Andrew Wakefield's MMR/autism study 'fraud', says British Medical Journal

squod · 09-01-2011 11:11PM

A midwife isn't trained enough to give advice on paediatric vaccinations. And who is so?

Dave! · 09-01-2011 11:14PM

squod wrote: »

A midwife isn't trained enough to give advice on paediatric vaccinations. And who is so?

A paediatrician? Medical researcher? Body of public health and infectious disease experts (hint... Centre for Disease Control)?

Do midwifes even have to read medical journal articles in their training?

carfiosaoorl · 09-01-2011 11:14PM

Anyone know if there were any studies done comparing autism rates in vaccinated children to autism rates in children who have never received a vax. Not just children who havent received the MMR.

MagicMarker · 09-01-2011 11:14PM

squod wrote: »

A midwife isn't trained enough to give advice on paediatric vaccinations. And who is so?

lol.

That's a pretty stupid question in fairness.

axer · 09-01-2011 11:15PM

squod wrote: »

A midwife isn't trained enough to give advice on paediatric vaccinations. And who is so?

GPs, pediatricians and immunologists (for more detailed advice) - basically they are all doctors. Most GPs would not know the exact ins and outs of the vaccines though (although they would have a good understanding generally) - except for infectious disease specialists etc like Dr. Offit. That is why you have crazy doctors such as Dr. Sears making up crazy stuff to sell books (yes, I have read his book "The vaccine book" which is full of made up stuff).

Mid-wives are not doctors and have not received any medical training with regards vaccinations. This is partly the problem with anti-vax groups - unqualified people giving advice and others believing their stories because it is very easy to scare people.

Biologic · 09-01-2011 11:21PM

squod wrote: »

A midwife isn't trained enough to give advice on paediatric vaccinations. And who is so?

This is typical of the anti-vax movement. You pick one health professional who agrees with you and believe them, claiming that even the healthcare industry supports you. Then, at the same time, you disregard the advice of the healthcare industry as a whole.
I suppose if people don't use logic to arrive at a decision, then no amount of logic will convince them that they're wrong.

squod · 09-01-2011 11:22PM

Jaysus you're all very clever all of a sudden. Obviously much more clever than the scientists who produced 40 odd reports on the subject. Much more clever than who ever it was advised Tony Blair etc. And obviously much more clever than whoever else will produce another report, no-doubt contradicting the previous one as I'm sure they will do.

Real clever, advocating the delivery of heavy metals and toxic chemicals to infants unnecessarily. We've only had refrigeration since the fifties..........

Kurtosis · 09-01-2011 11:23PM

squod wrote: »

So you'd not take the advise of a professionally trained relative and instead believe she is part of a grand conspiracy against mercury laden vaccines. How odd.

This is another of my pet peeves. Why should the merit of someone's advice/conclusions be based solely on their qualifications or reputation? Such conclusions should be assessed on the basis of the methods and evidence used to produce them.

Dave! · 09-01-2011 11:26PM

squod wrote: »

Jaysus you're all very clever all of a sudden. Obviously much more clever than the scientists who produced 40 odd reports on the subject. Much more clever than who ever it was advised Tony Blair etc. And obviously much more clever than whoever else will produce another report, no-doubt contradicting the previous one as I'm sure they will do.

Real clever, advocating the delivery of heavy metals and toxic chemicals to infants unnecessarily. We've only had refrigeration since the fifties..........

Tony Blair obviously didn't listen to them, since his own son received the MMR vaccine:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/1803609.stm

But yeah, we're all mad smart, cheers

axer · 09-01-2011 11:29PM

squod wrote: »

Jaysus you're all very clever all of a sudden. Obviously much more clever than the scientists who produced 40 odd reports on the subject. Much more clever than who ever it was advised Tony Blair etc. And obviously much more clever than whoever else will produce another report, no-doubt contradicting the previous one as I'm sure they will do.

40 odd reports? who are they?
Who advised Tony Blair?

squod wrote: »

Real clever, advocating the delivery of heavy metals and toxic chemicals to infants unnecessarily. We've only had refrigeration since the fifties..........

Think this statement has fully summed up the anti-vax movement. When the evidence overwhelms revert to emotional arguements. "Why would you inject a heavy metals and toxic chemicals to infants unnecessarily?".

