Dr. Andrew Wakefield on the Autism/Vaccine Controversy and His Ongoing Professional Persecution
The Daily Bell is pleased to present an exclusive interview with Dr. Andrew Wakefield.
Introduction: Dr Andrew Wakefield, MB, BS, FRCS, FRCPath, is an academic gastroenterologist. He received his medical degree from St. Mary's Hospital Medical School (part of the University of London) in 1981, one of the third generation of his family to have studied medicine at that teaching hospital. He pursued a career in gastrointestinal surgery with a particular interest in inflammatory bowel disease. He qualified as Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons in 1985 and in 1996 was awarded a Wellcome Trust Traveling Fellowship to study small-intestinal transplantation in Toronto, Canada. He was made a Fellow of the Royal College of Pathologists in 2001. He has published over 130 original scientific articles, book chapters, and invited scientific commentaries. In the pursuit of possible links between childhood vaccines, intestinal inflammation, and neurologic injury in children, Dr. Wakefield lost his job in the Department of Medicine at London's Royal Free Hospital, his country, his career, and his medical license.
Daily Bell: Can you fill our readers in on the controversy that has cost you so dearly?
Dr. Andrew Wakefield: Certainly. Let me give you a bit of background as to who I am. I am a gastroenterologist and an entirely conventional physician. I trained at St. Mary's Hospital in London, qualifying in 1981 and then went on to study surgery and became a fellow at the Royal College of Surgeons. I had a particular interest in Crohn's Disease, Bowel disease, Osteo-Colitis and pursued an academic career. I published about 130 papers in bowel disease prior to becoming involved in Autism in 1995.
Daily Bell: How did that happen?
Dr. Andrew Wakefield: A mother called me and said a child is developing perfectly normally and then had their MR vaccine. The child became extremely unwell, high fever for days and upon recovery was never the same. The child deteriorated into Autism – lost speech, communication, language, inter-action. I said, I'm terribly sorry, I'm a gastroenterologist, you must have rung the wrong number. I knew nothing about Autism; when I was in medical school, it was so rare – we were not even taught about it. And she said, No, you don't understand my child has terrible bowel problems; he's having diarrhea 12 times a day he's lost continence; I know he's in pain but he can't tell me he's in pain. He's hitting himself, banging his head, biting himself and attacking people and I know this is because he is in pain.
Daily Bell: Did you believe her?
Dr. Andrew Wakefield: The first and most fundamental rule of clinical medicine, the kind of medicine I was trained to practice and my parents and grandparents were trained to practice, is to listen to the patient or the patient's parents and they will tell you the problem. Now here is a mother who is not anti-vaccine, who took her child to be vaccinated, did all the right things and lo-and-behold this is what happened to her child. We eventually had a series of children whose mothers told exactly the same story. We decided, a team of us, at the Royal Free Hospital – including some of the most eminent pediatric gastroenterologists in the world such as Professor John Walker-Smith – to take a closer look at these children because they were clearly suffering. The children underwent a series of tests, colonoscopy and biopsy and we discovered they had bowel disease.
We treated the bowel disease, the inflammation, just as you might treat Crohn's disease or Colitis with anti-inflammatory and diet and the children got better, not only from the bowel disease perspective; their diarrhea improved and also their behavior improved. That was very, very interesting. So we decided to pursue this.
Daily Bell: How did you pursue it exactly?
Dr. Andrew Wakefield: By the time I left the Royal Free in 2001, nearly 200 hundred children with this condition had been seen and diagnosed. The problem came of course, when the parent said, my child regressed after the vaccine. If the child had regressed after, let's say natural chicken pox, we would not be having this conversation right now. There would have been no controversy, it would have been, "that's extremely interesting, let's have a look at it." There would have been no problem, but because it happened after a vaccine, all hell broke loose.
Daily Bell: And you are still living with the results.
Dr. Andrew Wakefield: My job is not to pander to the whims of the pharmaceutical industry or to government policy. My job is to answer the question that the parent presents to me when they call me or confront me at a meeting. That is my job and my duty as a doctor. So one came to a crossroads ... well, if the parents are right about the bowel disease, are they right about the vaccine? We decided to look into that in more detail. And that's where the controversy began. I am not in any way anti-vaccine, by the way, and my own children were vaccinated. But I had to understand the background. I put together a 250-page report on these safety studies and they were appalling, they were totally unsatisfactory.
Daily Bell: You're saying those who make and regulate vaccines – both – were not properly vetting the effects of vaccines? That's a strong statement to make.
Dr. Andrew Wakefield: They did not look at the outcomes of the vaccine beyond the short-term. To put this in context, we are dealing with viruses that can cause disease many years later. Thus, you do not confine your safety studies to 3 – 6 weeks. As a result of this understanding, it became my clear conviction that parents deserved access to the option to access single vaccines – the way it was done before, which was perfectly effective.
Daily Bell: Sounds reasonable.
Dr. Andrew Wakefield: In fact, Measles, Mumps and Rubella had separate vaccines. The combined risk of three viruses in a vaccine, MMR, is a way in which nature has never seen them before. Never. And to subject those to inadequate safety studies is in my opinion, not acceptable. That was the essence of the controversy and what has happened ever since has been in essence what medicine and science have done perhaps for all time – crush dissent by discrediting the messenger ... me.
It is simply an effort to silence me because of the egregious errors that have been made in vaccination safety studies. But this has happened since time immemorial. One of the classic cases has to do with the drug Thalidomide. The doctor who first described abnormalities following mothers taking Thalidomide during pregnancy was strongly attacked.
Daily Bell: Let's back up to be clear. Exactly what did you suggest parents do as a result of your famous study published in the Lancet Journal in 1988?
Dr. Andrew Wakefield: The Autism study was a simple case series of 12 children and all it did was to tell the parents story of what they told us. It was to document the pinnacle findings in the children. Further research was needed into causes of autism.
Daily Bell: As we understand it, the paper suggested further research specifically regarding linkage between the MMR vaccine and autism, and thus you have been held responsible for the plunge in children getting vaccinated with MMR. However, it also seems to us that in thousands of articles written about all this recently that you've been constantly accused of making a direct link between vaccines and autism in that now-retracted paper.
Dr. Andrew Wakefield: Never before in the history of human endeavor has so much been said about a paper that has been read or understood by so few. It is quite extraordinary. The fact that we published 19 papers on the subject after that one is irrelevant. It's never mentioned. Critics dwell only upon that one paper. I listened to the parents' story and acted according to my professional and moral obligations to determine what was happening with these children.
Daily Bell: Did you pursue the logical ramifications of your work at The Thoughtful House in Texas – a clinic from where you have just recently resigned?
Dr. Andrew Wakefield: Did I continue the work that I started in England? Yes. Certainly. We continued to investigate the bowel disease; we looked for evidence of the measles virus from the vaccine being involved. Most importantly, what we did was a seven-year study looking at monkeys, infant primates, exposed to the vaccine schedule. It was something that had never been done before, but it should have been done and that is to ask what happens in the real world. Not test vaccines in isolation but test the schedule that children actually get.
