Doc Who Tied Vaccine to Autism Ruled Unethical (1 Viewer)

[perry147]

But the Wakefield study was always questioned even before now. The results could not be replicated and the finding stood out like a sore thumb, when compared to other studies. The money trail from the lawyers is just ...convenient ?

Questioned does not mean disproved. The money from the lawyers does give it the appearance of bias. But again, the doctor's the expert, not her.

In this case by all counts the Wakefield study was disproved within the established scientific community.

Fine. But I'd still go with your prior analysis of JM:

I think she got locked on to an answer and refuses to budge, ignoring all the evidence. Putting her faith into one opinion is very dangerous.

rather than saying she's a disgusting human being.

You are a lawyer so your tastes might be abit skewed.

 

[Genedoc]

But the Wakefield study was always questioned even before now. The results could not be replicated and the finding stood out like a sore thumb, when compared to other studies. The money trail from the lawyers is just ...convenient ?

Questioned does not mean disproved. The money from the lawyers does give it the appearance of bias. But again, the doctor's the expert, not her.

In this case by all counts the Wakefield study was disproved within the established scientific community.

Fine. But I'd still go with your prior analysis of JM:

I think she got locked on to an answer and refuses to budge, ignoring all the evidence. Putting her faith into one opinion is very dangerous.

rather than saying she's a disgusting human being.

And if she'd left it at simply being misguided and stubborn, I'd agree with you. She didn't. She wrote a book that made her plenty of money based on discredited "evidence" that advises parents to place their children in harm's way. Read that again. She's profiteering by advising parents to endanger their children's health. Furthermore, she's only settled on vaccines as a cause because it's make her money. She was similarly convinced it had something to do with crystal and indigo spirits, but when she realized she couldn't make money off of that, she abandoned that belief system and attached herself to another one. If making money by placing other people's children in the path of danger doesn't qualify you as a pretty lousy human, then I'm not sure what does.

 

[Jene Bramel]

The Lancet formally retracted Wakefield's study today.

LONDON–A major British medical journal on Tuesday retracted a flawed study linking the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine to autism and bowel disease.

The retraction by The Lancet comes a day after a competing medical journal, BMJ, issued an embargoed commentary calling for The Lancet to formally retract the study. The commentary was to have been published on Wednesday.

The BMJ commentary said once the study by British surgeon and medical researcher Andrew Wakefield and his colleagues appeared in 1998 in The Lancet, "the arguments were considered by many to be proven and the ghastly social drama of the demon vaccine took on a life of its own."

Since the controversial paper was published, British parents abandoned the vaccine in droves, leading to a resurgence of measles. Subsequent studies have found no proof that the vaccine is connected to autism, though some parents are still wary of the shot. In Britain, vaccination rates for measles have never recovered and there are outbreaks of the disease every year.

Ten of Mr. Wakefield's 13 co-authors renounced the study's conclusions several years ago and The Lancet has previously said it should never have published the research. "We fully retract this paper from the published record," Lancet editors said in a statement Tuesday.

Last week, Britain's General Medical Council ruled that Mr. Wakefield had shown a "callous disregard" for the children used in his study and acted unethically. Mr. Wakefield and the two colleagues who haven't renounced the study face being stripped of their right to practice medicine in Britain.

For the study, Mr. Wakefield took blood samples from children at his son's birthday party, paying them £5 each (about $8) for their contributions and later joking about the incident.

 

[Jene Bramel]

From the editors of The Lancet:

Following the judgment of the UK General Medical Council's Fitness to Practise Panel on Jan 28, 2010, it has become clear that several elements of the 1998 paper by Wakefield et al1 are incorrect, contrary to the findings of an earlier investigation.2 In particular, the claims in the original paper that children were "consecutively referred" and that investigations were "approved" by the local ethics committee have been proven to be false. Therefore we fully retract this paper from the published record.

 

[moby fan]

For those that don't dabble in this sort of thing, papers published in academic journals are almost never retracted. You have to really screw up to have one erased from existence like this.

 

[perry147]

For those that don't dabble in this sort of thing, papers published in academic journals are almost never retracted. You have to really screw up to have one erased from existence like this.

This is the equivalent of being excommunicated.

 

[Christo]

You are a lawyer so your tastes might be abit skewed.

Yeah, I'm an ### for giving her the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Jene Bramel]

For those that don't dabble in this sort of thing, papers published in academic journals are almost never retracted. You have to really screw up to have one erased from existence like this.

It'll be interesting to see how much effect this has on the debate. I expect it'll have very little impact outside of spurring some blog posts on both sides. It will be considered vindication for many who have exposed the flaws in the data over the past decade, but that literature has been out there for many years. And it'll likely make Wakefield even more of a hero as the outsider who bucks the system to those who believe as Jenny McCarthy do. The pre-emptive Generation Rescue release in support of Dr. Andy is likely just the beginning in that regard.

 

[Jayrod]

So if its not the shots, then why the F are autism rates rising so much? link

While Jenny and Dr. Wakefield may be barking up the wrong tree, there is something we are doing to our kids that is causing this stuff to increase.

It's certainly possible (and probably likely) that there may be some yet unrecognized genetic or environmental reasons to explain some of the increase. Much of the increase is probably due to a combination of other non-causal factors -- better recognition by clinicians and families leading to better and earlier diagnosis, and a broader application of the term leading to more children being diagnosed, especially given the increased ability to intervene in toddler (developmental services) and school-aged children (educational plans).

Uhhh.... from the first paragraph of the linked article:

Researchers at the UC Davis M.I.N.D. Institute have concluded that the seven- to eightfold increase in the number of children with autism born in California since 1990 cannot be explained by changes in how the condition is diagnosed or how statistics are gathered

So....there is something going on beyond the "non-causal factors".I don't know why western medicine can't come to grips with the fact that the more unnatural stuff that goes into the body, the greater the risks of unknown side effects. Do you know how many vaccines are suggested for newborns now? Its about 12-15 different shots the AMA or whoever suggests for the first 2 years of a child's life. There is no freaking way that is all necessary and there is now freaking way they know what the long term effects are of all of those vaccines, especially in combonation with one another. Why has the number of vaccines expanded so much in the last 20 years? One answer...money. Required and even suggested vaccines is big business. Lots of motivation to cheat on things to get one of those things approved.

 

[Jene Bramel]

So if its not the shots, then why the F are autism rates rising so much? link

While Jenny and Dr. Wakefield may be barking up the wrong tree, there is something we are doing to our kids that is causing this stuff to increase.

It's certainly possible (and probably likely) that there may be some yet unrecognized genetic or environmental reasons to explain some of the increase. Much of the increase is probably due to a combination of other non-causal factors -- better recognition by clinicians and families leading to better and earlier diagnosis, and a broader application of the term leading to more children being diagnosed, especially given the increased ability to intervene in toddler (developmental services) and school-aged children (educational plans).

