortions. There is no truth in what you say and beyond that you appear to fight a ferocius fight by lies and omissions because you either get paid or you are hell bent in destroying the lives of children and parents. Whoever you are, get yourself sorted out.

What I do for a living is way beyond your comprehension. It is by any standards more honourable than trying to entice confused parents into harming their children.

The reason why I do not require an affidavit from my postman or refuse collector is quite simple: They do not try and attribute any liabilities to me. Yes, accidents can happen, wherever there is human interactions. However, when one party tries to confuse another party and entice the other party into accepting risks then I have a right to accept such an enticement under a contract stipulating my own terms.

He who avoids and evades liability has no rights to attribute duties, obligations and liabilities to anybody. This is especially true in the absence of first hand knowledge.

You have no first hand knowledge about the risks of any vaccinations. Neither do I. I, however, know an awful lot of people whose children became very sick after vaccinations. I also know a lot of people who have had mumps, measles and so forth and every single one of them recovered easily.

If you are so hell bent in trying to get people to accept vaccinations, then act and accept liability. Without that, you have no credibility.

You are right, I do not sign such affidavits myself because I am not going out there risking the lives of millions and then try and hide behind second hand knowledge. Quite simple, really.

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 12:14:58 GMT

The current anti-vax comments are smokescreens deflecting from the simple truth that the best scientific evidence says that MMR is safe.

Firstly - pharma companies - like all businesses are imperfect. Absolutely. They often fall short of the very high standards we expect of them - but name any business of any type where this not true. But to equate scientific method with pharma companies is making a huge category mistake. Science is much bigger than any company.

Science works because it is self critical. This is its defining feature. Take the BMJ and its recent list of most cited papers: the top three were: the dangers of the anti-inflammatory Vioxx; the problems with the antidepressant paroxetine; and the dangers of SSRI antidepressants in general. It is not quacks who discover problems with medication, but scientists being self-critical. The same process has scoured the data over MMR and it has found that it does not cause autism and poses acceptable risks to people given the benefits it offers. You need some really warped conspiracy head to conclude that Big Pharma are conspiring on MMR but failed on other areas of medicine. The conspiracy argument is just a post hoc handwaving silliness based on ignorance and fear.

I do not know what to say to Brandon - as he is just incoherent. For a start, there is explicit liability in the doctor-patient contract. If the doctor is negligent, then the patient is perfectly entitled to compensation and the doctor could be struck off. What brandon asks for is an absurdity and a smokescreen.

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 12:32:50 GMT

Let's take another tack...

Imagine a fictitious vaccine called NNR. Everyone agrees that it is perfectly safe and has no side effects. Given that NNR is given to all children at a young age there will always be a small group of children who get ill, for different reasons, shortly after receiving their NNR jab. It is just a chance correlation - no more, just like some children get ill after receiving their first teddy bear.

The parents of the ill children desperately seek an explanation for the calamity that has struck them and pick on the first thing that springs to mind and that, in their heads anyway, is plausible, - the NNR jab. They scream at doctors, but the doctors tell them that it is unlikely that NNR caused the problem. The doctors fail to give a full explanation and so the parents think there must be a conspiracy and start a campaign group for 'NNR-damaged' children. Over time, their obsessions and delusions get re-inforced by obsessives and cranks who try to make their name on the internet. Even a maverick doctor, who finds he can earn large sums of money by acting as an expert witness in court, is tempted into making unfounded and distorted claims about the NNR jab.

Despite public reassurances from almost all scientific sources. the fears of NNR do not subside. Right wing newspapers see it as an opportunity to further their political aims. More research on the safety of NNR is forthcoming but it is completely ignored by the press who much prefer 'NNR KILLS BABIES' headlines to 'science suggests NNR is safe' stories. And so the story snowballs...

My question is: what is the difference between my fictitious NNR story above and the real situation of MMR?

re: Measles - what next?

Brandon — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:30:41 GMT

Andy,

What a logical fallacy to claim that MMR is safe. It is based on the presumption that science in this instance is perfect and does not make mistakes in this instance. This is what you are really claiming here and this quite clearly is unsupportable. Additionally you are making such claims from a position in which you have not even first hand knowledge. Have you conducted the studies? Have you been there and supervised them? I doubt it. You are basing YOUR evidence on pure hearsay and blind faith into science. Science itself is not self critical. Science is conducted by men and women. Men and women are susceptible to an infinit amount of influences. Men and women are not infallible especially when it comes to money. It strikes me as odd that those studies in support of MMR safety seem to be conducted by people whose money trail seems to go right back to vested interests. It also strikes me as odd that those studies claiming a link between MMR and autism seem to be conducted by people who have no money links to big pharma. In any event, I still have to consider all of this to be hearsay because I was not there, I do not know these people and I also have no insight into their banking habits.

It's all hearsay. So, if all of this, no matter which side, is hearsay, how can I make any informed decision? I can not. I have no evidence of anything. I only have the words of unknown and therefore untrusted parties. Quite frankly, I would be incredibly irresponsible to get something injected into my children on the basis of hearsay. I would be negligent and even more so if my own experience suggests that there might be a link between MMR and serious ensuing illness. What I experience in my own environment takes precedence over hearsay. It must because otherwise I have subroggated my responsibilities and my ability to observe to unknown third parties which only accept limited liability. How stupid would that be?

As far as compensation is concerned: The health of a human life cannot be compensated for by money. Compensation is for cowards. I compensate you but I do not accept any liability. Such are the usual contract terms. An abomination. Nothing less than the acceptance of unlimited liability by the maker of a product demonstrates full responsibility especially when the maker pressures others into accepting his products in any shape or form. Nobody has the right to bring about pressure to use a certain product which has the potential to cause unlimited harm to a human being without accepting unlimited liability. Otherwise, the maker has limited liability and the user carries unlimited risk. This is what I would call a contract lacking equal consideration.

We all accept that there are risks whenever men, women and children interact. That's just life. However, if I brought something into circulation and claimed that it reduces a certain natural risk for millions if not billions of people, I would better make sure that I got all my facts right and that I accept unlimited liability, othwerise, I would just be a moron and a danger to others.

So, in order to clear a few things up here, here a couple of questions:

1. Andy, do you have first hand knowledge that MMR is safe? If yes, please provide all the details so that others can verify that you in fact have first hand knowledge.

2. Do you have first hand knowledge that MMR generally provides a benefit to the majority of children? If yes, please provide all the details so that others can verify that you in fact have first hand knowledge.

I want these two questions answered. I do not want any of your usual NLP non-sense, the bringing in of any non-related arguments and questions, just answer these two questions. These are the ones that matter.

I will (and others might) take your non-response as your tacit agreement that:

1. You do not have any first hand knowledge of any facts upon which you could base any justifications for your position other than that of mere subjective opinion.

2. Due to your lack of first hand knowledge, your claims as to the safety of MMR are based on pure belief and hearsay.

As far as your question is concerned: Both the NNR and MMR stories are fictitious because there is no reality to the MMR story as far as I am concerned. It's all hearsay.

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:06:18 GMT

Brandon

Straw man - false dichotomy - bullshit. Of course science is self-critical. That is the very nature of science and what separates it from other forms of knowing such as revelation, intuition, authority. You clearly have little idea what you are talking about.

Before I answer, can you define what you mean by 'first hand knowledge'? What criteria would you accept as being sufficiently 'first hand'. What would it be in my experience of the world that would categorise me as having sufficient knowledge and experience for you? If you can be clear, then perhaps it is a question worth answering, but my guess is you have little idea what you are talking about again.

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:19:22 GMT

And perhaps Brandon, you could answer these questions:

If I do have first hand knowledge that MMR is safe, would you then change your stance and take my word for it that it is safe? Would you reconsider your own position? What would it take for you to question your own belief that MMR is harmful?

re: Measles - what next?

Jiri — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 04:12:40 GMT

Andy, Do you think MMR is the only safe vaccine or are all of them completely safe and effective in your mind? Thanks for admitting big Pharma has their flaws as well. At least we agree on something.

re: Measles - what next?

Jiri — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 04:14:27 GMT

PS. Richard where are you?

re: Measles - what next?

Brandon — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 09:48:57 GMT

For and on the record, let Andy's non-response to my questions above be taken as his tacit agreement that:

1. He does not have any first hand knowledge of any facts upon which he could base any justifications for his position other than that of mere subjective opinion.

2. Due to his lack of first hand knowledge, his claims as to the safety of MMR are based on pure belief and hearsay.

Glad we got that cleared up.

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 11:06:06 GMT

And I note Richard that you could not answer my questions that would clarify your question and your stance on it. You are just game playing.

And it is a daft game. Let me explain why. The assumption behind the question is that anyone can only come to a reasonable conclusion given the evidence for MMR if they have 'first hand' knowledge of its safety (whatever that means). But you obviously contradict yourself as you have taken a position and I bet you are not a researcher on MMR. It is a daft position because it means that no one can really come to a conclusion. Not even a parent wondering if they should have their kids immunised. The truth is Richard, it is quite possible for any reasonable person to weight the evidence and come to a conclusion. And what you are trying to hide from Richard is that there is not a shred of reasonable evidence that MMR causes autism and loads of good evidence that it does not. Instead of facing up to this, you word game.

Richard - care to answer my reasonable questions? What would change your position? And how do you tell the position of the NNR imaginary vaccine and MMR?

These questions are ignored as they cannot be answered and still claim to believe that MMR is harmful.

And as for Jiri - do you notice that you too produce straw man arguments. When have I said that MMR is completely safe? I would not argue such a standpoint. I would argue that it is safe compared to the risks of catching these diseases and so the balance of risks says that you should take it. And I have argued that there is no good evidence that MMR causes autism. Not a jot.

re: Measles - what next?

Brandon — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 11:13:25 GMT

Andy claims that science is self-critical. I have no evidence that for something to be able to refer to itself as "self", it must not also have awareness and a life of its own. I have no evidence that Andy is not claiming by implication that science has a life of its own independently from the men and women conducting science.

Here a few questions:

1. Andy, do you have first hand knowledge that science is self-critical and that this alleged ability of science exists independently from the men and women conducting it?

2. Do you have first hand knowledge that science is immune to any influences exerted upon it by the men and women conducting it?

3. Do you have any first hand knowledge that those men and women conducting scientific research are immune to any influences that might impact on the outcome of their research?

