Andrew Wakefield: British Government Culpable for Measles Outbreaks
Statement from Dr. Andrew Wakefield
British Government is entirely culpable for measles outbreak
In the wake of further media distortion, misrepresentation, and ignorance in relation to the measles outbreak in Wales, it is important to clarify some key facts.
In 1998, following an analysis of all published pre-licensing studies of MMR vaccine safety I recommended the use of single measles vaccine in preference to MMR. This remains my position.
At that time, in contrast with the false assertions of many commentators, including Richard Horton, Editor of the Lancet, and vaccine millionaire Paul Offit, the single vaccines were licensed in the UK and freely available to the British public.
While MMR vaccination uptake fell from February 1998, there was a reciprocal increase in the uptake of the single vaccines – a fact that is never acknowledged in the press. Vaccination clinics administered many thousands of doses of measles vaccine and children were “protected.”
Six months later, in September 1998, the British Government withdrew the importation license for the single vaccines, effectively blocking this option for parents.
Measles cases in the UK rose when the government withdrew the importation license for the single measles vaccine leaving concerned parents with no choice.
When I demanded to know why, if the government’s principal concern was to protect children from measles, it would prevent parents with genuine safety concerns over MMR from protecting their children, Elizabeth Miller of the Health Protection Agency responded, “…if we allowed parents the choice of single measles vaccines it would destroy our MMR program.” The government’s concern appeared to be to protect the MMR program over and above the protection of children.
MMR Vaccine is Not Safe
Despite the claim of David Salisbury, head of the UK’s Immunization Division, that MMR has, “ an exemplary safety record,” two of the three brands introduced in 1988 had to be withdrawn for safety reasons – they caused meningitis.
Government officials had approved these dangerous vaccines – Pluserix and Immravax – giving them the great majority of the UK market despite knowing that they were high risk and despite having been warned explicitly of their dangers. These government officials put price before children’s health and have been seeking to cover up this shameful fact ever since.
MMR Vaccine Can Cause Autism
The US government has paid out millions of dollars to children whose autism followed vaccine-induced brain damage. A recent government concession in the US Vaccine Court confirms that the parents’ claims were valid all along.
In a recently published December 13, 2012 vaccine court ruling, hundreds of thousands of dollars were awarded to Ryan Mojabi,[i] whose parents described how “MMR vaccinations," caused a "severe and debilitating injury to his brain, diagnosed as Autism Spectrum Disorder ('ASD')."
Later the same month, the government suffered a second major defeat when young Emily Moller from Houston won compensation following vaccine-related brain injury that, once again, involved MMR and resulted in autism.
The cases follows similar successful petitions in the Italian and US courts (including Hannah Poling[ii], Bailey Banks[iii], Misty Hyatt[iv], Kienan Freeman[v], Valentio Bocca[vi], and Julia Grimes[vii]) in which the governments conceded or the court ruled that vaccines had caused brain injury. In turn, this injury led to an ASD diagnosis. MMR vaccine was the common denominator in these cases.
Live Public Debate
The more light that shone on this subject by way of informed, balanced debate, the better. I am offering to debate any serious challenger on MMR vaccine safety and the role of MMR in autism, live, in public, and televised.
[ii] http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20015982-10391695.html and http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/CAMPBELLSMITH.%20DOE77082710.pdf
Sheogorath claims measles killed a son and nearly killed a daughter, who was left blind and deaf. All Dr Wakefield's fault of course for putting her off vaccinating her children?
"I didn't want my kid to get autism, so I refused the MMR for him...?
Now I visit his grave every week after he died of measles. What about you? Would you rather have a dead child than an autistic one?
Yes, Caitlin is blind and deaf now as a result of the measles she caught and she very nearly died of the disease, but at least she's not autistic."
In the UK post MMR vaccine (1988) there have been 2 'official' child measles deaths. Both children had very serious co-morbidities which precluded them being vaccinated, nothing to do with Dr Wakefield. There have been 4 'official' deaths attributed to MMR vaccine.
Trolls- Don't bother trying to spread vicious lies on this site. You will get 'rumbled'.
Posted by: Jenny Allan | June 18, 2014 at 07:44 PM
When I hold my cursor overt the first avatar box I get "Sheogorath". That persons says their child died.
Posted by: Visitor | June 18, 2014 at 04:41 PM
Sheogorath-- Really blind and cannot hear? Really? Not flibbing to make us feel sad and disturbed?
Cause I don't want to be that way - to a child that has been hurt or damgaged
Cause I know how it feels like to watch your child have three vaccine reactions and no one seems to care
Cause I know how it is to rush your child to a ER with a full blown seizure and the doc comes in as they are working on your child acting all friendly --- and as soon as you say -- Well I guess we did not get by with that vaccine reaction after all ---- he says not a word but wheels around and out the door to tell his other ped that == Yeah -- she knows --- and she told me -- begged me to pay attention to that last shot -- but I told her to get the shot and get it today
Cause I know how bad it is to feel that what happened to your child -- the only person that really cares is you.
But I think you are lying.
Posted by: Benedetta | June 18, 2014 at 03:00 PM
Sheogorath, yesterday, you said that children are born with autism and that anyway their vaccines don't start till months after they are born.
Don't know if you read my previous comment where I suggested you check the current CDC schedule which starts on the day of birth.
By the way, I had german measles/rubella ( also had mumps and regular measles)as a child.
With rubella, I got some itchy bumps, felt miserable for a day or two ( rather like the flu) and stayed home from school in bed til the lumps went away.
I remember the worst part was that it was very itchy.
The main feeling in the parents around us was to get as many exposed as possible so we would all have "done " the measles.
I now have lifelong immunity, unlike the breakthrough cases who are apparently now getting measles despite the vaccine.
By the way; my understanding is that Dr Wakefields advice was to get the single measles shot?
So your story today is that you vaccinated your kid with a single measles shot and she got an incredibly bad reaction to measles anyway, that resulted in her being blind and deaf?
I'd have a lot more sympathy if I thought you were telling the truth.
I'm always intrigued with the correlation is not causation argument. Kids will "randomly" just develop seizures and brain damage after a shot, and we are told "correlation is not causation" but any type of issue after an illness means "correlation is always causation."
My cynical part suggest they have put themselves in a bit of a bind. The biggest thing about rubella that parents feared when I was growing up was that a pregnant woman would catch it.
That's why parents were keen for their children to get it when they were young, so they would be immune by the time they were having babies.
A pregnant woman who gets the rubella virus can have a child with congenital rubella syndrome, the consequences of which can include a child being born with autism.
But hard to scare parents with that after they are being told by everyone that autism is fine.. What's a little brain damage between friends?
So , I think I have got it now.
Rubella virus in pregnancy=autism in baby
Vaccine reaction to live virus given to a year old baby resulting in autism = coincidence.
Always good to have that correlation/causation thing really explained.....
