Silencing MMR Opposition, page 1

posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 01:48 PM

link

In the dock: the man who caused the great MMR scare

The doctor who sparked an international scare over the safety of MMR vaccine is to be charged with serious professional misconduct by the General Medical Council in an attempt by the medical establishment finally to lay the controversy to rest.

Andrew Wakefield, who published a research paper in 1998 purporting to show a link between the MMR vaccine and autism, is accused in preliminary charges of publishing "inadequately founded" research, failing to obtain ethical committee approval, obtaining funding "improperly" and of subjecting children to "unnecessary and invasive investigations", The Independent has learnt. The research is said to have caused immunisation rates to slump and cases of measles, mumps and rubella to soar. The research, which appeared in The Lancet, is said to have done more damage than anything published in a scientific journal in living memory.

Detailed charges are being formulated by the GMC's lawyers for presentation in the autumn and a public hearing is expected next year. If found guilty Dr Wakefield, 50, could be struck off the medical register.

More...

This seems like an aggressive move considering: US scientists back autism link to MMR.

Long Lance

posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 03:50 PM

link

Originally posted by loam

..
This seems like an aggressive move considering: US scientists back autism link to MMR.

They are way behind the curve, imo and too stubborn to understand that if they keep suppressing the ever more obvious, the 'correction' will be much more severe than a temporary setback from admitting the link and issuing these vaccines seperately.

The way it's going they're threatening inoculations at the concept level.

bsl4doc

posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 05:49 PM

link

I've never had anyone on ATS explain the MMR -> autism link satisfactorily, and by that I mean with scientific papers, studies, or anything NOT found in "independent" sources. Can someone attempt this feat for me?

Mariella

kipman725

posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 06:01 PM

link

Even if there is a link it's better to get the MMR vacine than go without and risk catching measles mumps or rubela which can all kill you.

bsl4doc

posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 06:42 PM

link

Originally posted by kipman725
Even if there is a link it's better to get the MMR vacine than go without and risk catching measles mumps or rubela which can all kill you.

I agree wholeheartedly. While there very well may be a link, albeit a weak one, I don't see how one can justify a larger number of children dieing of preventable diseases instead of a small number of children developing a nonfatal, but certainly grave, condition. Not everyone can lead a healthy life, despite how much I would love them to. Someone somewhere will always get the short end of the straw, no matter if we vaccinate or not. Unfortunately, there were many more short straws prior to MMR vaccination.

Mariella

loam

posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 10:31 PM

link

Originally posted by bsl4doc

Originally posted by kipman725
Even if there is a link it's better to get the MMR vacine than go without and risk catching measles mumps or rubela which can all kill you.

I agree wholeheartedly. While there very well may be a link, albeit a weak one, I don't see how one can justify...

Unmitigated, big-brother crap! If a link were to be shown, the only possible way one could still support the use of the vaccination would be if you believed the government entitled to play roulette with the lives of its populous. I think otherwise...

And, while I remain unclear about who might be correct on the causation issue, I reject the notion that I should blindly trust the side whose underling motive is profit from the distribution of the vaccine, simply because they say it is in my best interest.

As you point out, bsl4doc:

Originally posted by bsl4doc
...Not everyone can lead a healthy life, despite how much I would love them to. Someone somewhere will always get the short end of the straw, no matter if we vaccinate or not...

...then if such roulette is to be played, let nature decide who is to receive the short straws- not some government bureaucrat or those who profit from the very distribution of the vaccine.

Moreover, given the scientific dispute, why not simply encourage some alternative to thermisol and eliminate the issue altogether?

Another article supporting Dr. Wakefield: US experts back MMR doctor's findings

[edit on 12-6-2006 by loam]

Long Lance

posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 05:50 AM

link

Originally posted by kipman725
Even if there is a link it's better to get the MMR vacine than go without and risk catching measles mumps or rubela which can all kill you.

