Part 1 Andrew Wakefield Series: MMR before Andrew Wakefield and Anti-Vax Meme

Content is not found now in the first link of the American Journal of Epidemiology, though it was contained in that link last night when I posted this. Here is another link to it.

I commend you for taking this task on, Sue. I have become aware of lots of strange things in connection to the vaccine "industry", and suspect that Mr. Wakefield was demonized intentionally, by agents of the industry.

As you imply, these are very complex matters to understand, and require that one spend some actual time investigating and considering evidence that is not likely to appear in the mass media echo chamber's products, in order to grasp the nature of this beast. Here is a sample (just a sample) of the sort of thing that has been edited out of MSM product, for reasons that I believe will become rather apparent to the viewer;

Merck scientist Dr Maurice Hilleman admitts SV40, AIDS and cancer in vaccines

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e93q7ANOO8k&feature=related

When you go through it all, John, there just aren't words to describe what they've done. It's the most insidious type of deception and duplicity imaginable. Yet, when you do investigate what they've done here, the actual sequence of events and the events themselves, along with the characters involved, including that reporter, there's just no way you can overlook his prevarications.

I hope I more than implied on that other post that it's far too complex to answer these allegations in some little write-bite.

Sure, "a scientific affair within the scientific community." Thanks, John.

Today I think it's fitting to remember those mothers whose children have been injured by vaccines. When you think of how careful they probably were, as most of us during our pregnancies, to do all of the right things to ensure a healthy child, being so grateful that we had done our due diligence and had beautiful, healthy babies, and then to have the joy of that healthy life only to be snuffed out by once again, doing the "right thing" and getting those children vaccinated, it's got to be an untenable position to be in and unbearable to face at times. It's sad enough that these unnecessary injuries have occurred and lives of whole families are so dramatically changed because of them, but to have to endure the added insult to that injury of what uncompassionate, insensitive boorish bullies say about them and to them as if those mothers wished that harm on others' children just because they tell their stories as they happened has got to be what has welled their eyes with tears far too often. There, but for the grace of God, go all of us as mothers.

If you've ever done anything like this to mothers who are suffering already, don't ever try to paint yourself as a humanitarian to me. I only use the following as an example because it's everywhere you look to read here now, as if it had the importance of a nuclear attack. I don't care what stand you take on the issue of gay marriage, but if you take the stand to allow gays to marry because you think that makes you humanitarian, and you've maligned and disparaged outspoken mothers of children with vaccine injuries, I can't even call that hypocritical because it's just too insane if you think you are humanitarian, and even more insane to expect that anyone who is sane would ever think you are after saying such horrendous things about these mothers.

So let's take a moment to reflect on what these mothers are going through, and wish a happy Mother's Day to them, free of guilt and shame for telling their stories. I pray that the Lord will give them the courage to continue, and that these children of theirs who have been injured will be a blessing to them despite the pain and suffering those mothers and children endure. God bless them all.

(I suppose HINO is a fitting label for many, Sue ; )



I pray He bless those mothers and their families abundantly, as well as any whose eyes and hearts are not yet open fully.

Amen

hahaha--I suppose it is.

I found the complete study report from that abstract linked in the post. It's interesting for a few reasons according to this series. I remember an interview Dr. Wakefield did with Dr. Mercola where he expressed his disgust that they had withdrawn the trivalent vaccine with the Urabe mumps strain in the UK, yet Smith-Kline Beecham Pharmaceuticals, London, United Kingdom had no problem pawning it off to Brazil. Obviously, they accepted it and it tells you the reasons the government did, and cost was a factor too, I'm sure, though they don't specifically cite that as one of the reasons.

Another thing is that it says, "Aseptic meningitis is a well documented adverse
event (1-4) that is attributable to the Urabe mumps strain of the combined measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine." So because the combined vaccine they already knew was a problem, it seems that Wakefield's recommendation in the UK to administer it separately was very well advised. Why in the world would they then make it unavailable just 6 months after that recommendation?

