The 15-Year Fallout From One Man’s Lie About Vaccines

4 Aug

On the same day that Andrew Wakefield’s lawsuit against the BMJ, Brian Deer and Fiona Godlee was dismissed, The Atlantic has a piece: The 15-Year Fallout From One Man’s Lie About Vaccines . Who is the one man, and what is the lie? From The Atlantic:

Consider the widespread fear of childhood vaccinations. In 1998, the physician Andrew Wakefield published a study in The Lancet linking the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine to autism. This study has since been judged to be an ‘elaborate fraud,’ and Wakefield’s medical license has been revoked.

The consequences of Wakefield’s dishonesty would have been bad enough. But the legacy effect of other big lies has thus far made it impossible to remedy the damage he has caused. Given the fact that corporations and governments sometimes lie, whether to avoid legal liability or to avert public panic, it has become very difficult to spread the truth about the MMR vaccine. Vaccination rates have plummeted — especially in prosperous, well-educated communities –and children have become sick and even died as a result.

An unhappy truth of human psychology is probably also at work here, which makes it hard to abolish lies once they have escaped into the world: We seem to be predisposed to remember statements as true even after they have been disconfirmed.

Apparently The Atlantic didn’t feel the need to wait for a Texas Judge to rule before using Mr. Wkefield’s work as a prime example of a “big lie”.

The Atlantic is right. It is hard to spread the truth about MMR. Just check the comments for the article.


by Matt Carey

Advertisements

279 Responses to “The 15-Year Fallout From One Man’s Lie About Vaccines”

  1. Goldy August 22, 2012 at 10:25 #

    Mikemawords in reference to your comment “You deflect by referencing alleged pharma deaths without considering that group is sick in far greater numbers and far more seriously than the general population. Idiot.” You advocate a course of action which has and will result in preventable pain and death by pushing a disproved hypothesis on the fearful and gullible.

    No Mikemawords these people are not sicker than the ordinary population- they were poisoned legally by Big Pharma. They are the people like your neighbour who went to hospital or to the doctor and faithfully took their prescription medicine because they trusted their doctor to heal them. The doctor is only a puppet of Big Pharma – can’t really blame him, he could be deregistered if he tried to go outside of the cartel. What is to say that the kids that die from childhood illnesses are not weaker and sicker than the general population you are the idiot here. You trust too much I’m afraid.

    http://thetimetimes.com/2012/05/20/fda-admits-to-killing-100000-people-a-year-why-are-we-okay-with-this/

    • Julian Frost August 23, 2012 at 06:39 #

      @Goldy:

      these people are not sicker than the ordinary population- they were poisoned legally by Big Pharma. They are the people like your neighbour who went to hospital or to the doctor and faithfully took their prescription medicine because they trusted their doctor to heal them.

      Riiight. People without heart disease get digitalis and warfarin. Radiotherapy and chemotherapy are administered to people who don’t have cancer. Oh wait.
      Mikemawords is right. The people taking medication are taking it because they are sick. Your claim that 100,000 deaths each year are caused by pharmaceuticals is blatant post hoc, ergo propter hoc reasoning.

      What is to say that the kids that die from childhood illnesses are not weaker and sicker than the general population you are the idiot here.

      More victim blaming, Goldy? In 1650 everyone ate organic and the odds of reaching 18 years old were just 1 in 3. One of the commenters above mentioned Dana McCaffrey. You do know that she was breastfed, don’t you?

      • Yvonne Mae Friedembeck August 23, 2012 at 12:34 #

        @ Julian Frost
        screen shot from FDA.gov

        Link to FDA.gov
        http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/DevelopmentResources/DrugInteractionsLabeling/ucm114848.htm

        As was cited in the article already posted by Goldy. fda.gov specifically says:

        “Why Learn about Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR)?
        Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press, 2000
        Lazarou J et al. JAMA 1998;279(15):1200–1205
        Gurwitz JH et al. Am J Med 2000;109(2):87–94

        Over 2 MILLION serious ADRs yearly

        100,000 DEATHS yearly

        ADRs 4th leading cause of death ahead of pulmonary disease, diabetes, AIDS, pneumonia, accidents and automobile deaths

        Ambulatory patients ADR rate—unknown

        Nursing home patients ADR rate— 350,000 yearly”

        —————–

        This is actually really old news.

