Image:
The Truth About MMR
Andrew Wakefield, the gastroenterologist who first discovered a link between the MMR vaccine, crohn’s disease and autism, recently went before the General Medical Council (GMC) accused of professional misconduct for daring to suggest that there is anything wrong with vaccination.
At the same time, GP Jayne Donegan, who gave evidence in support of two mothers who did not wish their children to be vaccinated, came under fire from the GMC for her unorthodox views. She is accused of giving false information. Both doctor’s careers are at risk. This approach has only served to heighten public concern as many wonder why the DOH refuse to look at any opposing evidence or have a rational discussion of the issues. If a person had an allergic reaction to paracetamol, this would be accepted. So are the dangers of mercury fillings, which are now not recommended for pregnant women. When it comes to vaccines, however, it is a scared cow that no one is allowed to question.
Do we even need a vaccine?
Before I explore whether the MMR is safe, let’s look at whether we even need a vaccine for measles. Measles in healthy, well nourished children who weren’t medicated is usually a mild illness. In 1967, Christine Miller from the National Institute for Medical Research, London, published a paper on measles, stating: ‘Measles is now the commonest infectious disease of childhood in the UK. It occurs in epidemics in which the total number of cases usually exceeds half a million...there is no doubt that most cases in England today are mild, only last for a short period, are not followed by complications and are rarely fatal.’
Also in the Practitioner, November 1967: ‘some physicians consider that measles is so mild a complaint that a major effort at prevention is not justified.’
After the measles vaccine was introduced in 1968, followed by the MMR in 1988, the disease suddenly became more serious. According to the BMA Complete Family Medical Encyclopaedia, 1995: ‘measles is a potentially dangerous viral illness...prevention of measles is important because it can have rare but serious complications...it is sometimes fatal in children with impaired immunity.’
Clearly, you can see vaccine marketing techniques at play here.
Lies
According to the DOH, in their book ‘Immunisation Against Infectious Diseases’,‘Before 1988 (when the MMR was introduced) more than half the acute measles deaths occurred in previously healthy children who had not been immunised.’ They quote the study C L MILLER. Deaths from measles in England and Wales, 1970-83. British Medical Journal, Vol 290, 9 February 1985, but if you actually read this study (which they are relying on parents not doing), you will find it actually says:
‘No attempt was made to establish further clinical details, vaccination history, or social class.’ - i.e. they didn’t know the vaccine status of the individuals. And: ‘90% of deaths in those previously normal occurred in those over the age of 15 months, when the vaccines are usually given’. These children were probably vaccinated prior to dying of measles as they were of vaccination age.
Nearly half the children who died were ‘grossly physically or mentally abnormal or both. The pre-existing conditions in the 126 previously abnormal individuals included cerebral palsy (24), mental retardation (20), Down's syndrome (19) and various congenital abnormalities (22). There were nine children with immune deficiency or immunosuppression, and 19 aged 2-8 with lymphatic leukaemia, a number of them in remission.'
What About Safety Tests?
According to the DOH website, www.immunisation.org.uk, ‘"Before any vaccine can be used it has to go through many tests. Research from all over the world shows that vaccines are the safest way of protecting your child's health. Each vaccine is continually checked after it has been introduced and action is taken if it is needed. If a vaccine is not safe it is not used."
However, the measles vaccine was only safety tested for three weeks, on just 76 subjects, all of which were mentally subnormal (which would make monitoring reactions more difficult). Most of these developed measles after the shot and one child in the trial died. None of the children were followed up post-vaccination for longer than three weeks, yet the vaccine was still declared safe and used on millions of people. (Pulse Magazine, January 25, 1997).
The Finnish Study
The Finnish study is repeatedly quoted by the medical profession as proof that MMR doesn’t cause autism, but the 1996 study was begun 14 years earlier and meant to establish efficacy, not safety. The autism/MMR connection had not even been discussed at the time the study began so they were not looking for evidence of autism. If you don’t look for something you won’t find it. H. Peltola, an author of the study, admitted on radio four (January 13, 2001) that the study was not designed to look at autism.
The DOH stated that they tested over 3 million people, but this is false as they only followed up 200 people with side effects, including 31 subjects who developed gastrointestinal symptoms within the first 15 days after vaccination. There were no cases of autism in these 31 children. The rest of the 3 million weren’t followed up for longer than three weeks, and as everyone knows, autism is a chronic disease which takes longer to develop than that.
Dr. Wakefield said the criteria were meaningless, as ‘no one ever said that such immediate GI symptoms were any kind of indication of anything to do with autism."
Idiopathic Thrombocytopenic Purpura [ITP] was excluded as an adverse event. Thrombocytopenia may also accompany certain infections like measles. As well as this there were 277 cases with fever,162 cases with rashes,85 cases with
lymphadenopathy, 22 cases of nausea and vomiting and 24 cases with joint pain in the study. Some of these cases show a definite link between MMR and gastrointestinal disease, which is part of what Andrew Wakefield was studying. Lymphadenopathy occurs when the body is fighting off serious disease. Rashes and joint pain can be caused by gluten intolerance, a GI symptom, and one baby died 8 days after his MMR vaccination. The cause of death was recorded as ‘acute gastritis and aspiration of vomit.’
The study was funded by the MMR vaccine manufacturer. It hardly makes convincing evidence for safety.
The Autism Epidemic
Autism was only ‘discovered’ in 1943, by Dr. Kanner. Before that it was unheard of. Now a recent study at Cambridge University has found that one in every 58 UK children is autistic. This amounts to around 2% of the population. These are children who will need care for the rest of their lives. It is a disaster of epic proportions. Dr’s Fiona Scott and Carol Stott who were part of the team, thought MMR may be to blame.
Survey USA has conducted some research into vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children. Of 17,674 subjects, 991 were completely unvaccinated. Parents were interviewed by telephone and full medical histories were taken. The survey revealed that:
Vaccinated boys were 155% more likely to have a neurological disorder, 224% more likely to have ADHD, and 61% more likely to have autism than the unvaccinated. Although parents were questioned on the vaccine status of the child, which may have produced a bias, it is one of the few studies ever conducted on the unvaccinated, and is revealing in nature, for where are the unvaccinated children with regressive autism? They don’t seem to exist. (Generation Rescue, June 26 2007).
Image:
Anaphylaxis as an adverse event following immunisation (AEFI) is a rare occurrence. We report four cases of anaphylaxis following administration of single component measles or rubella vaccine between January 2003 and June 2007. We estimate that the incidence of anaphylaxis to measles and rubella single component vaccines is 18.9 and 22.4 cases/100 000 doses, respectively. These figures are likely to be an underestimate but are higher than expected. Our calculations were hampered by lack of immunisation reporting data from the private sector. We recommend that NHS standards of vaccine data reporting are also applied to private clinics.
Source: Archives of Disease in Childhood 2008;93:974-975;
Studies of measles viruses circulating in Australia between 1999 and 2001 reveals a new genotype.
Nineteen distinct measles virus (MV) strains associated with nine different genotypes were identified in five Australian states (Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland, Northern Territory and Western Australia) between 1999 and 2001. One of the strains identified is likely to represent a new genotype within the clade D viruses (proposed to be d9). No evidence for an indigenous MV strain was found. When epidemiologic information associated with the index case was available for the outbreaks, it usually supported introduction of the virus from overseas, with the main source being South East Asia. Changes in the circulation of MV in Australia since the early 1970s were also observed. Prior to the introduction of measles vaccine, the majority of the population acquired immunity through infection with wild-type virus in early childhood. Nowadays in Australia, young adults are at most risk of infection. The age range of cases in the study period was from 1 month to 48 years, with the majority (59%) of cases from individuals aged 18–30 years.
Source: Science Direct, Volume 91, Issue 2, February 2003, Pages 213-221.
A 12 year Finnish study showed that seven of nine previously vaccinated children contracted measles if they shared a bedroom with an affected sibling. They concluded that protection against measles may not be acheivable by vaccination.
"Explosive School-based Measles Outbreak Intense Exposure May Have Resulted in High Risk, Even Among Revaccinees," Mikko Paunio (Department of Public Health, Helsinki University, published in the American Journal of Epidemiology,1998).
An interim synthesis of the evidence for febrile seizure risk following MMRV (ProQuad, Merck) vaccination indicates there is a causal relationship between receipt of the first dose of the vaccine and an increased risk for febrile seizures 5–12 days following vaccination, when compared with separate dosing for the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine, and the varicella (V) vaccine provided at the same visit, Dr. Karen Broder of the CDC Immunization Safety Office told ACIP at its fall meeting.
Speaking on behalf of the working group, Dr. Broder said that during the 5- to 12-day postvaccination period, one additional febrile seizure may be expected to occur per approximately 1,900–2,600 children vaccinated.
However, because the evidence is insufficient to conclude whether the risk is increased during days 13–30 following vaccination, the evidence also is insufficient to conclude whether the overall risk is increased within 30 days of vaccination, she said.
The findings are based on the results of two unpublished postlicensure studies of dose 1 ProQuad, including final results on febrile seizures from a Merck-sponsored study, and preliminary findings of a Vaccine and Safety Datalink Project.
The working group considered the biological plausibility of an increased risk with MMRV vaccination vs. MMR + V vaccination, as well as population-based risk.
Next, the group plans to evaluate the clinical importance of febrile seizures. It also proposed an epidemiological study in the Vaccine Safety Datalink population to assess confirmed febrile seizure risk after dose 1 MMRV vaccine in periods other than those already studied—such as in the entire 0- to 30-day postvaccine period.
Source: Pediatric News, volume 42, issue 12, page 2, December 2008.
A US court ruled in July 2008 in favour of a little boy called Benjamin Zeller, who recieved an MMR vaccination on 17th November 2004 and suffered with persistant seizures, encephalopathy and developmental delay.
Here is the court's ruling:
'"It also seems evident that the vaccine was a substantial factor in
causing the injury found by the Court, which, prima facie, would appear to
satisfy the element of proximate cause in this case. Applying the
traditional legal rule from Tort law, that Respondent takes Petitioner as he
finds him (a.k.a. the "Eggshell Skull Rule"), the fact that Benjamin may
have had a genetic predisposition or a physiologic susceptibility does not
defeat Petitioner's case as a superseding factor. So long as the vaccine was
a substantial factor, and its influence was not overborne by a superseding
cause, the Court is justified in ruling that the proximate causation
requirement is satisfied.
The logical sequela of these findings of fact is that Petitioners have
carried their burden of proof on the issue of vaccine-related causation.
Inasmuch as the other elements of § 300aa-11 (b) and (c) have already been
satisfied, the Court holds that Petitioners have met their burden on their
case in chief, on the ultimate issue of entitlement to compensation.
The burden now shifts to Respondent to proffer a factor unrelated to the
vaccine as either a more likely cause of the injury found by the Court, or
as a superseding cause of the injury that obviated any effect of the
vaccine. This Respondent has not done. The only medical explanation
proffered by Respondent was the predestination of intractable seizures,
encephalopathy, and developmental delay based on an undetermined genetic
predisposition toward neurodegeneration. As discussed by the Court above
when addressing proximate causation on Petitioner's case in chief, the
Court's findings in this case are inconsistent with a ruling that Benjamin's
genetic susceptibilities overbore the effect of the vaccine as a superseding
cause. Likewise, there is not a preponderance of evidence from within the
medical records that any specific alternative diagnosis-not a single named
etiology confirmed by testing-could be identified. Unconfirmed speculation
by a few treating doctors, as with Dr. Wiznitzer's hypothesization, were
unconfirmed by testing in the first instance, and unsupported by the medical
records in the second. Consequently, the Court concludes that there is not
a factor unrelated to overcome Petitioner's evidence on causation."
To see the full court document, go to:
http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/ABELL.ZELLER073008.pdf
The information commissioner has criticised the Department of Health for withholding information about the introduction of the MMR vaccine.
The DH redacted relevant details in minutes from three committees involved in the decision to introduce the vaccine, which were later requested under the Freedom of Information Act.
Commissioner Richard Thomas said the DH had taken too long to correspond with the complainant and with his office, made "very generic" arguments for its decisions and gave them too late.
It had claimed that revealing the information would prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs, reveal personal information, compromise commercial interests and compromise health and safety.
Public understanding
A statement said: "The information commissioner's office maintains that disclosing the information will help increase the public understanding of the development of the government's policy on this issue.
"[Mr Thomas] believes that some of the controversy surrounding national immunisation policy has been fuelled by a perceived lack of transparency in the decision-making process which fed into the policy and he believes that there is a public interest in countering this perception.
"Ultimately, knowing who said what and whose opinions were taken into account will facilitate greater openness, accountability and transparency."
Source: The Health Service Journal, 13 January 2009, article by Dave West.
Melody can no longer talk, walk or feed herself. She spends her days sitting in a chair and must wear nappies.
She is even unable to hold up her own head, like a weak newborn infant.
Doctors are baffled by her mystery condition and continue to carry out tests to diagnose it and search for a way forward.
They have told Melody's mother Alicia Ellis, 25, there is no reason to believe the MMR vaccine has anything to do with her condition.
However, Miss Ellis is convinced it is the only logical explanation and there could be a connection to a neurological problem she had as a newborn baby.
Miss Ellis, from Leeds, said: 'Show me the evidence that it's not linked to the MMR jab and I might be all right, but they can't.
'It's awful and unbelievable. I want her back like she was. It's like having a baby again. They have done tests and everything has come back negative.'
Melody suffered some brain damage after she picked up a serious herpes virus at two-weeks of age.
The tiny baby was seriously-ill in hospital and was close to death. Doctors feared she would suffer from developmental problems as a result, but to their amazement she made a complete recovery and grew up as a normal, healthy little girl.
Then last July Miss Ellis, a full-time mother-of-three, received a letter advising her to have Melody and her seven-year-old brother Ryan vaccinated.
