Where are we now? - Page 2

[Dmitrizmom]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dh-nkD5LSIg

[Scattershoot]

Originally Posted by Deborah

there is, of course, the obvious difference:

Offit is rolling in money, has a prestigious job, is quoted by almost every news source going, gets to whine about those mean parents who send death threats and gets lots of public sympathy, gets truly crappy articles published in medical journals, has his book published and praised...

I think we all know what Wakefield has gone through.

It is much safer and considerably more profitable to praise vaccines than to criticize them.

That man has been run out of a country and lets not forget what his family has been through. He has kept his cool in unbelievable circumstances. He has been harassed relentlessly for an entire decade, yet he continues to devote himself to helping children. Think of all the time, money and energy that he has extended to deal with the hammering he has, and still is, receiving from all angles (except the parents who love him of course). All he did was suggest more research.

Has any new information come out in the past 5 years that says that vaccines aren't bad and in the right circumstances would be fine to shoot up with?

Other than the huge push to blame non-vaxing parents for destroying the world and ending humanity as we know it, not really.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Scattershoot

All he did was suggest more research.

It's the press conference that went with the publication of the report and interviews he gave around that time that most of the pro-vax blogs/forums that I've been to tend to mention. As far as I'm aware it's when he calls for the vaccine to be seperated in advance of further research that people object to. Does anybody have a transcript? I've found bits and pieces, but not the full thing.

[Scattershoot]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

It's the press conference that went with the publication of the report and interviews he gave around that time that most of the pro-vax blogs/forums that I've been to tend to mention.

He did talk about his findings and suggest more research. He was interested in separating the components. I also don't doubt that he was influenced by his beliefs in his research. All research is influenced like this. They wouldn't be doing any research unless they were interested in finding something out.

This doesn't take away from the what he has gone through. In the responses I've seen from him, he has been professional and respectful regardless of the nasty comments being made about him.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Scattershoot

He did talk about his findings and suggest more research. He was interested in separating the components. I also don't doubt that he was influenced by his beliefs in his research. All research is influenced like this. They wouldn't be doing any research unless they were interested in finding something out.

This doesn't take away from the what he has gone through. In the responses I've seen from him, he has been professional and respectful regardless of the nasty comments being made about him.

This misses the point surely? he went around saying things like:

my concerns are that one more case of this is too many and that we put children at no greater risk if we dissociated those vaccines into three, but we may be averting the possibility of this problem, and.....

You do not combine three live viruses into one vaccine and assume that that is a benign process, that you can follow those children for 3, 4, 5 weeks and get away with it. These are viruses that are live, they are capable of establishing long-term infection and they are capable of producing long-term adverse events.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sta...t_03_02_02.txt

He didn't just publish a study and say 'more research needed'. He went around giving interviews in which he specifically implied that the MMR was unsafe, that it's use had been reckless and that it should be withdrawn. All he had to back up his claim at that point was an unreplicated study with a sample size of 12 (or was there more?).

He may be right, he may be wrong. I genuinely have no idea.

[Deborah]

He published this study:
Measles, mumps, rubella vaccine: through a glass, darkly.
Wakefield AJ, Montgomery SM.
in this journal: Adverse drug reactions and toxicological reviews in 2000.

In the article the authors reviewed all of the safety studies done before MMR was approved for the UK and pointed out the shortcomings of the studies--very brief observation periods, for example.

Here is a challenge for anyone who wants to take it up. Find a study which looks at the long term results (say over 6 months) of vaccinating children with MMR.

One of the things which has been done with Wakefield is a compression of the time line of events. When this all started, his only suggestion at the first press conference, was that parents give kids single vaccines, a year apart, until such time as the autism vaccines concern was sorted out.

The immediate response of the government in the U.K. was to attempt make it impossible for parents to get the single vaccines for M M and R.

The article I cite above was an attempt by Wakefield to show that there actually were grounds for concern, not just based on his tiny study of 12 children.

I'll admit that there are some problems with his work. But I just wanted to point out that if you are a greedy scientist, supporting vaccination is a heck of a lot more lucrative and enjoyable than attacking vaccination. See Offit for an example.