Posted by: Hera | June 18, 2014 at 11:40 AM
The trouble is that you are a troll and a liar. You commented here yesterday - not a word of this story.
Posted by: For Sheogorath | June 18, 2014 at 10:30 AM
You are so right! In fact, I refused to allow my daughter to have the MMR because of Dr. Wakefield's work, and thus avoided her getting autism. Yes, Caitlin is blind and deaf now as a result of the measles she caught and she very nearly died of the disease, but at least she's not autistic. Thank you, Dr. Wakefield!
Posted by: Sheogorath | June 18, 2014 at 09:29 AM
What a bunch of pussies society has become. My 7 month old daughter just had measles, as did I when younger. I was BCG vaccinated but that is all. I have never needed a doctor in my life.
For my daughter, some temperature monitoring and physical temperature reduction was applied. Big deal, not! She has not been near a doctor since she was born and is bursting with health. Her immune system just had its first training. I do not denigrate doctors but she simply has not needed them so far. In every way she is balanced and on the top of her form. Unlike my older children who were all vaccinated and suffered greatly from disease and disturbance.
There! Some evidence in the debate that surpasses the zero evidence from the medical profession on the effectiveness of vaccines.
Note: to achieve these health benefits without fear: right sleeping, eating, exercise and hygiene are also necessary.
Let the science of hypothesis, testing, evidence and independent analysis be INCLUDED in the vaccination field so that I can exercise my Master of Science Education.
Posted by: Tony76 | May 11, 2013 at 09:25 AM
On pg. 49 of _Callous Disregard_ Wakefield writes:
"During the first half of 1996, I was asked for help by Richard Barr of Dawbarn's law firm and lead attorney on the UK MMR cases. Specifically, I was asked to review the safety of measles-containing vaccines (MCV) and, separately, to design a study that would help determine whether there was or was not a likely case in law against the manufacturers of MCV....I prepared a research proposal for Barr's submission to the Legal Aid Board (LAB), a means-tested, government-funded legal assistance program to which Barr was contracted for the vaccine work. The proposal focused upon laboratory-based detection of measles virus in the diseased intestinal tissues of children with Crohn's disease and those with developmental disorder and intestinal symptoms, should they come to colonoscopy."
So who initiated the report isn't the closely-held secret Brian Deer hints at in a recent post on an anti-Wakefield website.
Posted by: Carol | April 22, 2013 at 10:40 AM
"It was a live measles vaccine that was given and I think the reason Dr Wakefield suggested single dose measles it was available and if parents were concerned about measles it there ready to give while he hoped the DOH would investigate his findings."
IMO we now have enough information available about the MMR to be fairly certain of at least one of its mechanism(s) of deleterious action(s) the results of which include autism, the ASDs and other diseases of "vaccination".
The MMR consists of three separate "vaccines", given in a single injection, each of which is in the "live attenuated viral" form.
"measles, mumps, and rubella virus vaccine live (MMR) a combination of live attenuated measles, mumps, and rubella viruses, used for simultaneous immunization against measles, mumps, and rubella."
The theory behind a live attenuated virus, as best I understand it, is that the "vaccine" virus is able to provoke the production of antibodies AND THEN a healthy body will eliminate all TRACES of the live attenuated "vaccine" virus before the virus can replicate and cause disease.
Clearly IMO this is NOT what is often happening with the MMR.
IMO some children, are unable to remove the live attenuated virus from their bodies. This virus is remaining in their guts often for years. The virus then directly or indirectly is causing disease. Even worse IMO the virus is mutating and causing OTHER problems to include immune, inflammation and auto-immune problems.
None of this is surprising. Much of "vaccine theory" is just that UNVERIFIED THEORY. The honest clinical testing to prove out, at least somewhat, this "theory" is NEVER done. The honest clinical testing to verify "vaccine benefits" is NEVER done. The honest clinical testing to discover "vaccine harm" is NEVER done.
In the case of the MMR NO TESTING was done. The MMR "approval" violates all the vaccine approval standards often observed before the MMR was RUSHED into production and given UNTESTED by the tens of MILLIONS of doses to our children in what has proved to be one vast FAILED EXPERIMENT.
“The MMR vaccine was not adequately tested and should not have been licensed.” Journal of Adverse Drug Reactions Jan 2000, Note how in heavens name are we supposed to "trust" these people?
The great tragedy of the MMR is that it is such an OBVIOUS and MURDEROUS experiment that all of AUTHORITY has banded together TIGHTLY, world-wide and will NEVER admit being accomplices to this CRIME. They have shown they will destroy or attempt to destroy anyone, such as the BRAVE Doctor Andrew Wakefield and anyone or anything that speaks the truth about the MMR.
It is up to mothers to just say NO to the MMR. No one else will save your children from the MMR.
We are constantly told by AUTHORITY that "Vaccines are safe and effective." No proof or even good evidence is provided. In fact all the evidence we now have shows just the opposite.
"Vaccines are HARMFUL, ineffective and often induce the disease that they purport to prevent as well as the NUMEROUS and SERIOUS diseases of "vaccination"."
Posted by: Lou | April 14, 2013 at 06:18 PM
Dear Dr Wakefield,
Well done you for standing your ground in such a controversial, important study. Most persons in your position would have been bought off by now. To have any future, your findings needs to go viral, dodge those media clowns.
Posted by: Michael Coyle | April 14, 2013 at 02:04 PM
Sir Mark Pepys was knighted with Sir Andrew Witty (CEO), despite GSK being found guilty of criminal misdemeanour and fined $3bn in the American courts. Since 2001, Sir Mark has channelled Pharma/GSK money into his own private company and yet has the brass neck to accuse Andrew Wakefield with being financially motivated. Jenny Allan: I doubt whether Sir Mark is capable of feeling regret. How could he?
Posted by: Mark Struthers | April 14, 2013 at 05:06 AM
"When I demanded to know why, if the government’s principal concern was to protect children from measles, it would prevent parents with genuine safety concerns over MMR from protecting their children, Elizabeth Miller of the Health Protection Agency responded, “…if we allowed parents the choice of single measles vaccines it would destroy our MMR program.” The government’s concern appeared to be to protect the MMR program over and above the protection of children."
This single paragraph tells us much about the state of the state "vaccination" Program.
What is to be protected IMO above all else is the states right to punch as many "vaccines" as it desires into the small bodies it thinks it OWNS.
A real obstacle to the "vaccination" with dozens of "vaccines" often given at multiple times is the shear number of "vaccine injections" CURRENTLY involved. A child being "vaccinated" to the schedule receives about one "vaccine" per month.
Suppose mothers could be pulled into the ped's office once a month for a "wellness" visit, could the office take the PHYSICAL TRAFFIC, could parking be found ect.? I doubt it. Thus multiple "vaccinations" given on a single day are a NECESSITY. With about 300 NEW "vaccines" under development, in testing or awaiting approval (simple these days where almost NO testing is required compared to the DECADE the FDA once demanded) you can see why the gang rape by NINE "vaccines" a day is set to INCREASE. Will we see 20 a day or will all our children be OBVIOUSLY damaged (every single "vaccine" damages, most of this damage is not visible) by then?
