638

New Study Warns of the Dangers of Multiple Vaccinations

Time and time again, VacTruth has published heartbreaking stories involving infants who have received multiple vaccinations in one visit. Many of these infants have suffered irreversible brain injuries or death as a result.

Currently, an infant as young as eight weeks of age can receive up to ten doses of vaccinations in one visit, and in one particular case, a child received thirteen doses, which, sadly, led to his death. [1]

Until recently, there have been very few studies for parents to examine outlining the facts surrounding the dangers of multiple vaccinations. However, this is about to change.

Statistics Show Multiple Vaccinations Are Dangerous to Young Babies

A few weeks ago, Neil Z. Miller published a paper titled Combining Childhood Vaccines at One Visit Is Not Safe. [2] Using data taken from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) website, Miller was able to prove that the more vaccines a child received at any given time, the more likely it was for an adverse reaction to occur.

In addition to the data outlined in the following table, based on 38,801 VAERS reports, he stated:

“… Of the 38,801 VAERS reports that we analyzed, 969 infants received two vaccine doses prior to the adverse event and 107 of those infants were hospitalized: a hospitalization rate of 11%. Of 1,959 infants who received three vaccine doses prior to the adverse event, 243 of them required hospitalization: 12.4%. For four doses, 561 of 3,909 infants were hospitalized: 14.4%. Notice the emerging pattern: Infants who had an adverse event reported to VAERS were more likely to require hospitalization when they received three vaccine doses instead of two, or four vaccine doses instead of three.”

He continued that:

“… Of 10,114 infants who received five vaccine doses prior to the adverse event, 1,463 of them required hospitalization: 14.5%. For six doses, 1,365 of 8,454 infants were hospitalized: 16.1%. For seven doses, 1,051 of 5,489 infants were hospitalized: 19.1%. And for eight doses, 661 of 2,817 infants were hospitalized: 23.5%. The hospitalization rate increased linearly from 11.0% for two doses to 23.5% for eight doses.”

In other words, the more vaccines that an infant received, the more likely they were to suffer an adverse reaction.

miller-1

Miller explained that:

“Of the 38,801 VAERS reports that we analyzed, 11,927 infants received one, two, three, or four vaccine doses prior to having an adverse event, and 423 of those infants died: a mortality rate of 3.6%. The remaining 26,874 infants received five, six, seven, or eight vaccine doses prior to the adverse event and 1,458 of them died: 5.4%. The mortality rate for infants who received five to eight vaccine doses (5.4%) is significantly higher than the mortality rate for infants who received one to four doses (3.6%), with a rate ratio(RR) of 1.5 (95% CI, 1.4-1.7). Of infants reported to VAERS, those who had received more vaccines had a statistically significant 50% higher mortality rate compared with those who had received fewer.”

miller-2

According to Miller, children below the age of six weeks receiving more than one vaccination are more likely to suffer an adverse reaction than children over the age of six months.

During his study, he discovered that not only did the child’s age determine whether or not they were at heightened risk of an adverse reaction but it also determined the risk of them dying prematurely.

After examining a colossal 38,801 adverse events reported to the VAERS database, Miller and his team stated that:

“… Of the 38,801 VAERS reports that we analyzed, 765 concerned infants six-weeks-old or younger who received one or more vaccine doses prior to the adverse event, and 154 of those infants were hospitalized: a hospitalization rate of 20.1%. Of 5,572 infants aged six months at vaccination, 858 were hospitalized: 15.4%. Of 801 infants who were nearly a year old when they were vaccinated, 86 were hospitalized: 10.7%. The hospitalization rate decreased linearly from 20.1% for neonates to 10.7% for older infants. linear regression analysis of hospitalization rates as a function of patient age yielded an R squared of 0.95.

In the 38,801 VAERS reports we analysed, 26,408 infants were younger than six months. After receiving one or more vaccine doses, 1,623 of those infants died: a mortality rate of 6.1%. The remaining 12,393 infants were between six months and one year of age. After receiving one or more vaccine doses, 258 of them died: 2.1%. The mortality rate for vaccinated infants younger than six months was significantly higher than the mortality rate for vaccinated infants between six months and one year, with an RR=3.0 (95%CI, 2.6-3.4). Infants who had an adverse event reported to VAERS were significantly more likely to be hospitalized or die if they were younger rather than older at the time of vaccination.”

These figures are damning, so, how worried should be parents be?

Should Parents Be Concerned?

As with any researcher, scientist, or professional, Miller was only able to work with the statistics available at the time. However, as many of us are aware, the number of adverse reactions being reported to the VAERS website are said to be a mere fraction of the true figures and the limitation of VAERS has been discussed in detail on websites such as Harpocrates Speaks and Vaccine Safety. [3, 4]

This is of particular concern as more and more US states are choosing to mandate childhood vaccinations, thus effectively force-vaccinating large populations of young children with multiple vaccinations now understood to be potentially life-threatening.

In 2006, VP nominee Tim Kaine signed a mandate for sixth grade Virginia girls to receive the HPV vaccine, before the research on the “fast-tracked” vaccine was complete. Subsequent follow-up research shows that those vaccinated have 2.5 times the rate of serious adverse reactions than the rate of death from cervical cancer.

A Canadian study showed that 10% of those vaccinated end up in the ER. Autoimmune disease, infertility, and death have been widely reported after the HPV vaccine. [5]

New research shows that the vaccine targets brain proteins in an experimental animal model, backing up evidence obtained from postmortem brain samples of two girls who died after receiving the HPV vaccine. [6]

In a recent exposé by Sanevax, they stated:

“During the last two weeks, it seems every time you turn around you find a news article singing the praises of HPV vaccines. It all started with a paper entitled “Prevalence of HPV After Introduction of the Vaccination Program in the United States” co-authored by Markowitz, Liu, Hariri, Steinau, Dunne and Unger of the CDC [1] that has been widely quoted to promote HPV vaccination among the teens, claiming “HPV vaccine more effective than expected.”

It’s all well and good to quote the newest CDC publication, but one would expect any journalist worthy of their title to at least read and perhaps even analyze the original before making such bold statements as the one above.” [7]

Apparently not, as according to the President of Sanevax, Norma Erickson, the paper was full of inaccuracies. She wrote:

“The authors claimed the “HPV DNA prevalence was analyzed in cervicovaginal specimens …”  In fact, in the Methods section they disclosed that the women who were examined in a mobile examination center (a van) were asked to self-collect a cervicovaginal sample.

However, in real life the average American woman cannot collect any uterine cervicovaginal epithelial cells at the transformation zone where the “cancer causing” viruses are known to infect. Think about it ladies, when was the last time anyone (other than the CDC) asked you to collect your own Pap smear sample? Therefore, this is false claim 1.

The authors claimed, “The surveys are designed to be nationally representative of the civilian, noninstitutionalized US population.”

However, average American women are usually examined in a board-certified gynecologist’s office, not in a van; the cervicovaginal specimens are collected with a Pap smear brush through a speculum, not a Q-tip. This is false claim 2.

In the Methods section, the authors stated “In 1999 to 2006, Mexican-Americans, non-Hispanic blacks, low-income non-Hispanic whites and others, as well as adolescents aged 12 to 19 years, were oversampled.” “In 2009 to 2012, all Hispanics were also oversampled and in 2011 to 2012, Asians were also oversampled.”

It is well known that prevalence rates of individual HPV genotypes or subtypes among different ethnic groups of a population are different. Therefore, to compare the data obtained in the groups of women in 1999 to 2006 with those obtained in the groups of women in 2009 to 2012 is meaningless. It amounts to “comparing apples and oranges.”

… Therefore, the authors knew or should have known that their genotyping results were not reliable, and the difference in any two sets of data could have been due to faulty methodology.”

In fact, Gardasil was one of the earliest vaccinations to be mandated. Since then, according to the Immunization Action Coalition, several vaccinations have been mandated in many states throughout the US. [8]

With at least 271 new vaccinations in the pipeline, it appears that parents are in for a worrying time. [9]

Conclusion

Neil Z. Miller has outlined some extremely alarming facts and the situation could be far worse, with many adverse reactions left unreported. However, despite his efforts, no mainstream media outlet has reported on this factual and evidence-based paper.

Facts are facts, and we, at VacTruth, believe that the time has come to put a stop to this madness. We urge parents to send a copy of Miller’s paper to all relevant health and government departments before it is too late.

References

  1. https://vactruth.com/2015/04/23/baby-dies-after-13-vaccines/
  2. http://www.jpands.org/vol21no2/miller.pdf
  3. http://www.harpocratesspeaks.com/2013/11/vaers-few-things-we-need-to-discuss.html
  4. http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/VAERS.htm
  5. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X16002036
  6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27421722
  7. http://sanevax.org/cdc-hpv-vaccines-science-shameless-promotion/
  8. http://www.immunize.org/laws/
  9. http://healthimpactnews.com/2015/there-are-271-new-vaccines-in-big-pharmas-pipeline/

Photo Credit

Christina England, BA Hons
 

  • ioneskye

    Its the worst crime against humanity in human history. Some evil entities are doing this on purpose. This has nothing to do with money for the top tier “beings”. If they even are beings, they/it may be a malevolent computer game. The lower thinkers(pediatricians, pcps, nurses, lab workers, etc. are just koolaid drinkers who have been brainwashed and dumbed down. Yesterday a friend advised me that the reason “they” are maiming babies and children and adults is because this way people are easier to control. Its a deep rabbit hole. God help us, if there is a god.

  • Debra

    How will God ‘help you’ if you don’t even believe He is there? God helps those who KNOW He IS there! God proves Himself to those who truly SEEK Him.

  • L. A. McDonough

    Parents that allow this are unfit to breed kids. Doctors are insane to allow this in the first place. Few parents today (those that home school also) are fit to raise kids. Majority of couples losers.

  • LeAnn Addleman

    People are easier to control and are future consumers of big pharma products. It is a horrible crime against humanity and wait till they start rounding all of us up for forced vaccination.
    Things may seem bleak now but the Bible says that things will get worse before the Lord comes again to call His own and those who have done harm will know the justice of our Heavenly Father.

  • LeAnn Addleman

    I was a homeschool mom and my youngest children were not vaccinated once I learned. Unfortunately, we are taught to trust doctors and nurses with the health of our children and we have been deceived. There are “parents” who aren’t fit to raise children but most just want to do what’s best for their children and don’t take the time to do the research.

  • Jesus baby

    You’re killing me.Facts are facts, and we, at VacTruth, believe that the time has come to put a stop to this madness.”
    You’re killing me.

  • L. A. McDonough

    I’m a retiree, and my elders in the 60’s on, were exposing things about gov. education, even DPT vaccines, liberal churches, and political corruption (grant money paid,etc) I have studied globalism for decades, we are child free and others we know, knowing America was headed over the cliff (as in train wreck) in decades ahead. We knew that patriot groups were failures (failed to produce results like getting out of the UN, trade treaties, outsourcing jobs, etc) as the decades rolled on, more people opted to home school. Many incl. us have ditched mainline churches (501c3 ) years ago, because they were passive, refusing to speak on cultural and moral decline, not opposing gay marriage even or warnign people to ditch gov schools and vaccines. Home churches will grow as people wake up. Gov control (IRS) mandates clergy response teams (FEMA roundups) and pol. correctness in the pulpits turning churches into businesses and social clubs. The gov. is run by the judicial and executive branches, the house and senate produce zero, are useless bums. Vaccines are a form of chemical warfare and so are most all rx drugs pushed by Dr’s which kill people or make them worse off.

  • Biblical Reasons Not to Vaccinate
    http://childhoodshots.com/biblical-reasons-vaccinate/

    God Does Not Support Vaccines
    http://www.livingwhole.org/god-does-not-support-vaccines/

    INDESCRIBABLY DISGUSTING VACCINE INGREDIENTS

    SO WHAT ABOUT THE FLY IN OUR SOUP?

    It may not do any harm at all, especially if it has been well heated in the soup!

    However, all injected substances including insect fragments bypass the body’s intricate defense mechanism. The same substances which are harmless when ingested are shown to be extremely detrimental to health when injected. This is learned by medical students and others, but many doctors, health authorities and other vaccine promoters appear to ignore this basic fact.

    Read more:
    http://birthofanewearth.blogspot.com/2012/01/indescribably-disgusting-vaccine.html

    Vaccine Ingredients and Manufacturer Information
    (alphabetical order by vaccine)
    http://vaccines.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=005206

    Stop Mandatory Vaccination
    http://www.stopmandatoryvaccination.com/

    Why Should There Be A Moratorium On Vaccines?
    http://www.naturalblaze.com/2016/08/why-should-there-be-a-moratorium-on-vaccines.html

  • So, where is your actual and direct counter refute of the specific information in the article? Your character name is as well, pathetic.

  • Jesus baby

    I was pointing out the irony of Vactruth talking about facts, but as for The Miller paper it’s just more VAERS dumpster-diving.

  • AutismDadd

    Shocking. If I was considering having more children, this might convince me not to.

  • AutismDadd

    No that’s the aluminum adjuvant.

  • AutismDadd

    Who cares? Your opinions are garbage

  • AutismDadd

    Doctors are forced to comply. The Pharmafia is watching.

  • AutismDadd

    When one considers the label HERD IMMUNITY we see what the medical profession views us as, a horde that needs intervention by the geniuses who think they know better that evolution.

  • 655321

    Vaccine program has evolved into just that…,.,population control.

  • LeAnn Addleman

    Herd immunity may work for cattle or sheep but we are humans, made in the image of the most high God. At birth our immune system is not fully developed and vaccines do untold damage to every child who receives them. When the “geniuses” play god and try to manipulate the immune system they either don’t know what they’re doing, HA, or they are paid off by an out of control pharmaceutical company that is just in business to make money.

  • LeAnn Addleman

    I agree with everything you said. I learn long ago that our government was corrupt, our churches (501c3) were controlled by the state, schools were destroying almost all the training parents were doing at home, vaccines were debilitating children and seniors and we were on the brink of being slaves, if not already. I had older children who went through the government schools but my youngest were homeschooled and were vaccine free. I am watching as our once great nation is being dismantled and not enough people either realize it or are willing to stand against it.

  • AutismDadd

    I agree. Humans invent, but not all inventions work well.

  • AutismDadd

    There is that too. If I was young I might not have children in this day and age.

  • 655321

    that is the idea….discourage certain populations from reproducing.

  • AutismDadd

    Rather than have them used for vaccine experimentation, its an option worth considering.

  • 655321

    Vaccine program seems to be part of a larger depopulation, dumbing down program. It’s the only thing that makes sense when take a 10,000 foot view of things. Smaller, dumber, and sicker populations much more compliant and easily controlled than larger, healthy, critical thinking populations.

  • Chi Ngai Chan

    For all the talk about truth and evidence, this article seems to be full of examples of manipulation of both:

    To begin with, the Miller paper this article mentioned used over 300,000 cases of vaccine reactions as their dataset. However the article failed to mention the time period it covers (1990-2010) and the total number of children vaccinated (tens of millions). Suddenly the 300,000 cases doesn’t seems a huge number and the increase in % of serious complications becomes a even smaller risk compare to e.g. the risk of being hit by a car. (obviously it is not good that there are adverse reactions, but everything we do carry risks).

    Secondly, the article criticized the HPV vaccine, based on the data published about a shocking 10% of women who were given the vaccine ended up in the ER! If the author bothered to read the Canadian study they quoted they would realize that the 10% include all women who ended up in the ER 42 days after vaccination for reasons that are not connected to the vaccine, such as car accident, food poisoning and pregnancy! Only 4 out of 200,000 women were in the ER for vaccines related severe adverse reaction.

    It is ironic that the anti-vaxx crowd complains so much about data manipulation, and then turn around to pump out these irrational, irresponsible poison online.

  • dottie

    “Herd immunity” in populations that have been hit with an outbreak of an illness is real – and can protect others in the community from getting sick in epidemics effecting as little as 60% of a population.
    However, herd immunity among the vaccinated is a MYTH of epic proportions!
    Populations with almost total compliance – such as China, with a near-completely vaccinated population of over 99% – still have outbreaks of “vaccine-preventable” illnesses.

  • Ruth

    No, we are concerned. One person or child injured by vaccines is one too many. I believe pro-vaxxers are the first to go into denial to the point of actually legislating against questioning, suing, whistle blowing, and resisting medical fascism in the form of anything that relates to vaccination. I mean, how dare anybody do that! That is probably the worst that they do, if they are not profiting from it as well. The best that they do is try to baffle with bullshit, or quote statistics.

    The statistics you quoted above seem very similar to me for those trying to promote the efficacy of vaccines. Do you always accuse others of doing what you do for opposite reasons?

    Oh, and check this out:
    http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-planned-parenthood-video-bill-20160831-snap-story.html
    They’ve gotta outlaw whistle blowers somehow.

  • Ruth

    You need to stick with your religion then, rather than try to convert others.

  • Jesus baby

    I’ll just pray for the unvaxxed then.

  • Chi Ngai Chan

    So you are saying that vaccines exists only to give autism to children? I’m sure that when you are a child you and all your friends received vaccines. How many of your friends were harmed by vaccines? I bet that if vaccines are banned and diseases like polio come back you would be saying that the drug companies are hiding some cure for the diseases and not releasing it as a conspiracy. With all due respect you have lost all sense of rational argument when you ignored the 99.99% of people that are protected by vaccines. This pandering to irrational emotions rather than facts is the reason why a man-child like Trump is one step away from the nuclear button!

  • Evidence for this is what? Start by defining untold in numbers.

  • Really? I’d be fascinated to read your research.

  • LeAnn Addleman

    Do your own research. I did. The evidence is out there, if you’re willing to received it.
    I did say that every child is damaged. So you do the math.

  • LeAnn Addleman

    Evolution? You mean creation. God doesn’t make junk, junk science destroys what God created.

  • LeAnn Addleman

    Thanks to the vaccines, we now have vaccine induced diseases.

  • LeAnn Addleman

    You can read it. The research is available. Have you seen the movie VAXXED? I haven’t but I’ve seen the trailer and snippets of it. Do everyone a favor and don’t just listen to the talking heads on TV and the CDC, FDA, big pharma and doctors who are paid to give vaccines but don’t have to be held responsible when things go wrong.

  • I asked about research, not books and films. As for CDC and FDA, there are other countries in the world.

    Read the CDC whistleblower documents yet?

  • So in other words, you have no evidence at all. Your claim, your burden of proof.

    Really – every single child is damaged? Huh. That’s interesting given that not every child is vaccinated.

    So which journal is your research published in?

  • LeAnn Addleman

    I ask the same thing of you. Do you have research published in any journals or publications? Oh, peer reviewed of course.

  • No. However, I’m not the one claiming the people who do the actual research are wrong, now am I?

  • JGC

    Whoah–full stop! What was that part again?

    ” Using data taken from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) website …”

    The data in the VAERS database cannot be used for this type of study–VAERS not offers the followingexplicit warning about the nature of the reports collected but also requires users click an “I have read and understand the preceding statement” button before proceeding to the database:

    When reviewing data from VAERS, please keep in mind the following limitations:

    VAERS is a passive reporting system, meaning that reports about adverse events are not automatically collected, but require a report to be filed to VAERS. VAERS reports can be submitted voluntarily by anyone, including healthcare providers, patients, or family members. Reports vary in quality and completeness. They often lack details and sometimes can have information that contains errors.

    “Underreporting” is one of the main limitations of passive surveillance systems, including VAERS. The term, underreporting refers to the fact that VAERS receives reports for only a small fraction of actual adverse events. The degree of underreporting varies widely. As an example, a great many of the millions of vaccinations administered each year by injection cause soreness, but relatively few of these episodes lead to a VAERS report. Physicians and patients understand that minor side effects of vaccinations often include this kind of discomfort, as well as low fevers. On the other hand, more serious and unexpected medical events are probably more likely to be reported than minor ones, especially when they occur soon after vaccination, even if they may be coincidental and related to other causes.

    A report to VAERS generally does not prove that the identified vaccine(s) caused the adverse event described. It only confirms that the reported event occurred sometime after vaccine was given. No proof that the event was caused by the vaccine is required in order for VAERS to accept the report. VAERS accepts all reports without judging whether the event was caused by the vaccine.

    So what the authors have done is, instead of showing “Multiple vaccinations lead to more adverse events”, is show “Multiple vaccinations generate more unconfirmed reports of adverse events in VAERS”.

  • LeAnn Addleman

    Oh, but you are. It’s just that the ones that I have read or videos I’ve watched don’t agree with what you believe. Statistics do show the adverse reactions where as there is no actual statistics to show that vaccines prevent disease.

  • AutismDadd

    Its experimentation. They do NOT know what they are doing. Their discoveries include the maiming and killing of animals, and humans. Only by trying this, then trying that do they progress if at all. Vaccines have NEVER been perfected, no matter how many bogus claims they have made. When the body doesn’t cooperate, they introduce some other chemical to overcome that resistance.

  • AutismDadd

    No evidence? Makes PERFECT sense.

  • AutismDadd

    China also has a large cramped population and living conditions are horrid. Some live on small boats and use river water as a source for drinking and as a place to dump human waste. Yum Yum

  • AutismDadd

    You have contradicted yourself. Evolution is real. What you chose to believe about God etc is fine, but its my understanding he placed us here then chose to not interfere

  • AutismDadd

    So if a REAL study is published in book form or reported in a newspaper, its not real or true? Buh Wah Ha Ha

  • LeAnn Addleman

    If you know the Bible, Jesus said He would never leave us nor forsake us. The God of the Bible is always with His people, those who turn their backs on Him He leaves to their own devices, understanding, “wisdom”. Proverbs 12:15 “The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but a wise man is he who listens to counsel.” And there are many more verses about fools. He didn’t just “dump” us all here and leave us to do for ourselves.

  • Well, let me know when that happens.

  • Ron Roy

    They’re not UNCONFIRMED to the parents of those children.

  • Ron Roy

    The larger numbers are never reported. Most people are not made aware that they can report a vaccine injury to VAERS.

  • Ron Roy

    Save your prayers for those who ARE vaccinated.

  • Ron Roy

    Garbage? You’re too kind I had something worst in mind. Hint it rhymes with hit.

  • Ron Roy

    Many of those who don’t are suicided.

  • Ron Roy

    How many kids have to be damaged by vaccine before YOU have enough evidence?

  • More than the unchecked disease would damage, obviously.

    However, we have not yet established how many kids are damaged by vaccines.

  • Jesus baby

    Silly willie

  • Chi Ngai Chan

    What about the Canadian study this article quoted that looked at all hospital admissions from girls who were given the HPV vaccines? Or all the studies involving hundreds of thousands of children who were given or not given the MMR vaccines and found no difference in rates of autism? Look most people were vaccinated didn’t report an injury because they were not injured. They went on with their lives. The vaccines protects the vast majority of people without side effects and the most positive thing one can do about those who are harmed by vaccines is to find out why rather than taking away vaccines.

  • AutismDadd

    Or careers ruined

  • AutismDadd

    Does it smell and get flushed?

