Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
Here we go again
- Jan M Perkins (11 March 2005)
-
What does Paul Bellaby mean by "openness"?
- John Stone (11 March 2005)
-
BMJ & BALANCE - AN OPEN LETTER TO THE EDITOR
- Clifford G. Miller (11 March 2005)
-
Thought crimes
- John Stone (12 March 2005)
-
Journalism and MMR
- Brian Deer (13 March 2005)
-
Re: Journalism and MMR
- John Stone (14 March 2005)
-
Re: Journalism and MMR
- Michael D Innis (15 March 2005)
-
MMR, journalists and assumptions.
- Hilary Butler (16 March 2005)
-
Proving the point
- Valerie Iles (17 March 2005)
-
Re: Proving the point
- John Stone (17 March 2005)
-
The MMR Controversy
- Jennifer M Best (17 March 2005)
-
Re: The MMR Controversy
- L. Travis Haws (17 March 2005)
-
Re: MMR, journalists and assumptions.
- Alan Challoner MA (Phil) MChS (17 March 2005)
-
Jennifer Best: "Parents are more likely to know a child with autism than a child who has had measles"
- John Stone (17 March 2005)
-
War with WHO?
- John P Heptonstall (18 March 2005)
-
A DIRECT CHALLENGE TO PAUL BELLABY
- Clifford G Miller (18 March 2005)
-
Re: The MMR Controversy
- Aasa H. Reidak (18 March 2005)
-
MMR Mischief and Journalists - No Scientific facts: Just Personal Attacks
- Clifford G Miller (18 March 2005)
-
Jennifer Best: "Parents are more likely to know a child with autism than a child who has had measles" II
- John Stone (18 March 2005)
-
Simply a concerned parent
- Ian S Barnett (18 March 2005)
-
Re: The MMR Controversy (Jennifer Best)
- John Stone (18 March 2005)
-
What is the point?
- Mark Struthers (18 March 2005)
-
Re: Simply a concerned parent
- Adam Jacobs (19 March 2005)
-
Re: Journalism and MMR: Brain Deer's admission
- John Stone (19 March 2005)
-
Re: Re: Simply a concerned parent
- John Stone (20 March 2005)
-
Re: Re: Journalism, thimerosal and MMR
- Aasa H. Reidak (20 March 2005)
-
Re: Re: Simply a concerned parent
- Alan Challoner MA (Phil) MChS (20 March 2005)
-
What can you believe?
- Mark Struthers (20 March 2005)
-
Science can prove a negative
- Clifford G Miller (20 March 2005)
-
Andrew Wakefield's patent: the story that never was
- John Stone (21 March 2005)
-
The Gaping Hole
- John Stone (22 March 2005)
-
Existing research is revealing and accessible
- Dr Viera Scheibner (24 March 2005)
-
Re: Re: Simply a concerned parent: Parents must do more research
- Dr Viera Scheibner (24 March 2005)
-
British Government advice to ignore severe reactions to MMR: the confidence trick goes on
- John Stone (27 March 2005)
-
If this is a battle...
- John Stone (29 March 2005)
-
Re: British Government advice to ignore severe reactions to MMR: the confidence trick goes on
- L. Travis Haws (13 April 2005)
-
Re: Re: British Government advice to ignore severe reactions to MMR: the confidence trick goes on
- JK Anand (15 April 2005)
-
Vaccines are big business
- Jenny L Robertson (16 April 2005)
-
Re: Vaccines are big business
- John P. Heptonstall (17 April 2005)
-
Re: Vaccines are big business
- Joan Campbell (17 April 2005)
-
Re: Re: British Government advice to ignore severe reactions to MMR: the confidence trick goes on
- L. Travis Haws (22 June 2005)
-
Re: Re: Re: Simply a concerned parent: Parents must do more research
- Laura C Robinson (5 July 2005)
|
|
|||
|
Jan M Perkins, Assistant Professor CMU 48859
Send response to journal:
|
As one who follows the literature in this area with interest, I am constantly astonished at sloppy background research and personal attacks as a means of argument. Paul Bellaby states: "Meanwhile journalists fill the void. They sometimes have more interest in amplifying risk than allaying public anxiety. But Dispatches on Channel 4 television on 19 November 2004 notably chose instead to discredit Wakefield for an interest in marketing a single vaccination for measles.11 This may be a turning point." He is accurate in the statement regarding the journalists' action but should have mentioned that their claims were incorrect. Mr. Wakefield was not attempting to market a single measles vaccine, but was part of a group interested in studying transfer factor. He has also continued to tell parents to vaccinate with current single vaccines. One source of his formal response at the time may be found below. http://www.mmrthequestions.com/AW_statement.htm At the time it was also not difficult to locate actual copies of the critical sections of the patent application - something I chose to do. Given the journalistic errors it is hard to see why we should celebrate the show, and an ironic thing to say given the recent BMJ furore over doctor bashing by journalists. I suppose it depends on which doctor is being bashed, and whether other doctors participate. I have also searched for and read many of the articles written by those on both sides of what should be a scientific debate - which led me to the epidemiological work on wild viral infections in close proximity, and gut pathology. This provides some of the theoretical background to the controversy which gives invaluable insight, and leads directly to concerns with the latest Japanese study - as has been pointed out elsewhere. To spare him any embarassment I must say that Paul Bellaby is not alone in repeating inaccuracies without checking. For several years many medical authorities and public health bodies repeatedly quoted an American video study as proof that there was no such thing as regressive autism. I looked that one up too. It was really a nice, well-done study. Only problem was that the study only had one child whose parents stated there was definitely a regression. The blinded assessors coded that child as normal in first year video tapes. The authors specifically stated in their discussion that with only one child they could not make any statements on regressive autism, but that it was a construct worthy of further investigation. After a few years I guess somebody writing the public health pronouncements actually read the whole study because it quietly disappeared from their statements. With research like that, no wonder the parents who do more reading of the literature in the area than their health care practitioners are skeptical. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Stone, none London
Send response to journal:
|
If we had openness then Andrew Cole's report today of the Japanese study would include an account of Andrew Wakefield's response to it in Red Flags Weekly [1]. If we had openness then Andrew Wakefield and Lisa Blakemore-Brown would have been in the same posts they had in 1998, or enjoyed proper professional advancement. Does anyone seriously think, as things are at present, that if their child suffered an adverse reaction to vaccine the Government and the medical establishment would be on their side? Let us not pretend. [1]Andrew Wakefield and Carol Stott 'Japanese study is the stongest evidence yet for a link between MMR and autism' http://wwww.redflagsweekly.com Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Clifford G. Miller, Lawyer, graduate physicist, former sometime University examining lecturer in law BR3 3LA
Send response to journal:
|
Dear Dr Godlee, I wonder if you would be so kind, in your capacity as the new BMJ editor, as to answer the following queries, especially in the light of the title of the BMJ Editorial this week "Has the UK government lost the battle over MMR?" (1) I appreciate that the BMJ, as the official journal of the BMA, will never be as authoritative as a truly independent journal. However, it is as important for the medical profession as it is for the public that one of the professions' own journals takes pains to publish accurate balanced reports. There appears to be a policy in the BMJ of reporting stories stating there is no MMR/autism link, but never the converse, even when those prior reported stories are shown to be incorrect. I was wondering why that is and whether you have any proposals for dealing with the matter? Another example is that when the BMJ reports on each new MMR epidemiology paper it never seems to mention that the epidemiology is not relevant to the MMR/autism debate. I was wondering whether the BMJ has any proposals to correct this in future? Further, whilst all government epidemiology so far has been shown to be flawed, the BMJ never reports that. I was wondering why this is and whether we are likely to see any change in the future? Further, the public and the profession are constantly being told there is a large body of scientific evidence that shows MMR does not cause autism. A recent example is the statement in the current Nursing Times MMR confidence poll and there are similar examples in the BMJ:- "Despite new and overwhelming evidence that the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine is not linked to autism, public confidence in childhood immunisation is low with take-up rates below recommended levels.However, that general proposition is simply not true, as I set out below. This is not just because epidemiology is only a form of statistics and not a science. Nor is it just because epidemiology is always approximate and error prone. As the new BMJ editor, do you have any proposals for ensuring the BMJ balances statements of such a nature? This is particularly important in the light of comments made to me this week by a well known media medical commentator. It was explained to me that in conversations following a recent lecture to an audience comprising many epidemiologists, the topic of Wakefield was broached and 'there were many heads nodding in agreement' that Wakefield is right. The evidence continues to build to support that proposition and the epidemiology continues to fall but the BMJ reports neither fact. I was wondering why that is? For example, and whilst it is unlikely on current form the BMJ will report the matter, there are fatal flaws in the recent Honda, Rutter et al paper published last week which not only make it wholly invalid, but which are powerful indicators the facts reported support the exact converse proposition, viz that MMR and other vaccinations are a cause of autism. This is apart from the fact this well trumpeted Japanese paper is curiously co-authored by a UK based author and psychiatrist Sir Michael Rutter. Additionally, yet another peer reviewed paper is to be published reporting the replication of the Wakefield findings. Will that be reported in the BMJ? Regarding epidemiology, it is well known:-
How it the BMJ going to handle this matter as the evidence mounts up? I also find it difficult to reconcile with medical ethics the general approach of the medical profession to espouse wholesale vaccination when, as the example of mumps as a generally benign childhood illness shows, this is an unnecessary invasive medical procedure with adverse effects which are not properly understood qualitatively and particularly not quantitatively. The principal beneficiary of mumps vaccination becomes clearer when the phrase 'significant public health burden' is used. Viz, this is a health service cost issue - it being less burdensome to vaccinate than visits to GPs when there are outbreaks. At the same time, we have no long term vaccination safety studies and adverse vaccine reactions seem to largely go unreported by the profession. Concerning postings to Rapid Responses, it has been brought to my attention that the BMJ appears to allow sometimes somewhat Bohemian, sometimes bizarre and often ad hominem postings to personally attack those who attempt, against the odds, to put the facts to the profession. How does the BMJ account for that? Such postings seem to me to be likely to disrupt and devalue the contributions of others to the discussions in point and are likely to deter serious readers from taking any of the postings concerned seriously. I was wondering what action might be taken to address that issue also. I would appreciate your kind attention to these matters, albeit I appreciate you must be busy with your new rôle. Yours sincerely, Clifford G Miller email: bmj050311"insert @ sign"millercompany.demon.co.uk to email replace "insert @ sign" with "@". REFERENCE: 1) BMJ 2005;330:552-553 (12 March), doi:10.1136/bmj.330.7491.552 http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/330/7491/552 Competing interests: Close relative with life threatening food allergy. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Stone, none London N22
Send response to journal:
|
What scientific basis does the predisposition to believe in the safety of vaccination have? Paul Bellaby believes it is safe. If you do not believe it is safe you are likely to be subjected to huge amounts of institutional and social hostility. All this hostility does not make vaccination more safe: it makes it much more dangerous. If the issue of whether it is safe is always met with anger, then whether it is safe or not can never be considered in a rational light. The history of vaccination is littered with unfortunate episodes. What happens when another unfortunate episode is reported? Are the cases looked into? Do the children receive full medical investigation? Are the parents who report reactions listened to with ordinary respect? How, given negative answers can you stop very bad things periodically happening? And will this note, I wonder, be read with respect, or hostility? Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Brian Deer, Journalist London E1 9XW
Send response to journal:
|
From his vantage point as a sociologist, Paul Bellaby concludes that it was largely a failure of communication, notably involving the “mischief” of journalists, which was responsible for allowing an unwarranted scare over the MMR vaccine to unfold since Andrew Wakefield’s Lancet paper of February 1998. Such an opinion may go down well in an academic discipline struggling for relevance, and among the readership of the BMJ. But is it well-founded? If your readers took time to study the Wakefield paper, they will see that its core “finding” and “result” was that in the cases of 12 children with developmental disorders, apparently consecutively and routinely referred to a paediatric gastroenterology department, eight of the parents - two out of three - said words to the effect of: “It was the MMR, doctor.” Further, these parents are reported as saying that developmental disorders set in within two weeks of MMR, with a mean time to onset of just 6.3 days. Were this paper to be telling the whole story - as journalists might, perhaps naively, assume - then surely this was a potential first sign, albeit anecdotal, of what might be a public health catastrophe. I’ve no brief for my media colleagues who stoked the MMR scare - often presenting precisely the same handful of parents in unquestionably tragic “mother and child” vignettes - but it was hardly journalists’ fault if there was no proper analysis of the Lancet paper by people who were qualified to do it. Thus unfolded a situation for parents in which “these people say this, and those people say that.” God only knows how the government was supposed to respond, other than as it did. We now know that some number of the Lancet children’s parents were on a list supplied to the Royal Free by a law firm suing drug firms, that Dr Wakefield had a contract with that law firm, and that, months before the fateful press conference which launched the paper, he filed patent claims for a single measles vaccine and other products which could only have succeeded if MMR was questioned. As Bellaby acknowledges, the findings that may have eventually wrecked the popular case against MMR originated in journalism - specifically my own - and not in medicine. Perhaps people can grasp potential conflicts of interest, where they can’t grasp epidemiology. My best qualification is a BA in philosophy, which is no use to anybody. So my first question of the Wakefield Lancet paper was merely: “Is this too good to be true?” If doctors, and especially the editor of that journal, didn’t do likewise - surely suspecting the effect Wakefield’s claims were likely to have, both on the public and on the Lancet’s impact factor - it was hardly the fault of mere newspaper reporters that the scare took off as it did. Resources on all these points are available at http://briandeer.com/mmr/andrew-wakefield.htm Competing interests: Investigated the MMR scare for The Sunday Times and Channel 4 |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Stone, none London N22
Send response to journal:
|
