paper linking vaccine and autism retracted...
- Thread starter 16th ave.
- Start date
Dear Anti-Vaccination Crazies -
We expect an apology for both blatantly and no-so-blatantly telling us that we're killing our children by giving them vaccines.
Best Regards,
Sane parents of the world who want to keep their kids from getting sick.
We expect an apology for both blatantly and no-so-blatantly telling us that we're killing our children by giving them vaccines.
Best Regards,
Sane parents of the world who want to keep their kids from getting sick.
just realized exactly what that guy did. hadn't even read through it much. only posted it to for others who probably hadn't seen it since it is about autism and vaccines.
from the article...
How did that fear-monger even get that published?
jeeesh
WTF kind of study is that?
How did that fear-monger even get that published?
jeeesh
The way I understand this as related by MD's I have discussed it with
This was a observation of the study. By noting measles, mumps, and rubella bateria were present in the patients studied. The study did not claim a link only that his findings might warrant further trials
I am a PRO Immunization person. But I feel this entire debacle was driven by a press that is playing both sides of the fence. They are the ones who layed out the original interpretations of the report. We have been seeing them daily on the Today show, Good Morning America. Larry King. And now they want to lay the blame soley on his feet.
Am I the only one saying what the HLL. Is there no accountability in reporting whatsoever?? And we have to be careful. If we read something in the news. That alone does not make it "the whole story" They are paid to write headlines. IMHO the press deserves the lions share of the blame for this. The reason we are facing a return of these sicknesses is not because of one very small uncontrolled study. But because it was presented to the general public in a way that shook our core beliefs. They had people believing they were harming their own children.
Which one of us have actually read the report?? What happens when fear takes hold of people making observations? Should he have not written his observations at all?? Its a slippery slope.
IMHO
And I should say this. My initial reaction was the same as the majority. Until I discussed it with a couple of doctors and they took the time to explain it to me. I originally had the same opinion as you all (my peeps)
Thats what he did. That was his job. and those were his patients. Who was he supposed to study.
This was a observation of the study. By noting measles, mumps, and rubella bateria were present in the patients studied. The study did not claim a link only that his findings might warrant further trials
After his research was halted he needed a control group. The children or their parents could have just not participated.
After threat of legal recourse and being strung up in the media as the author was
These people had exhausted all other avenues of relief. He was willing to do something. The way i understand it.
I am a PRO Immunization person. But I feel this entire debacle was driven by a press that is playing both sides of the fence. They are the ones who layed out the original interpretations of the report. We have been seeing them daily on the Today show, Good Morning America. Larry King. And now they want to lay the blame soley on his feet.
Am I the only one saying what the HLL. Is there no accountability in reporting whatsoever?? And we have to be careful. If we read something in the news. That alone does not make it "the whole story" They are paid to write headlines. IMHO the press deserves the lions share of the blame for this. The reason we are facing a return of these sicknesses is not because of one very small uncontrolled study. But because it was presented to the general public in a way that shook our core beliefs. They had people believing they were harming their own children.
Which one of us have actually read the report?? What happens when fear takes hold of people making observations? Should he have not written his observations at all?? Its a slippery slope.
IMHO
And I should say this. My initial reaction was the same as the majority. Until I discussed it with a couple of doctors and they took the time to explain it to me. I originally had the same opinion as you all (my peeps)
Do you really think the press are the ones who set out the original interpretation of the report? Maybe people outside of the EU is ignorant to science, but you will be hard pushed to find someone who doesn't read medical studies, but you will be hard pushed to someone who actually believes the press.
Ok
Have you read the report??
Tell me then where in the report it says immunizations are responsible for Autism.
Show me a study that states MMR can not be one of many possible triggers.
Tell you what. Because I have only read excerpts from the report and would imagine I would have difficulty reading something like that in it entirety. Let me know what your conclusions are when your finished.
IMHO at this time the doctor reported his findings. He did not represent his study as a true "Controlled" study. Nor as a "double blind" study. Which is the gold standard of studies.
As I understand it the people who participated in the original study had two choices. Further testing. Or saying its over, and institutionalizing their children. I know what I would have done. What would you do?
Right or wrong. You apparently have much more faith in the press than I do.
Have you read the report??
Tell me then where in the report it says immunizations are responsible for Autism.
Show me a study that states MMR can not be one of many possible triggers.
Tell you what. Because I have only read excerpts from the report and would imagine I would have difficulty reading something like that in it entirety. Let me know what your conclusions are when your finished.