  • AutismDadd

    Yep, you ARE that clueless

  • Ron Roy

    Yep

  • On the contrary, LeAnn Addlerman. Videos are not research.

    And no, I weigh evidence and not merely count it. Statistics for proving vaccines prevent disease? No. Just immunology, microbiology and so on.

  • How uniform is that mix?

  • Sorry, didn’t God make everything?

  • LeAnn Addleman

    God makes everything good and perfect. Man has perverted all that is good.

  • LeAnn Addleman

    Every child who receives vaccines is damaged in some way. Not all damage shows up right away, some is evident later in life, some is immediately. Damage is evidenced in different ways in different children.

  • AutismDadd

    Well we know its over 70 million worldwide, so pudawan may not care how many.

  • AutismDadd

    Yea the ones afraid to catch the KILLER DISEASES they are vaccinated for.

  • AutismDadd

    Not that VAERS matters with its disclaimer that negates all evidence it contains.

  • And your evidence that 1 in 1 vaccinated children are vaccine-damaged is what, exactly? I mean you do have some, right?

  • A perfect God cannot make mistakes.

  • The VIS and package insert, you mean?

  • Ron Roy

    No. The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. Although I do encourage everyone to insist they be given the package inserts and that they read them thoroughly before having their kids vaccinated.

  • Not working too well then, is it?

  • Ah, well. The mention of NVICP is on the VAERS site too.

  • LeAnn Addleman

    He doesn’t. Man makes mistakes.

  • LeAnn Addleman

    Damage manifests in different ways.

  • A perfect God cannot make mistakes directly or indirectly.

  • That’s a claim. I asked for your evidence.

  • Great. Then get the parents to give us the evidence that vaccines are causally associated with autism.

  • LeAnn Addleman

    You already said that. So what’s your point?

  • Who created Man?

  • LeAnn Addleman

    Go back to Genesis.

  • God, according to the bible. But that is still a claim.

  • LeAnn Addleman

    Okay, if you say so. Seems you know as much about the God of the Bible as you do about vaccine damage and adverse events.

  • Lots, then.

  • Ron Roy

    They have but their complaints are dismissed by most doctors and health agencies. My daughter has gone through this. She caved in to pressure and had my grandson vaccinated now they both will pay for this for the rest of their lives. You want evidence:

    http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/30-scientific-studies-showing-the-link-between-vaccines-and-autism/

  • Yes. I want evidence, not anecdotes and evidence must be weighed, not merely counted.

    Evidence that is stronger than the current evidence please. And something better than post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.

    Read the Cedillo case yet?

  • AutismDadd

    We can see that JGC goes orgasmic knowing that VAERS disclaimer is actually a legal but dishonorable and unethical way to hamper studies like this and to prevent evidence for lawsuits.

  • AutismDadd

    This study validates so much, but the shills are going into a feeding frenzie trying to discredit the evidence they claim doesn’t exist.

  • AutismDadd

    You want evidence , but this Miller study isn’t evidence right shill?

  • AutismDadd

    Its you talking about data manipulation. What does it matter what time frame or how many injuries happen per million vaccines? Miller’s point is injuries happen…period, and its true.

  • AutismDadd

    Are you clueless? We are discussing INJURIES NOT the uninjured.

  • AutismDadd

    Fool. Those injured by vaccines need respect, something you aren’t offering. You must have a heart of stone. For all your blah blah about illness and death, you are sacrificing children to your science god. Obviously you haven’t had a child harmed, so its easy not to care. You shame yourself and your family with your lack of empathy.

  • Chi Ngai Chan

    Well in that case we should ban cars, since they caused more injuries and deaths than any vaccines had.

  • Chi Ngai Chan

    Dude you are getting so emotional. It’s not helping anyone. What do you propose? Take away all vaccines? And create far more tragedies in many more families?

  • AutismDadd

    Stupid reply. The topic is vaccine injury not cars

  • AutismDadd

    Have respect for the injured and killed. You want vaccines then get them. But acting as if there are no victims exposes you as a liar.

  • Chi Ngai Chan

    Why are you not showing respect for car crash victims? And what are you suggesting we should do about infectious diseases?

  • AutismDadd

    Another clueless pro-vac. The issue is vaccine injury NOT stopping all vaccinations.

  • Chi Ngai Chan

    Then what is your suggestions for stopping vaccines injury? Apart from doing more research on those who suffered from it?

    Look you can shout your personal insults till the cows head home but I have got better things to do. I have made my arguments logically and refuted all the claims in this article. Scientists are working on why some people are suffering vaccine injuries. I hope they will come up with a solution soon. But the article was written by people who dealt in conspiracy theories and ideologically against the concept of vaccines. I have nothing else to say to these people.

  • AutismDadd

    Good riddance then

  • Ron Roy

    Cedillo case yes I have: From the age of autism: ”In the decision he concedes there was a period of apparently normal
    development, notes that Michelle Cedillo has suffered from severe
    gastro-intestinal problems, and that her fever and rash were
    contemporaneous to and probably linked to her MMR shot. He also
    acknowledges that the amount of medical literature in this case was
    staggering,”.Just another case where it’s obvious the drug companies bribed their way out of an obvious case of vaccine damage.

  • Ron Roy

    It was in India until the Indian government found out that the polio vaccine, funded by Bill and Melinda Gates, caused a paralytic disease that is far worst than polio causing far more deaths and permanent paralysis.

  • Show me where it says the normal period of development in the original case.

  • Except … global population is rising and child mortality is dropping.

  • Mike Stevens

    Are you saying that India has ceased polio vaccination?

  • Ron Roy

    Amazing as to what better diets and hygiene can accomplish in spite of vaccines.

  • Ron Roy

    Prove to me it wasn’t.

  • JGC

    Its neither dishonorable nor unethical: it’s simply a clear statement of fact. (Or do you really believe that we must accept the claims that vaccination caused a child to become the Incredible Hulk because it was reported to VAERS?)

  • AutismDadd

    Maybe someone as dense as you would entertain the Hulk thing, but an average person wouldn’t . And to suggest that because there are odd reports doesn’t change the fact there are valid ones that constitute real evidence.

  • JGC

    The problem isn’t that someone might believe a VAERS report of vaccines turning someone into the Hulk: it’s that the database accepts reports without filter even when they are unlikely to be associated with vaccines as claims of gaining superpowers

  • JGC

    The database contains reports, not evidence. There is a difference between the two, you know.

  • AutismDadd

    No I wouldn’t know, but I know its crapola to say there’s no evidence there. Wakefield did a REPORT too, but due to liars it has become a vaccine study that proves all vaccines are safe. Only a moron would miss the obvious altering of the truth.

  • AutismDadd

    So? Then they should have separate areas for different types. But again that could provide evidence and one thing CDC hates is evidence.

  • JGC

    Wakefield published a case study, he didn’t report an adverse event following vaccination. That publication represented scientific fraud and was retracted rather than being amended to claim ‘all vaccines are safe’.

    The only altering of the truth was on Wakefield’s part, for example where he reported all 12 of the subjects were previously normal, when in fact 5 had previously documented developmental concerns.

    And where he reported that 9 subjects had regressive autism, when in fact only 1 child was diagnosed with regressive autism and 3 of the 9 didn’t receive an autism diagnosis at all.

    And where some children were reported as experiencing initial onset of symptoms within days of vaccination when records demonstrate initial onset was instead months following.

    And of the course where in nine cases—75% of his subject cohort—he altered medical histories, changing colonic histopathology reports of normal (“no or minimal fluctuation in inflammatory cell populations”) to report instead “non-specific colitis”.

    And where he reported 8 of the 12 families of blaming the cvaccine for their children’s symptoms, when in fact 11 of the 12 did (he excluded allegations by three families because they claimed a time to onset of symptoms of months, which would not allow him to create a false appearance of a rapid 14-day temporal association).

  • JGC

    The problem isn’t that they don’t have separate areas: the problem is that you’re failing to understand what the VAERS reporting system was designed to achieve.

  • AutismDadd

    Hardly. Its designed to fail at producing evidence which it does well

  • AutismDadd

    That’s according to scam artist Brian Deer

  • JGC

    No, that’s according to a large body of evidence (including the original colonic histology scoring charts provided to the BMJ by a supporter of Wakefield in the mistaken belief it refuted claims he altered medical histories: they instead were more evidence he had

  • JGC

    It’s designed to collect all reports of adverse events following vaccination regardless of whether they may be causally associated with vaccines. That’s why there are reports of deaths due to drowning and automobile accidents following vaccination in the database

  • AutismDadd

    Oh so now no one is turning into the Hulk then. Now you get all serious about what’s in VAERS. Oh and thanks for agreeing with me VAERS is full of vaccine adverse events and ARE evidence of harm.

  • AutismDadd

    Nope. Brian Deer was the accuser and those were his fictional accusations.

  • JGC

    No, those are established facts: Wakefield did alter medical histories, he did misrepresent the facts re: diagnoses of regressive autism, time to onset of behavioral symptoms, previous documented behavioral concerns, etc.
    Brian Deer was not the accuser in any proceeding against Andrew Wakefield. He was instead a journalist who reported details of Wakefield’s misconduct regarding the retracted 1998 Lancet publication.

  • JGC

    VAERS is not full of vaccine adverse events: the database contains reports of adverse events for which no causal association with vaccination has been demonstrated. As such they cannot represent evidence of harm causally associated with vaccination.
    Read the VAERS disclaimer again–it really isn’t that hard to understand.

  • AutismDadd

    So you claim they do an exhaustive examination of every report? And the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System has few actual reports? Are you a Flat-Earther?

  • AutismDadd

    Deer was working for the British Medical Journal which is largely funded by Vaccine makers. The BMJ is operated by the General Medical Council. So we have a direct relationship betwwen MMR makers, Brian Deer, the BMJ and the GMC. Case closed

  • JGC

    No, Brian Deer was an investigative reporter working for London Sunday Times when he wrote a series of articles covering Wakefield’s undisclosed conflicts of interest, fabrication of evidence published in the retracted 1998 Lancer article.

    You’re entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

  • JGC

    No–do you claim to have done an exhaustive examination of every report? Is that the standard for discussing the clear language of the disclaimer the operators of VAERS (who do in fact investigate every report where suffixient identifying information appears) require all users read and acknowledge before they are given access to the database?

  • AutismDadd

    HUH? Can you speak English?

  • AutismDadd

    Wrong. Deer was being paid by the BMJ to attend the trial

  • JGC

    Not that I’m aware, but if so I’ll note this would have been after the publications of his Times articles.

  • AutismDadd

    Prove it

  • JGC

    Brian Deer published articles detailing Wakefield’s conflict of interests in the Sunday Times beginning in February 2004. The GMC did not conduct an inquiry into Wakefield’s conduct during the study until 2 years later, in 2006.
    As I’ve said all too often, people are entitled to their own opinions but not to their own facts.

  • AutismDadd

    Well those facts mean little overall. A connection between Brian Deer, British Medical Journal/ General Medical Council, James Murdoch/GlaxoSmithKline, MERCK (synonymous with consumer death) are documented, and those are facts you chose to deny.

  • JGC

    Please provide that documentation, AD.

  • AutismDadd

    Ha Ha Ha Ha

  • JGC

    Which is it, AD? If it’s documented you should be able to point me to that documentation. If you laugh at the very idea of doing so I’ll have to assume that ‘documentation’ doesn’t exist anywhere but in your imagination.

  • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

    “Well in that case we should ban cars, since they caused more injuries and deaths than any vaccines had.”

    Cars are a necessary part of life for most people and their ability to get you from point A to point B is not up for debate. Vaccines do not have a clear positive benefit for everyone involved as cars do. Also, motor vehicles are a voluntary purchase in our free society.

    Car insurance provides a transparent and generous way of compensation in the event of a death or permanent disability resulting from a crash/event. Vaccine makers are not held liable for safety/recalls like auto manufacturers are.

    Thanks for making all these great points about vaccines as compared to automobiles, we should work on getting this problem corrected ASAP.

  • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

    Why should anyone attempt to engage you in a rational debate when you repeat the same lies about the Wakefield investigation? Paid commenters are so bad at facts.

  • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

    Buffoon.

  • Chi Ngai Chan

    Jeff you are wasting your time with this one. It’s like having a debate with Donald Trump.

  • Chi Ngai Chan

    Please provide your evidence that vaccines don’t have any positive effect on anyone.

  • Chi Ngai Chan

    Life is short. If you have something constructive to say then say it. Please, don’t waste your time with name-calling.

  • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

    “That publication represented scientific fraud”

    There was no fraud in the Lancet study regardless of what a crooked journalist paid by Rupert Murdoch and an intimidated medical counsel says. The study was peer reviewed and published and that is that. It was retracted for public health implications (MMR profit).

    “And of the course where in nine cases—75% of his subject cohort—he
    altered medical histories, changing colonic histopathology reports of
    normal (“no or minimal fluctuation in inflammatory cell populations”) to
    report instead “non-specific colitis”.”

    Once again, you are a blatant liar just like the criminal Brian Deer. Dr. David Lewis submitted a full 30 page report and the charts show Wakefield beyond a doubt could not have possibly altered the medical histories.

    There was no fraud on the part of Wakefield. Only on the part of Brian Deer.

  • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

    “No, that’s according to a large body of evidence (including the original colonic histology scoring charts”

    No, the charts are exactly what shows Wakefield did not commit fraud.

    Drs. Paul Dhillon’s and Andrew Anthony’s grading sheets clearly show that Wakefield did not fabricate the diagnoses of non-specific colitis reported in the Lancet article.”
    In addition to his work as a scientist, Dr. Lewis directs the Research
    Misconduct Project of the National Whistleblower Center in Washington, D.C.

  • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

    “No, those are established facts: Wakefield did alter medical histories”

    Nope, you cannot deny facts and evidence, the investigation by Dr. David Lewis shows you are a blatant liar.

  • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

    “Wakefield’s undisclosed conflicts of interest,”

    There were no COI’s on Wakefield’s part. You know this, Wakefield was paid from a Government fund not by lawyers. Being an expert witness for vaccine injury trials in common practice, stop manipulating facts.

  • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

    “Not that I’m aware”

    You are fully aware of the misinformation that you are spewing.

  • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

    “Brian Deer published articles detailing Wakefield’s conflict of interests”

    First off, Deer is just a journalist with no medical qualifications who was hired to stop the paper and protect the MMR program at any cost.

    There were no conflicts of interest.

  • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

    Someone who knowingly tells lie after lie in an attempt to distort the facts and the truth is entitled to nothing. I have provided you ample documentation but as a paid internet astroturfer you are required to ignore the evidence and press on with the deception.

  • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

    What the hell are you babbling about now you astroturfing human trash can?

  • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

    “I asked about research”

    1. Empirical Data Confirm Autism Symptoms Related to Aluminum and Acetaminophen Exposure

    http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/14/11/2227/pdf

    2. A Comprehensive Review of Mercury Provoked Autism

    http://mercury-freedrugs.org/docs/0810dd_GeierDAEtAll_AComprehensiveReviewOfMercuryProvokedAutismIndianJMedResOct2008_v128_383-411_1004.pdf

    3.
    MMR antibodies are significantly higher in autistic children as
    compared to normal children, supporting a role of MMR in autism.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16512356/

    4. The history of vaccinations in the light of the autism epidemic.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/19043939/

    5. A
    careful review of ASD cases discloses a number of events that adhere to
    an immunoexcitotoxic mechanism. This mechanism explains the link
    between excessive vaccination, use of aluminum and ethylmercury as
    vaccine adjuvants, food allergies, gut dysbiosis, and abnormal formation
    of the developing brain.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/19043938/

    6. The relative toxicity of compounds used as preservatives in vaccines and biologics

    http://mercury-freedrugs.org/docs/100430_PubGeiersVaccinePreserStudy.pdf

    7.
    A leaked document by GlaxoSmithKline , a corrupt vaccine company,
    admits that vaccines are responsible for Autism! The description of some
    of the adverse effects are encephalitis, developmental delays, an
    altered state of consciousness, and speech delays. Many other adverse
    reactions are recorded as well.

    https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-jYsdHZuRhCVXZUbFFlUzdfNGM/edit?pli=1

    8. Polish Study Confirms Vaccines Can Cause Large Number of Adverse Effects including Autism

    http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/08/02/polish-medical-school-study-determines-vaccines-can-cause-irreparable-harm/

    9.
    “Key Realities about Autism, Vaccines, Vaccine-injury
    Compensation,Thimerosal, and Autism-related Research.” By Paul G. Kinga,
    PhD, Gary S. Goldmanb, PhD, a Science Advisor, CoMeD, Inc. From Medical
    Veritas 5 (2008) 1610–1644

    http://www.medicalveritas.com/vaccinemyth.pdf

    10. Thimerosal in Childhood Vaccines, Neurodevelopment Disorders, and Heart Disease in the United States

  • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

    11. A
    case series of children with apparent mercury toxic encephalopathies
    manifesting with clinical symptoms of regressive autistic disorders.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/17454560/

    12. Acetaminophen (paracetamol) use, measles-mumps-rubella vaccination, and autistic disorder: the results of a parent survey.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/18445737/

    13. A positive association found between autism prevalence and childhood vaccination uptake across the U.S. population.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21623535/

    14. Evidence for a dysregulated immune system in the etiology of psychiatric disorders.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23645137

    15. Detection of Measles Virus Genomic RNA in Cerebrospinal Fluid of Children with Regressive Autism

    http://www.jpands.org/vol9no2/bradstreet.pdf

    16. Maternal transfer of mercury to the developing embryo/fetus: is there a safe level?

    http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02772248.2012.724574?journalCode=gtec20#/doi/abs/10.1080/02772248.2012.724574?journalCode=gtec20

    17. Vaccines and Autism: CDC Now Admitting to Ommitting Vaccine Study Data

    http://www.educate4theinjured.org/#!Vaccines-Autism-CDC-Now-Admitting-to-Omitting-Vaccine-Study-Data/c4nx/96DBBE9B-4D0F-400B-9065-3D1CF65FCDCF

    18. Sick Monkeys: Research Links Vaccination Load to Autism in Monkeys

    http://www.ageofautism.com/2008/05/sick-monkeys-st.html#more

    19. Bio-Medical Treatment Approach to Autism Spectrum Disorder,
    Including Heavy Metal Detoxification. The main source of heavy metals in
    the body and brain is childhood vaccines.

    http://www.alternativementalhealth.com/articles/autism.htm

    20. CDC’s Vaccine Safety Research is Exposed as Flawed and Falsified in Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journal

    http://mobile.dudamobile.com/site/preventdisease?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpreventdisease.com%2Fnews%2F14%2F061714_CDC-Vaccine-Safety-Research-Exposed-Flawed-Falsified.shtml#2748

    21. Summary Comparison of Characteristics of Mercury Poisoning and Autism

    http://www.whale.to/a/table_a.htm

    22. How vaccines are Made, How they Work, and How they cause Autism… Childrens Vaccines are for 0-6 yrs of age, made One-Size-Fits-All… made for the weight of the oldest child at 50 lbs! …the question is not IF vaccines cause autism, but HOW!

    Three main Vaccine Recipes:

    1) Dead Bacteria (use deadly tetanus & diphtheria Toxins to work), more

    2) Dead Virus (use Mercury & Aluminum to work), more

    3) Live Virus (use genetically engineered Super-Strains)

    http://www.trackingvaccinations.com/

    23. Rapid degeneration of brain neuron exposed to low levels of mercury

    http://youtu.be/Ipi3OneIw0A

    24. CDC Whistleblower admits that MMR vaccines cause autism. He was forced to hide the studies from the public.

    http://youtu.be/q62DcaNs_0M

    25. WAKE UP CALL! 100% proof that vaccines cause autism

    http://youtu.be/ZGLFywm77B0

    26. The Central Mechanism By Which Vaccines Induce Autism – Dr. Russell Blaylock Lecture

  • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

    “Read the CDC whistleblower documents yet?”

    Yes I have and they are damning, indisputable scientific fraud with indisputable evidence to back it up. Thank you Dr. William Thompson you are the man.

  • Please explain what part of them are damning.

    From the CDC whistleblower documents themselves please and not Kevin Barry’s or anyone else’s interpretation of them.

    I have a link if that helps.

  • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

    I asked about research

    What is regressive autism and why does it
    occur? Is it the consequence of multi-systemic dysfunction affecting the
    elimination of heavy metals and the ability to regulate neural
    temperature?https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3364648/

  • Websites are books and films, same category. CDC, again, there are *other countries* in the world.

    As for mercury….compounds aren’t elements. Youtube counts as films.

  • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

    Shouldn’t you be going through all the research you requested?

  • Show me the Polish study itself. Original sources.

    Show me the original leaked documents.

    Websites aren’t research.

    You *do* know that evidence has to be weighed, not merely counted, right?

  • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

    I thought there were no studies linking vaccines to autism. You lied.

  • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

    Focus, we are talking about scientific studies, I have provided you with many, now refute them. Or can you not? :(

  • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

    Here are some references for the regressive autism study. Can you discredit these references? Are these published studies?

