Andrew Wakefield: Disgraced, Unethical and An Outright Liar

January 28th, 2010
submit to reddit Share

We’ve reported before over the professional disgrace of Andrew Wakefield. Wakefield is one of the worst cases of everything a researcher and a physician should not be. With complete disregard for the safety and welfare of others and his own professional obligations Doctor Mister Wakefield has not simply cherry-picked or spun data in favor of his claims: he just plain lied. Let me make this clear again: he didn’t take improper measurements or use the data in an improper way, he simply made up facts that were not true. And if that’s not bad enough he did it in regards to a matter of extreme consequence to public health and to the state of medical research.

Sadly, he’s gotten quite a lot of support and many have even seen his disgrace by British and other national medical bodies as more proof that he’s being persecuted by a big conspiracy.

No surprise, the GMC (General Medical Council) – the British body responsible for investigating things of this nature has returned its verdict: guilty of professional misconduct, violations of ethics and other infractions against professional standards.

Via the Times Online:

Doctor in disgrace

The consultant who sparked the MMR vaccine scare now faces being struck off

The descent into professional disgrace of Andrew Wakefield is now almost complete. The doctor who fanned an unwarranted panic by suggesting a link between the three-in-one measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism — prompting a fall in vaccination rates that spawned a startling rise in cases of measles — was condemned yesterday by the General Medical Council for acting ishonestly and irresponsibly in conducting his research. He now faces the possibility of being struck off the medical register.

Nobody can doubt the GMC’s diligence. After conducting hearings over a period of two and a half years, it ruled that Wakefield had carried out invasive and unnecessary tests on children that were against their best clinical interests: he paid children for blood samples at his son’s birthday party, acting, said the GMC, “with callous disregard for the suffering of children.

The Lancet long ago regretted having published Wakefield’s initial study 12 years ago. No respected research has ever supported the findings that led Wakefield to brand his studies a moral issue that made him unable to support the continued use of the MMR jab. Indeed, a landmark study in Japan found that, on using single vaccines instead of the MMR, the number of diagnosed cases of autism actually rose sharply.

Just to be clear on one thing here: this article implies that changing from the single-shot MMR vaccine to multiple vaccines, one for each of the conditions covered was associated with a rise in autism. Less someone twists that to make it sound like there’s a relationship between more vaccinations and autism, I should point out that there’s no evidence that there is any connection between vaccination and autism at all. More likely this was simply part of the general trend of more autism diagnoses which has been attributed to greater screening and more broad diagnostic criteria than may have been used in years past.

As for Wakefield himself, he no longer lives in the UK, having moved to the US. The fact that he is no longer able to practice medicine in the UK is largely moot, as he is no longer in any way acting as a true physician. Rather, he’s managed to carve out a lucrative niche for himself as a spokesperson for various lies and a public figure who makes money by promoting various quack practices and products. He’s more of a professional liar than a doctor at this point.

Sadly the verdict by the GMC is little more than symbolic. Wakefield’s credibility and respectability in the medical community evaporated years ago and the verdict does not not impose any legal penalties, like a criminal court would. Thus Wakefield remains a free man to spread his nonsense. If nothing else, this should highlight the need for greater legal accountability for those who lie on scientific papers and studies. While science thrives on openness and freedom, this should not include clear-cut cases of outright lies, presented as fact and causing direct harm to scientific research and the greater public good as a direct consequence. Such lies are very rare in professional scientific research, but when they do occur, they are appalling.


This entry was posted on Thursday, January 28th, 2010 at 11:46 pm and is filed under Bad Science, Conspiracy Theories, Not Even Wrong, Quackery. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions



22 Responses to “Andrew Wakefield: Disgraced, Unethical and An Outright Liar”

  1. 1
    DV82XL Says:

    MMR scare doctor ‘acted unethically’, panel finds. BBC news Thursday, 28 January 2010 The doctor who first suggested a link between MMR vaccinations and autism acted unethically, the official medical regulator has found

    -“The verdict, read out by panel chairman Dr Surendra Kumar, criticised Dr Wakefield for the invasive tests, such as spinal taps, that were carried out on children and which were found to be against their best clinical interests.”