Have you read the studies? Are you scientifically critical of them?
Have you seen the effects of someone who was hit with rubella? Have you seen a child die or living with brain damage from measles?

squod · 09-01-2011 11:30PM

Dave! wrote: »

Tony Blair obviously didn't listen to them, since his own son received the MMR vaccine:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/1803609.stm

But yeah, we're all mad smart, cheers

Does it say if the vaccine used mercury? No.
Can you get the vaccine mercury free? Yes.
Did he ban mercury in the MMR vaccine? Yes.

squod · 09-01-2011 11:33PM

axer wrote: »

40 odd reports? who are they?
Who advised Tony Blair?

Think this statement has fully summed up the anti-vax movement. When the evidence overwhelms revert to emotional arguements. "Why would you inject a heavy metals and toxic chemicals to infants unnecessarily?".

Have you read the studies? Are you scientifically critical of them?
Have you seen the effects of someone who was hit with rubella? Have you seen a child die or living with brain damage from measles?

Who is anti-vax? Are you accusing me of being anti-vax? What a stupid statement to make! Have you even read one of my posts?

axer · 09-01-2011 11:37PM

squod wrote: »

Does it say if the vaccine used mercury? No.
Can you get the vaccine mercury free? Yes.
Did he ban mercury in the MMR vaccine? Yes.

Have you got a link to when thimerosal (containing ETHYL mercury) was banned from the MMR?

From what I can see thimerosal was never in the MMR vaccination in the UK since it was introduced.

axer · 09-01-2011 11:42PM

squod wrote: »

Who is anti-vax? Are you accusing me of being anti-vax? What a stupid statement to make! Have you even read one of my posts?

Yes, they seem to be full of the horrors of thimerosal. Maybe I am wrong though - it looks like you are anti-vax. My apologies if I was mistaken.

So are you pro-vaccination?

axer · 09-01-2011 11:48PM

Actually from what I can see MMR vaccinations have never contained thimerosal anywhere - at least not in the US or the UK.

squod, I am very interested to hear what blair banned in the MMR if there has never been thimerosal in it. Is there another mercury in it that I am not aware of.

squod · 09-01-2011 11:57PM

Denmark, Austria, Japan, Great Britain and all the Scandinavian countries have also banned the preservative.(thimerosal)

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/011764.html#ixzz1Aa7789yj

The Department of Health in Northern Ireland says it will stop using vaccines with mercury when it finds a mercury-free vaccine which is just as effective

.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/1551966.stm

I can't remember when it was banned certainly a couple of years before 2005. Probably as early as 2002. Nothing on this subject available from Ireland's point of view. IMO your sister is right to delay MMR vaccination 'till 24 months.

axer · 10-01-2011 12:05AM

squod wrote: »

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/011764.html#ixzz1Aa7789yj

I dont see any mention about the UK banning thimerosal in the MMR vaccinations. They may have been in the US vaccinations (although I am not sure that they were) but my understanding is they were never in the UK MMR vaccinations.

Have you any evidence that the MMR vaccination in the UK contained mercury?

squod wrote: »

.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/1551966.stm

I can't remember when it was banned certainly a couple of years before 2005. Probably as early as 2002. Nothing on this subject available from Ireland's point of view.

You specifically said that Blair banned mercury in the MMR vaccination.

Are you retracting this or have you evidence for it?

squod wrote: »

IMO your sister is right to delay MMR vaccination 'till 24 months.

She is not giving them at all. Delaying them until 24 months is wrong since it leaves the child open to getting hit with diseases up until then.

Show me evidence (and not from Dr. "I make up stuff" Sears) that giving the vaccinations before 24 months is risky to a child.

axer · 10-01-2011 12:10AM

This quote from the bbc page squod linked to sums up the ignorance of some people out there with regards how vaccinations work and why it is so easy to spread fear amongst them

Mother-of-four Fiona Presho says mercury can cause neurological damage and therefore she does not think it is a safe ingredient in a vaccine.

"If you're thinking of giving vaccinations to a very young baby who has an immune system that's relatively clean, and to be putting in some of the vaccines which contain not very pleasant substances, it just doesn't seem right. It doesn't make sense to me."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/1551966.stm

It just doesnt seem right or make sense to this seemingly non-medically trained mother so she will go against all the scientific backed advice out there and put her children and other children at risk.

Is this the failure of the health organisations to properly educate people? or is it just too complicated for people to understand?
Is there a way to get through to these people at all?
I think if people were educated on what happens to children dying of measles or shown the brain damage caused that it might get some of them to realise that there are real diseases out there that these vaccines are protecting children from.

squod · 10-01-2011 12:23AM

axer wrote: »

You specifically said that Blair banned mercury in the MMR vaccination.

Are you retracting this or have you evidence for it?

Fucked if I'm going to search news articles from 2002 just to satisfy some internet warrior with paranoid delusions about his sister. Google it for yourself;- or wait 'till he writes another book and go meet the focker.

MagicMarker · 10-01-2011 12:30AM

squod wrote: »

Fucked if I'm going to search news articles from 2002 just to satisfy some internet warrior with paranoid delusions about his sister. Google it for yourself;- or wait 'till he writes another book and go meet the focker.

Way to stand by your statements man! You rock!!

Dave! · 10-01-2011 12:31AM

axer wrote: »

Is this the failure of the health organisations to properly educate people? or is it just too complicated for people to understand?
Is there a way to get through to these people at all?
I think if people were educated on what happens to children dying of measles or shown the brain damage caused that it might get some of them to realise that there are real diseases out there that these vaccines are protecting children from.

Any chance squod contracted measles encephalitis when he was a young'un?

squod · 10-01-2011 12:32AM

Haw, haw!

Dave! · 10-01-2011 12:35AM

squod wrote: »

Haw, haw!

OutlawPete · 10-01-2011 12:22PM

axer wrote: »

See this is the problem with anti-vax people.

I am not "anti vaccination" - I am pro vaccination.

axer wrote: »

They take facts, muddle them all up and then make up a story.

The 60% figure you are using is in relation to the vaccine that RotaTeq replaced (RotaShield).

Unbelievable, what waffle - Rotashield' is obviously the vaccine I was talking about, hence the underlined:

OutlawPete wrote: »

With regards to him saving lives, his first rotavirus vaccine was withdrawn when it was found that it increased the chances of children developing bowel blockage by 60% (one infant died five days after receiving the vaccine).

Not second!

axer wrote: »

Again this is how the anti-vax movement works. They take facts - muddle them and come out with a story.

:rolleyes:

axer wrote: »

Please show me evidence he was reprimanded by congress.

No bother.

[Note: Paul Offit joined the ACIP - Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices - just three weeks before the first Rotavirus vaccine needed to be approved]

Conflicts of Interest in Vaccine Policy Making, Committee on Government Reform, 2000:

The Committee’s investigation has determined that conflict of interest rules employed by the FDA and the CDC have been weak, enforcement has been lax, and committee members with substantial ties to pharmaceutical companies have been given waivers to participate in committee proceedings

Four out of eight CDC advisory committee members who voted to approve guidelines for the rotavirus vaccine in June 1998 had financial ties to pharmaceutical companies that were developing different versions of the vaccine.

3 out of 5 FDA advisory committee members who voted to approve the rotavirus vaccine in December 1997 had financial ties to pharmaceutical companies that were developing different versions of the vaccine.The law also requires that advisory committee members disclose their financial interests and recuse themselves from matters in which they have an interest.

A little more than one year after the “RotaShield” rotavirus vaccine was licensed by the Food and Drug Administration as a safe and effective vaccine, it was removed from the market due to adverse events.

It is alarming that it was known during clinical trials and the licensing process that there were increased incidences of intussusception in vaccinated infants.

ACIP Members Do Not Fully Disclose Conflicts of Interest:

One member [Guess who] disclosed that he is a consultant to Merck, but did not disclose whether or not he received any remuneration for his services.

The following ACIP members had relationships with companies that were developing rotavirus vaccines:

Dr. Paul Offit:
Dr. Offit shares the patent on the Rotavirus vaccine in development by Merck and received a $350,000 grant from Merck for Rotavirus vaccine development. Also, he acts as a consultant to Merck.

Dr. Offit began his tenure on ACIP in October of 1998. Out of four votes pertaining to the ACIP’s rotavirus statement, he voted yes three times, including voting for the inclusion of the rotavirus vaccine in the VFC program.

Dr. Offit abstained from voting on the ACIP’s rescission of the recommendation of the rotavirus vaccine for routine use. He stated at the meeting, “I’m not conflicted with Wyeth, but because I consult with Merck on the development of rotavirus vaccine, I would still prefer to abstain because it creates a perception of conflict.”

[NOTE: Offit voted three times for the approval of the vaccine, but later when the vaccine was being pulled, he obtained from that vote claiming people might possible conflict as then it suited him - unbelievable]

It is clear that the VRBPAC and the ACIP are dominated by individuals with close working relationships with the manufacturers of vaccines.

This is not to accuse the physicians and other individuals who serve on these committees with taking any corrupt actions or having any malicious intent. However, when an individual has a conflict of interest, that individual’s judgment can be affected.

What is at issue is not whether researchers can be ‘bought’ in the sense of a quid pro quo, it is that close and remunerative collaboration with a company naturally creates goodwill on the part of researchers and the hope that the largesse will continue. This attitude can subtly influence scientific judgment.

A particularly troubling aspect of the deliberations on the 'RotaShield' vaccine is the sequence of events. The ACIP Committee voted to recommend universal vaccinations of infants before the FDA licensure of the vaccine. Officials of the CDC acknowledged that they knew of no other instance where this has happened.

The American people deserve the best scientific advice possible,
without the undue influence of competing interests.

It is therefore inappropriate for the ACIP to make recommendations on a vaccine which has not completed the approval and licensing process. The ACIP voted to add the “RotaShield” vaccine to the Childhood
Immunization Schedule prior to licensing. This should not happen.

The end result was that a product was placed on the market that had to be withdrawn within one year because it was injuring the children it was meant to protect.

axer · 10-01-2011 01:04PM

OutlawPete wrote: »

I am not "anti vaccination" - I am pro vaccination.

Thats what they all say :rolleyes: All I see is anti-vax propaganda from your posts - full of false information.

OutlawPete wrote: »

Unbelievable, what waffle - Rotashield' is obviously the vaccine I was talking about, hence the underlined:

Not second!

Except Rotashield is not Offit's vaccine - so how is RotaTeq his second?
Would you call your information "Unbelievable" because you should since it is completely false.

The issues with RotaShield shows up how the current issue reporting system works well. There were some rare cases of intussusception reported and the vaccine was pulled as a result. Surely if big pharma really had controll they could have just hidden those cases and continued on with the vaccine.

OutlawPete wrote: »

:rolleyes:

No bother.

[Note: Paul Offit joined the ACIP - Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices - just three weeks before the first Rotavirus vaccine needed to be approved]

Ha, you are talking about a committee headed by Dan Burton - the openly anti-vax congress man.

I don't see that he was reprimanded by congress. A committee's "findings" is not a reprimand.

See what I mean by the false information and why I have a problem with the anit-vax movement? i.e. taking a tiny bit of truth putting it through the anti-vax muddle machine and coming out with something completely different to reality.

OutlawPete · 10-01-2011 01:54PM

axer wrote: »

Thats what they all say :rolleyes: All I see is anti-vax propaganda from your posts - full of false information.

And all I see in yours is pro pharma sycophancy.

axer wrote: »

Except Rotashield is not Offit's vaccine..

True, it was Wyeth’s and as stated above, three weeks after he became a member of ACIP he pushed through that rotavirus vaccine. He voted on three different occasions for it to be approved. The commercial value of those votes to him is unquestionable.

To quote congress and their criticisms again:

"Members of the ACIP are allowed to vote on a recommendation for one company's vaccine even if they have financial ties to a competing firm developing a similar vaccine.

For example, in the case of the rotavirus vaccine, the vaccine before the advisory committee was developed by Wyeth-Lederle.

However, Merck and SmithKline29 Beecham had rotavirus vaccines under development.

A recommendation for Wyeth- Lederle's vaccine would help pave the way for future recommendations for the products of Merck and SmithKline-Beecham.

While ACIP members with ties to Wyeth-Lederle were not allowed to vote on recommendations for the rotavirus vaccine, those with ties to Merck [Paul Offit] and SmithKline-Beecham were allowed to vote.

