A committee of British experts who examined the original study by a researcher from a London hospital found many flaws in the article. Pediatrics expert: colleagues should not have approved the article in the first place because his method shows holes and does not prove anything
In the cancellation notice of the magazine, the members of the General Medical Council in Great Britain write that an expert committee that investigated the issue found that several elements of the study published by Dr. Andrew Wakefield of the Royal Free Hospital in London and his colleagues were incorrect.
In the study, the researchers examined 12 children whose average age was six years, most of whom were diagnosed as autistic. They wrote that the behavioral symptoms of these children were linked by their parents to the tricyclic vaccine in eight of the 12 children.
"The claim in the original article that the findings are consistent and that they were approved by the local ethics committee has been proven wrong. Therefore, we retract the article and delete it from the public records" The editors of the journal wrote.
Following the findings of the General Medicine Council of Great Britain, the respected journal had no choice but to delete a 12-year-old study. This study, at best, had too small a sample - and had too many methodological weaknesses, for it to be used to prove anything. writes Jay Gordon, a pediatrician at the UCLA School of Medicine On his blog.
Neither the Lancet nor the council claimed there was any link between autism and the triple vaccine, but only said that this particular study was conducted in improper and unethical ways. The prestigious journal had to cover up its embarrassment by not conducting a thorough examination of the methods used in Dr. Wakefield's research, the way the data was collected, and the conclusions before publishing the article in 1998.
Whether you believe Wakefield is a savior, a researcher whose heart is in the right place, or just a publicity-seeker operating in unethical practices, the real blame must also be shared with Halnest, who allowed the flaws and potential conflict of interest to pass unnoticed. The self-pity they are trying to portray right now will serve no one, least of all not all families affected by autism.
It is important to investigate all possible connections between environmental and genetic factors and autism. It is also possible to look for a possible link between autism and vaccines, but the sloppy research and faulty peer review that led to this article being deleted undermines those efforts. Gordon concludes.
More on the subject on the science website
81 תגובות
pleasantness,
Your response is almost unworthy of an answer, beyond the ridiculousness it brings up.
After all the references I brought up here, when you keep silent and ignored, you get excited like finding a lot of slogans that the two doctors wrote and tell me "prove it"...
The fact that you believe that a sentence coming out of a doctor's mouth automatically makes it a "fact" - that's your problem, not mine. I have already brought a contradiction to some of their slogans here in response 26. Their outburst about measles is especially ridiculous, when it disappeared at a rate of about 96% before the advent of vaccines in 1963.
Now for a more serious discussion, for the benefit of the other readers.
It is true that there is evidence of a decrease in morbidity following vaccinations against it. The question is what conclusions can be drawn from this, and what prices we pay for it.
Since there is evidence (as in response 26 above) that the diseases decreased and to a considerable extent even without the vaccinations, the question arises whether their decrease even during the vaccination period is necessarily related to the vaccinations? It is possible that the disease would have decreased even without the vaccine, as it decreased without the vaccine in previous periods - this is certainly a possibility.
Secondly, there is evidence showing that certain diseases began to appear at later ages after the vaccinations (chicken pox - the classic case of this phenomenon). That is, the vaccines delayed the age of onset of the disease. Can this be called a donation of the vaccines? Not sure.
Another thing, even in cases where the vaccines reduce the morbidity in the period after the vaccination, we continue to see outbreaks even in well-vaccinated populations (several examples here: http://www.hisunim.com/articles/Vaccines_Dont_Work.htm) That is, the disease has its own course, with or without connection to vaccinations. Also, is a decrease in morbidity, even assuming that it is observed consistently, worth the price of the vaccine damage, including the epidemics of autoimmune and neurological diseases that have been associated with the vaccines? Unknown - no one has really done the math, and they won't do it anytime soon.
What's more, an English doctor who has researched vaccines before and after the last decade, analyzes vaccine-vaccine about its history, benefit and price, and summarizes all this in a book that will be published in Israel in Hebrew soon.
And after all of this, even if due to doubt, even if there are cases in which the balance of vaccinations is in their favor, the problem is that the piety and extremism with which the health authorities promote the vaccination program while silencing any proper public discussion on the subject, hiding information from the public (see Minutes 289 of the meeting of the Labor, Welfare and Health Committee , 2001) and the silencing of vaccine victims - we will not be able to proceed objectively and impartially in the discussion and truly understand - where the vaccines contribute and where they bring more harm than good.
Is it possible that it is a bacteria or a virus that causes the autistic spectrum?
Dear Michael Rothschild: I have read all the arguments raised on the vaccine site that you brought up in answer 65.
The site, which is apparently mainly of the Wolfson Hospital, points out a lot of studies in different countries, which showed that there is no connection between the measles vaccine and autism. Most of the studies, with the exception of Canada and Denmark, show that autism is on the rise, with or without vaccines. A relevant quote from the website, at the end of this answer.
The example of the bacterium H. pylori: for many years they did not know that a bacterium is related to the phenomenon known as ulcers. Because they did not know, they did not treat with antibiotics. Until suddenly, and not so long ago, they did find out!