    -“The panel said Dr Wakefield, who was working at London’s Royal Free Hospital as a gastroenterologist at the time, did not have the ethical approval or relevant qualifications for such tests.”

    -“Dr Kumar said he had acted with ‘callous disregard for the distress and pain the children might suffer’”


    Quote Comment
  2. 2
    Grandpa Monkey Says:

            DV82XL said:

    MMR scare doctor ‘acted unethically’, panel finds. BBC news Thursday, 28 January 2010 The doctor who first suggested a link between MMR vaccinations and autism acted unethically, the official medical regulator has found

    -“The verdict, read out by panel chairman Dr Surendra Kumar, criticised Dr Wakefield for the invasive tests, such as spinal taps, that were carried out on children and which were found to be against their best clinical interests.”

    -“The panel said Dr Wakefield, who was working at London’s Royal Free Hospital as a gastroenterologist at the time, did not have the ethical approval or relevant qualifications for such tests.”

    -“Dr Kumar said he had acted with ‘callous disregard for the distress and pain the children might suffer’”

    It is rare to hear a professional body use such strong language, especially being so frank about things like “callous disregard for the distress and pain the child might suffer.”

    Andrew Wakefield has a long pattern of disturbing behavior. Outright lies on his research, backing up his claims with data gathered in an unprofessional manner, subjecting patients to invasive tests without even producing good reason for it or with any regard for the ethical concerns.

    Any one of these issues would alone be enough that his career should have ended, but he has done many. I don’t know what else to call him but a monster. That’s an appeal to emotion, I suppose, but this man is some kind of a pathalogical sadistic sicko who thinks any behavior is justified to promote himself.

    I can’t believe they can’t pin some criminal charges on him. He is cut from the same cloth as Dr. Josef Mengele


    Quote Comment
  3. 3
    Franck Says:

    “They” can’t pin criminal charges because it is not their role. However, their conclusion gives the parents (or adult former victims) a very solid ground to sue him.
    The good point is that he won’t be a “victim of establisment censorship” anymore, but a child molester. I can’t wait to read how he will try to explain that to his audience of distressed parents.


    Quote Comment
  4. 4
    Grandpa Monkey Says:

            Franck said:

    “They” can’t pin criminal charges because it is not their role.

    What I mean is I can’t believe the criminal authorities and law enforcement can’t charge him with something.

            Franck said:

    I can’t wait to read how he will try to explain that to his audience of distressed parents.

    I doubt it. The ones who come to see him talk all believe he’s an angel and that this proves how he is being persecuted. He’ll just say something like “They keep trying to shut me up and discredit me because I found thr truth” or something. The idiots will buy it hook line and sinker


    Quote Comment
  5. 5
    Liz Ditz Says:

    One of my blogging habits is to collate pro and con posts on a particular issue.

    One reason to do is that each blog has its own set of commenters and often the comments reveal aspects of the issue previously not considered elsewhere.

    Today’s issue is the UK’s General Medical Council’s ruling on Andrew Wakefield.

    I’ve included this post in the list.

    The list can be found at

    http://lizditz.typepad.com/i_speak_of_dreams/2010/01/andrew-wakefield-dishonesty-misleading-conduct-and-serious-professional-misconduct.html

    It will be interesting to see the blog responses over the next few days. Currently the “Andy Wakefield is a hero of science and will be vindicated” posts stand at 12; the “GMC findings are correct. Good science is eventually self-correcting” posts stand at 41.


    Quote Comment
  6. 6
    Burya Rubenstein Says:

    Only partially off topic, I’m surprised you didn’t post anything about the recent Global Warming scam e-mail leak.