Uhhh.... from the first paragraph of the linked article:

Researchers at the UC Davis M.I.N.D. Institute have concluded that the seven- to eightfold increase in the number of children with autism born in California since 1990 cannot be explained by changes in how the condition is diagnosed or how statistics are gathered

So....there is something going on beyond the "non-causal factors".I don't know why western medicine can't come to grips with the fact that the more unnatural stuff that goes into the body, the greater the risks of unknown side effects. Do you know how many vaccines are suggested for newborns now? Its about 12-15 different shots the AMA or whoever suggests for the first 2 years of a child's life. There is no freaking way that is all necessary and there is now freaking way they know what the long term effects are of all of those vaccines, especially in combonation with one another. Why has the number of vaccines expanded so much in the last 20 years? One answer...money. Required and even suggested vaccines is big business. Lots of motivation to cheat on things to get one of those things approved.

I agree that my wording -- "probably likely that there may be some yet unrecognized genetic or environmental reasons" -- was too vague. It's a bad habit of my long-windedness and desire not to be entirely dogmatic about something. It wasn't meant to be that wishy-washy.I believe there have already been some genetic factors implicated. I'm not aware of anything environmental shown to have a causal relationship. As I have said many times in other threads, I'm all for continued research into new potential causes for ASD. I'm ready to adopt those findings into practice immediately, as are the vast majority of my colleagues.

I know exactly how many vaccines are recommended through the age of 18 months and four years. I recommend them in practice all the time and have given them to my own two children. The number of vaccines has expanded over time because research and development has shown them to drastically reduce the effect that infectious diseases have on our young children. Mild and severe illness, rates of hospitalization, missed school and work days and mortality have all been improved for young children with vaccination.

It's extremely rare to hear that a significant side effect is causally related to a vaccination. When appropriate, those vaccinations are removed from the schedule (see the concern over the first rotavirus vaccination), recommendations are backed off (see the concern for fever and febrile seizure with MMRV) or vaccines are reworked over time to limit side effects (see the improved purification procedures with flu vaccination decades ago and the development of the acellular pertussis vaccination). There is no big conspiracy here.

Vaccines are not big business for clinicians seeing patients on a daily business. Inventory, insurance and administration costs make it difficult to break even for most primary care centers that dispense vaccinations. Do pharmaceutical companies make money on vaccinations? I would imagine they make a profit, yes. I would think that it's nothing like the profits on drugs for diabetes, high blood pressure, erectile dysfunction, hypercholesterolemia, etc. Primary care physicians who see the effects of these infectious diseases and role vaccines play see none of that profit.

Which vaccine(s) do you believe isn't (aren't) necessary or are given too early and why?

 

[Genedoc]

So if its not the shots, then why the F are autism rates rising so much? link

While Jenny and Dr. Wakefield may be barking up the wrong tree, there is something we are doing to our kids that is causing this stuff to increase.

It's certainly possible (and probably likely) that there may be some yet unrecognized genetic or environmental reasons to explain some of the increase. Much of the increase is probably due to a combination of other non-causal factors -- better recognition by clinicians and families leading to better and earlier diagnosis, and a broader application of the term leading to more children being diagnosed, especially given the increased ability to intervene in toddler (developmental services) and school-aged children (educational plans).

Uhhh.... from the first paragraph of the linked article:

Researchers at the UC Davis M.I.N.D. Institute have concluded that the seven- to eightfold increase in the number of children with autism born in California since 1990 cannot be explained by changes in how the condition is diagnosed or how statistics are gathered

So....there is something going on beyond the "non-causal factors".

Which is precisely what Jene stated explicitly in his first sentence in the quote you responded to, and that I bolded above.

I don't know why western medicine can't come to grips with the fact that the more unnatural stuff that goes into the body, the greater the risks of unknown side effects. Do you know how many vaccines are suggested for newborns now? Its about 12-15 different shots the AMA or whoever suggests for the first 2 years of a child's life. There is no freaking way that is all necessary and there is now freaking way they know what the long term effects are of all of those vaccines, especially in combonation with one another. Why has the number of vaccines expanded so much in the last 20 years? One answer...money. Required and even suggested vaccines is big business. Lots of motivation to cheat on things to get one of those things approved.

Despite your effort to grossly oversimplify the situation and state your opinion as a matter or fact, money is unlikely to be the primary reason vaccination schedules have expanded. Much more likely, they've expanded so aggressively because of how amazingly well they work. They prevent dangerous and deadly childhood scourges that have plagued mankind for thousands of years. Vaccines are not a major profit center for any of the major drug companies that I'm aware of, and no MD I know has a yacht named "vaccine". Vaccines are mildly, not wildly, profitable. Drugs that treat chronic diseases are many hundreds of fold more profitable than vaccines. Secondly, vaccines are a pretty natural phenomenon. They stem from the observation that milkmaids who had cowpox didn't get smallpox. Now, rather than infect people with cowpox, it's much safer and more effective to vaccinate instead of inoculate. You're welcome to suggest we return to the more "natural" method of inducing cowpox to prevent smallpox, but I think most would prefer vaccination to the more natural methods. Furthermore, there are literally thousands of "all natural" things that are deadly. Hemlock, arsenic, lead, ricin, radon, snake venom, strychnine, tetrodotoxin, digitalis...you get the point. I could literally continue on all afternoon. Natural <> safe.

 

[Genedoc]

So if its not the shots, then why the F are autism rates rising so much? link

While Jenny and Dr. Wakefield may be barking up the wrong tree, there is something we are doing to our kids that is causing this stuff to increase.

It's certainly possible (and probably likely) that there may be some yet unrecognized genetic or environmental reasons to explain some of the increase. Much of the increase is probably due to a combination of other non-causal factors -- better recognition by clinicians and families leading to better and earlier diagnosis, and a broader application of the term leading to more children being diagnosed, especially given the increased ability to intervene in toddler (developmental services) and school-aged children (educational plans).

Uhhh.... from the first paragraph of the linked article:

Researchers at the UC Davis M.I.N.D. Institute have concluded that the seven- to eightfold increase in the number of children with autism born in California since 1990 cannot be explained by changes in how the condition is diagnosed or how statistics are gathered

So....there is something going on beyond the "non-causal factors".I don't know why western medicine can't come to grips with the fact that the more unnatural stuff that goes into the body, the greater the risks of unknown side effects. Do you know how many vaccines are suggested for newborns now? Its about 12-15 different shots the AMA or whoever suggests for the first 2 years of a child's life. There is no freaking way that is all necessary and there is now freaking way they know what the long term effects are of all of those vaccines, especially in combonation with one another. Why has the number of vaccines expanded so much in the last 20 years? One answer...money. Required and even suggested vaccines is big business. Lots of motivation to cheat on things to get one of those things approved.