Perhaps it's a shame to search under the spotlight, in studies that disprove or prove that vaccines are good or bad, instead of vigorously searching for the cause or causes of the many types of autism, which, as stated on the Wolfson website, the number of loci in them continues to grow all the time, whether they vaccinate or not.
And please, don't be impressed by the word "diagnosis". Each diagnosis means: another person with autism.
Below is a relevant quote from the aforementioned vaccine website.
"At the same time, large epidemiological studies began to appear that examined the relationship between autism and the MMR vaccine:
The research of Taylor and his friends, from 1999, from Great Britain, on a group of about 500 autistic children, with different subtypes of the disease. The study demonstrated that there is a constant increase in the diagnosis of autism, but the rate of increase in the diagnosis of autism cases did not change after the introduction of the vaccine in 1988, as it should have been if there was a connection between the vaccine and the disease.
Also, no connection was found between the administration of the vaccine and the appearance of behavioral regression.
Another British article ((Chen et al. Psychol med. 2004) published in 2004, and referring to the period between 1959 and 1993, included information about 2407 children with autism, and showed similar findings - there is no change in the rate of increase in the diagnosis of autism cases after the introduction of the vaccine in 1988.
Articles from the UK and California showed an increase in the incidence of autism even though the immunization coverage rate remained unchanged.
In work from Canada, surveillance of autism prevalence showed an increase from 1987 to 1998, although at that time immunization coverage declined.
Moreover, a Japanese study shows that despite the complete cessation of the MMR vaccine in 1993, the incidence of autism was on the rise.
A convincing Danish work, which examined data regarding half a million children in Denmark, of which one hundred thousand were not vaccinated with MMR, found no connection between the vaccine and autism and similar diseases. (Madsen et al. NEJM 2002)."
Manor,
You advise others to face the facts, which is exactly what you yourself avoid doing.
Why not deal with the facts presented in the article instead of using slogans and spins?
Explain, for example, how it is that in the 20s a vaccine against diphtheria resulted in a decrease in infection from this disease, that in the 40s a vaccine against tetanus resulted in a decrease in the infection of the disease, and in the 60s a vaccine against measles resulted in a decrease in infection from this disease.
Is it possible that in the three cases, by a rare coincidence, it was not the vaccine that reduced the infection of the specific diseases but the improvement in sanitation conditions?
How will you explain that in the 90s, new vaccines against meningitis and viral hepatitis A led to a considerable reduction, to the point of almost disappearance of these diseases? Will you also claim that it was an improvement in the sanitation conditions that caused the decrease in infection?
Please, try to deal with the facts (or contradict them) instead of using slogans and spins.
And another thing, the search for conspiracies of doctors and drug companies is stupid and only reduces your credibility.
Noam,
What a drama!
"Dropping the ground"...
When two doctors join forces to encourage the public to get vaccinated through a one-sided article, in which they (!) present the opposing side's positions, then you don't really expect a factual discussion...
Focus more on the documented facts and data, than on slogans and spins.
It is recommended to read the following article in Israel:
http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/1151184.html
What do the opponents of vaccines claim and how does medicine respond to them.
The article drops the ground under the feet of Segmon and his friends.
I see that he indicates some approval number there.
Do you know how to reach the approval itself?
Mor:
I have now read it all (more or less).
So he says that they lie when they say he lied.
Somehow it's easier for me to believe them, but things would have been much simpler if he had shown the ethics committee's approval and I guess if he had such an approval in his hand, he would have done it
Michael,
But in the reference document of the Hason organization, we refer to all aspects of the affair - including the role of the committee that decided what it decided. This is not just a reference to the article itself. Furthermore, both in Wakefield's article and in Hason's document, there is a reference to the accusations that were also placed before the committee. This article by Wakefield is actually the only opportunity he had to bring his words to the public without any "filters". It is only fair to read the other side before making a firm determination.
And again: what did you mean when you wrote "again"?
Mor:
I really don't understand what you want.
I explained (actually I just drew your attention to what is written in the article) that the problem - as the newspaper sees it - is not in conclusions but in deception.
The newspaper emphasizes that it is possible that the conclusions are correct and you are trying to drag me into a debate on this issue - a debate that neither you nor I can maintain.
When you brought a quote from the website to defame the doctors, I pointed out the bias in the text you brought.
So it's true - I also referred there to what Wakefeld thought should be concluded from his research and not just the research itself. One can be stupid and claim that Wakefeld just wrote the things and did not intend to imply the conclusion he himself drew and for my part I am ready to accept this stupidity - but that still does not turn a lie into the truth and it also does not change the fact that the Lancet did not deny the conclusions themselves either.
Michael,
His recommendation to split the vaccines is not part of his original research.
In light of the scientific information about the MMR vaccine and further to the findings of his research (which has since been repeated at least five times in different places) - he recommended splitting the vaccine into three separate vaccines, spaced one year apart, until the appropriate studies are done to ensure the safety of the combined vaccine.
You read the short introduction to Wakefield's article and the Hason organization's reference to the subject - without reading the documents themselves. I really don't know what drives you, but if it's a desire to understand what happened to Wakefield without bias, you have no choice but to finally read these materials.