        But there’s more if that’s not enough.

        http://www.fda.gov/drugs/developmentapprovalprocess/developmentresources/druginteractionslabeling/ucm110632.htm

        “The previous slides have reviewed information about the magnitude of adverse drug reactions and the burden they place on the health care system. How much do drug interactions contribute to the total number of preventable ADRs?

        “Again, estimates of the numbers of patients injured due to drug interactions vary widely. However, some reasonable estimates come from the work of Dr. Lucien Leape and colleagues.1 In a systems analysis of ADRs, they estimated that drug-drug interactions represent from 3–5% of all in-hospital medication errors. Drug interactions are also an important cause of patient visits to emergency departments.2”

        “The first question healthcare providers should ask themselves is “why is it important to learn about ADRs?” The answer is because ADRs are one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in health care. The Institute of Medicine reported in January of 2000 that from 44,000 to 98,000 deaths occur annually from medical errors.1 Of this total, an estimated 7,000 deaths occur due to ADRs. To put this in perspective, consider that 6,000 Americans die each year from workplace injuries.”

        “However, other studies conducted on hospitalized patient populations have placed much higher estimates on the overall incidence of serious ADRs. These studies estimate that 6.7% of hospitalized patients have a serious adverse drug reaction with a fatality rate of 0.32%.2 If these estimates are correct, then there are more than 2,216,000 serious ADRs in hospitalized patients, causing over 106,000 deaths annually. If true, then ADRs are the 4th leading cause of death—ahead of pulmonary disease, diabetes, AIDS, pneumonia, accidents, and automobile deaths.”

        “These statistics do not include the number of ADRs that occur in ambulatory settings. Also, it is estimated that over 350,000 ADRs occur in U.S. nursing homes each year.3 The exact number of ADRs is not certain and is limited by methodological considerations. However, whatever the true number is, ADRs represent a significant public health problem that is, for the most part, preventable.”

        So, maybe 100,000 isn’t correct. Maybe it’s more like 450,000…or maybe it’s just 6,000. Regardless, the FDA chose to use the 100,000 statistic on its website.

        More info at the link below.

        http://thetimetimes.com/2012/05/20/fda-admits-to-killing-100000-people-a-year-why-are-we-okay-with-this/

        “Facts are meaningless. They can be used to prove anything.”
        ~Home Simpson

        Peace,
        YMF

  2. Goldy August 22, 2012 at 11:00 #

    Julian Frost
    August 21, 2012 at 07:03 #
    @Goldy:

    the body is not always stimulated sufficiently to mount an adequately robust response to create antibodies while also destroying the foreign protein fragments. The foreign protein fragments then get absorbed into body cells. T-Cells, sensing they are there, but unable to reach them directly, attack the body cells that harbor them. This can lead to auto-immune disorders, like multiple sclerosis, arthritis and cancer, which are essentially degenerative disorders caused by the body trying to destroy cells that contain the foreign protein fragments

    What A Bunch Of Bull****! If that were true, then every time we ate food, either animal or vegetable, our cells would take up DNA fragments and get attacked by the immune system! Goldy, you are sucking your “facts” out of your thumb.

    JULIAN – there is a big difference between foreign protein that is taken in by the stomach and that which is injected into your muscles and finds its way into the blood stream. Firstly the gut contains up to 2kg of bacteria. The job of the bacteria is to detoxify and kill bad bacteria. That is a scientific fact. The gut is often referred to as the second immune system. When foreign proteins are via the blood – there is no mechanism to detoxify…it is simple science. In unwell people you can get something called “leaky gut syndrome” where proteins can leak into the blood. It causes allergies and immune problems.

    • brian August 22, 2012 at 16:13 #

      “When foreign proteins are via the blood – there is no mechanism to detoxify…it is simple science.”

      LOL. (Hint: just what are all of those white blood cells–you know, those cells _in_ the blood–doing there?)

      Do you make this stuff up or do you credulously accept information posted by others who just make stuff up?