Even supposing Brian Deer has some technical point about medical ethics, which is very unclear [1], his scorn and contempt for parents who report ADRs (adverse drug reactions) for vaccine products is highly prejudicial. Many parents have reported them who are also not party to any litigation, although the litigation issue seems to me to be a scientific non-sequitur. What ethics are anyhow involved in brow beating parents into silence, and is this not inherently unsafe? He illustrates the perfectly point I was making in my immediately previous post 'Thought crimes'. Thank you, Brian. [1] John Stone:'To spell out the problem' http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/329/7473/1049#83037 Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Michael D Innis, Director Medisets International Home 4575
Send response to journal:
|
Editor, Brian Deer questions the validity of the Wakefield Lancet paper with >Is this too good to be true?< Wakefield’s paper makes perfect sense to some of those acquainted with the pathophysiology of Immune Complex Disease and Brian Deer can be excused for his simple approach. The Yazbak challenge, which addresses the Immune Complex aspect of the debate is yet to be answered by the opponents of Wakefield’s views. The Yazbak challenge[1]: “To prove me wrong ….. show me: ONE normal child who has evidence of both MMR antibody and Myelin Basic Protein auto-antibodies in his serum or his CSF Or ONE child who regressed after MMR vaccination and who does not have one of the following: The gut findings described by Wakefield, a suggestive pattern of urinary polypeptides, elevated serum measles virus antibody, MMR antibody or Myelin Basic Protein auto-antibodies.” JUST ONE NORMAL CHILD with the above mentioned features is all that is required to demolish the Immune Complex theory. Surely this is not beyond the capability of the Medical Research Council if Wakefield is mistaken. Brian Deer says > the findings that may have eventually wrecked the popular case against MMR originated in journalism - specifically my own - and not in medicine. Perhaps people can grasp potential conflicts of interest, where they can’t grasp epidemiology<. Neither Journalism nor Epidemiology have any chance of > wrecking the case against MMR.< As far as I, and some others are concerned, the case against MMR is proven Michael D Innis MBBS; DTM&H; FRCPA; FRCPath Reference: 1. Yazbak F.E A black spot…on a Great Journal Rapid Responses 1st January 2005. Competing interests: As previously declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Hilary Butler, freelance journalist home 1892, New Zealand.
Send response to journal:
|
Dear Sir, Brian Deer is somewhat premature in his assessment, if I am reading him correctly. Underscoring his response, appears to be the assumption that indeed, MMR has been vindicated. Those of us, who have sat, and watched the medical profession through the years, (rather than use it to make dollars for word count), might view it in another perspective. That of history. There is a saying that he who knows nothing of history will repeat its mistakes. I view the MMR issue in the same way as Oliver Wendell Holmes viewed the debate and denial surrounding Semmelweis and Puerperal Fever. But I'd rather let him do the talking. From 1847 - 1882, Dr Oliver Wendell Holmes served as a Professor of Physiology and Anatomy at Harvard University, where he also served as the Dean of the Faculty of Medicine. His lectures had become renowned for his learning, wit, wisdom and progressiveness. By 1843, at the age of thirty four his fame was legion. I have in front of me, two of his papers. The first is "Contagiousness of Puerperal Fever" which was published in the New England Quarterly Journal of Medicine and Surgery, April 1843, which brought the approbrium of his colleagues upon his head. In disgust he wrote a subsequent paper called "Puerperal Fever, A Private Pestilence" which was published in 1855 by Tionnor and Fields, Boston, 1855, which I also have in front of me. Perhaps the British Medical Journal and Brian Deer would be well advised to revise these papers in the light of history. Wisdom sometimes, is the ability to look back and say "Ahah". Those who make judgement based on reputation, and vested interests, not to mention policy or paradigm, may later realise they acted unwisely. BMJ and Brian Deer might also like to review the more recent history and untimely demise of Dr Louis Pillemer; another who suffered Semmelweis's fate, albeit with a twist. The medical profession does not deal kindly, to those who hold strongly to convictions based upon what is later found to be "fact". There is something to be learned from this. I believe Dr Holmes's comments may well apply to the MMR issues as well. Old though they may be: First, from his 1843 paper: >>>>"In the present state of our knowledge upon this point, I should consider such doubts merely as a proof that the sceptic had either not examined the evidence, or, having examined it, refused to accept its plain and unavoidable consequences."<<<< >>>In the last edition of Dewees's Treatise on the Diseases of Females, it is expressly said, 'In this country under no circumstances that puerperal fever has appeared hitherto, does it afford the slightest ground for the belief that it is contagious.' In the "Philadelphia Practice of Midwifery" not one word can be found in the chapter devoted to this desease, which would lead the reader to suspect that the idea of contagion had ever been entertained. It seems proper, therefore , to remind those who are in the habit of referring to these works for guidance, that there may possibly be some sources of danger they have slighted, or omitted..." Now to his paper from 1855, having had his reputation "carted" around the countryside... >>> "..if all the hideous catalogues of cases now accumulated, were fully brought to the knowledge of the public, nothing, since the days of Burke and Hare, has raised such a cry of horror as would be shrieked in the ears of the Profession"<<< >>>> "I am too much in earnest for either humility or vanity, but I do entreat those who hold the keys of life and death, to listen to me also for this once. I ask no personal favor; but I beg to be heard, on behalf of the women whose lives are at stake, until some stronger voice shall plead for them.<<<< >>>Let it be proclaimed as plainly what is to be thought of the teachings of those who sneer at the alleged dangers and scout the very idea of precaution. Let it be remembered that persons are nothing in this matter; better that twenty pamphleteers should be silenced, or as many professors unseated, than that one mother's life should be taken. There is no quarrel here between men, but there is deadly incompatibility and exterminating warfare between doctrines.<<< >>>Why a grand jury should not bring in a bill against a physician who switches off a score of women, one after the other, along his private track, when he knows that there is a black gulf at the end of it, down which they are to plunge.. is more than I can answer. It is not by laying the open draw to providence that he is to escape the charge of manslaughter.<<< >>>In all the series of cases mentioned, the death-carrying attendant was surrounded by others not tracked by disease and its consequences. Which, I would ask, is worst, - to call in another, even a rival practitioner, or to submit an unsuspecting female to a risk which an Insurance Company would have nothing to do with? <<< >>>If I am wrong, let me be put down by such a rebuke as no rash declaimer has received since there has been a public opinion in the medical profession of America. If I am right, let doctrines which lead to professional homicide be no longer taught from the chairs of those two great Institutions. Indifference will not do here. Our Journalists and Committees have no right to take up their pages with minute anatomy and tediously detailed cases, while it is a question whether or not the "black-death" of child-bed is to be scattered broadcast by the agency of the mother's friend and adviser. Let the men who mould opinions look to it; if there is any voluntary blindness, any interested oversight, any culpable negligence, even, in such a matter, and the facts shall reach the public ear; the pestilence- carrier of the lying-in-chamber must look to God for pardon, for man will never forgive him."<<<<< >>>I do not expect ever to return to this subject. There is a point of mental saturation, beyond which argument cannot be forced without breeding impatient, if not harsh feelings, towards those who refuse to be convinced. If I have so far manifested neither, it is well to stop here, and leave the rest to those younger friends who may have more stomach for the dregs of a stale argument<<<< History is repeating itself. Who today, really is interested in what is ruining the lives of so many children, just as in the past, they didn't care for the lives of their mothers? For those who have ears to hear, listen. Sincerely, Hilary Butler. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Valerie Iles, director, really learning N5 2AR
Send response to journal:
|
What a pity that these rapid responses demonstrate so clearly the point Paul Bellaby is making. There is a need for unemotional, succinct, informed discussion that the public can follow, and every time people capable of making that input leave the floor to the kinds of contribution made here then they are allowing the public to think there is no other argument. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Stone, none London N22
Send response to journal:
|
Could we please not have ambiguity here. Is Valerie Iles saying that people like me should be excluded from what has hitherto been an open forum, or is she saying that people should counter our arguments more impressively than they do? I fear that she means the former since all she can manage is the usual ad hominem dismissal, rather than entering into scientific debate. But as with Brian Deer I am grateful to her because she demonstrates my point that institutional hostility to parents - or anyone who presents evidence against vaccine safety - must inevitably skew the evidence base. How can vaccine safety be assured if you treat the patients, or their representives - or dissenting professionals - with this degree of scorn. And how can we be "open" and exclude people at the same time? Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Jennifer M Best, Reader in Virology King's College London, SE1 7EH
Send response to journal:
|
EDITOR. I agree with Paul Bellaby(1) regarding the need for health professionals to promote the MMR vaccine more vigorously. Parents are more likely to know a child with autism than a child who has had measles, and pay more attention to non-professional anti MMR voices than to recommendations from the Department of Health(2). It was Andrew Wakefield’s paper in the Lancet(3) that caused the controversy over the MMR vaccine. Most of the other authors have since retracted their interpretation that MMR might cause bowel disease and autism(4). At a press conference Dr Wakefield, a gastroenterologist, made a seemingly whimsical suggestion that single vaccines might be safer than MMR, without scientific evidence to support this. Evidence has more recently accumulated that Dr Wakefield has a conflict of interest, suggesting that he may have an interest in fuelling the MMR controversy. Six single vaccinations cause unnecessary discomfort for children, if indeed all doses are given. Measles deaths have recently occurred in other European countries with low vaccination coverage. Will we too have to wait until a child dies from measles before parents believe that MMR vaccination is the safest option? Long-term neurological sequelae due to measles occurred in two children with renal transplants during the 2003 measles outbreak in south east England(5). The threat of congenital rubella and the current outbreak of mumps in unvaccinated young adults in the UK add further testimony to the need for a high uptake of MMR vaccination. Let us hope that parents can now be persuaded that the MMR vaccine is safe and that those promoting single vaccines may be motivated by profit. 1. Bellaby P. Has the UK government lost the battle over MMR? BMJ 2005;330:552-3. 2. Offit PA and Coffin SE. Communicating science to the public: MMR vaccine and autism. Vaccine 2003;22:1-6. 3. Wakefield AJ, Murch SH, Anthony A, Linnell J, Casson DM, Malik M et al. Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet 1998;351:637-41. 4. Horton R. The lessons of MMR. Lancet 2004;363:747-50. 5. Kidd IM, Booth CJ, Rigden SPA, Tong CYW, MacMahon EME. Measles- associated encephalitis in children with renal transplants: a predictable effect of waning herd immunity? Lancet 2003;362:832. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
L. Travis Haws, Dentist Lakewood CO 80228
Send response to journal:
|
For Jennifer Best to compare two children with renal transplants (with all the immune suppression steroids etc. following transplantation) and long term neurological sequelae, subsequent to measles, to the herd is beyond any reasoning I can conjure. Are the pro-vaccinators now to the point that they would recommend multiple jabs in patients undergoing organ transplantation? If so, I'm running as far and fast as I can. Let us not forget that there are several others which have documented similar findings as Wakefield. Why is the pro-vaccine lobbies usual response to go after Wakefield. These findings were also discussed (especially regarding myelin basic protein, hemorrhage and demyelination) some 25 plus years ago. I suppose you can only go after Wakefield as you follow the lies that he was only interested in his own vaccine, which by the way consisted of transfer factor to my understanding. Hardly a vaccine as we know them. I never cease to be amazed at the hostility towards Wakefield (and this perceived conflict espoused by Brian Deer) when the pro-vaccine literature is ripe with conflicts of interest. Why do they not receive the same hostility? As well, anyone with abilities to critically analyze these so called studies (which are consistently epidemiological) quickly realize that they are rife with confounding variables and don't come close to supporting the conclusions drawn. As we just recently saw with the newer more "powerful" Japanese version. It appears it actually supported quite the opposite. Countering clinical evidence with epidemiology is like pitting toddler soccer players (epidemiology) against professional soccer players (clinical). Jennifer Best and Bellaby wish "health professionals would promote the MMR vaccine more vigorously". I wish health professionals would promote critical thinking and understanding of literature and viewing of all literature (rather than that espoused by the CDC or FDA or mediatized by the NHS, WHO--i.e. simpsonwood, for example), or vaccine safety, adverse event reporting and considering each child as an individual (prematurity, status of siblings, home environment, illnesses, transplants etc.) well before they would "promote the MMR vaccine more vigorously". It seems I may never see such a day, beyond the few I know who do such. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Alan Challoner MA (Phil) MChS, Retired LL18 5UR
Send response to journal:
|
The government has said that it could not reveal which vaccinations have been involved in cases where payments have been made, under the Vaccine Damage Payments Act, to those disabled by a vaccine. [News, 17 March 2005]1 To my certain knowledge this information is fully recorded. So replace, ‘could not’ with would not. A government website offers the following information 2: You may be able to get a Vaccine Damage Payment if you think your disability was caused by any of these vaccinations: Diphtheria, tetanus and whooping cough (triple) Diphtheria Tetanus Whooping cough Poliomyelitis Measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) Meningitis C (Meningococcal group C) Measles Mumps Rubella (German measles) Tuberculosis (TB) Hib (Haemophilus Influenzae type b). I am also aware that an award has been given to some children who have been affected by MMR because this information has been published at an earlier date. That means of course that the condition of those children would have been recorded and investigated to a high degree of probability. It should be noted that payments are not made under this Act unless the child’s disability is at least 80%. That means the type of disability is known for each child. Why is the government refusing to allow access to this information? We should know if any of the payments have been awarded to children who now suffer from autistic syndrome. I can tell you that in my daughter’s case this is so. 1 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4356027.stm 2 http://www.jobcentreplus.gov.uk/cms.asp?