But folks this may be our strongest card in our battle.
Please disseminate this.
"Upon analysis, the team found that the more vaccines a child receives during a single doctor visit, the more likely he or she is to suffer a severe reaction or even die. According to Heidi Stevenson from Gaia Health, for each additional vaccine a child receives, his or her chance of death increases by an astounding 50 percent — and with each additional vaccine dose, chances of having to be hospitalized for severe complications increase two-fold. To sum it all up, the overall size of the vaccine load was found to be directly associated with hospitalization and death risk, illustrating the incredible dangers of administering multiple vaccines at once." Relative trends in hospitalizations and mortality among infants by the number of vaccine doses and age, based on the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), 1990–2010
From a health of the CHILD viewpoint SINGLE "vaccination" days are REQUIRED.
From the STATE viewpoint GANG RAPE "vaccination days" are REQUIRED.
What will it be folks?
Posted by: Lou | April 13, 2013 at 06:37 PM
"Can you tell me in what other field do we trust the government? And in fact what happened to Andrew Wakefield might actually be grounds for further distrust, particularly when you consider that his senior co-author and the clinician in the controversial Lancet paper of 1998, Prof Walker-Smith, who was funded to appeal the GMC - unlike Wakefield - was completely exonerated last year. Wrecking people lives with trumped up charges at the GMC should not be how science is decided."
i can tell you it's irrelevant the gmc is not a goverment controlled organisation, but operate in a similar fashion to bsi although the gmc is a charity rather than a company. they are however legally obliged to promote and ensure a high standard of medicine and protect the public when their standards are not met.
Posted by: ian | April 13, 2013 at 01:10 PM
I still standby what I always believed: that a man does not dedicate his life to something unless he truely believes there is something in it. My children were lucky to get the single vaccines from a private doctor who imported them - he wanted them for his own family and believed parents should have a choice. He was suspicious of the withdrawal of choice above and beyond any vague doubts he had about MMR - but over time came to believe that the behaviour of government pointed to people with something to hide. As for my decision: there were too many indicators in the family of my children's father for me to take a risk that the Wakefield paper was wrong. Could I live with choosing to give a vaccine that may inflict a lifetime of difficulty on my child when a perfectly good alternative was out there at a lower cost than my car insurance? No I could not. I have never regretted this. I believe it should be available on the NHS. I believe robbing parents of choice is dictatorial. Andy Wakefield is not to blame for a measles outbreak in Wales - how utterly ridiculous! It is about time someone published stats on how many of those kids actually were vaccinated and how in any case: I wouldn't be surprised if some had had the MMR. If I remember correctly the 'take up' is much lower than for the singles vaccine hence the need for the second dose. Has there been tests to see if the take-up is good after the second dose? Or is MMR not only potentially dangerous but also ineffective?
Posted by: Michelle Humphreys | April 13, 2013 at 11:22 AM
I think JW-S was just glad to clear his own name rather than court further controversy - he's been caught in the middle too long. He also said nothing publicly about Simon Murch whose charge sheet is virtually identical. While Prof Murch was allowed to continue his career he remains technically guilty, unlike JW-S, of things that we always knew never happened.
Posted by: John Stone | April 13, 2013 at 09:06 AM
To John Stone.
You wrote : "And in fact what happened to Andrew Wakefield might actually be grounds for further distrust, particularly when you consider that his senior co-author and the clinician in the controversial Lancet paper of 1998, Prof Walker-Smith, who was funded to appeal the GMC - unlike Wakefield - was completely exonerated last year."
Something is puzzling me : has Pr Walker-Smith had a single word in favour of Dr A. Wakefield after having been relieved of all the charges bearing on him last year ? I fear he hasn't ( but I did not keep informed continuously ). He could have said something like : despite what has opposed us (?), this decision of the Court should lead people to change their mind on the charges affecting A. Wakefield "
Why is Pr Walker-Smith silent ?
Posted by: Fièvre | April 13, 2013 at 06:14 AM
John Fryer re Professor Mark Pepys:-
The AOA Eds will probably beat me to it, but you will find everything you want to know on this AOA back number. Read the comments, including one from Dr Mark Struthers.
The following is from the transcript of the diabolical Radio 4 programme Science Betrayed, all set up between the BBC and Godlee & Co. It was my impression Pepyps was not too happy about appearing on the programme. I bet he regrets it now!
"One of the activities he [Wakefield] wished to pursue was in relation to a company he himself set up, together with others ... and as far as I could gather, the role of this company was to commercialize various treatments for complications of measles vaccination and MMR vaccination ... including treatments which in my opinion were not scientifically robust, for example the use of transfer factor, something which was always very controversial ... comes from an earlier era of immunology, certainly not the current era, and which has long been discredited as something which is a viable scientific or medically acceptable procedure. So I wasn't at all happy that anybody in my department should be involved with that, or try to promote it, particularly in the context of an alarm about safety of vaccination, which had originated from the same source."
In 2001, shortly before getting rid of Dr Wakefield, Professor Pepys started up the UCL-spin out Pentraxin Therapeutics, which is developing a treatment for a rare form of amyloidosis.
Posted by: Jenny Allan | April 13, 2013 at 02:55 AM
THE LIFE OF BRIAN?
Off subject slightly but the comment about PEPYS interested me immensely.
Son of the late truly great Jack Pepys who did much work on immunology.
Mark was knighted in 2012.
He has strong links to GSK and Roche et al!
Involved as said in Alzheimer work.
If he was responsible for the removal of Andrew then this is new to me and I want to know MORE.
It would behove everyone to find out all about this great person and his close and warm relation to government and industry. (especially GSK who might be thought to employ SAD tactics as do MERCK?)
After just a couple of minutes looking, he is responsible for much AD and other work so although he is high profile there is sadly not much promise as AD like ASD is the 21st century catastrophes alongside other illness not concerned with the Royal Free.
My first groan is that this person and others INSIST on removing what is being produced after someone gets an illness. (amyloid, C Reactive Proteins etc etc)
I believe only progress can be made by stopping at source the cause of the problems. Wiping up the mess as it is produced does NOTHING. Except make money for all who are not ill.
I was struck by the notion of BACTERIAL et al infectious causes for AD back in 1998 to 2002 etc!
Getting back on target would, over and repeat vaccines using materials designed to OPEN UP the blood brain barrier (basically SOAP!) be causing the increase in AD and maybe (long shots) ASD as well! Not to mention Charles Richet type problems!
Working with GSK so closely is hardly likely to do much for sick people with autism or AD but might be good for Big pHARMa and for those Doll like people who follow and collect the offerings that fall by the wayside for all their companions of the garter?
