The Naked CDC: the Truth about MMR (or part of it) in their Own Words
In a CDC study of the adverse effects of MMR:
Above 1 in 17 toddlers in the study developed a temperature of 39.5C (103F) or greater post vaccination, and 1 in 5.6 a raised temperature.
Nearly one quarter of toddlers in the study (23%) were routinely vaccinated despite being unwell prior to vaccination with fever (7%), diarrhea (12%) and rash (7%)
It is all too revealing to look at this 2006 study by LeBaron et al ‘Evaluation of Potentially Common Adverse Events Associated With the First and Second Doses of Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine’ which was apparently designed to be re-assuring that the effects of a second and third dose of MMR at pre-school and mid-school age are milder than the first in infancy or toddlerhood.
But if so, we might ask, what about the first? We learn that it is quite routine for an infant to develop a raging fever with unknown long term consequences. Again LeBaron et al are frank about some of the limitations of their study:
‘Our study suffers from a number of limitations. Data on adverse events were based on unverified, family recorded symptom diaries. We had no unvaccinated control group. The baseline period for the study subjects lasted only 1 week and was relatively close to vaccination when the “healthy vaccinee effect”14 may well have been present. A 17% attrition rate occurred, mostly during the baseline diary period. The sample size was inadequate to examine rare adverse events or common adverse events with less than a twofold increase over baseline. The study population was atypical of the overall population of US children, in that they were almost all white, rural, healthy, and received vaccinations at the recommended ages. Other vaccines were administered simultaneously with MMR for >80% children in the 2 younger groups and <1% in the oldest group, making attribution of adverse events and comparison of groups more difficult.’
But their concept of what constitutes a healthy child, is somewhat thrown into doubt by figure 2 which shows that 7% of subjects already had fever, 12% diarrhea, 7% rash (23% one or all of these) prior to vaccination. If the target group is adjudged to be healthy by the authors it leaves a disturbing question about the circumstances in which an already unwell child could routinely be vaccinated, and demonstrates that the health and wellbeing of individual children is not what is at stake in the programme: at best it would be the control of the disease at the expense of the sick child.
The gung-ho attitude of this culture is further evidenced by the fact that more than 80% of toddlers received other vaccines at the same time as MMR. Routinely, a temperature of 39.5C or above is an acceptable side effect. Subjects were only monitored for 3.5 weeks after vaccination: the long term health and development of those getting a high fever has probably never been researched, and probably never will be.
LeBaron et al conclude (rounding their figures down):
‘Nevertheless, we believe our study findings confirm that vaccine-associated adverse events occur in ∼1 of every 6 toddlers receiving the first dose of MMR, with high fever occurring in ∼1 in 20, although very few of these events require medical attention.’
But I wouldn’t take their word for it. If the parents of Hannah Poling hadn’t been a particularly determined doctor and a nurse would we be any the wiser? And why are we treating babies like immunological supermen? Is it because they can't answer back??
It’s the culture, stupid.
(With thanks to Alex Snelgrove).
John Stone is UK Editor for Age of Autism.
How about adjusting these figures for under-reporting?
See quote and link below to paper from the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology March 2012.
Vaccines by far outweigh any other drug by nearly two orders of magnitude [ie 100 times greater].
And the commonest symptom - headache - is a primary symptom of encephalopathy - from which as HRSA and head of US CDC and numerous court decisions have confirmed - can result in an autistic condition:
"Of 222,755 ADR reports received by the MHRA from 2000–9, 31,726 (14.2%) were in children <17 years.
The number of reports in 2000 was greater than in subsequent years (12,035) due to a national vaccination programme (Meningococcal Serogroup C conjugate vaccine).
The median number of ADR reports per annum (2001–2009) for children was 2146 (95% CI 1801, 2575).
Vaccines were included in 22,102 (66.5%) paediatric ADR reports, with Meningococcal Serogroup C conjugate vaccine reported most frequently (12,106 reports) and headache the commonest symptom (3163).
Excluding vaccines, methylphenidate (653 reports) and atomoxetine (491) were the most commonly reported medications, and the most commonly reported symptom was vomiting (374). "
"Reported paediatric adverse drug reactions in the UK 2000–2009"
Posted by: Charlie | May 11, 2013 at 05:38 AM
Are the CDC figures adjusted for under reporting?
Starting point is multiply by 50 for any drug - under-reporting all drugs is 98 in every 100 adverse reactions: "Spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting vs event monitoring: a comparison": Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine Volume 84 June 1991 341.].
But there are also FOIA documents showing vaccine adverse reaction under-reporting in most countries in the world is 100% - they have no effective systems in place.
They rely on a few first world countries.
For that very few vaccine adverse reaction under-reporting is high. In the UK it is at least 199 in 200 not reported.
And figures provided by vaccine manufacturers are almost as bad as 100% under-reporting.
