Home > Expert Insights, In the News > What We Have is a Failure To Communicate

What We Have is a Failure To Communicate

Several weeks ago, there was a link to a petition that was posted on our Vaccinate Your Baby Facebook page.  The petition was in objection to an anti-vaccination ad running every hour from April 11th – 28th on the large CBS jumbotron in New York City’s Times Square. 

If you didn’t know much about the organizations who have sponsored the ad – the National Vaccination Information Center (NVIC), in conjunction with Mercola.com – you just might think that they were providing viewers with government sponsored vaccine information.  The concern is that this couldn’t be further from the truth.  These two organizations are directly opposed to the government’s public health efforts and childhood vaccinations. 

The debate over this ad is quite complex.  However, in a recent Salon.com article, Dr. Parikh does a fine job of highlighting some of the most critical concerns with this anti-vaccination messaging.     

One particular concern raised by this ad is one of ethics.  If advertising messages are harmful to the health of the general population, is there no one who has a responsibility to restrict those messages?   Should the organization that is selling the advertising space be held accountable for the advertising messages they display?   Dr. Parikh explores these questions among others, and acknowledges his many concerns.    

He explains that while we’ve become “savvy ad consumers, who roll our eyes at the claims of weight loss pills and miracle products,” he objects to the ad because he feels it is disguised as a public service announcement that ultimately directs parents to dangerous anti-vaccine messaging. 

Dr. Parikh is also surprised by the “lack of outrage from the medical and public health community.”  He explains that while “rational vaccine advocates remain quiet and polite”, claims about the dangers of vaccines go unchallenged.  This is why he is calling for a “strong dose of passion” along with a campaign of powerful and unforgettable messages that emphasize a pro-vaccine position.  Messages that will remind us that there are lives at stake here. 

While the American Academy of Pediatrics has expressed concerns about this ad in a letter to CBS Outdoor, (the company responsible for placing the ad on the jumbotron), Dr. Parikh fears that this effort has not been forceful enough.  He suggests that if the public health community and medical professionals would have the same audacity as NVIC, then perhaps it would be a fair fight. 

For now, we are left to wonder, who will step up? Just how much of this information will be allow to go unchallenged?  More importantly, how can we do a better job of communicating the importance of immunizations? 

As more and more views of this ad drive traffic to the NVIC website, it appears that we do, indeed, have a failure to communicate.    

For more great insights by Dr. Parikh on this subject, check out the full article here and let us know your thoughts regarding this issue.

  1. April 27, 2011 at 1:20 am

    The truth will set us free & save our children from further harm due to vaccine ignorance. See the informed people set the record straight once & for all, here, in the comment section. Case closed:

    “Will an Anti-Vaccination Ad in Times Square Hurt More People Than it Saves?”

    http://blogs.babble.com/strollerderby/2011/04/25/will-an-anti-vaccination-ad-in-times-square-hurt-more-people-than-it-saves-video/comment-page-2/#comment-85036

    Like

  2. April 27, 2011 at 1:24 am

    You’re talking about censoring there, lady. If there’s nothing to hide, why not allow this conversation the ad brings up happen? Prove your “Points”, pun intended, without censorship.

    Like

  3. Steve Michaels
    April 27, 2011 at 4:59 am

    You know Christine, because I live in the UK I have seen here and elsewhere complaints about the ad, but had never actually seen it. Wow! I was really expecting some sort of pictures of babies having seizures or paralysed from GBS or maybe an autistic child or two. Not because I necessarily think that is good advertising, but because of the uproar over the ad. Your, and other pro-vax people’s, reaction to this simple ad promoting sovereignty over one’s body and getting educated is so over the top as to be almost hysterical. Do you really despise anyone who dares disagree with you or anyone who dares to say ‘don’t just take the government’s word’ for how they treat their own body?

    The overreaction to this ad, with calls of censorship and all, illustrates quite clearly that the pro-vax position is borne more out of a desire to control others than to promote anything positive. When fear-mongering and censorship are at the heart of an argument, it shows who weak the intellectual argument really is.

    Like

  4. Christine
    April 27, 2011 at 10:31 am

    Steve, perhaps you failed to realize that I was summarizing Dr. Parikh’s points in this piece and not necessarily stating my own. (You may want to read his published article, referenced within mine.) With all the attention that has been given this ad, I too was expecting some terrifying visual images (much like the ads placed in movie theatres over Thanksgiving, with needles and babies and inaccurate,outdated information about vaccine ingredients). I believe the concern Dr. Parikh is raising is a valid one to explore and challenges both the concept of censorship and ethics. What is acceptable and what is not? Additionally, I believe Dr. Parikh is calling upon his colleagues to speak out just like NIVC is doing so that parents will have also hear, loud and clear, the benefits of vaccines.

    Like

  5. April 27, 2011 at 11:31 am

    It’s interesting that Steve claims to be talking about “sovereignty over one’s body” when *parents* are the ones making these decisions for vulnerable kids, and for people who will unwittingly be exposed to the unvaccinated.

    Marsha, when you frame science questions in terms of truth and beliefs rather than evidence, and statistics, then talking about your own politics and agendas, not science, because the *facts* do not support anything you’ve stated here.

    To paraphrase Christine, this ad is potentially harmful to the health of our general population. It doesn’t matter how you anyone tries to rebut that statement. The facts support vaccination.

    Like

  6. April 27, 2011 at 11:55 am

    Well said.

    Like

  7. Sara
    April 27, 2011 at 12:31 pm

    I agree with Steve. The uproar over this ad is ridiculously disproportionate. The ad is in fact, just as “rational, quiet and polite” as Dr. Parikh (debatably) characterizes vaccine advocates.

    If advertising messages are harmful to the health of the general population, is there no one who has a responsibility to restrict those messages? Should the organization that is selling the advertising space be held accountable for the advertising messages they display? Dr. Parikh explores these questions among others, and acknowledges his many concerns.

    We are bombarded with advertisements for pharmaceutical drugs on a daily basis. Drugs that cause devastation and death to our population on a scale that far outweighs people choosing to forgo immunization. Perhaps Dr. Parikh should ponder the morality, responsibility and accountability of this much more critical problem.

    Like

  8. Steve Michaels
    April 27, 2011 at 1:11 pm

    The science of all of this is being debated on the comments for other posts. I think that Marsha is not (and definitely I am not) attempting to debate the science on this thread. The ‘facts’, as you put it Shannon, are definitely in dispute. Not by advocates on each side of the debates, but by scientists. Some of the keystone studies in support of vaccines have had their credibility torn apart by criminal court charges and published emails indicating a wilful attempt to fudge the numbers to ‘prove’ safety. Yet barely a word about this in the MSM. Americans are on a daily basis bombarded with ads showing someone looking despairingly into the distance and then seeing their doctor and taking a pill and life becomes great again. Of course at the end of the ad there is about 20 seconds of a quiet voice telling of all of the side effects INCLUDING DEATH from using these products. The entire main stream debate about health care is controlled by the pharmaceutical industry.

    Now one major advertising space in all of America agrees to publish an ad that basically says make sure you are truly informed before you give consent and out come the calls for censorship. Again, as in other articles on this site, there is the recurring theme that children were dropping dead like flies before vaccines and, oh but for the grace of God, it is nothing short of a miracle that mankind survived long enough for pharmaceutical companies to save us from all of the evil viruses and bacteria that are trying constantly to kill us all.

    “To paraphrase Christine, this ad is potentially harmful to the health of our general population.”

    Just to point something out to you, before vaccines, there were hardly any non-genetic chronic illnesses. Today over 25% of all children are chronically ill. Of course, there is no causal relationship, its all coincidence.

    Like

  9. Christine
    April 27, 2011 at 2:38 pm

    Steve, You bring up a valid point about pharmacuetical ads. We all know that at the end of the ad there is a long detailed list of the possible side effects, including death. No where does NIVC, either in this ad or on their website, warn that NOT vaccinating may cause death. However, when you receive a vaccination you receive a warning about the possible side effects and how likely they are. Additionally, I would venture to guess that the people who choose to take the medications, like those you mentioned being advertised, usually do so because the risk of side effects is weighted against the symptoms of whatever ailment they may have. Every medical intervention has it’s risks. Just like not receiving medical attention may have it’s risks.

    Like

  10. April 27, 2011 at 2:44 pm

    Steve, you make two assertions:

    1. Before vaccines, there were hardly any non-genetic chronic illnesses.
    2. Today over 25% of all children are chronically ill.

    Care to provide citations for Both of those assertions? Otherwise you are making stuff up.

    Like

  11. Sabrina
    April 27, 2011 at 4:58 pm

    The assertion that we have seen an increase in the number of children and adults with chronic illness seems to be a favorite of AVs. Yes, more children are living with chronic illness than 20 years ago. This is because 20 years ago (or even less) children with these conditions DIED. We have new treatments for many childhood illnesses that didn’t exist even 5-10 years ago. So I’ll give you the increase in chronic illness. But it’s not due to vaccination. Unless you have some real DATA that proves otherwise…

    Like

  12. Steve Michaels
    April 27, 2011 at 6:40 pm

    Read it and weep Sabrina. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

    http://genesgreenbook.com/content/proof-vaccines-didnt-save-us

    The sources for these charts are from national public health agencies, encyclopedias, Vital Statistics and Historical Statistics of the US, published medical journals, UNICEF reports.

    The favorite pro-vax argument is that we’d all be dead if it weren’t for vaccines. It is total and utter nonsense.

    Like

  13. Steve Michaels
    April 27, 2011 at 6:42 pm

    It is completely impossible to PROVE that vaccines have ever saved any lives. The assertion is that if you are vaccinated and you don’t get sick then vaccines saved your life. Bull. It is impossible to prove that a ‘preventative’ measure actually did anything unless you are Dr. Who or something and can track simultaneous potential courses of the future.

    Like

  14. Amy
    April 27, 2011 at 6:59 pm

    Steve- those charts by Raymond Obomsawin have been debunked several times. Here’s one… but I can pull up at least three deconstructions that show the flaws: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=4431

    What you will find on these graphs is predominantly deaths from diseases, which had undoubtedly decreased significantly prior to vaccinations, due to factors including hygeine (including medical handwashing and antiseptics with the development of the germ theory), and medical advances like antibiotics and the iron lung (though there is usually a sharp drop in the remaining mortality following widespread vaccination as well). However, the sudden, sustained drop in the incidence of the diseases almost always follows immediately after vaccinations.

    Examples: http://www.hhs.gov/nvpo/concepts/intro6.htm

    The Obomsawin graphs also depict the fall of scarlet fever, implying that it disappeared without a vaccine. However, scarlet fever is not an infectious disease. It is a complication of untreated strep throat. It has declined quite a bit because of testing and treating strep throat from antibiotics, and was probably falling quite a bit before the use of antibiotics due to the same factors as the fall of the mortality rate. However, strep throat itself is still obviously extremely common.

    Like

  15. April 27, 2011 at 8:38 pm

    OMGoodness. Science Based Medicine? Debunked the charts, Amy? SBM, the skeptic blogs & science blogs, Quackbusters aka Quackwatch, have themselves been debunked & discredited but I’ll save that proof for another lesson in truth, later.

    So, no, they debunked nothing. They continued the rhetoric of the fraud they try to call science & the deception cannot cover up what the archives of history have recorded for posterity to learn from on the fact vaccines weren’t even in the picture when the decline began.

    What do you, who swear by vaccines, think about the developers of the polio vaccine who came out in truth against their own vaccine? Both Sabin & Salk. One said the vaccine can actually cause the disease it was intended to prevent.

    See what they had to say along with, many, other wise voices who have been trying to tell us about the error of vaccines for a very long time but were stifled & ignored until now.

    “DOCTORS AND SCIENTISTS CONDEMN VACCINATION”

    http://www.vaclib.org/sites/debate/index.html

    My favorite;

    “The only wholly safe vaccine is a vaccine that is never used”
    Dr James A. Shannon, National Institute of Health, USA

    Like

  16. April 27, 2011 at 8:52 pm

    Christine. Before I show you the massive proof of the great fraud behind vaccines, let me ask you about those ingrediants you said are outdated information about the ingredients we use to scare people.

    Can you list every ingrediant found today in vaccines, please? Please include the adjuvents. And don’t forget the human DNA as well as animal. It is scary stuff so lets see you name them & show everyone how harmless the ingrediants used today, are.

    Like

  17. April 27, 2011 at 9:33 pm

    While we’re waiting for Christine to post that list, let’s go on. I tried to post the following already but think it was too long so the filter may have caught it. So I’ll break it down in hope this valuable & true information can be seen for the importance it represents.

    Let me show you beyond a shadow of a doubt, the fraud called science you who are duped put stock in.

    You do know the, infamous, Danish study claiming no link between vaccines & the harm so many children have succumbed to has been under great scrutiny, right? Angry parents of the world made clear they were moving in on the fraud & subsequently the top scientist/researcher, who was behind that study, ran off with the research money & has now been indicted on multiple charges.

    http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/04/autism-researcher-poul-thorsen-indicted.html

    I wonder why media hasn’t given this the attention they did when Andrew Wakefield was framed? He’s been vindicated, by the way, in case you don’t know that. His work has been replicated many times over, also, but they don’t tell us about that. The proof to all that’s out, too.

    But for now lets stick to the studies some have put such merit in & all the fraud behind them.

    To be continued;

    Like

  18. E's Mom
    April 27, 2011 at 9:41 pm

    I think that Dr. P needs to stick with medicine and leave media ethics to the respected experts. There are 5 major ethical frameworks. So to say that this is a question of ethics depends on which one you ascribe to. (As a contributing researcher to one of the major college textbooks on media ethics, I call one up on Dr. P)

    The irrational fear baffles me. Vaccine rates are still high. According to AMA “Researchers in January 2009 surveyed 1,552 parents with children age 17 and younger; 90% said vaccines are a good way to protect children from diseases. Similarly, 88% said they generally follow their physicians’ vaccine recommendations.” http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2010/03/15/prsb0315.htm

    Do you think that an advocacy group supporting informed choice (a human right, by the way) is going to cause even half of parents to stop vaccinating? What is to fear from parents asking questions? Knowledge? Wow, empowered consumers…. what a concept.

    Honestly, the attention all of the pro-vaxers are giving this ad is just giving more attention to the ad.

    Like

  19. April 27, 2011 at 9:44 pm

    I’ll give Christine a bit longer so she’ll have time to post those ingredients she claims are harmless before I post the shocking proof of the toll vaccines have taken on our supposed to be great nation & has rippled out to take toll on the rest of the world, too.

    Like

  20. April 27, 2011 at 10:02 pm

    I forgot to tell everyone that you can do a search of your own to see the great fraud they pretend science by looking up, Faked studies and paid doctors to put their names on them. The fraud is irrefutable.

    Like

  21. April 27, 2011 at 11:10 pm

    Shannon Des Roches Rosa said;

    “Marsha, when you frame science questions in terms of truth and beliefs rather than evidence, and statistics, then talking about your own politics and agendas, not science, because the *facts* do not support anything you’ve stated here.”

    I hope you’ve been paying attention to the many facts & all that evidence behind the fraud called science, I posted, Shannon? There’s a lot more & the bomb that blows all the deception out of the water is coming after Christine does her part in showing us all those ingredients in vaccines she says are harmless & safe.

    The facts support the truth behind vaccines, Shannon. All that incoherent rambling you spin holds no water & thinking people, paying attention, can very well see through the rhetoric you spew. Shame on you. Do the proper research before you embarrass yourself, again.

    The liars & you who are duped by them are definitely harmful to the health of & well being of the entire population of the planet & it doesn’t matter how you or anyone try to deny the truth the facts support the risk & danger of vaccination.

    Wake up & stop being sheep, ignorantly, led to the slaughter. We are not cash cows or guinea pigs so please step our of the dark ages & face reality. Use common sense & logic for a good change & come out of that crazy herd mentality that’s taken such toll on children & adults. Do the proper research. Do it for the children.

    Like

  22. Gary
    April 27, 2011 at 11:22 pm

    “but I’ll save that proof for another lesson in truth, later.
    So, no, they debunked nothing.”

    Asserting something with no evidence whatsoever, and then using it as evidence is not a good start, logically.

