Questions over MMR and Autism Link - Dr Andrew Wakefield Report in ST

soubresauts wrote:

Johnfás, you ought to know that vaccination is not compulsory in Ireland.

It should be. Vaccination is, currently, the most efficient way of avoiding the occurence of many diseases, many of which are contagious and thus a thread to the wellbeing of society generally. Measles, contrary to some comment here has the potential to cause many and serious complications. It is also very contagious, like many things we do, and have, vaccinated against.

soubresauts wrote:

ibis wrote:

... Those cases are simply being used as a comfort blanket for irrationality.

That's an appalling insult.

It's extremely mild, considering my actual views on just how idiotic the anti-vaccination position is.

soubresauts wrote:

Quote :

And to remind you again, what I said is that I'd be happy to see people face criminal prosecution for refusing to participate in public health programs.

That reminds me of none other than... Bertie! Bertie in 1993, when he said: "it would actually give me the greatest of pleasure watching non-compliant taxpayers going to jail, and that's the kind of person I am." See here.

Even by your standards of evidence, that's a rather obviously irrelevant comparison, unless you're suggesting that I wouldn't have my children vaccinated?

soubresauts wrote:

Quote :

Public health is a duty, and being an idiot doesn't exempt one from it.

Let's consider public health medicine in Ireland. The two main programmes of public health medicine are vaccination and fluoridation. The latter is, demonstrably, a conspiracy, a massive scientific fraud, a vicious deception, and an appalling waste of the health, as well as the money, of the public. And the former? Well, the same people who are forcing fluoridation on us are pushing vaccination on us... (with impunity, lack of accountability, lack of transparency, and a vast amount of public money!)

Here is the big mystery: Why do intelligent people not question vaccination and fluoridation?

They do, but can't be heard doing so over the screaming of the tinfoil hat brigade. For example, you claim that fluoridation is "demonstrably, a conspiracy, a massive scientific fraud, a vicious deception, and an appalling waste of the health, as well as the money, of the public" - yet unless we are all in the pay of the fluoridation industry, your utter failure to convince us of that claim suggests that 'demonstrably' is a word you're using in sheer ignorance of its meaning.

ibis wrote:

... you claim that fluoridation is "demonstrably, a conspiracy, a massive scientific fraud, a vicious deception, and an appalling waste of the health, as well as the money, of the public" - yet unless we are all in the pay of the fluoridation industry, your utter failure to convince us of that claim suggests that 'demonstrably' is a word you're using in sheer ignorance of its meaning.

You can lead a horse to water...

The Fluoride Deception by Christopher Bryson has been in print for a few years now. The medical establishment doesn't want you to read it. Ibis is happy to comply.

soubresauts wrote:

ibis wrote:

... you claim that fluoridation is "demonstrably, a conspiracy, a massive scientific fraud, a vicious deception, and an appalling waste of the health, as well as the money, of the public" - yet unless we are all in the pay of the fluoridation industry, your utter failure to convince us of that claim suggests that 'demonstrably' is a word you're using in sheer ignorance of its meaning.

You can lead a horse to water...

The Fluoride Deception by Christopher Bryson has been in print for a few years now. The medical establishment doesn't want you to read it. Ibis is happy to comply.

You think the existence of a book proves something? Two words - Von Daniken.

As for the claim that "the medical establishment doesn't want you to read it" - really, that's absolutely farcical, and a good example of why most normal people stay away from things like the fluoride debate. What does "the medical establishment" do about having you not read it exactly? Write snarky reviews on Amazon.com? Shut down the dozens of websites touting it as the next greatest thing after the Bible?

ibis wrote:

You think the existence of a book proves something?

It most certainly does in this case. Bryson's book is incontrovertible proof of the conspiracy. It's all there in black and white, in U.S. Government documents.

soubresauts wrote:

ibis wrote:

You think the existence of a book proves something?

It most certainly does in this case. Bryson's book is incontrovertible proof of the conspiracy. It's all there in black and white, in U.S. Government documents.

And, again, that has to be a very personal use of the word 'incontrovertible', because it has clearly failed to end the controversy. The problem with the whole thesis of the book is that if it is correct, and fluoride was promoted as a good addition to water to benefit the nuclear industry, so what? Motive is irrelevant, and the author is as unlikely to engage with evidence that contradicts his case as you are.

