Follow-up to retracted MMR-autism "study"

reply to post by bluemirage5

That is what I think should be done Good job.

reply to post by SunnyDee


You're being intellectually dishonest. The CDC doesn't recommend 36 different vaccines. Here is the actual CDC vaccine schedule for 0-6 months.

Please note that there are 11 vaccines on that schedule, and only 10 of them are recommended for all children. It's likely your biased source was counting boosters as different vaccines, which they aren't.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


Well, Dr Tenpenny must have got her name from the cost of the cereal-box she got her Phd from.
If she uses biased and agenda ridden sites like Mrs McCharty's generation rescue as a source you know what you get.
BTW the source linking to generationrescue was a 404: www.generationrescue.org...

I wonder how many kids have been killed or seriously sick from her hysteria and fear mongering.

Just because there is something you don't understand doesn't mean that the people who do understand (scientists) it is part of some great conspiracy.

Originally posted by paxnatus
For all the nay sayers out there. To generalize and stereo type the parents of Autistic children as "frightened and acting on pure emotion is complete BS!!

If you are lumping my post into the 'all you nay sayers' category, which it seems you are, I (at least) never even implicated all or even a majority, I said many. I never said "reacting on pure emotion" either. I said 'an emotionally based reactionary response', in the context of those specific parents that are VERY frightened, and/or frustrated. However, I do believe that some parents do fall into that category. They are also the ones who tend to be the loudest.

Originally posted by paxnatus I do believe that many or frightened and ar I have an autistic son whom was not so at birth. It was following his MMR that he began showing symptoms. I really don't care if you believe me or not.

Funny thing that, I have an autistic daughter, and I do believe you... Or at least, I believe that is a your perception, and you believe it. It may very well be the truth though. I don't know. However, there is a flaw with seeing an effect and then looking for the cause retrospectively. Shortly after that series of shots is when many children seem to 'show symptoms'. I would respectfully put forth an alternative scenario for this perceived behavioral common denominator; we begin to look for certain social interactions from them at about that age (12-15 months), particularly with beginning language and communication, and when those interactions aren't there is when many parents notice something... odd. Which is perfectly normal, and (often thanks to some media influence) make the connection to the MMR. With my daughter (for example) I actually noticed subtle 'symptoms' months BEFORE she received that series of shots. I had a heck of time getting a pediatrician to listen to me though.

I'm not willing to completely rule out the MMR as potential influence or even cause in autism or autism-like symptoms in some children. I do think that the Wakefield study was very, very flawed in it's data collection and consequent interpretation however.

Originally posted by paxnatusThe parents of these kids I think know best! We are the ones with first hand experience and eye witness accounts!! We have done the research and WATCHED the results. Do not discount us as hysterical idiots looking desperately for answers and someone to blame. We have much more important things to handle, like making sure our children have a shot at quality of life.

Sure, we are the ones who know them best. As I said though, my first hand experience was quite different than your own, and the MMR was obviously not a factor for my daughter. I also had some training in behavioral developmental milestones, and a previous child of my own that was by-the-book normal developmentally, I was therefor able to spot anomalies very early.

It was not my intent to categorize all parents of autistic children, or even, those who suspect the MMR as 'hysterical' anything. Some are more pretty defensive, which is normal, and some (please note the some) parents frankly are hedging toward hysterical. They are fighting for their children, it is to be expected.

Originally posted by paxnatusYou have not walked in our shoes and until you do you have no right to make personal assumptions regarding why we tend to believe the MMR is responsible for our childs challenges. Perhaps you would be more informed if you read this thread.

I am informed, and I have walked in your shoes, so I guess I do have that right by your logic above. Arguably, and then some; I am also a diagnosed aspie myself. If you are not on the spectrum, it would perhaps be difficult for you to walk in mine however. I found your response rather personally assumptive as well actually; pots and kettles there though I suppose. I think there is a chance that you are wrong in your perceptions about the MMR, just as I must acknowledge that with the glut of anecdotal accounts, it may be a factor for some, or even many children that manifest traits that are on the autistic spectrum.

I feel for your struggle, and would wish you good luck at any rate.

