Vaccine/autism CT discussion

[Dcdrac]

http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2012/10/02/andrew-wakefield-tries-to-make-himself-relevant-again/

Andrew Wakefield tries to make himself relevant again

"Andrew Wakefield is the former research surgeon who championed the idea that the MMR vaccine causes autism. Multiple researchers have told me that even at the time of Mr. Wakefield’s first research announcements, Mr. Wakefield’s idea was a stretch in terms of biological feasibility. For a few years at least, Andrew Wakefield was relevant in the autism research community. People worked to replicate his findings and otherwise answer the questions he posed. That was years ago. The result is we now know his ideas of persistent measles infection and a leaky gut causing autism were not valid and that, at best, Mr. Wakefield was a mediocre scientist who took this poorly conceived hypothesis and ran with it. Running as in a “running with scissors”, ignoring safety. As has been demonstrated since, he was also ignoring ethical concerns as well. But this is all old news."

 

[Stamuel]

Brian Deer and The GMC, Selective Hearing. BMJ Journalist

2:50 in the woman states that single vaccine option was removed.

Let's go through this blurb you quoted.

In 2003, after 10 years work, legal aid was withdrawn from over 1,000 parents claiming damages in a suit in which Dr Andrew Wakefield was to appear as an expert witness.

They start off by almost admitting one of the problems with Wakefield's research: his undisclosed conflict of interest. He never revealed in the paper that he was being paid by lawyers who were working on a lawsuit against MMR manufacturers.

"In 2004 Deer wrote an exposé of Wakefield that was full of concoctions, half truths and fantasies and which claimed that the children examined by the team at the Royal Free were not ill."

This is false. In all of Brian Deer's articles about Wakefield's fraud and ethical violations, he says that the children were "ill". See his BMJ articles, where he says "one—child 2—clearly had regressive autism." In the next paragraph, "two of this trio were brothers, living 60 miles south of the hospital. Both had histories of fits and bowel problems42 recorded before their MMR vaccinations. The elder, child 6, aged 4 years at admission, had Asperger’s syndrome,45 which is distinct from autism under DSM-IV, is not regressive,46 and was confirmed on discharge." Next paragraph, "Child 12 was aged 6 at admission and had previously been assessed for possible Asperger’s syndrome." A bit later, "child 4 and child 8 [...] both had developmental delays, and also facial dysmorphisms, noted before MMR vaccination."

I could go on like this for pages. No one denies that the children in Wakefiled's Lancet case series had health issues and developmental delays. What Deer found, and was later confirmed during the GMC trial by examination of medical records was that many of the kids did not have regressive autism, as claimed, but other developmental problems. Many did not have any bowel disease, as claimed. Also, it was found that Wakefield manipulated the timing in the article to make it look like vaccines were to blame for the the alleged bowel problems.

Deer's distorted pharma--imaginings became the basis of over 80 charges leveled against Dr Wakefield and three other doctors to be 'tried' by the General Medical Council (GMC).

While Brian Deer originally brought this information to light, the GMC investigated the matter on their own. Deer's role was essentially the role of an informant. He did not take part in the GMC investigation.

The hearing took place over three years between 2007 and 2010 and became one of the longest regulatory hearings ever held in Britain. Brian Deer, the centre of the whole plot, did not give evidence.

This just confirms that Deer did not play a central role in the GMC hearings. And he should not have, he reported information he found from parents of the children and elsewhere.

The GMC looked at the actual medical records, heard testimony from the researchers involved, including Wakefield, and more. They did not need Brian Deer to do this. In fact, he was irrelevant to the matter after it had been brought to the GMC's attention.

But the anti-vaccine crowd refuses to understand this. They want the whole thing to depend on the word of one reporter. It does not.

In bringing the fitness to practice case against Dr Andrew Wakefield, Professor Simon Murch and Professor John Walker-Smith, the GMC listened to journalist Brian Deer and excluded the views of hundreds of parents of vaccine damaged children.

The GMC hearing was about whether there were violations relating to the case series reported in the Lancet. Issues included whether data was falsified, whether there were undisclosed conflicts of interest, and most importantly whether the children were subjected to invasive testing (such as colon biopsies) without proper approval. This only involves the 13 children in the case series. The hearing was not to determine whether parents think vaccines cause autism, but to determine whether Wakefield had violated medical regulations in his research. He did. Multiple times. Hundreds of angry parents do not turn fraud and abuse into gold. Read what the GMC has to say.

