General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

MMR INTERESTING CONFLICTS

John · 2004-03-03T21:32:51+00:00

PRIVATE EYE 5 March - 18 March 2004 MMR INTERESTING CONFLICTS The vilification of Dr Andrew Wakefield in recent days has been a side show to the important issue of whether the mumps, measles, and rubella triple vaccine (MMR) poses a risk to a small sub set of children. But the attacks have served a purpose. They have highlighted the need to preserve independent medical research - and reminded the public that there is one rule for an off-message messenger like Dr Wakefield and quite another for the government and drug companies. For example, one leading health official responsible for immunisation has been working as an expert for the three defendant drug companies in the UK MMR court case since July 2002. Yet as far as the Eye can ascertain, she has never declared that potential ''conflict'' on any of her research papers. Dr Elizabeth Miller, head of immunisation at the government''s Health Protection Agency (HPA), last year alone published three papers in the Archives of Disease in Childhood directly related to the MMR controversy. One suggested that the combined triple live virus does not overload the immune system, so there is no need for single vaccines. Two others suggested that parents have been more likely to attribute their children's autism to MMR since 1998, when Dr Wakefield and his team at the Royal Free hospital in north London published their controversial paper. Nowhere on Dr Miller's papers does she declare that she is also an expert witness for the drug companies GlaxoSmithKline, Aventis Pasteur and Merck. Moreover, the Eye has begun trawling through scientific and medical journals to examine papers published over the last two years by other defendant drug company experts. So far we have not found a single declaration on any paper that the author also acts as an expert for the defendant drug companies - even though at least two of the experts (Dr Diane Griffin, an American, and Professor Volker ter Meulen, a German), have produced research papers directly associated with vaccination. Unlike in the case of Dr Wakefield, there have been no screaming headlines attacking their credibility or honesty; no demands for an inquiry by the General Medical Council; no snipes at their ''fatally flawed'' research. Instead, such authors continue to enjoy the support of government and big business. By contrast, Dr Wakefield only has the support of harrassed parents who believe their children were damaged by MMR, and, until recently, the impoverished Legal Services Commission - hardly powerful or influential. Dr Miller maintains that neither she nor her department was paid by the three pharmaceutical companies for the detailed and lengthy report she submitted on their behalf to the court last June. She prepared their evidence in her own time, her department says, and did not declare it on any papers because there was no financial interest. Nevertheless, it is known that money from those companies finds its way into the agency, formerly the Public Health Laboratory Service, through other research channels. In a recent annual report, Dr Miller listed five ''non-personal'' interests - ie payments which benefited her department rather than herself. Two of the companies featured were MMR defendants. The rules on conflict are weak, open to interpretation and generally not enforced - so should any criticism not be dished out in equal measure? As one leading journal states ''examples of potentially conflicting interests that should be disclosed include relationships that might detract from an author's objectivity in presentation of study results and interests whose value would be enhanced by the results presented.'' How can Sir Liam Donaldson, chief medical officer, and his deputy responsible for immunisation, Dr David Salisbury, justify their attacks on Dr Wakefield for non-disclosure of an interest when their own staff appear equally compromised? No doubt Dr Miller sought clearance before agreeing to act for the defendant drug companies. But every time she now opens her mouth the question arises: Is she speaking from the ''impartial ''view of the health department, open to all new research that comes to its attention; or for that of the defendant drug companies? As Eye readers will recall, Dr Miller also conducted the first ever trial of MMR among 10,000 children before its introduction in the UK nationwide. It is clear the medical establishment and ministers had been waiting for an opportunity to attempt to discredit Dr Wakefield. Thus they seized on the Sunday Times's resurrection of a debate about conflict which emerged in the Lancet six years ago when Dr Wakefield published his controversial 1998 study. Shortly after publication the Lancet carried a letter from Dr Wakefield on behalf of all the authors in response to suggestions that there may have been ''litigation bias'' in their paper. It said that Dr Wakefield had agreed quite separately to evaluate a small number of children on behalf of the Legal Aid Board. ''These children have all been seen expressly on the basis that they were referred through the normal channels (eg. GP, child psychiatrist or community paediatritican) on the merits of their symptoms.'' Nothing about that ''conflict'' has changed but Lancet editor Richard Horton seemed to panic in the face of more serious - and completely unsubstantiated - allegations from the Sunday Times about subjecting the children to invasive procedures without ethical approval and questions about the Lancet's role in the affair - allegations the newspaper was forced to ditch. Interestingly, Horton's condemnation of the Royal Free paper as ''fatally flawed'' ( which gave oxygen to the Sunday Times ''scoop'') was dropped by the time the Lancet published its statement about the affair the following week. It stated that it was ''regretful'' that the Lancet had not been made aware that the parallel legal aid had not been disclosed as it should have been '' because it would have been material to our decision-making about the paper's suitability, credibility and validity for publication''. It did not withdraw the paper or say it was fatally damaged. Of course the issue of potential conflicts of interest - whether by Dr Wakefield or those acting as experts for the defendant drug companies - only flags up the possibility of research flawed by bias. Before a study can be ''fatally flawed'', as health chiefs maintain Dr Wakefield's is, the research itself must be shown to be faulty. Aside from the fact that even Horton accepts that the Royal Free team identified a new syndrome suffered by children with gut disease and autism ( something so scientifically and medically significant, one might think it worthy of investment and further investigation), that original paper is now the equivalent of scientific chip wrappings. Science has moved on; and the Royal Free team has published more papers detailing the unique pattern of disease in these children's guts. In both the UK and the US, meanwhile, measles virus, some of it vaccine strain, has now been found at the site of inflammation in the guts, in the blood and in the spinal fluid of some autistic children but not in ''normal'' children. Separate studies at Utah State University have found that some autistic children have auto-antibodies which are attacking the protein sheath that protects the nerve and brain in those children, researchers found a higher level of measles virus antibodies and an ''unusual MMR'' antibody, whereas their response to other vaccines did not differ between autistic and normal children. None of this proves causation or a link; but combined they do provide a mechanism for brain damage and one potential trigger that might lead to autism. And that surely needs further investigation. Last week, while some newspapers and the medical establishment queued up to kick Dr Wakefield, a new US study of children defined as autistic by the US department of education and the biological surveillance summaries of the Center for Disease Control found ''a biological plausibility and epidemiological evidence showing a direct relationship between... measles containing vaccines and serious neurological disorders''. It also found a relationship between mercury containing vaccines and neurological disorders, the subject of litigation in the US. At the top of the study the authors, Dr Mark Geier and David Geier, both declare a potential conflict of interest in that they have been expert witnesses or consultants in areas involving adverse reactions to vaccines in civil litigation. In May last year Dr Miller - in her role as head of immunisation at the HPA, rather than as an expert for the drug companies - was critical of the Geiers' earlier work. As indeed was Britain's Committee on Safety of Medicines, which found ''serious methodological'' flaws. But as the Daily Mail and other newspapers reported last week, that committee and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation is packed with experts who either have shares in the defendant drug companies, receive funding for research from them or are paid advisers to them. As the Eye reported in 2002, three of the members who sat on the Medical Research Council's review of the ten-fold rise in autism were advisers to the defendant drug companies. Even the chair had shares in one of the companies. The point is that potential conflicts of interest are common in medical and scientific research and development and Dr Wakefield's is but a puff in the wind. Ninety percent of research depends on big business and the pharmaceutical companies - and this is set to rise. The big companies already have a direct line to the prime minister through the Pharmaceutical Industry Competitive Task Force (PICTF), which Tony Blair set up after a meeting with the heads of AstraZeneca, GlaxoWellcome and SmithKlineBeecham. The companies have already stated that they see the NHS as a huge unexploited resource. And the government's own reforming NHS Plan 2000 states that; ''The pharmaceutical industry is a UK success story, employing over 60,000 skilled workers and maintaining an annual trade surplus of over £2 billion. The industry is also the UK's leading investor in research and development. The NHS has a major role to play in ensuring that the UK remains an attractive base for the industry.'' Hence it has set about removing barriers to big business in the drug industry, encouraging hospitals and universities to enter into joint ventures and create mini-companies to exploit their research. They will inevitably become even more dependant on drug company influence - and even more at risk of serious conflicts of interest. Yet no one is shouting about that.

