Open Letter To Andrew Wakefield

4 Apr

Dear Mr Wakefield,

Following your announcement of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism, uptake rates of this vaccine in the UK have fallen to amongst the lowest in Europe:

Take-up rates of the jab dropped throughout the UK, down to less than 70% in some areas, after a small-scale study published in The Lancet in 1998 by Dr Andrew Wakefield suggested a link to autism.

Source.

In 2004, mumps cases in the England and Wales rose from 4,204 in 2003 to 16,436 in 2004, nearly a four-fold increase.

And in the first month of 2005, there were nearly 5,000 cases. Most were among young adults born before 1988 and who would, therefore, not have been offered MMR as a child. In the second paper, Dr Ravindra Gupta, from London’s Guy’s and St Thomas’, working with colleagues from King’s College London, found cases have also occurring in very young children who would have been eligible for the MMR – measles, mumps and rubella – vaccine…..Dr Gupta (…) said uptake of MMR among two-year-olds in the UK fell from around 92% in early 1995 to around 80% in 2003/4.

Source.

In October 2004, experts predicted that due to falling vaccination uptake, the UK would start to suffer from ‘small outbreaks':

The medical newspaper Pulse has warned that there could be a measles epidemic this winter on a scale last seen in the 1960s. It said that lowering levels of immunity meant as many as 12% of children and 20% of adults could be hospitalised if infected by measles.

Source.

And now, this year, 18 months after this warning, we have the UK’s first measles induced fatality in 14 years.

The 13-year-old who died last month lived in a travellers’ community. It is thought that he had a weakened immune system; he was being treated for a lung condition. The boy died of an infection of the central nervous system caused by a reaction to the measles virus. The Health Protection Agency described his death as shocking.

Source

The Times also says that of the 72 reported measles cases last month, 9 required hospitalisation – this tallies almost exactly with the 2004 prediction of a hospitalisation rate of 12%.

I have a few questions for you Mr Wakefield.

Do you accept that there is a strong causative correlation between the falling MMR vaccine uptake and the rise in both mumps and measles? If you do not, could you please explain why not. If you do could you please explain what you feel is your role in these matters.

Is it true that, as reported by Brian Deer in the Times and in the Channel 4 current affairs programme ‘Dispatches’, that you received up to £55,000 to find scientific evidence of a link between MMR and autism and that you did not disclose you were being funded through solicitors seeking evidence to use against vaccine manufacturers?

Is it true that the vast majority of your subjects from the Lancet study were not, as you claimed, captured through the normal referral process, but actually supplied to you by lawyers representing these people and their families in vaccine litigation?

Is it true that up to nine months prior to the publication of your paper showing a link between the MMR vaccine and autism that you and the Royal Free (where you conducted your research) filed numerous patent applications which were alternatives to the MMR vaccine? If you did, would you consider it a lucky guess that led you to do this seeing as your MMR paper had yet to be published?

Do you believe, like your collaborator Hugh Fudenberg, that:

Some parents would rather see their kid die than live as a severely autistic.

Source.

These are serious matters Mr Wakefield. I’m aware that you are pursuing three court cases related to these matters (although at least one is currently stayed) and you are also due to be investigated by the GMC sometime this year but as the parent of an autistic child – in short exactly the sort of person you claim to want to help – I need answers now. What I read of you indicates wrong doing on a grand scale. If these things are established to be true you are guilty of not only extreme medical negligence but also of betraying thousands of parents and forcing thousands of autistic children to undergo totally unnecessary and highly invasive medical procedures.

You need to account for yourself Mr Wakefield. Please don’t wait for more children to be hospitalised or die.

About these ads

145 Responses to “Open Letter To Andrew Wakefield”

  1. Michael Ralston April 7, 2006 at 18:36 #

    Kevin: What about people who cannot get vaccines for proven and documented reasons, such as allergy to albumen?

    And what about herd immunity do you reject?

    Do you not accept the claim that if a disease is much less likely to infect the majority of the population, then it won’t be able to spread nearly as well?

    Do you not think that vaccines can cause this?

    Or do you just not think it’s important?