By the way, Moore:
You said "again" what exactly did you mean?
Mor:
What do I say and what will I say?
You directed me to the place where it says that Wakefeld recommended splitting the vaccine.
I don't know what you claim that I wrote strongly against him.
Do you think the link you provided shows that the findings were approved by the ethics committee as he claimed?
Is there any confirmation in the text you brought before for his recommendation to split the vaccines?
Michael,
It's a shame (again) that you argue on a topic you don't know. You may not have time to "specialize" in the Wakefield case, but how are you "expert" enough to express such a firm position against him...
Wakefield's original work also did not claim a causal link between the findings and the vaccine. You assume his research did claim this because you are fed populist articles in the press. Have you read his research?!
I invite you to read the material presented on this page:
http://www.hisunim.com/Andrew_Wakefield.htm
(on the documents in the links therein).
What a trending text!
It also applies to whoever posted it, of course.
http://www.wddty.com/ - The organization whose essence of self-definition is built on the fact that the doctors are actually evil manipulators and that's why it called itself "what the doctors don't tell you".
Read what it says there:
The title is proven right.
In the beginning of things it is written that he may be right.
In the content of the statements, no causal relationship is shown between the findings and the vaccine.
To be clear - even if Wakefield's guess is ultimately proven to be correct (and the article states that the journal did not rule out this possibility) - it will not change the fact that he demonstrated dishonesty in publishing the article.
As written in the article, "The claim in the original article that the findings are consistent and that they were approved by the local ethics committee, has been proven to be wrong."
Can someone explain to me how some scientific survey can reverse the claim that what is claimed to have been approved by the Ethics Committee was actually not approved by it?
Posted on WDDTY:
MMR doctor proved right in week he was condemned as 'dishonest'
10 February 2010
In the week that the doctor at the center of the controversy over the MMR vaccine and autism was called "dishonest, irresponsible and callous" by a medical disciplinary board, a new study has been published that suggests he could be right all along. Researchers in New York have discovered that children with autism spectrum disorder also had inflammation in the ileum, part of the small intestine - the exact same discovery made by Dr. Andrew Wakefield, who may now lose his medical license following a 30-month hearing at the General Medical Council. Wakefield noted that the children he saw had also been given the triple MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine, and he speculated that it might be the cause. After the publication of his paper in The Lancet in 1998, vaccination rates dropped dramatically as parents in the UK refused to have their children vaccinated. The new study, from the New York University School of Medicine, discovered that 143 children with autism spectrum disorder also suffered from chronic gastrointestinal symptoms, and inflammation in the small intestine. As the vaccine is compulsory in the US, where the children live, it is reasonable to assume that most, if not all, were vaccinated - although the researchers do not suggest that it was the cause of the inflammation they detected. (Source: Autism Insights, 2010; 2: 1-11).
http://www.chisunim.co.il/ClaimsList.aspx?id=10
Pay attention: the difference between people is beginning to be revealed, and for example, the connection between nutrition and personal genes.
http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/1147967.html
And hence the distance between vaccines and the personal genes is very short, since most vaccines reach the bloodstream faster.
Mor Segmon:
The escape was yours and it already happened in the previous comments.
Since you stopped referring to the words and referred to your invention of my words instead of the words, I saw no point in continuing the argument (after all, you don't need me to invent my words).
Expected.
When a factual reference to the data and not to the passwords is required - run away.
Enjoy life!
Mor:
It's getting ridiculous.
I have said all I have to say.
Your response does not refer to what I wrote and I can only conclude that you have decided not to understand.
This is a situation where reasoning cannot help, so I will stop the argument.
Michael,
You try to grab the rope at both ends.
On the one hand, you are so sure that the majority is right about vaccines - including the swine flu (where, by the way, the majority is not in favor of vaccination) to the point that you defend them, and on the other hand, you make a fool of yourself as a poor person who cannot specialize in any field, and therefore you should not be expected to deal objectively with the subject of vaccines.
No one asked you to intern.
In my response number 26 you have the truth seeker test. Your wife should be willing and able to help you find conflicting data. No need to specialize in anything. Just bring the data.
Mor Segmon:
You refuse to understand.
I can't specialize in everything and I'm sure I'm a much bigger expert than you in many areas.
I know I can't be an expert on everything so I don't pretend to be one.
If you think you are a greater expert than most experts (and this without being an expert at all) then your problem is very serious.
I don't need to ask my wife anything about the history of medicine and I assume that even you know that even if in the minority of cases the minority was right, then in the majority of cases (actually the vast majority of them) the majority was right (and remind you: I'm not talking about a majority of mobs commenting on the Internet but a majority of experts).
Those who know probability understand that the chance of being right is higher when choosing a strategy that succeeds with a higher probability and in this case - accepting the words of the majority of experts (if I went with the herd - I would avoid the vaccine like the herd of 7 million who were not vaccinated - i.e. like you)
Michael,
After all, you defined yourself: you go with the majority, that is, you go with the herd.