TextOnly=True&Page=/Home/Customers/WorkingAgeBenefits/503#1
Competing interests: Father of a brain damaged daughter who has autistic syndrome. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Stone, none London N22
Send response to journal:
|
(1) If Jennifer Best has specific evidence of an undisclosed conflict of interest by Andrew Wakefield could she be clear what it is, or was? (2) Andrew Wakefield has dozens of peer reviewed publications to his name, in which he justifies and documents his scientific views. If she has a disagreement with him could she please cite chapter and verse, and explain where he is in error. Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John P Heptonstall, Director of The Morley Acupuncture Clinic and Complementary Therapy Centre Leeds LS27 8EG
Send response to journal:
|
Paul Bellaby uses dramatic language of "war" being fought over MMR vaccination – who is at war, is it UK Government against families, or the WHO, or perhaps the WHO against UK families? He refers to UK citizens as “deviant” – after all UK is people not government – when referring to the UK as the ‘deviant’ case in global MMR policy. But what global MMR policy does he cite, whose global MMR policy? There is no peoples' global consensus on vaccination, let alone MMR, so how can one become “deviant” in that respect? Perhaps he recognises the WHO as forming a global opinion on vaccination – but the WHO is not a body elected by the global public for the global public, it is a private organisation which refers to itself as the “UN’s specialised agency on health” yet it is not part of the UN. It has its own constitution which states that “Article 57 of the UN provides that specialised agencies established by intergovernmental agreement…shall be brought into relationship with the UN”, I repeat “shall be brought into relationship with the UN” as it is no more part of the UN than any other specialised agency without public mandate that seeks to associate with the United Nations. It is neither of the UN, nor voted for by or for the UN, it is a private “specialised agency” over which the UN, therefore the global public, has no control and its constitution states that UN representatives can attend its meeting but have no vote and its members have no power to vote at United Nations meetings they may be allowed to attend (1). So if the WHO is not a body elected by the people for the people how can people become “deviant” of its policies? Perhaps Paul Bellaby, or Valerie Iles, could explain? As a sociologist I would expect Paul Bellaby to have provided a more balanced view of why British families reject the MMR vaccine; clearly evidence suggests that it is not due merely to a “failure of leadership by health professionals, lack of support for them from policy makers (including the PM) and mischief made by journalists” as Bellaby states and I know many UK families who are are sufficiently intellectually gifted and capable of scientifically forming their own opinions on MMR from the available data, perhaps more than Bellaby or Iles would give them credit. They do not restrict their reading to government or industry propaganda fed by oft poorly prepared epidemiological data. Bellaby and Iles also seem oblivious to the importance of studies by scientists such as Wakefield at al, Singh et al or Yazbak et al that provides evidence that MMR vaccination causes ASDs, and severely injures children much more often than health industry, and pro-vaccine, propaganda would have us believe. Why do they not cite the very real reservations UK medical professionals voice about MMR vaccination? For example the Nursing Times 11th March 2005 cites a recent poll showing that 94% of nurses were found to be “still suspicious” of MMR. I know physicians and nurses who are very suspicious of MMR and other vaccines. It is therefore not merely a “failure of leadership” and “media mischief” but a deep mistrust of MMR vaccine, due to evidence of harm, that fires the UK public - which suffers that harm - into rejecting MMR and could be said to be nations that fail to recognise the harm of MMR that are “deviant” - and which could learn from UK families. Bellaby’s opinion on the effects of vaccination ignores history describing the rise and fall of diseases prior to vaccination, the role of sanitation and nutrition that led to the decline of many diseases, and the terrible epidemics seemingly driven by the introduction of vaccines. “Smallpox eradication” is touted as the ultimate vaccine success in support of the ideal of global eradication of disease by vaccination but smallpox never was eradicated by vaccination and evidence suggests that it became a global killer when it’s decline, forecast for the late 1870s, was extended by about a century by mass immunisation. I have no doubt many British parents are aware that their childrens’ health is inextricably linked to that of other nations’ children, and that is why they oppose MMR. If a “war” has been declared on UK families, as Bellaby suggests, one only suspects the WHO as it is the only body claiming some kind of global opinion on vaccination - the UN has no elected body - yet it is the WHO which cajoles nations into injecting toxic mercury into children at dosages from 80 to 100 times the declared maximum daily safety limit (USA/EPA standard), and when they are suspected of succumbing to that poison continues that coercion; it is the WHO also that promotes global use of ineffective (2), potentially deadly (see complete ADR list for flu shots), flu shots containing mercury that is only deemed safe at when a recipient weighs over 250kg/550lbs (3). Perhaps “war” is inevitable – “war” against pseudo-science that is discredited epidemiology still cited by those who ignore reality; and “war” against the manipulation of statistics for commercialism, or with intent to alter history. Perhaps “war” will restore objectivity and integrity in medicine and assist the move towards a truly global representative health body democratically constituted under the United Nations and tasked by the global public to serve and protect all peoples. I would back a “deviant” UK public to win such a “war”. Regards John H. References 1. http://policy.who.int/cgi- bin/om_isapi.dll?hitsperheading=on&infobase=basicdoc&ju… 2. Monday 21st February 2005, telegraph.co.uk, “Flu vaccine not a lifesaver for elderly”. 3. The USA EPA states that the safe daily maximum level of exposure for mercury is 0.1ug per kg and certain vaccines, including flu and DTP, contain 25ug mercury per shot. The lowest weigh one requires to protect against the maximum safe exposure level of 0.1ug/kg is therefore 250kg. A baby of 2 or 3 kg is injected with 25ug of mercury with each shot, which constitutes almost 100 times the EPA safe maximum exposure limit. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Clifford G Miller, Lawyer, graduate physicist & former University examining lecturer in law BR3 3LA
Send response to journal:
|
Dear Sir, TIME FOR OPEN DEBATE ON MMR I entirely agree with Paul Bellaby that openness and communication will 'win' the day. But it will never happen. What you don't know, you cannot be open about and communicate. I challenge him to open communication in debate in these Rapid Responses. I ask him to explain how his theory of open communication will work? It is easy to get a great safety record for anything - just do not count the immediate victims or the long term cost. That is what we are doing with vaccines. Vaccines have no safety monitoring going much beyond a couple of weeks and that is just in trials, so he simply cannot be open and communicate the extent of the cascade of chronic disease caused by vaccination. The Yellow Card Scheme had a Red Card long ago. It does not work. How can the public tell which peer reviewed papers published today contain false information and false conclusions and which ones are reliable? Even if he pulls out half a dozen peer reviewed papers, they will mean little. No one tells the public about any of that but they do grab the headlines first claiming 'No autism MMR/link'. We have already seen paper after paper supporting MMR being discredited one after another- the latest paper from Japan going down in record time - it lasted a mere 24 hours.His problem is he cannot be open about that and communicate it. Government and the medical profession keeps it under wraps. We see the media manipulated with the dissemination of false information which is never corrected. I ask him how long will the news blackout on all of these vaccine damage cases last? When will we see proper debate in the media? The problem MMR damage poses is that it is the thin end of a very large wedge. MMR damage is visible and onset of symptons is relatively rapid. It also causes not just acute but also chronic injury. It points the way to what is really going on. Vaccines are not about saving lives. They are considered a cheap way of 'dealing' with disease. A short term 'quick-fix' and let's not worry about the long-term cost. In this arena there are so many heads in the sand, the view is bums all the way to Brighton. Let us take a long term example: Paul Bellaby needs to answer the question 'how many SV40 virus cancers are there in the population resulting from the indiscriminate use of vaccines containing this carcinogenic monkey virus'? The use of terms such as 'battle', 'war', 'lost' and 'won' are offensive and inappropriate. We are talking of children's lives, the destruction of families and of what should have been happy family life. But I agree, if it is a war - and that is how the establishment have been playing the 'game', let us get the truth out in this one-sided propaganda war. That begs another question for Paul Bellaby to answer. The government, drug companies and professions have thrown substantial resources at covering up MMR damage. The opponents have very little. So how can it be that such a 'battle' is being lost if it is not for the fact that parents on the ground see what is going on in schools with children getting life-threatening food allergies, asthma and autism and schools complaining they do not have the resources to deal with it. Competing interests: Close relative with life threatening food allergy. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Aasa H. Reidak, elementary teacher Toronto M5B 2H9
Send response to journal:
|
I find it interesting that Jennifer M. Best writes: EDITOR. I agree with Paul Bellaby(1) regarding the need for health professionals to promote the MMR vaccine more vigorously. Parents are more likely to know a child with autism than a child who has had measles, and pay more attention to non-professional anti MMR voices than to recommendations from the Department of Health(2). ------------------------------------------ The question in my mind is, that if parents are more likely to know a child with autism than a child who has had the measles, why shouldn't these parents be listening to other "voices" regarding vaccine safety issues,in trying to find out what may be causing or even contributing to their childrens' difficulties? Many of these parents are paying attention NOT to "non-professional anti MMR voices", but to the research of other professionals who have found problems with various vaccines and/or vaccine ingredients. It seems to me, that in the developed world, we have far more children with autism than children suffering serious complications from measles or mumps put together. I would wager that, even cerca 50 years ago, 1 out of 166 children were not succumbing to death or other long-term effects from catching measles or mumps, before the vaccines were available. I attended the same elementary school for 9 years back in those days (in Canada) and most of us ended up getting measles, mumps, and chicken pox. We all survived relatively unscathed by those experiences. Even as youngsters, we knew that having these nuisance diseases was a temporary thing, not much worse than a bad cold or mild flu. If 1 out of 166 children were to suffer ill effects from catching mumps or measles, this could create an uproar among parents, no matter which side of the vaccine camp they were on. Now, why is it that, only the pro-vaccine folks are crying foul when other parents question the vaccines? Measles and mumps are not dread diseases and most kids, if they are relatively healthy, can overcome them relatively easily, even without the vaccines. Yet, if according to the CDC, 1 out of 166 children have autism which can be a lifelong disorder, this does not seem to raise a blip on hardly anyone's radar screen. Something is wrong with this "picture". Competing interests: have children diagnosed with neurological disorders |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Clifford G Miller, Lawyer, graduate physicist, former University examining lecturer in law BR3 3LA
Send response to journal:
|