The other thing that I found most notable is how they explain that the mass vaccination campaign (which is, of course, a guinea pig population) allows them to see cause and effect relationships that are not normally seen when vaccines are administered randomly as they are here. If you note there, they didn't have the problem reported in France when the same strain was given because there was no tracking procedure to determine that cause and effect. They have these large urban hospitals in Brazil where the cases are all diagnosed at once and it makes it much easier to verify. So what would this tell you? For one thing, you know that the causal link even with something as easily diagnosed as meningitis is not so easily recognized. How much more so would it be difficult to track a link between autism and the vaccines? You can't possibly say with any certainty that there is no link, but only that one has not been discovered. Andrew Wakefield never said there was a specific link, but only said that he recognized from what he did find that more studies needed to be done because he did see indications that there might be. They blew it all out of proportion like they do with mostly everything.

And I should probably post this on Sandy's post where the usual meme that Wakefield is the cause of the outbreak of measles because it caused the vaccination rates to plummet was once again heralded as the final answer to the whole problem. But the reasons I'm putting it here instead include that her post is old now, the responses wouldn't be any better now than they were before, and I was thinking what I'm about to write when I wrote the above.

When I went to Sandy's post, I clicked the link in her article and found a quote from Andrew Wakefield about the discontinuation of the single dose shots. I had thought this before myself, but not knowing for sure that it was likely, I hesitated to say it. The quote that's here from Wakefield is “… it’s my opinion that it is entirely their responsibility that there has been a declining vaccine uptake in the UK because they removed the option of the single vaccines and there have been outbreaks of infectious disease as a consequence.”

As you see, this combined MMR vaccine problem was not Andrew Wakefield's finding. If Andrew Wakefield did anything at all, it was to encourage them to still get the vaccines, but to get them in the single dosage. He didn't have any control that they made the single doses unavailable. So now that they had the information that the trivalent vaccine was harmful from other sources, what do you think would happen? Of course the rates of vaccination dropped. If they hadn't eliminated the single dosage, they might not have seen that problem. It's not his fault; it's theirs. Every dishonest individual and government needs a scapegoat for something, I suppose.

Yeah, that might be what we're seeing in this case, a sort of deflection maneuver by officials that made a poor choice at some point . . but I think the whole vaccination paradigm is (was) so heavily dependent on getting the populace to buy into it, so to speak, that this could easily extend to any "authorities" involved in getting the paradigm firmly established.

The paper you're using presently here touches on some of this aspect, the public confidence parts, and the apparent belief (I perceive) among the bulk of the "industry et al", is that the general populace is not capable of understanding the risk vs benefit factors well enough to grasp the wisdom of causing a small amount of harm (statistically speaking) in order to gain the long term benefits of a substantially reduced incidence of infectious disease society wide.

That, in combination with the apparent "need" felt by the same bulk, to virtually saturate populations, in terms of vaccination coverage rate, leads to this "mums the word" attitude, in general. They almost need to stifle any and all talk of problems, across the board, because they chose this approach of an ignorant public. The same public they are not educating about risk vs benefit of vaccination, must be kept away from all talk of risk, because they cannot integrate the talk into a coherent understanding that they have not been allowed to develop . .

Therefore, each and all levels of "authority", must be maintained as virtually unquestionable, from scientist to corporation to government to physician to field worker . . The whole thing must be maintained as seeming nearly perfect, to maintain the "blind" faith. Instead of responding rationally to things like what Mr. Wakefield presented/proposed, the model virtually demands that such presenting be highly discouraged, highly controlled essentially . . as I see the general approach taken thus far.

But, that leads to a whole nuther level of need to control presenting, so to speak, I believe. Even if it was actually felt by the high ups, that the public could grasp those risk vs benefit notions, the very act of approaching one arena of "authority" in that sort of transparent/informative fashion, would set an example for other arenas of authority . . that the high ups do not want to be transparent/informative about . . so the "need" to control in general, becomes a factor in each arena of authority. The "Big Brother" effect is the logical conclusion, once the game of "blind" faith in human authority is underway in earnest, I feel.