Posted by: Charlie | May 11, 2013 at 05:30 AM
Avoid vaccines avoid Autism,,
Posted by: Angus Files | March 01, 2013 at 07:32 AM
Linda- Your information is very interesting. This is a very interesting question- Is it good protocol to give a child a live virus vaccine while the mother is pregnant? - knowing that the virus may infect the mother. Any comments?
To Marie-Anne Denayer- This is interesting - that your child had no other vaccines along with the MMR. What I do wonder is whether the encephalopathy which ensues after the MMR could cause the mercury in the child's brain (from earlier vaccines) to change location and do more damage. Any comments anyone?
To Linda- Your child's autoimmune disorders would probably be due either to the mercury in vaccines or more likely to the aluminum, which goes on provoking the secretion of cytokines . You could implement a strategy of protecting your child from both mercury and aluminium and you might possibly see some improvement in the long term- perhaps taking years- but better than never ! Dont forget to reduce or stop eating fish- The mercury in fish can be far more dangerous that one imagines. Go to the Safeminds website to see a list of sources of mercury and check that out for your daughter.
Posted by: Cherry Sperlin Misra | October 11, 2011 at 02:23 PM
Unless things have changed in the past 7-8 years, I believe anyone (parent, patient, health care provider) is able to report a vaccine injury to VAERS: http://vaers.hhs.gov/esub/index
I reported my son's vaccine injury myself about 8 yrs ago by submitting the info online. I was contacted by telephone about a month after submitting info, for questioning and verification, but my child's doctor was never involved with our VAERS report.
I heartily agree with your suggestion to include the name of administering physician in the VAERS database. (I won't hold my breath for that to ever happen, but one can dream...)
Bob Moffitt - doctors will never, ever willingly involve themselves in reporting vaccine adverse reactions. Their fear of malpractice overrides all ethical responsibility.
Posted by: Donna L. | October 11, 2011 at 11:22 AM
"Included in each report would be name of the doctor who administered the vaccine, if the adverse reaction was reported to that doctor, and if that doctor went on to report the event to VAERS system. The file would also be left open for the child, so that health developments subsequent to the vaccine event could be recorded if/as they developed."
How difficult would it be for VAERS to compile an easily reviewable data base to record the number of adverse events a pediatrician or doctor annually reports? This data base could then be used by VAERS to establish a "base line" of anticipated adverse events .. per numbers of vaccines administered .. during any given year.
Should VAERS identify a doctor who consistently fails to reach the "base line" of reports .. VAERS should immediately investigate that doctor's reporting procedures to ascertain why he consistently reports fewer adverse events than his colleagues.
It would also be helpful if VAERS posted the annual "adverse event" reports filed by doctors .. in their waiting rooms .. so parents can read for themselves if their doctor is among those with annual .. exceptionally low .. reports of adverse events.
As Barry said:
"It’s amazing how honest people become, when they know they’ll be held accountable for their actions."
Posted by: Bob Moffitt | October 11, 2011 at 09:18 AM
Bob Moffit wrote: "... I have tried .. without success .. to understand what the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) requires for a doctor or pediatrician to comply with their request:
"Please report all significant adverse events that occur after vaccination of adults and children, even if you are not sure whether the vaccine caused the adverse event".
It should be no mystery why less than 10% of adverse events are reported .. because .. VAERS makes no effort to describe to doctors or pediatricians (parents???)what qualifies as a "significant event following vaccinations"?..."
VAERS is very difficult to understand, but only in the context of a system that is meant to honestly track adverse reactions. When you think of it in the context of system that is actually meant to HIDE adverse reactions.. then it makes perfect sense.
This whole data base "surveillance program" was concocted by (... I mean, co-sponsored by) the CDC and the FDA, institutes that have hardly become known for their honesty, or for competency of any kind. And the only time data can be fed to this data base is when a doctor CHOOSES to report a vaccine injury, most likely to a very small child, that happened on his or her watch. That’s a recipe for under-reporting, and for under-stated reports on the odd occasions when injuries are actually admitted.
What I would love to see is a database maintained by an organization that’s completely independent of the drug and /or medical industries. Adverse advents would be reported by parents themselves, and they would be free to report on any vaccine reaction which they believe they observed in their child. Included in each report would be name of the doctor who administered the vaccine, if the adverse reaction was reported to that doctor, and if that doctor went on to report the event to VAERS system. The file would also be left open for the child, so that health developments subsequent to the vaccine event could be recorded if/as they developed.
It’s amazing how honest people become, when they know they’ll be held accountable for their actions.
Posted by: Barry | October 10, 2011 at 10:48 PM
One of the symptoms I noticed with MMR was a little bit yellowing of the skin.
Posted by: Stef | October 10, 2011 at 10:24 PM
It doesn't take an expert to recognise that your child is "running a fever."
My son had "passed out" (fainted) in my arms on many occassions and his body was covered in "beads of perspiration." Instinctively, you know something is wrong! This occurred not long after the MMR!!!!!