When a decades old controversy has failed to muster compelling evidence of harm - and lead in petrol, for example, has been phased out, as has DDT and a thousand other chemicals despite their benefits to the pharmaceutical/chemical industry - the supposition has to be that if there is something in it, it isn't anything very much.

Aragon wrote:

Truth will definitely not out while its determination is in the hands of the GMC and the pharamceutical companies. Andrew Wakefield is being throughly stitched up, his professionalism called into question and everything possible being done to strip him of his license to practice.

I'm guessing that the forthcoming MCG ruling will not be accepted should it go against the doctor in question (It would be fun, of course, if the multinationa- sorry MCG ruled in his favour)? Out of interest, what would it take for the defendents of young Wakefield to believe he was guilty of improper conduct?

I don't follow this topic at all, I'm afraid. But the problem with allegtations of discrediting is that it involves a similar degree of discrediting, as with Aragon's quote. Similarly, as ibis pointed out there are belief systems involved.

ibis wrote:

Quote :

If these allegations are true, then it means that Wakefield out-and-out lied in his original work. He has denied this, according to the Sunday Times, but won’t make further comments.

This may cause a firestorm in the antivax community, but there are two things I will guarantee: the first is that in the end antivaxxers will stick to their beliefs that vaccines cause health problems like autism, because this is not and never has been, for them, about the facts and evidence. It’s a belief system, and like most other belief systems, it is impenetrable to evidence. If you have any doubts, I suggest you read the comments to the post I made the other day about measles being on the rise in the UK. One commenter on that post is saying all manners of outrageous things, and ignores the evidence that I (and a pediatrician) have left in the comments to him.

Second, and somewhat related, this hardly matters. Many, many independent tests have shown that vaccines are unrelated to the onset of autism. There is vast evidence that vaccines are very safe, and what small risk they pose is massively outweighed by the good they do. Whether Wakefield faked his results or not, he’s still wrong.

The good news is that if this pans out, then perhaps there will be a net loss of people from the antivax side of the argument. The ones who are true believers won’t waver in their faith, of course, but anyone with doubts may finally see reality for the way it is.

It should be borne in mind, however, that trusting the nice men in white coats is a belief system too.

Quote :

It should be borne in mind, however, that trusting the nice men in white coats is a belief system too.

That is true, of course, and Lord knows the pharmaceutical industry has undue influence over what are, of course, mere fallible mortals. No, it's the size and scope of the conspiracy required, the pointlessness of the conspiracy for many of the identified conspirators, and the undoubted issue (for me personally) that the standards of evidence and argument alike applied by both the anti-fluoriders and the anti-vaccination crew are so appallingly low.

I've had enough of conspiracy theories of world affairs, which are applied willy-nilly by every two-bit nutjob with a faulty cerebellum. Don't like climate change? It's a scam arranged by Al Gore. Creationist? Sure, everyone knows the atheistic evolutionists spend their whole time suppressing the truth. Don't like vaccines? The medical establishment is trying to suppress the truth. Moon landings, the EU army, 9/11, Guidestones, chemtrails, blah blah blah - the theories range in nuttiness, but they all have in common their partial and distorted use of logic and evidence, and this is more of the same. If there's any truth in it, it's by accident, and destroys any hope of rational examination by associating proper scepticism with wild eyed and brainless zealotry.

Now. You've been told.

ibis wrote:

I've had enough of conspiracy theories of world affairs...

How about engaging with the issue then, instead of putting up a smoke screen? Have you examined the evidence against vaccination, and have you examined the evidence in favour of vaccination?

Just to draw things back to the specific questions of MMR & Autism and Wakefield's role in starting a scare, can we all agree that it has been conclusively proven that MMR does not cause autism?

Whether Wakefield acted responsibly or not is to my mind anyway an entirely different question. While I wouldn't rule out a vast conspiracy to discredit him, it does seem rather unlikely to me.

The broader question of the vaccine schedule in general causing autism has not been proved one way or the other yet. The causes of autism are as yet unknown. In at least one case the authorities in the States accepted that the vaccine may have caused a child's autism. It is in this vaccuum parents must make their own decisions. This is to the discredit of the health authorities worldwide. How can parents be blamed when the experts can't provide reliable evidence and advice?