Who is Brian Deer? Vigilante for truth or front man for Big Pharma? Selective Hearing covers Deer's part in the heartbreaking betrayal of vaccine damaged children by the medical profession, the pharmaceutical corporations and the British government.

Brian Deer has twice won the British Press Award, generally considered the most prestigious award in British journalism. When he first published about Wakefield, Andy sued him, but quickly dropped the lawsuit (probably once he realized that discovery would give Deer access to the medical records that prove more of Wakefield's wrong-doing). After the BMJ series, Wakefield sued him again, a case which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Read about it in Deer's summary, and especially in his detailed declaration for the lawsuit.

But again, Brian Deer is not the issue. He is the reporter that broke the story. But it is not Deer's word against Wakefield, it is Wakefield's word against the evidence. Wakefield loses.

 

[Stamuel]

All lies. I'll believe the parents.

Good. So you believe the parents who say that Wakefield falsified patient information in his study.

“From the information you provided me on our son, who I was shocked to hear had been included in their published study,” he wrote to me, after we met again in California, “the data clearly appeared to be distorted.”

He backed his concerns with medical records, including a Royal Free discharge summary. Although the family lived 5000 miles from the hospital, in February 1997 the boy (then aged 5) had been flown to London and admitted for Wakefield’s project, the undisclosed goal of which was to help sue the vaccine’s manufacturers.

 

[dafydd]

Good. So you believe the parents who say that Wakefield falsified patient information in his study.

He won't believe those parents.

 

[Reality Check]

Isn't odd that the CDC is finally fessing up the flu vaccine isn't working for seniors?

Isn't odd that your are lying about "the CDC is finally fessing up the flu vaccine isn't working for seniors?"
This specific flu vaccine did work for seniors (but only 9% efffective for some unknown reason).
What You Should Know for the 2012-2013 Influenza Season

What caused the low VE among people 65 and older against influenza A H3N2 viruses?
One possible explanation for this is that some older people did not mount an effective immune response to the H3N2 component of this season’s vaccine; however, it’s not possible to say that for certain.

The answer to your question is beause the CDC has no access to time machines !
The studies were done this year not last year.
What You Should Know for the 2012-2013 Influenza Season

How well is the vaccine working this season?
CDC conducts studies each year to determine how well the vaccine protects against illness. These estimates provide more information about how well this season’s vaccine is working.
On January 11, 2013, CDC published interim early estimates of the 2012-2013 flu vaccine’s effectiveness at preventing medical visits due to laboratory-confirmed flu among people enrolled at five study sites across the United States.
...
On February 21, 2013, CDC published these updated and adjusted estimates in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report entitled: “Interim Adjusted Estimates of Seasonal Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness—United Sates, February 2013”.

Even if they did the study in October 1012 a public notification would not be needed from the CDC bacuse seniors should still get vaccinated.
What You Should Know for the 2012-2013 Influenza Season

Should people 65 and older still get vaccinated?
Despite the fact that flu vaccines seem to work less well in people who are 65 and older, there are many reasons why people in that age group should be vaccinated each year.

• First, people 65 and older are at high risk of getting seriously ill, being hospitalized and dying from the flu.
• Second, while VE against medically attended flu infection can be lower among older people, there are seasons when significant benefit can be observed in terms of averting illness. Even if the vaccine provides less protection than it might to younger people, some protection is better than no protection at all, especially in this high risk group.
• Third, current CDC studies look at how well the vaccine works in preventing outpatient and urgent care medical visits due to flu infection/illness. This is just one outcome. There are other studies that look at the effects of vaccination on severity of illness and hospitalization rates as well as looking at death as on outcome. There is also some data to suggest that vaccination can reduce illness severity; so while someone who is vaccinated may still get infected, their illness may be milder. There also are studies that show that flu vaccination can prevent significant numbers of hospitalizations and deaths. The authors of one study entitled, “Influenza Vaccination and Mortality: Differentiating Vaccine Effects From Bias,” (Fireman et al, 2009) concluded that vaccination prevented approximately 25 deaths per 100,000 people 65 and older who were vaccinated, or one death was prevented for every 4,000 people vaccinated.
• Fourth, it’s important to remember that people who are 65 and older are very heterogeneous. This group encompasses people who are healthy and active and have responsive immune systems, as well as those who have underlying medical conditions that may weaken their immune system, and therefore, their bodies’ ability to respond to vaccination. Therefore, when evaluating the benefits of flu vaccination, it’s important to look at a broader picture than one study finding can present. Although flu vaccine in not perfect, overall the evidence supports the public health benefit of vaccination. Vaccination is particularly important for people 65 and older who are especially vulnerable to serious illness and death, despite the fact that the vaccine may not work as well in this age group.

