The true scandal was the championing of the original story by the UK and worldwide media. If it had been reported responsibly and not sensationalised hardly anyone would have heard about the supposed link between vaccines and autism - read Ben Goldacre for a good discussion - http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/the-medias-mmr-hoax.
I was just about to post that link but you beat me to it. It's more than a little unfair that Wakefield is being blamed for the MMR scare when the mainstream media in the UK did everything they could to fan the flames yet remain for the most part innocent
"... I was just about to post that link but you beat me to it ..."
Goldacre also came to my mind. I listened to an interview with Ben Goldacre and Robin Williams, his uncle discussing examples from his newly published book, "Bad Science" and MMR was the lead example ~ http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2008/2403358.ht...
Goldacre made the observation that while vaccination scares occurred in various countries a different layman explanation as to why it was scary occurred for each country. In the UK it was the link between MMR and Autism. In other countries it is something different. It's sad that mums are irrational on the subject of vaccination. It saves lives.
In the period January to September 2002, 32% of
the stories written about MMR mentioned Leo Blair,
as opposed to only 25% which mentioned Wakefield. [0]
Yes, carbocation is correct, we are in agreement. The mainstream media still refuses to acknowledge their complicity in all of this. When all of this was going on in the UK, MMR scare stories were front page news but not once did I see a headline on the cover of newspaper proclaiming "MMR Hoax, Sorry My Bad" says . As Goldacre says, it's crazy to think that one man created this entire mess.
Agreed about the true scandal. NS only mentions 3 charges, an undisclosed conflict of interest, a slip-up (intentional or unintentional) in his methodology (and how he wrote it up), and drawing blood from children outside of a medical facility. Without knowing more about the charges (and being a layman) revoking his license seems extreme. I'll bet a lot of published papers have similar problems.
It's been determined the East Anglia University climate researchers broke the law by obfuscating data, but the statute of limitations has run out. Let's see if any of them lose their positions.
There's no such thing as a "statute of limitations" in England and Wales, and if you're going to accuse people of criminal behaviour you'd better back it up with a reference, sonny.
"Statute of Limitations" was my wording for the following from the article "But the scientists will escape prosecution because the offences took place more than six months ago."
Excuse me if I used a technical law term incorrectly. Someone decided (outside of the law?) that more than 6 months deserves forgiveness.
You claimed "It's been determined the East Anglia University climate researchers broke the law by obfuscating data".
Your link says that UEA failed to respond to a Freedom of Information Act request within the required time limit. UEA is the body legally required to make that response, not any of its individual employees. That detail is the same in the US.
So, in short, "broke the law by obfuscating data" is an outright falsehood, for which you should now apologise.
"Scientist at the heart of the 'Climategate' email scandal broke the law when they refused to give raw data to the public, the privacy watchdog has ruled."
The first word appears to be a misprint since the ensuing sentence requires a plural subject. The same story appeared in other news sources today. Try doing a Google News search.
Individuals do not have to respond to FoI requests they are for organisations. The Uni of East Anglia is in charge of the data - they are responsible for responding to the FoI. Admittedly the request could be derailed by particular individuals but then it would be an internal issue to be handled in the normal way. Sacking the scientists and releasing the data for example would have allowed the Uni to meet their lawful duty.
Why I say "Jenny McCarthy BS":
She has appeared in print and on TV proclaiming that it was a diet, B12 shots, etc that were responsible for "curing" her son's autism. With a little research it turns out that they also used ABA.
ABA was the only treatment recommended by the team that diagnosed our son (psychologist, psychiatrist, speech pathologist, OT).
There wasn't anything else in the literature that was compelling treatment for Autism (that I know of). I remain open to other treatments if they are safe and effective and doctor recommended.
However, a low gluten diet would be difficult for our son. He had so many sensory issues and eating was a major problem. I can't imagine trying to work in a low gluten diet at the same time.
ABA is some very interesting stuff. I had never heard of it before. Seems pretty simple and straight-forward too. From skimming the article it seems you simply keep some kind of log of behavior, try various techniques for changing said behavior, and track changes in the behavior over time to figure out what works.
I bet there's a good startup opportunity here. Hack your brain; shape your behavior. An app could aide the process of logging, measuring and tracking changes in behavior. It could suggest strategies and rank them by effectiveness. There could even be a web aspect for seeing what techniques work best for other people. Kind of like a more generalized version of RescueTime...