    Those seem to me to be your only options – so which is it?

  2. Sue M. April 7, 2006 at 19:12 #

    Daddy wrote:

    “Ah, the good old fallacious appeal to popularity. Lot’s o people seen it, there must be something to it! Watch out for UFO’s, ghosts, and beware the powerful psychics Sue”.

    – Of course, you can also look to MEDICAL RECORDS to verify claims… Do those lie as well?

  3. Dad Of Cameron April 7, 2006 at 19:19 #

    You mean to verify the quantity of claims? I don’t dispute that.

  4. anonimouse April 7, 2006 at 19:32 #

    Sue,

    As for the scientists, show me a scientist (not epidemiology) who has worked clinically with mercury or thimerosal who does not believe that it is or could be toxic to the human body… Show me just one and I will be happy.

    That has never been the debate. Point to one person who says that thimerosal or mercury in large enough doses is unable to harm you. Can’t do it, huh?

    The question is not whether thimerosal is large enough doses or taken orally can cause some kind of harmful reaction or poisoning. The question is whether the amount administered in vaccines plays a role in autism. It’s an enormous distinction that seems to elude folks like yourself.

    Of course, you can also look to MEDICAL RECORDS to verify claims… Do those lie as well?

    You know, there was a little study where medical records were used to verify claims that thimerosal is a causal factor in autism. Thousands of them as a matter of fact.

    Of course, that study is bogus because some people think that study was manipulated and the head researcher called it a neutral study and went to work for GSK and the Geiers )(who don’t know anything epidemiology) got different results.

    It is the same study that anti-thim groups like SafeMinds are balking at spending money to replicate. They’d rather assume thimerosal causes autism and then fund studies to prove their assertions in court rather than settle the question over whether the link exists in the first place.

  5. Sue M. April 7, 2006 at 19:38 #

    Kev wrote:

    “If not then whats wrong with the sand analogy”?

    “You seem to be intimating that the process of injection is just as dangerous as the thing being injected”.

    – No, no. You missed the point or possibly I didn’t make it clear. The sand analogy was silly because Clone was trying to compare the MSDS of play sand with the MSDS of thimerosal. There was no comparison. Apples to oranges. I don’t remember what was in the play sand but it was not mercury (I assure you). My point was that the kid might sit in the play sand and build sand castles or whatever but he was not having it injected into his/her body? To me, there is a difference. It is possible that if the child ate large quantities of it or whatever it might be dangerous but comparing the injection of thimerosal and sitting in play sand was just was an unfair comparison, in my opinion. I only brought it up because of the silly comparison of the car seat vs. toxic thimerosal being injected into babies… seems ridiculous to me to compare the two as somehow being on the same level in terms of possible “triggers” for autism. One is proven to contain a known neurotoxin which is injected into a baby. The other is a friggin’ car seat. Come on.

    Kev wrote:

    “In percentage terms Sue, you and your fellow cultists account for around 7% of the total autism population. Thats because most people are intelligent enough to see past hype, marketing and fear-mongering”.

    – Where did you pull the 7% number from? Even if that is the case, hey, that’s a lot of people who believe with good reason that their children were injured by vaccines… As for intelligence I would say that we are the ones who are intelligent enough to see the “science” behind the dangers of injecting a neurotoxin into an infant and we are also able to shout bogus when fools like Offit spout about the Danish epidemiology studies being valid.

  6. Jonathan Semetko April 7, 2006 at 19:40 #

    Sue wrote “Also, the sheer volume of “coincidences” found by thousands upon thousands of parents.”

    Ah, Dad of Cameron beat me to it (curses).

    The argumentum ad numerum (argument by the numbers).

    You know I have read the old school autism articles/books from the 50s-60s. There is all sorts of pscyhoanalytic garbage “Dibs: In Search of Self; Children with Emerald Eyes; and the Empty Fortress” to name a few.

    And the many people in these book show the improvement of autistic kids via therapy they need because of their cold “refrigerator mothers”.

    I mean golly, some of these kids even provided definite hints that their momma was to blame (putting the mother in a locked room in the doll house during play therapy) or regressing to infantile behavior to bond with the therapist who displaces the old Mother and creates a new dyad (Axeline warns against this in “Dibs”).