 

[Reality Check]

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/036255_MMR_autism_court_case.html#ixzz2M6U83t93

Clayton Moore, you need to learn that naturalnews is a crackpot web site so citing it makes you look dubious.
This is a legal case in an Italian court, not scientific evidence. The author stating "Proof in court of the link between MMR and autism" is at least ignorant.
The scientific evidence is that the MMR vaccine does not cause autism.

And since you seem to be arguing by news article: Top doc hits back over jab safety
And if you want to argue using legal cases: Vaccines didn't cause autism, court rules

 

[Clayton Moore]

Let's go through this blurb you quoted.



They start off by almost admitting one of the problems with Wakefield's research: his undisclosed conflict of interest. He never revealed in the paper that he was being paid by lawyers who were working on a lawsuit against MMR manufacturers.



This is false. In all of Brian Deer's articles about Wakefield's fraud and ethical violations, he says that the children were "ill". See his BMJ articles, where he says "one—child 2—clearly had regressive autism." In the next paragraph, "two of this trio were brothers, living 60 miles south of the hospital. Both had histories of fits and bowel problems42 recorded before their MMR vaccinations. The elder, child 6, aged 4 years at admission, had Asperger’s syndrome,45 which is distinct from autism under DSM-IV, is not regressive,46 and was confirmed on discharge." Next paragraph, "Child 12 was aged 6 at admission and had previously been assessed for possible Asperger’s syndrome." A bit later, "child 4 and child 8 [...] both had developmental delays, and also facial dysmorphisms, noted before MMR vaccination."

I could go on like this for pages. No one denies that the children in Wakefiled's Lancet case series had health issues and developmental delays. What Deer found, and was later confirmed during the GMC trial by examination of medical records was that many of the kids did not have regressive autism, as claimed, but other developmental problems. Many did not have any bowel disease, as claimed. Also, it was found that Wakefield manipulated the timing in the article to make it look like vaccines were to blame for the the alleged bowel problems.



While Brian Deer originally brought this information to light, the GMC investigated the matter on their own. Deer's role was essentially the role of an informant. He did not take part in the GMC investigation.



This just confirms that Deer did not play a central role in the GMC hearings. And he should not have, he reported information he found from parents of the children and elsewhere.

The GMC looked at the actual medical records, heard testimony from the researchers involved, including Wakefield, and more. They did not need Brian Deer to do this. In fact, he was irrelevant to the matter after it had been brought to the GMC's attention.

But the anti-vaccine crowd refuses to understand this. They want the whole thing to depend on the word of one reporter. It does not.




The GMC hearing was about whether there were violations relating to the case series reported in the Lancet. Issues included whether data was falsified, whether there were undisclosed conflicts of interest, and most importantly whether the children were subjected to invasive testing (such as colon biopsies) without proper approval. This only involves the 13 children in the case series. The hearing was not to determine whether parents think vaccines cause autism, but to determine whether Wakefield had violated medical regulations in his research. He did. Multiple times. Hundreds of angry parents do not turn fraud and abuse into gold. Read what the GMC has to say.


Brian Deer has twice won the British Press Award, generally considered the most prestigious award in British journalism. When he first published about Wakefield, Andy sued him, but quickly dropped the lawsuit (probably once he realized that discovery would give Deer access to the medical records that prove more of Wakefield's wrong-doing). After the BMJ series, Wakefield sued him again, a case which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Read about it in Deer's summary, and especially in his detailed declaration for the lawsuit.

But again, Brian Deer is not the issue. He is the reporter that broke the story. But it is not Deer's word against Wakefield, it is Wakefield's word against the evidence. Wakefield loses.

So why did the GMC or the vaccine companies make the single vaccines unavailable?

 

[dafydd]

So why did the GMC or the vaccine companies make the singe vaccines unavailable?

The use vaccines to singe people?

 

[dafydd]

So why did the GMC or the vaccine companies make the singe vaccines unavailable?

Easier on the child just to get one injection.

 

[Clayton Moore]

There were 12 researchers/doctors participating on the Lancet paper. There was a lawsuit of about 1000 families of MMR victims. Wakefield was to testify. The government cut off legal financial assistance to the plaintiffs. Deer wrote his article and basically submitted his article to the GMC to discredit the Lancet report and Wakefield and thereby submarine the lawsuit. No patients or doctors had complained about the report or Wakefield.