I'm looking for the solid evidence - I'm looking for truth.
Sometimes the majority is right, and sometimes - wrong. Your wife can tell you about the history of the practice of modern medicine - there are many examples where the majority was wrong (and almost killed the righteous minority).
Mor:
how do i know
I heard it the other day on the news.
Besides, my wife is a doctor and she follows the issue.
The vaccine became effective after two weeks from the day of the injection and there was one case of a person who became infected before the end of the two weeks.
This. He was not vaccinated.
Be that as it may - according to the ratio of the deceased among the unvaccinated, at least five should have died (in the same radio program it was said that about half a million of the residents of Israel had been vaccinated. None of them died and all 85 dead were from among the other 7 million).
When I talk about "trusting the experts" - I don't have the necessary expertise to judge who is a greater expert.
That's why I follow the majority opinion.
Anyone who does not understand this principle is... delusional.
You also don't have the necessary expertise to tell me who is a greater expert, so I won't take your advice.
The insinuation as if I am not curious and truth-seeking or as if I do not know how a curious and truth-seeking should behave is pathetic.
Michael,
How do you know that no one among the vaccinated died and that there were no complications as a result of the vaccination?
Do you know what the immune status of each and every one of the dead was?
The Hassan organization received reports of a soldier who died after this vaccination and other reports of casualties. You did not read about these cases in the newspaper because they did not reach the newspaper.
And how do you determine how many died from the disease? The Ministry of Health clearly explained that it counts those who had the virus when they died - because it cannot be ruled out that they died from the virus. Maybe that's true, but it can't be ruled out that he died from something else - like falling from a scaffolding (in one of the cases).
And where did you hear us tell someone that he shouldn't get vaccinated?
I am very glad that you prefer to believe the experts. Come and I will suggest you some experts to believe.
In Israel, there are experts in the Ministry of Health who have determined that an Israeli child will receive 30 vaccination doses in the first year of his life (including booster shots).
In Switzerland, Norway, Denmark, Lithuania, Poland, Hungary, Finland, Sweden and India - Ministry of Health experts determined that 18 vaccination doses are sufficient. In Iceland - 17, Bulgaria - 16 and in Japan - 14.
The experts in India and Japan even stated that the mumps vaccine is not part of the recommended vaccination program at all.
(This is the same measles disease that recently broke out in Israel and sent a wave of media scaremongering in the media. 70% of the measles patients in the recent outbreak in Israel were vaccinated).
So now that you have experts from all over the world to trust - you can put together a reduced vaccination plan for you!
I have one more expert for you, who checked all the scientific evidence about the seasonal flu vaccine, and told us about the results in a study published in 2006, which he concluded: "The reasons for the gap between the policy and the facts - are unclear." You can get an impression of his research here - second item in the table:
http://www.hisunim.com/articles/Vaccines_Policy.htm
And just today I read about another expert who reinforces these conclusions because he found in his research that flu vaccines for adults over the age of 65 (which he tested) are not effective. Here, just today I uploaded here:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=218058287699
And if you are specifically interested in the opinion of experts on the global vaccination campaign against swine flu - we have gathered such experts for you here:
http://www.hisunim.com/flu-4.htm
You see, Michael, all you need is to rely on the experts.
When curious and truth-seeking people come across experts who claim differently from other experts - they strive to decide between the two groups. They ask more difficult questions and at a certain point they believe those experts who show the quality science behind their claims and who have no biases when they present their positions.
I completely understand that you choose to believe a certain group of experts. What is astonishing is the fact that you teach defenses about them to the point of stating that those who choose to believe other experts are "delusional" - and this without having studied the subject properly yourself. Amazing…
As mentioned, I cannot specialize in everything.
I think that, relatively speaking, I have reached a considerable level of expertise in many subjects, but everything has a limit.
In general, I give priority to studying topics that have relatively eternal validity and in the field of science, this approach gives priority to the process sciences over the mapping sciences (and the classification of this or that vaccine belongs to the mapping sciences).
In areas where I am not an expert, I have no logical choice but to rely on the experts.
Dear Michael,
I didn't ask you to accept my conclusions.
Those who specialize in the subject are open to the possibility that the children's vaccines cause many problems for some of them.
There are experts of all kinds - you can also be open to the words of those in the minority, and at least know what they say.
Instead of getting an impression yourself and deciding on your own what you think about the matter - you rely on experts. That's your right. I try to get to know the variety of news.
If you had read what I read about vaccines, you would almost certainly come to similar conclusions. You just have to activate the part of the analytical mind in reading the information from many different sources.
I didn't say "coeliac". I said: "Celiac-like". There is a big difference. If it was really interesting to you, you would find material on the subject.
And as for the swine flu that was declared a pandemic. The question of why WHO did so is a matter for a Commission of Inquiry of the European Common Market. Even with this, you can keep up to date via the Internet, as well as with assessments of the lesser degree of risk it had compared to regular flu.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/news/2010/02/100201_swine_flu.shtml
All the best.
Mor:
Among Israelis not vaccinated against swine flu, more than one in every hundred thousand died from the disease.
Among the vaccinated, no one died - neither from the disease nor from the vaccine.
There was also no case in Israel of complications as a result of the vaccine.
Do you still claim that it was wrong to get vaccinated?
Here is Ada:
I am not advocating anything unreasonable.
I am simply advocating that those who are not experts in the field should not underestimate the advice of experts and should not think that they are always motivated by foreign interests.
There are health ministries all over the world.
They have experts who examine the various vaccines and do not approve them casually.
Factually, in the swine flu vaccine, the proof that they were right in their decision is already conspicuously visible.
There are many doctors who examine the subject of the connection between autism and vaccines.
In the meantime - most experts claim that there is no connection.
Since I am not able to specialize in every subject in the world - I simply trust the opinion of the experts.
I don't know where you get the information that connects the whole celiac thing, but here too (as far as I know) it is not about the agreement of the medical establishment and the question arises how you can know more about the subject than someone who really specializes in it. In any case - I would undoubtedly prefer to place my trust in the experts' conclusions and not yours.
Michael,
If you have a concrete question that you address to me - formulate it in full and I will answer you.
Dear Michael You probably advocate deduction vaccines:
Deduction: All vaccines are a good thing. H1N1 is a vaccine - that's why it's good.
Inductive research is not significant and if problems are discovered they should be ignored due to the great benefit of the vaccines.
Until about a year ago, I thought in a similar way to you, until I started reading more about the matter. My conclusion:
In the context of autism, not all people are equal.
There are those whose genetics involve autism and prenatally they are the autistic wish.
There are those with food sensitivities (celiac-like) that vaccines will cause some of them (at an early age) to become autistic.
There are those for whom the vaccines will cause some brain damage - if they are given too early when the brain is at the beginning of its development.
These are my conclusions so far.
There are groups of people of different nations, with different sensitivities and different genetic design. It is wrong to assume that regarding vaccinations (and also other medical phenomena) all people, from all places - are equal. they are not!
As I wrote before: if only for reasons of doubt, there was, and is, a place to split the triple vaccine. In addition: if only for reasons of doubt, ingredients such as thimorsal and adjuvant should be removed from various vaccines.
The autistic spectrum is difficult to diagnose (there is no blood test that proves belonging to it) and it is characterized by external symptoms only.
Mor Segmon understands the matter much more than I do - I'll be sure to respond
But the manipulation of the Ministry of Health's count of the dead is, shall we say gently,
Doubtful
A person who fell from a scaffold and died and they found the H1N1 virus in his blood - the immediate reaction - entered the statistics of deaths from the flu
On the other hand, a person who did not feel well and died a day, a few hours after receiving the vaccine - the immediate response is that it is not related to the vaccine
You are asking for an answer to a fact that is not exactly a fact
Here is Ada:
Let's stop eating:
http://news.myjoyonline.com/news/201002/41902.asp
We will establish a number of facts (precisely the previous one and not the next one):
I asked a question and Ron floods without giving an answer.
Next we will establish several facts first.
The vaccines produced were against the H1N1 virus at the beginning of the first wave (California)
And according to all the experts, the flu is milder than the seasonal flu.
The virus has undergone changes in Ukraine where over a million have fallen ill and hundreds of thousands have been hospitalized
This story was silenced in the western global media, why?
Because the last changes that the virus went through
in its receptors such as D225G, D225E and D225N
They are the ones that cause a very high percentage of mortality in those who carry it
And... the vaccines (even without debating whether they are generally effective or not) are not effective
http://www.examiner.com/x-29228-LA-Health-Technology-Examiner%7Ey2009m11d27-H1N1-virus-mutation-means-no-protection–swine-flu-vaccine-ineffective-against-Ukraine-flu-outbreak
http://www.recombinomics.com/News/11270902/D225G_Evade.html
From here we can continue the discussion
Indeed, Ron, there is no censorship of opinions on the site.
There should be censorship of trolls but you get preferential treatment here.
Ron:
After all, I no longer find it necessary to answer your annoyances.
Forgot?
Michael, confirm my response to her, you answer please - and complete the mitzvah
Or will you say again that you don't know about censorship on the site....?
Mor:
Okay, so now I ask the same question without the delusions.
Here is Ada:
I am not going to investigate what happened in Canada.
I am sure that you can find a lot of information that clarifies the confusion, but as you said - I asked another question and you are welcome to answer it.
Michael change your language if you even want a reference
Mor Segmon is a respectable person who behaves in a respectable and matter-of-fact manner
Stop your childishness and your use of words like "I'm doing psychological research" and "delusional".
Do you want to ask a question like a human? You are welcome to ask
Dan,
I don't know any morbidity data from this period. I would be happy if you find it and bring it to the discussion.
Is it unreasonable to assume that the morbidity data increased/decreased in general in the same trend as the mortality?
It should also be remembered that diseases for which vaccines have not been developed at all (such as scarlatia, typhus) decreased in a similar trend to the other diseases - also the morbidity, which today is negligible. There are no vaccines for these diseases to date.
As you see on the same page, and in the JAMA study, the researchers also concluded with regard to morbidity that it decreased largely regardless (or with little contribution) of the vaccines. In the statistical yearbook, they go a step further and point out what they think led to this decline.
Could it be that in addition to environmental factors, modern medicine also had a contribution? It's possible. But the data shows us that the vaccines are not responsible for this.
And regardless of the trend of morbidity - let's at least agree on what we have clear data about.
The eradication of the infectious diseases of the 18th and 19th centuries was not done thanks to vaccines, or at least, mainly not thanks to vaccines.
Avi,
We would appreciate it if you could interpret the data of this study in a different light.
Also, we would appreciate an explanation for the determination from the world statistical yearbook cited there.
And finally, the presented charts, as can be seen from their references, show official data of different countries (statistical bureaus and historical information archives).
If these data are "invented", surely there are "real" data that show a different picture - please show them to us.
Michael,
I have no idea - you will have to turn to the delusional.
Michael Nachbadi, you did contact Mor Segmon, and you did ask about the situation in Israel.
Here is a recent Canadian report on 17 victims of the swine flu vaccine. And if one of the batches had not been removed from the market (I think it was about half a million batches that were returned to Britain), there could have been more victims:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,584548,00.html
Mor:
My question does not really belong to the current discussion but to a psychological study I am conducting.
I'm interested in what the delusional say today about the swine flu vaccine.
I mean - I know that in the past you denied it, but I am very intrigued how you adjusted the delusion to the fact that so far more than eighty unvaccinated and not one vaccinated have died from swine flu in the State of Israel.
The article is not distorted, your interpretation of its results is distorted.
I looked at the graphs Moore referred to, they seem a bit problematic to me.
The graphs only indicate the death rate and not the infection rate and therefore cannot provide reliable information on the morbidity rate of a particular disease but only indicate that medical treatment has improved and therefore fewer people have died.
Avi,
I don't want to argue with you. I am asking for the same "solid science" that will contradict the data I brought.
Does an article from JAMA seem to you a twisted interpretation or a conspiracy?
what are you afraid of? – Just bring the facts!
This is a completely factual scientific discussion. Please take part in it.
Ron aren't your unintelligent comments enough that I need your clones too?
In addition, what seems to you to be based, is a collection of nonsense and simply lies.
My father took you several days to confirm this well-founded response of Mor Segmon.
When the article is no longer in the spotlight.
He brings you scientific material and scientific journals - but you are on your own.
Where is the fairness my father?
Moore, I'm not arguing with a man who contradicts solid science that has saved people's lives for 200 years. I'm wasting my time, a person like you will not be convinced that bacteria are the cause of diseases, nor that the earth revolves around the sun. Be healthy,
It is not a matter of delegitimization. Go to conspiracy sites and be a legit name. On a site that works according to science, you should refer only to what is written in the scientific journals and not in a distorted interpretation as you are trying to introduce.
Beauty!
Witness,
Thanks for that.
Indeed, the legal situation in Israel on this issue is very bad.
In about two or three weeks, a book in Hebrew about vaccinations will be published in Israel, a translation of a book written by a doctor in England, with a special chapter on the situation in Israel written by us, members of the Hason organization.
There we refer in detail to the problematic legal issue in Israel.
Avi,
Beyond your delegitimization, I assume that you will easily find data that contradicts this illusory data:
http://www.hisunim.com/articles/Disease_and_Vaccinations_in_History_Charts.htm
which are also reinforced here:
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/281/1/61/
Father, speak to us with facts and data and not with slogans about delusional theories and songs of praise for the modern man.
Thanks!
The determination of the court in Israel, regarding the competence of parents to judge and decide in the context of vaccinations, is paternalistic and disrespectful of parents. These are taken from the above report to the Knesset:
"The court's decision in the Altori matter concerns the right of informed consent to receive the vaccine. The court ruled that the doctor's duty to warn the patient of the risks involved in receiving the vaccine is limited to the essential risks. The warning is intended to provide the patient with the necessary information to form his decision whether to require treatment or forego it . In the case of vaccination, it is not a matter of a personal decision but of giving a mass vaccination to all healthy children. In a matter like this, the court said, the parents are not qualified, and in any case are not required, to formulate a private decision as to whether it is appropriate to vaccinate their children."
What is clear is that if the Ministry of Health, the pharmaceutical companies that provide the vaccines, as well as the doctors - do not bring all the relevant information - the ability to formulate a decision is greatly impaired, and there is definitely a need for additional sources.
To Avi Blizovsky (23):
Could you share with us the process of choosing the material that the site publishes (if possible in a separate article where a discussion of this question will develop)?
Please do not see this as a provocative question. I am interested in decision-making processes under conditions of uncertainty and it seems that the controversy regarding vaccines is a prominent touchstone for the way in which people make decisions that significantly affect their lives in conditions where there is a lot of missing information.
I myself had to deal with this question right when the swine flu vaccine came out and I wondered if I should take the vaccine and what was the rational way to deal with such a question. I didn't come to a clear conclusion, but a key consideration in the decision I finally made was to listen to an "authorized source". This of course does not solve the problem because now I have to find out who the sources are that I trust (and usually in controversial issues I will find several sources that I trust but they will provide me with conflicting answers - in the case of the swine flu vaccine it was the Ministry of Health versus a large community of doctors who did not listen to the Ministry's instructions and there was division even within itself).
