“MMR is the Hillsborough of my profession” screams the headline [Page 23, The Times, May 2nd, 2013.] and the article goes on to discuss press coverage of the matters arising from the Andy Wakefield et al piece in the Lancet. This is David “There’d better be some weapons of mass destruction somewhere in Iraq otherwise I am going to look like a complete and utter jerk” Aaronovitch, showing his usual standard of exemplary disinterest in fact and objective assessment.
After leaving the nursery of right wing journalism at the Guardian – he had a tiff and a sulk because for once his editor insisted on some truth – he resurfaced in the Times, where they’re evidently less bothered over such issues.
Hillsborough was an abject disaster with football supporters being managed using police skills adopted for the miners’ strike a couple of years earlier and then evidence of the event suppressed and covered up first by Margaret Thatcher and then subsequent governments of both political camps (eg Jack “Man of” Straw). Seeking to use this unique and appalling history as an analogy for press reportage of Andy Wakefield and the problems arising from the use of the MMR vaccination is a crass and insensitive journalistic mechanism. Furthermore, though, his generalisations and his conclusions align him totally with another cover up and the closing down of open discussion of an ongoing disaster – the vaccination scam.
- Clearly this guy is not using original research in his pronouncements on this subject.
- Clearly this guy does not have a scientific cell in his brain (Failed and chucked out of Oxford, got a historyish thing in Manchester a bit later)
- Clearly this guy likes acting a bit of a thug, pushing people about and labelling them.
- Clearly I’m gonna have to just give a few choice idiocies, extracted from his text, to illustrate these pronouncements!
He starts with a tale of South Wales and sites a fall off in vaccination rates in one region following a series of write ups on a link between MMR and Autism. He then quotes the British Medical Journal using “a story run on August 30th, 1997 headlined ”Families tell of drastic changes to their children after vaccination. Tot’s smiles faded after jab””. He does not make it clear whether the BMJ incident is from the South Wales group. Probably was but, anyway, it is very worth noting that this was a full year BEFORE the Wakefield team published their findings. This, then, was not part of the Wakefield fall out. This was, in fact, part of the widespread and long running field trial that mass vaccination always has been. Except that feedback from the vaccinated is never gathered in – on the contrary, it is ignored.
As illustrated by the next paragraph: “The authors of the study couldn’t claim to prove a causal link between the journalism and the decline in vaccination” and then said an increase in measles cases was bound to follow – “Which it did”, he proclaims. Hundreds of parents react to hearing of negative impacts of vaccines on other kids by not having their kids jabbed. Seems pretty sensible to me but what really is insane is running research into why parents get scared of having their kids vaccinated rather than running research into what happened to the kids showing drastic changes. That is surely where research is so vitally needed.
The Editor of the South Wales newspaper was providing a public service – that’s what newspapers used to do, I seem to remember.
Then Wakefield. A decent guy and an excellent, albeit understandably a bit nervous, public speaker. And very good company in the pub afterwards! He is a qualified gastroenterologist who led a good, scientific team in the Royal Free Hospital, London. Now here’s another bit of Aarsonovitch’s journalistic skill “Wakefield said…he had found a possible link between MMR and autism via [sic] the presence of measles virus in the gut of children.” He goes on “For years his “science” drove most media coverage….”
Science, David, not “science”. I manage to call you a journalist, not “journalist”. Now I don’t suppose for one minute that you could understand the work even if you read it but Andy’s paper was published in the Lancet. It was and still is a useful, scientific contribution, despite all the mud slinging and character assassination that have occurred since, not least in the GMC Star Chamber. It does not say a lot and is very timid – suggesting it might be a good idea for some kids to have single measles vaccines rather than the MMR. Hardly the stuff of revolution.
Then to pin some labels on his press colleagues he finds Nigel Nelson who had chosen not to immunise his kid but now thinks that was wrong and a single jab option would have avoided any doubt. There were such ten years ago so no real change here, then. But David points out to have allowed the single jab would have been to admit “no confidence in the MMR”. Quite, David, quite.
You see David “Knew the overwhelming scientific consensus was that there was no evidence of an MMR-autism link”. I could simply agree to this as, apart from the existence of innumerable histories from parents (to whom “correlation does not imply causation” is the standard dismissal. Again and again and again and again.), there is little published, scientifically tallied evidence. There were a few studies published to exonerate the MMR which simply showed that kids who had had all other childhood jabs had no significantly different number of cases of autism compared with those who received the MMR as well as all the other jabs.