Posted by: John Fryer | April 12, 2013 at 07:12 PM
In a 1998 letter to John Walker-Smith, cc'ed to Arie Zuckerman, Roy Pounder, Simon Murch, Mike Thomson and Mark Berelowitz, Wakefield wrote:
"In addition to our own work and that of others, my opinion is also based upon a comprehensive review of all safety studies performed on measles, MR and MMR vaccines and re-vaccination policies. This now runs into a report compiled by me of some 250 pages, which I am happy to let you see. In summary, the safety studies are derisory, and appear to reflect sequential assumptions about measles vaccine safety, MMR safety and latterly, two dose vaccine safety, where each assumption has potentially compounded the dangers inherent in the first."
Posted by: Carol | April 12, 2013 at 10:44 AM
And the manufacturer SmithKline Beecham was indemnified from personal injury liability from its Urabe-strain MMR vaccine by the UK Government!
Posted by: Jake Crosby | April 12, 2013 at 08:52 AM
Great stuff Andy. Keep working and fighting for the forgotten millions of the 20th and 21st century, the vaccine-injured ones.
You deserve the Nobel prize, and will hopefully get it one day before long.
Jennifer and Keith Horne-Roberts, parents of our most beloved Harry RIP, a victim of Urabe strain MMR who was killed aged 20 by anti-psychotic medication given without our knowledge or consent, aged just 20. A brilliant, multi-talented boy. In endless grief, Mummy and Daddy.
Posted by: Jennifer Horne-Roberts | April 12, 2013 at 06:47 AM
In reply to Barbara
It was a live measles vaccine that was given and I think the reason Dr Wakefield suggested single dose measles it was available and if parents were concerned about measles it there ready to give while he hoped the DOH would investigate his findings. We all know how that ended. there was concern about single measles back in the 70's as uncovered by Christina England in the Kew archives files, this can be found on vacc truth web-site. The medical profession have got away with duping us for centuries and I can't see that changing any time soon.
Posted by: mn | April 12, 2013 at 06:45 AM
Look at the recent published revamp of research done from 1994 to 1999 when the CDC have admitted a rate of autism spectrum disorder both rising and still not counted properly if at all for the mercury reduced vaccine schedules. Presently ASD is at around 11 cases per 100 meaning with a four to seven fold male predominance that rather too many males get this problem so many more in theory may have some problems?
The research indicates that MMR provides at least TWICE as many antigens for the child to react to and overcome.
With other vaccines in this period the over exposure to antigens even approaches or EXCEEDS the lower estimates put that babies can withstand.
Nobody not even Andrew Wakefield is telling people to give vaccines a miss but he is looking at children damaged rightly or wrongly in his eyes from MMR vaccines used in the UK in the 1990's.
Using the knowledge from his work my grand children got vaccinated with separate vaccines and suffered no ill effects until the last child was forced to use MMR or even quadrivalent or pentavalent vaccines as the supply of single measles fell to ZERO.
Consider the South Wales case today with epidemic and rising measles.
Would it be better and safer to use MEASLES vaccines to protect those queuing up?
Or to use vaccines with more than double the antigens and containing amongst other things live RUBELLA linked by all to autism CAUSATION!
If I was in south Wales my defence would be having the illness as a child and developing IMMUNITY by natural means.
With a child as explained they would be protected by SINGLE vaccines and so hopefully trusting in the safety of vaccines again no problem.
Finally with MMR vaccines, it seems you need 4 lots of shots to get protected and I hope you know about the work of Charles Richet and the natural reaction to a repeat vaccine?
Finally if you check that CDC research what do you make of the risk of autism after more antigen exposure going up MORe than 4 fold?
Posted by: John Fryer | April 12, 2013 at 06:09 AM
I should have thought it was a fairly obvious proposition that injecting three vaccines in one go was inherently more risky than injecting one, and this reasonable doubt was still reflected in public health policy at the time of the 1998 news conference because parents were allowed to choose (and also with the components of DPT vaccine). As it emerged at the GMC hearing the dean of the Royal Free Medical, Prof Ari Zuckerman, persuaded AW to take part in a news conference to support the vaccine programme, which in its present form at the time he was doing (moreover he was being asked for his personal opinion).
I don't think that what you say about Cochrane cuts the mustard. Cochrane points to failures in "design" and "reporting": if the studies are technically no good, they are no good. Individually, Cochrane 2005 was scathing about the six autism studies it reviewed and yet we read in the plain language summary (based on nothing in the main text) that MMR was unlikely to cause autism (no evidence either way - and a great deal of negligence - is being cited as negative evidence).
What we have is a happy-go-lucky more-the-merrier approach to vaccines based as far as I can see on almost zero evidence. In this 2006 paper funded by the NIH and produced by a CDC scientist we find that about a quarter of the infant subjects were not well at the time of vaccination and 6 in 100 got a high fever afterwards (but there was no long term follow up).
What we have is negligent practice being cited as evidence of safety, but the work has never been done.
My final point - in tribute to AW - was that while everyone else was surreptitiously burying the evidence by not collecting it, he listened to parents. Obviously, this was absolutely terrifying to the manufacturers and to the government, but he was just being a good doctor. AND THIS WAS WHY THEY HAD TO MAKE AN EXAMPLE OF HIM.
Posted by: John Stone | April 12, 2013 at 06:00 AM
"If only AW had acted with due care, reported what was a limited case series looking at a possible link between GI issues and autism then the world would be a very different place, after all how many reports of a limited case series of a dozen or so patients warrent a full blown press conference where he made his (so far) unjustified comments about single versus multiple vaccine formulations."
Hang on a minute! Dr Wakefield expressed what he made clear was a 'personal' opinion at the press conference. In his book 'Callous Disregard' he states his 'conscience' would not allow him to recommend the MMR vaccine, which he sincerely believed was damaging children. The UK was and is supposed to be a democratic country where persons should be able to express an opinion. It seems that in Orwellian fashion, Eindeker believes some opinions are better than others. In particular, vaccines are somehow 'sacrosanct' and any concerns about the safety of vaccines must NEVER be expressed -'Hush your mouths children"!!
The idea that Dr Wakefield's sensible suggestion of going back to single measles vaccines, pending more MMR vaccine safety research, (he never suggested this as a PERMANENT arrangement), has somehow 'changed the world' is quite ridiculous. Parental concerns about the safety of MMR vaccine were being publicly expressed long before the Wakefield et al Lancet paper was published in 1998. The UK Government deliberately 'covered up' their Urabe blunders.
As for MMR2 , my grandson got this vaccine and we believe fell foul of it. He was part of a later group of around 50 children being treated at the Royal Free Hospital for exactly the same syndrome as described in the 1998 Lancet paper. Any further research or treatment was 'pulled' by incoming UCL Medical Director Professor Mark Pepys, who also admitted getting rid of Dr Wakefield. Prof Pepys later linked up with MMR vaccine manufacturers GlaxoSmithKline to research senile dementia/ Alzheimers(groan). The £millions going into this 'black hole' would be far better spent on researching the-now admitted to be environmental-causes of autism in children, and vaccine causation should most definintely NOT be 'sacrosanct'.
Posted by: Jenny Allan | April 12, 2013 at 05:57 AM
"I believe AW had researched the safety studies" a very easy statement John, I stand to be corrected but I don't believe that AW has ever documented the basis of his concerns.
Looking at the chronology of the events surely the children he examined in his limited case series that led to the Lancet paper would all have received the previously withdrawn versions of the MMR, not the current MSD MMR II at the time of the paper? Please correct me if I am wrong, but this is crucial to understanding the events, was AW casting doubt on a withdrawn version of the vaccine?
You quote the Cochrane review John perhaps design of clinical trials has progressed in the last quarter century, but neither review supports the view of a vaccine autism link.
If only AW had acted with due care, reported what was a limited case series looking at a possible link between GI issues and autism then the world would be a very different place, after all how many reports of a limited case series of a dozen or so patients warrent a full blown press conference where he made his (so far) unjustified comments about single versus multiple vaccine formulations.
Since AW has now repeated his concerns, and assuming he reads the contributions to this site, will he please now provide the evidence to substantiate the claim that single vaccines are less hazardous to the MMR format, it is a perfectably reasonable request.
Posted by: Eindeker | April 12, 2013 at 04:44 AM
I remember the kids parties for measles we all went for them .. Mum knew best and we trusted her .. most mothers today appear to be a little bit dense and rely upon science without the slightest idea about science and its ever changing certainties .. try we came from the monkeys Darwin .. another failed theory .. just like vaccination.
Science and their pronouncements change on a daily basis .. what was fact today is nonsense tomorrow .. just look at the history of medical science. A flickering mirage!.
Posted by: Ivor | April 12, 2013 at 04:35 AM
Of course, there is nothing wrong about the safe vaccines, however they DO NOT EXIST. All of them are inherently dangerous and deadly. I much prefer effective drugs to treat the infectious diseases in a few, when they get sick, than the toxic vaccines, which damage and kill many healthy children and adults.
Posted by: no vac | April 11, 2013 at 11:45 PM
Good posts everyone agree with all from our side...shame on the other side..
Posted by: Its strange it s dated back to Dr Wakefield | April 11, 2013 at 07:55 PM
Every parent who starts to investigate the potential dangers of vaccines (whether vaccine injured child or not) will always encounter fierce opposition even from those who are suppose to support them.
I was wondering why in the last couple of days the Australian media was focusing on vaccines and saying that parents who don't vaccinate are irresponsible.
Next the news about the "Measles outbreak" will be on our shores and the same old rhetoric about Dr Wakefield and his irresponsible study will emerge!
When will "Big Pharma" recognise that parents are now too well educated - because of the "Internet!"
Posted by: AussieMum | April 11, 2013 at 07:30 PM
Eindeker says "there are valid reasons why 3 separate vaccines are not preferable from a pure logistics and cost basis"
Perhaps I can help. prior to 1998, when the Lancet Wakefield et al paper was published, single vaccines for measles and rubella had been part of the UK child vaccination schedule for many years. The measles vaccination was introduced in 1968, the year it was administered to my elder daughter, then 18 months old. I was warned she would be fretful and may develop a rash -she was and did!! Two years later, this vaccine was withdrawn for causing exactly the same problems as the wild measles, brain damage, deafness etc. Our family doctor refused to give this vaccine to my younger daughter. He said it had caused him far more problems than the measles. My younger daughter received a modified vaccine version in 1970 at a 'baby clinic'. This time, no rash, no fretfulness. My daughter caught wild measles two years later. In those days only one measles vaccine dose was administered. Boosters were considered unnecessary. Parents were not pressurised to give this vaccine to their children; it was offered as an optional extra. Some doctors disliked it and refused to administer it.
A few years later rubella was added to the UK child vaccination schedule. Only girls were vaccinated at around 11-12 years. Of course both my daughters had already had wild rubella in infancy, but no matter. This vaccine proved to be both cost effective and successful in preventing rubella damage to unborn children. I have never heard of any problems with it.
In those days Mumps vaccine was considered unnecessary. Little boys, it was assumed, were better to contract this disease in infancy and most mothers made sure their sons were infected. It was the Urabe mumps MMR component 1988-1992, which caused the initial meningitis/encephalitis havoc which first raised parental MMR vaccine concerns during the early 1990s, when Jackie Fletcher started the JABS support group after her son Robert became profoundly disabled after his MMR vaccination. This was years before the Wakefield et al Lancet paper. The UK Government, acting in character, put a 20 year press and media 'block' on the Urabe scandal. To this day only a couple of Scottish press outlets carried the story, which surfaced in 2010, shortly before the GMC guilty verdicts on Dr Wakefield and Profs Walker-Smith and Murch were announced. Even then, the popular press refused to publish this aspect of the MMR vaccine history.
Dr Wakefield wanted the UK Government to continue using the two single vaccines for measles and rubella, whilst more research was carried out on the MMR vaccine. The single vaccines were cost effective and had prevented child measles outbreaks in the UK. In view of the Cochrane assertion that not enough proper safety checks had been carried out on MMR vaccine, prior to its introduction, then Dr Wakefield's suggestion looks eminently sensible. I have no wish to discuss mumps vaccine here, but I am aware that manufacturers Merck are being sued in two US courts for misrepresenting this vaccine's efficacy.
Eindeker's fixation with vaccine 'logistics' and 'cost basis' seems to depressingly echo the collective attitudes of the 'men in suits' who sit in government offices and decide these things. It seems, as Dr Wakefield forcefully points out, that these people know the cost of everything and the value of nothing!! We are talking here about our precious childrens' safety and wellbeing. No vaccine is 100% safe or effective, but parents are entitled to expect them to be as safe and effective as possible.
I have often wondered what would have happened to that kindly wise old family doctor,(long dead), in today's climate if he had refused to deliver a measles vaccine to a chid?
Posted by: Jenny Allan | April 11, 2013 at 07:01 PM
I think you're right Linda. I remember holding my classmates hand on a field trip in first grade, the teacher said to her, "you have to go home you have chicken pox". I didn't catch it until I was thirteen, my mom bought me cleaasil, thinking I was starting to "break out" , until I was covered. Why? I think we were stronger, and slight exposures could be fought off, and those same exposures gave us a priming to recognize the disease and not get a terrible or deadly case. Now , all bets are off, we are virgins to the diseases and they can be deadly.
Posted by: barbara j | April 11, 2013 at 06:22 PM
I can say something about the single shot rubella vaccine. When I was pregnant with Erik, the doctor recommended for me to get vaccinated to prevent mental retardation. The single vaccine was brand-new at the time in 1969. I wished I had refused because later they warned not to give any rubella vaccines to pregnant women. I used to trust my doctor. I was naive. Today I look at all recommendations very carefully.