Started by John · 3 March 2004 · Last activity 10 March 2004 · 44 posts · 1,502 views

← Back to General fitness, health and nutrition

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

01 / Original postMMR INTERESTING CONFLICTSJohn · 3 Mar 2004 02 / This pagePosts 1–20Page 1 of 3 · chronological order 03 / Latest replyPost #44Jonathan Smith · 10 Mar 2004

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section: General fitness, health and nutrition
Published: 3 March 2004
Last activity: 10 March 2004
Original author: John
Posts: 44
Discussion status: Public discussion
Total views: 1,502
Views / 30 days: 0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Original post
John
Archived post

3 March 2004, 21:32 UTC #1

PRIVATE EYE 5 March - 18 March 2004 MMR INTERESTING CONFLICTS The vilification of Dr Andrew
Wakefield in recent days has been a side show to the important issue of whether the mumps, measles,
and rubella triple vaccine (MMR) poses a risk to a small sub set of children. But the attacks have
served a purpose. They have highlighted the need to preserve independent medical research - and
reminded the public that there is one rule for an off-message messenger like Dr Wakefield and quite
another for the government and drug companies. For example, one leading health official
responsible for immunisation has been working as an expert for the three defendant drug companies in
the UK MMR court case since July 2002. Yet as far as the Eye can ascertain, she has never declared
that potential ''conflict'' on any of her research papers. Dr Elizabeth Miller, head of
immunisation at the government''s Health Protection Agency (HPA), last year alone published three
papers in the Archives of Disease in Childhood directly related to the MMR controversy. One
suggested that the combined triple live virus does not overload the immune system, so there is no
need for single vaccines. Two others suggested that parents have been more likely to attribute their
children's autism to MMR since 1998, when Dr Wakefield and his team at the Royal Free hospital in
north London published their controversial paper. Nowhere on Dr Miller's papers does she declare
that she is also an expert witness for the drug companies GlaxoSmithKline, Aventis Pasteur and
Merck. Moreover, the Eye has begun trawling through scientific and medical journals to examine
papers published over the last two years by other defendant drug company experts. So far we have not
found a single declaration on any paper that the author also acts as an expert for the defendant
drug companies - even though at least two of the experts (Dr Diane Griffin, an American, and
Professor Volker ter Meulen, a German), have produced research papers directly associated with
vaccination. Unlike in the case of Dr Wakefield, there have been no screaming headlines attacking
their credibility or honesty; no demands for an inquiry by the General Medical Council; no snipes at
their ''fatally flawed'' research. Instead, such authors continue to enjoy the support of
government and big business. By contrast, Dr Wakefield only has the support of harrassed parents who
believe their children were damaged by MMR, and, until recently, the impoverished Legal Services
Commission - hardly powerful or influential. Dr Miller maintains that neither she nor her
department was paid by the three pharmaceutical companies for the detailed and lengthy report she
submitted on their behalf to the court last June. She prepared their evidence in her own time, her
department says, and did not declare it on any papers because there was no financial interest.
Nevertheless, it is known that money from those companies finds its way into the agency, formerly
the Public Health Laboratory Service, through other research channels. In a recent annual report, Dr
Miller listed five ''non-personal'' interests - ie payments which benefited her department rather
than herself. Two of the companies featured were MMR defendants. The rules on conflict are weak,
open to interpretation and generally not enforced - so should any criticism not be dished out in
equal measure? As one leading journal states ''examples of potentially conflicting interests that
should be disclosed include relationships that might detract from an author's objectivity in
presentation of study results and interests whose value would be enhanced by the results
presented.'' How can Sir Liam Donaldson, chief medical officer, and his deputy responsible for
immunisation, Dr David Salisbury, justify their attacks on Dr Wakefield for non-disclosure of an
interest when their own staff appear equally compromised? No doubt Dr Miller sought clearance before
agreeing to act for the defendant drug companies. But every time she now opens her mouth the
question arises: Is she speaking from the ''impartial ''view of the health department, open to all
new research that comes to its attention; or for that of the defendant drug companies? As Eye
readers will recall, Dr Miller also conducted the first ever trial of MMR among 10,000 children
before its introduction in the UK nationwide. It is clear the medical establishment and ministers
had been waiting for an opportunity to attempt to discredit Dr Wakefield. Thus they seized on the
Sunday Times's resurrection of a debate about conflict which emerged in the Lancet six years ago
when Dr Wakefield published his controversial 1998 study. Shortly after publication the Lancet
carried a letter from Dr Wakefield on behalf of all the authors in response to suggestions that
there may have been ''litigation bias'' in their paper. It said that Dr Wakefield had agreed quite
separately to evaluate a small number of children on behalf of the Legal Aid Board. ''These
