“Middleton said the vaccination mandates are not about children’s health.
“I believe the government and big pharmacies are in bed together,” Middleton said, adding that if the state cared about children’s health it would demand “green vaccines” that do not contain neurotoxins and carcinogens such as thimerosal, formaldehyde, mercury and aluminum.

Assemblywoman Charlotte Vandervalk (R District-39), the primary sponsor of the conscientious objection bill, said federal law exempts vaccine manufacturers from liability. She said the federal government compensates those parents who can establish a firm timeline between a vaccination and a resulting injury or death and has paid $910 million toward vaccination-damaged children. She said as of Oct. 1, the federal government had 988 vaccination-related deaths on file.
“What about the products causing the deaths?”

Your near future offspring may be immune against side effects of vaccinations, due to good immune systems and other genetic traits, that are common amongst generations of well fed (naturally) individuals that skipped vaccinations, as was once in our parents time whicn vaccinations were not so religiously administered and but a few (enough to have caused havoc in the immune systems, i.e., MS, tuberculosis, allergies, leading to the Defeciency called AIDS in hunger stricken areas who have been vaccinated anyway part of the “charitable” programs of Unicef etc.

But if there has been too much vaccinations on your and your spouces side – beware

In New Jersey alone autism appeared 1 tin 2000 and now it is up to 1 in some 80.

Was autism not diagnosed – I doubt it! is it not a conspicous disease?

I hope for your sake Ben Goldacre that yours and your wife’s forefathers were not immunised “properly” that you may bring into this world a healthy child.

Is Mr Goodacre *really* Dr Goodacre? If it does turn out, someday, that thimerosol didn’t ever cause autism, what assurance did you have of that before the fact, when you and your colleagues were injecting it willy-nilly into trusting infants? What assurance did you have, or will you ever have that it does not cause other, less well publicized, illnesses? At some point you must have taken the oath; what happened to, “First, do no harm”?

‘ To suggest the cause is genetic is a cruel joke: the human genome doesn’t change in one generation.’

You don’t seem to acknowledge that in some ways the work of McClintock could challenge the second statement…..I won’t go into details…

As for MMR I have one thing to say…..increased awareness and diagnosis rates ?

Ben can we have some wholly unscientific jokes now please ?

The material starting at page 147 (as numbered in the PDF; keyword “hair”) was most interesting.

Someone reading less than the whole report might notice them seeming systematically to reject studies that contradict their conclusion. However, the real implication of these rejections is that not enough detailed U.S. data has been available, or studied properly, to draw the broad conclusions they offer. They have had to make do with much more limited studies, largely on populations of other countries which depend heavily on a marine diet. That said, they appear to know what they are about, and the apparently much stronger connection with maternal exposure to toxins is intriguing.

The detail that MMR vaccine, on one hand, and other vaccines containing thimerosol, on the other, are parallel and independent concerns will be a surprise to many. The two have been routinely confused in popular accounts, and neither side of the popular debate has, typically, made any attempt to unconfuse them.

In response to Bob’s remark, “The prevalence of orthodoxy in research Mr. Myers claims, however, and the resultant public distrust he discerns that stems from it, is where his argument fails. … at the end of the day, money talks.” Precisely my point: orthodoxy is money talking. Certainly the prevalence of orthodoxy varies widely from one field to another; it may be Bob’s good fortune or ill discernment not to have noticed any. Either way, that does not match the experience of people engaged in research, obliged to fuzz their results carefully so as not to provoke hostile interest by members of review boards, and (more usually) to concentrate on more readily-funded questions instead.

It should interest almost everyone that the 1995 study demonstrating DNA damage from exposure to low levels of modulated microwaves (e.g. cell phones) has not been repeated — not for lack of interest, but for lack of funding. Those who were inclined to try have been obliged to pursue other, less disruptive lines of research instead. Bob is right, here, that the truth will out — but only in a decade or two, as industry experiments, unethically, on the population at large, rather than safely in the lab.

I have three points to make:
1) I agree with people who suggest that Ben Goldacre’s article is rather too vehement in his attack on the media over the MMR issue to be taken at face value. It’s hard to take someone seriously as an unbiased scientific observer when they seem like they are emotionally involved.