'Denalism' by Michael Specter actually discusses the anti-vaccine movement and a bit about autism. I felt he did a good job. The fact is that there is no evidence supporting the conclusion (cue "correlation is not causation"). Also, diagnosis for specific problems would help patients and families get much better aid from insurers and schools. Sadly, we allow those who can provide no actual evidence influence the discussion (glad to see you didn't)
I agree with pragmatic, we need to look at real causes and remember that outside of clean water, vaccinations are the best thing for public health.
I wouldn't link a low gluten diet with "Jenny McCarthy BS". My wife teaches autistic children and she told me that all the children, not most, all children in the classroom have had improvement when put on low gluten diets.
I don't pretend to be as close to the issue as you, but you would be wise not to dump on an issue just because it didn't work for you:)
The scary part is that once I realized this I was feeling all enlightened. Then I realized it again and then I felt even more enlightened. And then I stopped and asked myself - is my current realization the final one? How deep is the rabbit hole? This is some seriously scary stuff.
Firstly, the low gluten thing, if it didn't start with Andrew Wakefield (the guy getting once again slated for his unprofessional and fraudulent behaviour), it became big because of him
Second, reviews of the evidence show no evidence of a link, and suggest that the weird diets can actually be causing harm.
I wonder if their improvement was due to the low gluten diet or because they're forced to find healthier foods to eat - because you have to be more careful about what you eat & can't eat unhealthy bread, etc.
How can you tell it was the diet without eliminating other variables? This is why personal experience is not evidence; in no way are confounding variables accounted for when you're just informally observing things.
Agreed. All of this focus on vaccines has put quite a lot reputations on the line, on both sides of the debate. Once the matter is settled (will it ever be settled?), I'm concerned that we'll have autism burn-out and it'll be nearly impossible to get the funding and minds needed for further research into causes and treatments.
There aren't two sides to this debate. There's established medical opinion, backed up by substantial evidence, proving that vaccines are both safe and responsible for saving hundreds of millions of lives.
The idea that there are two sides to the debate gives anti-vaccine activists more credibility than they are entitled to.
Vaccines work and are safe. They don't cause autism and anyone who says that they do is at best deluded.
I am not making a case for linking vaccines to autism, nor for the idea that vaccines are not often crucial factors in preventing disease spread or pandemic. However, I would say blanket statements that vaccines are simply "safe" ...end of story, seems too simplistic and potentially dangerous.
Consider that every crackpot thing the wingnuts say about vaccines is true. They cause autism in some children, allow government mind control, make the windshield wipers on your car to fly off, and cause family pets to lose all their hair. You job isn't actually to prove that vaccines may cause these things, your job is to prove that these things are worse for your kids than a polio epidemic.
Nothing at all is safe. Everything is potentially dangerous. Only a good understanding of statistics can tell you how dangerous. Only a rational grasp of reality can tell you how to behave with the knowledge those statistics impart.
If you want to worry about your kids health make sure they eat right and get plenty of exercise. You'll do much more for their health than worrying about minuscule amounts of chemicals in vaccines.
In the tiny, inconsequential doses that they have been used, no, I have had no concern at all. My four-year-old son is fully immunized and am perfectly happy with what science is producing to protect him.
Remember: chemicals are everywhere in nature. Just because they have complex-looking names doesn't automatically mean they're dangerous in themselves. And just because thimerosal is chemically related to the kind of mercury that is dangerous in larger doses doesn't mean that thimerosal is itself dangerous, especially in the tiny quantity that was once used in vaccines.
I would be ok with this nonsense if it were a debate but it really isn't. It's science on one side and hysteria on the other. One side says show us the evidence! The other side points to dozens of papers showing no link whatsoever. The other side doesn't say anything and then goes to another tv show and says show us the evidence!
It's ridiculous but it sure does teach you a lot about herd mentality.
The true risk isn't to the children who haven't had the vaccines, it's to the immunocompromised that are quite literally being murdered because of some parents ignorance. It isn't the 16-65 age bracket that's being affected here, the immunodeficient can typically be any child under 16, any senior over 65, pregnant women, people with existing infections (even as simple as a cold) and those with HIV/AIDS.