To make vaccines compulsory in this climate in unthinkable. It is interesting to consider that some of the diseases we are now routinely vaccinated against might be relatively harmless, but I don't think this case can be made for Polio or Tetanus or Diptheria.

soubresauts wrote:

ibis wrote:

I've had enough of conspiracy theories of world affairs...

How about engaging with the issue then, instead of putting up a smoke screen? Have you examined the evidence against vaccination, and have you examined the evidence in favour of vaccination?

I have, yes. I've followed the debate and looked at primary sources. Wakefield's original study is almost meaninglessly small, though, and the other studies that are supposed to support the same conclusions are equally small, whereas other larger studies show no effect. I'll reserve judgement on whether Wakefield has actually fabricated evidence until an investigation of the matter is carried out by someone other than a newspaper - Wakefield's results could be an effect of the kind you get in very small studies, but which disappear in larger studies - but I see no reason to dismiss the claim out of hand.

Some explanation might be worthwhile here, since the matter is a lot less than black and white. If vaccines do cause autism, it is at a level that is not statistically significant - and it should be obvious it is impossible to rule out the possibility of such a statistically insignificant connection by carrying out statistical level studies. That does not mean that vaccines are never implicated in autism - it means that they are not meaningfully implicated in it.

To take an analogy - if you died in a car crash that happened because a spider dropped from the roof of your car onto your nose, then spiders were implicated in your death. That doesn't make spiders a meaningful cause of road deaths. It's just something that happened to you - and, in turn, the people calling for the abolition of spiders are making meaningless and silly demands.

coc wrote:

can we all agree that it has been conclusively proven that MMR does not cause autism?

No! As Dr Bernadine Healy said, "You can't say that."

ibis wrote:

If vaccines do cause autism, it is at a level that is not statistically significant.

Again, you can't say that. Well, you can say it, but it doesn't make it true. You don't seem to recognize limitations in those scientific studies.

coc wrote:

To make vaccines compulsory in this climate in unthinkable. It is interesting to consider that some of the diseases we are now routinely vaccinated against might be relatively harmless, but I don't think this case can be made for Polio or Tetanus or Diptheria.

In this climate? So, with climate change you might go along with compulsory vaccination -- children forcibly removed from their parents and injected with all these? You'd need a referendum first; mind you, fluoridation is also unconstitutional, and that didn't stop them.

Polio was practically eradicated by proper sewerage and improved nutrition. The risk in Ireland is negligible. Routine vaccination is a waste of public money.

The risk of Tetanus is negligible. Is there routine vaccination for that? If so, another appalling waste of public money.

Ditto Diphtheria vaccination. A waste of public money.

The BCG vaccination for TB is useless, pointless. A waste of public money.

And so on...

How much money could we save by ending public spending on vaccination? Wouldn't it put us back in the black?

Nobody needs vaccination. Those who want it, let them pay for it.

I know a lot of people, of all ages, who have never been vaccinated. They are the healthiest people I know.

soubresauts wrote:

I know a lot of people, of all ages, who have never been vaccinated. They are the healthiest people I know.

And the children that dies of measles in the UK, soubresauts? Are they healthy too?

I know someone who fell off a bridge who survived fine and my cousin was shot in the head with a high calibre pellet gun and lived to tell the tale. I wouldn't recommend people trying either though.

soubresauts wrote:

coc wrote:

can we all agree that it has been conclusively proven that MMR does not cause autism?

No! As Dr Bernadine Healy said, "You can't say that."

The link you provide is to an article where Dr Healy questions vaccines generally. She does not refute the incontrovertible MMR evidence.

soubresauts wrote:

ibis wrote:

If vaccines do cause autism, it is at a level that is not statistically significant.

Again, you can't say that. Well, you can say it, but it doesn't make it true. You don't seem to recognize limitations in those scientific studies.

I agree with you and Dr Healy here. Since the causes our autism remain unknown. The jury is still out.

soubresauts wrote:

coc wrote:

To make vaccines compulsory in this climate in unthinkable. It is interesting to consider that some of the diseases we are now routinely vaccinated against might be relatively harmless, but I don't think this case can be made for Polio or Tetanus or Diptheria.

