Report Linking Vaccine To Autism Was Fraudulent, Says British Medical Journal

LONDON — The first study to link a childhood vaccine to autism was based on doctored information about the children involved, according to a new report on the widely discredited research.

The conclusions of the 1998 paper by Andrew Wakefield and colleagues was renounced by 10 of its 13 authors and later retracted by the medical journal Lancet, where it was published. Still, the suggestion the MMR shot was connected to autism spooked parents worldwide and immunization rates for measles, mumps and rubella have never fully recovered.

A new examination found, by comparing the reported diagnoses in the paper to hospital records, that Wakefield and colleagues altered facts about patients in their study.

The analysis, by British journalist Brian Deer, found that despite the claim in Wakefield's paper that the 12 children studied were normal until they had the MMR shot, five had previously documented developmental problems. Deer also found that all the cases were somehow misrepresented when he compared data from medical records and the children's parents.

Wakefield could not be reached for comment despite repeated calls and requests to the publisher of his recent book, which claims there is a connection between vaccines and autism that has been ignored by the medical establishment. Wakefield now lives in the U.S. where he enjoys a vocal following including celebrity supporters like Jenny McCarthy.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/05/vaccine-autism-study-report_n_805036.html



Color me shocked....not.

How about we leave the anti-science bullshit to conservatives?

Let's move on, folks.

You seem to have a lot of time for anti-science bullshit, not so much for having anti-science bullshit called out for what it is. And Andrew Wakefield wasn't even struck off the medical register in the UK until just this past year; it's hardly 'one more report of something announced yars ago'. When a respected journal is calling research fraudulent and a researcher a fraud, doing so in a published article, in a country with libel laws as stringent as the UK's are, when that researcher and his research form the basis of much of the arguments of well-intentioned but misguided idiots like Jenny McCarthy and the people behind the Age of Autism blog and various assorted groups of quacks, then it's newsworthy.

And it has no bearing on other autism studies being done by researchers at Harvard and the University of California, which lend support to the idea that the autism syndrome is caused by a combination of factors, including a genetic predisposition and various biological and environmental triggers -- which, in some cases, may even include a vaccination. Hence, cases like Hannah Poling.

I'm hardly anti-science, since my family is full of scientists and engineers. We also are close to people with autism, so that is an issue of concern for me. And vaccine safety should be a concern of every parent and pediatrician.

Ironically, most veterinarians are more concerned about vaccine safety than the medical establishment. The recommended vaccine schedule for dogs contains significantly fewer injections than it did several years ago because of studies in dogs and cats that showed auto-immune problems connected with the vaccines. Eventually, I assume doctors will begin to learn from the vets.

It doesn't matter what your family members may or may not do for a living; you're not them, and I've seen you defend the widely discredited thiomersal/autism link here often enough to find your claims of not being anti-science specious at best. (Also, Hannah Poling? Doesn't prove anything at all about autism and vaccines. Not a useful example, so I have no idea why you're bringing it up; the fact that a court decided that her pre-existing genetic condition may have been exacerbated by vaccines falls far short of anything like a rigorous standard of scientific proof establishing a causal link and not just an acceptance of correlation and causation by the court in the case. See here, for a start.)

It's funny that the two people I've seen calling this "old news" are the only two I've seen left defending this murderer (yes, murderer) despite all of the specific evidence against him.

or anti-vaccination. It does make me someone who keeps up on the literature, which clearly everyone here does not.

There is a great deal of ongoing research at top research centers including Harvard and UCal supporting the idea that the autism syndrome is not caused by one thing, such as genes, but by a combination of factors, including genetic susceptibility and various biological and environmental factors that combine in different ways in different individuals to result in the autism syndrome -- Hannah Poling being an example of someone with a genetic susceptibility to a mitochondrial disorder (the genes to which her mother shared but had never caused her mother to develop an illness) which was triggered by vaccines.

Continually trying to cite the discredited links between thiomersal and autism makes you anti-science and anti-vaccination. Continually flogging the supposed dangers of vaccines in the face of countless studies that have established no link, in the face of decades of reasearch that has failed to establish any connection, whilst pushing the ruling of a legal court not qualified to offer a medical or scientific opinion in the case of Hannah Poling (who has a vanishingly rare, pre-existing mitochondrial disorder and is therefore extremely atypical in any case), makes you anti-science and anti-vaccination.

I'm quite aware that you're going to believe what you want, but the fact is that vaccines have saved tens and probably hundreds of millions of lives; infant mortality is a mere fraction of what it once was, largely thanks to childhood vaccines. Does this mean that vaccines are 100% safe, or 100% effective? No, it doesn't. But the small risk of adverse reactions is worth the overall benefit. As it stands, research has not established any causal link between vaccinations and developmental disorders; the hypothetical link is a case mostly of confusing correlation and causation (signs of autistic disorders first occurring at about the age that vaccinations are given).

Environmental factors may indeed play some part. The neurological differences of true autistic spectrum disorders, however, are of such a degree and kind that they must necessarily have their origins in utero and not in some post-natal triggering event. The structural differences found in autistic brains in things like volume of white vs grey matter, size of cerebellum, hypothalamus, and corpus callosum are of such degree that they likely originate not long after tissue differentiation. Which rules out things like vaccinations.

See also more re Hannah Poling:

:sarcasm:

http://www.ageofautism.com/2008/07/dear-dr-novella.html

With regard to the science of Autism, I have no argument with the assertion that a single case does not prove causation of a generalized autism-vaccine link. What the case does illustrate though is a more subtle point that many physicians cannot or do not want to comprehend (ostensibly because vaccines are too important to even question). Autism is a heterogeneous disorder defined by behavioral criteria and having multiple causes. Epidemiological studies which have not found a link between autism and aspects of vaccination do not consider the concept of autism subgroups. Indeed, in a heterogeneous disorder like Autism, subgroups may indeed be ‘vaccine-injured’ but the effect is diluted out in the larger population (improperly powered study due to inability to calculate effect size with unknown susceptible subpopulation). I think former NIH Director, Dr. Bernadine Healey explained it best in that population epidemiology studies are not “granular” enough to rule-out a susceptible subgroup.

Furthermore, ‘science’ has not systematically studied the children who fell ill following vaccination to determine what the cause(s) for their adverse reaction was. It would follow that if you never tried to understand why a single child developed encephalopathy following vaccination—you wouldn’t have the first clue as to what aspects of vaccination you could alter which could increase the relative risk of that adverse event (whether it be thimerosal, live virus, or ‘too many’). Could the susceptibility be a mitochondrial genetic haplogroup similar to Chloramphenicol toxicity—sure it could! Why did a few Alzheimer’s patients die of fatal encephalitis following administration of the failed AN-1792 vaccine, but the majority had no ill effects (vaccine didn’t work though)?

Definition: Autism is a heterogeneous systemic disorder with primary neuropsychiatric manifestations due to complex genetic and gene-environmental interactions likely affecting synaptic plasticity early in childhood development. This new theory of Autism is rapidly replacing the ‘old guard’ dictum that Autism is a genetically predetermined developmental brain disorder of synaptic formation/pruning that is set in motion prenatally. By the ‘10 year rule of science,’ your time is about up!

Until the biological basis of ASD subgroups are better understood, further epidemiological and genetic studies regarding “Autism” causation will be relatively meaningless. We need good science to be able to address these complex issues which parallel nicely the emerging story of genetic and environmental influences in Parkinson’s disease. Perhaps some Parkinson’s researchers want to take a crack at Autism?

and it doesn't matter what Dr Poling may or may not happent to believe regarding his daughter's disorder; 'autism-like' isn't 'autism', for a start, and he very clearly is not going to be free enough of personal bias and conflicts of interest to make an informed and dispassionate judgement (there's a reason why medical journals won't accept papers by doctors using their own children as subjects for their research, weren't you aware?).

The biological basis of ASDs is strongly genetic and possibly exacerbated by environmental factors; ASDs have a heritability of 90%, which is fairly strong evidence of genetic linkage; the siblings of autistic children are 30% more likely than average to have developmental disorders.

You seem to only cite those things which you feel buttress your preconceptions, and ignore actual science where it suits you--see: Hannah Poling, whose case again is proof of nothing at all. And pointing to her father's misinformed and emotional beliefs proves nothing either; 'oh, but he's a doctor, that means he must know what he's talking about!' is a logical fallacy known as the appeal to authority.

I've posted links and citations to reputable journals; you've given a lot of personal opinion and emotional argument, at best.

Have you dared to listen to him? Watch the video I posted above.

He's only a credible source on the day-to-day activities of his child. He has done no serious science on autism, so he has no credibility on that subject.

in a position to diagnose autism, as a neurologist. Poling's Mother is an RN. Hannah also has a specialist who diagnosed her with autism and has given interviews stating as much.

Try again.

the diagnosis is made -- as it was by doctors at Johns Hopkins University in Hannah's case -- if a child has enough of the symptoms.

Also, full autism only has a heritability of 60%; it is only when you include all points on the spectrum -- including the high functioning cases of Aspergers -- that the heritability is as high as 90% (though if it were entirely genetic, as you are so sure, then it should be 100%)-- and it is full autism that is the most debilitating condition. If, through environmental or medical intervention, scientists were able to to prevent full-blown autism, it would be a monumental achievement.

But if you want more sources about connections between environmental factors, including heavy metals, and autism, here are a few. When you're done reading these, there are plenty more.


http://journals.lww.com/co-neurology/Abstract/2010/0400...

Contributions of the environment and environmentally vulnerable physiology to autism spectrum disorders
Herbert, Martha R

Abstract
Purpose of review: This review presents a rationale and evidence for contributions of environmental influences and environmentally vulnerable physiology to autism spectrum disorders (ASDs).

Recent findings: Recent studies suggest a substantial increase in ASD prevalence above earlier Centers for Disease Control figures of one in 150, only partly explicable by data artifacts, underscoring the possibility of environmental contributors to increased prevalence. Some gene variants in ASD confer altered vulnerability to environmental stressors and exposures. De-novo mutations and advanced parental age as a risk factor for ASD also suggest a role for environment. Systemic and central nervous system pathophysiology, including oxidative stress, neuroinflammation, and mitochondrial dysfunction can be consistent with a role for environmental influence (e.g. from air pollution, organophosphates, heavy metals) in ASD, and some of the underlying biochemical disturbances (such as abnormalities in glutathione, a critical antioxidant and detoxifier) can be reversed by targeted nutritional interventions. Dietary factors and food contaminants may contribute risk. Improvement and loss of diagnosis in some with ASD suggest brain circuitry amenable to environmental modulation.

Summary: Prevalence, genetic, exposure, and pathophysiological evidence all suggest a role for environmental factors in the inception and lifelong modulation of ASD. This supports the need for seeking targets for early and ongoing medical prevention and treatment of ASD.

Also:


1. Goth, Samuel R., Ruth A. Chu, Jeffrey P. Gregg, Gennady Cherednichenko, and Isaac Pessah. "Uncoupling of ATP-mediated Calcium Signaling and Dysregulated IL-6 Secretion in Dendritic Cells by Nanomolar Thimerosal." Environmental Health Perspectives 114.7 (2006).
2. Rose, Shannon, Stepan Melnyk, Alena Savenka, Amanda Hubanks, Stefanie Jernigan, Mario Cleves, and S. Jill James. The Frequency of Polymorphisms affecting Lead and Mercury Toxicity among Children with Autism. American Journal of Biochemistry and Biotechnology, 4 (2), pp. 85-94. (2008).
3. Gallagher, Carolyn, Melody Goodman. Hepatitis B triple series vaccine and developmental disability in US children aged 1-9 years, Journal Toxicological & Environmental Chemistry. 90 (5) (Sep 2008): 997-1008
4. Gallagher, C.M. , M.S. Goodman. Hepatitis B Vaccination of Male Neonates and Autism. Annals of Epidemiology. 19 (9) (Sep 2009): 651-680.
5. Windham, Gayle C., Lixia Zhang, Robert Gunier, Lisa A. Croen, Judith K. Grether. "Autism Spectrum Disorders in Relation to Distribution of Hazardous Air Pollutants in the San Francisco Bay Area." Environmental Health Perspectives. 114 (9) (Sep 2006)
6. Palmera, Raymond F., Steven Blanchard, Zachary Stein, David Mandell, Claudia Miller. Environmental mercury release, special education rates, and autism disorder: an ecological study of Texas. Health & Place. 12 (2) (2006) : 203-209
7. Natif, Robert, Corrinne Skorupka, Lorene Amet, Alain Lam, Anthea Springbett, Richard Lathe. Porphyrinuria in childhood autistic disorder: Implications for environmental toxicity. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, 214 (2006): 99?108.
8. Woods JS, Armel SE, Fulton DI, Allen J, Wessels K, Simmonds PL, Granpeesheh D, Mumper E, Bradstreet JJ, Echeverria D, Heyer NJ, Rooney JP. ?Urinary porphyrin excretion in neurotypical and autistic children.? Environmental Health Perspectives. 118(10) (2010 Oct): 1450-7.
9.Burbacher, Thomas M., Danny D. Shen, Noelle Liberato, Kimberly S. Grant, Elsa Cerniciari, Thomas Clarkson. ?Comparison of Blood and Brain Mercury Levels in Infant Monkeys Exposed to Methylmercury or Vaccines Containing Thimerosal?, Environmental Health Perspectives, 113 (8) (Aug 2005): 1015-21.

Also, here is a link to the Harvard/Mass General center. It lists other centers across the country, none of which employ "cranks."

http://www.mgh.harvard.edu/research/researchlab.aspx?id...

More on the Transcend Center:

Mission

TRANSCEND’s mission is to improve outcomes in autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs) by using sophisticated and coordinated objective measures to characterize what can be changed in these conditions.
By looking at brain problems at several integrated levels and in a whole body systems context, we aim to maximize understanding and maximize our ability to find ways to help.
By applying cutting-edge science, measurement technologies and informatics to treatment research and clinical-behavioral practice, TRANSCEND aims to minimize suffering, optimize quality of life for individuals and families, and maximize chances for individuals to reach their full potential - now.

Unique, Whole Body Approach
TRANSCEND’s partners work from a model of autism that describes a complex whole body condition with many treatable facets.

Brain as part of the body
We look at the brain not just as an information-processing computer but also as a physical organ that is part of the body.
We think that the way the brain processes sensory, emotional and social information is related to the health of the cells of the brain, which can be related to the health of cells in the body.
We think that changes in the way the brain processes sensory, emotional and social information might come from physical changes in the cells of the brain related to some kinds of physical illness in the body (especially immune problems), and not just from the brain developing differently before a baby is born.
Brain and body problems in autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders and how they develop

We suspect that the relationship of health problems and brain/behavior problems may develop in close relationship to each other.
Therefore we look at how brain and body problems develop early in autism and how these brain and body problems may relate to each other early on

I am in fact autistic. (Asperger Syndrome, diagnosed as an adult by the Autism Research Center at Emory University in Atlanta). Having as I do something of a personal interest I've read quite extensively on the subject and am quite well informed, thanks. (And nothing I've found in my own personal review of the available material leads me to believe that the mooted link between vaccinations and autism is credible; nor does anything I've seen in my own quite extensive review of the current research seem to support the idea of a postnatal aetiology for autistic disorders.

that there is a diversity of considered scientific opinion on the subject, and that many esteemed researchers disagree with your position, including those at Harvard's Transcend Center. Just because a researcher disagrees with you doesn't make him a "crank."

The reason I thought you didn't understand autism is a syndrome is because you seemed to think it was a significant distinction that the CDC described Hannah as having "Autism-like symptoms." If a child has enough "Autism-like symptoms" then he or she is diagnosed to have the syndrome. And that is how doctors at Johns Hopkins University diagnosed Hannah.

By the way, you pointed out that Hannah's father doesn't have any special knowledge of autism in general by virtue of his daughter's illness, which is true. The same thing can be said for you, by virtue of your own diagnosis. You, like me, are just one more individual who has read widely on the subject (and, unlike Dr. Poling, I suspect you aren't a neurologist). While we obviously have differing opinions about what the future of autism research will likely prove, all your current reading should have demonstrated to you that the science of autism is still under development, with no final answers on the interaction of physiology and the environment.

I have called RFK Jr a crank, which he is. What scientific or medical qualifications does he possess? Or Jenny McCarthy? Or any of the other celebrity antivaccinationists? Oh. That's right. NONE.

And anyone who's still pursuing the 'vaccine-induced autism' hypothesis is ALSO a crank, because that hypothesis has been extensively debunked and found to have no basis. And anyone pushing the 'vaccines = autism!' and citing Hannah Poling as evidence is likewise ALSO a crank because Hannah Poling had a rare mitochindrial disorder and a susceptibility to neurological damage from high fevers--and also had recurrent ear infections that cause, guess what? High fevers! That were totally UNRELATED to her vaccinations. The findings of the vaccine injury claims court, whatever they may be, are not scientific, nor are they medical. Acting as though they have any scientific or medical weight makes you a crank.

And I gave you a long list of studies by qualified researchers who are still pursuing links between vaccines and autism. All that research hasn't been "debunked." Just because you disagree with the conclusions of those researchers doesn't make them cranks -- and neither does the fact that Wakefield's work was fraudulent.

Suppose a researcher produced fraudulent work showing a link between cigarette smoking and cancer. Would that disprove all the other research out there? Of course not. And Dr. Wakefield's research has no bearing on the work currently being done at top centers such as Harvard.

Unlike RFK Jr. For that matter where did you get YOUR MD?

Qualified researchers pissing their collective efforts up against a wall is more like it, honestly, since there have been many studies so far that have failed repeatedly to find any link at all between vaccinations and autism; there has been demonstrated repeatedly to be no link between MMR and autism, the researcher who hypothesised a link between thiomersal and autism withdrew the claims after subsequent research failed to support his earlier findings, and so on in study after study.

Recent published articles in the field:







Shall I go on? There's quite a lot more where these came from.

because we aren't M.D.'s and we dare to offer opinions on the research, then so are you.

Thanks for proving my point with your links -- as I said, there is a diversity of well-considered scientific opinion on the question of vaccines and autism, even within Harvard University.

and if you're going to cite Hannah Poling as evidence of a link between vaccination and autism then you too are a crank because you ignore the other medical factors in the case in order to focus on one thing that fits with your preconceptions (which is not how science works; look up confirmation bias). You're not a crank because you offer an opinion, you're a crank because you ignore evidence which contradicts that opinion when the evidence is inconvenient. (See: Hannah Poling and the aetiology of her neurological disorders for one; see also the withdrawal of claims for a thiomersal/autism link by the researcher who proposed them, for another.)

You've ignored all the evidence of autism-vaccine links in the 9 articles I cited for you.

I also haven't seen anything in that one article that suggests a link between autism and vaccines. This 'evidence' you claim to've posted is not there. I am not aware of any credible research establishing a clear causal link between vaccination and autism; were there in fact credible evidence showing such a link it would be good news insofar as understanding the aetiology of autistic disorders. (Which seems to be: a combination of genetic and prenatal environmental factors, based on present understanding.)

Here, in this very thread. Nine in addition to the one you mentioned.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=123229&mesg_id=126566

I could provide you with many more -- and I will, if you insist. But what is the point, since you've already made up your mind -- even while researchers across the country are continuing their work on the links between autism and environmental factors, including vaccines and heavy metals. Why should they bother? Laypeople like you apparently already know what the answer will be.

You're making the claim; back it up.

And I already know what the answer will be as regards any link between vaccination and autism because I know the results of over a decade of population studies in multiple countries of vaccinated vs unvaccinated cohorts and differential rates of prevalence of autistic disorders; the results of over a decade of studies looking for links between thiomersal vaccine preservatives and autistic disorders, the results of the replacement of MMR with multiple single vaccines in Japan; the Institute of Medicine, the American Medical Association, the British Medical Association, the autism research programmes at universities like Harvard and Cambridge, have all dismissed the possibility of any link between vaccines and autism and are looking elsewhere for potential causes. So yes, I know what the answer will be. Because the preponderance of accumulated scientific evidence and of over a decade of research looking for any link has shown that such a link DOES NOT EXIST. Whatever you personally may choose to believe.

but you can look them up in any medical library. I gave you all the information you would need to find them, as you do your "extensive research."

Why are you pretending that the autism research program at Harvard has "dismissed the possibility of any link between vaccines and autism" when I already showed you Martha Herbert's Transcend Center at Harvard where they are actively studying those links and other environmental factors?

No, the cause of autism has NOT been settled and without a crystal ball neither you nor I nor anyone else can know what the outcome of future research will be.

as well as a researcher and she is highly respected at Harvard and Mass General Hospital. What are your credentials, again? How many articles have you published?

And all those other researchers -- and they are just a fraction of those working in the field -- why are you more qualified than they are?

Also, she's highly respected by whom? (She seems to be a favourite of antivaccine nutjob sites like Age of Autism and groups like Defeat Autism Now; that's hardly a recommendation, though.) I can find no original research she's done that supports her "biomedical autism" theories, either.



By my count you tick at least five of those boxes, so far (1, 3, 4, 5, 6). Care to try for the other three?

I know that there aren't any, so good luck.

I've also not cited anecdotes without evidence (as you have done), nor have I made claims that are unsupported or contradicted by the preponderance of current medical research (as you have also done). Thanks for playing, though.

If I am therefore guilty of a logical fallacy, then so are you. Goodbye, Mr. Pot.

You said "Harvard" as though the sheer impressive awesomeness of the association means anything. (Which it doesn't.)

Since you're apparently unacquainted with logic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority#Appeal_to_authority_as_logical_fallacy

:rofl:

There is *always* a diversity of opinion on the subject...any subject. That's the exact same argument used by every proponent of pseudoscience. You can find a study on any damned thing you want.

However, the WEIGHT of scientific opinion on this subject is clear. Very few credible scientific researchers who have actually studied this area will give even a whit of respect anymore to the idea that autism is triggered by vaccines.

Why? Because the research does not support it.

It's that simple.

But do carry on... :popcorn:

are far more credible than you are.

This looked at it even closer, and found it be even more ludicrous than previously thought.

Your need to dismiss this as old news continues to show your anti-vax obsession for all to see.

nutters. Those who wish to pretend that Hannah Poling, Bailey Banks and others don't exist, are.

:hi:

Here he is clarifying Hannah's autism diagnosis - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxfgqsZ8BV0&feature=related

Her Mom apparently posted here once as well. She attempted to clear up Offit's mis-representation of Poling's autism.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4420311&mesg_id=4426192

That dead horse is so old it's nothing but bleached bones.

on television to say she was diagnosed with autism. He happens to be a neurologist.

Just goes to show you how far lies travel when they're funded by big business and peddled by Paul Offit.

See Hannah's Mother's statement to DU-ers below.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4420311&mesg_id=4426192

To whomever,

It has NEVER been said by anyone but Paul Offit that Hannah has a mito encephalopathy. He says this as it serves his purpose. Go back and look where you read that and you will see his mark. I should know...I am her mother.

But you know better, right?

http://www.ageofautism.com/2008/07/dear-dr-novella.html

SNIP

Actually—Hannah has diagnoses of DSM-IV Autism (by JHU/KKI psychology) and mitochondrial disorder (by two metabolic experts). The only ‘degeneration’ that occurred (along with 6mos of total growth failure) after 18mos of NORMAL development followed vaccination and nothing else! Of course, any ‘scientist’ can obviously point out that temporal correlation in a single case never proves causation. Rule number one of pediatrics though is “LISTEN TO THE MOM.” Are 10s of thousands of autism moms over the last decade suffering from mass hysteria induced by Hollywood? Not likely.

You also noted:

“This special case - which is not a case of autism being caused by toxins in vaccines - says nothing about the broader vaccine-autism debate.”

The only thing unique about my little girl’s case is the level of medical documentation—5 to 20% of patients with ASDs have mitochondrial dysfunction. Many other cases where mitochondrial testing is WNL is because "we never looked" not because the testing would be "within normal limits." Most mitochondrial experts will tell you that the dots of autism and mitochondrial disorders are strongly connected.

SNIP

was called something else. Prudent on dad's part.

Autism is simply a collection of symptoms. If you have the symptoms, you have the disorder... unless the symptoms can be blamed on something else.

Therefore she has autism, as her father said. And the court conceded that it was most likely caused by an interaction of her mitochondrial disorder with the multiple vaccines she was given on a single day.

(Her mother, by the way, has the exact same genetic disorder, without any symptoms of it. So it wasn't inevitable that Poling would become so sick.)

do we need? We'll add Wakefield to the list of http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8628576/ns/health-arthritis/">"neutralized" doctors and researchers and continue to pay attention to children who are harmed by vaccination, in spite.

and yes, he was in fact autistic (they called him an "MR" in my day) and yes, they shot him full of so much crap I am certain that it killed him; many of which were "vaccines".

I lost a sister to the old DTP vaccine; fortunately, after several decades of use it was finally replaced by a safer vaccine. ( I'm pro-vaccination -- but pro-safe-vaccination.)

I was just crying about it yesterday when asked why I was alone at Xmas. I told them that my brother had died and that he loved the holidays and I always think of him at this time of the year. I really do hate Xmas, etc.

My late brother was only 40 years old. He had managed to get a good life going for himself despite his many problems.

I remember them experimenting on him with so many drugs and shots and stuff. That is how they dealt with autism in the 1960s. They wanted to commit him for life but my late mother would not allow it.

Thanks for your kindness. I do appreciate it so much.

We have our own sad memories associated with this time of year -- so I know what you're going through. It's hard when everyone is trying to be jolly.

:hug:

I hate this time of the year. I really do.

Usually I start to snap out of it a bit once the New Year hits but this year it isn't happening. The residue from 2010 was too much to bear in hindsight - lots of sickness. Too much of it.

Or, that his reaction was the only such reaction. :(

I'm very sorry about your brother CountAllVotes.

Religious people claim they are "certain" that GAWD healed them.

Because researchers have still not uncovered the cause or causes of the autism syndrome.

His case was not unique. He was born a healthy baby boy, normal in all respects. Then they began shooting him up with all of the vaccines and he became violently ill and almost died.

After he "recovered", he was left no longer a bouncing baby boy but a very young toddler (about 2 years old) with sudden diminished abilities to do things that 2 year olds do.

Being they did not know what was wrong with him, he was deemed a retard. They said he would never learn how to read, write nor speak much less have the ability to tie his shoes.

Most people don't know what it is like having to face and live such a reality like this. It is even more disturbing to see the person that was the subject of this mess die rather quickly and what a horrific load it was on the family as a whole for the 40 years that he was alive. :(

Wakefield is a fraud, but he's still got his fans, even here.

Sid

He's been calling Wakefield a fraud for more than a decade. :eyes:

involved in neutralizing a notable vaccine critic. And, no strawmen involved in pretending Wakefield's science, is the only science that has linked vaccines to potential brain damage. :sarcasm:

I've been offered more fake science than Wakefield ever had time for. Fuck him and the horse he rode in on. My kid has to go to school with kids possibly carrying deadly viruses because of him and his greed for a lawsuit.

Repeat, fuck him all to hell and the flakes who won't take an objective look at WHY Wakefield pulled this shit.

Full disclosure: Novo Pharmaceuticals ahs done a dandy job of keeping me on this earth. they do real honest research; insulin has been improved vastly since I was diagnosed at age 7.

Fuck Wakefield and his phony plan to sue.

was published in a peer reviewed journal, until they had to retract it for political reasons. There are many questionable, small studies on the record. Many such studies could be deemed "fraud" if like picking apart occurred.

Wakefield suggested getting a separate measles vaccine, he never suggested kids bring measles to school. Additionally, Wakefield had no impact on vaccination rates in the US. Your kids are not in danger because of anything he said ... or didn't say.

My husband is a type 1 diabetic as well. He too uses insulin, daily.

I can't even believe that anyone would defend this scumbag murderer after reviewing the evidence, no matter your take on the autism/vaccine debate.

by telling parents things like ... formaldehyde doesn't cause cancer in humans.

I'm not defending him or not. I'm saying he's not relevant.

I despise hero worship of any kind, but if makes your day brighter, you just go on. If you are willing to open you mind a bit, you might google "sdtella Liebeck" to see whay this kind of fraud tort makes me furious (Stella was NOT a farud, hint).

Not unlike many professionals around the world. I don't care for the fact that he held a vaccine patent, but so does http://www.pauloffit.com/">Paul Offit.

tried to screw his competition.

http://briandeer.com/wakefield/vaccine-patent.htm

vaccine.

It's rather difficult to believe that money only corrupts those you disagree with.

criticize the critics, for profit.

"there are no powerful, big money interests involved in neutralizing a notable vaccine critic"

What, exactly, are you trying to say?

'Cause it looks to me like you're saying money has corrupted "big pharma", and this vaccine critic is not corrupt. Despite being paid to be corrupt. His criticism of the MMR vaccine was because 1) He was making his own multi-virus vaccine, and 2) he was paid by lawyers so they could churn up some lawsuits.

His criticisms are his fraud.

on all sides, and big pharma, is certainly not exempt.

Believing in Wakefield is exactly like believing the earth is 6000 years old because the Bible says so.

:shrug:

And until the irresponsible, irrational anti-vax nutjobs of the world are shamed into sputtering their poisonous nonsense along side the purveyors of alien mind-control theories and people who sell divining rods - and given as much due - it will be, and should be, news.

He should be rotting in prison.

Disgusting.

with a child she bore, therefore it MUST be someone else's "fault." A simple mind with simple thoughts and they're all about her.

The evidence shows conclusively that he discouraged innocent people from getting vaccines in order to line his own pockets.

He is the worst kind of scum, the evidence of that is irrefutable, and anyone who defends him is as bad as he is.

rates have improved since 1998 in the US.

Editorial
Wakefield’s article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent
http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452.full

How the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed
Brian Deer
http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5347.full

where top US researchers are still probing the interaction of physiology and environmental contributers (including heavy metals) on the development of autism.

http://www.massgeneral.org/research/researchlab.aspx?id=1260

"Autism Spectrum Disorders are rapidly reaching epidemic proportions in the United States and throughout the world. While there is evidence that some of those on the autism spectrum show abnormalities in their genetic make-up, it is becoming clear that other factors are involved in the burgeoning number of cases we see each year."

It's been debunked about ten thousand times. Is it official now?

wow what a super shocker. sooooooo suprising!!!

pppfft

It kind of scares me to think of all the waves jumping around my house at this very moment!

snatch at his bogus study to try to explain why they won't vaccinate their loved ones.

No different than Fundy snake-handlers, this special-pleading silliness about being oh-so-concerned about "safe vaccines" being the reason give for not having ones kids vaccinated. All vaccines are safe: it is the diseases a person catches (and spreads) as a result of not being vaccinated that is the danger.

who chooses to avoid formaldehyde injections, given low rates of disease.