The mother said she told nurses she was worried about Melody having the measles, mumps and rubella jab because of the infection she had as a baby, but was told 'she'll be fine.'
Two days later the lively schoolgirl was struggling to walk.
'She told me her legs were hurting and she couldn't walk. She used to love dancing but her she was holding on to anything to support herself.
'I took her to a couple of doctors, then hospital, and she was admitted to hospital a week after the jab. She's been there ever since having test after test but she's just not getting any better - in fact she is getting worse.
'They just don't know what's wrong with her, all the tests have come back negative. It's heartbreaking - she can barely move and she has lost her speech.
'I think the jab has attacked the part of her brain that was damaged when she was a baby. It's just too much of a coincidence for this to happen just two days after her jab, but no-one wants to listen to me.'
The shocking decline is graphically shown by two Christmas home videos, one from 2006 of her with her siblings and a contrasting one of Melody unable to do anything for herself last December.
Miss Ellis, whose partner works as a courier, said her daughter was allowed home from Leeds General Infirmary at weekends, but remained in hospital for the forseeable future.
Source: MailOnline, 21 January 2009, by Chris Ellise.
OBJECTIVE: To determine if there is evidence for a causal relationship between acute encephalopathy followed by permanent brain injury or death associated with the administration of further attenuated measles vaccines (Attenuvax or Lirugen, Hoechst Marion Roussel, Kansas City, MO), mumps vaccine (Mumpsvax, Merck and Co, Inc, West Point, PA), or rubella vaccines (Meruvax or Meruvax II, Merck and Co, Inc, West Point, PA), combined measles and rubella vaccine (M-R-Vax or M-R-Vax II, Merck and Co, Inc, West Point, PA), or combined measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine (M-M-R or M-M-R II, Merck and Co, Inc, West Point, PA), the lead author reviewed claims submitted to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. METHODS: The medical records of children who met the inclusion criteria of receiving the first dose of these vaccines between 1970 and 1993 and who developed such an encephalopathy with no determined cause within 15 days were identified and analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 48 children, ages 10 to 49 months, met the inclusion criteria after receiving measles vaccine, alone or in combination. Eight children died, and the remainder had mental regression and retardation, chronic seizures, motor and sensory deficits, and movement disorders. The onset of neurologic signs or symptoms occurred with a nonrandom, statistically significant distribution of cases on days 8 and 9. No cases were identified after the administration of monovalent mumps or rubella vaccine. CONCLUSIONS: This clustering suggests that a causal relationship between measles vaccine and encephalopathy may exist as a rare complication of measles immunization.
Source: Pediatrics. 1998 Mar;101(3 Pt 1):383-7.
The Sunday Times last weekend resumed its witch-hunt against Andrew Wakefield, the gastro-enterologist who warned against the possible risks to children of the MMR vaccine following a paper he wrote in the Lancet in 1998. In this paper, he described a new childhood syndrome which he called autistic enterocolitis, which suggested a connection between a new type of bowel disease and autistic spectrum disorder and reported the fact that some of the parents of the children in the study thought there was a connection between these symptoms and the MMR vaccine. The titanic furore which subsequently engulfed Wakefield, in which virtually the entire medical establishment turned on him, effectively forced him out of Britain and has resulted in his being investigated by the General Medical Council for serious misconduct.
The campaign against Wakefield in the Sunday Times has been led by journalist Brian Deer. Last weekend, the paper published a two-page ‘investigation’ and a front-page spin-off story alleging that
confidential medical documents and interviews with witnesses
have established Wakefield had
changed and misreported results in his research, creating the appearance of a possible link with autism...
amidst various other lurid charges. Deer claimed that his ‘investigation’ was
confirmed by evidence presented to the General Medical Council
What the Sunday Times did not report was that the GMC investigation into Wakefield was triggered by a complaint from... Brian Deer, who furnished the allegations against him four years ago. He has thus been reporting upon the hearing into his own complaint. Since when has a reputable paper published a story by a reporter who is actually part of that story himself -- without saying so – and who uses information arising from the disciplinary hearing which he himself has instigated and which is investigating allegations he himself made in the first place?
Wakefield has issued a detailed refutation of Deer’s allegations, reported here. I reproduce his response below in full ( for clarity, I set out Wakefield’s responses to Deer in bold type and identified by the letter W).
W: Below is a list of the allegations made by Brain Deer against me, received on Friday 6th February 2009, 2 days prior to his publishing in the UK’s Sunday Times newspaper.
Dear Dr Wakefield,
I'm directed by editors managing my investigation of the MMR matter for The Sunday Times to inform you that we intend to publish further on this topic, and particularly on your role in it. It is now some five years since I first sought to discuss with you your work, and I've made numerous attempts to do so. As you will appreciate, the safety of children by means of vaccination is an unparalleled issue of public interest and concern.
As you will know, not least as a result of our concurrent attendance at the General Medical Council fitness to practise hearing into your conduct, I'm now extremely familiar with the precise medical histories, diagnoses and so forth of the children enrolled for your study, published in the Lancet on 28 February 1998. Based on this knowledge, and other sources of information, including the cooperation of families enrolled in your research, I must put to you, for your response, a number of serious matters.
(1)That you repeatedly, and without justification, changed and misreported findings from those children for publication in the Lancet.
I cite, for instance, three children who you represented as having regressive autism, who in fact had Asperger's disorder, or in one of those cases PDAS, which are not regressive and involve no loss of language or other basic skills. You claim that the paper is a series of "previously normal" children, but medical records - which you had a duty to read and understand - show that some five of the 12 children were subject to concerns prior to vaccination, and were not "normal". Other children, who you claimed to have suffered their first "behavioural symptoms" within days of vaccination, in fact had none for months. In the cases of some 8 children - two thirds of the total - you changed normal histopathology results to abnormal results, in a so-called "research review", despite claiming that the series was merely a clinical report.
W: The diagnoses reported in the Lancet were accurate based upon the information provided to the clinicians and review of the available records. (I) Where there was considered to be a pre-existing developmental problem, this was accurately reported in the Lancet paper. (II) This is not the place to get into a detailed discussion on developmental regression which is still a subject of debate
experts in child development and is certainly not something about which Deer has any expertise.
It is a matter of fact that I did not play any part whatsoever in making the microscopic diagnoses of inflammation on any biopsy from any child investigated at the Royal Free Hospital. Intestinal tissues were examined, and the children’s pathology documented, by two doctors (not me) employed in the Department of Histopathology who were experienced in bowel disease, using an agreed protocol to ensure rigor and consistency . These doctors were co-authors on the paper. The same tissues were reviewed by Professor Walker-Smith and his team. I merely entered the documented findings into the Lancet paper. I did not “change” any findings as alleged. The paper was then reviewed by the relevant authors prior to submission to the Lancet in order to confirm that the diagnoses were correct. The findings reported in the Lancet are, in the opinion of the relevant authors, correct. This is a matter of record at the GMC.