    “Both Sabin & Salk. One said the vaccine can actually cause the disease it was intended to prevent. ”
    Indeed, the Oral live attenuated polio vaccine can mutate and cause polio IN VERY RARE CASES. This is one of the reasons that much of the developed world no longer uses that vaccine. However, it still has many advantages over the injected killed virus vaccine. It is easier to transport, use, and maintain. And, not for nothing, but it works better at producing resistance against polio. For these reasons (and a few others) it is still used in the world where the risks from wild polio are much higher than those from the vaccine. If you have a 5% chance of catching polio without, and a 0.00001% chance of catching polio with the vaccine, the choice is pretty obvious. You are looking at the 0.00001 number, correctly noting that it is not 0, but ignoring the alternative which is a much much higher risk.

    See, Marsha, absolutely anything you do is fraught with risks. Revealing things that CAN go wrong with a choice does not make that choice inherently unsafe, unwise, or even unhealthy. The question that you are failing to ask is what is the risk from NOT vaccinating. Ironically, that is also the information which is missing from the ad that NVIC produced. So, thank you for proving Christine’s point.

    Like

  23. Gary
    April 27, 2011 at 11:38 pm

    “I wonder why media hasn’t given this the attention they did when Andrew Wakefield was framed?”

    Because he did not go on national television proclaiming a new truth with his study. And because there are lots of studies showing the same thing with which he had nothing to do. And because his fraud had nothing to do with the data in his study.

    Here’s a nice list: http://www.aap.org/immunization/families/faq/vaccinestudies.pdf

    “He’s been vindicated, by the way, in case you don’t know that. His work has been replicated many times over”
    No, it has not. Which is why you did not post a link to any such replication. He himself has been involved in a few studies which showed similar (and similarly small) results. There have also been a few published papers of extremely questionable nature showing some results in animals which some people think are supportive of his theories. This is so far from vindication that they are not even in the same galaxy.

    Here’s more information about the non replication of Wakefield’s results:
    http://justthevax.blogspot.com/2010/02/independent-wakefield-way-really.html
    “So what do we have here? Three (3) genuinely published cases of autistic adults who had consulted a doctor for gastrointestinal problems and were found to have gastrointestinal problems. One conference report from April 2005 that has not gone through peer review and has not appeared in a real journal in the 5 years since the conference. One real study looking at over 50 autistic children which does not confirm Wakefield’s findings. And finally, one study by Wakefield’s buddies in a freshly founded journal run by Andrew Wakefield and his buddies, to say that their buddy Andy was really right all along – how is that for “independent” confirmation?!”

    Like

  24. Rohan G
    April 27, 2011 at 11:40 pm

    Antivaxers want their opinions must be heard and respected. Meanwhile they show no respect for the facts that clearly show vaccines save many more lives than they have ever harmed. Falsification and conspiracy are the core components of antivaccination. Respect?

    Like

  25. Gary
    April 27, 2011 at 11:40 pm

    Did you notice how you suggested Dr. Parikh should eschew pronouncements on media ethics because he is not an expert, you provided a claim of such expertise yourself, and then proceeded to talk about the medical issues (immunity rates and what is a high or low one) rather than the media ethics issue? Hypocrite much?

    Like

  26. Chris
    April 28, 2011 at 2:31 am

    Marsha McClelland:

    I hope you’ve been paying attention to the many facts & all that evidence behind the fraud called science, I posted, Shannon?

    I have not been following this thread closely, but using a text search I found each of the sites you linked to. They are:
    blogs.babble.com
    vaclib.org
    ageofautism.com

    Now which one of those is available in a medical school library? One site shows a graph to scarlet fever, which does not have a vaccine — it is what happens when you don’t treat a strep infection with antibiotics. Do tell us you let your kids get antibiotics for strep throat. Plus another points to a measles vaccine in the 1970s, when the first vaccine was in the early 1960s. Are you allergic to real facts and truth? That site also referenced John Scudamore’s whale.to webpage, which will never be taken seriously.

    Ms. McClelland, why do you hate children? Why do you want them to go through measles, pertussis and mumps? Why do you want us to go back to the days when on average at least one family lost a child to a now vaccine preventable disease?

    My grandmother had two sisters and two brothers, but both brothers died before they were seven years old. What is really sad is seeing the first grade signature of one declaring “temperance” on one page of the family Bible, and on another page a record of his death a few months later. To put it in context, my mother’s marriage and the birth of all her children were noted in the same Bible (I scanned the pertinent pages, and then sent it off to the next generation, my niece).

    Are you being funded by “Big Hospital Supply”,”Big Children’s Coffin Supply”, “Big Warehouse Institution for Rubella Babies” (like Willowbrook), or the children’s section of your local cemetary? What do you have against the fact that the average lifespan in this country is now close to 80, which is much more than it was fifty years ago, mostly because schoolmates don’t die prior to graduating from high school?

    In the future, Ms. McClelland, if you don’t support your opinions with something that can be found in a medical school library (PubMed works!), we will assume you made it up out of thin air.

    Like

  27. Steve Michaels
    April 28, 2011 at 4:41 am

    It’s pretty tough to debunk a chart of national statistics which blatantly states that is following mortality rates. The whole point is that the fear based promotion of vaccines is based on the ‘children will drop like flies’ if we don’t vaccinate. Yet here you are admitting that the justification for mass vaccination is flawed. Thank you for admitting that just because a VPD may have been avoided (disputable point), it does NOT mean that a life has been saved. And pardon me for pointing out that streptococcus is indeed contagious. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streptococcal_pharyngitis

    And again, you have promoted the anti-vax claim that modern medical advances, as well as hygiene and sanitation have indeed lowered infection and mortality rates.

    “It has declined quite a bit because of testing and treating strep throat from antibiotics”

    You really are starting to sound a bit like an anti-vaxer…

    Like

  28. Steve Michaels
    April 28, 2011 at 4:50 am

    “Ms. McClelland, why do you hate children? Why do you want them to go through measles, pertussis and mumps? Why do you want us to go back to the days when on average at least one family lost a child to a now vaccine preventable disease?”

    Citation please Chris. That is quite a claim!! In my extended family some 10 individual families comprising nearly 50 people, we have NEVER lost one child to a VPD. And that dates back to 1925. Add to that the fact that of ALL of the families I have encountered, through Church, school, Scouts, etc, I don’t know of one family that has lost a child to a VPD.

    Like

  29. Steve Michaels
    April 28, 2011 at 5:07 am

    Prove that something has been ‘prevented’. It is a logical impossibility. Prove that the unprovable ‘prevention’ actually ‘saved a life’. No study on Earth can prove what you claim, unless you possess the ability to see parallel universal outcomes. And using expletives shows a complete inflexibility to opposing points of view. That translates to ‘dogma’. No evidence provided will challenge your belief. If you believe that black is white, nothing will change your mind. Multiple levels of corruption and conflicts of interest in the pharma world, which includes the regulatory agencies via the revolving door of pharma positions and regulators (see the current head of Merck international vaccine sales for evidence as she was rewarded for her performance for the now proven false pandemic claim in 2009 as chief of the CDC) are completely ignored by pro-vaxers. It is interesting how, firstly, anti-vaxers are accused of ignoring evidence when virtually every study is refuted based on funding and COI concerns which is then ignored by pro-vaxers, and, secondly, all anti-vax sites are biased and ‘krankpot’ sites, and all pro-vax sites are pure and whiter than the driven snow with no bias whatsoever. Not true in the real world, just in the mind of the pro-vaxer.

    I certainly hope that in the interests of civility that Christine has the presence of mind to remove your offensive comment.

    Like

  30. April 28, 2011 at 5:51 am

    Chris said;

    “I have not been following this thread closely”

    Of course not. It shows. Where’s that list of ingredients you clain safe, Chris? You remain void truth because you & yours here are closed midned. I send many credible sites & sources & you fools choose a few to try & discredit. The sources I used have within them many other credible cites but you who insist on remaining ignorant say ridiculous things like how I hate children.

    WAKE UP!

    Here are the facts of what your herd mentality have gotten us, next.

    Hurry up & ignore these facts, too, & show us your herd mentality, again. Shame on you cash cows who ignorantly offer children up as guinea pigs.

    Deny the following parrots.

    Like

  31. April 28, 2011 at 5:53 am

    Lunacy has reigned for far too long. The trade off for having childhood disease, that most always strengthened immune systems was replaced by epidemics on a scale that’s so massive it, now, takes 1 in 3 in cancer before age of 65 & 1 in 100 children in neurological disorders called autism.

    Doctors have been trained to blame media, saying there has been no increase. They say cancer & autism have always been prominent but we never noticed until media began reporting it. They also blame the rise in autism on better diagnosis but if that was so, we would have noticed these victims all around us, if they had actually been there all along.

    We know this is a lie because we can see with our own eyes how widespread both cancer & autism have become.

    We never saw such epidemics years back & the rise has been right in step with the increase in vaccinations through the years. Other toxins let loose on mankind via the air, food & water are to blame as well as harmful drugs but vaccines are definitely the catalyst.

    We are a nation of epidemics that’s rippled out to the world because of ignorance & greed.

    It is unbelievable yet undeniable if properly investigated.

    To be continued & these facts are made possible by fools like you here who think you’re cows. You are actually. Cash cows!

    Like

  32. E's Mom
    April 28, 2011 at 9:09 am

    Reading problems Gary???

    I said I don’t understand given the AMA study I quoted, why you are so afraid of this ad. What about that is hypocritical?

    And I didn’t even know about this ad until pro-vaxers started bringing it up.

    Seriously, get over yourself and say something worth while, please.

    Like

  33. E's Mom
    April 28, 2011 at 9:13 am

    Nasty, nasty.

    People like you are another reason I have very little faith in the pro-vax side. You cannot logically argue so you personally attack.

    People like Marsha are standing up for the children that the rest of you are forgetting – MINE!

    Vaccine injured children are very real and if you deny that, the you are making that up out of thin air.

    If you cannot contribute to the debate with logos, work on your own credibility, don’t simply attack others.

    Like

  34. E's Mom
    April 28, 2011 at 9:14 am

    I’m with Steve on this one. Give me PROOF that your vaccines actually work.

    You want to tell my brain damaged 12 year old to F off?

    Get over yourself.

    Like

  35. Kelly
    April 28, 2011 at 10:03 am

    E’s mom, I’m very interested in learning more about medical ethics and it is a shame that you haven’t used your expertise to comment on this issue.

    I was hoping I could hear your opinion on the ethics of this hypothetical scenario. Suppose I have a child with a congenital clotting disorder that would certainly have my child suffer a stroke before he reaches 18. The stroke most likely would have no lasting damage, but there is also a risk of permanent severe neurological damage and death. My child’s doctor tells me there is a drug available but based on his experience this drug doesn’t work. Studies that say opposite were done by the company which paid the journal editor to publish falsified data and this company is also paying to suppress independent studies that not only show the drug ineffective but also harmful. Instead the doctor recommends herbal products, homeopathic remedies and vitamin supplements that have no side effects. We decide to go with the doctor’s recommendation believing we were fully informed on the pros/cons of the possible treatments. When my son dies of a stroke at 12, I learn that the doctor neglected to tell me that the products he recommended have never been tested for effectiveness and he exaggerated the risks of the pharmaceutical product that had indeed been thoroughly tested and shown safe and effective for millions of kids with my son’s condition. It was true that the drug did harm a few children, but not at the rate the doctor lead us to believe.

    Did the doctor in my scenario act ethically?

    Like

  36. E's Mom
    April 28, 2011 at 10:42 am

    Kelly – I said media ethics, not medical ethics. I will not claim any sort of expertise on that matter:-)

    I would say as a parent you should have done your own research instead of relying on one doctor’s medical opinion (logos versus ethos). That’s why they are called medical opinions, not medical facts. You have the right as a parent to seek additional advise and do your own research to make your own decision.

    Did the doctor act ethically? Again, not my area of expertise, so I won’t comment. But did you as a parent act responsibly based on informed consent? No.

    I do take issue with consumers (of any product) who simply rely on someone else’s credibility, then blame when something goes wrong. That is why I blame myself for my daughter’s injury. I asked her pediatrician if vaccines were safe, she said yes, then my daughter suffered permanent damage. Whom should I blame? The doctor for lying (by omission) or me for believing her? It is my child, and my responsibility to advocate for her best interests.

    Like

  37. Steve Michaels
    April 28, 2011 at 11:40 am

    Here is a similar AMA study on the cancer issue:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1977523/pdf/brjcancer00072-0193.pdf

    The main point of this is that just because your doctor tells you it’s okay does NOT mean that they believe it.

    Like

  38. April 28, 2011 at 12:17 pm

    “In the years after his initial controvers­ial finding, linking the MMR vaccine to Crohn’s disease and autism, he published another 19 papers on the vaccine-in­duced disorder.

    All were peer reviewed. However, strangely enough, none of these 19 papers are ever discussed in the media. The only study that keeps seeing the light of day is the original study from 1998, along with the original questions about conflicts of interest, which he explains in great detail in this interview.

    This is very interestin­g indeed, because not only has he continued his own studies, but since then, a large number of replicatio­n studies have been performed around the world, by other researcher­s, that confirm his initial findings.

    It’s been replicated in Canada, in the US., in Venezuela, in Italy[but] they never get mentioned. All you ever hear is that no one else has ever been able to replicate the findings.

    I’m afraid that is false.

    For those of you who have swallowed this type of reporting hook line and sinker, here is a list of 28 studies from around the world that support Dr. Wakefield’­s controvers­ial findings.”

    1 The Journal of Pediatrics November 1999; 135(5):559­-63

    2. The Journal of Pediatrics 2000; 138(3): 366-372

    3. Journal of Clinical Immunology November 2003; 23(6): 504-517

    4. Journal of Neuroimmun­ology 2005

    5. Brain, Behavior and Immunity 1993; 7: 97-103

    6. Pediatric Neurology 2003; 28(4): 1-3

    7. Neuropsych­obiology 2005; 51:77-85

    8. The Journal of Pediatrics May 2005;146(5­):605-10

    9. Autism Insights 2009; 1: 1-11

    10. Canadian Journal of Gastroente­rology February 2009; 23(2): 95-98

    11. Annals of Clinical Psychiatry 2009:21(3)­: 148-161

    12. Journal of Child Neurology June 29, 2009; 000:1-6

    13. Journal of Autism and Developmen­tal Disorders March 2009;39(3)­:405-13

    14. Medical Hypotheses August 1998;51:13­3-144.

    15. Journal of Child Neurology July 2000; ;15(7):429­-35

    16. Lancet. 1972;2:883­-884.

    17. Journal of Autism and Childhood Schizophre­nia January-Ma­rch 1971;1:48-­62

    18. Journal of Pediatrics March 2001;138:3­66-372.

    19. Molecular Psychiatry 2002;7:375­-382.

    20. American Journal of Gastroente­rolgy April 2004;598-6­05.

    21. Journal of Clinical Immunology November 2003;23:50­4-517.

    22. Neuroimmun­ology April 2006;173(1­-2):126-34­.

    23. Prog. Neuropsych­opharmacol Biol Psychiatry December 30 2006;30:14­72-1477.

    24. Clinical Infectious Diseases September 1 2002;35(Su­ppl 1):S6-S16

    25. Applied and Environmen­tal Microbiolo­gy, 2004;

    26. Journal of Medical Microbiolo­gy October 2005;54:98­7-991

    27. Archivos venezolano­s de puericultu­ra y pediatría 2006; Vol 69 (1): 19-25.

    28. Gastroente­rology. 2005:128 (Suppl 2);Abstrac­t-303

    http://www­.ageofauti­sm.com/201­0/01/wakef­ields-scie­nce-proven­-valid-aga­in-in-new-­study-that­-replicate­s-findings­.html

    Like

  39. Kelly
    April 28, 2011 at 12:53 pm

    My apologies,E’s Mom, I did read your comment wrong. I’m so very interested in learning about ethics, I jumped on the word “ethics” and totally misread “media” as “medical”. Totally, my bad, but I do appreciate your insight on my hypothetical example.

    One thing I struggle with is how much responsibility does fall onto consumers. How are parents that are scientifically illiterate supposed to know if what their doctors are telling them is correct or not? How are they supposed to know if a website is credible or not?