Your claim in the previous response that there is a public "that sees the site as authority" made me wonder about how the site sees its authority and uses it.
Regarding Moore's words, my question as a person who does not understand the subject is why should the presentation of his position be rejected? Isn't it more correct to present opposing positions (and let the readers find out)
Since the site brings its readers topics from the front of science, I assume that regarding many of the topics you can find qualified sources that differ in their opinions. Isn't it appropriate to highlight this central aspect of scientific practice - the one that faces the uncertainty and tries to decide between different views.
Moore, thank you for your participation, but I'm sorry I can't confuse the public who sees the site as an authority. Are you challenging a theory that is a year or two old, but a fact that has been proven for 200 years? Do you have any idea how much life expectancy has increased due to the combination of drugs, richer diets and vaccines in the last 200 years? Go join the Amish, although they also benefit indirectly because everyone around them is vaccinated so there are fewer epidemics to hit them.
I guess science readers aren't looking for recognizable ideas so your efforts are wasted.
Science does not need to challenge invented data, because such data exist as a good imagination.
A vaccination site expresses a wealth of information that claims, among other things, that bacteria do not cause diseases and that for two hundred years all Western medicine has been going in the wrong direction.
Scientific journals? Of course not.
I assume that in every vaccine there is some minimal percentage of risk and in the end the harm is calculated against the benefit.
Avi,
It is evident from your response that you do not know the subject.
I suggest you spend some time to learn it.
Our website does not scare anyone unnecessarily. It brings information published in scientific journals and conventional media channels.
I would be happy to have a substantive discussion supported by facts and evidence from reliable sources.
Yesterday I heard a report on the radio that a study that found a link between a certain vaccine and a certain disease was funded by a company that produced a substitute vaccine and is therefore invalid. I do not know if the above report refers to the publication that is the subject of the above article or to another publication.
Below is a link to a document submitted to the Knesset in the context of childhood vaccinations in 2004.
You should know the facts and unknown details (and if something has changed, I would appreciate it if you let me know).
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:Q1yc632QnoIJ:www.knesset.gov.il/MMM/data/docs/m00844.doc+%22%D7%A7%D7%A8%D7%9E%D7%AA+%D7%A6%D7%A4%D7%93%D7%AA+%D7%97%D7%A6%D7%91%D7%AA%22&cd=3&hl=iw&ct=clnk&gl=il
Dear friends, when you purchase a medicine you will usually receive an information sheet about what the medicine includes and its risks.
For some reason, this is not the case with vaccines. why?
I will keep my opinions to myself. I would love to read your opinions.
Thanks in advance.
Your memory father is very selective and you repeat hollow slogans used by industry charlatans
and which have already been addressed in the successful and eye-opening discussion on the subject here on the website
https://www.hayadan.org.il/triple-imune-dont-cause-autism-0401106/#comment-258627
You also wanted to see similar studies that have been done - read the link Save Segmon attached,
They're there.
If you had checked you would have seen (you answered Mor Segmon 10 minutes after his response)
The way you choose to present the subject, my father, is propagandistic and not scientific.
Yair,
Cancellation of articles (retraction) is a common procedure that happens quite a lot. I would say that on average in every 3-4 Nature or Science brochures there is a notice about the retraction of an article and it is clear that behind each such notice there is an interesting and dramatic story. There are also a considerable number of Israeli researchers who have "withdrawn" their articles or had their articles cancelled. Usually this is due to a mistake or a wrong analysis of the results that is discovered later, but in rare and serious cases it is due to a scam that was discovered. Therefore, there is nothing particularly unusual about the Lancet message. What is special here are the repercussions and debates that the aforementioned article created at the time, and therefore the announcement of its cancellation once again caused widespread media coverage.
Moore, your website scares the public unnecessarily. A study that involved 12 children and marked the goal around stress, should not amount to anything. As for the declining numbers of autistics,Roey Tsezana has already written that these are only changes in the diagnosis and that at the same time the diagnoses of patients with other syndromes that today are defined as autistics have decreased. There is no increase in the total number of patients or patients. So the way you present the subject is distorted and unscientific.
Following the publication of Dr. Itai Gal's article in YNET last week, the Hason organization publishes a reference and review of the entire affair:
About vaccines, autism, Wakefield, interests and ethics in the media - link at the bottom of the next page:
http://www.hisunim.com/Andrew_Wakefield.htm
Ron, I don't know what YNET's considerations were. In any case, the mere fact that the pharmaceutical companies profit from the sale of the vaccines should not affect the decision whether the research is correct or not. A study that dealt with 12 children in total and the subjective feelings of their parents, cannot be used as proof of anything.
If there were more studies, show me where they were published - and I don't mean news sites or tabloids, but those that managed to pass the filter of peer review, and that can also be repeated. As you know, research that cannot be repeated has its place at Ignoval.
