Misconceptions about the new combination vaccine
BMJ 2004; 329 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.329.7463.411 (Published 19 August 2004) Cite this as: BMJ 2004;329:411All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
I have read the numerous responses, debates about vaccines, whether
single or combined. Neither Doctor/pro-vaccinator has convinced me and it
appears many others of the safety nor efficacy of vaccinating people.
I would love to see independant studies, not funded by drug
companies, evaluating babies from birth. Viera Scheibner set up 'Cotwatch'
in 1985, monitoring, non-invasively, babies breathing from birth. Without
setting out to do so, she recorded babies breathing before and after
vaccines were administered.
With the MMR vaccine for example, this may seem basic, but could a
control group of children be rigorously assessed prior to having the
vaccine and for an agreed period after. The same assessments, health
checks being given to the unvaccinated group of children.
If the Dept of Health want to gain trust from concerned parents then
they need to do something drastic, the MMR Adverts are insulting to many,
intolerable to those families that have suffered because of the vaccine.
My daughter is 6 yrs old, if such a study was undertaken when she was
a baby I would been more than happy for her to be in the 'unvaccinated'
control group.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
John Heptonstall cites the remarks of David Salisbury in a BBC
Newsnight interview (10 August 2004) concerning an infant's ability to
deal with multipe challenge as quoted by Andrew Wakefield in the Sunday
Telegraph (15 August 2004). I have a transcript of Dr Salisbury's precise
words:
"The immune system of a baby has got huge spare capacity to deal with
challenge. If we didn't, the human race wouldn't survive. But let's look
specifically at vaccine. This has been studied carefully. A baby's immune
system could actually tolerate perfectly well 1,000 vaccines".
I subsequently had the opportunity to ask Dr Salisbury about this
statement, and while I cannot quote him directly he made a distinction
between overload - which was the point that he was apparently making in
the interview - and the enhanced risk of adverse reaction which he
accepted would be the consequence of such an action.
I hope this clarifies the point.
Competing interests:
As above
Competing interests: No competing interests
Sir
Signing off as Peter Flegg is with assertions about "debate drifting
into murky waters", "persistent intervention in this debate with such
alarmist and false claims", "my references are more accurate than yours"
that are devoid of valid argument of any kind just about sums up much of
his postings, including that he cites "Re. Re. Conspiracy theories".
I agree with him that one hopes that readers of the debate look at
all the references but I would add, unlike Peter Flegg, please keep an
open mind.
Regards
John H.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
The original context of this debate concerns the possibility that
vaccines (MMR) may trigger reactions that lead to or unmask autism, which
is something that cannot be completely refuted by epidemiological studies
alone. Many of the correspondents here have valid points to make about
this. Letting the debate drift into the murky waters of “vaccines have
never benefited anyone, medicine is the biggest killer and maimer of
mankind, all infections are trivial and already disappearing naturally,
and that the powers that be are conducting secret vaccine experiments on
the entire population” lends nothing to the credibility and validity of
the arguments that MMR may induce autism.
As I have indicated previously, persistent intervention in this
debate with such alarmist and false claims is only likely to further
antagonise researchers in the field of medical science/vaccine research
whom we wish to be active partners in the process of determining the
causes of autism. The strategy currently being pursued by some in the anti
-vaccination camp is doing no favours whatsoever for the proponents of a
link between MMR and autism.
I am not going to be dragged into a “my references are more accurate
than yours” debate by John Heptonstall. Judging by past correspondence, I
am unlikely to convince him of the weakness of his case. I can however
hope that other readers of this debate judge for themselves, and I
strongly urge them to look at all the references in question, not merely
accept Heptonstall’s interpretation of what they say. (See my response of
9th September [“Re: re: Conspiracy theories] for details).
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Travis Haws concedes that CDC data on measles contradict his earlier
responses. So whose data does he think we should rely on? I know who I
would rather believe. If he studies my response more closely, he will find
that I refer to the dramatic reduction in measles incidence that followed
vaccination in the USA, and was not referring to mortality. I agree
mortality from measles was declining prior to vaccination, but as I
indicated in my response, measles was still killing 450 children annually
in the USA. Last year there were only 42 measles notifications compared to
the annual pre-vaccine incidence of 400000. This represents a ten thousand
-fold decline in incidence to 0.01% of prevaccination levels (and not 0.1%
as I erroneously stated). Go figure.