    Gosh Sue, all these smart people had the same experience. The autistic child shows evidence of profound early psychological trauma (via psychoanalytic theory) which could only be related to the mother (who is responsible for early bonding success/failure).

    Hey and…the kid gets better in psychodynamic play-therapy and that is a definite proof….right? So there it is, clear as crystal; all these folks were having the same experience which show that autism is related to bad mothering. After all thousands of folks can’t be wrong, right Sue….

    Group, I apologize for employing an example that uses misogyny, fallacy, and pseudo-science, but I wanted to turn the tables on Sue using a historical argumentum ad numerum that autism science had to actually defeat in the past.

  7. Sue M. April 7, 2006 at 19:54 #

    Mouse wrote:

    “The question is whether the amount administered in vaccines plays a role in autism. It’s an enormous distinction that seems to elude folks like yourself”.

    – Earth to Mouse… this concept does not elude me. We need the research to continue to be able to see if the possibility exists. I see it as likely… you don’t… that DOES NOT mean that your opinion is more valid than mine.

    Mouse wrote:

    “They’d rather assume thimerosal causes autism and then fund studies to prove their assertions in court rather than settle the question over whether the link exists in the first place”.

    – What? This makes NO sense. As of now, how can it be adequately settled? I don’t get it.

  8. anonimouse April 7, 2006 at 19:55 #

    Sue,

    The point I tried to make (that clearly eluded you) was based on this statement:

    Fair question. I suppose if there were some sort of “clinical” safety tests of thimerosal which showed no problems with injecting mercury into babies, that might help. Of course, you will never find that. Tell the CDC to grab a petri dish and add some living cells to it with a few drops of thimerosal and see what happens? Over simplification of course, but you get the point… Also, the sheer volume of “coincidences” found by thousands upon thousands of parents. I must give more credibility to parental concerns and knowledge about their own children than you do, Mouse.

    You argue two points:

    1. That because thimerosal has not been “proven” to be safe or unrelated to autism, it must be considered a potential causal factor in autism.

    2. There are thousands of “conicidences” reported between vaccine administration and the onset of autism.

    I can equally argue that:

    1. Car seats have not been “proven” to be unrelated to autism, thefore they must be considered a potential causal factor in autism.

    2. There are thousands of “coincidences” where a child was buckled into a car set and then soon after developed autism.

    Sue, you can replace “car seats” with eating, drinking, playing in the sandbox, breathing air, walking in the sunshine or taking a bath – but it’s the same general premise.

    Nobody knows if autism is even CAUSED by a neurotoxin, much less that mercury is said neurotoxin. Considering that, all you really have going for you is correlation – and as I pointed out above there are a billion things that happen to kids around the time they are diagnosed. Maybe some of them are less likely than others, but can you conclusively rule any of them out?

  9. anonimouse April 7, 2006 at 19:58 #

    “They’d rather assume thimerosal causes autism and then fund studies to prove their assertions in court rather than settle the question over whether the link exists in the first place”.

    – What? This makes NO sense. As of now, how can it be adequately settled? I don’t get it.

    SafeMinds would rather rant about how the CDC is destroying or hiding VSD data than actually fund a study to use that data (or other HMO data) to illustrate than a link between autism and thimerosal really does exist. Either that or cast aspersions on any study brought forth that disputes the notion that there is an autism epidemic at all.

  10. Sue M. April 7, 2006 at 19:58 #

    Jonathan wrote:

    “You know I have read the old school autism articles/books from the 50s-60s”.

    – Great, Jonathan. Now go back to those articles/books and see how many children we were talking about back in the 50s-60s? How many 1 in what? 10,000? 20,000? What were the numbers back then… why, Jonathan, why? Misdiagnosis, right. Yes, that clears it right up…

  11. clone3g April 7, 2006 at 20:05 #

    Sue M. No, no. You missed the point or possibly I didn’t make it clear. The sand analogy was silly because Clone was trying to compare the MSDS of play sand with the MSDS of thimerosal.