    Hmmm, this thing seems to keep disappearing. But here are the tickers that I found it through:

    http://market-ticker.org/archives/1648-Global-Warming-SCAM-HackLeak-FLASH.html
    http://market-ticker.org/archives/1651-Global-Warming-SCAM-A-Further-Look.html

    And I also have a copy of the zip file.


    Quote Comment
  7. 7
    CybrgnX Says:

    Unfortunately this will not even come close to stopping the BS.
    As mentioned above – this makes him a martyr.
    Also most of the people who believe the anti-Vax BS believe it anyway.
    He just became a front image and a cause of the belief so if some do believe he is a fraud it will be to channel anger at him for causing trouble for the movement.
    They will still continue to believe the BS.


    Quote Comment
  8. 8
    Mary Hirzel Says:

    It is the GMC that is disgraced and guilty.


    Quote Comment
  9. 9
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Mary Hirzel said:

    It is the GMC that is disgraced and guilty.

    And it took just slightly over 24 hours for the loony to come by. That’s roughly par for the course.


    Quote Comment
  10. 10
    Mary Hirzel Says:

    You’ve been deprived of decent education in manners and I forgive you, HerrBuzzZero


    Quote Comment
  11. 11
    Matthew Says:

            Mary Hirzel said:

    It is the GMC that is disgraced and guilty.

    Very true – that this fraud was allowed to stand for so long is indeed a disgrace, and the children’s lives lost due to his furtherance of antivax hysteria can be laid at least partially at their doorstep.


    Quote Comment
  12. 12
    DV82XL Says:

            Mary Hirzel said:

    You’ve been deprived of decent education in manners and I forgive you, HerrBuzzZero

    When I was taught manners, it was made clear that when you were a guest in someone’s place, you didn’t presume to lecture them on how they behaved. Apparently your education in good social behavior is lacking as well.


    Quote Comment
  13. 13
    Q Says:

            Mary Hirzel said:

    It is the GMC that is disgraced and guilty.

    The only disgrace, as mentioned above, is that it took so very long to come out so strongly against him. This man’s actions include child endangerment and fraud. He should be in criminal court. At the very least, I this at least ends his career in medicine.

    Do you honestly believe that the whole world is one giant conspiracy against him and the “truth”? I mean drug companies may be rich, but you honestly think they bought off the GMC and every medical organization of every major country plus 99% of doctors? Seriously get a grip on reality.

            DV82XL said:

    When I was taught manners, it was made clear that when you were a guest in someone’s place, you didn’t presume to lecture them on how they behaved. Apparently your education in good social behavior is lacking as well.

    Like this is any surprise?

    Skeptical website attract loony commenters like moths to a flame. In both cases they fly around a bit and annoy the hell out of you before ultimately getting burned.


    Quote Comment
  14. 14
    Josh Says:

    What is it about his supporters that makes them so determined to believe in the MMR scare. The more and more this guy is discredited, the more fanatical they become in hating a medication intended to prevent their children from catching the nasty diseases of measles, mumps and rubella. What’s up with them?


    Quote Comment
  15. 15
    DV82XL Says:

    Lancet retracts ‘utterly false’ MMR paper

    “The Lancet today finally retracted the paper that sparked a crisis in MMR vaccination across the UK, following the General Medical Council’s decision that its lead author, Andrew Wakefield, had been dishonest.

    The medical journal’s editor, Richard Horton, told the Guardian today that he realised as soon as he read the GMC findings that the paper, published in February 1998, had to be retracted. “It was utterly clear, without any ambiguity at all, that the statements in the paper were utterly false,” he said. “I feel I was deceived.”

    Many in the scientific and medical community have been pressing for the paper, linking the MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) jab to bowel disease and autism, to be quashed. But Horton said he did not have the evidence to do so before the end of the GMC investigation last ThursdayThe Lancet today finally retracted the paper that sparked a crisis in MMR vaccination across the UK, following the General Medical Council’s decision that its lead author, Andrew Wakefield, had been dishonest.