You getting the picture yet?

axer wrote: »

Ha, you are talking about a committee headed by Dan Burton - the openly anti-vax congress man.

LOL

Everyone who calls for further vaccine research is an "anti-vaxxer" to you guys.

It's what you do best, just claim people are "nuts" and part of the "anti-vaccination movement".

axer wrote: »

See what I mean by the false information and why I have a problem with the anit-vax movement? i.e. taking a tiny bit of truth putting it through the anti-vax muddle machine and coming out with something completely different to reality.

A "tiny" bit of truth, did you read what I posted?

Sorry if you think the word "reprimanded" was too strong, but hey - that's anti-vaxxers for you.

I suppose I would be just be spreading more "false information" if I said that Rotateq is infected with deadly pig viruses too?

http://vaccinenewsdaily.com/news/212970-pig-virus-dna-found-in-mercks-rotateq-vaccine

Dave! · 10-01-2011 02:27PM

OutlawPete wrote: »

I suppose I would be just be spreading more "false information" if I said that Rotateq is infected with deadly pig viruses too?

http://vaccinenewsdaily.com/news/212970-pig-virus-dna-found-in-mercks-rotateq-vaccine

lol, wow, this is comical

From your own link:

One virus is the same one found in GlaxoSmithKline PLC's Rotarix vaccine in March. The FDA, at the time, recommended doctors stop using that vaccine and use Rotateq instead, even though the agency said it didn't think the virus posed any safety risks to humans.

In 2007, the FDA issued a public health notice saying it had received 28 reports of intussusception linked to Rotateq. At the time, the FDA said the intussusception rate wasn't higher than the rate that would be expected to occur among non-vaccinated infants. Later that year the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also said there was no increased risk of intussusception from Rotateq.

And then when we go to the FDA website to see what their investigation found:

On May 6, 2010, FDA provided information about RotaTeq, manufactured by Merck & Co, Inc. FDA indicated that preliminary studies conducted by Merck identified fragments of DNA from PCV1 and from a related porcine circovirus type 2 (PCV2) in RotaTeq. FDA noted that it would seek input from its Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) and provide updates in the near future.

Updated Recommendations
FDA has evaluated laboratory results from the manufacturers and its own laboratories. In addition, FDA’s VRBPAC convened on May 7, 2010 to discuss the findings of PCV and PCV DNA in rotavirus vaccines. Based on a careful evaluation of this information, a thorough review of the scientific literature, and input from scientific and public health experts, the Agency is revising its recommendation to temporarily suspend use of the Rotarix vaccine. FDA has determined it is appropriate for clinicians and health care professionals to resume the use of Rotarix and to continue the use of RotaTeq.

FDA considered the following information in its decision:

* Both vaccines have strong safety records, including clinical trials involving tens of thousands of patients as well as clinical experience with millions of recipients. FDA has no evidence that either PCV1 or PCV2 poses a safety risk in humans, and notes that neither is known to cause infection or illness in humans.
* The benefits of the vaccines are substantial, and include prevention of hospitalization for severe rotavirus disease in the U.S. and of death in other parts of the world. The benefits of the vaccines, which are known, outweigh the risk, which is theoretical.

Oh dear Pete, you just hung yourself by posting that link

You're probably one of the people who goes crazy about chicken embryos, formaldehyde, etc., being used also.

Pete if I were you I wouldn't look at the ingredients in a pack of panadol, cos they've got a bunch of scary words on them too, you'll probably sh*t your pants right there and then.

Comical and sickening in equal measures. Actually, one outweighs the other.

axer · 10-01-2011 02:57PM

OutlawPete wrote: »

And all I see in yours is pro pharma sycophancy.

I am pro science, pro-evidence. Risks have to be looked at in their entirety.

OutlawPete wrote: »

True, it was Wyeth’s and as stated above, three weeks after he became a member of ACIP he pushed through that rotavirus vaccine. He voted on three different occasions for it to be approved. The commercial value of those votes to him is unquestionable.

So you are taking back that Rotashield was his vaccine. I accept your retraction on this issue.

OutlawPete wrote: »

To quote congress and their criticisms again:
You getting the picture yet?