I will (and others might) take Andy's non-response as his confession to all of the following:

a. If question 1 above is not answered to the point, Andy does not have any first hand knowledge that science is self-critical and that this alleged ability of science exists independently from the men and women conducting it?

b. If question 2 above is not answered to the point, Andy does not have any first hand knowledge that science is immune to any influences exerted upon it by the men and women conducting it?

c. If question 3 above is not answered to the point, Andy does not have any first hand knowledge that those men and women conducting scientific research are immune to any influences that might impact on the outcome of their research?

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 11:24:06 GMT

Brandon - please stop playing silly word games and imposing your own constraints on debate. You really are appearing to be a fool. If your questions are loaded and/or meaningless, then my response or non response to them in no way allows you to draw conclusions about my stance. It really is completely idiotic and distracts from the simple question here: is MMR safe to give to kids and does it cause autism?

Your word games are a diversionary tactic to avoid answering the difficult questions about this and I might too conclude that you are a hollow man.

To answer your questions, why not do a little reading about the philosophy of science and how it works? You might then be able to take part in informed debate.

re: Measles - what next?

Brandon — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 11:33:08 GMT

Here my position for and on the reocrd:

1. I have no first hand knowledge that MMR causes autism.

2. I have no first hand knowledge that MMR does NOT cause autism.

3. I have no first hand knowledge of most things in the world and I believe that most people do not have either.

4. I believe that one must have first hand knowledge of something in order to make an informed decision.

5. I believe that somebody who asserts and alleges a certain position to be evidenced without first hand knowledge of the evidence is irresponsible.

6. I believe that somebody who does not know what first hand knowledge is does not know the difference between hearsay and facts either.

re: Measles - what next?

Brandon — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 11:36:13 GMT

Let Andy's non-response be taken as his confession to all of the following:

a. Andy does not have any first hand knowledge that science is self-critical and that this alleged ability of science exists independently from the men and women conducting it.

b. Andy does not have any first hand knowledge that science is immune to any influences exerted upon it by the men and women conducting it.

c. Andy does not have any first hand knowledge that those men and women conducting scientific research are immune to any influences that might impact on the outcome of their research.

Glad we got this cleared up also.

re: Measles - what next?

MartinW — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 11:59:26 GMT

Very good questions, Brandon. Right to the point. More striking is Andy's inability to answer them. Funny, his excuses of you going of track when this is what he is doing all the time. Anyway, good for you to expose his claims that there is evidence of this or evidence of that. What a load of .....

Keep up the good work and enjoy his attack on my posting. I have enjoyed your postings for quite some time.

re: Measles - what next?

Brandon — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 14:57:17 GMT

Martin,

I hope that you see what I am doing here: I am taking claims Andy made and ask him to back them up by his first hand knowledge. If he had such knowledge he would answer the question(s), after all, they are related to his claims. Andy calls this tactic "word games" to deflect attention from the fact that he has nothing but hearsay to back up his position on MMR and that his verbal assaults on others are nothing but hot air in order to intimidate others into accepting inferiority.

Understandably, nobody with a God complex likes to be shown off as somebody who is not God.

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 20:55:48 GMT

Andy I think your comments should be directed to Brandon not to me.

Ithink andy means well but he has been corrupted by the system and he is unable to consider the evidence that is right before his eyes. He hasn't been able to refute any of the arguments made here at wddty and I am surprised he continues to try as he simply makes himself look foolish.

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 03:10:23 GMT

Brandon -the inanity of your position is breathtaking. Why do you think science is defined by its self-critical nature? It is precisely because science is a process conducted by fallible humans. By taking a self-critical stance, errors or reasoning, mistakes and poor experiments can be exposed, refined and improved upon. That is how science ends up with a reliable, albeit imperfect, set of knowledge. All other forms of acquiring knowledge fall short of this. It would appear, Brandon, that you believe that speaking out of your backside is a superior form of knowledge acquisition. I think I have discussed your breathtakingly stupid position with you before. Merely asserting things do not make it true. If you seriously think your position is worthy of discussing, then, as I have asked you, define what you mean by first hand knowledge?

You appear to have found a co-idiot in the form of MartinW. When do I go off topic? I have tried to focus on the evidence for and against MMR and autism, but the thread has a habit of being distracted by verbal incontinence in the form of word games.

And then Brandon blindly asserts that I cannot refute any of the arguments. I kindly submit that you re-read this thread. The whole evidence base for MMR-autism is intellectually dishonest, most typified by the early claim in this thread (let me remind you) that "he Wakefield hypothesis has been substantiated numerous times, most recently by Hornig et al." It was a fantastically perverse claim them and it still has not changed. Exaggerated and distorted lies. It is that simple. And, on the contrary Richard, you have still not been able to substantiate that ridiculous claim, all these months on.

Wiser people than me warn that you should not wrestle with pigs. You all get dirty, but the pigs tend to enjoy it. Do you all enjoy being this stupid?

re: Measles - what next?

Brandon — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 13:53:26 GMT

Andy,

You have already agreed that you have no first hand knowledge otherwise you would have answered my questions. As a result, your arguments are based on pure belief. You are entitled to your belief just as others are entitled to theirs.

If you really do not know what first hand knowledge is then you lack the capability to distinguish fact from fiction and this lack is exactly what you have demonstrated here in abundance.

So, in order to help you out here for your own clarity, a few questions:

1. Have you personally witnessed and understood at all times the studies allegedly showing that MMR is safe?

2. Have you personally witnessed and understood at all times the studies allegedly showing that MMR is not linked to autism?

3. Have you personally witnessed and understood at all times the studies allegedly showing that MMR is linked to autism?

4. Have you personally witnessed that those men and women conducting any type of studies (pro or anti-MMR) have been self-critical at all times?

5. Have you personally witnessed that those men and women conducting any type of studies (pro or anti-MMR) have not been put under any form of pressure i.) resulting in a specific outcome of the study and/or ii.) not resulting in the correct outcome?

6. Do you have personal knowledge that the abstracts published of any pro or anti-MMR studies are a correct interpretation of the actual studies themselves?

6. In case you answer NO to any question(s) above, can you show how your claims are not based on pure hearsay?

If you start arguing about the above questions or do not respond "yes" or "no", I will take any questions not answered as being answered "no". These are simple questions.

For the avoidance of any doubts, here again my position again:

1. I have no first hand knowledge that MMR causes autism.

2. I have no first hand knowledge that MMR does NOT cause autism.

3. I have no first hand knowledge of most things in the world and I believe that most people do not have either.

4. I believe that one must have first hand knowledge of something in order to make an informed decision.

5. I believe that somebody who asserts and alleges a certain position to be evidenced without first hand knowledge of the evidence is irresponsible.

6. I believe that somebody who does not know what first hand knowledge is does not know the difference between hearsay and facts either.

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 14:22:04 GMT

Brandon - more daftness. It is pointless engaging with you if you really believe what you say you do. You appear to be asserting that the scientific method cannot be used to obtain object, albeit imperfect, knowledge of a real external world. It is difficult to know since you have failed, despite several requests, to define your terms, such as 'hearsay', 'first hand knowledge', 'personally witnessed '. As such, what you write is just pseudo-philosophical garbage. And a massive distraction from people who might be interested in discovering the truth about the world.

Your position is of course self-refuting. As I have pointed out to you before, it is not possible to live a life that does not assess evidence from multiple sources, whether through direct experience of events, or from indirect sources. Next time you try to catch a train, attempt to do it without recourse to indirect evidence of it arrival times. Are the station managers being irresponsible by asserting when the train will arrive without actually having direct foresight of that event? Do you return home disgusted at your inability to obtain 'first hand knowledge' of the train's arrival times and destinations?

This would be a really funny conversation if it was not about a serious concern. Should parents vaccinate their children with MMR? If we were to take Brandon's position at face value, what could a parent do? Would they be paralysed into inaction? The choice for parents can only involve evaluating claims based on the experience of others. If they vaccinate, they are relying on scientific evidence. If they do not vaccinate because they are fearful of harm, then they rely on more indirect evidence from idiots on the web. By your definition, the parent must be irresponsible no matter what course of action they take, since the vast majority of parents have never been involved in clinical trials of MMR. And your stance appears that they can only make an informed choice if they have been omnipotent and omnipresent in all aspects of the debate. Your standards are as impossible as they are meaningless.

The big thing that you are appear to be missing is that it is still possible to live a rational life in a world where our knowledge of that world is imperfect. You can make rational choices based on available evidence and a knowledge of its imperfections and limits. You do not need a complete access to truth in order to make rational choices. What is not rational is to demand total knowledge before you can make meaningful choices. The fact that people can catch trains fairly reliably is proof that that they can properly assess arrival times based on prior experience, published data and fresh inputs. It is a perfectly rational choice to turn up at the station 15 minutes before the expected arrival time with the intention of catching that train. It is also perfectly rational to vaccinate your children given the total lack of reliable evidence that MMR causes autism and the knowledge from the experience of others that measles can be a rather nasty disease.

And that is what I have been trying to do. Get the anti-vax lobby to clearly state what evidence they have that parents should not vaccinate their children. The fact that the conversation descends into pseudophilosopical gibberish and nonsense is testament to the hollowness of the anti-vax position.

No evidence - so bluster instead.

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 15:49:28 GMT

Its in the Daily Mail now, so it must be true...

"How the middle-class MMR refuseniks are putting every child at risk"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1149322/How-middle-class-MMR-refuseniks-putting-child-risk.html

"The parents of Silas, Mimi and Toby are middle class and university educated, but they are behaving like morons and turning their children into pariahs. "

"Now in Britain there is a growing backlash against women like Maria, who insists that spinach will protect her three-year-old son Marcus against measles."

re: Measles - what next?

Brandon — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 18:56:10 GMT

For and on the record: Let Andy's non-response to above questions be taken as:

1. Andy has not personally witnessed and understood at all times the studies allegedly showing that MMR is safe.

2. Andy has not personally witnessed and understood at all times the studies allegedly showing that MMR is not linked to autism.

3. Andy has not personally witnessed and understood at all times the studies allegedly showing that MMR is linked to autism.

4. Andy has not personally witnessed that those men and women conducting any type of studies (pro or anti-MMR) have been self-critical at all times.

5. Andy has not personally witnessed that those men and women conducting any type of studies (pro or anti-MMR) have not been put under any form of pressure i.) resulting in a specific outcome of the study and/or ii.) not resulting in the correct outcome.

6. Andy does not have any personal knowledge that the abstracts published of any pro or anti-MMR studies are a correct interpretation of the actual studies themselves.

7. Andy has failed to show that his claims are not based on pure hearsay.

re: Measles - what next?

