Surprised?
Published on January 6, 2011 By KFC Kickin For Christ In Current Events

I remember debating this subject some time back and getting into quite a heated debate about it with a running club member.  One of the members of my club posted a public comment on our forum urging parents NOT to vaccinate their children.  Of course I had to step in and give my two cents worth at the time.  Now with this latest news I do feel vindicated.  Of course, now I've moved and am not a member of that club anymore. 

Some people were insisting back then that vaccines could cause autism when, in fact, it wasn't that clear cut.  Their "research" was very sketchy.  Some of the people behind the debate, pushing the contention, were not even legitimate physicans or medical researchers.  I remember one of the most vocal guys behind this, his name escapes me now, even had his medical license suspended for an unrelated reason. 

 Just goes to show that the truth will eventually come out even if it takes a while to do so.   Here's the latest: 

The first study to link a childhood vaccine to autism was based on doctored information about the children involved, according to a new report on the widely discredited research.

The conclusions of the 1998 paper by Andrew Wakefield and colleagues was renounced by 10 of its 13 authors and later retracted by the medical journal Lancet, where it was published. Still, the suggestion the MMR shot was connected to autism spooked parents worldwide and immunization rates for measles, mumps and rubella have never fully recovered.

A new examination found, by comparing the reported diagnoses in the paper to hospital records, that Wakefield and colleagues altered facts about patients in their study.

The analysis, by British journalist Brian Deer, found that despite the claim in Wakefield's paper that the 12 children studied were normal until they had the MMR shot, five had previously documented developmental problems. Deer also found that all the cases were somehow misrepresented when he compared data from medical records and the children's parents.

Wakefield could not be reached for comment despite repeated calls and requests to the publisher of his recent book, which claims there is a connection between vaccines and autism that has been ignored by the medical establishment. Wakefield now lives in the U.S. where he enjoys a vocal following including celebrity supporters like Jenny McCarthy.

Deer's article was paid for by the Sunday Times of London and Britain's Channel 4 television network. It was published online Thursday in the medical journal, BMJ.

In an accompanying editorial, BMJ editor Fiona Godlee and colleagues called Wakefield's study "an elaborate fraud." They said Wakefield's work in other journals should be examined to see if it should be retracted.

Last May, Wakefield was stripped of his right to practice medicine in Britain. Many other published studies have shown no connection between the MMR vaccination and autism.

But measles has surged since Wakefield's paper was published and there are sporadic outbreaks in Europe and the U.S. In 2008, measles was deemed endemic in England and Wales.

 


Comments (Page 3)
on Jan 25, 2011

Don't you understand that for some children a vaccine may be more dangerous than catching the disease?

Then I challenge you to identify them in advance.

No problem.

Vaccines carry risks and catching the disease or becoming seriously ill as a result happens.  There are those parents whose children have gotten sick after being inoculated. I remember back when millions of Americans were given the Sabin oral polio vaccine and a percentage of those people contracted the disease from the vaccine. As a result the Food and Drug Administration urged doctors to give the injected Salk polio vaccine becasue it did not contain live viruses and didn't carry the risk of the person's contracting polio.  

I've read about kids suffering seizures after receiving a DPT shot and whole cell pertuissis vaccines caused a higher rate of adverse reactions.

Ever heard of the rotavirus (infant diarrhea ) vaccine? Even though in pre-licensure trials for the rotavirus vaccine, some babies suffered obstructed bowels and some required surgery to remove a portion of the intestine, a painful condition called intussusception.  It was approved in 1998 and licenced by the FDA and CDC recommended. Within months after government approval, 1.5 million vaccine doses were given to infants. The most common side effects listed were moderate fever, increased irritability and decreased appetitie.

In 1999 it was suddenly withdrawn from the market and the public was led to believe there was new info about harmful side effects. It took a hearing conducted by Rep. Dan Burton (R) for the factors and truth to come out. Turns out most of the work done by the CDC advisory committee was behind closed doors without public scrutiny. Yea, 6 out of 10 of the working groups  had financial ties to pharmaceuticals that made the rotavirus vaccine and those on the voting committee had financila ties to manufacturers and owned stock in vaccine patents or in pharmaceuticals.

Anyway, the data was concealed, and the public didn't learn of the problem until more than 100 cases of intussusception were reported, including one death.

 

on Jan 25, 2011

No problem.

Then why didn't you?

There is no zero-risk path.  There are only two paths - lower risk and higher risk.

Choosing to withhold immunizations from your children is choosing the higher risk path.  People are free to take that gamble (at least in my book) but it's a bad bet.

on Jan 25, 2011

Everything in life is a matter of odds and risk.

I know.  But at the same time we can't put our heads in the sand and pretend there is no problem with vaccines.

Anything and everything we do involves making judgements about relative risks.

Risks are not something that government in a free society should ordinarily force people to accept.   Yet, who mandates these vaccines and forces medical care on healthy people? Who decides what drugs are forced on children? Is the process that produces these mandates scientifically, bureaucratically, legislatively, politically honest and open to public scrutiny and peer review?

Parents have a moral obligation to secure the health of their children and for some families that involves withholding selected or all vaccines.

I believe parents should be told of the risks and be given the option of refusing to have their children immunized with no prejudice attached.

As it stands right now, all children must be injected with up to 33 immunizations before they can be admitted to schools or daycare and some of these injections are given to infants withing the first hours of birth and the first weeks of life. These vaccinations are under the federal government's mass vaccination policy..the current one size fits all....that treats individuals like a herd ignoring individual size, age, race, genetics, etc. You and KFC may be fine with that....I'm not. And I'll never be OK with vaccines developed from the fetal tissue of aborted babies. I think it's evil that the health of our children can be insured through the death of other children.

I'll sum it up by saying the whole premise of government one size fits all vaccine mandates is disturbing to those who value freedom.

 

  

 

on Jan 25, 2011

I understand your libertarian bent, something I certainly appreciate, but none of us live in isolation.  If you want your child to attend school with my children, I have a legitimate basis for insisting your child be vaccinated.  If my child chooses to go to college & live in a dorm, the risk of meningococcal meningitis, a potentially fatal disease, warrants immunization against it.

on Jan 25, 2011

Don't you understand that for some children a vaccine may be more dangerous than catching the disease?

Then why didn't you?

I did...read the following.

Vaccines carry risks and catching the disease or becoming seriously ill as a result happens. There are those parents whose children have gotten sick after being inoculated. I remember back when millions of Americans were given the Sabin oral polio vaccine and a percentage of those people contracted the disease from the vaccine. As a result the Food and Drug Administration urged doctors to give the injected Salk polio vaccine becasue it did not contain live viruses and didn't carry the risk of the person's contracting polio.

I've read about kids suffering seizures after receiving a DPT shot and whole cell pertuissis vaccines caused a higher rate of adverse reactions.

Ever heard of the rotavirus (infant diarrhea ) vaccine? Even though in pre-licensure trials for the rotavirus vaccine, some babies suffered obstructed bowels and some required surgery to remove a portion of the intestine, a painful condition called intussusception. It was approved in 1998 and licenced by the FDA and CDC recommended. Within months after government approval, 1.5 million vaccine doses were given to infants. The most common side effects listed were moderate fever, increased irritability and decreased appetitie.

In 1999 it was suddenly withdrawn from the market and the public was led to believe there was new info about harmful side effects. It took a hearing conducted by Rep. Dan Burton (R) for the factors and truth to come out. Turns out most of the work done by the CDC advisory committee was behind closed doors without public scrutiny. Yea, 6 out of 10 of the working groups had financial ties to pharmaceuticals that made the rotavirus vaccine and those on the voting committee had financila ties to manufacturers and owned stock in vaccine patents or in pharmaceuticals.

Anyway, the data was concealed, and the public didn't learn of the problem until more than 100 cases of intussusception were reported, including one death.

With this, as far as this discussion, I've said all I plan to. I've made my point and I get yours...which is to deplore any criticism of vaccines implying that the objections must be based on ignorance, be unscientific or non-sense.

on Jan 25, 2011

No, you didn't identify any child or group of children who should not receive a vaccine.  Because you can't know in advance.  The notion that no child should be vaccinated because some may have an adverse reaction ignores the clearly demonstrated benefits of vaccination for the overwhelming majority of children.

I get yours...which is to deplore any criticism of vaccines implying that the objections must be based on ignorance, be unscientific or non-sense

Those are your words, not mine.  I've only said, essentially, that the overwhelming body of data support the net benefit, safety and efficacy of vaccines and that there is no sufficiently convincing contrary data to persuade me otherwise.  Certainly not the speculation you quoted from Dr. Deisher.

on Jan 28, 2011

The notion that no child should be vaccinated because some may have an adverse reaction ignores the clearly demonstrated benefits of vaccination for the overwhelming majority of children.

On the radio yesterday I was listening to an interesting story by the President of Compassion.  His name is Wes Stafford.  Anyhow he was telling this story about growing up in Africa as part, I'm assuming, of a missionary family.   He said  when he was very young, there was a big measel outbreak in his village and children were dying all over.  He said one out of four that contracted this disease died.  He saw many of his young friends die. 

So he went to his dad asking when he was going to die.  His dad showed him the scratches on his arm and asked if he remembered getting his immunization.  He said because he had those scratches on his arm he would not die of this disease.   He was safe. 

Wes said then he has been overjoyed at seeing hundreds of thousands of children who now have those scratches on their arms.  Those scratches saved millions of lives. 

 

on Jan 28, 2011

Those scratches saved millions of lives.

Most vaccines do just that.  But like all things in life, nothing is perfect, so some do suffer.  It is like Daiwa says - you are playing the odds when you get vaccinated.

But the fervor of vaccinations has gone too far.  Now they are vaccinating against things you cannot get by normal social interaction.  But not giving you the option - mandating it!  I agree with vaccinating children (had all of mine vaccinated), but not for things where the mortality rate is less than that of taking the vaccine!

on Jan 29, 2011

Such as?

on Jan 31, 2011

Basmas
Such as?

HPV for young girls.

on Feb 04, 2011

That's funny.  And sad.  And infuriating.  Sometimes it's hard not to despair for our future.  This is one of those times.

on Feb 04, 2011

oh boy...here we go again.  It's the water!  I knew it!   

on Feb 04, 2011

That's funny.  And sad.  And infuriating.  Sometimes it's hard not to despair for our future.  This is one of those times.

I was hoping you would stop by and comment.  I find it distressing for 2 reasons - the ignorance of the statement - and the fact that liberals can say such stupid things and get away with it.

on Feb 04, 2011

KFC Kickin For Christ
oh boy...here we go again.  It's the water!  I knew it!   

Well - I have it on the best of authority that you can get pregnant (or make your wife so) by drinking from the same fountain as a pregnant woman - after all, how do you explain the baby booms at some companies?

Meta
Views
» 1925
Comments
» 56
Category
Sponsored Links