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
reply to post by SunnyDee

 

You're being intellectually dishonest. The CDC doesn't recommend 36 different vaccines. Here is the actual CDC vaccine schedule for 0-6 months.

Please note that there are 11 vaccines on that schedule, and only 10 of them are recommended for all children. It's likely your biased source was counting boosters as different vaccines, which they aren't.

And you are being intellectually difficult. The poster did not say "different" vaccines; neither did the source they cited. You're the only on that mentioned "different"; twice. What everyone can clearly see and what SunnyDee would have said if they'd known the semantics police was about to accuse them of dishonesty is 36 "vaccinations". That's 36 different injections. This is what is of concern when people talk about bio-chemicals being added into their bloodstream. Boosters are no less a concern then a separate vaccine cocktail.

Dr Andrew Wakefield

Some may be interested to know that Dr Wakefield is not anti-vaccine. Far from it, he is very pro-vaccine as he readily admits. Also, he and the Lancet paper did not conclude that the MMR vaccine is responsible for autism. And this is what he was asked to retract in 2004. 10 of the 13 professionals involved in the research did retract under pressure and duress but Dr. Wakefield and 2 others did not because as they put it, "you cannot retract a possibility".

Dr. Wakefield is a leading pediatric gastroenterologist who's written 130+ peer reviewed, published papers on the subject (if that means anything to you) and long before this controversy arose, he was involved in some groundbreaking work (along with other international research institutions) regarding instances of Crohn's disease in children after exposure to measles in unusual conditions such as early on in life or in utero. Only after reviewing all existing MMR studies and literature did Dr. Wakefield become appalled at the supposed scientific testing and wrote a 250 page report endorsing the single measles vaccine only which was still available at the time (for a few more months only of course).

The Interview You Will Not See in the Mainstream Media

There are two sides to the story thankfully Dr. Mercola recently interviewed Dr. Wakefield for his side; one you certainly won't find anywhere in the media. Anyone familiar with the tactics used many, many times in the past to discredit and destroy dissenting individuals will know what to expect. It truly is an unbelievable account of how extreme fabrications are used against offenders along with ridiculous accusations.

You will hear how a British pharmaceutical company had their MMR vaccine stopped in countries like Canada and Japan due to a direct increase in cases of meningitis. But rather than switch to another MMR manufacture with a less problematic strain of mumps virus, the British Government provided the home team phrama company indemnity against any damage claims (before that was in style) and let the vaccine be distributed for another 4 years before finally being shelved. (Shelved is the wrong term as you will find out in the interview).

You'll hear about Brian Deer, a freelance journalist working on behalf of the Sunday Times, making a series of allegations against Wakefield and his colleagues that, in his opinion, these children with gastrointestinal disorders did not need investigation. And in his opinion, these children did not need a colonoscopy, spinal tap or the other investigations that Wakefield's clinical colleagues had deemed they most certainly did. The journalist believed that he had gotten together with a lawyer, rounded up these children for the purpose of creating a legal case against the manufacturers of the vaccine in order to bring about the downfall of the vaccine in order to launch his own vaccine onto the market. Hilarious since any journalist with half a brain would have known the manufacturers had been indemnified making that literally impossible.

Dr Wakefield explains that these children came from parents who heard about the work or read about it and made spontaneous contact with him because of his work on Crohn's disease in the newspapers. But Brian Deer managed to persuade the General Medical Council to initiate a process of investigation and being the hot issue that it was, eventually concluded things like "absence of ethical approval". This means one of the world's leading pediatric gastroenterologist was not fit to determine whether these children needed a colonoscopy or not for clinical indications which is his specialty and something he's done a thousand times before without "ethical approval" since it is absolutely never required. They determined it was researched.

He talks about the years following the initial controversial paper and his publishing of another 19 papers involving Crohn's, the MMR vaccine and Autism. All were peer reviewed, however strangely enough, none of these 19 papers are ever discussed in the media. The only study that keeps seeing the light of day is the original study from 1998. Since then, a large number of replication studies have been performed around the world by other researchers that confirm his initial findings.

Says Wakefield:

"...it's been replicated in Canada, in the U.S, in Venezuela, in Italy but they never get mentioned. All you ever hear is that no one has ever been able to replicate the findings.

I'm afraid that is false."

Again, you would never see this interview in mainstream media. What you would see however is Dr Wakefield's biggest opponent, Dr. Paul Offit, on NBC's Dateline. Dr Offit favors mandatory vaccinations. He also publicly states that an infant can easily receive ten thousand vaccines in a single day. But he recently revised that number to one-hundred thousand vaccines. Oh and by the way, Dr. Offit is currently making millions off his patented rotavirus vaccine.

Part 1


Part 2


Part 3


Part 4


Part 5


Part 6


Part 7


Part 8


Part 9


Part 10

Originally posted by StrangeBrew
That's 36 different injections.

Which is still a blatant lie. Did you even look at the CDC vaccine schedule I posted?

Why do you support lies that are so easily proven false?

Some may be interested to know that Dr Wakefield is not anti-vaccine. Far from it, he is very pro-vaccine as he readily admits. Also, he and the Lancet paper did not conclude that the MMR vaccine is responsible for autism. And this is what he was asked to retract in 2004. 10 of the 13 professionals involved in the research did retract under pressure and duress but Dr. Wakefield and 2 others did not because as they put it, "you cannot retract a possibility".

This is all blatantly false. Please read the investigation in the original post of this thread. It is well-sourced with evidence, rather than heresay.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


This will be my only reply to you. Your own link, the schedule you incorrectly labeled 0-6 months instead of 0-6 years SHOWS the 36 injections over those 6 first years of life! Clearly! Geez, and you're a doctor you say?

And again, you are wrong. Wakefield touts vaccines over and over again in the interview. Something which Dr. Mercola is clearly uncomfortable with but remains respectful.

What is wrong with you? Are you that uncomfortable with being completely wrong? Watch the interview. I read that ridiculous smear piece in the BMJ.

Originally posted by StrangeBrew
This will be my only reply to you. Your own link, the schedule you incorrectly labeled 0-6 months instead of 0-6 years

You're right, I made a typo. I was thinking one thing (looking at the shots by month) and meant to type another (years, the range of the chart). I apologize for that mistake.

SHOWS the 36 injections over those 6 first years of life! Clearly!

Really? I see 24 injections listed, with an additional 4 or 5 for children with specific congenital/medical complications.

Please list the 36 injections you see. I mean, I would hate for you to have to admit you're making the figure up.

Wakefield touts vaccines over and over again in the interview.

I'm sure damage control, his license revokation, and his loss of work at Thoughtful House had nothing to do with his sudden, careful wording,hm?

In psychiatry, this is known as an "undoing" defense mechanism.

I read that ridiculous smear piece in the BMJ.

Please point out which parts are "ridiculous" and "smearing". Every bit of negative information in the article about Wakefield and his study is supported by fact and well-sourced.

reply to post by csimon


This is what I was thinking exactly.There is a genetic disposition,I can attest to that,but I always thought that maybe the vaccines affected certain people, who had a certain gene structure, badly.Like some people are allergic to certain foods,maybe there is a gene that cannot tolerate whatever is in the vaccines.Maybe there is no conspiricy,that science hasnt caught up with it yet.If it was proved what would that mean for the drug companys,even if it was genuine a sideffect.Theres so much money at stake,

there was a time when we used aspestos in building,now known to be poisonous,and any health problem could be cured with bleeding.To change paradigms takes a lot.Those in power like the status quo.

Has anyone considered that maybe the mother of these children had a vaccine shot right before or during pregnancy and it's passed on that way? Just being a devil's advocate.

reply to post by TheLieWeLive


I had no vaccine shots before during or after any of my pregnancies, in fact I can't remember the last one I ever had since childhood.

reply to post by Angrybadger


Yours is a more intelligent and reasonable approach. These child vaccines far out weigh the consequences of not having them but since the 1980's the vaccines are too many in a remarkably short span of time. Mothers need to follow the child vaccine schedule of the 1950's-1960s regardless of what the Govt wants however that won't guarantee the risk of Autism but I'm absolutely certain it would cut the numbers of ASD down by a large percentage (if I'm correct).