I agree that my wording -- "probably likely that there may be some yet unrecognized genetic or environmental reasons" -- was too vague. It's a bad habit of my long-windedness and desire not to be entirely dogmatic about something. It wasn't meant to be that wishy-washy.I believe there have already been some genetic factors implicated. I'm not aware of anything environmental shown to have a causal relationship. As I have said many times in other threads, I'm all for continued research into new potential causes for ASD. I'm ready to adopt those findings into practice immediately, as are the vast majority of my colleagues.

Research that's being actively inhibited by the insistence that vaccines must be the culprit. One of the things discussed in the previous thread that gets routinely ignored despite having markedly more evidence than the vaccine hoax - age of parents at conception. You want to look at a trend that's changed dramatically in the last 30 years - commensurately with the increase in autism - look at the average age of the parents at conception.

 

[GroveDiesel]

And now the journal that published Dr. Mansfield's "study" have finally retracted and rejected it. So now, there is not one single published study that supports a link between autism and vaccination.

His study wasn't random, there were no followup exams, bloodwork was actually taken from kids at his son's birthday party, invasive procedures were done with no protocols put into place, etc.

The idea that vaccinations cause autism has as much scientific merit as those that claim a colon cleanse can cure cancer.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Um yeah, you know when you thought you read a whole thread because when you clicked on the box it took ou to the end, but you actually hadn't? My bad, I didn't see that the retraction was already discussed. Pretty amazing that people would still argue against it though.

 

[Jayrod]

Which is precisely what Jene stated explicitly in his first sentence in the quote you responded to, and that I bolded above.

I was talking about the entire rest of Jene's paragraph which was refuted by the article. I was just trying to point out that he probably didn't even read the article

I don't know why western medicine can't come to grips with the fact that the more unnatural stuff that goes into the body, the greater the risks of unknown side effects. Do you know how many vaccines are suggested for newborns now? Its about 12-15 different shots the AMA or whoever suggests for the first 2 years of a child's life. There is no freaking way that is all necessary and there is now freaking way they know what the long term effects are of all of those vaccines, especially in combonation with one another. Why has the number of vaccines expanded so much in the last 20 years? One answer...money. Required and even suggested vaccines is big business. Lots of motivation to cheat on things to get one of those things approved.

Despite your effort to grossly oversimplify the situation and state your opinion as a matter or fact, money is unlikely to be the primary reason vaccination schedules have expanded. Much more likely, they've expanded so aggressively because of how amazingly well they work. They prevent dangerous and deadly childhood scourges that have plagued mankind for thousands of years. Vaccines are not a major profit center for any of the major drug companies that I'm aware of, and no MD I know has a yacht named "vaccine". Vaccines are mildly, not wildly, profitable. Drugs that treat chronic diseases are many hundreds of fold more profitable than vaccines.

I'll agree that I oversimplified things, but so have you. No doubt the success of vaccines has played a large part in their increased use and I'm not completely anti-vaccine, but to ignore the money aspect is both naive and assanine. Merck vaccine sales is 20% of their revenue for the first 3 qtrs of 2009 and GlaxoSmithKlein made 12% of their profit from vaccine sales in the same period from what I can tell from their financial statements.We are talking billions of dollars here. Maybe there are higher margin drugs, but vaccines are a high margin. I may not know as much about medicine, but business I know and when you have the CDC suggesting your product to every single baby born in the world, it makes it easy to turn a profit.

Secondly, vaccines are a pretty natural phenomenon. They stem from the observation that milkmaids who had cowpox didn't get smallpox. Now, rather than infect people with cowpox, it's much safer and more effective to vaccinate instead of inoculate. You're welcome to suggest we return to the more "natural" method of inducing cowpox to prevent smallpox, but I think most would prefer vaccination to the more natural methods. Furthermore, there are literally thousands of "all natural" things that are deadly. Hemlock, arsenic, lead, ricin, radon, snake venom, strychnine, tetrodotoxin, digitalis...you get the point. I could literally continue on all afternoon. Natural <> safe.

You are totally ignoring my point. I'm talking about the increased risk of side effects. I know there are net benefits on society as a whole for vaccines. But some of this stuff isn't even 10 years old yet. The earliest test subjects aren't even teenagers.Take the Rotavirus vaccine for example. It was put on the CDC list of recommended vaccines for infants age 0-6 years in 2009. According to the WHO, it is a vaccine against a diarrhea causing virus that killed about 575,000 children in 2004 worldwide, primarily in "developing countries". link

In 1998 a version of the vaccine was licensed in the US and used. Unfortunately, it caused problems in 1/12,000 cases which caused it to get yanked a year later. In 2006, two new versions came out and are licensed which are the ones suggested in the 2009 CDC schedule.

Basically, you have a 3 year old vaccine for diarrhea being given to every kid in the US whose parents don't say no to their pediatrician (who can have a habit of lecturing you when you do this). There is no life threatening issue with diarrhea in most of the US as we are a developed nation and death by dehydration is the only real threat from rotavirus, yet the CDC suggests every kid in the US to get the vaccine.

So basically the question I'm posing is this. Why do my wife and I (who have insurance and recognize the signs of dehydration by diarrhea) want to risk any potential side effects of a three year old drug on our newborn baby girl? The risks of serious problems with Rotavirus are essentially null for our daughter, but the risks of the vaccine are quite unknown since the vaccine isn't even 10 years old yet. If there is even the slightest chance of complications with the vaccine, I'm not going to let someone give it to my child, no matter what the CDC says. Because the CDC has kids in 3rd world countries and impoverished Americans in mind who don't have access to decent care...not my daughter.

The problem I have is no distinction between this vaccine and the polio virus or MMR. The pediatrician we've used (note the past tense) gave us the riot act when we didn't let her give our son the entire list of vaccines 3 years ago. IMO, its a racket. (EDIT: that was over the top) I don't doubt the pediatricians intentions are genuine, but she just knows what she's been told time and again since med school. Doctors believe in the system they're in because they are a big part of it, but sometimes things get pushed unneccessarily and even sometimes for immoral/greedy reasons by drug companies. They are one hell of a lobbying group and high margin or not, profits are profits.

Look, I'm going to give our kids necessary vaccines and I think they are great. But I will do a lot of research and I'm certain we won't be getting all the vaccines just because the CDC says we need it. Unnecessary risk is....well....unncessary.

 

[jdoggydogg]

But I will do a lot of research and I'm certain we won't be getting all the vaccines just because the CDC says we need it. Unnecessary risk is....well....unncessary.

Search the Net for videos of kids with whooping cough and let me know if you still feel that way.

 

[golfguy]

Search the Net for videos of kids with whooping cough and let me know if you still feel that way.

you can still do the vaccines, but break them up to make more trips to the doctors and spread out the level of toxins thrown into the bloodstream at one time. vaccines themselves are not bad or evil. however, i will say some of these "new" super shots to make less trips for parents is not necessarily a great thing. when your combining 4 or 5 vaccines at one time, it's just too much IMHO for an infant to take one. did i get the vaccines for my daughter? yes, most of them. did i separate them out? yes i did.