    1. Rimland B. The autism increase: research is needed on the vaccine connection. Autism Research Review. 2000;14(1):3–6.
    2. Barnard J, Broach S, Potter D, Prior A. Autism in Schools: Crisis or Challenge? National Autistic Society. 2002. http://www.autism.org.uk/content/1/c4/29/23/aawesn_ew02.pdf .
    3. Baird
    G. Prevalence of disorders of the autism spectrum in a population
    cohort of children in South Thames: the Special Needs and Autism Project
    (SNAP) The Lancet. 2006;368(9531):210–5. [PubMed]
    4. Skuse
    DH, Mandy W, Steer C, Miller LL, Goodman R, Lawrence K, Emond A,
    Golding J. Social Communication Competence and Functional Adaptation in a
    General Population of Children: Preliminary Evidence for Sex-by-Verbal
    IQ Differential Risk. J.Amer Acad of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 2009;48(2):128–137. [PubMed]
    5. Altman DG, Bland JM. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. British Medical Journal. 1995;311:485. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
    6. O’Callaghan FJ. Autism—what is it and where does it come from? Q J Med. 2002;95:263–265. [PubMed]
    7. Lander E. http:// www. pbs.org/ wgbh/ nova/ genome/deco_lander.html .
    8. Gottlieb S. US study shows 10-fold increase in autism over the past 20 years. British Medical Journal. 2003;326:71.
    9. Hertz-Picciotto I, Delwiche L. The Rise in Autism and the Role of Age at Diagnosis. Epidemiology. 2009;20(1):84–90. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
    10. Gillberg C, Coleman M. The Biology of the Autistic Syndromes – 2nd Edition, page 90. Mac Keith Press. 1992
    11. Olmsted D. http://www.nomercury.org/science/documents/Articles/UPI-The_Age_of_Autism-Mercury_and_the_Amish_5-21-05.pdf. http://www.whale.to/vaccine/olmsted.html. http://www.upi.com/Consumer_Health_Daily/Reports/2006/07/28/the_age_of_autism_amish_bill_introduced/3532/ http://pittsburgh.indymedia.org/news/2005/06/18948.php .
    12. Barnevik-Olsson
    M, Gillberg C, Fernell E. Prevalence of autism in children born to
    Somali parents living in Sweden: a brief report. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2008;50(8):598–601. [PubMed]
    13. Bailey
    A, Phillips W, Rutter M. Autism: Towards an Integration of Clinical,
    Genetic, Neuro-psychological, and Neurobiological Perspectives. J.Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1996;37(1):89–126. [PubMed]
    14. Filipek
    P, Accardo P, Baranek G, Cook E, Dawson G, Gordon B, Gravel J, Johnson
    C, Kallen R, Levy S, Minshew N, Prizant B, Rapin I, Rogers S, Stone W,
    Teplin S, Tuchman R, Volkmar F. The Screening and Diagnosis of Autistic
    Spectrum Disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 1999;29(6):439–484. [PubMed]
    15. Baranek G. Autism During Infancy: A Retrospective Video Analysis of Sensory-Motor and Social Behaviors and 9-12 Months of Age. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 1999;29(3):213–224. [PubMed]
    16. Lewine
    JD, Andrews R, Chez M, Patil A-A, Devinsky O, Smith M, Kanner A, Davis
    JT, Funke M, Jones G, Chong B, Provencal S, Weisend M, Lee RR, Orrison
    WW. Magnetoenchalography in Children with an Autistic Epileptiform
    Regression. J Pediatrics. 1999:405–418. [PubMed]
    17. Montinari M, Favoino B, Roberto A. Role of Immunogenetics in the Diagnosis of Postvaccinal CNS Pathology. Presented in Naples. Associazione per la Libera Universita Internazionale de Medicina Omeopatica “Samuel Hahnemann” (LUIMO) 1996 May 9; http://www.healthy.net/library/articles/coulter/biochem.htm .
    18. Furlano
    RI, Anthony A, Day R, Brown A, McGarvey L, Thomson MA, Davies SE,
    Berelowitz M, Forbes A, Wakefield AJ, Walker-Smith JA, Murch SH. Colonic
    CD8 and gamma delta T-cell infiltration with epithelial damage in
    children with autism. J Pediatr. 2001;138(3):366–72. [PubMed]
    19. Kurita H. Infantile autism with speech loss before the age of thirty months. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry. 1985;24(2):191–196. [PubMed]
    20. Jarbrink K, Knapp M. The Economic Impact of Autism in Britain. Autism. 2001;5(1):7–22. [PubMed]

  • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

    51. Sigman
    M, Ungerer JA, Mundy P, Sherman T. Cognition in Autistic
    Children.Handbook of Autism and Pervasive Developmental Disorders, John
    Wiley & Sons, Inc. 1987:103–130.
    52. O’Neill M, Jones RSP. Sensory-Perceptual Abnormalities in Autism: A Case For More Research? Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 1997;27(3):283–293. [PubMed]
    53. Takayanagi
    Y, Yoshida M, Bielsky IF, Ross HE, Kawamata M, Onaka T, Yanagisawa T,
    Kimura T, Matzuk MM, Young LJ, Nishimori K. Pervasive social deficits,
    but normal parturition, in oxytocin receptor-deficient mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2005;102:16096–101. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
    54. Bartz JA, Hollander E. Oxytocin and experimental therapeutics in autism spectrum disorders. Prog Brain Res. 2008;170:451–62. [PubMed]
    55. Zak PJ, Stanton AA, Ahmadi A. Oxytocin increases generosity in humans. PLoS ONE. 2007;2(11):e1128. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
    56. Panksepp J. Commentary on the possible role of oxytocin in autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 1993;23(3):567–569. [PubMed]
    57. Porges SW. The Polyvagal Theory: phylogenetic contributions to social behaviour. Physiol Behav. 2003;79:503–513. [PubMed]
    58. Ewing GW, Parvez SH. 2009. Systemic Regulation of Metabolic Function. Approved for publication in Biogenic Amines. 2008;22(6):179–194.
    59. Ewing
    GW, Ewing EN. 2009. NeuroRegulation of the Physiological Systems by the
    Autonomic Nervous System – their relationship to Insulin Resistance and
    Metabolic Syndrome.Approved for publication in. J. Biogenic Amines. 2008;22(4-5):99–130.
    60. Ewing
    GW, Parvez SH. 2009. The Regulatory Significance of the Autonomic
    Nervous System and the Physiological Systems, and their relationship to
    Dyslexia. Approved for publication in Biogenic Amines. 2009 Jul
    61. Ming X, Julu POO, Brimacombe M, Connor S, Daniels ML. Reduced cardiac parasympathetic activity in children with autism. Brain and Development. 2005;27(7):509–516. [PubMed]
    62. Ashwood P, Van de Water JA. A review of autism and the immune response. Clin Develop Immunology. 2004;11(2):165–174. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
    63. Zahn
    T.P, Rumsey J.M, Van Kammen D.P. Autonomic nervous system activity in
    autistic, schizophrenic, and normal men: Effects of stimulus
    significance. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 1987;96(2):135–144. [PubMed]
    64. Hutt C, Forrest SJ, Richer J. Cardiac Arrhythmia and Behaviour in Autistic Children. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica. 2007;51(5):361–372. [PubMed]
    65. Stores
    G, Wiggs L. Abnormal sleeping patterns associated with autism: a brief
    review of research findings, assessment methods and treatment
    strategies. Autism. 1998;2(2):157–170.
    66. Williams PG, Sears LL, Allard A-M. Sleep problems in children with autism. Journal of Sleep research. 2004;13(3):265–268. [PubMed]
    67. Malow BA. Sleep disorders, epilepsy, and autism. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews. 2004;10(2):122–125. [PubMed]
    68. Chugani DC, Sundram BS, Behen M, Lee ML, Moore GJ. Evidence of altered energy metabolism in autistic children. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 1999;23(4):635–41. [PubMed]
    69. Ohnishi T, Matsuda H, Hashimoto T, Kunihiro T, Nishikawa M, Uema T, Sasaki M. Abnormal blood flow in brain regions. Brain. 2000;123:1838–44. [PubMed]
    70. Starkstein
    SE, Vazquez S, Vrancic D D, Nanclares V, Manes F, Piven J, Plebst C.
    SPECT findings in mentally retarded autistic individuals. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2000;12(3):370–5. [PubMed]
    71. Ryu
    YH, Lee JD, Yoon PH, Kim DI, Lee HB, Shin YJ. Perfusion impairments in
    infantile autism on technetium-99m ethyl cysteinate dimer brain
    single-photon emission tomography: comparison with findings on magnetic
    resonance imaging. Eur J. Nucl Med. 1999;26:253–259. [PubMed]
    72. Jones
    W, Carr K, Klin A. Absence of preferential looking to the eyes of
    approaching adults predicts level of social disability in 2-year-olds
    with autism. Archives of General Psychiatry. 2008;65(8):946–954. [PubMed]
    73. Cascio
    C, McGlone F, Folger S, Tannan V, Baranek G, Pelphrey KA, Essick G.
    Tactile Perception in Adults with Autism: a Multidimensional
    Psychophysical Study. Journal of Autism Development Disorders. 2008;38(1):127–137. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
    74. Rosenhall U, Johansson E, Gillberg C. Oculomotor findings in autistic children. Journal of Laryngology and Otology. 1988;102:435–439. [PubMed]
    75. Rosenhall U, Nordin V, Sandstrom M, Ahlsen G, Gillberg C. Autism and Hearing Loss. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 1999;29(5):349–358. [PubMed]
    76. Paulesu
    E, Harrison J, Baron-Cohen S, Watson JDG, Goldstein L, Heather J,
    Frackowiak RSJ, Frith CD. The physiology of coloured hearing A PET
    activation study of colour-word synaesthesia. Brain. 1995;118:661–676. [PubMed]
    77. Grice
    SJ, Spratling MW, Karmiloff-Smith A, Halit H, Csibra G, de Haan M,
    Johnson MH. Disordered visual processing and oscillatory brain activity
    in autism and Williams Syndrome. Neuroreport. 2001;12(12):2697–2700. [PubMed]
    78. Motomi T, Yoko K. Autistic adolescents’ autonomic response to mental load. Japanese Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 1999;40(4):319–328.
    79. Cohen AD, Shoenfeld Y. Vaccine-induced Autoimmunity. Journal of Autoimmunity. 1996;9(6):699–703. [PubMed]
    80. Howson CP, Katz M, Johnston RB, Fineberg HV. Chronic arthritis after rubella vaccination. Clin. Infectious Disease. 1992;15(2):307–312. [PubMed]
    81. Howson CP, Fineberg HV. 1992 Adverse events following pertussis and rubella vaccines. JAMA. 1992;267(3):393–397. [PubMed]
    82. Rook GAW, Stanford JL. Give us this day our daily germs. Immunology Today. 1998;19:113–116. [PubMed]
    83. Taylor-Robinson AW. Multiple vaccination effects on atopy. Allergy. 1999;54:398–399. [PubMed]
    84. Odent M.R, Culpin E.E, Kimmel T. Pertussis vaccination and asthma: is there a link? JAMA. 1994;272:592–593. [PubMed]
    85. Kemp
    T, Pearce N, Fitzharris P, Crane J, Fergusson D, St George I, Wickens
    K, Beasley R. Is Infant Immunisation a risk factor for childhood asthma
    or allergy? Epidemiology. 1997;8(6):678–680. [PubMed]
    86. Hurwitz
    EL, Morgenstern H. Effects of diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis or tetanus
    vaccination on allergies and allergy-related respiratory symptoms among
    children and adolescents in the United States, Journal of Manipulative
    and Physiological Therapeutics. 2000;23(2):81–90. [PubMed]
    87. Patel
    NC, Hertel P, Estes M, Dela Morena M, Noroski L, Revell P, Hanson I,
    Paul M, Rosenblatt H, Abramson S. Vaccine-acquired rotavirus infection
    in two infants with severe combined immunodeficiency. American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. 2009 Abstract L29.
    88. Cherry JD, Brunell PA, Golden GS, Karzon DT. Report on the Task Force on Pertussis and Pertussis Immunization. Pediatrics. 1988;(81) Supplement –.
    89. Terpstra
    GK, Raaijmakers JA, Kreukniet J. Comparison of vaccination of mice and
    rats with Haemophilus influenzae and Bordetta pertussis as models of
    atopy. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol. 1979;6(2):139–149. [PubMed]
    90. Schreurs AJ, Nijkamp FP. Bronchial hyperreactivity to histamine induced by Haemophilus influenzae vaccination. Agents Actions. 1984;15(3-4):211–215. [PubMed]
    91. Update:
    Vaccine Side Effects, Adverse Reactions, Contraindications, and
    Precautions Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization
    Practices (ACIP) MMWR. 1996 Sep 06;45(RR-12):1–35. [PubMed]
    92. Vertes
    C, Gonczy S, Lendvay N, Debreczeni LA. A model for experimental asthma
    provocation in guinea-pigs immunized with Bordetella pertussis. Bull Eur Physiopathol Respir. 1987;23(Suppl 10):111s–113s. [PubMed]
    93. Schreurs
    AJ, Terpstra GK, Raaijmakers JA, Nijkamp FP. The effects of Haemophilus
    influenzae vaccination on anaphylactic mediator release and
    isoprenaline-induced inhibition of mediator release. Eur J. Pharmacol. 1980;62(4):261–8. [PubMed]
    94. Bradford Hill A, Knoweldon J. Inoculation and Poliomyelitis. British Medical Journal. 1950:1–6. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
    95. Imani F, Kehoe KE. Infection of Human B Lymphocytes with MMR Vaccine Induces IgE Class Switching. J. Clinical Immunology. 2001;100(3):355–361. [PubMed]
    96. Shields
    RL, Lai J, Keck R, O’Connell L.Y, Hong K, Meng YG, Weikert SHA, Presta
    LG. Lack of Fucose on Human IgG1 N-Linked Oligosaccharide Improves
    Binding to Human Fc RIII and Antibody-dependent Cellular Toxicity. J. Biol. Chem. 2002;277(30):26733–26740. [PubMed]
    97. Kaplan
    KM, Marder DC, Cochi SL, Preblud SR. Further evidence of the changing
    epidemiology of a childhood vaccine-preventable disease. Journal of the American Medical Association. 1988;260(10):1434–1438. [PubMed]
    98. Singh VK, Lin SX, Newell E, Nelson C. Abnormal measles-mumps-rubella antibodies and CNS autoimmunity in children with autism. Journal of Biomedical Science. 2002;9:359–364. [PubMed]
    99. Mooi
    FR, van Oirschot H, Heuvelman K, van der Heide HG, Gaastra W, Willems
    RJ. Olymorphism in the Bordella Pertussis virulence factors
    P.69/pertactin and pertussis toxin in the Netherlands:temporal trends
    and evidence for vaccine-driven evolution. Infect Immun. 1998;66:670–5. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
    100. Gzyl
    A, Augustynowicz E, van Loo I, Slusarczyk J. Temporal nucleotide
    changes in pertactin and pertussis toxin genes in Bordetella pertussis
    strains isolated from clinical cases in Poland. Vaccine. 2001;20:299–303. [PubMed]

  • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

    101. Ribeiro
    GS, Reis JN, Cordeiro SM, Lima JB, Gouveia EL, Petersen M, Salgado K,
    Silva HR, Zanella RC, Almeida SC, Brandileone MC, Reis MG, Ko AI.
    Prevention of Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) meningitis and
    emergence of serotype replacement with type a strains after introduction
    of Hib immunization in Brazil. J.Infect Dis. 2003;187(1):109–16. [PubMed]
    102. Litt
    DJ, Neal SE, Fry NK. Changes in Genetic Diversity of the Bordetella
    pertussis Population in the United Kingdom between 1920 and 2006 Reflect
    Vaccination Coverage and Emergence of a Single Dominant Clonal Type. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. 2009;47(3):680–688. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
    103. Tsang RS, Sill ML, Skinner SJ, Law DK, Zhou J, Wylie J. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;44(12):1611–4.
    Characterization of invasive Haemophilus influenzae disease in
    Manitoba, Canada, 2000-2006: invasive disease due to non-type b strains.
    [PubMed]
    104. Nahm
    MH, Lin J, Finkelstein JA, Pelton SI. Increase in the Prevalence of the
    Newly Discovered Pneumococcal Serotype 6C in the Nasopharynx after
    Introduction of Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine The Journal of Infectious
    Diseases. 2009;199:320–325. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
    105. Guris
    D, Strebel PM, Bardenheier B, Brennan M, Tachdjian R, Finch E, Wharton
    M, Livengood JR. Changing epidemiology of pertussis in the United
    States: increasing reported incidence among adolescents and adults,
    1990-1996. Clin Infect Dis. 1999;28:1230–1237. [PubMed]
    106. Cherry JD. Epidemiological, clinical, and laboratory aspects of pertussis in adults. Clin Infect Dis. 1999;28(Suppl 2):S112–7. [PubMed]
    107. Huisman W. Vaccine-induced enhancement of viral infections. Vaccine. 2009;27(4):505–512. [PubMed]
    108. Exley
    RM, Shaw J, Mowe E, Sun Y-H, West NP, Williamson M, Botto M, Smith H,
    Tang CM. Available carbon source influences the resistance of Neisseria
    meningitidis against complement. J Exp Med. 2005;201(10):1637–1645. 16. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
    109. Stewart GT. Vaccination against whooping-cough.Efficacy versus risks. The Lancet. 1977;1(8005):234–7. [PubMed]
    110. Colville A, Pugh S, Miller E, Schmitt HJ, Just M, Neiss A. Withdrawal of a mumps vaccine. Eur J Pediatr. 1994;153(6):467–8. [PubMed]
    111. Schlegel
    M, Osterwalder JJ, Galeazzi RL, Vernazza PL. Comparative efficacy of
    three mumps vaccines during disease outbreak in eastern Switzerland:
    cohort study. British Medical Journal. 1999;319(7206):352. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
    112. Peltola
    H, Kulkarni PS, Kapre SV, Paunio M, Jadhav SS, Dhere RM. Mumps
    outbreaks in Canada and the United States: Time for new thinking on
    mumps vaccines. Clin Infect Dis. 2007;45:459–66. [PubMed]
    113. Newsl EPI. Live attenuated measlesvaccine. 1980 Feb;2(1):6. [PubMed]
    114. Rima
    B.K, Earle J.A, Yeo R.P, Herlihy L, Baczko K, ter Meulen V, Carabaña J,
    Caballero M, Celma ML, Fernandez-Muñoz R. Temporal and geographical
    distribution of measles virus genotypes. J. Gen. Virol. 1995;76(5):1173–80. [PubMed]
    115. Garenne M, Leroy O, Beau J.P, Sene I. Child mortality after high-titre measles vaccines: prospective study in Senegal. The Lancet. 1991;338(8772):903–7. [PubMed]
    116. Trollfors
    B, Taranger J, Lagergard T, Lind L, Sundh V, Zackrisson G, Lowe CU,
    Blackwelder W, Robbins JB. A placebo-controlled trial of a
    pertussis-toxoid vaccine. N Engl J Med. 1995;333:1045–50. [PubMed]
    117. Marwick C. Acellular pertussis vaccine hailed for infants. JAMA. 1995;274:446–467. [PubMed]
    118. Miller E. Overview of recent clinical trials of acellular pertussis vaccines. Biologicals. 1999;27:79–86. [PubMed]
    119. Shoenfeld Y, Aron-Maor A. Vaccination and Autoimmunity – ‘vaccinosis’: A Dangerous Liaison? Journal of Autoimmunity. 2000;14(1):1–10. [PubMed]
    120. Kerrison J. Optic neuritis after anthrax vaccination. Ophthalmology. 2002;109(1):99–104. [PubMed]

  • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

    121. Asatryan
    A, Pool V, Chen RT, Kohl KS, Davis RL, Iskander JK. Live attenuated
    measles and mumps viral strain-containing vaccines and hearing loss:
    Vaccine Adverse Reporting System (VAERS), United States, 1990-2003. Vaccine. 2008;26(8):1166–1172. [PubMed]
    122. Roizen NJ. Nongenetic causes of hearing loss.Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews. 2003;9(2):120–127. [PubMed]
    123. Pickering LK. Pediatric News. 1998 Nov 28;
    124. Marks AR. Physiological systems under pressure. J Clin Invest. 2008;118(2):411–412. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
    125. Atkinson
    W, Hamborsky J, McIntyre L, Wolfe S, editors. 10ed. Washington DC:
    Public Health Foundation; 2007. Epidemiology and Prevention of
    Vaccine-Preventable Diseases (The Pink Book) pp. 59–70.
    126. Gupta N, Puliyel J. WHO study suggests low incidence of Hib in India is due to natural immunity. Indian J Med Res. 2009;129:205–207. [PubMed]
    127. Perry RT, Halsey NA. The Clinical Significance of Measles: A Review. The Journal of Infectious Diseases. 2004;189(S1):1547–1783.
    128. Manson AL. Mumps orchitis. Urology. 1990;36(4):355–8. [PubMed]
    129. Siegel M, Fuerst HT, Guinee VF. Rubella epidemicity and embryopathy.Results of a long-term prospective study. Am. J. Dis. Child. 1971;121(6):469–73. [PubMed]
    130. West R. Epidemiologic study of malignancies of the ovaries. Cancer. 1966;19:1001–1007. [PubMed]
    131. Wynder E, Dodo H, Barber HR. Epidemiology of cancer of the ovary. Cancer. 1969;23:352. [PubMed]
    132. Newhouse M, Pearson RM, Fullerton JM, Boesen EA, Shannon HS. A case control study of carcinoma of the ovary. Brit J Prev Soc Med. 1977;31:148–53. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
    133. McGowan L, Parent L, Lednar W, Norris HJ. The woman at risk from developing ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 1979;7:325–344. [PubMed]
    134. Kristensen I, Aaby P, Jensen H. Routine vaccinations and child survival: follow-up study in Guinea-Bissau, West Africa. British Medical Journal. 2000;321:1435–9. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
    135. Aaby
    P, Samb B, Simondon F, Coll Seck AM, Knudsen K, Whittle H. Non-specific
    beneficial effect of measles immunization: analysis of mortality
    studies from developing countries. British Medical Journal. 1995;311:481–5. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
    136. Dalton C, Emerton D, Buckoke C, Finlay R, Engler T, Shann F, Aaby P. Unexpected beneficial effects of measles immunisation. British Medical Journal. 2000;320:938–938. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
    137. Odent MR. Long term effects of early vaccinations. Primal Health Research. 1994;2(1):6.
    138. Polack FP. Why did RSV vaccine make kids sick? Nature Medicine. 2008 Dec 14;
    139. Quast U, et al. Vaccine-induced mumps-like diseases. Developments in Biological Standardization. 1979;43:269–272. [PubMed]
    140. Ronchi
    F, Cecchi P, Falcioni F, Marsciani A, Minak G, Muratori G, Tazzari PL,
    Beverini S. Thrombocytopenic purpura as adverse reaction to recombinant
    hepatitis B vaccine. Archives of Disease in Childhood. 1998;78(3):273–274. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
    141. Tonz O, Bajc S. Convulsions or status epilepticus in 11 infants after pertussis vaccination. Schweiz. Med. Wochenschr. 1980;51:1965–1971. [PubMed]
    142. Thompson P, et al. Is measles vaccination a risk factor for inflammatory bowel disease? The Lancet. 1995;345:1071–1074. [PubMed]
    143. Wakefield
    AJ, Murch SH, Anthony A, Linnell J, Casson DM, Malik M, Berelowitz M,
    Chillon AP, Thomson MA, Harvey P, Valentine A, Davies SE, Walker-Smith
    JA. ‘Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and
    pervasive developmental disorder in children‘ The Lancet. 1998;351:637–641. [PubMed]
    144. Erickson
    CA, Stigler KA, Corkins MR, Posey DJ, Fitzgerald JF, McDougle CJ.
    Gastrointestinal factors in autistic disorder: a critical review. J.Autism Dev Disord. 2005;35(6):713–727. [PubMed]
    145. Fujinaga T, Motegi Y, Tamura H, Kuroume T. A prefecture-wide survey of mumps meningitis associated with MMR vaccine. Paediatric Infectious Disease Journal (R) 1991 Mar [PubMed]
    146. Sawada H, Yano S, Oh Y, Togashi T. Transmission of Urabe mumps vaccine between siblings. The Lancet. 1993;342:371. [PubMed]
    147. Adler JB, Mazzotta SA, Barkin JS. Pancreatitis caused by measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine. Pancreas. 1991;6:489–490. [PubMed]
    148. Pawlowski B, Gries FA. Mumps vaccination and type-1 diabetes. Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift. 1991;116:635. [PubMed]
    149. Tuomilehto
    J, Rewers M, Reunanen A, Lounamaa P, Lounamaa R, Tuomilehto-Wolf E,
    Akerblom HK. Increasing trend in type 1 (insulin-dependent) diabetes
    mellitus in childhood in Finland.Analysis of age, calendar time and
    birth cohort effects during 1965 to 1984. Diabetologia. 1991;34(4):282–287. [PubMed]
    150. Tuomilehto
    J, Karvonen M, Pitkaniemi J, Virtala E, Kohtamaki K, Toivanen L,
    Tuomilehto-Wolf E. Record-high incidence of Type I (insulin-dependent)
    diabetes mellitus in Finnish children. The Finnish Childhood Type I
    Diabetes Registry Group. Diabetologia. 1999;42(6):655–660. [PubMed]

  • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

    151. Weibel
    RE, Caserta V, Benor DE, Evans G. Acute encephalopathy followed by
    permanent brain injury or death associated with further attenuated
    measles vaccines: a review of claims submitted to the National Vaccine
    Injury Compensation Program. Pediatrics. 1998;101(3) Part 1. [PubMed]
    152. Buttram
    HE. Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) Vaccine as a Potential Cause of
    Encephalitis (Brain Inflammation) in Children.Townsend Letters. 1997 Dec
    153. Laitinen
    O, Vaheri A. Very high measles and rubella virus antibody titers
    associated with hepatitis, systemic lupus erythematosus and infectious
    mononucleosis. The Lancet. 1974;(1):194–7. [PubMed]
    154. Zecca
    T, Grafino D. Elevated rubeola titers in autistic children linked to
    MMR vaccine, abstract submitted to the National Institutes of Health. 1997-8
    155. Halsey Increased mortality after high titer measles vaccine. Paediatric Infectious Disease Journal (R) 1993 Jun
    156. Bonthius
    D, Stanek N, Grose C. Subacute sclerosing panencephalitis, a measles
    complication, in an internationally adopted child. Emerg Infect Dis. 2000;6(4):377–81. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
    157. Salmi
    AA, Norrby E, Panelius M. Identification of different measles
    virus-specific antibodies in the serum and cerebrospinal fluid from
    patients with subacute sclerosing pancencephalitis and multiple
    sclerosis. Infect Immun. 1972;6(3):248–254. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
    158. Chantler JK, Tingle AJ, Petty RE. New England Journal of Medicine. 313(18):1117–1123. [PubMed]
    159. Geier
    MR, Geier DA. A one year followup of chronic arthritis following
    rubella and hepatitis B vaccination based upon analysis of the Vaccine
    Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) database. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2002;20(6):767–71. [PubMed]
    160. Bosma
    TJ, Etherington J, O’Shea S, Corbett K, Cottam F, Holt L, Banatvala JE,
    Best JM. Rubella Virus and Chronic Joint Disease: Is There an
    AssociationJ? J. Clin. Microbiol. 1998;36:3524–3526. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
    161. Geier MR, Geier DA. Anthrax vaccination and joint related adverse reactions in light of biological warfare scenarios. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2002;20(1):119. [PubMed]
    162. Geier
    MR, Geier DA. Arthritic reactions following hepatitis B vaccination: an
    analysis of the vaccine adverse events reporting system (VAERS) data
    from 1990 through 1994. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2000;18(6):789–90. [PubMed]
    163. McDonald
    KL, Huq SI, Lix LM, Becker AB, Kozyrskyj AL. Delay in diphtheria,
    pertussis, tetanus vaccination is associated with a reduced risk of
    childhood asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2008;121(3):626–31. [PubMed]
    164. Ronne T. Measles virus infection without rash in chioldhood is related to disease in adult life. The Lancet. 1985;1(8419):1–5. [PubMed]
    165. Albonico
    H, Klein P, Grob C, en Pewsner D. The immunization campaign against
    measles, mumps and rubella — coercion leading to a realm of
    uncertainty: medical objections to a continued MMR immunization campaign
    in Switzerland. JAMA. 1992;9(1)
    166. Strebel
    PM, Aubert-Combiescu A, Ion-Nedelcu N, Biberi-Moroeanu S, Combiescu M,
    Sutter RW, Kew OM, Pallansch MA, Patriarca PA, Cochi SL. Paralytic
    poliomyelitis in Romania, 1984-1992.Evidence for a high risk of
    vaccine-associated disease and reintroduction of wild-virus infection. Am J Epidemiol. 1994;140(12):1111–24. [PubMed]
    167. D’Arcy PF. Vaccine-drug interactions. Drug Intelligence & Clinical Pharmacy. 1984;18(9):697–700. [PubMed]
    168. Wright SW, Decker MD, Edwards KM. Incidence of pertussis infection in healthcare workers. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1999;20:120–3. [PubMed]
    169. De Serres G, Bouliane N, Douville Fradet M, Duval B. Pertussis in Quebec: ongoing epidemic since the late 1980s. Can Commun Dis Rep. 1995;21:45–8. [PubMed]
    170. Andrews R, Herceq A, Roberts C. Pertussis notifications in Australia. Commun Dis Intell. 1997;21:145–8. [PubMed]
    171. Simon MW. Resurgence of Disease in a Highly Immunized Population of Children. N Engl J Med. 1994;331:16–21. [PubMed]
    172. Markowitz
    LE, Preblud SR, Orenstein WA, Rovira EZ, Adams NC, Hawkins CE, Hinman
    AR. Patterns of transmission in measles outbreaks in the United States,
    1985-1986. N Engl J Med. 1989;320:75–81. [PubMed]
    173. Yeung
    LF, Lurie P, Dayan G, Eduardo E, Britz PH, Redd S.B, Papania MJ, Seward
    JF. A Limited Measles Outbreak in a Highly Vaccinated US Boarding
    School. Pediatrics. 2005;116:1287–1291. [PubMed]
    174. Egemen
    A, Tasdemir I, Eker L, Arcasoy M. Changing Epidemiology of Measles in
    Turkey: Need for Reassessment of Measles Vaccination Policy? J Trop Pediatr. 1996;42(5):299–301. [PubMed]
    175. Coetzee N, Hussey GD, Visser G, Barron P, Keen A. The 1992 measles epidemic in Cape Town – a changing epidemiological pattern. S Afr Med J. 1994;84(3):145–9. [PubMed]

  • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

    201. West CE. Vitamin A and measles. Nutr Rev. 2000;58(2Pt 2):S46–54. [PubMed]
    202. Barclay AJ, Foster A, Sommer A. Vitamin A supplements and mortality related to measles: a randomised clinical trial. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1987;294(6567):294–6. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
    203. Filipek PA, Juranek J, Nguyen MT, Cummings C, Gargus JJ. Relative carnitine deficiency in autism. J Autism Dev Disord. 2004;34(6):615–23. [PubMed]
    204. Lake CR, Ziegler MG, Murphy DL. Increased norepinephrine levels and decreased dopamine-hydroxylase activity in primary autism. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1977;34:553–6. [PubMed]
    205. Todd
    R, Ciaranello R. Demonstration of inter-and intraspecies differences in
    serotonin binding sites by antibodies from an autistic child. Proc Nat Acad Sci. 1985;82:612–616. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
    206. Bingham M. Autism and the Human Gut Microflora. 2002 May
    207. Wakefield
    AJ, Anthony A, Murch SH, Thomson M, Montgomery SM, Davies S, O’Leary
    JJ, Berelowitz M, Walker-Smith JA. Enterocolitis in Children with
    Developmental Disorders. Am.J.Gastroenterology. 2000;95(9):2285–2295. [PubMed]
    208. Stubbs G, Litt M, Lis E, Jackson R, Voth W, Lindberg A, Litt R. Adenosine Deaminase Activity Decreased in Autism. J.Am Acad Child Psych. 1982;21:71–74. [PubMed]
    209. Persico
    AM, Militerni R, Bravaccio C, Schneider C, Melmed R, Trillo S,
    Montecchi F, Palermo MT, Pascucci T, Puglisi-Allegra S, Reichelt KL,
    Conciatori M, Baldi A, Keller F. Adenosine Deaminase Alleles and
    Autistic Disorder. Am J Med Genetics. 2000;96:784–790. [PubMed]
    210. Torrente
    FP, Ashwood P, Day R, Machado N, Furlano RA, Anthony A, Davies S E,
    Wakefield AJ, Thomson MA, Walker-Smith JA, Murch SH. Small intestinal
    enteropathy with epithelial, IgG and complement deposition in children
    with regressive autism. Molec.Psych. 2002;7:375–382. [PubMed]
    211. Fillano
    JJ, Goldenthal MJ, Harker Rhodes C, Marin-Garcia J. Mitochondrial
    dysfunction in patients with hypotonia, epilepsy, autism, and
    developmental delay: HEADD syndrome. J Child Neurol. 2002;17(6):435–9. [PubMed]
    212. Oliveira
    G, Diogo L, Grazina M, Garcia P, Ataide A, Marques C, Miguel T, Borges
    L, Vicente AM, Oliveira CR. Mitochondrial dysfunction in autism spectrum
    disorders: a population-based study. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2005;47:185–9. [PubMed]
    213. Niederhofer H, Staffen W, Mair A. Lofexidine In Hyperactive And Impulsive Children With Autistic Disorder. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 2002;41(12):1396–1397. [PubMed]
    214. Birmaher B, Quintana H, Greenhill LL. Methylphenidate treatment of hyperactive autistic children. J Am Acad Child Adol Psychiatry. 1988;27:248–251. [PubMed]
    215. Perry
    R, Campbell M, Adams P, Lyneh N, Speneer EK. Long-term efficacy of
    haloperidol in autistic children: Continuous versus discontinuous drug
    administration. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1959;25:57–92. [PubMed]
    216. Cohen DJ, Young JG, Nathanson JA, Shaywitz BA. Clonidine in Tourette’s syndrome. The Lancet. 1979;2:551–553. [PubMed]
    217. Niederhofer
    H, Staffen W, Mair A. Tianeptine: a novel strategy of
    psychopharmacological treatment of children with autistic disorder. Human psychopharmacology. 2003;18(5):389–393. [PubMed]
    218. Niederhofer H, Staffen W, Mair A. Galantamine may be effective in treating autistic disorder. British Medical Journal. 2002;325:1422. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
    219. Niederhofer
    H, Staffen W, Mair A. Immunoglobulins as an Alternative Strategy of
    Psychopharmacological Treatment of Children with Autistic Disorder
    Neuropsychopharmacology. 2003;28:1014–1015. [PubMed]
    220. Niederhofer
    H, Staffen W, Mair A, Pittschieler K. Melatonin facilitates sleep in
    individuals with mental retardation and insomnia. J Autism Dev Disord. 2003;33(4):469–72. [PubMed]
    221. Ratey
    JJ, Bemporad J, Sorgi P, Bick P, Polakoff S, O’Driscoll G, Mikkelsen E.
    Brief report: Open trial effects of beta-blockers on speech and social
    behaviors in 8 autistic adults. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 1987;17(3):439–446. [PubMed]
    222. Beaudet AL. Autism: highly heritable but not inherited. Nature Medicine. 2007;13:534–536. [PubMed]
    223. Busto
    R, Dietrich WD, Globus MY, Valdes I, Scheinberg P, Ginsberg MD. Small
    differences in intraischemic brain temperature critically determine the
    extent of ischemic neuronal injury. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 1987;7:729–738. [PubMed]
    224. Torres AR. Is fever suppression involved in the etiology of autism and neurodevelopmental disorders? BMC Pediatr. 2003;3:9. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
    225. Urnovitz
    HB, Tuite JJ, Higashida JM, Murphy WH. RNAs in the Sera of Persian Gulf
    War Veterans Have Segments Homologous to Chromosome 22q11.2. Clinical and Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology. 1999;6(3):330–335. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
    226. Rook GAW, Zumla A. Gulf War Syndrome: is it due to a systemic shift in cytokine balance towards Th2 profile? The Lancet. 1997;349:1831–3. [PubMed]
    227. Meggs WJ. Multiple Chemical Sensitivities and the Immune System. Tox. Indust. Health. 1994;8:203–214. [PubMed]
    228. Hotopf
    M, David A, Hull L, Ismail K, Unwin C, Wessely S. Role of Vaccinations
    as risk factors for ill health in veterans of the Gulf War: cross
    sectional study. British Medical Journal. 2000;320:1363–7. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
    229. DeSoto MC. Blood Levels of Mercury Are Related to Diagnosis of Autism: A Reanalysis of an Important Data Set. Journal of Child Neurology. 2007;22(11):1308–1311. [PubMed]
    230. Tokuomi
    H, Uchino M, Imamura S, Yamanaga H, Nakanishi R, Ideta T. Minamata
    disease (organic mercury poisoning): Neuroradiologic and
    electrophysiologic studies. Neurology. 1982;32:1369–1375. [PubMed]

  • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

    231. Palmer
    RF, Blanchard S, Stein Z, Mandell D, Miller C. Environmental mercury
    release, special education rates, and autism disorder: an ecological
    study of Texas. Health & Place. 2006;12(2):203–209. [PubMed]
    232. Amin-Zaki
    L, Majeed MA, Clarkson TW, Greenwood M.R. Methylmercury poisoning in
    Iraqi children: clinical observations over two years. British Medical Journal. 1978 Mar 1;:613–616. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
    233. Joselow MW, Louria DB, Browder AA. Mercurialism: Environmental and occupational aspects. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1972;76:119–30. [PubMed]
    234. Wecker L, Miller S.B, Cochran SR, Dugger DL, Johnson WD. Trace Element Concentrations in Hair From Autistic Children. J. Ment Defic. Res. 1985;29:15–22. [PubMed]
    235. Adams CR, Ziegler DK, Lin JT. Mercury intoxication simulating amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. JAMA. 1983;250:642–643. [PubMed]
    236. Fagala GE, Wigg CL. Psychiatric manifestations of mercury poisoning. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1992;31(2):306–311. [PubMed]
    237. Kark RAP, Poskanzer DC, Bullock JD, Boylen G. Mercury poisoning and its treatment with n-acetyl-d, l-penicillamine. N Engl J Med. 1971;285:10–16. [PubMed]
    238. Teitelbaum
    P, Teitelbaum O, Nye J, Fryman J, Maurer RG. Movement Analysis in
    infancy may be useful for early diagnosis of autism. PNAS. 1998;95(23):13982–13987. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
    239. Church C, Coplan J. The high functioning autistic experience: Birth to pre-teen years. J. Pediatric Health Care. 1995;9(22):29. [PubMed]
    240. Makani
    S, Gollapudi S, Yel L, Chiplunkar S, Gupta S. Biochemical and molecular
    basis of thimerosal-induced apoptosis in T-cells: a major role of
    mitochondrial pathway. Genes and Immunity. 2002;3:270–278. [PubMed]
    241. Shenker
    BJ, Datar S, Mansfield K, Shapiro IM. Induction of apoptosis in human
    T-cells by organomercuric compounds: a flow dytometric analysis. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 1997;143(2):397–406. [PubMed]
    242. Yonk LJ, Warren KP, Burger RA, Cote P, Odell JD, Warren WL, White E, Singh VK. CD4 helper –T cell depletion in autism. Immunology Letters. 1990;25:344–346. [PubMed]
    243. Parker
    SK, Schwartz B, Todd J, Pickering LK. Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines
    and Autistic Spectrum Disorder: A Critical Review of Published Original
    Data. Pediatrics. 2004;114(3):793–804. [PubMed]
    244. DeSoto
    MC, Hitlan RT. Relationship between mercury and autism – autistic
    children may be less efficient at eliminating mercury from the blood. J.Child Neurol. 2007;22:1308–11. [PubMed]
    245. Kabuto
    M. Chronic effects of methylmercury on the urinary excretion of
    catecholamines and their responses to hypoglycemic stress. Arch Toxical. 1991;65(2):164–167. [PubMed]
    246. Clarkson TW. Mercury: major issues in environmental health. Environ Health Perspect. 1992;100:31–38. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
    247. Brenner RP, Snyder RD. Late EEG finding and clinical status after organic mercury poisoning. Arch Neurol. 1980;37(5):282–284. [PubMed]
    248. Grandjean
    P, Weihe P, White RF, Debes F. Cognitive performance of children
    prenatally exposed to ‘safe’ levels of methylmercury. Environmental Research. 1998;77(2):165–172. [PubMed]
    249. Rice DC, Gilbert SG. Early chronic low-level methylmercury poisoning in monkeys impairs spatial vision. Science. 1982;216(4547):759–761. [PubMed]
    250. Counter SA, Buchanan LH. Mercury exposure in children: a review. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology. 2004;198(2):209–230. [PubMed]
    251. Hrdina PD, Peters DA, Singhal RL. Effects of chronic exposure to cadmium, lead and mercury of brain biogenic amines in the rat. Research Communications in Chemistry, Pathology and Pharmacology. 1976;15(3):483–493. 1976. [PubMed]
    252. Flarend RE, Hem SL. In vivo absorption of aluminum-containing vaccine adjuvants using 26Al. Vaccine. 1997;15:1314–1318. [PubMed]
    253. Rimland B. ‘Recovery from autism is possible’, cited in Autism Research Review International. 1994;8(2):3.
    254. Rimland B, Baker S.M. Brief Report: Alternative Approaches to the Development of Effective Treatments for Autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 1996;26(2):237–241. [PubMed]
    255. Rossignol D, Rossignol L. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy may improve symptoms in autistic children. Medical Hypotheses. 2006;67(2):216–228. [PubMed]
    256. Lavine L. Osteopathic and Alternative Medicine Aspects of Autistic Spectrum Disorders. First International Autism Internet Conference, British Autism Society, London, England. 1999
    257. Jarusiewicz B. Efficacy of neurofeedback for children in the autistic spectrum: A pilot study. Journal of Neurotherapy. 2002;6(4):39–49.
    258. Kouijzer MEUJ, de Moor JMH, Gerrits BJL, Buitelaar JK, van Schie HT. Long-term effects of neurofeedback treatment in autism. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders. 2009;3:496–501.
    259. Sichel AG, Fehmi LG, Goldstein DM. Positive outcome with neurofeedback treatment of a case of mild autism. Journal of Neurotherapy. 1995;1(1):60–64.
    260. Levy
    SE, Hyman SL. Novel Treatments for Autistic Spectrum Disorders Mental
    Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews. 2005;11:131–142. [PubMed]

  • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

    261. Sommer
    A, Katz J, Tarwotjo I. Increased risk of respiratory disease and
    diarrhea in children with pre-existing vitamin A deficiency. Am J Clin Nutr. 1984;40:1090–5. [PubMed]
    262. Minshew NJ. ‘Brief Report: Brain Mechanisms in Autism: Functional and Structural Abnormalities’ Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 1996;26(2):205–209. [PubMed]
    263. Madsen
    KM, Lauritsen MB, Pedersen CB, Thorsen P, Plesner A-M, Andersen PH,
    Mortensen PB. Thimerosal and the Occurrence of Autism: Negative
    Ecological Evidence From Danish Population-Based Data. Pediatrics. 2003;112(3):604–606. [PubMed]
    264. Wakefield
    AJ, Anthony A, Murch SH, Thomson M, Montgomery SM, Davies S, O’Leary
    JJ, Berelowitz M, Walker-Smith JA. Enterocolitis in Children with
    Developmental Disorders. Am.J.Gastroenterology. 2000;95(9):2285–2295. [PubMed]
    265. Thompson J. Vaccine antibodies are lower in very premature babies. Community Practitioner. 2002 Apr 1;
    266. Review of Autism Research. London: Causes and Epidemiology, MRC; 2002. Medical Research Council.

  • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

    Start on discrediting those and when you are finished we can move on to the next set.

  • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

    Have you weighed any of the evidence yet?

  • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

    I don’t take requests.

  • Show me the original leaked documents.

    Compounds aren’t elements.

    You need better quality evidence than this.

  • Already been done.

  • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

    “Please provide your evidence that vaccines don’t have any positive effect on anyone.”

    Please refrain from fabricating claims (putting words in my mouth) what I said was.

    Vaccines do not have a clear positive benefit for everyone involved as cars do

    Not everyone involved with a vaccination will have the same result. Everyone who gets in a car will go where the car goes and get to point B. Not everyone who gets a vaccine will be protected, scientific, biological fact.

  • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

    I like your fresh shillfile, which one are you? Jonathan Graham? Kathy? Mike Stevens? Ivan?

  • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

    “With all due respect you have lost all sense of rational argument when you ignored the 99.99%”

    You have no evidence for this claim you astroturfer.

    “This pandering to irrational emotions rather than facts is the reason
    why a man-child like Trump is one step away from the nuclear button!”

    Man child? Hillary Clinton has taken more money from Big Pharma than any politician I can think of. She is more likely to cause war than Trump. I can’t wait to pull the Trump lever.

    Hillary is bought and paid for and this is a verifiable fact with evidence. She will do the bidding of those who pay her. She is not fit to be the President. Gramma doesn’t know best.

  • Chi Ngai Chan

    Ok what do you think is the percentage protection of let’s say the MMR vaccine, polio vaccine or the HPV vaccine? I know for a fact that HPV vaccine has a 95% rate of protection. Is that too low for you?

  • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

    “It is ironic that the anti-vaxx crowd complains so much about data manipulation,”

    It is sad that paid commenters are entitled to an opinion.

    Where is an anti vaxxer, what is an anti vaxxer?

    Is that someone who had a normal kid and got them vaccinated and then witnessed an adverse reaction or death? To be an anti vaxxer I guess something must have happened huh?

    It’s like saying that if you were allergic to ibuprofen and refused to take it, I can call you anti ibuprofen and a danger to society. The benefits of ibuprofen outweigh the risks for some, but not all. If you don’t take the ibuprofen even if it kills you it means you are anti science. Science says ibuprofen is safe and effective now take it.

  • Chi Ngai Chan

    99.9% included people who are directly protected by vaccines and the small number of people having a partial response to the vaccines but now under the protection of herd immunity. I cite every medical, public health textbook, which were written based on thousands of research studies, as evidence. But I guess they are all shills to you.

  • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

    There is no evidence that the HPV vaccine prevents cervical cancer therefore it’s benefits do not outweigh it’s risks. Especially since we all know the risks will be hidden and any dissenting Doctors will be punished discredited or worse if they threaten mass profits. Independent safety body in control of the CDC, until then all vaccines are suspect.

    What makes you think that you are more intelligent than the Universe and all these microorganisms? You aren’t, you can’ t possibly be. Nature has a way of evolving, how can you tell me that natural HPV infection or Measles infection does not prepare us for the next round of natural mutating organisms. You cannot. You cannot defeat nature, you can only ruin the future.

    Measles provides lifelong immunity, the vaccine provides temporary artificial immunity.

    Natural immunity dominates in every way. Now thanks to the measles vaccination program it’s almost impossible to back out of vaccination now. Just what the profit mongers wanted. No consideration for the future, just money money money and more money.

  • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

    Shills to me are people who get paid to comment.

  • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

    Getting paid to comment online is deceitful.

  • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

    I hate liars. I hope karma catches up to them.

  • Chi Ngai Chan

    FYI I’m not some paid lobbies sitting in DC counting his blood money. I happened to have spent the last decade studying infectious diseases and the immune system.

  • Chi Ngai Chan

    “Measles provides lifelong immunity”. Wow, just wow. The level of ignorance we are witnessing is astonishing. I’m going to quote you when I talk about the collapse of the US public school system. Having measles is not like going to a yoga retreat. Go online Google its symptoms. And I guess FDR faked his crippled legs to sell polio vaccines that would be invented more than ten years after he died.

