An investigative committee in the UK discovered that Dr. Andrew Wakefield received $750 from lawyers who sought to file a lawsuit against the vaccine manufacturers, and that some of the children had symptoms of autism long before receiving the vaccine
A study from 1998, which linked the triple vaccine to autism, and which a few months ago was removed from the archives of the journal Lantz, was not just negligent as was believed until now, but deliberately wrong. Everything emerges from the results of an investigation published in the British Medical Journal by Brian Deere, who detailed how British surgeon Andrew Wakefield's research linking the MMR vaccine and autism was a deliberate fraud.
The investigation shows that a law firm that wanted to sue the vaccine manufacturers hired Wakefield. The company asked him to provide scientific evidence that the vaccine causes autism. Wakefield received 750 thousand dollars for his efforts.
10 of the 13 researchers who signed the study disowned it over the years and in February 2010 it was also officially removed from the records of the respected journal Lantz in which it was originally published. Still, the claim that the triple vaccine causes autism caused panic among parents around the world and the level of vaccinations against measles, mumps and rubella has not returned to its level to this day.
The analysis revealed that despite Wakefield's claim in the paper that the 12 children studied were normal until they received the vaccine, the children's medical records showed that they had early symptoms of developing problems long before they received the vaccine, and some were later diagnosed as not autistic.
Wakefield and a group of parents who support him claimed in media interviews this week that the investigation and disqualification of the article were intended to prevent a research avenue in the field of vaccine safety. "Targeted elimination of those looking for answers will only hinder the development of our children and increase unnecessary risks to public health," says Wendy Fournier, president of the National Autism Association in a press release. However, senior members of the medical field say that the science in this field is established and that the continuation of the debate is a danger.
Few studies have had such a damaging and far-reaching impact as this study, especially after it was dismissed," says William Schaffner, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine.
Vaccination rates in the UK plummeted after Wakefield's press conference promoting his research. Measles outbreaks in Britain and Ireland have hospitalized hundreds of people and killed four children, says Paul Offitt, a pediatrician at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. According to him, it will take years to restore vaccine levels. "It is difficult to remove fear from people. Research after research can be done, but people are much more committed to fear than to logic."
Nearly 40% of parents in America have given up or declined vaccines, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Many parents express suspicion against vaccines due to the lack of memory of epidemics that scared their grandmothers, says Shafner.
For an article on the subject on the blog of pediatrician Sue Hobart
58 תגובות
By not publishing a response, you become a charlatan yourself, similar to the pharmaceutical companies.
You should watch the video before you decide.
All the best.
charming:
I also already said that you are charming and I learn a lot from you.
Ada hurt me. It is clear that in your eyes it is nobody. I'm sure she hurt others as well (of course - only if they took her seriously).
I wonder what information exactly she gave you, but it's very nice of you to admit.
Ada, please answer him "for nothing"
The British journalist who exposed Dr. Wakefield's baldness - the full story.
http://briandeer.com/mmr-lancet.htm
lovely thank you You are adorable.
Ada did not hurt anyone and thanks for the information
Roschild is already gone
Witness:
This sentence did hurt all the readers who understood it and your attempt to create a presentation according to which you are the one being attacked while you are actually the one attacking is embarrassing.
Also the assumption expressed in the same comment in which this sentence appears, an assumption according to which no one has read this book except you (an obviously incorrect assumption) is offensive.
The thought that other people's reactions do not refer to the content of this book (obviously wrong assumption) and that their opinion will change following the information in the book (obviously wrong assumption) is also arrogant.
All these things are personal insults - not to one person - but to every reasonable reader - and there is nothing relevant in them.
In short - your entire entry into this discussion was from a condescending and dismissive point of departure, and therefore I too jumped on some of the blatant errors in your words (only some because I simply did not have the patience to address all the errors. In fact, I did not find in your words even one instance of drawing correct conclusions) as a source of great wealth.
Distinguished Members,
If anyone was offended by my next sentence, I apologize. There was no intention to harm, and the emphasis was on the word their [environmental] meaning - yes also regarding vaccines.
"Dear friends, when were you updated on the innovations in genetics and their meaning?"