Travis Haws tries to make much of the fact that vaccinated children
can still get measles. I am unable to locate his truncated reference for
the incidence of measles in vaccinated children in the 1987 outbreak, but
the fact that some children are not protected is no argument against
vaccination. In the UK one is required to wear a seat belt because it
dramatically reduces the chances of serious injury in a car crash.
Pointing out that some people who are involved in a crash still get
injured despite the presence of a seat belt is not a valid argument in
favour of their removal. I can see the scenario now:
Minister A: "Since this new seat belt law, injuries to car drivers
are down to 0.01% of the previous levels of four hundred thousand a year -
remarkable, no?"
Minister B: "No, actually. You see 42 people were still injured this
year - and some of those were actually wearing seat belts! And what's more
- we haven't got much evidence, but some people say they were hurt by the
seatbelts even though they were not involved in an accident. I say its
definitely time to scrap them!"
Now while I fully support attempts to make seat belts safer, I have
no sympathy for the view that seat belts should be scrapped.
Travis Haws seems quite put out by my comments that infections do not
always behave in the way people predict and can have different prevalence
in different populations. How this relates to herd immunity is unclear. If
I knew what point he is trying to make, I might be in a better position to
respond.
There are still more contradictions in Travis Haws' arguments.
According to him, all these childhood infections are meant to have been
virtually eradicated by natural means. Yet in the absence of vaccination
everyone still seems to get them. Hands up anyone over 40 who has not had
measles as a child. Has anyone never had mumps, or chicken pox? Before the
days of vaccination, virtually all children caught measles or these other
infections. On the one hand, many respondents in this debate talk of how
trivial the illness such as measles are, and how they "never harmed me".
(They never harmed me either, but those whom they did harm probably don't
get to post many BMJ rapid responses). Yet they regard measles in a
vaccinated child as some major medical crisis. My view is that ANY measles
can be bad - and we can help prevent it with vaccination.
Travis Haws' statement that measles incidence in vaccinees is the
same as in the unvaccinated is complete nonsense, as is his implication
that it is not that infectious. I repeat, almost everyone susceptible who
is exposed to measles will get the disease.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Sir
Peter Flegg misrepresents me when he says, “I first raised the issue
of conspiracies”. He raised that issue; I merely used the word
“conspiracy” in its correct context as a legal term. He incorrectly quotes
me as referring to “the” Health Department sanctioned conspiracy when I
wrote, “what might be” a Health Department sanctioned conspiracy. Contrary
to his assertion, he is not calling a spade a spade; in order to redirect
the debate away from my call for an independent enquiry he tries to
obfuscate the issue with “I wonder if Heptonstall is referring only to
childhood immunisation, or is he perhaps seeking to have an independent
judicial enquiry into his most recent pet theory”. Michael Innis had no
problem accurately quoting me in context when he wrote, “John Heptonstall
says, ‘What is required is an independent judicial enquiry into what might
be a Health Department sanctioned conspiracy to knowingly and
intentionally infect UK citizens with disease causing agents’. Concern
that the Health Departments, not only of Britain, but of America and
Australia too, are engaged in a cover up of the adverse reactions of some
of the vaccines to which children are exposed, is widespread”. Why did
Flegg distort my statement?
In the context of my call for a judicial enquiry into the legality of
intentionally infecting UK citizens with disease-causing agents through
vaccination (eg. SV-40, nvCJD) a precedent exists for intentional
infection by HIV. If a judicial enquiry found it illegal, any individual
who intentionally infects another through vaccination commits an offence
and any group of people that colludes to do so conspires, hence my choice
of “Health Department sanctioned conspiracy”.
Flegg says that my submissions “are not necessarily well referenced
and they often contain inaccuracies” then again inaccurately quotes me as
saying, “medicine is the biggest killer and maimer of mankind”. I wrote
“Recent studies suggest that modern medicine is now the biggest killer and
maimer of mankind” referencing Null G et al whose new data suggests that
the claims of recent studies and articles in the US (1) (2), UK (3) (4)
and Australia (5) that modern medicine is the 3rd or 4th biggest killer
and maimer should be overhauled with new considerations which, due to the
global distribution and dominance of modern medicine, must suggests that
modern medicine is now the world’s biggest killer and maimer.