    The sad truth is, the passion of the anti vaxxer could have been directed to something more positive, like lobbying for more research on identifying biomarkers that makes someone potentially vulnerable to vaccine injury so that these small populations can be excluded without impacting herd immunity. But your ignorance and arrogance basically poisons every debate you touch. It invalidate any legitimate arguments you have against, for example, corporate greed. Please, read a few more books before standing up in your soap box.

  • JGC

    What lies have I repeated, and what evidence demonstrates they are in fact lies?

    Wakefield did fail to disclose significant conflicts of interest.

    He did misrepresent the autism status of subjects in his study.

    He did misrepresent subjects’ prior histories of developmental concerns.

    He did misrepresent the time to onset of behavioral symptoms following MMR vaccination.

    He did alter subjects’ medical history, changing histopathology results from ‘normal’ to ‘nonspecific enterocolitis’.

    He did subject children to invasive procedures such as colonoscopies and colonic biopsies unnecessarily and without IRB approval.

    These have been established as fact, and no amount of hand waving apologetics on the part of his followers will change that.

  • JGC

    Nothing I’ve posted is false to the best of my ability to determine. Neither you nor anyone else has provided documentation (let alone ample documentation) demonstrating otherwise. I’m not paid to post comments here or in any other forum, on any subject.
    The established facts are that Wakefield failed to disclose serious conflicts of interest and committed scientific fraud. Brian Deer reported on his conduct in the London Sunday Times. The GMC reviewed his conduct as a licensed physician and struck him off as a consequence. The editors of the Lancet retracted his 1998 paper.
    It really is that simple.

  • JGC

    Please provide evidence sufficient to demonstrate that Brian Deer was hired to stop the paper.

    RE: conflicts of interest: Wakefield failed to disclose multiple serious conflicts of interest when submitting the 1998 lancet paper for publication. He failed to disclose that the subjects of the study were recruited by and provided to Wakefield by UK lawyers preparing a lawsuit against MMR manufacturers. Wakefield failed to disclose that he had personally received more than £400,000 from those same lawyers conducting the suit to generate evidence of harm. Further, Wakefield failed to disclose that he had applied for a patent on a single-injection measles vaccine while conducting his study.
    These are matters of established fact, Jeff. Ignoring them won’t make them go away.

  • JGC

    It’s not misinformation: see my post indicating the publication dates of the first Sunday Times articles and the date of the GMC proceedings.

  • JGC

    it was the Royal Free Hospital received a grant of £5,000 from the UK’s Legal Aid Board to underwrite the costs of conducting the study.

    Wakefield on the other hand personally received more than £400,000 from lawyers preparing a suit against manufacturers of MMR vaccines, and also failed to disclose that he had applied for a patent for a patent on a single-injection measles vaccine while conducting his study, giving him another undisclosed motivation to find (or generate) evidence of harm.

  • JGC

    Actually, Lewis did exactly the opposite: Lewis provided additional evidence against Wakefield.

    Lewis managed to obtain previously missing histopathology scoring forms for colonic biopsies from two of the Lancet study subjects and claimed that they did indicate they exhibited nonspecific colitis.
    They actually document completely normal findings–a fact which became rapidly apparent when he forwarded the charts to the BMJ in the mistaken belief doing so would benefit Wakefield.

  • JGC

    Here’s the statement of retraction from the editors of the Lancet:

    “Following the judgment of the UK General Medical Council’s Fitness to Practise Panel on Jan 28, 2010, it has become clear that several elements of the 1998 paper by Wakefield et al1x1Wakefield, AJ, Murch, SH, Anthony, A et al. Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet. 1998; 351: 637–641″

    I’m unable to find the part that refers to MMR profit–perhaps you could point it out to me?

    ‘Dr. David Lewis submitted a full 30 page report and the charts show Wakefield beyond a doubt could not have possibly altered the medical histories.”
    The two scoring charts provide show exactly the opposite: normal colonic histopathology.

  • AutismDadd

    What a hoot. I’ve pointed many in the right direction but they insists on going in the opposite one…that means you.

  • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

    EPA Microbiologist Dr. David Lewis Wrote the Book on Research Misconduct – Then Throws the Book at Brian Deer

    http://www.ageofautism.com/2014/05/epa-microbiologist-dr-david-lewis-wrote-the-book-on-research-misconduct-then-throws-the-book-at-brian-deer.html

  • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko
  • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko
  • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

    Wakefield received money from the Government compensation fund for being an expert witness. You are a blatant liar and an astroturfing paid commenter.

  • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

    “applied for a patent for a patent on a single-injection measles vaccine while conducting his study,”

    Lying fu3k head, do you ever stop?

    The Royal free is the name on the patent, and the patent is for transfer factor, not possible to be in competition with the MMR, but you already know this but you choose to lie. It is for the elimination of MMR vaccine strain measles virus from already vaccinated persons.

  • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

    See my sandbox and my deep fryer while you are at it. You lie, you refuse to acknowledge evidence that contradicts the narrative that you have been compensated to push.

  • JGC

    tell you what–cite what you believe to be the single strongest , most credible and compelling piece of evidence that Wakefield’s 1998 Lancet paper did not constitute scientific fraud so we can discuss it.
    (Unless of course it’s Lewis’ failed attempt to demonstrate he did not alter/misrepresent case histories-if that’s the best you have to offer I believe we’re done here.)

  • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

    “These are matters of established fact”
    http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/01/keeping-anderson-cooper-honest-is-brian-deer-the-fraud.html
    You cannot declare that demonstrable lies are a matter of established fact.

    It is quite clear that you do not understand English. Brian Deer is not
    a member of the Sunday Times staff. He is a freelance journalist who
    runs his own website and blog and is not under the control or direction
    of the Sunday Times. Mr. Deer should not represent himself as a Sunday
    Times journalist. He is not a member of staff, does NOT have a regular
    salary from us, is not on our pension scheme and pays his own tax as a
    freelance. If he says that he writes for the Sunday Times that would be
    correct. He is a contributor to The Sunday Times on an occasional basis
    but again we have no control over him …”

    – Alaistair Brett, Legal Manager, Sunday Times

    Jane Bryant: “How much are you being paid by the Sunday Times?”

    Brian Deer: “I’m not prepared to discuss my personal finances.”

    Jane Bryant: “You are not prepared to discuss your finances?”

    Brian Deer: “I’ve told you who’s paying me! I’ve told you I’ve never
    been paid by the drugs companies! I’m not in any way connected with
    drugs companies!”

    Jane Bryant: “I’m not asking you about drugs companies, I’m asking how much you’re being paid.”

    Brian Deer, shouting: “Some CLOWN, some CLOWN put on his website that he…..”

    Both Channel 4 and the Sunday Times have confirmed that they did not
    pay Mr. Deer to attend the 160 days of GMC hearings. So who did?

    When Brian Deer was introduced by Anderson Cooper, it was like this:

    BRIAN DEER, INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST, “THE SUNDAY TIMES OF LONDON”

    Nice job, CNN and Anderson, you have no idea who this guy really is.

    2. When Brian Deer began his investigation of Andy Wakefield, he was supported by a pharmaceutical front group

  • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

    The patent could not compete with the MMR vaccine, it was a transfer factor for the elimination of the vaccine strain measles virus from the MMR.

  • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

    Prove any accusation you just made, the patent (you can’t) the conflict of interest (you can’t) Here is a good video for you about your buddy Deer getting picked apart for his demonstrably false accusations and misrepresentations of everything including the Lancet parents testimonies.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id_AxZ3zHAc

  • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

    Do you need a ladder?
    So you can get on my level.

    updown :o updown :o updown :o updown :o updown :o

  • JGC

    Andrew Wakefield filed for the patent with a company called the Neuroimmuno Therapeutics Research Foundation in the summer of 1987 but without informing the Royal Free of Hospital of the filing although he filed in the Hospital’s name. He only informed the Royal Free of the filing after the fact when requesting the hospital assume the legal costs of securing the patent.

    The patent is for a transfer factor intened to be used as both a treatment and as a vaccine: it covers the use of the transfer factor as a therapeutic agent and forprophylaxis.

    This is further demonstrated by a business plan Wakefield and the father of subject 10 authored to commercialize the transfer factor.

    From the business plan:

    “In parallel with the clinical trial the company will develop a clinical diagnostic for the presence of the measles virus. It is estimated that the market for this diagnostic is about £4,000,000 per annum in the UK alone. The company will also investigate the potential of transfer factors as vaccine alternatives. An animal model trial of the value of measles specific transfer factor in preventing inflammatory bowel disease will begin upon securing funding.”

    From the plan’s Strategy and Objectives section (bold for emphasis):

    “The strategic goal for the venture will be to achieve full regulatory approval for the use of antigen (infectious agent) specific transfer factors in a variety of clinical conditions where existing treatment regimes are either non-existent or have limited effectiveness. This strategy will permit the company to establish a clear technical and medical lead in this area with a resulting dominant market share. Paralleling the use of [transfer factors] as therapeutics will be a research programme aimed at demonstrating the value of [transfer factor] as a vaccine.

    and

    “If successful this concept will be developed further in collaboration with a major pharmaceutical company, such as Glaxo Wellcome’s Jenner Institute.”

    Need I mention that the Jenner Institute is Glaxo’s vaccine research group, named for the inventor of the first vaccine?

  • JGC

    No, I simply need you to provide evidence in support of your claims.

  • JGC

    See my detailed reply regarding the patent in response to another post.

  • JGC

    the patent also covered the use of the transfer factor as a prophylactic against MMR infection, and Wakefield’s business plan for commercialization of the transfer factor stated that research into the use of the transfer factor would proceed concomitantly with research into its use as a therapeutic.

  • JGC

    I’ve never argued that he was a member of the Sunday Times Staff, so one must ask “did you have a point?”
    What ‘pharmaceutical front group’ are you speaking of, what evidence demonstrates they actually are acting as a front for pharmaceutical companies, and what evidence demonstrates they provided Brian Deer with financial support to abet his investigation of Andrew Wakefield?

  • JGC

    Do you think you could provide links to sites other than anti-vaccination misinformation organizations in the future, and perhaps link to actual evidence than interviews and opinion pieces?

    The AoA interview characterizes Lewis as “an internationally recognized research microbiologist”: he is not. He spent most of his career before retirement working as an environmental microbiologist at the EPA’s lab in Athens, Georgia, where his studies focused on potential
    contamination of agricultural land by sewage sludge.
    His defense of Wakefield in the BMJ consisted of an attempt to show that two raw data grading sheets (one prepared by Dr. Amar Dhillion and one prepared by Dr. Andrew Anthony) indicated the subjects exhibited non-specific colitis. The sheets (which Lewis forwarded to the BMJ) instead record observations of healthy bowel mucosa and report no specific findings of inflammation of any sort–not the findings of nonspecific colitis Wakefield’s 1998 retracted Lancet paper claimed.

  • JGC

    If he received money from the government for being an expert witness it was in addition to the more than £400,000 he received from the lawyers preparing a suit against manufacturers of MMR vaccines.

  • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

    Too late for your argument, you and Deer have been utterly obliterated with indisputable facts. Go hump someone else’s leg turf boy.

  • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

    I have shown you to be a fraudulent liar several times. Here, let’s talk about some herd immunity Wakefield style so everyone can get hip to what’s really going down. Fraud my ass turf boy.
    http://vaxxedthemovie.com/notes-herd-immunity-andrew-wakefield/

    Here is the chicken pox portion of the article just to give you a feel. There is also measles and mumps referenced too. Educate yourself.

    The chickenpox virus (varicella zoster) causes a mild self-limiting disease in healthy children. The virus frequently establishes latent infection in the cell bodies of sensory nerve roots where it has the potential to episodically reactivate and cause shingles, a very painful and debilitating condition. Shingles can cause blindness. Historically, shingles was an uncommon disease occurring in, for example, people with immune deficiency due to cancer or immunosuppressive drug therapy.

    Reactivation of zoster is inhibited by an adequate level of immunity to this virus which, in turn, is maintained by boosting of immunity in parents and grandparents by re-exposure via children with chickenpox. Natural epidemics of chickenpox maintained Herd Immunity by ‘wild-type boosting’ (referring to the natural virus) of adults which prevented shingles in otherwise healthy individuals. This is no longer the case.

    Widespread chickenpox vaccination has removed natural Herd Immunity by preventing epidemics, eliminating ‘wild-type’ boosting, and allowing immunity to fall in individuals to the point where shingles is now much more common, occurring in young, apparently healthy people. Vaccination has created a new epidemic to which Merck’s response is, ‘we’ve created a market; now let’s make a vaccine to prevent shingles.’

  • JGC

    I’ll have to take your post as an explicit admission you have no credible or compelling evidence to offer in defense of Wakefield’s conduct during the study or the retracted paper itself.

  • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

    You are feeling very angry.

  • JGC

    no, you have not. You’ve asserted a great many things–for example, that David Lewis somehow demonstrated Wakefield did not alter case histories by providing the editors of the BMJ with raw soring charts showing that he did do so. but that’s hardly the same thing (and is one reason why I’m not surprised by this attempt to change topics.)

  • JGC

    And one more thing you’re wrong about–you may be approaching a personal record.

  • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

    Thank you for your timely response. Here is your reward.

    http://vaxxedthemovie.com/dr-andrew-wakefield-deals-with-allegations/

    Since the release of the 1998 paper in The Lancet, which suggested the possibility of a link between a novel form of bowel disease, autism, and the MMR vaccine, one of the report’s co-authors, Dr. Andrew Wakefield has been the subject of great controversy and defamation. Here, Wakefield addresses the allegations of fraud, conflict of interest, and medical misconduct that have been leveled against him.

  • JGC
  • How many times do we have to explain to you how the burden of proof works?

  • Have you seen 1950s era San Bernadino?

  • I asked for LeAnn’s research. Not research in general.

  • Nope. Those studies don’t say what you think they do.

  • Brooke Dunne

    You could just give him the link to the decision

    http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/autism/cedillo%20fed%20circuit.pdf

    It’s not like Ron’s actually going to read it. Anyone who does will see that Kent Heckenlively’s spin at Age of Autism is just a load of garbage.

  • Yeah, and now I don’t even have to do that!

    Thank you.

    Sincerity mode.

  • Jeff/Bridgit/Kiko

    Well I guess a paid commenter like yourself hired by a PR firm should enlighten all of us about how to interpret science, with all your expertise and multiple degrees, snort!!

  • What expertise? What multiple degrees?

  • shay simmons

    I would say as many times as we have to explain the concept of plagiarism.

  • Sarah

    They don’t have evidence, that’s the point. There is no way to prove that vaccines killed or disabled someone.

  • Sarah

    Well, that doesn’t count.

  • Sarah

    No we don’t want biased anti-vaxxer sites. That’s just a site that agrees with you so you say its evidence

  • Sarah

    Good thing they’re right online for anyone to see at anytime

  • No, get your facts straight.
    Here is the retraction notice: “In particular, the claims in the original paper that children were consecutively referred and that investigations were approved by the local ethics committee have been proven to be false.”

    Everything else you are saying was made up by Brian Deer and has been proven to be false.

  • None of this is true.

  • sabelmouse

    ain’t it lucky that people can check your ”facts”?

  • JGC

    He did far more than conceal the manner in which the subjects were recruited and failing to obtain proper IRB approval: he also altered medical histories, identified subjects who had not been diagnoses as having regressive autism as having regressive autism, claimed subjects had been previously developmentally normal who had not been previously developmentally normal, and misrepresented the time to onset of developmental symptoms in others to create the false appearance it was soon after receiving MMR vaccination.

    You’re certainly entitled to your own opinion, aangel, but not your own facts.

  • Which part of all that was substantiated by the judge when he exonerated Walker-Smith?

  • JGC

    All of this is true, aangel. See the final version of the GMC ruling against Wakefield at https://www.scribd.com/doc/25983372/FACTS-WWSM-280110-Final-Complete-Corrected

  • JGC

    Justice Mitting’s ruling regarding re. Walker -Smith didn’t address any actions taken by Wakefield during the study: it narrowly addressed whether or not the GMC tribunal had adequately demonstrated Walker-Smith’s intent was to conduct research rather than provide clinical treatment.

  • JGC

    Yes, it is. Otherwise they might instead fall victim to what anti-vaxers offer instead of fact at sites like VacTruth, AoA, NVIC, etc.

  • The GMC ruling is no longer valid because of the large number of errors in it.

    “Justice Mitting, reviewing Dr. Walker-Smith’s appeal in the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court, found that the GMC’s conclusions were “based on inadequate and superficial reasoning” and that “the finding of serious professional misconduct and the sanction of erasure are both quashed.”

    The bulk of the charges were the same for both men.

    Which part of the ruling did the high court uphold when it reviewed the charges?

  • The bulk of the charges were the same between the men.

  • JGC

    “The GMC ruling is no longer valid because of the large number of errors in it”

    Citations truly, madly, desperately needed demonstrating the GMC ruling has been vacated.

    Justice Mitting’s ruling addressed only Walker-Smith’s participation in the Lancet study, and whether the GMC had adequately demonstrated his intent was that of conducting research.

    “Which part of the ruling did the high court uphold when it reviewed the charges?”

    The ruling that Wkaefield’s intent while conducting the study was to engage in research rather than provide clinical treatment.

    From Mitting’s ruling (bold for emphasis):

    When the person undertaking the activity has two purposes or when different people participating in the same series of activities have different purposes, it may be very difficult to say into which category the activities fall. This difficulty is particularly likely to arise in activities undertaken by an academic clinician and/or in a teaching hospital with a research department. These difficulties arose in this case: Dr. Wakefield’s purpose was undoubtedly research; Professor Walker-Smith’s may have lain anywhere on the spectrum.

    Mitting also confirms the misrepresentation of the subjects medical histories regarding the altered colonic histopathology reports (where wakefield reports results of non-specific enterocolitis rather than the actual finding of normal tissue.)

    Again, from Mitting’s ruling:

    There was an additional finding, at 15j that Professor Walker-Smith failed to record the difference between the histological description provided to Dr. Spratt on 31st December 1996 and the clinical histology report. Professor Walker-Smith accepted that this omission was highly unsatisfactory. There is no appeal against the finding but if, which I doubt, the omission amounted to professional misconduct, it could not have amounted to serious professional misconduct

  • JGC

    The bulk of the charges during the GMC tribunal, perhaps, but Mitting only addresses one of the GMC charges (intent to conduct research) by one of the men (Walker-Smith).

  • Walker-Smith’s permission to treat covered the work that was done to the children.

    And the judge even said, “There is no appeal against the finding but if, which I doubt, the omission amounted to professional misconduct, it could not have amounted to serious professional misconduct.”

    Thanks for helping me make my case. Truly grasping at straws if that’s the best you’ve got. Do you know how many mistakes are made in the paperwork of complex cases?

    As I said, the bulk of the charges were the same and the high court was unable to uphold any of the serious charges against Walker-Smith.

  • No, the judge had to look at the totality of the charges because the tribunal said that there was gross professional misconduct.

    The judge merely pointed out one of the fundamental issues in his ruling.

    Clearly the others did not rise the level of professional misconduct — which is why Walker-Smith’s charges were quashed.

  • Yes, when the High Court has its turn at Wakefield, it will find that the poor reasoning and incorrect conclusions of the tribunal were equally applied to Wakefield.

    The GMC took away the license of Walker-Smith incorrectly because it performed such poor work.

    But you are saying this sort of shoddy work will prove the charges against Wakefield?

    You are, of course, free to defend this level of incompetence by the tribunal.

  • JGC

    The High Court won’t have a turn at Wakefield: unlike Walker-Smith he declined to appeal the GMC ruling and the period in which he could do so has expired.
    And I’ve no need to defend ‘shoddy work’ on the part of the GMC as there’s no evidence of incompetence with respect to their ruling regarding Wakefield (see the Mitting ruling again where he states unequivocally they were correct in their finding Wakefield’s intent was to conduct research).

  • JGC

    “No, the judge had to look at the totality of the charges because the tribunal said that there was gross professional misconduct.
    The judge merely pointed out one of the fundamental issues in his ruling.The others didn’t rise to the level of professional misconduct Wakefield engaged in, which is why only Wakefield was struck off by the GMC.”
    Read the ruling itself, aangel.
    Walker-Smiths conduct did not rise to the level of serious professional misconduct, as did Wkaefield’s, which is why only Wakefield was struck off by the GMC.

  • JGC

    “Walker-Smith’s permission to treat covered the work that was done to the children.”

    If that work were done with the intent to treat, rather than the intent to conduct research. That was the question Mitting’s ruling addresses: what was Walker-Smith’s intent?.

    And I’m not helping make your case: Mtting is arguing only that in his opinion Walker-Smith’s failure to record the difference between the histological description provided to Dr. Spratt on 31st December 1996 and the clinical histology report did not rise to the level of serious professional misconduct. He isn’t stating that Wakefield’s decision to alter the medical histories to create the false impression of an association between MMR vaccine and enterocolitis did not.

    And while I get you keep saying irrelevant things (like the bulk of the charges in the GMC tribunal being the same) Mitting’s ruling addressed only one person (Walker-Smith) and one charge (that his intent was to conduct research rather than provide treatment).

  • So which are you saying:

    • Mitting looked at the judgement against Walker-Smith and ignored everything except the one charge you are focusing on because he had an upset stomach that day from a rich meal the night before? I can understand not wanting to read all the paperwork by Walker-Smith’s lawyers in that case, for sure. It must have been a lot of paperwork.

    Or are you saying:
    • his co-workers showed the judge only a part of the ruling against Walker-Smith because they didn’t have a good night of sleep and were too tired to write out all the charges?

    Your assertion that Mitting did not examine all the charges against Walker-Smith is a perfect case of faulty reasoning.

    He *focussed* on the only points against Walker-Smith that could possibly rise to the level of professional misconduct; the rest is irrelevant.

  • The judge had to review all the charges against Walker-Smith, to suggest that he not do that makes no sense.

    What evidence do you have that the judge did not review all the charges against Walker-Smith?

    To bad about the time running out on Wakefield.

  • JGC

    What I’m saying:

    Walker Smith appealed the GMC ruling, Wakefield did not.

    Justice Mitting ruled that the critical point of contention was between the GMC claiming Walker-Smith was doing research which required ethics committee approval and Walker-Smith claiming he was involved in medical practice, as the most serious charges against Walker-Smith were subjecting some of the children to investigations for research purposes rather than clinical purpose without ethics committee approval, subjecting some children to investigations contrary to their clinical interests and subjecting the children to research investigations not covered by any other project except 172-96 and not meeting the conditions of that project.

    He found that the GMC had failed to adequately establish that Walker-Smith’s intention was to conduct research. In his opinion he notes that while this was clearly the case with respect to Wakefield’s intent, it’s less clear with respect to Walker-Smith. From the opinion again:

    There is no challenge to the panel’s finding that Dr. Wakefield’s purpose was research: to investigate and, if possible, demonstrate the link between MMR vaccine, regressive autism and gastrointestinal disorders. The critical question in the case of Professor Walker-Smith was whether that was his primary purpose as well. His evidence was that his purpose was to attempt to find out what was wrong with child 2 – something which no previous investigation had achieved.

