Irony and fear

17 Feb

I tried to stay away. Honestly. I’ve had enough of Andrew Wakefield for a long time. But a news story came out with two paragraphs that I couldn’t let go.

From is an article “Some parents embrace discredited researcher whose studies link autism to vaccinations”. In it, Andrew Wakefield is quoted as saying:

“The tragedy is that it’s taking attention away from the real issues of how to help these poor children,” the 54-year-old surgeon said in
an interview Friday.

How much time has been wasted by parents and researchers in the MMR story?

That’s the irony. Now the fear.

Today, Wakefield, who hopes to open an Austin residential facility for autistic adults, said he regrets having to spend so much time
defending his 13-year-old study.

OK, I don’t really fear this as (a) I doubt it will come to pass and (b) I doubt my kid will end up in Austin.

So many thoughts go through my head thinking about Andrew Wakefield running programs for autistic adults. I seriously am at a loss for how to put those thoughts into words.

93 Responses to “Irony and fear”

  1. Dinah Everett Snyder February 17, 2011 at 11:10 #

    @Sullivan: the Wakefield quotes which you attribute to him in this article suggest that:
    1. he is the better man
    2. he is still dedictaed to autism (open ended) despite being discredited and nit picked by a pharma shill and stalked by Mr.Deer.

    It is one thing to discredit the Lancet paper and quite another to endure the character assassination that Wakefield has endured.
    There is a plethora of doctors to make an example of, yet Dr Wakefield has been taken to the end of the stick and back
    ( repeat times how many years now?).

    You it appears are straddling the fence, sitting ” in opposition” to yourself if your other articles and this are to be an indication of your thought process.
    Which is it?

    And yes, it is a tragedy that the perpetual motion of the Wakefield ripple has overtaken the real questions of autism and given such skullduggery as shown by the media and medicine the light of day.

    Autism doesn’t hinge on Wakefield and neither is he the glue that binds…causal is as causal does, there is ever more!
    move on and discuss autism, or move over and write on something else or at least find a viewpoint and get off the fence please.

    Dinah Everett Snyder

    • Sullivan February 17, 2011 at 21:18 #

      “semantics, is that what billions of dollars and research and years of wiffle waffle have yielded.”

      Here, let Jon Poling translate this for you. He’s discussing the vaccine court and the decision to compensate his daughter:

      “It’s a no-fault system. So the ruling didn’t say anything about the science. When they got up there and said, ‘In no way have we said vaccines cause autism,’ it’s true…it doesn’t say anything about causation. The conclusion they came to is about compensation”

      You can find the quote in “Panic Virus” at the end of the chapter “How to Turn a Lack of Evidence into Evidence of Harm”.

  2. sharon February 17, 2011 at 11:49 #

    @Dinah, is it correct to refer to Andrew Wakefield as a Dr?

  3. Julian Frost February 17, 2011 at 12:58 #

    You are defending a man who lied. Wakefield was hired by Richard Barr to find faults with the MMR Vaccine, and when he couldn’t, he cooked his data. Wakefield is quoted above as saying he regrets having to spend so much time defending his study. If he was “the better man” he would be expressing regret for his lies, or would have been honest in his report.
    His lies have diverted time, effort and research money away from autism investigation, and into investigating a nonexistent link between the MMR Vaccine and Autism.
    As for your comments re Brian Deer being a pharma shill, I suggest you look up Vioxx. A Merck bestseller, Brian Deer investigated it and found problems with it leading to its withdrawal. Some pharma shill, eh?

  4. AWOL February 17, 2011 at 13:00 #


    He still has the degree; he’s still a doctor. He just cant practice in the UK..OUR LOSS IN THE UK.

    Mr Deer ,made a laughing stock of the medical establishment as the GMC holds him up as an expert ,thats one thing Dr Wakefield never was or is :was a pretender…he has the qualifications to prove that unlike Deer ..

  5. AWOL February 17, 2011 at 13:17 #

    Jack Fros

    ” If he was “the better man” he would be expressing regret for his lies, or would have been honest in his report.”

    If he were to do as you say above everyone in the Autism community would know he was dont make sense.. his work has helped thousands and in America hundreds of thousands..

  6. John Fryer Chemist February 17, 2011 at 13:21 #

    I am dedicated at present to finding out about MMR. Long supporter that a brain destroying chemical can destroy brains (thimerosal in vaccines). With the 12 year Witch Hunt likely to continue for many years I feel it is time to be informed on measles vaccines and what they do.

    Just one snippet:

    Mumps vaccines was not available in the UK until the late 1980’s although available for a long time before if UK deemed it important.

    Measles vaccine is 100 per cent effective.

    So why switch in the UK to a vaccine that fails to protect children in 5 per cent of cases.

    To be blunt one vaccine of single measles is 100 per cent guaranteed to work.

    Switch this now to a vaccine that may work or may not work.

    What does this say about doctors and governments and their care for little children?

    And why rubella at this early age when it is more important to be protected as a teenager?

    I have no qualms that MMR has caused a 99 per cent drop in these killer illnesses but do we bother to look at harm they cause too?

    Autism alone is running at rates that make harm from the three old killers look trivial and we still don’t know the cause or for that matter who has or has not got autism.