Flegg says he dismisses 8 of the 9 references I gave him - despite
the facts therein supporting “smallpox vaccine killed tens of thousands in
the Philippines” and “governments are probably testing vaccines on our
unsuspecting populations” - because “they were internet links, most of
which contained anti-vaccination polemics within anti-medicine and anti-
establishment web sites, opinion pieces sandwiched between articles about
scientific ‘hoaxes’ such as the germ theory, HIV and evolution or between
articles on great ‘conspiracies’ such as mind control and
contrail/chemtrail conspiracy”. It is Flegg’s opinion that germ theory,
HIV and evolutionary theory are ‘hoaxes’ and that mind control and
contrail/chemtrails are conspiracy; his opinion is not shared by many
people, and he disagrees with some fine scientific minds that still debate
these issues without conclusion.
Flegg must know that most of what he refers to as “anti-vaccination”,
“anti-medicine” and “anti-establishment” is well-researched and that
little, if any, of it claims to be anti-vaccination, anti-medicine or anti
-establishment (whatever that is) yet he smears it as such, presumably
because the data criticises vaccination and medicine. Despite Flegg,
medical researchers are aware of how difficult it can be to publish data
critical of perceived wisdom or vested interests (6) (7). Noted autism
researchers Vijendra Singh et al produced excellent follow-up (8) to their
work identifying antibodies to measles virus in the brains of autistics
and not controls (9). They had then identified antibodies to MMR vaccine
in the brains of autistics and not controls (8), yet I understand that
paper was constantly refused publication.
If an eminent scientist like Singh (10) (11) finds great difficulty
obtaining publication for results about the presence of vaccine antibodies
in the brains of autistic persons that are so important to society, but
may be damning to the vaccine industry, does Flegg rant against the
protectionist industry or label VK Singh an anti-vaccinist?
The facts appearing in the references I gave Flegg (12) (13) telling
of damage to tens of thousands of Filipinos through smallpox vaccination
was in accord with “the Philippines suffered disastrously through US
smallpox vaccination campaigns, its peoples dying in their tens of
thousands from a disease that had historically hardly touched that
nation”. The information is easily checked, but unlikely to be sourced
from 'big pharma', so why does Flegg smear the sources I gave which
included an excerpt from the Philippines Health Service and research
physicians who attended the Philippines to investigate?
Flegg says I provide references to scientific publications that are
“not valid and appropriate” and uses my response to GSK “at least 35,517
children may have died within 7 to 9 months due to acellular pertussis
vaccination” as an example. I had posed the question to GSK Dr Bogaerts
“‘successfully administered' means what? If a child dies or is seriously
afflicted by a vaccine, was it successfully administered?”. I used the
reference accurately and it was valid. The paper does not state, as Flegg
insists, that the 3 children died of heroin, pneumonia, or any other
infection but says that undiscovered infections were found in 3 children
who died unexpectedly after vaccination. Unlike Flegg the team concluded
that vaccination, as a cause of their deaths, could not be ruled out.
Hence my quote that “at least 35,517 of 6-11 month old children alone may
have died within 7 to 9 months due to the vaccination” is valid and
accurate.
Flegg ironically evidences his claims with references that are hardly
valid.
His ref. 3. Flegg says, “one of these deaths was actually due to
pneumonia following heroin overdose” yet the researchers did not confirm
that in the study.
4. 5. 7. 8. Flegg says are evidence that “3 child deaths were not due
to vaccination” yet these references are for studies using DPT whole cell
vaccine not acellular which was referred to in the Swedish study; his
references do not compare like with like.
6. Flegg claims this study shows that immunisation protects against
bacterial disease but the researchers say, “Other preventive health care
measures may have been responsible for the apparent immunisation positive
effect”.
9. Flegg refers to the IOM statement 2002. The IOM agrees that
compelling scientific evidence and arguments for damage to biological
mechanisms by vaccination exists, but then appears to have been
unreasonably swayed by epidemiological studies despite the US Federal
Judicial Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence stating that epidemiology
is concerned with incidence of disease in populations and does not address
the question of cause of an individual’s disease. Specific causation is
beyond the domain of the science of epidemiology, it addresses whether an
agent can cause disease not whether it did cause disease. If such studies
cannot determine ‘cause’, they cannot determine ‘non cause’. Flegg should
take note.