(2) That, without justification, you omitted parental links to MMR in the case of one quarter of the children, in order to reach your unsubstantiated claim in the paper that problems came on within days.
Contrary to your claim that the parents of 8 of 12 children linked MMR to their child's problems, in fact the parents of 11 of the children made this connection whilst at the Royal Free. The additional, unreported, children are Child Five, Child Nine and Child Twelve. Their parents said that problems came on between one and four months after MMR, and their hospital records, which you had access to (and in one case wrote), show this. Through the device of their omission, you contrived to create the appearance of a clearcut temporal link between MMR and autism, when there was none such. Furthermore, by their omission, you contrived to create the appearance that these children were routine clinical cases passing through the hospital, when in fact, as you knew, they were recruited, marshalled and referred in collaboration between you, JABS and a solicitor. As such, they were bound to blame MMR when they came to the hospital.
W: This is a particularly tortuous argument that reflects Deer’s grasp (or lack of it) on both the scientific process and the evidence. Parents of 8 of the 12 children made the link between MMR vaccination and onset of symptoms contemporaneously. Other parents made the link retrospectively, that is, some years later. We reported on those 8 who made the link at the time of their child’s deterioration and excluded those who made the link later in order to remove any bias associated with recall that may have been prompted by, for example, media coverage. To have done otherwise would have been potentially misleading.
In fact, when all of the medical and parental records were made available via the GMC many years later, it became apparent that one further parent had made the link with MMR contemporaneously, but had remained silent on this at the request of her husband because it had led to doctors dismissing their concerns about their child’s medical problems on the basis that they were “just looking for something to blame.” This in itself is a telling indictment of how a possible cause risks being overlooked because of the prejudice of some physicians.
The second part of this allegation, which is dependent upon the fallacy in the first part, is nonsense. The route by which the children came to the Royal Free was one driven by clinical need and had nothing whatsoever to do with the lawyer Richard Barr. The facts of this matter and in particular the route by which the children came to be seen by Professor Walker-Smith, have been reported to the GMC. This allegation – one which Deer has rehashed in spite of the evidence – has no basis in fact.
It need hardly be stated again after so many occasions in the GMC but the leading, primary and principal reason all twelve children ended up at the Royal Free, was that they had bowel or 'stomach' problems. The matter of vaccination was brought up by parents because they thought that it was relevant to the clinical diagnosis.
(3) That the paper you wrote and published in the Lancet was a device, assisting you in obtaining money from the Legal Aid Board.
I draw to your attention your prior contractual undertaking with Mr Barr, and your joint undertaking to the Legal Aid Board to attempt to find a "new syndrome". This latter undertaking was entered into before any of the children were admitted to the Royal Free, or you could ever have known of any syndrome. Eighteen months later, you would declare that you had found precisely such a syndrome, based on the 8/12 temporal link, and an alleged coincidence of regressive autism and inflammatory bowel disease. The records show that neither of these are valid. Without the public ever suspecting, the route by which you reached this claim required the wholesale changing and misreporting of data. Following your claims, to which you attached the reputations of 12 other, generally unwitting, doctors, you successfully extracted substantial sums of money from the legal aid fund, not least for the business Unigenetics, of which you were a director, and for yourself personally. We have previously reported that the Legal Services Commission says that you pocketed more than £435,000, plus expenses. The amounts you received increased as the scare you created continued: the grossest possible conflict of interest.
W: Deer is wrong on all counts. The purpose of the contract with Mr Barr was to conduct a scientific study to look for measles virus proteins in the bowel of children (initially those with Crohn’s disease and later, to include those with autism and intestinal symptoms (such as abdominal pain and diarrhea) that required endoscopic examination and biopsy. On the other hand, the clinical basis for the investigation of the autistic children has been established by my pediatric colleagues – two of the most experienced pediatric gastroenterologists worldwide - beyond any reasonable doubt.
Deer has completely missed the point; the “syndrome” that we have accurately and reproducibly described is the combination of autistic regression, swelling of the lymph glands in the last part of the small intestine (ileum) and inflammation of the colon. Any association of this syndrome with MMR vaccine remains to be confirmed and, in contrast with Deer’s claim, the syndrome does not require any temporal link to MMR vaccination at all. This has been made clear to the GMC.
The children who turned out to suffer from the “syndrome” were referred as early as May 1995, long before I had ever heard of Richard Barr or vaccine litigation. Deer is aware of this fact.
Any payment that I received over the course of working for more than 7 years as a expert to the UK courts in the MMR litigation – substantially less than the sum Deer claims – was donated to an initiative to build a new center for the investigation and care of patients with inflammatory bowel disease at the Royal Free. This matter is described in more detail in a forthcoming essay by Bill Long, access to which will be posted in due course at http://www.drbilllong.com/index.html.
I resigned from Unigenetics and was not involved in the dealings of this company with the Legal Aid Board.
Finally, I did not “create” a scare but rather, I responded to a scare that parents brought to my attention. To have ignored their concerns would have been professional negligence.
(4) That, additional to the above, in recent years you have reviewed your changes and misreportings in the Lancet, and yet you have neither withdrawn your claims in the paper, nor sincerely and publicly apologised for your conduct, as you should have done.
As a result of the GMC hearings, you have been supplied with all the documentation, and, indeed, were last year taken by counsel through the changes and misreportings. There can be no question that you know the precise details of these children. Particularly given outbreaks of measles, widely reported in UK media most recently today, and the appalling burden of guilt laid on the parents of autistic children who believe it was their own fault for vaccinating their child, you had an absolute duty to come forward at the earliest opportunity and make the position clear. You have not done so, but indeed continue to display the paper's claims on your website, and to campaign against MMR.
W: The evidence presented by me to the GMC described precisely and accurately the basis of the findings reported in the Lancet. The absence of any ‘misreporting’ is a matter of record both in my oral testimony and in that of my clinical colleagues. There is absolutely nothing either to withdraw or to apologize for in this matter. It is, however, a tragedy that the continued misrepresentation of the facts has had a negative impact on the ability of affected children to get access to the care that they so desperately need.
(5) That, overall, you created the appearance of a possible link between MMR and autism, when you knew, or should have known, that there was no reasonable basis for this in the histories of those children, and, as a result have caused immense and growing harm, unnecessary concern and waste of public money.
In summary, not one of the 12 children is free of serious doubt as to the manner in which their case has been reported by you. Indeed, there is no real evidence that any of the children were as you reported in the Lancet. When lack of evidence of previous normality, lack of evidence of regression, lack of evidence of inflammatory bowel disease, and lack of any temporal link as you describe, are taken into account, there was no basis in the records for your claim to have discovered any new syndrome at all.
W: Based upon the parental histories of regression in their children after MMR vaccine, the known link between measles and brain damage including autism (III)and the findings in the children, there was and continues to be every reasonable basis for suspecting a possible link between MMR vaccination and autistic regression.
