Busy here, but just in passing I should note that The Daily Mail are continuing their anti-MMR campaign by seizing on a poster presentation at a conference.
The majority of commentators at the Daily Mail do not give the article much credence, thankfully, but there are a couple of other things to note.
Firstly, The Daily Mail says that their expert commentator in the news report is “Richard Halvorsen, a London GP and childhood vaccination expert”. He claims the study referred to in the report is “incredibly significant”.
What the article does not tell you is that Dr Richard Halvorsen is a supplier of single vaccines at a private clinic, and that his publications seem to consist solely of articles in the Daily Express and Daily Mail. A literature search reveals no peer-reviewed papers on the subject of vaccines or vaccine safety. If you find any, please feel free to contact me and enlighten me on his expertise.
Secondly, some of the commentator’s at the Daily Mail site (David Thrower and Jonathan Harris) are members of the highly active and motivated JABS lobby group. Unrepresentative of the general public, they can be described as the “true believers of Wakefield” , for whom mere scientific evidence carries little weight. They also do not disclose their affliations or conflicts of interest.
8 Comments
It is incredible in the first instance that one can refer to “The anti-MMR Propoganda Machine”. Let’s face it, the pro-MMR lobby have vast resources at their disposal, both in terms of the British government and the vast wealth, power and influence of MMR producer, Glaxo. If there is an analogy with a machine to be made – it is with the pro-lobby.
What is even more surprising is that you should attack Richard Halvorsen on the basis that he may profit from the sale of seperate vaccines – and rather naive. If one is running a private clinic with the sole motivation of profit then you sell what the buyer wants. Does it occur to you that if you believe in the danger of MMR then you might be motivated to provide an alternative? And I’m sure that Mr Halvorsen is in no position to provide it free of charge. What is more, do you believe the sale of MMR profits no one? I suspect the shareholders and directors of Glaxo might (or more likely their bank managers may wish to take issue with that). The fact is, Glaxo have everything to gain through sales of their vaccines whatever they be. It is a flimsy argument to suggest they would earn more through separate vaccines – there is only so much spend available on the NHS. There are also any number of other vaccines that have to be levered onto medical programme and a lot of competition to provide them. This is massive business with huge vested interest. Glaxo’s pre-tax profits for 2005, 6.7 billion pounds, why don’t we compare that to Mr Halverson’s clinic? We’ll soon get a good idea of who operates the machine. Debate has to remain free and open or there will be no good science whatsoever.
We should all be shocked and angered by the pathetic witch-hunt of Dr Wakefield. Whatever you think of him, attempting to bring charges for serious professional misconduct is a gross and malignant betrayal of the freedom of scientific investigation. It is comparable in ramification, to the inquisition attempting to prosecute Galileo for propounding the Copernican heresy. Not because Wakefield is a Gallileo, it doesn’t matter if Galileo was right or not – he still had the right to present his arguments without fear. It was 1611, when Galileo wrote a letter to the Grand Duchess Christina arguing for freedom of scientific inquiry. Four hundred years on, have we merely swapped the tyranny of the church for the tyranny of the multi-national pharmaceutical with the GMC acting as their inquisitors? Are they now the arbiters of what is acceptable doctrine and what constitutes medical heresy? We should fight this attack on liberty and scientific democracy with every last ounce of breath in our bodies – here is a threat far more sinister and threatening than the efforts of fundamentalist terrorists. Why? Because it threatens to undermine the very foundations of our hard won liberties, in a way Al Qaeda could only dream of. Galileo remained under house arrest under threat of torture until his death in 1642. In 1983 the church conceded he might be right. Persecution of scientific opposition paves the way for mistakes on a massive scale. Nobody deserves to be in a position where they can dictate to the public exactly what they must do for their own good – because nobody has that degree of certainty – to think otherwise is to be a scientific fundamentalist.
Whatever your beliefs, wake up and fight for freedom of scientific inquiry before you all lose it.
Here’s some “science” from Wakefield, transcribed from a talk he gave in the US:
“the upside of infection, yes the upside of infection, we are survivors of infection, we are here not in spite of infection, but because of infection. Our immune system has been conditioned over millions and millions of years by infection, and if we alter the way in which infection is delivered to our systems we must expect that by changing the ecosystem, there will be a downside, there will be attrition, we will render some children damaged.”
I rest my case.
Latest news:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5070670.stm
it doesn’t matter if Galileo was right or not
I rather think it does, if he was wrong we’d have never of heard of him and the Sun would continue it’s merry way around the Earth.
In response to Anthony, can I direct you to the comments of the Chief operating officer of Glaxo SmithKline – Dr. Jean Pierre-Garnier, on his radio 4 interview last year – “All Medicine is a risk-benefit equation” He elaborated that there is inherent risk in the consumption of any medicine be it vaccine or headache pill – some will benefit – some will be damaged. EXACTLY the same position as Dr Wakefield. Sir, I suggest you take up your case and attempt an intelligent argument.
C Hall,
There is no need to lecture me on the risks and benefits of medicines. I teach the subject and have been published in peer-reviewed journals on the subject. Even a cursory browse of the articles on this website shows I am aware that medicines cause adverse effects, and even indistry failings in their management.
Dr Wakefield’s position on single vaccines is an evidence free position and there is absolutely no association between autism and MMR vaccine. Wakefield’s position is completely unlike Jean Pierre-Garnier’s.
As for intelligent argument, for someone who has already suggested that the GMC are worse than Al Qaeda and that Wakefield is comparable to Gallileo, I have to admire your cheek.
Anthony,
In turn, I admire your ability for inverted reading – you must be a politician – I believe you have entirely missed the point of principle. Never mind. However, since you are so knowledgable in this field, I would very much appreciate your help. Can you direct me to the comprehensive studies that quantify the cumalative effect of administering vaccinations for:
diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (whooping cough), polio and Hib.Meningitis C, measles, mumps and rubella, booster dose of MMR against measles, mumps and rubella ALL BEFORE THE AGE OF 5. And let’s face it there are others that you could add to the list.
We would not in the normal course of events expect a child to catch every single one of these infections, therefore it is a legitimate question to ask what is the effect on the immune system of a child who is immunised for all of these infections? Are there any studies that comprehensively ask this question – can the immune systems of all children take this kind of stimulation without adverse reaction?
There is a preceptable rise in immune-response related disorders: Allergies, eczema, asthma, and conditions such as juvenile diabetes,
“The group with the biggest increase is the under fives and in the UK alone Type 1 diabetes in this age group has doubled in the space of 10 years.” BBC Health
AND
“Peanut allergies in children increased two-fold over a five year period from 1997 to 2002″, according to a study in the December 2003 Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (JACI).
AND
“Over the last 20 years, the number of people with asthma in the Western world has doubled. About 3.4 million people in the UK have asthma.” Science Museum UK
AND
“From a level of only 3 per cent in the 1950s, the disease affects more than one in five children today, and numbers continue to rise.”
AN objective scientific analysis could not ignore the apparent correlation with the introduction of a national vaccination programme in the 1950’s.
I can not prove the connection between over-stimulation of the immune system and the rise of immune response disorders because I am not in a position to carry out the necessary studies. I would love to know if these studies exist. However the landscape of research is dominated by pharmaceautical money driven by economic imperatives. There is no economic imperative in such a study – quite the reverse. If Glaxo commissioned such a study and discovered there was a direct link – what would they do? Risk their share price?
Obviously it is a study that has to be conducted by national governements – has it been done? If not, then it represents a gross ommission on the part of those that are appointed to guard the health of the nation.
Hall
The need to find reasons for things is very strong. Your post demonstrates that. You have decided that vaccination is the key to a number of issues, and it is a very powerful narrative that gives you an easy explanation. Combine it with the power of the big pharmaceutical companies and you have a wonderful theory of why certain things are happening, and why your reason for these problems might be covered up. I can understand how you reach this position, paranoia is the spirit of the age, especially if you are ignorant of the science and have a lay understanding of the immune system.
However, it does not make you right, and nor does it mean that vaccines should be portrayed as dangerous – especially given the risks of diseases such as measles.
I’m not going to play the game with you on this subject (I did my time arguing with anti-vaccinators on this basis in the late 1990s) but I will give you one fact about children immune systems and vaccines.
Evidence suggests that multiple vaccines do not overwhelm young infants’ immune systems. In fact, infants have the ability to deal with up to 10,000 antigens at a time and modern vaccination schedules actually expose children to fewer antigens now than they did in the 1960s.
I have not hesitated to use MMR in my family and strongly advise friends and relatives to do likewise.