    No, no, you missed the point which is why I never bothered to respond, Sue. Don’t feel bad, I’m used to that from you. I am impressed by your selective recall, however, right down to the brand of play sand.

    I posted the link in response to the link you provided for a thimerosal MSDS, not to compare the dangers of sand to the dangers of a mercury compound, but to demonstrate that the mere existence of a safety data sheet does not a poison make.

    Anything can be dangerous in the right quantities when used improperly. Now go ahead and argue that the quantity of thimerosal used in vaccines is dangerous, I don’t care enough to debate the point and you have absolutely no proof. Tell me it causes autism and you’ll need more than your usual sandbagging.

    Did you notice how few IMFAR presentations support a role for vaccines?
    The hourglass is almost empty Sue……

  12. Sue M. April 7, 2006 at 20:15 #

    Mouse wrote:

    “Sue, you can replace “car seats” with eating, drinking, playing in the sandbox, breathing air, walking in the sunshine or taking a bath – but it’s the same general premise”.

    – That’s great, Mouse. I have an idea. You raise some money and do some research into the above ideas i.e. eating, drinking, playing in the sandbox, etc. and allow SafeMinds the same opportunity. It should work out well.

  13. clone3g April 7, 2006 at 20:19 #

    Uh-Oh, I hope this stuff isn’t given by injection

  14. Sue M. April 7, 2006 at 20:27 #

    Clone wrote:

    “Uh-Oh, I hope this stuff isn’t given by injection”.

    – You know, Clone… trust me, I’m not thrilled with the fact that my daughter CAN’T LIVE without injecting insulin. Thanks for reminding me. You’re an ass!

  15. Sue M. April 7, 2006 at 20:36 #

    Clone wrote:

    “right down to the brand of play sand”.

    – I thought that my recall was decent. So, I went back to check the MSDS that you had linked to and this is what it was:

    http://consumer.kpmindustries.com/documents/MSDS/KING%20Play%20Sand.pdf

    – Do you see where I may have gotten King from? Silly me. My mistake.

  16. clone3g April 7, 2006 at 20:43 #

    Sue M. Do you see where I may have gotten King from? Silly me. My mistake.

    Umm, ya lost me there.

    Thanks for reminding me. You’re an ass!

    Anytime

  17. Sue M. April 7, 2006 at 20:47 #

    Clone wrote:

    “Umm, ya lost me there”.

    – What are you an idiot?

  18. David H April 7, 2006 at 21:14 #

    Anonimouse,

    “Of course, that study is bogus because some people think that study was manipulated and the head researcher called it a neutral study and went to work for GSK and the Geiers )(who don’t know anything epidemiology) got different results.”

    I’ll assume by your tone you take issue with “some people” who view that study as bogus. In my opinion, the primary reason that study is bogus is because the CDC refuses to allow replication of it and datasets were “lost.” Defending this study is a futile effort.

    “It is the same study that anti-thim groups like SafeMinds are balking at spending money to replicate. They’d rather assume thimerosal causes autism and then fund studies to prove their assertions in court rather than settle the question over whether the link exists in the first place.”

    Anonimouse, I strongly disagree with you. What are you basing these statements on? Have you seen the letter sent to the NIEHS regarding the need to study the VSD? It was organizations like SafeMinds & NAA who have been lobbying for years to allow independent researchers to study that data. They are the ones responsible for Joe Lieberman’s letter. So to say they aren’t interested in replicating that study is incorrect.

  19. clone3g April 7, 2006 at 21:25 #

    Sue M: What are you an idiot?

    Your words and meaning were not clear, which means you failed to communicate effectively. When I was very young and struggling with speech delays I also had trouble communicating so you aren’t the first to ask that question.

    I hope you don’t call your speech delayed child an idiot, Sue.

  20. Jonathan Semetko April 7, 2006 at 21:29 #

    And off we trot on Sue’s red herring:

    Sue wrote “Great, Jonathan. Now go back to those articles/books and see how many children we were talking about back in the 50s-60s? How many 1 in what? 10,000?20,000?”

