Dr. Wakefield Trial (mmr/autism Possible Link)

[Fiddle-Faddle]

You're jumping to conclusions when you state that his research scared parents into refusing to vaccinate their child. The conclusion of his research was to urge parents to use separate, individual vaccines.

If he pointed out that there was obviously an issue with the MMR, and his conclusion was to use an alternative vaccine or set of vaccines, then HE did not cause anyone to skip vaccines!

You would think that, in light of his research, Merck would have been happy to make more separated vaccines, as they could have benefitted financially, especially if using preservative-free, single-use vials.

I do not believe that his research was faked. He never claimed it was an un-flawed study, either. He said from the very outset that it was not a controlled study, and because of this, he was asking for further studies--which didn't happen, of course.

So you are taking the prosecutor's word for it that Wakefield's study was faked.

I've seen first-hand the amount of corruption and ignorance there is just in the doctor-nurse-insurance part of the equation that is supposed to equal health care in this country. My husband has seen first-hand an even greater--FAR greater--amount of both in the so-called "science and research" part, to the point where he says it's the MO of the system. If the entity funding the research doesn't like the outcome of the research, they not only don't publish it, but they hold the researchers hostage, and legally prevent them from not only publishing it themselves, but even TALKING about it. The researchers are also gagged from talking about how their results are altered by the funding entity (think of the Lipitor case that I described earlier, as that one's on the books).

Any scientist, doctor, or clinician who tries to buck the system is immediately blacklisted, has grant money taken away or refused, and is subjected to all kinds of slander and libel in order to destroy their credibility.

It's happened over and over and over. It happened with Galileo. It happened with Nobel-prize-winning immunologist Peter Duesberg after he dared to show proof that AZT in the amounts given 20 years ago was causing ALL the severe symptoms of "AIDS," and that AIDS patients were, in fact, dying of AZT.

And apparently, now it's Andrew Wakefield's turn.

[sbj]

Is it? Or is it the media witch trial they are putting him through?

Are you saying that uninformed folks are not vaccinating their children because Wakefield is being subjected to a 'media witch' trial? I understand the rest of your conspiracy theory but I'm not following that bit.

Why am I being attacked for pointing out that a special court that was created to look at the MMR vaccine and hear the pleas of 5000 parents of autistic children found that the parents could not prove that the MMR vaccinations caused the autism. My posts have nothing to do with the 'media' or the 'evil' big pharma - I am posting about a court case and faked data. There's an epidemic of measles racing through England right now putting countless children in harm's way. None of it is necessary.

[rinne]

I know it is difficult to detect the intention on net posts but I was not attacking you, I was asking is it possible, given all the factors, that his crime is speaking up and that whatever we hear in the media about him is skewed by those who are determining the dialogue.

It seems you do not thing so.

That is okay with me, we don't have to agree.

[sbj]

I was asking is it possible, given all the factors, that his crime is speaking up and that whatever we hear in the media about him is skewed by those who are determining the dialogue. It seems you do not thing so. That is okay with me, we don't have to agree.

Anything is possible. I certainly am not so naive as to think that bad folks don't do bad things when much money is at stake. I recall an earlier post wondering why the pharmas didn't simply go with multiple vaccines as that would benefit them financially. Well? That data point doesn't fit so nicely into the idea that they are only in it for the money and would gladly ruin doctors' lives and kill children to make a buck.

But I cannot defend them as I have no way of truly knowing what is going on. I did not post here to defend pharma or the media. The media has little to do with my point - the results of a trial. I have, however, done some reading on Wakefield and everything I have seen - including what I have read here on this forum (which I find unpersuasive) - leads me to believe that he faked some data and his warnings have in the overall been detrimental to his cause (if his cause is the safety of children). I am like you - I don't trust the media. That's why I research alternate sources for my information. I do the best I can and what I have in front of me, that I can trust, indicates that Wakefield was the one who was trying to make a buck.

Overall I don't give a darn about him. I hope that parents get the vaccinations their children need so that they can avoid these very dangerous childhood diseases.

[purple]

You're jumping to conclusions when you state that his research scared parents into refusing to vaccinate their child. The conclusion of his research was to urge parents to use separate, individual vaccines.

If he pointed out that there was obviously an issue with the MMR, and his conclusion was to use an alternative vaccine or set of vaccines, then HE did not cause anyone to skip vaccines!

You would think that, in light of his research, Merck would have been happy to make more separated vaccines, as they could have benefitted financially, especially if using preservative-free, single-use vials.

I do not believe that his research was faked. He never claimed it was an un-flawed study, either. He said from the very outset that it was not a controlled study, and because of this, he was asking for further studies--which didn't happen, of course.

So you are taking the prosecutor's word for it that Wakefield's study was faked.

I've seen first-hand the amount of corruption and ignorance there is just in the doctor-nurse-insurance part of the equation that is supposed to equal health care in this country. My husband has seen first-hand an even greater--FAR greater--amount of both in the so-called "science and research" part, to the point where he says it's the MO of the system. If the entity funding the research doesn't like the outcome of the research, they not only don't publish it, but they hold the researchers hostage, and legally prevent them from not only publishing it themselves, but even TALKING about it. The researchers are also gagged from talking about how their results are altered by the funding entity (think of the Lipitor case that I described earlier, as that one's on the books).

Any scientist, doctor, or clinician who tries to buck the system is immediately blacklisted, has grant money taken away or refused, and is subjected to all kinds of slander and libel in order to destroy their credibility.

It's happened over and over and over. It happened with Galileo. It happened with Nobel-prize-winning immunologist Peter Duesberg after he dared to show proof that AZT in the amounts given 20 years ago was causing ALL the severe symptoms of "AIDS," and that AIDS patients were, in fact, dying of AZT.

And apparently, now it's Andrew Wakefield's turn.

Well said!

[Fiddle-Faddle]

Are you saying that uninformed folks are not vaccinating their children because Wakefield is being subjected to a 'media witch' trial?

Folks are not vaccinating their children because they are seeing their friends', neighbors', and relatives' children go for their vaccines as healthy children and come back from their vaccines not just unhealthy, but with their lives ruined.

When my SIL's SIL saw what had happened to her child, she didn't take long to put two and two together, and she called me and said, "DON'T give the MMR to your kid, look what it did to my kid." And she had never heard of Andrew Wakefield or his research.

It was 2 days after my kid had his MMR. Had I known in time, I certainly would not have given it to him, and would have requested the separated vaccines instead.

As it is, at least I did not give him the second dose, and was able to prove through a titre that he had plenty of immunity (4 times the minimum number of antibodies). And every school year, even though they have at least 7 copies of that titre as well as a letter from the pediatrician on file (because I give them one every year), the school nurse or principal call, saying that he must have the second shot in order to be allowed to attend school. The copy I'd given them the year before mysteriously "vanishes," and I have to jump through all kinds of time-consuming hoops to satisfy them. This has happened now for 7 years in a row.

It's jumping to conclusions to blame Wakefield for people's choosing not to vaccinate. Come on, look around you at the vast numbers of kids who are having severe reactions to vaccines (not limited to the MMR). Their parents are the ones seeing the reactions, reporting it to the doctors (who blow them off and say it CAN'T be the vaccines--sounds familiar? Just like the lipitor fiasco?), and are LIVING with the devastating results.

This is what is motivating people to stop vaccinating altogether.

[JNBunnie1]

Anything is possible. I certainly am not so naive as to think that bad folks don't do bad things when much money is at stake. I recall an earlier post wondering why the pharmas didn't simply go with multiple vaccines as that would benefit them financially. Well? That data point doesn't fit so nicely into the idea that they are only in it for the money and would gladly ruin doctors' lives and kill children to make a buck.

But I cannot defend them as I have no way of truly knowing what is going on. I did not post here to defend pharma or the media. The media has little to do with my point - the results of a trial. I have, however, done some reading on Wakefield and everything I have seen - including what I have read here on this forum (which I find unpersuasive) - leads me to believe that he faked some data and his warnings have in the overall been detrimental to his cause (if his cause is the safety of children). I am like you - I don't trust the media. That's why I research alternate sources for my information. I do the best I can and what I have in front of me, that I can trust, indicates that Wakefield was the one who was trying to make a buck.

Overall I don't give a darn about him. I hope that parents get the vaccinations their children need so that they can avoid these very dangerous childhood diseases.

I'm confused. In what way did Wakefield stand to make money off of this subject?

[sbj]

I'm confused. In what way did Wakefield stand to make money off of this subject?

ANDREW WAKEFIELD, the former surgeon whose campaign linking the MMR vaccine with autism caused a collapse in immunisation rates, was paid more than

[Fiddle-Faddle]

ANDREW WAKEFIELD, the former surgeon whose campaign linking the MMR vaccine with autism caused a collapse in immunisation rates, was paid more than

[Fiddle-Faddle]

I apologize for the length of this, but please feel free to print out and bring to your pediatrician!!

The Warranty of Vaccine Safety For Pediatricians

Physician

[Ursa Major]

I copied and saved the form, in case I ever need it. No doctor in his right mind would sign that, of course, but it would sure make them realize what they are doing (at least I hope so).

[mommida]

Wakefield seems to be taking the blame for less MMR vaccinations.

People could be choosing not to vaccinate for other reasons. Religous or contraindictions from the vaccine package insert. Andrew Wakefield has not started any new religion or chosen all of the ingredients for the MMR vaccine. (To the best of my knowledge.) In my opinion he can not take all of the blame for statistics of MMR vaccination.

i.e.

Human Diploid cells (Many religions have issues with aborted fetal "ingredients")

The rise in allergies for humans in general.

[Ursa Major]

Wakefield seems to be taking the blame for less MMR vaccinations.

People could be choosing not to vaccinate for other reasons. Religous or contraindictions from the vaccine package insert. Andrew Wakefield has not started any new religion or chosen all of the ingredients for the MMR vaccine. (To the best of my knowledge.) In my opinion he can not take all of the blame for statistics of MMR vaccination.

i.e.

Human Diploid cells (Many religions have issues with aborted fetal "ingredients")

The rise in allergies for humans in general.

You are right. I had never heard of him before looking at this thread. Yet when I started doing research on vaccinations (and KNOWING that my oldest daughter got damaged by the DPT vaccine) after my youngest daughter got her first shot 17 years ago, NONE of my five kids ever got another vaccine.

And my youngest ended up being the healthiest of the bunch.

[purple]

Every doctor should have a signed copy of that form, hanging on the wall, for all parents and other people to read!

Ha...like that would ever happen

[Fiddle-Faddle]

Every doctor should have a signed copy of that form, hanging on the wall, for all parents and other people to read!

Ha...like that would ever happen

Personally, I think we should all be bringing printouts of this form to our next appointment. It would be interesting to compare notes on the reactions of the doctors to reading this.

When you think about it, they tell us to sign a form saying that we have been told of the risks--but we are NEVER told of ALL the risks. The only risks I've ever been told of are swelling, minor pain, and redness at the site of the injection. I've been told, 'if he runs a fever, give him Tylenol," but I've never been told that fever is a risk, specifically!

But what genius--make the doctor admit that he or she actually KNOWS of the REAL risks by asking them to sign a form that actually lists them!

[JNBunnie1]

ANDREW WAKEFIELD, the former surgeon whose campaign linking the MMR vaccine with autism caused a collapse in immunisation rates, was paid more than

[sbj]

Any idea what the experts for the defense were paid?

No. Do you? I'd be very interested in any facts you could bring to this discussion - other than baseless charges. So do please educate me . . .

I do, however, know that Wakefield was paid . . . Don't you find it interesting that the same folks who get irate because doctors are taking money from pharma are not at all concerend that Wakefield takes money from the law firms suing pharma?

Are you aware that there is currently a measles epidemic in England due to the large number of parents who are now scared to have their children vaccinated? Do you think that's a good thing? Are you aware that a special US court created to look at just this particular charge found that the plaintiffs could not prove that the MMR vaccine caused any autism?

I don't care much about Wakefield, bunnie, but I do care about children needlessly suffering and being put in harm's way . . . Am I wrong for that?

[psawyer]

Jerry, it is a fact that the experts who testify on court cases are vary rarely doing so out of the goodness of their hearts. The investigation takes time, and the court appearance also takes time. These professionals, like all professionals, charge fees for their services.

The phrase "billable hours" comes to mind, and it is not just lawyers that it applies to. I have done consulting work, and if I spent six minutes in the shower thinking about the client's problem, that was 0.1 billable hours.

[Fiddle-Faddle]

No. Do you? I'd be very interested in any facts you could bring to this discussion - other than baseless charges. So do please educate me . . .

Are you aware that a special US court created to look at just this particular charge found that the plaintiffs could not prove that the MMR vaccine caused any autism?

I don't care much about Wakefield, bunnie, but I do care about children needlessly suffering and being put in harm's way . . . Am I wrong for that?

#1) It is standard practice in litigation (in the US and in England) to pay medical experts (or any other experts) for their testimony. This is true for either side.

It should be fairly simple for you to find out what Merck paid their medical experts. Find out their names from court records or from newspaper accounts, and check their tax records (should be public record).

#2) The special US court stated that the results of the study on the MMR/autism cited by the defendants (Merck) was medically accepted fact; from what I've read, they made no comment on the fact that the defense pointed out all kinds of flaws with this study, including the fact that children more likely to develop autism (underweight babies, kids with family hx of autism or GI issues or autoimmune issues) were kept out of the study, and also including the fact that one of the researchers from Merck sent an email to another, stating that "you can control the outcome of the study by controlling whom you let into the study."

Somehow, the special court made NO comment on any of the plaintiff's massive evidence, and their only comment on the evidence of the defense was that it was accepted medical fact, and therefore had considerable more weight.

If that convinces you that vaccines are safe, well, feel free to vaccinate yourself! But please don't try to convince us that the special court carries any weight or deals in facts.

#3) No, you are not wrong for caring--BLESS YOU FOR THAT!

But you should care equally about the children who suffer harm from vaccines.

For example, from 1999:

Washington, D.C.

[sbj]

Jerry, it is a fact that the experts who testify on court cases are vary rarely doing so out of the goodness of their hearts. The investigation takes time, and the court appearance also takes time. These professionals, like all professionals, charge fees for their services. The phrase "billable hours" comes to mind, and it is not just lawyers that it applies to. I have done consulting work, and if I spent six minutes in the shower thinking about the client's problem, that was 0.1 billable hours.

I am making the point that we know for a fact that Wakefield took an extreme amount of money from a group of lawyers looking to make millions upon millions. We do not know for a fact about any amount that any defense experts took. That's why I posed the question - "Do you know the amount any took for a fact?" And we still don't. And you aren't providing any numbers. We do know for a fact that Wakefield took tons of money and we know that the plaintiffs in the US recently lost their case.

I think that if one is going to throw around accusations that attempt to portray the defense witnesses in the same negative light as a doctor who took money in a clear cut case of conflict of interest then it should be incumbent upon one to at least present some evidence. You seem to be implying that the defense witnesses took the same large amount of money as Wakefield or that they have the same clear case of conflict of interest. However, there is absolutely no proof of either. The amount Wakefield was paid was huge - far exceeding standard "billable hours." I seriously doubt that defense experts took anywhere near that amount of money and until someone presents facts to tell me otherwise I will not condemn them. I will not base my opinions on hearsay or conspiracy theories.

There is proof that Wakefield took an inordinantly large sum of money for the work he performed. Just as there is proof that England is in the midst of an avoidable measles epidemic that is threatening the lives of children.

[sbj]

Fiddle-Faddle - thanks for your kind response.

#1) I am not the one casting aspersions on the witnesses for the defense so I am not going to waste my time trying to prove that the defense experts were paid far less than Wakefield, or that in Wakefield's case this proves a conflict of interest while in the defense it shows no such thing. My point is fairly clear - if one is going to make inflammatory charges then one should back them up with facts. Since I am not the one making such charges then it is not my job.

#2) The special court heard the details you cite and obviously found them unpersuasive. The plaintiffs were unable to prove that the MMR vaccine caused autism.

#3) Now we are to discuss hepatitis B vaccine? No thanks - this thread was about Wakefield and the MMR vaccine.

[JNBunnie1]

No. Do you? I'd be very interested in any facts you could bring to this discussion - other than baseless charges. So do please educate me . . .

I do, however, know that Wakefield was paid . . . Don't you find it interesting that the same folks who get irate because doctors are taking money from pharma are not at all concerend that Wakefield takes money from the law firms suing pharma?

Are you aware that there is currently a measles epidemic in England due to the large number of parents who are now scared to have their children vaccinated? Do you think that's a good thing? Are you aware that a special US court created to look at just this particular charge found that the plaintiffs could not prove that the MMR vaccine caused any autism?

I don't care much about Wakefield, bunnie, but I do care about children needlessly suffering and being put in harm's way . . . Am I wrong for that?

Oh, I thought I asked a simple question, the last of which you answered readily and calmly enough. I wasn't aware that my new, related, similar question qualified as a 'baseless charge'. My mistake.

And yes, innumerable children being helplessly, needlessly subjected to injected poisons is an enormous concern for me. Autism qualifies as needless suffering, in my humble opinion.

This is a chart showing the drop in measles mortality rates long before any vaccines were available to the public.

Open Original Shared Link

Open Original Shared Link

In the Pubmedcentral article, I would like everyone to note the text that says, "Measles mortality rates were inversely related to median family income."

Also, "During 1971-75, an average of 35.4 measles-related deaths were recorded each year; one death for every 1,000 measles cases reported."

So, almost FORTY years ago, one in one thousand measles cases reported resulted in death. In the US. And these cases were linked to children whose financial situations were poorer than those of other children. I have to think our system is better able to care for them now than it was in 1975.

[JNBunnie1]

#3) Now we are to discuss hepatitis B vaccine? No thanks - this thread was about Wakefield and the MMR vaccine.

I'd like to think any vaccine that's suspected of being harmful and inneffective should be investigated by people concerned with children's welfare. Perhaps we should start a new thread?

[Fiddle-Faddle]

There is proof that Wakefield took an inordinantly large sum of money for the work he performed. Just as there is proof that England is in the midst of an avoidable measles epidemic that is threatening the lives of children.

#1) My understanding is the sum of money quoted was the sum for ALL court cases in which he gave testimony, not just one appearance.

Please remember that the media is distorting the facts. You seem bent on believing everything they report.

#2) Avoidable measles epidemic threatening lives of children? Again, you are believing what the media is spouting. Measles has always been a relatively benign children's disease; severe cases are rare, life-threatening cases rarer, and more children have been damaged by vaccines than by measles.

Rubella (the R in the MMR) is actually a more serious concern--not for the children who have it, as, like measles, it is not a serious disease, but for pregnant women who are exposed to it. Yet, we haven't heard a word about any birth defects related to a spike in rubella since the supposed epidemic of vaccine avoidance.

Mumps are also a concern, as pubescent boys could theoretically be rendered sterile by the mumps if caught during puberty, but we haven't heard about it, either.

Also, please remember that ONE MMR confers lifetime immunity on 95% who receive it, yet we keep reading in the news that children in the US MUST get their second measles shot or not be allowed to attend school.

L They are allowed to go to school without any measles shots, let alone 2. And the media never tells you that you can get a titre to prove immunity. And they never tell you that there have been NO studies showing that the 5% of kids who didn't develop immunity to the first shot eer develop any to the second shot.

[sbj]

I'd like to think any vaccine that's suspected of being harmful and inneffective should be investigated by people concerned with children's welfare. Perhaps we should start a new thread?

Is this still the Celiac Disease and Gluten-Free Forum? I suppose we can post on anything at all we'd like . . .

Bunnie - I don't understand what you are trying to prove with these last few posts. I'm not trying to upset anyone, merely pointing out the results of a court case in which the plaintiffs were unable to prove that the MMR vaccine caused autism. That fact remains and that was all I was trying to bring to this discussion.

Fiddle, I enjoyed the discussion but that's it for me! See you on another thread that has more to do with the matter that's near and dear to my heart . . .