Dear Editor, The MMR protagonists' entire case remains 'No scientific facts: just personal attacks'. It is because MMR causes autism that government and drug companies avoid using their own standard science and pharmacology. In nearly seven years they still have not done and that says it all. After all, you cannot have your own standard adverse reaction assessment procedures proving the parents have been right all along? That would cost too much money in compensation for the massive harm caused. It is much better to keep on denying for as long as possible as that is much cheaper. It simply does not matter how big the mountain of proof MMR causes autism becomes. It will be denied. Tobacco litigation taught that. There does not seem to be much, if any, evidence still standing to support the proposition 'No MMR/autism link'. Please correct me if you feel I am wrong. Those who still doubt should read 'Evidence suggests MMR and Monovalent Vaccines cause ASDs' (1). The recent Japan study (2) is truly a remarkably helpful document and good evidence. It seems fatally flawed, as it provides powerful evidence for the converse proposition to that the authors claim for it. The Media's Role There has been no 'unwarranted scare over MMR' (3). The only 'failure of communication' (3) has been that busy journalists do not have the luxury of time to get to grips with the issues and understand the technicalities. They skate from one story to the next as fast as possible to hit their copy deadlines. It is not their fault. It is their job and the way things are. If they do hit a hard story, they then have their editors to contend with. There currently is a news blackout in most of the press on reporting MMR stories. I agree there has been “mischief” (3) by responding to the facts and science with ad hominem attacks on the likes of Andrew Wakefield and other researchers who are pinpointing the problems with hard scientific fact. The journalism of 'presenting precisely the same handful of parents in unquestionably tragic “mother and child” vignettes' (3) unfortunately sells newspapers and is easier than dealing with the detailed arguments. The effect was to exclude the reporting of hard fact from the media and demoralised the parents themselves when they so wanted the hard facts to be aired. It is correct that 'it was hardly journalists’ fault if there was no proper analysis of the Lancet paper by people who were qualified to do it' (3). But there is a reason for this and it is wholly wrong to wring ones hands and say 'God only knows how the government was supposed to respond, other than as it did' (3). We know how government should have responded. The fact is it did not because to have done so would have shown not just MMR up in a bad light leading to its withdrawal, but other vaccines also. MMR threatens vaccination programmes worldwide, because to acknowledge its failings will open all the others to scrutiny - and not before time. As the new Editor of this journal noted in a presentation in May last year on the handling of the MMR crisis, that the next MMR could well be DPT. Seven years later and the best the government backed pundits can do is whinge that Wakefield had alleged conflicts of interest, keep silent about the conflicts of interest of all those others who have written papers with funding from vaccine manufacturers and government and ignore the main issue of investigating the damage done by MMR. The old allegation that Wakefield was in it for the money implied by the suggestion he 'filed patent claims for a single measles vaccine and other products which could only have succeeded if MMR was questioned' (3) does not stand up to scrutiny and is in fact completely wrong, as I have previously pointed out in Rapid Responses (4) wholly unchallenged. Not only that, there was no measles vaccine and never had been so why it was suggested publicly that there was is disturbing in view of the total absence of any such product. No explanation has been given for making such an allegation in the light of that. The explanation is still awaited. Even assuming there was any factual basis for that allegation, for anyone to make any money out of a pharmaceutical, they have to have a product ready for market, which takes years. You do not speak out in favour of single vaccines with no ready product to dislodge MMR because all you end up doing, if successful, is hand the vaccine market to the existing manufacturers of single vaccines who do have products ready for the market. If he was in it for the money and if there had been an alleged measles vaccine, which there was not, Wakefield would have needed to keep his mouth shut and not speak up for these children until a viable product existed and a medicines product licence had been granted. That is not an overnight affair. If Wakefield was in it for the money, he would never have spoken out and he would not have stuck to his guns, but would have capitulated like some others have done in the face of intense pressure. Again, total silence greets these points - there is no answer. ___________________________________________________________________ 1) http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/330/7491/558-a#100450 BMJ 16 March 2005 2) "No effect of MMR withdrawal on the incidence of autism: a total population study" Hideo Honda, Yasuo Shimizu, and Michael Rutter Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry (2005), doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.01425 3) Journalism and MMR 13 March 2005 4) 'PATENT ALLEGATIONS PATENTLY FALSE: WHAT C4 & SUNDAY TIMES DIDN'T TELL YOU' 26 Nov 2004 Competing interests: Close relative with life threatening food allergy. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Stone, none London N22
Send response to journal:
|
What Jennifer Best describes is a national (international) emergency. According to a statement by Professor Sir Colin Blakemore, Chief Executive of the Medical Research Council yesterday the MRC "is currently spending around £1.3m a year on autism research" [1]. On the other hand, autism is already a problem which must be costing billions annually. This is not a credible response. [1] 'MRC boosts autism research in National Brain Awareness Week, UK', http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=21391 Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Ian S Barnett, Senior Lecturer in Law; Barrister University of Hertfordshire AL1 3RR
Send response to journal:
|
Dear Sirs I do not have any hidden agendas. I am simply a concerned parent of a 17 month old boy. My wife and I decided in the end to give him single jabs for measles, mumps and rubella. This was due in part to the following: a. the lack of credible research showing there was no link between MMR and autism. Perhaps it's my legal background but studies that state they find no evidence of such a link is not the same as stating there is no link. b. Every time a pro-MMR study is produced the anti-MMR lobby find some fundamental flaw in it. When an anti-MMR study is produced there does not seems to be any publicity given to it. Not being a medical person but a simple lawyer and law lecturer who does one believe? c. My personal concern of putting three virus at once into one child (though I admit again I am not medically qualified). It seems strange to me that if for example, a person has a bad dose of flu, surely the worst thing he needs is to be exposed to another illness at the same time? d. My frustration at Mr Brian Deer's Dispatches programme, (which I was hoping would present a balanced view on the matter); it seemed so biased against Andrew Wakefield it made me even more convinced that the single jabs route was correct. e. In my own place at work two of my lecturer colleagues' children have had serious adverse reactions after the MMR. One of the children becoming autistic. My colleague has no doubts whatsoever that it was the MMR jab and strongly advised me not to have my son vaccinated with the triple jab. These types of stories are being heard about constantly and are not going to go away. We do need proper independent research from persons who are not on either side of the issue. Only then will parental concern be satisfied. Competing interests: Parent of 17 month old boy who is having single jabs |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Stone, none London N22
Send response to journal:
|
I think it is fair to point out, given the nature of Jennifer Best's post that the Division of Immunology, Infection and Inflammatory Diseases (DIIID), Guy's, King's and St Thomas's School of Medicine, has received grants from GlaxoSmithKline and Aventis, defendants in the MMR case [1]. [1] Annual Report p.7: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/medicine/divisions/diiid/DIIIDAnnualReport.pdf Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Mark Struthers, GP Bedfordshire. mark.struthers@which.net
Send response to journal:
|
Jennifer Best hopes that parents can be persuaded that those promoting single vaccines may be motivated by profit. Paul Bellaby believes that the point is proven against Andrew Wakefield and that his journalistic vilification will be the turning point in MMR’s fortunes. Many parents could be persuaded that MMR is safe for most if not all children. Can anyone believe that those promoting the MMR may not be motivated by profits or the loss of them? Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Adam Jacobs, Director Dianthus Medical Limited, London SW19 3TZ
Send response to journal:
|
I have a great deal of sympathy for Ian Barnett's position. Without the training in reading scientific papers and judging their validity or otherwise, it is certainly difficult to know what to believe. Even a great many doctors lack that training, let alone lay people. Allow me to offer some observations on some of the points he raises. a. That's just the way medical research works. This is a big difference between scientific proof and legal proof. If I were accused of burglary, I might be able to prove my innocence if I had a sufficiently robust alibi (although of course I might equally be completely unable to prove my innocence but still be easily acquitted if the prosecution could offer no convincing evidence of my guilt), but in medical research, you can never prove a negative. There is indeed no evidence that proves there is no link between MMR and autism. In much the same way, there is no evidence that proves there is no link between homoeopathy and autism, or between strawberry yoghourts and psychosis, or between consumption of beluga caviar and amputation of the right leg. There have, however, been many studies that have looked for the link between MMR and autism and have failed to find it, which gives some reassurance that either the link doesn't exist, or if it does exist, then it must be very small. b. Well, every time a pro-MMR study is published, the anti-vaccine lobby claim to find a fundamental flaw in it, but that doesn't necessarily mean they have genuinely found one. I agree it's difficult to know who to believe if you don't have sufficient training in appraising medical research to know whether it is the studies themselves or the anti- vaccinationists' criticisms of them which are flawed. You'll find, however, that most experts come down on the side of believing that the overwhelming weight of evidence shows that MMR doesn't cause autism (but it sometimes may not seem that way because the anti-vaccinationists have a tendency to be much more vocal). Medical statisticians generally have considerable expertise in assessing the validity of medical research, and I think you'd be very hard-pressed to find a medical statistician who believes that MMR causes autism. c. If you are worried about exposing your child to 3 viruses, then prepare to be very worried: unless your son lives in a sterile bubble, he will be exposed to a great many more than 3 viruses naturally. d. I can't comment on the accuracy of Brian Deer's programme, as I don't know what the truth about Wakefield is. But I do think that all this talk of conflicts of interest is a bit of a distraction, and would much prefer just to let the research speak for itself. But that, of course, assumes that you know how to appraise the research, which most people don't. Everyone understands conflicts of interest, so that tends to receive more prominence—from both sides of the argument—than it merits. e. How does your colleague know it was the MMR jab? Autism is often diagnosed at around the same age that the MMR jab is given, so it is inevitable that many cases of autism will be diagnosed shortly after MMR. That doesn't mean MMR is the cause. Competing interests: Paid stooge of the evil pharmaceutical companies, relentlessly pursuing a goal of global domination. Oh, and I'm a medical statistician. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Stone, none London N22
Send response to journal:
|
Very interesting that Brian Deer admits above that he is out of his depth on the scientific issues. He could not call the science himself, but is prepared to write and speak prejudicially against it. Given that his claims of unthethical behaviour by Andrew Wakefield are tenuous and flawed [1,2,3,4] and he has yet to say anything about these criticisms, why is it that the medical establishment and the British Government have been reduced to attacking Wakefield's reputation through Deer's agency? They never discuss Andrew Wakefield's whole scientific record or his recent publications: they always go back to re-interpreting the events of 1998. [1] John Stone: 'MMR - SCIENCE AND FICTION: the Richard Horton story I-VI' http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/328/7438/528/#75516 and following. [2] John Stone: 'To spell out the problem' http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/329/7473/1049#83037 [3] John Stone: '"The confusion": Richard Horton - a remarkably frank passage' http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/329/7473/1049#83447 [4] See above Clifford Miller: 'MMR Mischief and Journalists - No Scientific Facts: Just Personal Attacks" Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Stone, none London N22
Send response to journal:
|