 

[Futility]

Classic behavior in this thread. Jene makes incredibly thorough and informed posts and they are largely ignored. Rather than avoiding the expert opinion in the thread, try listening to it. If you're truly interested in what's best for your children wouldn't you WANT a debate with the most knowledgeable person you can find, rather than steering yourself away from it?

 

[Jene Bramel]

Which is precisely what Jene stated explicitly in his first sentence in the quote you responded to, and that I bolded above.

I was talking about the entire rest of Jene's paragraph which was refuted by the article. I was just trying to point out that he probably didn't even read the article

There’s nothing in the first paragraph in the linked article to refute the idea that non-causal factors have contributed significantly to the rise in the rates of autism diagnoses. As yet unrecognized increases in genetic and environmental factors will likely be proven to play a role, but that certainly doesn’t exclude the strong likelihood that broader diagnostic criteria and improved recognition and heightened interest in diagnosis from both clinicians and parents are also a significant factor. Again, it wasn’t my intention to minimize the genetic/environmental factors in my reply. I continue to argue that more research should be done to find them. I'll continue to argue that less research should be done on the vaccination/thimerosal question. The sooner we find true causal factors, the sooner we can consider new ways to test children for those factors and learn whether or not things like a specific infection or vaccination component (or any other of a myriad of other things in our children's lives) may trigger those factors. And the sooner we can put this debate behind us and help the kids with autism while not risking new infectious disease epidemics in healthy children due to unfounded fears.

 

[Jayrod]

But I will do a lot of research and I'm certain we won't be getting all the vaccines just because the CDC says we need it. Unnecessary risk is....well....unncessary.

Search the Net for videos of kids with whooping cough and let me know if you still feel that way.

Did you even read my post?

 

[Jayrod]

Which is precisely what Jene stated explicitly in his first sentence in the quote you responded to, and that I bolded above.

I was talking about the entire rest of Jene's paragraph which was refuted by the article. I was just trying to point out that he probably didn't even read the article

There’s nothing in the first paragraph in the linked article to refute the idea that non-causal factors have contributed significantly to the rise in the rates of autism diagnoses. As yet unrecognized increases in genetic and environmental factors will likely be proven to play a role, but that certainly doesn’t exclude the strong likelihood that broader diagnostic criteria and improved recognition and heightened interest in diagnosis from both clinicians and parents are also a significant factor. Again, it wasn’t my intention to minimize the genetic/environmental factors in my reply. I continue to argue that more research should be done to find them. I'll continue to argue that less research should be done on the vaccination/thimerosal question. The sooner we find true causal factors, the sooner we can consider new ways to test children for those factors and learn whether or not things like a specific infection or vaccination component (or any other of a myriad of other things in our children's lives) may trigger those factors. And the sooner we can put this debate behind us and help the kids with autism while not risking new infectious disease epidemics in healthy children due to unfounded fears.

OK, now I get where you are coming from.

 

[Jene Bramel]

I'll agree that I oversimplified things, but so have you. No doubt the success of vaccines has played a large part in their increased use and I'm not completely anti-vaccine, but to ignore the money aspect is both naive and assanine. Merck vaccine sales is 20% of their revenue for the first 3 qtrs of 2009 and GlaxoSmithKlein made 12% of their profit from vaccine sales in the same period from what I can tell from their financial statements.

We are talking billions of dollars here. Maybe there are higher margin drugs, but vaccines are a high margin. I may not know as much about medicine, but business I know and when you have the CDC suggesting your product to every single baby born in the world, it makes it easy to turn a profit.

I’m not ignoring the money aspect at all. I have no idea how much money the pharmaceutical companies make on vaccines. Generally speaking, pharmaceutical profit amounts in relation to the rising cost of health care is an issue for me, but one that’s very difficult to get my head around. And I’m not so naïve to dismiss the possibility that shady things happen in business. However, as it pertains to my daily practice, the business side of vaccination has absolutely no bearing on my decision to recommend vaccination. I do it because I believe it to be in the best interests of the child.Specifically, I see no reason to doubt the multiple studies from multiple countries over multiple years in many cases that vaccines are effective and well within the risk-benefit curve for the vast majority of children. And, if you’ll forgive my using anecdotal evidence to support my claims, I’ve seen the number of cases and complications of the infectious diseases these vaccines seek to prevent drop significantly. I have not seen credible evidence that many of the high-profile adverse events (particularly SIDS and autism) have been caused by vaccination.

You are totally ignoring my point. I'm talking about the increased risk of side effects. I know there are net benefits on society as a whole for vaccines. But some of this stuff isn't even 10 years old yet. The earliest test subjects aren't even teenagers.

Take the Rotavirus vaccine for example. It was put on the CDC list of recommended vaccines for infants age 0-6 years in 2009. According to the WHO, it is a vaccine against a diarrhea causing virus that killed about 575,000 children in 2004 worldwide, primarily in "developing countries". link

In 1998 a version of the vaccine was licensed in the US and used. Unfortunately, it caused problems in 1/12,000 cases which caused it to get yanked a year later. In 2006, two new versions came out and are licensed which are the ones suggested in the 2009 CDC schedule.

Basically, you have a 3 year old vaccine for diarrhea being given to every kid in the US whose parents don't say no to their pediatrician (who can have a habit of lecturing you when you do this). There is no life threatening issue with diarrhea in most of the US as we are a developed nation and death by dehydration is the only real threat from rotavirus, yet the CDC suggests every kid in the US to get the vaccine.

So basically the question I'm posing is this. Why do my wife and I (who have insurance and recognize the signs of dehydration by diarrhea) want to risk any potential side effects of a three year old drug on our newborn baby girl? The risks of serious problems with Rotavirus are essentially null for our daughter, but the risks of the vaccine are quite unknown since the vaccine isn't even 10 years old yet. If there is even the slightest chance of complications with the vaccine, I'm not going to let someone give it to my child, no matter what the CDC says. Because the CDC has kids in 3rd world countries and impoverished Americans in mind who don't have access to decent care...not my daughter.

Learning of the risk of intussusception after the first Rotavirus vaccination (Rotashield) was already approved for use was unfortunate. It warrants mentioning, however, that the relationship was discovered by the CDC through its adverse event reporting system and the pharmaceutical company who developed the vaccine voluntarily pulled it from the market, which I would argue directly contradicts your concerns that the CDC and pharmaceutical companies potentially minimize or sweep adverse effects under the rug to protect profits. Smaller studies leading up to vaccination approval may not catch every concerning side effect due to sample sizes. Multiple surveillance studies are done with every vaccine (new and old) to look for causal relationships with potential side effects to assure safety profiles. Those surveillance studies also examine whether and how effective those vaccines are.It’s unfortunate that parents see what should be a give and take discussion with their doctors about vaccination concerns as lecturing. As I’ve said in other threads, if you don’t have a strong relationship with your pediatrician/family doctor, find another one. I’m not a fan of doctor shopping, but a trusting relationship built on strong communication is a must. It sounds like you’ve done that already.