    His ruling was that the GMC had failed to establish intent to do research on Walker Smith’s behalf and vacate the GMC ruling against Walker-Smith. The ruling against Wakefield stands, and as Wakefield failed to appeal the decision in a timely manner it will stand as there are not further avenues for legal review.

    Again: read the ruling itself–it should make all this quite clear.

  • JGC

    We’re not talking about what Mitting did or did not examine, but instead what Mitting did or did not rule.

    And time didn’t run out on Wakefield: he made a deliberate choice not to appeal the GMC finding (just as he previously made a deliberate choice not to accept funding to repeat the Lancet study).

  • The only matter regarding Walker-Smith’s alleged “professional misconduct” that rose to the level of the high-court judge needing to rule on it was the one for which he was exonerated, ergo, all the other charges were irrelevant. It makes no sense to say that the judge exonerated Walker-Smith and re-instated his license because he looked at only one element of this case. He clearly was given all the paperwork by Walker-Smith’s counsel, he examined all of it, and chose to focus on the only relevant piece. The other pieces showed “superficial reasoning” and “wrong conclusions.”

    The bulk of the charges, shared by the two men, were dismissed by the judge because the judge clearly had to examine all of them that applied to Walker-Smith.

  • But this is a bit of a sideshow, anyway.

    The first point Wakefield’s team was making was that autistic children can suffer from inflammatory bowel syndrome and this is now confirmed. Back then this was a big deal even though now it is common knowledge

    https://www.autismspeaks.org/science/science-news/another-autism-gi-link-inflammatory-bowel-disease

  • Ron Roy

    Typical answer from a heartless pharmaceutical company shill.

  • Ron Roy

    And you present information from biased pro- vaccine, bought and paid for, scientists.

  • AutismDadd

    Get real. They certainly could. How do they come up with “TABLE INJURIES” for injury compensation cases?

  • JGC

    No, the point Wakefield was trying to make by misrepresenting the subjects medical histories etc, was that the children exhibited (direct quote from the retracted 1998 Lancet article’s abstract) “associated gastrointestinal disease and developmental regression in a group of previously normal children, which was generally associated in time with possible environmental triggers”.

    His subjects, however, had not been previously normal, did not exhibit associated gastrointestinal disease, and their behavioral symptoms were not generally associated in time with possible environmental triggers.

  • JGC

    The GMC finding against Walker Smith was vacated because the GMC failed to adequately demonstrate his intent when participating in the study was to conduct research rather than provide clinical treatment: read Mitting’s opinion.

  • I know you believe all that. However, a careful look at the evidence without the jaundiced I look, who was out to get Wakefield, shows that everything in that paper was true.

    I am not interested in going through the evidence point by point with you here. So on this we will have to agree to disagree. Cheers.

  • JGC

    Rather than go through the evidence point by point, then, let’s instead address evidence regarding one claim made by Wakefield in the retracted Lancet paper: that the subjects of the case study were randomly chosen when they were instead selectively chosen from children referred to a pediatric gastroenterology clinic because they exhibited with both bowel symptoms and pervasive developmental disorders.

  • You are fundamentally mistaking how a case study works.

    The point of a case study is to discuss a case that has something unique about it. In some instances, it is comprised of multiple cases that have something in common.

    It is not designed to be representative of the whole population or to find the prevalence or anything like that.

    That’s why in the upper-left corner of the paper it says “Early report.”

    http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673697110960/fulltext?_eventId=login

    Case studies are how something new is introduced to the medical/scientific community.

    Where does it say the cases were randomly chosen?

  • JGC

    I’m not misunderstanding what a case study is:

    I’m pointing out that Wakefield et al stated in the retracted Lancet paper that the 11 subjects were chosen randomly rather than selectively, when in fact they were chosen selectively with the intent to ensure a preferred conclusion.

    From the retracted paper:

    “12 children, consecutively referred to the department of paediatric gastroenterology with a history of a pervasive developmental disorder with loss of acquired skills and intestinal
    symptoms (diarrhoea, abdominal pain, bloating and food intolerance), were investigated.”

    Where does it say the cases were randomly chosen?

    The 12 children in Wakefield’s study were not however consecutively referred to the pediatric gastrointestinal department: they were referred at different times and with other children, who were not chosen, interrupting a consecutive order of referral.

  • Ron Roy

    Retracted only because the study would have opened people’s eyes as to the harm caused by the MMR. It was all because of money. The god of the drug industry.

  • JGC

    It was retracted because the author committed scientific fraud, making many statements and claims that demonstrably were not true.

  • Yep, you’ve demonstrated that you don’t know what a case study is.

    Case studies — by definition — are not randomly chosen.

    You are saying that he should have done something for a case study that would have made it not a case study anymore.

    Maybe you’ll understand if you read what Wikipedia says:
    “A case study is about a person, group, or situation that has been studied over time.[1] If the case study, for instance, is about a group, it describes the behavior of the group as a whole, not the behavior of each individual in the group.”

    The group in this case was children presenting the situations described in the paper. Children without those symptoms are not part of the group thus they shouldn’t be in the study.

    Said another way, “find a group of patients who have similar symptoms/behaviors and discuss them as a group *because* they share symptoms/behaviors.”

  • JGC

    All I’m stating is that in the retracted 1998 Lancet article Wakefield misrepresented how the subjects of the study were chosen.

  • No, you aren’t. You are getting both details and intention wrong because you don’t understand the purpose of a case study.

    Please print the sentence that says “randomly” below.

  • JGC

    Here’s the section of the retracted paper where Wakefield misrepresent how the subjects of the study were chosen:

    “12 children, consecutively referred to the department of paediatric gastroenterology with a history of a pervasive developmental disorder with loss of acquired skills and intestinal symptoms (diarrhoea, abdominal pain, bloating and food intolerance), were investigated.”

    Wakefield didn’t select a random group of 12 children referred in consecutive order to the department of paediatric gastroenterology with a history of a pervasive developmental disorder with loss of acquired skills and intestinal symptoms: he chose a specific set of 12 children, who were not referred consecutively, but who might best support a conclusion that MMR vaccination could serve as an ‘environmental trigger’ for the onset of ASD’s.

  • Yes, he chose a specific set of children because that’s how you make a case study.

    If they all happen to be consecutively referred, great. But they don’t need to be. The whole point of a case study is you select the people with a common symptoms.

    I don’t know how to explain this to you anymore clearly.

    Wakefield misrepresented nothing and conducted the very definition of a case study. You see a problem here only because you don’t understand what a case study is.

  • JGC

    And I am at a loss how to help you understand that the subjects were chosen because they represented 12 consecutive referrals to the gastroenterology center when in fact they did not is fraudulent.

    Wakefield misrepresented multiple things in the retracted paper: the subjects previous developmental history ( he falsely claimed all subjects were normal prior to vaccination), the findings of the subjects colonic histopathology reports, the time to onset of behavioral that subjects were diagnosed as exhibiting regressive autism who were not diagnosed with autism at all, etc.

  • Nope. You’ve been reading too much Deer.

    And you clearly still don’t understand what a case study is or you are unwilling to admit that you had it wrong so you are changing the subject to points you think you can win with.

  • Ron Roy

    Wrong. You can lie as much as you want people are realizing the truth.

  • Ron Roy

    Liar

  • Sarah

    With what people claimed happened. Then organized it. Totally proves everything

  • Sarah

    *RN who is realistic person when needed

  • Sarah

    Thanks for teaching me that new word though Roy, I’d never heard it before, but now i’m known as one

  • Sarah

    Yep. The real stuff. Get over it

  • Sarah

    Always on the defense. I wonder why?

  • Ron Roy

    You lie faster than I can respond. I’ll give you credit for that if you want it.

  • Ron Roy

    Yeah I guess you could call bull_ _ _ t real stuff. See we agree.

  • Ron Roy

    I knew you were naive but not THAT naive. Sorry I overestimated your intelligence

  • Ron Roy

    OMG another soldier of the MEDICAL MAFIA set loose on the world.

  • Sarah

    Yep! So don’t go to the doctor ever again if it’s the medical mafia. Put your money where your mouth is. But the next time you have an emergency, who are you gonna come crawling back to…..us “shills”

  • Sarah

    Oh you didn’t overestimate it, no worries there. I don’t think that I’m naive I’m just not used to terms used by people who are as paranoid as you. Now I know how to handle them if I come across them I guess.

  • Sarah

    Yeah we agree its real stuff, finally you get it

  • Sarah

    No thanks. I’m good. I have enough credit in my career I don’t need validation from a delusional person online

  • Ron Roy

    I’ve always said they’re good mechanics ( most of the time ) but LOUSY chemists. When they went on strike in the county of Los Angeles and in Canada and in Italy years ago the death rate dropped dramatically in all those places.

  • Ron Roy

    To bad you don’t read what good honest doctors have to say but then you might have to quit your job.

  • Ron Roy

    Yeah bs is real stuff. I’m glad you agree.

  • Sarah

    Mechanics? “a person who repairs and maintains machinery.” like that’s what you’re going to call them, they don’t save lives but they repair machines. Whatever. And they’re not SUPPOSED to be chemists. That’s a different position. So you won’t go back to the doctor (sorry, mechanic’s) office again then?

  • Sarah

    As long as I’m seeing you say you agree it’s real stuff you can call it whatever you please :)

  • Sarah

    Too*
    On the contrary, I know plenty, and your “doctors” that you quote just make me want to work in the medical field even more. Spreading truth instead of putting scary unnecessary thoughts into people’s heads.

  • Ron Roy

    ”And they’re not SUPPOSED to be chemists.” Yet they prescribe drugs that alter body chemistry. I told you they were dangerous.

  • JGC

    Read Mitting’s ruling, Ron.

  • JGC

    I’m afraid I’m being both perfectly honest and correct.

  • JGC

    It’s not about winning. It’s about addressing false claims by anti-vaccine proselytizers. Very little in Wakefield’s paper was accurate.

    The retracted Lancet article did represent scientific fraud. Wakefield did fail to disclose serious conflicts of interest or accurately represent how the subjects were selected for inclusion. He did alter medical histories falsely claiming that subjects suffered from nonspecific enterocolitis. He did describe as ‘previously normal’ subjects who instead had documented histories of behavioral symptoms. He did misrepresent time to onset of symptoms to make it appear they occurred soon after receiving MMR vaccination.

    You’re entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts–and those are quite simply the facts.

  • JGC

    “If they all happen to be consecutively referred, great. But they don’t need to be.”
    They do if you’re going to claim in your submission they were consecutively referred.

  • AutismDadd

    So a conspiracy. Are you a chem trail and flat Earth supporter too?

  • Why should I believe any of your allegations?

    You don’t even know what case study is.

  • JGC

    I know what a case study is, aangel. I also know that Wakefield misrepresented how the 12 subjects of his retracted 1998 Lancet article were selected.
    What you would prefer to refer to as ‘allegations’ are instead established as fact.

  • The evidence shows that you do not, in fact, know what a case study is.

    Wakefield never claimed that he selected them randomly and you bizarrely keep bringing that up and are attempting to use that as one more allegation against him.

    You are bringing that up because you don’t understand that the very definition of a case study is that they *aren’t supposed to be random.*

  • JGC

    One more time, from the retracted Lancet article itself:

    “We investigated a consecutive series of children with chronic enterocolitis and regressive developmental disorder.”
    Wakefield did not investigate a consecutive series of children but instead 12 subjects chosen non-consecutively in order to create a false impression of a temporal association between MMR vaccination and behavioral symptoms.

    Really, at this point you seem to be arguing about exactly what kind of lie Wakefield published.

  • Yes, now you are backtracking on the idea of random selection, which you didn’t mention just now.

    That’s because you are confusing the concept of non-consecutive with random. Random is not the opposite of consecutive.

    If patients are not selected consecutively, they can then be selected randomly or non-randomly.

    If they are chosen randomly, that means that there is a chance they won’t have the symptoms/behaviors.

    If they are chosen purposefully, then the will all have the symptoms/behaviors — and that’s why they are in the group of the case study.

  • JGC

    So do you agree that Wakefield’s statement that the children were selected on the basis of consecutive referrals was false?

  • I agree with the High Court that you and the GMC are misunderstanding what the sentence meant:

    157. …Thus construed, this paper does not bear the meaning put upon it by the panel. The phrase “consecutively referred” means no more than that the children were referred successively, rather than as a single batch, to the Department of Paediatric Gastroenterology.

    This was specifically addressed by the court and the GMC was found to have erred in their understanding of this sentence.

    So you are continuing to push an allegation based on a fundamental error made by the GMC that has since been refuted on appeal because you want so much for Wakefield to be the demon.

  • If you want to keep pushing this point, please indicate the error in the High Court’s reasoning.

  • JGC

    Congratulations! You’ve actually offered a meaningful argument that the description of the referral process was not a misrepresentation. I’ll be careful not to offer this as an example of Wakefield’s misrepresentations in the future.
    Now shall we move on to address the Lancet articles other misrepresentations, such as the claim the subjects colonic histopathology reports indicated non-specific enterocolitis rather than normal colonic tissue/mucosa?

  • Perhaps.

    You’ve already indicated that you don’t know how to use the concept of random in the context of scientific exploration and that the point you were pushing rather arrogantly as a so-called “fact” that I have no right to question was found to be an example of the “superficial reasoning” that the appeal court specifically found in the GMC’s ruling.

    I’m quite sure that, as someone who is convinced Wakefield committed fraud, you will interpret items not yet specifically addressed by the court with similar bias.

  • JGC

    I’m not interpreting anything with a specific bias–like most scientists, I originally accepted Wakefield’s Lancet article at face value as indicating a productive new field or inquiry into the etiology of ASD’s. It’s only after multiple independent researcher’s failed to replicate or otherwise support his findings that there was reason to suspect deliberate misrepresentation.
    I’ll note also that the court is applying a legal standard to its review of a scientific document: the reading of consecutive to indicate that the referrals were not received at the same time is atypical of how the term is used in scientific communication. It does however raise sufficient room for doubt to conclude that Wakefield may not have been attempting deception and as a result I’m compelled to revise my position regarding this point.
    I remain quite convinced Wakefield committed scientific fraud, based on the other serious misrepresentations in the Lancet article (for example, his claim that subjects exhibited non-specific enterocolitis).

  • What type of scientist are you? Why didn’t you know that non-consecutive does not equate to random?

  • JGC

    I’m a research biologist, and it’s non-consecutive that doesn’t equate to consecutive.

  • Mike Stevens

    “Why should I believe any of your allegations?”
    Because they are not allegations, they are facts.
    Facts detailed in the British Medical Journal.

  • Mike Stevens

    The children supposedly were “consecutively referred” to the gastroenterology clinic by primary care practitioners.
    In stating this, Wakefield was indicating that he had not selected them because they had bowel problems/autism and had recieved MMR, but was taking generic referrals “as they came in”, which would in layterms represent a very random ascertainment process.

    Of course, they were shown not to be “consecutively referred” at all. In fact Wakefield had specifically engineered some of the referrals, and ended up with a highly selected group that exactly fitted his requirements.

    “We investigated a consecutive series of children with chronic enterocolitis and regressive developmental disorder.”
    The only part of this sentence which was not a lie was the bit about them being “children”, but knowing what we do about Wakefield, I’d insist on seeing birth certificates for them all before concluding this.

  • Yes, finally!

    I suggest not using the word “random” in this context as you did initially because it has a specific use.

  • Mike, do try to follow along. We’ve already established that the “fact” that JGC was so forcefully pushing was overturned by the High Court.

  • BTW, what was the source of the allegation regarding consecutive referrals? Was that from Deer first and the GMC picked it up?

  • Mike Stevens

    “If they all happen to be consecutively referred, great. But they don’t
    need to be. The whole point of a case study is you select the people
    with common symptoms.”

    Wakefield’s point was that he had looked at a series of children referred ostensibly with gastrointestinal symptoms. Remarkably, they all turned out to have suffered pervasive developmental disorder and to have had recent MMR vaccination.
    That was what set the alarm bells ringing, but it then turns out Wakefield had contrived to have most of the children referred for tests under his research protocol, so this hardly represented a series of “usual” referrals, with the kids mysteriously being the same ones that were plaintiffs in an antivaccine action that Wakefield was acting as expert witness for in an effort to tie vaccination with autism.

    If you think there was nothing “fishy” about the pattern of referrals, perhaps you would like to explain how it was that a gastroenterology unit should suddenly start getting referrals for bowel disease when the main problem was one of regressive autism, and many of the kids had little evidence of significant bowel disease at all.

    To give an analogy people outside the medical field might understand, it would be tantamount to a music tutor getting 12 consecutive referrals from parents to teach their little angels the violin, only for the tutor to “discover” that all the children happened to be born on the 1st of January, and that few of them had any desire to learn music.

  • JGC

    My source was the Lancet’s retraction statement:

    Following the judgment of the UK General Medical Council’s Fitness to Practise Panel on Jan 28, 2010, it has become clear that several elements of the 1998 paper by Wakefield et al are incorrect, contrary to the findings of an earlier investigation. In particular, the claims in the original paper that children were “consecutively referred” and that investigations were “approved” by the local ethics committee have been proven to be false. Therefore we fully retract this paper from the published record.

  • Mike Stevens

    Can you show me where the High Court overturned the facts that Wakefield had adulterated time lines for the clinical presentation of the cases, and altered the reporting of histopathology results?

  • Very good. Thank you for that.

    So already we have demonstrated that one of their claims to retract the paper has fallen apart on appeal.

    BTW, you picked that last topic so I’d like to pick the next one. Then I’m happy to go back to your topic.

    Do you believe that Wakefield had a competing vaccine?

  • Mike Stevens

    “BTW, what was the source of the allegation regarding consecutive referrals? Was that from Deer first and the GMC picked it up?”
    What makes you say that?
    I know you guys want to blame Deer for everything… but puhleeese….

  • JGC

    Now shall we proceed to address the other misrepresentations in the 1998 Lancet article? I suggest we start with the false claim that subjects’ colonic histopathology reports indicated nonspecific enterocolitis.

  • No, see my comment above, please. You picked that last topic, I’d like the next one.

  • Actually, I would wager that the GMC got it from Deer but I’m not going to do that research now.

  • *causally* associated with autism.

    Not merely temporally.

  • Mike Stevens

    “The first point Wakefield’s team was making was that autistic children
    can suffer from inflammatory bowel syndrome and this is now confirmed.
    Back then this was a big deal even though now it is common knowledge”

    Wakefield claimed the autistic children suffered from a new, never previously described type of inflammatory disorder, namely ileal lymphoid nodular hyperplasia (and not that they had standard IBD as evidenced by Crohn’s or ulcerative colitis).

    This was an association not only never before described before, but never described since either.

  • Mike Stevens

    “The bulk of the charges, shared by the two men, were dismissed by the judge”
    No. You clearly haven’t gone through the individual charge sheet against each of these doctors. The bulk of the charges were not shared, and exoneration of WS made the charges against Wakefield more significant, not less so, since WS was essentially saying “Nothing to do with me, mate – the other guy is the one wot made me do it”

  • JGC

    One of their claims against Walker-Smith has been found invalid by Justice Mitting. That’s as far as one can argue. Wakefield elected not to appeal, and all the charges against him the GMC upheld remain operative.

    Wakefield applied in 1997 for a patent for what he called a transfer factor for both treatment and as a vaccine to prevent measles and measles-associated IBD. In 1998 he approached University College, of which the Royal Free Hospital is a part, to take over prosecuting the application and funding to cover the legal costs of pursuing the patent. He, with the parent of one of the subjects of his study (the father of subject 10), authored a business plan for the commercialization of the transfer factor as a vaccine.

    From the business plan (bold for emphasis):

    The strategic goal for the venture will be to achieve full regulatory approval for the use of antigen (infectious agent) specific transfer factors in a variety of clinical conditions where existing treatment regimes are either non-existent or have limited effectiveness. This strategy will permit the company to establish a clear technical and medical lead in this area with a resulting dominant market share. Paralleling the use of [transfer factors] as therapeutics will be a research programme aimed at demonstrating the value of [transfer factor] as a vaccine.

    Also from the business plan:

    This study will be done in conjunction with ‘Immuno’ a subsidiary of Baxter Health Care, in Austria using simian model systems. The efficacy of the [transfer factor] will be assessed by its ability to prevent measles specific IBD during challenge experiments. ‘Immuno’ have agreed to undertake the preliminary work with the [Royal Free Hospital] at no cost, although Immuno’s contribution is estimated to be of the order of £100,000. If successful this concept will be developed further in collaboration with a major pharmaceutical company, such as Glaxo Wellcome’s Jenner Institute. The full relationship between ISB and Immuno needs to be resolved.”

    Need I mention that the GW’s Jenner Institute is their research division dedicated to developing vaccines?

    And finally, from the business plan’s listed objectives:

    “Medium term objectives for the venture will be: 1) to take the purified and characterised measles specific [transfer factor] through formal product registration by undertaking phase II and phase III clinical trials; 2) establish the most appropriate route for the commercial development of the product; 3) develop the potential for use of [transfer factors] as vaccine replacements; 4) introduce new anti-infectious agents TFs to the company’s product development portfolio and take them through to formal product registration.”

    Can there really be any doubt that Wakefield intended to develop and market a product both as a vaccine and to directly compete against existing MMR vaccines?

  • Yes, indeed, as we shall see.

    You say you are a research biologist.

    Can you please explain to me precisely what a transfer factor is and the mode of delivery?

  • JGC

    I fail to understand the supposed relevance of how the GMC became aware of the problems with the study–does it really matter if it were Brian Deer who called their attention to the discrepancies, misrepresentations, failure to disclose conflicts of interest, etc. rather than some one else?

  • Mike Stevens

    “The bulk of the charges were the same between the men.”

    Only pertaining to the charges for individual children stating that they had been inappropriately investigated under the umbrella of the research study.
    Walker Smith was able to convince the appeal court that he had acted only in the children’s clinical interests, and that the research was peripheral to the entire exercise.
    That isn’t a charge Wakefield could ever argue against sucessfully, since as a non-clinician he was unable to direct any clinical actions, and he was clearly behind the research protocols.

  • Mike Stevens

    No, the evidence indicates it is true.

  • JGC

    The term “transfer factor” was coined by H. S. Lawrence in 1954 to describe small immunogenic messenger molecules (5000 to 6000 daltons in size) derived from blood and/or spleen cells that are capable of producing cell-mediated immunity and initiating non-antigen-specific cell mediated immune reactions such as cytokine induction. Wakefield’s patent give details of the production of his measles virus specific transfer factor and suggests it could be delivered via ingestion in capsule form.

  • Very good. Part of that answer I recognize from Wikipedia, which I think is fine.

    Does a transfer factor cause the body to produce antibodies against an antigen?