The "control presenting" is very obvious in the anti-vax meme itself. You're either for us or you're against us. No matter what you say, how you say it or how many times you say it, you're anti-vax if you want to bring any kind of objectivity into the issue that involves learning of the risks. And this for us or against us attitude is what they deliberately promoted so it prevails and it's so obvious in any of the comments to the "leaders" because the comments themselves have no substance but to be in agreement as to make a statement about what "side" they're on. They don't necessarily need to know why they've chosen that side, much less understand that it isn't a childhod Red Rover game or a tug of war where you are on a team to defeat the other team. As you point out, they've done this with everything. Israel comes to mind as an example. You're either pro-Israel or you're anti-Israel. Facts don't count and don't try to present a reasoned explanation with those facts unless you're claiming a side. I don't blame it entirely on "Big Brother" either. This is the laziest, most slothful society when it comes to learning beyond the comfort zone and applying some reason to facts that may not coincide with the "side" you've chosen. I'm easily disgusted, so shoot me.

"I don't blame it entirely on "Big Brother" either. This is the laziest, most slothful society when it comes to learning beyond the comfort zone and applying some reason to facts that may not coincide with the "side" you've chosen."

Well, there is no Big Brother of course, those are also members of this slothful society you (rightly I feel) speak about . . They are not going beyond their "comfort zone", but instead are fostering the sort of Big Brother effect we are seeing play out in various ways, rather than "taking the chance" of championing and facilitating a non-ignorant public paradigm, I believe. As individuals, these are people with vested interests, that are like a "tug of war" deal, to them.

Career, wealth, fame, influence, security, power, etc, etc, are personal motivations, which take on a pseudo collective consciousness quality, as the game becomes entrenched . . Each participant is indulging personal interests, which become communal so to speak, as the "blind" faith in human authority paradigm picks up steam, so to speak. Keeping the general populace ignorant and obedient, becomes the general interest of all players who have succumbed to the temptations that such a non-transparent/informative approach inevitably presents.

There becomes a collective need to keep the game going, at all costs, as the collective iniquity of those indulgences grows widespread. Don't rock the boat , of faith in human authority, becomes a cancerous infection mentality almost, that snowballs as more and more unscrupulous people become invested in the secrecy and intimidation and control . . till it becomes literal demands for the "little people" to shut up, and do as we are told, by the authorities. Till we are literally being told our betters will not tolerate our resistance or lip . . that we are not worthy of questioning the great and powerful Oz.

NPD

 
Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.


The antidote, the anti-NPD, the Vaccine, The Messiah.

"The measles, mumps and rubella1 (MMR) have been used extensively in children and have been demonstrated to be safe and effective in preventing disease [1]. However, because it is a live vaccine the MMR vaccine has the potential to cause adverse events one to 2 weeks following vaccination [2]. Most reactions to this vaccine will be mild with fevers occurring in 5 to 15% and rashes in 5% [3]. More serious reactions are extremely rare and may not be identified during pre-licensure trials [4]. Post market surveillance has identified an incidence of febrile seizures following the MMR vaccine of 25 to 34 per 100 000 vaccinated and a two to three-fold increased relative risk [5], [6]. However, at a population level, mass exposures to a vaccine with a rare side effect profile could have detectable important population level effects. No study has examined the impact on aggregate health service utilization following the MMR vaccination."

So they have no way of detecting whether other effects of seemingly insignificant risks would show effects of more significant risks until a study of a concentrated population, the same as the one they did for meningitis in Brazil as noted in the link in my May 14th, 12:20AM comment, is conducted.

The more I see from people who are so adamant that there isn't any possibility that currently associated risks with vaccines are the only risks possible and should be recorded as archived history, the more I think these are the very people who have been most deleteriously affected and their maladies have just gone undiagnosed.

LINK TO PART 2

I made no changes to this either, but since the link to the abstract wasn't there in the body of the post, I changed that link to the complete Brazilian study report from that abstract.

John pretty well covered my thoughts to a tee, Sue...... This is a VERY important series you've taken on and I only hope that more folks read it's content and that it will prompt many to look a bit deeper into the daft logic being spoon fed to them from the medical profession........

Well, as I said yesterday to Ian, Sandy, this is about Andrew Wakefield and that's why it's called the Andrew Wakefield Series. Before I started this series, I asked for your advice, since you know probably better than anyone here, what the biggest misconception about Andrew Wakefield is. You told me that it was that he was the one responsible for the decline in vaccine consumption.