This is a study that we did in primates because vaccines are tested on primates in pre-clinical studies. What we found, even with just the Hepatitis B vaccine containing mercury preservatives, even on the first day of life, even just after that vaccine, there was evidence of neurological damage. What was alarming to me, again, is that there had never been any safety studies that I could find of giving the Hepatitis B vaccine on day-one of life. That again is not acceptable.
Safety first. This must be the priority, particularly when you are dealing with the health of children who are well, who don't have a disease, perfectly healthy and you are extending this policy to every child in the world. All these issues are now covered in my new book, Callous Disregard, just published.
Daily Bell: Did you see cures? Improvement? Give us details of the treatment.
Dr. Andrew Wakefield: Did we do trials for medical improvement? Yes, we endeavored to do several trials. What we see at an anecdotal level in individual patients, is a substantial improvement in symptoms following treatment of the bowel disease. And the treatment of the bowel disease is through the use of anti-inflammatory medications and diet. We found benefits from using exclusion diets for children who were sensitive to various foods such as wheat and gluten. We went on to do a clinical trial of hydro-therapy, which some people had suggested could benefit children with Autism. We did not find any benefit in our trial, publishing those results accordingly. So part of my role at Thoughtful House was to put the anecdotal observations into a scientific context to determine whether there were benefits or not.
Daily Bell: Guess that's why it was called Thoughtful House. Obviously, this has attracted antipathy in some quarters.
Dr. Andrew Wakefield: Well, I think when you are in a field where there is so much vested interest in current beliefs, and where you are challenging public health policy and pharmaceutical industry profits, then you are inevitably going to invite huge controversy.
That is a matter of fact and it happened with Vioxx; it happened with Thalidomide and will happen every time a popular and profitable drug or treatment is challenged. It happened with smoking. You will remember we went through a period for at least 15-20 years where papers were published in medical literature saying how good smoking was for you. Well we now know that not to be true. But it was a challenge then to industrial interests and just as it is now to pharmaceutical interests. That is undoubtedly going to bring on controversy.
Daily Bell: Are you angry over your treatment?
Dr. Andrew Wakefield: When I went into it, I knew to some extent what it was going to involve. I am a student of medical history and I realized that there was going to be fallout from this. So, anger on my part, what has happened to me ... not really, no. Frustration and sadness because I went into medicine believing it to be one thing – a discipline that puts the patients well-being, the patient's welfare, above all other considerations. No compromise. So to find that many colleagues have departed from that ideology is sad to me, but nonetheless we have to deal with the real world.
What I think frustrates me and perhaps even angers me more is the way in which the children have been discarded. The children with this condition represent an uncomfortable truth and there has been an effort to erase them from the realm. Commit, if you like, editorial genocide to get rid of these children because they put at risk government policy, World Health organization policy and also drug company profits, but to me that is not acceptable. I find this very difficult to deal with.
Daily Bell: You have many supporters.
Dr. Andrew Wakefield: Without them I don't think it would be possible to continue. They are absolutely extraordinary. I mean, there's never been a complaint against me from a parent or an infected child. There's only been support. I have only ever acted in their best interests and the parents instinctively know that. Mothers know their children, they know when they are well, they know when they are ill and they know when people are acting in their best interest. So, parental support has been absolutely marvelous. There are now more and more scientists and doctors who have realized what is going on and realized that the emperor has no clothes and that they must act in a way that their duty demands.
There are a very large number of people who are joining in with this now. I have just come back from China where they estimate there are some 4-5 million children with autism. One home has 3,000 children in it and has no idea how to treat them. I met with doctors and scientists in Hong Kong who were of a similar opinion that there is a major problem with the vaccination program in the context of childhood mental disorder. So that kind of support makes it possible to continue and do this kind of work.
Daily Bell: Would you pursue your autism/vaccine study if you had it to do over?
Dr. Andrew Wakefield: Yes, I think I would. I have no regrets about anything that has happened other than what has happened to the children or what hasn't happened for them as a consequence of the controversy. I would like to think that I would follow exactly the same course even knowing what the consequences were, if presented with the same challenges again. It's very difficult to look back and predict what one might have done then but I would like to think that I would have had the courage knowing what I know now.
Daily Bell: We've already touched on it, but explain please in detail why the initial paper was disavowed by the Lancet?
Dr. Andrew Wakefield: In the first instance, the Editor of the Lancet asked us to retract an interpretation of the paper. And that interpretation was that MMR vaccine was the cause of autism.
Daily Bell: But you didn't make this claim did you?
Dr. Andrew Wakefield: No, the paper did not make that claim. It did not provide the interpretation that MMR vaccine is the cause of autism. However, it did raise the possibility that vaccines may be associated with autism. But you cannot retract a possibility. A possibility exists. It remains a possibility and therefore to retract it is illogical and was done purely as a political expedient.
Daily Bell: So you weren't prepared to retract a possibility?
Dr. Andrew Wakefield: My two colleagues and I were not prepared to get involved in that kind of illogical, political process. The other reason that we were asked to withdraw the paper or retract that part of the paper is because I had not told the Editor of the Lancet that I was funded to do a study, a quite separate study, to investigate whether vaccines could cause this bowel disease at all.
Daily Bell: Was that somehow unethical?
Dr. Andrew Wakefield: This is very important, and it may be a little complex, but in 1997 when the paper was submitted, the rules of that disclosure said that the author (that is me) had to decide whether something constituted a conflict or not. It was in the active voice. It was up to me to decide and I thought very hard about it. Those were the rules then. The rules now are very different. The rules now require that you put yourself in the third person and ask what might be perceived to be a conflict of interest. That is very much more onerous. But those were not the rules at the time. This is covered in my book.
Daily Bell: Do you believe in your paper despite the Lancet retraction?
Dr. Andrew Wakefield: Do I believe in what was in the paper? Absolutely. The bowel disease has now been confirmed in five separate countries. Papers have been published from Italy, Venezuela, the United States, from Canada and the UK confirming the presence of bowel disease. So that discovery stands absolutely. A vaccine issue – well, we will see. As yet we don't know but we are continuing to investigate.
Daily Bell: Why did your co-writers disavow the study? Or did they?
Dr. Andrew Wakefield: This is a very good question and probably one for them – but they wanted to make it clear, I think, that they didn't believe MMR caused autism. But in fact, that really is not what happened. Because as I say, the paper did not make that claim and we cannot retract a possibility so why they retracted is really a question for them.
Daily Bell: Was it fair of them?
Dr. Andrew Wakefield: I think they were frightened, I think they were very, very frightened at the time. And there were misunderstandings. Pressure was brought on them and me. I resisted.
Daily Bell: Are you surprised by the antipathy and inaccuracy of mainstream media – generally or specifically?
Dr. Andrew Wakefield: Yes I am. I am most disappointed by it. I think a lot of the problem has been the original Sunday Times article on this whole affair was grossly, factually inaccurate but that was the lead story that people have followed. Certain things became imbedded as part of the truth and people came to believe them simply because they were repeated time and time again. So, the media, I don't think, for the most part has taken the trouble to examine the background of this and part of the reason for writing the book I've just written [Ed. Note: see information below] is to provide the media with some insight into what actually happened and the accuracies of the original report.
Daily Bell: Do you feel big pharmaceutical companies have targeted you and your research?
Dr. Andrew Wakefield: Do I feel that it is my impression that they have, absolutely.
Daily Bell: Is Big Pharma acting ethically regarding continued pressure for mandatory use of more and more vaccines?
Dr. Andrew Wakefield: No absolutely not. Firstly there is no ethical basis for mandatory vaccination at all. Ethics, the fundamental core of ethics, is fully informed consent; you cannot provide fully informed consent if your information is derelict; if your information is inadequate; and if the information you are providing is wrong. And in the case of the vaccines all three of those pertain.
I will give you a very recent example of this kind of problem. It was recently reported that a vaccine was found to contain two pig viruses, fragments of two pig viruses, one which caused a wasting-disease in pigs. This vaccine should have been withdrawn from the market immediately and indefinitely until the problem had been resolved. That the vaccine was allowed to be used on the market is absolutely unacceptable because the consequences are unknown. I am afraid that is the kind of extraordinary attitude towards safety that pervades the vaccine policy makers in this country at the moment.
Daily Bell: Are vaccines effective in your opinion, or could immunity occur in other ways?
Dr. Andrew Wakefield: Well certainly immunity can occur in other ways, through natural exposure. Vaccines are effective and I am in no way anti-vaccine. Again, I reiterate that I am for a safety-first vaccination policy.
There are certain vaccines which I see no use for whatsoever. They are purely there for commercial reasons, and in fact they have done more harm than good. We are in a state of some confusion because the safety studies have not been done properly from the onset. And by safely, what I mean is whether vaccines can be given in combination with the rest of the vaccine schedule – or whether they interact with or potentiate the reactions of those vaccines.
Daily Bell: Are vaccines bad for a certain number of children?
Dr. Andrew Wakefield: I think there are a certain number of children who simply cannot tolerate vaccines the same way as the majority of the population. Who those children are or why that should be I don't know. But I can give you some observations from a clinical standpoint – and that is to say that children who are given multiple vaccines on the same day seem to be particularly at risk. So it is a matter of policy now for some children, they may have missed an appointment with the doctor so they get nine shots on the same day. They come out with a Band-Aid on each arm and each leg; that is unacceptable. It has never been tested for safety ever, ever, ever.
You have children who are unwell when they are vaccinated; they are on antibiotics; they have an ear infection; they've got some kind of gastroenteritis. Nonetheless, because they are at the doctors, they should get their shots. NO. You do not vaccinate a child whose system is already under pressure.
The family histories with many of the children with Autism or Lupus in the mother, Multiple Sclerosis, bowel disease such as Crohn's Disease, a strong family history with these types of diseases, is really a red flag. So again, there is a safer way of doing things, a way that complications can be avoided but which still allows the children to be protected against serious infectious disease.
Daily Bell: Do vaccines have other side effects such as asthma, etc?
Dr. Andrew Wakefield: Again, a fascinating question and it is not something that I have worked in specifically, but there has been a paper from the University of Manitoba very recently, last January and it asks the question, "Is it the exposure to a vaccine per se that's the risk, or the age at which you are exposed that is a risk for asthma?"
And they looked at the DTP vaccine, and they compared children who had received the vaccine on schedule starting at two, four and six months and then children who had been delayed in receiving the schedule. It was a study with 11,500 children, a very big study.
And they found that if you delayed exposure to the first dose of the DTP by just two months, then you halved the risk of asthma, half the risk! That is huge. If you delayed the whole schedule, the three shots, then you reduced it to almost a third! So there you have a major finding where you can dramatically reduce the risk of a serious adverse reaction by simply changing the schedule to make it safer. Why would you not want to do that if you could reduce the risk of what may be a fatal disease?
Daily Bell: Do you believe you have been responsible for a diminution of children taking the measles vaccine?
Dr. Andrew Wakefield: No, it's very interesting in the UK, when I suggested the single vaccine instead of the MMR, those single vaccines were available and so a lot of parents generally concerned opted for the single vaccines. Children continued to be protected and parent's could choose from MMR or single vaccines. That was in February of 1998; in August of 1998, the British government withdrew the importation license for single vaccines. In other words, when the demand for single vaccines was at its peak they withdrew the option of the single vaccines.
It is "our way" or you do it no way. Now let me ask you, if your concern is for the protection of children against these diseases would you not allow parents to do it in the way of their choosing as long as they did it? Of course you would. To me that is extraordinary.
Daily Bell: Why did you resign from The Thoughtful House? Your enemies say you were pushed.
Dr. Andrew Wakefield: My enemies are saying a great number of things. The decision was taken by me in discussion with my colleague. The continued controversy was really making it difficult for my colleagues to continue in their work. It was becoming a distraction and I wanted the opportunity to write the book and get the facts out there so people could read them. That is what I have now done. So within three months of leaving Thoughtful House, the book is written and on the shelf so the people can read the truth.
Daily Bell: Fill us in on your monkey/vaccine study. You've spoken about it in the past. Is it groundbreaking in your opinion?
Dr. Andrew Wakefield: The World Health Organization recommends to vaccine manufacturers that they test vaccines in primates/monkeys. And they do this for two reasons. First, because monkeys are most similar to humans. Second, certain infections like the measles, are primate infections; they don't infect sub-primate species. So you have to use monkeys.
Now, somewhat bizarrely, what the World Health Organization requires is that – with measles, for instance – you inject the vaccine virus directly into the brain and look at its effects. Well this is ridiculous. We do not inject vaccine into children's brains. We inject them into the skin.
Our first study was a study of the effects of the hepatitis B vaccine given the day of birth, the first day of life and we looked at the acquisition of reflexes, central and survival of the monkey in the wild, eating reflexes such as sucking and rooting. Grasping and clasping ... What we found was there was a similar delay in the acquisition of these reflexes in the vaccinated animals. As early as the first day of life, the vaccine was having an adverse effect on the brain development which meant that in the wild for example, many of these animals would not have survived. And that is really very alarming. I can't say much about the second paper as it is waiting to be published, but we look at a range of adverse events.
Daily Bell: Will it find a journal?
Dr. Andrew Wakefield: Yes it has. The first paper was published on line by a journal called Neurotoxicology. And one of the consequences of the GMC hearing was that when the announcement was made that my colleagues and I had been found guilty, the journal was retracted, not on the science, but merely because my name was attached to it.
Daily Bell: We hadn't heard that.
Dr. Andrew Wakefield: Then it turned out that it wasn't the Journal editor who retracted the paper on scientific grounds – it was the publishing house, Elsevier. It also happens that Elsevier owns the Lancet. The Chairman of Elsevier is also a non Executive Director on the board of GlaxoSmithKline. Now there is a conflict of interest that was not disclosed at the time of the retraction of our paper. Since that time, the paper has found a home in another scientific journal. For obvious reasons I won't be giving that name away, but it will be published soon. So it seems that science is available to the highest bidder at the moment.
Daily Bell: Are you being blacklisted?
Dr. Andrew Wakefield: I am sure I am. Yes. I am sure I am. I am not ashamed; it's just a fact of life. I hope that people will take the time to read the book, to understand what has happened, to understand whether science has been corrupted and distorted and people have been manipulated into believing things which are not true. People can judge for themselves.
Daily Bell: How has this whole episode made you feel? Is there corruption throughout mainstream Western medicine?
Dr. Andrew Wakefield: Yes, undoubtedly. Let me give you another example. In the Merck trial in Australia, Merck revealed how they were determined to deal with doctors who dissented from the use of Vioxx, or considered Vioxx unsafe. And those internal memos talked about how they would discredit them and neutralize them and the last internal memo to be read out had the following line, referring to those doctors, 'We may have to seek them out and destroy them where they live."
Those are their own words. So sometimes it appears that it's corporate policy rather than conspiracy theory, but that is the environment in which doctors work and operate and the problems they face if they confront drug company policy. So in answer to your question is the corruption? Is there distortion? Is there manipulation? Absolutely.
Daily Bell: Sounds like the same tactics that were used to suppress dissent against global warming. Are you a believer generally in alternative treatments now – homeopathy, acupuncture, etc?
Dr. Andrew Wakefield: I know nothing about it I am afraid; I have no experience using it. I am entirely traditional physician and what I would say is that acupuncture in contrast, is now accepted as mainstream and in fact is used by many anesthesiologists. I have had acupuncture myself with considerable benefits. So acupuncture, I wouldn't put in the same realm as alternative therapies. But with regard to alternative therapy I have no experience of them.
Daily Bell: Give us a summary perspective on vaccines. Where do you stand on them generally?
Dr. Andrew Wakefield: Vaccines have the potential to achieve enormous good and we have an absolute obligation as physicians and scientists to maximize that benefit and not to squander it because we have become indifferent to the possible adverse reactions to the vaccines. We have become obsessed with the idea that one size fits all. it does not. Children are different; everyone is different. We must not put policy and profit before a safety-first agenda.
Daily Bell: What is the future for vaccines?
Dr. Andrew Wakefield: The future of vaccines depends entirely upon the confidence of the people. To vaccinate the population will require that the parents, for the most part, have confidence in the vaccine policy makers and the pharmaceutical industry. There is the utmost need to preserve parental confidence in what you are doing. You have to be absolutely honest with parents; you have to be honest with consumers. If you are not, you risk squandering all the good that vaccination has done.
Daily Bell: Tell us about your book Callous Disregard, just released.
Dr. Andrew Wakefield: Callous Disregard is a story about what happened behind the scenes, the documentary evidence that has revealed the hypocrisy, the lies, the deception, and the double dealing that has lead to the circumstances of which I find myself now. It is a story also about the introduction by the British government of an unsafe vaccine in the late 1980s, which they knew to be unsafe at the time. As a consequence, there has been a concerted effort to deny this ever happened. It is revealed in the book. It is one reason that the British government had to silence me and stop my work.
Daily Bell: Do you have any final thoughts in closing?
Dr. Andrew Wakefield: Just two things and one is a practical. First, if people do want to get the book, the website is www.callous-disregard.com.
Second, to parents out there, I would say please trust your instincts. In particular, maternal instinct has been a steady hand on the tiller of evolution for many thousands of years and we wouldn't be here without it. Parents have tended to relinquish that instinct in favor of a medical community. We assume doctors know a lot when in fact they know very little. Please mothers, trust your instincts. No one knows your child like you do and no one can take that away from you, so trust that. That is my most important message.
Daily Bell: Good luck with your work and your book.
We think this interview speaks for itself, but nonetheless, some things should be said. Most importantly, (given the Bell's focus on dominant social themes) we should point out that the mechanism used against Dr. Wakefield is the same one that was employed to silence dissenters as regards global warming. Papers were suppressed or retracted and the full weight of establishment institutions was brought to bear in terms of ridiculing those who dared question the "established science" of global warming. At the same time, the mainstream press itself supported the power-elite global-warming promotion with article after article – thousands of them over the years. In the case of Dr. Wakefield there have been further ramifications. He has lost his license to practice medicine in the UK.
What's the good news? The failure of the global warming dominant social theme and, now, the ongoing unraveling of the "one-size-fits-all" vaccine meme is again proof of the power of the Internet. It is impossible for the powers-that-be to keep from the public information that undermines their fear-based promotions. There are too many on-line avenues for Dr. Wakefield to get the word out, and he didn't even have to find a major publisher to market his book – he can provide it himself, on-line, and he has.
We have no doubt that Dr. Wakefield's incredibly reasonable point of view (especially that "safety-first" ought to be of paramount importance when it comes to vaccines) will eventually win the day. What is being done to him now, this campaign of apparent de-legitimization, is fairly puzzling given obvious conclusions almost any fair-minded person would reach regarding this controversy.
There is, in fact, a disturbing element of vindictiveness in it. And one wonders why. The poor guy was trying to solve a problem that needs to be solved. Parents are horribly tortured by what they feel they've done to their children. The children themselves are in pain and helpless. "Autism" is a terrible condition. The conflict-of-interest stuff that he's been tarred with is really beyond the pale given the conflicted nature of Western medicine generally as a result of its seeming virtual takeover by pharmaceutical companies.
But no matter. The Internet has radically leveled the playing field. The word is out to millions. Wakefield's public evisceration has probably done nothing more than to generate sympathy for him in many quarters. These days the elite, protecting its many franchises, cannot do much right. The playbook is moribund, the tactics incredibly heavy handed. What's been done to Wakefield merely puts off the day of reckoning, but does not remove it.
Eventually, in our opinion, vaccine makers (and their enablers in government regulatory agencies and especially within the World Health Organization) will be forced by the market itself – by concerned parents – to admit that certain vaccines apparently have certain side-effects – at least when given to certain children at certain times in their lives. Presumably, this has not already been admitted because bureaucrats are worried over their jobs and because vaccine-makers are worried about the fallout. Alternatively, the concern is simply that once a major problem like this is admitted as regards to vaccines, other equally destructive practices of Western medicine will come under attack.
Here at the Bell, anyway, we would welcome further scrutiny of Big Pharma generally. We think finding natural cures in the Amazon and elsewhere and then mimicking them artificially in the laboratory is fundamentally questionable and leads to dangerous medicine. In fact, we hope at some point the whole science of vaccines comes in for more serious scrutiny. There are more and more disease-specific vaccines these days, but from our humble point of view the evidence for the efficacy of many of these is scant. Certainly, according to Dr. Wakefield, not a lot of safety testing is going on.
Anyway, we've gone on longer than we wanted to. Below we've reprinted some additional material so that readers can see that our point of view is not merely an idiosyncratic one but is shared by others. Good luck, Dr. Wakefield!
National Autism Association Says GMC Actions Against Wakefield Show Lack of Scientific Integrity
Decision viewed as further attempt to hinder scientific investigation of vaccine safety issues
WASHINGTON, May 24 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Today's decision by the UK's General Medical Council (GMC) to strike Dr. Andrew Wakefield from the medical registry provides further evidence that science linking vaccines and autism is being suppressed at the expense of children's health, according to families affected by autism. Dr. Wakefield co-authored the case series reported in the British Journal, The Lancet, in 1998, which identified a novel inflammatory bowel disease in children diagnosed with autism. This association has been repeatedly confirmed by subsequent studies.(i ii iii iv v) The actual findings were not the subject of the GMC hearings, which many parents believe to have been an attempt to derail future autism research efforts that might bring vaccine safety concerns to light.
"Unquestionably, the GMC had predetermined they would find The Lancet doctors guilty of professional misconduct in an effort to discredit not only their work with these twelve children, but any possible association between the MMR vaccine and autism," says Washington DC-based public interest attorney Jim Moody, Esq. "They acted on two false premises: first by confusing diagnostic clinical tests with research, and second by claiming there were no ethics committee approvals that covered the research aspects of The Lancet paper. There was -- but the prosecution failed in their duty to identify it."
While government agencies at home and abroad claim a link between vaccines and autism has been disproven, supporters of Dr. Wakefield say the epidemiological studies purportedly exonerating the shots are fatally flawed and could never account for susceptible populations. Repeated requests for studies comparing health outcomes in fully vaccinated versus unvaccinated populations have been ignored by federal health agencies.
"With this decision, the GMC is taking an active part in the suppression of vaccine safety science," said National Autism Association (NAA) board chair Lori McIlwain. "The message is clear, scientists who dare to question the safety of vaccines do so at the risk of their careers. Meanwhile, public confidence in the vaccine program continues to erode, and desperately needed answers for families dealing with autism are further delayed."
i Evaluation, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Gastrointestinal Disorders in Individuals With ASDs: A Consensus Report, Timothy Buie, MD, et al, Department of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School Pediatrics, Vol. 125 Supplement January 2010
ii Clinical Presentation and Histologic Findings at Ileocolonoscopy in Children with Autistic Spectrum Disorder and Chronic Gastrointestinal Symptoms, Arthur Krigsman, MD, et al, New York University School of Medicine, Autism Insights, 27 Jan 2010
iii Endoscopic and Histological Characteristics of the Digestive Mucosa in Autistic Children with gastro-Intestinal Symptoms. Gonzalez L, et al. ArchVenez Pueric Pediatr, 2005;69:19-25.
iv Panenteric IBD-like disease in a patient with regressive autism shown for the first time by wireless capsulenteroscopy: Another piece in the jig-saw of the gut-brain syndrome? Balzola F, et al. American Journal of Gastroenterology. 2005. 100(4):979-981.
v Childhood autism and eosinophilic colitis. Chen B, Girgis S, El-Matary W.. Digestion. 2010;81:127-9. Epub 2010 Jan 9.
Contacts: Rita Shreffler (Nixa, MO) 417-818-9030, or Leslie Phillips (Katy, TX) 281-794-1283
SOURCE National Autism Association
Book Reviews for Dr. Wakefield's "Callous Disregard" ...
"I'm so glad Andy Wakefield finally has the chance to tell his story. Perhaps no debate on the planet right now is more confusing, more conflicting, or more maddening for parents than the debate over the causes and treatments of autism . . . For hundreds of thousands of parents around the world, myself included, Andy Wakefield is a symbol of strength and conviction that all parents of children with autism can use to fight for truth and the best lives possible for their kids."
– from the foreword by Jenny McCarthy
"Dr. Wakefield sets the record straight. It was not he who showed callous disregard towards vulnerable, sick children with autism. It was the British medical establishment, the General Medical Council, the media and the pharmaceutical industry that threw the children under the bus to protect the vaccine program. This is a book for everyone who cares about our future."
– Mary Holland, Esq., Co-founder, Elizabeth Birt Center for Autism Law and Advocacy
"Andrew Wakefield has been subjected to extraordinary criticism and condemnation from professional colleagues and the wider community since he first questioned the safety of the MMR vaccine. In this book he answers his critics—powerfully and comprehensively—and sets the record straight. It is essential reading for anyone wanting to know the truth behind the MMR debate and the politics of vaccination policy."
– Dr. Richard Halvorsen, author of The Truth about Vaccines
"As a mother of a boy who regressed into autism immediately following his MMR vaccination, I welcome this book unreservedly . . . Whatever your thoughts on the issue, if you read nothing else at all on the vaccine-autism debate, this has to be the most crucial book you read."
– Polly Tommey, Editor-in-Chief, The Autism File
"Meeting Dr. Andy Wakefield changed our lives and . . . we are forever grateful. His wise and measured advice about vaccinations helped us dodge a bullet . . . Our fourth son [had] multiple allergies and repeated infections . . . We now fully realize [he] would have been a victim of immune overload had we followed the regular vaccine schedule . . . [He] is [now] bright and healthy . . . This book provides a terrifying insight into what has been happening behind the scenes as efforts redouble to silence Dr. Wakefield . . . It is a wake-up call to those who think [he] is anything other than a modern day hero fighting for all of our children."
– Robert Rodriguez and Elizabeth Avellan, Troublemaker Studios, Austin, Texas
Posted by Mahatma on 05/30/10 02:03 PM
As a pharmacist I can tell you that science dictates that only a randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled study, that is properly designed, can generate unbiased results in any clinical trial.
In the history of vaccine development, no such study has ever been performed. It is only unscientific opinions and pharmaceutical propaganda (and profits) which have propelled the mythological validity, safety and effectiveness of vaccines.
On the other hand, dozens of controlled studies have scientifically verified the immunotoxicty, neurotoxicity and sterility effects of common vaccine ingredients thereby destroying human health. Yet, they are all but ignored by conventional medicine, with the exception of the brave few such as Dr. Andrew Wakefield.
Here are some 'not-so-uncommon' ingredients found in vaccines and their potential toxicities:
Polysorbate 80: Infertility Agent
Potassium Chloride: Neurotoxin
Neomycin: Immunotoxin/ Nephrotoxin
Polysorbate 80: Infertility Agent
Sodium Deoxycholate: Immunotoxin
Octoxynol 10: Immunotoxin
Monosodium Glutamate: Neurotoxin
Gentamicin Sulfate: Nephrotoxin
Monobasic Potassium Phosphate: Immunotoxin
Sodium Taurodeoxycholate: Carcinogen/Immunotoxin
Knowledge is power. Lack of it is ignorance. That is what kills.
Wake up, stand up and make your voice heard.
* The more accurate term for neurotoxin is Excitotoxin (see Dr. Russell Blaylock @ Click to view link or read Excitotoxins: The Taste that Kills)
The Virus and the Vaccine by D. Bookchin & J. Schumacher
Vaccine A by Gary Matsumoto
Evidence of Harm by David Kirby
Posted by Geopark on 05/30/10 12:44 PM
WOW! Ditto to all of the above comments above and like F. Beard, I too have just ordered Dr. Wakefield's book. Thanks as always to you Daily Bell for another most excellent interview and to you Dr. Wakefield for your honesty and bravery.
As to the "one-size-fits-all" idea . . I found myself thinking of Mainland China dress under Mao and guessing that even those donning the similar dress of that tragic time most likely had some choice of size, at least in the hat department.
Posted by Bobby Glen on 05/30/10 12:41 PM
It is sad when a simple truth is unveiled to us and is rejected. Much of what was lost can be regained. How nice to make profits doing some real and quantifiable good. I think Dr Wakefield derserves an apology and return to his professional status. He has advanced humanity. The vaccine makers should regard him as an ally. If they heed his advice they will not only save lives but much time and money wasted in litiagtion.
Posted by Kevin on 05/30/10 11:57 AM
Very interesting..... Autism is a very touchy subject, and I had no clue about the vaccines that could lead to this sort of problem. Thanks for bring this to my attention.
Posted by Skeptic on 05/30/10 11:29 AM
This is probably longer than the editors would like but it is worth reading. Dr. Wakefield's story is anything but an isolated incident. I think it is the norm in all of academia and most of science.
The following was written by Kary Mullis, Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry for the introduction to the book "Inventing the AIDS Virus" by Peter H. Duesberg (Regnery Publishing, INC; Washington DC, 1996):
In 1988 I was working as a consultant at Specialty Labs in Santa Monica, CA, setting up analytic routines for the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). I knew a lot about setting up analytic routines for anything with nucleic acids in it because I invented the Polymerase Chain Reaction. That's why they hired me.
Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), on the other hand, was something I did not know a lot about. Thus, when I found myself writing a report on our progress and goals for the project, sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, I recognized that I did not know the scientific reference to support a statement I had just written: "HIV is the probable cause of AIDS."
So I turned to the virologist at the next desk, a reliable and competent fellow, and asked him for the reference. He said I didn't need one. I disagreed. While it's true that certain scientific discoveries or techniques are so well established that their sources are no longer referenced in the contemporary literature, that didn't seem to be the case with the HIV/AIDS connection. It was totally remarkable to me that the individual who had discovered the cause of a deadly and as-yet-uncured disease would not be continually referenced in the scientific papers until that disease was cured and forgotten. But as I would soon learn, the name of that individual - who would surely be Nobel material - was on the tip of no one's tongue.
Of course, this simple reference had to be out there somewhere. Otherwise, tens of thousands of public servants and esteemed scientists of many callings, trying to solve the tragic deaths of a large number of homosexual and/or intravenous (IV) drug-using men between the ages of twenty-five and forty, would not have allowed their research to settle into one narrow channel of investigation. Everyone wouldn't fish in the same pond unless it was well established that all the other ponds were empty. There had to be a published paper, or perhaps several of them, which taken together indicated that HIV was the probable cause of AIDS. There just had to be.
I did computer searches, but came up with nothing. Of course, you can miss something important in computer searches by not putting in just the right key words. To be certain about a scientific issue, it's best to ask other scientists directly. That's one thing that scientific conferences in faraway places with nice beaches are for.
I was going to a lot of meetings and conferences as part of my job. I got in the habit of approaching anyone who gave a talk about AIDS and asking him or her what reference I should quote for that increasingly problematic statement, "HIV is the probable cause of AIDS."
After ten or fifteen meetings over a couple years, I was getting pretty upset when no one could cite the reference. I didn't like the ugly conclusion that was forming in my mind: The entire campaign against a disease increasingly regarded as a twentieth century Black Plague was based on a hypothesis whose origins no one could recall. That defied both scientific and common sense.
Finally, I had an opportunity to question one of the giants in HIV and AIDS research, DL Luc Montagnier of the Pasteur Institute, when he gave a talk in San Diego. It would be the last time I would be able to ask my little question without showing anger, and I figured Montagnier would know the answer. So I asked him.
With a look of condescending puzzlement, Montagnier said, "Why don't you quote the report from the Centers for Disease Control? "
I replied, "It doesn't really address the issue of whether or not HIV is the probable cause of AIDS, does it?"
"No," he admitted, no doubt wondering when I would just go away. He looked for support to the little circle of people around him, but they were all awaiting a more definitive response, like I was.
"Why don't you quote the work on SIV [Simian Immunodeficiency Virus]?" the good doctor offered.
"I read that too, DL Montagnier," I responded. "What happened to those monkeys didn't remind me of AIDS. Besides, that paper was just published only a couple of months ago. I'm looking for the original paper where somebody showed that HIV caused AIDS.
This time, DL Montagnier's response was to walk quickly away to greet an acquaintance across the room.
Cut to the scene inside my car just a few years ago. I was driving from Mendocino to San Diego. Like everyone else by now, I knew a lot more about AIDS than I wanted to. But I still didn't know who had determined that it was caused by HIV.
Getting sleepy as I came over the San Bernardino Mountains, I switched on the radio and tuned in a guy who was talking about AIDS. His name was Peter Duesberg, and he was a prominent virologist at Berkeley. I'd heard of him, but had never read his papers or heard him speak. But I listened, now wide awake, while he explained exactly why I was having so much trouble finding the references that linked HIV to AIDS. There weren't any. No one had ever proved that HIV causes AIDS.
When I got home, I invited Duesberg down to San Diego to present his ideas to a meeting of the American Association for Chemistry. Mostly skeptical at first, the audience stayed for the lecture, and then an hour of questions, and then stayed talking to each other until requested to clear the room. Everyone left with more questions than they had brought.
I like and respect Peter Duesberg. I don't think he knows necessarily what causes AIDS; we have disagreements about that. But we're both certain about what doesn't cause AIDS.
We have not been able to discover any good reasons why most of the people on earth believe that AIDS is a disease caused by a virus called HIV. There is simply no scientific evidence demonstrating that this is true.
We have also not been able to discover why doctors prescribe a toxic drug called AZT (Zidovudine) to people who have no other complaint other than the fact that they have the presence of antibodies to HIV in their blood. In fact, we cannot understand why humans would take this drug for any reason.
We cannot understand how all this madness came about, and having both lived in Berkeley, we've seen some strange things indeed. We know that to err is human, but the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is one hell of a mistake.
I say this rather strongly as a warning. Duesberg has been saying it for a long time."
Dr. Kary Mullis' mistake, above, is thinking that the hypothesis is a mistake. It is deliberate and it is evil.
Peter Duesberg also had his career destroyed by the powers that be for pointing out the obvious that the entire AIDS story is a big lie.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Semmelweis Society International Clean Hands Award Presented to Peter Duesberg, PhD, June 1, 2008.
FROM THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT SEMMELWEIS SOCIETY INTERNATIONAL 80 12th STREET, SUITE #307 WHEELING, WEST VIRGINIA 26003
Click to view link
'Supporting Fair and Proper Due Process in Medical Peer Review without Compromising Medical Ethics or Patient Care
In 1847, Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis pioneered the prevention of transmission of disease by washing hands (Prophylaxis), reducing the mortality rate due to Puerperal Fever from 12% to almost ZERO by enforcing the washing of hands with chlorinated lime.
At the time, Dr. Semmelweis' hypothesis was considered extreme and was widely rejected and ridiculed. When he refused to compromise his beliefs, the hospital that employed him was pressured into terminating his clinical privileges. Semmelweis' sole "crime" was that he proposed a contrarian idea to current thinking, which directly challenged the (incorrect) current medical theories of his time.
Despite the continued ridicule, hostility, and unemployment, Dr. Semmelweis tirelessly promoted his theory, sometimes denouncing physicians who refused to wash their hands as irresponsible murderers. His contemporaries eventually concluded that he was crazy and, in 1865, committed him to a mental institution where he was beaten to death by guards.
Dr. Semmelweis's theory was considered irrelevant, _until Louis Pasteur connected germs to disease, _and Prophylaxis is now considered standard practice around the world. The 1800s medical community's refusal to consider his theories earlier clearly resulted in the continued unnecessary spread of disease and death throughout the world.
Backward and reactionary thinking did not die with Dr. Semmelweis in 1865. Highly qualified and competent physicians, scientists, healthcare personnel, and government employees continue to suffer similar retaliation throughout the United States, which is why organizations like Semmelweis Society International and the Alliance for Patient Safety participated in the recent Whistleblower Week in Washington.
The Semmelweis Society International annually recognizes individual Healthcare Providers, Researchers, and associated personnel, who have regularly challenged the status quo, who have reported issues, often controversial issues, regarding patient health and safety. Semmelweis Awardees have often had to endure the tyranny of threats and retaliation, and actual financial ruination, in some cases. Without these courageous individuals, progress and innovation in medicine, public service, and industry is inhibited, or negated.
One Semmelweis Laureate is Peter Duesberg, PhD.
(Click to view link )
Professor of Molecular Biology at the University of California, Berkeley. Dr Duesberg has asked legitimate but "outside the box" questions about the connection of HIV to AIDS, and even further questions regarding the documented toxicity of AIDS drugs. Drugs that are commonly used to fight the very immune deficiencies that these medications are known to affect adversely, or even to cause.
Dr. Duesberg does *not* advocate the reduction of clinical services or aid to Asia or Africa. Dr Duesberg simply questions the administration of drugs that are known to compromise human immune systems to patients whose immune systems are already compromised by poverty, malnutrition, unsanitary conditions, dirty water, drug use, or dangerous sexual practices. If Duesberg's contrarian concerns are true, the AIDS drugs themselves may be the proximate cause of some or all of the death statistics that pharmaceutical companies currently rely upon to promote the sale of their drugs.
Because the anti-AIDS Pharma Industry has already generated more than $200 billion in Pharma income from US government/US taxpayer funding, it is understandable why that same Pharma industry might attack individuals who propose alternative ideas and treatments that could save the lives of millions of AIDS sufferers around the world, but without their products (and at the loss of their profits).
A simple double blind parallel treatment study, with flawless monitoring in the gathering of clear and specific data, would allow evidence based approach to this question, and would be a standard for the industry as opposed to the present dogmatic approach.
In an era of evidence based medicine based on real reproducible results, how does one explain why organizations that are ostensibly pursuing the cure for AIDS would deliberately attack rational alternative solutions?
Members of Semmelweis Society International represent thousands of years of medical expertise and practice. They understand the power of competing ideas and the importance of open and rigorous debate. In the case of HIV/AIDS, the debate has been inexplicably muted by individuals and agencies that have handsomely profited by the hysteria related to HIV/AIDS. History reminds us that solid ideas are easily defended, while lesser theories can only be defended with fear, intimidation, and ridicule. If anything, these anti innovation strategies should sound the alarm for the medical community that treats AIDS patients.
The overt Hysteria deployed against those who are simply proposing the clinical and fully scientific review of new ideas should alarm public servants and elected officials who are responsible for supporting the First Amendment right for rational discourse.
American taxpayers have not been told the whole truth about the still-unidentified HIV virus, and its arguable relationship to the disease of AIDS, while ignoring the known toxicity of the drugs currently used to fight AIDS.
The taxpayers deserve a better break and a much clearer knowledge of how (and why and by whom) their tax dollars are being spent.
If Professor Duesberg and others are wrong, nothing is lost. But if Dr. Duesberg is correct, thousands, if not millions of people around the world may have died due to the toxic properties of AIDS drugs and the misdiagnosis/mistreatment of a still poorly understood disease.
Semmelweis Society International does not present the Clean Hands Award lightly. In Dr. Duesberg case, it is hard to imagine anyone more deserving than Professor Peter Duesberg and
investigative reporter Celia Farber. These two have withstood a vicious and ongoing multiyear multicontinent personal onslaught against their livelihoods, their character, and their families that is unparalleled since the Spanish Inquisition.
Their sole "crime" is to ask if there has not been a colossal error in our thinking to date.
The simple facts are that nobody has ever been cured of AIDS. No Vaccine has ever been developed. Something is wrong here.
Dr. Duesberg has an idea, a contrarian idea; to be sure, it is an idea, nothing more, but nothing less.
Celia Farber's "crime" is to have reported this contrarian idea, into a First Amendment Free Speech Protected Society, or so we all thought.
We pray that our elected officials will not succumb to the hostility and pressures that the AIDS/Pharma industry will use to discredit and further silence this most vital debate.
We at Semmelweis are proud of our decision to present Dr. Peter Duesberg and Celia Farber with our highest honor and wish them both all the best as they continue to find concrete answers to this elusive and misunderstood disease.
Roland F. Chalifoux Jr., DO President, Semmelweis Society International June 1, 2008
Posted by Bernardpalmer on 05/30/10 11:26 AM
Andrew Wakefield's story is symptomatic of the general malaise that is socialized medicine. Until governments get out of the research picture entirely and vested interests are identified as a matter of course then any so called scientific study is open to serious criticism.
To veto his license to practice medicine in the UK is probably more about warning other medical dissenters to get back in line than depriving him of a living.
At some point they are going to have to revoke that action before he gets his knighthood for standing his ground in the face of such an onslaught and giving courage to others bucking the Socialist system.
That's his real claim to fame. Whether or not he is right about the cause of autism is secondary. That would just be icing on the cake if he was. His story parallels the even greater cover up of a possible problem with government funded science with the ostracizing of Dr. Peter Duesberg, winner of the Outstanding Investigators Grant from the NIH when he said that there was no Aids virus.
In his book "Inventing the Aids Virus" he answers all queries with a clarity that must make any reasonable doubt take on the appearance of vested interests controlling all government funded scientific investigations.
The recent email disclosures from the "Climategate" fiasco is probably the tip of the "meddling in research" iceberg.
I bought Dr. Wakefield's book not because I believe he is right in his supposed "diagnosis" but to support his dissent. He's a brave man and deserves to be rewarded.
Excerpt from "What is the Primary Fundamental Right?"
"It's probably fairly well known in some medical circles that crib/cot death is possibly caused by the tongue acting as a valve in the process of 'diving reflex'. This reflex is apparently used by sea mammals when deep diving to protect the animal from high pressured water entering the body cavity when they open their mouths to catch prey and is activated by pressure and cold on the trigeminal nerves located on their face. This possibly explains why the tongue is the strongest muscle in a mammal's body.
Unfortunately it appears that the SIDS child is suffocated by their own tongue which then relaxes leaving no evidence except the body of a suffocated child. Therefore SIDS could be classed as a 'cold air drowning'.