children have all been seen expressly on the basis that they were referred through the normal
channels (eg. GP, child psychiatrist or community paediatritican) on the merits of their symptoms.''
Nothing about that ''conflict'' has changed but Lancet editor Richard Horton seemed to panic in
the face of more serious - and completely unsubstantiated - allegations from the Sunday Times about
subjecting the children to invasive procedures without ethical approval and questions about the
Lancet's role in the affair - allegations the newspaper was forced to ditch. Interestingly,
Horton's condemnation of the Royal Free paper as ''fatally flawed'' ( which gave oxygen to the
Sunday Times ''scoop''😉 was dropped by the time the Lancet published its statement about the affair
the following week. It stated that it was ''regretful'' that the Lancet had not been made aware that
the parallel legal aid had not been disclosed as it should have been '' because it would have been
material to our decision-making about the paper's suitability, credibility and validity for
publication''. It did not withdraw the paper or say it was fatally damaged. Of course the issue of
potential conflicts of interest - whether by Dr Wakefield or those acting as experts for the
defendant drug companies - only flags up the possibility of research flawed by bias. Before a study
can be ''fatally flawed'', as health chiefs maintain Dr Wakefield's is, the research itself must be
shown to be faulty. Aside from the fact that even Horton accepts that the Royal Free team
identified a new syndrome suffered by children with gut disease and autism ( something so
scientifically and medically significant, one might think it worthy of investment and further
investigation), that original paper is now the equivalent of scientific chip wrappings. Science has
moved on; and the Royal Free team has published more papers detailing the unique pattern of disease
in these children's guts. In both the UK and the US, meanwhile, measles virus, some of it vaccine
strain, has now been found at the site of inflammation in the guts, in the blood and in the spinal
fluid of some autistic children but not in ''normal'' children. Separate studies at Utah State
University have found that some autistic children have auto-antibodies which are attacking the
protein sheath that protects the nerve and brain in those children, researchers found a higher level
of measles virus antibodies and an ''unusual MMR'' antibody, whereas their response to other
vaccines did not differ between autistic and normal children. None of this proves causation or a
link; but combined they do provide a mechanism for brain damage and one potential trigger that might
lead to autism. And that surely needs further investigation. Last week, while some newspapers and
the medical establishment queued up to kick Dr Wakefield, a new US study of children defined as
autistic by the US department of education and the biological surveillance summaries of the Center
for Disease Control found ''a biological plausibility and epidemiological evidence showing a direct
relationship between... measles containing vaccines and serious neurological disorders''. It also
found a relationship between mercury containing vaccines and neurological disorders, the subject of
litigation in the US. At the top of the study the authors, Dr Mark Geier and David Geier, both
declare a potential conflict of interest in that they have been expert witnesses or consultants in
areas involving adverse reactions to vaccines in civil litigation. In May last year Dr Miller - in
her role as head of immunisation at the HPA, rather than as an expert for the drug companies - was
critical of the Geiers' earlier work. As indeed was Britain's Committee on Safety of Medicines,
which found ''serious methodological'' flaws. But as the Daily Mail and other newspapers reported
last week, that committee and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation is packed with
experts who either have shares in the defendant drug companies, receive funding for research from
them or are paid advisers to them. As the Eye reported in 2002, three of the members who sat on
the Medical Research Council's review of the ten-fold rise in autism were advisers to the defendant
drug companies. Even the chair had shares in one of the companies. The point is that potential
conflicts of interest are common in medical and scientific research and development and Dr
Wakefield's is but a puff in the wind. Ninety percent of research depends on big business and the
pharmaceutical companies - and this is set to rise. The big companies already have a direct line to
the prime minister through the Pharmaceutical Industry Competitive Task Force (PICTF), which Tony
Blair set up after a meeting with the heads of AstraZeneca, GlaxoWellcome and SmithKlineBeecham.
The companies have already stated that they see the NHS as a huge unexploited resource. And the
government's own reforming NHS Plan 2000 states that; ''The pharmaceutical industry is a UK success
story, employing over 60,000 skilled workers and maintaining an annual trade surplus of over £2
billion. The industry is also the UK's leading investor in research and development. The NHS has a
major role to play in ensuring that the UK remains an attractive base for the industry.'' Hence it
has set about removing barriers to big business in the drug industry, encouraging hospitals and
universities to enter into joint ventures and create mini-companies to exploit their research. They
will inevitably become even more dependant on drug company influence - and even more at risk of
serious conflicts of interest. Yet no one is shouting about that.

Report
Mark Probert-Ma
Archived post

3 March 2004, 23:32 UTC #2

"john" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
PRIVATE EYE 5 March - 18 March 2004 MMR INTERESTING CONFLICTS
The vilification of Dr Andrew Wakefield in recent days has been a side

show
Quoted message said:
to the important issue of whether the mumps, measles, and rubella triple vaccine (MMR) poses a
risk to a small sub set of children.
Well, boo-hoo. Sniff...sniff..too bad...
The science minded pro-vacs have been telling the anti-vac thimersal whiner know-nothing liars that
they have been creating just this real problem. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, the liars
are whining.
Well, boo-hoo. Sniff..sniff..too bad...
But the attacks
Quoted message said:
have served a purpose.
Yes, the purpose is to show that the anti-vacs are a pack of liars who have derailed proper
investigation into the real causes of autism for year. Now that we can move on from their
fearmongering and [censored], they want to whine that they ahve been caught.
They have highlighted the need to preserve
Quoted message said:
independent medical research - and reminded the public that there is one rule for an off-message
messenger like Dr Wakefield and quite another for the government and drug companies.
Hogwash. There has always been one rule, Wakefield has just wanted to hide his conflict so he can
make the big bucks testifying.
Quoted message said:
For example, one leading health official responsible for immunisation has been working as an
expert for the three defendant drug companies in the UK MMR court case since July 2002. Yet as far
as the Eye can ascertain, she has never declared that potential ''conflict'' on any of her
research

papers.
Quoted message said:

Dr Elizabeth Miller, head of immunisation at the government''s Health Protection Agency (HPA),
last year alone published three papers
You mean this one?
Semin Pediatr Infect Dis. 2003 Jul;14(3):199-206. Related Articles, Links
Measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and the development of autism.
Miller E.
Immunisation Division, Public Health Laboratory Service, 61 Colindale Avenue, London NW9 5EQ, UK.
[email hidden]
snip---
Publication Types: Review Review, Tutorial
PMID: 12913832 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
It is a review, dummy, and not original research like Wakefield claimed he
did.
And this one?
Arch Dis Child. 2003 Mar;88(3):222-3. Related Articles, Links
Bacterial infections, immune overload, and MMR vaccine. Measles, mumps, and rubella.
Miller E, Andrews N, Waight P, Taylor B.
Immunisation Division, Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, Public Health Laboratory Service,
61 Colindale Avenue, London NW9 5EQ, UK. [email hidden]
Combined measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine did not increase the risk of hospitalisation with
invasive bacterial infection in the three months after vaccination; rather there was a protective
effect. These results provide no support for the concept of "immunological overload" induced by
multiple antigen vaccinations, nor calls for single antigen vaccines.
PMID: 12598383 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
and this one?
Arch Dis Child. 2002 Dec;87(6):493-4. Related Articles, Links
Recall bias, MMR, and autism.
Andrews N, Miller E, Taylor B, Lingam R, Simmons A, Stowe J, Waight P.
Statistics Unit, Public Health Laboratory Service, 61 Colindale Avenue, London NW9 5EQ, UK.
Parents of autistic children with regressive symptoms who were diagnosed after the publicity
alleging a link with measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine tended to recall the onset as shortly
after MMR more often than parents of similar children who were diagnosed prior to the publicity.
This is consistent with the recall bias expected under such circumstances.
PMID: 12456546 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
You see, you have it backwards...
She is retained as an expert witness because she researches and publishes..not vice versa....
in the
Quoted message said:
Archives of Disease in Childhood directly related to the MMR controversy. One suggested that the
combined triple live virus does not overload the immune system,
That is correct, it does not.
so there is no need for single vaccines. Two others
Quoted message said:
suggested that parents have been more likely to attribute their children's autism to MMR since
1998, when Dr Wakefield and his team at the Royal Free hospital in north London published their
controversial paper.
Seems logical to me.
Quoted message said:

Nowhere on Dr Miller's papers does she declare that she is also an expert witness for the drug
companies GlaxoSmithKline, Aventis Pasteur and Merck.
I wonder if the writer of this *article* bothered to check the original publications.
Quoted message said:
Moreover, the Eye has begun trawling through scientific and medical journals to examine papers
published over the last two years by other defendant drug company experts. So far we have not
found a single declaration on any paper that the author also acts as an expert for the defendant
drug companies - even though at least two of the experts (Dr Diane Griffin, an American, and
Professor Volker ter Meulen, a German), have produced research papers directly associated with
vaccination.
They are retained to be experts because they do research. Do the lawyers subsidize the research? If
so, you have a similar situation with Wakefiled. If not, stop whining.
Quoted message said:
Unlike in the case of Dr Wakefield, there have been no screaming headlines attacking their
credibility or honesty; no demands for an inquiry by the General Medical Council; no snipes at
their ''fatally flawed'' research.
[censored]. This type of "non-existent" blather has been published regularly for years. It is one of
the ways anti-vac liars undermine parental confidence.
Quoted message said:
Instead, such authors continue to enjoy the support of government and big business. By contrast,
Dr Wakefield only has the support of harrassed parents who believe their children were damaged by
MMR, and, until recently, the impoverished Legal Services Commission - hardly powerful or
influential.
Well, we know that this is not true. he also had the support of the attorneys in performing his
research and stood to make big Euros, Pounds and bucks testifying.
Quoted message said:
Dr Miller maintains that neither she nor her department was paid by the three pharmaceutical
companies for the detailed and lengthy report she submitted on their behalf to the court last
June. She prepared their evidence in her own time, her department says, and did not declare it on
any papers because there was no financial interest.
So, why is she being vilified by the anti-vac liars? Because she was right all along and they
cannot stand it.
Quoted message said:
Nevertheless, it is known that money from those companies finds its way into the agency, formerly
the Public Health Laboratory Service, through other research channels. In a recent annual report,
Dr Miller listed five ''non-personal'' interests - ie payments which benefited her department
rather than herself. Two of the companies featured were MMR defendants.
So, she did not recevie any money for her services, but they try to smear her by implication.
Quoted message said:
The rules on conflict are weak, open to interpretation and generally not enforced - so should any
criticism not be dished out in equal measure? As one leading journal states ''examples of
potentially conflicting interests that should be disclosed include relationships that might
detract from an author's objectivity in presentation of study results and interests whose value
would be enhanced by the results presented.''
How can Sir Liam Donaldson, chief medical officer, and his deputy responsible for immunisation, Dr
David Salisbury, justify their attacks on Dr Wakefield for non-disclosure of an interest when
their own staff appear equally compromised?
because kids became sick and died due to Wakefield's actions? Seems right to
die.
No doubt Dr Miller sought clearance before agreeing to
Quoted message said:
act for the defendant drug companies. But every time she now opens her mouth the question arises:
Is she speaking from the ''impartial ''view of the health department, open to all new research
that comes to its attention; or for that of the defendant drug companies? As Eye readers

will
Quoted message said:
recall, Dr Miller also conducted the first ever trial of MMR among 10,000 children before its
introduction in the UK nationwide.
see, more smear by innuendo.
Quoted message said:
It is clear the medical establishment and ministers had been waiting for

an
Quoted message said:
opportunity to attempt to discredit Dr Wakefield. Thus they seized on the Sunday Times's
resurrection of a debate about conflict which emerged in

the
Quoted message said:
Lancet six years ago when Dr Wakefield published his controversial 1998 study.
Wrong. Six years ago his financial ties to the attorneys who were prosecuting these bogus claims
were unknown.
sniop....

Report
Jon
Archived post

4 March 2004, 01:12 UTC #3

"Mark Probert shared his opinions and so did "john"
however the issue remains one of choice for the parents of the children concerned.
they have to have the authority to make the descision of what is best for their child and they are
the ones who have to live with the responsiblity of that and the consequaences of their descsions.
no one else has the right to decide for them.
it is the place of the government and health services to educate and provide, not dictate and force
--
jon
________
keep claude happy and snip the garbage to make it work

Report
Roger Schlafly
Archived post

4 March 2004, 01:52 UTC #4

"Mark Probert-March 3, 2004" <Mark [email hidden]> wrote
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
They have highlighted the need to preserve independent medical research - and reminded the
public that there is one rule for an off-message messenger like Dr Wakefield and quite another

for
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
the government and drug companies.

It is a review, dummy, and not original research like Wakefield claimed he
did.
So what? Gubmnt officials and review article authors can have conflicts, but not research
article authors?
Quoted message said:
She is retained as an expert witness because she researches and publishes..not vice versa....
And that makes her conflicts ok?

Report
David Wright
Archived post

4 March 2004, 03:53 UTC #5

In article <[email hidden]>,
jon said:
"Mark Probert shared his opinions and so did "john"
however the issue remains one of choice for the parents of the children concerned.
they have to have the authority to make the descision of what is best for their child and they are
the ones who have to live with the responsiblity of that and the consequaences of their descsions.
no one else has the right to decide for them.
it is the place of the government and health services to educate and provide, not dictate and force
You're right. If you feel like driving down the other side of the road from everyone else, or firing
off a gun in random directions in the middle of a crowded auditorium, no government should be able
to dictate your behavior. They should just educate and provide.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always
correct. "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my
shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

Report
Jeff
Archived post

4 March 2004, 14:05 UTC #6

"Roger Schlafly" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"Mark Probert-March 3, 2004" <Mark [email hidden]> wrote
(...)
Quoted message said:
So what? Gubmnt officials and review article authors can have conflicts, but not research article
authors?
When I coach soccer, I have my own agenda, including teaching soccer skills, making sure the
children enjoy themselves, learn soccer and sportsmanship, and winning games. There is nothing we do
without our own agenda.
Although he didn't say it the same way, Stephen Jay Gould, an evolutionist who wrote several great
books on science, has said pretty much the same thing. In fact, this looms large in two of his books
(and appears in most of them): Wonderful Life and Eight Little Piggies.
That is true of university researchers and government authors.
I don't know what "Gubmnt" is, however. Maybe you need to fix your computer's spell check function
(not saying that mine works well ;-) ),
(...)

Report
Mark Probert-Ma
Archived post

4 March 2004, 14:05 UTC #7

"jon" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"Mark Probert shared his opinions and so did "john"
however the issue remains one of choice for the parents of the children concerned.
they have to have the authority to make the descision of what is best for their child and they are
the ones who have to live with the responsiblity

of
Quoted message said:
that and the consequaences of their descsions.
no one else has the right to decide for them.
it is the place of the government and health services to educate and provide, not dictate
and force
Who said differently? Is Strawman your favorite character in the Wizard of Oz?

Report
Mark Probert-Ma
Archived post

4 March 2004, 14:06 UTC #8

"Roger Schlafly" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"Mark Probert-March 3, 2004" <Mark [email hidden]> wrote
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
They have highlighted the need to preserve independent medical research - and reminded the
public that there is

one
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
rule for an off-message messenger like Dr Wakefield and quite another

for
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
the government and drug companies.

It is a review, dummy, and not original research like Wakefield claimed

he
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
did.
So what? Gubmnt officials and review article authors can have conflicts, but not research article
authors?
Quoted message said:
She is retained as an expert witness because she researches and publishes..not vice versa....
And that makes her conflicts ok?
Hardly. However, the author is feebly attempting to equate her being an expert witness to
Wakefield's being paid by attorneys to conduct research on a small group of subjects, where a large
percentage of the study group were clients of the attorneys.
I know you cannot see that the analogy is utterly bogus.

Report
Jonathan Smith
Archived post

4 March 2004, 15:03 UTC #9

"Roger Schlafly" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
"Mark Probert-March 3, 2004" <Mark [email hidden]> wrote
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
They have highlighted the need to preserve independent medical research - and reminded the
public that there is one rule for an off-message messenger like Dr Wakefield and quite another

for
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
the government and drug companies.

It is a review, dummy, and not original research like Wakefield claimed he
did.
So what? Gubmnt officials and review article authors can have conflicts, but not research article
authors?
Quoted message said:
She is retained as an expert witness because she researches and publishes..not vice versa....
And that makes her conflicts ok?
Aren't you a fan of temporal association as definitive causality? oops.
Research, results, then money. Wakefield - money, then research, then results.
js

Report
Jon
Archived post

4 March 2004, 19:33 UTC #10

"David Wright" wrote
Quoted message said:
jon said:
it is the place of the government and health services to educate and provide, not dictate
and force
You're right. If you feel like driving down the other side of the road from everyone else, or
firing off a gun in random directions in the middle of a crowded auditorium, no government should
be able to dictate your behavior. They should just educate and provide.
dont be a [censored] head, you are using ridiculous arguments to discuss issues of parents having the
right to decide what is the best healthcare for their children, OBVIOUSLY driving on the wrong side
of the road or shooting people is not something you should have the freedom to decide about.
now go away, grow up and only come back when you have something adult to offer to the debate
--
jon
________
keep claude happy and snip the garbage to make it work

Report
Mark Probert-Ma
Archived post

4 March 2004, 23:03 UTC #11

"jon" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"David Wright" wrote
Quoted message said:
jon said:
it is the place of the government and health services to educate and provide, not dictate and
force
You're right. If you feel like driving down the other side of the road from everyone else, or
firing off a gun in random directions in the middle of a crowded auditorium, no government
should be able to dictate your behavior. They should just educate and provide.
dont be a [censored] head, you are using ridiculous arguments to discuss issues

of
Quoted message said:
parents having the right to decide what is the best healthcare for their children, OBVIOUSLY
driving on the wrong side of the road or shooting

people
Quoted message said:
is not something you should have the freedom to decide about.
Equally obvious is the fact that you changed the subject of this thread, and I wonder why?

Report
Cbi
Archived post

4 March 2004, 23:33 UTC #12

"jon" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
"Mark Probert shared his opinions and so did "john"
however the issue remains one of choice for the parents of the children concerned.
they have to have the authority to make the descision of what is best for their child and they are
the ones who have to live with the responsiblity of that and the consequaences of their descsions.
OK- so when the herd immunity drops due to underimmunization and a kid who either could not recive
the vacine or did not respond to it gets the disease how do you propose we make the parents of those
unimmunized kids take responsibility for their decisions?
Quoted message said:
no one else has the right to decide for them.
The decisions affects people that the parent does not have the right to make decisions for.
Quoted message said:
it is the place of the government and health services to educate and provide, not dictate
and force
It is also the place of the government to protect.
--
CBI, MD

Report
David Wright
Archived post

5 March 2004, 03:18 UTC #13

In article <[email hidden]>,
jon said:
"David Wright" wrote
Quoted message said:
jon said:
it is the place of the government and health services to educate and provide, not dictate
and force
You're right. If you feel like driving down the other side of the road from everyone else, or
firing off a gun in random directions in the middle of a crowded auditorium, no government should
be able to dictate your behavior. They should just educate and provide.
dont be a [censored] head, you are using ridiculous arguments to discuss issues of parents having the
right to decide what is the best healthcare for their children, OBVIOUSLY driving on the wrong side
of the road or shooting people is not something you should have the freedom to decide about.
Oh, it's *obvious*, is it? Well, I was merely pointing out the silliness of your implicit claim that
parents have an absolute right to decide everything about their children's upbringing.
They don't have the right to kill a disobedient child (even though it's in the Bible) or lock it in
a closet and starve it nearly to death. (If you think they do have this right, then it should be
done to you immediately, but I'll assume you don't think so.)
So the question then becomes: where does parental discretion end? Me, I'd argue that *not*
vaccinating children for potentially fatal diseases comes perilously close to child abuse.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always
correct. "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my
shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

Report
Roger Schlafly
Archived post

5 March 2004, 03:33 UTC #14

"Jeff" <[email hidden]> wrote
Quoted message said:
Although he didn't say it the same way, Stephen Jay Gould, an evolutionist who wrote several great
books on science, has said pretty much the same thing. In fact, this looms large in two of his
books (and appears in most

of
Quoted message said:
them): Wonderful Life and Eight Little Piggies.
Gould was an example an example of an academic whose personal ideology (Marxism) and egotism were
big biases in his work. A lot of people had low opinions of him for various reasons.

Report
Jeff
Archived post

5 March 2004, 15:00 UTC #15

"Roger Schlafly" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"Jeff" <[email hidden]> wrote
Quoted message said:
Although he didn't say it the same way, Stephen Jay Gould, an

evolutionist
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
who wrote several great books on science, has said pretty much the same thing. In fact, this
looms large in two of his books (and appears in

most
Quoted message said:
of
Quoted message said:
them): Wonderful Life and Eight Little Piggies.
Gould was an example an example of an academic whose personal ideology (Marxism) and egotism were
big biases in his work. A lot of people had low opinions of him for various reasons.
Here is complete list of people whose personal biases did not affect his/her work:
<begin list> <end list>
Can you find some his book chapters and show how his supposed Marxism affected his work?
I won't argue about his ego. It was big.
Nothing the less, he was correct about how personal bias affects books and other writings. In fact,
you can see it as you read his books -- as his experiences (age) affects what he writes about and
how he writes it. And you can't miss his big ego, either.
Jeff

Report
Abacus
Archived post

5 March 2004, 17:08 UTC #16

[email hidden] (David Wright) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
In article <[email hidden]>, jon
Quoted message said:
"David Wright" wrote
Quoted message said:
jon wrote:
>it is the place of the government and health services to educate and provide, not dictate and
>force
You're right. If you feel like driving down the other side of the road from everyone else, or
firing off a gun in random directions in the middle of a crowded auditorium, no government
should be able to dictate your behavior. They should just educate and provide.
dont be a [censored] head, you are using ridiculous arguments to discuss issues of parents having the
right to decide what is the best healthcare for their children, OBVIOUSLY driving on the wrong
side of the road or shooting people is not something you should have the freedom to decide about.
Oh, it's *obvious*, is it? Well, I was merely pointing out the silliness of your implicit claim
that parents have an absolute right to decide everything about their children's upbringing.
They don't have the right to kill a disobedient child (even though it's in the Bible) or lock it
in a closet and starve it nearly to death. (If you think they do have this right, then it should
be done to you immediately, but I'll assume you don't think so.)
So the question then becomes: where does parental discretion end? Me, I'd argue that *not*
vaccinating children for potentially fatal diseases comes perilously close to child abuse.
Since it only comes close, can I presume that you don't feel it crosses the line into child abuse?
And if it doesn't cross that line, doesn't that make it something that should be left to the
discretion of the parents? Doesn't that mean that it is, in fact "the place of the government and
health services to educate and provide, not dictate and force"?

Report
Mark Probert-Ma
Archived post

5 March 2004, 17:08 UTC #17

"abacus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
[email hidden] (David Wright) wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
In article <[email hidden]>, jon
Quoted message said:
"David Wright" wrote
> jon wrote:
> >it is the place of the government and health services to educate and provide, not dictate
> >and force
>
> You're right. If you feel like driving down the other side of the road from everyone else, or
> firing off a gun in random directions in the middle of a crowded auditorium, no government
> should be able

to
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
> dictate your behavior. They should just educate and provide.
dont be a [censored] head, you are using ridiculous arguments to discuss

issues of
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
parents having the right to decide what is the best healthcare for

their
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
children, OBVIOUSLY driving on the wrong side of the road or shooting

people
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
is not something you should have the freedom to decide about.
Oh, it's *obvious*, is it? Well, I was merely pointing out the silliness of your implicit claim
that parents have an absolute right to decide everything about their children's upbringing.
They don't have the right to kill a disobedient child (even though it's in the Bible) or lock it
in a closet and starve it nearly to death. (If you think they do have this right, then it should
be done to you immediately, but I'll assume you don't think so.)
So the question then becomes: where does parental discretion end? Me, I'd argue that *not*
vaccinating children for potentially fatal diseases comes perilously close to child abuse.
Since it only comes close, can I presume that you don't feel it crosses the line into child abuse?
And if it doesn't cross that line, doesn't that make it something that should be left to the
discretion of the parents? Doesn't that mean that it is, in fact "the place of the government and
health services to educate and provide, not dictate and force"?
I think it crosses the line into child neglect.

Report
Jg
Archived post

5 March 2004, 20:04 UTC #18

"CBI" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
"jon" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
"Mark Probert shared his opinions and so did "john"
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
however the issue remains one of choice for the parents of the

children
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
concerned.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
they have to have the authority to make the descision of what is

best for
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
their child and they are the ones who have to live with the

responsiblity of
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
that and the consequaences of their descsions.
Quoted message said:
OK- so when the herd immunity drops due to underimmunization
...or enough instances of vaccine failure...
and a kid
Quoted message said:
who either could not recive the vacine or did not respond to it
...or experienced secondary failure...
gets
Quoted message said:
the disease how do you propose we make the parents of those unimmunized kids take responsibility
for their decisions?
Still all-too-eager to blame unvaccinated kids for disease transmission, I see. In the case of
chickenpox, at this point more cases are undoubtedly transmitted by *vaccinated* kids than by
unvaccinated kids (surely you recall the previous discussion of this topic). Why would it be fair to
punish the parents of unvaccinated kids but not those whose kids have experienced vaccine failure
(either primary or secondary)? Oh, I get it.... They *tried*, and that's all, apparently, that
matters these days.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
no one else has the right to decide for them.
Quoted message said:
The decisions affects people that the parent does not have the right to make decisions for.
Individuals (parents, in the case of minors) are responsible for their own health. Remember the old
"drive defensively" PS campaign? The same applies to communicable diseases. A smart parent will
assume that *everyone* poses a potential threat to his/her child and will act in the child's best
interests. Most choose to vaccinate, believing this provides a strong measure of protection. Others
teach their kids good hygiene, i.e., measures to avoid, to a large degree, contracting various
diseases. You seem to have an underlying belief that parents who forgo vaccination don't care about
their kids' (or others' kids'😉 health. Most non-vaccinators I know are actually *more* conscientious
than vaccinators. Sure, some make what I often consider to be goofy choices (many are totally into
alternative medicine), but they're putting a hell of a lot more thought (and time) into their kids'
health than most vaccinators. Indeed, many of the vaccinators among my friends/acquaintances don't
appear to put much thought into their kids' health at all; their kids often seem to be chronically
ill, and they (the parents) put way too much stock (IMO) in what their physicians/pediatricians say.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
it is the place of the government and health services to educate and provide, not dictate
and force
Quoted message said:
It is also the place of the government to protect.
...*society as a whole*, NOT individual members.
JG
Freedom of the mind requires not only, or not even especially, the absence of legal constraints but
the presence of alternative thoughts. The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to
assure uniformity, but the one that removes awareness of other possibilities. --Alan Bloom, _The
Closing of the American Mind_

Report
David Wright
Archived post

6 March 2004, 04:17 UTC #19

In article <[email hidden]>,
abacus said:
[email hidden] (David Wright) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
In article <[email hidden]>, jon
Quoted message said:
"David Wright" wrote
> jon wrote:
> >it is the place of the government and health services to educate and
> >provide, not dictate and force
>
> You're right. If you feel like driving down the other side of the road from
> everyone else, or firing off a gun in random directions in the middle of a
> crowded auditorium, no government should be able to dictate your behavior.
> They should just educate and provide.
dont be a [censored] head, you are using ridiculous arguments to discuss issues of
parents having the right to decide what is the best healthcare for their
children, OBVIOUSLY driving on the wrong side of the road or shooting people
is not something you should have the freedom to decide about.
Oh, it's *obvious*, is it? Well, I was merely pointing out the silliness of
your implicit claim that parents have an absolute right to decide everything
about their children's upbringing.
They don't have the right to kill a disobedient child (even though it's in the
Bible) or lock it in a closet and starve it nearly to death. (If you think
they do have this right, then it should be done to you immediately, but I'll
assume you don't think so.)
So the question then becomes: where does parental discretion end? Me, I'd
argue that *not* vaccinating children for potentially fatal diseases comes
perilously close to child abuse.
Since it only comes close, can I presume that you don't feel it crosses the line
into child abuse?
No, I'm saying it's a tricky proposition. For example, if I were going to take
a child on a trip to Russia, I'd insist on a diphtheria vaccination before
going, because they've had outbreaks there. I think it would be unacceptable to
not do this.
Quoted message said:
And if it doesn't cross that line, doesn't that make it something that should be
left to the discretion of the parents? Doesn't that mean that it is, in fact
"the place of the government and health services to educate and provide, not
dictate and force"?
Only up to a point. If we imagine a world full of Roger Schlaflys, loaded with
lame rationalizations about why *their* precious child should not be vaccinated,
well, then that's a new situation. Right now, the Rogers of the world can
parasite along, getting a free ride from the other people who *do* vaccinate. But
that only works as long as most people do vaccinate. If the numbers drop low
enough, then we get epidemics, as has been shown plenty of times (pertussis in
the UK and Scandanavia and Japan, measles in Germany, etc etc etc). So I'm not an
unlimited supporter of parental discretion in this area.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but
they're almost always correct. "If I have not seen as far as others, it is
because giants were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

Report
Colin Wilson
Archived post

6 March 2004, 10:17 UTC #20

Quoted message said:
So I'm not an unlimited supporter of parental discretion in this area
I don`t think many parents would quibble if they were simply offered the single
jabs instead. This is a simple way to get over the MMR controversy and keep the
numbers up.
I am not a parent, but would prefer to have single jabs offered as a choice
rather than the now (perhaps unfairly) tarnished MMR.
--
Please add "[newsgroup]" in the subject of any personal replies via email
* old email address "btiruseless" abandoned due to worm-generated spam * --- My
new email address has "ngspamtrap" & @btinternet.com in it ;-) ---

Report

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.

Jump through the discussion

What we know about this thread

Continue through CyclingForums

Active in this thread