  3. Goldy August 22, 2012 at 11:12 #

    “mikemawords
    August 21, 2012 at 12:59 #
    @Goldy,
    VAERS is unreliable. The data are unconfirmed. Anyone can submit a report. Why would you assume that 10% are valid? What reference did you use to determine that? Pulled from your butt? I science provided you a service which you assume is 90% unreliable, would you jump for joy? Not a chance.

    You deflect by referencing alleged pharma deaths without considering that group is sick in far greater numbers and far more seriously than the general population. Idiot.

    Mikemawords – If VAERS is so unreliable why is that?? ? The vast majority of the reporting is from vaccine manufacturers and health care providers, only 10% from parents or guardians. Surely vaccine and health care providers would be reasonably able to diagnose a reaction. Also there is only a short time frame to fill out the VAERS report so there is quite an accurate connection between the vaccine and the reaction. Considering most doctors and most parents never fill out any report there is serious under-reporting and the fact that it is voluntary only makes me wonder what is the true depth of reactions to vaccines.. Wake up and start looking at facts. The VAERS report does not take into account any auto immune disease, cancer or problems that develop later which would be the vast majority. So in my opinion it shows a very serious trend.

    Anyone can file a VAERS report, including health care providers, manufacturers, and vaccine recipients. The majority of VAERS reports are sent in by vaccine manufacturers (37%) and health care providers (36%). The remaining reports are obtained from state immunization programs (10%), vaccine recipients (or their parent/guardians, 7%) and other sources (10%). Vaccine recipients or their parents or guardians are encouraged to seek the help of their health care professional in filling out the VAERS form. Each report provides valuable information that is added to the VAERS database. Accurate and complete reporting of post-vaccination events supplies the information needed for evaluation of vaccine safety. The CDC and FDA use VAERS information to ensure the safest strategies of vaccine use and to further reduce the rare risks associated with vaccines.

    • Chris August 22, 2012 at 15:36 #

      Goldy, what must you read and understand before clicking on button to enter the database at http://vaers.hhs.gov/data/index ?

    • lilady August 22, 2012 at 17:22 #

      Goldy…You’ve been told repeatedly to *source* your statements. So why did you not credit Neil Z. Miller for that ludicrous copypasta about the S. pneumoniae and Hib vaccines causing tens of thousands of hospitalizations and thousands of deaths?

      Where are your citations Goldy?

      Why don’t you answer Chris’ questions about accessing the VAERS database?

      Why haven’t you viewed the Vaccine Safety Datalink reports?

      If your “game” Goldy is to *impress us* with your grasp of the scientific literature, you have failed…miserably. You’ve only proven that you are as thick as a plank, a pathological liar and deserve every bit of the derision that your posts have generated.

  4. Yvonne Mae Friedembeck August 23, 2012 at 12:35 #

    Homer*

  5. century August 23, 2012 at 13:18 #

    Goldy
    Don’t bother with the idiots like Lilady ‘nursey nursey’ and the likes here.
    And posts do get deleted or ammended by Sullivan – even though he always denies it, eh Sully.

    • novalox August 23, 2012 at 13:34 #

      @century

      Showing your face here again even after you got pretty much pwned by the regulars here?

      And yawn, your typical insult, and no evidence to support your “theory”.

      So, if you goldy, and others of your ilk ever want to be taken seriously, try fielding a coherent argument first. Otherwise, don’t be surprised by the scorn that you and all your company richly deserve.

    • Thomas August 23, 2012 at 14:25 #

      “And posts do get deleted or ammended by Sullivan – even though he always denies it, eh Sully.”

      Surely if that were true, this post that reveals the “truth” would have to be deleted immediately. Why wasn’t it?

      Surely this post would

      • Lawrence August 23, 2012 at 14:38 #

        @Thomas – because they project their own insecurities on their opponents. Take a look at AoA, they moderate so heavily that almost no pro-vaccine posts are ever allowed. Though I can’t confirm it, I believe I’ve been banned from posting, because I don’t toe the party line over there……so Century, project much?

    • lilady August 23, 2012 at 21:17 #

      @ Century: Have you got anything to add to this discussion, say, some citations, to help out “Goldy” or even to back up your insults?