  • JGC

    Transfer factors cause cell-mediated rather than antibody mediated antigen specific immune responses. Wakefield’s patent and business plan, however, covers and states as an objective the use of his patented transfer factor as a vaccine.

  • Very good. Transfer factors will aid in cell-mediated immune responses and, in fact, the antigen isn’t even included in the capsule. Including the antigen would make no sense because that’s for an entirely different system.

    Are transfer factors appropriate for population level immunity programs? Or are they useful only in specific subpopulations like, say, those with compromised immune systems?

  • JGC

    At present transfer factors are only FDA approved for experimental use.

  • That didn’t answer my question. Assume the FDA gives approval.

    Are transfer factors appropriate for population-level immunization programs?

  • I’m not sure that analogy works? Parents sign up kids for things they have no interest in fairly often, don’t they?

  • Mike Stevens

    You are as usual correct, NDD.

    Perhaps this?:
    “To give an analogy people outside the medical field might understand, it would be tantamount to a music tutor getting 12 consecutive referrals
    from parents supposedly to teach their little angels the violin, only for the tutor to “discover” that all the children happened to be born on the 1st of January, and that the parents had wanted them to get football lessons.”

    Not perfect, but I hope that gives people the idea.

  • Sarah

    No but i’m pretty sure you might be

  • Sarah

    Just shows how smart they are, right? They don’t create the drugs, but they fully understand how they work…
    so dangerous that you’re not going to back to the doctor again, right? I’m still hoping for that true dedication

  • The High Court already clarified this point and the children shouldn’t be selected randomly otherwise it wouldn’t be a case study. See the thread between me and JGC.

  • Since you haven’t gotten back to me, I will help answer this question for you.

    The answer is “no, transfer factors are not suitable for population-level immunization programs.”

    In fact, transfer factors do not create antibodies and are thus not suitable for population-level immunization programs and can not — in any way — compete with the MMR.

    Further, though the lawyer drawing up the patent had recommended calling it a vaccine, Wakefield was developing a treatment for children already harmed by the MMR or possibly to be used with children with compromised immune systems because their systems would not be able to accept a regular vaccine and create antibodies.

    The market for this treatment is, being generous, a hundred-thousandth the size of the market for the MMR vaccine. This could not be a competitor to the MMR nor was it intended to be.

    So let’s review all the items you got wrong about this so-called “competing vaccine.”

    • you asserted that he had a vaccine that was a “single-injection” competitor to the MMR; in fact, it was a transfer factor in capsule form (it’s basically a nutritional supplement) (This one you even claimed was “established fact, Jeff.”)
    • though it was called a “vaccine” in the patent, it is actually a sort of nutritional supplement taken orally that is designed for children with compromised immune systems; it was never a competitor to the MMR and biologically couldn’t be.

    This is what I mean by you are reading too much Deer. He was told the distinction above and chose not to include it in his story because it didn’t serve his purpose of defaming Wakefield. He had a hatchet job to do and leaving out key points is how you do these things.

    So far you have been accusing Wakefield of being a liar and having a competing interest (to get rich, not likely with a market as small as that of a transfer factor). Neither of which are true.

    How many people have you told these falsehoods to? A rough estimate is fine.

  • AutismDadd

    You can’t be both pretty sure and claim I might be too.

  • Mike Stevens

    I’ve been a contibutor to that thread. I suggest you read what I said about referrals from primary care and how these would be regarded as “unselected”, or in other parlance, rather a random process.

    Wakefield stated the case series was on “consecutively referred” children, lending credence to the notion that the problem he was trying to invent was one which was common. Yet we now know that he engineered many of these referrals himself, so they were not “unselected” but had been “preselected”. And we all know why as well.

  • Yes, because that’s how you make a case series.

    This was not an analytic study. That is the mistake you are making. Case series are *supposed* to group together cases with similar symptoms. There is nothing nefarious here. It is your misunderstanding of what a case series is.

    JGC now understands this but it seems that you still do not.

  • Ron Roy

    No they don’t they’re clueless about the bad reactions that could be caused by drugs or vaccines.

  • Ron Roy

    Well as long as were going to bring grammar into this: “I’m treat patients as an RN, so I think I’ve read the inserts. And know how I will handle my children, thanks for your concern. I’m treat? We all make grammatical mistakes Sarah.

  • Mike Stevens

    Why did Wakefield describe the cases as “consecutively referred”, when we know they were not.
    By that phrase he directly implies the cases were unselected, and taken one after the other as referrals came in.

  • Sarah

    Oops auto correct will get ya sometimes

  • Sarah

    Oh, okay.

  • Forget everything you just wrote and read section 157 of the High Court Mitting decision and you will understand.

  • AutismDadd

    You sure did. Sarah is hilarious in her naive little way.

  • AutismDadd

    We’d have to crawl to find you under those rocks

  • AutismDadd

    Did you hear? Michael Buble’s 3 year old son has cancer? Imagine why he would at that age.

  • AutismDadd

    I guess watching a child change isn’t something you’d recognize. Others can.

  • AutismDadd

    You in the medical field is frightening.

  • AutismDadd

    Sarah doesn’t understand how bullies work. The Pharmafia is a group of bullies like any Mafia. It bribes, threatens and more. It blackmailed the USA for protection in 1986

  • Ron Roy

    Vaccines!

  • sabelmouse

    that’s what i thought.

  • sabelmouse

    many people don’t. i avoid then like the plague. being chronically ill has given me plenty of experience with them.

  • sabelmouse

    but ain’t it a cute picture. more appropriate for a dating site maybe.

  • AutismDadd

    Almost everyday we hear about children with cancer. It couldn’t be any sadder. I don’t know if its brain cancer or blood cancer.

  • AutismDadd

    Of course. Blood cancer, bone marrow, brain? Not sure, but most likely. Now if only Dad would tweak in and support vaccine safety.

  • 655321

    Not sure NDD is human

  • AutismDadd

    Give NDD an MMR and see if there’s regression

  • AutismDadd

    Bee yuk buc buc

  • AutismDadd

    Of course the perpetrators have the COINCIDENCE Theory to prove it all.

  • 655321

    There is no way to prove that getting punched in the eye causes a black eye either. Just no way.

  • ciaparker2

    OK, now we’re cooking. Vax Truth should be safe.

    You’ve missed the many comments in which IF and Z have bragged about their position as Disqus moderators and have explained how you too can become a D moderator? It’s easy! You’ve missed the show-off displays of Take that! and a dozen inoffensive comments are wiped off at once? Missed Cap’n J’s shout-out to Team Goat-e (I wouldn’t have thought this was a taboo word, but may be wrong) to harass those on the attached list? Missed Z’s reproducing that shout-out in many of his comments? Missed the fake Twitter accounts which Z created for at least four of us online (one of which was h–d c p-n)?

    Are you aware of the type of harassment the team was summoned to submit me to in obedience to the shout -out?

    I’m having to move to a safe site because the first one
    was flickering in and out and blocking my comments before I even hit Reply. Who do you think could be on the moderating board? How heartening that so many client sites have had enough of the shenanigans of corrupt D moderators and are pulling out! Could it be true that crime doesn’t pay? Just kidding!
    What happened to your tricolore? France needs your support more than ever now!

  • Mike Stevens

    Links or it didn’t happen, Cia.

  • ciaparker2

    Remind me whose side you’re on again?

  • Mike Stevens

    The side of truth and knowledge.

  • ciaparker2

    that’s right, nail it down Gosh darn it!

  • Mike Stevens

    Spats among other posters I try and steer clear of.
    Disputes between other posters about upvoting, blocking or flagging is pretty small beer, Cia, compared to your claims.

  • Mike Stevens

    Trust you antivax idiots to scramble onto the back of the wrong horse shouting “Look at the clowns!!”.

    It sounds to me like Buble’s son has a lymphoma. That’s just my opinion. We don’t have sufficient information to say anything for certain.
    Lymphoma (and leukaemias btw, which was the other possible diagnosis) are caused by natural infections.
    Vaccines are not the cause.

  • You should actually read the High Court’s writing on this matter. You are still confused. You are misunderstanding what “consecutively referred” means (as the High Court points out the GMC did)

  • AutismDadd

    No the point is they have no evidence showing vaccines prevent illness. They simply state they do.

  • AutismDadd

    So FILTER the reports. WOW genius!!!

  • AutismDadd

    The disclaimer does a disservice to all except vaccine promoters, which it protects. Its pointless to collect reports for no reason. The reason is to appear to be acting. The disclaimer is contrary to what VAERS purports to be.

  • AutismDadd

    We’ll need a citation from an independent source, not MERCK’S (synonymous with consumer death) numbers.

  • AutismDadd

    Two outbreaks, one USA one Canada. 375 children ZERO deaths. ALL completely recovered. You can come out from under the bed now.

  • AutismDadd

    That was a debate. GMC decided to convict long before the trial started. So tell us about Brian Deer writing for the British Medical Journal during this trial. You know the BMJ that is run by the General Medical Council and LARGELY funded by MMR makers GlaxoSmithKline and MERCK (synonymous with consumer death).

  • AutismDadd

    What are you even saying? The gray area between treatment and research was so skewed it was not discernible. Wakefield was convicted by the GMC through collusion and its conclusion, forgone.

  • AutismDadd

    What about Simon Murch? Found not guilty of everything. So why was he charged?

  • AutismDadd

    Lame. Wakefield was railroaded. Walker Smith’s conviction was labelled by Mitting as unlawful. Kangaroo Court closed.

  • AutismDadd

    Wrong

  • AutismDadd

    Why should he need to inform anyone he applied for a patent for his employer Royal Free Hospital? And is wasn’t a single injection vaccine it was oral Transfer Factor. Get your lies straight. Show us Wakefield’s contract with these lawyers. There’s no way either would act w/o one. And the check and Wakefield’s bank documents and Income tax statement he received that $ personally and not as an employee.

  • AutismDadd

    He received money for being what kind of government witness?

  • AutismDadd

    Hilarious. Biased information at its finest.

  • Chi Ngai Chan

    You know that a disease doesn’t have to kill to cause hardship, right? If a child is sick with measles, or mumps they will suffer the symptoms of that illness. A parent will have to stay at home to look after the sick child and if they are not well off it could put them under financial pressure.

    In public health you cannot just consider one narrow interest group. You can certainly make a strong case about drug companies being greedy but subscribing to these conspiracy theories about vaccines won’t help your case. A lot of smart people spent their lives doing the science and developing medicines and it is arrogant to think that you know more then them just because you read a few blogs on the Internet with their own agenda.

  • AutismDadd

    Above you claimed it was a single dose injection measles vaccine. Now you claim something else. That’s a hit to credibility. So a treatment and a vaccine huh? Garbage. People please read JGC’s business plan. Look for where its criminal to develop treatments that further science. Look for where it states its meant to replace the MMR. I mean the nerve of Wakefield wanting to develop a diagnostic tool and a treatment for measles. I guess Paul Offit should be stripped of his medical licence too.

  • AutismDadd

    The claims that there was a conspiracy are ludicrous and nothing but Deer’s speculation.

  • AutismDadd

    Who cares what you say. It was known Deer wrote about Wakefield, but why did he? And why was he involved when he had no medical education or actual experience. His word was taken over 13 trained and experienced medical professionals? For what reason?

  • AutismDadd

    They are not fact, they are speculation. Provide us with the charges exclusively leveled against Simon Murch and Walker -Smith

  • AutismDadd

    OMG NO!!!! Hey what happened to the single dose measles vaccine injection you claimed Wakefield was patenting?

  • AutismDadd

    Easy. Deer was paid by the British Medical Journal to attend the trial…WHY? The BMJ is operated by the General Medical Council. The BMJ is largely funded by MMR makers GSK and MERCK (synonymous with consumer death). Connect the dots Sherlock.

  • AutismDadd

    Well here we have the person who knows every detail asking me for documentation. Well maybe you only know part of the tale, the one the public was fed through Rupert and James Murdoch. Is it accurate JGC that James Murdoch was subsequently appointed to the board of GSK the MMR maker?

  • AutismDadd

    You have provided speculation. The fact Murch and Walker Smith were found innocent speaks volumes about the legality of the whole issue.

  • AutismDadd

    Established by who? Who accused him?

  • AutismDadd

    Its speculation not evidence. It only appears to be evidence after the unlawful conviction which supports the lies. Men have been convicted of murders only to be exonerated later. This is no different. And Walker Smith shows the perfect example.

  • AutismDadd

    GMC kangaroo court ruling.

  • AutismDadd

    So you argue against yourself. There is a grey area between treatment and research. So to claim a definite is simply arbitrary.

  • AutismDadd

    Explain how you can treat children w/o investigation. Their conditions were a mystery. You expect treatment to take place w/o testing?

  • AutismDadd

    Wakefield’s medical Insurance supplier would not pay. They saw an opportunity to save $$, plus who knows what other collusion was afoot.

  • AutismDadd

    You have a real talent for misrepresenting the facts. Wakefield did NOT make a choice. And if Mitting failed to examine evidence as you suggest that’s his bad. He seem thorough and its more speculation that he failed to view all evidence in such a high profile case. One has to wonder why Mitting wasn’t instructed to uphold the GMC ruling.

  • AutismDadd

    Prove Wakefield chose them. They were referred by their physicians. So that’s random.

  • AutismDadd

    A preferred conclusion? How can you randomly select children suffering from a severe illness their physicians could do nothing about? Are there physicians part of the plan to replace the MMR? The fact numerous doctors referred them was random enough.

  • AutismDadd

    You are wrong. Time to admit it.

  • AutismDadd

    The group was randomly selected through referral let it sink in.

  • AutismDadd

    So you accuse the referring physicians of collusion and complicity along side Wakefield et al.

  • AutismDadd

    Mike’s parents should have signed him up for lessons in logic.

  • AutismDadd

    Give it up Mike

  • AutismDadd

    So a medical professional get several referrals and wants a larger group to study…so he’s a criminal right Mike?

  • AutismDadd

    OK MIKE enough multi-tasking. You are showing you are petty, and dense and unwilling to stop beating a dead horse.

  • AutismDadd

    That’s quite optimistic of you.

  • AutismDadd

    I have a vaccine damaged child. For 20 years I’ve looked after him. I don’t need your stupid lecture.

  • Mike Stevens

    I know perfectly well what Mitting thought about the term “consecutively referred”. He wrongly assumed it merely meant that the cases were not referred in a “single bunch”.
    His meaning is rather shallow, and shows superficial reasoning, IMO!

    In the context of medical outpatient referrals to a specialist clinic, the term “consecutive referrals” would apply to a series of consecutively referred patients, these referrals being received one after the other.

  • Chi Ngai Chan

    I’m sorry to hear that. But you kept coming back for a debate. The sad fact that you have a vaccine damaged child still doesn’t change science or invalidate the experts. It sounds very heartless but that is life. In the future there maybe a test to see if a child will suffer from vaccines injury but no one will research it if vaccine injury is so tied up with conspiracy theories rather than a legitimate scientific question.

  • sabelmouse

    yup.

  • Perhaps. But Reasons you folks have your knickers in a knot is because you think:
    A) this was an analytic study rather than a case series; a case series is allowed to pick its cases; this picking of cases, you would say, skews the results — but this is only an issue if the study is analytic, and it’s not; this fundamental error by the GMC leads to several errors Mitting has to clear up
    B) the judge points out that the paper elsewhere clearly says these were not routine referrals

  • Lol

  • Mike Stevens

    The term “consecutive” is merely one of dozens of errors and fraudulent pieces in Wakefield’s paper.
    Whether case series or not, the facts don’t change… He was guilty of serious professional misconduct, lost his medical license, and the paper found to be fraudulent.

    That’s why you guys have your knickers in a twist, and make specious claims about what Mitting said about the word “consecutive”, as though that exonerates Wakefield from his above crimes and misdemeanours. It’s you guys who are doing the squealing, not us.

    PS. Of course the referrals were not routine, many were solicited by Wakefield himself, to boost the numbers to fraudulently add to his “case series”!

  • Naw, from “consecutive referrals” to “unindicated treatments” to “competing vaccines,” one by one your arguments are failing.

    JGC seems to have disappeared after I pointed out the second error he has been promulgating likely for years: that Wakefield had a “single-injection competitor to the MMR” (his words) and that a transfer factor can be used in a population-level immunization program.

    Do you still tell people Wakefield had a competing vaccine, Mike?

  • AutismDadd

    Its not tied up in conspiracy theories, that’s what the perpetrators want sheeple to believe. If you had the slightest ability to think outside the box you’d recognize there has much manipulation of the issue including the blanket protection of government, the VAERS disclaimer and the narrow definitions and cut offs of the NVICP.

  • AutismDadd

    Yawn. The same old blah blah from Mike

  • AutismDadd

    You are not Mitting. Mitting is a judge. What he thought was legal and binding. Mike Stevens has no say in it.

  • AutismDadd

    Bull. Mike’s OPINION is not evidence. Just do a search, you’ll see Mike has ZERO credibility.

  • JGC

    It wasn’t, however.

  • JGC

    I have in another post already agreed that there’s a way to construe a different interpretation for the word consecutive, which although not standard use in scientific publications would suggest the author’s did not intend to misrepresent the selection method, and have therefore revised my position such that I will no longer identify this as one of the several fraudulent claims in the 1998 lancet article.
    Try to keep pace.

  • JGC

    Wakefield et al did not however choose all children referred by physicians who met the criteria of the study: he cherry-picked the 12 children who would best allow him to create the impression of a causal association between an ‘environmental trigger’ (i.e., MMR vaccination and ASD’s.

  • JGC

    Wakefield DID make a choice: he had the option to appeal the GMC ruling, as did Walker Smith, and chose not to appeal.

    “One has to wonder why Mitting wasn’t instructed to uphold the GMC ruling.”
    Only if one is a conspiracy theorist who believes “big pharma” or some equivalent cabal controls the British Court system.

  • JGC

    As the subjects were referred for study, not for treatment, and not only did Wakefield not have IRB approval to treat patients but Wakefield’s conditions of employment at the Royal Free Hospital stipulated he was not authorized to clinically manage cases–only to do conduct research–I would expect treatment not to take place as a part of the study.

  • JGC

    There is no gray area between treatment and research, AD.

  • JGC

    Have you any evidence demonstrating the GMC hearing represented a kangaroo court, other than the fact you don’t agree with the court’s verdict?

  • JGC

    Accused by the British general medical Council, and established by the GMC tribunal which examined the evidence regarding his professional conduct while conducting the study.

  • JGC

    The GMC tribunal found that as while Simon Murch had committed serious errors of judgment he acted in good faith and the errors did constitute sufficiently serious professional misconduct to merit being struck off. They found that Wakefield’s misconduct did.

    Mitting found that the GMC had failed to adequately demonstrate that Walker Smith intent was conducting research rather than providing clinical treatment and vacated the GMC ruling against him. Mitting also notes explicitly in the same ruling that the GCM did adequately demonstrate Wakefield’s intent was to conduct research.
    Where’s the problem?

  • JGC

    Yes, James Murdoch joined the board in 2012. Did you have a point?

  • JGC

    Brian Deer was not paid to attend the tribunal: he’s a free lance journalist.

  • JGC

    Nothing happened to it: he filed patent application number 9711663.6, on June 6 1997. you can look it up if you’re so inclined.

  • JGC

    We can change topics to discuss Simon Murch when we’re done discussing Judge Mitting’s findings regarding walker’ smith intent when participating in the study.

  • JGC

    He wrote about Wakefield for the same reason he previously wrote about problems with studies conducted by British scientist Professor Michael Briggs on behalf of Schering Plough addressing the safety of contraceptive pill they manufactured, and the same reason he wrote about the Welcome Trust’s antibiotic Septrim leading to its recall from the market: he’s a free lance journalist who specializes in topics related to medicine and the pharmaceutical industry.

  • JGC

    Non-responsive: I’ll repeat the question.

    What do you believe to be the single strongest, most credible and compelling piece of evidence that Wakefield’s 1998 Lancet paper did not constitute scientific fraud?

  • JGC

    Not a single dose vaccine, but a monovalent vaccine as an alternative to the trivalent Measles, Mumps, rubella vaccine. Forgive me if I have been unclear.

  • JGC

    Demonstrate the bias you claim exists, please.

  • JGC

    Because he lacked the authority to apply for a patent on anyone’s behalf but his own.
    Wakefield’s patent and business plan covered the use and stated the intention to collaborate with the Jenner Institute to develop the transfer factor for use as a vaccine.

  • JGC

    AD, these were established as fact at the GMC tribunal.

  • JGC

    Walker-Smith’s ruling was vacated because Mitting found the GMC had not accurately demonstrated one finding: that his intent was to conduct research. No such finding was found with respect to Wakefield–in fact, Mitting states in his ruling that there can be no doubt Wakefield’s intent was to conduct research– and the ruling against Wakefield stands.
    It will stand forever, as Wakefield elected not to appeal.

  • JGC

    Murch was found guilty of committing serious errors of judgment by the GMC, but which were sufficiently serious to warrant being struck off.

  • JGC

    “GMC decided to convict long before the trial started.”
    Your evidence that the GMC decided the outcome of the proceedings prior to the start of the tribunal would be what, exactly?
    Brian Deer is a freelance journalist, who writes for whoever is willing to pay him to publish his articles. he was not paid by the BMJ, the Sunday Times, or anyone else to attend and cover the tribunal.

  • JGC

    Reports aren’t collected for no reason: they’re collected to provide early warning of possible adverse events causally associated with vaccination.
    But because the VAERS system is deliberately designed to provide early warning, it collects ALL reports of adverse consequence following vaccination without regard for whether or not they are likely to be causally associated, and it collects redundant accounts of single incidents. In fact, it collects accounts where the person reporting did not see an adverse event occur but of a form like “I heard someone that someone became sterile after getting the HPV vaccine”.

  • JGC

    VAERS is deliberately set up without filtering, because its purpose is to provide early warning of possible causally associated adverse events. There are other systems in place (the vaccine Safety Datalink, for example) that employ filtering.

  • Mike Stevens

    I haven’t even got started on most of my arguments yet, angel.
    If you like we can dissect each of the 35 proven counts of serious professional misconduct that Wakefield was guilty of. Then we can move onto his fraudulent science.
    We can do it “in a single bunch”, if you like, but considering the length and severity of the charges, maybe we could just take them “consecutively”, huh?

    “Do you still tell people Wakefield had a competing vaccine, Mike?”
    Well I don’t tell people that – Wakefield was telling people that.
    As you know, his vaccine was supposed to be all things to all men, according to the patent. One of these things was as a prophylactic/preventative vaccine against measles virus infection.

    How did he put it in the patent application again?
    Ah, yes….
    “A composition according to claim 1 adapted for use as a vaccine for the prophylaxis of measles virus.”

    So, he hoped his new vaccine would prevent measles. That would make it a potential “competitor to MMR” in anyone’s book.
    If you think he meant something else, then I suggest you argue with him, not me. It may well be that Wakefield’s statement actually meant something else entirely – he always was a slick twister of words and their meaning – but don’t blame people for taking hs words at face value in the first place

  • lol, JGC disappeared because when I asked him if a transfer factor was suitable for a population-level immunization program he discovered that he had *another* thing wrong and got tired of me making him look foolish.

    The patent says one thing but it doesn’t say that it’s suitable only for a subpopulation — the immune compromised. That’s because it can’t create antibodies and it’s not designed to do that.

    The treatment could not biologically compete with the MMR.

    And I don’t have to argue with Wakefield, he says so himself:
    http://www.vaccinecourse.org/resource/video/did-you-apply-single-measles-patent-compete-existing-vaccine-2

  • Mike Stevens

    Ah… You want me to listen to him contradicting himself?

    You know what they all say about how to tell when Wakefield is lying…
    …When you see his lips moving.

    Now, shall we discuss some other aspect of his serious professional misconduct, like maybe the taking of blood at his son’s birthday party?
    I don’t mind what comes next. You choose.

  • AutismDadd

    So Vaers collects information that it has a disclaimer for. And who gets the early warning parents? And if they conclude adverse events are from a vaccine do they visit the family to apologize and to present compensation?

  • AutismDadd

    You are well versed in nonsense. Early warning that will not be used as evidence.

  • AutismDadd

    Yes Brian Deer is for hire. Obviously. GMC wanted Wakefield et al silenced. Weren’t they?

  • AutismDadd

    Oh and he was struck off according to you?

  • AutismDadd

    Mitting erred when he claimed Wakefield did research. Maybe Mitting has some medical knowledge Wakefield didn’t have, that being how to treat a unique set of patients w/o actual knowledge of what they suffered from. 13 medical professionals worked on that by running tests. I guess practicing medicine is a crime to Mitting and the GMC.

  • AutismDadd

    Wrong. They became fact after the conviction although it was speculation and innuendo in reality.

  • AutismDadd

    WOW again. So developing a treatment is another crime. Interesting. And applying for a patent….a crime. What about breathing…a crime too?

  • AutismDadd

    Prove to me anything is w/o bias

  • AutismDadd

    And later you correctly say transfer factor. So where is the vaccine? Isn’t it true there never was one?

  • AutismDadd

    Why is Deer writing about the safety of products? Where is the GMC? Deer is not trained medically is he?

  • AutismDadd

    So Mitting knows W.S. ‘s intent? The amazing Kreskin

  • AutismDadd

    And for how long was it made and used? So the MMR is no more then?

  • AutismDadd

    Shows you don’t know. Free Lance = paid

  • AutismDadd

    The Murdochs used their media to report a biased story. They also were well acquainted with Deer. Its a small world don’t you think?

  • AutismDadd

    The lies are the problem. The stretching of the truth is the problem. The fact they think children with unique medical issues need not be studied/ researched is the problem.

  • AutismDadd

    Says you. Not good enough.

  • AutismDadd

    A blind man could sense it.

  • AutismDadd

    Oh. Then why was that an issue in Walker Smith’s case?

  • AutismDadd

    WHAT? he was authorized to conduct research? EXCUSE ME?

  • AutismDadd

    Great lying. The more you practice the more you lie. Wakefield had been denied backing by his medical insurer. Walker Smith obtained funding from his. I imagine Wakefield’s insurer felt those in power would not allow him to be exonerated. And as Mitting ruled, he once again showed Wakefield was the one they were using as a scapegoat.

  • AutismDadd

    Evidence of cherry picking please. And why would he choose 12 children that had 12 different conditions? If he was researching he would narrow the focus.

  • AutismDadd

    So you screwed up. And you are admitting it. Please continue, you have a lot of admitting to go.

  • AutismDadd

    You are just a stubborn fool

  • JGC

    At the time Walker Smith appealed the ruling Andrew Wakefield was already employed as the medical director of Thoughtful House in the United states–he had more than ample funds available to continue to pursue an appeal if he chose to. Instead he chose to abandon it in December 2010.

  • JGC

    The terms of Wakefield’s employment with the Royal Free Hospital stipulated that as he was not a pediatrician he should have no involvement in the clinical management of patients.

  • JGC

    The GMC doesn’t think children with unique medical issues should not be studied or researched. They simply think the physicians performing the studies/research should adhere to professional standards of conduct. Wakefield did not.

  • JGC

    No, I don’t think it’s a small world, nor have I seen evidence of bias in Deer’s reporting.

  • JGC

    Free lance = self-employed writing on spec.

  • JGC

    The transfer factor vaccines never entered development.

  • JGC

    Mitting never claimed to know WS’s intent: he only ruled that the GMC failed to adequately demonstrate that intent was the conduct of research.

  • JGC

    Non-substantive response: I’ll repeat the request.

    Demonstrate the bias you claim exists, please.

  • JGC

    Where have I indicated developing a treatment or applying for a patent is a crime?

  • JGC

    There were the facts considered during the tribunal proceedings, not statements that became facts after the tribunal’s verdict.

  • JGC

    “Mitting erred when he claimed Wakefield did research.”
    Your evidence demonstrating Wakefield committed no scientific research during the conduct of the study reported in and subsequently retracted from the Lancet, and that the whole time he was participating in the study he was instead treating patients in violation of the terms of his employment with the Royal Free Hospital, would be what exactly AD?

  • JGC

    Murch wasn’t struck off the register according to anyone, AD.

  • JGC

    The GMC didn’t address the content of Wakefield’s Lancet article: they addressed his conduct while participating in the study.

  • JGC

    Early warning to be followed up in an attempt to collect actual evidence to consider (all VAERS reports with sufficient identifying detail to allow follow up are followed up).

  • JGC

    Public and private public health agencies get the early warning, allowing them to follow up on the reports and attempt to collect evidence of a problem with the safety of a particular vaccine.

  • AutismDadd

    Which they don’t do. It warns them to circle the wagons and get their lies ready.

  • AutismDadd

    Buh Wah Ha Ha yea, thanks for supporting my contention its done in order to head off reports that media or law firms would use.

  • AutismDadd

    That’s pure crap.

  • AutismDadd

    But he was a child treating criminal like Wakefield. He may have been involved in the crime of the century, searching for the cause of autism. Certainly hanging would be too good for him.

  • AutismDadd

    If he was treating them how was he doing research? You seem to want to say it one way then another. It shows the confusion many have with the line that is supposed to separate treatment from research.

  • AutismDadd

    Wrong answer

  • AutismDadd

    With every post. Hand slaps face, major sigh & OMG!

  • JGC

    Demonstrate that these were not facts considered by the tribunal but instead facts created by the tribunal subsequent to delivering its verdict, please.

  • AutismDadd

    bias exists. Its why Wakefield et al was attacked, they refused to conform to the Medical Mafia…oops I mean GMC

  • JGC

    Wakefield wasn’t treating them: in fact, the conditions of his employment did not allow him to treat patients.

  • AutismDadd

    Which is arbitrary. He could have said the opposite. Grey Area

  • AutismDadd

    OK so the CRIME OF THE CENTURY vaccine(s) NEVER happened. No wonder Wakefield was convicted, he did absolutely nothing. Yet his advancement of science was thwarted , his miracle VACCINE never made. and status quo lived happily ever after.

  • AutismDadd

    Thanks for agreeing.

  • AutismDadd

    And I wouldn’t expect you too given you are willfully blind and all.

  • AutismDadd

    But 10 of the Wakefield Mafia were allowed to keep doing their jobs. Shouldn’t they serve life in prison for even helping these severely ill children? We can’t have hospital staff helping sick children.

  • JGC

    Show me where in the Tribunal’s verdict they address the content of the Lancet paper, rather than Wakefield’s conduct when participating in the study. Direct quotes will do nicely.

  • JGC

    It’s not done in order to head off reports: it’s done in order to provide early warning of possible problems with vaccines.

  • AutismDadd

    But he was convicted for doing research and you sat his job was to do research. No wonder Walker Smith was exonerated. And how do you determine what a pediatrician does? They are low level like a veterinarian. Surely Wakefield knew more that a low level child vaccinater.

  • AutismDadd

    Says you. Many would say he had no chance so why deal with a corrupt system. He read Mitting’s statements.

  • AutismDadd

    same thing Mr willfully blind

  • AutismDadd

    So you claim again Wakefield was allowed to do research? And his Lancet paper was never removed or mentioned in court?

  • AutismDadd

    Once again you claim he was treating then not treating.

  • AutismDadd

    Facts were established by the very nature of the court system. Was Wakefield convicted before or after the tribunal? If he was found innocent then the charges were false. When convicted the charges are “proven” and may be assumed to be factual.

  • JGC

    “If he was found innocent then the charges were false”

    would you argue that the Bundy brothers and their followers never actually took over and occupied the Oregon Wildlife refuge at all? After all, they were acquitted.

  • JGC

    No: I’m not claiming Wakefield treated anyone.

  • JGC

    Non-responsive: show me where in the Tribunal’s verdict they address the content and conclusions of Wakefield’s retracted 1998 Lancet paper.

  • JGC

    Not the same thing at all.

  • JGC

    he had abandoned his appeal prior to Mitting ruling re: Walker-Smith.

  • JGC

    He was struck off by the GMC for serious professional misconduct during the course of that research. Your characterization of pediatricians (and veterinarians too for that matter) as “low level” is inaccurate. And whether or not Wakefield knows more than an average pediatrician is irrelevant: the GMC ruling was founded in his actions not the relative level of knowledge he commands.

  • JGC

    As none of those co-authors committed serious professional misconduct in the course of participating in the study, what would be the basis for any GMC judgment against them?

  • JGC

    Is English your first language? You seem unable to comprehend simple sentences.

  • JGC

    Did nothing, other than commit scientific fraud.
    And of course fail to disclose serious conflicts of interest
    And subject children to unnecessary and invasive medical procedures.
    And…
    well, you get the picture. Wakefield seems to have done a whole lot of that ‘nothing’ which got him struck off.

  • JGC

    Are you now arguing that Mitting’s ruling is arbitrary? If that is the case, recall, you can not argue that it somehow vindicates Wakefield as well as Walker-Smith.

  • JGC

    “Its why Wakefield et al was attacked”
    Well, I guess you could describe the medical and scientific profession as biased against gross misconduct and scientific fraud.

  • JGC

    You must be reading some other JGC’s posts.

  • AutismDadd

    No its your nonsense.

  • AutismDadd

    Wrong

  • AutismDadd

    Why not?

  • AutismDadd

    Yea OK Brian Deer…go create some more fiction

  • AutismDadd

    Yawn. You are boring me

  • AutismDadd

    Oh what is your citation showing they did nothing?

  • AutismDadd

    Blah blah. Yea language such as “serious professional misconduct” is laughable when 12 others were innocent. As if Wakefield personally did everything and the 12 others let him and NEVER reported his actions. They all were supportive until the ship began to sink and it was every person (and career) for their self. The Lancet was supportive until it was pressured by vaccine proponents.

  • AutismDadd

    Meaning what, besides DUH!

  • AutismDadd

    Willfully Blind

  • AutismDadd

    Nice dodge

  • AutismDadd

    Revisit your own comments, then edit and lie about it.

  • AutismDadd

    Are we talking about the Bundy Brothers?

  • JGC

    We’re talking bout whether or not facts are a function of legal rulings and nothing else. This seems an appropriate example of your claim, and I can only conclude that you’re answering a question with a question is to avoid having to admit “No, facts are not a function of judicial rulings”.

  • JGC

    Not editing anything: point to a comment where you believe I claim Wakefield treated the subjects of his retracted Lancet study.

  • JGC

    Non responsive again–must I continue to repeat the request you support the claim you’ve made?

  • AutismDadd

    Your lies have become so intertwined you can’t keep them straight.

  • AutismDadd

    They are in relation to guilty or not guilty. MERCK (synonymous with consumer death) may have killed as many as 500,000 with VIOXX. FACT. But they were allowed to get away with a crime against humanity because of out of court settlements. Fact. Legal rulings.

  • JGC

    But not in relation to whether facts are actually fact.

  • AutismDadd

    Yes and Deers fiction and GMC accusations were not facts, they were suggestions.

  • JGC

    They are matter of established fact. I get you want to pretend otherwise, but while you’re entitled to your own opinions you’re not entitled to your own reality.

  • JGC

    Can’t find one, huh?

  • AutismDadd

    So the report was NEVER part of the evidence? Or was it that they didn’t want the report mentioned?

  • AutismDadd

    One what? And quit lying.

  • AutismDadd

    Yawn. What a clown. practice what you preach.

  • JGC

    Wakefield subjected the subjects of the study to unnecessary and medically unjustified invasive procedures (such as lumbar punctures).

    Did the other 12 authors of the study also subject the subjects to unnecessary invasive procedures?

  • AutismDadd

    Clown they did the procedures. Do you really think Wakefield performed each and every procedure?

  • JGC

    The other authors performed lumbar punctures on the subjects? Citations needed.

  • AutismDadd

    What a dufus. You really have no idea who the other 10 were? Or what part they played?

  • Jonathan Graham

    Actually you’re avoiding the point. Even if you observe a change that does not mean you have observed the cause of the change.

  • AutismDadd

    Also doesn’t rule out a series of recent vaccines.

  • Jonathan Graham

    Great. So you agree that what the parents have ABSOLUTELY NEVER observed is the CAUSE. Which cuts your argument down considerably. We don’t need to rule it out we just need to know that the rate isn’t significantly different than chance.

  • AutismDadd

    How could they see the cause? If shot do you see the bullet? Oh well you weren’t shot then

  • Jonathan Graham

    If they didn’t observe the cause then your argument is dead. We don’t need to rule it out we just need to know that the rate isn’t significantly different than chance.

  • Jonathan Graham

    Glad to see that you admit this. So by your own words never has a parent seen a child injured by vaccines – since that would imply seeing the cause. From there your argument is pretty much dead. We don’t need to rule out vaccine injury we just need to know that the rate isn’t significantly different than chance.

  • AutismDadd

    I’m admitting you can’t see vaccines in your suffering child’s body, but you sure see them suffer. Its not about stats, its about unconscionable harm

  • AutismDadd

    I said see the cause. They observe regression

  • AutismDadd

    They watched the injection and reaction. Equals cause in many instances.

  • Jonathan Graham

    Again if the rate does not differ from chance then “many” means “almost none”.

  • Jonathan Graham

    They don’t see the cause then. They have fantasies about it, if that’s what you mean.

  • AutismDadd

    Why would I mean that, its ludicrous? No fantasy is more like you being locked up for weekend in a concession stand full of coke and chips.

  • AutismDadd

    Claptrap

  • Jonathan Graham

    Again, you can try very hard to be ignorant of probability but what I’m stating isn’t any different than the likelihoods at a roulette table.

  • Jonathan Graham

    Insisting that you see what can not be observed is probably a decent definition of “having a fantasy”. :-)

  • AutismDadd

    Hammy is twisting the facts as usual

  • AutismDadd

    Oh like Vaccine Roulette. Now your talkin

  • Jonathan Graham

    Either they observed the cause or they didn’t. If they only observed some behavior but insist they “saw vaccine damage” they are delusional.

  • Jonathan Graham

    As C. S. Lewis once said: the trouble about trying to make yourself stupider than you really are is that you very often succeed. I can see you are trying hard.

  • AutismDadd

    Wrong Ham. I’m trying my hardest to help you and you must hate when you’re wrong. Good news is that you may get wiser as you age.

  • AutismDadd

    Wrong. What most say is that after a series of vaccines, our NORMAL child regressed into autism

  • JGC

    Just answer the question asked, AutismDadd.

  • AutismDadd

    And PRESTO VAERS does what its meant to do, APPEAR as though its a crucial agency, but purposely fail to deliver unfavorable information about vaccine harm.

  • AutismDadd

    In good time

  • JGC

    Creating an ‘appearance’ is not what VAERS is meant to do: what it was designed to do is act as a repository for reports of adverse events occurring at some point in time following vaccination, enabling follow up investigations to determine the likelihood that a causal association between the vaccine and the reported adverse event exists.

  • Jonathan Graham

    In other words a set of observations indistinguishable from a situation where there is no correlation.

  • Jonathan Graham

    I don’t mind being wrong. I’ve even posted a clear set of steps for changing my mind. If there’s any someone who isn’t an idiot can believe I’d like to see it. So far you can’t deliver. :-)

  • AutismDadd

    Buh wah ha ha you can’t even express yourself. Huge hit to the credibility

  • AutismDadd

    No. But babble on

  • AutismDadd

    Then it is evidence and the disclaimer should be changed or removed. And CDC etc should investigate and report HONESTLY what they find.

  • AutismDadd

    You assert Wakefield personally was responsible for everything regarding his 1998 medical intervention of 12 children. What were the other 12 doing and why would they be considered co-authors if they did nothing?

  • AutismDadd

    Name the other 10 and describe their medical training,

  • Jonathan Graham

    Demonstrate how the words you used and only those words describe something distinguishable from chance.

  • JGC

    Your claim is that the other authors of the retracted papers performed the invasive medical procedures Wakefield ordered. Their training is irrelevant to that claim. Answer the question asked.

  • JGC

    First, I’m not asserting that Wakefield was responsible for ‘everything’ regarding the 1998 case study (case study, not medical treatment) of the 12 subjects published in and later retracted from the Lancet: I’m addressing specific actions he took when conducting that study, such as subjecting the subjects to unnecessary and clinically unjustified invasive procedures such as lumbar punctures. I’ll note again that the conditions of Wakefield’s employment with the Royal Free Hospital stipulated he was not authorized to provide medical treatment.

  • JGC

    It is evidence that people have reported adverse events which occurred following vaccination: what it is not (and what the disclaimer is there to make clear) is evidence that vaccination is causally associated with the claimed adverse events.

  • AutismDadd

    Oh the double talk, lies and denial….well yes there’s that for sure…good point!

  • AutismDadd

    Did he perform all procedures? How can they be unnecessary when he was doing research? And you claimed one of his follies was doing research, so what are you really saying? How would investigating these children be any different from any other medical intervention? I get that you are merely parroting , but try asking yourself honestly what was he supposed to do with 12 uniquely ill children?

  • AutismDadd

    What crap. Its absolutely relevant. Wakefield did not perform the procedures or make every claim or findings.

  • JGC

    He ordered invasive procedures without medical justification and in fact contrary to the interests of the subjects.

    You’ve claimed it was the other authors of the retracted paper who performed the invasive procedures Wakefield ordered, and therefore they should have been subject to the same GMC sanctions wakefield received (direct quote: “Clown they did the procedures.”)
    But to date you’ve offered no evidence that is the case. Wonder why that is?

  • JGC

    AD, I can only try to explain it to you–I can’t somehow understand it for you as well.

  • AutismDadd

    When your children were of vaccination age, did you ignore them, or were you a good, caring parent who watched there every move and action?

  • AutismDadd

    Do you need a cracker?

  • AutismDadd

    He ordered medical procedures. Adding “invasive” was just how all the bogus charges were trumped up. You are an embarrassment to clowns everywhere. I asked you to provide the names and medical training of the 10 who were threatened and signed off on the paper. Why would they have to sign off if not involved? But instead you dance around the issue and post parroted crapola.

  • JGC

    He ordered invasive procedures (like lumbar punctures) that were not clinically justified and were contrary to the interests of the subjects of his study.

    The difference between conducting research and treating patients is one of intent. Investigation has as its intent developing a greater or more detailed understanding of the subject under investigation: treatment has as its intent management and/or care of a patient, or attempts to cure/ameliorate the disease or disorder they exhibit.

    What was he supposed to do with 12 uniquely ill children? Treat them ethically and in accordance with standards of practice as research subjects

  • AutismDadd

    You are a POS. What a weasle and complete liar.

  • JGC

    By what rational argument is a lumbar puncture not an invasive procedure?

    ” I asked you to provide the names and medical training of the 10 who were threatened and signed off on the paper”
    And I previously asked you to provide evidence that these other authors performed the invasive procedures Wakefield ordered. I don’t see the relevance of their training until that point has been demonstrated.

  • AutismDadd

    Well I can’t cure your idiotic way of thinking. You are a lost cause.

  • JGC

    What you can’t do is provide evidence the other authors of the retracted lancet studies performed the unnecessary procedures Wakefield ordered.

  • JGC

    Good luck with the whole name-calling thing, as that clearly is all you have left to offer in support of your assertions.

  • Jonathan Graham

    Since parents need to sleep I’ll say that all parents do not watch their every move and action. Perhaps you want to say something not stupid? It would be a bold move for you.

  • AutismDadd

    My apologies I thought you might be a decent parent who was concerned with his young children. I was wrong to think that.

  • AutismDadd

    You are a waste of time. There will be a special place in Hell for you.

  • AutismDadd

    No I can’t and won’t buttcrack. You are such a moron you claim they did nothing. No time for stupid fools like you.

  • Jonathan Graham

    From the way you’ve defined things no parent is decent and concerned. So perhaps you should rephrase for something that makes sense.

  • AutismDadd

    No I”m good. You’ve shown your not a caring parent.

  • Jonathan Graham

    By a standard which indicates nobody is.

  • AutismDadd

    No just you. You can’t speak for others even though you think you can.

  • Jonathan Graham

    You said “every move and action”. Since all people need to sleep. It is somewhere between exceptionally unlikely and impossible for anyone to meet this criteria. Now if you want to clarify your criteria then perhaps there’s productive discussion to be had.

  • AutismDadd

    Productive with you? That never happens

  • Jonathan Graham

    Mostly because you can’t carry on a rational discussion.

  • JGC

    I’m not claiming they did nothing–I believe they did participate in the study in some capacity to have been listed as authors on the manuscript. What I am is skeptical of your claim they performed the lumbar punctures etc. Wakefield ordered.

  • AutismDadd

    Stooge. What did Wakefield do, order HIMSELF to do it???

  • AutismDadd

    Can’t with you….corectamundo!

  • JGC

    He ordered the procedures be performed on the subjects of the study. Hasn’t that at least been made clear to you?

  • AutismDadd

    So he didn’t do the procedure and isn’t responsible for errors that occurred. What is wrong with you?

  • JGC

    Wakefield wasn’t found responsible for errors that occurred when procedures he ordered were performed: he was found responsible for ordering the procedures be performed.

  • AutismDadd

    And if he did absolutely nothing to help these children he’d be a doctor then.

  • Jonathan Graham

    Except the problem is with you. You can barely write a few cogent sentences about a subject.

  • JGC

    Wakefield did nothing to help these children: the procedures he ordered were not medically indicated.

    I agree that if he hadn’t violated the GMC’s standards for professional conduct it’s unlikely he would have been struck off the register–did you have a point?

  • AutismDadd

    Point is Wakefield et al were a threat to medical consensus (and profits for GSK and MERCK (synonymous with consumer death) over vaccines. Alerting the public to the connection would cause a firestorm, which it did. His prosecution was revenge and nothing more.

  • AutismDadd

    I write what is necessary

  • Jonathan Graham

    Whatever you have to tell yourself so you can get up in the morning.

  • AutismDadd

    I get up to have breakfast

  • Jonathan Graham

    …and apparently you have to cast yourself into a little drama about how you are performing a necessary function here.

  • AutismDadd