    In short total CHAOS reigns in the medical profession with no knowledge and no findings being the gold standard of 2011

  7. Chris February 17, 2011 at 18:49 #

    Mr. Fryer:

    Measles vaccine is 100 per cent effective.

    On what planet? Support your claims with real evidence, or we will assume that you made it all up.

    Ms. Snyder, Wakefield is a fraud. Nothing else.

  8. Julian Frost February 17, 2011 at 18:49 #

    Wakefield had a standard Medical Degree, not a doctorate. He thus is not entitled to call himself “Doctor”. Understand?

    If he were to do as you say above everyone in the Autism community would know he was lying.

    True. They would know that he was being insincere.
    Wakefield helped nobody but himself. He was hired (and paid a fortune) by Richard Barr to build a case that the MMR vaccine causes autism, and when he couldn’t find the evidence, he cooked it up. His lies turned research away from things like assistive technologies and training methods for autistics, and towards Vaccine-Autism causation research. His results have not been independently replicated anywhere. In addition, he tried to set up business ventures to profit from his “research”. He has harmed the autism community through his greed and dishonesty. He is no hero.
    John Fryer “Chemist”,
    Thimerosal was never in the MMR, and Autism is completely different from mercury poisoning. You are talking rubbish.

  9. Kev February 17, 2011 at 19:24 #

    Seems to be a couple of housekeeping issues in this thread. Lets tackle them.

    1) Ms Snyder. Don’t ever tell a blogger on here what they can and can’t talk about it. Tackle what they say by all means but I am fed up to the back teeth of people being told what they should and shouldn’t be talking about.

    2) AWOL. Address people by their given nym or don;t address them at all.

    Thats all.

  10. AWOL February 17, 2011 at 22:43 #

    Mr Julian Frost

    “Wakefield had a standard Medical Degree, not a doctorate. He thus is not entitled to call himself “Doctor”. Understand?”

    You dont understand Dr Andrew Wakefield is,has, always will be King to us..


    “On what planet? Support your claims with real evidence, or we will assume that you made it all up.”

    “Chris, papers by Pharma and of shoots of pharma are not independent. You are asked for studies that independently replicate Pharma findings. That means not by either Pharma nor anyone associated with Pharma, and it must be on at least a dozen children (that means not one or two adult case studies), and include either the MMR approved in the UK before or after 1992.”


    You quote

    “How to Turn a Lack of Evidence into Evidence of Harm”.

    Here from the CDC and other Pharma goverment studies..enjoy!!

    Does the risk outweight the benefits?

    From a human health POV. No. Not when autism rates are 1 in 110 children; 1 in 70 boys

    Autism Facts and Stats

    1. percent of the population of children in the U.S. ages 3-17 have an autism spectrum disorder.1
    Prevalence is estimated at 1 in 110 births.
    2. 1 to 1.5 million Americans live with an autism spectrum disorder.
    3. Fastest-growing developmental disability; 1,148% growth rate.
    4. 10 – 17 % annual growth.
    5. $60 billion annual cost.
    6. 60% of costs are in adult services.
    7. Cost of lifelong care can be reduced by 2/3 with early diagnosis and intervention.
    8. In 10 years, the annual cost will be $200-400 billion.
    9. 1 percent of the adult population of the United Kingdom have an autism spectrum disorder.
    10. The cost of autism over the lifespan is 3.2 million dollars per person.

    Measles Stas: CDC reported 12 German measles cases in 2007

    Benefit of vaccines to Pharma:

    In terms of profit though there is a huge incentive. According to vaccine industry market reports, the benefit to pharma equates to billions of dollars so in the money sense the benefits do outweigh the risks.

    The Future of Global Vaccines – Market Forecasts to 2016 (to reach $52 Billion)

    The global vaccines industry was valued at $24 billion in 2009 and is expected to reach $52 billion in 2016 at a Compounded Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 11.5%. The vaccines market, which was once considered a low-profit segment of the top players’ portfolios, showed a turnaround after the resounding success of Prevnar, the first blockbuster vaccine. The ability of vaccines to generate high revenues and profits despite being priced at a premium has proven attractive to both existing players in the market and to big pharmaceutical companies who have been watching the development of the market with interest.

    The surge in revenues and growth rates came at a time when the pharmaceutical industry was under huge pressure from patent expiries and weakened pipelines. The pharmaceutical industry has been intent on strengthening their revenue streams and streamlining operations through lay-offs and shutdowns of manufacturing and R&D operations. The success of premium priced vaccines such as Prevnar, Gardasil, and Cervarix has prompted big pharmaceutical players such as Pfizer and AstraZeneca to invest in the vaccines industry which promises safe revenues due to a lack of threat from generics.

    The Vaccines Industry is Looking to Increase its Revenues Through the Introduction of Novel Vaccines and Indication Expansions for Established Products

    read more:


  11. sharon February 17, 2011 at 23:34 #

    @AWOL, Wakefield “will always be king to us”. He is not the messiah, he’s a very naughty boy.

  12. Chris February 17, 2011 at 23:37 #

    AWOL, are you also John Fryer? As far as studies go, I presented studies funded by the UK Department of Health (this is a link) and the CDC and by the National Institutes of Health (another link!), both are tax funded public health agencies of their respective countries. You claimed that those were “Big Pharma” funded, even though you linked to a CDC website just now.

