[Jon-and-Lou]

Just thought I'd drop in and pass this on.

Our 2 children had their first of 3 hep B jabs last night(aged 3 and 5).

UK don't immunise against Hep B, but apparently NZ do, so be warned all Mums and Dads, as they need 3 injections, each 1 month apart.

ETA- vaccines were free :nice1
Lou

[sophiedb]

Thanks for the pointer :)

[Kerry and David]

Yep, this has been spoken about before. I hope both your children are well after their first jab. My boys were fine in themselves but the 5 year old screamed so much that the full waiting room must have wondered what we were doing to him! I did blush and say ' just a jab' as we left with all eyes on us:o:laugh

[Georgebulldog]

Wont forget dd last but one, the nurse bent the needle in her :wah, took a lot to drag her back for the last one, just glad it was a few months away so she had time to almost forget it

[grady bunch]

Mine had the first two a month apart and the third is in 6 months time, no??

Excellent nurses here though, and the kids got lollies! What more could you want!

The Gradys

[MandC]

Is this essential or just a recommendation? We leave in four weeks and don't have Hep b imms. Can we get them in NZ and what would that cost? One link I checked says it's recommended - but will we be turned away if we don't have it? When I went to Ghana I had to have a yellow fever vaccination - and needed to travel with the paperwork. I hoping this isn't the case for hep b or we're scuppered! :eek:

[JandM]

No, there's no requirement. You can sort out whatever seems needful to you when you get there.

[MandC]

Pphheewww - thanks JandM, I was starting to sweat a bit here! :)

Will look into it when I get there and think about how necessary it is then.

Major thanks, M

[BaggiesFans]

My little boy is 2 1/2 and has just had his catch-up Hep B jabs to bring him up to date with the NZ schedule. He's had one a month for the last three months.

When I took him for the third one today they said that due to the current measles outbreak they are now bringing forward the second dose of MMR. In NZ they normally do the first MMR at 15 months and the second at 4 years old but they are now changing that to 12 months and then the second dose any time after 15 months. So Lewis had his second dose today.

I was thinking that finally we have got all jabs out of the way when they said it looks like he needs a 4th Prevenar jab as he only had 3 in the UK? How many more injections - poor boy!

[grady bunch]

Hep B is free for children, as all necessary jabs are.

The Gradys

[Mamee & Co]

Mine will probably be 8 when they come across. Is it worth getting the Hep B done at this stage and is it necessary for anything?

[DonDeLaVega]

Here in the US we are able to opt out of most vaccinations if we have any safety concerns about them or religious objections. Does anyone know if this is the case in New Zealand?

Thanks!
Don

[KatieBen]

You are able to refuse vaccination on behalf of your children. You will have to make an appointment with a GP, discuss your reasons for refusal and sign a form stating that you have been made aware of the benefits of immunisation and the risks you are putting your child at by refusing them. Once that's signed you should stop getting reminders although I can't guarantee that you won't get quizzed on it every time you take a child to see a doctor.

Personally I can't understand why you wouldn't want to protect a child against devastating illness, but each to their own view and their own decisions.

[DonDeLaVega]

Personally I can't understand why you wouldn't want to protect a child against devastating illness, but each to their own view and their own decisions.

Okay thanks, that's similar to what we have here then. :)

The more we've looked into it, the more concerns we've had. See here for example: http://www.nvic.org/ . I have a lot of skepticism regarding anything coming out of the major pharmaceuticals these days. Caution and concern seem to have given way to optimizing profit$ at all costs.

If the vaccinations are as safe as they say, then why have the BigPharma lobbyists bartered with the government to be "immunized" from lawsuits related to harmful side effects? If their product is as wonderful as they claim it to be, then they should be willing to be accountable for it.

[girlwithanewf]

My daughter has been to 2 schools since our arrival at the end of January and neither has needed to see proof of immunisations. She has only had the UK ones done, mind you, we haven't found a GP with space and are just on a waiting list.

[Gnomon]

Okay thanks, that's similar to what we have here then. :)

The more we've looked into it, the more concerns we've had. See here for example: http://www.nvic.org/ . I have a lot of skepticism regarding anything coming out of the major pharmaceuticals these days. Caution and concern seem to have given way to optimizing profit$ at all costs.

If the vaccinations are as safe as they say, then why have the BigPharma lobbyists bartered with the government to be "immunized" from lawsuits related to harmful side effects? If their product is as wonderful as they claim it to be, then they should be willing to be accountable for it.

http://www.3news.co.nz/Low-immunisation-rate-triggers-measles-outbreak/tabid/817/articleID/117343/Default.aspx

http://www.immunize.org/catg.d/p4017.pdf

If you don't immunize your children then your putting everyone else's children at risk and you should then be forced to home school.