Additionally:
For the information of all who do not know: the FDA also oversees their various vaccines in one of its wings. Therefore, you decide for yourself whether vaccines are included in FOOD or DRUG. for health
To the one who answered me anonymously, and called me "autistic enough" in his question - your question could have been phrased to the point of the matter and not to the point of a person, that is: without derogatory pronouns.
Another interesting link from the same site:
http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com/Jenny_McCarthy_Body_Count/Home.html
The second link (USA vaccines) has been cut. We will try again.
http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com/Jenny_McCarthy_Body_Count/Illness_Timelines.html
Instead of Barbara without being able to - some information about the successes of vaccines, about Dr. Wakefield and the anti-vaccine movement.
VACCINES ISRAEL
http://www.chisunim.co.il/Paper.aspx?id=85&cat=7
-------------------
VACCINES USA
http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com/Jenny_McCarthy_Body_Count/Illness_Timelines.htm
————————————————————l
WAKEFIELD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield
-------------------
ANTI VACCINES
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6TD4-4Y22RSV-1-5&_cdi=5188&_user=626711&_pii=S0264410X09019264&_origin=article&_coverDate=02%2F17%2F2010&_sk=999719992&view=c&wchp=dGLbVzW-zSkWb&md5=a0e1306691a61cc7ed3c1b5cb844af35&ie=/sdarticle.pdf
And here is what Dr. David Graham says about the FDA:
Dr. David Graham, a 20 year veteran Food and Drug Administration (FDA) scientist
The interviewer asks –
What specifically do you believe is broken in the FDA and what needs to be done to fix it?
What must be done to improve the drug vetting system?
Graham answers –
FDA is inherently biased in favor of the pharmaceutical industry.
It views industry as its client, whose interests it must represent and advance.
It views its primary mission as approving as many drugs as it can,
regardless of whether the drugs are safe or needed.
http://www.thenhf.com/article.php?id=1468
.
Witness:
I really don't have time for just arguing and it seems to me that this is what you are looking for so have a good night.
The hat I wore during the application is of course the applicant's hat.
Dear Michael, in answer 44. Thank you for your wishes and good intentions.
You are obviously omniscient, and I hope you also pass on the knowledge. Especially the one related to the innovations of the findings in the genome project and environmental impact.
I am happy to share with the (other) readers what I know, which is relatively new, as I did in previous answers here above.
But please explain to me which of your hats you're wearing when you write: "And if you ever have any information to share with the readers, I'd appreciate it if you did."
By the way, those who want to share with the public (the entire public and not just the science readers) information in the field of food and drugs, should join the FDA
Here is what is written about them on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_Drug_Administration
Here is their homepage:
http://www.fda.gov/
And here! To make life easier for you, I found the recruitment page for you:
http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WorkingatFDA/default.htm
Witness:
Definitely! As you said and this is what I meant: there is no difference and eating or breathing can also kill and drugs can also enter the body by eating and breathing.
In order to find out what food and what drugs are allowed and desirable for us to consume, there are bodies like the FDA
Pay attention, Ada:
F stands for FOOD;
D represents DRUG;
A stands for ADMINISTRATION
The enlightened world understood the similarity between things.
By the way - it's not that I want to give up on you and if you ever have any information to share with the readers, I'd appreciate it if you did.
Michael Nachbadi (response 42),
Eating: It is known what happens to inexperienced mushroom eaters in their collection. for example.
In my opinion (and not only in my opinion) the distance between food and drink and drugs is a matter of degree and the use of brain labels.
Breathing: It is important what happens if you find yourself on a planet where the composition of gases is different.
I trust the common sense of the other readers, and am happy to share with everyone more information when I have it.
Here is Ada:
Eating is also introducing substances into the body and so is breathing and drinking (there is something else but I'll leave it to your imagination).
In that sense, in your opinion, they are similar to medicine.
Be careful!
Of course, we all hope that medicine will improve in the future.
Is that all you wanted to say?
Sivan:
Kepler's laws have not received the attention they deserve by not testing them.
Wakefield's claims have actually been tested and refuted. This is a worthy reference.
Sometimes apparently, it is not enough to blame the establishment to be right.
Coincidentally today, an article by Avi Blizovsky about the discovery of the Kepler space telescope was published.
What is the connection?
1. Kepler was a mathematician, astronomer but also an astrologer.
And yet there is a space telescope named after him...