Posted by: Birgit Calhoun | April 11, 2013 at 06:21 PM
Eindeker, If you're American then you may be familiar with the 'levy' on vaccine manufacturers which is a certain number of cents per vaccine dose administered. I can't remember the precise figures but the single vaccines were fewer cents than the triple vaccines. In particular, the MMR was the most cents therefore, if I remember correctly, the most troublesome vaccine in terms of adverse vaccination reactions. Perhaps someone whose researches are more recent than mine (which started in 1993) could provide us all with the correct references - my heartfelt thanks to whoever can do this.
Posted by: A British Autism Mother | April 11, 2013 at 06:07 PM
I believe AW had researched the safety studies. This was, of course, 1998. Certainly, in relation to MMR safety studies Cochrane stated both in 2005 and 2012 that they were "largely inadequate" which I am sure you will agree is an appalling conclusion 40 years after the product was first marketed.
I also believe it was the case that the original marketing of MMR was based largely on safety studies of the component vaccines, and not its trivalent assembly, but I don't have the sources immediately to hand. That would suggest there may be more convincing studies for the measles component.
Posted by: John Stone | April 11, 2013 at 05:18 PM
Murderers generally don't expose their crimes without being arrested and put on trial, so unless they can rig and control the debate as they do the government and media, it would be shocking if any one of the cowards took the offer.
But I'm very glad to see Dr. Wakefield continue to counter the propaganda, especially for the young families trying to figure out what to do and who to believe.
To repeat what another commenter said, when we were kids our mothers were not afraid of measles. I don't know of anyone who became severely ill after measles or anyone who died. I'm sure there were some that became very sick, but I didn't know anyone. If 1 in 1000 died as is claimed now, our mothers would have been petrified, but they truly weren't. They would purposely expose us to get it over with. It was a childhood rite of passage where one was awarded with life long immunity, as opposed to today's vaccinated children who at some unknown point lose immunity and are left unprotected as adults or even earlier. While I don't believe that the mortality rate for measles is 1 in 1000, the thought occurred to me that measles infection today may be more serious than it was fifty years ago. If so, I wonder, is it because children are weaker or because the virus is stronger?
Regarding the wisdom of pursuing vaccination for childhood diseases that were mild, I liken it to farmers using chemicals to control weeds and pests. Over the years these technologies, once thought to be miraculous inventions, have had unintended consequences and have backfired in a big way. I think that attempting to control so many pathogens will prove to be just as disastrous, and the focus should be on creating the safest vaccines for only the truly deadly diseases. The problem is that vaccine manufacturers and the doctors they pay to promote their products can not be trusted.
Posted by: Linda | April 11, 2013 at 05:14 PM
".. Bring on the debate! If the MMR is so good as to efficacy and safety they would welcome debate, wouldn't they?
You are absolutely correct .. common sense dictates THEY SHOULD be the ones DEMANDING a public debate .. as well as DEMANDING an independent study of vaccinated v unvaccinated populations .. but .. their absolute refusal to do EITHER is clear and convincing evidence THEY ALREADY KNOW WHAT "THAT DEBATE" AND "THAT STUDY" .. WOULD REVEAL.
SHAME ON THEM!!!!
Posted by: . | April 11, 2013 at 05:07 PM
Can AW, or anyone else, please give the evidence for the statement that following AW's research single vaccines are safer than MMR; there are valid reasons why 3 separate vaccines are not preferable from a pure logistics and cost basis so it would seem the crux of the discussion that has not been laid out in unequivocal and simple terms.
His paper may not have recommended single vaccines over the MMR but his statement at the press conference clearly did, I'm unaware that the basis of this recommendation has ever been published. Just for the sake of moving this discussion forward from verbal grenades lobbed over the trenches.
Posted by: Eindeker | April 11, 2013 at 04:24 PM
We know we can rely on Dr Wakefield pity we can't say that about the rest of the medical establishment. Wakefield should have been on newsnight instead of Offit. Regarding the mandating of vaccines in the UK they(David Salsbury and Fiona Godlee) do not want to mandate because then we would not have to sign for the vaccine and they would be culpable for damage but if you sign for a vaccine you take on the responsibility and decision for doing so.
Posted by: Joan Campbell | April 11, 2013 at 03:43 PM
MN, then I can't suppose why he would advocate for the single live shot? Or was the boy given an inactivated/atypical measles causing vaccine? Or does any of this matter..would a live shot shelved under poor conditions become a killed shot? We are experiencing a mumps surge, and yes it worries me, mostly for my highschool aged mmr'd son, I know he has no antibody titers, it was in his report when he was checked for measles titers , while they were unusually high, there were none for either rubella or mumps.
Posted by: barbara j | April 11, 2013 at 03:21 PM
Excellent comments, Barry!
And, Andy, you are a true hero! Thank you for remaining steadfast regarding what you know to be true, especially in light of all that it has cost you and your family. My hat goes off to you.
Keep up the good fight! The truth will prevail.
Posted by: Laura Hayes | April 11, 2013 at 02:43 PM
Bob, despite all their "tough" talk, trashing, hate campaigning, poll crashing and ignoring by major media, no one is brave enough to debate Dr. Wakefield- one has to conclude that the truth might hurt too much- ouch! It does make them seem rather impotent and cowardly, though.
Posted by: jen | April 11, 2013 at 02:40 PM
I am 71 years old, and I remember the way it was when people still got diphtheria and measles. I was one of them, and certainly people would not want to go back to the days of small pox. However, there is such a thing as prudence.
My point is that governmental agencies need to own up to doing what's right for the children and all humankind. They need to make vaccines as safe as they can be. I grew up in Germany, and the inoculations I received were all mono-valent. They did not contain Thimerosal. MMR is a live vaccine (no Thimerosal). The MMR combination is a really bad idea. Who would want three different diseases simultaneously (that's right, thatt's what you get) no matter how attenuated (whatever that means) they are.
The CDC and all the other agencies need to test their vaccines and preservatives and other adjuvants for safety. They need to list the side-effects, and they need to make sure that pregnant mothers don't get them.
Dr. Wakefield keep it up!
Posted by: Birgit Calhoun | April 11, 2013 at 02:36 PM
I am happy that Dr. Wakefield is not backing down on this. Bring on the debate! If the MMR is so good as to efficacy and safety they would welcome debate, wouldn't they?
Posted by: jen | April 11, 2013 at 02:29 PM
How about a "pay to view" event?
I would love the opportunity to pay the equivalent of a ticket to a "hit" Broadway show or the Superbowl .. to see a publicly televised debate between Dr. Wakefield .. and .. a "serious challenger" .. regarding the "safety and role of the MMR in autism".
I would be willing to double the price of my ticket if the "serious challenger" was one of the main-stream media favorite "sock puppets" .. such as .. Dr. Offit or Bill Gates.
