Richard Feldman: A fraudulent link to autism

"there have been 14 studies looking at hundreds of thousands of children who did and did not receive MMR. The incidence of autism was the same in both groups."

A lot of people believed in this fraud. Wakefield would be ashamed of himself and show remorse if it wasn't so profitable via anti vaxxers, of who enable his behavior.

In words of great italy icon rafaella carra

do it do it again *BAM BAM*
do it do it again with love

screw the vaccines causing autism. the sales have dropped so much that they have turned to ghana to boost sales. haha

Where are those 14 studies mentioned in the article? A quick google search found them. I guess it's just easier to deny them.

friend wrote:

Where are those 14 studies mentioned in the article? A quick google search found them. I guess it's just easier to deny them.

One can find anything on the web, including allegations about the BMC and its membership, e.g...
http://www.justiceforcarol.com/

It is a matter of examining the facts and science in detail and this ground has been covered before.

Personally, I lack faith in the judgement of the BMC and think it is a sensible precaution to administer the MMR as three, separate injections over a period of time.

The attacks on Dr Wakefield and his study is not the reason for caution. Many of them seem justified to some degree or other.

The MMR is given to children in this country around the age of only 13 months. All the effects on their immune system cannot be known and the MMR has only been going since 1988. We have yet to see what discoveries of coming decades will show. Thalidamide, BSE, asbestos and lead water pipes are examples of officialdom getting it wrong and finding 'no evidence' of harm. This is another age, but the hazard is the same: not proving something harmful doesn't prove it is entirely safe and best practice.

True enough. Examine the 14 studies and a few more since that have come out but don't rely on me to provide them when they are easily obtainable.
It's people like you who suggest intirely safe. No one said the MMR is entirely safe. Nothing is. So if you're expecting entirely safe, good luck in ever finding it.
A child can be exposed to any number of different viruses and bacteria's at any given time all at the same time. Happens all the time in day cares. What affects does that have on a child's immune system? And what difference does it have on the immune system to have exposure at different times? If there is something genetically wrong with a child's immune system (an example would be Hannah Poling) exposure at all is going to be an issue. Would the actual full virus be more dangerous if contracted to that child, or would a weakened virus in a vaccine?

And the facts relating to Wakefield is certainly the reason for caution pertaining to the MMR, and includes his suggestion for 3 separate jabs. That came from Wakefield. No one even considered 3 separate jabs until his debunked study and come to find out, his motive for those separate jabs was his invention of a measles jab which included some highly secret ingredient to prevent the enterocolitis which he claimed to have found in 12 children. Think about that for a second. He claimed the MMR jab caused enterocolitis, yet his measles patent included an ingredient to prevent it. Well, if you didn't get the MMR, and got the single jab, why add anything to prevent something there's which there's no longer a risk of getting??
I have a child with autism. He doesn't have enterocolitis after the MMR, and he had autism prior to that vaccine. The majority who have had the vaccine don't have enterocolitis or autism. My child with autism also doesn't have any if not none of the things anti vaxxers claim vaccines cause. I don't know anyone either that has any of those claimed medical issues other than a few with ADHD which I know plenty who have many things and never had vaccines at all.
When one looks at anything environmental like lead, asbestos or plastic, there is no real way to predict or test the affects on every human body. No 2 bodies are the same. Exposure levels are not the same for each, nor are the uses or misuses of it. And with drinking water. Did anyone expect throwing unused RX's would ever end up in ground water? The world itself is an unsafe place, not by intentional harm, but just not realizing the affects on the human body and being able to control how people and of many countries do things.

friend wrote:

...That came from Wakefield. No one even considered 3 separate jabs until his debunked study ....

Let's leave aside that similar results to those of the 'debunked study' seem to have been observed in the USA as I couldn't find a link for it last time I looked. Perhaps they are afraid of getting caught up in the controversy? Anyway, it is the details of the science that matters and I rarely have time for the necessary research required for that. That's old news to me.

It wasn't Dr Wakefield that first suggested separate injections. It is the Wakefield controversy that made it so public and widely discussed. I knew about the suggestion before I had ever heard of Dr Wakefield. Dr Wakefield and his study are now irrelevant to the question.