The attempt by medical researchers like Flegg to distort and
obfuscate facts that may be of extreme public import is one reason why I
believe that a judicial enquiry into the legality of intentionally
infecting another by vaccination is needed. It is acknowledged that
successive UK governments allowed suspected nvCJD-causing bovine material
to remain in vaccines, and authorised them for millions of vaccinations,
for over a decade (14)
Bovine material-containing polio vaccine was not banned until 2000
despite the risk of nvCJD existing in such vaccines being known since the
late 1980’s. ‘Big pharma’ did not remove potentially lethal material and
in some cases sold its product interests to ‘small pharma’ that continued
to facilitate injections of suspected nvCJD-causing agents into millions
of unsuspecting children (15).
Links between disease and vaccinations, as with autism, are distorted
by many epidemiology studies Government and the DoH parade before the
public despite such studies being incapable of addressing causation while
calls for prospective studies and clinically valid trials are rejected.
Hence I believe an independent judicial enquiry is essential to restore
public confidence, and decisions made by DoH and Government should be
subjected to judicial review.
When the DoH Head of Immunisation can claim on National TV that
children could be administered 1000 vaccines at once without harm (16),
having absolutely no proof for his statement, we have reached a cross-
roads where science (17) (18), politics and public health interests must
be separated and the latter given prime consideration. These issues can
only be resolved by judicial enquiry that must be autonomous of government
and the civil service, and selected with no hint of cronyism. It must work
solely in defence of the public, and public health interests, without
political or commercial agenda.
I leave Flegg with this old quote from Adam Smith (1723-90) the
Scottish Economist who lectured on logic and moral philosophy. “People of
the same trade seldom meet together but the conversation ends in a
conspiracy against the public, or in some diversion to raise prices”.
Regards
John H.
References
1. “Clinton acts to reduce medical mistakes” Charatan, BMJ march
2000; 320:597
2. “Incidence of ADRs in hospitalised patients; a meta-analysis of
prospective studies” J Lazarou et al, JAMA April 1998; 279:1200-06
3. “Medical errors ‘kill thousands’”, BBC Saturday 18th March 2000,
Dr. Richard Smith, BMJ
4. Sunday Times 19th Dec. 1999 ‘Blunders by doctors kill 40,000 per
year in UK’
5. “The Quality of Australian Health care Study”, RM Wilson et al,
Med J Aust 1995 Nov; 163(9): 458-71
6. The Guardian 14.1.04; a review published in 2003 found 30 studies
compared the results of trials funded by drug companies with those funded
by other sources. The former were four times more likely to have results
favourable to the drugs companies than were the others; 70% of trials
reported in medical journals were funded by drug companies - result is
that information on drugs is distorted.
7. The Guardian 10.9.01; 13 of the world’s main medical journals
mounted an outspoken attack on the rich and powerful drug companies
accusing them of distorting the results of scientific research for the
sake of profits – tying up academic researchers with legal contracts they
are unable to report freely and fairly on the results of drug research.
8. “Positive titre of measles and MMR antibody are related to myelin
basic protein autoantibody in autism” VK Singh, University of Michigan,
College of Pharmacy, Ann Arbor, MI48109; abstract provided to American
Association of Immunologists, 1998.
9. “Serological association of measles virus and HHV-6 with brain
autoantibodies in Autism”, VK Singh et al, Clinical Immunology and
Immunopathology, October 1998; 89(1): ISSN: 0090-1229.
10. http://64.41.99.118/vran/vaccines/autism/aut_singh.htm
11. http://www.autism-arch.org/june2003-2.htm
12. Facts derived as extract from Philippines Health Service document
13. Facts derived from “Second Thoughts on Disease” by Kalokerios and
Dellman
14 http://www.mad-cow.org/00/Oct00_inquiry.html
15 http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,386177.00.html
16 www.telegraph.co.uk/.../news/2004/08/
15/ndrug215.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/08/15/ixnewstop.html
17 The Independent 28.2.04; drug companies knew HRT risks 5 years
before the public, experts who tried to raise concerns about HRT were
ridiculed.
18 Heptonstall, Vaccination Mythology; www.
bmj.com/cgi/eletters/320/7229/ 240#6390
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Dear Sir,
Regrettably, Leo W James, Physician, Scotland is wrong on several
counts.
There is currently only one epidemiology paper still standing in the
government's pile. All the main prior ones have either trashed each other
in sequence or been trashed by the recent Goldman/Yazbak offering in the
Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons and so far formally unreported
in the BMJ and ignored by it. The latest paper (Smeeth) will not last too
long either.
