To vaccinate or not has been presented as an all-out either-or decision (and considering what's in the vaccines nowadays, that's not unreasonable). But vaccination as it was originally conceived and practiced was exposing a person to a mild form of a disease to minimize the likelihood of their catching the more severe form (the classic example being cowpox vs. smallpox). That isn't what is happening any more--the concoctions coming out of pharmaceutical laboratories bear no relation to the simple vaccines originally in use. We need to get away from the "vaccination causes autism" argument, which too many people reject because they're afraid not to be vaccinated, and focus on what is currently in vaccines that's bad for everybody. Take out the adjuvants and the mercury and the laboratory-fabricated viral segments, and the autism reaction might go away too, without having to completely sacrifice vaccination.

I was livid when I saw Anderson Cooper's
interview with Dr. Wakefield in which he not only showed his ignorance of the case, and
the politic$ imbued in it, but rudely cut
Dr. Wakefield repeatidly off.

***360 needs to be blasted with complaints.
This link easily takes you to the contact
page for viewer complaints. Please
send in your comments and share it widely!

http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form5.html?10

“The pharmaceutical industry gangsters made one of their periodic fraudulent declarations of "victory" today. They repeat that "science" (the best their money can buy) now proves that injecting mercury and other known neurotoxins into the bloodstreams of small children Is a fine and entirely safe practice - and thus no liability to them for thousands of serious vaccine injuries over the years. The morning TV network shows in the US were crowing this BS with maximum enthusiasm today. (Why not? The pharmaceutical gangsters pay them to.)

Here's real story...

Robert F Kennedy Jr speaking before an audience largely made up of the mothers of vaccine injured children...about the real vaccine scandal that the government and Big Pharma went to criminal lengths to cover up.”

“The Mercury-Autism Cover Up”

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/644.html

“Tobacco Science and the Thimerosal Scandal” by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. On June 22, 2005.

http://www.robertfkennedyjr.com/docs/ThimerosalScandalFINAL.PDF

Mumps and rubella are far more dangerous? And Measles, perhaps in a third world country, but here in the US? And the fact that millions of kids get the MMR and don't get autism is some sort of proof that there is no link? Put the bong down my friend and try some education. It's like arguing with a brick wall, although I think brick wall might actually have some use.

TV anchors like Anderson Cooper are not going to familiarize themselves with the details of all the Lancet children's cases nor are they going to tease out Brian Deer's mix of misinterpretations, insinuations and partial truths.

What they can do is look at one child's case and see that Brian Deer has reported in bad faith.

In the case of Child 1, Brian Deer reported in 2009 and just now in the BMJ that Child 1 had a hearing problem at 9 mos and that this is a "hallmark presentation of classical autism." What Deer fails to report is that in the GP records noting the mother's concern about Child 1's hearing, the mother also reports that there was a discharge from the boy's ear. Some might call this discharge a hallmark presentation of a childhood ear infection.

The only reason I can see for Deer concealing the pus coming out of the boy's ear is to further fix a case against Andrew Wakefield and his research. The timing of the onset of autistic symptoms is key and Brian Deer wants to put it before receipt of MMR.

I'd like to hear a journalist ask Deer about this and see what he says. The issue is a simple one, not requiring special knowledge or a lot of extra research.

Maybe Deer will even address the issue in a coming installment of his attack on Andrew Wakefield in the BMJ. Do I hear furious typing?

The vindictive attack on Andrew Wakefield by the media in the U.S. this past week, especially by reporters at CNN, is a national disgrace.
Before anyone has right to challenge Dr. Wakefield or condemn his work, they must watch this video about the children in Wakefield's study.

http://www.viddler.com/explore/ziggy/videos/1/

Sadly, the press has been content to ignore the claims of parents that vaccines have harmed their children. They've pretended that vaccines
couldn't be linked to autism. Parents must be wrong. All the health officials say so

They weakly and willingly accepted the claims of the people who run the vaccine program.
The only comparable situation would be the media sources that said smoking wasn't connected to lung cancer. The same people who also had endless
ads for cigarettes in their publications.

I am stunned at the assault on Andrew Wakefield this past week. Where are the reporters who question WHERE BRIAN DEER GOT ACCESS TO CONFIDENTIAL MEDICAL RECORDS REGARDING THE CHILDREN IN WAKEFIELD'S STUDY?