An Excess of water can kill you, too, same for salt, so what you said smacks of perverted use of the precautionary principle. You know as well as i do that anything can be overdosed (see sentence above) but vaccines can be doubled and tripled and are categorically safe just because the FDA says so? the correct and only understandable use of the precautionary principle would be to issue every vaccine seperately with an appropriate amount of time between the shots. common sense, i guess, but shouting the party line into everyone's face is probably more satisfying, isn't it?!

The case is clearer than you think, wether you like it or not, countries where early childhood vaccinations are the exception do not have much of an autism problem. (f-ex Japan, although, iirc, they abandoned their policy in recent years, i'll leave statistical interpretation to you, though)

Let's start with the autistic Amish, or to be precise, the LACK of them, the evidence is there, ignore it at your own peril. if established medicine doesn't investigate, someone else will. they may lack knowledge, experience and background, but sooner or later they will be vindicated. many of them will of course be wackos (history is full of them, even if today's establishment tends to glorify them), who will push 90% baseless drivel, but in the end those who satisfactorily explain what's going on get the nod. period.

PS: wether i'm right or wrong, medical research is NOT finding cures or even answers here, reminds me a bit of AIDS, but i guess failure doesn't matter much among the 'competitive'. just my 2 cents.

[edit on 13-6-2006 by Long Lance]

bsl4doc

posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 05:56 AM

link

...then if such roulette is to be played, let nature decide who is to receive the short straws- not some government bureaucrat or those who profit from the very distribution of the vaccine.

Loam, you DO realize that more children died from measles, mumps, and rubella every year prior to the vaccine than the number children who suffer from autism currently, right? Do you understand how horrobile the MMR diseases were prior to the vaccine? And do you realize what a low number, comparably, of children suffer from any sort of autism spectrum disorder, be it low or high functioning? How can you justify hundred of children dieing so that one child doesn't develop autism? Can you please explain that to me? See, we in the medical profession tend to like the option that leaves the MOST people alive, not the fewest.

Moreover, given the scientific dispute, why not simply encourage some alternative to thermisol and eliminate the issue altogether?

Thimerosal has been eliminated from 13 of 19 common childhood vaccines, including MMR. Of the remaining 6, it is found in such small amounts as to be classified as trace (typically considered less than 1ug/mL). So, it would seem Thimerosal (please note the propr spelling since you are the one debating it) has already been eliminated from what you feel is the main culprit.

Another article supporting Dr. Wakefield: US experts back MMR doctor's findings

This research raises a good point, that perhaps we aren't effectively attenuating the measles virus. Unfortunately, your point about thimerosal (again, note the spelling) is moot. The cases are not related to autism, but instead to measles virus affecting the brain and intestines. They even make a point, in your article, of noting that MMR no longer uses Thimerosal.

Mariella

[edit on 6/13/2006 by bsl4doc]

Darkmind

posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 05:57 AM

link

When I was 5 years old (back in the Stone Age days of 1975) I came down with mumps. This left me with 0% hearing in one ear and 98% hearing in the other, along with a really bad sense of balance. If parents want to run the risk of their kids becoming wholly or partially deaf, they should ignore the MMR jab.
Those who actually love their children and who have been looking at this issue over the past few years, when the link between MMR and autism has been eroded down to nothing, should give their kids the jab.

loam

posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 08:31 AM

link

bsl4doc: Thanks for the spelling lesson (twice- and rather ironic, considering how you spelled 'propr'

)... It contributes greatly to the superiority of your position, and we wouldn't want anyone to confuse what I intended with a prosciutto sandwich, now would we?

Originally posted by bsl4doc
How can you justify hundred of children dieing so that one child doesn't develop autism? Can you please explain that to me? See, we in the medical profession tend to like the option that leaves the MOST people alive, not the fewest.

See, the point I'm making is a political one...not a medical one. I am not a member of the camp that believes government has a right to impose such calculus with its populous. Using your "it's better for the masses" logic, we should then consider elimination of those with a genetic susceptibility to certain communicable diseases in order to prevent their possible spread to the general populous.