I do not want my children mixing with non immunized children as the risks are just getting too high my my children to catch measles and diphtheria.

David

[Arwen]

;349579If you don't immunize your children then your putting everyone else's children at risk and you should then be forced to home school.

I do not want my children mixing with non immunized children as the risks are just getting too high my my children to catch measles and diphtheria.

David

I think that is a really unfair and extreme statement!!

Parents should have the choice, and if they are concerned about the side effects/long term damage such immunisations could have on their children, then in my opinion, they have every right to opt out.

I have immunised my children thus far, but I have no problem with parents who do not wish to do so.

[Mgee]

I have a very ambivalent attitude towards jabs. I do realise they have helped to eradicate or severly reduce the risk of life-threatening illnessess, but here comes the but: I myself actually got TB from the vaccine given to me as a baby, and consequently spent my second year more or less in the hospital. Luckily, the TB I had wasn't in the lungs (or in the brain!) but in my ankle bone. It still meant several operations, countless weeks at the hospital, Xrays for the whole family and a killer dose of antibiotics for almost two years. I was pronounced cured and healthy almost 33 years ago, but having had TB still creates quite a bit of fuss in various situations, including the NZIS application process...;)

If I had kids, I wouldn't dare to have them vaccinated with the same vaccine I had, because there has to be a reason why I got such a funny adverse reaction to the jab. I'm actually one of the guinea pigs for a current pan-European study where they try to find a gene mutation that makes more prone to certain type of bacteria, including TB. If I have a funny gene, that would likely affect my kids as well. Still, having been through TB and knowing how serious it is, I don't think I could leave my kids unvaccinated either -what a catch-22 situation!:(

Having won the bad luck lottery once already, I am a bit critical when it comes to getting a jab for every possible (minor) disease there is, because the jabs themselves aren't completely risk free either. That's why I've sort of made a deal with myself that I get myself vaccinated against those diseases that have a high risk of death or serious complications for a healthy adult (hepatitis, yellow fever, japanese encephalitis, meningitis etc), but will skip what I consider to be more of a "convenience" vaccines, like the seasonal flu jab. I probably won't take the swine flu jab either.

[Arwen]

Excellent post Mgee, I have repped you for it. :nice1

[James 1077]

If you don't immunize your children then your putting everyone else's children at risk and you should then be forced to home school.

I do not want my children mixing with non immunized children as the risks are just getting too high my my children to catch measles and diphtheria.

David

Totally agree - people should have the choice as to whether or not to vaccinate but should not be able to put other people's children at risk as a result of that decision.

The measles vaccine isn't 100% effective (none are) but herd immunity makes up for the ineffective difference. By not vaccinating you are effectively choosing not to be part of the herd.

[GrumpyGoat]

To Don--don't worry about NZ requirements at all. I have met many who do not vaccinate and the schools don't even blink if you don't have the paperwork. They are very careful to say "that is your choice, you don't need to explain"
Way better than the US:nice1

That said--I want to address the misconceptions on these posts. There is much evidence that vaccinations did not eradicate disease--that the whole premise is fatally flawed, even. Vaccinations do not offer "herd immunity" (in fact, most outbreaks are amoungst the immunized children)(and immunized children are, in fact, carriers and more dangerous to unvaccinated children than the other way around)

Don't believe me --do the research yourself. At one time, I believed all the propaganda and I thought I was doing what was right for my children by vaccinating. My son is a vaccine injury. It was terrifying when they said the word "autism" to me after my perfectly healthy 12 mo. old stopped speaking and making eye contact. I paid a terrible price and struggled for years to get my son "normal" as possible. We were lucky--we had speech and "heavy lifting" therapy 3 times a week, heavy metal detox etc etc and he has recovered. Mostly.
It was only after the injury that I did the research. I urge all of you to read the "other side" of the story.

There is a huge amount of risk that you are likely not aware of and the benefit (if any--but opinions differ) is very small.

The pharmaceutical companies are profit driven and do, in fact, have immunity from lawsuits. There are enormous amounts of money and lobbyists pushing the "party line" and I encourage you to be skeptical. At least, read the other side of the debate.

Know what the 'debate' is all about before you make any decisions.

Here are a couple links to get you started but this is by no means an exhaustive list:
http://imcv.info/
http://www.nvic.org/Myths-and-Facts.aspx
http://vaclib.org/sites/debate/web1.html
http://www.know-vaccines.org/parent.html
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2001/08/18/vaccine-myths.aspx
http://www.lowellsfacts.com/herdimmunity.html
http://www.relfe.com/vaccine.html
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/the-vaccine-debate-are-non-vaccinators-really-irresponsible.html

[dharder]

I'm with James and David on this one.