In my honest opinion, and this one is quite a rare one for me, this is a subject where the UK health services should take a page out of the US' book. MMR vaccines should be mandatory for attending school. This would place these parents in a serious catch 22, as home-education in the UK is exceptionally harder to do than in the US (as in it's virtually unheard of). It will place these parents in a position where they have a choice inoculation, segregation (no admission to public schools until immunisation) or prison (in the UK parents are fully responsible for placing their child into an educational institute and ensuring they attend, if they don't they can face jail time).
>home-education in the UK is exceptionally harder to do than in the US (as in it's virtually unheard of)
It may well be harder in the UK, I'd be interested in the reasoning there, but I'd dispute that it's [virtually or actually] unheard of.
I think you're being too tough here. Latest reports that I've looked at are that the Thiomersal used in vaccines that was associated with autism has been removed from US vaccines and that studies have since shown that there has been no corresponding decline in autism cases.
In order to learn this though I had to do some research and look at some quite complex discussions. The US studies have not been popularised by the likes of the BBC that widely reported on the MMR controversy.
I'm still reticent about the swine-flu vaccine - they've probably had it (we all had a couple of flu like episodes in autumn-early winter), it's normally not severe, infections are declining, next season it will have mutated and this vaccine will likely provide no benefit AND most importantly this vaccine has not undergone the extensive testing that drugs normally do. We probably will have the vaccination as I have to trust our health care workers here.
If we don't vaccinate and someone catches swine-flu from my son, him having nothing more than a sniffle, will I be a murderer in your eyes?
That removing the factor, thought to have been causing autism to appear, did not change the incidences of autism appearing. Thus falsifying the initial hypothesis.
The problem is that there's no scientific evidence for the causation for the same reason that there's no scientific evidence that smoking causing various cancers as in either case it would be unconscionable to conduct a trial to see if it truly is possible to induce autism with a vaccine or induce cancer via smoking.
That's why the strongest statements you'll ever see from health organizations (who usually care about things like scientific rigor) is that there is "no known link".
Which obviously is totally uncompelling to a lay person and taken advantage of by the conspiracy theorists much like the tobacco companies continued to use the "no scientific evidence" line until the landmark settlement of 1998.
So no, there continues to be no evidence that vaccines cause autism. And people still remain unconvinced until they hear something stronger.
Hold on, there's plenty of evidence for a link between smoking and cancer. They looked at lots of people over time and the ones that smoked got more cancer. They didn't have to force cigarettes onto anyone.
I'm sure similar data has been assembled for vaccines and autism to show a lack of correlation. They've not just handwaved it away.
I disagree. You can see the repercussions from that in things like the Global Warming stories where everyone at HN collectively cringes when terms like "scientific consensus" are tossed about.
There's no short-cut to good science and dumbing it down fundamentally diminishes it.
Honest people still care about facts and science.
Global warming is a perfect example. There are way too many people that point to a cold day and say: see?!
The message should be: there are huge changes going on right now, on a huge scale, beyond today's temperature.
The debate is also often linked to a proposed solution, which is a big mistake. Cap & Trade or a carbon tax are two of dozens of potential solutions. ThatSmugFucksPrius™ is not a solution, but way too often involved in the messaging.
Do you think there would be a big global warming debate if the proposed response was $200B a year in research? I don't. That is chump change with a bunch of positive externalities.
Sorry, but if the US decided to spend $200B per year on climate change research, which is decidedly not chump change, "debate" hardly describes the furor that would erupt.
It depends on how you wrap it. You don't even need to mention climate change. It's a "technology push for job creation"
What it isn't is an obvious friction imposed on the entire market. People don't like that.
We spent 10X this number of bank bailouts and such. That didn't piss normal people off because the messaging was that it was needed to fix the economy. Obama should do this as a followup to 2010 being a year to push job creation. The rest of the initiative could be to lower certain taxes and regulations, which is generally free. Then the messaging could be "Obama backs $200B job creation effort".
We spent 10X this number of bank bailouts and such. That didn't piss normal people off because the messaging was that it was needed to fix the economy.
I think you're out of touch. Virtually 100% of the Republicans I know were completely opposed to the bank bailouts, and a huge portion of the liberals I know were as well. Almost every poll I saw showed that the majority of Americans opposed bailing out Wall Street and the auto industry.
True, sadly. Headline-writing seems to be its own domain - and one charged primarily to be effective baiters (i.e., marketing specialists).
So those who care enough about the impact of news-reporting have to develop some of the same (marketing) skills. The OP here seems to have done a good job with it (i.e., "Damning verdict...")