    Here is a question for you: what funding of research would you find acceptable?

  13. Shannon February 18, 2011 at 01:55 #

    If you ever get time could you please explain this study-

    I know it is a year old but it is hard to understand and I am not sure who else to ask! Thank you.

  14. sheldon101 February 18, 2011 at 02:44 #

    It looks like the story by Jacobson has been pulled.

    A site search with Sherry Jacobson returned 242 results.

    A site search with Sherry Jacobson Wakefield returned 0 results.

  15. sheldon101 February 18, 2011 at 03:29 #

    What good did Wakefield do?

    Wakefield didn’t invent any new treatment. He was a clinician.

    The best that can be said for Wakefield was he brought their children to greater attention from GI doctors. What did the GI doctors do? Relieved the kids constipation (prep for colonoscopy_ once and pay more attention to problems with constipatoion.

  16. Chris February 18, 2011 at 03:45 #


    Wakefield didn’t invent any new treatment. He was a clinician.

    He was not even a clinician. He was supposed to be doing research, and was not qualified to work with patients.

  17. McD February 18, 2011 at 06:16 #


    Do you have a link/ref for this: “7. Cost of lifelong care can be reduced by 2/3 with early diagnosis and intervention.”

    I am wondering what ‘intervention’ consists of.

  18. McD February 18, 2011 at 07:08 #

    Since it seems to have been overlooked a wee bit, may I bring up Brian Deer’s recent post on another page:

    I would be interested in comments from Dinah and AWOL on the BMJ’s response to the anti-vaccine crowd’s response to the BMJ series on Wakefield, since they seem to be bringing up some of the points the BMJ address in Brian’s post.

  19. John Fryer Chemist February 18, 2011 at 09:23 #

    Chris this 1994 article shows the 100 per cent effectivity of the single measles vaccine.

    Can you explain why you thought this was a lie?

    I thought obviously wrongly you were a vaccine supported even if one in a hundred get the fall out of autism.

  20. sharon February 18, 2011 at 10:47 #

    1 in 100? You are taking the piss John Fryer Chemist.

  21. Kev February 18, 2011 at 11:32 #

    John Fryer, the article you cite is approaching 20 years old. Do you not think the science might’ve moved on a bit since then?

    • Sullivan February 19, 2011 at 02:48 #

      John Fryer, the article you cite is approaching 20 years old. Do you not think the science might’ve moved on a bit since then?

      Not even since then. A 1994 study–involving a lot more kids than the pediatrics study Mr. Fryer presents:
      gives the failure rate of the measles vaccine at about 8%.

      The study Mr. Fryer presents tested 15 kids. It isn’t surprising that they found 100% efficacy. The sample size was too small for a real evaluation.

  22. AWOL February 18, 2011 at 13:52 #

    Guys great saber-rattling, sober up please!!..

    Mc D you want a view point on Brian WHO??Is that the same Brian who has been gagged??

    What good did vaccines do..????

  23. John Fryer Chemist February 18, 2011 at 16:15 #

    Hi Sharon

    Simple question

    How many boys in England get autism today?

    It may actually be more than one in a hundred.

  24. John Fryer Chemist February 18, 2011 at 16:24 #

    Hi Kev

    I think this is your column but science does not move on if it is true.

    For example mercury and lead and especially their compounds were known to take away minds a thousand years ago.

    Work of Pliny the Elder et al.

    Today this still holds true although amazingly thimerosal is still in all our flu vaccines.

    We do need to find answers to what causes autism and so stop future children getting it.

    Debates need to be genuine and I get the distinct feeling of human nature just to argue against people.

    If I say vaccines cause autism (Hep B for example not used in France and I believe deeply mistrusted in England possibly) people take issue. When I say vaccines like single measles work extremely well (i.e. the opposite argument) the same people take issue with me.

    The science is there, is 20 years old and I agree may be dodgy like the 1998 paper discussed here. Just 15 people in this trial and it is taken as the Holy Grail by Merck who incidently did own up to being part of this tiny study.

    The fact is it is quoted 20 years later by Merck to bolster up not single vaccines but their still used MMRII vaccine and they give the same quote there in their blurb dated 2010 December.

    So its good enough for Merck, so do your arguments go now to the Merck organisation too?

    Page 2 says 100 per cent of 15 month infants develop neutralising antibody to measles vaccine (ATTENUVAX).

    Everyone wants to crucify the Royal Free on their work but this study is even smaller.

  25. John Fryer Chemist February 18, 2011 at 16:44 #

    Hi To those who ask I am not AWOL or related in any way to his or her comments.

    Probably like mine they are at times not easy to understand.

    Just to say we have less expertise than Andrew Wakefield or MERCK but there is a huge problem in our health of which autism is but one issue.

    I would like to see bloggers all getting on side to work for disease free people.

    Today was a service for one person lost to cancer. An illness at a much smaller level a generation ago even.

    No one is anti vaccine and no one can be pro all the vaccines inflicted on babies today.

    There is clear evidence of HARM.

    All the putting down of Wakefield and measles in the gut is propaganda.

    I know personally of people with autism who have lingering measles where it should not be and from MMR vaccines.