For once I find myself agreeing with a statement of Adam Jacobs: "There is indeed no evidence that proves there is no link between MMR and autism" though he will do himself little good with the flippant comparisons which follow, just as he did himself little good in an exchange last year with Carol Johnston when he adopted a similar tone [1]. Adam Jacobs made numerous attempts last year in Rapid Responses to defend the honour of the official epidemiology of vaccine and autism, and how well he succeeded can be found under these links: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/328/7442/773 http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/325/7373/1134/a http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/329/7466/588-b http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/329/7467/642 Adam Jacob's declaration of interest is also somewhat incomplete. He mentioned in a post last week on the subject of St John's Wort and paroxetine that his "company had provided consultancy services to GlaxoSmithKline, although not on any projects relating to paroxetine" [2]. On this occasion he does not mention the specific association with this MMR manufacturer and recent defendant in the MMR case, nor does he say whether he has worked on any projects relating to MMR or not. His company has also provided services to at least one other MMR manufacturer, Aventis Pasteur [3], another defendant in the MMR case. He has recently abandoned a career as a medical ghost writer [4]. [1] http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/328/7442/773#61818 and following. [2] http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/330/7490/503#99840 [3]http://www.jpands.org/vol9no4/correspondence.pdf [4]http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/330/7484/163#93918 Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Aasa H. Reidak, elementary teacher Toronto M5B 2H9
Send response to journal:
|
Last month, NBC and MSNBC (in the States) ran a series of shows dealing with autism. Apparently, one of the "head honchos" at NBC recently found out that he has a grandson diagnosed with autism and wanted his network to promote greater awareness of this disorder. That in itself is well and fine but criticism of NBC's spin on autism was fast to surface soon after the airing of the shows. The problem was not so much what they did broadcast but what they "left out". They did promote more awareness of autistic spectrum disorder but they did little to address the concerns of those who believe that vaccines play a part in the development of neurological disorders such as ASD. NBC interviewed Dr. Boyd Haley, a leading American mercury scientist for four hours but did not include any information they gleaned from him into any of their programs. They interviewed David Kirby, a journalist, who is the author of "Evidence of Harm" for cerca one hour but only included an innocuous five-second snippet of one of his comments which did not in any way represent his ideas about the role that vaccines may play in ASD. They also interviewed Dr. Richard Deth, who has had a study published in the last year on how thimerosal may cause damage in the brain but his thoughts were also kept from the NBC audience. Thanks to Autism One Radio, these researchers and others, who were interviewed by NBC have another venue to air their thoughts about the NBC programs and about the "editing" or "censoring" of their own interviews. This Autism One Radio Special occurred on March 17, 2005 from 12:30 to 4:30 pm. Luckily, the broadcast is archived, so it can be accessed relatively easily. To make it more easily accessible to the readers here, I'll provide the link to the broadcast below. Aasa Reidak http://autismone.org/radio/default.cfm?archive=178 Competing interests: have children diagnosed with neurological disorders |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Alan Challoner MA (Phil) MChS, Retired LL18 5UR
Send response to journal:
|
Adam Jacobs, Director of Dianthus Medical Limited, offers observations [1] in his response to Ian Barnett's letter. [2] One observation is, “c. If you are worried about exposing your child to 3 viruses, then prepare to be very worried: unless your son lives in a sterile bubble, he will be exposed to a great many more than 3 viruses naturally.” Well of course he will, Mr. Jacobs, but there is a difference between “being exposed” in the sense that I believe you infer, and having the virus (and other substances) injected into the body with a possibility of it reaching the child’s brain. [1] http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters/330/7491/552#100848 [2] http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters/330/7491/552#100748 Competing interests: Father of a brain damaged daughter who has autistic syndrome. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Mark Struthers, General Practitioner HMP Bedford
Send response to journal:
|
The ‘Daily Mail’ printed the following letter at the beginning of this year. * * * * * * * DAILY MAIL LETTERS – 3rd January 2005 Vaccine’s legacy of misery DR DAVID PUGH has been given a nine-month jail sentence for malpractice at his single-jab clinics (Mail). My granddaughter Bethany (pictured) has been given a life sentence. Bethany and a boy from Yorkshire whom I managed to trace both had the single measles jab with the same vaccine batch number on the same morning at Pugh’s Sheffield clinic in May 2001. At about that time, Drs Eardley and Waldron were reporting Pugh for his malpractice and they subsequently won their case against him. Both of these children are now autistic. Bethany, who was perfect before - talking, interacting and reaching all her milestones - changed after that one jab and is now severely autistic. Now five years old, she hasn’t spoken since the jab, is still in nappies, sits up all night rocking and displays all the many other distressing factors that go with autism. Hers has been a heartbreaking journey which has affected our whole family. We are having to raise money to continue with new therapies for Bethany to try to bring her back to us as God gave her to us. Many very special, kind people have volunteered to help us, both in raising money and in administering the therapy to Bethany. Mrs M. GRIFFITHS, Walsall, Staffs. * * * * * * If you can believe it, this letter is a very interesting one. It presumes, I believe, to malign Dr Pugh and with it the administration of single vaccines, particularly the measles one. Dr David Pugh is a doctor with a long-standing interest in the autistic spectrum disorder. He used to run single vaccine clinics in Elstree and Sheffield to provide a choice and meet the demand from concerned parents like Ian Barnett. He pleaded guilty at Cambridge Crown Court to falsifying children’s antibody tests and just before Christmas was sent to HMP Bedford to serve a nine-month prison sentence. There were whimsical suggestions (not tested in court) that his vaccines were somehow tainted and ineffective because they were not injected immediately after mixing in the clinic. The vaccine efficacy has been tested – independently – and found effective - but no one is listening and no one believes someone with a criminal conviction of course. We are told that MMR is safe and that there is no evidence to link it to autism. Some people struggle to believe it. However, Mrs Griffiths thinks measles vaccine is unsafe and blames Dr Pugh for Bethany’s autistic disorder (and the boy from Yorkshire too). Mrs Griffiths is simply a concerned grandparent from Walsall and we’re not sure if we can believe her. If we are to believe that the measles jab is now unsafe and may cause autism as well, it is difficult to believe that the three in one vaccine (including measles) is off the hook on safety, autism included. I also can’t believe that a doctor would plead guilty to a crime that hadn’t happened. With his experience of the law and as a Barrister and lecturer, does Ian Barnett believe it possible? From working within the system, does Ian Barnett believe in the safety of British justice anymore? I believe the war is lost but that the battle is not yet over. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Clifford G Miller, Lawyer, graduate physicist, former examining Univerisity lecturer in law BR3 3LA
Send response to journal:
|
Dear Sir, SCIENCE CAN PROVE A NEGATIVE What Mr Jacobs says (1) could mislead my fellow lawyer Ian Barnett (2). Regrettably, and with my respects to him, but Mr Jacobs has got it wrong yet again. He claims 'in medical research, you can never prove a negative'. If scientific method is applied to medical research, science can prove a negative in more than one way. We can also establish that MMR vaccine causes autism, and that has been done (3). Therein lies the problem for the pro-MMR camp and why they fall back on regrettably inaccurate epidemiology which proves nothing, as Mr Jacobs so readily agrees (1):- 'There is indeed no evidence that proves
there is no link between MMR and autism.'
What has been produced so far is so inaccurate that it is shameful and that is before taking into consideration all of the detailed criticisms of the papers produced, which criticisms can be read elsewhere. Standard procedures for the assessment of adverse drug reactions are well established and applied worldwide (except by our government when it comes to the MMR Children). Government, pharmaceutical companies and the medical professional hierarchy will not accept that evidence, despite it being obtained by the application of their own well-established standard procedures and science which they also refuse to apply. 'Dechallenge' and 'Rechallenge' are significant parts of those procedures and science. Mr Barnett will easily understand what powerful evidence of causation a 'dechallenge' case series is if he considers by analogy the famous case of R v Smith, better known to the public as 'The Brides in the Bath' case (4). R v Smith is one of the leading cases on similar fact evidence and is applicable by very close analogy to a 'dechallenge' case series. What is particularly striking is that proof by dechallenge requires only three well documented cases of positive dechallenge. What is also striking is the high standard of proof it affords. Similar fact evidence is proof beyond reasonable doubt, so this will demonstrate to the non-scientist why dechallenge is so powerful. 'Dechallenge' sounds fancy but its essence is simple if we strip away the embellishments. The drug is administered (challenge). The subject suffers a reaction. The drug is no longer administered - the subject recovers. With only three well documented cases of positive dechallenge, causation can be established. A simple search through numerous medical journals will show this is well-known in pharmacological research, but it is sometimes not so well-known to clinicians. More interestingly, whilst dechallenge is powerful in its own right, an even more powerful proof of causation is positive well documented rechallenge. Only one case of positive rechallenge establishes causation. Rechallenge is where the drug is readministered and the subject suffers the reaction again. Rechallenge was not a feature of R v Smith. It is not a simple matter nor was it necessary, after having succeeded, to murder the same person twice. In the ‘brides in the bath’ case, the defendant was accused of one murder but evidence was offered of two more. The admission of this evidence followed similarly from the improbability that three different women with whom he had gone through a form of marriage, and who had made financial arrangements from which he would benefit, had all drowned in the bath by accident shortly afterwards. There was no direct evidence the accused committed the murder charged, but similar fact evidence proved it causally to the high criminal standard of proof. Similar fact evidence is evidence of such similar and unique prior behaviour of the accused, that it is proof of guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. This is exactly the same with MMR where no one has seen the 'murder' being committed by MMR but whilst everyone is trying to find the murder weapon in MMR's 'hands', dechallenge and rechallenge is the scientific pharmacological equivalent of 'similar fact evidence' as proof of causation and notably, the criminal standard of proof 'beyond reasonable doubt' is analogous to the very high scientific standard. Notably, in the brides in the bath case, not unsurprisingly, there was no rechallenge (ie. 'brides in the bath' was dechallenge only) and it is not strictly dechallenge because it is impossible to 'undrown' the brides in the cases in question. However, we do know that anyone can recover from drowning if rescued and resuccitated in time, so it is not essential in this particular example - we know full recovery was possible. Further, there were three examples just like a dechallenge case series which requires only three well documented case histories to prove an adverse event was an adverse drug reaction. 'similar fact evidence' is an exception to the rule that such evidence cannot normally be adduced in a criminal trial. It is not evidence that is directed to proving the specific offence charged. It relates to other offences beyond the scope of the trial. Hence it is normally excluded as it would have a prejudicial effect that outweighs it probative value for the specific offence charged. In Mr Jacobs' example, it would not normally be relevant to prove he committed this particular burglary that he had committed 20 prior burglaries but it would most likely be prejudical to a fair trial and outcome. So, what did happen when a rechallenge case series was presented to the authorities? Andrew Wakefield presented a case series in 2001 to the IoM Immunisation Safety Review Committee. He is quoted (5) relating:- '... they became anxious and agitated. They
then asked for the data to be provided to their closed session the
following day. .... Yet they didn’t mention the relevant parts of any
of my testimony or data in the final report. .......