This first part of the series is supposed to show you that he did not at all recommend that anyone stop vaccinating. He recommended that children get the doses separately, rather than in one shot of measles, mumps and rubella. People were following that advice until they took the took the single dose shots off the market, just 6 months after the recommendation.

Furthermore, Andrew Wakefield was not the first to show that there were problems with this vaccine. The pharmaceutical industry and the British government knew there were too. They finally stopped administering it in the UK and to minimize their losses, Glaxo sold off what they couldn't now pawn off there to other countries at a reduced rate while they used the population in Brazil to do a concentrated study to find the link with the MMR and asceptic meningitis of which there had been significant, but unproven evidence to that point. If they thought they could continue with the Urabe strain, they would have. They were indemnified by the British government so they couldn't even be sued for any damages that children had in the UK with meningitis. We will never know the extent of the damage there because of that and because they did not do a concentrated and controlled study as they did in Brazil.

You'll see here that in Canada the Urabe strain MMR had been discontinued in 1988 while they were still using it in the UK. "Clearly, the DoH and UK government were well aware of the problems occurring with the Urabe strain of mumps vaccine not only before the vaccine was given to millions of children in this country, but even before the vaccine was approved for licence. Concerns were clearly referred to in the Minutes of the Joint Sub-Committee on Adverse Reactions to Vaccination and Immunisation, (ARVI) March 8th, 1988."

And you see this Salisbury in this Golding letter that lied even about the indemnification. There's got to be a point at which you want to at least understand where the credibility lies and where it doesn't. But it's difficult unless you take the time to read beyond what you see at the surface. And some of the seemingly nicest and most loved will make it almost impossible for people to see that.

I hate to digress, Sandy, but I happened to come across a most eloquent comment from someone about the Bible. It poignantly addressed all the things people say about it who give it no credence. What a Christian! And if that were the only comment I had ever read by this individual, I would think so too. Whatever, it's for God to decide, but as much as the comment itself was uplifting, it was a deception of character of what else I know from having read what the person has said about Andrew Wakefield alone, and rather believing and supporting Brian Deer whose vile character and deceptive traits are obvious in the next section. I could come here tomorrow and make "friends" with everyone on this site under a different name. It's not, nor ever was my intention. I don't care if you hate my guts, but you're going get the truth shoved up your butt and down your throat without the sugar-coating from me. You want to cozy up together all nice and gooey in the syrupy words instead, drown in your own sweet deception. I'm doing what I can.

So to conclude, this series isn't about vaccines per se, but it's to show one instance of where people have misplaced their trust, to attempt to make them see beyond the headlines, beyond the convincing news reports where they have done no investigation of their own, no matter what the issue. It's an attempt to make them take a closer look at what is beneath the surface with one real situation, the situation of Andrew Wakefield. It's about examining what your "religion" is, how you derive your truth and whether that truth is only according to what you have been told, or what you have responsibly taken the time to understand is the truth. There is no interpretation here and that's what makes it not acceptable in certain groups. We can't all come together with eclectic views where no one is wrong and everyone is right in the grand cosmos of "philosophical thought." So be it. There's still fact and there's still fiction and I have no patience for their conflation.

Sandy, I was reading what I wrote here, and I hope you understand that I know you know that so it wasn't written to tell you anything you already know, but it was to make it clear that this series in not about vaccines. Yet, it doesn't seem some people are understanding that. Below, with your new friend, we see the perfect example of part of what I said here. He's got a huge web of tangled, partial information that he doesn't have a very good understanding of in the first place, but with the help of what he's read in the news, it hasn't stopped him from processing the bits and pieces of information that he has gathered here and there to draw conclusions that he would never have derived if it were not for those news stories.

So, I don't know. Not just with this issue, but with so many, people are just too brainwashed to reason. Maybe you can help him, though. I give up because he's not relating to anything that has been put forth here, but he's on a one-track based on the few things he knows that don't have to do with what this is about. He's bound and determined to make the point that vaccines don't cause harm in proportion to their good, and that's all he cares about, just like everyone else, even though that is not what this series is about at all. It's so frustrating. I might make the rest of this series without allowing commentary at all because I don't have the patience with people like that. I never have and I never will.

