@ Wendy Stephen

Arising from your posting. My ASD child (now adult) was given the MMR on a date in late April 1992. The batch number started with a capital M and continued with about ten numbers. Do you, by any chance, know which manufacturer supplied this vaccination? It took bureaucratic jumping through hoops just to see my child's old paper records - somehow I doubt those records will be "available " for the supplier. Thanks.

The MMR brands used in the UK campaign had the following Product licences.

MMR by MSD PL 0025/0078 dated 17th August 1972
Pluserix (SK&F) PL 0002/0166 dated 17th June 1988
Immravax (Merieux) PL 6745/0020 18th September 1989

Pluserix was manufactured in a facility in Rixensart Belgium, was already in production, and was imported from there into the UK. (I know this because I requested the information from the MHRA in the UK in respect of my daughter's batch code)

There was no need for a 'production facility' to be set up or for them to be "inspected" etc.

Given that Professor Salisbury made his remark about Pluserix on 17th May 1988 and the licence was granted a month later, I'd say that definitely falls into the "shortly" category.

Linda

I am afraid they were not kisses before I turned them into xs. I did it not because the language was so very shocking these days but because I didn't see why I should be abused and defamed like that in public. But it is troubling because ECBT is supposed to be a reputable organisation and its "expert" cannot conduct himself any better than this. The reason it is happening is because after years of research the gentleman has his facts skewed and he does not know how to regain face.

More from ECBT's resident "expert" Dr Harrison:

"@ John Stone: Salisbury said would be license(d) shortly. So, when was it licensed? In the US, once licensed then they have to set up production facilities which doesn't happen over night and they have to be inspected and lots tested. I guess you don't understand the difference between "shortly" and actually being license(d). Just because he thought it would be "shortly" doesn't mean it was."

I fear that Harrison has completely lost the thread - both vaccines were apparently ready to deliver but it was the SKB one, Pluserix, with Urabe mumps strain which did not have a license - I am not sure, off hand, when the license was issued but presumbly before October when the program began. But the Jeryl-Lynn version from Merck which did have a license was being offered through Wellcome so there goes his theory that it was unavailable.

He continues:

"And you ignore as I wrote in my article: Minutes from a 1993 JCVI meeting state, as follows: The Health Departments had had a difficult time with regard to MMR supply, problems caused in the main by the manufacturers. Other vaccine manufacturers producing MMR which contained the Jeryl Lynn strain of the mumps virus included RIVM (under a very prescriptive license from MSD making sale in the UK impossible) and Rubini in Switzerland (a vaccine which lacked sufficient study in the field to be certain that there would not be a Urabe-like problem). Merck and Merieux were collaborating to produce a Jeryl Lynn strain vaccine [90]. 1993 you xxxx. So, the UK didn't have an adequate supply of Jeryl Lynn long after Canada stopped using the Urabe since Canada had an adequate supply or don't you understand English."

But sorry, we are not talking about 1993 when both SKB and Pasteur Merieux had suddenly withdrawn their Urabe containing vaccines from the British market, creating a sudden shortage, but 1988 when Wellcome were offering the Merck product ready licensed.

"You are a xxxxxxx xxxxxx xxxx xxxx; but I just spoke with a medical librarian in Canada and, hopefully, she will help me get more information, including the exact date that the Trivirix manufacturer stopped distribution. Since the CDWR was from 1990, it only mentioned this; but didn't give the date, so it may have been much later than the July recall in Ontario. "

But we know that it had already begun in February 1988 at the latest.

"And again, you xxxxxxx xxx, Wakefield made NO mention of the voluntary stop by manufacturer of distribution and he said Canada and gave the CDWR which I found said that Ontario recalled only lots distributed by Provincial government"

Whatever, Wakefield's precise verbiage he was indicating a situation in which the vaccine was withdrawn in Canada even as it was being introduced into the UK (as was reported to him by Dr Thores, the Scottish observer at the JCVI). There is no evidence to insinuate bad faith or misrepresentation. The fact that Harrison is having to go back to a librarian to dig out evidence to support his theory now years later, just emphasises that he was making unsupported allegations before.

Finally, I wonder if it is alright for ECBT's expert to shower people with verbal abuse.

Thanks for not posting any more of Joel

We have some more comment from Joel Harrison. As I have previously indicated were are unwilling to post comments loaded with personal hostility, ad hominem, off-topic (we are of course by now way of topic) but just to show that we take facts seriously I quote from his latest message.

"The Brits were beginning their program and had only available an approved Urabe and immediately began trying to get a source for Jeryl Lynn."

This is a completely false representation of the situation: I quote from the JCVI minutes of 17 May 1988 (p.1):

"Dr Salisbury reported that he hoped that thhe SKF (SmithKline French) vaccine would be licensed shortly since its constituent parts were already licensed. Wellcome had contacted him to say that they wished to join the MMR market. Their vaccine contains the Jeryl-Lynn strain of mumps. The MSD vaccine already has a product license."

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120405095146/http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@ab/documents/digitalasset/dh_095327.pdf">http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@ab/documents/digitalasset/dh_095327.pdf">http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120405095146/http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@ab/documents/digitalasset/dh_095327.pdf

So "the Brits" already had a source for MMR 2 and it was already licensed, while SKB's product was not.