Had you come to me with appropriate concerns over the second generation of rotavirus vaccinations, specifically that you were concerned that we could see another post-approval study showing a concerning side effect and would prefer not to give your child the vaccine until its safety in large numbers was decided to your satisfaction, I’d likely be fine with that after some discussion. In fact, we did something very similar with my now three year old when the second generation Rotavirus vaccination was licensed.

Parents who come to me refusing vaccines due to autism or thimerosal or squalene or because they believe getting chicken pox naturally to be a better idea than vaccinating are going to get a little more forceful push back from me. That’s my job – use my training to critically examine the evidence and make recommendations in the best interests of the health of the child. I think the vast majority of my colleagues are doing the same. Parents should be doing absolutely the same. You’re in the minority here, Jayrod. You’re looking at the evidence and questioning it appropriately here, though I’d argue that the “vaccines are a racket” argument is misguided. Of the long discussions I have about vaccines with families, the vast majority have little idea of the depth of the evidence in favor of vaccinations and the risk of the infectious diseases they prevent. They’ve heard something from a friend or read something on a mommy board on the internet and did no research on their own.

This goes for any number of controversial topics in child’s health – breastfeeding, ADHD, and on and on. It's not limited to the vaccination debate.

With respect to the newer Rotateq vaccination, I think ten years of a strong safety profile is asking a lot. If I'm remembering correctly, the relationship between RotaShield and intussusception was noted within 18 months and took another 6-12 months to be confirmed. The increased risk of fever and febrile seizures associated with MMRV took less time than that. We eventually vaccinated my younger son with RotaTeq a few months after the vaccination had been in circulation, when we were comfortable that his risk of getting rotavirus was higher than the risk of any complications.

You’re correct that your daughter isn’t at any real risk of dying from a rotaviral infection. She is, however, at fairly significant risk of significant dehydration and hospitalization if she gets a rotaviral infection. Before vaccination, 50,000-70,000 children were hospitalized with dehydration every year. Thousands more required treatment in the ER. There are complications associated with that. Rarely, especially in the youngest children, dehydration can rapidly progress to shock. That can affect long-term kidney function or other critical functions. IV fluids aren’t the most invasive treatment in the world, but exposure to hospital acquired infection and other issues are a possibility. Those are the things you’ll want to consider against the small (and likely much smaller) risk of a complication like intussusception.

---------------------

To bring this full circle, compare and contrast our arguments with the comments of Jenny McCarthy. Take a look at her website and the comments of those who back her website. Examine them closely for inconsistencies. Make your own decision.

I do believe sadly it's going to take some diseases coming back to realize that we need to change and develop vaccines that are safe. If the vaccine companies are not listening to us, it's their f___ing fault that the diseases are coming back. They're making a product that's s___. If you give us a safe vaccine, we'll use it. It shouldn't be polio versus autism.

And please understand comments like these for what they are -- utterly ridiculous and unnecessarily inflammatory and dangerous.

 

[Jayrod]

I won't copy all of your post, Jene, but here's my response.

First, my whole comments on $$ were a response to Genedoc acting like there was no real money in vaccines. I had no problem with any of your stance on the business side of things. And if it wasn't clear, I put absolutely zero of that on the feet of the doctors. I know docs make little off of vaccines (unless they are employed by the pharmaceutical company or have stock in it). The money as a motivator to push unsafe items through is at the pharmaceutical level, not the frontline with doctors.

I appreciate your input on the matter and as I've got a one week old baby at home, I may do some checking with you on some of the vaccines we will be running across. We have a pediatrician we love that is under my wife's insurance, but that runs out after the first 30 days, and then my daughter moves to my plan which currently doesn't include that pediatrician in its network. We may literally change insurance plans just for our kids in the next 20 days so we can get them both with the guy we want if it is even remotely feasible financially. Problem is, that network seems to have much higher premiums than the one we're on now.

I appreciate the response on the Rotavirus vaccines. Its good to know that some doctors give these things some thought and I hope (but doubt) that they all approach the risks vs. rewards of vaccination objectively. I know that a 10 year history is a lot to ask for on each vaccine, but I'm genuinely concerned about developmental problems since we are talking about infants with these things. You know as much as anyone how children are still developing at the ages these vaccines are given.

And calling vaccine's a racket was way over the top. Sorry about that. And I don't put any stock in Jenny McCarthy. She is passionate, though and I think she honestly believes what she's saying, but that she is wrong.

I guess we're just in the camp that the fewer vaccines we need to give ourselves, the better. Neither my kids, my wife or myself have ever had a flu vaccine and my 3 year old son got maybe 2/3 of the suggested vaccines to date. My wife is a teacher and they kept pushing her to get the H1N1 vaccine while she was pregnant, but we just didn't feel comfortable with it. But she was crazy cautious about washing hands, touching people, etc. We eat as many fresh foods as possible instead of canned frozen or processed, use "natural" and local products and drink raw whole milk when a good source is available. I call my wife and her friends neo-hippies...all the naturalistic ideals in food and health, but with a heavily conservative philosophy on life and politics.

If the disease or problems from the disease can be effectively mitigated with non-vaccination methods, we'll choose that everytime over getting the vaccine. I understand the need for prevention, but I prefer my family to get preventative treatment in as non-invasive a way as possible. If we have to go out less and be less social to avoid H1N1 in order to avoid taking the vaccine, we'll do it. If we have to keep a close eye on our kids and take them in at the first signs of dehydration in order to avoid the Rotavirus vaccine, we'll do it. I guess its a fear of the unknown more than any specific fear of autism or the like.

 

[Genedoc]

Jayrod - I appreciate your thoughtful responses. Most specifically, I appreciate your realization that categorizing vaccines as "a racket" was over the top. Similarly, I apologize if I gave anyone the impression that there was "no" money in vaccines. There of course is. My point was that drugs, not vaccines, have for decades and will continue to be the mainstay of the big pharmaceutical companies, which is why I categorized vaccines as "mildly, not wildly" profitable. A drug like Lipitor or Viagra - those are wildly profitable. Many hundreds of fold more profitable than any vaccines. That said, I'm particularly interested in this quote:

If the disease or problems from the disease can be effectively mitigated with non-vaccination methods, we'll choose that everytime over getting the vaccine. I understand the need for prevention, but I prefer my family to get preventative treatment in as non-invasive a way as possible. If we have to go out less and be less social to avoid H1N1 in order to avoid taking the vaccine, we'll do it. If we have to keep a close eye on our kids and take them in at the first signs of dehydration in order to avoid the Rotavirus vaccine, we'll do it. I guess its a fear of the unknown more than any specific fear of autism or the like.