    The medical journal’s editor, Richard Horton, told the Guardian today that he realised as soon as he read the GMC findings that the paper, published in February 1998, had to be retracted. “It was utterly clear, without any ambiguity at all, that the statements in the paper were utterly false,” he said. “I feel I was deceived.”

    Many in the scientific and medical community have been pressing for the paper, linking the MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) jab to bowel disease and autism, to be quashed. But Horton said he did not have the evidence to do so before the end of the GMC investigation last Thursday”


    Quote Comment
  16. 16
    drbuzz0 Says:

    I have read some about this in the past couple of days. There are plenty of times when a journal published study has later been the either qualified or critical statements made. Occasionally studies are volentarily retracted by their authors, citing an honest error or something. Many peer reviewed journals do also have a section of letters to the editor that occasionally refute studies in a fairly candid manner.

    So it is not unusual for a study to get some level of refutation or opposition after being published or to get amended.

    However, I can’t recall too many instances where a journal published study has gotten this kind of treatment, where the publishers of it will use such direct and strong condemnation of something like this. In the professional world, these kind of statements really don’t come out much, and when they do, it’s usually reserved for the worst of the worst crimes against scientific ethics.

    This is one of those rare “man bites dog” kind of freak stories that really shocks those involved in research. I think I have mentioned this before: peer review does not generally work very well at dealing with outright dishonesty and it can easily get through because there is usually a presumption that the authors have been generally honest, or at the very least, would not stoop to outright fabrication of data.


    Quote Comment
  17. 17
    DV82XL Says:

            drbuzz0 said:

    I think I have mentioned this before: peer review does not generally work very well at dealing with outright dishonesty and it can easily get through because there is usually a presumption that the authors have been generally honest, or at the very least, would not stoop to outright fabrication of data.

    It’s not just dishonesty in this case, Wakefield was not just an outright liar, he is a bull****ter. Princeton philosopher Harry Frankfurt made this observation, which I think is applicable here:

    “It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bull**** requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bull****ter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.”


    Quote Comment
  18. 18
    George Carty Says:

    VICTORY!

    MMR doctor struck off register


    Quote Comment
  19. 19
    Kingfillins Says:

    May I suggest that you research this topic further in a more scientific manner. You clearly have not done so which is why you appear to be joining in on the Witch Hunt.

    “Newly-revealed documents show that on December 20th, 1996, a meeting of The Inflammatory Bowel Disease Study Group based at the Royal Free Hospital Medical School featured a presentation by Professor Walker-Smith on seven of the children who would later become part of the group of patients Dr Wakefield wrote about in his 1998 The Lancet paper (which was later retracted by The Lancet).

    Remember, Dr Wakefield has been accused of completely fabricating his findings about these same children in his 1998 paper, but these documents reveal that fourteen months before Dr Wakefield’s paper was published, two other researchers — Professor Walker-Smith and Dr Amar Dhillon — independently documented the same problems in these children, including symptoms of autism.

    Thus, Dr Wakefield could not have “fabricated” these findings as alleged by the British Medical Journal, which now finds itself in the position of needing to issue a retraction, or it must now expand its accusations of fraud to include Professor Walker-Smith and Dr Dhillon… essentially, the BMJ must now insist that a “conspiracy of fraud” existed among at least these three researchers, and possibly more, in order to back up its allegation that Dr Wakefield’s study results were fabricated.

    This is not about “Bad Science” It is about bad journalism.

    Professor Walker-Smith’s 1996 presentation at the Royal Free Hospital Medical School was entitled, “Entero-colitis and Disintegrative Disorder Following MMR – A Review of the First Seven Cases.”

    His presentation notes began with the following text: “I wish today, to present some preliminary details concerning seven children, all boys, who appear to have entero-colitis and disintegrative disorder, probably autism, following MMR. I shall now briefly present
    their case history.”

    He then went on to detail the clinical history of these seven children as derived from his medical team as well as senior pathologist Dr Amar Dhillon. Importantly, Dr Andrew Wakefield was not part of this investigation. This means that Dr Wakefield’s findings were independently replicated by another medical research team.