In this climate? So, with climate change you might go along with compulsory vaccination -- children forcibly removed from their parents and injected with all these? You'd need a referendum first; mind you, fluoridation is also unconstitutional, and that didn't stop them.

Dr Healy in your above link affirms that vaccines are safe for the vast majority of people. All that is in doubt is whether vulnerable subpopulations exist and if so, how to identify them and exclude them from the vaccination programs. In the climate of that uncertainty it is unthinkable to make vaccines mandatory.

soubresauts wrote:

Polio was practically eradicated by proper sewerage and improved nutrition. The risk in Ireland is negligible. Routine vaccination is a waste of public money.

Assertion as fact without any supporting evidence.

soubresauts wrote:

The risk of Tetanus is negligible. Is there routine vaccination for that? If so, another appalling waste of public money.

You know so little about the subject that you are unaware what vaccines are routinely given? But somehow you know that the risk of Tetanus is neglible? Do a little more research before posting assertion as fact without any supporting evidence.

soubresauts wrote:

Ditto Diphtheria vaccination. A waste of public money.

AAFWASE.

soubresauts wrote:

The BCG vaccination for TB is useless, pointless. A waste of public money.

Ditto. Every town in ireland had a TB hospital in the last century. It was a mass killer. Antibiotic resistant strains are showing up now and it could be a mass killer again. The experience of Cork should be interesting given that they didn't vaccinate against TB for over three decades. Does anyone know if there are stats which show a differential in TB cases in Munster as against the rest of the country as a result of this lapse?

1) Polio is routinely vaccinated against not because of a particularly heighten likelihood of getting it in Ireland but as part of a worldwide eradication scheme which is led by the WHO and began in the early 90s. The aim is to eradicate the disease, which still occurs regularly in parts of the world, in the manner that smallpox was eradicated. You can't exactly have a global initiative if many States opt out of it. Vaccination measures can be both global and local in focus.

2) Tetanus is vaccinated against as a prevantative measure. You may say the chances of getting tetanus are neglible, and that is correct to a point, but it also misses the point. Unlike other things which are vaccinated against, tetanus is not contagious and does not spread. It is however, a serious thing to develop and it is contracted owing to an event happening, i.e. coming into contact with certain antibodies generally following a wound. You can't legislate against people getting wounds so it is natural to vaccinate against it. You can apply the same logic of people being unlikely to contract it to many safety measures such as seatbelts, bicycle helmets, safety goggles and so on.

johnfás wrote:

1) Polio is routinely vaccinated against not because of a particularly heighten likelihood of getting it in Ireland but as part of a worldwide eradication scheme which is led by the WHO and began in the early 90s. The aim is to eradicate the disease, which still occurs regularly in parts of the world, in the manner that smallpox was eradicated. You can't exactly have a global initiative if many States opt out of it. Vaccination measures can be both global and local in focus.

2) Tetanus is vaccinated against as a prevantative measure. You may say the chances of getting tetanus are neglible, and that is correct to a point, but it also misses the point. Unlike other things which are vaccinated against, tetanus is not contagious and does not spread. It is however, a serious thing to develop and it is contracted owing to an event happening, i.e. coming into contact with certain antibodies generally following a wound. You can't legislate against people getting wounds so it is natural to vaccinate against it. You can apply the same logic of people being unlikely to contract it to many safety measures such as seatbelts, bicycle helmets, safety goggles and so on.

Well that's all very neat and tidy for those who choose to see it that way - all neatly boxed off in isolation from lots of other considerations and questions to which the vaccine promoters have no answers - because they havent even started to research them.

Medical science does not yet even fully understand the workings of the immune system. It's quite candid about that. But it's 'certain' nevertheless that vaccines are 'safe'. They have, for example, no idea what the effect is on people vaccinated over successive generations, of the effect on babies feeding from mothers who have been vaccinated while they are receiving vaccines themselves. We do not know what the effect of vaccination may be on people in early stages of undetected cancers or other sorts of disease. What about people who are suffering from vitamin deficencies of one sort or another - even apparently healthy people can be so affected - many western diets are vitamin deficient. We don't know how the adrenal system responds. The nature of the supporting research is so narrow as to be wilfully blind. The arrogance of taking something as vital to our health and survival, evolved over millenia and within 100 years presuming to tinker with it virtually blindfolded and on such a massive scale is beyond belief - a monument to the stupidity and arrogance of humankind.