If a healthy child that the parents chose not to immunise passes on one of those not-so-very-bad diseases to an immuno-compromised (who can't be vaccinated) child, this child might die.

Those children need the herd immunity.

I realise this is a dividing issue, and am not interested in getting into a debate. The above is my belief, and obviously, everyone is entitled to a differing one.

Daniela

[Tia Maria]

There was recently a measles outbreak on the North Shore, one child at a Rugby match and one at a Gym competition, both events were attended by children from different schools, who of course all had siblings at other schools, within a week most of the schools had sent home forms with advice to get kids immunised and various children were kept of school.

I phoned to try to get one of my children's jabs moved forward but the Drs had run out due to a rush on the vaccine by previously unvaccinated children.

I think many parents don't hear of these diseases, so in their minds the chances of their child getting it is slim, but when they were faced with actual measles cases, locally, many decided it was worth risking any possible side effects when faced with a real chance of their child getting the disease.

My children are healthy and we had no reason to think they might get side effects so it wasn't a hard choice for us but I don't envy those like Mgee who know they may not be able to give their kids the vaccine and at the same time know that measles cases are on the rise as herd immunity has dropped so low.

I think if there had been a big outbreak locally then non vaccinated children would have been asked to stay home from schools and Kindys and I suspect other parents would have also kept their kids away from the non-vaccinated ones, especially if they had babies or toddlers who had not had all the jabs and weren't protected from the disease.

Cheers

Tia

[Arwen]

If a healthy child that the parents chose not to immunise passes on one of those not-so-very-bad diseases to an immuno-compromised (who can't be vaccinated) child, this child might die.

I appreciate what you are saying, but there are many 'healthy' children out there who after being immunised have suffered awful side effects and on-going health problems.

Unfortunately both Grumpy Goat and myself know this only too well, as both our sons have suffered as a result.

It's a difficult decision and by no means clear-cut at all.

[thewoodies]

I have a very ambivalent attitude towards jabs. I do realise they have helped to eradicate or severly reduce the risk of life-threatening illnessess, but here comes the but: I myself actually got TB from the vaccine given to me as a baby, and consequently spent my second year more or less in the hospital. Luckily, the TB I had wasn't in the lungs (or in the brain!) but in my ankle bone. It still meant several operations, countless weeks at the hospital, Xrays for the whole family and a killer dose of antibiotics for almost two years. I was pronounced cured and healthy almost 33 years ago, but having had TB still creates quite a bit of fuss in various situations, including the NZIS application process...;)

If I had kids, I wouldn't dare to have them vaccinated with the same vaccine I had, because there has to be a reason why I got such a funny adverse reaction to the jab. I'm actually one of the guinea pigs for a current pan-European study where they try to find a gene mutation that makes more prone to certain type of bacteria, including TB. If I have a funny gene, that would likely affect my kids as well. Still, having been through TB and knowing how serious it is, I don't think I could leave my kids unvaccinated either -what a catch-22 situation!:(

Having won the bad luck lottery once already, I am a bit critical when it comes to getting a jab for every possible (minor) disease there is, because the jabs themselves aren't completely risk free either. That's why I've sort of made a deal with myself that I get myself vaccinated against those diseases that have a high risk of death or serious complications for a healthy adult (hepatitis, yellow fever, japanese encephalitis, meningitis etc), but will skip what I consider to be more of a "convenience" vaccines, like the seasonal flu jab. I probably won't take the swine flu jab either.

My eldest daughter had a extreme reaction to the MMR - i was 3 years in and out of hospital - prolonged febral convulsions - repeated and a bowel operation n!!!! I lost my job . my marriage broke down etc etc etc

I now have 2 small children who I paid to have their M M R done seperately (UK) you cannot - as far as i have found out so far get this done in NZ

However little man got full blown measels from measels jab !

On another note a family friends friend died in Canada(Vancover) from the Swine Flu jab not long ago - a mother with small kids :wah



I still sit on the fence - Basically your damed if you jab and your damed if you dont !


There was a measels outbreak on the Isle of Wight last year and my friends boy got it and he had is MMR - very worrying she was pregnant at the time :wah

[thewoodies]

oh and also school just asked for a list of Jabs :exit

[Gnomon]

There is no question goes on behind pharmaceutical doors is dubious to say the least, and to debate with people who believe their kids have had side effects from immunization is not not really fair ether as feelings are going to be passionate.