Similarly, for a truth-supporting effect, "Obama is not a Muslim" might have to be rewritten something like, "Media distortions conceal Obama's Christianity" - but rather more clever than I can pen.
Sigh... this reminds me of the old saying -- "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts". Death, disease, despair, and enormous expense could be avoided if these pseudo scientists would be shut out by population.
There aren't as many pseudo doctors as there are pseudo scientists. This bit of pseudoscience is not as resilient as intelligent design. I think this dent will quickly kill the movement.
"None of this mattered. Andrew Wakefield still enjoys a cult of personality among the anti-vaccine crowd that no revelation seems able to dislodge, even the revelation that at the time he was both in the pay of trial lawyers and working on his study, Andrew Wakefield was also applying for a patent for a rival measles vaccine. Indeed, the anti-vaccine propaganda blog Age of Autism bestowed upon him last year its 'Galileo Award' as the 'persecuted' scientist supposedly fighting for truth, justice, and anti-vaccinationism against the pharma-funded or brainwashed minions of the 'Church of the Immaculate Vaccination.' In the meantime, MMR uptake rates in the U.K. have plummeted over the last decade, far below the level needed for herd immunity, to the point where, last year the Health Protection Agency declared measles to be once again endemic in the U.K., 14 years after the local transmission of measles had been halted."
I appreciate your optimism but I fear you haven't been following this very closely. This is not the first time this guy and his work has been completely tossed under a bus. The antivax people have known for a LONG TIME that this guy was being seriously discredited and chalked it up to "big pharma funded" witch hunting.
1. We space vaccines out "just to be safe."
2. We test vaccines exhaustively and have decades of field data about them.
3. Children receive vaccines only against diseases which are very dangerous to children and not impossible to get.
But having a large catalogue of vaccines seems like a good thing! Vaccines are the cheapest way to fight disease: by priming your immune system so you can heal yourself.
Quite frankly, they're more in the style of allopathic miracle than any goofy herb or berry that some quack says balances energies. Think about it: they teach your body how to fight off infections by giving your body an opportunity to practice. This is the future, dude. Vaccines are biological hacking at the personal level.
I don't know... I'm a scientist and I think it might be getting to be a little much too.
RE 1) We space vaccines out not "just to be safe", but to actually be safe. You don't want to use a cocktail of things that has been adequately tested. Also, you space them out so they can be more effective. Let's say that your body has X immune capacity to absorb the benefit from a vaccine. You don't want to throw 20 things at it. About 3 at a time is as much as you want to do.
RE 3) Honestly, the only vaccine that I've questioned is the Chicken pox vaccine. My son got it, but when I was growing up getting the Chicken pox was just part of being a kid. I understand the rationale: if you don't get it until you're older it's pretty bad, there is the economic cost of a parent needing to be home, etc... but polio it isn't. (I know, you don't want your kid to be the 1% that has a severe case... like I said, my kid still got it).
"Many people are not aware that before a vaccine was available approximately 10,600 persons were hospitalized and 100 to 150 died as a result of chickenpox in the U.S. every year."
I'm curious as to how many of those were elementary school-aged children (lets say under 10). From the same article it looks like about 50 children and 50 adults (all w/o other complications).
I wonder what the results would be if the standard was to give a vaccination at age 10 if the hadn't already contracted the virus normally. Then again, this would probably have a detrimental effect on 'herd' immunity, so it's probably worth it for just that reason.
If we can prevent children from having a potentially dangerous disease with an intervention that is both inexpensive and safer than the disease itself, why wouldn't we? It's much less expensive on a personal and societal level to use vaccines.
But science (not intuitition) has shown that the immune system can handle many such "onslaughts" at once with only positive results. Many, many.
the only vaccine that I've questioned is the Chicken pox vaccine. My son got it, but when I was growing up getting the Chicken pox was just part of being a kid.
So if you got it then everyone should be at risk of getting it? It's not better if we can prevent it altogether by teaching the immune system to fight it off? Chicken Pox is not necessarily harmless; do a Google search for "shingles".
The immune system is not limitless. You only throw so many things at it at a time because that's all that works to A) provides the immunization coverage you need and B) not have a severe effect on the life of the individual. The point isn't to battle the vaccine, it's to prime the pump (so to speak). If you introduce too much at a time you risk weakening the overall effect. This isn't intuition.
My point is that vaccines are spread out for good reason and the distribution has been widely studied and that changing the mix needs to handled carefully.