But there is too much money to be made so common sense and caution are out of the window. Surely the real medical question is what makes the minority susceptible to diseases that most of us fight off with ease? Comprehensive analyses of their state of health, life styles etc would, clinically speaking, be infinitely more useful to us in undersanding these and provide us with a genuine increase in our knowledge of these diseases. First, do no harm is supposed to be the basic principle of medical treatment. It is harmful to put things like mercury and other toxic preservatives into the vulnerable immune system of a baby, especially when the vast majority do not even need this sort of 'protection'. Vaccinations are the product of a woodenly stupid, tunnell visioned patriarchal profession - of men in white coats telling us all what is best for us. You'd think by now, given how often and how spectacularly they have gotten so many things wrong that people would be healthily sceptical about their claims. When are we gong to get out from under the yoke of the daddy-child relationship we have with doctors?

ibis wrote:

soubresauts wrote:

I know a lot of people, of all ages, who have never been vaccinated. They are the healthiest people I know.

And the children that dies of measles in the UK, soubresauts? Are they healthy too?

Children? Healthy? Brian Deer's newspaper, The Sunday Times, reports here:

Quote :

In 2006 a 13-year-old boy from a travelling family living in northwest England became the first person in the UK in 14 years to die from measles.

You are aware that during those 14 years huge numbers of UK children were not vaccinated against measles.

It is reported that there were a few measles fatalities in Ireland since MMR vaccination began. I believe most of them were traveller children.

coc wrote:

... She does not refute the incontrovertible MMR evidence.

There you go again!

Quote :

Dr Healy in your above link affirms that vaccines are safe for the vast majority of people. All that is in doubt is whether vulnerable subpopulations exist and if so, how to identify them and exclude them from the vaccination programs.

No other doubt whatsoever?

Quote :

soubresauts wrote:

Polio was practically eradicated by proper sewerage and improved nutrition. The risk in Ireland is negligible. Routine vaccination is a waste of public money.

Assertion as fact without any supporting evidence.

You only have to look at the national statistics for all developed countries. See how polio rates dropped before vaccination started.

Quote :

AAFWASE.

Does that mean something?

Quote :

Every town in ireland had a TB hospital in the last century. It was a mass killer. Antibiotic resistant strains are showing up now and it could be a mass killer again. The experience of Cork should be interesting given that they didn't vaccinate against TB for over three decades. Does anyone know if there are stats which show a differential in TB cases in Munster as against the rest of the country as a result of this lapse?

It wasn't a lapse. The authorities long ago decided there wasn't much point in routine BCG. When there was a public outcry over the Cork outbreak, they went for BCG again, apparently because they had to be seen to be doing something... BCG is not routine in most of Europe, as far as I know. I wrote about it here. (Note the polio link there.)

Also, you might find this enlightening about TB.

I have an young son. He was due the MMR some weeks ago but my wife and I had concerns about it because of the scare tactics being spread by the likes of Patricia McKenna. So I decided to do some research about the supposed links between MMR and Autism to get an idea about the problem and to decide whether to go ahead or not.

I found that there is absolutely no evidence for any link. There is only one scientific study which has suggested a link, the one by Wakefield, but according to his assistant he made huge mistakes during the experiment. His experiments/ study has been repeated many times, to check, and no link was shown. People like Patricia McKenna talk about other studies but none of these are published (so that they can be checked) or carried out properly.

I decided for my son to be given the MMR and am saddened that people are using this forum to try to confuse people. Children in Ireland have died because their parents listened to the lies being spread by Patrica McKenna and company. As far as I can see McKenna and co. will jump on any bandwagon to try to frighten people and get some publicity for themselves, (see the fluoride in drinking water for another freak crusade by McKenna). But meanwhile their innocent victims are too young to stick up for themselves.