However, that does not mean he is wrong. He isn’t. He is absolutely right when he says that no decent studies have shown links between MMR and autism, or for that matter even between thimerosal and autism.

2) That brings me to my next point… We (humanity, not just scientists) must have standards! I know, I know — people who support Dr. Wakefield are not going to want to hear this…but there are definite established non-biased methods to critically evaluate scientific research (I won’t go into the details).

We need to be able to depend upon our doctors to apply those standards when they read current research in order to sift out the rubbish from the important information. It seems to me that many people who have posted here have lost their trust in the medical profession. I’m sure they have their reasons and possibly sad stories to go with them.

Some people have the time and the commitment to teach themselves about medical issues and the scientific research that is applicable to them. Some people have the time to ask questions of various different subject matter experts in order to develop their own educated viewpoint on a subject. I’m sure many parents of autistic children fall into that category.

As we can tell, though, from the confusion amongst our friends and neighbours most people just don’t have the time or possiblity the ability to educate themselves. Which is why there are thousands of people who dedicate themselves to life long learning as physicians!

3) I decided to look up information on thimerosal like some of you suggested. I found a few papers in PubMed which were inconclusive on the link between the preservative and autism, but suggested more research be done on the link.

I also found this interesting fact sheet from the CDC. I don’t know if it is applicable to the UK, but I think it might be.

Turns out thimerosal was never in MMR jabs. Ever.

http://www.cdc.gov/nip/vacsafe/concerns/thimerosal/thimerosal-vacs-facts.htm

I hope I didn’t offend anyone, and I’m sorry if my view is hopelessly biased in favor of physicians. I work and study with so many amazing physician research scientists that I felt compelled to make some comment, inadequate though it may be.

Unfortunately, the problem is more complex than that. For one thing the risk associated with a measles epidemic is less likely to fall on an otherwise healthy child but on a child with a weakened immune system or other disability.

Further, many parents are more afraid of the monster that the media has created of autism and are frightened of the lifelong commitment to care required. The answer to this is of course for society to provide frequent and high quality respite for parents but the desperation that friends of parents of children with severe autism see enforces the impression that the condition is an intolerable burden that must be cured by any desperate attempt. Some parents would rather risk a child dying (from an external cause) than take an action which seemingly reputable people such as Wakefield allege could cause this feared condition.

Fear of autism among parents and society’s intolerance of autistic people (consider the typical reaction to a screaming child at a checkout) is the real problem and, even if Wakefield is rebutted, if the problem is not dealt with by support for parents and campaigns to change society’s attitudes, other scare stories will jump up in its place.

My experience is that medical people, in their efforts to quell (natural) suspicion of vaccines, routinely go far beyond available data. Each new study published is hailed as proof positive that vaccines are safe. In each case, when I look into the experiment actually performed, its goal and reach turn out to be very limited, the report authors’ own claims correspondingly modest.

I was directed to a web site, some years ago — before my own daughter was vaccinated, and before she was diagnosed with Asperger’s — probably immunizationinfo.org. It promoted the hyperbole noted above. Furthermore, it assured us that the FDA had the authority to recall “hot batches” of vaccine, but that (because vaccines are so safe!) this authority had never been exercised. This, too, did not improve my confidence: we know there are hot batches, now and again — enough so they have a colloquial name — and they aren’t being recalled.

Pointing to populations that didn’t get vaccinated for a time, but whose incidence of autism continued to rise, doesn’t convince when it’s a population heavily dependent on fish. (We no longer hear warnings of mercury-tainted fish not because the problem has passed — mercury levels in fish have continued rising — but because the reports were “harming” the fishing industry.)

Medical people, as a rule, feel the consequences of any public suspicion of vaccines so overwhelms any actual danger they can conceive in a vaccine that it’s worth fudging. Pediatricians avoid blaming a vaccine for bad reactions wherever possible, and avoid reporting them. A hot batch that must have sickened hundreds or thousands of children might provoke reports from only two or three doctors, and usually after it is too late for a recall to do any good. Bad reactions a week or weeks later are not reported at all.