Posted by: Bob Moffitt | April 11, 2013 at 02:00 PM
Thank you Dr Wakefield for not giving up. The day
is coming that your truth will win out and
families of the future will be the beneficiaries
of your truth.
Your findings came a little late to save my grandson!!
Posted by: Paul S | April 11, 2013 at 01:49 PM
In the 1950's they used to have measels and mumps parties in the summer so their children would not get sick during the school year.
Something like 120 cases of measels in the USA last year. In the 50's a mother could handle 3 or 4 cases at one time... nearly 3% of the entire 2012 US case load.
Does the CDC ever provide a list of those children who have the mumps as teenagers from a "MMR failure" and become sterile ? I would guess not...
Posted by: cmo | April 11, 2013 at 01:41 PM
In reply to Barbara
yes Dr Wakefield did see a boy who had single vaccine same symptoms and measles virus found in blood sample and biopsy and same regression history
Posted by: mn | April 11, 2013 at 01:05 PM
Bravo and huzzah, Dr. W! Every time there is a disease outbreak, the pharma companies and their cronies in government and the media cook up a fresh batch of "Wakefield Blame" as a means of distracting the public from the rather OBVIOUS fact that the vaccines don't actually work all that well, either because they never did, or they wear off sooner than advertised maybe due to viral interference, or because of antigenic drift. One can't fix the problem if one is only focused on covering it up by blaming parents and a doctor whose work was published a decade ago. If Dr. W were the problem, there wouldn't still be a problem. Until they fix the real problem and provide safer, common-sense alternatives like single unadjuvanted preservative-free vaccines, parents will continue to abandon ship.
I wish we could have a South Africa-style "truth and reconciliation" council for vaccines, whereby governments and pharma could freely admit that the current vaccines DO cause preventable harm and that newer, safer vaccines and a saner vaccination schedule are necessary. Think how much better off we would all be if the energy and money expended on the coverup were instead expended on improving child health.
Posted by: Garbo | April 11, 2013 at 12:41 PM
I would suspect , if he's promoting a single measles vaccine that he hasn't seen the gastro illness of autism in those that received the single vaccine. Not in study but in observation. The single shot of the USA experience , the inactivated measles vaccine ,carried huge risks of atypical measles and later crohn's, I don't know if we had experience with a single live vaccine?
Posted by: barbara j | April 11, 2013 at 12:05 PM
Nobody has ever been willing face off with Dr. Wakefield in debate. They are only willing to snipe in girly fashion.
Which reminds me, Orac opines that while Emily Moller Lowrie suffered encephalopathy within two weeks of vaccination, that doesn't mean vaccination caused her autism. She was going to get autism anyway, I guess, because we all know it's genetic.
Posted by: Carol | April 11, 2013 at 11:56 AM
Watch the movie..."the corporation".... it details why companies are unable to take responsibility for their mistakes.... In the US... it is simply against the law for a corporation to admit guilt as it goes against its stock holders.
Also,,, any corporations out there.... watch Dr. Brene Brown speak on the courage of being vulnerable on a Ted Talk. You might learn something from her. I am pro safe vaccine, btw.... Nothing wrong with a good, safe vaccine that hasn't harmed anyone. Murderers are tried and taken off the streets to protect the public after just one death. Unsafe vaccines are promoted. May the corporations find the courage to do real studies and take the vaccines off the market until they hurt no one and help many.
Posted by: Billie Joe | April 11, 2013 at 11:47 AM
Coincidence the Guardian article and the measles outbreak in Swansea making Wakefield the villain again. How many are actually unvaccinated there and how many of these cases have actually received a vaccine.
In Dr Wakefield book Callous Disregard he mentions a trial of MMR in babies at 3 months and the trial stopped ,why was it stopped . Christina Engalnd found some interesting files from 30 years ago in the Kew archives which have been published on the vacc truth web-site about concern by the UK's DOH about the safety of single measles vaccine interesting read.
Posted by: mn | April 11, 2013 at 11:35 AM
I heard on UK Column live that Dr Wakefield will be invited on Sovereign Independent Uk radio tomorrow Friday 12th April at 8pm BST to talk about this latest measles outbreak
Posted by: GennyGC | April 11, 2013 at 11:27 AM
Oh how I would love to see such an interview - along with thousands of others! Dr Wakefield has been ignored by the media for so long - worse than that - unfairly reviled and criticised and denied the opportunity to publicly tell his side of the story. After the first GMC session - which didn't really address the science of the work done at the Royal Free Hospital - it was sound after all - the medical authorities had to think up a way to challenge the science. Then a year later appreared the three articles by Brian Deer - not a scientist, not a doctor [they were clever to keep themselves out of the limelight!] but by publishing these letters in the Lancet, gave the impression that the medical establishment was in agreement with the contents.
Yes I'd love to see a QUALIFIED person take up the debate with dr Wakefield. Bring it on!
Posted by: Seonaid | April 11, 2013 at 11:26 AM
Jen & Benedetta
I am sure that one of the keys to this episode was that it did not fit in with the business model to allow single vaccines anymore. In the UK in 1998 you could choose which components of the MMR and the DPT you wanted your child to have (and when). But this did not fit in with the plans.
Posted by: John Stone | April 11, 2013 at 11:04 AM
In October 2010, shortly after he had made an address on autism and vaccine safety at the European Parliament in Brussels, Andrew Wakefield gave a talk in Boulder, Colorado.
At question time (1.27.30), a questioner claimed that Dr Wakefield might have been unwilling to debate someone ... namely Dr Paul ... Offit, a long term advocate for forced vaccination amongst other things. Andrew Wakefield went on to say,
"No, it's not true: I have actually written to Dr Paul Offit and sent as a registered letter an invitation to him to debate me, in public, at any time of his choosing ... and he's not even troubled to respond ... and I've done that at several public meetings such as this ... and I will do it again: Dr Offit; I will debate debate you at any time of your choosing on this subject" ...
Andrew Wakefield has again set out his challenge to the likes of Offit:
"The more light that shone on this subject by way of informed, balanced debate, the better. I am offering to debate any serious challenger on MMR vaccine safety and the role of MMR in autism, live, in public, and televised."
Come on Salisbury, come on Offit, let us see what you're made of.
* Salisbury is Professor David Salisbury CBE, 'The Director' for vaccine operations at the Department of Health in London.
Posted by: Mark Struthers | April 11, 2013 at 11:01 AM
Not only that but they are taking away options by having introduced the MMRV (chicken pox into the mix). I spoke to a parent whose child reacted badly to that particular vaccine. I know there are people who wish mumps were available singly.