    The British Medical Journal’s accusations against Dr Wakefield — that he fabricated his findings — are therefore false. The mainstream media accusation that Dr Wakefield’s findings have “never been replicated” is also blatantly false.”

    Now if there was no validity to Wakfields original study, why has it been subsequently duplicated? I thought that this was the ultimate scientific method for evaluating a validating a studies claim.

    It is ironic that there is now a concern for the children who took part in this study, as to the nature of the invasive tests at the time, yet no concern for these childrens suffering and bowel conditions today, and how children could be helped via this valid and vital line of study.

    The link between some children and the current recommended Vaccine schedule and ingredients causing adverse serious effects is obvious. This does not mean that vaccines should not be used. It means creating vaccines that are safe for all children. Not just so they have a long shelf life, or are easy or more profitable in some way. Taking a way the choice of single shots is also a bizarre step to take.

    If a like between vaccines and disease was admitted it would bankrupt the USA.

    A Witch Hunt is not the way to evaluate science or policy. it is always a way to manipulate and control public perception and create irrational hysteria as a way of obfuscating some truth or motive.


    Quote Comment
  20. 20
    Anon Says:

            Kingfillins said:

    Now if there was no validity to Wakfields original study, why has it been subsequently duplicated? I thought that this was the ultimate scientific method for evaluating a validating a studies claim.

    Simple, it hasn’t.

            Kingfillins said:

    It is ironic that there is now a concern for the children who took part in this study, as to the nature of the invasive tests at the time, yet no concern for these childrens suffering and bowel conditions today, and how children could be helped via this valid and vital line of study.

    Part of the reason there isn’t any concern for how the children could be helped by the quackery of Wakefield is because he couldn’t have helped them.

            Kingfillins said:

    The link between some children and the current recommended Vaccine schedule and ingredients causing adverse serious effects is obvious.

    Then why is there no correlation between autism rates and MMR vaccination rates?

    Could it be that there isn’t actually any link?

    Of course if you were to take the anti-vaccination movement and people like you seriously you’d have to believe that autism were somehow worse than death (which it isn’t, but being an bigot may well be).

            Kingfillins said:

    This does not mean that vaccines should not be used. It means creating vaccines that are safe for all children.

    The ones we’ve got are safer than getting the disease, isn’t that good enough?

            Kingfillins said:

    Not just so they have a long shelf life, or are easy or more profitable in some way. Taking a way the choice of single shots is also a bizarre step to take.

    I always hated needles so combining multiple vaccines into a single shot was always a good thing and I suspect I’m not alone in believing that.

    Only those who wanted to torture their kids with more needles than necessary would insist on a single vaccine per needle.

            Kingfillins said:

    If a like[sic] between vaccines and disease was admitted it would bankrupt the USA.

    What do mean link between vaccines and disease? It’s already been admitted, vaccines prevent people dying from disease and it hasn’t exactly bankrupted any countries.

            Kingfillins said:

    A Witch Hunt is not the way to evaluate science or policy. it is always a way to manipulate and control public perception and create irrational hysteria as a way of obfuscating some truth or motive.

    You’re the one who is doing a witch hunt here.


    Quote Comment
  21. 21
    Kingfillins Says:

    To Anon….”What do mean link between vaccines and disease?”

    http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/vaccineimages.asp

    “The FDA admits that the 12,000 reports it receives annually on pharmacologic side effects from vaccines represent only a fraction of what actually occurs.”