For sources like CNN to promote Brian Deer's charges against Dr. Wakefield without ever asking why he was able to get confidential information, is unbelievable. Does the media check the credibility of sources? Are they willing to publicize illegally obtained claims? Are unethical and illegal actions on the part of reporters standard practice at CNN?

Anne Dachel
Media

northeastern - look up the Bailey Banks case. who says there is no link? He is one of many officially compensated for the MMR gone wrong. think of how many unrecognized children this boy represents.

I am a father of boy diagnosed with ASD and also a Special Education teacher with over 20 years experience.

I currently have a neutral position on MMR but note that my son has severe immunological difficulties - Asthma, Eczema and faces life threatening anaphylaxis if he comes in contact with egg protein or peanuts.

Our journey is a difficult one at times although our son compared to many is doing very well is mainstreamed for his education.

Personally speaking I was appalled over the recent articles presented as 'science' by Brian Deer and subsequently republished in the BMJ.

Although I am not cognizant of all the facts around this situation I have quickly bought myself up to speed and I thank this online community for its presentation of material here.

I have directly questioned the information as presented by Deer in regards to whether children had 'regressive autism' and readers here should familiarise themselves with the new DSM Version 5 and what it outlines as to Autism

http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=94

Using this new definition I looked at Deer's table presented in BMJ

http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452

It is presented as a web extra with footnotes (containing information that may have been sourced illegally certainly unethically)

This is my own analysis of course I am unable to see medical records so I used Deer's own footnotes.

I now believe there is further information about the female patient 8 that would lead to a diagnosis of Autism Disorder under DSM V

Deer proposes using a very narrow definition referred to as "Regress autism" that only 1 child of the 12 should be acknowledged.

Under the new DSM V proposed definition that number would be increased

Child 1 Autism - Evidence Royal Free Admission

Child 2 Autism - Deer acknowledges

Child 3 Autism - Consultants letter

Child 4 Autism - Multiple concerns of parents and doctors

Child 5 Autism - Royal Free records 2001 "Regressive Autism"

Child 6 Autism - Diagnosed Asperger's Syndrome specialist.

Child 7 Autism - Diagnosed "Pathological Demand Avoidance Syndrome" is a PDD Pervasive Developmental Disorder - (Brother of 6)

Child 8 Unclear - Female - possible encephalitis / PDD abnormally small vocabulary. Documented febrile convulsion after MMR

Child 9 Unclear - Little documentation/history presented.

Child 10 Autism - Severe language and speech disorder with some autistic features.

Child 11 - Autism - Hospital discharge summary refers to Autism.

Child 12 - Unclear Specialist Development Unit reported "an impairment of language".

In regard to Child 8 I believe that Deer quoted Michael Rutter incorrectly and there was further information that would perhaps elicit a closer diagnosis of PDD. I cannot find that article it might even be on this website.

With this new tabulation of Deer's assessment and chart as provided in web extras we can now clearly see that all children had clear concerns over their development.

Deer states in footnotes "The regressive developmental disorder is tabulated as "autism" in nine cases. In study protocols, explanatory material for parents and clinicians,and post-publication commentary, Wakefield sometimes uses references to regressive autism interchangeably with "disintegrative disorder", although this is, in fact, professionally recognised to be a different disorder.

This is clearly not the case using the proposed DSM V definition.

It is my belief that clearly the majority if not all the children would fit under the 'new criteria".

One should also note the very real difficulty that parents have of understanding what is going on and the confusion amongst the medical community. As well as the frustration in getting a diagnosis. Let alone allowing for such other conditions as FAS and Fragile X.

* This is a work in progress and I welcome any constructive criticism or help in formulating a better response.

regards

John

Perhaps Anderson Cooper would like to interview some of the parents, so as to verify the accuracy of Brian Deer.

This was a letter dated December 22nd 2008; it doesn't address the current allegations about details of the children being changed in the study. I'd be interested to see a newer video about the parents' views on the current issues, if there is one..? From what I understand, the allegations are based on parent provided information and medical records, which didn't match Wakefield's study, is that incorrect?

Awesome! Totally awesome! This video MUST be forwarded to the mainstream media ASAP, before the news cycle ends.

For the sake of clarification...When was this video made? It's been out for a while now, right? Not that it matters all that much... I'm just curious.