    In Canada, our government offers a very generous compensation package to attract the best scientific minds to the public service. These experts analyze the data to decide if a vaccine should license a product in Canada. Another group of experts analyze the data to decide if the vaccine should be recommended on a national level. A third group of experts analyze the data to decide if the vaccine should be part of the provincial schedule. Finally, a doctor or public health nurse reviews with me the pros/cons of the vaccine before I consent to give that vaccine to my individual child. That’s a lot of experts, and people like Marsha and Steve say I should just discard their scientific and medical opinion because science and government are corrupt. Organizations like NVIC say that the science is wrong and ingredients are toxic and will harm my child. The NVIC’s opinion isn’t based on any scientific expertise. Barbara Loe Fischer is just a mom who claims that her kid was vaccine damaged. How does a SAHM know more than worldwide experts on vaccination? I’m very skeptical of NVIC.

    So who do we trust? What role does the media play in this trust? This NVIC ad is designed to create doubt in government agencies that promote vaccines. They offer no reason for this doubt except that they believe vaccines are harmful. Does the media have an ethical obligation to let NVIC spread their fears to the possible determinant of public health in respect to free speech or do they have an obligation to not air the ad in respect for consideration of child welfare and rejecting misleading advertising?

    Art Caplan, another media ethicist advocates the latter. If I have understood you properly (and given my track record so far, I might be wrong, so please correct me), you advocate the former. You think that the media has no ethical obligation to suppress the message since the message is insignificant and will have no impact on vaccination rates. So let NVIC have their moment and promote free speech. Did I paraphrase your position correctly?

    Like

  40. E's Mom
    April 28, 2011 at 1:33 pm

    Kelly – We do differ on many issues. I have a very distinct role in this issue. I am not pro-vaccine or anti-vaccine. I am pro-choice – I consider to be a human rights violation when we force any medical treatment with risks on any person, regardless of age.

    Vaccine injuries are real and there is scientific evidence to support that. I am unaware of any drug that is 100% safe for 100% of the population. Fisher is encouraging parents to know that there are risks and that they have a choice. I am not sure what is misleading about the ad – it seems pretty benign to me. You said that it is designed to create doubt, but I saw it as designed to empower parents to ask questions. I am not sure why parents with knowledge about their children’s health is a bad thing? You have seen the ad, correct?

    If I may give you an example of the ignorance that irritates me:

    My APA pediatrician and I discussed the Hep B vaccine. I asked why, he agreed that it is not important now, but that it would be nice if we had a generation of children immune to Hep B.

    Then I pulled out the package insert in which the manufacturer states that they have not tested the vaccine and do not even know how long the immunity lasts.

    (http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/r/recombivax_hb/recombivax_pi.pdf)

    5-7 years is the best guess. So then I asked him again, why my newborn child should be exposed to the possible risks – again see the vaccine insert- for a disease which she had no risk of contracting (she wasn’t having sex, shooting up or working in a hospital) ESPECIALLY when the duration of immunity has not even been tested?

    Unfortunately, you did not paraphrase my position correctly because we do not agree on the propositions. Ah! Where philosophy and ethics converge!

    If NVIC had used a video of my daughter urinating and defecating, then vomiting on herself during a seizure, along with the tagline “Watch out for the dangers of vaccines,” (like the whole pertussis commercial with the mother holding her child and the child coughing in the background) well then, I might agree that it is spreading fear and misleading advertising. But as is, all the ad does is encourage education.

    Not the former, not the latter.

    Like

  41. Chris
    April 28, 2011 at 2:04 pm

    Which one of that Gish Gallop are actual independent replications of Wakefield’s study from the retracted Lancet article? Be sure it includes at least a dozen children, specifies which MMR vaccine (which Wakefield did not do, the children had either the MMR approved in the UK before and after 1992, plus one American who had the American version), mentions both gastrointestinal issues and autism, and is a full published paper. To be independent it should not include Wakefield as an author, nor Krigsman or anyone else associated with Thoughtful House (like Dr. Gonzalez of cite #27).

    To see what I mean, please read this:
    http://justthevax.blogspot.com/2010/02/independent-wakefield-way-really.html

    Please be specific with the full cite and not a cut and paste from AoA.

    Like

  42. April 28, 2011 at 2:26 pm

    Hey, Chris. Your deception is being seen for what it is by those honestly looking for truth so you may as well cut the spin as you grasp at straws. Why did I have to ask so many times for that list of vaccine ingredients that you claim safe? Are you going to show us those ingredients you vouch for or not?

    I guess not.

    And you expect me to reply to the rhetoric you parrot? Right! Not! You lost this conversation a long time ago & it’s plain to see by those paying attention so get off the harmful agenda & leave that herd mentality behind so we can save children from further harm. Both sides have been presented & common sense & logic won. BIG TIME! Wakfield was vindicated & I showed you the facts to the matter. And the witch hunt goes on by fools. Why are you sending these blogs & you make fun of us when we use blogs? Double standard much? Repeating the bull & lies is not working for you any more. Case closed.

    Like

  43. Kelly
    April 28, 2011 at 2:30 pm

    I don’t think we disagree all that much. I’m also pro-choice, but with that choice comes responsibilities. If you decide to not to participate in public health, you should also not participate in public school, public transit, welfare and other publicly funded social programs, and publicly funded health care. There is also the issue of liability if an unvaccinated individual imports a previously eliminated VPD into the country. In this case, I feel that the unvaccinated person should be responsible for all costs associated with the outbreak. If you would like to take those health and financial risks and pass up social benefits, then all power to you and choose not to vaccinate.

    I haven’t denied that vaccine injuries exist nor have I seen any such denial on the pro-vax sites I have visited. Can you provide an example of such has occurred? Because in that case, I would agree that website is biased and misleading. Furthermore, I wish Canada had a similar compensation program that the US has. Right now, Canadians have to sue the manufacturer and their court costs are not covered. The burden of proof is also higher. Although we do have public programs that cover some, but not all of the expenses that would occur from a vaccine injury.

    The ad itself is not misleading, but the NVIC and Mercola sites that the ad directs people too, are misleading and contains numerous errors.

    You are misinformed on the transmission of hepatitis B. While drug-users, prostitutes and health care workers have an increased risk of exposure, exposure is not solely limited to these groups. Furthermore, hepatitis B contracted in childhood has a greater risk of becoming chronic, which is a more serious illness. There are asymptomatic carriers of HBV and you have no way of knowing if or when your child will be exposed to the virus. Thus your statement has no risk of exposure is false. She does have a risk of exposure, but what that risk is cannot be determined. Your best guess is “rare”, but you have no way of knowing that. Her best friend may be a HBV carrier and the two to them decide to be blood sisters one day. Her risk then would be “high”. You are also reading the duration information incorrectly. The duration endpoint has not been reached yet, because the vaccine hasn’t been around that long. Immunity is at least 7-9 years not up to 7-9 years. I agree it is your right to deny the vaccine, but based on what you have written here, you denial was not based on informed consent. Although you may find it encouraging to know that different Canadian provinces recommend different schedules for the HepB vaccine. I haven’t thoroughly investigated the reasons behind these differences though.

    Sorry if I paraphrased your position incorrectly, but I still think I’m confused on what your position is. You think the ad is OK because it just encourages education and you disagree that the type of education that is being encouraged is false and misleading? You think the NVIC is a legitimate site for parents to gain information on vaccines?
    If the ad is encouraging education, why does it not direct people to pro-vax websites in addition to anti-vax sites?

    Like

  44. Kelly
    April 28, 2011 at 2:36 pm

    Marsha, your request is too big for a blog comment. I don’t have time to compile a list of ALL the ingredients in ALL the vaccines worldwide and then explain every single ingredient to you. Perhaps you could provide one vaccine with ingredients you think are unsafe, and I will explain the ingredients to you and why they are not toxic.

    Like

  45. April 28, 2011 at 3:43 pm

    Sorry Kelly. A cop out on Christine’s part will not do. There are many toxins & many vaccines & if Christine’s list of all the, many, basic ingredients is too long she can break them into segments. She said they are not harmful so I want her to show every one those many ingredients & that all are safe. Adjuvants & preservative, too. If she wants to cop out, you can try to prove her right, Kelly. But people have figured out, by now, that can’t be done so keep that in mind.

    Like

  46. Kelly
    April 28, 2011 at 4:18 pm

    OK Marsha, but sounds like you are the one that is doing the cop out. You claim vaccines are full of toxins but yet you can’t even provide one example of such? Of course I can’t show you how the ingredients aren’t toxic when you don’t provide an example of one vaccine that contains toxic ingredients, Marsha.

    Like

  47. E's Mom
    April 28, 2011 at 4:30 pm

    Kelly – good discourse here. I am NOT being sarcastic here – genuine so please take it as such. I do not mind this kind of debate. I appreciate your civility – very rare these days, especially with others on this post telling people to f off:-(

    “I don’t think we disagree all that much. I’m also pro-choice, but with that choice comes responsibilities. If you decide to not to participate in public health, you should also not participate in public school, public transit, welfare and other publicly funded social programs, and publicly funded health care. There is also the issue of liability if an unvaccinated individual imports a previously eliminated VPD into the country.”

    First case, I agree there is some responsibility. As a family, we take many of the precautions you suggested, including several others, such as exclusive breast-feeding and no day care. But are you saying that my vaccine injured child who is medically exempt from further vaccination should not be allowed to attend public school and utilize special education services related to her disabilities caused by a vaccine? If so, who should pay for the cost of private education? Me because I played by the rules and got screwed?

    “Furthermore, I wish Canada had a similar compensation program that the US has. Right now, Canadians have to sue the manufacturer and their court costs are not covered. The burden of proof is also higher. Although we do have public programs that cover some, but not all of the expenses that would occur from a vaccine injury.”

    Kelly, I have to laugh at this. Are you at all familiar with how the program actually works? We are in the final stages of our case and my lawyer will not allow me to discuss the details publicly, but I can tell you we filed in 2003, the government conceded, and we have yet to receive a penny but paid out over $10,000 in related expenses.

    “Furthermore, hepatitis B contracted in childhood has a greater risk of becoming chronic, which is a more serious illness.”

    Yes, agreed.

    “Thus your statement has no risk of exposure is false. She does have a risk of exposure, but what that risk is cannot be determined. Your best guess is “rare”, but you have no way of knowing that.”

    Please tell me how your logic used here is any different than the anti-vax logic used for vaccine injuries. Your emphasis is on the small risk of disease; mine is on the small risk of injury. Same logic, just different perspective.

    “Her best friend may be a HBV carrier and the two to them decide to be blood sisters one day. Her risk then would be “high”. You are also reading the duration information incorrectly.”

    My 2 day old newborn????

    “The duration endpoint has not been reached yet, because the vaccine hasn’t been around that long. Immunity is at least 7-9 years not up to 7-9 years.”

    My daughter is 12, had the Hep B vax. How has it not been around that long? This is just one of the inserts. They all say the same thing. I will concede if you can show me titer testing results that indicate otherwise. But lack of longitudinal testing concerns me, especially if the reason doctors are endorsing it is because it would be nice for a generation to be immune to Hep B (even Dr. Sears buys into this!).

    “Sorry if I paraphrased your position incorrectly, but I still think I’m confused on what your position is. You think the ad is OK because it just encourages education and you disagree that the type of education that is being encouraged is false and misleading? You think the NVIC is a legitimate site for parents to gain information on vaccines?
If the ad is encouraging education, why does it not direct people to pro-vax websites in addition to anti-vax sites?”

    I absolutely think NVIC is a legitimate site for parents who have vaccine concerns. If you can tell me a pro-vax site that accurately portrays the risks, such as the ones experienced in my family, I would love to see it. But unfortunately, all the pro-vax information I have encountered is biased – only glorifying vaccines. I am sorry Kelly, but my experience is less than glorious.

    Matter of fact, I cannot think of a single website that contains all vaccine risks and benefits. The good, the bad and the ugly of VPD and vaccine injuries.

    It is very polarized and gets very nasty. I don’t participate often because very few people are civilized and just attack. I have to post and run and will not be able to comment until after later, but appreciate your insights..

    Like

  48. Snoozie
    April 28, 2011 at 5:58 pm

    I agree with Kelly. Marsha, if you believe there are “many toxins” in vaccines, you must at minimum know their names. Otherwise one can only assume you are parroting misinformation you learned at the University of Google. When you make such an assertion about “many toxins,” the onus is on you to name them at minimum. Unless, of course, your only purpose is to fear-monger.

    Like

  49. Snoozie
    April 28, 2011 at 6:00 pm

    Indeed! Marhsa ought to learn that when she cites studies, she needs to summarize their findings. But then, she isn’t really citing studies, is she Chris? She’s just copying and pasting from a highly dubious anti-vax site.

    Like

  50. Snoozie
    April 28, 2011 at 6:01 pm

    Marsha, if your understandings are so deep, why not prove Chris wrong by listing the titles and quoting the conclusions of each of those studies?

    Like

  51. Kelly
    April 28, 2011 at 7:11 pm

    I would exclude medical exemptions, because to me, a medical exemption means you would vaccinate if you could. The issue isn’t with the vaccine, but with the child. Someone with a medical exemption would do every thing they can to promote vaccination because they are then solely depending on herd immunity for protection. I also dream of a time where we might know better which children would be more susceptible to adverse reactions so we can be proactive rather than reactive. In the meantime, we have to make due with what we got, and unfortunately that does mean some children are going to suffer unforeseen adverse reactions. I also know that without vaccines, a lot more kids would be damaged by the disease. Eradication is awesome because then we have the best of both – no disease and no vaccines. Groups like NVIC are working to bring back diseases rather than eradication, which one reason why BLF disgusts me. She fails to see the greater good beyond all her “me, me, me”.

    My view of the US vaccine compensation program is from the outside looking in, and from my perspective it does look much better than here. Do you honestly think that you would have gotten a higher award in less time if the program didn’t exist? What would have happened if your daughter suffered complications from the disease rather than the vaccine?

    I think my logic is different in that exposure to the disease is much, much, much more likely to produce adverse events compared to exposure to the vaccine. Now that vaccines are widely used though, exposure to the disease is becoming more rare. Thus we are caught between a rock and a hard place. If we stop vaccinating to avoid the adverse reactions, the diseases will come back and there will be more injury. I’m interested in the ethics of hiding in the herd, promoting vaccines while not vaccinating ourselves. My knee-jerk reaction is disgust, but I’m still exploring that on a more academic level.

    With HepB, my assumption was that you were willing to vaccinate your daughter when she got older but not as a young infant or child (i.e. your 2-day old newborn). My point was that a younger child is at risk of exposure, although rare and given the consequences of infection at that point, I think that tips the ratio in favour of benefit. On a population level, the possibility of exposure is small, the risk of the vaccine is smaller, and the benefit, upon exposure, would be life-saving. But like you, other provinces in Canada see it differently and do not vaccinate until adolescence unless there are other risk factors.

    I also vaguely recall a paper that looked at long term immunity in vaccinated health-care workers. I think the paper demonstrated HBV immunity at greater than 20 years, but I’m not so sure and I don’t have the time or energy to go searching, so I wasn’t going there because I can’t really substantiate my claim. Waning immunity doesn’t really bother me, because the risk of booster is small. If it turns out that my kids need a booster later in life, so be it. Meanwhile they have been more protected from a particularly nasty disease than they would have been if they weren’t vaccinated.

    I don’t know the nature of your daughter’s injury and I understand that you cannot say, so I don’t think I can answer you. Was your daughter’s injury a known adverse effect? If so, why wasn’t that explained to you?

    NVIC contains way too many errors for me to recommend it to others without a science background. If you can separate the wheat from the chaff, some decent information can be found. Here is Canada’s Immunization Guide – http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/cig-gci/index-eng.php

    It’s getting out of date, but I find it way more balanced than the CDC’s pink book, but if you have a chance, can you tell me what you think?

    Like

  52. Chris
    April 28, 2011 at 8:19 pm

    BIG TIME! Wakfield was vindicated & I showed you the facts to the matter.