    If there is no link, it would surely be very easy to prove such in a court of law, and impossible to prove that there is a link, yet…

    On November 9, 2007, respondent filed a Rule 4 Report conceding that petitioner should be awarded compensation in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(c)(1)(C)(ii). Respondent stated that, based on a review of the petition, medical records and affidavits, the “facts of this case meet the statutory criteria for demonstrating that the vaccination Hannah received on July 19, 2000, significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder, which predisposed her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism and manifested as a regressive encephalopathy with features of autism spectrum disorder.” (Rule 4 Report at 7). Respondent further stated in the Rule 4 Report that the onset of Hannah’s complex partial seizure disorder, nearly six years after her July 19, 2000 vaccinations, was not related to her vaccinations. (Rule 4 Report at 7)

    On February 21, 2008, respondent filed a Supplemental Rule 4 Report addressing respondent’s review of Dr. Zimmerman’s expert report. (See Supplemental Rule 4 Report at 1-2). Respondent stated that “[h]aving reviewed this additional evidence, [medical personnel at the Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation, Department of Health and Human Services (DVIC)] now recommend [ ] compensation for Hannah’s seizure disorder as sequela of her vaccine-injury in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(c)(1)(C)(ii).” Based on respondent’s concession, a damages determination is now underway in this case.

    On May12, 2008, in an exclusive interview, former NIH Director Dr. Bernadine Healy told CBS News’ Correspondent Sharyl Attkisson that the question of a link between vaccines and autism is still open for debate. She expressed dismay at the latest Institute of Medicine (IOM) Immunization Safety Review Committee’s Report: Vaccines and Autism, that stated that the weight of the body of scientific evidence does not show a causal link between vaccines and autism, and that more research on the vaccine question is counterproductive. Healy also said public health officials have intentionally avoided researching whether subsets of children are “susceptible” to vaccine side effects—afraid of what they might find and afraid the answer will scare the public into not getting their children vaccinated, and have intentionally avoided the kinds of scientific research studies that might show causality.

    “I always hated needles”

    So you mean they cause you dis-ease.

    http://www.zimbio.com/Symptoms+of+MRSA/articles/fVGPugb4hCq/MRSA+Vaccine+Trial+Halted+Ends+Disaster

    “In 1919, at Dallas, Texas, U.S.A., ten children were killed and sixty others made seriously ill by toxin-antitoxin which had passed the tests of the New York State Health Department. The Mulford Company, at Philadelphia, the manufacturers, paid damages in every case.

    In 1977, a Russian study found that adults exposed to ethylmercury, the form of mercury in thimerosal, suffered brain damage years later. Studies on thimerosal poisoning also describe tubular necrosis and nervous system injury, including obtundation, coma and death. As a result of these findings, Russia banned thimerosal from children’s vaccines in 1980. Denmark, Austria, Japan, Great Britain and all the Scandinavian countries have also banned the preservative.

    Vaccine Companies Investigated for Manslaughter
    A formal investigation has been launched by French authorities against two managers from drug companies GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi Pasteur. A second investigation for manslaughter has also been opened against Sanofi Pasteur MSD. The investigations are in response to allegations that the companies failed to fully disclose side effects from an anti-hepatitis B drug used between 1994 and 1998. During this time, close to two-thirds of the French population, and almost all newborn babies, received a hepatitis B vaccine. The vaccination campaign was halted after concerns rose over the shot’s side effects.

    March 7, 2005 – Merck Misled on Vaccines – Drug maker Merck and Co. continued to supply infant vaccine containing thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative, for two years after declaring that it had eliminated the chemical. In September 1999, amid rising concern about the risks of mercury in childhood vaccines. Merck executives confirmed the details in the FDA letter.

    FDA – “Rotavirus Vaccine May Harm Infants Infant” – Vaccine RotaTeq Linked to Intestinal Problems
    On February 13, 2007 the U.S. government issued a warning for a potentially life-threatening condition called Intussusception that causes the twisting of the intestines in infants vaccinated against a virus that is the leading cause of early childhood diarrhea. Intussusception originally led to the withdrawal of the first rotavirus vaccine eight years ago

    July 10, 2008 – 12 Babies Die During Vaccine Trials in Argentina At least 12 infants who were part of a clinical study to test a pneumonia vaccine have died in Argentina over the course of the past year.The study was sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline, and uses children from poor families. According to the Argentine Federation of Health Professionals, the families are “pressured and forced into signing consent forms”. The vaccine trial is still ongoing despite the denunciations.