    Great Ormond Street admitted privately such but REFUSE to go public and enter the fray.

    With the annihiliation of Wakefield they have good cause to let him be the fall guy.

    My vaccines were measured, one at a time when I was at an age to know if they were good or bad. They were ALL good.

    People do need to get vaccinated but the UK advanced vaccination scheme is a KILLER and I objected back in 1991 to the person responsible for this policy.

    The opposite of Wakefield who advises vaccines with caution but I know the whole UK advanced policy came out of one ladies review of papers for the UK government and was paid a sum which matched that given to Wakefield. Note not even research or original data to put every new born after 1991 at higher risk than previously.

    Refusing to speak to me after an intitial debate, I hold this person responsible together with the UK government for the high numbers of autism.

    All through the 1990’s babies at a much earlier age got mercury vaccines and repeated mercury vaccines several times before 3 months which was the previous earliest age of injection.

    A study of VAERS shows the extreme harm of such a policy.

    A study of harm from MMR given at 12 months shows almost NOTHING.

    Vaccines given early may prevent babies dying from vaccine preventable illness but life is and always was a balance.

    I firmly believe we are totally off balance with the US and UK vaccine policy.

  26. John Fryer Chemist February 18, 2011 at 16:59 #


    This is an increasing problem.

    One brave lady actually gave the figure for US pregnant women who had too much mercury in them.

    Add mercury vaccines as was common and you have a problem for the new born.

    Everyone on here denies any harm from mercury but how is this possible with admitted over exposure from all sides of this debate.

    We have cut out most of the mercury in some vaccines and if as propaganda tells us this is no problem then there would be no reason to put mercury back in and maybe even increase the dose.

    This does not happen for evident reasons.

    Mercury does affect boys more than girls.

    What other chemical or even genetics can explain this.

    Autism does match exactly harm from mercury.

    And the Danish amounts of autism do correlate with vaccines received, how received and how much mercury.

    And of course as for the Wakefield Factor we do have a Thorson Factor.

    Does anyone want to blog on him and his research and if it is of any use now.

    At the latest he was curiously at the home of the CDC in Atlanta.

    I find this an amazing fact considering how big the world is.

  27. Chris February 18, 2011 at 17:37 #

    John Fryer, the conclusion of that article says:

    1) Immunization with measles vaccine in infants born to vaccine-immune mothers at 6 months of age induced NT antibody in 74% of infants. 2) Revaccination of prior 6-month-old vaccinees at 15 months resulted in antibody titers equivalent to 15-month-old vaccinees. 3) Lack of an IgM response following revaccination suggests that even seronegative infants may be primed to respond on re-exposure to measles.

    I hate to tell you this, but 74 is less than 100. It was also a very small study, and was trying to find the youngest a child could be vaccinated for measles.

    Mr. Fryer, you need to learn to read for comprehension.

  28. sheldon101 February 18, 2011 at 18:43 #


    Wakefield wasn’t a clinician. His contract with the Royal Free did not allow him to clinically manage patients. And doing so was one of the proven allegations against hm.

  29. McD February 18, 2011 at 20:21 #

    @AWOL, again, could you provide a link/ref for your statement: “7. Cost of lifelong care can be reduced by 2/3 with early diagnosis and intervention.”

    Re: your diversionary little video, no one here claims that there are no side effects or risks from vaccines. And like medical programs everwhere, the science is improving over time. Even the evil Paul Offit has spoken out about a vaccination progam where the risk had the potential to outweigh the benefit in a specific context (smallpox vaccine vs threat of terrorist smallpox attack). If you don’t want to vaccinate, fine, but take your unvaccinated kids to live in some little unvaccinated third world haven.

    I wasn’t asking for a comment on Brian Deer. Brian kindly re-posted a response from the BMJ, relevant to comments being made in this thread. I know Handley hasn’t issued a thinking template on this one for his followers yet, but what do you guys think? Be daring.

  30. sharon February 19, 2011 at 00:19 #

    @JohnFryerChemist, you state “..even if one in one hundred get the fallout of Autism”, implying all ASD was a fallout from vaccines. That is why I thought your statement was so outrageous.

    To answer your question, which I don’t think is really relevant, I am uncertain of ASD rates in England.

  31. AWOL February 19, 2011 at 00:45 #

    Mc D

    the study is from the Jarbrink K, Knapp M, 2001, London School of Economics study: “The economic impact on autism in Britain,” 5 (1): 7-22.
    The Autism Society Of America have a link but you have to be a member to access it..

    “Evil Paul Offit” now your talking give me more ,3rd world countries ,music to my ears..

    I haven’t a clue who Handley is??never heard of him.

    Brian Deer’s post Its being given the contempt it deserves. .Its a load of bollocks. .and he knows it ,so much bollocks he believes it himself these days…can you believe it he is even doing tours based on bollocks..makes me wonder who is funding Brians grand tour? Can’t be he as nobody pays him so he says. wink

  32. McD February 19, 2011 at 07:22 #

    @AWOL, I am very interested in the economics of autism, as I am part of a group which wants to see publicly funded evidence-based therapies in my country (NZ).