    Really? You posted a bunch of studies that included several from Wakefield and colleagues, did not have any mention of any MMR vaccine, were single case studies on adults and were poster presentations, not full peer reviewed papers. Not to mention that you included a paper from Medical Hypothesis, which is about autism and tetanus! Autism Insights is a vanity journal that has Wakefield as an editor (hint: that is not independent). Then for “Journal of Neuroimmun­ology 2005”, does that mean one paper or the entire year of articles? The same goes for “Applied and Environmen­tal Microbiolo­gy, 2004;” And how does “Lancet. 1972;2:883­-884”, which looks like it was done almost thirty years before Wakefield’s 1998 paper actually replicate his finding, through time travel. Plus, half of the cites are so badly morphed one cannot even find the paper on PubMed.

    All I asked was you to show the full cite to one study that had more than a dozen children and did not include Wakefield, Krigsman, Gonzalez or other Thoughtful House colleague as an author. Why can’t you do that? Have you even tried to find the abstracts on PubMed?

    Well, you better find out how to do a proper cite, and actually read what they say. Until then you are just embarrassing yourself.

    Like

  53. Chris
    April 28, 2011 at 8:22 pm

    Exactly. The fact that she thinks a 1972 Lancet paper is an independent replication of Wakefield’s 1998 paper is actually quite funny.

    Like

  54. E's Mom
    April 28, 2011 at 8:32 pm

    My daughter had encephalopathy. I am not sure why her doctor didn’t tell me it was a known reaction when I asked if vaccines were safe. I also don’t know why I wasn’t given the required handouts that list vaccine complications. But I cannot sue my doctor, so it is neither here nor there on that one.

    My point with the compensation program is that when parents do play by the rules and their kids do get sick, the program needs to not be adversarial. It is kind of like your argument in reverse. If you don’t vaccinate there is responsibility. But if you do vaccinate, the responsibility shifts when someone gets hurt – theoretically.

    E’s case was pretty cut and dry – encephalopathy. I wish I could elaborate, but very classic. But here is something I want you to consider. My E has a medical exemption. My two babies do not. Yet E’s neurologist has advised us against vaccinating the babies due to the strong potential of a genetic component and a known contraindication.

    What would you do if you were in our shoes? Could you do it?

    I desperately want to believe in vaccines and promote them. But I can’t. They have ruined my life. They are a constant source of agony and pain for our family. Recently, E begged me to let her take her own life. She said she can no longer handle the pain. How can I tell someone to take the risk with their child? The only thing I can do is to give them both sides and allow them to choose for themselves. I wasn’t given that choice.

    Ironically, your last post take us back to the first. The “greater good” is one of 5 ethical frameworks for the media. But you have to understand that not all people ascribe to the same ethical frameworks, just as not all people ascribe to the same religion. So I have a hard time judging others in light of this.

    I wish I had a different answer for you.

    I’ll have a look at the doc you provided. My husband might divorce me if I stay on this darn computer:-)

    Like

  55. Kelly
    April 28, 2011 at 9:08 pm

    I’m appalled that your doctor didn’t properly inform you on the risks of vaccines. That is just not right!

    My understanding of the compensation system is that if the child has a tabled reaction, then the government writes a cheque, no questions asked although there can be significant delay. If the reaction is not in the table then the process is more adversarial and the plaintiffs have to show a likely mechanism for causation. There doesn’t necessarily have to be proof to support the hypothesis, just that the hypothesis makes sense. Am I misunderstanding the process?

    I’m a little confused on terminology. If a doctor has advised not to vaccinate the babies, wouldn’t that be a medical exemption? Sounds like a perfectly valid reason to me.

    Just reading about E asking to take her life breaks my heart and I can only imagine how that feels as her mom. *hugs* That poor girl. How horrible for her and her family. Encephalitis was a lot more common before vaccines and any family suffering in that way is one too many. I feel trapped by a moral dilemma as not vaccinating would create more cases like E’s but I can see how that would feel like diminishing E’s suffering by promoting vaccination. Is there an ethical answer to this? Is this a false dichotomy? Are we not seeing other solutions? We don’t have the technology to prevent vaccine adverse events but vaccines have prevented disease adverse events. To me, vaccines are the lesser of two evils.

    Thank you for sharing your story. I have enjoyed learning from your experience.

    Like

  56. Sabrina
    April 28, 2011 at 9:54 pm

    Steve, you are contradicting yourself with your own arguments. Either you are confused, or have absolutely no understanding of the pathogenesis of disease.

    First of all, you claim that before vaccines there were almost no non-genetic chronic illnesses, and that now 25% of children are chronically ill. Okay. Chronic illness. Maybe you need to be more clear about what you mean. When I think of chronic illness I think of asthma, diabetes, inflammatory bowel disease, certain cancers, hemophilia, thalassemia, seizure disorders… would you like me to keep going? There are several problems with your assertion. I would suggest to you that it is becoming clear that most, if not all, of these diseases are in some way genetic, but I suppose that is sort of besides the point. You were trying to assert that the increased number of children living with these chronic illnesses is in some way related to vaccines. And I am stating that that is simply not true. More children are living today with these chronic illnesses than before the introduction of vaccines because before the introduction of vaccines (and even more recently) a lot of these children died of their illnesses. NOWHERE did I say that improved survival was due to vaccines. The two are temporally related, nothing more. Children that would have died of acute illness 20, 30, 50 years ago now live with chronic illness. This is because of improved medical care and new therapies, not vaccines. Vaccines can only prevent the infectious diseases they were created to prevent. I do not claim that vaccines prevent cancer, asthma, diabetes. But they also do not cause them. So, again, I’ll give you the increased incidence of chronic disease, but IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH VACCINES.

    Second point:
    You stated “The favorite pro-vax argument is that we’d all be dead if it weren’t for vaccines. It is total and utter nonsense.” Agreed. Let me say it again. VACCINES CAN ONLY PREVENT THE INFECTIOUS DISEASES THEY WERE CREATED TO PREVENT. So, we wouldn’t *all* be dead if it weren’t for vaccines. But *more* people would be dead.

    Lastly, there is no vaccine for Group A Strep. Scarlet fever is a complication of Group A Strep infection. So the decreased mortality from scarlet fever can only be attributed to increased treatment of Strep pharyngitis with antibiotics. Not improved hygiene. And not vaccines. But this isn’t a VPD. So using it as an example in a vaccine argument is sort of irrelevant.

    Like

  57. April 28, 2011 at 10:03 pm

    I cannot believe that Steve Michaels is trotting out Raymond Obomsawin’s “proof vaccines didn’t save us” charts.

    They have been thoroughly debunked. Try the March 29, 2010 post from Science-Based Medicine,http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=4431, which refers to the Obasawin ouevre as “one of the most breathtakingly spectacularly intellectually dishonest bits of anti-vaccine propaganda that I’ve ever seen. I say that not because it uses a common anti-vaccine distortion, but rather because it ups the ante by adding a new one clearly designed to address the criticism of the old one.”

    If you don’t like that one, try this:

    http://www.software3d.com/Home/Vax/Graphs.php

    You’ll also notice immediately that his graph looks nothing like the source graph. This is because he has only used a data point every 12 years. So he has taken a graph with 68 data points, and used only 5 of them! When accused of cherry picking the data, he responds:

    * “the data was not selectively “cherry picked”, but rather consistently spaced giving accurate data for every 12th year running from 1935 to 1983, a period which is roughly equivalent to a half century.”

    But cherry picking can still involve evenly-spaced data. Why every 12 years? Why starting at 1935? I’ll show you exactly why this is so important. Simply start at 1933 instead. We’ll even keep Dr. Obomsawin’s arbitrary choice of 12-year spacing. Here’s what you get: [go to link above to see comparison charts]

    Like

  58. Gary
    April 28, 2011 at 11:31 pm

    E’s Mom – “I said I don’t understand given the AMA study I quoted, ”
    Right. But you are a supposed media ethics expert. It is not surprising that you don’t understand. However, rather than try to understand (you know get some experts in the field to interview, like a media journalist might) you simply pronounce the furor over the ad to be silly.

    I don’t have any reading problems at all. You have a credibility problem.

    BTW, for your information, 88 or 90 percent is not sufficient to maintain herd immunity for some diseases. I know it is asking a lot, but the fact is that we need more people to be willing to vaccinate than this.

    You also might try reading more of the article you linked (which was not an ama study, but an interview printed in amednews). It explains pretty clearly the problem.

    Like

  59. Gary
    April 28, 2011 at 11:49 pm

    “Prove that something has been ‘prevented’. It is a logical impossibility.”
    Again, you utterly fail at logic, Steve. Your claim here is simply not true.

    For instance, if I invent a sun rising denial machine, and on the “day” after I turn it on the sun fails to rise, I would say that is pretty conclusive evidence I have prevented something. It is by no means logically impossible.

    All you have to do is have a phenomena which is ongoing and reliable, make a change to the conditions in which that phenomena occur, and you can say with quite a lot of confidence that the phenomena has been prevented or not.

    For example, it is a known reliable fact that if a person is exposed to small pox virus, there is a very high chance that he will contract small pox. A test, even with a small number of people, which shows that those vaccinated are much less likely to contract the disease shows pretty conclusively that the vaccine prevents the disease. This test has indeed been done for about 2 hundred years off and on with predictable and reproducible results. Namely that a disease which is very infectious becomes much less so in the presence of vaccinated individuals.

    The same principal has been applied to all of the vaccine preventable diseases.

    Like

  60. Katie
    April 28, 2011 at 11:51 pm

    There isn’t a need for anyone to comment on particular vaccines because the information is already out there. Why would anyone on a blog need to do that?

    Individuals living in a democracy are entitled to view all the ingredients and to do their own comprehensive review of health research (in and outside of vaccination research and including but not necessarily limited to neurotoxicity and carcinogens), see what is slated for vaccination research by the CDC (and others), and get as full a grasp on what political movements are happening to restrict individual’s control over their own health. And, I might add, doing your own research (reading and talking to others) you will find there are numerous health professionals questioning vaccine safety.

    All the information is there — no need to reinvent the wheel and allow certain ones to overtake blogs with their questionable motives .

    Like

  61. April 29, 2011 at 12:03 am

    Oh my, Marsha makes several claims about “the infamous Danish study”.

    1. Evidently she has still not learned to cite correctly. There were two studies:

    Madsen KM, Hviid A, Vestergaard M, Schendel D, Wohlfahrt J, Thorsen P, Olsen J, Melbye M. A population-based study of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and autism. N Engl J Med. 2002 Nov 7;347(19):1477-82.

    Madsen KM, Lauritsen MB, Pedersen CB, Thorsen P, Plesner AM, Andersen PH, Mortensen PB. Thimerosal and the occurrence of autism: negative ecological evidence from Danish population-based data. Pediatrics. 2003 Sep;112(3 Pt 1):604-6.

    2. Marsha goes on to claim that “Angry parents of the world made clear they were moving in on the fraud”. Oops, wrong again. “Parents” had nothing to do with the investigation. “On Jan. 22, [2010] Aarhus University [Denmark] said that it had uncovered a “considerable shortfall” in grant money from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for a research program that Thorsen had directed. The university referred the matter to police, who are conducting an investigation.” No angry parents…an internal accounting investigation by a Danish university.

    3. Third claim from Marsha: “the top scientist/researcher, who was behind that study”. Wrong again. This gets into the arcana of how authors are listed in multi-author papers, but look where Thorsen is listed in the list of authors for both studies: in the middle. the rank order indicates how much he contributed to each study: he wasn’t “behind” (the principal investigator or the lead author) for either study.

    Marsha also equates Thorsen’s alleged financial crimes with Wakefield’s proven betrayals of his duty as a physician. Wrong again.

    Other commenters have dealt handily with Marsha’s mistaken claim that Wakefield’s work “has been replicated many times over”. It hasn’t been, and it seems it will not be, as Wakefield’s claims were…imaginary.

    (note: I am not defending Thorsen. This is the United States, where we adhere to “innocent until proven guilty”, but it is permissible to say that the evidence pointing to Thorsen’s financial malfeasance is strong. If he is convicted, he has committed not just civil crimes, but a crime against science and health. As Sally Yates said, “Grant money for disease research is a precious commodity…When grant funds are stolen, we lose not only the money, but also the opportunity to better understand and cure debilitating diseases.”)

    Like

  62. Gary
    April 29, 2011 at 12:22 am

    No, that is not the point of that study at all. The point was only that 50 oncologists disagree about specific therapies for specific cancers. There is no mention of doctors not believing in the therapies.

    Like

  63. Nathan
    April 29, 2011 at 12:22 am

    Package inserts aren’t meant to include all the research that exists on the vaccine. The hepatitis B vaccine lasts more than 22 years for most people.

    http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/200/9/1390.full

    Like

  64. April 29, 2011 at 12:29 am

    I am afraid there is a trade-off here, of which E’s mom seems to be unaware. The trade-off is between safety and efficacy.

    Every vaccine has two qualities: safety and efficacy.

    Safety is about the number of people given the vaccine who will not experience lasting, or serious, adverse reactions (side effects).

    Efficacy is about the number of people given the vaccine who will have a positive immune response following vaccination (will be immune to the disease vaccinated against).

    As safety rises, efficacy falls.

    As efficacy rises, safety falls.

    This is an unavoidable trade-off.

    That is, the more effective the vaccine (the more people’s bodies respond as if they had experienced the real infection), the more like the real infection it is, and thus the higher the percentage of people who will have an adverse side effect.

    This trade-off is part of what drives high uptake needs. Not everyone who has a given vaccine will become immune to the disease.

    The second part of the the need for high vaccine uptake, and the need for boosters, is that immunity for some disease wear off. For example, in the case of pertussis (whooping cough), both natural immunity (a person who has had the disease) and acquired immunity (through vaccination) seems to decline over a period of year.

    Like

  65. Gary
    April 29, 2011 at 1:29 am

    “The favorite pro-vax argument is that we’d all be dead if it weren’t for vaccines. It is total and utter nonsense.”

    Actually, Steve, the nonesense is once again yours. There are no pro vaccination advocates that claim “we” would all be dead without vaccines. While it is cute to watch you try to catch your own tail, its not very stimulating debating.

    Like

  66. April 29, 2011 at 1:32 am

    Golly, Marsha, don’t you know that it is only governments that can censor?

    Individuals or groups contesting falsehoods (like the ad) isn’t “censorship”.

    Like

  67. Chris
    April 29, 2011 at 3:25 am

    Sure, as soon as you tell me a 1972 Lancet study is an independent replication of Wakefield’s 1998 retracted Lancet study. I suggest you wakeup and actually check out your Gish Gallop.

    Like

  68. Chris
    April 29, 2011 at 3:37 am

    My child had seizures and encephalopathy before ever had a vaccine. Because of the history of seizures he only got the DT vaccine, not the DTP because of the hysteria of started by NVIC’s Barbara Loe Fisher.

    Because this was not long after Lea Thompson’s scaremongering documentary, the herd immunity for pertussis was eroded in my county, and there was an actual epidemic.

    What about those of us with medically fragile children who need herd immunity? What about the kids with cancer who have suppressed immune system due to their treatments? Are you standing up for them?

    Are you riding on herd immunity, while at the same time pushing for its erosion?

    If “vaccine injured” children are so real, then you would have actual evidence that they number more than the ten kids killed by pertussis in California. Or that more that there were more than were the fourteen hospitalized in Minneapolis with measles. Go for it! Show us the verifiable numbers.

    Like

  69. Chris
    April 29, 2011 at 3:39 am

    By the way, what is so nasty with my anecdote on the deaths of my grandmother’s brothers? Or by explaining scarlet fever?

    Do you really want us to go back to the days where every family lost a child to a vaccine preventable disease?

    Like

  70. Chris
    April 29, 2011 at 3:46 am

    Katie:

    All the information is there — no need to reinvent the wheel and allow certain ones to overtake blogs with their questionable motives

    Please, Katie, look at Marsha’s list of papers. Is all of the information there? Isn’t there something missing like this paper?

    And as far as vaccine ingredients, do you really understand them? Do you know that your own cells make more formaldehyde than is in any vaccine? Or that your child scraping a knee in the dirt will introduce more aluminum subcutaneously than several vaccines (most of which do not have adjuvants). Are you going to stop giving your child water because it is also neurotoxic at certain, albeit high, doses?