Brandon — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 19:04:14 GMT

For the record:

1. I do not have any evidence that the Daily Mail article (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1149322/How-middle-class-MMR-refuseniks-putting-child-risk.html)

is true and correct and I do not believe that such evidence exists.

2. I believe that Andy has no evidence that the Daily Mail article (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1149322/How-middle-class-MMR-refuseniks-putting-child-risk.html)

is true and correct.

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 23:14:29 GMT

Brandon

Your stance is a useless arguing point as it could be applied to any position. Since you set impossible standards of evidence, then no reasonable belief could really hold.

Let's test this. Do you believe that dinosaurs existed? My guess is that you would say that since you have no direct experience of dinosaurs then a belief in such creatures is unwarranted and maybe even irresponsible.

Is this so? Do you think that academic palaeontological researchers are deluding themselves since they too can have no direct experience of the creatures of their study?

What about astronomers studying Pluto? No one has seen Pluto unaided. Pluto must be observed through intermediated apparatus and hence can never be a direct experience. Is belief in Pluto also unwarranted?

re: Measles - what next?

Brandon — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 23:29:23 GMT

After it has now been established that Andy, like everybody else who is not directly involved in pro or anti-MRR research, does not have anything but hearsay of third parties to go by when it comes to making a decision regarding vaccinations, we have to admit that we are acting based on belief, intuition, personal experience and a firm conviction that we want the best for our children in all cases. After all, which parents have the intention of harming their children?

Andy gave a very good example of a typical methodology used hundreds of times in the public to stupidify the people. He said: "The fact that people can catch trains fairly reliably is proof that that they can properly assess arrival times based on prior experience, published data and fresh inputs. Next time you try to catch a train, attempt to do it without recourse to indirect evidence of it arrival times." Since when is a time table evidence of when a train actually arrived? A time table is nothing more than a notice of when a train is supposed to arrive. It expresses an intention and not a fact. The fact that people can catch trains fairly reliably is NOT proof that that they can properly assess arrival times based on prior experience, published data and fresh inputs. People do not assess time tables. They believe that what the time table says is correct and then base their decisions on that belief which might or might not turn out to be correct. There is no proof of anything here. Personal experience will suggest that it is a good move to be at the train station at the time advertised because of common sense. Only when the train actually arrives do I have first hand evidence that it arrived at a specific time which might or might not be at the time previously advertised. That's it. What actually happened is the evidence to all those who witnessed what happened. To everyone else, it is hearsay which they might not believe perhaps because they have had personal experiences running contrary to the hearsay.

Therefore people, do not fall for such logical fallacies as frequently advertised by Andy. Always remember that he failed to answer the most simple of questions by pretending that he did not know what I meant. You find such highly skilled people in every Internet forum which deals with highly controversial topics. Learn to identify what they are doing. Study "Delphi Technique" and NLP (Neuro Linguistic Programming) a little bit and realise the power in such technologies and how easily these powers are abused to trick people into thinking and finally believing what the other party wanted them to believe in the first place.

So, for the record, let me lay out the facts which have moved me to the decision not to get my children vaccinated:

1. When I was a child, most of us had measles and mumps. I do not remember rubella. None of these illnesses were ever considered to be life threatening and I do not personally know anyone who died from either of these illnesses nor do I know anybody who knows anybody who died from any of these illnesses. Parents would hold so called measle parties for their children in order to get it over and done with.

2. My personal modern observations are as follows: Children who have been vaccinated seem to have a lousy immune system catching colds, coughs and allergies on a monthly basis all too easily. Some of them have long term and often debilitating diseases including autism. Additionally, they seem to be exhausted most of the time. It is painful for me to watch those children.

Not one of the children I know and which have not been vaccinated suffer from any of these ailments. Yes, of course, the occassional runny nose or flu, perhaps once or twice a year. They are full of life, energetic and enjoy excellent health.

These are my personal observations which I share with all those parents having made the same observations. I know many parents who now wished they had never vaccinated their children. The gilt is weighing heavily on their shoulders. Again, just my personal observation.

Of course, it might be all co-incidence. It might be co-incidence that Andrew Wakefiled found an alleged link between MMR and autism just like many others have. I do not know. I wasn't there. I have no evidence whether MMR causes or does not cause autims. So, both pro and anti-MMR publications are considered to be hearsay because this is what it is. I have no evidence because I am not a medical expert having conducted any of these studies. All I have are my observations and it is common sense to take them into account when making grave decisions. The balance of probabilities based on my experiences results in an overwhelming NO to vaccinations.

Then comes Andy and others and try to convince me that my own experiences are not based on science. So what. Can anybody give me one good, logical, moral or other reason why I should belief in something I have no first hand knowledge of and moreover ingnore my own observations? By Andy's own words, science is fairly reliable, albeit imperfect. So, in other words, it is with science like it is with everything else in life.

We just have to accept that we have no knowledge of anything we cannot directly ourselves understand, proof and verify. It is as simple as that. We just have to go by what we believe is best. If you believe that it is best to get your children vaccinated then this is what you have to do. I you believe that it is best not to get them vaccinated then this is what you have to do. Whatever it is, we have to accept that we simply do not know the facts about either side of what is called "scientific evidence". By all means, take it into account. Then ask yourself whether you understood the evidence. Then ask yourself whether you can trust an unknown scientist. Then ask yourself whether you want to trust him because it helps you making a decision. Ask youself all these questions but the moment you claim that you based your decision on third party evidence of this or that, you are dishonest with yourself because you cannot make an informed decision on something you do not understand. In the end, you trust your belief, not fact and not evidence.

If you read carefully my above questions and Andy's evasive comments, you might discover that Andy has no evidence for anything he claims. He goes by the balance of probabilities based on HIS experience and not on yours. He tries to justify his stance by claiming that the "evidence" supporting his view is based on science whereas the "evidence" of the other side is not based on science. By creating this artifical conflict, we overlook the fact that he suggest to all of us that science is the most superior thing in the world. We must ask ourselves what science really is and how it is operated under which circumstances. Science, like everything else created by man and women is dependent on men and women. Its integrity depends on the people conducting it and the circumstances of the people controlling it. Science is as good as the people involved. It is not absolut and can never be because there is always something that men and women have not yet understood or discovered. Therefore, be vigilant and do not feel inferior simply because you do not wear a white coat. Do what you honestly believe to be the best you can do to help your children.

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 00:24:42 GMT

Are you going to ever answers any question I ask of you Brandon? Or do you just want to write one logical fallacy after another.

Do you believe in dinosaurs and pluto?

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 00:26:02 GMT

And will you ever define your terms that appear to be central to your argument?

If not, I think I will have to agree with the Daily Mail: anti-vaxxers are morons.

re: Measles - what next?

Brandon — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 23:18:00 GMT

As you can see, folks, Andy's technique is to try and create confusions and diversion as soon as he looses his credibility. He usually insists that somebody else has not answered his questions when in fact he failed to answer the many questions others ask. By now it should be abundandly clear that he has lost his footing: He brings in dinosaurs and Pluto and asks what my belief is. I suggest that Andy opens a new thread dealing with Dinosaurs and Pluto, perhaps somebody will joing him.

Apparently, he also needs definitions for "hearsay" and "first hand knowledge". I call this the "convenient amnesia trick" often used by people engaged in Delphi (or similar) Technique. It's a huge diversion in waiting, so, I will not grant him the satisfaction and opportunity of turning black into white and vice versa.

Most of my postings are not meant to talk to Andy anyway. They are meant to make others aware of what he is doing here. Most people actually have a brain, reason and compassion to make the best possible decisions and that is entirely their business, not mine and not Andy's.

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 00:24:52 GMT

Brandon - do not play games. You are not acting in good faith.

My questions about dinosaurs are directly designed to expose the weakness of your position you take against the evidence that MMR does not cause autism. You deny any form of indirect knowledge. Therefore, it would appear you must deny the existence of dinosaurs as we can only ever know them indirectly. But to do so would make you look foolish, so you avoid the question. First by pretending it had not been asked, and then by blustering. Admitting you believed in dinosaurs, would of course, destroy your own position. I am not surprised you refused to answer. A cowards way out of a tricky situation.

None of my questions are meant to be diversionary. They are there to test your position. It is called debate.

As you will not answer the questions, I will expose another weakness for you. You pretend to say that science is 'hearsay'. This is a total distortion of the truth. Hearsay is inadmissible in court as it cannot be corroborated and tested for its veracity. Scientific knowledge is the direct opposite of this. Scientific knowledge is all about producing repeatable, reliable knowledge that can be exposed to critical enquiry. Through criticism and testing we can produce reliable knowledge. That is science.

Richard lied when he said that evidence for the MMR-Autism link had been replicated many times in the early part of this thread. In fact, the exact opposite is true. All the evidence to date suggests that MMR does not cause autism. You are not able to produce any reliable evidence to the contrary.

All you are left with is anecdotes that make the same basic mistake: parents blaming MMR because the autism symptoms followed the injections. In a population of millions this will be true by chance regularly. Therefore, mere temporal coincidence cannot be used as evidence. Asserting that it is is just charlatanism.

You are dangerous people, because you are immune to reason. You will not reasonably debate the data because you know it is stacked against you. So you resort to bluster, lies and distortions. It is serious stuff because kids lives are at risk. But you appear to not really care. Otherwise you would be discussing relative risk and evidence instead of the superficial and pseudo-intellectual tosh you come out with. Your arrogance allows you to elevate your own personal interpretations of the world over the scientific method. That is supremely ignorant. And I am sure any sensible reader sees directly through it.

If you want to reset and start anew that is fine. Cut the bullshit and discuss the evidence. I doubt you will do as you know you will be on losing ground.

Evidence or bluster? You decide.

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 00:30:19 GMT

And in other developments. The autism omnibus court case on MMR and autism has just ruled on the Cedillo case.

***********************************************************

"After studying the extensive evidence in this case for many months, I am convinced that the reports and advice given to the Cedillos by Dr. Krigsman and some other physicians, advising the Cedillos that there is a causal connection between Michelle’s MMR vaccination and her chronic conditions, have been very wrong. Unfortunately, the Cedillos have been misled by physicians who are guilty, in my view, of gross medical misjudgment. Nevertheless, I can understand why the Cedillos found such reports and advice to be believable under the circumstances. I conclude that the Cedillos filed this Program claim in good faith.