> everyone should be at risk of getting it?
I'm quite aware of shingles... it's horrible and I'd wish it on no one. Any adult that hasn't already had chickenpox should definitely get the vaccination.
My hesitation was that I'm not sure how the immunity conferred by the vaccine differs from that conferred by the live virus. It is probably just as good, but what if it isn't? That's my question. Since chickenpox itself is not that dangerous to a large percentage of the child population, I wonder if it would be better to have them acquire the resistance naturally (get the disease). This is the original form of vaccination remember...
Bear in mind this is all from the point of view of the individual. From the point of view of population / herd immunity it's probably far better to just have everyone vaccinated so it's over and done with. I mean, a kid at my son's daycare recently got chickenpox. I wouldn't like dealing with a toddler that has the chickenpox, so all in all, I'm happy with the decision to get him vaccinated for it, regardless of my initial hesitation.
It's not limitless, but scientific testing has shown it can handle much more than you are imagining.
I'm not sure how the immunity conferred by the vaccine differs from that conferred by the live virus. It is probably just as good, but what if it isn't?
It doesn't differ at all. All vaccines are made of live-but-weakened or dead versions of viruses. Your immune system doesn't realize that, and reacts as though it's being attacked. The "hard" part for it is concocting antibodies for the virus it's discovered. And that, naturally, is the beneficial effect of the vaccine, because the immune system doesn't easily forget how to make that kind of antibody. Vaccines work because the immune system reacts the same way to a weak or dead virus that it does to a live, strong one.
You don't know what I'm imagining. I think that a load of approx. 3 different antigens per inoculation with a buffer of at least 6-12 weeks in between them is adequate for coverage of most vaccines. All I was saying is that the current regiment of spread out vaccines is done for a reason. The original (parent/parent/...) poster said that it was done "to be safe". My point is that it is done that way for more than one reason... chief among them efficacy. You want the antibodies that you create to last.
I know the way vaccines work.
The part that you don't get with a stock vaccine is immunity when dealing with new strains or mutations that aren't accounted for by the stock vaccine. The antigenic make up of the new strain may be different. This is why we get different flu shots every year. With something as simple as chicken pox, I don't think that there are many strains (I could only find 2 while quickly Googling), so one shot and you're covered.
But in the case of something like H1N1, someone may get the vaccine and assume they are covered. They then may get lax about standard precautions, thinking that they are covered. And then when a new strain rolls around, you're susceptible.
> 2. We test vaccines exhaustively and have decades of field data about them.
Other medicines are also tested. The problem with vaccines are that they are incredibly widely used (millions of kids get them). Thalidomide also managed to get to the market in the past (and was deemed safe) – and severely affected thousands of people.
So, the barrier of safety for vaccines should be much higher than general medicine.
> 3. Children receive vaccines only against diseases which are very dangerous to children and not impossible to get.
The problem is the long vaccination schedule in the USA. It is much larger than most other first world countries. This vaccination schedule still doesn’t include the extra shit that is pawned off by private doctors.
A good example in the adult schedule with which I am familiar is Hepatitis A. In most sensible countries, only health workers are immunised for HepA (you need periodic booster shots, etc…). Yet it is on the USA’s vaccination schedule. Hepatitis A is rarely fatal (only in people with reduced immune systems).
Another example is chicken pox – the symptoms are mild (especially in children) and you get immunity from one instance. I had chicken pox and it wasn’t that big a deal.
Now, another problem I have is that every time a person with a baby goes to a doctor, he tries to pawn off vaccines – some of which are not on the schedule and most of which are not necessary. This is BS.
So, to make my point clear:
1. Vaccines are extremely valuable and necessary and are a modern day miracle
2. Vaccines should not be used to remove any diseases which may cause discomfort – vaccines should not be on the schedule if the disease is not life threatening.
3. It is the parent’s choice and obligation to check its vaccines. Don’t trust a doctor that says “trust me” or wants to pawn of this season’s newest (and most expensive) vaccine. Parents should take charge of their children’s health care.
4. Since vaccines are widely used (all small children) the bar for new vaccines should be higher. New vaccines should not be mandatory or on the list.
> Another example is chicken pox – the symptoms are mild (especially in children) and you get immunity from one instance. I had chicken pox and it wasn’t that big a deal.