OK Joel, that is positively your last comment on this site. The Canadian Disease Weekly ReportDec 15, 1990 (cited footnote 60 in your paper) states:

"Consequently, the manufacturer of TRIVIRIX voluntarily discontinued the distribution of the vaccine in Canada [this is in the period after introduction post 1986] until laboratory data were available to demonstrate that the mumps viruses isolated from these vaccine recipients were not related to the Urabe mumps vaccine strain"

http://gsg.uottawa.ca/gov/Docs/CDWR%20RHMC%20Vol.16-50.pdf

But here you are trying pretend that it was only one province recalling some lots when you know perfectly well otherwise.

@ John Stone:

You write: "Well, Joel, you must be allowed to tell your own story, but such seems to have been your conviction that Wakefield was wrong that you somehow managed to overlook the fact that he was right: in simple terms - and outrageously - the British government introduced a vaccine that had had to be withdrawn in another country."

No, it was NOT "a vaccine that had had to be withdrawn in another country." They had another even safer vaccine available; but, otherwise, they would have continued with the Urabe because it was still far safer than the natural disease. You just continue to understand this. I used seat belts; but the addition of airbags improved my safety; however, if airbags weren't available I would still use seat belts. And Canada didn't suspend the license, one Province recalled lots of the vaccine. This isn't my story, it is what all the documents I've read state. I really believe that you are so vested in your belief system and defending Wakefield that you literally only perceive what you unconscious wants you to, that is, incredible selective perception.

And why have you not posted my comment addressed to Dorie Southern? Submitted yesterday and again this morning.

@ Dr Harrison- Thank you for posting on AoA, albeit repeatedly, and your interesting scholarship series at ecbt as well as the posts/articles in OVJ. I am going through them as I was unaware of some of what you'd written.

One comment I would make regarding the Wakefield (AW)-Brith Christenson (BC) exchange, their papers, and your interpretation. It seems to me that BC's papers and the varied Swedish 1980's studies that are referenced in _Callous Disregard_/your series concern themselves with (primarily) vaccine efficacy, antibody titers, etc and, quite honestly very secondarily or indirectly, with vaccine safety. I think that is what AW was trying to convey in his book- that there seemed to be some very limited information about vaccine safety and adverse events. Yes, BC did report adverse events in their study, but this is data culled from a national database and apparently reflects serious to adverse events in ~1/11000 kids which I think is similar to what I've seen in earlier comments.

Perhaps this isn't surprising given where the rate per 100k was in the mid 1980's and where it might be now. There are also many more vaccines given than just MMR; at last count they reflect >3x more than when I got vaccinated as a kid and, with all due respect to 'microbial antigens', much more aluminum/Hg/adjuvants than I was ever given.

So, I'd suggest that we be honest and forthright about the intent and true purpose of a now 30+ yr old series of papers that appear to be more concerned with vaccine efficacy and community disease protection than reporting vaccine safety or adverse events. If BC and her group's research were concerned with vaccine safety, it would seem that they would have reported more extensively on rates, and followup. Reporting vaccine safety does not appear to be the focus of her research.

Regarding your whining (yes, this is an objective observation) about moderating your comments: You have the ecbt forum, and innumerable sites to post your viewpoints; apparently you post prolifically and on diverse subjects. This is simply one of many fora to post commentary. It is not, to my understanding, an ostensible 'echo chamber' any more than other sites. Finally, it is not a vehicle for any of us to abuse others with thinly veiled attacks or disparaging remarks.

If it makes you feel any better, AoA doesn't post all of my comments either.

Well, Joel, you must be allowed to tell your own story, but such seems to have been your conviction that Wakefield was wrong that you somehow managed to overlook the fact that he was right: in simple terms - and outrageously - the British government introduced a vaccine that had had to be withdrawn in another country. The vaccine license was suspended in Canada long before it was withdrawn: the CDWR reported this. It may not have happened very efficiently - there was talk of it in late 1987, it was obviously underway in February 1988 and the Ontario government was still worried not all stock had been returned in July, but it was withdrawn before the British government brought it in giving the manufacturer an indemnity through the NHS in October 1988. I would be very surprised if you have any evidence that it was still being used in Canada after that date because I do not see any in your article - but it would still be hair-splitting if you did.

The big problem - which you do not seem to get - is that unfortunately in people are made unwell by vaccines this information tends to be very unwelcome to people administering them, to say the least. I am not talking about sub-clinical cases. I fear that I have several times also witnessed the phenomenon in hospitals that the patients who are failing to thrive or may even be dying are not always the most popular with staff.

I note there appears to be nowhere to comment on your splendid new article on ECBT. A basic point - and this may not be the same in the US - but Dr Offit's 10,000 vaccines was frequently used by health officials in the UK as almost a doctrinal point in support of an extended vaccine program, when addressing public concern about multiple vaccines. I made an analogy with the famous Milgram experiment - I acknowledge there were at least several - but there was one very famous one. And my point is that it was inappropriate to use this to persuade parents that their children could safely have several vaccines at one time, against the evidence that were hurting or had damage - and I was saying that if you were worried about this you should not be reassured by such statements: just as the people administering the fantasy shocks (who were the people who were really being experimented on) should not have been reassured that what they were doing was beneficial. I think the idea of Dr Offit's article was to reassure parents, but what has happened to our children is not at all theoretical. In the paper reported this morning children who were given DPT vaccine in Guinea Bissau in 1981 had 5 times the mortality of those that did not, and I would suggest that was not very theoretical either.