Now in all these studies there was a far higher rate of autism than a similar survey would have found a generation earlier. And a generation before that it would not have existed – as there was no autism found. So the MMR is not exonerated by these studies, simply the other culprits are pointed out. Vaccine damage is accumulated through infancy, autism develops typically in a series of regressions, each of which can be linked to another jab. Ask Charlotte Moore, the career “autist mother”. No, ask her about the timings of the regressions of her two vaccinated boys. It’s all there in Guardian press cuttings, anyway, so you could go find them, instead. And you could ask her about the third born boy as well. Just ask.
In essence all jabs are the same, although the ingredients do differ somewhat. But every one is a severe challenge to the blood borne defence and homeostasis system and each carries a battery of ingredients – not simply a single, specific bacterial or viral “antigen”. There is a range of specific antigenic material plus generic bacterial matter (honest – “to stimulate better reaction”), there’s other adjuvant material and sundry additional stimulators of “the immune system”.
So the nature of the body’s reaction, and the nature of subsequent collateral damage, is the same independent of what the jab is named. Damage, however, is accumulative, jab on jab. So after a first negative reaction the recipient is more likely to be further damaged by another jab, and so on.
He talks of “Scientific consensus” and that “report after report said the same thing”. There were a few such epidemiological surveys, all equally and totally flawed, so demonstrating nothing. And you do know, don’t you David, of how the leader of the largest, the Danish, study, embezzled a fortune from the US Centre for Disease Control, CDC, using money provided to support this study to purchase houses, fast cars, fast women, that kinda thing, instead. You do know that, don’t you David?
The only relevant epidemiological study is vaccinated versus never vaccinated. Strangely no funding can be found to carry out such studies but autism is practically unknown in never vaccinated children. One in 25000 as opposed to one in fifty in the vaccinated population.
There were no studies of the multitudinous cases of collateral damage reported by parents, for the reason given above. Thousands and thousands of cases the world over. When does this become evidence to you, David? Oh, but you’re not a scientist, are you? You leave science to scientists and just talk about what they say, without attempting to understand their work. Right?
I dislike the Daily Mail, theirs is not my politics but here they showed more than a modicum of sensitivity to public pain. Kids have been damaged in front of their parents’ eyes in a manner impossible not to notice and this surely deserves to be treated with compassion and not disdain and dismissal. “Jabs” is an information and discussion service and are not formally an anti-vaccination group. It’s just that most people who look into the details of vaccination as a discipline come out strongly against it. It retains the quackery of 18th century voodoo, as first and poorly copied from peasant lore by Edward Jenner, which killed so many Victorians with smallpox and a whole lot else. It is, at best, what one could maybe term a “quasi-science”, despite its being bedecked with vast amounts of highest tech equipment.
So David Aarsonovavitch, man most assuredly not of the people, sat on your high horse and delivering the orthodoxy of the medico-industrial complex (incorporating the government health department and all other minions thereunder) what scoops can I offer you to sit on? How about a prediction, based upon initial events recently in South Wales, that if they now give the MMR to the one million English teenagers/young adults they hope to catch, there could be up to around twenty fatalities and many others will show deterioration of their existing autistic spectrum disorders, ASD.
Furthermore any who have already been through a measles infection, however sub-clinically, will be susceptible to decline into the severe and soon fatal degenerative condition named SSPE, subacute sclerosing panencephalitis.
Those kids who just catch measles, of course, get over it after a couple of weeks off school and have a much more effective physiology. The figures for “deaths in childhood due to measles” are not due to measles. They are virtually all in the developing world and simply due to poverty, so poor diet, unclean water and crowded, unhealthy living conditions. These poor kids can’t pull through any infection and they often become infected because of their circumstances. Here, in the developed world, measles is not a killer disease, just improves your lifelong immune strength.
Sadly, autism, once it has set in, also stays with you for life.
What’s that I hear? Oh look he’s on a video-link to Baghdad:
“Have you checked under that sand dune, over there?
“Look, see how much better life in Iraq is now. What’s that you say? Car bombs? Al Quaida? Sectarianism? Don’t own your oil? Can’t even buy petrol? ”
“How about there, look, underneath that suspicious looking camel?”