Year:
I repeat: the article was not deleted because of the opinion expressed in it and the editors of the newspaper even bothered to say that this position might turn out to be correct.
It was deleted both because it should not have been accepted in the first place and because it turned out that the authors of the study knowingly lied.
I think that every article accepted in this way should be canceled and those who knowingly lied in a scientific article should also be punished with real punishment (and the deletion of the article is not the punishment I mean - it protects future readers but does not compensate past readers and a person who knowingly lied should be obliged to compensate his victims)
Michael,
I completely agree that the article probably should have been disqualified in the first place.
On the other hand, its deletion after many years is not just the disposal of some garbage, but an attempt to purify the history of the newspaper, in one aspect, and an attempt to eliminate an opinion that opposes the agreed opinion, in another aspect.
Let's imagine that every newspaper will delete all the false news it published...
For those who read this article on Vinet (go to the health section),
There is no option to respond to counterarguments.
We will even go so far - Mr. Mor Segmon from a solid site gave a detailed factual response in response 65 (they tried to push him far, far away..)
And a fascinating business discussion began with a commenter named MD, a person who seems to understand the matter.
Mor Segmon proved with a committee that this study was valid and similar studies followed
and reached the same findings.
I wanted to bring this material here but..
As of this moment - Wynet has deleted the entire thread for Mor Segmon's learned response, and the good questions of the commenter MD
No more this comment.
Argo ..the news about the "cancellation" of the study is a hit piece from the pharmaceutical companies' books.
and is also supported by the media by the capitalists in Israel (as the example of the deletion
and giving freedom of response to paid talkbackists such as "Abu Hassan" and "Dan").
If this is the way to dispute in science - I prefer Rabbi Ovadia
And I'm not a religious Jew.
Year:
I am quite surprised by your words.
A scientific journal should present scientific articles. It is not on a platform that should give the same platform to scientifically based positions and those that are not scientifically based.
This fact alone justified the disqualification of the article in advance.
The point is that the examination of the scientific validity of the article probably overlapped somewhat, but this overlap may have happened in part because of another reason that I also pointed out - the "research" fabricators simply lied to the newspaper editors!
In my opinion, it is very good that the article was deleted and it would be better if the newspaper editors sued the publishers of the article for the damages they caused through their lies.
Does anyone know of additional deletions of old articles?
I know of two types of publications that should not have been published or that should have been deleted as soon as the ethical flaw became apparent: articles initiated by the companies of the medical industry for the wide variety, very many articles. and recycled articles from researchers struggling to move forward. There are also many of them.
I haven't heard of mass deletions.
The article in question here, which is obviously flawed, was written many years ago, and unfoundedly presents a certain opinion. It was approved at the time by the editors of the journal. If it caused damage, it's already done. It seems that he did not receive any support and again there is no harm in him.
What was the strong motive for his deletion, which did not apply to so much scientific fallout literature, if not gagging?
When reading the new opinion, one can of course be impressed by the zeal for quality and ethics, but can we forget the absence of this zeal in the rest of the years and their scientific literature?
It should be remembered that there is no clear evidence that vaccines are not harmful in different ways, therefore an opinion that presents such a possibility, even if it comes from sin, should be left on the shelf.
Year:
The cancellation of the article is not at all related to the opinion it expresses but to the fact that it included lies and deliberate deceptions.
a quote:
"The claim in the original article that the findings are consistent and that they were approved by the local ethics committee has been proven to be wrong. Therefore, we retract the article and delete it from the public records"
This is a subtle expression of the claim that the editors of the article simply worked on the journal system.
Beyond that, there were problems with the methodology:
"This study at best had too small a sample - and had too many methodological weaknesses, for it to be used to prove anything."
It is explicitly written that it is not because of the opinion and it is even emphasized that: "Neither the Lancet nor the council claimed that there was no connection between autism and the triple vaccine, but only said that this particular study was carried out in incorrect and unethical ways."
The deletion is unfortunate.
The scientific journals are loaded with articles that range from trivial, mediocre, to rubbish. The problem with this article was not that it was worse than many others that were not deleted, but that it said something against the accepted opinion.
A hundred years ago, syphilis patients were treated with mercury. It never occurred to anyone to delete from the scientific literature the material that led to this treatment.
If you search, you will find many more, not just erroneous ideas, but studies that are allowed to be described in words that are fundamentally wrong. Do not delete them.
Contrary to what it sometimes seems, in fields controlled by strong economic establishments such as medicine, freedom of opinion does not improve.
This research is written about in detail in Dr. Ben Goldaker's book Bad Science and also in his blog, whose name is the same as the book's name:
http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/the-medias-mmr-hoax/
http://www.badscience.net/2010/01/the-wakefield-mmr-verdict/
For example
that the triple vaccine causes autism, supposedly because of toxic substances in the vaccine and that you have to give up the vaccine or unfortunately take it part by part for a few months
attorney
I'm not up to date, apparently - remind me what conspiracy it is?
He has already made his impact.
I don't believe that any of the conspiracy enthusiasts would believe that it was shelved for scientific reasons and not as part of the conspiracy.