    Like

  71. Chris
    April 29, 2011 at 3:49 am

    Marsha, what are those toxins? Are they worse than the ones produced by the bacteria that cause pertussis, tetanus and diphtheria? Or how about the botulism toxin, like the one used in Botox that certain people actually inject on purpose (like kids with cerebral palsy). Do give the evidence. Just make sure that you cite properly and not make us try to find whatever paper in a whole year of journals!

    Like

  72. Steve Michaels
    April 29, 2011 at 7:28 am

    Sabrina :
    Maybe you need to be more clear about what you mean. When I think of chronic illness I think of asthma, diabetes, inflammatory bowel disease, certain cancers, hemophilia, thalassemia, seizure disorders… would you like me to keep going? There are several problems with your assertion. I would suggest to you that it is becoming clear that most, if not all, of these diseases are in some way genetic, but I suppose that is sort of besides the point. You were trying to assert that the increased number of children living with these chronic illnesses is in some way related to vaccines.

    Lastly, there is no vaccine for Group A Strep. Scarlet fever is a complication of Group A Strep infection. So the decreased mortality from scarlet fever can only be attributed to increased treatment of Strep pharyngitis with antibiotics. Not improved hygiene. And not vaccines. But this isn’t a VPD. So using it as an example in a vaccine argument is sort of irrelevant.

    On your first point Sabrina, genetic predisposition does NOT explain massive increases, particularly of cancer. 100 years ago 1 in 10,000 died of cancer, today it is 3 in 10 or thereabouts. Genetic predisposition does NOT mean that you WILL get cancer. It means that given environmental triggers, of which vaccines are one, prevalence will increase. This is above and beyond the admission that the polio vaccine contained cancer causing viruses.

    On your second point, I agree wholeheartedly that scarlet fever is NOT a VPD. What it demonstrates, and you seem all to willing to avoid noticing, is that even non VPD diseases were in decline at the same time as VPD BEFORE vaccines. And both continued on similar rates of decline regardless of whether vaccines were available for those diseases or not.

    Like

  73. Steve Michaels
    April 29, 2011 at 7:32 am

    Chris :
    By the way, what is so nasty with my anecdote on the deaths of my grandmother’s brothers? Or by explaining scarlet fever?
    Do you really want us to go back to the days where every family lost a child to a vaccine preventable disease?

    I think you are being thick on purpose Chris. The offending part of your post is this:

    “Are you being funded by “Big Hospital Supply”,”Big Children’s Coffin Supply”, “Big Warehouse Institution for Rubella Babies” (like Willowbrook), or the children’s section of your local cemetary? What do you have against the fact that the average lifespan in this country is now close to 80, which is much more than it was fifty years ago, mostly because schoolmates don’t die prior to graduating from high school?”

    Trying to make a joke (in poor taste) about conflicts of interests shows that you really have nothing to say about conflicts of interests in their defence so you choose to ridicule the very concept (quite ineffectually). You just end up coming across as rude, bullying and unknowledgeable.

    Like

  74. Steve Michaels
    April 29, 2011 at 7:37 am

    Actually Gary, the ‘evil’ study only came to the conclusion that more research was required. It NEVER claimed that there was definitively a link. That came out of the 12 or so other studies that were peer-reviewed and accepted and conveniently ignored. Every time an anti-vaxer brings up those studies, they are dismissed out of hand because Wakefield was involved, not because the science is questioned.

    Like

  75. Steve Michaels
    April 29, 2011 at 7:46 am

    Wrong Gary. Their belief in given therapies are reflected in their personal choices to partake of, or not, any particular therapy. There are two points here. One, doctors often make recommendation that they themselves would not take, and two, overall ethics is based on quantity rather than quality of life. This lends credibility to the notion that a doctor may recommend vaccines because post vaccination quantity of life may be longer even if they know that the quality will be lower. In other words, avoiding measles, which can be fatal in very rare cases, is a fair trade off for increased not fatal chronic illness.

    Like

  76. April 29, 2011 at 8:21 am

    I showed the fact to all the fraud behind what you people pretend to be science, plain & clear. Chris says; “Well, you better find out how to do a proper cite, and actually read what they say. Until then you are just embarrassing yourself.”

    LOL. Funny. All the evidence I sent & you still spin your webs of deception. Talk about embarrassing yourself. That show fits you. You take the cake, in fact.

    You need t learn how to look up the studies I sent you, actually, instead of poo pooing a select few. You just blow smoke & if there’s any other intelligent life here besides the couple telling it like it is, I don’t see them. I don’t think this blog has much readership except for the cows. If so, there would be others exposing the fraud here. You people can’t be innocent of responsibility for harming children with all the fact & evidence you’ve seen. Unless you’re stuck in that herd mentality so deep that you can’t even investigate what others show you. Maybe those vaccines you’re so fond of has taken toll & to blame for your condition. Parrot all you like. Thinking people paying attention won’t be buying the bull as easily now. Not with major breakthroughs like the ad at Time Square, Thorsen exposed, MacNeil’s daughter blowing the whistle, etc. Good riddance. This blog is dead.

    Like

  77. E's Mom
    April 29, 2011 at 9:08 am

    Liz – I am VERY aware of the trade off.

    Obviously, this is a source of struggle for my educated mind and my broken heart.

    But for my family (again, not globally generalizing) the risk of severe reaction is much higher than the risk of disease.

    Why do my children’s lives not matter? Why should they be sacrificial?

    Like

  78. E's Mom
    April 29, 2011 at 9:23 am

    Kelly :
    My understanding of the compensation system is that if the child has a tabled reaction, then the government writes a cheque, no questions asked although there can be significant delay. If the reaction is not in the table then the process is more adversarial and the plaintiffs have to show a likely mechanism for causation. There doesn’t necessarily have to be proof to support the hypothesis, just that the hypothesis makes sense. Am I misunderstanding the process?

    It is supposed to be that way, but it is not. Encephalopathy is a table injury, but we have had to battle this case like no bodies business. During one court date, I was on the stand for more than 4 hours without even so much as a restroom break, while the DOJ attorney badgered me with trickery. Over 14 hours in court just that one day.

    No check yet for this mother. And the out-of-pocket costs for therapy, education, medications, hospitalizations, etc. are in the close to a million already. And she is soon to make out her life-time insurance, but we don’t qualify for government healthcare.

    Again, I played by the rules, she was FULLY vaxed.

    So here is my point to all of those on the “other side.” (When I say you, I am not directing this at Kelly). When you want to force medical treatment that carries the risk of permanent injury or death, there are families like mine to consider. We have done nothing wrong but yet you constantly vilify. We are responsible with our choices, yet we are discriminated against, chastised, mocked, and belittled.

    If you want people in our shoes to support vaccination, then the vaccine injured must be supported. You can’t have it both ways.

    Like

  79. April 29, 2011 at 10:13 am

    E’s Mom said;

    “If you want people in our shoes to support vaccination, then the vaccine injured must be supported. You can’t have it both ways.”

    Wow. That was powerful, E’s Mom, & to the “point”, pun intended,

    Although, I don’t buy into any vaccine as they are all worthless according to the massive research I, & tens upon thousands of others, have done. Worse than worthless because all they do besides kill, maim & disease, later in life, is to suppress disease.

    I’m with, Dr James A. Shannon is saying;

    “The only wholly safe vaccine is a vaccine that is never used”
    Dr James A. Shannon, National Institute of Health, USA

    It’s crazy anyone would give vaccines credit for longevity when it’s simple fact, & recorded in the archives of history for posterity to learn from, that living longer is due to improvements through time in sanitation & such. Just like those improvements were the reason death from disease began it’s decline & long before vaccines, even, came into the picture, too.

    If you people, here, blinded to truth were able to do the proper research, this is simple history, you’d see. Just like it’s simple math with the real scientific proof behind the harm vaccines do to children.

    Please wake up & come out of that dark box. I used to buy into vaccines, too, but there came a time when logic & reason had to enter in.

    With or without you, here, dedicated to deception, we will win this vaccine war. We already have, actually. The ad at Time Square is the beginning of the end of the fraud behind vaccines pretending to be science. Thank the good God is, for that.

    Like

  80. Steve Michaels
    April 29, 2011 at 11:11 am

    Gary :
    “Prove that something has been ‘prevented’. It is a logical impossibility.”
    Again, you utterly fail at logic, Steve. Your claim here is simply not true.
    For instance, if I invent a sun rising denial machine, and on the “day” after I turn it on the sun fails to rise, I would say that is pretty conclusive evidence I have prevented something. It is by no means logically impossible.
    All you have to do is have a phenomena which is ongoing and reliable, make a change to the conditions in which that phenomena occur, and you can say with quite a lot of confidence that the phenomena has been prevented or not.
    For example, it is a known reliable fact that if a person is exposed to small pox virus, there is a very high chance that he will contract small pox. A test, even with a small number of people, which shows that those vaccinated are much less likely to contract the disease shows pretty conclusively that the vaccine prevents the disease. This test has indeed been done for about 2 hundred years off and on with predictable and reproducible results. Namely that a disease which is very infectious becomes much less so in the presence of vaccinated individuals.
    The same principal has been applied to all of the vaccine preventable diseases.

    Have you read what you wrote? It reliable to say that if you are exposed to small pox there is a CHANCE (regardless of size) is hardly a universal axiom. What can be said of VPD is that average infection rates dropped after vaccination. Problem is, they also dropped before vaccination. You can also readily state that mortality rates for VPD dropped after vaccination, but they we also dropping BEFORE vaccination, and if fact, vaccination had no impact on the rate of mortality reduction. This is all cited and cross referenced in my comments on the Vaccine Ingredients entry.

    Your statement of chances being compared to scientifically demonstrable universal occurences is non-sequitor and not valid.

    Like

  81. Steve Michaels
    April 29, 2011 at 11:21 am

    You mean the paper that examines whether or not there is MV RNA present in autistic versus non autistic sufferers of gastrointestinitis? This study proves NOTHING! 36% of the subjects and 38% had tested positive for MV RNA presence. While this my be relevant at some level for the autistic side of things, IT SHOWS STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT CAUSATION OF GASTROINTESTINITIS AND THE MMR VACCINE!!! Since the focus is always on autism, you are looking at proof positive evidence of vaccine injury and pretending that it isn’t there!

    Like

  82. April 29, 2011 at 11:42 am

    Chris. You told Katie, “Please, Katie, look at Marsha’s list of papers. Is all of the information there? Isn’t there something missing like this paper?”

    I thought you’d know how to search for each example, Chris. I’m an activist trying to thwart all the deception people like you spread & have little time so I can’t do your home work for you. There’s nothing missing. Just you not knowing how to find the content. It’s no wonder you are so void real fact. I am sorry for you & your children, Especially for the children whose parents you are responsible for duping with your lack of knowledge.

    LOL. You say;

    “Do you know that your own cells make more formaldehyde than is in any vaccine? Or that your child scraping a knee in the dirt will introduce more aluminum subcutaneously than several vaccines”

    That old rhetoric is worn out & out dated as in no longer holding water. As if it ever did.

    Then you say;

    “Are you going to stop giving your child water because it is also neurotoxic at certain, albeit high, doses?”

    You prove our point, Chris. Water can be toxic if taken in too high of a dose & especially the toxins in vaccines you claim safe, added up, are definitely dangerous & can be deadly. These toxins lodge in organs, including the brain & common sense would tell you that if you applied it.

    Like

  83. Gary
    April 29, 2011 at 12:16 pm

    Except that it is not true that the incidence of diseases dropped significantly before vaccination. That is simply a lie.

    Besides which, I was not talking epidemiologically here. I am talking about giving healthy adults a vaccine and then intentionally exposing them to the live pathogen. Along with a group not vaccinated, and of course 2 groups who are not exposed, this experiment give a very clear picture that vaccination can and does prevent infection.

    No, there are no non sequitors in my post. I am merely pointing out another of your logical failures. Specifically you are claiming a logical impossibility for something which is clearly very possible.

    BTW, yes, deaths from VPD did decline before vaccinations began. But they also declined MORE after the vaccinations. Post infection interventions are very powerful tools to prevent deaths. But they only take us so far. In order to reduce the deaths from VPDs to 0 the incidence had to be reduced. And this only happened after vaccinations. Your “citations” are lies, steve. You know this and yet you persist in presenting them as facts. I have to wonder about your honesty when you continue to do this.

    Like

  84. Gary
    April 29, 2011 at 12:19 pm

    “On your second point, I agree wholeheartedly that scarlet fever is NOT a VPD. What it demonstrates, and you seem all to willing to avoid noticing, is that even non VPD diseases were in decline at the same time as VPD BEFORE vaccines. And both continued on similar rates of decline regardless of whether vaccines were available for those diseases or not.”

    Indeed which certainly points to lots of different things going on in the first decades of the 20th century. It is not in any way evidence that vaccinations did not take a major part in the reduction of infections and deaths due to some diseases.

    Like

  85. Gary
    April 29, 2011 at 12:22 pm

    Tell you what, Marsha. Please answer Christine’s question from earlier. Point to a single one of those studies you listed which qualifies as independently replicating Wakefield’s work. Just one. Remember, it has to be in humans. It has to show GI problems as well as vaccine strain viruses in the gut. And, it has to be done by someone other than Wakefield or his associates.

    Like

  86. Gary
    April 29, 2011 at 12:27 pm

    No, Steve, You are reading things which are not there. The authors of the study specifically say that they did not attempt to measure the reasons behind the opinions expressed. You are making that up out of whole cloth. Please quote the part of the study which supports your assertion that the doctors think the therapies are not effective or that they don’t work.

    And the vaccine link you are trying to make with this study is simply ludicrous.

    Like

  87. April 29, 2011 at 12:31 pm

    Golly, Ditz, it’s a good thing you guys, claiming true falsehoods, don’t have the power to censor but that’s not stopping you from trying, right? This is pathetic & ridiculous.

    It’s interesting how pharma can advertise on television even during children’s programming, desensitizing the viewers with the facts of “it can cause, death, cancer, this ailment, that etc., but a message like this ad at Time Square informing individuals they can have choice is such a threat & has all you guys running defense, screaming, foul, huh?

    Like

  88. Chris
    April 29, 2011 at 12:33 pm

    Okay, tell me exactly how just listing a journal title and year specifies a paper?

    What paper is “Journal of Neuroimmun­ology 2005”?

    Like

  89. Chris
    April 29, 2011 at 12:36 pm

    How do papers written in 1972 and 1993 be independent replications of a 1998 paper?

    Like

  90. Chris
    April 29, 2011 at 12:39 pm

    Gary, my name is not “Christine.”

    Marsha, did you even read what I wrote? None of those papers show what you want them to show? You have a mish mash of cites, including a couple from before 1998, a couple that just list the journal and a year, plus a many that include Wakefield and friends as authors, and even a paper that is on tetanus.

    Like

  91. Gary
    April 29, 2011 at 12:41 pm

    But only if taken out of context, Sara. The add simply says to become informed. That is ok as far as it goes. But it then provides only the NVIC and Mercola web sites as further resources. Those sites are notoriously for their poor quality information. They lie blatantly, they provide absolutely no context for the information they do provide, and they cherry pick that information for political purposes.

    Imagine the ad, for instance, saying that global warming is a lie in the same way. In other words, simply recommending that the viewer become educated. But in the ad only looney conspiracy theory web sites were given for further information.

    As is the case with all medical interventions, vaccinations have a certain level of risk. But it just so happens that vaccinations risk is so dwarfed by the risk of not vaccinating (for the population in general and the vast majority of individuals) that to simply say that vaccines are dangerous (which the sites given in this ad do) is not only disingenuous, it is down right dangerous. It will get people killed who could have been saved.

    Like

  92. Gary
    April 29, 2011 at 12:58 pm

    @Steve – Seriously, Dude, you need to look up the words causation and correlation. That study found rna, but it also found no correlation between the timing of the vaccine and the onset of symptoms. Maybe people susceptible to autism and GI problems are simply more likely to retain some of that material in their gut. There is no evidence that this is vaccine injury or even injury at all. Not in this study anyway.