Further, you can only be sure of the risk/benefit equation when you
know all the risks and all the benefits. The government is not counting
adverse drug reactions and is not recognising adverse drug reactions as
adverse drug reactions in order to count them. MMR adverse reactions are
only one example.
We do know that MMR causes autism, but it is one of a number of risks
that the government and its advisors chooses to ignore. It can be and has
been demonstrated, 1) clinically, 2) epidemiologically and 3)
pharmacologically with extremely strong challenge-dechallenge-rechallenge
proof and those interested can search this site for articles I have
authored pointing out where the references can be found for item 3). It
is not compulsory to read items which have succeeded in remaining on the
BMJ website totally unchallenged but it is recommended. No one has
managed to find fault because challenge-dechallenge-rechallenge is such
strong science and epidemiology is very weak, and it gets weaker and
weaker. Epidemiology becomes even the more so if you add medical people
who flatter themselves that they can do maths when some cannot seem to add
up properly or get the logic of their own arguments right, especially in
medical 'scientific' papers. And there seems to be no such thing as
medical science, or if anyone practices it are they new to this planet?
The only problem is that the government really really does not want
to believe it is doing more harm than good and the pharmaceutical
companies have too strong an influence. It is a religion and it and its
advisors cannot let go.
Unfortunately children are being killed and injured in greater
numbers by vaccines than by natural diseases and again, the religion of
vaccination is the culprit.
C'est la morte.
Competing interests:
Close relative with life threatening food allergy.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Editor: Peter Flegg states that "USA data from the CDC show that in
the decades prior to vaccine introduction in 1963 (you know, before anyone
was vaccinated and everyone was so healthy!) there was a stable incidence
of measles at 400-500 thousand cases per year, with all its attendant
morbidity and mortality (20% admitted to hospital with complications and
450 deaths annually)."
Such data completely contradicts one of my earlier responses and what
renowned pediatrician Robert Mendelsohn has stated in a book that prior to
1955, the death rate had declined by 97.7% to .03 deaths per 100,000 (you
know, on its own before the first measles jab--but you attribute the
decline to vaccines). (1) These figures are also confirmed in
International Mortality Statistics: from 1915 - 1958, death from measles
in the U.S. and U.K. had declined by 98 percent prior to measles
vaccination programs (figure 8). (2)
A link to the U.S. reported measles cases as cited on the WHO website
is also given.
The highest number of reported cases in the U.S. from the provided
WHO link, between 1980 and 2003, was in 1989 and 1990 with 18,193 and
27,786 cases reported respectively. Data from Infect Med, in 1997,
demonstrate that 89% of all school-aged children in the U.S. that
contracted measles in 1989 were "successfully" vaccinated. (3) Of course,
we’re told it was vaccine manufacturer error, or improper storage of
vaccines rather than the obvious repeated failure of vaccines to control
“preventable” diseases.
Perhaps Flegg can enlighten us on vaccine introduction and the
subsequent more severe form of atypical measles?
Oh, the Hypocrisy just revealed and evident in another thread where
Peter Flegg tries to set “straight” a Mark Bartlett on “HIV”—as quoted
below:
“Perhaps he means it is communicable, but that he subscribes to the
school of Perth Group epidemiology, which states that if a disease is
sexually transmitted then absolutely everyone is equally susceptible to it
and equally liable to acquire infection irrespective of their behaviour?
This is patently untrue, and the fact that different subpopulations with
different behavioural characteristics can have different disease
prevalence should not come as a surprise to him in his
profession…Infections do not always behave in the way the general public
and newspaper editors predict. For that matter, they may not always behave
as public health officials and epidemiologists may predict either.”
Let me see if I understand this statement by Flegg correctly.
Infections don’t always behave as health “officials” and epidemiologists
predict and that differing subpopulations with differing behaviors
(substitute in nutrition, hygiene, health care—Vitamin A in the case of
measles etc.) have differing disease prevalence. So disease behaves
different among subpopulations with differing lifestyles, immune responses
etc. And we’re supposed to have confidence, keeping in mind the
aforementioned Flegg quote, in the efficacy of HERD IMMUNITY??? Let alone
the pathogens ability to mutate and surprise. A further hit on confidence
comes with the constant denial of very obvious causal relationships with
severe life-long debilitating reactions, the consistent display of
numerous conflicts of interest with "non-incriminating" "studies" and
fettered access to data.
The same Flegg quote applies to adverse reactions to vaccines.