2. His theories about the elliptical orbits of the planets around the sun were not given the attention they deserved in his lifetime, even by fellow professionals such as Galileo Galilei.
Sometimes apparently, it's just not enough to be right.
To my father and Michael, responses 32 and 33:
Immunization is the introduction of substances into a body (each body is different from another). In this sense it is similar to medicine. The vaccine is not just weakened DNA of a virus.
The virus against which we vaccinate is not yet in the body - but in the future it may or may not arrive.
I look forward to the era of personalized medicine, even if it contains subgroups with these or other sensitivities, which can be known in advance through the DNA test. I have no doubt that such a test will also be conducted for those who intend to vaccinate.
As for Doctor Wakefield and his research. Let's assume that he did falsify results, and he got a higher percentage of real autism victims, in whom the autism was not caused, for example, by excess testosterone in the mother's womb (see his book mentioned above in my response 15 by Matt Bradley: The Father, the Son and the Garden) - but was caused for some reason not is known, and appeared after the triple vaccination - so instead of 7 out of 12 for example, there will only be 3 out of 12, or even 1 out of 12 - doesn't this require further research? (And really a study on 12 is too small anyway).
I am glad that the additional genetic studies, including body reactions that are different from each other, are still being done in quite a few places in the world.
According to the information known today, every autistic person is different from the other autistic people.
There is nothing to concentrate solely on a certain genetic sequence that builds a body. Saying that the origin is genetic does not solve anything - not even regarding the effect of vaccines on a particular body. Please do not understand that I recommend not to vaccinate. I belong to the generation that believes in vaccines. But their timing may or may be irreversible in its effect.
To remind you: a certain genetic sequence, in humans, builds neurons. The exact same sequence, in another animal (not specified by Bradley), it forms limbs.
Father, please don't take the job of Soviet morale officer
I am indeed interested in the information that Mr. Segmon has to offer the reader.
If there is room for doubt then there is room for doubt.
I do not release comments whose sole purpose is to sow doubt where there is none. Especially as I told you when it is a matter of immediate rather than indirect life and death.
Avi,
Scientists always write carefully, but they won't write carefully that there is no proven connection, if they don't think so.
If these researchers, after reviewing the available scientific information, come to the (cautious) conclusion that they did not find a connection and found no evidence that there is no connection, why are there people who choose to state (not carefully) unequivocally that a connection has been proven to exist, or alternatively, that it has been proven that it does not exist link?
Scientific integrity obliges every person (who comes to the subject impartially) to avoid such unequivocal statements!
And now, please release all my responses, as they are appropriate.
Thanks!
Moore, scientists will always write carefully in case there could be something, but here we are talking about the slimmest chance of a link between vaccines and autism, which is a shame to kill children and make many more disabled. In my opinion, to the same extent that there is a connection between vaccines and autism, there is a connection between astrological luck and a person's destiny. And you all know how I feel about astrology.
In my opinion, it has never been proven that there is no connection between the fact that Mor Segmon is commenting here on the site and the increase in the prevalence of autism.
I suggest, therefore, as long as it is not proven that there really is no connection, to prevent him from responding.
It is interesting how much adherence to the goal can rise above the fact that the news is about the falsification of a study and try to raise the forger to the rank of a saint.
I think I'm the only one here who didn't bring his "merchandise" but presented scientific information with references, so the delegitimization attempts to present me and others as "charlatans" for whom science is not their proper place - is a devious attempt to delegitimize an open and objective discussion.
The fact that a reader changes her mind after reading the comments does not mean that the problem is in the comments, but in the article itself. Or do you state that her judgment is flawed, and she cannot read both worlds critically (he said - arrogance).
Among those you call "charlatans", these researchers are probably included:
In a review of studies in the Cochrane Library[1] about a possible link between the MMR vaccine and autism, the researchers state: "No reliable evidence was found for a link between the vaccine and autism and Crohn's disease, it cannot be determined that such a link does not exist because the planning and reporting of the safety results in studies on the vaccine, before As well as after it entered the market, they largely do not satisfy." We emphasize that Cochrane is one of the few independent research groups in the world and is highly valued by the scientific community worldwide.