As Eric notes, the studies cited routinely ignore specific factors that might put vulnerable individuals at risk, in favor of broad generalities seemingly designed to dilute any interesting detail. Who got vaccines with thimerosol in them? Who didn’t? Who got most, who got least? Is the thimerosol evenly distributed, or does it settle in the bottle? If it settles, which are the doses that get it, the first or the last; and who were they? How much difference did it make? Which of those who give shots shake the bottle, and which don’t?

I had friends whose kids have autism. I worried, and persuaded my daughter’s doctor to give her separate vaccinations, a year late and weeks apart. I thought then that modern vaccines wouldn’t have any thimerosol. I found out later that its use was just “phased out”, and that all those tainted ampules were still being shipped and used, even in 2002. I wonder now if giving her a greater number of shots exposed her to even more thimerosol, and caused or worsened her condition.

One thing we know is that *something* is causing the enormous increase in autism. Yet, precious few people are working seriously to discover what it is: a pesticide in milk? Food coloring? Toxins concentrated in fish? Hydraulic fluid in airline cabin air? A fuel additive? Microwave ovens? To suggest the cause is genetic is a cruel joke: the human genome doesn’t change in one generation. (Amish children, by the way, are not afflicted.) Parents demanding answers are treated with contempt. My own daughter’s doctor tries to assure me that since autism is a long-term condition, there’s no reason to hurry and find a treatment that might help her. (Yes, some children have responded wonderfully to some treatments.)

Under the circumstances, suspicion was, and still is, entirely justified. Most likely, what will turn out be the actual cause is already suspected, but not being investigated at all. Few really want to know, but many fear the lawsuits that will surely follow. Suspicion of vaccines might be a tragic distraction, but the behavior of those who would reassure us does not inspire confidence. Meanwhile, the epidemic rages on.

Although unfortunate, it is a fact of medical science that tradeoffs often exist between prevention/cures and potential harm; hence the presence of disclaimers describing possible side effects accompanying every drug on the market. While autism is a devastating illness, under my own lay analysis I find the position of Mr. Carlsson most compelling. I must also admit that until reading Dr. Goldacre’s article, I was unaware that anyone was putting forth theories that the MMR vaccine itself was also a possible cause for the disease. Again, as I am not a medical expert, I am unqualified to venture an opinion on the validity of Dr. Wakefield’s claims, but the tone of what I read while preparing to write this response (articles about Wakefield containing quotes, Web sites touting his research) was reminiscent of the outcry about flouridated water.

The motives behind Dr. Wakefield’s claims are unclear and could be anything from sound scientific research to mere self-aggrandizement. Mr. Myers’ arguments about the track record of researchers being influenced by outside, non-scientific forces (business leaders, political ideologues, etc.) have an air of veracity. The prevalence of orthodoxy in research Mr. Myers claims, however, and the resultant public distrust he discerns that stems from it, is where his argument fails. To repeat, I am not a medical scientist, but in my experience orthodoxy will get you a job in a research environment, but will not permit you to keep it. Careful, thorough experimentation, conducted using sound scientific practices, is the only method that will permit a career in research to continue and, under this auspice, the truth will out if the data is there to support it. One could argue that said experimentation can be guided by funding and misdirection by management but, at the end of the day, money talks. There is too much at stake, either in dollars lost by not pursuing a therapy that is later released by a competitor or by the threat of class action lawsuits for a failed therapy to permit such capriciousness as alleged by Mr. Myers to go on for long.

As far as public distrust is concerned, it appears plain to me that there is a growing scientific antipathy in the United States, as evidenced by such movements as that to include “intelligent design” in biology classes, etc. My suspicion is not that lay readers carefully examine articles and become alarmed and distrustful when a whiff of ideological influence is encountered – quite the contrary. I don’t think most people read at all, and the mistrust is based in ignorance rather than analysis.

To close, in my opinion as a layperson, the evidence of the benefits of preventative medicine in the form of vaccinations (or even flouride in drinking water) are too overwhelming to be denied. If risks are determined using sound scientific research, then even the most widely adopted therapies should be reconsidered and recommendations made by medical experts. Engaging in hyperbole similar to that which Dr. Goldacre accurately accuses the mainstram media of using resolves nothing and, as I believe was seen in Dr. Goldacre’s reply to Eric, clouds the issues and causes even the most qualified among us to improperly focus.