Not big of a deal, until someone who is pregnant, immunocompromised, or of adult age with lowered/no immunity to chicken pox gets infected from a child that wasn't vaccinated. It's not mild, it's severe and possibly life threatening at that point.
So okay, I can understand a parent's concern over all the vaccines out there, but it is quite selfish to think it's only about the child in question. It affects public health overall no matter what you want to think of it, unless you're suggesting that people should just not interact with anyone in-person ever.
> 4. Since vaccines are widely used (all small children) the bar for new vaccines should be higher. New vaccines should not be mandatory or on the list.
This I'm torn over, because the newest vaccines to make the schedule for teens in the US and some other countries are Gardasil and Cervarix (the HPV vaccines), which are very new vaccines that were fast tracked for approval because they were just so effective. I only have a gripe over the unknowns like how long immunity will last. But parents will take that as an excuse to not vaccinate their kids until their kids have probably had sex, at which point it might be of reduced use as your kid might already have been exposed. Is that really something that should be acceptable?
> Not big of a deal, until someone who is pregnant, immunocompromised, or of adult age with lowered/no immunity to chicken pox gets
Immunocompromised and old people (and high risk people such as doctors and nurses) should be vaccinated if they did not have Chicken Pox as a child. The same goes for yearly flu vaccines (which are only given to people that are immunocompromised or old).
But there is no reason to immunize everyone else.
> but it is quite selfish to think it's only about the child in question.
That is an extremely bad argument (and usually used to justify the removal of a parent's responsibility over his child).
> But parents will take that as an excuse to not vaccinate their kids until their kids have probably had sex, at which point it might be of reduced use as your kid might already have been exposed. Is that really something that should be acceptable?
A parent is a child’s guardian until the child is of age. You mentioned HPV. Yet that is a perfectly preventable disease. Why not let the parent’s decide for their children – and then let the child decide for him/herself when they are of age.
Btw, the phenomenon of teenagers having unprotected sex with multiple partners is a consequence of dysfunctional American culture. In many other countries it does not happen this way. I recently read a story about a school in Oregon (if I recall correctly) that gave out condoms to 13 year old children. This is fairly shocking.
The amount of vaccines are not a problem. If a kid puts a dirty toy in their mouth (something kids will do all the fucking time) they will be exposed to many more pathogens than the standard schedule of vaccines.
If anything we should be celebrating the fact that we have lots of vaccines available and hence the capability to control lots of maladies.
The problem isn't with that goalpost. It's with this new one I'm busy building over here. And when you get to it the problem will really turn out to be another goalpost way down the field from where we are now...
Can someone describe the editorial policy of The Lancet, given that the doctor in question rose to prominence on the strength of being published there?
From the submitted article that opened this thread:
"The Lancet itself said in 2004 that in hindsight it shouldn't have published the paper, following publication of a retraction by 10 co-authors on the paper."
The Lancet editor commented on the 2004 retraction that the Lancet needed to change its editorial policies, which I think has happened since.
The Lancet is a widely respected and peer reviewed medical journal. It's hard to impeach or blame them, they're going to get a few things wrong. This particular article was one of their most controversial and severely criticized. It may be one of The Lancet's poorest moments.
Now it's only a matter of time before this technique should definitively prove that autism is there before vaccines so that the autism/vaccine link can be finally and thoroughly be tested (and likely debunked).
I would very much like it to be so, but the vaccine objectors are far from rational, it seems to me. They literally build cults of personality for their various champions, and believe with religious fervour.
Did you see the reports that the panel got heckled by some women when they announced their conclusions on Wakefield?
They were told of the proof that this man compromised the herd immunity of a nation and unethically experimented on children for no good reason and yet they still cheer him on.
Evidence against the conspiracy is actually evidence for for the conspiracy. In this case, They charged him because he was right and they felt threatened by him.
Ah. So if I provide evidence that you are wrong, really I am providing evidence that you are right. Because I wouldn't bother presenting the evidence that you are wrong unless you really were right and I felt threatened by your rightness. Never mind the evidence itself.
He is joking, and it is funny, but it's not original of a joke. It's common for paranoid conspiracy theorists, to take any evidence of disproof and spin that as further proof.
Sadly, this is exactly what many will feel. I suppose in time their ignorance will be their undoing, as they'll be the ones dying off if any of these diseases re-surfaces.
I thought that the theory for linking vaccines to autism had to do with the use of methylmercury as a preservative. Methylmercury is a known neurological toxin, here is a great resource...
