fluffy666 Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/01/piltdown_medicine_andrew_wakefields_scie.php The Lancet paper was a case series of 12 child patients; it reported a proposed "new syndrome" of enterocolitis and regressive autism and associated this with MMR as an "apparent precipitating event." But in fact: * Three of nine children reported with regressive autism did not have autism diagnosed at all. Only one child clearly had regressive autism * Despite the paper claiming that all 12 children were "previously normal," five had documented pre-existing developmental concerns * Some children were reported to have experienced first behavioural symptoms within days of MMR, but the records documented these as starting some months after vaccination * In nine cases, unremarkable colonic histopathology results--noting no or minimal fluctuations in inflammatory cell populations--were changed after a medical school "research review" to "non-specific colitis" * The parents of eight children were reported as blaming MMR, but 11 families made this allegation at the hospital. The exclusion of three allegations--all giving times to onset of problems in months--helped to create the appearance of a 14 day temporal link * Patients were recruited through anti-MMR campaigners, and the study was commissioned and funded for planned litigation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bossybabe Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 The fact that autism is usually diagnosed at around the age that children have their vaccinations seems to have escaped some parents. I guess they simply pester their doctors till the poor sods give in and label the kids. It is almost Munchausensian. Wakefield has a lot to answer for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number79 Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 well thats me convinced, am off down to the doctors now to see what vaccines they can stick in me. I may even see if porton down still need any volunteers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted January 6, 2011 Author Share Posted January 6, 2011 well thats me convinced, am off down to the doctors now to see what vaccines they can stick in me. I may even see if porton down still need any volunteers Well that's a convincing line of argument. Purely out of interest, if the scientists who developer MMR had been shown to have completely faked their test results, and had fled the country, but continued to pump their results as true and get paid for speaking on the subject at conferences, whilst claiming persecution, would your reaction be a 'rolleyes'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number79 Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 Well that's a convincing line of argument. Purely out of interest, if the scientists who developer MMR had been shown to have completely faked their test results, and had fled the country, but continued to pump their results as true and get paid for speaking on the subject at conferences, whilst claiming persecution, would your reaction be a 'rolleyes'? why? is that not what happened? sorry, I dont have the time for convincing argument. I did a lot of reading about vaccines, mistakes, hidden results, yada yada....spoke with a french doctor that informed me quite a bit about vaccines etc etc. I am all spent arguing about them but suffice to say that I will not have any more and neither will my daughter. There is a very good book about the subject, I will post the title for you when I remember it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bossybabe Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 why? is that not what happened? sorry, I dont have the time for convincing argument. I did a lot of reading about vaccines, mistakes, hidden results, yada yada....spoke with a french doctor that informed me quite a bit about vaccines etc etc. I am all spent arguing about them but suffice to say that I will not have any more and neither will my daughter. There is a very good book about the subject, I will post the title for you when I remember it. Are you old enough to have lost friends to measles? To remember kids whose sight was damaged as a result of measles? To have had measles yourself? I bet not. I have had some illnesses in my time, but none so bad as measles. My sister's eyesight was permanently damaged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number79 Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 Are you old enough to have lost friends to measles? To remember kids whose sight was damaged as a result of measles? To have had measles yourself? I bet not. I have had some illnesses in my time, but none so bad as measles. My sister's eyesight was permanently damaged. not measles, no. in spite of being vaccinated I did get the mumps quite severely with complications and spent a week in an isolation ward before many weeks in bed as an kid in infants school. Think I was off for about 6 weeks. Some vaccines are probably well worth the minimal risks that they present. Let me find that book title. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porca misèria Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 Are you old enough to have lost friends to measles? To remember kids whose sight was damaged as a result of measles? To have had measles yourself? I bet not. I have had some illnesses in my time, but none so bad as measles. My sister's eyesight was permanently damaged. Surprised by that. My recollection of measles was of a fairly mild disease, and the excitement of a couple of days off school. German measles (which I had more than once) even milder. My mother warned of mumps (which I never had) as more serious, and told of how her brother had nearly died of whooping cough - against which my generation were vaccinated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lagarde's Drift Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 Measles is a killer. In disaster relief one of the top priorities is to jab kids in the camps before it spreads and kills. Jot the same as UK, but shows the potential. In a way it is good that life here is so comfortable that parents can afford to worry about stuff like the mmr, choose to not jab their kids but still benefit frying the herd. There are medical people doing this so if Joe public does, how to criticise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bossybabe Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 Sadly, if parents fail to vaccinate kids [and I believe that is their right] epidemic measles could become a killer disease again in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichB Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 The question is why they are forced to the cheapest option - not given the choice to pay a few bob more to get the peace of mind of the 3 seperate, staged jabs we all used to get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted January 6, 2011 Author Share Posted January 6, 2011 Surprised by that. My recollection of measles was of a fairly mild disease, and the excitement of a couple of days off school. German measles (which I had more than once) even milder. My mother warned of mumps (which I never had) as more serious, and told of how her brother had nearly died of whooping cough - against which my generation were vaccinated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measles The mortality rate for a well-nourished population is circa 0.3%, so without the vaccine you'd expect up to 1000 deaths per year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number79 Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 Sadly, if parents fail to vaccinate kids [and I believe that is their right] epidemic measles could become a killer disease again in the future. all that they would have to do to appease most would be to bring back the seperate jabs. If they were really concerned about the risk of measles then they would have done this already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted January 6, 2011 Author Share Posted January 6, 2011 The question is why they are forced to the cheapest option - not given the choice to pay a few bob more to get the peace of mind of the 3 seperate, staged jabs we all used to get. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Measles_incidence_England%26Wales_1940-2007.png Shows the answer. MMR is far more effective. And saying 'peace of mind' does kind of assume there is something to be worried about in the first place. Purely out of interest, do you know who has a patent on a single jab for measles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number79 Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 still looking for that book title. there appear to be plenty around that are quite similar though http://www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/vaccine-books.htm dont see many in the 'for' section. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number79 Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 http://www.whale.to/vaccine/miller_b1.html http://www.whale.to/vaccine/elsner_b.html http://www.whale.to/v/dole.html http://www.whale.to/a/loat1.html there is no shortage of info out there and it is mostly written by doctors and scientists rather than hpc loons. I know who my money is on and it doesnt involve goobermint propeganda or hpc loons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scunnered Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 http://www.whale.to/vaccine/elsner_b.html Glad to see they're not prejudging the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number79 Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 yes that is pretty bad and I am surprised that it is allowed. May be that one is about as objective as a government pamphlet written by glaxo, who knows? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 BBC In mourning this afternoon after one death from swine flu. someone remind me, how many die every year from flu...whatever the variety? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted January 6, 2011 Author Share Posted January 6, 2011 http://www.whale.to/vaccine/miller_b1.html http://www.whale.to/vaccine/elsner_b.html http://www.whale.to/v/dole.html http://www.whale.to/a/loat1.html there is no shortage of info out there and it is mostly written by doctors and scientists rather than hpc loons. I know who my money is on and it doesnt involve goobermint propeganda or hpc loons Looking at the Amazon reviews, seems like Miller relies heavily on Wakefield's clearly fraudulent research. Which seems amusing.. More specifically, are there any claims made in these books that you would be willing to elaborate on? The claim that vaccines are good for 'big pharma' is certainly not one that I can see; treatment is far more profitable than prevention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bossybabe Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 BBC In mourning this afternoon after one death from swine flu. someone remind me, how many die every year from flu...whatever the variety? Swine flu is the new designer illness. The average [sub-average to you] chav just wants to be diagnosed with swine flu. It's something to do with reading 'Hello', sporting bling and burberyy bags. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Woods? Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 Whilst I think vaccines have an important role to play, the immune system isn't simple. The rise in asthma and various inflammatory bowel diseases seem to be largely due to increased exposure to antigens through microparticles in the lungs and greater than "normal" (from an evolutionary perspective) stripping off of the skin barrier that prevents antigens getting into the body due to excessive washing and scrubbing and other hygiene rituals, and not enough exposure to parasitic worms. It is amazing the results they are getting with some autoimmune diseases by treating people with a dose of parasites. One shouldn't underestimate the damage that can be done by measles, mumps, rubella and polio etc. They are nasty diseases, each in their own special ways. However, it is certainly true that the number of vaccines children are getting has increased markedly over the past couple of decades. One wonders whether one can get too many of them. Unfortunately there is fraud and stupidity on both "sides" of medicine, which leaves a non-specialist in quite a quandry. It is almost impossible to get information that isn't tainted by VIs. So, Wakefield is shown to be a fraud. Bravo! Vaccines are safe and effective - then you get charts like this compiled from the NEJM and JAMA, and you are left scratching your head. Ben Goldacre has had quite a few articles on the pervasivesness and deviousness of medical fraud and bullying from the journal publishers, to individuals, to big pharma, e.g: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/14/bad-science-medicine-fraud http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/09/bad-science-medical-journals-companies Journals such as these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australasian_Journal_of_Bone_%26_Joint_Medicine seem to exist soley to provide citations for the hoodwinking of general practitioners. And if you think the homeopaths are the only people selling lolly water, just look at what GSK are doing; they now basically sell placebos: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenylephrine#Questions_about_effectiveness as nasal decongestants. (Pseudoephedrine, which was the active component in the Sudafed brand of decongestants, is a very effective drug, but sales have been clamped down on internationally because people were using it to make methamphetamines - so GSK replaced it in their nasal decongestant with phenylephrine, but kept the same branding.) And don't think about exposing any of this, or you'll end up on the wrong end of the court system, like poor old Dr Peter Wilmshurst (a very good doctor, btw, doing great things for divers amongst others.): http://www.badscience.net/2010/12/nmt-are-suing-dr-wilmshurst-so-how-trustworthy-are-they/ Last year I was paid handsomely to perform an interim statistical analysis on a large scale industry funded experiment on an energy saving device which had, allegedly, performed well in ideal lab conditions. It showed no effect in the real world - in fact, if anything, it was likely to be an energy wasting device in most circumstances. Industry didn't like this result, so the experiment appears to have been quietly shelved and they continue to rely on the lab results to sell their product. Guaranteed this is standard operating procedure in most industries if they can get away with it. Too much money is at stake for it to be otherwise. Basically, one is left not trusting any science (or lay criticism thereof) when there is a lot of money at stake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leroast Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 Good post Tiger, there is a lot of money at stake, even for the GP Targets for vaccination and cervical cytology were introduced in 1991 as part of Mrs Thatcher’s health service reforms. They have been highly successful at raising the level of immunisation uptake. Kenneth Clarke, the then Health Secretary was very perceptive about what motivated doctors. The financial penalty for not reaching the higher target level is considerable. The advice a person gets about whether to have a smear or to have their children immunised has little to do with confidence in the cervical screening or child immunisation programs. It’s all about practice income and maximising it – pure and simple. The introduction of the new ‘five-in-one vaccine and the generally lower uptake of MMR will bring new financial anguish to GPs as practices struggle to reach the 90% uptake target. Just one or two conscientious objectors amongst parents will result in a loss of £5,700 in target income for the average practice (Pulse 30 April 2005, front page) It is no wonder that some GPs are tempted to remove these dissenters from their lists. Recognising the danger, the GP negotiators are now forlornly fighting the Department of Health for ‘informed dissent’ for childhood immunisation, to soften the blow of these target remuneration changes. However, the bottom-line to all this is this: the GP is not a source of impartial advice on the safety or otherwise of vaccination. The parent who wants to be reliably informed should beware and look elsewhere. Competing interests: a GP principal for 15 long years, now salaried and somewhat less conflicted by financial interest in vaccine uptake. Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number79 Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 Last year I was paid handsomely to perform an interim statistical analysis on a large scale industry funded experiment on an energy saving device which had, allegedly, performed well in ideal lab conditions. It showed no effect in the real world - in fact, if anything, it was likely to be an energy wasting device in most circumstances. Industry didn't like this result, so experiment quietly shelved and they continue to rely on the lab results to sell their product. Guaranteed this is standard operating procedure in most industries if they can get away with it. Too much money is at stake for it to be otherwise. Basically, one is left not trusting any science (or lay criticism thereof) when there is a lot of money at stake. That is intriguing. The device wasnt focused on measuring frequency was it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Woods? Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 Good post Tiger, there is a lot of money at stake, even for the GP Lots of interesting letters at that link Leroast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.