    Well I am going to go out on a limb here and actually read the science, so that be Lotter (1966) at 7.8 per 10,000. No points this round Sue, try again next round.

    Sue wrote “What were the numbers back then… why, Jonathan, why? Misdiagnosis, right. Yes, that clears it right up…”

    Excellent! (Haaa..and you guys said that Sue was unreasonable), I was getting tired of having to tell you (again and again) that in no decade was autism ever at 1 per 10,000.

    Also, now that we have cleared this up, you know that 3/4 of the spectrum that exists in 2006 does so because of a PDD-NOS which of course didn’t exist in 1966.

    So to clearly, not “misdiagnosis”….diagnosis not invented yet.

  21. Sue M. April 7, 2006 at 21:37 #

    Clone wrote:

    “I hope you don’t call your speech delayed child an idiot, Sue”.

    – No, I would never do that, Clone. I can assure you that had you not just thrown out an insensitive comment towards my daughter … I would have been much less harsh towards you… I suppose that you understand the brand of play sand comment now?

  22. Sue M. April 7, 2006 at 21:59 #

    Jonathan wrote:

    “Also, now that we have cleared this up, you know that 3/4 of the spectrum that exists in 2006 does so because of a PDD-NOS which of course didn’t exist in 1966.

    So to clearly, not “misdiagnosis”….diagnosis not invented yet”.

    – So, what exactly were these non-diagnosed PDD-NOS children diagnosed with again back in the 60’s? I’ve seen quite a few children diagnosed with PDD-NOS and in most cases it is very obvious that there is something going on with them…. (hint: it’s more than “quirky”). So, if I was a mother in the 1960’s and I had a child who would now be considered PDD-NOS, how would I have described my child to others if they asked about his behaviour, his actions or whatever?

  23. clone3g April 7, 2006 at 22:11 #

    Sue M. I can assure you that had you not just thrown out an insensitive comment towards my daughter

    Which comment and how was it insensitive toward your daughter? You never seem to concerned about making insensitive comments toward autistics Sue.

  24. Sue M. April 7, 2006 at 22:24 #

    Clone wrote:

    “Which comment and how was it insensitive toward your daughter? You never seem to concerned about making insensitive comments toward autistics Sue”.

    – Please feel free to show some examples of my insensitive comments towards autistics, Clone? As for your insensitive comment, I’m pretty sure that you can figure it out.

  25. Jonathan Semetko April 7, 2006 at 23:53 #

    Sue wrote “So, what exactly were these non-diagnosed PDD-NOS children diagnosed with again back in the 60’s? I’ve seen quite a few children diagnosed with PDD-NOS and in most cases it is very obvious that there is something going on with them…. (hint: it’s more than “quirky”).”

    Hint not taken. I have helped diagnose some children under this category. It is not always clear cut, especially with the younger ones. It can be a real judgment call, when the test scores/behavior are not clear cut.

    Of course PDD-NOS itself is quite a spectrum and can range from quite obvious, to not obvious at all. I have heard comments about the latter sort of kid like “there is nothing different about that boy, he is just stubborn/ coddled/ spoiled”.

    In a university student based program where I was a student supervisor, I had one of the folks I supervised came bowling up to me to tell me that his brand new student was not PDD-NOS. This person told me that “He is just quite, but he talks, and that the diagnosticians upstairs in our building, just put him here because he probably cried during the assessment.”

    Well he was wrong, the student’s speech was not as developed as it appeared on first glance and he did meet criteria for PDD-NOS, just not on first glance.

    Sue wrote “So, if I was a mother in the 1960’s and I had a child who would now be considered PDD-NOS, how would I have described my child to others if they asked about his behaviour, his actions or whatever?”

    Sue, I have no idea. That is as different as me and you. You will have to decide what you would have said on you own.

    I would have said “This one is developing a little different from his/her siblings, but we can see that s/he is smart, and we are going to be patient and let him/her develop at his/her own pace. And if s/he needs help in a specific area, we will get that for him/her.”

  26. Sue M. April 8, 2006 at 01:11 #

    Jonathan wrote:

    “Of course PDD-NOS itself is quite a spectrum and can range from quite obvious, to not obvious at all”.