Additionally, unlike you, I do not subscribe to the infallibility of the medical profession. Do we need to discuss how many times they've gotten it wrong in the past?

As I have said here, and in other threads on the subject, what I object to is the degree to which scientific dissent is quashed by a de facto medical oligarchy who would have us believe that financial interest plays no role in the positions they advocate.

[edit on 13-6-2006 by loam]

Long Lance

posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 11:30 AM

link

Originally posted by Darkmind
When I was 5 years old (back in the Stone Age days of 1975) I came down with mumps. This left me with 0% hearing in one ear and 98% hearing in the other, along with a really bad sense of balance. If parents want to run the risk of their kids becoming wholly or partially deaf, they should ignore the MMR jab.
Those who actually love their children and who have been looking at this issue over the past few years, when the link between MMR and autism has been eroded down to nothing, should give their kids the jab.

D00d !

I mean it's not personal, i'm just curious, but...

What on earth is wrong with my posts? are they too long, is it a case of bad language skills or does the layout suck?

use the vaccines seperately, i posted that twice by now (3 times incl. this post), why is everyone ignoring it? ? ? ? ??

Thanx and please be honest.

bsl4doc

posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 05:24 PM

link

Originally posted by loam
bsl4doc: Thanks for the spelling lesson (twice- and rather ironic, considering how you spelled 'propr'
)...

A typo is much different than a general lack of effort in learning to spell a word.

See, the point I'm making is a political one...not a medical one. I am not a member of the camp that believes government has a right to impose such calculus with its populous. Using your "it's better for the masses" logic, we should then consider elimination of those with a genetic susceptibility to certain communicable diseases in order to prevent their possible spread to the general populous.

Well, I[/] am not a member of the camp that thinks the masses will do anything productive if left to their individual means and ways. If there were no mandatory vaccination programs sponsored by the government or national medical association, I would wager that a great deal fewer would receive the vaccinations and would then cause a resurgence in certain diseases. Do you ever wonder why smallpox isn't around anymore?

Additionally, unlike you, I do not subscribe to the infallibility of the medical profession. Do we need to discuss how many times they've gotten it wrong in the past?

I don't think the medical profession is infallible. It's a science, and as such is constantly being written and rewritten, tested and retested, etc.

Do we need to discuss how many advantages modern medicine and sanitation (also a brance of western medicine) has brought to the world? Or would you rather still be showering once a month, defecating in a hole in the ground, and wondering why everyone drinking from the town well is dying of cholera?

As I have said here, and in other threads on the subject, what I object to is the degree to which scientific dissent is quashed by a de facto medical oligarchy who would have us believe that financial interest plays no role in the positions they advocate.

I won't quash it when you can provide some justification for your stand point other than just having a problem with authority. I have no monetary interest in vaccinating children, I work for a public health hospital. When at work, I stick children everyday. Odd, though. I don't see any huge numbers of autistic children during our city-wide vaccination campaigns...

Also, this does not amount to offing everyone with genetic predispositions to certain diseases. The difference is that when we vaccinate the population, we prevent epidemic. If someone is susceptible to a disease, is it unlikely that it will remain highly infectious or even be able to spread as it would incubate and infect quickly.

Mariella

loam

posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 06:52 PM
link

Originally posted by bsl4doc
A typo is much different than a general lack of effort in learning to spell a word.

You pegged me completely...

Keep working on that agreeable disposition, we don't see enough of that in your chosen profession.

Originally posted by bsl4doc
Well, I am not a member of the camp that thinks the masses will do anything productive if left to their individual means and ways. If there were no mandatory vaccination programs sponsored by the government or national medical association, I would wager that a great deal fewer would receive the vaccinations and would then cause a resurgence in certain diseases.

Then on this point, we will never agree. Incidentally, at what point does a paternalistic view of government turn into one of tyranny?

Originally posted by bsl4doc
I don't think the medical profession is infallible. It's a science, and as such is constantly being written and rewritten, tested and retested, etc.