    Oh, yeah, and this is a hint. When you look at the conclusions of a scientific study, and you believe they did not go far enough in drawing broad conclusions that agree with your political ideology, maybe you should stop for a moment rather than simply assuming your the brave one. Maybe, they did not make the broad assertions you want them to because their evidence does not support them. Its close to 3 times now in this thread alone that I have noticed you doing this. Reading things into studies which simply aren’t there.

    Like

  93. Steve Michaels
    April 29, 2011 at 1:06 pm

    Firstly on your comment a bit above. I am not reading anything into the study cited. I am noting a correlation that the researchers chose to completely ignore. As you say, it could be this, that or the other. Why have they not called for more research? Because they had autism blinders on and ignored any ‘unrelated’ results.

    As for this reply, you prove my point. There was an awful lot going on that was reducing infectious diseases. Death rates did NOT decline at any pace different before versus after vaccine introduction. You do like to cherry pick don’t you…

    Like

  94. Steve Michaels
    April 29, 2011 at 1:10 pm

    Your claim that rates were not in decline is unsubstantiated. So are your claims about purposely exposing vaccinated and non-vaccinated people to pathogens. Nathan will tell you that these are not ethical experiments and have therefore not been conducted. You are making claims and not providing any supporting material. I have supported my claims with national statistics and UNICEF provided information (among other sources for my citations). Where are yours? You say I am lying and making things up about things I have documented and then you fail to document your claims… Suspicious at best. And that’s being kind.

    Like

  95. April 29, 2011 at 2:08 pm
  96. April 29, 2011 at 2:27 pm

    LOL. Very funny, Chris. You pick the only reference that has the cite, omited. Take a look people & see her trickery.

    Then she writes;

    “How do papers written in 1972 and 1993 be independent replications of a 1998 paper?”

    I guess it’s sort of like which came first, the chicken or the egg, Chris. Does it really matter? It’s the same thing.

    Like

  97. Steve Michaels
    April 29, 2011 at 4:28 pm

    Quite simply if the findings by Wakefield were not new, but the original findings were suppressed then ALL of the papers, whether earlier or later, serve to corroborate the findings. Is it really so difficult to grasp? Given the difficulting you have with simple things, it’s no wonder you believe all of the pro-vax rubbish…

    Like

  98. Snoozie
    April 29, 2011 at 4:57 pm

    Marsha–I am sure I am not alone in doubting that you have ever read a single of those articles you cited. Prove me wrong. List their titles and quote their conclusions.

    This task is YOUR responsibility since you cited them. You should always have a thorough understanding of what you cite.

    Also, that the formaldehyde points made are “old rhetoric” does not invalidate them.

    You engage in questionable tactics. You allude vaguely to things that sound dangerous without providing reason or proof. That’s called fear mongering.

    Like

  99. Snoozie
    April 29, 2011 at 4:59 pm

    Here’s how it works: rather than relying on someone else’s opinionating, cite the studies yourself, using their titles, explain their conclusions, and tell why they prove whatever it is you are trying to prove.

    Mercola is a shill for Big Placebo. He makes quite a bit of money off of the fear mongering you are advertising for him here for free.

    Like

  100. Snoozie
    April 29, 2011 at 5:02 pm

    Also, you have still not named any of the “toxins” to which you have vaguely alluded. I challenge you to demonstrate that you understand what the ingredients to the vaccines are, why they are there, and why they are “toxic.” (A hint on that last one: they aren’t.)

    Like

  101. April 29, 2011 at 5:19 pm
  102. Kelly
    April 29, 2011 at 5:30 pm

    Steve, I know you have no scientific background, so let me explain the scientific language to you.

    In science, if a paper is said to replicate another paper, it means that the second paper repeated the experiments of the first and had the same results as the first. So by definition, a paper that replicates Wakefield’s must be published after 1998. However, since we have now learned Wakefield did not get his results from the procedure he published because he committed fraud by making his data up, his work cannot be replicated. His work is fiction not fact.

    Corroboration means that different researchers approached the same problem from different perspectives and different experimental designs. All these publications fit together like bricks in the wall. The more interlocking bricks, the stronger the wall. This is how we can say that vaccines most likely do not cause autism because several independent studies support this conclusion.

    Also, how is a published paper suppressed? It is indexed and thus can be found by all who care to look.

    Given your difficulty in understanding science, it is no wonder you believe all the anti-vax rubbish, Steve.

    Like

  103. April 29, 2011 at 7:16 pm

    Okay. Last comment here. I’m moving on. I’ll be watching & maybe commenting at Chris’s new attempt to help keep the vaccine cover up going on @

    https://shotofprevention.com/2011/04/29/moms-who-vaccinate-and-those-who-wish-they-had/

    The conversation, here, is over & even Chris knows that since she has begun another article of deception.

    I will not be playing the game of spin you people try so hard to draw us into since you don’t have truth & fact on your side. A criminal side, I might add, that I will probably explain if & when I comment at Chris’s newest blog where she hopes the tide will turn in her favor. But it won’t happen.

    I did play your game, for a while to a point, until I could get all the facts & evidence out, I knew were important, for those actually looking for truth but the gig here is up now & your butts were kicked, real good, by just a few of us who know our stuff.

    You fooled no one. Well that’s not true. You may have fooled yourselves because that herd mentality works that way.

    Kidding aside, I hope you who are ignorant of fact, who are innocent of crimes against humanity, I hope you wake up very soon. I wish you the best. I hope you wake up before you, too, have a loved one succumb to what so many others have.

    The stats are huge, you know that. Your chances of winning that toxic lottery are better than than you know, the odds are that good you or yours may be the next victim. If injury doesn’t happen right after vaccinating, disease, more probably,will show up later in life.

    I have shown beyond a shadow of a doubt, for anyone who wants to look back where I posted, the proof.

    We have reached massive porportions in epidemics of many, many, diseases, as I’ve shown here, because of vaccines which are burying us. Literally!

    I have shown the fraud of science behind vaccines to such magnitude, it can’t be denied as well as the proof that Andrew Wakefield was framed in an orchestrated witch hunt against him, beyond a shadow of a doubt.

    I have set the cop out artists straight, here, after pointing them out & now that the copy cats are out in their little gang, pestering & pretending, such as the clueless, new addition, Snoozie, with her mindless & obvious parroting she’s been brainwashed in, I’m calling you guys cooked here.

    Snoozie can go back to sleep, now, because parrots don’t do well with those shooting at them with bullets of real truth which is sure to be what happens at the new blog. Because you see, people. Truth has evolved to a point of no return for all trhe deception. Boy has it evolved. An ad at Time Square? LOL. Our time has come as the cover up has come to its end with so many waking. And that awareness rises by the day as our numbers increase. So you see, your time is not only short, it’s up

    I just wanted to let you know these same tactics being used here won’t be working at the new bogus blog of deception Cris created because too many are onto you. Fair warning! Let’s play!

    Like

  104. Amy
    April 29, 2011 at 8:32 pm

    Oh no, Steve. You’ve just been out-dramaqueened.

    Anti-Vax Rule of Debate #125: When pressed for evidence that you cannot provide, pompously declare victory and go home.

    Keep on being you, Marsha.

    Like

  105. Gary
    April 29, 2011 at 8:41 pm

    Not at all. Here are the studies showing the difference between vaccination and not for measles in Canada and the US.
    http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/189/Supplement_1/S236.full?sid=84ac1273-0cda-40f8-b3fc-0cc3ee314fe3
    http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/189/Supplement_1/S1.full

    Here are the graphs of the incidence data:

    These two graphs represent the incidence data whey you graph it honestly, unlike the graphs you linked to in other places. Notice that while the incidence numbers varied quite a bit, they did not decline significantly until after vaccination.

    Like

  106. Gary
    April 29, 2011 at 8:43 pm

    I apologize. Seriously. I was confused between you and the author of the post.

    My bad.

    Like

  107. April 29, 2011 at 8:49 pm

    Okay. Last comment here. Then I’m moving on.

    I’ll be watching & maybe commenting at Chris’s new blog she made in attempt to help keep the cover up going on @

    https://shotofprevention.com/2011/04/29/moms-who-vaccinate-and-those-who-wish-they-had/

    The conversation, here, is over & even Chris knows that as she has begun another article of deception, already.

    I will not be playing the game of spin here, any more, you people try so hard to draw us into, with useless back & forth banter, since you don’t have truth & fact on your side. A criminal side, I might add, that I will probably explain if & when I comment at Chris’s newest blog where she hopes the tide will turn in her favor. But it won’t happen.

    You shills, who have vested interests & those you have duped, fool no one. Well that’s not true. You may have fooled those you have duped. The people who prefer to be sheeple & cash cows who, unknowingly, offer their own children up as guinea pigs, because that herd mentality works that way.

    I hope you, who are ignorant of fact, who are innocent of crimes against humanity but guilty of deception due to ignorance or sometimes, stupidity, I hope you wake up soon & wish you the best.

    I pray you wake up before you, too, have a loved one succumb to what so many others have. The stats are huge, you know that. 1 in 58 boys, now! Your chances are better than winning the lottery, the odds are that good, you or yours may be the next victim. If injury doesn’t make its claim right after vaccination, disease, more probably, will later in life.

    I have shown beyond a shadow of a doubt, for anyone who wants to look back, proof, that because of vaccines we have been buried in epidemics of so many diseases, to the point it’s all out of control & has buried us, literally!

    I have shown massive amounts of evidence that prove the fraud behind vaccines they call science as anyone can look back, here, & see, too. Anyone can see the mountain of proof by Googling or using any search engine of their choice to look up, Faked studies & paid doctors to put their names on them, to see for themselves, the overwhelming evidence of wide spread corruption.

    And the vindication of the good doctor Wakefield is also evidenced here in a thorough investigation that can’t be denied.

    Oh they try to deny all of this but thinking people, paying attention, can see right through them.

    Those who push vaccines are guilty of deception whether they do it ignorantly or because they have vested interests but it’s time to give it up, either way. We are winning this vaccine war & that’s, that.

    I have set the cop out artists, here, straight, after pointing them out & now that the copy cats are out in their little gang, pestering & pretending, such as the clueless, newest addition, Snoozie, with her mindless & obvious parroting of the rhetoric & propaganda she’s been trained & brainwashed in, I’m calling you guys cooked, here. It only took a few of us on the side of truth to clean your clocks & set the record straight.

    Oh & Snoozie. “Mercola is a shill for Big Placebo.” LOL. A loyal parrot you are. I’ll have you know, Snooze, that cutting & pasting you make fun of is as valuable as the content but I wouldn’t expect you to understand, being a mere parrot.

    And you parroting, “The University of Google” as if good & factual information can not be found there, was quite impressive. LOL. Not!

    Snoozie go back to sleep, now, because parrots don’t do well with us shooting at them with bullets of real truth like what will, more likely than not, happen at Chris’s new blog, so I wouldn’t go there if I were you.

    I just wanted to let you shills & your flunkies know these same tactics being used here won’t be working at the new bogus blog of deception Cris created because too many of us are onto you, now.

    Truth has evolved & you can’t beat it. The ad at Time Square is proof of truth evolving & you can’t stop it from running you over. We are making great waves & drowning the lies & those telling them, out.

    Like

  108. Gary
    April 29, 2011 at 9:19 pm

    Marsha Marsha Marsha.

    Like

  109. Snoozie
    April 29, 2011 at 9:48 pm

    Oh, Marsha. Most of what you write is incoherent and nonsensical, but I will try.

    “newest addition, Snoozie,” Go back and check, Marsha. I’ve been here longer than you have. I’m just not wasting my energy picking apart an argument you are not even yourself making. Posting someone else’s argument without your own commentary is intellectual weakness at its height.

    And yet, you say I come here “with her mindless & obvious parroting of the rhetoric & propaganda she’s been trained & brainwashed in.” Who trained me? I’m sorry, but having a basic high school understanding of science is all that is required in understanding that vaccines are safe and effective.

    “I’m calling you guys cooked, here. It only took a few of us on the side of truth to clean your clocks & set the record straight.” But you, yourself, have done no such thing. You post long rants that are poorly written and logically bizarre. Man, I would love it if you would actually make an argument (of your own) and back it up with some actual, credible proof. That would give me something to sink my teeth into, something to actually spend time responding to. As of now, I am responding to ad hominem attacks.

    “Oh & Snoozie. ‘Mercola is a shill for Big Placebo.'” He is. Right there on his site–he sells all manner of useless supplements that line his own pocket. But, alas, I get this deconstruction of Mercola’s credentials: “LOL. A loyal parrot you are.” AND YET, later in the post, Marsha tells me, “I just wanted to let you shills & your flunkies know these same tactics being used here won’t be working.” WAIT! When I used the term “Shill,” I am being a parrot, but when Marsha uses it…

    That’s okay. Her parroting is valuable. See: I’ll have you know, Snooze, that cutting & pasting you make fun of is as valuable as the content but I wouldn’t expect you to understand, being a mere parrot.” Okay, so ‘parroting’ is bad, but cutting and pasting with absolutely no acknowledgement that you actually understand what you are posting is “valuable.” Must be anti-vax logic.

    Oh, but I did more ‘parroting.’: “And you parroting, ‘The University of Google’ [a Jenny McCarthyism…I thought you’d appreciate it. NO? Shucks.] as if good & factual information can not be found there, was quite impressive. LOL. Not!”

    All right, here I break to tell you something, Marsha. If you actually know how to do some secondary research, google is a good starting point. Yes, “good and valuable” information can be found there. But so can a lot of completely useless, fabricated, and spurious information. And when it comes to vaccines, there is a TON of bad, bad information out there. Therefore, one must assess one’s sources carefully. If you find something, look up the original source. If the full text is available, read it. And then see if you can verify that information somewhere else, ideally NOT on the internet. Is that how you use google, or do you find things that confirm what you already want to believe and not even bother to play devil’s advocate for yourself?

    “Snoozie go back to sleep, now, because parrots don’t do well with us shooting at them with bullets of real truth” What?

    “like what will, more likely than not, happen at Chris’s new blog, so I wouldn’t go there if I were you.” If Chris is, indeed, making a new blog, I will happily check it out. I don’t remember Chris publicizing that. Maybe I should google it.

    Like

  110. Chris
    April 29, 2011 at 9:55 pm

    Marsha, then what paper does “25. Applied and Environmen­tal Microbiolo­gy, 2004;” refer to?

    That is two.

    How does a paper on tetanus replicate Wakefield?

    Did you even look at the list when you cut and pasted it?

    Like

  111. Chris
    April 29, 2011 at 10:00 pm

    Again, my name is not Christine. I do not blog here.

    Now, which study directly and independently replicated Wakefield’s findings. Please use the full cite. Something like this:

    Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Bowel Problems or Developmental Regression in Children with Autism: Population Study.
    Taylor B et al.
    BMJ 2002; 324(7334):393-6
    *Subjects: 278 children with core autism and 195 with atypical autism

    and

    Hornig M et al.
    PLoS ONE 2008; 3(9): e3140 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0003140
    *Subjects: 25 children with autism and GI disturbances and 13 children with GI disturbances alone (controls)

    Like

  112. Chris
    April 29, 2011 at 11:56 pm

    I do participate in a group blog, just not this one. I actually did post an article this evening, but it was on mold and plumbing:
    http://sciencebasedparenting.com/2011/04/29/not-a-moldy-oldy/

    Like

  113. Steve Michaels
    April 30, 2011 at 3:49 am

    What are you talking about? Please do give this ‘rule of debate’ crap. Kelly tried it and ended up looking a complete fool. I am no drama queen, but I am a bit of a bull dog and will continue to point out the fallacies of the pro-vax arguments as I have done below in destroying Gary’s claims about certain statistics.

    Like

  114. Steve Michaels
    April 30, 2011 at 3:53 am

    Again Chris, that study has been debunked above. It showed overall 37% of post-vaccinated children with GI problems had MV RNA in the gut. Much more than a statistical anomaly, but this point is ignored by researchers. It was more a study of whether there is a correlation between autism and GI problems. If it were a REAL study of MMR and GI problems, the control group should not have ever received the MMR vaccine. A control group that has been given the same substances as the subject group really doesn’t compare anything!