    – Ok, I agree that sometimes it can be a judgment call and for what may be PDD-NOS to someone may not be to someone else. I do get that. So, let me ask this… what about what you would call the “obvious” PDD-NOS of today. What were they diagnosed with in the 60’s?

    Jonathan wrote:

    “I would have said “This one is developing a little different from his/her siblings, but we can see that s/he is smart, and we are going to be patient and let him/her develop at his/her own pace. And if s/he needs help in a specific area, we will get that for him/her.”

    – That’s beautiful, Jonathan. I guess my point was… did they not discuss this with his/her doctors? So, the doctor/parent just sort of “let it slide”? As a parent, I find that hard to believe in the cases of “obvious” PDD-NOS (not the border-line “quirky” kids). It would be interesting to interview people who have been doctors for a long time to see what they have to say… Or long time teachers… actually, I’ve talked with a few long time teachers… those that I’ve spoken with have said that the children today have a lot more chronic illnesses (asthma, type 1 diabetes, allergies, learning disabilities, etc). They did not specifically talk to the autism issue (because they were not special needs teachers) but they were horrified at the changes over the years. I wonder why that would be?

  27. Kev April 8, 2006 at 05:19 #

    _”Where did you pull the 7% number from? Even if that is the case, hey, that’s a lot of people who believe with good reason that their children were injured by vaccines”_

    Here you go Sue.

    I also wouldn’t say a _lot_ – what I’d say is a sizable minority of upper-middle class parents with enough money to buy enough bullshit adverts to get a few populist politicians to see the potential of exploiting autism for their own agendas.

    _”As for intelligence I would say that we are the ones who are intelligent enough to see the “science” behind the dangers of injecting a neurotoxin into an infant and we are also able to shout bogus when fools like Offit spout about the Danish epidemiology studies being valid.”_

    What science exposes the ‘danger’ of thiomersal causing autism?

    I would suggest that anyone who thinks the alleged behaviour ofWakefield I’ve outlined here is acceptable, or who believes that GR are capable of reason, or that NAA didn’t utterly misleadingly attempt to smear Paul Shattuck is not capable of recognising a few home truths about the validity of their position.

  28. Sue M. April 8, 2006 at 14:20 #

    Kev wrote:

    “I also wouldn’t say a lot – what I’d say is a sizable minority of upper-middle class parents with enough money to buy enough bullshit adverts to get a few populist politicians to see the potential of exploiting autism for their own agendas”.

    – So odd to me that you bring up the money thing again. I wonder why? Weird….

  29. Sue M. April 8, 2006 at 15:24 #

    Kev wrote:

    “In percentage terms Sue, you and your fellow cultists account for around 7% of the total autism population. Thats because most people are intelligent enough to see past hype, marketing and fear-mongering”.

    – How can you possibly use the link above to extrapolate that 7% number that you referenced. According to your link, that is the number of parents who have tried chelation in the past? That is supposed to relate to the number of parents who believe that vaccines played a role in their child’s development of autism (which was my original point). Now, that’s some spin… Tell me you’re kidding.

  30. Jonathan Semetko April 8, 2006 at 17:53 #

    Hi Sue,

    They would have dx’ed the obvious one’s with Communication, LD, or emotional/behavioral disorders. Possibly with specific neuroses.

    One of my parents has been a special educator for 30+ years. He studied in the US and New Zealand at the University of Auckland. He told that the kids who were getting dx’ed with autism were just like some of the kids who he saw in 60s-70s who were then labeled with emotional/behavioral disorders.

    He has not observed more health concerns in the kids. What he has noticed, is that his students with more serious/complex health problems are less likely to die when they are students and seem to suffer less from it, due to advancements in medicine.

    I used to have to have severe allergies as a child, I had to receive allergy shots every two weeks during the late summer/early fall months, or I would be very miserable. Also, the shots rarely helped a great deal (so it goes). I have gradually lost most of them. This year was the first I experience little to no symptoms.

    My mother has them almost as bad as I do, (and she never lost them) as did her mother.