Do we need to discuss how many advantages modern medicine and sanitation (also a brance of western medicine) has brought to the world? Or would you rather still be showering once a month, defecating in a hole in the ground, and wondering why everyone drinking from the town well is dying of cholera?

Aside from the patronizing tone, I see nothing here to disagree with. I never suggested modern medicine did not bring benefits... None of those items were the subject of this thread...nor did I argue against them.

BTW, what is a "brance"? ....another typo...or a general lack of effort in learning to type correctly?

Originally posted by bsl4doc
I won't quash it when you can provide some justification for your stand point other than just having a problem with authority. I have no monetary interest in vaccinating children, I work for a public health hospital. When at work, I stick children everyday. Odd, though. I don't see any huge numbers of autistic children during our city-wide vaccination campaigns...

Perhaps, then, we should contact all those in the medical profession who disagree with your position and notify them that they can now rest easy because of your highly scientific and persuasive experience.

Originally posted by bsl4doc
Also, this does not amount to offing everyone with genetic predispositions to certain diseases. The difference is that when we vaccinate the population, we prevent epidemic. If someone is susceptible to a disease, is it unlikely that it will remain highly infectious or even be able to spread as it would incubate and infect quickly.

Yeah, keep telling yourself that. The inconsistency in your logic is great entertainment...

[edit on 13-6-2006 by loam]

bsl4doc

posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 08:23 PM
link

Sooo..are you going to post a study or any evidence, or just say "nuh-uh" and post anecdotes from clinics which have yet to produce a study on the topic?

Mariella

loam

posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 10:23 PM
link

Originally posted by bsl4doc
Sooo..are you going to post a study or any evidence, or just say "nuh-uh" and post anecdotes from clinics which have yet to produce a study on the topic?

I'm sorry, exactly what point did you think I was making? Did you not recall me writing:

Originally posted by loam
...And, while I remain unclear about who might be correct on the causation issue...

Do your own research. I'm not interested in engaging in an exercise in futility... You are so married to your position, it would not permit consideration of a hundred opposing studies...

Happy hunting....or not.

bsl4doc

posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 10:28 PM
link

Do your own research. I'm not interested in engaging in an exercise in futility... You are so married to your position, it would not permit consideration of a hundred opposing studies...

Happy hunting....or not.

Hmm..that's curious coming from someone who so adamantly states that the medical profession is basically purposefully causing autism in an attempt to make more money.

I've had my opinion changed several times by studies posted on this forum. However, they were also presented by civil members, such as FredT, BlueTileSpook, and Darkelf.

Perhaps they can tutor you on presenting a point through valid research rather than "he said, she said" stories and prejudiced generalizations.

Mariella

Long Lance

posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 02:32 AM
link

Originally posted by bsl4doc

Well, I am not a member of the camp that thinks the masses will do anything productive if left to their individual means and ways. If there were no mandatory vaccination programs sponsored by the government or national medical association, I would wager that a great deal fewer would receive the vaccinations and would then cause a resurgence in certain diseases. Do you ever wonder why smallpox isn't around anymore?

That's nice governement for the people, by the people.

Italy is a Republic, right ?

Your totalitarian viewpoint make it all too clear that you wouldn't hesitate a second to sacrifice anyone (save yourself, probably) for the 'greater good' ... of whom may i ask?

I got news for you and all the rest who believes the world belongs to them alone, these 'masses' well, you're part of them, you're mortal just like everyone else and the illusion that anyone 'governs' them from above, so to speak is the ultimate delusion, because they are part of society and shaped by it, recognize it or not.

This exact same spirit is destroys the world, at least the west, not just because it alienates people irreversibly, because deluded madmen in 'leading positions', (ie. leaving all resources and tools to a few nut jobs) trash everything they see because the can. I don't doubt for a second that your mindset is typical for this time, just take the EU's tendency to have people vote over and over again until the correct result appears...

These nations call themselves democratic at the same time,

Sic transit gloria mundi.