I'm more than a little appalled (if unsurprised) that soubresauts turns out not to know quite basic - and easily discoverable - information about vaccination practices. To assist soubreauts:

Quote :

In 2005, all 25 EU countries, as well as Andorra, Bulgaria, Norway, Romania and Switzerland, participated in a survey on BCG vaccination in children. BCG was recommended nationally for children under 12 months in 12 countries, in older children in five countries and in children at risk (from origin, contact or travel) in 10 countries. Seven countries did not use BCG systematically. Revaccination was practised in four countries. In countries with universal vaccination, BCG coverage was high (83.0% to 99.8%).

Art wrote:

I have an young son. He was due the MMR some weeks ago but my wife and I had concerns about it because of the scare tactics being spread by the likes of Patricia McKenna. So I decided to do some research about the supposed links between MMR and Autism to get an idea about the problem and to decide whether to go ahead or not.

I found that there is absolutely no evidence for any link. There is only one scientific study which has suggested a link, the one by Wakefield, but according to his assistant he made huge mistakes during the experiment. His experiments/ study has been repeated many times, to check, and no link was shown. People like Patricia McKenna talk about other studies but none of these are published (so that they can be checked) or carried out properly.

I decided for my son to be given the MMR and am saddened that people are using this forum to try to confuse people. Children in Ireland have died because their parents listened to the lies being spread by Patrica McKenna and company. As far as I can see McKenna and co. will jump on any bandwagon to try to frighten people and get some publicity for themselves, (see the fluoride in drinking water for another freak crusade by McKenna). But meanwhile their innocent victims are too young to stick up for themselves.

In the end of the day Art, that's what it comes down to. Informed decisions made by informed parents. No more can be expected of anyone. My children got all their shots but over a much longer timeframe than laid out by the schedule as recommended. While I am not qualified to override the assessments of the existing evidence by the authorities I am qualified to notice the absence of research demonstrating the safety of the cumulative effect of such schedules over such a relatively compressed timeframe, especially for subpopulations where a predisposition to problems might be anticipated. I, for one, remain to be convinced.

ibis wrote:

I'm more than a little appalled (if unsurprised) that soubresauts turns out not to know quite basic - and easily discoverable - information about vaccination practices.

Oh, come off it. If you're that concerned, do a little counting. I think it's quite possible that the majority of Europeans have not received the BCG vaccination. BCG is not routine in the U.S. I'm presuming this is more or less accurate.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch... MMR madness continues.

Art wrote:

I have an young son. He was due the MMR some weeks ago but my wife and I had concerns about it because of the scare tactics being spread by the likes of Patricia McKenna.

What scare tactics by Patricia McKenna?

Quote :

People like Patricia McKenna talk about other studies but none of these are published (so that they can be checked) or carried out properly.

What "people like Patricia", and when did they talk about other studies? Can you give any references or quotes?

Quote :

I decided for my son to be given the MMR and am saddened that people are using this forum to try to confuse people.

Are you accusing me of trying to confuse people?

Quote :

Children in Ireland have died because their parents listened to the lies being spread by Patrica McKenna and company.

Any evidence for that?

Quote :

As far as I can see McKenna and co. will jump on any bandwagon to try to frighten people and get some publicity for themselves, (see the fluoride in drinking water for another freak crusade by McKenna).

You mean this? Perhaps you should take it up with the Minister for the Environment.

Art, you're confused, and it's not my fault.

Aside from anything else, if people want to put fluouride in their water let them do it themselves. Those of us who do not want it should not have it forced on us.

There is not a single doctor in the world who will tell you that MMR is completely safe, that there are no worries about it. Their reassurances are based on what they claim are acceptable levels of risk. But they dont even know what that risk is because they have never once done the necessary clinical trials on children who have had adverse reactions. In other words they haven't a clue what they are talking about in many ways.

Aragon wrote:

Aside from anything else, if people want to put fluouride in their water let them do it themselves. Those of us who do not want it should not have it forced on us.

There is not a single doctor in the world who will tell you that MMR is completely safe, that there are no worries about it. Their reassurances are based on what they claim are acceptable levels of risk. But they dont even know what that risk is because they have never once done the necessary clinical trials on children who have had adverse reactions. In other words they haven't a clue what they are talking about in many ways.

You're statistically a lot safer having an MMR than eating an egg - but you're not utterly safe doing either.