      Did Sullivan delete citations from Goldy’s posts and delete your posts that were chock full of links/citations to the literature published in first-tier peer-reviewed medical journals?

  6. century August 23, 2012 at 17:25 #

    novalox

    “@century

    Showing your face here again even after you got pretty much pwned by the regulars here?”

    Right on, dude 😉

    • novalox August 23, 2012 at 19:04 #

      @century

      And judging by the comments, getting pwned again.

  7. Goldy August 25, 2012 at 05:47 #

    Chris – I will answer your question about VAERS – I think you must be referring to the following?? A report to VAERS generally does not prove that the identified vaccine(s) caused the adverse event described. It only confirms that the reported event occurred sometime after vaccine was given. No proof that the event was caused by the vaccine is required in order for VAERS to accept the report. VAERS accepts all reports without judging whether the event was caused by the vaccine.

    Yes the above is true however – there would be a trend and a percentage that would be accurate. You could cut out a certain percentage as coincidental etc but it still leaves a trend. For the HPV vaccine it is a steep trend and that is where it is useful. If only half were accurate the results are horrible and scary.

  8. Goldy August 25, 2012 at 06:03 #

    At lest some truth is starting to filter out:

    “findings show a positive correlation between the number of vaccine doses administered and the percentage of hospitalizations and deaths. Since vaccines are given to millions of infants annually, it is imperative that health authorities have scientific data from synergistic toxicity studies on all combinations of vaccines that infants might receive. Finding ways to increase vaccine safety should be the highest priority.”

    Relative trends in hospitalizations and mortality among infants by the
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22531966

    • Science Mom August 25, 2012 at 15:37 #

      Heh, Goldman http://justthevax.blogspot.com/2011/06/unanswered-question.html and http://justthevax.blogspot.com/2011/05/oh-goodness-here-i-wanted-to-go-to-bed.html

      Do you actually read this stuff or do you just mindlessly puke references that support your confirmation biases? Explain to me why Goldman’s methodology is sound Goldy.

      • Goldy August 26, 2012 at 03:08 #

        Since no studies I have posted have been “pleasing” to you perhaps you could explain to me why this is unsound. You don’t accept any information from independent sources or Pubmed – you just like to cherry pick to suit your own pro Big Pharma Agenda.

      • novalox August 26, 2012 at 07:45 #

        @goldy

        Boy, you really can’t tell bad science, can’t you.

        But then, you’re an anti-vaxer, which would explain the “pharma shill” gambit that you stated.

        Not really scientifically literate, are you goldy?

        Why should we believe such a flawed study?

      • Goldy August 30, 2012 at 10:50 #

        Sullivan selectively allows comments through. I sent a reply to One Response to “Children with neurologic disorders at high risk of death from flu” and he would not allow it. This should be an open debate but it is not. I did not say anything abusive. This is not an open debate

      • novalox August 26, 2012 at 23:14 #

        Yawn, goldy, still no evidence for you claim, so you go straight to the “pharma shill” gambit.

        Nice to know that you have no argument.

  9. Science Mom August 27, 2012 at 00:49 #

    Since no studies I have posted have been “pleasing” to you perhaps you could explain to me why this is unsound.

    What do you think those two links were for? My co-author shredded Goldman’s methodology to bits. His “methods” essentially amounted to “look at vaccine schedules and infant mortality, bang them together and present crap that credulous people like Goldy will lap up”. He didn’t account for if vaccines were actually administered nor differences in infant mortality classification nor any issues surrounding the pregnancies, births and deaths of infants. There, Cliff Notes version. Do you still think it’s an awesome study?

    You don’t accept any information from independent sources or Pubmed – you just like to cherry pick to suit your own pro Big Pharma Agenda.

    I’m not the one cherry-picking darling, you are. I always use PubMed or Web of Science sources in addition to valid medical/science sites. Just because they’re indexed, doesn’t mean they’re any good; you have to actually read and understand them.