Posted by: jen | April 11, 2013 at 10:50 AM
So if Dr Wakefield told you to put your head in an oven WOULD YOU OH PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEASE IT IS AN INSULT TO PARENTS TO BLAME ANDREW WAKEFIELD CANT PARENTS MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS
Posted by: Debra | April 11, 2013 at 10:43 AM
Please have some common sense you only have to look at the side effects on the vaccine insert to know that side effects do occur the problem is that the manufacturers of these vaccines say that they only effect 1 IN A 100,000 OR 1 IN 5OO,OOO HOW DO THEY KNOW IF THEY ARE NOT FOLLOWING THE CHILDREN AFTER VACCINATION not everyone reports side effects on the yellow card system if you want to know how vaccines affect children invest in the books SILENCED WITNESSES 1 AND 2
Posted by: Debra | April 11, 2013 at 10:31 AM
Oh, the government is subsidizing the Vaccines and to get three all rolled up into one -- the drug companies are giving them a better deal than if they had to buy three different vaccines.
Oh, now I remember -- the government was given a really - really good deal on the kinds that had a tendency to cause meningitis.
Ohhhh yeah I forgot-- the drug companies were worried about selling it to the government, but the government said that with that great deal they would change the laws so those that were harmed could not sue.
Posted by: Benedetta | April 11, 2013 at 09:58 AM
I wonder at the reason for withdrawing the single vaccine. The response was that it would wreck their MMR program.
So wouldn't they still have three vaccines, just given at different times. Why would that not be similar to the MMR program or maybe a new program?
THe reasoning is not sound???
Posted by: Benedetta | April 11, 2013 at 09:50 AM
As a fan of AOA I am totally anti vaccines on all levels. I don't believe I am alone.
Given that the BBC, Guardian, Telegraph, HuffPo and all UK news outlets are writing such scathing, factually incorrect and hateful articles someone needs to hit back. An offer of a live TV debate says this man aint backing down.
This debate is not about Dr Wakefield. In such a polarised debate the media have a focal point and a single man to demonise but it is us the parents who need to wade in.
I have just taken a call from a colleague this morning asking what they should do, to give the MMR to a 12 month old or not- I was so pleased to be able to stop just one more person from making the wrong choice. You all gotta speak out in whatever way you can.
We all have a role to play here. I am grateful to Dr Wakefield of course for his unwavering stance. Yet another person of great courage.
Posted by: Letthembegot | April 11, 2013 at 09:04 AM
When the "authorities" talk of an "epidemic" or "outbreak," and the lapdog major media pick up the story, you'd better be prepared to look behind every headline.
How many pertussis "outbreaks" in VACCINATED children out in California are we going to hear WITHOUT mention of the fact that the affected children HAD ALREADY been vaccinated?
BTW, I like the reference from the other poster: Dr. Wakefield is the new Emmanuel Goldberg, and target of "The Great Hate" from all the "stakeholders."
Posted by: Upton Sinclair | April 11, 2013 at 08:51 AM
Thank you Dr. Andrew Wakefield for speaking truth of power.
So Elizabeth Miller of the UK Health Protection Agency responded, “…if we allowed parents the choice of single measles vaccines it would destroy our MMR program.”
This is just another example of disregard for the rights of parents to protect their children.
Along those same lines of disregard, here is the text of my letter to the editor of the Sioux Falls, South Dakota “Argus Leader” newspaper on February 10, 2009:
“Currently the South Dakota Department of Health notification for the flu vaccine says it may contain thimerosal but that thimerosal free is ‘available.’ What it does not say is that thimerosal is ½ mercury by weight and that mercury is a known neurotoxin.
South Dakota bill (SB198) recently failed in a Senate committee . It would have required notification to parents when a vaccine contains mercury at one part per million or higher.
The South Dakota Department of Health testified against the bill and said ‘This bill could lead parents to falsely believe that there is a reason for concern regarding the mercury based preservatives.’
But a report in 2001 concluded ‘Mercury in all of its forms is toxic to the fetus and children and efforts should be made to reduce exposure to the extent possible to pregnant women and children as well as the general population.’
The report is called Technical Report: Mercury in the Environment: Implications for Pediatricians, Pediatrics. It can be found at http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/108/1/197 .
So for now, flu shots with thimerosal have 50 parts per million mercury. It is available without mercury and there may be extra fees. Unless parents and pregnant women ask--they won’t know.”
And so today, in 2013, South Dakota parents are still uniformed when their children receive flu shots with the same weight of mercury as a half cup of D009 hazardous waste. http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/12/q-a---how-about-a-half-cup-of-mercury-hazardous-waste.html
Posted by: Jim Thompson | April 11, 2013 at 08:31 AM
John O -
Re-read the statement.
"I recommended the use of single measles vaccine in preference to MMR. This remains my position."
It's not that complicated, unless your goal is to twist the meaning of what Dr. Wakefield said.
Posted by: PJCarroll | April 11, 2013 at 07:41 AM
I mean no disrespect to Dr Wakefield, who truly is one of the only heroes in this nightmare they call autism
But there is no such thing as a safe , or an effective vaccine. There never has been , and there never will be.
Everything we've been told about vaccines is a lie. They are nothing more than carefully designed poisons, which intentionally corrupt our immune system. Because there is a LOT of money to be made from doing that.
My guess is that Dr Any Wakefield's legal battle is going a little too well, and it literally threatened to bring down the entire house of cards. I believe that this so calked "measles outbreak" isn't even real, and has been completely fabricated by a corrupted media, that's been tasked once again with smearing the good Dr Wakefield.
Posted by: Barry | April 11, 2013 at 07:17 AM
The outbreak of measles in Wales has been the cue for a wave of hostility in the UK press against Andy (read 'Emanuel Goldstein' against whom the citizens of Airstrip One vented their hate in Orwell's '1984')) the like of which we have not been seen for years, and begs the question what are authorities really worried about. Anyhow, I am re-posting my comment this morning on the Daily Telegraph blog of Tom Chivers:
"24 hours ago I challenged you to take a look at what Brian Hooker (whom you sneeringly denounced) actually said about the new CDC paper on vaccines and autism, and respond to his criticisms - because actually this is serious and we need a serious discussion, not for ill-informed journalists to behave like busy-bodies and government enforcers.
"Can you tell me in what other field do we trust the government? And in fact what happened to Andrew Wakefield might actually be grounds for further distrust, particularly when you consider that his senior co-author and the clinician in the controversial Lancet paper of 1998, Prof Walker-Smith, who was funded to appeal the GMC - unlike Wakefield - was completely exonerated last year. Wrecking people lives with trumped up charges at the GMC should not be how science is decided."
Posted by: John Stone | April 11, 2013 at 07:11 AM
AoA has never been an anti-vaccine site. We are just asking that any programme be conducted with due care.
Posted by: John Stone | April 11, 2013 at 07:09 AM
So, Dr Wakefield recommends vaccination against measles - just in single vaccines, rather than the combined vaccine. Is that an absolutely, definite, final statement? And if so, do the editors at Age of Autism support this view?
Posted by: John O'Neill | April 11, 2013 at 05:57 AM