Thus, I feel deep sympathy and admiration for the Cedillo family. And I have no doubt that the families of countless other autistic children, families that cope every day with the tremendous challenges of caring for autistic children, are similarly deserving of sympathy and admiration. However, I must decide this case not on sentiment, but by analyzing the evidence. Congress designed the Program to compensate only the families of those individuals whose injuries or deaths can be linked causally, either by a Table Injury presumption or by a preponderance of causation-in- fact evidence, to a listed vaccination. In this case the evidence advanced by the petitioners has fallen far short of demonstrating such a link. Accordingly, I conclude that the petitioners in this case are not entitled to a Program award on Michelle’s behalf."

***********************************************************

Shame on all those ant-vaxxers who have been leading these parents astray. If they had the slightest conscience they would be hanging their heads in shame. But we all know they are not...

re: Measles - what next?

Brandon — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:29:29 GMT

It seems that Andy is upset about the fact that I do not fall for his trickery. I appologies to Andy that he is not my God.

Now, some people might feel confused about the Cedillo case. If people are seriously interested, find out what route of evidence the Cedillo family went for (table of injury presumption or preponderance of causation-in- fact). The first one has a much lower standard of proof than the second one. Why was the family advised to change the claims route? Does a failure to proof a fact in a court mean that the fact itself is untrue? Is it possible to find out which Congress men and/or women proposed the setting up of a Court for Federal Claims and is it possible to find out who they were affiliated with either professionally or privately. (Tip: look at the full history of this court and how it changed).

Remember, everything is run by men and women.

I do not wish to advance any theories here. Look for yourself and then follow your hearts. I am sure that Andy will give you an explanation or create some NLP induced doubts. I personally find it very helpful to look through Andy's comments and then use pretty much the opposite of what he says as a basis for my own research which seems to work really well. However, I always bear in mind that everything is hearsay unless I have first hand knowledge. I can only base decisisions on what I feel is right for my children. It would be presumptious, arrogant and immoral of me to try and persuade you of what you should do to protect your children.

re: Measles - what next?

Brandon — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 11:50:05 GMT

ECONOMICAL CONSIDERATIONS

One thing that really interests me is to find out what interest are behind the promotion of certain views and/or products. Are these personal interests? Is there true compassion involved, is it money?

Personally, after much research, I have failed to find any evidence that pharmaceutical companies are not motivated by greed and money only.

I am always looking for a sincere, compassionate motivation when somebody offers something. I believe that companies that make billions on a product are motivated by money and not by any intentions to help people. Especially when aggressive marketing is performed with a view to ferocoisly silence all those who do not agree with the advertised benefits of a product.

I am even more astonished by people who stand up against such corporate giants, risking their careerers, their reputation and their professional future in pointing out that perhaps there is a big risk attached to some of the products corporate giants aggressively advertise and push.

People who really personally risk their careerers, their reputation and their professional future without the backing of big money seem to have a lot more credibility than those who do not. So, this might be one way of looking at it.

One of my friends who studies medicine has finally given up because he was so disgusted with the representatives of big pharma behaving like flies on a cow constantly pushing their drugs, their medical literature, their medical equipment on to the medcial students. They even offer the students monetary incentives in all shapes or forms. It makes me think.

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 12:12:53 GMT

A classic response. Rather than reading the judgement on the Cedillo case and pointing out errors orcommissions that might cause the judgement to be wrong, you resort to insinuations.

Its game over, I'm afraid.

re: Measles - what next?

Brandon — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 13:43:00 GMT

Just to repeat a record here from February 21, 2009 18:56 so that it may not be forgotten:

--------------------------------------------

For and on the record: Let Andy's non-response to above questions be taken as:

1. Andy has not personally witnessed and understood at all times the studies allegedly showing that MMR is safe.

2. Andy has not personally witnessed and understood at all times the studies allegedly showing that MMR is not linked to autism.

3. Andy has not personally witnessed and understood at all times the studies allegedly showing that MMR is linked to autism.

4. Andy has not personally witnessed that those men and women conducting any type of studies (pro or anti-MMR) have been self-critical at all times.

6. Andy does not have any personal knowledge that the abstracts published of any pro or anti-MMR studies are a correct interpretation of the actual studies themselves.

7. Andy has failed to show that his claims are not based on pure hearsay.

------------------------------------------

Is there any evidence anywhere on this forum that Andy is an expert who has first hand knowledge which would justify his ruthless pushing around of people without compassion and due diligence in total disregard of decency?

How can somebody like Andy push a point so hard, so fanatically and so desperately pretending to be concerned about the safety of children but then tell Beth above "Whilst I full accept that your testimony is heartfelt, I am afraid it cannot stand as proof that vaccines cause damage to kids." Are these the words of somebody who actually cares for anything else then his paycheck or his God complex? Would it not have been more constructive and more honest to tell Beth that he does not know whether in this instance MMR might have been the cause for Beth's experience? How unintelligent and ruthless his claim that Beth's testimony cannot stand as proof that MMR might cause harm to children. Is he God, is he clairvoyant or does he have any other types of capabilities which allow him to assess whether MMR was the cause in this instance?

So, the tactics of the vaccinators is to discredit anything that might have the potential to proof that MMR causes harm to children. In fact, this is the only tactic they can use because they cannot proof that MMR is not harmful. One cannot proof a general negative (MMR does not cause any autism) unless any and all possibilities are considered. This is an impossibility because whoever claims that he knows it all is suffering from delusions.

It might be possible to proof a specific negative (MMR did not cause autism in a specific child suffering from autism because the child had autism before the MMR vaccination) but this does not mean that other positives are automatically excluded (the child had a previous and different vaccine which might have caused the autism).

So, what is the next thing that vaccinators can do? They retreat into the realm of probabilities. Exactly what we as ordinary men and women are doing with one difference: The vaccinators tell us that their assessed probabilities are more valid than ours. So, the balance of probabilities is now their new front behind which they are hiding the fact that a negative cannot be proven. A nice trick.

We must really understand that probabilities are NOT fact. They have nothing to do with fact. It is fortune telling. Like fortune telling, it might predict the correct thing. If it does not, excuses are found. For probabilities to work reasonably correctly, the underlaying principle must be correct. If the underlying principle is based on the attempt to prove a general negative, the advertised balance of probabilities is nothing but a smoke and mirror trick. It is pure phantasy at best. At its worst, it is pure manipulation of the minds of all those who can neither verify nor understand any of what is called "science" these days.

So, coming back to my own personal experiences with children suffering serious illnesses after various vaccinations (not only MMR) and seeing all those who have had no vaccinations being very healthy and strong kids, my balance of probabilities is based on personal, POSITIVE (not negative) observations of a potential that vaccinations might cause harm. Can I proof it? No. But can anybody proof that it did not? Of course not. So, I have to go by what I see and not by what others claim to see. This is called reason and responsibility and is based on true heartfelt conviction of what is right for my children. If I had ever subrogated reason and responsibilities to a third party, I would have sold down my children to people interested in profit only whilst hiding behind the excuse that it would have been their fault, in case something should have happened to my children as a result of a vaccination. I could have blamed somebody else. I would not have been criticised by governments and vaccinators for as long as I would not start coming after them. I would have been a traitor to my children. I would have sold them to corporations. This is how I feel based on my observations and the resulting balance of probabilities.

Others might feel differently and they are entitled to do so.

re: Measles - what next?

Jiri — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 01:52:43 GMT

After 30 years of intensive research, much has been learned about how brain cells work and what goes wrong when disease arises. One of the great enigmas has been the connection between vaccinations and certain brain disorders such as:

Autism

ADD

ADHD

Gulf War Syndrome

More common neurodegenerative diseases (Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s dementia and ALS)

As we learned more and more about how brain cells should work, we discovered that often normal processes, such as metabolism, could result in the accumulation of powerful chemical byproducts, called free radicals, that have the capacity to destroy these cells.

Free radicals, basically, are very reactive particles that bounce all around the cell damaging everything they touch. Most originate during the process of metabolism but can also arise from toxin exposure, irradiation and toxic metals. Because they are so destructive, cells have a network of defenses designed to neutralize them. This antioxidant network is composed of numerous components that include vitamins, minerals and special chemicals called thiols (glutathione and alpha-lipoic acid).

What Causes the Free Radicals

The idea that free radicals play a major role in all of the conditions listed above is now proven--the big question is why are so many free radicals being generated? In the case of autism, ADD and ADHD many came to support the idea that mercury derived from vaccines was the source of the radicals. And it was known that mercury could cause free radicals to be generated in large numbers within the brain. Evidence connecting mercury to the autism spectrum disorders, neurodegeneration and the Gulf War Syndrome is strong, but not exclusive.

Interestingly, all of these diseases also share another common event--over activation of a portion of the immune system.

It is important to appreciate that only a certain part of the immune system is overactive, because other parts, such as cellular immunity, are actually diminished. In some instances, as with the childhood disorders, the problem is congenital and in others it develops as a result of many factors such as aging, toxin exposure, poor nutrition and excessive vaccination itself. Mercury can impair immune function as well.

How Vaccines are Made

Basically, vaccines contain either killed viruses or bacteria, germ components, toxic extracts or live organisms that have been made less virulent--a process called attenuation. To stimulate an enhanced immune reaction against these organisms, manufacturers added powerful immune-stimulating substances such as squalene, aluminum, lipopolysacchride, etc. These are called immune adjuvants.

The process of vaccination usually required repeated injections of the vaccine over a set period of time. The combination of adjuvants plus the intended organism triggers an immune response by the body, similar to that occurring with natural infections, except for one major difference. Almost none of these diseases enter the body by injection. Most enter by way of the mucous membranes of the nose, mouth, pulmonary passages or GI tract. For example, polio is known to enter via the GI tract. The membranes lining these passages contain a different immune system than activated by direct injection. This system is called the IgA immune system.

It is the first line of defense and helps reduce the need for intense activation of the body’s immune system. Often, the IgA system can completely head off an attack. The point being that injecting organisms to induce immunity is abnormal.

Because more and more reports are appearing citing vaccine failure, their manufacturers’ answer is to make the vaccines more potent. They do this by making the immune adjuvants more powerful or adding more of them. The problem with this approach is that in the very young, the nutritionally deficient and the aged, over-stimulating the immune system can have an opposite effect--it can paralyze the immune system.

This is especially prevalent with nutritional deficiency.

An early attempt to vaccinate Africans met with disaster when it was discovered that many were dying following vaccination. The problem was traced to widespread vitamin A deficiency among the tribes. Once the malnutrition was corrected, death rates fell precipitously.

Another problem we see with modern vaccines is that the immune stimulation continues over a prolonged period of time.

This is because of the immune adjuvants. They remain in the tissues, constantly stimulating immune-activating cells. With most natural infections the immune activation occurs rapidly, and once the infection is under control, it drops precipitously. This, as we shall see, is to prevent excessive damage to normal cells in the body.

What Happens to the Brain With Vaccination?

It seems the brain is always neglected when pharmacologists consider side effects of various drugs. The same is true for vaccinations. For a long time no one considered the effect of repeated vaccinations on the brain.

This was based on a mistaken conclusion that the brain was protected from immune activation by its special protective gateway called the blood-brain barrier. More recent studies have shown that immune cells can enter the brain directly, and more importantly, the brain’s own special immune system can be activated by vaccination.

You see, the brain has a special immune system that operates through a unique type of cell called a microglia.

These tiny cells are scattered throughout the brain, lying dormant waiting to be activated. In fact, they are activated by many stimuli and are quite easy to activate. For our discussion, activation of the body’s immune system by vaccination is a most important stimuli for activation of brain microglia.

Numerous studies have shown that when the body’s immune system is activated, the brain’s immune cells are likewise activated. This occurs by several pathways, not important to this discussion. The more powerfully the body’s immune system is stimulated the more intense is the brain’s reaction. Prolonged activation of the body’s immune system likewise produces prolonged activation of the brain’s immune system.

Therein lies the danger of our present vaccine policy.

The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Family Practice have both endorsed a growing list of vaccines for children, even newborns, as well as yearly flu shots for both children and adults. Children are receiving as many as 22 inoculations before attending school.

What Happens When the Brain’s Immune System is Activated?

The brain’s immune system cells, once activated, begin to move about the nervous system, secreting numerous immune chemicals (called cytokines and chemokines) and pouring out an enormous amount of free radicals in an effort to kill invading organisms. The problem is--there are no invading organisms. It has been tricked by the vaccine into believing there are.

Unlike the body’s immune system, the microglia also secrete two other chemicals that are very destructive of brain cells and their connecting processes. These chemicals, glutamate and quinolinic acid, are called excitotoxins. They also dramatically increase free radical generation in the brain. Studies of patients have shown that levels of these two excitotoxins can rise to very dangerous levels in the brain following viral and bacterial infections of the brain. High quinolinic acid levels in the brain are thought to be the cause of the dementia seen with HIV infection.

The problem with our present vaccine policy is that so many vaccines are being given so close together and over such a long period that the brain’s immune system is constantly activated. This has been shown experimentally in numerous studies. This means that the brain will be exposed to large amounts of the excitotoxins as well as the immune cytokines over the same period.

Studies on all of these disorders, even in autism, have shown high levels of immune cytokines and excitotoxins in the nervous system. These destructive chemicals, as well as the free radicals they generate, are diffused throughout the nervous system doing damage, a process called bystander injury. It’s sort of like throwing a bomb in a crowd.

Not only will some be killed directly by the blast but those far out into the radius of the explosion will be killed by shrapnel.

Normally, the brain’s immune system, like the body’s, activates quickly and then promptly shuts off to minimize the bystander damage. Vaccination won’t let the microglia shut down. In the developing brain, this can lead to language problems, behavioral dysfunction and even dementia.

In the adult, it can lead to the Gulf War Syndrome or one of the more common neurodegenerative diseases, such as Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s dementia or Lou Gehrig’s disease (ALS).

A recent study by the world-renowned immunologist Dr. H. Hugh Fudenberg found that adults vaccinated yearly for five years in a row with the flu vaccine had a 10-fold increased risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease. He attributes this to the mercury and aluminum in the vaccine. Interestingly, both of these metals have been shown to activate microglia and increase excitotoxicity in the brain.

Direct Effect of the Cytokines

Various cytokines have been used to treat cancer patients as well as other common diseases.

Studies of the effects of these cytokines on brain function reveal some very close parallels to the diseases we have been discussing. For a more in-depth study of these effects I suggest you read my article appearing in the Journal of the American Nutriceutical Association (volume 6 [fall], Number 4, 2003, pp 21-35) and in the summer issue 2004 of the Journal of the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons.

One can see:

Confusion

Language difficulties

Disorientation

Seizures

Memory problems

Somnolence

Low-grade fevers

Irritability

Mood alterations

Combativeness

Difficulty concentrating

A host of other behavioral problems

In the child, brain immune over-activation has been shown to be particularly damaging to the amygdala and other limbic structures of the brain. This can lead to unusual syndromes such as the loss of "theory of mind" and " Alice in Wonderland syndrome." It has also been shown to damage the executive functions of the frontal lobes.

In essence, what is lost is that which makes us social human beings, able to function in a complex world of ideas and interactions.

Several studies have indeed shown elevated levels of cytokines in autistic children. It is also interesting to note that these cytokines, especially interleukin-1ß and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-a) dramatically increase the damage produced by excitotoxins. So, what we see is a viscous cycle of immune activation, excitotoxin and cytokine excretion, and free radical production. The latter starts the cycle all over again.

The Role of Autoimmunity and Viral Persistence

Studies in autistic children have shown that a state of immune attack on the brain is occurring. Similar findings are seen with neurodegenerative diseases and the Gulf War Syndrome. It must be appreciated that this autoimmunity was triggered by the vaccinations and by organisms contaminating the vaccinations. Once started, the immune reaction cannot stop, thus triggering all the destructive reactions I have discussed.

Dr. Garth Nicolson has shown a direct connection between mycoplasma contamination of vaccines and the 200 percent increased incidence of ALS in Gulf War veterans. The disorder is produced by the same mechanism described above.

Another, even more common, problem is the use of live viruses in vaccines. The reason live viruses can be used is that they are weakened by passing them through a series of cultures--a process called attenuation. These attenuated, non-disease-causing viruses are then injected in hopes of stimulating the body to produce an immune attack.

The problem with this idea is two-fold.

First, we now know that in far too many cases these viruses escape the immune system and take up residence in the body--for a lifetime. A recent autopsy study of elderly individuals found that 20 percent of the brains contained live measles viruses and 45 percent of the other organs contained live measles viruses. Similar findings have been described in autistic children and the measles virus is identical genetically to the one used in the vaccine.

The second problem is that most of these viruses were found to be highly mutated. In fact, different mutations were found among viruses in various organs in the same individual.

This has been a secret kept from the public.

These attenuated viruses undergo mutation brought on by the presence of free radicals in the tissues and organs and they can mutate into virulent, disease-causing organisms. Recent studies have confirmed this frightening finding. In fact, a large percentage of Alzheimer’s disease patients have live viruses in their brain as compared to normal individuals.

Once these live viruses are injected, they cannot be removed. Because the viruses stay in the body, they will be under constant free radical exposure, which can increase during times of stress, illness, exercise and with aging. It is the free radicals that cause the virus to mutate.

In essence, the viruses can exist in the brain, or any organ, either silently and slowly producing destruction of the brain or spinal cord or producing sudden disease once the virus mutates to a highly lethal form.

Conclusions

We have seen that the policy of giving numerous vaccinations to individuals, especially infants and small children, is shear idiocy.

A considerable number of studies have shown conclusively that such a practice can lead to severe injury to the brain by numerous mechanisms. Because the child’s brain is undergoing a period of rapid growth from the third trimester of pregnancy until age 2 years, his or her brain is at considerable risk from this insane policy.

We have also seen that live-virus vaccines and contaminated vaccines hold a special risk in that the viruses tend to persist in a substantial number of individuals and that free radicals can cause the latent viruses to transform by genetic mutation into disease-causing organisms later in life.

It is vital that anyone scheduled for vaccination follow a schedule that allows no more than one vaccine every six months, allowing the immune system time to recover.

Live-virus vaccines should be avoided.

This was recently illustrated by the switch from the live polio vaccine to the killed virus. All cases of polio after the introduction of the vaccine, in the developed world, came from the vaccine itself. This was known from the beginning.

Finally, it is vital that anyone undergoing vaccination should start nutritional supplementation and adhere to a healthy diet before vaccination occurs. Vaccine complications are far fewer in individuals with good nutrition.

re: Measles - what next?

Jiri — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 03:14:02 GMT

The above is a quote by Russell L. Blaylock, M.D.

Dr. Blaylock is a board certified neurosurgeon, author and lecturer. He attended the LSU School of Medicine in New Orleans and completed his general surgical internship and neurosurgical residency at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston, South Carolina. During his residency he ran the neurology program for one year and did a fellowship in neurosurgery after his residency. For the past 25 years he has practiced neurosurgery in addition to having a nutritional practice. He recently retired from both practices to devote full time to nutritional studies and research.

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 11:00:52 GMT

Ha Ha! How funny. I do love how Blaylock says we should be taking special vitamin pills before being vaccinated. (Suspicions arroused...)

And guess what? Yep. Blaylock is a pill salesman...

http://www.newportnutritionals.com/

re: Measles - what next?

Brandon — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 12:21:40 GMT

Guess, who also sells pills:

http://www.gsk.com/products/prescription_medicines/uk/medicines-ae.htm

re: Measles - what next?

Jiri — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 15:57:13 GMT

Let me get this straight Andy.

You are ok with Dr. Offit saying that children could be given 10 000 vaccines at the same time, but Dr. Blaylock makes you laugh because he sells supplements?

You are ok with vaccines containing poisons (some listed below) suggesting that they are better then natural supplements?

DPT — diptheria bacterium, pertussis organisms, tetanus toxoid, sodium chloride, sodium hydroxide, formaldehyde, hydrochloric acid, aluminium and mercury.

HiB — Hib saccarides cultured on cow's brains, crm protein, sodium chloride, aluminium hydroxide, mercury.

POLIO — 3 types of live polio virus, magnesium chloride, amino acid, polysorbate 80, purified water, neomycin, sulphate, streptomycin, penicillin and monkey kidney cell cultures.

MENINGITIS C — meningococcal group C oligosaccharide and corynebacterium, diphteriae crm protein (fails to disclose what vaccine is cultured on), aluminium phosphate, sodium chloride and water.

MMR — live measles virus, live mumps virus, live rubella virus, chick embryo, human foetal cells, neomycin, sorbitol, gelatine.

HEPATITIS B — Hepatitis B virus gene, aluminium hydroxide, mercury, formaldehyde. For the genetically engineered vaccine: aluminium hydrochloride, sodium chloride and mercury.

INFLUENZA — Influenza virus, haemaglutinin and neuraminidase antigens A and B strains, gelatine, mercury, formaldehyde, sodium chloride, mashed chick embryos, neomycin.

What exactly are you looking for Andy?????

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 16:57:21 GMT

What am I looking for? It is very simple.

Evidence and reason.