Don't do that, Sue . . it will go almost completely unnoticed. This fellow bellow has merely demonstrated the shallowness of the mass media generated demonization of Mr. Wakefield, and those who champion vaccines so unquestioningly and religiously. Let them come if they wish, and recite the mantras they have been taught to recite.

You must have noticed not many came so far . . and you must realize many must have seen this at some point. Tell the tale and let them come refute it if they care to try, I say. Don't let them off the hook, so to speak . .

I know; you're right.

The original studies that showed any links were small and flawed.

In any event, the problem of an outbreak of these diseases seems to be far worse than the unproven claim of harm.

This seems like the outcry against fluoridation of the water supply -- more fear of change than actual fear of documented problems.

Just because A followed B does not mean A caused B.

Neither does it mean that A did not cause B, sir. That's why folks like Mr. Wakefield are supposed to report potential indications of trouble, if they are conscientious doctors. which is all he did from what I have seen.

Are the authorities ever wrong about anything, do you figure? Like economics for instance? The education system? Claims about second hand smoke? Global warming? How come there couldn't be a problem with something like vaccines, or fluoridation, that the authorities are not being honest or clear thinking about? Have you investigated this matter, and vaccines and the vaccine industry yourself? And fluoridation? Or are you just echoing some authority figures on these issues?

Thank you, John.

Oh, the studies were small and flawed? That must be why they finally discontinued the vaccine with the Urabe mumps strain and replaced it with the MMR2 without it.

Exactly. It means you need a well designed study. Which has been done, multiple times, without reproducing the results.

Moreover, the initial agent thought to be at fault (a preservative) has been eliminated and the results still show no causal relationship.

In fact, the only relationship that has been established is that of parents who are so desperate to find a "villain" they are willing to risk the lives of children by not vaccinating them for many dangerous diseases.

BTW: Andrew Wakefield, who authored the original MMR studies, has admitted a conflict of interest in is work, admitted to manipulation of data and was stripped of his medical license by the General Medical Council because of serious professional misconduct in May 2010.

Says you, Yevgeni. Why no answer to my question?

Well, his response is rather humorous. I just finished a reply to Sandy talking about people who base their beliefs on headline news. "...was stripped of his medical license by the General Medical Council because of serious professional misconduct in May 2010." Oh, you don't say? I'll have to stop writing this series right now. Had I been aware, I never would have started it. Where were you when I needed you?

Part of the rest of your uninformed comment is addressed throughout this section and the next, but I will address one part here. Andrew Wakefield never admitted to any such thing. (The series gets ahead of itself here but that's my fault for being remiss in posting consistently) The so-called conflict of interest was about a supposed deal Andrew Wakefield had with an attorney that Wakefield's research was supposed to prove injury for litigation against the pharmaceutical company, but there could have been no litigation because the British government had already, before the vaccine was released in the UK, indemnified the pharmaceutical company against any such legal action by anyone so what they claim he wanted to do could not have been done. That's lie number one. You'll have to wait with everyone else for the rest for what you think you know about the "medical misconduct" if you can't find it yourself. I still have to address the response to my comment you made next and that will be enough for now.

You're not following along. I am not talking about the study that Andrew Wakefield did. I'm talking about ongoing problems with the MMR due to the Urabe strain of virus that was released in the UK, and if you see the link in the comment I left to Sandy above, even before they did the study in Brazil, they knew there were problems with the MMR unrelated to what anything Andrew Wakefield's study suggested. Those were studies that proved a cause and effect with the vaccine and meningitis. That MMR vaccine with the Urabe mumps strain had already been banned in Canada before they even released it in the UK. That study in this post was there to show you that Andrew Wakefield had nothing to do with pointing out problems with the MMR that were already well documented.

Andrew Wakefield's study, published in the Lancet, is different. That is where he suggested, merely suggested, that there was a mitochondrial connection between chilren with bowel disorders and the MMR that may result in autism and encouraged that further studies would prevail. That didn't happen, though, so now you're up to speed when you say "the studies were flawed and small." That's not Andrew Wakefield's fault and he never disagreed that if there were any follow-up studies that they were inadequate. I never knew that he even alluded to any follow-up studies such as the ones he recommended.