    Sadly, the Jarbrink and Knapp paper you cited does not provide any support for your claim that “7. Cost of lifelong care can be reduced by 2/3 with early diagnosis and intervention.” The research simply has not been done to enable anyone to make that sort of claim, and mindlessly repeating somebody’s made up stat is only going to make it more difficult for us to meet what have to be common goals (funding for therapy) for both the pro- and anti-vax camps.

    What Jarbrink and Knapp DO say (I have this paper) is:

    “According to six treatment programmes with positive outcome data reviewed by Rogers (1996), all studies reported: (a) significant acceleration of developmental rates, resulting in significant IQ gain; (b) significant language gains in the treated children; and (c) improved social behaviour and decreased symptoms of autism.

    Improvements of this kind – even if only minor – could result in substantial savings for society. For instance, if a person is able to live in a sheltered living setting and attend a sheltered workshop in adulthood instead of living in residential care and attending a day centre, the lifetime savings, calculated from the year of birth, would be about £148,000 (assuming a discount rate of 6 percent: HM Treasury, 1991).”

    I have gone over all the figures in the study and can’t find how a 2/3 discount was arrived at. The comment above was considering savings due to behavioral therapies, and does not seem to have taken into account the cost of delivering 1 on 1 early behavioral intervention.

    The study doesn’t mention early diagnosis being a factor at all. And I suspect, like many other bio-med interpretations of studies that people never read beyond the abstract, that the word ‘intervention’ has been expanded to include stuff like hyperbaric oxygen chambers, drastic diets, chelation, and fecal transplants.

    So far, the main analysis in this area is Jacobson, Mulick, & Green 1998 who did a cost benefit analysis of EIBI that showed a US$656000 per child treated till the age of 55 years if ALL children with ASD were to receive ABA/EIBI. It assumed improvements, not ‘recovery’, subtracted the cost of therapy, and there was subsequent squabbling from other behavior therapy programs over the assumption that ABA/EIBI was the preferred therapy. (simply the ABA people got into position first so could show they were better than standard special education, so the onus is really on providers of other therapies to show that they are a better option for some or all kids, not for ABA to keep proving themselves against every new therapy someone dreams up), J, M & G (1998) are here:

    Click to access Appendix%20A.pdf

    So, I want to agree with your claim, but it doesn’t follow from the evidence you provided.

  33. MartinM February 19, 2011 at 17:02 #

    9. 1 percent of the adult population of the United Kingdom have an autism spectrum disorder.

    Hey, it’s almost as if the incidence of autism has actually been pretty stable over a period of decades, or something.

  34. John Fryer Chemist February 19, 2011 at 18:01 #

    Hi Sharon

    The autism rates in the UK are in fact the highest in the world.

    For boys everyone agrees that the rate has exceeded 1 in a 100 and is nearer to one in 50.

    However you look at these accepted figures it would represent a monumental disaster if the rates were ten times less.

    Time therefore for eveyone to get rid of thei snidy comments about each other and their abilities or lack of them.

    This could stratch to Andrew Wakefield who probably knows more of MMR and autism than all of our combined knowledge.

  35. John Fryer Chemist February 19, 2011 at 18:10 #

    To Chris

    74 is less than 100

    Yes I totally agree with you Chris.

    But the MMR safety data sheet does claim 100 per cent for infants correctly innoculated for measles.

    So perhaps your venom, sceptism and obvious imputed imbecilty should go to MERCK perhaps?

    Whoever came up with the UK single measles study from the UK which actually only claimed up to 92 per cent effectiveness this is exactly what I need to get up to speed on the MMR which I have sadly neglected in chasing down exactly what the effect of a brain destroying chemical has on EVERY child born after 1991 and aged two days or over in the USA.

    The survival of nearly all of them and three out of four growing up without any brain related problems is rather good proof of Charles Darwin and his work.

    Finally and hurray for common sense I note that the UK study looks at a huge control group of UNINNOCULATED children.

    What happened to ethics there? Or rather how do people keep up the old drum roll that you MUST never look at the unvaccinated?

  36. John Fryer Chemist February 19, 2011 at 18:14 #

    Hey Martin where do you get 1 per cent autism for adults?

    Remember that in your old age you get up to 75 per cent chance of Alzheimer’s today and when I was small no one had ever heard of this outside of a tiny group of the medical profession.

    Today not only do we know of these brain disorders but sadly I cannot tell you how many I know as the number is too high to count easily.

    The last president here denies he has a problem for example. So with all the denials you can’t get exact numbers.

  37. John Fryer Chemist February 19, 2011 at 18:20 #

    Economics of autism

    From a programme here. One person required I think ten people to look after him. This was cut down to just five people with some improvements.

    To give people good quality of life requires millionaire life styles.

    Better and cheaper is to find the cause and FIX IT.

    At the moment the only thing being FIXED is the medical papers that after 75 years claim total ignorance and total denial of any sensible suggestion.

    Mercury is a brain destroyer

    Mercury does damage boys more than girls.

    Mercury is still in vaccines (flu, H1N1 et al)

    And sadly we do have PROOF that mercury vaccines do cause more SIDE EFFECTS to boys.

    You can take a horse to water but you cant make it drink.

    When the final bills come in I will be up looking down and laughing at the imbecility on this planet by highly qualified fools.