Both are lacking from the anti-vaxxers standpoint. You rely on other tactics to get your distorted messaged across, typically:

Emotion, slur and innuendo.

Your response is classic.

There is no evidence whatsoever that nutritional supplements do anything to protect children against dangerous diseases. The appeal of supplements is all about emotion, e.g. their 'naturalness'. Blaylock performs a classic quack trick: emotionally frighten people then prescribe a 'cure' - his own formulated vitamin pills. Note: ordinary high street pills will not do. A classic scam.

You then invoke another emotional response - that vaccines contain 'poisons'. Again, there is no evidence that this is true.

Paracelsus, the 15th Century physician, was one of the first to understand the true nature of poisons. He said, "All things are poison and nothing is without poison, only the dose permits something not to be poisonous." This is often abbreviated to "The dose makes the poison".

In vaccines, the things you mention are in doses so small as to make them not poisonous. Simple. If you have evidence that the doses administered are poisonous then please post it. As for the actual vaccine contents, ususally attentuated or dead virus particles. These activate a safe immune response - and yes, children's immune systems are very good at dealing with this.

The evidence is of course in their effectiveness. Polio is no pretty much non-existent. It was killing ans maming hundreds of thousands not that long ago across the world. It is now virtually extinct. Measles is close to being extinct, if it was not for the idiocy of the ant-vaxxers.

So note, your emotional and ignorant reaction against vaccines does not wash. When you start talking about good evidence then you will be taken seriously. Until then, you are just dangerous menaces.

re: Measles - what next?

Jiri — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 00:12:55 GMT

Dear Andy

Can you please point me in the right direction and give me some good evidence.

For example how much mercury or aluminum is safe to inject into infants? Maybe something about efectivness of vaccines too. I'd love to join your side but in order to do it I need some solid evidence and then we can fight these "dangerous menaces" together.

Thank You.

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 10:04:35 GMT

Jiri

Well, lets get a few things out of the way. This thread is about MMR and MMR does not contain any mercury compounds. Anyone who brings mercury up in the context of MMR is either ignorant or mendacious. Nor is there aluminium in MMR.

However, in a broader context, and without wishing to get too sidelined with this red herring, the toxicity of aluminium and mercury depends on the chemicals used. Elemental mercury and aluminium are not used. Many bodies have looked into the safety and toxicity issues. For example, the WHO conclude "The Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety concludes that there is no evidence of toxicity in infants, children or adults exposed to thiomersal (containing ethyl mercury) in vaccines."

http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/topics/thiomersal/statement_jul2006/en/index.html

As for aluminium, a review can be found here.. Lindblad, E. B. (2004). "Aluminium adjuvants--in retrospect and prospect." Vaccine 22(27-28): 3658-3668.

This is summarised here, http://www.immune.org.nz/site_resources/Professionals/Aluminium_in_Vaccines_(12_04).pdf

As you can see, the conclusion is "Based on 70 years of experience, the use of aluminium adjuvants in vaccines has proven to be safe and effective."

To get back on track: as for the effectiveness of MMR, perhaps the well respected and independent Oxford Bandolier is a good place to start,

http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/band84/MMR.html

The graph here is pretty compelling in itself.

Now that you have some good evidence, I would like to welcome you to the side of truth in fighting misinformation about MMR on the web. I will be more than happy to argue with you against those who will never change their mind no matter how much evidence is presented to them.

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 10:09:41 GMT

For those interested in evidence, the Bandolier has a bit more,

http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/Vaccines/MMRUK.html

Conclusion: "A large UK case-control study showed no association between MMR and subsequent development of autism. It also performed a meta-analysis of studies, which overall showed a non-significant reduction of autism rates in children receiving MMR vaccination."

http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/Vaccines/nwnvrMMR.html

Conclusion: "This is a lovely study from the Institute of Psychiatry. It set out to test whether there was a new variant of autism caused by MMR and associated with regression and gastrointestinal symptoms. Using three well worked up samples of children both exposed and not exposed to MMR, it could find absolutely no evidence for any effect. Indeed, one might even turn this round and say that if there was no evidence from this sample, there was no evidence at all."

http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/Vaccines/noMMR.html

"The increase in autism and autistic spectrum disorders in this part of Yokohama displays the same increase over time seen in other parts of the world. Here, though, the increase occurred even when the MMR vaccine was withdrawn. This destroys any possible causative link between use of the vaccine and autism."

Pretty strong stuff.

re: Measles - what next?

Jiri — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:52:25 GMT

1601 N. Tucson Blvd. Suite 9

Tucson, AZ 85716-3450

Phone: (800) 635-1196

Hotline: (800) 419-4777

Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc.

A Voice for Private Physicians Since 1943

Omnia pro aegroto

Selected vaccine authorities from CDC, FDA, and manufacturers discuss, in a closed meeting, the possibility of neurodevelopment disorders resulting from vaccine components.

Emphasis and comments in square brackets added by K.P. Stoller, M.D.

[The CDC published a study in late 2003, repudiating any possible link between thimerosal and developmental problems such as autism, but the CDC did have data supporting such a link which it secretively kept from the public.

Documents released through the Freedom of Information Act detail the transcript of a meeting held in June of 2000 between members of the CDC, the FDA, and representatives from the vaccine industry.

This top secret meeting was held to discuss a study done by Dr. Thomas Verstraeten and his co-workers using Vaccine Safety Datalink data as a project collaboration between the CDC's National Immunization Program (NIP) and four HMOs. The study examined the records of 110,000 children.

The transcript is titled “Scientific Review of Vaccine Safety Datalink Information,” June 7-8, 2000, Simpsonwood Retreat Center, Norcross, Georgia, but it was also the first official meeting of the ACIP (Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices which sets CDC policy) work group on thimerosal and immunization. In attendance were Walter Orenstein, Director of the National Immunization Program (NIP) at the CDC; John Modlin, Chair of the ACIP and on the faculty at Dartmouth Medical School; and 50 other distinguished members of the government (11 consultants from the CDC), academia and the pharmaceutical industry. Vaccine industry representatives were: Harry Guess, M.D., Merck, Chief of Epidemiology; Jo White, M.D., North American Vaccine, Clinical Dev. & Research; Barbara Howe, M.D., Smith, Kline-Beecham, Clinical Research Group; Mike Blum, M.D., Wyeth, Safety and Surveillance for Vaccine Development.

Although this conference is apparently concerned with the effects of mercury in the form of thimerosal on infant brain development, participants seemed to have limited knowledge about mercury. None of the well known experts were invited, such as Dr. Ascher from Bowman Grey School of Medicine or Dr. Boyd Haley, who has done extensive work on the toxic effects of low concentrations on the CNS.

The conference followed a study that showed that mercury in vaccines may have caused neurodevelopment problems.

The following are in context excerpts of this 260 page transcript:]

Dr. Orenstein pg 1-2 “(For) those who don’t know, initial concerns were raised last summer that mercury, as methylmercury (thimerosal) in vaccines, might exceed safe levels. As a result of these concerns, CDC undertook, in collaboration with investigators in the Vaccine safety Datalink, an effort to evaluate whether there were any health risks from mercury on any of these vaccines. Analysis to date raise some concerns of possible dose-response effect of increasing levels of mehylmercury in vaccines and certain neurologic diagnosis. Therefore, the purpose of this meeting is to have a careful scientific review of the data.”

Dr. Bernier pg 8 : (Associate Director for Science in the NIP) “There was a Congressional Action in 1997 requiring the FDA to review Mercury in drugs and biologics…in October of 1999 the ACIP looked this situation over again and… said the vaccines could be continued to be used.”

Dr. Johnston, pg. 14-15 & 19-20: (Chair of the meeting and a pediatrician-immunologist at the University of Colorado): “Thimerosal is cleaved (in the body) into ethylmercury and thiosalicylate which is inactive… The data on its toxicity (shows) it can cause neurologic and renal toxicity, including death.”

“It is particularly a concern in multi-dose vials because of the issue of re-entry multiple times in the vials, and it is also important in the manufacturing process for a number of vaccine including inactivated influenza and some of the earlier DPT vaccine, and is a constituent of all DPT vaccines, but not all DTAP vaccines.”

“There are three licensed preservative in the United States, Thimerosal, ethyl and phenol. We won't talk about the other two today, but I thought I should mention them. Thimerosal is the most active and it has been utilized in vaccines since the 1930's.”

“Acutely, it can cause neurologic and renal toxicity, including death, from overdose…”

“Dr. Halsey made a very impassioned plea that we do carefully controlled studies to in fact address the issues specifically, and that such studies be conducted by neurodevelopmentalists and environmental scientists employing specific endpoints of their study…”

“We just recently had another meeting that some of you were able to attend dealing with aluminum in vaccines. I would like to just say one or two words about that before I conclude.”

“We learned at that meeting a number of important things about aluminum, and I think they also are important in our considerations today. “Aluminum salts are important in the formulating process of vaccines, both in antigen stabilization and absorption of endotoxin.”

“Aluminum and mercury are often simultaneously administered to infants, both at the same site and at different sites.”

“However, we also learned that there is absolutely no data, including animal data, about the potential for synergy, additively or antagonism, all of which can occur in binary metal mixtures that relate and allow us to draw any conclusions from the simultaneous exposure to these two salts in vaccines…”

Dr. Weil, pg. 24: “I think it’s clear to me anyway that we are talking about a problem that is probably more related to bolus acute exposures, and we also need to know that the migration problems and some of the other developmental problems in the central nervous system go on for quite a period after birth. But from all of the other studies of toxic substances, the earlier you work with the central nervous system, the more likely you are to run into a sensitive period for one of these effects, so that moving from one month or one day of birth to six months of birth changes enormously the potential for toxicity. There are just a host of neurodevelopmental data that would suggest that we’ve got a serious problem. The earlier we go, the more serious the problem.”

“The second point I could make is that in relationship to aluminum, being a nephrologist for a long time, the potential for aluminum and central nervous system toxicity was established by dialysis data. To think there isn’t some possible problem here is unreal.”

Dr. Verstraeten, pg. 31: “It is sort of interesting that when I first came to the CDC as a NIS officer a year ago only, I didn’t really know what I wanted to do, but one of the things I knew I didn’t want to do was studies that had to do with toxicology or environmental health. Now it turns out that other people also thought that this study was not the right thing to do, so what I will present to you is the study that nobody thought we should do.”