The fact that this article brings up the fact that Wakefield had a patent in the same area as his research seems fishy to me.
"The panel resurrected and upheld most, if not all, of the main charges against Wakefield, such as his undeclared conflict of interest in having filed a patent relating to treatments for bowel conditions a year before his Lancet study appeared. "The panel therefore rejects the proposition put forward by your [Wakefield's] counsel that third-party perceived conflicts of interest did not fall within the relevant definition at the time," it concludes."
I used to be a research scientist and it was common place for researchers (or their institutions) to file patents on research that led to publications. No one I know ever listed this sort of thing as a conflict of interest. It sounds like this counsel might be reaching to try and discredit Dr. Wakefield.
Sadly their is more politics in science than most people want to believe.
"Regarding the question of vaccines and autism, for ethical reasons we cannot do a double-blind, randomized, control trial of vaccines with and without thimerosal. However, we can do the next best thing, and, indeed, we now have several good studies since 1999 that do just that. Some of these studies are epidemiological; some are ecological. What allows us to use them to reject the hypothesis that mercury in vaccines is an etiological agent that is either associated with or causes autism is a very simple but powerful prediction that the hypothesis makes. Quite simply, if the hypothesis is true and thimerosal-containing vaccines (TCVs) cause autism (or are even merely a significant contributing factor), we would expect that the removal of thimerosal from vaccines would lead to a rapid decrease in autism incidence and prevalence within 2-5 years.
"There have now been several studies that examined this very hypothesis in countries that removed thimerosal from their vaccines before the U.S. did. For example Hviid et al3 reported that autism prevalence in Denmark increased from 1991 to 1996 despite the removal of thimerosal from vaccines, while Madsen et al4 looked at the time period from 1971 to 2000 and concluded that autism diagnoses continued to increase after thimerosal was removed from vaccines. Neither study supported a causal link between TCVs and autism, and they were a prominent part of the dataset that was used by the Institute of Medicine to conclude in 2004 that there was no good evidence to support a link between TCVs and autism. A more recent study by Eric Fombonne5 in Montreal examined 27,749 children born from 1987 to 1998 attending 55 different schools. Cumulative thimerosal exposure by age 2 years was calculated for the 1987-1998 birth cohorts. This exposure ranged from 100-125 μg from 1987 to 1991, 200-225 μg from 1992 to 1995, and then none after 1996, which was when thimerosal was completely removed from vaccines in Canada. The result was that autism, ASD, and pervasive developmental disorder diagnoses continued to increase in all periods, demonstrating no relationship between TCVs and autism or ASDs. Even more recently, a large study6 failed to support a relationship between thimerosal and adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes, a result that led one of the investigators in the study, Sallie Bernard, a proponent of the thimerosal hypothesis, to disavow the study in a case of sour grapes, because it did not show what she had hoped that it would show."
I know that I will probably get down voted for voicing opinion against majority but I will go with it anyway. There are evidence that vaccination is not safe, contains mercury and has negative long term side effects. Also there are long lasting debates on whether the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the harm. I have looked at both sides of the argument and based on what I have read and concluded that I would not vaccinate myself or my kids(see my reasoning below).
Government cares only of the short term effect and keeping society from outbreaks of deceases where they are less concerned of long term effect that will be hard to link to any past vaccinations anyways. Even the fact the insurance companies do not cover vaccination due to possibility of severe side effects poses a question why?
The long trim effect of vaccine is not well studied yet. If you look at both sides of the argument, the major question is what side has more benefit for fighting. Pharmaceuticals make tons of money on vaccination and have tons of money to promote it including usage of science as well government policies. So looking at both sides where none have concrete scientifically proof on long term effect of vaccines, what side would you take thinking on benefits that each side might have in the argument as well as possessing knowledge of possible danger of vaccine including the fact that vaccine do not work 100% as well. So the ultimate question, would you put substance containing mercury in your body knowing that it will have side effect for sure what might be mild or severe in long term against some low chance possibility of getting diseases that your body will fight anyway and that having vaccinated might not even protect you against. Here is some more info for consideration: http://www.relfe.com/vaccine.html
I up-voted you because you are wrong, in the hopes that as many people as possible will give you reasons as to exactly how.
There is no grand conspiracy to make the world sick via vaccines to profit. If they are truly 'evil', both insurance and big pharma would benefit much, much more in not having people vaccinated and overpricing drugs every time there is a panic and a run on supplies, ala H1N1. Could you imagine the demand with today's media if there was a measles outbreak in a major city with many deaths?