The reporting of the children in the Lancet paper is an accurate account of the clinical histories as reported to Professor Walker-Smith and his clinical colleagues. The normality or otherwise of the children’s development was evident in the medical history taken by these clinicians, and backed up by the Health Visitor’s (IV) contemporaneous record of the respective child’s development. The claim to have detected a possible new syndrome was valid and, in contrast with Deer’ false claim, is supported by confirmation of the original findings by others. (V)
As you will see, the issues we raise with you are not the same as the charges you face before the GMC, although the fitness to practise hearings have, as expected, yielded important insights and evidence. It is clear that, particularly in the context of measles outbreaks in the UK, US, Europe and now Australasia, it is important that the public be urgently informed of the true position at the earliest possible date.
W: On the contrary, the issues raised by Deer are, in many respects, identical to those raised by him on previous occasions. One can only imagine that, as the evidence has emerged at the GMC, the fallacy of Deer’s original allegations has become clear. The timing and content of Deer’s latest allegations and the published article, his behavior at the GMC hearing (See “The Incident” by Martin Walker (VI) ), and recent admissions of failings in the area of vaccine safety by the US National Vaccine Advisory Committee, suggest a degree of desperation on the part of Deer and those with whom he is working.
Measles outbreaks are preventable, immediately, by offering to parents with entirely valid concerns about the safety of MMR vaccine, a choice of single measles vaccine; not to do so is unethical and puts the vaccine policy, “our way or no way”, before the wellbeing of children.
There is absolutely no question of the continuing investigation and treatment of these children coming to a halt because of this or any other kind of subversive tactic.*
It is remarkable how so many commentators take at face value the claims being made by Wakefield’s detractors, and how many recycle the misrepresentions of easily verifiable facts – such as what the Wakefield paper actually said – which his detractors disseminate. For more context, read this new paper by Wakefield et al which points out, among other things, the suspect nature of much of the research upon which the claims that MMR has been proved beyond a shadow of doubt to be safe are based:
Most critics fail to reference the authoritative Cochrane review of these studies—exclusively non-clinical—which dismissed most of the “major studies” upon which the IOM relied as being of insufficient quality to merit consideration. This includes the work of Eric Fombonne [133], of which the review said, “the number and possible impact of biases in this study was so high that interpretation of the results was difficult” [134]. Further, in an extraordinary paper, “Tale of Two Cities” [135], Dr. Fouad Yazbak uncovered how Dr. Eric Fombonne mixed data from two Canadian cities, Montreal and Quebec City, to create the misleading impression that autism had gone up when MMR uptake was falling [136]. Dr. Yazbak’s investigation showed that when autism and MMR uptake rates in the same city (Montreal) were compared, both went up [135].
More importantly, however, data that have been represented to the public as showing no association between MMR and autism in fact show just the opposite. A case in point is the CDC’s own study looking at age-at-first-MMR vaccination and autism risk [137]. The study found a statistically significant association between younger age at MMR vaccination and an increased risk of autism. This risk was greatest in the most recently vaccinated children. Why? The age at first MMR vaccination has gone down over time [138, 139]
And also, on the original vaccine safety trials:
The deficiencies in vaccine safety studies were later reinforced by the systematic analysis of Dr. Thomas Jefferson and colleagues from the Cochrane Collaboration, an internationally respected body that provides independent scientific oversight. They wrote, “The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre and postmarketing is largely inadequate” [134]. In an interview with Richard Halvorsen for his book The Truth about Vaccines, [155] one of the lead authors of the Cochrane review left no doubt as to his true feelings when he said, “The safety studies of MMR vaccine are crap. They’re the best crap we have but they’re still crap” [156].
I have written about the Wakefield MMR affair here, here, here, here, here,here,here and here. I have read much of the relevant research, spoken to dozens of parents, interviewed several of the dramatis personae in the history of this vaccine and consulted experts on both sides. Like everyone else, I await the conclusion of the GMC hearing and have no idea how that will end. But I note the fact that, in relation to the most incendiary allegation against Wakefield -- that he used the children who figured in the Lancet paper to further an undeclared and pre-existing paid study in connection with the parents’ law suit to prove that something was wrong with MMR -- the first of these children was referred to him in 1995, while he did not undertake the study in question until two years later. The parents themselves told me, when I wrote about this in 2003, that they had gone to Wakefield in desperation because no other doctor would take seriously their perception that something untoward and catastrophic had gone wrong with their child’s gut and that this was somehow connected to an inexplicable developmental problem in the child– and they had heard on the grapevine that there was a gastro-enterologist at the Royal Free Hospital who was prepared to listen.
I stand by everything I have written and the conclusions I have previously reached: that the clinical jury is still out on the risks of MMR; that the epidemiological research on which the claims are based that it has conclusively been proved to be safe is at best methodologically inadequate and at worst has been misleadingly spun; that although any link to MMR remains unproven, Wakefield’s Lancet findings of a new clinical syndrome have been replicated; and that far from being, as it is claimed, conclusively disproved, his concern that while the vast majority of children have no side effects from MMR a small proportion may be vulnerable through the impact of the vaccine on some kind of pre-existing vulnerability looks ever more plausible.
I note that – unreported in the UK mainstream media – there have been two significant developments in the US. The first was the Hannah Poling case, which I first commented upon here and in which, in a landmark ruling, the US Court of Federal Claims, Office of the Special Master conceded a vaccine injury to a child from Georgia who, having been developing normally until she received nine simultaneous vaccinations including MMR, subsequently developed serious brain and body disorders. The court ruled that
the vaccinations [Hannah Poling] received on July 19, 2000 significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder, which predisposed her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism, and manifested as a regressive encephalopathy with features of autism spectrum disorder.
We don’t know which of these nine vaccines triggered this catastrophic reaction. But the significance of this case is that it established for the first time that a hitherto unknown problem with a child’s cellular system caused a catastrophic reaction in that child to a vaccination schedule, including delivery of the already multiple MMR, that has produced no ill-effects in other children.
The Poling case was almost certainly behind the remarkable comments made by Dr Bernardine Healy, the former head of the National Institute of Health, who told CBS News last year:
The government has said in a report by the Institute of Medicine, and by the way I’m a member of the Institute of Medicine—I love the Institute of Medicine—but a report in 2004 basically said ‘do not pursue susceptibility groups—don’t look for those patients—those children who may be vulnerable.’ I really take issue with that conclusion. The reason why they didn’t want to look for those susceptibility groups was because they were afraid that if they found them, however big or small they were, that that would scare the public away....there is a completely expressed concern—that they don’t want to pursue a hypothesis because that hypothesis could be damaging to the public health community at large by scaring people. First of all, I think the public’s smarter than that. The public values vaccines. But more importantly, I don’t think you should ever turn your back on any scientific hypothesis because you’re afraid of what it might show.
...When I first heard that there was a link between autism and vaccines, I thought that was silly. Really, I tended to dismiss it just on the superficial kind of reading, just reading what was in the papers, no offense to the media—so when I first heard about it I thought ‘well, that doesn’t make sense to me.’ The more you delve into it, if you look at the basic science, if you look at the research that’s been done in animals, if you also look at some of these individual cases, and if you look at the evidence that there is no link, what I come away with is the question has not been answered ...I think that the public health officials have been too quick to dismiss the [autism link to vaccination] hypothesis as irrational.
It is of course precisely Wakefield’s concern that the MMR vaccine might, in a small proportion of cases, trigger a catastrophic reaction in a child with an as yet unknown pre-existing vulnerability. For that he is being hung out to dry – and any discussion about his concern is being suppressed by the intimidatory tactic of blaming anyone who says he might have a point for the reported rise in measles cases. As has been said over and over again from the very start, that problem could have been totally avoided if the government had provided single measles jabs. It refused -- because it was determined not to concede any ground over multiple vaccines and so decided instead to play for the highest possible stakes in destroying Andrew Wakefield. It is the Department of Health – which never flags up similar concerns about the rise in cases of autistic spectrum disorder -- that is responsible for the rise in measles cases.
Truly, health policy and a show trial straight out of Kafka.
Update: An American court looking at three further test cases has ruled that there is no proven link between the MMR vaccine and autism. The judges said parents had been misled by doctors who were guilty of 'gross medical misjudgment' and had peddled 'speculative and unpersuasive' theories. Campaigners have claimed the ruling was a politically driven reaction to the Poling case.
*Notes:
I) Health Visitor checks: a routine regular developmental and physical in-home assessment of children by the National Health Service in the UK
II) Lancet 1998:351; 637-41
III) Deykin EY, MacMahon B, Viral exposure and autism. Am J Epidemiol, 1979;109:628–38. Ring A, Barak Y, Ticher A, et al. Evidence for an infectious etiology in autism. Pathophysiology, 1997; 4:91–96.
IV) Health Visitor checks: a routine regular developmental and physical in-home assessment of children by the National Health Service in the UK
V) Gonzalez, L., et al., Endoscopic and Histological Characteristics of the Digestive Mucosa in Autistic Children with gastro-Intestinal Symptoms: A Preliminary Report. GEN Suplemento Especial de Pediatria, 2005;1:41-47. Balzola, F., et al., Panenteric IBD-like disease in a patient with regressive autism shown for the first time by wireless capsule enteroscopy: Another piece in the jig-saw of the gut-brain syndrome? American Journal of Gastroenterology, 2005. 100(4): p. 979- 981. Krigsman A et al. http://www.cevs.ucdavis.edu/Cofred/Public/Aca/WebSec.cfm?confid=238&webid=1245 last accessed June 2007) (paper submitted for publication)
VI) http://www.cryshame.co.uk//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=113&Itemid=192
Source: The Spectator, by Melanie Phillips, 11 February 2009.
Baby Bailey had developed normally and was healthy up until his first MMR vaccination at 15 months. 16 days after his vaccination, he had a seizure.
He also lost all his eye contact and imaginative play abilities, and he started biting himself repeatedly.
Scans of his brain revealed encephalopathy, which consultant doctors thought may be due to vaccination.
Bailey still has developmental delay, no eye contact and limited social skills.
The court ruled that:
'Bailey did show evidence of ataxia in the period following his seizure, following vaccination.
Such ataxia, when considered in conjunction with the radiological results, support the court's findings that Bailey did suffer from ADEM.
Bailey's ADEM was caused in fact and proximately caused by his vaccination. It is well understood that the vaccination in question can cause ADEM and the court finds on record filed herein, that it did actually cause the ADEM.'
The family were awarded $810,000 compensation and an additional $30-40,000 per year to pay for Bailey's autism care services.
Source: United States Court of Federal Claims, no. 02-0738V, 20th July 2007. Bailey Banks, by his father Kenneth Banks, v. Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.
Image:
Last September Sabrina Dawe took her son Dylan, then aged 13 months, to the doctors after he seemed unwell following an MMR jab.
He had nappy rash, a high temperature, seemed thirsty all the time and went off his food.
Evercreech GP Geoff Sharpe examined him thoroughly, thought he might have an ear infection and prescribed antibiotics.
But just as Sabrina and Dylan were leaving he called them back, did a finger prick blood test to detect Dylan's glucose levels and realised Dylan was suffering from diabetes and had to go to hospital at once. There was no time to call an ambulance and a fraught Sabrina raced him to hospital in her car.
Dylan was admitted with severe diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and was seriously ill, but the hospital was able to bring his condition under control.
"Thank heavens the GP had recognised what was happening and acted so quickly, otherwise he would have died," said Mrs Dawe.
Dylan, now 18 months old and diagnosed with type 1 diabetes, will be insulin-dependent for the rest of his life – but he is doing well.
Source: thisissomerset.co.uk, 24 February 2009.
From page 384 of the BNF:
Measles vaccine...should be offered to all children in the second year of life and may be expected to produce durable immunity.
Administration of this vaccine to children may be associated with a mild measles-like syndrome and with a measles-like rash and pyrexia which come on about a week after the injection of the vaccine. Much less commonly, convulsions and rarely, encephalitis have been reported as being associated with measles vaccine.
Serious neurological complications following the vaccine are extremely rare, perhaps of the order of 1 in 87,000 vaccinees and probably about 12-20 times less common than such complications associated with natural infections of measles, but it is difficult to get exact figures because of variable criteria of what is diagnosed as a serious neurological condition.
Subacute Sclerosing panencephalitis..may be associated with live measles vaccine at a rate of 0.5-1.0 case per million doses.
Unfortunately, measles vaccine is taken up by only 50% of those eligible. This is said to be due to the fact that SOME DOCTORS AND PARENTS DO NOT CONSIDER THAT MEASLES IS NOW A SERIOUS DISEASE.
Warnings:
Children with a personal history of epilepsy or whose parents or siblings have a history of epilepsy, should be given measles vaccine only with an administration of immunoglobulin.
Children with impaired immunity should not receive live vaccines.
If they have been exposed to measles infection, they should be given immunoglobulin (i.e. the vaccine is not necessary if they or anyone around them has had measles).
From page 385:
SINCE MUMPS AND IT'S COMPLICATIONS ARE VERY RARELY SERIOUS, THERE IS LITTLE INDICATION FOR ROUTINE USE OF A MUMPS VACCINE.
From page 387:
The introduction of a vaccine to protect a fetus as not yet conceived was a totally new idea. Rubella as a childhood disease is of little moment, but rubella infection in a pregnant woman greatly increases the risks of congenital malformation.
Rubella vaccines are prepared in tissue culture oils of rabbit kidney or duck embryo or human diploid cell lines (aborted human fetal tissue).
In the long term it is hoped that the routine immunisation of school girls will produce an immune adult female population but in order to prevent congenital abnormalities due to rubella it may require 100% acceptance of the vaccine and this has rarely been achieved with other vaccines.
Acceptance of the vaccine might be greater among schoolgirl's if the effort was concentrated among 10 year olds, but even so, with a high acceptance rate, the efficacy of this programme will not be evident until the end of the centuary.
At the same time, the damage which is being done by rubella must be kept in perspective, FOR IT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PERHAPS ONLY ABOUT 1% OF ALL CONGENITAL ABNORMALITIES.
Symptoms: AGITATION ANEMIA APNEA AUTISM COMA CONVULS ENCEPHALOPATHY HYPOKINESIA ISCHEMIA CEREBR MENTAL RETARD PTOSIS RASH SPEECH DIS VISION ABNORM
Status epilepticus within 24 hrs of vaccines, coma 5 days, second episode of status epilepticus regressed to infantile state. Has fine motor skill impairment, speech delayed, he had to learn to walk again, was toilet trained.
Prior to vaccines he was normal and the only illnesses he had had were 'seasonal allergy' (I'm guessing hayfever?), febrile convulsions (a contraindication to MMR) and a hernia.
A MOTHER who claims her son’s autism was worsened by the MMR vaccination has warned parents to think carefully about having the jab.
Rosemary Northing, 26, of Didcot, said she was told by health professionals to grieve for the child she had “lost” when her son was diagnosed with autism in July last year.
Three-year-old Kaylan Northing had the combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccination in May 2007, but his family said he lost the ability to speak and move properly afterwards.
Several years ago, some parents delayed their child’s MMR immunisation or refused to allow their children to have the vaccination after stories emerged linking MMR with autism. However, experts found no credible scientific evidence for such a link.
Mrs Northing, a mother of two, of Tyburn Glen, Didcot, warned parents to consider their children’s medical history and seek independent advice before proceeding with the vaccine.
She said: “This is what I truly believe and I’ve spoken to a lot of families and experts about it. I believe Kaylan was born with the genetic pre-disposition for autism and the vaccination exacerbated the symptoms of autism.
“I regret giving him the MMR vaccine because I don’t think he was strong enough to handle the vaccination because of his poor immune system, which he was born with.
“He probably would still be autistic, but maybe he would have been slightly higher on the spectrum.”
She and her husband Barry decided not to give their second child, one-year-old daughter Amber, the MMR vaccine.
Mrs Northing added: “Kaylan used to be able to say mum, dad, fish and dog — then he had the MMR and he lost everything. Then he started having difficulty walking.
“He was affected pretty much straightaway — within hours.
“He became unresponsive when I called his name.”
Mrs Northing sought advice after her health visitor became concerned about her son. And after months of tests, he was diagnosed with autism.
Source: The Oxford Times, 13 October 2009.
ABSTRACT
A case-control study was carried out aiming to describe the cases and causes of anaphylaxis associated with the vaccine against measles, mumps and rubella. A total of 22 reported cases in children who showed mucocutaneous manifestations, during the Campanha Nacional de Vacinação (Brazilian Vaccination Campaign), conducted in the city of Curitiba, Southern Brazil, in 2004, were studied. In addition, 66 children, who were next to these cases and did not show a symptomatology after the vaccine was applied, were selected. Serum measurements of antibodies for vaccine antigens and total IgE, specific IgE antibody measurements for several allergens, and skin tests were performed. Vaccine response was adequate, specific IgE measurement and skin tests showed that potential allergens in vaccines and atopy were not associated with anaphylactic reactions. Skin tests with the vaccine and dextran were positive in the cases exclusively, suggesting sensitization to certain residual components of the vaccine and possible cross-reaction with dextran.
Source: Rev. Saúde Pública vol.44 no.2 São Paulo Apr. 2010.
A FARNINGHAM woman is preparing for a new legal battle after claiming her brain-damaged son is "incarcerated" in his residential accommodation.
Matthew, 20, was diagnosed with pervasive development delay with autistic tendencies after he suffered from an extreme reaction to an MMR jab, given to him as a baby.
He suffers from severe learning difficulties, has a sensory disorder which means his sight and hearing is exaggerated and hypersensitive, causing anxiety, and he has a language and communication delay.
His mother Elaine battled Kent County Council in the High Court for 14 months to find suitable accommodation for him, and finally won a three-year placement at the specialist St John's College, in Brighton.
She claims the council will not provide support so her son can come home during holidays.
Source: http://www.thisiskent.co.uk/sevenoaks/Mum-angry-care-provision/article-1964371-detail/article.html
New American research shows that there could be a link between the controversial MMR triple vaccine and autism and bowel disease in children.
The study appears to confirm the findings of British doctor Andrew Wakefield, who caused a storm in 1998 by suggesting a possible link.
Now a team from the Wake Forest University School of Medicine in North Carolina are examining 275 children with regressive autism and bowel disease - and of the 82 tested so far, 70 prove positive for the measles virus.
Last night the team's leader, Dr Stephen Walker, said: 'Of the handful of results we have in so far, all are vaccine strain and none are wild measles.
'This research proves that in the gastrointestinal tract of a number of children who have been diagnosed with regressive autism, there is evidence of measles virus.
'What it means is that the study done earlier by Dr Wakefield and published in 1998 is correct. That study didn’t draw any conclusions about specifically what it means to find measles virus in the gut, but the implication is it may be coming from the MMR vaccine. If that’s the case, and this live virus is residing in the gastrointestinal tract of some children, and then they have GI inflammation and other problems, it may be related to the MMR.'
The 1998 study by Dr Wakefield, then a reader in gastroenterology at the Royal Free Hospital in North London, and 12 other doctors claimed to have found a new bowel disease, autism enterocolitis.
At the time, Dr Wakefield said that although they had not proved a link between MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) and autism, there was cause for concern and the Government should offer the option single vaccines - instead of only MMRs - until more research had been done.
The paper - and the confused interpretation of its findings - caused uproar and led to many parents withdrawing their co-operation for the triple jab. Ten of the paper's authors also signed retractions on the interpretation but stood by the science.
This is the second independent study to back up Dr Wakefield. In 2001 John O'Leary, Professor of Pathology at St James's Hospital and Trinity College, Dublin, replicated his findings.
Last night Dr Wakefield said: 'This new study confirms what we found in British children and again with Professor O'Leary. The only exposure these children have had to measles is through the MMR vaccine.
'They were developing normally until they regressed. They now suffer autism and bowel disease.
'The Department of Health and some of the media wanted to dismiss our research as insignificant. The excuse was that no one else had the same findings as us. What they didn't say is that no one else had looked.'
Source: Daily Mail, 18 April 2010.
New American research shows that there could be a link between the controversial MMR triple vaccine and autism and bowel disease in children.
The study appears to confirm the findings of British doctor Andrew Wakefield, who caused a storm in 1998 by suggesting a possible link.
Now a team from the Wake Forest University School of Medicine in North Carolina are examining 275 children with regressive autism and bowel disease - and of the 82 tested so far, 70 prove positive for the measles virus.
Last night the team's leader, Dr Stephen Walker, said: 'Of the handful of results we have in so far, all are vaccine strain and none are wild measles.
'This research proves that in the gastrointestinal tract of a number of children who have been diagnosed with regressive autism, there is evidence of measles virus.
'What it means is that the study done earlier by Dr Wakefield and published in 1998 is correct. That study didn’t draw any conclusions about specifically what it means to find measles virus in the gut, but the implication is it may be coming from the MMR vaccine. If that’s the case, and this live virus is residing in the gastrointestinal tract of some children, and then they have GI inflammation and other problems, it may be related to the MMR.'
The 1998 study by Dr Wakefield, then a reader in gastroenterology at the Royal Free Hospital in North London, and 12 other doctors claimed to have found a new bowel disease, autism enterocolitis.
At the time, Dr Wakefield said that although they had not proved a link between MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) and autism, there was cause for concern and the Government should offer the option single vaccines - instead of only MMRs - until more research had been done.
The paper - and the confused interpretation of its findings - caused uproar and led to many parents withdrawing their co-operation for the triple jab. Ten of the paper's authors also signed retractions on the interpretation but stood by the science.
This is the second independent study to back up Dr Wakefield. In 2001 John O'Leary, Professor of Pathology at St James's Hospital and Trinity College, Dublin, replicated his findings.
Last night Dr Wakefield said: 'This new study confirms what we found in British children and again with Professor O'Leary. The only exposure these children have had to measles is through the MMR vaccine.
'They were developing normally until they regressed. They now suffer autism and bowel disease.
'The Department of Health and some of the media wanted to dismiss our research as insignificant. The excuse was that no one else had the same findings as us. What they didn't say is that no one else had looked.'
Source: Mail on Sunday, 10th October 2010.
Forty children have died after a routine vaccination such as MMR and 2,100 more have suffered a serious reaction, UK health authorities have been forced to disclose this week – and these figures are just the tip of the iceberg.
Two of the vaccinated children have been left with permanent brain damage, and 1500 others have suffered neurological reactions, including 11 cases of brain inflammation and 13 cases of epilepsy and coma. Overall, there have been more than 2,100 adverse reactions to a childhood vaccine in the UK in the last seven years.
The UK’s Medicine and Healthcare Products Regulatory Authority (MHRA) was forced to reveal the figures following a request from a journalist under freedom of information legislation.
The true picture is likely to be far worse. The MHRA cases are only those that doctors have reported; if the doctor does not believe the vaccine has caused the reaction, he will not report it. It is suspected that just 10 per cent of all deaths and reactions from vaccines are ever reported; if so, this means that 400 children have died from a vaccine and 21,000 have suffered an adverse reaction in the UK alone. The true situation will be far worse in countries such as the US where childhood vaccination is compulsory.
Last month, the UK government was forced by a court to pay damages to a mother whose son was left with severe brain damage after an MMR vaccination. Another 500 similar cases are currently going through the UK courts.
These figures represent a major setback in the relationship between doctors and parents. Most parents have accepted the reassurances of doctors and health authorities that the vaccines are safe, and that they are doing the best for their child and the community.
Now, if things go wrong, they may be less inclined to believe the doctor’s denials that the vaccine is to blame.
Source: Sunday Times, 24th October 2010.
This note summarizes:
• clinical evidence for the link between autism and a novel form of inflammatory bowel disease
• clinical evidence for the link between inflammatory bowel disease and measles virus
• clinical evidence for the link between measles virus and vaccination with MMR
• some of the other wider safety concerns over MMR
http://www.vaproject.org/thrower/mmr-briefing-20070430.pdf
Gastrointestinal disturbances are commonly reported in children with autism, complicate clinical management, and may contribute to behavioral impairment. Reports of deficiencies in disaccharidase enzymatic activity and of beneficial responses to probiotic and dietary therapies led us to survey gene expression and the mucoepithelial microbiota in intestinal biopsies from children with autism and gastrointestinal disease and children with gastrointestinal disease alone. Ileal transcripts encoding disaccharidases and hexose transporters were deficient in children with autism, indicating impairment of the primary pathway for carbohydrate digestion and transport in enterocytes. Deficient expression of these enzymes and transporters was associated with expression of the intestinal transcription factor, CDX2. Metagenomic analysis of intestinal bacteria revealed compositional dysbiosis manifest as decreases in Bacteroidetes, increases in the ratio of Firmicutes to Bacteroidetes, and increases in Betaproteobacteria. Expression levels of disaccharidases and transporters were associated with the abundance of affected bacterial phylotypes. These results indicate a relationship between human intestinal gene expression and bacterial community structure and may provide insights into the pathophysiology of gastrointestinal disturbances in children with autism.
Source: PLoS One, 16th September 2011. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0024585
Subacute sclerosing panencephalitis is a rare neurologic disorder of childhood and adolescence. We describe a 16-year-old boy who manifested the disease despite proper vaccinations. He was hospitalized because of bedwetting, involuntary limb movements, abnormal speech, and balance disturbances. Immunoglobulin G antibodies against measles were strongly positive, with a high relative cerebrospinal fluid/serum ratio. Polymerase chain reaction for measles produced negative results. Electroencephalography registered slow activity with high voltage discharges every few seconds, and with triphasic complex morphology. Magnetic resonance imaging revealed diffuse white matter changes, mostly around the posterior regions and lateral ventricles. Treatment with valproic acid, levetiracetam, carbamazepine, and intravenous immunoglobulin G was ineffective. Inosiplex and interferon-β-1a were also administrated. The patient became comatose, with generalized myoclonic jerks, and died 1 year later. An autopsy was not performed. This patient illustrates that subacute sclerosing panencephalitis should be suspected among young vaccinated subjects.
Source: Pediatr Neurol. 2011 Jun;44(6):467-70. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21555060
Although the MMR vaccine has been linked to a heightened risk of a rare blood disorder, other childhood vaccines do not appear to be, researchers reported Monday.
The disorder is called immune thrombocytopenic purpura, or ITP, and it arises when the immune system destroys blood cells called platelets. That limits the blood's ability to clot, which can cause bleeding under the skin, bruising and nosebleeds -- or, in rare cases, serious problems like bleeding in the brain.
Doctors have long known that the MMR vaccine against measles, mumps and rubella can cause ITP -- usually triggering a mild, temporary case. It's estimated that ITP arises once for every 40,000 MMR shots.
But it had not been clear whether any other childhood vaccines might cause ITP.
The researchers compared a child's risk of developing ITP within 42 days of receiving a vaccine compared with other times. And they found no evidence that any vaccine other than MMR was linked to an increased risk of ITP in young children.
The picture was different, however, with older kids, the researchers report in the journal Pediatrics.
Among 7- to 17-year-olds, hepatitis A vaccination was tied to an increased ITP risk. And in 11- to 17-year-olds, the chickenpox vaccine and the vaccine against tetanus, diphtheria and acellular pertussis (Tdap) were both linked to the blood disorder.
Source: Reuters Health, 10th January 2012. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/10/us-toddler-vaccines-idUSTRE80923W20120110
Other pages:
This is the text-only version of this page. Click here to see this page with graphics.
Edit this page |
Manage website
Make Your Own Website: 2-Minute-Website.com