A couple of things come to mind. First, there's a hypothesis that exposure to allergen/pathogen, either via vaccination or direct exposure, assists in the development of the immune system. You're welcome to google "hygiene hypothesis" if you'd like to read more. Basically, it posits that living in too sterile of an environment during the time in life when the immune system is developing can prevent the immune system from developing properly. If you are avoiding vaccines and avoiding direct exposure, I think there is reasonable evidence to suggest that you're doing your body a disservice. Secondly, and this was discussed in the previous thread, the human immune system develops similarly to bones and muscles and the brain. That is, it can learn and remember at an amazing rate early in life, but it appears to lose some plasticity as we age. Ever notice how babies don't scar whereas when your 40 ever paper cut starts to leave marks? Your immune system is similar. I'd suggest to you that vaccination is THE least invasive and safest means possible to avoid getting an illness.

 

[kface]

This guy of thing is so unfortunate because it does set back science a fair amount because of the wide spread coverage...

 

[Jene Bramel]

For the purposes of those happening on this discussion later, you know I can't resist providing a counterpoint to a couple of your comments. The thoughtful back-and-forth is appreciated and my comments to follow aren't meant to be shots at your decision-making process.

I'm genuinely concerned about developmental problems since we are talking about infants with these things. You know as much as anyone how children are still developing at the ages these vaccines are given.

Growth and development is of paramount concern for all. From feeding to pooping to crawling to walking, it's right to consider the first two years of life the most critical stage in your child's development. In today's climate, it seems like every step on the developmental ladder is watched so closely that it's sometimes hard to see the big pictures from all the little details. You mention fear of the unknown a little later in your post and there's no question that there's not a day that goes by where you question whether what you're doing is right because the stakes are so high.From my perspective, vaccines are a very important part of the developmental process. Taking steps to prevent your child from the rare, but entirely possible, complications from a measles, mumps, chickenpox, pertussis or pneumococcal infection is an investment in their growth and development. Measles encephalitis is a horrible complication. Mumps can cause deafness. Secondary skin infections from varicella can be disfiguring, and encephalitis is again a concern. Apnea is a very real risk for any child less than 6-12 months that gets pertussis. Pneumococcal infections can lead to pneumonias and lung scarring and meningitis and hearing loss. All those complications are possible, have significant impact on growth and development -- including neurodevelopment in some cases, and are very preventable by vaccination.Similar arguments can be made for the other infectious diseases preventable by vaccination.And parents need to realize that, while it sucks to see your child used as a pincushion at nearly every visit through 18 months and then again just before kindergarten, it's precisely those periods in their lives when they're most at risk. It sounds horrible (and it's not something I include in my vaccination discussions ), but I think I remember reading that Dr. Paul Offit calculated that an infant's immune system could withstand tens of thousands of vaccinations without risk of overwhelming the immune system.

I guess we're just in the camp that the fewer vaccines we need to give ourselves, the better. Neither my kids, my wife or myself have ever had a flu vaccine and my 3 year old son got maybe 2/3 of the suggested vaccines to date. My wife is a teacher and they kept pushing her to get the H1N1 vaccine while she was pregnant, but we just didn't feel comfortable with it. But she was crazy cautious about washing hands, touching people, etc. We eat as many fresh foods as possible instead of canned frozen or processed, use "natural" and local products and drink raw whole milk when a good source is available. I call my wife and her friends neo-hippies...all the naturalistic ideals in food and health, but with a heavily conservative philosophy on life and politics.If the disease or problems from the disease can be effectively mitigated with non-vaccination methods, we'll choose that everytime over getting the vaccine. I understand the need for prevention, but I prefer my family to get preventative treatment in as non-invasive a way as possible. If we have to go out less and be less social to avoid H1N1 in order to avoid taking the vaccine, we'll do it. If we have to keep a close eye on our kids and take them in at the first signs of dehydration in order to avoid the Rotavirus vaccine, we'll do it. I guess its a fear of the unknown more than any specific fear of autism or the like.

I'm absolutely with you with regard to limiting invasive procedures whenever possible. It's very difficult at times, but it's often correct to counsel against antibiotics, x-rays and CT scans, behavioral medications and more. The evidence strongly suggests that it's not in the best interests of the majority of kids to delay or refuse vaccination. Good diet, handwashing and more are equally important. Today, fear of the unknown includes things like autism and other neurodevelopmental issues partly because we are now two full generations beyond the days when the infectious diseases we vaccinate for were a daily fear for parents.Today, you don't see your neighbor's child who is partially paralyzed due to polio. You don't hear about the kids who got very, very sick with chickenpox or measles. Nobody I know is deaf from mumps or lost a pregnancy due to rubella. I never once saw frank pus come out of the spinal needle of a child on whom I performed a spinal tap. I've seen exactly one case of life threatening swelling of the epiglottis -- that thing that covers your windpipe when you swallow -- and it wasn't related to Haemophilus. All of those things were regular occurrences a few short decades ago -- or less.In my practice career, I've seen the number of kids I've done blood and urine workups for fever and fussiness drop significantly. Studies suggest that's due to the pneumococcal vaccination. In the last two winters, I've rehydrated many fewer kids with diarrhea. That may be due to the normal cycles of illness; studies suggest that it's at least in part due to rotavirus vaccination. I've seen just a handful of cases of chickenpox. Most weren't classic and may not even have been varicella; none had serious complications. I've never seen measles. Sadly, we're starting to see more infants hospitalized with pertussis with a prolonged monitor requirement to catch their unprovoked spells where they stop breathing. They're catching the infection from adults and children, some unvaccinated, others who have lapsed protection and fall victim to the decreasing herd immunity in the community. I'm definitely doing more pertussis screens in the last five years than I did prior to that, often once a week or more. We're hearing about more and more mumps and measles outbreaks. If vaccination rates fall below the level necessary to provide herd immunity, epidemics will happen. That's not a scare tactic. It's fact. Fear of the unknown then becomes fear of the once-forgotten. That's not media-hype and H1N1 misinformation. It's fact. It's already begun to happen in small pockets.By all means, examine the evidence for yourselves. It's admittedly not easy when we're talking about a small percentage chance of either an adverse event or a complication of a disease that's been made rare by vaccination to judge the true risk-benefit ratio. Many times parenting decisions are hugely important and arguably 50-50. In my view, this isn't one of those times.Best of health to your family, Jayrod.

 

[Jobber]

Bumping this thread because I couldn't find any better vaccine related threads.

Whooping Cough Outbreak in CA

To all you who don't vaccinate your kids: Stay classy, moonbats

 

[Genedoc]

Bumping this thread because I couldn't find any better vaccine related threads.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/10/20/calif...dex.html?hpt=T2

To all you who don't vaccinate your kids: Stay classy, moonbats

You're link is busted...Try this one.

 

[Statcruncher]

Bumping this thread because I couldn't find any better vaccine related threads.