...... I raised this
issue at the second congressional hearing on autism and vaccines in
front of Marie McCormack, Chair of the Institute of Medicine’s
Immunization Safety Review Committee. Representative Dan Burton
told Dr. McCormack that they needed the transcript from that closed
session. She explained that it was not their policy to release
transcripts. He said in his own idiosyncratic style that they
would then be subpoenaed, though he put it more forcefully than that.
So, they were subpoenaed and the tapes were sent.
They just happened to be blank. These were
copies of the original tapes, so Representative Burton said, “Okay,
then in that case we will have the original tapes.” So they requested
the original tapes—and they were blank as well."
As for Mr Jacobs further points, these are argument without substantiation and substance. I would suggest that others might wish to post weblinks to the commentaries which pull to pieces the epidemiology so that Mr Barnett and any other interested parties can read them and see how flawed the government position is. Mr Jacobs had a go himself at defending the Madsen paper, when even Madsen did not bother (no doubt Madsen realising it is a completely lost cause, but not before grabbing the headlines first). Mr Jacobs' points, the sole defence of Madsen appearing the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons late last year, did not survive criticism, sad to say. They ended up the same way as did the paper he was attempting to defend. That's statistics for you - its all a game of chance. Email: bmj050319"replace 'at' sign"millercompany.demon.co.uk to email replace "replace 'at' sign" with '@' _____________________________________________________________ 1) Adam's Reply Re: Simply a concerned parent 19 March 2005 2) Simply a concerned parent 18 March 2005 3) See text to footnote 5) 4) R v Smith, 1915, (11 Cr App R, 229) 5) P.7 ‘Autism and the MMR Vaccine - An interview with Andrew Wakefield, MD’ - Fall 2001 - http://www.autismcanada.org/News/wakefield_autism4.pdf Competing interests: Close relative with life threatening food allergy |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Stone, none London N22
Send response to journal:
|
Brian Deer gave the game away at the beginning in the Sunday Times stating: "While Wakefield was under no legal or professional obligation to disclose the patent, campaigners believe his attack on MMR may have been viewed differently had it been known." [1] However, "the campaigners" are not identified. Despite this there is a link to the story on a Government website with the apparently stronger claim: 'Doctor whose work provoked a worldwide scare over MMR failed to reveal that he was developing his own commercial rival to the vaccine.' [2] This in itself may be being deliberately misleading. It does not say that Wakefield was developing a commercial rival vaccine, only that he failed to reveal that he was (which is not surprising if he wasn't). Paul Bellaby drew comfort from the Dispatches programme but it is disquieting that a political class should resort to such tactics. Even if we disregard the specific issue under consideration we ought to be scared and mistrustful of a culture in which this is acceptable. Time to pull back from the edge. [1] Brian Deer, 'MMR scare doctor planned rival vaccine' 14 November 2004, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-1358605,00.html [2] http://www.mmrthefacts.nhs.uk/php?keywords=Brian+Deer (The website, however, seems to be feature Deer less than formerly.) Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Stone, none London N22
Send response to journal:
|
It would be interesting to ask Paul Bellaby, in the light of all that has been said here, what there is to be salvaged in the way of credibility for the Government's vaccine programme. We might even ask him what he believes he personally has to bring to it. I would also like to know why he - as a competent social policy adviser - has leapt, apparently uncritically, at the allegations of Brian Deer. I think this is a very sorry business, and the sooner the professionals recognise that they have failed partly because the products are not demonstrably safe, partly because there are thousands of autistic children they cannot explain away, but most of all because they have a patronising and insulting attitude to the general public, the better. What is happening turns my stomach not only because of the wrecked lives, but because of the political and socially corrosive effect of this culture, and the fact that no one will stand up in the wider public domain and say anything. Betrayals and semi-truths are everywhere, and it is destroying society. I am sure a lot of this was well meant, but it has all gone horribly wrong and it is time to start again and really learn. Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Dr Viera Scheibner, Principle Research Scientist (Retired) Blackheath, NSW 2785 Australia
Send response to journal:
|
Professor Bellaby, Brian Deer, Valerie Iles, Jennifer M. Best would benefit from the study of the existing orthodox medical research which has demonstrated major problems with eradication of measles, mumps and rubella with either individual or 3 in one (MMR) vaccines. I will quote just a few examples to document my point. Baratta RO et al. (1970) [“Measles (rubeola) in previously immunized children”. Pediatrics; 46: 397-402]: “Within a 3-month countywide epidemic of measles in Jacksonville, Florida, 28 cases occurring among a kindergarten enrollment of 145 were carefully studied since 23 of these children had been previously immunized with a live, attenuated measles virus vaccine and immune globulin. Nineteen children had been vaccinated prior to their first birthday. Six children were vaccinated at 13 to 20 months of age… A review of the clinical illness of the 25 children who had been given the vaccine and 22 who had not revealed little difference in the severity of the disease.” Lerman SJ, and Gold E. (1971) [“Measles in children previously vaccinated against measles”. JAMA 216: 1311-1314.]: “An outbreak of measles (rubeola) occurred in a city in northeastern Ohio between January and June 1969, involving 14 children previously inoculated with live attenuated measles virus vaccine and 46 unvaccinated children… Lack of initial seroconversion is the most likely cause of these vaccine failures and deterioration of vaccine infectivity during storage is proposed as the probable explanation”. Cherry JD et al. (1972) [“Urban measles in the vaccine era: a clinical, epidemiologic, and serologic study”. J Pediatrics; 81(2): 217- 230]: “A measles epidemic, during which 130 children were hospitalized and six died, occurred in St Louis City and County during 1970 to 1971. A survey revealed an attack rate of 1.7 per cent in children vaccinated after one year of age, but 6.3 per cent for children immunized before one year. Measles attack rates in vaccinated were independent for time elapsed since immunization. Serum from 8 to 15 children with modified measles had no reduction in acute measles hemagglutination-inhibiting antibody titer after treatment with 2-mercaptoethanol. Twelve children had “atypical measles” but six of them had received only live vaccine. Ten per cent of 248 immunized children had hemagglutination-inhibiting titers of less than 5. Twenty-four cases of measles occurred in a school in which 89 per cent of children were immunized or had had natural disease; 19 of these cases were vaccine failures. Vaccine failure contributed significantly to the propagation of this epidemic.” Welliver et al. (1977) [“Typical, modified, and atypical measles”(Arch int Med: 137: 39-41)]: “A small outbreak of measles that occurred in August and September 1975 was studied. One adolescent boy who has received killed measles vaccine 12 years previously had atypical measles, a 31-year-old woman had typical primary measles, and two other boys with measles were live vaccine failures. Of these latter cases, clinical and serologic findings suggest that one boy had primary vaccine failure and the other may have had a secondary immunologic response. The findings of this study, as well as the results of other recent investigations, suggest that measles will be of increasing concern for the internist”. Chatterji M and Manked V. 1977: [“Failure of attenuated viral vaccine in prevention of atypical measles”. JAMA; 238(24): 2635] wrote: “Atypical illness on exposure to wild measles virus has been described in children previously immunized with inactivated measles vaccine as well as in children who received one dose of 1ive vaccine shortly after receiving killed vaccines ( KKL group). The Academy of Pediatrics, however, recommends administration of live attenuated measles vaccine in children immunized previously with killed vaccine to prevent atypical illness on exposure to wild virus. We report the case of a child in whom atypical measles developed despite the fact that she had received live vaccine several years after receiving killed vaccine.” Nknowane BM et al. (1987) [“Measles outbreak in a vaccinated school population: epidemiology, chains of transmission and the role of vaccine failure”: Am J Pub Health;77:434-438]: An outbreak of measles occurred in a high school with documented vaccination level of 98 per cent. Nineteen (70 per cent) of the cases were students who had histories of measles vaccination at 12 months of age or older and are therefore considered vaccine failures. Persons who were unimmunized or immunized at less than 12 months of age had substantially higher attack rates compared to those immunized on or after 12 months of age. Vaccine failures among apparently adequately vaccinated individuals were sources of infection for at least 48 per cent of the cases in the outbreak. There was no evidence to suggest that waning immunity was a contributing factor among the vaccine failures. The Amish, a religious group living right across the United States, claim religious exemption to vaccination. Between 1970 and 1987 the Amish did not report a single case or measles. This was also the time when the well-vaccinated outside communities claimed success of vaccination by reducing measles numbers, even though regular two-three yearly epidemics continued to occur in the highly vaccinated populations. In 1982, the well -vaccinated outside communities started experiencing huge measles epidemics, while the unvaccinated Amish reported a large epidemic at the end of 1987 (Sutter RW et al. 1991) [“Measles among the Amish: a comparative study of measles severity in primary and secondary cases in households.” J infect Diseases; 163: 12-16]. It is obvious to me that vaccination kept measles alive. Gustafson et al. (1987) [“Measles outbreak in a fully immunized secondary-school population”, NEJM; 3216: 771-774]: “An outbreak of measles occurred among adolescents in Corpus Christi, Texas, in the spring of 1985, even though vaccination requirements for school attendance had been thoroughly enforced… We conclude that outbreaks of measles can occur in secondary schools, even when more than 99 percent of the students have been vaccinated and more than 95 percent are immune.” Agocs et al. (1992) [“The 1988-1999 measles epidemic in Hungary: assessment of vaccine failure”. International J Epidemiology; 21(5): 1007- 1013]: “A large nationwide measles epidemic occurred in Hungary during 1988- 1989 despite prior administration of the live, attenuated Leningrad-16 (L- 16) measles vaccine to over 93% of people born during 1970-1973 and over 98% born since 1973.” Cheek et al. (1995) [“Mumps outbreak in a highly vaccinated school population”. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med; 149: 774-778]: “Between October 3 and November 23, 1990, clinical mumps developed in 54 students (attack rate, 18%, 53 of whom had been vaccinated)”. Hennessey et al. (1999) [Measles epidemic in Romania. 1996-1998: Assessment of vaccine effectiveness by case-control and cohort studies” Am J Epidemiology; 150(11): 1250-1257)]: Figure 3 in this article is showing the age distribution of measles with the highest incidence within the first year of life (indicating lack of transplacentally-transmitted immunity), with the low incidence between 3-9 years (when it is the highest in communities with normal immune system) and the increased incidence between 10-16 years (when, again, the incidence should be the lowest). Notes on “herd immunity”. Schlenker et al. (1992) [“Measles herd immunity. The association of attack rates with immunization rates in preschool children”. JAMA; 267:823 -826]: “Modest improvements in low levels of immunization coverage among 2- year olds confer substantial protection against measles outbreaks. Coverage of 80% or less may be sufficient to prevent sustained measles outbreaks in an urban community.” * * * * * The term ‘herd immunity’ was coined by Hedrich in 1933 (“Estimates of the child population susceptible to measles, 1900-1931” Am J Hyg,17:613- 630); he studied the dynamics of measles outbreaks in the Boston area between 1900 and 1930 and established that when 68% of susceptible children get measles, the outbreaks stop until there are again 68% of susceptibles. So, if vaccine is as effective as natural immunity achieved by going through measles disease, then 68% vaccination compliance should stop epidemics. However, even 100% vaccination coverage does not stop epidemics occurring. Considering the Amish experience of no outbreaks in 18 years while the outside well-vaccinated population experienced regular 2-3 year outbreaks, then vaccination actually causes outbreaks. Just as in the case of whooping cough, measles vaccination is instrumental in damaging the transplacentally-transmitted immunity and pushing the age of measles into very young babies and into teenage. This has been documented in the USA and other countries, such as Romania (see above). Notes on measles as ”a deadly disease”, or is it? Is measles really such a deadly disease as painted by provaccinators? If a child dies from measles (or any other natural infectious disease), the whole medical history must be looked at. Previous vaccines of any kind weaken the immune system and such children have problems going through even such innocuous infectious diseases as measles and chickenpox . It is the deranged host response and not the viciousness of the measles virus. Mismanagement also must be considered: suppressing fever and the administration of antibiotics are not only ineffective and counterproductive, but also dangerous. Fever is a healing process and its suppression stops the healing process; even death may follow. Perhaps I will conclude by quoting the letter written in 1712 by Princess Elizabeth Charlotte (Liselotte) von Pfalz, Duchess of Orleans and widow of the younger brother of Louis XIV: “Our misfortune continues. The doctors have made the same mistake treating the little Dauphin as they did ministering to his mother, the Dauphiness. When the child was quite red from the rash and perspired profusely, they [the doctors] performed phlebotomy and administered strong emetics; the child died during these operations. Everybody knows that the doctors caused the death of the Dauphin since his little brother who had the same sickness was hidden away from the physicians who were busy with his older brother, by the young maids, who have give him a little wine with biscuits. Yesterday when the child had high fever, they wanted also to perform phlebotomy but his 2 governesses were firmly opposed to the idea and, instead, kept the child warm. This one also would have certainly died if the doctors had had their way. I do not understand why they don’t learn by experience. Had they no heart, when they saw the Dauphiness died after phlebotomy and emetics, not to dispose of her child.” I have a strong suspicion that they indeed haven’t learnt much about Nature since 1712, especially those pushing vaccines despite their uselessness and dangers. Infectious diseases are beneficial for children by priming and maturing the immune system and representing developmental milestones. These days medicos may throw big words in the air, and hide behind technology while they may only be showing an embarrassing ignorance and unprofessionality. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Dr Viera Scheibner, Provision of vaccination information service Blackheath, NSW 2785 Australia