Is there a definite correlation between immunization and autism? I hope I don't sound condescending, but I don't much about the correlation.

David

[GrumpyGoat]

oh and also school just asked for a list of Jabs :exit

They will all ask for it. But it is not required. If you tell them "I don't have one" they will just say "OK"

[GrumpyGoat]

Is there a definite correlation between immunization and autism? I hope I don't sound condescending, but I don't much about the correlation.



The correlation in my house was 100%.

I hope you are luckier.

There is no debate. To have a debate you would have to present additional information and, thus far, no one has chosen to do that. In fact, no one has rebutted my post--it has been ignored completely.

I have provided a personal story and tons of links for information. I assure you I have read every word that I could get my hands on about this subject over the last 6 years. I have looked at research, adverse reaction reports, studies, statistics etc etc.

I encourage everyone here to do some reading. Doesn't mean you will agree with me. And it is really irrelevant to me if anyone agrees with me or understands me or any of that. It's not about me. I just feel like it is my duty to warn other people based on what I experienced and what I have learned since then.

I share my story (and all those links) so people can have a chance to educate themselves about the facts, the dangers, etc. When we form our opinions, I think we should really have factual input.

Be informed.

Remember, I believed in herd immunity and the efficacy of vaccinations at one time, too. But then my life changed and I did a LOT of reading. And as John Maynard Keynes famously said "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

Of course, I will assume that 95% of you will smugly assume that they know ALL about this issue with no time spent on research except for a few well placed articles in the mainstream media--paid for by the pharmaceutical lobby.

[DonDeLaVega]

http://www.3news.co.nz/Low-immunisation-rate-triggers-measles-outbreak/tabid/817/articleID/117343/Default.aspx

http://www.immunize.org/catg.d/p4017.pdf

If you don't immunize your children then your putting everyone else's children at risk and you should then be forced to home school.

I do not want my children mixing with non immunized children as the risks are just getting too high my my children to catch measles and diphtheria.

David

Friend, if your children were already "immunized" against a particular pathogen, then theoretically they should have nothing to worry about, correct? Supposedly it is those who have not been immunized that are at risk. So why all the concern? ;)

Ironically, what if it's actually the other way around, as shown here: http://www.naturalnews.com/028142_mumps_vaccines.html


Interesting, "In Ocean County, New Jersey, county spokeswoman Leslie Terjesen told CNN that 77 percent of those who caught mumps had already been vaccinated against mumps... Notice that far more vaccinated children were stricken with mumps than non-vaccinated children?"

As I mentioned earlier, it is beneficial to spend some time researching this matter, studying both sides of the issue from non-biased sources. True, it may be difficult to find a truly "non-biased" source, so by that it should be one who doesn't serve as a mouth piece for corporate interest (major mass media sources) or by information put together or sponsored by those with ve$ted intere$t$ in the matter http://www.drugs.com/clinical_trials/pharmaceutical-ghostwriting-trend-mars-credibility-research-negatively-impacts-patient-safety-4014.html.

As far as being "forced to home school", there are many of us out here that freely choose to do so and are more than happy with the results. :D

[Tia Maria]

There is no question goes on behind pharmaceutical doors is dubious to say the least, and to debate with people who believe their kids have had side effects from immunization is not not really fair ether as feelings are going to be passionate.

Is there a definite correlation between immunization and autism? I hope I don't sound condescending, but I don't much about the correlation.

David

From what I can tell all of the scientific based studies have found no correlation between MMR and Autism, and although there is always lots of criticism about them not being big enough, you'd have thought at least one would have found something. All evidence that I've heard of that there is a connection, seems to be anecdotal. Although maybe someone who has researched this might be able to point you in the direction of a medical study that shows differently?

Convulsions on the other hand was a very real side effect, although I think they now use a different strain, but it does go to show that immunisation side effects should be taken seriously, especially if it is a new jab in some way.

Cheers

Tia

[Tia Maria]

Sorry GG - I think you posted more since I posted.....

Maybe you can give us a link to a study that shows a connection between MMR and Autism? You'll probably be able to find it quicker than I can find it going through your links.

Cheers

Tia

[Tia Maria]

Friend, if your children were already "immunized" against a particular pathogen, then theoretically they should have nothing to worry about, correct? Supposedly it is those who have not been immunized that are at risk. So why all the concern? ;)

. :D

I immunise my children but at the moment my youngest child has only had the first jab, so he would be at risk. As mentioned before when we had the outbreak on the Shore the Ministry of Health advised all to have the 2nd jab done as quickly as possible but the Drs had run out.

Cheers

Tia

[KatieBen]

The one study which showed a possible link between MMR and autism (David Wakefield et al) has subsequently been shown to be flawed - the conclusions that were drawn were invalid. Ben Goldacre devoted a chapter to it in Bad Science (as an aside, a thumpingly good read).

Autism spectrum disorders in general are extremely tricky to diagnose in young children and often the traits only become obvious at about the same time as the MMR is given, hence an apparent link. Numerous large scale studies have failed to prove a positive link (although I do accept that lack of proof of positive is not the same as proof of negative).

I am extremely fortunate in having 2 healthy kids who have had every vaccine available / appropriate, including hep B on arrival in NZ. Partly because I believe in the concept of herd immunity (and would like to think I am helping immuno-compromised children by having my 2 jabbed).

But also because I have been in the extremely unpleasant situations of having to tell parents that their child is dead or brain damaged as a result of an illness for which a vaccine is available. Measles encephalitis is a complication I seriously hope nobody here has the misfortune to have experience of. Epiglottitis - my own speciality's nightmare - is now almost never seen, thanks to the HiB vaccine. Meningococcal sepsis rates are lower since the vaccine was introduced.

I will also be requesting (and paying for, it won't be free) HPV vaccination for my boys when they reach their teens. The virus won't hurt them at all but if I can help stop any future girlfriend of theirs getting cervical cancer then it will be worth it.

As I said - each to their own opinions. And I am not smugly assuming I know 95% of everthing regarding vaccination - I have however spent the better part of 15 years studying human and cell molecular biology, mechanism of disease transmission and disease processes themselves. That's what I'm basing my decisions and opinions on.

[IanW99]

The one study which showed a possible link between MMR and autism (David Wakefield et al) has subsequently been shown to be flawed - the conclusions that were drawn were invalid. Ben Goldacre devoted a chapter to it in Bad Science (as an aside, a thumpingly good read).
...


I believe you mean Dr Andrew Wakefield who clearly had his own agenda IMHO.

Ian

[KatieBen]

That's the one! Sorry, was quoting name from memory. I've read enough of the original papers and meta-anaylses you'd think I'd get his name right by now!

[dharder]

The one study which showed a possible link between MMR and autism (David Wakefield et al) has subsequently been shown to be flawed - the conclusions that were drawn were invalid. Ben Goldacre devoted a chapter to it in Bad Science (as an aside, a thumpingly good read).

I was going to recommend the very same book! Excellent read.

Daniela

[teamplayer2003]

My wife is a pharmacist, and her feelings are all about balance and doing what you feel is right. Having said that she mentions that we all hear about when children have a reaction to a vaccine, but we don't hear about the millions who don't.

There are probably more kids with a peanut allergy that that to a vaccine, but how do we find out... we give them some peanut butter and hope for the best.

Its all about balance and taking an informed decision and living with it.

But remember:
If your happy to put your kids in a car without much concern then a vaccine which is close to 100% safe should be the least of your worries.

I do feel for parents making the choice, I don't have kids so I imagine that my feelings on this decision will be different and something I think much harder about when the time comes. Although being a male it wont be my final decision anyway!

best of luck

Tim

[dilanium]

Tim- why wouldn't it be your decision? It should be an open discussion between both parents, who would then come to a decision together.

[teamplayer2003]

I would get a say, well i think i would!
Lucky i think we both think on the same wave length when it comes to this so it wont be a problem.

[GrumpyGoat]

In response to Tia's question:
I am a follower of Dr. Mercola (among other natural practitioners) and I received this in my inbox (http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/04/10/wakefield-interview.aspx) today interestingly.

It is an interview with Dr. Andrew Wakefield--who has, on advice of counsel, not defended himself or his study up until now (article says the advice has now changed). There is a video interview at the link (and also a transcript available) as well as other commentary. There are always two sides to every story. Dr. Wakefield is giving his side.

BTW, it is interesting to note that Dr. Wakefield is NOT against immunizations. He thought that the separate jabs were safest--he is not a proponent of NOT immunizing.

Here is an excerpt:

In the years after his initial controversial finding, linking the MMR vaccine to Crohn’s disease and autism, he published another 19 papers on the vaccine-induced disorder.

All were peer reviewed. However, strangely enough, none of these 19 papers are ever discussed in the media. The only study that keeps seeing the light of day is the original study from 1998, along with the original questions about conflicts of interest, which he explains in great detail in this interview.

This is very interesting indeed, because not only has he continued his own studies, but since then, a large number of replication studies have been performed around the world, by other researchers, that confirm his initial findings.