In regards to my ASD son, he suffered from craniosynostosis through a severe birth injury and when I got hold of his medical record it was tampered with and I knew a coverup however I was aware of the injury during birth because of the sound of crushing bone during a forceps delivery. The craniosynostosis was 70% corrected when he was 2 months of age.

Vaccines? When this was brought to my attention I looked in to it and with my two younger children spread them out over a 6 year period just in case. The deposition of Aspergers and ADD/ADHD seems to be pointing towards semetic and Germanic genetic markers which is on both sides of the family.

Either way, I can not prove beyond a doubt whether Craniosynostosis or vaccines caused ASD in my son but it's pointing more towards a birth injury than the latter even though my son suffers from all the usual symptoms of ASD re developmental issues (even though his IQ is above average) severe allergies of animal fur and feathers, wool, nuts, wheat. May I also point out we live in a world of plastics and manmade fibres....environment must play a part too.

There is no definate answers however if 500+ Autistic children and adults were put under an MRI and other similar tests plus a range of blood tests I think we would get alot closer to the truth in a more speedy time frame not to mention we would learn so much more about this disorder.

reply to post by bluemirage5


Nevermind, I just read the post you put out at the same time I did. "I see said the blind man"

Originally posted by bluemirage5
Mothers need to follow the child vaccine schedule of the 1950's-1960s regardless of what the Govt wants

How can we stick to a vaccine schedule that existed before we had vaccines for the most common killers of infants and toddlers?

Are you suggesting we just stop vaccinating for most diseases?

with my two younger children spread them out over a 6 year period just in case.

The CDC recommendations already spread the vaccines out over six years.

There is no definate answers however if 500+ Autistic children and adults were put under an MRI and other similar tests plus a range of blood tests I think we would get alot closer to the truth in a more speedy time frame not to mention we would learn so much more about this disorder.

I absolutely agree with this. The more data we have, the better. You'll never hear a researcher complain about having too much data to look over

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


Thats not what I said. I said having the vaccines far out weight the consequences of not having them. The scedule of vaccines in the 1950's and 1960's is still available through libraries although I have'nt looked online.

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

 

Thats not what I said. I said having the vaccines far out weight the consequences of not having them. The scedule of vaccines in the 1950's and 1960's is still available through libraries although I have'nt looked online.

I understand that the vaccine schedule from the 1950s and 60s is available. What I'm trying to express (and I apologize if it wasn't clear...my English tends to fade back into Russian a bit when I'm tired) is that in the 1950s and 60s, we didn't HAVE vaccines for most childhood illnesses. One of the best examples is H. influenza B (HiB). This was, by far, the WORST and most common killer of infants, usually by causing meningitis. This vaccine DID NOT exist until 1985. So, it wouldn't be included in the schedule from the 1950s and 60s.

The same holds true for measles, mumps, rubella, HepB, tetanus...none of these had vaccines in the 1950s and 60s, so how would you include them on the schedule?

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


Ok, I need to go find my kid's scedules and how I tackled it so give me an hour or so to find them. The last one my daughter had was supposed to be done at 15 years of age but she just rcvd it afew months ago and she's almost 18.

Let me get back to you.

reply to post by bluemirage5


No worries. I actually am very interested, I'm not trying to be patronizing. Though I don't normally deal with pediatrics (not particularly a fan of kids, personally), I have had patients ask about spacing vaccines out. I'd love to look at the schedule you used and see if it's a viable option to give parents to consider. I suppose the key thing for me would be keeping the critical infant vaccines at their proper spots, but spacing out the less critical (but still important) vaccines a bit, like some of the later boosters.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


ok...found it

2 months: DTP & SABIN (had them @ 3 months)

4 months: " 6 "

6 months: " 9 "

18 months: DTP 18 "

12-15 months: Measles, mumps, rubella ( had them @ 2 yrs)

HIB Booster: 3 yrs

Pre-school: CDT & Sabin 6 yrs

10-15 yrs: Rubella 17 1/2 yrs

15 yrs/upon leaving school: ADT, Sabin next year

reply to post by bluemirage5


The 4 months vaccine was taken @ 6 months and the 6 months vaccine was taken @ 9 months