Send response to journal:
|
There is plenty of credible research showing the dangers and ineffectiveness of both MMR AND the M M R! Most people just don’t know about it. Ian Barnett has described himself as simply a concerned parent of a 17 month old boy. But what is the concern about? a. Even if there were no credible research showing there is no link between MMR and autism then simple prudence would indicate caution before deciding to give M M R to one’s child, particularly since vaccination is not mandatory in the UK. As I pointed it out in my previous response of 19 March, Nature does not think in concepts as humans do, it acts upon facts: measles vaccine is measles vaccine is measles vaccine, whether given individually or together with other components. b. Who to believe? Follow the money and a very possible flak: vaccinators make money for the producers of vaccines (and some for themselves) besides earning praise and kudos. In contrast to this, those against vaccination mostly spend their own meagre resources conducting a much needed information campaign to warn parents of dangers of vaccines, risking that they may incur the wrath of those who support vaccination. Just look at what happened to Dr Wakefield who truthfully reported on the link between MMR and autism, even though he and his co-authors published that they do not claim that their research shows the causal link: in reality it does. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to see that the vaccine-modified measles virus has no business to be anywhere in the body and particularly in the diseased part of the victims’ gut, and, if it is there then it is up to no good. Most people would not put their carriers and reputation on the line for other peoples‘ children (but I bet Dr Wakefield sleeps better). Interestingly, it did not help Dr Wakefield and others even remotely critical of vaccines to emphasise that they are not against vaccination, that they just want better vaccines or some such feeble concessions to the system. It shows the validity of such sayings as “try to please the devil and he will repay you the only way he can - by giving you hell.” c. Ian Barnett did in fact put three viruses into his child’s body, but more important was the route of entry – by injection. We have the skin to protect us against the entry of microorganisms and toxins. Injections puncture the skin and give harmful microorganisms and toxins direct access to vital organs. Injected material can stay in the body and slowly continue to erode the vital functions, especially the immune system. d. I struggle to see how a biased TV program would convince anybody that individually M M R are safe. As I wrote above, Nature does not think in concepts (only human species does, to its detriment): MMR or M M R has the same effect - sensitising (making more susceptible) the recipient to the diseases which the vaccines are supposed to prevent and generally weakening the immune system. Moreover, and most importantly, infectious diseases are beneficial for children by priming and maturing the immune system and representing developmental milestones. There is plenty of published orthodox medical research demonstrating such benefits. Lancet (5 Jan 1985: l-5) published an article by Ronne who reported on research done in Denmark, aptly titled “Measles infection without rash in childhood is related to disease in adult life”. Ronne traced 930 individuals from the Central Population Register in Denmark. Of these, 71% responded to a questionnaire; the final group comprised 252 individuals with a negative history of measles. Of these, 60 (24%) had seventy three non-measles associated diagnoses. Of 230 controls, eleven had non-measles associated diagnoses.” This is an increase of at least 5 times, or 500%. Those who did not have measles, or did not develop a proper rash were the ones with a much higher incidence of degenerative diseases of bone and cartilage, sebaceous skin disease, certain tumours and immunoreactive diseases. These were just the diseases they looked into. There are other benefits of having measles, for instance being instrumental in proper speech development and psychological maturing. Measles vaccine, whether given individually or together with other components, such as MMR, or MR, causes damage in exactly those areas where the natural diseases result in benefit. The difference is not only in the passage of entry (in natural diseases the pathogen enters via the normal portals of entry the mouth and nose - and the immune process starts on that level, and more precisely, on the level of the tonsils), but also in timing: children get any of these diseases when their immune system is ready for them. That’s why not all non-immune children, whether they be vaccinated OR unvaccinated, necessarily get the diseases in every epidemic. A journal called Cancer published already in 1966 (July: 119: 1001- 1007) an article by West who wrote “A study of 97 cases of ovarian malignancies compared to 97 cases of benign ovarian tumours were analysed”. One of the three variables was history of mumps parotisis. “The difference favoured having mumps. The benign controls gave a history of mumps parotitis far more often than did the patients with ovarian malignancies. A causal association with a possible protective value is suggested”. In other words, having mumps prevents ovarian cancer (my well- considered personal opinion is that it would similarly prevent testicular and prostate cancer in men). Having rubella, an innocuous childhood disease, usually lasting one day, is beneficial for connective tissues in the joints. Rubella vaccine is damaging in those areas and causes arthritis, notwithstanding serious immunological disorders such as chronic fatigue syndrome. I'm sure that no-one would want to deprive their child of such benefits. We don’t need any more research – all of us, including medical doctors - should read the existing available orthodox medical research. Tens of thousands of pages in fact. In this age of information and speedy communication it is easy for everybody and anybody to find the right information. To think that one has to have a specific university education to be able to read medical papers is naive to say the least (though it helps). Being intelligent (meaning able to read between the lines – inter lego) helps too. Using one’s ignorance as a yardstick and especially coupled with a solipsistic attitude (what I don’t see does not exist, or re-phrased “If I don’ t know it then it must be wrong”) is a bit unwise and certainly shortsighted. Observation is the basic method of any research and the case histories of children damaged by vaccines are a valid basis for any parent’s right decision. If parents do not want to put effort into learning to separate the grain from the chaff, then they at least should look at the legalities of medical procedures. Old democracies, such the UK, have a sound legal basis in the Common Law which among many other good things recognises the freedom of any citizen to chose and refuse. It is a bit beyond me why a lawyer would not know this and would choose something that not only has never been proven safe but has been proven dangerous and ineffective and unnecessary by orthodox medical research. By the way, the research conducted by the anti-vaccinationists is independent; i.e. independent from any vested interests. We have no preconceived ideas, we study the published facts pro- and against and evaluate them with open eyes and open mind. Indeed almost all of us started out, like most people, being heavily conditioned to believe, without question, the very effectively disseminated myth that vaccines have saved modern civilisation from the scourge of infectious diseases. It takes a very open mind to do this research in a spirit of willingness to be brought out of that thinking. (It also takes a particular amount of courage for medical researchers to go against the flow to which their careers are tied.) We are completely immune to corruption. No-one is going to pay us to distribute negative information about any product or service. It is to give products (and services) credit and reassure the public that they are safe that there is an obvious incentive to pay people. For those who need to hear this from a medical doctor, I quote Dr Michael Mira (Medical Observer 27 October 1995. “Immunisation: parents lack faith.” “… the main reason parents gave for not immunising children was not forgetfulness, but rather 'a lack of faith in immunisation'. He said the information parents received from what he called 'the anti-immunisation lobby' was more eonvincing than that in favour of immunisation provided by pro-immunisation health bodies." To answer some other allegations (Adam Jacobs) that “This is a big difference between scientific proof and legal proof”: there is really little difference between legal and scientific proof”: in both cases the eye-witness/case-history account is superior. Truth is truth no matter what the forum is in which it is sought. And, just as ‘epidemiology aint epidemiology’, ‘science aint science’. Sadly, many a crime has also been committed in the name of science. Just look at the Nazi medical crimes. Dr Mengele is credited with justifying his ‘experiments’ by saying “I am a scientist”. By the way, it is a crime to inject toxic vaccines into babies and then not disclose dangers and their ineffectiveness (and worse still, accuse their carers of causing what are documented vaccine reactions by allegedly shaking the babies in their care). Adam Jacobs (“Re: Simply a concerned parent“ 19 March 2005) exercises sophism (“specious but fallacious argument, especially one intended to deceive or mislead” - The New Oxford Illustrated Dictionary 1976) when writing that “There is indeed no evidence that proves there is no link between MMR and autism. In much the same way there is no evidence that proves there is no link between homeopathy and autism or between strawberry yoghourts and psychosis, or between consumption of beluga caviar and amputation of the right leg”. Such a statement is not just grossly incorrect but makes a mockery of logic. The fact is that there IS evidence of the causal link between MMR and autism - perhaps the best one is that the autistic children are the living proof documented by many of their parents’ videos ‘before’ and ‘after’ as pointed out by Clifford C. Miller. However not just is there an obvious temporal association but all the criteria for establishing a causal link set by “the father of medical statistics”, Bradford Hill (1969) [“The environment and disease: association or causation?”, Proc royal Soc Med:295-300] are met, including very importantly, biological plausibility. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Stone, none London N22
Send response to journal:
|
I first reported this government advice [1] in these columns on 24 June 2004 [2] and then twelve days later in response to a professionally pious editorial by Richard Smith entitled "Think harm always" [3], but even I was taken aback by the chill silence of medical indifference which greeted my attempt to raise the issue. I tried again on 2 October [4] and after a certain amount of chivvying obtained responses in the following days from Adam Jacobs, Matthew Grove, Graeme Johnston and Ed Cooper, with the discussion also being joined by Carol Johnston and Travis Haws, all of whose contributions can obviously read by scrolling down from my challenge. My account of the discussion was posted on 14 October [5], and not disputed publicly by any of participants (or to the best of my knowledge privately). On 12 December I noted that good sense appeared to have prevailed and this reckless advice had been taken down [6]. But the other day someone drew my attention once again to the site, and I discovered that it had been replaced. Nothing could do more to render a pharmaceutical product unsafe than the confident instruction to ignore adverse reactions to it. It is dangerous guidance, and demonstrates what a scientifically skewed attitude prevails in official policy to vaccine safety. Everyone who knows this and remains silent is responsible: this is the unacceptable contemptuous face of modern government and science, sneering and turning away from common humanity. [1] http://www.mmrthefacts.nhs.uk/questions/question.php?id=79 [2] John Stone: 'From mmrthefacts website: your questions answered...': http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/328/7442/773#64165 [3] John Stone: 'Think harm never - vaccine and the inversion of medical ethics' 6 July 2004: http:bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/329/7456/0-g#65971 [4] John Stone: 'Endorsement for MMRTHEFACTS advice': http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/325/7373/1134/a76714 [5] John Stone: 'MMRTHEFACTS: the policy continues to fly without safety checks": http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/325/7373/1134/a#78135 [6] John Stone: 'Re: MMRTHEFACTS: the policy continues to fly without safety checks': http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/325/7373/1134/a#88802 Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Stone, none London N22
Send response to journal:
|
If this is a battle the field here certainly seems to have been deserted by one of the sides. Where are their good arguments, if we are talking about science and not about public manipulation? I note that Brian Deer - who briefly presented himself in this discussion - has been subjected to detailed criticisms by Jan Perkins, Clifford Miller and myself and has had nothing to say in his defence. Are we interested in truth or are we just interested in the facade? He has not been able to tell us where we are wrong. Surely his allegations are dust. Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child |
|||
|
|
|||
|
L. Travis Haws, Dentist Lakewood CO 80228
Send response to journal:
|