Says Wakefield:

“… it’s been replicated in Canada, in the U.S., in Venezuela, in Italy… [but] they never get mentioned. All you ever hear is that no one else has ever been able to replicate the findings.

I’m afraid that is false.”

For those of you who have swallowed this type of reporting hook line and sinker, here is a list of 28 studies from around the world that support Dr. Wakefield’s controversial findings:

1. The Journal of Pediatrics November 1999; 135(5):559-63
2. The Journal of Pediatrics 2000; 138(3): 366-372
3. Journal of Clinical Immunology November 2003; 23(6): 504-517
4. Journal of Neuroimmunology 2005
5. Brain, Behavior and Immunity 1993; 7: 97-103
6. Pediatric Neurology 2003; 28(4): 1-3
7. Neuropsychobiology 2005; 51:77-85
8. The Journal of Pediatrics May 2005;146(5):605-10
9. Autism Insights 2009; 1: 1-11
10. Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology February 2009; 23(2): 95-98
11. Annals of Clinical Psychiatry 2009:21(3): 148-161
12. Journal of Child Neurology June 29, 2009; 000:1-6
13. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders March 2009;39(3):405-13
14. Medical Hypotheses August 1998;51:133-144.
15. Journal of Child Neurology July 2000; ;15(7):429-35
16. Lancet. 1972;2:883–884.
17. Journal of Autism and Childhood Schizophrenia January-March 1971;1:48-62
18. Journal of Pediatrics March 2001;138:366-372.
19. Molecular Psychiatry 2002;7:375-382.
20. American Journal of Gastroenterolgy April 2004;598-605.
21. Journal of Clinical Immunology November 2003;23:504-517.
22. Neuroimmunology April 2006;173(1-2):126-34.
23. Prog. Neuropsychopharmacol Biol. Psychiatry December 30 2006;30:1472-1477.
24. Clinical Infectious Diseases September 1 2002;35(Suppl 1):S6-S16
25. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2004;70(11):6459-6465
26. Journal of Medical Microbiology October 2005;54:987-991
27. Archivos venezolanos de puericultura y pediatría 2006; Vol 69 (1): 19-25.
28. Gastroenterology. 2005:128 (Suppl 2);Abstract-303

[IanW99]

For the other side of the story, you may want to read Andrew Wakefield and the campaign against MMR (http://briandeer.com/solved/solved.htm)

In particular the report by the General Medical Council on their findings about Dr Wakefield.


Some three dozen charges were found proven, including four counts of dishonesty and 12 involving the abuse of developmentally-challenged children. Eleven counts concerned "high risk" research performed without ethical approval; nine of causing such research to be carried out contrary to the children's clinical interests; three of causing children to undergo lumbar puncture which was not warranted; and three of him ordering medical tests without the necessary qualifications and in breach of his non-clinical employment contract.

And the most worrying aspect IMHO opinion was his filing of a patent for a single measles vaccine and then trying to discredite the MMR - no conflict of interest there then :no

The most disappointing thing is that his work has now completely mudded the waters.

Ian

[GrumpyGoat]

For the other side of the story, you may want to read Andrew Wakefield and the campaign against MMR (http://briandeer.com/solved/solved.htm)

In particular the report by the General Medical Council on their findings about Dr Wakefield.



And the most worrying aspect IMHO opinion was his filing of a patent for a single measles vaccine and then trying to discredite the MMR - no conflict of interest there then :no

The most disappointing thing is that his work has now completely mudded the waters.

Ian

I have a link (http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=201)that says:

"The Sunday Times originally made a series of claims against Mr Wakefield, which were all actually rejected by the Lancet except for the conflict of interest."

His findings have been replicated (see the previous post for a list). So even if his smear was legitimate (which I don't agree that it is --based on the "other side of the story"), the findings still pose significant questions that remain unaddressed. I don't consider the pursuit of truth to be "muddying the waters"
Personally, I WANT to see LOTS of studies (not funded by vaccine manufacturers OR their lobbyists in govt) on vaccine efficacy and safety over long term. It's the least that should be done.

[GrumpyGoat]

It's information like the following that keeps me from dismissing Wakefield due to the inquiry:


The Chairman of the General Medical Council's inquiry into MMR vaccine doctor Andrew Wakefield, Professor Dennis McDevitt, is being challenged over undisclosed personal interests. On 11th July this year an unprecedented 14 week GMC hearing chaired by Professor McDevitt was due to commence into charges against Dr Andrew Wakefield of the Royal Free Hospital relating to the controversial vaccine. However, previously secret government minutes reveal Professor McDevitt was himself a member of a 1988 government safety panel which approved Pluserix MMR as safe for vaccine manufacturer Smith Kline & French Laboratories (see first .pdf attached). Pluserix MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine was introduced in 1988 but the Government was forced to withdraw it in November 1992 after large numbers children suffered suspected adverse vaccine reactions.