I think it is very problematic if information is offered as reassurance one minute and the next you are being told it was only theoretical.

@ John Stone:

Yes, they don't know how many actual cases of aseptic meningitis. They know only the cases where the kid was hospitalized and a lumbar puncture was performed. I actually have several articles where aseptic meningitis was found by serendipity when a kid was hospitalized for a totally different reason and a lumbar puncture was performed. What you continue to fail to understand is that if I were to arrange for a random number, say 1,000, kids who are feeling under the weather, not really sick, just not feeling energetic as all of us experience from time to time and performed a lumbar puncture, there would probably be some cases of aseptic meningitis. Meningitis just means an inflammation of the meninges, the cells lining the spine. It doesn't specify how "intense" or "serious" the inflammation is. So, most cases of aseptic meningitis, whether from natural mumps, vaccine, or other fairly benign viruses would go undetected. Or would you like to perform lumbar punctures on everyone having an off day? There is actually a book about the immune system entitled "The War Within." Our immune systems are almost always confronting some invader, most of the time stopping them cold, sometimes after a short localized battle, and sometimes we get sick. Inflammation is just one of the ways our immune system deals with invaders, so many of us have probably had some minor inflammation of the meninges, that is meningitis. I repeat what I wrote in a previous comment, aseptic meningitis is not remotely related to bacterial meningitis which is a rare but horrible disease resulting in death and amputation. Try to understand they aren't the same.

I repeat what I've written umpteen times that the Canadian report found a few cases that needed hospitalization that were associated with the Urabe vaccine, that the hospitalization involved only rehydration for a day or two, that long-term follow-up found no lasting sequelae, that Canada already had an approved version of the Jeryl Lynn that could be immediately mass produced, so they switched. And had they NOT had the Jeryl Lynn available, I am confident they would have continued to use the Urabe until it was available and that is exactly what the Brits did.

And I repeat, the Canadian report, based on the data they had of hospitalized kids, found that the Urabe associated vaccine was associated with 1/125 the number of cases compared with the natural disease. So, if today I was told that the vaccine would have a less than 1% chance of causing aseptic meningitis compared with the natural disease, that all studies found aseptic meningitis to be benign, that there is always an extremely remote possibility that any conditions can be worse; but this could happen with the 125 to 1 natural disease cases and that there is clear evidence that mumps can cause a few deaths, hearing loss, and a few other conditions, all much greater than from the vaccine, I would not hesitate to get my kid the vaccine.

I wear a seat belt and have done so long before it was mandated by law and long before it was even discussed in public service announcements. In fact, the first car I ever owned, purchased in 1969 when in grad school, had lap belts. I saw them, without thinking, immediately buckled up and from then on anyone who rode in my car had to as well, front seat and rear seat. I have seen reports of people who have been in minor traffic accidents where they got a bruised kidney or even a ruptured bladder from a seat belt and seat belts do not guarantee one will emerge from a traffic accident alive or without serious injury; yet I still buckle up, not because of the law; but because of the odds.

Wendy Stephen claims she is not anti vaccine and in her comments on Every Child By Two gave an excellent description of ALL the benefits, the protection to kids, that vaccines confer. However, she continued to emphasize what happened to her daughter and no matter how many times I agreed that rare serious risks can occur and that the British government should have done much more to help her daughter, she just kept on. That is what antivaccinationists do, the claim they are not against vaccines, just want them safer; but when asked how safe, it seems never enough. Well, I think even the Urabe vaccine's 1/125 risk for a benign condition and protection against a number of other conditions is safe and if the Jeryl Lynn had not existed, I and I think most rational people would opt for it. As for Wendy, she may not be anti vaccine, just a mother so obsessed with her daughter's problem that she can't stop focusing on it. However, if she said she saved the comments from ECBT, so if she reads them carefully, she will see that I was on her side, despite my error regarding whale.to. Shame she didn't just either check it out herself or ask me for the link; but no use crying over spilt milk, I admitted my error and apologized in an earlier comment.

So keep finding articles about things like not knowing the true number of cases of something that in most cases would not be more than someone feeling a bit under the weather and keep finding someone who says that a condition has the "potential" to get serious and ignore that, just in my article on Wakefield, besides the Canadian report I list a number of studies that found no serious sequelae to aseptic meningitis and do focus on any possible, regardless of how rare, adverse event and ignore everything known about the risks from the actual natural diseases. You are so good at this.

Well this is what they officially owned up to in the UK, but you have to bear in mind that if you phoned up your GP about an adverse reaction to a vaccine you would probably get a very dusty answer, and the matter would probably not even be recorded. Joel has to imagine that in alll probability they would be as acerbic and unsympathetic as he is. It should be noted that the Goldacre here - a government scientist - is the father of the Great Panjandrum, Dr Ben Goldacre, who never mentioned his family links when defending the vaccine program, and was habitually vicious about anyone who criticised it.

IF YOU CONSIDER THE CULTURE BEHIND THIS PAPER IT IS VERY REVEALING. THEY BEGIN WITH THE FACT THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE A CLUE HOW MANY CASES BECAUSE NO ONE WAS COUNTING IN THE FIRST PLACE, AND THE REALITY IS THAT MOST CASES WOULD NOT GET RECORDED.

However, they suggest 1 in 11,000, way above Joel's 1 in 100,000.

Lancet. 1993 Apr 17;341(8851):979-82.
Risk of aseptic meningitis after measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine in UK children.
Miller E1, Goldacre M, Pugh S, Colville A, Farrington P, Flower A, Nash J, MacFarlane L, Tettmar R.
Author information
Abstract

Cases of aseptic meningitis associated with measles/mumps/rubella vaccine were sought in thirteen UK health districts following a reported cluster in Nottingham which suggested a risk of 1 in 4000 doses, substantially higher than previous estimates based on cases reported by paediatricians (4 per million). Cases were ascertained by obtaining vaccination records of children with aseptic meningitis diagnosed from cerebrospinal fluid samples submitted to Public Health Laboratories or discharged from hospital with a diagnosis of viral meningitis. Both methods identified vaccination 15-35 days before onset as a significant risk factor and therefore indicative of a causal association. With both, half the aseptic meningitis cases identified in children aged 12-24 months were vaccine-associated with onset 15-35 days after vaccine. The study confirmed that the true risk was substantially higher than suggested by case reports from paediatricians, probably about 1 in 11,000 doses. However, the possibility that the aseptic meningitis induced by vaccination was largely asymptomatic and a chance laboratory finding in children investigated for other clinical conditions, particularly febrile convulsions, could not be excluded. Comparison of national reports of virus-positive mumps meningitis cases before and after the introduction of this vaccine indicated that the risk from wild mumps was about 4-fold higher than from vaccine. Altogether, 28 vaccine-associated cases were identified, all in recipients of vaccines containing the Urabe mumps strain. The absence of cases in recipients of vaccine containing the Jeryl Lynn strain, despite its 14% market share, suggested a higher risk from Urabe vaccine. A prospective adverse event surveillance system using the study methods is currently being established to assess the risk, if any, from the Jeryl Lynn strain which is now the only mumps vaccine used in the UK.

Joel

OK. You have a barrage of information there some of which may be correct (much actually isn't) but it distracts from the basic truth that the UK government introduced the Pluserix vaccine after it had been withdrawn in Canada - which is what Wakefield told us. It does not of course help to cite documents from autumn 1987 before these events. Evidently many people disagreed with you in the end about whether the product was acceptably safe. A basic problem with the data of course is if a child is (spontaneously) ill parents willl likely go to a doctor - if they have a reaction to a vaccine they are generally hung out to dry, so it is very difficult to get reliable data. We know a similar vaccine had to be withdrawn in Japan after a public outcry, so perhaps the events were not that rare after all.

@ John Stone:

Following is the relevant part of my article:

DID THE UK GRANT A LICENSE FOR A URABE- CONTAINING MMR VACCINE AFTER CANADA WITHDREW THE URABE MMR VACCINE?

Canada licensed Trivirix in May 1986 [57]. The starting date for the UK for MMR vaccinations was October 1, 1988 [58,59]. The license for Trivirix was withdrawn in Canada in May 1990 stating: “Recent laboratory findings from the United Kingdom, Canada and Japan have provided sound evidence. . . In addition, the report states: “The infection follows the course of benign aseptic meningitis” [60]. The UK withdrew the Urabe-containing vaccine on September 14, 1992 [61].

Based on reports of aseptic meningitis, the Canadians estimated its occurrence in association with the vaccine as 1 case per 100,000, compared with 1 in 400 following natural mumps. A prospective epidemiological and laboratory stud y was planned to run from 1987 through 1989 [57]. Minutes of a UK meeting read: “Members read a report of cases of mumps encephalitis which had been associated with MMR vaccine containing the Urabe strain of the mumps virus. . . It was agreed that North Hertfordshire would use the Jeryl- Lynn vaccine, if it was available from MSD [Merck, Sharp and Dohme], to obtain comparative data” [62]. From the following meeting’s minutes “It appeared that only certain batches of the Canadian vaccine had been suspended and that they had not banned all vaccine containing the Urabe strain of mumps. Dr. Begg would check with the Canadians” [63].

“The Canadians, “in a July 18th memo to all physicians in Ontario receiving vaccines from the Ontario Government Distribution Centre requested the return of any remaining stock of TRIVIRIX vaccine from doctors’ offices” [64]. Note that not all vaccines in Ontario were distributed by the Ontario government; thus, even in Ontario, not all batches of Urabe-containing MMR vaccines were recalled.

The Canadians did not withdraw the licensure of the vaccine prior to the UK’s program beginning; they recalled only certain lots. Licensure was withdrawn 20 months after the UK program began. The UK received reports of aseptic meningitis, investigated, and found that, at the time, only Ontario had withdrawn some lots of the vaccine. The Canadian report indicated that the risk for vaccine-associated aseptic meningitis was approximately 1/250th of the risk arising from natural mumps and that the vaccine-associated meningitis was benign, that is, with “no sequelae,” and “it is important to note that these cases had short hospital stays and complete recoveries” [64]. Note that the Canadian decision to withdraw the vaccine was based partly on laboratory data from the UK.

WHY DID THE UK TAKE LONGER TO WITHDRAW THE URABE-CONTAINING VACCINE THAN CANADA?

As is evident from the above, compared with the naturally occurring disease, the Urabe-containing MMR vaccine had far fewer and less serious adverse events. The UK did decide early on to replace it with the Jeryl Lynn strain. The decision to continue using the vaccines containing the Urabe strain while working on obtaining supplies of the MMR vaccine containing the Jeryl Lynn strain was a prudent one given the far greater risks arising from the natural disease. Minutes from a 1993 JCVI meeting state, as follows:

The Health Departments had had a difficult time with regard to MMR supply, problems caused in the main by the manufacturers. Other vaccine manufacturers producing MMR which contained the Jeryl Lynn strain of the mumps virus included RIVM (under a very prescriptive license from MSD making sale in the UK impossible) and Rubini in Switzerland (a vaccine which lacked sufficient study in the field to be certain that there would not be a Urabe-like problem). Merck and Merieux were collaborating to produce a Jeryl Lynn strain vaccine [90].

In the UK, “despite the benign nature of vaccine-induced meningitis, a decision was made to replace the brands containing Urabe (Immravax by Merieux, and Pluserix MMR b y SmithKline Beecham) with that containing Jeryl Lynn” [91].

Professor Breckridge, as you quote, wrote “potentially serious neurological complications”; but as I explained both in comments and in the article, the risk of aseptic meningitis plus many other conditions was far greater from the wild-type virus and I also gave in my paper numerous studies that found aseptic meningitis to be a benign condition, something you continuously ignore. Kids have febrile seizures without aseptic meningitis and, yes, they can be frightening; but many studies have found no long term problems and a lumber puncture would be a possibility whether the aseptic meningitis was associated with the vaccines or the 125 times higher risk from the natural disease.

I was the one who obtained copies of ALL the Canadian reports and arranged for the University of Ottawa’s library government archives to post them. You ignore the fact over and over again the risk from the wild-type virus, that I gave numerous studies that aseptic meningitis was benign, and that I gave several references that clearly stated that the Jeryl Lyn was not available, at least not in the quantities needed and that the UK immediately started to arrange the switch as soon as it would be available. As for Professor Breckenridge’s “potential,” even a common cold can potentially be dangerous. And again, if aseptic meningitis had the potential, then the much higher risk from the wild-type virus would still call for the Urabe as a temporary vaccine while actively arranging for the Jeryl Lyn. I repeat: Don’t sacrifice the good for the perfect. Potential doesn’t mean will happen, may never; but the studies clearly indicated that the Urabe was a lot safer than the wild-type virus.

As for, “if the British people had been told,” really? If I told a parent that a vaccine would have 1/125th of the risk from the wild-type virus of a condition, aseptic meningitis, that, so far, research around the world had found to be benign, a day or two in the hospital with no long term effects, that without the vaccine their kid would have better than a 95% chance of contracting the natural disease and that the natural disease had a number of other serious risks besides aseptic meningitis, you think they would not have vaccinated their kids. Maybe I have more confidence in the intelligence of Brits than you do.

Re-reading my article after several years and i could have given a blow by blow chronological list of what happened. Probably would have made it clearer; but it is there in the text. Of course, you do your best to find flaws because you are committed to Wakefield; but I trust that anyone who has not taken a position, who reads my paper will agree with me. I've learned over the years that no matter how careful I write something, no matter how many people review it, years later I could always have written it better.

Right now I just finished proof-reading and editing a new edition of an undergraduate microbiology text book and the first draft of the first chapter that a colleague is writing on the first 100 years of the history of DNA. Keeps me busy and out of mischief. I found a number of minor errors and a couple medium in already excellent manuscripts and I bet that when I see the finished books, I will then see a few more. C'est la vie. I don't claim to have god-like perfection.

@ John Stone:

Once more WRONG. I didn't write in my article that what Wakefield wrote about the UK introducing the Urabe vaccine after it was withdrawn from Canada was false. I did make clear that Wakefield calling it a "dangerous vaccine" given that the Canadian report said it was associated with a few cases of aseptic meningitis, a benign condition. The Canadians followed up the hospitalized kids for at least a year after their one or two day hospitalizations and found no sequelae. I also explained quite clearly that the UK decided to switch to the Jeryl Lyn strain; but needed to find a supplier and approve their production safety and that, in the meantime, given that the risks from wild-type mumps, including aseptic meningitis was far worse than from the Urabe vaccine, so the UK decided to use it until they could get a supply of the Jeryl Lyn.

I realize you probably won't post this; but to slightly change a quote from Mark Twain: The are liars, there are damn liars, and there is John Stone.