  31. Kev April 9, 2006 at 05:47 #

    _”So odd to me that you bring up the money thing again. I wonder why? Weird…”_

    Because one of the overriding characteristics of the mercury group is their repeated attempts to use money rather than science. Generation Rescue employ a large PR/media firm called Fenton Communications to handle their PR stuff, they buy large, expensive (and misleading) adverts and retain expensive lawyers.

    The debate should be about none of those things. It should be about the science. Their gross overcompensation into media manipulation reveals their paucity in that area.

    _”How can you possibly use the link above to extrapolate that 7% number that you referenced. According to your link, that is the number of parents who have tried chelation in the past?”_

    No, Sue, 7% is the number of people who were trying chelation now. 7.8% was the number who’d once tried it and had now abandoned it. What does that tell you?

    And yes, I feel its fair to draw that conclusion. Do you know many parents who feel their children are metal poisoned but who aren’t chelating?

  32. Sue M. April 9, 2006 at 16:17 #

    Kev wrote:

    “Because one of the overriding characteristics of the mercury group is their repeated attempts to use money rather than science”.

    – Of course you know why that is, right? It is because of the ridiculous “science” which has been thrown out there by the CDC, etc. These organizations have had to do much of the work themselves to “debunk” the absurdity of the Danish studies, etc. I have said to you previously, if you want to pool your pennies with a group of other people to prove that ice cream causes autism, please go right ahead. If you can get some backing behind your theory via scientific studies, wonderful.

    Kev wrote:

    “No, Sue, 7% is the number of people who were trying chelation now. 7.8% was the number who’d once tried it and had now abandoned it. What does that tell you”?

    – That tells me that you attempted to bring up some irrelevant information in response to what I had originally said. Which is perfectly fine IF you state that that is what you are doing. I had written:

    “In fact, I imagine that there are plenty of children who are out there in which vaccines have not played a major role. There are other factors involved. I DO believe that in MANY cases vaccines did and do play a role…”

    To which you responded with:

    “In percentage terms Sue, you and your fellow cultists account for around 7% of the total autism population. Thats because most people are intelligent enough to see past hype, marketing and fear-mongering”.

    – Your 7% was completely irrelevant to the original comment by me which you were seemingly responding to. I’m just glad that I asked.

  33. Kev April 9, 2006 at 17:00 #

    _”Of course you know why that is, right? It is because of the ridiculous “science” which has been thrown out there by the CDC, etc. These organizations have had to do much of the work themselves to “debunk” the absurdity of the Danish studies, etc. I have said to you previously, if you want to pool your pennies with a group of other people to prove that ice cream causes autism, please go right ahead. If you can get some backing behind your theory via scientific studies, wonderful.”_

    Sue, what validity do you, a self-confessed anti-vaxxer, feel you have when it comes to being any judge of science? The recent study from Paul Shattuck was good science. The previous prevalence studies by Fombonne were good science. You only ever cite the Danish studies when they make up a small percentage of the total science.

    Money can buy you an awful lot of adverts, politicians and media-babes but it still can’t buy you science as even Rick Rollens has recently discovered.

    _”Your 7% was completely irrelevant to the original comment by me which you were seemingly responding to. I’m just glad that I asked. “_

    lol…I see you still don’t get it :o)

    Get back to me when you manage to join the dots.

  34. HN April 10, 2006 at 18:14 #

    Another Times editorial:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8123-2122241,00.html

  35. Kristjan Wager April 10, 2006 at 18:29 #

    Sue M., one of the points of criticism of the Danish study was the fact that at first only inpatients were counted, and later out-patients were counted as well. Can you tell me what the difference is between in- and outpatients in the Danish health care system?

  36. Sue M. April 11, 2006 at 01:44 #

    Kristjan Wager wrote:

    “Can you tell me what the difference is between in- and outpatients in the Danish health care system”?

    – No, I can’t. I’m sure that you can, though, so go ahead and tell me why the Danish studies are not flawed. Then, after that, can you go inform the CDC as well… If they can clear up the controversy on the Danish studies easily than that would be good for their cause. They just leave us all hanging by not addressing the issues that have been raised. If there are easy answers to the questions than please enlighten us…

  37. anonimouse April 12, 2006 at 18:20 #

    Sue – here you go.