The following review reaches the same conclusion: "Scientific research does not support the rejection of the link between autism and exposure to toxins [including the toxins in vaccines]". The authors offer a critique of the studies that supposedly "proved" that there is no connection between exposure to metals and autism, in part they show that the data in the study actually supports such a connection, despite the researchers' conclusion to the contrary.
http://medicalvocis.health.officelive.com/Documents/Sorting%20Out%20the%20Spinning%20of%20Autism%20-%20Heavy%20Metals%20-%20Mercury%20-%20and%20Incidence.pdf
In other words, current scientific reviews reach the simple conclusion that it is not possible to determine whether there is, or is not, a connection between vaccines and autism, and it is certainly not possible to determine that "continuing the debate is a danger", or in other words, the US Institute of Health's 2005 determination that no further research should be carried out The connection between vaccines and autism is puzzling (to say the least).
1. Demicheli V, Jefferson T, Rivetti A, Price D. Vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella in children. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005, Issue
Vaccination is by definition - personalized medicine.
Inactive parts of the cause of the disease are introduced into the body and the body itself creates the tools to fight them.
There is one difference between medicines and vaccines - medicines work on the body itself which is different from person to person, on the other hand the vaccine is against a virus that comes from outside and usually these are identical strains.
Avi,
Thanks for curbing the scientifically baseless chatter of the various vaccine opponents.
This is a science site and indeed there is full legitimacy to block comments that lack any scientific basis.
Tired of seeing the scumbags of these delusional idiots.
Even so, they have too wide platforms in public forums.
Let them go sell their harmful wares to fools who want to buy them.
Note: Personally, in my opinion, anyone who does not vaccinate their children with the necessary vaccines should be accused of abusing the helpless.
Dear Friends,
Below is a quote from the words of Prof. Aharon Chachanover, which appear here in "Hidan" in the article: Who is for life and who is for death.
When you read medicine - think about the word vaccine as well.
"The third period, which we are now entering, will be characterized by the "tailoring" of individually adapted medicines. This is the personal medicine revolution, which will be largely based on the genetic and epigenetic information of each of us. This is how we move from the era of pajamas that fit each person, from an era in which we treated all patients with the same disease with similar treatment, to the era of the personal suit that is adapted to each patient; For an era where every woman with breast malignancy is treated according to the genetic profile and set of mutations that characterize her disease. The personal diagnosis is made mainly on the basis of the DNA sequencing, and in a second step from the analysis of the patient's epigenome and personal history. We are still a long way from implementing this approach, and many obstacles are still ahead of us. The need to move to personalized medicine stems from the fact that the one-size-fits-all treatment method did not succeed, not all patients with the same disease (apparently, as we now know) responded to the treatment, some responded and some did not."
Charlatans have endless places to express their opinion. Then when I read an article in YNET that a reader was convinced by the article but then confused by the comments, it brings me to second thoughts - not on every topic but certainly on topics of life and death. I don't want even one dead child on my conscience.
Avi,
It's a shame that in your arrogance you put yourself as a judge and delete comments that are not in line with the position you have adopted.
It is not appropriate for a person serving in the role of "editor" to demonstrate such a blatant lack of objectivity.
The public is losing out, and I hope you sleep well at night with this behavior.
Mor
Apparently what they want from him is that he doesn't falsify studies.
Don't know what you want from Wakefield,
His research has been replicated several times around the world (he never claimed that the research proves autism-vaccines, but that it is desirable to investigate the connection)
Here is the list of peer reviewed studies
http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/05/peer-reviewed-papers-support-findings.html
Dear friends, supporters of conspiracy theories. In this you have done your part because innocent people read the article and these comments contradict it even though they have no grip on reality. Then I read on other sites - I read the article in science and I was convinced, but then I read the comments. Like it's the same thing. The article was written out of responsibility and the comments - out of complete irresponsibility. The connection between vaccines and autism is similar to the connection between the position of the stars and the fate of man. Those who are looking for a connection find it everywhere, stop misleading the public, any comment from now on that repeats this intentional lie will be deleted.
Vaccines cause autism
In the USA there have already been many children who received compensation for this, the main thing is that the explicit word will not be mentioned in the lawsuit. Convulsions, yes, encephalopathy, yes, but not autism (and the above phenomena are characteristic of autism).