Dr. Verstraeten, pg. 40: “…we have found statistically significant relationships between the exposure and outcomes for these different exposures and outcomes. First, for two months of age, an unspecified developmental delay, which has its own specific ICD9 code. Exposure at three months of age, Tics. Exposure at six months of age, an attention deficit disorder. Exposure at one, three and six months of age, language and speech delays which are two separate ICD9 codes. Exposures at one, three and six months of age, the entire category of neurodevelopmental delays, which includes all of these plus a number of other disorders.”

Dr. Verstraeten, pg. 42: “But for one thing that is for sure, there is certainly an under-ascertainment of all of these because some of the children are just not old enough to be diagnosed. So the crude incidence rates are probably much lower that what you would expect because the cohort is still very young.”

Dr. Verstraeten, pg. 44: “Now for speech delays, which is the largest single disorder in this category of neurologic delays. The results are a suggestion of a trend with a small dip. The overall test for trend is highly statistically significant above one.”

Dr. Verstraeten, pg. 45: "What this represents is the overall category of developmental delays, of which I have excluded speech delays because of the impression we had was some of the calculations were driven by this speech group, which was making up about half of this category. After excluding this speech group, the trend is also apparent in this group and the test for trend is also significant for this category excluding speech.”

Dr. Weil, pg. 75: “I think that what you are saying is in term of chronic exposure. I think that the alternative scenario is that this repeated acute exposures, and like many repeated acute exposures, if you consider a dose of 25 micrograms on one day, then you are above threshold. At least we think you are, and then you do that over and over to a series of neurons where the toxic effect may be the same set of neurons or the same set of neurologic processes; it is conceivable that the more mercury you get, the more effect you are going to get.”

Dr. Verstraeten, pg. 76: “What I have done here, I am putting into the model instead of mercury, a number of antigens that the children received, and what do we get? Not surprisingly, we get very similar estimates as what we got for Thimerosal because every vaccine put in the equation has Thimerosal. So for speech and the other ones maybe it’s not so significant, but for the overall group it is also significant….Here we have the same thing, but instead of number of antigens, number of shots. Just the number of vaccinations given to a child, which is also for nearly all of them significantly related.”

Dr. Guess, pg. 77: "So this essentially is a 7% risk per antigen, an antigen is like in DPT you've got three antigens."

Dr. Verstraeten, pg. 77: "Correct."

Dr. Egan, pg. 77: "Could you do this calculation for aluminum?"

Dr. Verstraeten, pg. 77: "I did it for aluminum…Actually the results were almost identical to ethylmercury because the amount of aluminum goes along almost exactly with the mercury one."

Dr. Verstraeten, pg. 78-79: "Then the last slide I wanted to show, there was a question of it there was any way from this data that we could estimate what would happen in the future if there is Thimerosal-free Hep B and Thimerosal-free haemophilus influenza vaccine and only DTP has Thimerosal"

"The second column would be the same scenario but now at six months. Assuming they have received two additional DPTs, so between three and six months of age they have increased their ethylmercury amounts by 50 micrograms. If I do in this current cohort with all its limitations, because there is also the Hep B that exists in the cohort*, I can't really take it out. It is significant for this one disorder which is language delay and is a combination of these two disorders, also becomes significant."

* Dr. Verstraeten could not determine which children got Hep B at birth in some cases so it was difficult to back the birth dose of Hep B out of the data.

Dr. Bernier, pg. 113: "We have asked you to keep this information confidential. We do have a plan for discussing these data at the upcoming meeting of the Advisory Committee of Immunization Practices on June 21 and June 22. At that time CDC plans to make a public release of this information*, so I think it would serve all of our interests best if we could continue to consider these data. The ACIP work group will be considering also. If we could consider these data in a certain protected environment. So we are asking people who have a great job protecting this information up until now, to continue to do that until the time of the ACIP meeting. So to basically consider this embargoed information. That would help all of us to use the machinery that we have in place for considering these data and for arriving at policy recommendations."

[*This never happened. SafeMind.org obtained this transcript via the Freedom of Information Act. Data published later were diluted into insignificance by including additional data from an HMO that had very uncharacteristic results.]

Dr. Keller, pgs. 116 & 118: "…we know the developing neurologic system is more sensitive than one that is fully developed…"

Dr. Verstraeten, pg. 142: "But if I can have the next slide, here instead of the proportional hazard model, we did a logistic regression model. I didn't use person time here and it's a bit tough to define exactly the control group. However, if I do it for all ages and not looking at different years, and this is for speech, the outcome is almost identical to the proportional hazard model, which suggests to me that it is not a question of bringing the diagnosis forward, but it is really the overall number that drives this estimate."

Dr. Rapin, pg. 143: "I would like to make a comment. We have been focusing on all these acquired causes including mercury and prematurity, and you had a list of confounding variables that should be considered in future studies. What we know today about all of the developmental disorders is that environmental factors are in fact rather unimportant in the case of these deficits and the major cause is genetic…I find it a little difficult knowing this and putting in autism. The major cause is not environmental, it is genetic and that we are focusing just on these environment events or adventitious events when we haven't considered, and you told us that you don't have data for example on siblings, your study does not lend itself to considering the major variable."

Dr. Johnson, pg 144: "Well, I think the assumption is that those genetic predispositions would be randomly distributed."

Dr. Rapin, pg. 144: "But you don't know that."

Dr. Johnson, pg. 144: "No, that's an interesting assumption."

Dr. Rapin, pg. 144: "I understand that, but you don't know that."

Dr. Johnson, pg. 144: "just on principle, Dr. Rapin, it seems to me that the more we learn about genetics or the more we learn about let's say autism, the more we shift towards focusing on genetic causes, but would you rule out the possibility, and let's move away from autism, that some of these are genetic predisposition and then the second hit?"

Dr. Rapin, pg. 144: "Not at all. I think that it is in fact an attractive hypothesis."

Dr. Johnson, pg. 145: "Right, thank you."

Dr. Chen, pg. 151: "One of the reasons that led me personally to not be so quick to dismiss the findings was that on his own Tom independently picked three different outcomes that he did not think could be associated with mercury and three out of three had a different pattern across different exposure levels as compared to the ones that again on a priority basis we picked as biologically plausible to be due to mercury exposure."

Dr. Brent, pg. 161: "Wasn't it true that if you looked at the population that had 25 micrograms you had a certain risk and when you got to 75 micrograms you had a higher risk."

Dr. Verstraeten, pg. 161: "Yes, absolutely, but these are all at the same time. Measured at the same age at least."

Dr. Brent, pg. 161: I understand that, but they are different exposures."

Dr. Verstraeten, pg. 161: "Yes."

Dr. Brent, pg. 161: "What is your explanation? What explanations would you give for that?"

Dr. Verstraeten, pg. 161: "Personally, I have three hypotheses. My first hypothesis is it is parental bias. The children that are more likely to be vaccinated are more likely to be picked and diagnosed. Second hypothesis, I don't know. There is a bias that I have not recognized, and nobody has yet told me about it. Third hypothesis. It's true, it's Thimerosal. Those are my hypotheses."

Dr. Brent, pg. 161: "If it's true, which or what mechanisms would you explain the finding with?"

Dr. Verstraeten, pg. 162: "You are asking for biological plausibility?"

Dr. Brent, pg. 162: "Well, yes."

Dr. Verstraeten, pg. 162: "When I saw this, and I went back through the literature, I was actually stunned by what I saw because I thought it is plausible. First of all there is the Faeroe study, which I think people have dismissed too easily, and there is a new article in the same Journal that was presented here, the Journal of Pediatrics, where they have looked at PCB. They have looked at other contaminants in seafood and they have adjusted for that, and still mercury comes out. That is one point. Another point is that in many of the studies with animals, it turned out that there is quite a different result depending on the dose of mercury. Depending on the route of exposure and depending on the age at which the animals, it turned out that there is quite a different result depending on the dose of mercury. Depending on the route of exposure and depending on the age at which the animals were exposed. Now, I don't know how much you can extrapolate that from animals to humans, but that tells me mercury at one month of age is not the same as mercury at three months, at 12 months, prenatal mercury, later mercury. There is a whole range of plausible outcomes from mercury. On top of that, I think that we cannot so easily compare the U.S. population to Faeroe or Seychelles populations. We have different mean levels of exposure. We are comparing high to high in the Seychelles, high to high in the Faeroe and low to low in the U.S., so I am not sure how easily you can transpose one finding to another one. So basically to me that leaves all the options open, and that means I can not exclude such a possible effect."

Dr. Orenstein, pg. 184: "Well, the second issue is we don't know causality. We don't know about causality, but is this something that really warrants some urgent attention?"

Dr. Clover, pg. 187: "…no one around here is going to say that mercury per say is not a concern."

Dr. Weil, pg. 187 & 188: "Although the data presents a number of uncertainties, there is adequate consistency, biological plausibility, a lack of relationship with phenomenon not expected to be related, and a potential causal role that is as good as any other hypothesized etiology of explanation of the noted associations. In addition, the possibility that the associations could be causal has major significance for public and professional acceptance of Thimerosal containing vaccines. I think that is a critical issue. Finally, lack of further study would be horrendous grist for the anti-vaccination bill. That's why we need to go on, and urgently I would add.*

Dr. Brent, pg. 188-191: "I am impressed with the fact that some people here have information and believe that like the incidence of learning difficulties, behavior disorders and attention deficit is increasing in our population. I don't know whether it is or it isn't, but that kind of information you just can't throw around and say it's true or isn't true without data. And it is such an important area in our society. I mean it is the thing that makes a human being different from the other species, so it is such an important area of research…"

"…(thimerosal) Causing learning disabilities and behavioral disorders. ADD is a tremendous problem in our society and I think it is one that we should be very concerned about."

"Finally, the thing that concerns me the most, those who know me, I have been a pin stick in the litigation community because of the nonsense of our litigious society. This will be a resource to our very busy plaintiff attorneys in this country when this information becomes available. They want business and this could potentially be a lot of business."

Dr. Koller, pg. 192: "…As you increase the vaccination, you increase effects, but you don't know. You have modified live viruses. You have different antigens. There is a lot of things in those vaccinations other than mercury, and we don't know whether this is a vaccination effect or a mercury effect. But I am almost sure it is not a mercury effect. Positive as a matter of fact, and there are several experts particularly that have reviewed this, the methylmercury aspect who would agree with that due to dose response."

Dr. Johnson, pg. 193: "Are you really comfortable with the way the neurologic function was tested in the Seychelles?"

Dr. Koller, pg. 193: "I have to admit that there were many other tests that could have been conducted…We are talking about very subjective, very sensitive assays and yes, there could have been others done and there should be more done…"

Dr. Johnson, pg. 198: "This association leads me to favor a recommendation that infants up to two years old not be immunized with Thimerosal containing vaccines if suitable alternative preparations are available.”