And

The role of the English judiciary in the MMR debacle is of concern. The judge who made the decision which effectively ended the UK MMR litigation, Judge Nigel Davis, is the brother of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) board director Sir Crispin Davis. Pluserix MMR was made and supplied by a GlaxoSmithKline company. It was given to many of the children in the ultimately unsuccessful UK litigation prompted by Dr. Wakefield's 1998 findings as published in The Lancet. Davis was brought onto the Glaxo Board only two months before The Sunday Times hired Brian Deer to write the articles attacking Wakefield. Davis was also the CEO of the owners of The Lancet. When challenged a statement was issued on Judge Davis' behalf to The Telegraph newspaper's legal correspondent Joshua Rosenberg that stated "The possibility of any conflict of interest arising from his brother's position did not occur to him."

And

James Murdoch, the chairman and chief executive of The News Corporation, which owns The Sunday Times, was appointed to the GlaxoSmithKline board of directors last year and will assume his post in May, 2009. The British and world public should now also be given answers about why The Sunday Times’ owners James Murdoch and, by corporate extension, his billionnaire father Rupert Murdoch, have become directly and openly involved in British politics by publicly taking up the role of protectors of the name, reputation and business interests of drug company GlaxoSmithKline plc, as recently reported in the Financial Times on February 2, 2009.

AND

The GMC's inquiry into Dr Wakefield is said to include conflicts of interest alleged by the Sunday Times in 2004. Dr Wakefield was retained as an expert witness in the legal claims. It was alleged Dr Wakefield failed to disclose payments made by lawyers to the Royal Free when his team published a paper in the Lancet medical journal concerning medical investigations into the children's illnesses. Final charges have yet to be published. GMC hearings are often less than a day and usually no more than two or three days.

Other safety panel members who approved the vaccine included controversial paediatrician Professor Sir Roy Meadow, Government vaccination supremo Dr David Salisbury, Dr Elizabeth Miller of the Health Protection Agency, and Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation member and Chairman Professor Sir David Hull.

Dr Miller is also an expert witness for the Glaxo companies defending the children's claims. She has stated "there can be no conflict of interest when acting as an expert for the courts, because the duty to the courts overrides any other obligation, including to the person from whom the expert receives the instruction or by whom they are paid ". Dr Miller has also published in The Lancet without disclosing funding from drug companies and still without complaint from the Editor. Wakefield disclosed his status as an expert witness funded by legal aid in a letter to the Lancet in 1998 - six years earlier so this was known to The Lancet.

Barrister Robert Hantusch in a letter to the Times of 24 February 2004 said "The courts do not consider that the engagement of someone to act as an expert witness in litigation has the effect that that person is then biased. Indeed, if this were the legal position, no paid professional could ever at any time give evidence to a court."

[Tia Maria]

In response to Tia's question:
I am a follower of Dr. Mercola (among other natural practitioners) and I received this in my inbox (http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/04/10/wakefield-interview.aspx) today interestingly.

It is an interview with Dr. Andrew Wakefield--who has, on advice of counsel, not defended himself or his study up until now (article says the advice has now changed). There is a video interview at the link (and also a transcript available) as well as other commentary. There are always two sides to every story. Dr. Wakefield is giving his side.

BTW, it is interesting to note that Dr. Wakefield is NOT against immunizations. He thought that the separate jabs were safest--he is not a proponent of NOT immunizing.

Here is an excerpt:

In the years after his initial controversial finding, linking the MMR vaccine to Crohn’s disease and autism, he published another 19 papers on the vaccine-induced disorder.

All were peer reviewed. However, strangely enough, none of these 19 papers are ever discussed in the media. The only study that keeps seeing the light of day is the original study from 1998, along with the original questions about conflicts of interest, which he explains in great detail in this interview.

This is very interesting indeed, because not only has he continued his own studies, but since then, a large number of replication studies have been performed around the world, by other researchers, that confirm his initial findings.

Says Wakefield:

“… it’s been replicated in Canada, in the U.S., in Venezuela, in Italy… [but] they never get mentioned. All you ever hear is that no one else has ever been able to replicate the findings.

I’m afraid that is false.”

For those of you who have swallowed this type of reporting hook line and sinker, here is a list of 28 studies from around the world that support Dr. Wakefield’s controversial findings:

1. The Journal of Pediatrics November 1999; 135(5):559-63
2. The Journal of Pediatrics 2000; 138(3): 366-372
3. Journal of Clinical Immunology November 2003; 23(6): 504-517
4. Journal of Neuroimmunology 2005
5. Brain, Behavior and Immunity 1993; 7: 97-103
6. Pediatric Neurology 2003; 28(4): 1-3
7. Neuropsychobiology 2005; 51:77-85
8. The Journal of Pediatrics May 2005;146(5):605-10
9. Autism Insights 2009; 1: 1-11
10. Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology February 2009; 23(2): 95-98
11. Annals of Clinical Psychiatry 2009:21(3): 148-161
12. Journal of Child Neurology June 29, 2009; 000:1-6
13. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders March 2009;39(3):405-13
14. Medical Hypotheses August 1998;51:133-144.
15. Journal of Child Neurology July 2000; ;15(7):429-35
16. Lancet. 1972;2:883–884.
17. Journal of Autism and Childhood Schizophrenia January-March 1971;1:48-62
18. Journal of Pediatrics March 2001;138:366-372.
19. Molecular Psychiatry 2002;7:375-382.
20. American Journal of Gastroenterolgy April 2004;598-605.
21. Journal of Clinical Immunology November 2003;23:504-517.
22. Neuroimmunology April 2006;173(1-2):126-34.
23. Prog. Neuropsychopharmacol Biol. Psychiatry December 30 2006;30:1472-1477.
24. Clinical Infectious Diseases September 1 2002;35(Suppl 1):S6-S16
25. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 2004;70(11):6459-6465
26. Journal of Medical Microbiology October 2005;54:987-991
27. Archivos venezolanos de puericultura y pediatría 2006; Vol 69 (1): 19-25.
28. Gastroenterology. 2005:128 (Suppl 2);Abstract-303

I just checked out number 1 on the list, have I maybe found the wrong link?

http://www.rescuepost.com/files/th-4-horvath-1.pdf

This seems to be to do with Gastrointestinal Abnormalities in Autistic Children and while it does make reference to a piece of resarch that Dr Wakefield did:


The report of
Wakefield et al3 represents the first effort
to evaluate the gastrointestinal
tract in children with autism.

It doesn't seem to mention MMR and certainly doesn't back up the study, it just mentions it took place.

Have I found the wrong article? If so could you find me the link to the correct one.

Cheers

Tia

[IanW99]

I have a link (http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=201)that says:

"The Sunday Times originally made a series of claims against Mr Wakefield, which were all actually rejected by the Lancet except for the conflict of interest."
...


Your link makes it sound like the Lancet article is all good, but as you can see from lancet retraction (pdf) (http://briandeer.com/solved/lancet-retraction-2010.pdf) they have now agreed that they should never have published the article in the first place.


I don't consider the pursuit of truth to be "muddying the waters"
Personally, I WANT to see LOTS of studies (not funded by vaccine manufacturers OR their lobbyists in govt) on vaccine efficacy and safety over long term. It's the least that should be done.

I totally agree with all the above, it was just a shame that Dr Wakefield didn't agree.

Ian

[GrumpyGoat]

sorry tia--crossing my wires. Wakefield was separate issue. Those studies are all about bowel disease, which is actually Dr. Wakefield's specialty.

You wanted vaccine-autism linked studies?

To be honest, I have not delved too deeply into this issue since it happened to me--about 6 years ago now. I spent a great deal of time and effort satisfying my own curiosity about the issue. I have already spent MUCH more time on this than I can afford (or my kids would like me to afford).

I will defer to this site (http://www.fourteenstudies.org/index.html)for your follow up. It has links to all the studies that do NOT support autism/vaccine link. The pro-vaccinations studies. I think that is a good place to start your research. The conflict statements are very interesting when you see them juxtaposed against one another, to say the least.
There is also quite a bit of other interesting stuff on there you might want to check out. Including some studies that suggests this issue needs to be openly explored and more research done.

In the meantime, due to my own experiences, I just want people to know there is much debate on the topic. Before I vaccinated, I had only read the pro-vaccine angle--telling me that the debate was all nonsense.
I still don't have any real answers about what happened to my child nor will I ever know how much he has been affected. I am just thankful to be living on the very edge of ASD instead of in the middle.

[alldone]

The most disappointing thing is that his work has now completely mudded the waters.

Ian

Yes. Then you get people saying things like "controversial MMR" and "no smoke without fire" to support a non-evidence based position against MMR (or vaccination in general). And a large group who don't vaccinate their children based on "there might be something in it" thus putting both their own children and the children of others at risk.