It does not require that autism is caused only by vaccines, let alone one vaccine or another.
Now that we know what it is about, all that remains is to set the price, as Bernard Shaw said.
The question is how many victims of each possible factor?
Ziv is right about this, what are the chances? The stark fact is that there is no serious quantification of vaccine damage, especially regarding vulnerabilities that develop slowly (the tests are done in a very short period of time and on small populations) among a small sub-population. Thus, the victims can be excluded and business can continue as usual.
You can continue to dance on the blood of the families with the autistic children and claim that it is paranoia, be amazed by the increased quality of detection of autistics that "explains" the increase in their number, block Mor Segmon to your heart's content and much more. I will only advise you to save well because the way things are going to be, if the high levels of autism continue, the welfare systems will collapse in about 25 years.
Autistic children are not only precious to their families - they are also very precious to society.
The reason for the increase in life expectancy is not related to the spaghetti monster or the oiled health care system:
Medical intervention is the least important of the four factors that determine the state of health. The Centers for Disease Control analyzed data on the ten leading causes of death in the United States, and determined that lifestyle was by far the most important factor (51%), followed by environment (20%), biological inheritance (19%), and finally medical intervention (10%). (46)
According to a classic analysis by Professor Thomas McKeown of Birmingham University, medicine played a very small role in extending the average lifespan in Britain over the past few centuries, the major benefit to people having been improvements in nutrition and public sanitation. (47,48)
Researchers, John McKinlay and Sonja McKinlay came to similar conclusions. They showed that medical intervention only accounted for between 1 and 3.5 percent of the increase in the average lifespan in the United States since 1900. (49)
The above statistics prove that health depends primarily on prevention, through hygiene and proper nutrition.
THE SMALL ROLE OF MEDICINE IN MORTALITY
http://www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr/online/medical/drug1a.html
Of course, Yigal.
And that the life expectancy increases every year is just a conspiracy designed to give people the false impression that the health system is finding solutions.
Also the fact that the life expectancy of AIDS patients, cancer patients, heart patients, etc. has increased by tens of meters in recent years is again - an attempt by the spaghetti monster to mislead us into thinking that it is because of medicine when in fact everything is thanks to you.
Only a madman would blindly believe in the oiled medical system.
And again I'm not saying that it has no use here and there.
But most of it is rubbish (quote from a lecture by John Rangan Wirfen).
This entire industry is largely built on force and deception, and in no way is its purpose to bring about the health of the patient,
but for profits first and foremost.
And it's not a conspiracy, it's just the facts of life.
Like tomorrow the sun will probably rise
In friendship
Yigal
Mor,
Even if what you write is true, there is no contradiction to the above - everyone has an interest, even the groups that oppose vaccines, so there is room to doubt (as opposed to irrational opposition) everyone and not support anyone blindly like you do.
Father, it's a shame that you fall into the pit and tomorrow after slogans of stakeholders on the subject. I'm sure if you did a little research yourself you would find out a few things...
What stands out in this article are three:
1. The name Brian Deere - a "journalist" who initiated the referral to the GMC to open an investigation against Wakefield in the first place and was supported by the vaccine industry. The man is obsessed, and he obtained the children's medical records against the law (which is probably why the media scandal is not broadcast in England) and has had an article published in the medical journal now!
2. The name Paul Ophit - a well-known summary of the vaccine industry. Lecturer throughout the USA in favor of the rota vaccine and vaccines in general, conducted the safety studies for the rota vaccine, sat on the advisory committee that decided to include the rota vaccine in the recommended program in the USA and... registered partner for the patent for the rota vaccine
3. The quoted position according to which: "Science in this field is established and the continuation of the debate is a danger." In my opinion, such sentences are really dangerous.
The detailed answer to the political matter presented here is given in this article:
http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.com/2011/01/our-book-vaccine-epidemic-how-corporate.html
And now, for some facts and figures…
Like it or not, believe it or not. Our survival is first and foremost statistical..
You can die if you turn right and not left, if you eat tomatoes and not apples, and if you stand on the wrong side of the house/fire...