  38. Chris February 19, 2011 at 20:07 #

    As per every time you post, Mr. Fryer, we will believe everything you say was made up out of thin air unless you provide a reliable reference. It would help if you actually post the reference as you make the claim. Your usual method of making a claim and then finding anything that you think supports it is backwards, and usually fails.

    There is no way you can show a vaccine is 100% effective with a data set of just 15. I suggest you actually read and understand the study before actually making a claim.

    Oh, back to blaming the ebil mercury! Again, whatever teeny tiny bit that used to be in vaccines was never shown to be a problem. And going on about it ten after it was removed is still a bit silly (and in the USA at least three of the eight influenza vaccines are thimerosal-free). And of course, you fail to provide that onerous all caps “PROOF” because you are just making it up.

  39. AWOL February 19, 2011 at 20:22 #

    Mc D

    You should write your own paper if you think that one is wrong its used world wide everywhere, by everyone even Pharma but your arrogant mind determines that your right and everyone is wrong .

    Will you give me a breakdown of your calculations and lets get your arrogant manner sorted out once and for all .

  40. McD February 19, 2011 at 23:53 #

    @John Fryer Chemist, re your Alzheimer’s comment, I commented on exactly the same sort of link you are making between ASD and Alzheimer’s here:

    What they have in common is that advances in medicine (including, but not limited to, vaccines) have greatly reduced mortality at both ends of the lifespan – more children are surviving infancy and past age 5, and more middle-aged are surviving to become old.

    This is just a hypothesis I have, but I have not seen any discussions of the trend for ASD which take improved mortality into account in the same way that improved mortality is considered to be a factor in Alzheimer’s. I provide refs in the other thread to back up why I think that kids with ASD would be more vulnerable to disease in the absence of modern medicine and vaccinations. As I noted before I suspect that medical science and reduced mortality is revealing (not causing) disorders like Alzheimer’s and ASD.

    Maybe some lurking statistician or demographer will be interested enough to take a look 🙂

    I know someone is going to ask for a ref on Alzheimer’s and improved mortality. Here are demographers Hoyert and Rosenberg, (1999), Mortality from Alzheimer’s Disease: An Update, A National Vital Statistics Report:

    Click to access nvs47_20.pdf

    They state in their conclusion “as the population continues to age, that is, as more and more persons reach advanced ages, the number of persons suffering and dying from this disease will increase unless a cure or effective treatment is found.”

    And here is similar from the National Institute on Aging:

  41. Chris February 20, 2011 at 00:41 #


    Please answer the question I posted above. Thank you.

    I really want to know who you think should be doing the studies, and how they should be funded. Especially since you reject any and all tax funded public health agencies.

  42. McD February 20, 2011 at 01:30 #

    @AWOL. I didn’t calculate anything. I simply read the paper you cited. It does not support your claim that “7. Cost of lifelong care can be reduced by 2/3 with early diagnosis and intervention.” There was no data in the paper which allowed any calculation of savings due to early diagnosis and intervention to be made.

    Also I didn’t say the paper was wrong, but that you, or whoever you are quoting, have misused the paper, as it does not support the claim made. The authors certainly never made the claim being attributed to them.

    Jarbrink and Knapp (2001) actually state:

    “Minor improvements in life outcome for people with autism could substantially reduce costs over the lifetime.” Abtract, p1.

    “the average lifetime cost for a person with autism and additional learning disability was estimated as £2.94 million and with HFA as £785,000(Table 1). Furthermore, if it is assumed that 75 percent of people with autism have an additional learning disability (IQ < 70) the average lifetime cost for someone with autism is £2.4 million." p 11-12

    "There is now well-established evidence that early interventions, appropriately adapted to each individual, can have a significant impact by reducing behavioural problems and in helping children to develop their existing skills to the full (Howlin and Rutter, 1987).According to six treatment programmes with positive outcome data reviewed by Rogers (1996), all studies reported: (a) significant acceleration of developmental rates, resulting in significant IQ gain; (b) significant language gains in the treated children; and (c) improved social behaviour and decreased symptoms of autism. Improvements of this kind – even if only minor – could result in substantial savings for society. For instance, if a person is able to live in a sheltered living setting and attend a sheltered workshop in adulthood instead of living in residential care and attending a day centre, the lifetime savings, calculated from the year of birth, would be about £148,000 (assuming a discount rate of 6 percent: HM Treasury, 1991)." p13-14

    "even with a more realistic cost for the family input, the costs for residential care and day centre activity would continue to stand out. Consequently, even a minor improvement in life outcome could generate substantial cost reductions over the lifetime." p 14

    "Another priority for future research should be to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of early intervention programmes." p 14.

    So I can't see where you derive the 2/3 savings from early diagnosis and intervention. The word 'diagnosis' appears in the paper twice, and refers to the diagnosis of autism, not the process or timing. They discuss interventions in the results and discussion section exactly as I have cut and paste above.

    Just in case, I also checked out 3 other Jarbrinks papers on autism costs, and none of them support the claim in the least either. The 3 follow up papers were attempting to pin down parental costs, which were a problem in the early study as noted here:

    From Jarbrink et al 2003: "Of the total estimated societal cost, more than 50 percent could be linked to the parents. Even if the sample is not representative, it is fairly clear that the costs for informal care, income losses and outlays exceed the 2.3 percent estimated in a previous exploratory ‘cost-of-disorder’ study (Järbrink & Knapp, 2001)." p 7.