Just to elaborate on my previous comment. Joel's imposture has been going on for three years: his assertion that Wakefield's claim that the British government introduced SKB's vrsion of MMR Pluserix after it had already been withdrawn under the name of Trivirix in Canada was false. Joel ought to have known his own claim was false based on the information in the document in his footnote 60,

http://gsg.uottawa.ca/gov/Docs/CDWR%20RHMC%20Vol.16-50.pdf

and I pointed this out all of three year ago, shortly after the article was published, in an exchange in Forbes which I can no longer find, but with Dorit Reiss reponding on his behalf. The strategy since then is to argue that it may not have been withdrawn throughout Canada (hair-splitting). It is however, irrelevant since it was said that the vaccine had been withdrawn in Canada in the minutes of the UK government committee, the JCVI, in February 1988, so they must have acted on that basis (item 5):

webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120405095146/http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_chttp://gsg.uottawa.ca/gov/Docs/CDWR%20RHMC%20Vol.16-50.pdfonsum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@ab/documents/digitalasset/dh_095328.pdf

I have a note from 2014 that the editor of the Open Vaccine Journal at the time (although it ceased publication soon after Joel's article) was Steve Rubin, a mumps expert and FDA official, and of course it was the mumps component which was so contentious in the vaccine. It would be very interesting to speculate who might still be sensitive about this now rather old piece of history, though it is my guess the British government wanted to use the deal as a sweetener for the merger between SKB (which at the time had no footing in the UK) and the British company Beecham. It is noted that Dr Salisbury (a DH official) thought the evidence was "slender" but four and a half years later SKB themselves withdrew the vaccine from the UK, so they must have been worried.

Joel Harrison,

You are missing the point. You rely on what you have read. We saw our children/grandchildren regress before our eyes. Then we read. What we found out after hours and hours of research, was that the Lancet paper should have been followed up Research should have been carried out. The Government should not have buried it and vilified Andrew Wakefield. If this had happened, hundreds of thousands of children would not now be suffering brain damage. You carry on trying to justify this carnage by quoting papers and we'll carry on trying to help our families with the trauma they are going through. Yes, many of us are not academic - but that is not required when trying to minimize the damage done by vaccines

Not sure that polio "trial" was really as hunky dorit as some people think.

"Eighty four test areas in 11 states used the textbook model: in a randomised, blinded design all participating children in the first three grades of school (ages 6-9) received injections of either vaccine or placebo and were observed for evidence of the disease. But 127 test areas in 33 states used an “observed control” design: participating children in the second grade (ages 7-8) received injections of vaccine; no placebo was given, and children in all three grades were then observed for the duration of the polio “season.”1

Mr Harrison, get a grip. Mr Stone is making the point that the vaccine industry cannot take criticism -- let alone questioning. So are you. But people are questioning vaccines. They should have that right.

@ Joel
Uh, it was a joke, Joel, the capitalization of science remark.

@ Linda1:

You write: “You were doing ok until you resorted to this. Why do you ALWAYS do this? So condescending and arrogant. John may not be a scientist from formal education, but through life experience and years of independent study, far more than what is required for a formal degree, he has achieved a high level of knowledge, understanding and insight. But that aside, there is no shortage of highly educated scientists and physicians who are seriously questioning the vaccine program.”

But you obviously missed the part where I wrote: “have seen a couple of Mozart Operas and even had a music appreciation course in Junior High School, one semester when I was 11 years old. I wouldn't presume to expertise on the subject; but you, without any background in science, immunology, microbiology, epidemiology, biostatistics, think that you understand things better than I and my colleagues.”

Stone claims an expertise on Mozart, I don’t. And just because I am well-read and well-educated in my area of expertise, I don't assume that it transfers without putting in considerable time and effort to Mozart just because I had a course in music appreciation and have seen a couple operas. This has nothing to do with arrogance or thinking I am superior, it is just a simple fact that being intelligent and well-educated in one area doesn't automatically without a lot of effort transfer. You claim Stone has done extensive reading; but when he made a comment a while back that the statistics on smallpox deaths are questionable, I asked him to list just a few of the books and/or articles he has read on smallpox, I asked this same question in several comments that I submitted; but were not posted. To date, he has NOT responded. I, on the other hand, have read a dozen books on smallpox, probably over 100 journal articles, and additional chapters, plus how the smallpox virus is configured in microbiology books. And, if you read my latest article on Every Child By Two, it clearly points out that Stone read one popular article and saw a film, with no indication that he tried to read the actual research that the popular article discussed. Is this how he and you get your “high level of knowledge, understanding and insight?”

If he has read even an introductory book on immunology or microbiology or epidemiology or biostatistics, why is he so reluctant to disclose this? He claims extensive readings; but my articles often have up to 150 references and direct quotes that can be verified, his one or two references most of the time.

Let me give a couple of analogies:

Imagine a bridge collapses. The engineer who designed the bridge writes an article explaining the tensile strength and design dynamics, claiming the design was correct. Someone else writes an article saying the design was incorrect. Both use differential calculus to derive their respective positions. If you don’t understand Calculus, how could you possibly decide who is correct? Would you just automatically decide the engineer is lying just to defend himself? But the design could have been correct and the person who built it cut corners, etc.

When Nikita Khrushchev was premier of the Soviet Union, he gave a speech where one phrase was translated on the spot as “We will bury you.” A hostile threat. Yet, afterwards, experts in the Russian language said the correct translation was: “We will be alive and well long after you are dead and buried.” The former has continued to be quoted in books and articles, serves political purposes. As an analogy, I am a vegan. Imagine a discussion with a meat eater. If I said, “I will bury you,” that would be quite different from, “I will live a longer and healthier life than you.” Now, if you don’t understand the Russian language or, perhaps, had a short course in high school, how could you judge which translation was correct?