I think it is a great mistake to offer no affordable alternative to the MMR on the NHS. I think the cost of vaccines are £220 or more. While this situation persists, there will always be a tendency for some parents to defer the MMR or even reject it entirely. It is simply useless to assert that the MMR is 'reasonalby safe' if backed with nothing more than Internet searches and statements by the BMC & UKGov. It will boil down to who one trusts and British authorities have somewhat blown that. They have a serious credibility problem which they refuse to face.

I appreciate that you are fully sold on the single MMR. Good luck getting much wider agreement than pertains at present.

I never said I was 'fully sold' on the MMR. I get that a lot from anti vaxxers when presenting those facts which you're the one who suggested to examinine the facts and the facts are millions have had the vaccine and don't have autism or side effects. There is no facts or evidence to show that separating the MMR into 3 jabs is effective to reduce any of the known side effects and yes, the idea of separate jabs is nothing new, but it was in fact Wakefield who first announced it to the world (not just the UK) to use separate jabs instead of the MMR. Wakefield's debunked study is world-wide as well so much that any other established known medical journal wont publish anything he does. Any other study if done by the CDC would be laughed at had it only had 12 subjects and funded by attoneys.

An affordable alternative to the MMR has always been just don't vaccinate. I am all for vaccine right of choice. That idea is nothing knew, either. My mother never vaccinated any of her 6 kids and that was long before some web searches and McCarthy, and after mom mother had a childhood preventable illness that now affects her heart valves. But it was Wakefield and Wakefield alone who had the greatest impact on the decision to vaccinate and we know this of statistics. Every vaccine has a lot number and is recorded to the person who received it. There is also more than web search to know of it's effectiveness. It's fooloish to suggest only web searches provides the science to make vaccine choices but it is web searches which do provide horror unproveb stories and scare tactics. There are some people who will never build immunity.

Didi tell you im gay and horny right now

It's kinda simple: Autism developes in the womb and you get the vaccinations after you are born. So then even if there was a link there would be no way you could get autism from a vaccine unless a doctor climb up to the womb and give you a shot. You just can't get autism like you get the flu.

Another DUH Moment wrote:

<quoted text>
WRONG

I kindly ask for some evidence.

P.S. I have this:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndr...

Another DUH Moment wrote:

<quoted text>
You're a genius who knows it all, and have an obvious closed mind. Been there done that with your kind. Stay ignorant, thats your fate.

I find your lack of respect disturbing on the handicapped. But at least you didnt call me the r-word. As you remember I ask for a source to your statement: "wrong". I just ask for a simple scientific paper or a medical study. Not a brogue of insults making me feel like a Jew in the holocost. So lets try this again.

What is the source for you statement.

Another DUH Moment wrote:

<quoted text>
You're a genius who knows it all, and have an obvious closed mind. Been there done that with your kind. Stay ignorant, thats your fate.

I can see you have a lack of remorse to others more that I do. I ask kindly for a source to you statement of "Wrong" and instead got a brogue of insults to make me feel like a Hebrew in the holocost. So let's do this one more time:

What scientific papers back up the claim that I am false.

Winnipeg has no science to back up his claim of wrong, other than over on another thread, he has the messages from a 17 yr old who died 32 years ago. The kid communicates to his mother from beyond about many things, including vaccines. The mother puts it in a book and sells it. Aside from that, the average anti vaxxer only has insults and name-calling when presented with science. They never answer key points such as why vaccines mainly target boys. Why the majority who have had vaccines don't have autism or any long term side affects. Or just which vaccine and or contents causes autism?

Don't expect anything more from Winnipeg. He's not here to be serious about autism or have serious conversations. He's only here to attack others.

&#8206;28 studies from around the world that support Dr. Wakefield’s controversial findings
1. The Journal of Pediatrics November 1999; 135(5):559-63
2. The Journal of Pediatrics 2000; 138(3): 366-372
3. Journal of Clinical Immunology November 2003; 23(6): 504-517
4. Journal of Neuroimmunology 2005
5. Brain, Behavior and Immunity 1993; 7: 97-103
6. Pediatric Neurology 2003; 28(4): 1-3
7. Neuropsychobiology 2005; 51:77-85
8. The Journal of Pediatrics May 2005;146(5):605-10
9. Autism Insights 2009; 1: 1-11
10. Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology February 2009; 23(2): 95-98
11. Annals of Clinical Psychiatry 2009:21(3): 148-161
12. Journal of Child Neurology June 29, 2009; 000:1-6
13. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders March 2009;39(3):405-13
14. Medical Hypotheses August 1998;51:133-144.
15. Journal of Child Neurology July 2000; ;15(7):429-35
16. Lancet. 1972;2:883–884.
17. Journal of Autism and Childhood Schizophrenia January-March 1971;1:48-62
18. Journal of Pediatrics March 2001;138:366-372.
19. Molecular Psychiatry 2002;7:375-382.
20. American Journal of Gastroenterolgy April 2004;598-605.
21. Journal of Clinical Immunology November 2003;23:504-517.
22. Neuroimmunology April 2006;173(1-2):126-34.
23. Prog. Neuropsychopharmacol Biol. Psychiatry December 30 2006;30:1472-1477.
24. Clinical Infectious Diseases September 1 2002;35(Suppl 1):S6-S16
25. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2004;70(11):6459-6465
26. Journal of Medical Microbiology October 2005;54:987-991
27. Archivos venezolanos de puericultura y pediatría 2006; Vol 69 (1): 19-25.
28. Gastroenterology. 2005:128 (Suppl 2);Abstract-303
Sources: &#8206;Autism Warrior Moms

Wakefield is innocent wrote:

<quoted text> Well siad except your snipe at Wakefield. You actually support him in what you say, but oddly then say he deserves his fate. What about Professor John Walker Smiths aquital deemed UNLAWFUL by the judge?

I haven't the details to know whether Dr Wakefield is correct or not. I haven't spoken to him and the subject is too heated for clear analysis here.

Most of what is on the Internet has an agenda and now there is much people dare not write for the public. I'm less interested in Dr Wakefield than the science. He may have been onto something and that line of investigation is in danger of being lost. That is more thanks to the BMC and its mishandling of the issue as Dr Wakefield even if their criticisms of him and his study eventually turn out to be entirely justified.

I saw Mr Brian Deer offer his criticisms in detail and I spoke to him briefly. He and his crusade against Dr W is even less impressive first-hand than what is available on the Internet. If Dr Wakefield is a bit dodgy, looking to Mr Deer for clarifications seems more so.(Well, that was my impression).

The real problem for me is that I don't trust the BMC or UKGov auhtorities.

Mickies Mom wrote:

&#8206;28

Anyone can copy and paste all that, and assume it's 28 studies that support Wakefield. How many have ever looked each one up??? I can guess none here! What a riot!

Evidence of no link:
In this paper ( http://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797 (03)00113-2/abstract) it states that Denmark have remove the mercury from the vaccine and autism still rose.
Critical analyst:
In this paper (The Journal of Pediatrics November 1999; 135(5):559-63) I found it to be on paper on intestinal problems in autistic people. It's strange you brought that one. This one is the same (Autism Insights 2009; 1: 1-11) as of this one (American Journal of Gastroenterolgy April 2004;598-605) that one (Gastroenterology. 2005:128 (Suppl 2);Abstract-303) or any that say gastroenterology. Unlike the copy and paser I read the papers before I post them. I don't see the connection between autism and vaccine. Diarrhea does not prove your evidence. You probably found all those random sources at http://mickiesprogress.blogspot.com/2012/05/2... who also probably didn't read the papers themselves eather and instead just post them blindly not realizing that it was about intestinal problems and autism. Not vaccine and autism. Meanwhile I read the paper I'm posting and know that it is at least on topic and proving my point.

frienDUH wrote:

<quoted text>Lies...

   
“The worst lies are the lies we tell ourselves. We live in denial of what we do, even what we think. We do this because we're afraid. We fear we will not find love, and when we find it we fear we'll lose it. We fear that if we do not have love we will be unhappy.”
- Richard Bach

What is the source of you claim of "Lies". Please don't make it anything about intestentes again

frienDUH wrote:

<quoted text> Page not found. Thanks for the study that proves your point.

http://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797 (03)00113-2/abstract