MMR The Facts top 5 weekly questions. Below is a copy and paste of one of the questions and its answer as provided by the NHS. (1) Question: "Why is the recommended age that a child should receive the mmr vaccine between 12 and 18 months? Surely if the vaccine is safe, it should be given much earlier to avoid getting measles, mumps and rubella?" Answer: "MMR is given shortly after the first birthday at around 13 months of age. This is because all babies are born with immunity (protection) which they get from their mums via the placneta. In the case of measles, mumps and rubella, this immunity lasts for about the first year of life. Giving MMR before the first birthday may mean that it doesn't work, as any remaining maternal immunity will wipe out any protective effect of the vaccine." That's news to me. It's been demonstrated here and elsewhere, that vaccination adversely effects the passing of maternal antibodies resulting in a shift in age of disease onset. For example, by the early 1990's, CDC confirms that more than 25% of measles cases occurred in infants less than one year of age as a result of the increasing numbers of mothers who were vaccinated in the 60's, 70's and 80's. (2) Some interesting abstract quotes (just a few of many) to support the CDC explanation and debunk the absurd mmrthe"facts" website answer: "Since the mean measles antibodies as measured by EIA absorbency were significantly lower in the mothers born after 1963 and their infants compared with women born before the vaccine era, the strategy for measles control in the future may have to include lowering the age of infant immunization." (3) "By 8 1/2 months of age, 95% of the children of the mothers born since 1963 would have become susceptible to measles and responsive to immunization; the same level of susceptibility is not reached by children of mothers born before 1958 until 11 1/2 months of age." (4) "Antibody levels decreased rapidly in infants with increasing age. By the age of 5 months, 67% (28/42) infants had practically no protective antibody left (30 mIU ml-1 or below). Only 12% infants at 5 months of age, and 5% at 8 months, had levels greater than 120 mIU ml-1--stated to 'protect' children....Further, as the cohort of vaccinated mothers enters reproductive age in Bangladesh, a more rapid decay of antibody may be expected in future generations of Bangladeshi children." (5) "Passive acquired immunity in infants born to mothers who have had measles lasts longer than in infants born to vaccinated mothers. Nearly two thirds of infants (65.4%) in the 7th month of life did not have sufficient maternally derived neutralizing antibodies to protect against measles." (6) "Higher antibody titers (1:40 and 1:80) were most commonly observed in both pregnant and non-pregnant women born during the pre-vaccine era than those born during the vaccine era and the difference was of statistical significance (p < 0.01)." (7) "All infants with detectable measles antibody at 9 or 12 months had mothers born before 1963, before the vaccine era..." (8) "Between 5 and 7 months of age significantly more of the children of vaccinated mothers had plaque reduction neutralization antibody levels below that which would interfere with vaccination." (9) "The results from southern Israel are similar to those obtained in North America and provide evidence that infants older than 6 months of age in a well-immunized population may be poorly protected against measles." (10) I could go on and on with similar references, but I think this paints the picture. I guess we owe mass vaccination programs a big "thank you" for making our newborn infants more vulnerable to disease at a younger, more fragile age? Lowering maternal passing of antibodies, and then intentionally assaulting the immune system (which is developing and rather immature) with dozens of jabs makes a lot of sense to me? Additionally, what does the statement--"Giving MMR before the first birthday may mean that it doesn't work, as any remaining maternal immunity will wipe out any protective effect of the vaccine"--actually mean? How does maternal immunity wipe out the "protective" effect of the vaccine? I assume they are trying to say that infants don't really begin to develop their own antibodies until around their first birthday. Or that the maternal antibodies would account for a majority of the immune response...leaving the infants immune system "unlearned". How would the above answer explain this..."Humoral immunity was deficient in 6-month-old infants given measles vaccine, even in the absence of detectable passively acquired neutralizing antibodies. Comparison of their responses with those of 9- and 12-month-old infants indicates that a developmental maturation of the immune response to measles may occur during the first year of life, which affects the immunogenicity of measles vaccine." (11) In other words, the infants immune system isn't mature enough to develop antibodies at that age and didn't respond in the absence of maternal antibodies (direct contradiction of mmrthe"facts" website answer). Sure would be nice to have the maternal antibodies which mass vaccination seems to have gotten rid of. It gets worse, as to begin with, the website (1) cites no studies to support their "absolute" "truths". Are we just to take it at face value as the information is supposedly disseminated by our gov't officials (representing the people?) and vaccine manufacturers or has links to Brian Deer and the Dispatches Programme? That's getting harder and harder to do these days...isn't it. Especially with the perpetuation of these unsupported/unfounded claims or the advice to rejab after an adverse reaction without any specificity to the adverse reaction being discussed. And that no-one has a clue of the extent of adverse reactions under todays reporting system (s). 1) http://www.mmrthefacts.nhs.uk/questions/question.php?id=81 2) Haney DQ. Wave of infant Measles Stems from ’60s Vaccinations. Albuquerque Journal, November 23, 1992, p. B3 3) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=7775944 4) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=3701511 5) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9569466 6) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14646978 7) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=8771931 8) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=7651776 9) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=8972678 10) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=8584363 11) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9707142 Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
JK Anand, Retired doctor N/A
Send response to journal:
|
Mr Travis raises pertinent points - requiring answers from the DoH AND the vaccine manufacturers. I await clear answers to the questions posed. JK Anand
Competing interests: Interest in the facts |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Jenny L Robertson, Writer London
Send response to journal:
|
The pressure and emotional blackmail that is applied to parents who elect not to subject their children to the entire vaccination merry-go- round is out of all proportion to their 'crime'. Getting vaccines officially mandated (as in the States) must be manna from heaven for the pharmaceutical companies. The decision of the Department of Health to link vaccine uptake with financial incentives to GPs appears to suggest that the UK is on a similar slippery slope. If you look at the whole situation from the perspective of a business enterprise, you will see that the pharmaceutical companies have really got us all where they want us. Whip up a frenzy of fear about a disease that used to be considered relatively benign (measles, say) then step right in with a magic bullet solution. The same is happening with dire threats about a bird flu pandemic and drugs are being stockpiled with a vaccine in the pipeline. What next? Compulsory vaccination against bird flu? Clearly, drugs have their place. But the pharmaceutical industry has one goal: profit. The industry must be kept in its place. It is up to the Government, medical authorities and general public to ensure that drugs are safe and the risk/benefit ratio is acceptable. Creating a hysterical situation where parents and professionals who ask perfectly legitimate questions about vaccine safety are castigated is just plain daft. Who is pulling the strings here? Back in the 50s there was no such fevered climate about vaccines. My parents (one a doctor) elected against many of the vaccines. They took a conservative view about medicine - best avoided unless absolutely necessary. That sounds pretty sensible to me. In the present climate of fear and reprisals we are in danger of losing all commonsense. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John P. Heptonstall, Director of The Morley Acupuncture Clinic and Complementary Therapy Centre. TCM Practitioner LS27 8EG
Send response to journal:
|
I think Jenny Robertson makes two very important statements.. "If you look at the whole situation from the perspective of a business enterprise, you will see that the pharmaceutical companies have really got us all where they want us. Whip up a frenzy of fear about a disease that used to be considered relatively benign (measles, say) then step right in with a magic bullet solution" and "Creating a hysterical situation where parents and professionals who ask perfectly legitimate questions about vaccine safety are castigated is just plain daft. Who is pulling the strings here? Back in the 50s there was no such fevered climate about vaccines. My parents (one a doctor) elected against many of the vaccines. They took a conservative view about medicine - best avoided unless absolutely necessary..". Vaccines have always been big business though I, as so many others, once believed they were the answer to conquering diseases that had long ravaged mankind - no longer. I have analysed the history of smallpox and Jenner's vaccine, still used by vaccinators as proof that vaccine science achieves the pinnacle - the eradication of a major disease - and no longer see 19th Century parents and populace who fought to recind the "compulsory vaccine" act as anarchic and unreasonable, they too did their homework and in small communities it was more diffcult for the authorities to hide the devastation wrought by that vaccine. The next major 'success' we are told by the authorities was vaccination against polio - the Salk killed and Sabin live vaccines of the 50s and 60s. How wrong they are - the 50s and 60s are now known, within the scientific community, as having been fraught with problems of vaccine contaminants, like SV (simian virus)40 and many others since realised are probably responsible for much of the succeeding cancers and leukaemias that now blight our senior citizens - the 50s and 60s guinea pigs for those vaccines. Unfortunately the existence of many of those contaminents is still largely ignored or suppressed by the authorities who forget their first responsibilities to their citizens (1). Anyone who is interested in evidence of those contaminated vaccines, the legacy being wrought amongst our most elderly citizens who, like I, trusted science to pave the way honourably to long-term health should read what Len Horowitz has uncovered - a conversation between the vaccine and virus researcher Dr. Maurice Hilleman and Edward Shorter, Harvard Medical Historian, before Hilleman recently died; if the information and recorded conversation is genuine it ought to devastate the vaccine industry and must explain to some extent why not only the elderly are at risk but all ages, especially the very young whose mortality and morbidity is now so heavily tied to the vaccine industry despite the emerging truths about autism, asthma, diabetes, nvCJD, AIDS, CFS, and so many other diseases once so uncommon. Not only has Big Pharma deceived peoples and governments, and in that deceit has attracted the interests of politicians who choses to forget their public duty, its legacy will be felt for many generations so it is time to set the record straight. Big Pharma needs to face the music, then the cure. Only then can we use its wealth of knowledge in a decent pro- social way. For the future, it requires to be properly policed and punished like all other offenders of public decency and trust. Perhaps like South Africa, we need a truth campaign and a period of amnesty for those who would step forward with the terrible truths of how deeply inflicted the vaccine wounds are in our societies and what potential there is that those inflictions will continue to flourish - the truth of which will continue to be disguised by clever scientists; those who fail to step forward must face severe punishment when the truth is out; only from the truth can we hope to intervene to stop vaccine-induced disorders, to understand how many vaccines remain so seriously contaminated, and to create a system we can once again believe in. Regards John H. 1. http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/info_schedule_battle/Dr._Horowitz_Profile.html Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Joan Campbell, carer Glasgow G64 3EU
Send response to journal:
|
Never a truer word said. Thanks Jenny Don't forget these same companies are also making profit on the vaccine damaged children who are been prescribed Ritelin and anti depressants etc. First they cause the problem and then make more money trying to solve the problem which results in more damaged children and adults. Who do these people think they are, that they can destroy lives. I would urge any parent against using prescribed drugs for their children's behaviour and rather look at their diet and mineral supplements. Competing interests: Parent of vaccine damaged son. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
L. Travis Haws, Dentist Lakewood CO 80228
Send response to journal:
|
I wonder if the adverse vaccine induced alteration regarding the passing of maternal antibodies and their longevity (1) has anything to do with the relatively poor Infant Mortality Rates and health care expenditures between the U.S. and other "developed" or "developing" nations as illustrated by Dr. Yazbak (2)? That and adverse vaccine reactions themselves (maternal antibody alteration could be considered an adverse reaction in and of itself) could certainly be a big piece of the "puzzle". 1) http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/330/7491/552#103008 2) http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/330/7483/112-d#96306 Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Laura C Robinson, Parent home SK17 0SE
Send response to journal:
|
It's all very well saying that parents must do more research but how? Where is all the basic data used to validate these studies? For example, the number of people with autism (born with and/or regressive autism), regardless of how or why it may have arisen? I'm trying to find the data so I can draw my own conclusions, but none appears to be in the public domain. Simple things like: MMR update by year and age of recipient and incident of autism by year and age of patient. Can anyone enlighten me? Competing interests: None declared |
|||