Whatever vague allusion you're making to "the initial agent thought to be at fault (a preservative) has been eliminated..." I can only guess at because I'm pretty sure you don't even know what that agent is or you would have named it. I'm pretty sure you are getting all confused here with idea that it's mercury or thimerosol which is not the specific issue in this case. If you even read the post, you would know that it was a specific strain of a mixture of mumps viruses called the Urabe strain that had caused the problems that were associated with meningitis and that took the vaccine off the market in Canada. As I said above, they still allowed it to be administered in the UK with this knowledge and then continued to sell the rest in other countries like Brazil when it was finally banned in the UK.

So you're right that no specific cause and effect relationship has been determined between MMR and autism, though you never mentioned autism either so who knows what you're talking about, including you, but Andrew Wakefield also never made any such claim.

And I am going to say one more thing here and this is for anyone else who also wishes to comment on these posts to diminish Andrew Wakefield. The reason I am writing this series is specifically so I don't have to address uninformed people in dribs and drabs about their uninformed beliefs. If you have questions about what I have posted and you have read along in the series, I'll be very happy to answer your questions, but don't come here with your petty nonsense because you think you know what you don't even know enough to know you don't know.

The agent was the preservative, a mercury-based preservative called thiomersal.

Moreover, as that strain of MMR has been withdrawn, what is the issue?

I see a larger problem: People looking for a source of blame and willing to allow their children to take enormous risk based on fallacious beliefs.

I just told you it's not. That's proof that my guess was correct, That is not at all the connection with this in either of these studies.. I am the one who named the agent that I assumed you were speaking of and getting confused, and I apparently assumed correctly. You don't know the first thing about what you're talking about. Thimerosol has been accused of being a culprit in some studies, but the Brazilian study that is contained in this post's body did not have anything to do with the cause and effect relationship they showed between the MMR and meningitis. Andrew Wakefield's Lancet paper was not addressing thimerosol either. You seem to have a very broad idea that vaccines have been maligned because of mercury and they have, but we're not discussing that here at all. At least read the post and understand what it's about before you make statements that prove just what I said. You don't even know enough to know what it is you don't know.

So you say, Yevgeni . . You are not a God to me, sir. Answer my question or I dismiss you as a pompous ass.

Yes, that's the least you could do.

John Knight: I did not call call you names, sir, nor claim to be a deity. When and if I choose to reply to you it will be in my time.

Demands do not make your assertions correct.

I dismiss you as a pompous ass, Yevgeni.

But his assertions are based on what you've said here which shows you haven't even read the post and if you have, you've made things up that aren't contained in this issue. We are not talking about thimerosol in these studies, and that's just for starters to accurately conclude that your assertions are nothing but pompous rhetoric. That he thinks that people who make pompous and unfounded assertions are asses is an opinion, I suppose, but who could dispute it?

In looking at the referenced materials, I see nothing that reaches the level of scientific investigation.

That you seem to be so incredibly intense that I respond at once to you tells me that your interests seem to be based more on emotion than actual science. It would therefore be pointless to provide you with facts, as you are not interested in fact.

No, you are probably more interested in wild conspiracies. The problem with large conspiracies is, they are rarely based on fact and therefore cannot be disproved.

So, you may believe what you will. It will not avail you of any real comfort.

"That you seem to be so incredibly intense that I respond at once to you tells me that your interests seem to be based more on emotion than actual science"

Pompous ass bullshoot to me, Yevgeni. There's nothing incredibly intense about asking a pertinent question and noting one is getting a bunch of pompous declarations in response, that can see. You do believe pompous asses exist, don't you? What would they do under these circumstances, that's any different than what you did?

"In looking at the referenced materials, I see nothing that reaches the level of scientific investigation."