You write: “But that aside, there is no shortage of highly educated scientists and physicians who are seriously questioning the vaccine program.”

A number of years ago two scientists claimed they had developed cold fusion. Millions of dollars were given to them to develop their finding; but around the world scientists could NOT replicate their finding, in fact it went against the laws of physics. No law is set in stone, so if their finding had been replicated, then the laws of physics would have had to be changed; but it wasn’t. However, there are still “experts” around the world who believe in cold fusion and even some labs continuing to research it and some of the people involved have PhDs.

I haven’t read every study done by your so-called experts; but many of them and they are either seriously flawed in their design or haven’t been replicated by credible researchers. If you understood statistics and research, even an extremely well-done study can get a result due to chance factors which is why replication is essential. Given that research on vaccines has been conducted around the world, the only way to discount this is to believe in some world-wide conspiracy to further the interests of the pharmaceutical industry; but according to credible accounts, the total revenues from vaccines sold world-wide amounts to approximately 2% of pharmaceutical yearly takes. And one would also have to believe, since everyone I know has vaccinated their kids, that all these researchers around the world have been willing to sacrifice their own children.

I vaguely remember you not believing in herd immunity and asking me for a reference so I gave you one. You said you had access to a university library, so did you get and read carefully the article? Paul Fine (1993). “Herd Immunity: History, Theory, Practise” Epidemiologic Reviews, Vol. 15, No. 2.

Its only 38 pages and you have had plenty of time. So, did you get the article and read it?

Joel Harrison;
I will not go read your article on Trump and the seven Muslim dwarves.
You are an old man typing at home; but you are not and will never be a Mother.
I too am now old, but once upon a time I was a young Mother that lived a fairy tale life.
I had drive, ambition: I too spent a lot of time in the periodicals down in the basement of the University libraries.

Then I witnessed something horrible, that dog heaps like you want to ignore. In the scheme of life there are some things that are so wrong and so terrible that to be on the wrong side make you the most evil henchman that are only told in fairy tales.

What I witnessed shook me to my core. I witnessed something that I would have believed impossible. From all the education and reading in libraries. I would have believed the pea and the mattress fairy tale before I believed that there are such things as vaccine injuries, and they are not uncommon.

So, write in the sanctuary of your castle, don't dare venture out and listen to what we have experienced in real life.

@ John Stone:

You quote Wendy Stephen. Well, I also have all the comments. I pointed out that she quoted from articles that quoted out-of-context, that is, gave just part of a sentence. I made it clear that either she didn’t bother to check out the original source or wasn’t being dishonest. I do my best to avoid quotes from secondary parties, checking out the original source. I also pointed out that she had posted on whale.to, a website, among other things, notorious for its anti-semitism, including posting the complete Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a notorious bogus antisemitic book. She could have check out whale.to for herself and responded that she didn’t realize he was an anti-semite and regrets posting on his website; but she didn’t, instead she complained to ECBT. She also cited an article written on the online site Namaste, a spiritual website and I pointed out that didn’t strengthen her argument to cite someone with no science background and no claim to such. You quote what Wendy Stephen sent you. I have sent the complete exchange of comments to a dozen people and none felt they were beyond the normal range of comment disagreement; however, they did say I could have been a bit softer in my comments.

Stephen is upset that her daughter who lost hearing in one ear did not receive compensation from the British government who decided it was “likely” the Urabe vaccine caused it, not certain; but likely. That is unfortunate; but what Stephen fails to understand is that if there were no mumps vaccine, then her daughter would have almost certainly been exposed to the natural mumps and would in all likelihood also lost hearing unilaterally. There is solid evidence that natural mumps does cause unilateral hearing loss. Given that the Urabe vaccine is an attenuated vaccine, that is significantly weaker than the natural mumps, given she had, unfortunately, a genetic predisposition to the mumps virus, the actual natural disease would with a high likelihood have caused the same problem or worse. Not certain; but high probability. The fact that Wendy Stephen is extremely thin-skinned is NOT my problem and, perhaps, isn’t bothered that whale.to is an antisemite. And she sent via ECBT e-mails to be forwarded to me with references to articles which I did obtain. She could have expressed her problems with me via e-mail; but didn’t. I consider that unethical on her part. I was raised to always try to deal directly with someone before involving third parties.

And she wrote: “his views did not reflect those held by the site.” Well, if she took the time to read what is written, I voluntarily write articles for them. I am not their employee, so it is her inability to understand simple English. I have just as much right as anyone to post on websites. No, I wasn’t reprimanded; but they did take down the complete exchange and everyone I have spoken with thinks it an overreaction. There choice. In addition, she writes: “Anyone who cannot observe a code of respectful decency in their posts or abide by the site's policies should not be made welcome on any site, and that should include Mr Harrison.” As far as I am aware, ECBT does not have a code that says I can’t point out that someone posts on a notorious anti-semites website nor cites truncated sentences where the first part actually changes the meaning completely. I guess if I said the Bible supports stealing, and cite “Thou shalt steal,” conveniently leaving out the word “Not,” and someone pointed that out, they would be out of line?