IMHO at this time the doctor reported his findings. He did not represent his study as a true "Controlled" study. Nor as a "double blind" study. Which is the gold standard of studies.
As I understand it the people who participated in the original study had two choices. Further testing. Or saying its over, and institutionalizing their children. I know what I would have done. What would you do?
Right or wrong. You apparently have much more faith in the press than I do.
So by not believing anything the press says I have faith in the press...
Of course I have read the report, I don't know anyone in 'real life' (not internet folk) who haven't read the report apart from children.
In his paper Lancet states that bowel inflammation and generally ill health is associated with autism (neuropsychi-atric dysfunction being the correct term) (which is true in certain causes of autism), he then went on to state that the cause of bowel in health in the 12 children was caused by the MMR, which then developed in autism.
Lancet stated that the bowel problem most commonly develops due to environmental effects, where he suggested the sole environmental influence was that of the MMR vaccine. You should be able to find the article on google scholar or web of science.
The people in the study did not have those choices, they had the choice of carrying on the study, or pulling out the study, there was no threatened institutionalisation, especially as anyone under 16 can only be placed in a children's mental health until with permission from both legal parents, it must also be done with the consent of two GP's and one psychologist, Lancet and his colleagues were neither.
C.P Farrington is quite a good paper showing that MMR does not cause/trigger autism, but you would have to pay to view it, I'll get another study I know that you can free online without cost, it is a fairly short paper.
http://www.morrisonlucas.com/GL/vaccines/Lancet_353_2026_autism_and_measles_no_evidence.pdf[/url]
Of course I have read the report, I don't know anyone in 'real life' (not internet folk) who haven't read the report apart from children.
In his paper Lancet states that bowel inflammation and generally ill health is associated with autism (neuropsychi-atric dysfunction being the correct term) (which is true in certain causes of autism), he then went on to state that the cause of bowel in health in the 12 children was caused by the MMR, which then developed in autism.
Lancet stated that the bowel problem most commonly develops due to environmental effects, where he suggested the sole environmental influence was that of the MMR vaccine. You should be able to find the article on google scholar or web of science.
The people in the study did not have those choices, they had the choice of carrying on the study, or pulling out the study, there was no threatened institutionalisation, especially as anyone under 16 can only be placed in a children's mental health until with permission from both legal parents, it must also be done with the consent of two GP's and one psychologist, Lancet and his colleagues were neither.
C.P Farrington is quite a good paper showing that MMR does not cause/trigger autism, but you would have to pay to view it, I'll get another study I know that you can free online without cost, it is a fairly short paper.
http://www.morrisonlucas.com/GL/vaccines/Lancet_353_2026_autism_and_measles_no_evidence.pdf[/url]
Two things.
The first is that you and your peers clearly are more advanced the me and mine. If you guys are reading this stuff on a regular basis. Well I wont be getting in agruments with you-all. My friends and myself would be more likely caught reading the Video game Adviser than this stuff.
I found it and read it. Along with many of the details of the case. These are quotes from the actual report.
As I understand it. Most of the issue is that while not recommending children go without getting vaccinated. He did recommend that the vaccines were given separately and not all three together. The problem with this is that they are made together and that new vaccines would have to be developed individually to accomplish this. He stood to profit from the individual vaccines and thus had a vested interest in the direction of the report since he was in the process of making the new vaccines (at least one of them).
You need to point out to me where he recommended against vaccinating children. I'm not trying to be a smart a$$. I was just unable to find it. If that is the case and it states somewhere in the report that he advises not to get vaccinated. Then I stand corrected and will say I was wrong.
The first is that you and your peers clearly are more advanced the me and mine. If you guys are reading this stuff on a regular basis. Well I wont be getting in agruments with you-all. My friends and myself would be more likely caught reading the Video game Adviser than this stuff.
I found it and read it. Along with many of the details of the case. These are quotes from the actual report.
And yes I highlighted the parts I am using to make my case.
As I understand it. Most of the issue is that while not recommending children go without getting vaccinated. He did recommend that the vaccines were given separately and not all three together. The problem with this is that they are made together and that new vaccines would have to be developed individually to accomplish this. He stood to profit from the individual vaccines and thus had a vested interest in the direction of the report since he was in the process of making the new vaccines (at least one of them).
You need to point out to me where he recommended against vaccinating children. I'm not trying to be a smart a$$. I was just unable to find it. If that is the case and it states somewhere in the report that he advises not to get vaccinated. Then I stand corrected and will say I was wrong.
Where he is talking about the colon (and subsequently a loss of 'selection' over absorption), dopamine, tyramine and serotonin are in MMR
"Disruption of this matrix and increased intestinal permeability, both features of inflammatory bowel disease,17 may cause both intestinal and neuropsychiatric dysfunction. Impaired enterohepatic sulphation and consequent detoxification of compounds such as the phenolic amines (dopamine, tyramine, and serotonin)12 may also contribute".
In this paragraph below the enteric antigen is within the MMR vaccine.
"Both the presence of intestinal inflammation and absence of detectable neurological abnormality in our children are consistent with an exogenous influence upon cerebral function. Lucarelli's observation that after removal of a provocative enteric antigen children achieved symptomatic behavioural improvement, suggests a reversible element in this condition".
Here you see (below) that it is stated that the measles part of the vaccine (the environmental factor) is linked with crohn's disease.
" Disintegrative psychosis is recognised as a sequel to measles encephalitis, although in most cases no cause is ever identified.14 Viral encephalitis can give rise to autistic disorders, particularly when it occurs early in life.15 Rubella virus is associated with autism and the combined measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine (rather than monovalent measles vaccine) has also been implicated. Fudenberg16 noted that for 15 of 20 autistic children, the first symptoms developed within a week of vaccination. Gupta17 commented on the striking association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and the onset of behavioural symptoms in all the children that he had investigated for regressive autism. Measles virus18, 19 and measles vaccination20 have both been implicated as risk factors for Crohn's disease and persistent measles vaccine-strain virus infection has been found in children with autoimmune hepatitis".
"We have identified a chronic enterocolitis in children that may be related to neuropsychiatric dysfunction. In most cases, onset of symptoms was after measles, mumps, and rubella immunisation. Further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome and its possible relation to this vaccine".
"Disruption of this matrix and increased intestinal permeability, both features of inflammatory bowel disease,17 may cause both intestinal and neuropsychiatric dysfunction. Impaired enterohepatic sulphation and consequent detoxification of compounds such as the phenolic amines (dopamine, tyramine, and serotonin)12 may also contribute".
In this paragraph below the enteric antigen is within the MMR vaccine.
"Both the presence of intestinal inflammation and absence of detectable neurological abnormality in our children are consistent with an exogenous influence upon cerebral function. Lucarelli's observation that after removal of a provocative enteric antigen children achieved symptomatic behavioural improvement, suggests a reversible element in this condition".
Here you see (below) that it is stated that the measles part of the vaccine (the environmental factor) is linked with crohn's disease.
" Disintegrative psychosis is recognised as a sequel to measles encephalitis, although in most cases no cause is ever identified.14 Viral encephalitis can give rise to autistic disorders, particularly when it occurs early in life.15 Rubella virus is associated with autism and the combined measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine (rather than monovalent measles vaccine) has also been implicated. Fudenberg16 noted that for 15 of 20 autistic children, the first symptoms developed within a week of vaccination. Gupta17 commented on the striking association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and the onset of behavioural symptoms in all the children that he had investigated for regressive autism. Measles virus18, 19 and measles vaccination20 have both been implicated as risk factors for Crohn's disease and persistent measles vaccine-strain virus infection has been found in children with autoimmune hepatitis".
"We have identified a chronic enterocolitis in children that may be related to neuropsychiatric dysfunction. In most cases, onset of symptoms was after measles, mumps, and rubella immunisation. Further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome and its possible relation to this vaccine".
Admittedly I am not a scholar. But I find nothing in this that takes away from my OP.
Yes there are a lot of "May's" "possible's" And references to other supporting studies. But I have yet to identify anything that states this is the cause and this is the effect definitively. "Implicated" is the word used.
My point is not about the value of the study. My point is about the fear of public castration for people who are actively trying to identify causes and cures. The proper thing is always to do the best study possible. Which is the "double blind" But it is a very involved time consuming process. The patients involved while NOT under threat of instutalization from the STATE. Had exausted their resources to the point that was one of the few options. If you have spent any time around a severely Autistic person you would know what a reality this is.
So I applaud someone who says, lets try this, and test this, and see if there is anything here. I see his report as a hey look at this. maybe we should pursue this further. And the truth is that he is not the first or only one to draw similar conclusions.
You and I are looking at this from different perspectives. You from a academic standpoint. And me from I don't just want to give up standpoint. So I don't think we will ever agree.
So peace be with you brother
Yes there are a lot of "May's" "possible's" And references to other supporting studies. But I have yet to identify anything that states this is the cause and this is the effect definitively. "Implicated" is the word used.
My point is not about the value of the study. My point is about the fear of public castration for people who are actively trying to identify causes and cures. The proper thing is always to do the best study possible. Which is the "double blind" But it is a very involved time consuming process. The patients involved while NOT under threat of instutalization from the STATE. Had exausted their resources to the point that was one of the few options. If you have spent any time around a severely Autistic person you would know what a reality this is.
So I applaud someone who says, lets try this, and test this, and see if there is anything here. I see his report as a hey look at this. maybe we should pursue this further. And the truth is that he is not the first or only one to draw similar conclusions.
You and I are looking at this from different perspectives. You from a academic standpoint. And me from I don't just want to give up standpoint. So I don't think we will ever agree.
So peace be with you brother
I'm not from an academic standpoint, I'm from a psychiatric and rehabilitaters standpoint, I've spent the last 15 years trying to give mentally disabled children and adults the confidence and knowledge to be able to live somewhat independent lives.
Bang, bang, Bang,(thats me banging my head on the wall Autistically)Jeremy+3 said:
These are the same people who set me strait in the first place. I was talking to Chloe's teacher and Doctors (DAN) and they are all like "Whoooeee Bssage. Take a step back and look at the facts"
:veryconfused:
Jeremy, what bssage was pointing out, and this is a VERY CLEAR fact, is that most people read the newspaper and watch the news on tv. Even if that is not the only way to learn about things, its more than likely the first way people learn about things. That's something that everyone knows. If the media makes something look like a big deal, and puts something a certain way, that's the way 90% of all people exposed to it are going to percieve it. The people who actually care about the truth and put a lot of will power into not trusting the media (good for you, you're one of them, that's nothing special dear) will go out of their way to find the facts and know the truth. But when this article came out, the media told everybody basically "Omg the MMR vaccine causes autism!! Be scared!" And lots of people were scared. And they didn't get their kids vaccinated. Apparantly, not all people are as perfect as Jeremy+3 and all his perfect friends in perfect Nottinghamshire.
So what bssage was getting at was the fact that a lot of people got the wrong idea about the whole MMR/Autism thing due to the way it was put out. In a perfect world "you would be hard pushed to find someone who actually believes the press". In the real world, most people read it, watch it, and believe it. If you really believe what you said, then you really need to take a step back and take a look at the world because that statement is ridiculous. MOST people believe the press. SMART people look into things themselves. It should be the other way around, but we can't be so lucky now can we.
The article itself was very suggestive about MMR causing autism, but that's all it does. Suggests the possibility. It does not say anywhere that MMR for sure causes autism. And I'm saying this because you said "do you really think the press are the ones who set out the original interpretation of the report?" and then went on to accuse us of being ignorant to science. Well if we WERE ignroant to science, then we wouldn't KNOW that the report is NOT what set out the interpretation. It was the press. The press got everyone riled up and scared. The paper only had studies on it, and found some very questionable links between the vaccine and autism. Nothing conclusive, and they didn't claim that it was. So how on earth did anything BUT the press put out the interpretation?
So what bssage was getting at was the fact that a lot of people got the wrong idea about the whole MMR/Autism thing due to the way it was put out. In a perfect world "you would be hard pushed to find someone who actually believes the press". In the real world, most people read it, watch it, and believe it. If you really believe what you said, then you really need to take a step back and take a look at the world because that statement is ridiculous. MOST people believe the press. SMART people look into things themselves. It should be the other way around, but we can't be so lucky now can we.
The article itself was very suggestive about MMR causing autism, but that's all it does. Suggests the possibility. It does not say anywhere that MMR for sure causes autism. And I'm saying this because you said "do you really think the press are the ones who set out the original interpretation of the report?" and then went on to accuse us of being ignorant to science. Well if we WERE ignroant to science, then we wouldn't KNOW that the report is NOT what set out the interpretation. It was the press. The press got everyone riled up and scared. The paper only had studies on it, and found some very questionable links between the vaccine and autism. Nothing conclusive, and they didn't claim that it was. So how on earth did anything BUT the press put out the interpretation?
http://fourteenstudies.org/pdf/primates_hep_b.pdf
You have probably already read this.
BTW you were successful in shaming me into reading the entire study. That is a good thing. Now I have to drill a hole in my head before it explodes.
You have probably already read this.
BTW you were successful in shaming me into reading the entire study. That is a good thing. Now I have to drill a hole in my head before it explodes.
Don't make too much mess!
We don't have vaccines for hepatitis here, this is the UK schedule.
UK immunisation.
We don't have vaccines for hepatitis here, this is the UK schedule.
UK immunisation.