Whooping Cough Outbreak in CA

To all you who don't vaccinate your kids: Stay classy, moonbats

My mother-in-law is a first grade teacher in a small town that is basically economically dead and has a large portion of very poor immigrants and illegals. She came to the Metroplex to visit us after the birth of our 3rd child. Unknown to her she had contracted Whooping Cough from her class and passed it on to our 3 week old child. He spent 5 days in a quarrantined ICU room hovering near death. He pulled through, but the sweet little girl in the room next to him did not. It's not all just the crazy people, it's also the lazy, and illegals who are afraid of being deported who don't get vaccinated. Regardless of how or why the vaccine is being skipped, it's sobering how deadly this preventable illness is. This was 5 years ago and the doctors mentioned that pertussis was alarmingly on the rise again.

 

[culdeus]

Bumping this thread because I couldn't find any better vaccine related threads.

Whooping Cough Outbreak in CA

To all you who don't vaccinate your kids: Stay classy, moonbats

My mother-in-law is a first grade teacher in a small town that is basically economically dead and has a large portion of very poor immigrants and illegals. She came to the Metroplex to visit us after the birth of our 3rd child. Unknown to her she had contracted Whooping Cough from her class and passed it on to our 3 week old child. He spent 5 days in a quarrantined ICU room hovering near death. He pulled through, but the sweet little girl in the room next to him did not. It's not all just the crazy people, it's also the lazy, and illegals who are afraid of being deported who don't get vaccinated. Regardless of how or why the vaccine is being skipped, it's sobering how deadly this preventable illness is. This was 5 years ago and the doctors mentioned that pertussis was alarmingly on the rise again.

Hepatatis is my main concern. All the water servers from Mexico coming over have god knows what. Have fun on the liver transplant list little Melvin.

 

[timschochet]

It's not all just the crazy people, it's also the lazy, and illegals who are afraid of being deported who don't get vaccinated. Regardless of how or why the vaccine is being skipped, it's sobering how deadly this preventable illness is. This was 5 years ago and the doctors mentioned that pertussis was alarmingly on the rise again.

This is a huge issue. It's one reason I believe we need to increase public health benefits and offer them free to illegal immigrants without fear of deportation. The money and lives that we save in the long run will be tremendous.It also should demonstrate the terrible consequences of the Arizona law, if it is ever enacted. While we will never get rid of these people, making them fearful of authorities is a great risk to public health.

 

[Genedoc]

Bumping this thread because I couldn't find any better vaccine related threads.

Whooping Cough Outbreak in CA

To all you who don't vaccinate your kids: Stay classy, moonbats

My mother-in-law is a first grade teacher in a small town that is basically economically dead and has a large portion of very poor immigrants and illegals. She came to the Metroplex to visit us after the birth of our 3rd child. Unknown to her she had contracted Whooping Cough from her class and passed it on to our 3 week old child. He spent 5 days in a quarrantined ICU room hovering near death. He pulled through, but the sweet little girl in the room next to him did not. It's not all just the crazy people, it's also the lazy, and illegals who are afraid of being deported who don't get vaccinated. Regardless of how or why the vaccine is being skipped, it's sobering how deadly this preventable illness is. This was 5 years ago and the doctors mentioned that pertussis was alarmingly on the rise again.

Pertussis is brutal and harrowing. And more children will assuredly die from it as herd immunity diminishes. The question is not if more children will die horrible, painful deaths choking on their own sputum, but how many will die before the fear of a real killer outweighs the perceived fear of a bogeyman.

 

[Statcruncher]

It's not all just the crazy people, it's also the lazy, and illegals who are afraid of being deported who don't get vaccinated. Regardless of how or why the vaccine is being skipped, it's sobering how deadly this preventable illness is. This was 5 years ago and the doctors mentioned that pertussis was alarmingly on the rise again.

This is a huge issue. It's one reason I believe we need to increase public health benefits and offer them free to illegal immigrants without fear of deportation. The money and lives that we save in the long run will be tremendous.It also should demonstrate the terrible consequences of the Arizona law, if it is ever enacted. While we will never get rid of these people, making them fearful of authorities is a great risk to public health.

It's amazing to me how your answer to every problem is something like; legalize and embrace illegal immigrants and funnel cash/services toward them.

 

[Jene Bramel]

Bumping this thread because I couldn't find any better vaccine related threads.

Whooping Cough Outbreak in CA

To all you who don't vaccinate your kids: Stay classy, moonbats

My mother-in-law is a first grade teacher in a small town that is basically economically dead and has a large portion of very poor immigrants and illegals. She came to the Metroplex to visit us after the birth of our 3rd child. Unknown to her she had contracted Whooping Cough from her class and passed it on to our 3 week old child. He spent 5 days in a quarrantined ICU room hovering near death. He pulled through, but the sweet little girl in the room next to him did not. It's not all just the crazy people, it's also the lazy, and illegals who are afraid of being deported who don't get vaccinated. Regardless of how or why the vaccine is being skipped, it's sobering how deadly this preventable illness is. This was 5 years ago and the doctors mentioned that pertussis was alarmingly on the rise again.

Very happy your son recovered, Statcruncher.The striking thing about infants with pertussis is that they don't cough much. They just stop breathing. Any illness that requires an ICU stay is brutal on the parents, but wondering whether your baby has stopped breathing every time the monitor beeps is particularly rough.

This particular epidemic has been going on for months, with only sporadic coverage in the media. It's considered to be multi-factorial, but vaccine refusal and avoidance is certainly playing a large role.

 

[Genedoc]

Bumping this thread because I couldn't find any better vaccine related threads.

Whooping Cough Outbreak in CA

To all you who don't vaccinate your kids: Stay classy, moonbats

My mother-in-law is a first grade teacher in a small town that is basically economically dead and has a large portion of very poor immigrants and illegals. She came to the Metroplex to visit us after the birth of our 3rd child. Unknown to her she had contracted Whooping Cough from her class and passed it on to our 3 week old child. He spent 5 days in a quarrantined ICU room hovering near death. He pulled through, but the sweet little girl in the room next to him did not. It's not all just the crazy people, it's also the lazy, and illegals who are afraid of being deported who don't get vaccinated. Regardless of how or why the vaccine is being skipped, it's sobering how deadly this preventable illness is. This was 5 years ago and the doctors mentioned that pertussis was alarmingly on the rise again.

Very happy your son recovered, Statcruncher.The striking thing about infants with pertussis is that they don't cough much. They just stop breathing. Any illness that requires an ICU stay is brutal on the parents, but wondering whether your baby has stopped breathing every time the monitor beeps is particularly rough.

This particular epidemic has been going on for months, with only sporadic coverage in the media. It's considered to be multi-factorial, but vaccine refusal and avoidance is certainly playing a large role.

It's also a clear and present reminder that you're not only endangering your child's health when you refuse to vaccinate, you're also putting other people's children who cannot get the vaccine yet at risk. Sad and infuriating, but 100% predictable.

 

[culdeus]

Whoa, 10 dead. That's more than ham flu at this point right?

 

[jdoggydogg]

It's also a clear and present reminder that you're not only endangering your child's health when you refuse to vaccinate, you're also putting other people's children who cannot get the vaccine yet at risk. Sad and infuriating, but 100% predictable.