You write: “There was no ad hominem attack on Dorit Reiss. Reiss has been the vaccine industry's biggest advocate on social media, publishing in almost industrial quantites. I have not been monitoring her for a bit but this was written in 2014 when she was posting comments by the tens of thousands, and no one knew how it was done. “

Really, “tens of thousands.” Give me a credible publicly verifiable source for this.

You write: “Reiss was certainly advocating that people who had views she disagreed with should be silenced on mainstream media.”

This is the major difference between me and you. I would back such a statement up with direct accurate quotes, not from one source; but several. So, give me quotes from 5 - 10 articles by Reiss, including the links. And not from twitter or short comments as it is impossible to really present an argument; but from reasonably written articles by her so I can see what her reasoning is. For instance, if she wrote that antivaccinationists should not be allowed to pound on restaurant windows when Paul Offit is eating breakfast, or shout down people who disagree with them, or, or, or.

If you have read “carefully” any of my papers, I give extensive accurate quotes and extensive references, including links when available or detailed references so one can easily find them at local university library.

As for my sometimes hostility it is because you have not posted comments by me that were direct to the point, e.g. when Laura Hayes claimed there were NO double blinded randomized trials of vaccines and I simply submitted a description of the polio vaccine trials and when you claim things about smallpox and I ask where you got your information and you refuse to reply.

It should be obvious from my articles and accurate quotes the time and effort I put into my articles, which is why I only am able to write one taking several months; but you seem to a lot of articles without a substantial reference list, so, what do you base them on?

Linda

Joel was not doing well at all. I posted his comment because it challenged something in the article - he claimed something was ad hominem, but it wasn't. Then he goes into ad hominem - not addressing the substance of the article (a human situation as it happens) but saying I should not be allowed to comment because I am a not a qualified person although he would as you point out likely be saying the same thing if I were. Indeed, Dorit Reiss was certainly not a qualified person, if that was his point.

Joel

You should take note of what I wrote in answer to you three days ago:

"Joel We do edit correspondence. One of the reasons we do not post many of your comments is that you post off-topic, and engage in personal hostlity - a lot ad hominem about what bad people we are etc. Also if you post things which are factually in error (and you do it time after time) it gets to the point where it is much easier and less time wasting simply not to post than write rebuttal after rebuttal. You cannot go on posting your ill-researched, hair-splitting nonsense about Andrew Wakefield and Pluserix here and expect us to go on posting it.

"It is impractical for a site such as ours not to moderate comments - if we did not it would quickly become over-run by people who are hostile posting any old junk and very inhospitable for our regular readers. I witnessed this happening years ago on JABS Forum when Ben Goldacre's Bad Science mob decided to try and take us out. Respectful critical comments are generally welcome providing people stick to the point."

I also don't think commenters on Shot of Prevention escape personal abuse by yourself. If you missed it you might also care to read the comment of Wendy Stephen:

"I would sincerely hope that Age Of Autism, and every other website for that matter, rigorously screen comments for unsavoury content and, if my recent experience over on another website is anything to go by, that should positively include those submitted by Mr Harrison. By posting respectful comments in response to his published article, I was subjected to a barrage of name calling and insinuation which culminated in me submitting a formal complaint to the site moderator and all the posts being removed. (Although I do have them all downloaded). Not only were his accusations untrue, they became more and more insulting and offensive. Far from entering into a reasonable discussion on the subject matter, it descended into an eye watering abusive attack on me and the site's Executive Director advising me that Mr Harrison had been reprimanded for failing to abide by the blog policy and that his views did not reflect those held by the site.

"There will always be differences of opinion, there will always be those who are pro something and those who are anti, there will always be those who view their stance to be the correct one and argue against others who disagree, but nothing in any of that necessitates the dialogue descending into a personalised sustained name calling attack. Anyone who cannot observe a code of respectful decency in their posts or abide by the site's policies should not be made welcome on any site, and that should include Mr Harrison. "

Joel

There was no ad hominem attack on Dorit Reiss. Reiss has been the vaccine industry's biggest advocate on social media, publishing in almost industrial quantites. I have not been monitoring her for a bit but this was written in 2014 when she was posting comments by the tens of thousands, and no one knew how it was done. The link was to Christina Waldman's excellent article:

http://www.ageofautism.com/2013/12/not-paid-to-post-dorit-rubenstein-reiss-uc-hastings-college-of-law-and-kaiser-permanente.html

Reiss was certainly advocating that people who had views she disagreed with should be silenced on mainstream media. This is not a comment saying Dorit Reiss is a bad person, it is a comment about what she does.

Of course, silencing people on mainstream media is not enough anymore for the megalomaniac pharmaceutical industry.

About a year after my son's mmr I would often find him awake in the middle of night. Sometimes starring blankly at the wall, other times roaming the house or in the garage watching a bicycle wheel go around and around. He didn't sleep through the night until we started heavy metal chelation.

I would sleep better knowing the perpetrators were in prison.

Now I lie awake at night wondering what's going to happen when I'm not around to support him. Those darn peas in the mattress. Great story JS.

When we were children many decades ago, we understood such things very well. Something happened in the passage to adulthood which caused far too many of us to lose interest in, and the ability to question what we are told. On the other hand, just about everybody I talk to these days has lost trust in our institutions, so there is hope.