    The 3 papers:

    None of the papers provide data on which to base an estimate of savings from intervention.

  43. McD February 20, 2011 at 03:12 #

    @AWOL. I took a look at the use of Jarbrinks and Knapp 2001 online. Yes, I did find a few places where it was used (incorrectly) to back up your claim.

    But at the Autism Society, the same claim is footnoted “Autism Society estimate, using Government Accounting Office Report on Autism 2007.”

    I just can’t find a GAO Report on Autism for 2007. There is one online for 2006 though, and it does not contain any data from which to calculate savings due to intervention (and the only interventions mentioned are speech therapy, occupational therapy, and behavioral therapies). Likewise a report on special education and autism in 2005. And the GAO report would have to rely on the very sparse literature on interventions to make whatever statement they made, assuming there actually is a 2007 report.

    So I am left with an unsupported ‘estimate’ by a lobby group.

    The source of the Autism Society’s other info (excluding their own ‘estimates’) seems to be at this more rigorous stats site:

    Which makes me wonder if they are really referring to Harvard School of Public Health’s Ganz 2007, which also does not contain data for calculating savings for intervention.

    AWOL, I am not doubting that intervention saves money in the long run. I just need some decent evidence of it. Made up “Facts and Statistics” only do more harm than good in the long run, mainly to the credibility of the claimant. Sorry if I sound ‘arrogant’, I’m a pedantic Aspie 🙂

  44. sharon February 20, 2011 at 05:11 #

    @JohnFryerChemist. I wont respod to your claim about Wakefield above, based on all we now know, it seems ludicrous to me. Sorry.

    Just as a point of clarification, can you confirm or deny for me your point above (Feb 18th 9.23.59)? Are you suggesting that the “fallout” of vaccines is Autism. And all ASD can be attributed to such? Because that does seem to be the implication of your last sentence.

  45. John Fryer Chemist February 20, 2011 at 11:53 #

    Hi Sharon

    No, I am definitely not saying all autism is vaccine fall out related.

    We know of many accepted or argued causes of autism:

    1 Rubella

    2 Lead

    3 Thalidomide

    4 Epilepsy medicines (valproate from memory)

    Mercury fits very well into this group having similarities to lead.

    Mercury is in DTP and not normally MMR and the first named is given at 2 months in the UK (now removed of course with no apology and no recognition that brain destroying chemicals destroy brains)

    If you look at the evidence and again argued over it is a fact that Kanner autism has declined and a new type of autism is predominant that of regressive autism.

    As I said Brian Deer has a reference to work of this nature predating that of Andrew Wakefield by more than a decade.

    There are probably half a dozen or so different types of autism.

  46. John Fryer Chemist February 20, 2011 at 12:09 #


    That teeny weeny bit of mercury in DTP, Hep B and many other vaccines was taken out for what reason?

    Officially because of worries by chemists like me who thought it was destroying brains.

    If they really believe it doesn’t as you appear to, then why not bring it back? It is excellent for improving vaccines as even I admit.

    They can’t put this much mercury back in safe vaccines because they know it damaged little children’s brains and worse killed them outright. And we know it made the vaccines incredibly TOXIC. More than a 100 times toxic.

    Of course your comment on teeny weeny is rather an innappropriate metaphor as it relates both mercury and the teeny weenies that are destroyed by mercury.

    I have had mercury vaccines several times but not at one day or two months when teeny weenies can’t cope with it for a very few of them.

    Harry Clark one teeny weeny injected at 4.30 and dead in 6 hours.

    And I am not making that up. I spent many years looking at this case and was put off by initial newspaper comments of the monster that his mother was.

    Of course today these sick comments are not just retracted but you can’t see them on the net or at least if you can I would love to put them in my files.

    Just to say I agree that MMR is not 100 per cent efficient but repeat that is what Merck said less than 3 months ago in their blurb on MMRII referring to their single measles on yes a ridiculous small number to come up with such a robust statement.

    The Colindale study of 27 years comes out with 92 per cent.

    If facts are so arguable and false often then we must of course give almost no credence to opinion and of course less to lies and error.

    Looking at the Colindale paper briefly it seems to have many minor errors and mistakes in it.

    I am pleased at least that some sensible discussion is going on and I for one am learning about MMR which I repeat has not been high on my list to look at until the Witch Hunt with no end in sight makes it essential to have some knowledge of in the autism cause inquiry.

  47. John Fryer Chemist February 20, 2011 at 14:16 #

    The Colindale Paper: 27 year follow up was published in 1994 and clearly shows the benefit of the SINGLE vaccine in the UK.

    At the time of writing it claimed a better record for the single vaccine policy in the UK than of the MMR used in USA.

    And it gave the lie to those who think we should lock up the non vaccinators on some island.

    It clearly gives the benefit to the vaccinated from the vaccinated.

    Every time someone who is protected is exposed to the bug in question gets a BOOST to their immune system.

    Incidentally we don’t for do this even to recidivist murderers and rapists in France.

    This helps me to understand how USA and the UK stay clear of devastating attack from the tens of millions around the world that still get dangerous measles and the consequential deaths et al.