There is no conspiracy.
As for mecury, you ingest much more of it every time you eat some fish. It is a fact of life.
With every medication, a certain percentage of people will experience side effects. People have died from taking aspirin after all. The point is that a major outbreak of a disease like measles, mumps, rubella, etc would be catastrophic for a large group of people. It is in all of our interests to do what we can to prevent this from happening, even if it means a small, small percentage suffer in the process.
Look at a history book. There is but one constant dread in every story: plague. Disease has culled populations quickly and dramatically in regular fashion for as long as humanity has existed. When is the last time you remember a major outbreak killing off half your neighbourhood? Exactly. That's due 100% to vaccinations.
Get vaccinated. Help yourself and your children; help our civilization survive the horrible effects of these diseases.
First of all, I was not referring to any conspiracy at all, it is simple business and benefit analysis unless you believe in idealistic and humanitarian business that only care about human well being(I am not saying they do not exist either).
Second, the mercury and heavy metals that fish you eat might contain are not injected into your blood and small amounts if any gets there.
Third, "According to the British Association for the Advancement of Science, childhood diseases decreased 90% between 1850 and 1940, paralleling improved sanitation and hygienic practices, well before mandatory vaccination programs. Infectious disease deaths in the U.S. and England declined steadily by an average of about 80% during this century (measles mortality declined over 97%) prior to vaccinations.".
Once again I am not forcing you to believe in what I believe and made conclusion based on what I have read and reasoned so please do not attack me as an enemy of humanity I am just voicing my opinion and believe I have a valid argument. Though I like when people tell me that i am wrong, otherwise there will be no arguments and learning.
childhood diseases decreased 90% between 1850 and 1940, paralleling improved sanitation and hygienic practices, well before mandatory vaccination programs
The polio vaccine's first mass vaccination campaign was in 1955, take a look at what happened to the incidence of polio: http://www.post-polio.org/ir-usa.html
Yes, and I just gave you a better business case to not vaccinate.
Second, the mercury and heavy metals that fish you eat might contain are not injected into your blood and small amounts if any gets there.
Fish are the number one source of Mercury poisoning incidents, according to the USEPA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_poisoning#cite_note-EPA...). There is no protection offered from your digestion system against this heavy metal. Your argument is irrelevant here.
childhood diseases decreased 90% between 1850 and 1940, paralleling improved sanitation and hygienic practices, well before mandatory vaccination programs
I think a lot of this disagreement could be cleared up if there were studies done on the long term effects of low doses of mercury.
Mercury is bioaccumalitive and so I think such studies are justified. Why is no one doing this?
Also from a business perspective if there is such concern about methylmercury in vaccines why doesn't someone bring to market vaccines that use a different (more natural?) preservative? It seems like this would be a win win all around.
Also I would avoid using wikipedia as a direct source.
Thimerosal is a mercury-containing preservative used in some vaccines and other products since the 1930's. There is no convincing evidence of harm caused by the low doses of thimerosal in vaccines, except for minor reactions like redness and swelling at the injection site.
However, in July 1999, the Public Health Service agencies, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and vaccine manufacturers agreed that thimerosal should be reduced or eliminated in vaccines as a precautionary measure.
You'll get downvoted not because you're voicing an opinion against the majority, but because you are wrong. While there are "studies" that say that you've repeated, not are scientifically reputable, in the sense of being repeatable experiments with repeatable results conducted in a scientifically rigorous way to eliminate extraneous variables.
What you are doing to your kids is an insult to mine, and I will continue to fight those who oppose vaccinations until you lose.
All of your arguments have been fully and completely refuted using real science, not anecdotes and paranoia. Check out ToddW's AntiAntiVax compilation (http://antiantivax.flurf.net/) for all the facts. Please don't spread lies in future. Thank you.
To replace the existing systems for health, education, government, money and business with systems which are in harmony with nature and which give maximum
freedom, wealth and happiness to ALL the people and animals of earth. Please pray for this situation to come into existence
Computer hackers hack computers, and for all other questions they defer to the "appropriate" authority. Autism is caused by poisoning, and my mother did some Swedish program and helped cure a boy of autism, whom I've met personally. I believe its called the The Son-Rise Program. Go ahead and down vote me all you stupid lemmings. I'm not full of sick vanity.