Everyone will react differently, but absolutely no attention is given to
that fact. Preemies, siblings of adverse reactors (if even the adverse
reaction is acknowledged), mild colds, prior health histories etc. are all
disregarded as the herd will certainly react the same. The immature
developing infant immune system can tolerate thousands of these cocktails
at once???
Save your breath Flegg, I know you’re going to tell me that they only
behave differently among vaccinees and non-vaccinees. Nothing could be
further from the truth. During epidemics it hits vaccine recipients with
just as much percentage of incidence as it does non-vaccine recipients.
You’re belief that 100% of non-vaccinated individuals will contract the
disease, if exposed, is completely baseless and unsupported by the
literature and history.
Good luck in eradicating pathogens that have the ability to mutate or
can develop resistance to antibiotics, for example.
Earlier this spring, in my state of Colorado, it was printed in the
local newspaper, that we are the state with lowest rate of vaccination in
the U.S. at 63% and have had low rates for quite some time. Just another
predictable ploy to play on the fears of the “ignorant”. I'm still
awaiting the epidemic (other than the flu one that hit us last year—with a
confirmed non-match between vaccine and flu strain—although I doubt an
ideal match would have helped anyhow) and the very predictable mass media
hysteria associated with it. Perhaps the 37% of the unvaccinated should
not be allowed to travel out of state as they will surely infect the 95%
vaccinated that are 95% “protected”?
At the end of the day, nothing is more evident than the non-ending
hurdle of circular reasoning the provaccinators "enjoy". Hopefully
dodgeball and running hurdles keeps the provaccinators in good shape,
their arteries free of cholesterol sludge and their brain matter free of
mutated man-made cocktails.
Besides vaccines complete dismal failure of eradicating the remaining
5% or less of disease that nature flattened off at before vaccine
programs; I wonder if, for those among us entrapped in circular reasoning,
the world rotates slower about its axis? I hypothesize that it is so as
it’s a little hard to move forward when you’re stuck, quacking about in a
vicious cycle.
1) Mendelsohn R. How to Raise a Healthy Child...In Spite of Your
Doctor. Ballantine Books 1984 p. 236-37
2) Alderson M. International Mortality Statistics (Washington, DC:
Facts on File, 1981 pp 182-83
3) Infect Med 1997; 14(4):297-300,310.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
I have to admit that I really can't detect all much that intellectual
acumen behind your original point, Dr James. And your present reply could
have been written by the Department of Health propaganda machine,
abrasively dismissive of parental concerns, full of professional
assertiveness, but without a single scientific argument. Pretty strong
stuff for someone who just heard it on the radio.
Well, ten bad studies don't make a single good one. And so long as
you refuse to look at the children that may have been damaged and
persecute those who do, exclude the evidence of parents, and fail to
record and monitor reactions they will not be worth much.
The present study states:
"We were not able to separately identify the subgroup of cases with
regressive symptoms to identify the hypothesis that only some children are
vulnerable to MMR-induced disease and that this is always regressive." [1]
So the fact that it does not demonstrate a link between MMR and
autism is unsurprising, since the database provided no information on the
subject - not because there was no such subgroup but because the database
did not differentiate it. This did not stop seven people embarking on the
three year exercise at public expense, knowing that this was the case.
Still, someone got their money's worth.
Smeeth et al, MMR vaccine and pervasive development disorders: a case
control Study, The Lancet 11 September 2004 p.967.
Competing interests:
As above
Competing interests: No competing interests
Try it first on your kids, we will wait
How about testing this "new and improved" vaccine on its believers
first starting with patent holder kids, the manufacturer kids and whomever
believes in it. As for us "ungrateful" "vaccine nuts" and "unhealthy"
individuals who dont believe about bargains like Five-in-One!! (It looks
like an ad for garnments sale in Christmass). We will wait three years,
check the results and then decide.
We dont believe in express testing of one week or two when deciding
the health of our kids. Since we have been mislead before and some of our
kids are autistic, our trust in the medical establishment is none (zero,
zip).
Our kids are at risk because they play with your kids whom you loaded
with toxic chemicals and viruses called vaccines. However, we accept the
risk because we believe that you should be free to make your choices. So
please let us make our own choice and dont force us to do the wrong thing.
Saadedine Tebbal, Ph.D.
Competing interests:
Parent of an Autistic Kid
Competing interests: No competing interests