[Scattershoot]

One of the things which has been done with Wakefield is a compression of the time line of events. When this all started, his only suggestion at the first press conference, was that parents give kids single vaccines, a year apart, until such time as the autism vaccines concern was sorted out.

The immediate response of the government in the U.K. was to attempt make it impossible for parents to get the single vaccines for M M and R.

Why do you think they responded that way? Was it just because they were concerned parents would start to doubt vaccines? Did they want to avoid giving any credibility to the possibility of a link to autism?

Wakefield was pushing for the individual components. He wasn't even against vaccines. I felt his language was well chosen considering the fears he had and what the parents were telling him happened. Think about the way the vaccine movement flips out about one case of the measles in an unvaccinated child.

As far as long term safety studies go, I don't know where those would be. Maybe they exist, but by and large the mentality of the system is if a child does not keel over and die within seconds of a shot, that shot is considered safe. I know that sounds crass, but it is true. Even if a child dies later that night they will say they have no idea what happened, call it SIDS or throw a parent in jail for SBS. Anything that happens days or weeks later could have been caused by anything.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Deborah

One of the things which has been done with Wakefield is a compression of the time line of events. When this all started, his only suggestion at the first press conference, was that parents give kids single vaccines, a year apart, until such time as the autism vaccines concern was sorted out.

My only point is that he didn't just present his results and call for more research as was stated. He also called for the withdrawl of MMR. Perhaps this would be a good thing, perhaps not.

I would be very interested in a transcript of the original press conference if anybody could link to it.

[Deborah]

An observation:

More and more vaccines are coming out in combo packs of 4, 5 or 6 vaccines in one needle. There are advantages: less needle pricks, for example. But the big advantage is added profits. How come? Well, it has to do with licensing. The old, single vaccines can be cheaply produced and it is very hard to up the amount being charged to get the big bucks. However, if you come out with a new, combo vaccine it is easy to charge more. Plus it is just about impossible to prove which component of the vaccine did the damage, if something does go wrong.

So Wakefield stepped on a lot of valuable toes when he suggested that a combo vaccine might be dangerous. Hence the hysterical reaction, IMO.

[an_domhan]

Originally Posted by Deborah

An observation:
So Wakefield stepped on a lot of valuable toes when he suggested that a combo vaccine might be dangerous. Hence the hysterical reaction, IMO.

I'm not convinced that Wakefield would have been as thoroughly persecuted, had he not filed for a patent that actually stated his vaccine would call for the elimination of the MMR. Whilst I'm not clear on the actual timeline, I do know this application was filed in June of 1997.

ETA: I have misspoke above, and this is likely because I was a victim of propaganda. I have retrieved the actual patent application, and have realised it is not the same as what was exploited on the web by Brian Deer. In comparing, I have misconstrued the first sentence of the original application. The elimination Wakefield is addressing, is MMR induced measles virus... at least I think. My apologies for misspeaking.

[Deborah]

Is there a copy of this patent application anywhere? I've heard about this, but I've never seen any of the info, just stories about it.

[carriebft]

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

its a scan of the document.

[carriebft]

The other patents and more evidence on this here:

http://briandeer.com/wakefield/wakefield-patents.htm

[Deborah]

Thanks, very interesting.

I see the main focus of the patent application as trying to find a way to treat the ill children who were coming to the Royal Free. Wakefield obviously had hopes that he might have found a safer substitute for the MMR, but from the wording in the application he didn't see this as a sure thing by any means.

Of course Brian Deer puts a very particular slant on to the story.

I suggest anyone who is interested read the actual patent application for themselves, disregarding the yellow highlighting which is used to tell B.D.'s version of events.

[carriebft]

Have you ever read Offit talking about polio and rotavirus and why he was driven to experiment and research in the areas he does?

or maybe all of his applications and research papers talk about wanting cash and luxurious living? The way we talk about Offit, one might think that

[Deborah]

Actually, I think both Offit and Wakefield are true believers and that the money, in both cases, is incidental.

Money is always an easy handle for an attack.