Let's just stop right here because I have no idea what your vague response means this time. The last tiime you made a vague response as to an agent that you didn't name, I guessed that you were talking about an agent that most people who have glossed over problems associated with vaccines know to be thimerisol and I assumed you were confused. I assumed correctly that time, but I am not a mindreader so when you say you looked at the referenced materials and say you see nothing that reaches a certain level of scientific investigation, I have no idea to what level or what scientific investigation you speak of. What the hell is the scientific investigation specifically that you are talking about? What the hell is the level of which you speak that you're looking for once you've told me what the scientific investigation is that you speak of?

Did you read the post? Do you even know why the Brazilian study is alluded to in the post? Do you understand what you are reading?

Let's do a reading comprehension quiz.

The purpose of this post is to:

A. prove there is a connection between vaccines and autism
B. prove there is a connection between vaccines and meningitis
C. prove that Andrew Wakefield's Lancet paper is accurate
D. show that there were problems associated with the vaccine not attibuted to Andrew Wakefield's study and Andrew Wakefield was not responsible for a decline in vaccine consumption
E. All of the above
F. None of the above

"That you seem to be so incredibly intense that I respond at once to you tells me that your interests seem to be based more on emotion than actual science."

This part must have been addressed to you, John, because I never pressed him to answer anything but what you pressed him to answer, your questions, which have remained here since 4:46AM. He never answered your questions and those questions were very simply answered if he were at all interested in anything but pompous rhetoric which he had no problem spewing with no knowledge of what he was talking about. If he couldn't answer those questions in 18 hours, and calls that pressing him, it's obvious he doesn't wish to answer them.

Look how much metaphorical arm waving you have done in one evening.

As I said, you want only to appeal to emotion. I have no interest in that.

There is nothing emotional about this series. There is nothing at all metaphorical about it. I am presenting the facts of how Dr. Andrew Wakefield was framed.

This physician wrote approximately 140 peer reviewed papers to do with Crohn's disease and colitis and the cause of bowel disease. That was his specialty. Later, in those studies, he found that there was a relationship, not with the measles vaccine at this time, but there were studies he had done that followed up a Swedish physicians studies of children who had been exposed to measles in the womb and had developed Crohn's disease. So when parents who had brought their children to his colleague, Dr. John Walker Smith, who had lost their ability to speak after having had the measles vaccine, they got a multi-disciplinary team together to do tests to see what relationship there might be between the vaccines and the onset of autism in these children. (approximately 170 children) These children who had been diagnosed with autism by their own physicians were physically very ill. And they were able to help them with treatments the team devised. Dr. Wakefield had, prior to his interest in Crohns disease and colitis, been working with liver dysfunction. He knew there was a correlation between those who were jaundice and also developed encephalopathy or brain dysfunction. So when he saw that the children who were very ill with bowel disease had brain dysfunction, it was not a new thing to him to connect the encephalopathy with the physical illness. it wasn't vaccines he was out to demonize. He was a researcher and was the world's leading pediatric gastroenterologist and he was looking for ways to help these children who were before the treatments the team devised, banging their heads against walls, trying to show their pain since they could not articulate it, having lost their speech. He knew what he was talking about. If you read the next section, you'll begin to see how he was framed.

It seems to me that this is another blatant example of how the pharmaceutical companies (with the help of obliging physicians) regularly use people as unknowing guinea pigs......

I do not know how often I have heard people I have known tell me how they went to the doctor for some malady and the doctor offered them some new "experimental" drug or vaccine (usually as a free sample or at a very low cost).........

The Brazilian study standing alone is an example of that, I suppose. What you explain is how the pharmaceutical salesmen help the doctors get their patients hooked on new candy.

Congratulations you are Helping Out One Another's Person of the Day

Helping Out One Another's Person of the Day comment- learning alot just from reading comments

Just noting; "so I don't have to address uninformed people in dribs and drabs about their uninformed beliefs."

I would have recognized that as a production of the Gather buzzing Bee even if I'd found it lying on the floor without identifying info.
Actually, this is the first time I've really listened to a discussion of the problem and am learning. Thanks.

It's funny you should say that now because I'm in a correspondence with someone about perception, and just finished sending the last part off.

Back in the day when everyone was accusing me and everyone else of being each others' alters, I would think of how dismally distracted they were not to be able to recognize my "signature." Thanks, Glome. :)

:)