Don't see anything wrong with this. Those who were employed by the company making the vaccine did not vote.

So you think one of the top specialist doctors in vaccines should not be working on developing safer vaccines. Yo do realise that Offit brought in a much safer vaccine that what was out there already. How is that a bad thing?

OutlawPete wrote: »

LOL

Everyone who calls for further vaccine research is an "anti-vaxxer" to you guys.

It's what you do best, just claim people are "nuts" and part of the "anti-vaccination movement".

I have no problem with people calling for more research but in the meantime lots of research has been done to prove safety. Any risks are clearly identified and are explained by doctors to those getting the vaccination. Close monitoring is performed on the effects of the vaccinations on the public - this is how the Rotashield vaccine was removed and the hiv vaccine was removed. In the mean time the vaccines that have been shown to be safe are saving lives. Do the anti-vax groups save lives? I believe they do the opposite.

When would you consider a vaccine safe enough to use?

OutlawPete wrote: »

A "tiny" bit of truth, did you read what I posted?

Sorry if you think the word "reprimanded" was too strong, but hey - that's anti-vaxxers for you.

Yes, I have shown that all the information you have posted has been false e.g. you take a figure of 60% from a different vaccine and then attribute that vaccine to someone you want to show up as being bad.

This is what anti-vax people do - take a tiny bit of truth i.e. the 60% figure from somewhere then they change the facts around the figure and come out with a completely different "fact". Then that "fact" gets quoted by other anti-vax people. You have just proved this point. Thank you.

OutlawPete wrote: »

I suppose I would be just be spreading more "false information" if I said that Rotateq is infected with deadly pig viruses too?

http://vaccinenewsdaily.com/news/212970-pig-virus-dna-found-in-mercks-rotateq-vaccine

Infected by deadly pig virus! wow, what an anti-vax sensationalist headline!

I won't even go into why that sensationalism is wrong as I see Dave! already has shown it to be rubbish.

Well done OutlawPete, your posts have followed the anti-vax line to a T. Pity that facts always beats that line.

All I ask from Anti-vax people is that they do not spread false information like is clearly evident in this thread. Don't take a vaccination if you do not want to - herd immunity will protect you enough anyway. Just don't go spreading lies resulting in clusters of unvaccinated kids/people because thats when diseases come back. It is very easy to scare people even when experts vocally disagree.

MagicMarker · 10-01-2011 03:41PM

Guys, you're wasting your time, you're arguing with someone who isn't convinced by evolution ffs! Do yourselves a favour and unsubscribe.

OutlawPete · 10-01-2011 11:50PM

MagicMarker wrote: »

Guys, you're wasting your time, you're arguing with someone who isn't convinced by evolution ffs!

Quit playing to the gallery.

Dave! wrote: »

lol, wow, this is comical

So, the vaccine has not being contaminated with Pig virus then? I just posted a link to the article and made no comment and yet you go on massive rant .. hhhhhmmm, that seems odd. Why so defensive Dave?

Dave! wrote: »

Pete if I were you I wouldn't look at the ingredients in a pack of panadol, cos they've got a bunch of scary words on them too, you'll probably sh*t your pants right there and then

If Panadol or any other over the counter drug was contaminated with PCV2 Pig Virus, it would be taken of the market, please don't suggest otherwise, you just look foolish. Look, you can be as trite as you want, but that won't white wash the fact that the Rotateq vaccine is contaminated. Tell you what, show me some studies with "scientific" epidemiological research that shows us that giving a vaccine contaminated with PCV2 (an aggressive pig virus that causes immune suppression, wasting disease and death in baby pigs) is safe to give to millions of infants. It amazes me what you pharma sycophants will just accept in the name of "science", it really does. Maybe a pig virus is apt actually, as what these kids will be are pigs: guinea pigs.

axer wrote: »

I am pro science, pro-evidence.

As are all the people who want to see further research done on the area of vaccines and their possible relationship with ASDs. It is scientific research that is been called for - you do not have a monopoly on wanting that. I know you like to think that all the millions of families around the world that call for further vaccine research, with regards to autism, are all just "nuts" and "anti-vaxxers" but that doesn't make it so, you do realise that don't you.

axer wrote: »

So you are taking back that Rotashield was his vaccine.

It was 'his' vaccine in that HE was responsible for getting it to market, HE was part of pharma that made sure it was pushed through for his/their own reasons. Those reasons, as I have shown already, where that he had his own patented Rotavirus vaccine )with Merck) which was in the pipeline and so those '3 votes' were unethical and ultimately are what made the guy a multi-millionaire.

axer wrote: »

Don't see anything wrong with this. Those who were employed by the company making the vaccine did not vote.

LOL, let me walk you through what Congress took issue with (as you seem to be having some difficulty with it):

..those with ties to Merck .. were allowed to vote.

Those "ties" were:

Dr. Offit shares the patent on the Rotavirus vaccine in development by Merck and received a $350,000 grant from Merck for Rotavirus vaccine development. Also, he acts as a consultant to Merck.

He was now a member of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (for just three weeks, nice timing):

Out of four votes pertaining to the ACIP’s rotavirus statement, he voted yes three times, including voting for the inclusion of the rotavirus vaccine in the VFC program.

So, why exactly does congress criticize the fact that he could vote:

.. (votes) for Wyeth-Lederle's vaccine (Rotashield) would help pave the way for future recommendations for the products of Merck ..

Offit held patents on a rotavirus vaccine at the time with Merck which he was to later sell for an undisclosed sum (he wouldn't tell CBS when asked) but most estimites are between ($29m - $100m).

The fact that you "don't see anything wrong with that" just makes it all the more clear how much of a pharma sycophant you are. To quote congress again:

No individual who stands to gain financially from the decisions regarding vaccines that may be mandated for use should be participating in the discussion or policy making for vaccines.

If you disagree with the above quote, I feel sorry for you.

axer wrote: »

This is what anti-vax people do..

Look, quite the waffle. The Congress investigation was in the year 2000. RotaTeq did not arrive until 2006! So how could my comments regarding the 60% be referring to any vaccine other than RotaShield! Tell you what, here is section of the report where I got the "60%" figure:

As of October 15, 1999, 113 cases of intussusception had been received. Nine of these reported cases were determined not to be intussusception. Of the remaining 102 cases of intussusception, 57
had received the vaccine. Of these, 29 required surgery, seven underwent bowel resection, and one five-month-old infant died after developing intussusception five days after receipt of the vaccine.24 A
case study was conducted that estimated that the risk of intussusception was increased by sixty percent among children who received the “RotaShield.”

That clear enough for you now?

axer wrote: »

All I ask from Anti-vax people ..

<nonsense snipped>

Look, for the last time: there is no "anti vax people" - well, at least not the people that you are referring to as such. If they were "anti vaccination" then they would not be recommending vaccination schedules. If they were "anti-vaxxers" they would just be telling people that there is no need for any vaccines of any kind. The WHOLE point of people asking for further vaccine research and wanting vaccines to contain as few toxins as possible is because they are PRO vaccines! All this screaming of "anti vaxxers" is akin to calling NCAP: "anti-automobilerz".

The reason people don't have much time for Paul Offit is because he has a history of making decisions based on money. The USA did not need every child in America on a rotavirus vaccine, yet that is what he pushed for and used third world statistics to do so. All this sanctimony about saving lives and that he is all about the kids is just that, sanctimonious rubbish. Merck couldn't care less about children in Africa, wake up. The only time they ever cut their profits is when pushed to do so or as part of a PR exercise.

If they are so concerned about kids in the third world getting diarrhea, why don't they donate the $1bn or so that they have made from this vaccine thus far, to water sanitation in the regions where these kids so susceptible to rotavirus? Nah, lets just charge them $5 a pop instead and make Offit look like he is Mother Theresa. The only reason that Offit has a bee in his bonnet about those wanting further research in the area of vaccines and autism, is because it affects Merck. That's why he is writing books on disorders he knows little or nothing about. All he is doing is delaying the inevitable.

carfiosaoorl wrote: »

Anyone know if there were any studies done comparing autism rates in vaccinated children to autism rates in children who have never received a vax. Not just children who havent received the MMR.

I notice nobody relied to this post.

Wonder why.

Andrew Wakefield's MMR/autism study 'fraud', says British Medical Journal

Comments