Over the years many parents have been found guilty of the murder of their child because of the evidence of suffocation.
If the child survives a SIDS encounter then it's possible there will be brain damage similar to cerebral dysgenesis which is usually a symptom of Autism. Apparently the incidence of SIDS has been reduced by putting children down to sleep on their back, a practice that probably also helps reduce the number of ASD victims.
The amount of government funded research grants allotted and money received by fund raisers like 'Red Nose Day' charities is probably a nice little earner for the select few still supposedly busy looking for the cause of SIDS."
Click to view link
Posted by House Of Rothschild on 05/30/10 10:58 AM
Here is another snippet for you. I noted this last Fall in regards to wheezing/asthma and vaccines, similar to the findings of Dr. Wakefield above:
Click to view link
..."The results showed that among previously unvaccinated children, wheezing within 42 days after the administration of dose 1 was more common with live attenuated vaccine, primarily among children 6 to 11 months of age, which had 12 more episodes of severe wheezing (3.8 percent, compared with 2.1 percent, p=0.076). Furthermore, rates of hospitalization for any cause during the 180 days after vaccination were significantly higher among the recipients of live attenuated vaccine who were 6 to 11 months of age (6.1 percent compared with 2.6 percent, p = 0.002)."
Note as well that this MedImmune study specifically excluded those with hypersensitivity as well as wheezing issues prior to being vaccinated.
On another note from last Fall, and more concerning in regards to how the swine flu vaccine was fear-mongered into a good number of folks, here are a few links in regards to an incident that I cannot by any rational thought term an accident. Sadly, when I first was made aware of it last year, I was sent the personal research reports and story of the Czech researcher who decided to test this vaccine (though he was not routinely required to do so). Sadly, those docs now appear to be unavailable online so we are left with news articles that differ markedly from the translations that I originally read.
Click to view link
Click to view link
Click to view link
Click to view link
Posted by House Of Rothschild on 05/30/10 09:56 AM
Dear Friends, it is much later than you may know. In the near future you will have no decision in regards to vaccines, nor any of the other methods that you have been dumbed-down.
Our intake of sugar, our perverse food pyramid, flouride and other chems in our water, exposures to hormone-immitating plastics/soy/petrol products, aluminum, mercury in fillings and vaccines are making us slaves.
The ones who resist will be crushed. So here is a new one for you. Surreal. You will be vaccinated in the airport, through ventilation in govt and commercial office buildings, on flights and metro-rails, anywhere.... Sigh. Well, I better run out for more tin for my tin-foil hat..
Click to view link
Reply from The Daily Bell
Thanks, hadn't heard about this ...
Bill Gates funds covert vaccine nanotechnology
Friday, May 28, 2010
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of Click to view link (See all articles...)
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is gaining a reputation for funding technologies designed to roll out mass sterilization and vaccination programs around the world. One of the programs recently funded by the foundation is a sterilization program that would use sharp blasts of ultrasound directed against a man's scrotum to render him infertile for six months. It might accurately be called a "temporary castration" technology.
Now, the foundation has funded a new "sweat-triggered vaccine delivery" program based on nanoparticles penetrating human skin. The technology is describes as a way to "Click to view linkvelop nanoparticles that penetrate the skin through hair follicles and burst upon contact with human sweat to release vaccines."
The research grant money is going to Carlos Alberto Guzman of the Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research in Germany and Claus-Michael Lehr and Steffi Hansen of the Helmholtz-Institute for Pharmaceutical Research. ....
Posted by Benjamin on 05/30/10 09:48 AM
I'm about a quarter through the interview, but wanted to post this before getting too swept up.
Thank you, DB and Dr Wakefield, for this learning experience. I had no idea that Dr Wakefield wasn't, anti-vaccine nor that the controversy revolved around the combined MMR shot, rather than seperate like they used to be. This changes everything. On what I thought I knew, I had put Dr. Wakerfield on my quack list. But in light of what this interview has provided, I do agree now that there is cause for concern here, and every reason to look more closely at these new vacines and/or schedules.
Off to read and contemplate the rest...
Posted by Duane Bass on 05/30/10 09:40 AM
We should all have such morals and convictions, as The good DR. . .
Posted by JCR on 05/30/10 09:31 AM
When government controls an industry it becomes very, very difficult for consumers/users to learn how to choose among the field of suppliers. The art/science of choosing a doctor does not belong to this world.
I have no idea if Doctor Wakefield is serious or not. I would be leaning in his favor because the Daily Bell likes him and because he is a victim of government's actions, but what do I know? How could I know? Due diligence on health care is a government monopoly; which means there is no due diligence at all. And I am not going to assume that anyone who fails government due diligence is a good guy.
There is so much government in health care that my basic principle is: avoid health care as much as possible. Just stay away.
Posted by Gem on 05/30/10 07:14 AM
Thank you for letting this man speak. He is as honest as any practitioner I could have wished for to look after the health of my children. Personally I regard vaccination as being detrimental to the child's immune system, and thankfully they are now both healthy active young adults. There are many who say that vaccination helps supress disease and that I could let my two go un-treated on account of that, they may well be right - but at what cost was it to their youngsters I wonder?
I did use homeopathy "on them" and if it stops a child crying within ten minutes, it is good enough for me :-) of course there were other things which I was not able to treat - and I have no objection to "modern" medicine in its proper place; it is simply that there should be a balance.
As a last thought, to many, the sort of attack that has been levelled at Dr Wakefield does a tremendous amount of damage to the public trust in medicine and its practitioners. It could well undermine the very cause they are seeking to promote - after all there would be few who had heard of Dr Wakefield had it not been for the tirades against him. For myself, I heard of the gentleman from friends who were helping treat children suffering the sort of after-effects that he describes.
As to the behaviour of The Lancet. It is reminiscent of the silliness that engulfed the periodical Nature when it dared broadcast its papers on homeopathy. In short, wholly un-scientific behaviour, one would think they knew better!
Posted by F. Beard on 05/30/10 05:51 AM
Good interview. I am happy to hear Dr. Wakefield's side of the story. I just ordered the book.
With regards to mercury preservatives, what is wrong with simple refrigeration instead of injecting a TOXIC heavy metal into children (or anyone)?! I remember that in Germany not too long ago, the politicians and certain other VIPs were given a refrigerated form of a vaccine while the "common" people were required to take the form with mercury preservative.
Another point, regarding one-size-fits-all. What business is it to anyone else whether others receive vaccines? It is no skin off their nose. If they want to be protected from any diseases an unvaccinated person might spread to them then they should get the vaccinations themselves and mind their own business.
The medical profession has a history of "callous disregard". A story that sticks in my mind is how doctors resisted washing their hands before surgery.
Good luck and Godspeed to Dr. Wakefield.
Posted by Leonardo Pisano on 05/30/10 05:06 AM
People like Dr Wakefield are the real heroes of the world. Most people would give in upon pressure. Indeed, ridiculing is an effective mechanism by the elite to mouth-shut people with controversial standpoints. Or declaring them insane. Or if that doesn't help they get an accident.
Posted by Admirer on 05/30/10 03:10 AM
Thanks so much for this fine interview. A courageous man.