    Two excerpts from closed door meeting conducted by the CDC in 2000: “But from all of the other studies of toxic substances, the earlier you work with the central nervous system, the more likely you are to run into a sensitive period for one of these effects, so that moving from one month or one day of birth to six months of birth changes enormously the potential for toxicity. There are just a host of neurodevelopmental data that would suggest that we’ve got a serious problem. The earlier we go, the more serious the problem.” Dr. Weil

    “Aluminum & mercury are often simultaneously administered to infants, both at the same site & at different sites. However, there is absolutely no data, including animal data, about the potential for SYNERGY, additively or antagonism, all of which can occur in binary metal mixtures that relate and allow us to draw any conclusions from the simultaneous exposure to these two salts in vaccines.” Dr. Johnston

    Now if you read the bizarrely slanted Wikipedia summary about vaccination http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_controversy you will get a feeling for how the “official” perspective on this topic is very much lacking in serious objective representation.

    Even if, say 80% of the “anti-vax woo” is all just hysterical nonsense, a bunch of misinformed Mums who clearly do not understand science….. thats still 20% worth listening to.
    So what is the percentage? 100% woo??
    Clearly that is not the case, as I have quickly located this information that clearly shows vaccines can cause disease.

    So what is the percentage? Who is calculating? even 10% or 5% of “Woo” is a serious reason for concern.

    “Woo” as you call it is the (only a slither) of information I have supplies above…

    Why do you downplay such serious reasons for caution, and such serious reasons to
    distrust corporate pharmaceutical companies?


    Quote Comment
  22. 22
    Anon Says:

            Kingfillins said:

    To Anon….”What do mean link between vaccines and disease?”

    http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/vaccineimages.asp

    “The FDA admits that the 12,000 reports it receives annually on pharmacologic side effects from vaccines represent only a fraction of what actually occurs.”

    Yes, a bit of itching and a rash here and there (which clears up after a week or so) for a few of the people who get the vaccine. Besides, coincidences happen as well.

    BTW: The smallpox vaccine (which we basically don’t use any more since it has already done its job and sent smallpox extinct) did have a relatively high side effect rate, though still a lot less than the disease it protected against.

            Kingfillins said:

    If there is no link, it would surely be very easy to prove such in a court of law, and impossible to prove that there is a link, yet…

    Of course courts are infallible, never making a mistake.

            Kingfillins said:

    On November 9, 2007, respondent filed a Rule 4 Report conceding that petitioner should be awarded compensation in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(c)(1)(C)(ii). Respondent stated that, based on a review of the petition, medical records and affidavits, the “facts of this case meet the statutory criteria for demonstrating that the vaccination Hannah received on July 19, 2000, significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder, which predisposed her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism and manifested as a regressive encephalopathy with features of autism spectrum disorder.” (Rule 4 Report at 7). Respondent further stated in the Rule 4 Report that the onset of Hannah’s complex partial seizure disorder, nearly six years after her July 19, 2000 vaccinations, was not related to her vaccinations. (Rule 4 Report at 7)

    Generally considered to have been a mistake.

            Kingfillins said:

    On May12, 2008, in an exclusive interview, former NIH Director Dr. Bernadine Healy told CBS News’ Correspondent Sharyl Attkisson that the question of a link between vaccines and autism is still open for debate.

    You should know that she wasn’t selected to run the NIH because of her scientific knowledge but because of her politics and isn’t particularly highly regarded in the scientific community. The NIH seems to suffer from that a lot.

            Kingfillins said:

    She expressed dismay at the latest Institute of Medicine (IOM) Immunization Safety Review Committee’s Report: Vaccines and Autism, that stated that the weight of the body of scientific evidence does not show a causal link between vaccines and autism, and that more research on the vaccine question is counterproductive.