“My gut feeling? It worries me enough. Forgive this personal comment, but I got called out at eight o'clock for an emergency call and my daughter-in-law delivered a son by C-section. Our first male in the line of the next generation, and I do not want that grandson to get a Thimerosal containing vaccine until we know better what is going on. It will probably take a long time. In the meantime, and I know there are probably implications for this internationally, but in the meantime I think I want that grandson to only be given Thimerosal-free vaccines."

Dr. Bernier, pg 198: "the negative findings need to be pinned down and published."

Dr. Weil, pg. 207: "The number of dose related relationships are linear and statistically significant. You can play with this all you want. They are linear. They are statistically significant. The positive relationships are those that one might expect from the Faroe Islands studies. They are also related to those data we do have on experimental animal data and similar to the neurodevelopmental tox data on other substances, so that I think you can't accept that this is out of the ordinary. It isn't out of the ordinary."

Dr. Weil, pg. 208: "The rise in the frequency of neurobehavioral disorders whether it is ascertainment or real, is not too bad. It is much too graphic. We don't see that kind of genetic change in 30 years."

Dr. Brent, pg. 229: "The medical/legal findings in this study, causal or not, are horrendous and therefore, it is important that the suggested epidemiological, pharmacokinetic, and animal studies be performed. If an allegation was made that a child's neurobehavioral findings were caused by Thimerosal containing vaccines, you could readily find junk scientist who would support the claim with "a reasonable degree of certainty". But you will not find a scientist with any integrity who would say the reverse with the data that is available. And that is true. So we are in a bad position from the standpoint of defending any lawsuits if they were initiated and I am concerned."

Dr. Meyers, pg. 231: "Can I go back to the core issue about the research? My own concern, and a couple of you said it, there is an association between vaccines and outcome that worries both parents and pediatricians. We don’t really know what that outcome is, but it is one that worries us and there is an association with vaccines. We keep jumping back to Thimerosal, but a number of us are concerned that Thimerosal may be less likely than some of the potential associations that have been made. Some of the potential associations are number of injections, number of antigens, other additives. We mentioned aluminum and I mentioned yesterday aluminum and mercury. Antipyretics and analgesics are better utilized when vaccines are given. And then every body mentioned all of the ones that we can't think about in this quick time period that are a part of this association, and yet all of the questions I hear we are asking have to do with Thimerosal. My concern is we need to ask the questions about the other potential associations, because we are going to the Thimerosal-free vaccine. I f many of us don't think that this is a plausible association because of the levels and so on, then we are missing looking for the association that may be the important one."

Dr. Caserta, pg. 234: "One of the things I learned at the Aluminum Conference in Puerto Rico that was tied into the metal lines in biology and medicine that I never really understood before, is the interactive effect of different metals when they are together in the same organism. It is not the same as when they are alone, and I think it would be foolish for us not to include aluminum as part of our thinking with this."

Dr. Clements, pg 247- 249: "I am really concerned that we have taken off like a boat going down one arm of the mangrove swamp at high speed, when in fact there was not enough discussion really early on about which was the boat should go at all. And I really want to risk offending everyone in the room by saying that perhaps this study should not have been done at all, because the outcome of it could have, to some extent, been predicted, and we have all reached this point now where we are left hanging, even though I hear the majority of consultants say to the Board that they are not convinced there is a causality direct link between Thimerosal and various neurological outcomes."

“I know how we handle it from here is extremely problematic. The ACIP is going to depend on comments from this group in order to move forward into policy, and I have been advised that whatever I say should not move into the policy area because that is not the point of this meeting. But nonetheless, we know from many experiences in history that the pure scientist has done research because of pure science. But that pure science has resulted in splitting the atom or some other process which is completely beyond the power of the scientists who did the research to control it. And what we have here is people who have, for every best reason in the world, pursued a direction of research. But there is not the point at which the research results have to be handled, and even if this committee decides that there is no association and that information gets out, the work that has been done and through the freedom of information that will be taken by others and will be used in ways beyond the control of this group. And I am very concerned about that as I suspect it already too late to do anything regardless of any professional body and what they say."

"My mandate as I sit here in this group is to make sure at the end of the day the 100,000,000 are immunized with DTP, Hepatitis B and if possible Hib, this year, next year and for many years to come, and that will have to be with Thimerosal containing vaccines unless a miracle occurs and an alternative is found quickly and is tried and found to be safe."

"So I leave you with the challenge that I am very concerned that this has gotten this far, and that having got this far, how you present in a concerted voice the information to the ACIP in a way they will be able to handle it and not get exposed to the traps which are out there in public relations. My message would be that any other study, and I like the study that has just been described here very much. I think it makes a lot of sense, but it has to be thought through. What are the potential outcomes and how will you handle it? How will it be presented to a public and media that is hungry for selecting the information they want to use for whatever means they in store for them?"

"…but I wonder how on earth you are going to handle it from here."

Dr. Bernier, pg. 256: "…As difficult as science is, there are two other equally tricky, complex challenges. The policy crafting has to take into consideration some very diverse and complex issues. There is another group that will deal with that, and then we have the communication and how we handle this, which I think I am no expert at, but seems equally daunting to me as the scientific and the policy issue."

"I don’t think we can set a rule here because some people have gotten these documents. For example, some of the manufacturers were privileged to receive this information. It has been important for them to share it within the company with the experts there, so they can review it. Some of you may have questions. You may have given a copy, but I think if we will all just consider this embargoed information, if I can use that term, and very highly protected information, I think that was the best I can offer.

Excerpts from:

Bob Chen, M.D., CDC’s chief of Vaccine Safety and Development, National Immunization Program

Tom Clarkson, M.D., University of Rochester, New York, Mercury program

John Clements, World Health Organization (WHO) representing expanded program on immunization

Bob Davis, M.D., University of Washington, associate professor of pediatrics and epidemiology

Bill Egan, Ph.D., FDA’s Center for Biologics, Evaluation & Research

David Johnson, M.D., Michigan state public health officer, Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)

*** Johnston, M.D., University of Colorado School of Medicine and National Jewish Center for Immunology and Respiratory Medicine, immunologist and pediatrician

Loren Koller, D.V.M., Oregon State University College of Veterinary Medicine, pathologist, immunotoxicologist

Martin Meyers, M.D., CDC’s acting director, National Immunization Program

Walter Orenstein, M.D. CDC’s director, National Immunization Program

Isabelle Rapin, M.D., Albert Einstein College of Medicine, neurologist for children

Tom Verstraeten, M.D., CDC’s National Immunization Program presently employed by Glaxo-Welcome, vaccine company

Bill Weil, M.D., retired pediatrician, representing American Academy of Pediatrics’ (AAP)

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:39:56 GMT

All you have demonstrated here is that you can cut and paste. Plus, your inability to engage with evidence. I have no idea what this paste job is supposed to prove. But it looks totally irrelevant to me.

I rarely resort to CAPS but on this occasion I see little alternative:

MMR DOES NOT CONTAIN MERCURY!!!

Which bit of this do you not understand?

Mercury is a total red herring as far as auti sm and MMR is concerned. The inability for antivaxxers to get this astounds me. It looks like willful ignorance and deliberate deceit to me.

The deliberate deceit and duplicity of the antivax movement is being exposed now.

As Dr Fitzpatrick said today: (tinyurl.com/c4qlvu)

"The gulf in academic and professional standards between the rival experts in these cases is not the result of the petitioners’ difficulty in persuading high quality scientists and doctors to testify on their behalf. It reflects the fact that the bad science of the vaccine-autism campaign is not supported by reputable scientists and doctors in the relevant disciplines. It is a great misfortune that, over the past decade, thousands of parents of autistic children, on both sides of the Atlantic, have come under the influence of the plausible purveyors of the junk science of the vaccine-autism campaign."

"In the past I have been reluctant to endorse allegations of fraud against Wakefield (21). However, on the basis of the extensive evidence presented in the US vaccine courts - together with the recent revelations by British investigative journalist Brian Deer concerning the falsification of data in the 1998 Lancet paper, I am obliged to concede that I appear to have underestimated the extent to which Wakefield’s apparent incapacity to face up to evidence contrary to a cherished hypothesis may have led to the misrepresentation of data (22)."

"Wakefield’s tragedy is that his incapacity to acknowledge scientific error has led to his professional disgrace. The tragedy for the parents who have followed his campaign is that they have been the last to discover the truth. At least now, thanks to the grand masters of the vaccine court and their excellent expert witnesses, the truth is out."

re: Measles - what next?

Jiri — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 17:19:00 GMT

http://www.vitals.com/frame?url=http%3A%2F%2Fexplorevaccines.wordpress.com%2Fvaccine-state-mandates-and-exemptions%2Fvaccine-coalitions%2F

Andy I need something stronger. Finland statistics are interesting but did you look at the vaccination schedule in Finland compared UK and USA

http://www.vhpb.org/files/html/Meetings_and_publications/Presentations/LJUS43javepenaa.pdf

http://www.immunisation.nhs.uk/files/schedule_oct08.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/schedules/downloads/child/2009/09_0-6yrs_schedule_pr.pdf

re: Measles - what next?

Jiri — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 17:31:42 GMT

Dear Andy I never said that MMR contains mercury or aluminum!!!! THAT SHOWS YOUR INABILITY TO READ!!!!! I don't care what you say. It's only empty words coming from your bottom. Give me prove!!! Links to scientific research, studies etc.

re: Measles - what next?

Jiri — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 18:02:03 GMT

http://www.vitals.com/frame?url=http%3A%2F%2Fexplorevaccines.wordpress.com%2Fvaccine-state-mandates-and-exemptions%2Fvaccine-coalitions%2F

MMR damage

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 18:39:26 GMT

So why are you posting so much about mercury on a blog post about measles vaccination?

And bizarrely, I have linked to scientific research - you do not link to scientific research.

What is it specifically about the studies I have shown you that you doubt? Can you be clear in your argument?

re: Measles - what next?

richard ponsonby — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 15:44:58 GMT

Good work, Jiri, you've got Andy completely bamboozled.

re: Measles - what next?

Andy — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 19:56:31 GMT

Yes, well done Jiri for spouting so much nonsense that I have given up the will to live. In the meantime, we shall see the end of this anti-MMR nonsense as their supporters and arguments are seen for the nonsense they are.

RIP anti-MMR.

Omnia Pro

Omnia Pro — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 03:09:21 GMT

Really holy crap the omnia pro is turning out to sound wicked!