The question facing the decision makers, regarding vaccinations (also other issues) is a statistical one, there is a risk, the question is what is more dangerous.. the same question is facing a parent and his (or his) child's vaccination
Regardless of the need to delve deeper and investigate, and deal with mistakes that must have been made in the studies (which also have a certain probability that should be included in the calculations) the decision is based on the level of risk, most children do not have autism, even though most of them are vaccinated... before vaccination many (probably more than those with autism) had a stroke Diseases against which they vaccinate, and they were severely affected by it and often died from it. The question of how much is the only question that can be of interest to those who do not have additional parameters..
Like the question of what is the chance of surviving, by jumping from a burning train, compared to the chance of surviving by staying there...
And here the answers are very significantly clear, but it is easier for reasons of cognitive biases, (I recommend a book on the subject, "Irrational and not accidental" by Dan Arieli) to believe that a frightening and tangible danger (such as a plane crash or hijacking) is much less probable than common and less dramatic behavior (such as driving a car).. The most dangerous part of flying is the car ride to the airport...
And it links to conspiracy theories, and that's one of the reasons it's hard to fight them..
It's pretty amazing how hard it is to dislodge superstitions and conspiracy theories.
It doesn't matter how many times they come back and check the matter - there will always be those who believe the lie with all their hearts.
By the way, one of the reasons that I think can be behind the increase that has occurred over the years in autism cases is the increasingly delayed childbearing age.
It has long been known that the chances of a child to an older man to have autism are higher than the chances of a child to a young man.
Another finding recently joined the line of evidence supporting my above hypothesis:
As published today in the "Haaretz" newspaper, studies show thatProximity between births dramatically increases the child's risk of having autism.
Since the whole process of having children is delayed more and more, it is also likely that the density of having children is increasing (people try to "make it" as long as possible)
To my father 111:
Why age 3? Who determined that this is the "age you can start"?
Today's children go to kindergarten at the age of one, so giving vaccines for the first time two years after exposure is an ineffective and unnecessary act. Vaccines are given at younger ages both to prevent complications from childhood diseases, and to avoid burdening the primary medical system (note what is happening now with the flu. Now imagine that it was also necessary to deal with another disease such as rubella), so that the treatment of any patients will not be delayed at the level which may harm their health.
"To say that this is what caused the syndrome, I cannot say for sure, but the opposite is not true either": in epidemiology there is such a thing called 'memory bias' - patients or parents of sick children who answer questions, tend to remember a lot of things in retrospect and link them to the disease because of the natural and human desire to know Why did this happen to them? So why vaccines? Why not the age of the parents (a proven risk factor, by the way)? Why not the massive penetration of the Internet and the use of a personal computer? Why not cellular antennas and cellphones? Why not an excess of processed foods? Why not air pollution? Your answer is simply "like this". Unfortunately, this reasoning is not scientifically valid.
Dear friends, when did you get updated on the innovations in genetics and their meaning?
As far as I understand, the meaning is that humans differ from one another not only in genes that affect their shape, but also in genes that are reactive to the environment (yes, yes. Lamarck returns through the back door following the genome project - in addition to classical Darwinism [not in his place]). What this means is that one child will not react negatively to the vaccine and another child will.
I recommend reading Matt Ridley's book: The Father, the Son and the Garden: New Revelations on the Old Debate Between Heredity and Environment.
After reading, you will likely think differently about the possible connection between autism and vaccines.
You are wrong my friend. Waiting until the age of two or three is exactly the problem - it is not for nothing that the vaccines are given at a young age because it is precisely at this age that the children are more exposed to infection.
In response to you Niv - first of all there is no such thing as total negation - it is impossible not to leave an opening for the simple empiricism of life: one or another sensitivity of one or another baby to serum X or Y at a certain stage can erupt as one or another disease or trigger a certain syndrome.
Second - I am the father of a son who belongs to the autistic group, and in a short research (of alternative medicine factors), a very reasonable suspicion arose that the onset of the symptoms was close to the triple vaccine. To say that this is what caused the syndrome I cannot say with certainty, but neither can the opposite.
In reply to Gillian: The children's vaccine? Due to the delay in the onset of the syndrome in my son (which was discovered, as mentioned, to be close to the triple vaccine), we stopped the vaccination program for the little daughter and did indeed only give her tetanus (for example). I'm not in favor of not getting vaccinated, but introducing these substances (and 13 years ago when the vaccines were given to my son - the injections contained mercury) at such a young age of one year is a danger that the onset can be postponed to at least two years of age, why not? (And another doctor, when we tried to consult him for the process of distributing the vaccines, suggested vaccinating the little one immediately with all the vaccines together! How do you think that the parents of an autistic child who at least think that their son's case is somehow directly or indirectly related to some kind of vaccine, react to such a proposal?).
I say that everyone is good at preaching morals when everything is fine with them - true, you should bless the children's health, but try to put yourself in our place.
There are no simple decisions, but I definitely recommend vaccinating in stages from the age of two and a half to three, when the body is already stronger and can "digest" the serum in a way that does not harm.
It is not clear what the meaning of the big discovery is: the fact that Wakefield received funding from a group that opposes vaccines has been known for a long time. Lancet is just trying to somehow get out of the mess they were a part of: publishing a biased study with problematic methodology and an irresponsible conclusion, just to win all the "noise".
If there is anything good that has come out of this affair, it is the increased awareness of the interests of all concerned: New Age groups, academia, journals and pharmaceutical companies. This means: in this case the vaccines were found to be innocent, but this does not necessarily mean that this will always be true for every medical preparation brought to the attention. A little critical thinking, as opposed to the obsession of anti-vaccinators, still hasn't killed anyone.
I would like to send the article by email to the company, and I don't know how to fill in the empty slots. Thank you
Even if the vaccines could harm and cause autism and other things, the probability of that happening is significantly lower than the death rate if no one gets vaccinated. What is better? A risk of, probably, 0.01% for autism or 40% for death?
What parent can choose a clear mind in death?
And I have two questions for all the quacks who support the conspiracy theory linking vaccines to autism:
A. Have you vaccinated your children?
B. If the answer to A is negative, would you be willing to take the risk of your children dying in agony from a terrible disease such as tetanus for example? If the answer is yes, then you are nothing but criminals.
First of all, Father 111, I don't know on what basis you are basing your claim regarding autism, regarding the fact that vaccines have side effects, there is no doubt that you are right, regarding the fact that we need to constantly continue to check and deepen our understanding, I don't think anyone will argue, but, regarding autism and the triple vaccine Today there is an overwhelming consensus (based on many studies + on analysis of data from vaccine recipients) that there is no connection between the two things (the rate of autism in the non-vaccinated population and the rate of autism in the vaccinated population is practically the same).
The attempts to generalize one way or the other are fundamentally wrong: it may not be possible to make a sweeping connection between vaccines and autism, but there will still be (and have been) cases of children with physical sensitivity to vaccines (autoimmune system, liver functions, etc.), who did develop autism after vaccination A triangle or a pentacle later. Just as one cannot expect someone to die from an ecstasy pill just on a clear day (perhaps if they had been tested for sensitivities beforehand...), but since neither our babies nor our boys are tested for such a physical disability that could cause your grandfather to have a very, very unpleasant "adventure" - we should not conclude that from now on it is permissible to vaccinate the Wow and everything will be fine.
If you want to show that autism came before the vaccine - please prove it through tests on the drops of milk and innovative medical means that surely exist today - or then we can surely live in the realms of the vaccine.
Well, was I right or not? :-)))))))
Better not. A typical Ron-Yet response that accuses the whole world of silence. Those who think that they are only being worked on all the time should see a specialist. And since you've already managed to sneak in one comment under another name, we'll settle for it.
I sent a rather long message
I will appreciate it if it is approved
Thanks
Thanks Ron and that's the end of your bullying for this article.
And besides, it's not a witch hunt. A person who carries dead children on his conscience should go to prison. He knows he lied.
The criticism was that Blanchet was negligent and gave a platform for charlatan research.
my father
Is it a witch hunter?
Where is the review? Or you can also say about him that he is a creationist/machbat/evangelist, etc.
Here is Dr. Wakefield being interviewed two days ago and responding to the accusations
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXhPa1UUnMo
From the beginning there was no doubt that this was a sophisticated (or maybe not so sophisticated?) counterfeiting conspiracy.
Of course, we published the news about a week ago on the association's website - for the information of "another truth" and "conspiracy" (and let's bet they will now claim that the fake claims are a conspiracy?)