    They conclude strongly that the policy is a win win policy with no reason to change from the single measles vaccine.

    A final note: This paper in the same decade has no declaration of interests or conflicts of the same.

    Today we expect and demand this but was it obligatory at the time of the 1998 paper?

    The money received is a conflict but sadly in line with much research done today which consumes money as if it is endless.

    As a school teacher I believe it was not just a conflict but a crime to receive money while working in the time given to do or undertake other duties. Eg being a judge while a teacher means you give your time free in the sense that your salary for teaching pays for your other public duties.

    The Lancet actually used the expression that: “Declaration of interests that may embarrass you if they became known.” I don’t think embarrassment is a failing of Andrew Wakefield

  48. Chris February 20, 2011 at 19:52 #

    Mr. Fryer:

    That teeny weeny bit of mercury in DTP, Hep B and many other vaccines was taken out for what reason?

    Precautionary principle. Nothing else. It turned out to cause more fear than warranted, even when this report came out. There have been several more studies showing that thimerosal in the level that was formally in vaccines was not dangerous.

    What is the “Colindale” study? It is not this, because I cannot see the word “colindale” in it other than the street where the Immunisation Division is located (in the future, refer to the main author, PubMed does not index on office addresses), which does not show 100% effectiveness like you claimed.

    I have no idea who Harry Clark is, and even still: the plural of anecdote is not data. (and to remind you again: Immunisations are associated with a halving of the risk of SIDS. <— that is a link, click on it!)

    That still does not alter the fact that the MMR had been used safely in the USA since 1971. In every outbreak since then, most of the measles victims were not vaccinated.

    Mr. Fryer, you are just rambling. Remember, we will assume you are making things up out of thin air unless your properly cite the evidence. I suggest you use the reference as you make the claim to avoid confusion. Also that you read it first, and refer to the papers by the primary author's name and year, but not the street of their office location.

  49. AWOL February 20, 2011 at 22:40 #

    Mc D

    You say.
    “didn’t calculate anything. I simply read the paper you cited.” That’s very honorable of you to admit that. Thank`s.
    “None of the papers provide data on which to base an estimate of savings from intervention.”
    Would you expect a hard and fast number?Thats why I asked you for your calculations its impossible to calculate mathematically. You could only honestly generalise,which this paper has done .We are all different ,what works with one, does not work with all, and might work a bit with others ,or a total cure …
    You say.
    “am not doubting that intervention saves money in the long run. I just need some decent evidence of it.”
    I think Jarbrink and Knapp paper is going to provide you with as much evidence as one, can reasonably expect,without getting into conflicts from either side .
    The local Councils know for instance that if they teach Autistics -Special Needs children as part of School , curriculum how to cook, wash themselves ,shopping, entertain themselves etc..if they can make that intervention they can then guide them into” shared living accommodation” when they leave school and are adults. Which saves the Councils money hand over fist, compared to the other option, of full time residential care currently standing at around 265k per year per low functioning Autistic child.

    Mr Fryer my brother great points..

    You got your answer Miller et-all are not


    they all have Pharma ties and work for the governments, and the politicians ,and are the next door neighbors’ of pharma .Here is an independent Gary Null

    Savor the truth,mmmm.
    Gary Null
    The CDC Votes in Favor of a Flu Vaccination Assault on Americans’ Health
    A central principle of democracy is freedom of choice. We can choose our political party, our religion, and the food we eat, but this does not seem to be the case when it comes to our medical choices and our freedoms to make them.
    The recent unanimous 11-0 vote by the members of the Centers for Disease Control’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) favoring every American over the age of six months receive the flu influenza vaccine is one more attempt by our federal health officials to open up our bodies to the free market capitalism of pharmaceutical coffers.

    Now your going to say Gary Null is biased because he is doubting PHARMA ,can`t have that Chris ?can we?So what difference does it make to have so called ,studies ,when the government coerce the populations to have the vaccines anyway safe, deadly, or otherwise?? Again the governments have discredited the medical establishments.

    Biased , that’s the quality of all the studies , biased to the core .Then your ploy is to ask others for un-biased studies,”don’t judge everyone by your own standards Chris”.

    Chris by chance do you do, the warm up before Deer`s stand up comedy act? Brian’s Bollock`s, tours, if not your missing your vocation in life .The picture of Tommy Cooper in the backdrop of Deers stage ,
    did you see it? Deer is the only person that I have ever seen, that makes Tommy Cooper look sensible..

  50. sharon February 21, 2011 at 00:39 #

    @JohnFriarChemist, I might be going out on a limb here, but I would have thought exposure to lead, thalidomide etc would be decreasing over the last couple of decades? Also is there an actual increase in the regressive type of Autism? Can you refer me to the research for this as I would be most keen to cast my eye over it?
    Regression certainly was not the case with my son. Autistic through and through from the day he took his first breath. Although none but an alert mother would have picked it up. And indeed it took a Psych with over 30 years experience in the ASD field to see what I had been watching emerge over the previous 2 years. It would have been very easy for the casual, and some professional, observers to miss. Point being it would not be surprising for some to assume he had been ‘struck down by Autism’ as he developed rather than it simply becoming more apparent as time marched on.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: