From: Hilary Butler http://www.whale.to/vaccines/butler3.html
Dear Sir,
Simon Murch makes a salient point, which he would do well to review more
carefully. He stated: ..."there has been no proper large scale study with
controls, published in a respected, peer-reviewed journal." proving that
the MMR causes autism. What a pity he had not read everything on this
site, and in this article, also published today
http://www.redflagsweekly.com/yazbak/2003_nov01_1.html
Murch alleges that the "unprecedented volume of medical study on a
worldwide basis" proves that the vaccine is safe. The problem with this
carefully worded obfuscation, is that his first comment applies to his own
argument as well. A "large volume of study" stating that the vaccine is
safe, does not mean that those studies are "proper" or have valid
"controls". Every single article published so far, supposedly proving his
point, has had serious scientific flaws, which have been rebutted by
reputable scientists, yet the publishing journals refuse to print the
rebuttals. Any thinking person would want to know why that was. Except that
unless you surf the net, you won't know that there is even any debate.
Take another "study" in Pediatrics to be pre-released today "co-inciding"
with Murch's statement. This too, will show that the vaccine is safe. The
problem is that both the original VSD study from Feb. 2000, and the
transcripts of the Simpsonwood meeting (obtained under the FOA) found that
exposure to more than 62.5 micrograms of mercury in vaccines within the
first three months of life could make children more than twice as likely to
develop autism than children not exposed. This official information is
available to the public on http://www.safeminds.org and
www.factsformedia.com . But why has it never been in medical journals?
Dr. Tom Verstraeten who was the lead investigator in the original study is
one of the authors of the new article. Although he is now employed by
vaccine-manufacturer giant GlaxoSmithKlein, the article fails to disclose
the clear conflict of interest, as required by Pediatrics guidelines. Why
is that?
More and more, this looks to fully informed observers, very much like the
"orchestrated litany of lies" that so disgusted Peter Mahon when wading
through the offically released "smog" obscuring the reasons for the Erebus
disaster. And most people now, as then, are so blinded by the "wood" from
the vested interests, that they cannot see the actual trees. So the last
question has to be: "When is the media going to do some real, in depth
journalism on the issue, as opposed to automatic reportage?"
Sincerely,
Hilary Butler.
Tuakau.
NEW ZEALAND