==========

The following article can't be summed up in a few paragraphs, sorry:

Provided as is, concerning vaccination studies and their shortcomings

bsl4doc

posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 06:02 AM
link

Originally posted by Long Lance

Originally posted by bsl4doc

Well, I am not a member of the camp that thinks the masses will do anything productive if left to their individual means and ways. If there were no mandatory vaccination programs sponsored by the government or national medical association, I would wager that a great deal fewer would receive the vaccinations and would then cause a resurgence in certain diseases. Do you ever wonder why smallpox isn't around anymore?

That's nice governement for the people, by the people.

Italy is a Republic, right ?

Your totalitarian viewpoint make it all too clear that you wouldn't hesitate a second to sacrifice anyone (save yourself, probably) for the 'greater good' ... of whom may i ask?

I got news for you and all the rest who believes the world belongs to them alone, these 'masses' well, you're part of them, you're mortal just like everyone else and the illusion that anyone 'governs' them from above, so to speak is the ultimate delusion, because they are part of society and shaped by it, recognize it or not.

This exact same spirit is destroys the world, at least the west, not just because it alienates people irreversibly, because deluded madmen in 'leading positions', (ie. leaving all resources and tools to a few nut jobs) trash everything they see because the can. I don't doubt for a second that your mindset is typical for this time, just take the EU's tendency to have people vote over and over again until the correct result appears...

These nations call themselves democratic at the same time,

Sic transit gloria mundi.

==========

The following article can't be summed up in a few paragraphs, sorry:

Provided as is, concerning vaccination studies and their shortcomings

Your right, Italy is a republic, which means we have a group of Senato della Repubblica who work in a form of representative government.

How can you have an effective government if every single person has the power to do literally anything they want? Isn't that anarchy? You have to have some sort of boundaries, regulations, etc.

Do you know why we have speed limits? Because driving above that can raise the risk of injury to yourself or others. Do you know why we vaccinate? Because not doing so can harm yourself or others. Believe it or not, every decision made by the government has more to do with how YOU affect the people around you.

Mariella

FatherLukeDuke

posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 10:03 AM
link

To move the discussion back on topic and away from a discussion of the Italian political system, which may well send us all to sleep
:

Nobody seems to have discussed why Dr Wakefield is "in the dock". It is for a number of reasons, but the most damning is that he personally profited from his research and completely failed to declare this:

In 2004 it was alleged that Mr Wakefield had had an undeclared conflict of interest at the time he wrote the Lancet paper: having been paid £55,000 by the Legal Aid Board to assess whether some of the children who featured in his research paper might have a case to sue for vaccine damage.
Source:www.guardian.co.uk...

Now there was nothing illegal in taking money in itself, what is completely wrong is not owning up to it. When you submit a paper to the Lancet it is extremely clear that you must declare any personal financial interests you may have in the research. Wakefield must have knowlingly left this information out. I can only presume he did this as it would have left him very open to accusations of bias in his research (which it does now the information has come to light - in fact it is worse as he tried to hide this from everyone).

He also did not get ethics committee approval for his work:

According to the Independent newspaper today, the preliminary charges against Mr Wakefield will be that he published inadequately founded research, failed to obtain ethical committee approval for the work, obtained funding for it improperly, and subjected children to "unnecessary and invasive investigations".

As someone who has been involved in quite a few studies myself (study design and information analysis) I am absolutely shocked by this. I don't know any clinicians who would even think of going ahead until they had ethics approval - it's simply not done. It leaves you open to all sorts of accusations and can get you fired an struck off any register you may be on. Aside from anything else, the ethics committee is there to protect the patients from Drs doing nasty things to them for their research. So why did he not go through the committee?

What interests me is here we have a Dr who has taken cash on the sly, lied about his research, had no ethical approval for his research and then carried out "unnecessary and invasive investigations" on small children. Yet the people who normally attack such behaviour on these boards can't jump quickly enough to his defense. Why is that??

loam

posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 10:19 AM
link

FatherLukeDuke:

Thank you for your post.
Those are indeed highly relevant points to consider. Do you happen to know what he asserts in his defense?

[edit on 14-6-2006 by loam]