Interesting case of fraud in vaccine research ...

I did find the ones you linked to. What I could not find was the article with the statements from the editor about the severe conflict of interest in the original MMR/Autism paper.

It is possible that the statements quoted in the news piece were made by Lancet's editor but not actually published in Lancet.

Hi, Clay.

It would be interesting to know if the "indpendent verification" had a similar conflict. Such conflicts are now taken very serious (such was not the case even five years ago) -- to get Federal funding you have to have in place a "conflict of interest policy," and each faculty member must sign a form annually stating whether there are any such potential conflicts of interest. They do not ordinarily disqualify one from doing the research, btw, but they must be clearly disclosed, and there's usual an indpendent scientific auditor appointed to review the data before the paper can be submitted. Peer review by journal reviewers does not ordinarily include the raw data.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

I don't buy the conclusion that "one would expect the contra-research financed by the tort lawyers to be better science than the alleged bad science of the drug-makers ..." The statement sounds reasonable but I don't believe it is correct.

Too many legal cases are decided on the basis of junk science. For example, there used to be a pill called Bendectin that was used for morning sickness. There were a few case reports of newborns with cardiac defects after their mothers took Bendectin during pregnancy. There never was any real evidence that Bendectin caused the defects, but IIRC there were lawsuits that resulted in awards. The company eventually took the drug off the market. I was still in med school when the company withdrew the drug, but I remember being impressed at how irrational the process was (and still is).

It's bad enough that they get misled, but that is not the end of it.

Parents of healthy children have refused to allow their children to receive the MMR, especially in the UK. If enough parents decline the vaccine we will see more of those potentially lethal diseases. Women who don't receive the MMR as infants may not be immunized later on, which would result in increased birth defects.

of course. I didn't realize this was more of an issue in the UK. There seems to a growing anti-vaccine movement here in the U.S., in large part driven by the autism-vaccine "link".

Mark, There has been a backlash against vaccines in the UK for at least 7+ years. I really can't remember and this is not my field. But the anti-vaccine ?feeling? was not because of the MMR (being the triple vaccine). It is true to say that the link to autism (correct or otherwise) brought this feeling to a head, and in some ways many were relieved that the whole issue was brought into the spotlight.

IMO There are three camps, being (1) those parents who have had bad experiences following vaccinations (and the parents say this is an absolute - fine before the vaccination, not fine after the vaccination); (2) those parents who see no evidence of the diseases so see no reason for the vaccination. OK this is Cloud 9 perhaps, but they are not happy to put foreign bodies into their children when there is "apparently" no need. (3) More technical that, having introduced a "foreign body" at an early age, this is then embodied artificially into the body system - and it shouldn't be there. It can cause it's own repercussions. (A vaccine should activate the body's antibodies, in case the disease does strike, but this view is that these "foreign bodies" shouldn't be there in the first place and cause damage of themselves.)

The overall issue of vaccines is unlikely to go away IMO, because whatever these new reports say, there are too many people who have had bad personal experiences and too many people who question the underlying good. In some ways, diseases naturally die and cyclically come back. The trick would be to start the vaccines just before the cycle starts again - and that really is Clould 9.

Regards
Mo

...reminds me of Mad Cow Disease. Something that is added to the body that isn't supposed to be there, in a manner that would seem to be safe, then later we learn that a "foreign body" can survive even the cooking process and cause a horrible disease. What if there is some sort of "prion" or other object in vaccine that actually does cause certain serious reactions in some children, and the cause/effect has not yet been established, that is, understood.

We could probably go through history, even recent history and point out examples of life saving procedures that fell victim to diseases that weren't discovered till later, the most obvious in recent memory being HIV in blood supplies. Haemophilia is a disease that needs definite treatment with platelet replacement but nevertheless while doing something that seemed relatively safe for years, the seeds of death were being sown in the bodies of haemophiliacs the world over.

What about gamma globulin shots? In 1983, due to hepatitis exposure from a fellow soldier, I had to get 5cc of that shoved in my bun. Traveling at the time, it was not fun riding in a bouncing truck on what felt like a golf ball lump in my buttock. In 1983 they were just beginning to understand the relationship between the "Gay Men's Disease" or maybe it was called Syndrome, and blood products. You as a doctor know that gamma globulin is a blood product. You probably also know that it was collected most often from the blood of homosexuals since they had the most antibodies to hepatitis due to their lifestyle. Now, I didn't know that at the time or I probably would have refused the shot and taken delayed orders instead. I was lucky. I didn't get HIV from the shot, but DID get tests several times after that for the disease, just to be sure. In that case it would have been most advantageous to refuse the gamma globulin considering the health situation that developed over blood products and HIV in the following years, something that was not widely known at that time.

I think most vaccines are a good idea. Some I think, like the flu vaccine are not as necessary, and even pushed at people like some corner drug dealer. I have my children vaccinated, since I nor my wife ever had any serious reaction to those vaccines. If either of us had a bad reaction in past, then I might be hesitant too. If my first child had a health problem that seemed related, at least in time sequence, to a vaccine I would be understandably worried about younger children receiving the same.

I think some of the parents are unreasonable in their fears, having little to base it on. I think others have some valid concerns and should have every right to refuse certain vaccines for their children.

We, as parents, can only act on the information provided about vaccinations and take responsibility for what we have "done" to our children if we take a decision which subsequently turns out to be the wrong one.

My son has had vaccinations for diptheria, tetanus, whooping cough, polio, measles, mumps, and rubella (German measles) (7)

Even if these are considered safe on their own (or in the multiples in which they are given), do we know if they are safe together - or at all?

We were recently offered (not obligated) a Dip, Tet and Polio booster - and the safety statistics were not encouraging (IMO)

I'm not sure that we want to continue to stand in line for these vaccinations. "Not sure" are the key words here and recent news hardly inspires confidence.

Regards
Mo