    Like

  115. Steve Michaels
    April 30, 2011 at 3:55 am

    Love your blog Chris! Not sure what fixing plumbing problems has to do with this though, unless you are just trolling for more readership…

    Like

  116. Gary
    April 30, 2011 at 4:42 am

    Steve – “So are your claims about purposely exposing vaccinated and non-vaccinated people to pathogens. Nathan will tell you that these are not ethical experiments and have therefore not been conducted.”
    No, he will tell me that they are not ethical and would not be conducted today. AND he would tell me that they would not be conducted today unless the study group fully understood the risks (were adults) and that the pathogen in question had treatment options which could alleviate the risk of infection.

    For instance:
    http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/167/7/775.short
    Time Lines of Infection and Disease in Human Influenza: A Review of Volunteer Challenge Studies

    Is a study looking at data from several trials where volunteers were purposefully exposed to wild influenza virus.

    BTW, those studies indeed showed that the vaccine prevented infection.

    “You are making claims and not providing any supporting material. I have supported my claims with national statistics and UNICEF provided information (among other sources for my citations).”
    No, you are supporting your claims with links to graphs which purport to be based on real data. They are not as the studies I linked to above in post 94 and the article linked to by Liz Ditz in post 17 clearly show. The fact that you both ignored the clear discrediting of these graphs AND are still refering to them as citations shows your integrity in this matter.

    From post #83:
    “Firstly on your comment a bit above. I am not reading anything into the study cited. I am noting a correlation that the researchers chose to completely ignore. As you say, it could be this, that or the other. Why have they not called for more research? Because they had autism blinders on and ignored any ‘unrelated’ results.”
    Which is exactly what I said. Reading into a study only what you believe will confirm your political agenda. Thank you for admitting it.

    “As for this reply, you prove my point. There was an awful lot going on that was reducing infectious diseases. Death rates did NOT decline at any pace different before versus after vaccine introduction.

    No, the rates DID change after vaccinations. From the study I linked to above Post 94:
    “By the late 1950s, even before the introduction of measles vaccine, measles-related deaths and case fatality rates in the United States had decreased markedly, presumably as a result of improvement in health care and nutrition. From 1956 to 1960, an average of 450 measles-related deaths were reported each year (∼1 death/ 1000 reported cases), compared with an average of 5300 measles-related deaths during 1912–1916 (26 deaths/ 1000 reported cases) [2]. Nevertheless, in the late 1950s, serious complications due to measles remained frequent and costly. As a result of measles virus infections, an average of 150,000 patients had respiratory complications and 4000 patients had encephalitis each year; the latter was associated with a high risk of neurological sequelae and death. These complications and others resulted in an estimated 48,000 persons with measles being hospitalized every year [3]. … ”

    So the death rate had gone down because medical science was able to keep more and more people from dying once they were infected. However, it was not until vaccines were widely used that the death rate really approached 0. This is because the incidence rates did not change prior to vaccination.

    I am still holding out hope that your claim is really about the rates of death after infection. That is, you were trying to make some point about how many people who became infected subsequently died. Your graphs were not about that, and so your subsequent comments would have to be in a completely new context. Also, such a point would not really be relevant to a discussion of vaccines. But at least it would be factual.

    Like

  117. Jennifer Anderson
    April 30, 2011 at 12:39 pm

    “If you have a 5% chance of catching polio without, and a 0.00001% chance of catching polio with the vaccine, the choice is pretty obvious.”

    Where did that little gem come from? So now all of a sudden those with intact immune systems have a 5% chance of contracting polio? Where’s YOUR evidence?

    Like

  118. Chris
    April 30, 2011 at 5:35 pm

    Which one? I listed two. And show us where it was debunked by a qualified reviewer.

    Like

  119. Chris
    April 30, 2011 at 5:36 pm

    Surprised I have a life with real kids, and dealing with your lack of science knowledge is not a bit part of my week?

    Like

  120. Chris
    April 30, 2011 at 8:29 pm

    1 The Journal of Pediatrics November 1999; 135(5):559­-63

    J Pediatr. 1999 Nov;135(5):559-63.
    Gastrointestinal abnormalities in children with autistic disorder.
    Horvath K, Papadimitriou JC, Rabsztyn A, Drachenberg C, Tildon JT.
    Department of Pediatrics, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, USA.

    No mention of any MMR vaccine.

    2. The Journal of Pediatrics 2000; 138(3): 366-372

    J Pediatr. 2001 Mar;138(3):366-72.
    Colonic CD8 and gamma delta T-cell infiltration with epithelial damage in children with autism.
    Furlano RI, Anthony A, Day R, Brown A, McGarvey L, Thomson MA, Davies SE, Berelowitz M, Forbes A, <b<Wakefield AJ, Walker-Smith JA, Murch SH.
    University Department of Paediatric Gastroenterology, the Inflammatory Bowel Diseases Study Group, Royal Free and University College School of Medicine, London, United Kingdom.

    It is not independent if Wakefield is one of the authors.

    3. Journal of Clinical Immunology November 2003; 23(6): 504-517

    J Clin Immunol. 2003 Nov;23(6):504-17.
    Intestinal lymphocyte populations in children with regressive autism: evidence for extensive mucosal immunopathology.
    Ashwood P, Anthony A, Pellicer AA, Torrente F, Walker-Smith JA, Wakefield AJ.
    The Inflammatory Bowel Disease Study Group, and Centre for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Royal Free and University College, Medical School, London, United Kingdom. pashwood@ucdavis.edu

    It is not independent if Wakefield is one of the authors.

    4. Journal of Neuroimmunology 2005

    This is one year of a journal, not a paper. Again, you are asked to provide proper cites.

    5. Brain, Behavior and Immunity 1993; 7: 97-103

    Brain Behav Immun. 1993 Mar;7(1):97-103.
    Antibodies to myelin basic protein in children with autistic behavior.
    Singh VK, Warren RP, Odell JD, Warren WL, Cole P.
    Biomedical Division, Center for Persons with Disabilities, Logan, Utah.

    How does a paper written written in 1993 replicate a 1998 paper, through time travel? Also no mention of any MMR vaccine.

    6. Pediatric Neurology 2003; 28(4): 1-3

    “The following term was not found in PubMed: Pediatric Neurology 2003; 28[All Fields].”

    Again, you are asked to provide proper cites.

    7. Neuropsychobiology 2005; 51:77-85

    Neuropsychobiology. 2005;51(2):77-85.
    Dysregulated innate immune responses in young children with autism spectrum disorders: their relationship to gastrointestinal symptoms and dietary intervention.
    Jyonouchi H, Geng L, Ruby A, Zimmerman-Bier B.
    Department of Pediatrics, New Jersey Medical School, UMDNJ, Newark, NJ 07101-1709, USA. jyanouha@umdnj.edu

    No mention of any MMR vaccine.

    8. The Journal of Pediatrics May 2005;146(5­):605-10

    J Pediatr. 2005 May;146(5):605-10.
    Evaluation of an association between gastrointestinal symptoms and cytokine production against common dietary proteins in children with autism spectrum disorders.
    Jyonouchi H, Geng L, Ruby A, Reddy C, Zimmerman-Bier B.
    Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pulmonary, Allergy/Immunology, and Infectious Diseases, New Jersey Medical School/UMDNJ, 185 South Orange Avenue, Newark, NJ 07101-1709, USA. jyanouha@umdnj.edu

    No mention of any MMR vaccine.

    9. Autism Insights 2009; 1: 1-11

    Not found in PubMed. Again, you are asked to provide proper cites. It is, however this:

    Autism Insights 2009:2 1-11.
    Clinical Presentation and Histologic Findings at Ileocolonoscopy in Children with Autistic Spectrum Disorder and Chronic Gastrointestinal Symptoms
    Krigsman, A

    Krigsman is a colleague of Dr. Wakefield, plus Wakefield had been an editor of that vanity journal. It is not independent.

    10. Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology February 2009; 23(2): 95-98

    Can J Gastroenterol. 2009 Feb;23(2):95-8.
    Autistic enterocolitis: fact or fiction?
    Galiatsatos P, Gologan A, Lamoureux E.
    Department of Medicine, The Sir Mortimer B Davis Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. pgaliatsatos@jgh.mcgill.ca

    “Two autism spectrum disorder patients with chronic intestinal symptoms and abnormal endoscopic findings are described, followed by a review of this controversial topic.”

    A case report on two persons, not a dozen children, and no mention of any MMR vaccine.

    11. Annals of Clinical Psychiatry 2009:21(3)­: 148-161

    Ann Clin Psychiatry. 2009 Jul-Sep;21(3):148-61.
    Phenotypic expression of autoimmune autistic disorder (AAD): a major subset of autism.
    Singh VK.
    Brain State International Research Center, Scottsdale, AZ 85260, USA. vj1000s@yahoo.com

    A summary of research, with no mention of what chilren. I found the atual paper (https://www.aacp.com/Pages.asp?AID=7937&issue=&page=C&UID=), and among the data used it included a Wakefield paper. Not independent. Also included in the references were papers from questionable journals like Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons and Medical Veritas. Plus there have been critisms of Dr. Singh’s work in the past, which might explain why he is not longer assiciated with any university.

    12. Journal of Child Neurology June 29, 2009; 000:1-6

    Not found on PubMed, again you are asked to use proper cites.

    13. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders March 2009;39(3):405-13

    J Autism Dev Disord. 2009 Mar;39(3):405-13. Epub 2008 Sep 13.
    Gastrointestinal symptoms in a sample of children with pervasive developmental disorders.
    Nikolov RN, Bearss KE, Lettinga J, Erickson C, Rodowski M, Aman MG, McCracken JT, McDougle CJ, Tierney E, Vitiello B, Arnold LE, Shah B, Posey DJ, Ritz L, Scahill L.
    Yale Child Study Center, Yale University, P.O. Box 207900, New Haven, CT, USA. roumen.nikolov@yale.edu

    No mention of any MMR vaccine.

    14. Medical Hypotheses August 1998;51:13­3-144.

    Med Hypotheses. 1998 Aug;51(2):133-44.
    Autism and Clostridium tetani.
    Bolte ER.

    First off, this is not a peer reviewed journal (look up the word “hypothesis”). Second it is on tetanus! No mention of any MMR vaccine, nor on the gastrointestinal issues.

    15. Journal of Child Neurology July 2000; ;15(7):429­-35

    J Child Neurol. 2000 Jul;15(7):429-35.
    Short-term benefit from oral vancomycin treatment of regressive-onset autism.
    Sandler RH, Finegold SM, Bolte ER, Buchanan CP, Maxwell AP, Väisänen ML, Nelson MN, Wexler HM.
    Section of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition, Rush Children’s Hospital, Rush Medical College, Chicago, IL 60612, USA. rushstudy@aol.com

    Eleven is less than twelve, and no mention of any MMR vaccine. Plus it was an experimental treatment, nothing like Wakefield’s study.

    16. Lancet. 1972;2:883­884.

    Lancet. 1972 Oct 21;2(7782):883-4.
    Alpha-1-antitrypsin, autism, and coeliac disease.
    Walker-Smith J, Andrews J.

    Seriously, what is with the time travel? And it has nothing to do with Wakefield’s study, and is by one of his colleagues (so not independent even with a Tardis).

    17. Journal of Autism and Childhood Schizophrenia January-March 1971;1:48-62

    J Autism Child Schizophr. 1971 Jan-Mar;1(1):48-62.
    Malabsorption and cerebral dysfunction: a multivariate and comparative study of autistic children.
    Goodwin MS, Cowen MA, Goodwin TC.

    More time travel, and no mention of any MMR. Which really was about to be approved in the USA.

    18. Journal of Pediatrics March 2001;138:3­66-372.

    J Pediatr. 2001 Mar;138(3):366-72.
    Colonic CD8 and gamma delta T-cell infiltration with epithelial damage in children with autism.
    Furlano RI, Anthony A, Day R, Brown A, McGarvey L, Thomson MA, Davies SE, Berelowitz M, Forbes A, Wakefield AJ, Walker-Smith JA, Murch SH.
    University Department of Paediatric Gastroenterology, the Inflammatory Bowel Diseases Study Group, Royal Free and University College School of Medicine, London, United Kingdom.

    It is a repeat of cite #2, and it is still not independent if Wakefield is one of the authors.

    19. Molecular Psychiatry 2002;7:375­382.

    Could not be found on PubMed, again you are reminded to use proper cites. But using Google I did find:

    Mol Psychiatry. 2002;7(4):375-82, 334.
    Small intestinal enteropathy with epithelial IgG and complement deposition in children with regressive autism.
    Torrente F, Ashwood P, Day R, Machado N, Furlano RI, Anthony A, Davies SE, Wakefield AJ, Thomson MA, Walker-Smith JA, Murch SH.
    Centre for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Royal Free & University College Medical School, London, UK.

    It is not independent if Wakefield is one of the authors. Why is this just a difficult concept?

    20. American Journal of Gastroenterology April 2004;598-605.

    Am J Gastroenterol. 2004 Apr;99(4):598-605.
    Focal-enhanced gastritis in regressive autism with features distinct from Crohn’s and Helicobacter pylori gastritis.
    Torrente F, Anthony A, Heuschkel RB, Thomson MA, Ashwood P, Murch SH.
    The Centre for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Department of Histopathology, Royal Free & University College Medical School, London.

    Independent replication means no one from the 1998 Lancet paper can be an author. Not independent, and nothing with any MMR vaccine.

    21. Journal of Clinical Immunology November 2003;23:50­4-517.

    J Clin Immunol. 2003 Nov;23(6):504-17.
    Intestinal lymphocyte populations in children with regressive autism: evidence for extensive mucosal immunopathology.
    Ashwood P, Anthony A, Pellicer AA, Torrente F, Walker-Smith JA, Wakefield AJ.
    The Inflammatory Bowel Disease Study Group, and Centre for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Royal Free and University College, Medical School, London, United Kingdom. pashwood@ucdavis.edu

    It cannot be independent if Wakefield or any of his colleagues are involved.

    22. Neuroimmunology April 2006;173(1­2):126-34.

    J Neuroimmunol. 2006 Apr;173(1-2):126-34. Epub 2006 Feb 21.
    Immune activation of peripheral blood and mucosal CD3+ lymphocyte cytokine profiles in children with autism and gastrointestinal symptoms.
    Ashwood P, Wakefield AJ.
    Department of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, University of California at Davis, M.I.N.D. Institute, Wet Lab building, 50th Street, Sacramento, CA 95817, USA. pashwood@ucdavis.edu

    It cannot be independent if Wakefield or any of his colleagues are involved.

    23. Prog. Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry December 30 2006;30:1472-1477.

    Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2006 Dec 30;30(8):1472-7. Epub 2006 Jul 24.
    Increased serum levels of glutamate in adult patients with autism.
    Shinohe A, Hashimoto K, Nakamura K, Tsujii M, Iwata Y, Tsuchiya KJ, Sekine Y, Suda S, Suzuki K, Sugihara G, Matsuzaki H, Minabe Y, Sugiyama T, Kawai M, Iyo M, Takei N, Mori N.
    Department of Psychiatry and Neurology, Hamamatsu University School of Medicine, Hamamatsu, Shizuoka 431-3192,

    Since when are “adults” still children? Also, no mention of any MMR vaccine (and the Japanese version was different from the American vaccine).

    24. Clinical Infectious Diseases September 1 2002;35(Suppl 1):S6-S16

    Clin Infect Dis. 2002 Sep 1;35(Suppl 1):S6-S16.
    Gastrointestinal microflora studies in late-onset autism.
    Finegold SM, Molitoris D, Song Y, Liu C, Vaisanen ML, Bolte E, McTeague M, Sandler R, Wexler H, Marlowe EM, Collins MD, Lawson PA, Summanen P, Baysallar M, Tomzynski TJ, Read E, Johnson E, Rolfe R, Nasir P, Shah H, Haake DA, Manning P, Kaul A.
    Infectious Diseases Section, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, West Los Angeles, CA, USA. sidfinegol@aol.com

    No mention of any MMR vaccine, and mostly to do with some bacterial study.

    25. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2004;

    Again, this is just a journal and a year, not a paper. You really need to learn how to cite.

    26. Journal of Medical Microbiology October 2005;54:987-991

    J Med Microbiol. 2005 Oct;54(Pt 10):987-91.
    Differences between the gut microflora of children with autistic spectrum disorders and that of healthy children.
    Parracho HM, Bingham MO, Gibson GR, McCartney AL.
    Food Microbial Sciences Unit, School of Food Biosciences, The University of Reading, Whiteknights, PO Box 226, Reading RG6 6AP, UK.

    No mention of any MMR vaccine.

    27. Archivos venezolanos de puericultura y pediatría 2006; Vol 69 (1): 19-25.

    CARACTERÍSTICAS ENDOSCÓPICAS, HISTOLÓGICAS E INMUNOLÓGICAS DE LA
    MUCOSA DIGESTIVA EN NIÑOS AUTISTAS CON SÍNTOMAS GASTROINTESTINALES.
    Segundo Premio Trabajo Científico. LI Congreso Nacional de Pediatría 2005.
    Lenny González, Karolina López, Dianora Navarro, Lilia Negrón, Lucy Flores,
    Rosario Rodríguez, Marbelia Martínez, Aderbal Sabrá.

    Not in PubMed, but online here and includes Dr. Lenny Gonzalez, who is part of Thoughtful House and therefore it is not independent. No mention of MMR.

    28. Gastroenterology. 2005:128 (Suppl 2);Abstract-303

    Not found in PubMed, you are to learn how to properly cite (or cut and paste without losing information).

    Like

  121. May 2, 2011 at 2:59 am

    Relative to Wakefield and his studies, Marsha wrote,

    because not only has he continued his own studies, but since then, a large number of replication studies have been performed around the world, by other researchers, that confirm his initial findings.

    It’s been replicated in Canada, in the US., in Venezuela, in Italy[but] they never get mentioned. All you ever hear is that no one else has ever been able to replicate the findings.

    Marsha’s claims don’t square up with the published evidence.

    What needs to be replicated, a direct quote from Wakefield’s 1998 publication:

    We have identified a chronic enterocolitis in children that may be related to neuropsychiatric dysfunction. In most cases, onset of symptoms was after measles, mumps, and rubella immunisation. Further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome and its possible relation to this vaccine.

    The list of 28 “studies” as supplied by Marsha on April 20, 2011, the correct references, and whether or not they validate Wakefield’s claim:

    1. The Journal of Pediatrics November 1999; 135(5):559-63 = Horvath K., Papadimitriou J.C., Rabsztyn A., Drachenberg C., Tilden J.T. 1999. Gastrointestinal abnormalities in children with autism. J. Pediatrics 135: 559-563. Study did not look for measles virus. Did not appear to have controls with autism & without GI syptoms OR controls without autism & with similar GI symptoms. Most children with autism & GI symptoms had upper GI problems such as refluxIn no way “”replicates” or “supports” Wakefield’s “findings”, which have been shown repeatedly to have been manufactured or the result of laboratory contamination.

    2. The Journal of Pediatrics 2000; 138(3): 366-372 = Furlano RI, Anthony A, Day R, Brown A, McGarvey L, Thomson MA, Davies SE, Berelowitz M, Forbes A, Wakefield AJ, Walker-Smith JA, Murch SH.. Colonic CD8 and T cell filtration with epithelial damage in children with autism. J Pediatr 2001;138:366-72. Wakefield is a co-author; cannot be said to support his own work In no way “”replicates” or “supports” Wakefield’s “findings”

    3. Journal of Clinical Immunology November 2003; 23(6): 504-517 = Ashwood P, Anthony A, Pellicer AA, Torrente F, Wakefield AJ. Intestinal lymphocyte populations in children with regressive autism: evidence for extensive mucosal immunopathology. Journal of Clinical Immunology, 2003;23:504-517. Wakefield is a co-author; cannot be said to support his own work

    4. Journal of Neuroimmunology 2005 A meaningless citation as there is no way to know which article is being referred to. Supports nothing

    5. Brain, Behavior and Immunity 1993; 7: 97-103 = Singh VK, Warren RP, Odell JD, Cole WP. Antibodies to myelin basic protein in children with autistic behavior. Brain, Behavior and Immunity 1993;7:97-103 Found some but not all children with autism had specific antibodies to myelin. Study did not look for measles virus, nor did study look for mumps or rubella virus.In no way “”replicates” or “supports” Wakefield’s “findings”

    6. Pediatric Neurology 2003; 28(4): 1-3 Citation not found. May refer to Singh VK, Jensen RL Elevated levels of measles antibodies in children with autism Pediatric Neurology 2003; 28(4): 292-294. To the best of my knowledge, this study has not been replicated, and the findings refuted by several other studies, such as Baird G, Pickles A, Simonoff E, Charman T, Sullivan P, Chandler S, Loucas T, Meldrum D, Afzal M, Thomas B, Jin L, Brown D. Measles vaccination and antibody response in autism spectrum disorders.
    Arch Dis Child. 2008 Oct;93(10):832-7. Epub 2008 Feb 5.

    7. Neuropsychobiology 2005; 51:77-85 = Jyonouchi H, Geng L, Ruby A, Zimmerman-Bier B. Dysregulated Innate Immune Responses in Young Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders: Their Relationship to Gastrointestinal Symptoms and Dietary Intervention. Neuropsychobiology. 2005;28:51 77-85 Study did not look for measles virus. Study evaluated inflammatory response to specific dietary proteinsIn no way “”replicates” or “supports” Wakefield’s “findings”

    8. The Journal of Pediatrics May 2005;146(5):605-10 = Jyonouchi H, Geng L, Ruby A, Reddy C, Zimmerman-Bier B. Evaluation of an association between gastrointestinal symptoms and cytokine production against common dietary proteins in children with autism spectrum disorders. J Pediatr.2005;146(5):605-10. Study did not look for measles virus. Study evaluated inflammatory response to specific dietary proteinsIn no way “”replicates” or “supports” Wakefield’s “findings”

    9. Autism Insights 2009; 1: 1-11 citation not found on PubMed. Possibly refers to Krigsman, A. , et al.,Clinical presentation and Histologic Findings at Ileocolonoscopy in children with Autistic spectrum Disorder and chronic Gastrointestinal symptoms Autism Insights 2010:2 1-11. Wakefield and Carol Stott (a contributor to this paper) are editors of the journal Autism Insights, therefore not an “independent replication” of the 1998 study.In no way “”replicates” or “supports” Wakefield’s “findings”

    10. Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology February 2009; 23(2): 95-98 = Galiatsatos P, Gologan A, Lamoureux E, Autistic enterocolitis: Fact or fiction? Can J Gastroenterol. 2009:23:95-98 Case reports, featuring two adult patients with gastrointestinal problems and ASD diagnoses. The authors call for “more investigations” in their discussion. In no way “”replicates” or “supports” Wakefield’s “findings”

    11. Annals of Clinical Psychiatry 2009:21(3): 148-161 = Singh VK. Phenotypic expression of autoimmune autistic disorder (AAD): a major subset of autism. Ann Clin Psychiatry. 2009 Jul-Sep;21(3):148-61. This paper makes assertions that are not supported by the evidence base in the paper. Given the weaknesses in the paper’s presentation, is not clear if the paper’s conclusion support Wakefield or not

    12. Journal of Child Neurology June 29, 2009; 000:1-6 = No paper that matches this citation In no way “”replicates” or “supports” Wakefield’s “findings”

    13. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders March 2009;39(3):405-13 = Nikolov RN, Bearss KE, Lettinga J, Erickson C, Rodowski M, Aman MG, McCracken JT, McDougle CJ, Tierney E, Vitiello B, Arnold LE, Shah B, Posey DJ, Ritz L, Scahill L. Gastrointestinal symptoms in a sample of children with pervasive developmental disorders. J Autism Dev Disord. 2009 Mar;39(3):405-13. Epub 2008 Sep 13. Study did not look for measles virus, nor did study look for mumps or rubella virus. Study evaluated children previously diagnosed with pervasive developmental disorders (PDDs) for gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms. 22.7% were found to exhibit GI symptoms, but were otherwise no different from subjects without GI problems in demographic characteristics, measures of adaptive functioning, or autism symptom severity. In no way “”replicates” or “supports” Wakefield’s “findings”

    14. Medical Hypotheses August 1998;51:133-144. = Bolte, ER Autism and clostridium tetani Medical Hypotheses August 1998;51:133-144. Speculative paper presenting the hypothesis that autism symptoms are caused by a subacute, chronic tetanus infection In no way “”replicates” or “supports” Wakefield’s “findings”

    15. Journal of Child Neurology July 2000; ;15(7):429-35 = Sandler R, Finegold SM., Bolte ER., et al. Short-term benefit from oral vancomycin treatment of regressive-onset autism. J Child Neurol. 2000;15:429-435 Study did not look for measles virus. Study evaluated 11 children’s response to a specific antibiotic. Gains faded following cessation of antibioticIn no way “replicates” or “supports” Wakefield’s “findings”

    16. Lancet. 1972;2:883-884 = Walker-Smith J, Andrews J. Alpha-1-antitrypsin, autism, and coeliac disease. Lancet. 1972 Oct 21;2(7782):883-4. A paper published decades previously cannot be said to “replicate” a later paper.In no way “replicates” or “supports” Wakefield’s “findings”

    17. Journal of Autism and Childhood Schizophrenia January-March 1971;1:48-62 = Goodwin MS, Cowen MA, Goodwin TC Malabsorption and cerebral dysfunction: a multivariate and comparative study of autistic children. J Autism Child Schizophr. 1971 Jan-Mar;1(1):48-62. A paper published decades previously cannot be said to “replicate” a later paper. In no way “replicates” or “supports” Wakefield’s “findings”

    18. Journal of Pediatrics March 2001;138:366-372. Same paper as #2 above. Wakefield is a co-author; cannot be said to support his own work In no way “”replicates” or “supports” Wakefield’s “findings”

    19. Molecular Psychiatry 2002;7:375-382. Torrente F., Machado N., Perez-Machado M., Furlano R., Thomson M., Davies S., Wakefield AJ, Walker-Smith JA, Murch SH. Enteropathy with T cell infiltration and epithelial IgG deposition in autism. Molecular Psychiatry. 2002;7:375-382. Wakefield is a co-author; cannot be said to support his own work In no way “”replicates” or “supports” Wakefield’s “findings”

    20. American Journal of Gastroenterolgy April 2004;598-605.= Torrente F, Anthony A, Heuschkel RB, Thomson MA, Ashwood P, Murch SH. Focal-enhanced gastritis in regressive autism with features distinct from Crohn’s and Helicobacter pylori gastritis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99:598-605 Murch SH, Anthony A, Thompson MA, Torrente F and Ashwood P were previous co-authors with Wakefield A. Not independent replication In no way “”replicates” or “supports” Wakefield’s “findings”

    21. Journal of Clinical Immunology November 2003;23:504-517 = Ashwood P, Anthony A, Pellicer AA, Torrente F, Walker-Smith JA, Wakefield AJ. Intestinal lymphocyte populations in children with regressive autism: evidence for extensive mucosal immunopathology. J Clin Immunol. 2003 Nov;23(6):504-17. Wakefield is a co-author; cannot be said to support his own work In no way “”replicates” or “supports” Wakefield’s “findings”

    22. Neuroimmunology April 2006;173(1-2):126-34 = Ashwood P, Wakefield AJ. Immune activation of peripheral blood and mucosal CD3+ lymphocyte cytokine profiles in children with autism and gastrointestinal symptoms. J Neuroimmunol. 2006;173(1-2):126-34. Wakefield is a co-author; cannot be said to support his own work In no way “”replicates” or “supports” Wakefield’s “findings”

    23. Prog. Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry December 30 2006;30:1472-1477 = Shinohe A, Hashimoto K, Nakamura K, Tsujii M, Iwata Y, Tsuchiyaa KJ, Sekine Y, Suda S, Suzuki K, Sugihara G, Matsuzaki H, Minabe Y, Sugiyama T, Masayoshi Kawai M, Iyo M,Takei N and Mori N Increased serum levels of glutamate in adult patients with autism Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry Volume 30, Issue 8, 30 December 2006, Pages 1472-1477 Study of adults with autism on blood levels of amino acids. Study did not look for measles virus, nor did study look for mumps or rubella virus. In no way “replicates” or “supports” Wakefield’s “findings”

    24. Clinical Infectious Diseases September 1 2002;35(Suppl 1):S6-S16 = Finegold SM, Molitoris D, Song Y, Liu C, Vaisanen ML, Bolte E, McTeague M, Sandler R, Wexler H, Marlowe EM, Collins MD, Lawson PA, Summanen P, Baysallar M, Tomzynski TJ, Read E, Johnson E, Rolfe R, Nasir P, Shah H, Haake DA, Manning P, Kaul A. Gastrointestinal microflora studies in late-onset autism. Clin Infect Dis. 2002 Sep 1;35(Suppl 1):S6-S16. Stool samples from children with regressive autism were compared to samples from children without autism; differences in stool flora were found. Study did not look for measles virus, nor did study look for mumps or rubella virus. Study did not evaluate changes in gut structure In no way “replicates” or “supports” Wakefield’s “findings”

    25. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2004 Meaninless citation as there is no way to know which article is being referred to. In no way “replicates” or “supports” Wakefield’s “findings”

    26. Journal of Medical Microbiology October 2005;54:987-991 = Parracho HM, Bingham MO, Gibson GR, McCartney AL. Differences between the gut microflora of children with autistic spectrum disorders and that of healthy children. J Med Microbiol. 2005 Oct;54(Pt 10):987-91. Study compared fecal flora for children with autism with two control groups: siblings without autism and unrelated children without autism. Minor differences were found. Study did not look for measles virus, nor did study look for mumps or rubella virus. Study did not evaluate changes in gut structure In no way “replicates” or “supports” Wakefield’s “findings”

    27. Archivos venezolanos de puericultura y pediatría 2006; Vol 69 (1): 19-25. = González LG., López K, Navarro DC, Negrón L, Flores LS, Rodríguez R, Martínez M, Sabrá A. Características endoscópicas, histológicas e inmunológicas de la mucosa digestiva en niños autistas con síntomas gastrointestinales [Endoscopic and Histological Characteristics of the Digestive Mucosa in Autistic Children with gastro-Intestinal Symptoms] Archivos Venezolanos de Puericultura y Pediatría Enero-Marzo 2006, Volúmen 69, Número 1 Arch Venez Pueri Pediatr 2006 69(1):19-25. 1. The authors cannot replicate Wakefield’s 1998 “findings” of a distinct autistic enterocolitis, although they do report a higher incidence of gastrointestinal problems in their autistic group. 2. It appears that the Gonzalez paper was funded by Thoughtful House, under Wakefield’s leadership verification In no way “replicates” or “supports” Wakefield’s “findings”

    28. Gastroenterology. 2005:128 (Suppl 2);Abstract-303 = Balzola F, Daniela C, Repici , Barbon V, Sapino ABarbera C, Calvo PL, Gandione M, Rigardetto R*, and Rizzetto M . Nine adult males with autism and GI symptoms were evaluated for GI disease. Study did not look for measles virus, nor did study look for mumps or rubella virus. Study did not evaluate changes in gut structure Meeting abstract; never published as a peer reviewed study. In no way “replicates” or “supports” Wakefield’s “findings”

    So. 28 “studies”. Not so much replication.

    Like

  122. May 2, 2011 at 3:03 am

    Oops. One small correction:

    The list of 28 “studies” was supplied by Marsha on April 28, 2011, not on April 20 as I posted above.

    Like

  123. Gary
    May 2, 2011 at 6:19 pm

    Sorry, Jennifer, I was proposing relative numbers in order to highlight the point that both sides of the equation need to be considered.

    Polio is getting closer to being eradicated world wide. The chance to catch it in most places of the world is obviously much smaller than 5%.

    I was not trying to suggest that everyone without the vaccine has a 5% chance of getting polio. Merely creating a for instance example of differential risk. Thanks for pointing that out.

    Like

  124. Gary
    May 2, 2011 at 6:22 pm

    Yes, stevey, in the actual study he did not make larger claims than his falsified data would support. However, on the day and subsequently, he did make that very claim many times. The link did not come out of the other studies. He made the claim on TV the day his original fraud was published.

    They are dismissed out of hand because Wakefield is a disgraced fraud. But on this thread, they are dismissed as independent replications of his work because they clearly are not.

    And yes, stevey, his science is very much in question.

    Like

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s