  10. Goldy August 27, 2012 at 07:43 #

    Darling…isn’t it great we are talking sweet now!! The essence of the argument is are vaccines safe…have they been tested for safety. The answer is a resounding NO…….
    http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/back-to-basics/how-are-vaccines-evaluated-for-safety/ From the manufacturers own package inserts. You tell me what is scientific about “ActHib was tested for safety by giving one group ActHib w/ DTP and the control group was given Hep B w/ DTP.” THAT IS NOT SCIENCE…..

    Group A received Hib and DTP (whole-cell pertussis vaccine, a highly reactive vaccine-no longer on the market in the US). Group B received Hepatitis B vaccine and DTP. Vaccine reactions were then compared between the two groups. Both groups reported SIDS deaths and seizures, but these seem to be attributed to the DTP as this had been previously reported for DTP vaccines. Additionally, none of the other adverse reactions that “coincidentally” surfaced in these previously healthy infants during this trial could be causally related to the vaccines. Based on this information, ActHib was judged safe. CRAP SCIENCE………

    Tripedia (DTaP) Sanofi Pasteur
    One group received Tripedia and the control group received Aventis’ whole cell DTP vaccine ….CRAP SCIENCE

    Energix B (Hep B) Glaxo
    The control group received plasma-derived vaccines. The exact vaccines administered to the control are not revealed.

    Polio
    IPOL (Inactivated Polio) Sanofi
    The inactivated polio vaccine was given at the same time as the DTP. and it goes on and on … it is a giant RORT and a gigantic money making factory.,…backed by crap science and you DARLING are part of this filthy business.

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) August 27, 2012 at 14:59 #

      You present the fact that a study was performed givingnthe actHIB vaccine concurrent with DTP as though it is some slight of hand. Did you read the the package insert referenced?

      First sentence: ” ActHIB®,Haemophilus b Conjugate Vaccine (Tetanus Toxoid Conjugate), produced by Sanofi Pasteur SA, is a sterile, lyophilized powder which is reconstituted at the time ofuse with either saline diluent (0.4% Sodium Chloride) or Sanofi Pasteur Inc. Diphtheria and Tetanus Toxoids and Pertussis Vaccine Adsorbed (whole-cell pertussis vaccine DTP) or Tripedia®,Sanofi Pasteur Inc. Diphtheria and Tetanus Toxoids and Acellular Pertussis Vaccine Adsorbed (DTaP) (when reconstituted known as TriHIBit®)for intramuscular use only”

      Given that one of the standard methods of using this vaccine was to combine it with DTP it is appropriate that some tests would be done in combination.

      Isn’t one of the common complaints by vaccine skeptics that vaccines are not tested in combination? So here is a counterexample. But that doesn’t even register. This study is just a angle to claim that the answer to whether vaccines are safety tested is a “resounding no”. Tell me, how is testing vaccines in the manner in which they are given so far from safety testing in your book to count as a “resounding no”?

  11. Goldy August 30, 2012 at 10:53 #

    Re Children with neurologic disorders at high risk of death from flu”
    Sullivan how about allowing me to participate in the
    Debate you have blocked my post which did not contain any abuse. This should be a free and open debate.

    • Chris August 30, 2012 at 15:41 #

      Because you had too many links in your comment. Which I saw since it has been pulled out of moderation.

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) August 30, 2012 at 15:45 #

      Goldy,

      As you have no doubt noticed by now all you comments are held for approval and all your comments get approved. It’s been this way for some time. Since one night when you posted a large number of comments.

      As you are undoubtedly aware, you comment mostly at a time when most people in my time zone are asleep.

      Your long comment from last night was automatically diverted to the spam queue, as what happens often to long comments.

      Your complaints were held for moderator approval as discussed above. Not surprisingly I didn’t approve them in my sleep.

      Why is it that people who write dozens of comments hijacking a discussion are the ones who eventually claim that they are being blocked?

      As I’ve noted before, your arguments are so poorly substantiated that allowing your comments through only serves to show people how little there is to your position.

      • Goldy August 31, 2012 at 03:50 #

        Sullivan – I appreciate that you may have to remove my post from the spam. Yes whether my arguments are good or bad, we should all be able to participate. Thank you I appreciate being able to be part of this forum and I do learn as well from being able to participate.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

w

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: