New Autism Data

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
I don't know what timely means. It happened recently? Professor McCarthy stating an opinion on the monkey study (which gp152 pasted earlier in this very thread) is neither noteworthy or timely.

Oh, and I was incorrect about the monkey study. It was actually published in the journal Neurotoxicology (so at least someone reviewed it - Pubmed ID 19800915) in October 2009. 20 monkeys (13 Hep B vaccine with thimerosal added, 4 saline, 3 nothing) were tested regarding neurological development. Not randomized, not blinded, unequal sample size, small effect = not significant. Never mind the fact that one of the authors has been discredited and the study is funded by anti-vaccine group. Also, thimerosal is no longer a part of the HBV vaccine (why did they add it?)

I will very likely regret commenting here, but I'll do it anyway.

They added it as a preservative in very small amounts. It was taken out around 2002 or so. For the record, MMR never contained thimerosal. There was a study that looked at autism rates in the US and Denmark, where they took out thimerosal in the 90s. The autism rates in Denmark rose even faster than ours did over the same time period. Moreover, the rates of autism have not declined despite taking it out of our vaccine supply. In fact, in Denmark, autism rates didn't start to climb until they took it out of the vaccine supply. These numbers were confirmed by several other scientific investigations.

The biggest problem I see with believing the conspiracy theorist types is that the story keeps changing. First they just knew it was MMR causing autism. The CDC actually stopped and looked at it more closely and several major studies failed to show a link. The conspiracy theorists stated that the numbers (n values) used in those studies was 'too large' and hence they 'diluted' or 'covered up' the actual cases connected to autism. No point in arguing about statistics and P values, you can't win.

Then the focus turned to thimerosal, partly due to studies engineered by Mark and David Geier. Their work has been widely discreditedThere was the study out of Denmark, as well as comparison studies involving ethyl mercury, which is slightly different than thimerosal, but chemically very similar. No link. An English study of 1000 children exposed to thimerosal even showed a slight increase in IQ, but it wasn't statistically significant.

Now the story is 'cumulative toxins' resulting from a 'too many vaccines at once.' Frankly I'm tired of the finger pointing and backtracking. The time and money spent avoiding vaccines and whining about 'blaming the parents' takes away from the legitimate focus on finding genetic links and understanding patterns of emergence. What I've come to realize, is that it will ALWAYS be something else, no matter how much data and research is done. There will ALWAYS be another scapegoat or something that 'the scientific community has refused to investigate.' And with those kinds of people, you simply can't win, so I generally don't engage them.

If your unvaccinated kid ever gave my kid a preventable disease, then I will sue your damn pants off.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Last edited:
I don't know what timely means. It happened recently? Professor McCarthy stating an opinion on the monkey study (which gp152 pasted earlier in this very thread) is neither noteworthy or timely.

Timely, as in we were discussing autism in this thread and then lo and behold the headline popped up. Pretty straightforward.

Oh, and I was incorrect about the monkey study. It was actually published in the journal Neurotoxicology (so at least someone reviewed it - Pubmed ID 19800915) in October 2009. 20 monkeys (13 Hep B vaccine with thimerosal added, 4 saline, 3 nothing) were tested regarding neurological development. Not randomized, not blinded, unequal sample size, small effect = not significant. Never mind the fact that one of the authors has been discredited and the study is funded by anti-vaccine group. Also, thimerosal is no longer a part of the HBV vaccine (why did they add it?)

I haven't read the monkey study yet. I'm sure that with all the static surrounding Wakefield, any subsequent papers bearing his name will be heavily scrutinized.
 
I will very likely regret commenting here, but I'll do it anyway.

They added it as a preservative in very small amounts. It was taken out around 2002 or so. For the record, MMR never contained thimerosal. There was a study that looked at autism rates in the US and Denmark, where they took out thimerosal in the 90s. The autism rates in Denmark rose even faster than ours did over the same time period. Moreover, the rates of autism have not declined despite taking it out of our vaccine supply. In fact, in Denmark, autism rates didn't start to climb until they took it out of the vaccine supply. These numbers were confirmed by several other scientific investigations.

The biggest problem I see with believing the conspiracy theorist types is that the story keeps changing. First they just knew it was MMR causing autism. The CDC actually stopped and looked at it more closely and several major studies failed to show a link. The conspiracy theorists stated that the numbers (n values) used in those studies was 'too large' and hence they 'diluted' or 'covered up' the actual cases connected to autism. No point in arguing about statistics and P values, you can't win.

Then the focus turned to thimerosal, partly due to studies engineered by Mark and David Geier. Their work has been widely discreditedThere was the study out of Denmark, as well as comparison studies involving ethyl mercury, which is slightly different than thimerosal, but chemically very similar. No link. An English study of 1000 children exposed to thimerosal even showed a slight increase in IQ, but it wasn't statistically significant.

Now the story is 'cumulative toxins' resulting from a 'too many vaccines at once.' Frankly I'm tired of the finger pointing and backtracking. The time and money spent avoiding vaccines and whining about 'blaming the parents' takes away from the legitimate focus on finding genetic links and understanding patterns of emergence. What I've come to realize, is that it will ALWAYS be something else, no matter how much data and research is done. There will ALWAYS be another scapegoat or something that 'the scientific community has refused to investigate.' And with those kinds of people, you simply can't win, so I generally don't engage them.

If your unvaccinated kid ever gave my kid a preventable disease, then I will sue your damn pants off.

As discussed earlier, there are studies underway and more planned that will examine all types of environmental factors. Sure, genetics plays a role, but finding a trigger that results in a manifestation of a genetic predisposition would be helpful. The scientific community is investigating. Not everyone can accept that and I don't know why.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
.... The time and money spent avoiding vaccines and whining about 'blaming the parents' takes away from the legitimate focus on finding genetic links and understanding patterns of emergence....
Exactly. Some people want to doubt the actual data for wishful thinking, thus harming science through their crap, and hurting science per the need for refuting further what has already been refuted. Stupid *****s.
 
As discussed earlier, there are studies underway and more planned that will examine all types of environmental factors. Sure, genetics plays a role, but finding a trigger that results in a manifestation of a genetic predisposition would be helpful. The scientific community is investigating. Not everyone can accept that and I don't know why.

2 very simple questions:
1. How large a study do you need to be convinced of absolutely no link between autism and vaccines. just give me a number
2. If this study has been done looking directly at the issue with this number, would you be convinced that while there may be an environmental factor, that it is completely not vaccines at all in any way? or would you say that more research needs to be done? one or the other, not really looking for a complex answer.
 
2 very simple questions:
1. How large a study do you need to be convinced of absolutely no link between autism and vaccines. just give me a number
2. If this study has been done looking directly at the issue with this number, would you be convinced that while there may be an environmental factor, that it is completely not vaccines at all in any way? or would you say that more research needs to be done? one or the other, not really looking for a complex answer.

You are misunderstanding my position. I'm not an anti-vax person at all. I have 2 small children and they are both fully vaccinated. I started this thread after reading an article that discussed new CDC data on autism, only some of which had anything at all to do with vaccines, and even that portion dealt with the possibility that there may be a small subset of kids who, for whatever reason, react adversely to vaccines (an unfortunate but undeniable fact). Somehow, but almost predictably, the discussion here got spun into the old 'you're a kook because you think vaccines cause autism and you read articles on the Huffington Post written by David Kirby blah blah blah'. Lots of kids have autism; vaccines are not going to be the smoking gun here. That's not to say that, again, perhaps with further study we can't someday come to a point of predicting who will react adversely. That would be nice. But as things stand now, for anyone to say that we don't need further research into the causes of autism, including environmental factors, is ludicrous. To me, looking further into this just makes sense, and I'd hope you agree.
 
Forget other environmental factors for a second because I"m not talking about that. . I'm talking about the fact that you would like to see a good vacc v. unvacc study as you've said in prior posts and think that it would be useful. A lot of the scientific community feels that vaccines as an environmental factor has been studied to fruition and if there are environmental factors, that research would best be pointed towards other factors. You seem to think that vaccines are still among the list of environmental factors that should be looked into.

I'm trying to gather what type of study, with what number of subjects you feel would be appropriate, and what it would have to contain to convince you that the subject is put to rest and all further remaining research dollars should go exclusively to non-vaccine environmental studies.

As an aside, you seem to think that there exists a sufficient control group of unvaccinated kids for proper comparison without randomizing newborns to placebo v. vaccine. I'm not sure this is the case as if you use these pre-existing kids, all studies can show correlation, but would be unable to prove causality. (that is, observational cohort studies and retrospective case control studies).

You are misunderstanding my position. I'm not an anti-vax person at all. I have 2 small children and they are both fully vaccinated. I started this thread after reading an article that discussed new CDC data on autism, only some of which had anything at all to do with vaccines, and even that portion dealt with the possibility that there may be a small subset of kids who, for whatever reason, react adversely to vaccines (an unfortunate but undeniable fact). Somehow, but almost predictably, the discussion here got spun into the old 'you're a kook because you think vaccines cause autism and you read articles on the Huffington Post written by David Kirby blah blah blah'. Lots of kids have autism; vaccines are not going to be the smoking gun here. That's not to say that, again, perhaps with further study we can't someday come to a point of predicting who will react adversely. That would be nice. But as things stand now, for anyone to say that we don't need further research into the causes of autism, including environmental factors, is ludicrous. To me, looking further into this just makes sense, and I'd hope you agree.
 
Forget other environmental factors for a second because I"m not talking about that. . I'm talking about the fact that you would like to see a good vacc v. unvacc study as you've said in prior posts and think that it would be useful. A lot of the scientific community feels that vaccines as an environmental factor has been studied to fruition and if there are environmental factors, that research would best be pointed towards other factors. You seem to think that vaccines are still among the list of environmental factors that should be looked into.

What I think isn't all that important in this matter. Those involved in autism research...I'm talking about the mainstream researchers, not the fringe...have called for such studies. Referring your thoughts to them instead of me may have more impact.

I'm trying to gather what type of study, with what number of subjects you feel would be appropriate, and what it would have to contain to convince you that the subject is put to rest and all further remaining research dollars should go exclusively to non-vaccine environmental studies.

I recall reading that one of these studies will be looking at multiple environmental inputs by tracking families with an autistic child and monitoring the incidence of autism among other children in the family (I'm going from memory, and I read about this some time ago). So they will already be assessing many factors, one of which will be vaccine info. So I'm not sure that these research dollars, at least for this one large study, can be separated out vaccine vs. non-vaccine.

As an aside, you seem to think that there exists a sufficient control group of unvaccinated kids for proper comparison without randomizing newborns to placebo v. vaccine. I'm not sure this is the case as if you use these pre-existing kids, all studies can show correlation, but would be unable to prove causality. (that is, observational cohort studies and retrospective case control studies).

Anti-vax activists have argued that the unvax control group already exists. I have no idea if that is true or not. But you may be right about the randomization issue; that would be something the study designers would need to iron out.
 
What I think isn't all that important in this matter. Those involved in autism research...I'm talking about the mainstream researchers, not the fringe...have called for such studies. Referring your thoughts to them instead of me may have more impact.

I'm asking you and not them because you said that research dollars should go here and you felt it would be useful. If I run into a mainstream researcher, I'll ask them too. If you're gonna argue for research dollars here, at least answer the questions instead of saying "I think this is important, but I'm not gonna provide any specifics or back my statements and opinions up because you should ask someone else"
 
I'm asking you and not them because you said that research dollars should go here and you felt it would be useful. If I run into a mainstream researcher, I'll ask them too. If you're gonna argue for research dollars here, at least answer the questions instead of saying "I think this is important, but I'm not gonna provide any specifics or back my statements and opinions up because you should ask someone else"

You are asking me about the specifics of properly designing a complex research study. Although I've taken a few biostats classes along the way, I'm not qualified to give you these specifics. I'm not dodging, I just think study design is better left to someone more qualified. That shouldn't prevent me, however, from arguing for more research into an area that obviously isn't yet settled (i.e., continually increasing rates of autism). You may disagree that such research is necessary; I don't know for sure but I get that impression. You have made this about vaccines, not me. This thread was started to illuminate some new data and research projects in the direction of environmental triggers of autism. Why have we gotten bogged down in the vaccine issue? I've already stated my position on vaccination. What's the confusion?
 
You are asking me about the specifics of properly designing a complex research study. Although I've taken a few biostats classes along the way, I'm not qualified to give you these specifics. I'm not dodging, I just think study design is better left to someone more qualified. That shouldn't prevent me, however, from arguing for more research into an area that obviously isn't yet settled (i.e., continually increasing rates of autism). You may disagree that such research is necessary; I don't know for sure but I get that impression. You have made this about vaccines, not me. This thread was started to illuminate some new data and research projects in the direction of environmental triggers of autism. Why have we gotten bogged down in the vaccine issue? I've already stated my position on vaccination. What's the confusion?

The confusion is that you give absolutely no end-point. It means that no matter what research is done, you can still go back to "it's not proven yet and needs more research" argument. How am I to know that you are into actual scientific inquiry as opposed to into finding proof for your beliefs even if none exists? Someone in the latter camp would never accept conclusive results that go against your beliefs as conclusive

The point is that these very people (such as McCarthy) will never believe a study disproving vaccine-causes are the ones who keep forcing research dollars in that very direction. And nothing can be done because absolutely no one in this position can say "enough is enough" until their belief is proven.

So to everyone who supports research dollars going in that direction I will ask "how can it be proven to you"?

Reminds me of the Chappelle Show script trying to convince a blackman that R Kelly was guilty of watersports with an underage girl:laugh:
 
The confusion is that you give absolutely no end-point. It means that no matter what research is done, you can still go back to "it's not proven yet and needs more research" argument. How am I to know that you are into actual scientific inquiry as opposed to into finding proof for your beliefs even if none exists? Someone in the latter camp would never accept conclusive results that go against your beliefs as conclusive

The point is that these very people (such as McCarthy) will never believe a study disproving vaccine-causes are the ones who keep forcing research dollars in that very direction. And nothing can be done because absolutely no one in this position can say "enough is enough" until their belief is proven.

So to everyone who supports research dollars going in that direction I will ask "how can it be proven to you"?

Reminds me of the Chappelle Show script trying to convince a blackman that R Kelly was guilty of watersports with an underage girl:laugh:

You're right that there will always be a camp, particularly those with strong emotional attachments, that will never be satisfied. And we should go with the preponderance of the evidence, provided there is enough evidence upon which to go. I personally lack the expertise in the autism literature (as I've stated before) to state whether the evidence is complete enough yet. For the 19th time, though, the point of my original post was to point out that those who are expert in the autism literature feel that there is more to learn. why else would they be designing, approving and funding these studies? And keep in mind, vaccines aren't the prime focus of these studies. Please read that last sentence again before firing back that this is all about vaccines.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/opinion/25kristof.html

Just out this week. A new study suggests environmental toxins relate to autism (and perhaps cancer and other things). Substances such as phthalates don't get much play in medicine (actually the whole issue of toxins has been all but ignored), but this topic is finally gaining momentum as a potential contributor to disease.

It still astonishes me that some folks see this line of investigation as wasteful and unnecessary.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/opinion/25kristof.html

Just out this week. A new study suggests environmental toxins relate to autism (and perhaps cancer and other things). Substances such as phthalates don't get much play in medicine (actually the whole issue of toxins has been all but ignored), but this topic is finally gaining momentum as a potential contributor to disease.

It still astonishes me that some folks see this line of investigation as wasteful and unnecessary.
Who say that it is?
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/opinion/25kristof.html

Just out this week. A new study suggests environmental toxins relate to autism (and perhaps cancer and other things). Substances such as phthalates don't get much play in medicine (actually the whole issue of toxins has been all but ignored), but this topic is finally gaining momentum as a potential contributor to disease.

It still astonishes me that some folks see this line of investigation as wasteful and unnecessary.
I don't think anyone said that environment had nothing to do with autism at all. People have been saying that there's no link at all between vaccination and autism.

It's not wasteful to look at environmental contributors to autism. It is extremely wasteful to continue pouring money into researching a link between vaccination and autism when so many studies have shown there to be no link. This latter part is what people are against.

So you see, there's a difference there. It still astonishes me that people want to waste money on the same topic even though more than enough data already exists.
 
I don't think anyone said that environment had nothing to do with autism at all. People have been saying that there's no link at all between vaccination and autism.

It's not wasteful to look at environmental contributors to autism. It is extremely wasteful to continue pouring money into researching a link between vaccination and autism when so many studies have shown there to be no link. This latter part is what people are against.

So you see, there's a difference there. It still astonishes me that people want to waste money on the same topic even though more than enough data already exists.

My position on this is clear.
 
It was your post. Don't you remember what you post?

You didn't highlight the portion of my post to which your were referring. Your question could have referred to a couple of things.
 
You didn't highlight the portion of my post to which your were referring. Your question could have referred to a couple of things.
The WHOLE POST!!!!!! sheesh. :rolleyes:

And no, the only point there can be comment to is the last line. Common linguistic capabilities here, Facet. Stop fudging and obfuscating, it is lame.
 
The WHOLE POST!!!!!! sheesh. :rolleyes:

And no, the only point there can be comment to is the last line. Common linguistic capabilities here, Facet. Stop fudging and obfuscating, it is lame.

Are we going to go through this again? I'll save time by referring you back to Post #76.

(Caution: this post is rated an 8 on the RGB Scale*) :boom:


*RGB Scale: Regnvejr Gasket-Blowing Scale. A rating of 8 suggests wearing of hardhat and proper eye protection. Large red letters likely to appear.
 
Vaccine Court rules no link between autism and thimerosal in MMR:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1218720720100312

That's misleading (and the article is confusing about it). There was NEVER thimerosal in the MMR vaccine. People went after thimerosal which was present in other vaccines after the CDC started investigating MMR and found no link. The antivax idiots love to keep moving the goal posts.

Hopefully, however this ruling can allow people to look elsewhere for triggers.
 
I wouldn't count on it. People get attached to their misconceptions.

Here's the reaction of Jenny McCarthy's site to the Lancet's retraction of the Andrew Wakefield paper:

The retraction from The Lancet was a response to a ruling from England's General Medical Council, a kangaroo court where public health officials in the pocket of vaccine makers served as judge and jury. Dr. Wakefield strenuously denies all the findings of the GMC and plans a vigorous appeal.
 
I wouldn't count on it. People get attached to their misconceptions.

Here's the reaction of Jenny McCarthy's site to the Lancet's retraction of the Andrew Wakefield paper:

And they said worse stuff than that.

It's just sad and ironic that they (Jim Carrey has apparently aligned himself with her beliefs) are literally costing children their health and lives in a vain effort to help them.
 
When their belief becomes their religion, then it doesn't matter what the contrary evidence is. It begins to look like a delusion.
 
90 minute interview with Dr. Andrew Wakefield:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/04/10/wakefield-interview.aspx

Most of you will likely not listen to this interview (it's in ten 9-minute segments). But I found it interesting so I've linked to it. At the very least, the guy is well trained and extensively published. And he is clearly not anti-vaccine but pro vaccine safety.

Dr. Wakefield states in the interview that he has challenged Dr. Paul Offit to a public debate anytime, anywhere. That would be interesting to see.
 
90 minute interview with Dr. Andrew Wakefield:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/04/10/wakefield-interview.aspx

Most of you will likely not listen to this interview (it's in ten 9-minute segments). But I found it interesting so I've linked to it. At the very least, the guy is well trained and extensively published. And he is clearly not anti-vaccine but pro vaccine safety.

Dr. Wakefield states in the interview that he has challenged Dr. Paul Offit to a public debate anytime, anywhere. That would be interesting to see.

Seriously? Wakefield? His paper on autism and vaccinations has caused immeasurable damage to children worldwide. 10 of the 12 authors published retractions of the paper's conclusion, and it was later withdrawn from the Lancet, an almost unprecedented step, which speaks to just how flawed the research was. His study had serious methodological flaws. In conducting the research he unethically subjected patients to colonoscopies, colon biopsies, and lumbar punctures which were not medically indicated. None of the research was cleared by any ethical review board, though he falsely claimed it had been. He paid children at his child's birthday for blood samples to include as controls in his research. He had serious financial conflicts of interest which he failed to disclose. Unsurprisingly, no one was ever able to duplicate his results. He is no longer even a licensed physician.

After the publication of the paper, vaccination rates in the UK plummeted leading to serious outbreaks of measles and rubella. The damage he caused didn't stop there. He is the champion of the anti-vaccine movement in the US and abroad which has led to millions of undervaccinated children and millions in misdirected funding for autism research. This campaign has encouraged parents worldwide to distrust their pediatricians and medicine in general and to avoid vaccination.

I would love to see a debate between this clown and Offit. Offit would wipe the floor with him.
 
Seriously? Wakefield? His paper on autism and vaccinations has caused immeasurable damage to children worldwide. 10 of the 12 authors published retractions of the paper's conclusion, and it was later withdrawn from the Lancet, an almost unprecedented step, which speaks to just how flawed the research was. His study had serious methodological flaws. In conducting the research he unethically subjected patients to colonoscopies, colon biopsies, and lumbar punctures which were not medically indicated. None of the research was cleared by any ethical review board, though he falsely claimed it had been. He paid children at his child's birthday for blood samples to include as controls in his research. He had serious financial conflicts of interest which he failed to disclose. Unsurprisingly, no one was ever able to duplicate his results. He is no longer even a licensed physician.

After the publication of the paper, vaccination rates in the UK plummeted leading to serious outbreaks of measles and rubella. The damage he caused didn't stop there. He is the champion of the anti-vaccine movement in the US and abroad which has led to millions of undervaccinated children and millions in misdirected funding for autism research. This campaign has encouraged parents worldwide to distrust their pediatricians and medicine in general and to avoid vaccination.

I would love to see a debate between this clown and Offit. Offit would wipe the floor with him.

He addresses all of this in the interview. Offit hasn't responded. And I'm not Wakefield's PR rep.
 
He addresses all of this in the interview. Offit hasn't responded. And I'm not Wakefield's PR rep.

Of course he hasn't. Debating Wakefield would only legitimize him. No reason for Offit to do it.
 
Of course he hasn't. Debating Wakefield would only legitimize him. No reason for Offit to do it.

Hearing him discuss his training (GI surgeon) and his early research focus (Crohn's) and how he got involved in the whole measles thing to begin with was interesting. His emphasis on vaccine safety, not being anti-vax, was interesting. His responses to the criticisms leveled against him were interesting. I'm not saying you'll change you mind about Wakefield by watching the interview. I'm simply saying that hearing him will deepen your knowledge of the issues and the debate, regardless of where you stand.
 
Hearing him discuss his training (GI surgeon) and his early research focus (Crohn's) and how he got involved in the whole measles thing to begin with was interesting. His emphasis on vaccine safety, not being anti-vax, was interesting. His responses to the criticisms leveled against him were interesting. I'm not saying you'll change you mind about Wakefield by watching the interview. I'm simply saying that hearing him will deepen your knowledge of the issues and the debate, regardless of where you stand.

I doubt that my knowledge will be deepened by watching an interview with a man who knowingly published misleading and false research. I frankly don't care if Wakefield is anti-vax or pro vaccine safety (which is the same thing dressed up in a nicer title by the way). Why would any of us care at all what he has to say. He has been proven to be both unethical and a liar. I will choose to get my information from reliable sources.

I guess the response to the criticisms could be interesting in a reality-tv-confessional kind of way, but I really don't have 90 minutes to waste on that. Please just tell me, does he provide evidence which negates the Lancet's evaluation and the conclusion of the British General Medical Council with regards to his conduct?
 
I doubt that my knowledge will be deepened by watching an interview with a man who knowingly published misleading and false research. I frankly don't care if Wakefield is anti-vax or pro vaccine safety (which is the same thing dressed up in a nicer title by the way). Why would any of us care at all what he has to say. He has been proven to be both unethical and a liar. I will choose to get my information from reliable sources.

I guess the response to the criticisms could be interesting in a reality-tv-confessional kind of way, but I really don't have 90 minutes to waste on that. Please just tell me, does he provide evidence which negates the Lancet's evaluation and the conclusion of the British General Medical Council with regards to his conduct?

I don't believe that anti-vax is the same as pro vaccine safety. Anti-vax is anti-vax. Wakefield knows the literature inside and out, and when he says there's not enough safety data on some vaccines, it's at least worth noting (for example, he says there is extremely limited data on the HepB shot; I don't know the literature well enough to say whether that's true or not, do you?). If a vaccinologist, e.g. Offit, feels differently, it's incumbent upon him or her to set the record straight. Don't forget: whether it's true or not about vaccine safety, a fair number of parents have come to believe that vaccine safety is questionable. At the very least, the government has done a poor job of allaying those fears; at worst, there hasn't been enough vaccine safety study. The truth probably lies somewhere between.

Of course, Wakefield contends that he is not all of those things you call him. I don't know whether he is or isn't. But I found it worth the time (I had it playing in the background while I did other stuff over the course of a couple days) to hear another perspective on the issue, one that frankly I had never heard from the horse's mouth. You choose not to, which is your prerogative. When I posted the link, I stated that most of you won't watch the interview; this is what I meant. Most will forgo any new information and will just go with the popular story. I'm still vaccinating my kids after hearing the interview; but I don't think the issue is as settled as you do. There's more work to be done.

And, yes, he discusses the Lancet situation.
 
Hearing him discuss his training (GI surgeon) and his early research focus (Crohn's) and how he got involved in the whole measles thing to begin with was interesting..
He is a lying loser profiteer. That is now documented. That's all there is to know about him.
 
Ugh. I'm done checking out the links you post on here. They always amount to "Hey, check out what this idiot/celebrity/discredited scientist said on the Huffington Post/some other internet repository for crap science. Isn't that interesting?"

No, it's not interesting. The internet is full of *****s yammering at each other. What's the point of listening to a discredited scientist blather on and on about the topic that got his credentials yanked in the first place? You need to learn to apply some kind of filter to the information you choose to retain, or your mind will be awash in crap. I look at your link and see 90 minutes of time better spent watching people get hit in the balls on Youtube.
 
Ugh. I'm done checking out the links you post on here. They always amount to "Hey, check out what this idiot/celebrity/discredited scientist said on the Huffington Post/some other internet repository for crap science. Isn't that interesting?"

No, it's not interesting. The internet is full of *****s yammering at each other. What's the point of listening to a discredited scientist blather on and on about the topic that got his credentials yanked in the first place? You need to learn to apply some kind of filter to the information you choose to retain, or your mind will be awash in crap. I look at your link and see 90 minutes of time better spent watching people get hit in the balls on Youtube.

I understand it's more fun to listen to one side of the story when it comes to Wakefield. But, for me anyway, this was the first time I'd heard Wakefield tell his side of the story. As one who tries to be objective, I thought it worthwhile to listen to the interview. You and others feel differently and choose to go with only part of the story; your choice.
 
Ugh. I'm done checking out the links you post on here. They always amount to "Hey, check out what this idiot/celebrity/discredited scientist said on the Huffington Post/some other internet repository for crap science. Isn't that interesting?"

No, it's not interesting. The internet is full of *****s yammering at each other. What's the point of listening to a discredited scientist blather on and on about the topic that got his credentials yanked in the first place? You need to learn to apply some kind of filter to the information you choose to retain, or your mind will be awash in crap. I look at your link and see 90 minutes of time better spent watching people get hit in the balls on Youtube.

Well said.

I understand it's more fun to listen to one side of the story when it comes to Wakefield. But, for me anyway, this was the first time I'd heard Wakefield tell his side of the story. As one who tries to be objective, I thought it worthwhile to listen to the interview. You and others feel differently and choose to go with only part of the story; your choice.

That's right. We choose to only hear one part of the story. The true part. Wakefield and his fraudulent research have been thoroughly discredited. We don't need to hear his spin, and neither does anyone else. It's time for him to go away. Hasn't he done enough damage?
 
Well said.



That's right. We choose to only hear one part of the story. The true part. Wakefield and his fraudulent research have been thoroughly discredited. We don't need to hear his spin, and neither does anyone else. It's time for him to go away. Hasn't he done enough damage?

What happened to curiosity? Aren't you even a bit curious to hear what he has to say about all the allegations that, until now, he hasn't been able to speak publically about? I've said before, I'm no Wakefield apologist. I'm simply trying to understand the issues better, and the Wakefield interview provided, for the first time that I had come across, the opportunity to hear direct 'testimony' from the man himself. If you can't understand that, I must conclude that you are willing to hear only one side of the story. After listening to the interview, you'll almost certainly have the same opinions you have now; that's fine. At least you'll be able to say you're better informed all around. But perhaps there will be a comment or question or whatever during the interview that piques your interest and causes you to further investigate an aspect of this issue. Or, perhaps your views are formed in concrete and that is that.
 
You assume that everyone has an equally valid opinion. There are researchers who have somehow managed to avoid committing fraud when performing these studies. They have valid opinions. I don't need to listen to this guy any more than the crazy homeless guy who shouts at me as I drive by every day on my way to work, telling me that the government has implanted chips in his brain. It's not ONE side telling me this guy's views are worthless, it's MULTIPLE different groups who have not only taken away his license to practice medicine, but removed two of his publications from the literature. You know how hard it is to get a paper yanked? You basically have to be caught beating one of the editors kids using a copy of the journal, possibly while having sex with his wife. It's that hard. The guy thinks he's innocent? You don't say? I can find many residents of my local prison who will tell you the same.

The time one has every day to acquire new information is limited. Judicious use of your crap filter will prevent you from squandering that time.
 
I understand it's more fun to listen to one side of the story when it comes to Wakefield. But, for me anyway, this was the first time I'd heard Wakefield tell his side of the story. As one who tries to be objective, I thought it worthwhile to listen to the interview. You and others feel differently and choose to go with only part of the story; your choice.
Yes, we chose to ignore known liars, you don't. As such, you use known liars as a source to formulate your position. Therefore, your position is considered crap.

Welcome to the reality that science is tough on those who cheat.
 
Yes, we chose to ignore known liars, you don't. As such, you use known liars as a source to formulate your position. Therefore, your position is considered crap.

Welcome to the reality that science is tough on those who cheat.

My position? What's my position? That I can be objective enough to listen to an interview? It's an interview, for goodness sake. You guys need to relax a little. Have a little confidence in your 'filter', as meathooks says. I promise, you won't involuntarily become an anti-vaxxer just by listening to the interview. So fear not. Sheeeesh.
 
My position? What's my position? That I can be objective enough to listen to an interview?
And you can go to Rense, or interview the local schizophrenic. But when you try to portray it as valid sources, then you're daft.
 
My position? What's my position? That I can be objective enough to listen to an interview? It's an interview, for goodness sake. You guys need to relax a little. Have a little confidence in your 'filter', as meathooks says. I promise, you won't involuntarily become an anti-vaxxer just by listening to the interview. So fear not. Sheeeesh.

There isn't enough time to read legitimate scientific articles, let alone the justifications of a discredited crank.

The best way to deal with the Andrew Wakefields of this world is ignore them. Deny them the oxygen of publicity from which they draw their strength and some measure of legitimacy.
 
There isn't enough time to read legitimate scientific articles, let alone the justifications of a discredited crank.

The best way to deal with the Andrew Wakefields of this world is ignore them. Deny them the oxygen of publicity from which they draw their strength and some measure of legitimacy.

To some degree, I agree with you here. However, there are many concerned parents who are quite tuned into the issues surrounding vaccination. Some will listen to this interview and have concerns. They will then come to your office (well, not Pharmavixen's office, but you know what I mean) with questions. At that point, you can either say "Yes, I've listened to Wakefield and am familiar with his stance, and here's specifically why I disagree with him...". Or, you can say "Yes, I've heard about this Wakefield guy and I've heard he had a paper retracted by a medical journal. Now forget about him and listen to me because this is how it's going to be...". Most of you probably think these patients will implicitly trust every word you say. They won't. Many have a rather sophisticated grasp on vaccination safety issues, and they'll ask pointed questions. So be ready. Listening to one interview with Wakefield, hearing his points from his mouth, can help you better educate your patients. "Know thy enemy", so to speak. Medicine and the government in general have done a poor job of calming the public's fears of vaccines, so it will be up to you as individual physicians to do it. Use Wakefield's words against him if you feel he's wrong. But simply parroting the same lines about him being a liar, a cheater, etc won't help you with your case to concerned parents.

And, as to Wakefield just being another crazed voice on the internet or tantamount to a homeless schizophrenic, I think you all would agree that he is a bit more central to this issue than that. As such, his interview may be an exception to the "filter" rule, if for no other reason than to arm yourselves for the questions your future patients will ask you.
 
Frontline on PBS just aired an episode on vaccines. Here's the link to watch online: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/vaccines/view/
(sorry, I couldn't find a Huffington Post link for this one;))

I thought it was even-handed, allowing each side to get their points across. The usual suspects were interviewed, including Offit, Fauci, Jenny McCarthy, Barbara Fisher, et al, and Wakefield of course got a mention as well.

The 'concerned parents' group predictably argued for increased vaccine safety, and more vaccine research (bench science, not just epidemiological).

The 'medical establishment' group predictably drove home the lack of evidence linking MMR and thimerosal to autism, that correlation doesn't equal causation, and the public health importance of herd immunity.

One thing that I don't think is quite fair is when Dr. Offit, for example, says that 'pseudoscience just keeps moving the goalposts'. Ruling out MMR and thimerosal doesn't exactly solve the autism problem though. So, why not keep looking? What if we all said, "Oh, so now you want to look at inflammation as an emerging risk factor for cardiovascular disease? Stop moving the goalposts...".

Another point that nobody seems to address is, while MMR and thimerosal have been thoroughly investigated, how about the rest of the vaccine schedule? Apparently, the safety data is scarce for some of these shots, and the data involving the combination of shots is even more scarce. Who wouldn't favor more safety data beyond MMR and thimerosal?
 
Frontline on PBS just aired an episode on vaccines. Here's the link to watch online: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/vaccines/view/
(sorry, I couldn't find a Huffington Post link for this one;))

I thought it was even-handed, allowing each side to get their points across. The usual suspects were interviewed, including Offit, Fauci, Jenny McCarthy, Barbara Fisher, et al, and Wakefield of course got a mention as well.

The 'concerned parents' group predictably argued for increased vaccine safety, and more vaccine research (bench science, not just epidemiological).

The 'medical establishment' group predictably drove home the lack of evidence linking MMR and thimerosal to autism, that correlation doesn't equal causation, and the public health importance of herd immunity.

One thing that I don't think is quite fair is when Dr. Offit, for example, says that 'pseudoscience just keeps moving the goalposts'. Ruling out MMR and thimerosal doesn't exactly solve the autism problem though. So, why not keep looking? What if we all said, "Oh, so now you want to look at inflammation as an emerging risk factor for cardiovascular disease? Stop moving the goalposts...".

Another point that nobody seems to address is, while MMR and thimerosal have been thoroughly investigated, how about the rest of the vaccine schedule? Apparently, the safety data is scarce for some of these shots, and the data involving the combination of shots is even more scarce. Who wouldn't favor more safety data beyond MMR and thimerosal?

First of all, props for posting a link from a mainstream source. In response to your call for vaccine safety studies, I think they have already been done before the shots can even be brought to market. I don't oppose more study of safety, except on the economic basis that the money could be better spent elsewhere. I do find it highly unlikely that these shots will be found to be unsafe. The reality is that the vaccine schedule in its entirety exposes your system to orders of magnitude less antigen than a typical child will come across in a day of play. Millions of years of evolution have turned our immune system into an antigen-response machine. There is not much scientific reason to suspect that either the vaccine schedule or the combination vaccines will overwhelm our systems.
 
First of all, props for posting a link from a mainstream source. In response to your call for vaccine safety studies, I think they have already been done before the shots can even be brought to market. I don't oppose more study of safety, except on the economic basis that the money could be better spent elsewhere. I do find it highly unlikely that these shots will be found to be unsafe. The reality is that the vaccine schedule in its entirety exposes your system to orders of magnitude less antigen than a typical child will come across in a day of play. Millions of years of evolution have turned our immune system into an antigen-response machine. There is not much scientific reason to suspect that either the vaccine schedule or the combination vaccines will overwhelm our systems.

Well, it's not exactly my call for vaccine safety studies. But, yes, I'm sure there must have been some initial safety study before these shots were introduced. Those who claim to have reviewed the data (which isn't me) state, however, that the safety data is too thin, particularly for some shots (I think Wakefield says in the interview I posted a few weeks ago that the HepB shot has little or no safety data). On the antigen exposure issue, I've heard Dr. Offit say that kids could handle a crazy-high number of vaccines at one shot and still be fine. I do think, however, that there is quite a difference between your child touching a dirty floor and your child receiving injections directly into his body.

Watch the show; it's a pretty good summary of where things stand right now and will help prepare you for when parents begin to ask about these things.
 
...One thing that I don't think is quite fair is when Dr. Offit, for example, says that 'pseudoscience just keeps moving the goalposts'. Ruling out MMR and thimerosal doesn't exactly solve the autism problem though.
Of course it doesn't But it eliminates the lies by McCarthy and Wakefield, despite your apparent desperate need to have them heard on their lies. You still push dogma over actual, scientifically-identified avenues of concern.
Another point that nobody seems to address is, while MMR and thimerosal have been thoroughly investigated, how about the rest of the vaccine schedule? Apparently, the safety data is scarce for some of these shots, and the data involving the combination of shots is even more scarce. Who wouldn't favor more safety data beyond MMR and thimerosal?
For Autism? Despite that data having been irrevocably been established? You not LIKING the outcome of scientific research doesn't mean that the Science is wrong. It merely means that you don't WANT your personal BELIEF to be wrong.
 
...I do think, however, that there is quite a difference between your child touching a dirty floor and your child receiving injections directly into his body.....
Perhaps you need to review the SCIENCE regarding live and "dead" vaccines?
 
Top