 

[Reality Check]

So why did the GMC or the vaccine companies make the singe vaccines unavailable?

A bit ignorant, Clayton Moore.
The importation license for the single measles vaccine was withdrawn in 1988 by the UK government, not the GMC or vaccine companies.

 

[dafydd]

There were 12 researchers/doctors participating on the Lancet paper. There was a lawsuit of about 1000 families of MMR victims. Wakefield was to testify. The government cut off legal financial assistance to the plaintiffs. Deer wrote his article and basically submitted his article to the GMC to discredit the Lancet report and Wakefield and thereby submarine the lawsuit. No patients or doctors had complained about the report or Wakefield.

Proof please, real proof, not a link to a loony website.

 

[dafydd]

A bit ignorant, Clayton Moore.
The importation license for the single measles vaccine was withdrawn in 1988 by the UK government, not the GMC or vaccine companies.

Clayton, do some research.

 

[Clayton Moore]

A bit ignorant, Clayton Moore.
The importation license for the single measles vaccine was withdrawn in 1988 by the UK government, not the GMC or vaccine companies.

So why did the UK government make the single vaccines unavailable?

 

[Reality Check]

There were 12 researchers/doctors participating on the Lancet paper. ....

So what?

MMR vaccine controversy

The paper suggested that the connection between autism and the gastrointestinal pathologies was real, but said it did not prove an association between the MMR vaccine and autism.[1]
...
In March 2004, immediately following the news of the conflict of interest allegations, ten of Wakefield's 12 coauthors retracted this interpretation,[67] while insisting that the possibility of a distinctive gastrointestinal condition in children with autism merited further investigation.[40] However, a separate study of children with gastrointestinal disturbances found no difference between those with ASD and those without, with respect to the presence of measles virus RNA in the bowel; it also found that gastrointestinal symptoms and the onset of autism were unrelated in time to the administration of MMR vaccine.[68]

Wakefield did not declare his conflict of interest.
Wakefield manipulated data in the paper.
Wakefield essentially tortured children with unneeded procedures.
and so

On 24 May 2010, the GMC panel imposed the following sanctions in the case: Wakefield was found guilty of serious professional misconduct on four counts of dishonesty and 12 involving the abuse of developmentally challenged children, and was ordered to be struck off the medical register.

The paper was properly retracted.
Retraction—Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children

 

[Stamuel]

There were 12 researchers/doctors participating on the Lancet paper. There was a lawsuit of about 1000 families of MMR victims. Wakefield was to testify. The government cut off legal financial assistance to the plaintiffs. Deer wrote his article and basically submitted his article to the GMC to discredit the Lancet report and Wakefield and thereby submarine the lawsuit. No patients or doctors had complained about the report or Wakefield.

By the highlighted phrase, you mean he published in the Sunday Times? I guess that would bring the info to their attention.

As to the rest, none of it, even if true, suggests Deer got anything wrong. None of it suggests the GMC ruling was wrong. Your case remains weak to nonexistent.

 

[Reality Check]

So why did the UK government make the single vaccines unavailable?

I am not the UK government. Why don't you ask them?

I can make a guess. The usage of the single measles vaccine went so low that there was no point in having an import license (and its administration costs).

 

[FrederickEason]

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/036255_MMR_autism_court_case.html#ixzz2M6U83t93

Courts are not proper arbiters of medical science, correlation is not causation.

All lies. I'll believe the parents.

You can't just call things "lies" without providing proof of deceit.

So why did the GMC or the vaccine companies make the single vaccines unavailable?

Saves time and money to use a single shot instead of multiple shots.

 

[Dcdrac]

No sinsiter reason just a good sound clinical reason why the NHS no longer does single vaccincation

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/vaccinations/Pages/mmr-vaccine.aspx

Single measles, mumps and rubella vaccines
Single vaccines are not routinely given in the UK. They're not available on the NHS as there is a risk that fewer children would receive all the necessary injections, increasing the levels of measles, mumps and rubella in the UK.

The delay in having six separate injections would also put more children at risk of developing the conditions, as well as increasing the amount of work and inconvenience for parents and those administering the vaccines. "

 

[LSSBB]

Wakefield essentially tortured children with unneeded procedures.

You'd think this alone would compel someone who keeps professing concern for the children to discount Wakefield's methods and results. I guess it's the ends justify the means for some people.