    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/04/kristjan_wager_returns_to_disc_1.php

  38. Sue M. April 12, 2006 at 20:10 #

    Mouse wrote:

    “Sue – here you go”.

    – Thank you, Mouse. So here we have Kristjan saying:

    “First of all, let me start with stating that I agree with SafeMinds on one thing; it would have been better if the figure that only contained inpatient cases after 1994 as well. Changing data-sources like this is sloppy and only leaves the authors open for this sort of criticism.”

    – We agree here, of course. The study is invalid due to this flaw. Why would you want to start going around now talking about the rates back in the 1970’s to make up for the incompetence of the study? That might work for the CDC, but it won’t work for those of us with some common sense.

  39. Kev April 12, 2006 at 20:55 #

    _”We agree here, of course. The study is invalid due to this flaw. Why would you want to start going around now talking about the rates back in the 1970’s to make up for the incompetence of the study? That might work for the CDC, but it won’t work for those of us with some common sense.”_

    Translation: ‘I didn’t get it’.

  40. Sue M. April 12, 2006 at 21:15 #

    Kev wrote:

    “Translation: ‘I didn’t get it”.

    – Wrong, Kev. I got it. Bottom line, the study is flawed. But of course, Kristjan wants to go extracting information from the rates of autism in the 1970’s — did you read the link above? I say, the study is flawed, it will always be flawed… can’t trust it. Move on… So, what didn’t I get?

  41. Kev April 13, 2006 at 05:51 #

    _”Kristjan wants to go extracting information from the rates of autism in the 1970’s”_

    I was right. You didn’t get it. Thats OK, no one was really expecting you to.

  42. Remis Moroza April 27, 2006 at 12:04 #

    Just have 3 single vaccines. The bottom line is: autism and MMR and mercury in vaccines is related.

  43. Kev April 27, 2006 at 12:28 #

    Is that right Remis? Then it should be as easy as pie for you to illustrate that belief scientifically. I’ll wait here for you to do that.

  44. HN April 27, 2006 at 16:11 #

    The big problem with “3 separate” vaccines is that they each have to be given TWICE! So, that is 6 seperate trips to the clinic, and 6 seperate punctures that can become infected.

    Also, there really is no effective single vaccine for mumps.

  45. Robillard May 29, 2006 at 19:01 #

    From http://alyric.blogspot.com/2005/11/letter-to-lenny.html (end of page)

    ‘ *MMR and Autism::*it’s not all that complicated. There is a vaccine damage payment unit. Any person can react or be allergic (at any time in their life) to any substance at all (check food labels and ‘trace of nuts’) what isn’t good is the flagging system *post vaccination* to prove *specific babies* have been damaged. There are good guys and bad on both sides of this debate, mainly stressed out parents though and children already alienated suffering *autism* then having to put up with their ‘disease’ like they are a walking cesspit or something terrible. Love the unique child + forget the label. I am a parent of a non-verbal child whom was fiddled with (*unecessary endoscopy* etc) by The Royal Free, but it was *Simon Murch*,not Wakefield, unecessarily prescribed killer antiobiotics known as *Vancomycin* for my poor little boy + a confused mummy here, later social workers blamed ME for the gut problem (it’s still there) check *MSBP* and that was thanks to the hysteria of groups like JABS who are preposterous to think vaccines aren’t generally a good thing when used with caution- when will common sense be spoken here? It’s black + white. Government: Improve your flagging system, look at ways of preventing vaccine damage eg dont give them when child ill (sense?) parents; stop shouting and blaming, they are your children, learn to get out of your own depression or disappointment that you haven’t got a ‘NT’ + love yourselves + understand your children . Would be nice. Sick to death of people pitying parents and I am one- we need practical support for daily chores + respite + special schools and we all need a much better understanding of autistic thought patterns. Autism has been around since history books began, even references to it in the bible. Hindus’ used to worship Autistic children as ‘holy’. Amen. Check http://www.mama2.org too’
    Quite :)

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,132 other followers

%d bloggers like this: