Confirmed: Study that linked autism to vaccinations a total fraud

posted at 9:30 am on January 6, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Some may wonder why anyone still wondered about the credibility of an infamous study conducted by Andrew Wakefield and published by The Lancet that purported to show a link between vaccinations and autism.  Two years ago, the Times of London published its exposé of Wakefield’s “research,” in which Wakefield faked data and drew conclusions from a ridiculously small sample — a fact that should have warned the Lancet to refuse publication in the first place, even if Wakefield hadn’t faked the data.  However, belief in Wakefield’s claims continues, even after Reason addressed the issue in May 2010 once again as anti-vaccination advocates insisted that Wakefield’s research was valid and that the Times debunking was either incorrect or a sellout to Big Pharma.

This time, it’s Wakefield’s colleagues in medicine who are calling him a fraud:

A now-retracted British study that linked autism to childhood vaccines was an “elaborate fraud” that has done long-lasting damage to public health, a leading medical publication reported Wednesday.

An investigation published by the British medical journal BMJ concludes the study’s author, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, misrepresented or altered the medical histories of all 12 of the patients whose cases formed the basis of the 1998 study — and that there was “no doubt” Wakefield was responsible.

“It’s one thing to have a bad study, a study full of error, and for the authors then to admit that they made errors,” Fiona Godlee, BMJ’s editor-in-chief, told CNN. “But in this case, we have a very different picture of what seems to be a deliberate attempt to create an impression that there was a link by falsifying the data.”

Britain stripped Wakefield of his medical license in May. “Meanwhile, the damage to public health continues, fueled by unbalanced media reporting and an ineffective response from government, researchers, journals and the medical profession,” BMJ states in an editorial accompanying the work.

How much will this declaration push back against the anti-vaccination industry?  When this study first got published, it worried a lot of parents, who reasonably thought that a peer-reviewed study in The Lancet carried some scientific weight, an assumption we’ve learned since that time was sorely mistaken.  As Sanjay Gupta says at the end, much of this has been known for almost two years, and even before the Times reported on Wakefield’s fraud, the study’s size and methodology had been considered very suspect, especially for its sweeping conclusion on a disease that’s still not well understood.

After that report, though, some continued to insist on opposing vaccinations in a movement that began to look a lot more like a religious movement than a rational response to scientific data.  Take a look again at the Reason video from May (or watch the very NSFW takedown by Penn & Teller on their BS show) to see exactly who this announcement needs to convince.  Will it change people’s minds about a supposed link whose connection never got substantiated in any subsequent study to have it called a fraud?  It will certainly convince the rational, but those almost certainly changed their minds about vaccinations after the February 2009 exposure of Wakefield’s fraud.  Having his colleagues in medical research call this “one of the greatest frauds in science” will certainly help spread the word, but don’t expect people with this much invested in their belief of eeeeeevil pharmaceutical companies to go willingly into the light.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

jjjen on January 6, 2011 at 5:55 PM

No. There. Isn’t.
As most here know-I have Asperger’s Syndrome. It’s on the autistic-spectrum.
In an earlier comment-try page 2-I elaborated as to how I ended up on the ‘spectrum’.
I didn’t get it from the big bad wolf. I didn’t get it from the tooth fairy…and I sure as h&ll didn’t get it from vaccines! I’m at LEAST second generation A.S.
Get a clue!

annoyinglittletwerp on January 6, 2011 at 6:25 PM

Badger40 on January 6, 2011 at 2:32 PM

Chicken pox has a .0023% fatality rate. What are the risks of the chicken pox vaccine, administered in conjunction with all the other vaccines kids get? We don’t really know, because they can’t really do drug studies on children. We absolutely need vaccines for things like polio, but I question the wisdom of mandating a vaccine for every childhood illness.

mbs on January 6, 2011 at 6:26 PM

It’s so true. I control my daughters autism with food. I don’t think many people really understand that it’s garbage in, garbage out.

Kristamatic on January 6, 2011 at 1:36 PM

I do think there are a lot of food allergies/intolerances that are misdiagnosed as other things, or maybe it’s reactions to certain foods exacerbate symptoms of things like autism. Anyway, I admire you for investigating diet issues and making changes that helped your child.

mbs on January 6, 2011 at 6:33 PM

Dark-Star on January 6, 2011 at 5:07 PM

I understand where all y’all are coming from, but my child nearly died from the Pertussis shot. You are saying the government has the right to come in and vaccinate him because I “won’t” and kill him?

Kristamatic on January 6, 2011 at 6:40 PM

In America, you have the right to be stupid, even if it kills you.
Unfortunately, there’s the gray line when it includes the death of a minor bcs of your well intentioned stupidity.
Enter CPS.
Scary.

Badger40 on January 6, 2011 at 5:10 PM

Seriously, Badger, do you think I am “stupid” to avoid the Pertussis vaccine for my children when it put one of them in the hospital for a month? Really? I am supposed to lay my little boy on the altar of “the common good”?

Kristamatic on January 6, 2011 at 6:42 PM

Well, I just read Wakefield’s response from last spring and the comments from people who are on his side.
One basically said the book I have mentioned here is bunk and part of an large conspriacy to debunk Wakefield and allow big Pharma to harm children unrestrained.
This is not unlike GW at all.
I just have one comment, I am on no one’s side and think the entire thing from Wakefield through the 12 plus years to the present has only hurt Autistic population.
Why, if Wakefield’s study was done in 1997 or 8 or whenever, has he just simply not tried to replicate it? Or make it better with a larger sample and better design?

ORconservative on January 6, 2011 at 7:03 PM

I thought nobody would have an answer for me.

Kristamatic on January 6, 2011 at 7:04 PM

I thought nobody would have an answer for me.

Kristamatic on January 6, 2011 at 7:04 PM

Venom-laced rhetoric disguised as questions don’t deserve answers.

Dark-Star on January 6, 2011 at 7:11 PM

This is complete garbage.

Of course there is a link between autism and vaccines!

Look around for crying out loud!

Wakefield was persecuted for threatening profits, plain and simple.

This is really biased. Show the other side of the story why don’t you? No different from the MSM on this issue.

jjjen on January 6, 2011 at 5:55 PM

So, I suppose “Big Pharma” got to these researchers who are condemning Wakefield for his FRAUD? I have to wonder what it would take for you to open your eyes and realize that you have been “had” by Wakefield. I suspect that you are so determined to believe that vaccines cause autism, that nothing could possibly dissuade you.

JannyMae on January 6, 2011 at 7:12 PM

I thought nobody would have an answer for me.

Kristamatic on January 6, 2011 at 7:04 PM

Here’s your answer, Krista:

As a principled conservative, of course I don’t think that it’s wise to force individuals to vaccinate their children, or even themselves. As a former nursing student and pragmatic thinker, I also don’t think it’s wise for activists to encourage others to avoid/delay vaccinations due to studies of dubious or even no scientific quality.

Herd immunity seems reasonable on its face, but it’s not absolute. I guess in the end, I would encourage people to understand the risk of action or inaction, and follow their conscience accordingly.

gryphon202 on January 6, 2011 at 7:13 PM

I have to wonder what it would take for you to open your eyes and realize that you have been “had” by Wakefield. I suspect that you are so determined to believe that vaccines cause autism, that nothing could possibly dissuade you.

JannyMae on January 6, 2011 at 7:12 PM

It’s DDT all over again indeed.

gryphon202 on January 6, 2011 at 7:14 PM

Well, I just read Wakefield’s response from last spring and the comments from people who are on his side.
One basically said the book I have mentioned here is bunk and part of an large conspriacy to debunk Wakefield and allow big Pharma to harm children unrestrained.
This is not unlike GW at all.
I just have one comment, I am on no one’s side and think the entire thing from Wakefield through the 12 plus years to the present has only hurt Autistic population.
Why, if Wakefield’s study was done in 1997 or 8 or whenever, has he just simply not tried to replicate it? Or make it better with a larger sample and better design?

ORconservative on January 6, 2011 at 7:03 PM

Do you the link to this handy, please?

JannyMae on January 6, 2011 at 7:23 PM

Sorry, I lost it, will post in a minute.

ORconservative on January 6, 2011 at 7:34 PM

This is complete garbage.

Of course there is a link between autism and vaccines!

Look around for crying out loud!

Wakefield was persecuted for threatening profits, plain and simple.

This is really biased. Show the other side of the story why don’t you? No different from the MSM on this issue.

jjjen on January 6, 2011 at 5:55 PM

You read an article that this has been disproven, do you have any scientific proof that vaccines do prove autism that has not been debunked?

akerralls on January 6, 2011 at 7:36 PM

Thank you. Dinner time, here, so I will check back later for it.

JannyMae on January 6, 2011 at 7:36 PM

http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/04/brian-deer-in-bmj-and-dr-andrew-wakefields-response.html

There’s a link in this article I wanted to investigate further. The point of this link seems to be that Wakefield’s claims of GI trouble in the 12 Autistic kids were suspect and should not have been published. That I would seriously like to see someone argue.

ORconservative on January 6, 2011 at 7:38 PM

Here’s more, a fb group called cryshame.
These are families that feel there is a strong link between vaccines and autism and that Wakefield has been railroaded.
I really have not paid any attention to this debate for a couple years. I am really amazed that not much has changed. People who are certain it is the MMR are certain. And always will be.
More research sure needs to be done but only with no connection to “big Pharma”…………..this is a little nutty.
Time for dinner.

ORconservative on January 6, 2011 at 7:48 PM

I’ll believe this as soon as they get rid of the vaccine defense laws and allow pharmaceuticals to be sued like everyone else in America.

The problem with vaccines is different people have different reactions. Trying to do a one size fits all study that does not have access to the hundreds of thousands of cases filed away in the secret archives, like Hanah Polling’s case, makes this the biggest sham and BS piece of science possibly ever.

Ignorant Doctors reassuring people without even knowledge of the ingredients and a clue of the reactions of others to these make it even worse.

I don’t believe vaccines alone cause autism, but there are way too many causal links out there that are buried in ‘scientific’ studies without full spectrum analysis that will be swallowed by professionals who fear for their reputation which make things worse.

Do your own research. Read the polling decision. Do not trust a billion dollar cottage industry, who do not allow any transparency to tell you the truth.

crscott on January 6, 2011 at 8:26 PM

crscott on January 6, 2011 at 8:26 PM

Ahh, the old “evil corporation that makes a profit” argument. If Wakefield’s premise has validity, then why hasn’t it been verified by subsequent studies? I’m sorry, I’m just not buying the “transparency” argument in this internet age.

JannyMae on January 6, 2011 at 8:55 PM

I understand where all y’all are coming from, but my child nearly died from the Pertussis shot. You are saying the government has the right to come in and vaccinate him because I “won’t” and kill him?

Kristamatic on January 6, 2011 at 6:40 PM

I never said that the government has a right to do what you won’t do.

However, it is clear from history that far more children have died from the disease than from the vaccine. We didn’t get rid of these diseases by happenstance. The majority of children have to be vaccinated in order to get, and keep, the disease under control. The more children who go unvaccinated, the greater the danger that the disease will return and kill other children in greater numbers.

Given your experience it wouldn’t make sense to vaccinate your children, but that decision would be on your conscience. I’m sure you understand that and have considered it carefully.

Missy on January 6, 2011 at 9:31 PM

How about we see some unbiased information about Wakefield?

How about the fact that Wakefield isn’t anti-vaccine….just pro-single antigen vaccines?

How about his 32 other papers that haven’t been challenged?

How about the study by Dr. Laura Hewitson, PhD, linking autism-like symptoms in primates to vaccines. There were incidences of GI inflammation in the primates that were vaccinated.

Where are the studies on the safety of multiple vaccines? Shouldn’t there be more proof of the safety of these, shouldn’t the proof be coming out of the woodwork?

What do you do with these parents (by the hundreds) who see and have on video tape at times, a drastic change in their child shortly after a vaccine???

Something is going on with these kids…..I never saw kids with these issues when I was growing up, now it’s so common I can name a dozen without even trying. Diagnosis or not, kids who act autistic are more common.

jjjen on January 7, 2011 at 12:55 AM

Say what?….

Wakefield’s study has been duplicated?

http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/01/wakefields-science-proven-valid-again-in-new-study-that-replicates-findings.html

jjjen on January 7, 2011 at 1:05 AM

From your replicated study that doesn’t even mention vaccines:

Conflict of Interest Statement
Two of the authors AK and CS have acted as expert
witnesses retained by claimant solicitors in vaccine
related litigation. The first author (AK) is the treating
physician retained by claimants in the US Omnibus
Autism Proceeding. Neither AK nor CS considers
this to constitute a real conflict of interest in relation
to the current study.

JannyMae on January 7, 2011 at 2:12 AM

How about we see some unbiased information about Wakefield?

How about the fact that Wakefield isn’t anti-vaccine….just pro-single antigen vaccines?

How about his 32 other papers that haven’t been challenged?

How about the study by Dr. Laura Hewitson, PhD, linking autism-like symptoms in primates to vaccines. There were incidences of GI inflammation in the primates that were vaccinated.

Where are the studies on the safety of multiple vaccines? Shouldn’t there be more proof of the safety of these, shouldn’t the proof be coming out of the woodwork?

What do you do with these parents (by the hundreds) who see and have on video tape at times, a drastic change in their child shortly after a vaccine???

Something is going on with these kids…..I never saw kids with these issues when I was growing up, now it’s so common I can name a dozen without even trying. Diagnosis or not, kids who act autistic are more common.

jjjen on January 7, 2011 at 12:55 AM

How about you deal in facts instead of fantasy and what your “non-biased” “observations” tell you?

How about here: multiple studies

Their report found that vaccines are not associated with autism, whether or not they contain thimerosal — a form of mercury preservative that has caused concern among some parents of autistic children. The IOM reached these conclusions after carefully reviewing dozens of studies, including one involving almost a half-million children in Denmark, another involving more than 100,000 American children, and yet another involving about 100,000 British children.

But you will ignore these because you’ve already made up your mind. Go back to CC and tell them again how vaccines had nothing to do with eliminating polio and smallpox. Fool.

JannyMae on January 7, 2011 at 2:18 AM

That Age of Autism site is a lulu. Anti-vaccine all the way. Unbiased? Too funny!

JannyMae on January 7, 2011 at 2:32 AM

How come these “science” scandals always involve the political pet causes of the Left? Global Warming? Anti-Iraq War? DDT? Just run to your nearest MainStreamMedia whore outlet and they will oblige no matter how many children die.

DANEgerus on January 7, 2011 at 2:51 AM

Will Robert F. Kennedy Jr say he’s sorry? Will Jenny McCarthy?

DANEgerus on January 7, 2011 at 2:52 AM

I tried something new with my son this morning. We’ve been having a difficult time getting him up and ready for school this past week and because of that he’s been an absolute pain to the teachers. Another one of his fixations is astronomy; especially sunrises and sunsets. On Discovery HD there is a show called Sunrise Earth.
We sat and watched it as he was getting dressed this morning. He didn’t want to leave for fear of missing the sunrise. I explained to him that I was recording it on the DVR and when he gets home from school he can finish watching it. He appears to be in a nicer mood this morning because of it. I hope the teachers see a difference too.

mizflame98 on January 7, 2011 at 7:50 AM

Before I joined the LDS Church we use to use coffee to help with my daughters asthma. Now, I don’t think the church will square with the use of caffeine for his hyperactivity. I’m a new convert so maybe someone else might know much more than me on that.

mizflame98 on January 6, 2011 at 2:37 PM
Ok, so you are a Mormon, have autistic kids, are snarky and you hang out at Hotair?

ME TOO.

We need to be friends. If you want to email me, go to my blog at woggle-bug.com and send me a note. We can talk. ;)

As for using coffee to regulate autism, I would stay away from it because it is against the Word of Wisdom, but we have used Mountain Dew in an emergency when we were away from the nebulizer. So what do I know? You do what you gotta.

Kristamatic on January 6, 2011 at 2:48 PM

1st of all mizflame-welcome to the LDS faith. I am a convert, too.
However, I recognize caffeine, which yes, is a drug, to also be of some benefit on occasion. I have known so VERY pious Mormons who have partaken of it for certain reasons.
And Mtn Dew has so much caffein in it, you might as well equate it to coffee.
I personally am not a temple worthy girl, & probably never will be. But that is my choice. Perhaps I will change it someday.

Chicken pox has a .0023% fatality rate. What are the risks of the chicken pox vaccine, administered in conjunction with all the other vaccines kids get? We don’t really know, because they can’t really do drug studies on children. We absolutely need vaccines for things like polio, but I question the wisdom of mandating a vaccine for every childhood illness.

mbs on January 6, 2011 at 6:26 PM

I do understand that. I just wanted to include a mostly innocuous disease along with the deadly ones for scope.

Seriously, Badger, do you think I am “stupid” to avoid the Pertussis vaccine for my children when it put one of them in the hospital for a month? Really? I am supposed to lay my little boy on the altar of “the common good”?

Kristamatic on January 6, 2011 at 6:42 PM

Well that is very unfortunate that you felt my comment was directed at you.
Unless you are one of those people who think ALL vaccines are bad etc, why would you come to that conclusion?
If you are trying to be rational about this, then what do you have to worry about?
Why did your child almost die after getting the whooping cough vaccine?
What were the medical reasons?
Were they comrehensive, or a guess on someone’s part?
Obviously I don’t need your answer, that’s too personal for HA, but I question a diagnosis like that bcs sometime as you are probably aware, people jump to conclusions.
Coincidences happen all the time, no matter what you perceive the answer to be.
Science does not say that just bcs 2 things look like they are linked, they are linked.
In my experience, I have noticed that is oftentimes not true.

I never said that the government has a right to do what you won’t do.

However, it is clear from history that far more children have died from the disease than from the vaccine. We didn’t get rid of these diseases by happenstance. The majority of children have to be vaccinated in order to get, and keep, the disease under control. The more children who go unvaccinated, the greater the danger that the disease will return and kill other children in greater numbers.

Given your experience it wouldn’t make sense to vaccinate your children, but that decision would be on your conscience. I’m sure you understand that and have considered it carefully.

Missy on January 6, 2011 at 9:31 PM

Very well said.
And we all must realize that ‘research’ on the internet does not make us experts.
Sometimes we have to end up deferring to the experts.
Which I understand these days, it can be hard to trust a scientist’s work.

As a principled conservative, of course I don’t think that it’s wise to force individuals to vaccinate their children, or even themselves. As a former nursing student and pragmatic thinker, I also don’t think it’s wise for activists to encourage others to avoid/delay vaccinations due to studies of dubious or even no scientific quality.

Herd immunity seems reasonable on its face, but it’s not absolute. I guess in the end, I would encourage people to understand the risk of action or inaction, and follow their conscience accordingly.

gryphon202 on January 6, 2011 at 7:13 PM

+10. I wholeheartedly agree. And herd immunity is important bcs there is vaccine failure in individuals.

I thought nobody would have an answer for me.

Kristamatic on January 6, 2011 at 7:04 PM

I would have, but I had to go home & feed cows last night.

I’ll say it again: emotion has no place in making decisions like this.
People who use emotion & rare instances to propose the conditions are actually more numerous, people who circulate information without knowing the truth of it bcs they never bothered to check it for validity, people who do not study the basics of immunology, etc. are complicit in the deaths of people who are trying to make informed decisions that go bad.
In America, you do have the right to make bad decisions & good ones. And as I said earlier, you do have the right to be stupid, even if it kills you.
I personally am not advocating that the govt really round up your kids & force vaccines upon them.
As I noted on another page of this thread, I do advocate the use of societal incentives & disincentives to encourage people to do the right thing & vaccinate for major contagious diseases.
You have the choice not to vaccinate. But it shouldn’t be easy to avoid societal responsibilities.

Badger40 on January 7, 2011 at 8:22 AM

JannyMae: It’s a simple fact that the Hannah Polling case shows autism induced from vaccines.

Read it for yourself.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8300-31727_162-10391695.html?keyword=hannah+poling

Unfortunately, most of us do not have the resources of the Pollings to sue for damages from vaccines.

I’m also still waiting for the non vaccinated vs. vaccinated autism study. It really should not be tough to evaluate a non vaccinated region and compare autism rates, and yet it hasn’t been done. Why?

I could care less about Wakefields study. I’m not a big supporter of anti vaccine sites as they also tend to have an agenda. However, I do care about those tens thousands of parents who see changes in their children after vaccinations, whom are ignored since a few studies say vaccines are safe.

It’s interesting that those who profess to believe in science ignore Occam’s Razor. I guess once autism reaches 1 in 30 with no end in sight and no clue from ‘experts’ we might start looking at the big picture more, and lose the simplicity of our outlook.

crscott on January 7, 2011 at 8:46 AM

crscott on January 7, 2011 at 8:46 AM

Look, there is zero way that vaccines are the sole cause of Autism and for someone to say “I never saw kids with these issues when I was growing up” you weren’t looking.
Unemotional facts:
1. Autism diagnosis is dramatically increasing. Ya want numbers, look it up
2. The diagnosis is signifiicantly more common because doctors are calling a wide range of kids “Autistic” where as 15+ years ago the same child NEVER would have been labeled autistic. Until someone truly studies this there will never be a true representation of the increase because you are not comparing apples to apples.
3. Vaccines could very well cause autism in some cases but again this number will not be determined until people get their heads out of their collective a**** and look at this problem without emotion.
4. Wakefield’s study of 12 kids should be invalid because it is 12 kids! A whole anti vaccine movement for 12 kids.
5. Videotape your infants. There are signs of autism in kids before 18 months of age that parents thoroughly miss.
6. Another total duh………..if the vacccine at 18 months is the problem, maybe, why are we giving it at 18 mo?

I have three kids (much older, 2 way before this vaccine scare) I was nervous about their development at two points, one around 18-24 months for autism and second around 3 years for muscular dystrophy (even though was pretty sure there was no genetics for that)
My point is that parenting is an emotional difficult job. Vaccinate, don’t vaccinate but you have to be informed and one study on 12 kids is ridiculous to start a dangerous movement.

ORconservative on January 7, 2011 at 9:41 AM

Actually a study of 12 kids should not be making headline news, and used as the poster child for the vaccine movement either. What it should do is lead to more unbiased studies.

To clarify I don’t think anyone is saying that vaccines are the “sole cause” of Autism.

jjjen on January 7, 2011 at 9:56 AM

We have a lot more pervasive things to worry about.
Vaccines have so far never proven they have caused autism.
Any study with 12 kids is crap.
And studies involving children are not many, since messing with kids gets people all emotional & riled up.
Autism has many forms.
Diagnosis more than likely needs a lot more improvement.
For isntance, my mother has MS.
Before MRI’s, she got all kinds of diagnoses.
After the MRI, she was correctly diagnoses with MS.
No one knows WHAT causes all these forms of autism.
Bottom line:
The risk in NOT getting vaccinated for major contageous & deadly diseases is usually GREATER than having a reaction to the vaccine.
Know your risk factors.
Decide accordingly.
And stop using half-truths, misinformation, & propaganda to make the case for something that has no definitive scientific proof.

Badger40 on January 7, 2011 at 10:12 AM

It’s interesting that those who profess to believe in science ignore Occam’s Razor. I guess once autism reaches 1 in 30 with no end in sight and no clue from ‘experts’ we might start looking at the big picture more, and lose the simplicity of our outlook.

crscott on January 7, 2011 at 8:46 AM

If there is no evidence to prove vaccines cause autism, when NO ONE so far knows what causes it, then why do you think it is justifiable to be involved in assumptions that can actually undermine the majority of the population at large?
Like for instance, the occurrence of BSE (AKA Mad Cow) disease is extremely low, & yet, major trade policies concerning this disease have hurt the beef industry a lot.
Why is it OK to mess up the lives, health & economic (which can lead to decreased health) over possibilities & what ifs?
This is the problem with what ifs.
Like AGW: what IF CO2 causes warming?
What IF mankind is responsible?
Even though CO2 has never been shown to directly affect atmospheric temperatures (rather it is the other way round).

Badger40 on January 7, 2011 at 10:19 AM

Badger, did you not bother to read the Hannah Polling link I provided? If so, why would you say there no evidence, when there is a multi million dollar verdict for just that out there? There are other cases, but they are closed by the vaccine courts. As I said and was mocked, these things are not transparent.

Are you really going to compare autism to mad cow? Really? Wow.

So far the experts have zero clue what causes autism. We think it is not genetic.

Again, I’d like to see a vaccinated vs unvaccinated large case study done. Why hasn’t this been done? Wakefields small 12 person study does not matter to me. Nor do the limited studies in Sweden that are touted as proof.

We do know different children have different effects to vaccines and we do know there were a high amount of mercury and toxins in a lot of early vaccines.

For years scientific studies proved second hand smoke was not dangerous. Except it was. Forgive me if I have doubt regarding studies touted as fact regarding something we are completely clueless about.

crscott on January 7, 2011 at 10:55 AM

crscott, not genetic? Really?

ORconservative on January 7, 2011 at 11:24 AM

Badger40 on January 7, 2011 at 8:22 AM

My son was diagnosed with having had a terrible reaction to the vaccine by his Cleveland Clinic pediatrician. (for those of you who don’t know, the Cleve. Clinic is a big Mayo Clinic type mainstream hospital.) I’ll tell you, his reaction made her very nervous. I am not sure she had ever seen anything like it. He got the jab, and half an hour later was fighting to breathe. I never could get a straight answer from any of the docs at the hospital what was wrong. I suspect he had actual pertussis, but that’s just me. I’m only a mom.

And while I respect you opinion, I heartily disagree. Medical procedures should be a choice. I don’t think the govt. should be allowed to make it “hard” to get out of it.

Kristamatic on January 7, 2011 at 12:46 PM

Interesting article on why hepatitis B is given to newborns.

http://shotofprevention.com/2010/05/06/why-infants-should-receive-the-hepatitis-b-vaccine-at-birth/

akerralls on January 6, 2011 at 4:40 PM
It was interesting. I’m still of the opinion that in most normal cases, especially if the parents have been screened, why the shot can’t wait until the 2 week check-up – as opposed to being given while still in the hospital are birth. But I gave birth both times in a military hospital, and I had full access to prenatal care, so I know I’m biased here.

i agree the shot can wait particularly since hep b is transmitted through bodily fluids. akerralls, you asked what happens if a woman with hep b touches your infant’s face prior to them getting the vaccine. from what i’ve read, you can’t get it this way. it’s transmitted the same way as hiv. it’s not like every time one goes out with their baby they fear it will contract hiv.

i had looked at the cdc website when my sister had her baby to read about the vaccine. there was info about how they wanted infants vaccinated at birth in order that they eradicate the disease by X date in the adult population. it’s not due to a fear that the baby will get hep b between the hospital and a well baby visit.

anna on January 7, 2011 at 1:18 PM

and let’s not pretend getting vaccinated will actually prevent the disease. i live in brooklyn and there was recently a huge mumps outbreak in crown heights and in NJ from teenagers who had recently been to camp together. most of those in question had been vaccinated and they still got the disease.

anna on January 6, 2011 at 2:54 PM
Before you start “asking questions”, you might want to look up the term “herd immunity”.

Tomblvd on January 6, 2011 at 2:56 PM

before you start “being a tool” what does that have to do with my question?

anna on January 7, 2011 at 1:27 PM

Know your risk factors.
Decide accordingly.
And stop using half-truths, misinformation, & propaganda to make the case for something that has no definitive scientific proof.

Badger40 on January 7, 2011 at 10:12 AM

Well said. I know of someone who has chosen not to vaccinate their child thanks to this.

And while I respect you opinion, I heartily disagree. Medical procedures should be a choice. I don’t think the govt. should be allowed to make it “hard” to get out of it.

Kristamatic on January 7, 2011 at 12:46 PM

Sorry if I offend, but a problem with this attitude is other parent’s children are forced to interact with yours. Your children become an unfair dangers to everyone else. Have you considered home schooling them? I’m not sure what to do about infectious persons and equal opportunity employment, college, etc… there are serious consequences for not vaccinating.

scotash on January 7, 2011 at 2:05 PM

My first statement should have read “I know of someone who has chosen not to vaccinate their child thanks to this study.”

I think despite the risk, it is almost always wise to vaccinate ourselves and our children.

Risk is part of life, driving a car carries a risk of death every single time. A flawed study should not be heeded, but many larger and more controlled tests should be done.

scotash on January 7, 2011 at 2:11 PM

Sorry if I offend, but a problem with this attitude is other parent’s children are forced to interact with yours. Your children become an unfair dangers to everyone else. Have you considered home schooling them? I’m not sure what to do about infectious persons and equal opportunity employment, college, etc… there are serious consequences for not vaccinating.

scotash on January 7, 2011 at 2:05 PM

The pendulum swings both ways, Scot. As a former nursing student, you’re not considered “infectious” until you actually have a disease. There’s more than one kind of alarmism.

gryphon202 on January 7, 2011 at 2:32 PM

I know I’m a little behind, but I just got this link. If anyone here has not actually read any background on autism and vaccines, instead of running your mouth, educate yourself.
This link sites numerous studies done and also explains a bit about the Wakefield study that you must understand in order to get what is going on. Real studies done showing a possible link.
I don’t believe anything for sure has been proven one way or another. I do however believe that you must educate yourself on a subject before you act like you know and start ranting.

Katec on January 10, 2011 at 10:29 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4