    Well when all the well conducted studies show nothing there and consistently show nothing why would you expect another study to be any different?

    The question is settled, and also largely irrelevant anyway.

    Maybe if there were unlimited funding we could continue to research the issue until people like you all die of old age but there isn’t unlimited funding, money spent on another confirmation of the null hypothesis is money which isn’t going into other things.

            Kingfillins said:

    Healy also said public health officials have intentionally avoided researching whether subsets of children are “susceptible” to vaccine side effects—afraid of what they might find and afraid the answer will scare the public into not getting their children vaccinated, and have intentionally avoided the kinds of scientific research studies that might show causality.

    It’d also be pretty damn hard to actually find any such kids in the first place.

    I mean how would you know it was the vaccine which did it?

            Kingfillins said:

    “I always hated needles”

    So you mean they cause you dis-ease.

    No, they hurt when they penetrate the skin.

            Kingfillins said:

    In 1977, a Russian study found that adults exposed to ethylmercury, the form of mercury in thimerosal, suffered brain damage years later. Studies on thimerosal poisoning also describe tubular necrosis and nervous system injury, including obtundation, coma and death.

    At much higher doses than you’d get from vaccines.

            Kingfillins said:

    As a result of these findings, Russia banned thimerosal from children’s vaccines in 1980. Denmark, Austria, Japan, Great Britain and all the Scandinavian countries have also banned the preservative.

    Never mind that it actually wasn’t a problem in the doses it was being used in (and further research has backed that up).

            Kingfillins said:

    March 7, 2005 – Merck Misled on Vaccines – Drug maker Merck and Co. continued to supply infant vaccine containing thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative, for two years after declaring that it had eliminated the chemical. In September 1999, amid rising concern about the risks of mercury in childhood vaccines. Merck executives confirmed the details in the FDA letter.

    Never mind that thimerosal wasn’t actually dangerous in the doses used in the vaccines so I wouldn’t exactly say that matters.

            Kingfillins said:

    “Aluminum & mercury are often simultaneously administered to infants, both at the same site & at different sites. However, there is absolutely no data, including animal data, about the potential for SYNERGY, additively or antagonism, all of which can occur in binary metal mixtures that relate and allow us to draw any conclusions from the simultaneous exposure to these two salts in vaccines.” Dr. Johnston

    There is also no reason to believe that either substance is harmful in the doses given.

            Kingfillins said:

    Now if you read the bizarrely slanted Wikipedia summary about vaccination http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_controversy you will get a feeling for how the “official” perspective on this topic is very much lacking in serious objective representation.

    No, actually I get a feeling for how deluded you are.

            Kingfillins said:

    Even if, say 80% of the “anti-vax woo” is all just hysterical nonsense,

    It’s a lot closer to 100% than that, maybe 99% at the lowest.

            Kingfillins said:

    a bunch of misinformed Mums who clearly do not understand science….. thats still 20% worth listening to.

    It probably isn’t even 1% (at least of the stuff those misinformed mums sprout).

            Kingfillins said:

    So what is the percentage? 100% woo??

    Close enough for me.

            Kingfillins said:

    Clearly that is not the case, as I have quickly located this information that clearly shows vaccines can cause disease.

    No you haven’t, you’ve found claims, not evidence.

            Kingfillins said:

    So what is the percentage? Who is calculating? even 10% or 5% of “Woo” is a serious reason for concern.

    Even if everything about vaccine risks the anti-vaccination movement says is true it still wouldn’t justify not being vaccinated.

            Kingfillins said:

    Why do you downplay such serious reasons for caution, and such serious reasons to distrust corporate pharmaceutical companies?

    Maybe because I’m a member of the reality based community.

    Besides, even if I were to believe the anti-vaccination nonsense I’d have to believe autism (even in the most severe forms) to be worse than death to justify not vaccinating and I’m just not that bigoted.


    Quote Comment

Leave a Reply

Current month ye@r day *

Please copy the string IKeOzO to the field below:

Protected by WP Anti Spam