Posted by: AussieMum | October 10, 2011 at 09:21 PM
How long following "natural" exposure to measles, mumps, or rubella virus does it take to measure adverse outcomes?
For measles the incubation period alone is supposedly 8 to 12 days:
For rubella, 14-21 days:
For mumps 12 to 25 days:
Though I'm sure they believe a week is somehow a useful time frame for follow-up, how do they believe one week of observation will indicate anything to the average Joe and Jen anything other than that no one is really checking vaccine safety?
The "disease prevention" approach to the scientific method to me appears completely inverted:
Take what you want to conclude.
Construct a test that should come to that conclusion. Confounding variables may be helpful.
Weed out data that contradicts the conclusion as much as possible.
If the data appears to support the conclusion use the data to answer any raised hypothesis. If the data inexplicably appears to falsify the conclusion stop testing.
Observe only the conclusion. Make no further observation. Conclude the conclusion. Do not listen to questions. Thinking at this point, and if possible throughout the entire process, is not allowed.
Go back and repeat the process as much as necessary to affirm the conclusion.
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | October 10, 2011 at 02:41 PM
Just in case we have any new folks here--the MMR can cause autism. And it does. For some kids, it's simply the "last straw" after a long assault with mercury- and aluminum-filled vaccines--that was clearly the case for our son, looking back.
Our son had a fever ranging from 103 to almost 105 degrees after the MMR. He got the shot at 15 months, in June, 2002. He was sick repeatedly that fall and winter. He just couldn't stay well. His behavior changed, he developed daily diarrhea, he was never "himself" again.
By 24 months, he had moderate to severe autism. We began a GFCFSF diet (plus no highly-colored foods), started supplements and floortime therapy. . .
Here's the kicker: unless your child recovers FULLY (and I do mean completely) symptoms can come and go for years and years, with your child getting better, then stabilizing, then worse.
He seemed recovered at about age 6, but the gap between him and his peers began to widen again between ages 7 and 9. . .
And my husband--after seeing what happened to him, after agreeing that autism was "epidemic," after seeing the foul-smelling diarrhea clear up (it took two years), after seeing his sleep patterns normalize--after all this, he put his head in the sand and now says that "vaccines don't cause autism" and "unvaccinated kids shouldn't be in public schools."
Posted by: Terri Lewis | October 10, 2011 at 11:46 AM
My daughter's temperature spiked to 104F within 6 hours of the MMR and remained elevated for 48 hrs. She was 15 months old,it was July of 1988 and no other vaccine was administered with the MMR. That day she lost the sparkle in her eyes and by Christmas, autism had taken over.
Posted by: Marie-Anne Denayer, M.D. | October 10, 2011 at 09:46 AM
I have tried .. without success .. to understand what the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) requires for a doctor or pediatrician to comply with their request:
"Please report all significant adverse events that occur after vaccination of adults and children, even if you are not sure whether the vaccine caused the adverse event".
It should be no mystery why less than 10% of adverse events are reported .. because .. VAERS makes no effort to describe to doctors or pediatricians (parents???)what qualifies as a "significant event following vaccinations"?
How difficult would it be for VAERS to specifically list "significant events" worthy of reporting .. such as .. high temperatures, persistant diarrhea, inconsolable crying tantrums in a formerly placid infant, sleepless nights, seizures, etc .. occuring within two weeks of vaccinations?
Personally, I believe these types of "events" should be reported so that VAERS can conduct longer-term "follow up" monitoring to make certain they are not early symptoms of what will eventually become a chronic autoimmune disorder in a small sub-set of children so afflicted.
Shouldn't VAERS require pediatricians and doctors to at least report those events where a vaccinated child eventually is diagnosed with a disease that is specifically listed as a possible reaction on the vaccine manufacturers product information? Even though the actual diagnosis of the disease occurs far removed from the vaccination?
Shouldn't these "warnings" be listed in the pediatrician's waiting room where parents can read them for themselves so they will be forewarned of the potential risks ahead?
Hopefully, someday someone will actually investigate VAERS to make certain they are "pro-actively diligent" in their critically assigned task of monitoring adverse reactions following vaccinations.
After all .. parents and public health officials rely exclusively upon VAERS .. to make certain the "benefits of vaccines far outweigh the risks"?
Posted by: Bob Moffitt | October 10, 2011 at 09:27 AM
My daughter developed the measles 10 days after her vaccination at her one year old well visit. My pediatrician told me this is a side effect of the vaccination since it is a live virus. How can you only study reactions for one week when such a reaction can occur later? I was seven months pregnant at the time and luckily had the measles as a child so I was immune. Amazingly, she was given a booster before kindergarten because " it was necessary" and they said she could not get the measles once she had the disease. She is now 19 and has many autoimmune disorders. She does not have autism. I was told the measles are not really harmful, and to take her home and watch her fever. She had strep throat numerous times in the first year of life. I believe her immune system could not handle this vaccination properly.Her head also became unusually large after this shot.
Posted by: LInda | October 10, 2011 at 08:50 AM