I live in Northern California. And I happen to live near the least vaccinated towns in the country: Forestville and Sebastoptol. If my son contracted one of these horrific diseases because some smelly hippie refused to vaccinate their kid, I'd sue the parents and the school.

 

[gianmarco]

More about Pertussis outbreak in California

 

[Jobber]

Wakefield Autism Fraud - Front Page of CNN

More on the ex-Dr. Wakefield study which Jenny McCarthy and her ilk hitched their anti vaccine wagon to.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Wakefield Autism Fraud - Front Page of CNN

More on the ex-Dr. Wakefield study which Jenny McCarthy and her ilk hitched their anti vaccine wagon to.

So a vapid, breast-enhanced actor was wrong about vaccines? What's the world coming to?

 

[Sarnoff]

Wakefield Autism Fraud - Front Page of CNN

More on the ex-Dr. Wakefield study which Jenny McCarthy and her ilk hitched their anti vaccine wagon to.

Sure, he committed a medical fraud that probably killed some kids, but, if he saved just one child's life, wasn't it all worth it?

 

[gianmarco]

This guy and the after-effects of his actions are absolutely sickening.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

Given Dr. Wakefield's connections to the pharmaceutical and vaccine industry, McCarthy's comments are infuriating and disingenuous -- as usual.

Here's a link to a very long and detailed breakdown of the history of Wakefield, including some excerpts from the GMC report.

This wack job is responsible for setting back autism research and vaccination rates almost singlehandedly. what an ###!

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Regarding McCarthy's misguided antics on autism (from Wikipedia):

McCarthy's public presence, and vocal activism on the vaccination-autism controversy, led to her being awarded The James Randi Educational Foundation's Pigasus Award (awards granted by Randi for contributing to pseudoscientific ideas) for the 'Performer Who Has Fooled The Greatest Number of People with The Least Amount of Effort'. Randi stated in a video on the JREF's website that he did sympathize with the plight of McCarthy and her child, but admonished her for using her public presence in a way that may discourage parents from having their own children vaccinated.

I like her boobs.

 

[Genedoc]

And the saddest, most infuriating part of all of this IMHO? That the erstwhile advocates for our children and leaders of multi-million dollar charities still cast their lot with Wakefield. Regardless of the evidence, regardless of logic or reason, and regardless of how profound his fraud is demonstrated to be.

Wendy Fournier, president of the National Autism Association, defended Wakefield in a CNN interview."I cannot imagine for a second that Dr. Wakefield would have any reason to falsify data," she said. "He's a man of integrity and honesty and truly wants to find the answers for millions of children who have been affected by autism."

So I guess we're looking at another decade or two and millions more dollars of research money being funneled towards demonstrating yet again that vaccines don't cause autism. Amazing. It would be difficult to overstate the damage Wakefield and his acolytes have done to real autism research. This is akin to the LAPD having teams of investigators looking high and low for the "real killers" of Ron and Nicole.

 

[GroveDiesel]

And the saddest, most infuriating part of all of this IMHO? That the erstwhile advocates for our children and leaders of multi-million dollar charities still cast their lot with Wakefield. Regardless of the evidence, regardless of logic or reason, and regardless of how profound his fraud is demonstrated to be.

Wendy Fournier, president of the National Autism Association, defended Wakefield in a CNN interview."I cannot imagine for a second that Dr. Wakefield would have any reason to falsify data," she said. "He's a man of integrity and honesty and truly wants to find the answers for millions of children who have been affected by autism."

So I guess we're looking at another decade or two and millions more dollars of research money being funneled towards demonstrating yet again that vaccines don't cause autism. Amazing. It would be difficult to overstate the damage Wakefield and his acolytes have done to real autism research. This is akin to the LAPD having teams of investigators looking high and low for the "real killers" of Ron and Nicole.

Funny, the Autism Awareness Association doesn't appear at CharityNavigator. I'm sure that they're very reputable though.

 

[BobbyLayne]

http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com/Jenn...Count/Home.html

 

[RudiStein]

Regarding McCarthy's misguided antics on autism (from Wikipedia):

McCarthy's public presence, and vocal activism on the vaccination-autism controversy, led to her being awarded The James Randi Educational Foundation's Pigasus Award (awards granted by Randi for contributing to pseudoscientific ideas) for the 'Performer Who Has Fooled The Greatest Number of People with The Least Amount of Effort'. Randi stated in a video on the JREF's website that he did sympathize with the plight of McCarthy and her child, but admonished her for using her public presence in a way that may discourage parents from having their own children vaccinated.

I like her boobs.

Randi rules.

 

[The Z Machine]

And the saddest, most infuriating part of all of this IMHO? That the erstwhile advocates for our children and leaders of multi-million dollar charities still cast their lot with Wakefield. Regardless of the evidence, regardless of logic or reason, and regardless of how profound his fraud is demonstrated to be.

Wendy Fournier, president of the National Autism Association, defended Wakefield in a CNN interview."I cannot imagine for a second that Dr. Wakefield would have any reason to falsify data," she said. "He's a man of integrity and honesty and truly wants to find the answers for millions of children who have been affected by autism."

So I guess we're looking at another decade or two and millions more dollars of research money being funneled towards demonstrating yet again that vaccines don't cause autism. Amazing. It would be difficult to overstate the damage Wakefield and his acolytes have done to real autism research. This is akin to the LAPD having teams of investigators looking high and low for the "real killers" of Ron and Nicole.

Someone's getting paid to show that vaccines don't cause autism though. Waste of money though, that's for sure.

 

[SoBeDad]

Regarding McCarthy's misguided antics on autism (from Wikipedia):

McCarthy's public presence, and vocal activism on the vaccination-autism controversy, led to her being awarded The James Randi Educational Foundation's Pigasus Award (awards granted by Randi for contributing to pseudoscientific ideas) for the 'Performer Who Has Fooled The Greatest Number of People with The Least Amount of Effort'. Randi stated in a video on the JREF's website that he did sympathize with the plight of McCarthy and her child, but admonished her for using her public presence in a way that may discourage parents from having their own children vaccinated.

I like her boobs.

Randi rules.

Randi has exposed lots of paranormal and religious frauds - I'm glad he's involved in the medical field. He's a fascinating guy, who hung out with Asimov and Carl Sagan.A few years ago he brought his talents to Ft. Lauderdale. This is from the Miami New Times of August 2009:

"To illustrate how easily spiritual leaders can garner followers, Randi and Alvarez, a visual artist, perpetuated a hoax on Australian national television in 1988. Alvarez pretended his body was inhabited by "Carlos," a 1,500-year-old fortuneteller. Within days, Alvarez had thousands of followers. "It was just so easy," Alvarez says. "It's sad and remarkable."

One of the biggest frauds, faith healer Peter Popoff, went bankrupt in 1987 after Randi exposed him. But Popoff is back in business sellling healing water and sand and reportedly bought a 4 million dollar home in Bradbury California and owns a Bentley.