Who’d have thought it? Leading scientific journal “Nature” is just as tied into the pro-vaccination, Big Medica Status Quo as all the other organisations and journals. Here they review a review compiled by the Institute of Medicine (IOM), an American decorative institutional frontage organisation. What we in the UK call “Jobs for the Boys”. The review is insipid and challenges nothing although it’s chair, Dr Ellen Wright Clayton is purported to be pro clear scientific investigation.
And another short, uncritical summary is found here: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/233438.php
Nature was obviously sent a copy at the same time and came up with the following wholly supportive, uncritical, sychophantic, do NOT rock the boat review, which I have annotated, of course! It trumpets:
Vaccines given a clean bill of health
[The] Report finds ‘very little evidence’ of serious harm from vaccines.
[Note the word “finds”.]
Vaccines do sometimes cause adverse effects, but these are rare. Vaccines are largely safe, and do not cause autism or diabetes, the US Institute of Medicine (IOM) said in a report issued today. This conclusion followed a review of more than 1,000 published research studies.
[Maybe a minor point but I reckon the opening sentence there should be in quotes: “Vaccines do sometimes cause adverse effects, but these are rare. Vaccines do not cause autism or diabetes” the IOM said…..]
“We looked very hard and found very little evidence of serious adverse harms from vaccines,” says Ellen Wright Clayton, chairwoman of the reporting committee and director of the Center for Biomedical Ethics and Society at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee. “The message I would want parents to have is one of reassurance.”
[Was that your brief, one wonders.]
The report, commissioned in 2009 by the US Health Resources and Services Administration, covers the eight vaccines that comprise the majority of claims filed with the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), which compensates people for adverse health effects from any of 11 vaccines.
The eight vaccines under review were those for chickenpox; influenza; hepatitis B; human papillomavirus; diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (DTaP); measles, mumps and rubella (MMR); hepatitis A; and meningococcal disease.
According to the report, evidence “convincingly supports a causal relationship” for only 14 specific adverse effects, including a range of infections associated with the chickenpox vaccine; brain inflammation and fever-induced seizures related to the MMR vaccine; allergic reactions to six of the vaccines and fainting or local inflammation caused by injection of any of them. The report noted that many of the more serious events, such as those linked to the chickenpox and MMR vaccines, only occur in children with weakened immune systems.
[Oh, so that’s acceptable is it? A sort of natural selection by vaccination but why should kids have “weakened immune sysytems”? Oh yes, earlier jabs, of course! Anyway even they only say “many” and not “all” of these adverse events happen to the earlier compromised.]
The report also includes less-convincing evidence of links between four other adverse events and particular vaccines.
On 135 other possible links between the vaccines and adverse effects, the panel concluded that there was “inadequate evidence to accept or reject a casual relationship”.
[As they will not accept the data by saying correlation does not imply causation – time after time after time – they strategically never obtain adequate information. Classic Nelsonian telescopy – if you do not look, you will not see!]
The VICP could use this information to update its Vaccine Injury Table, which already includes most, but not all, of the adverse effects listed in the IOM report. (http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/vaccinetable.html)
Dispelling controversy [Suppressing controversy?]
The committee found that evidence “favors rejection” of discredited reports that have linked the MMR vaccine to autism and, along with the DTaP vaccine, to type 1 diabetes.
[Why DO they ALWAYS use the D word to refer to Wakefield or any of the work he and colleagues published? See below for more on this!]
“We found five really solid epidemiological reports that were very clear that MMR is not associated with autism, and does not cause autism,” Wright Clayton says.
[Knowing those reports, I also know how totally invalid they all are. Not one does the comparator with never vaccinated individuals and so all miss the point totally. Yet Dr Wright Clayton has no qualms about citing them. Because this error is so glaring, my derivation must be : “This woman is not capable of making objective, scientific assessments. Neither can the rest of her committee be and so I cannot give credence to anything that they conclude in this report”.]
Previous IOM reports have reached the same conclusion, and a 1998 paper by Andrew Wakefield — a UK surgeon [UK Gastro-enterologist] who has now been struck off the medical register — that posited a link between vaccines and autism was retracted last year by The Lancet. The journal noted that “several elements” of the original paper were “incorrect”.
[This, too, is not true. His, maybe a bit cavalier, sampling methodology was criticised and used by the General Medical Council Star Chamber to revoke his medical practitioner’s licence. But his team’s experimental results have since been replicated by many teams, globally and are clearly valid. I’ll attach the actual Lancet wording under this article.]
But some parents, who still believe there is a connection, refuse or delay vaccinations for their children, leading to outbreaks of diseases such as measles and whooping cough.
[This is not true, either, although, for the unvaccinated, the occurrence of measles outbreaks are of low import, impact or significance they are largely due, in fact, to the process of post vaccinational shedding of virus particles, the passing out of measles virus by those vaccinated who then develop the illness and cross contaminate others, also mostly previously vaccinated, or people returning from countries where the disease is still more endemic, having themselves caught the bug whilst there. Whooping cough is now becoming endemic in vaccinated populations, where vaccination provides a constant top-up to infectious individuals in the groups. I further hold that there is gathering evidence that these symptoms are becoming indicative of vaccine use ie are another form of “collateral damage”. ]
“For those parents who are on the fence, this will be another piece of reassuring evidence, although I don’t know how many more pieces of reassuring evidence you need,” says Paul Offit, chief of the infectious diseases division of The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania. “For those who are committed to the concept that vaccines are harmful independent of what the data say, it won’t matter.”
[And don’t they have to bring HIM into the discussion, wearing his “Niceoffithospitaldoctor” disguise. Here’s a man not looking for discussion, negotiation or collective investigation and resolution – this is a man in a conflict zone, out to win wholly on his own terms. How American – straight out of the GeorgeWBush school of medicine. There is no mention of Offit’s immense fortune derived from the sale of a vaccine to the general public or of the equally immense conflict of interests such involvement brings to him. ]
But Offit says he is “uncomfortable as a scientist” [QUITE] with the committee’s methodology. For most vaccines other than MMR, for which very large population studies have been done to specifically examine the vaccine’s putative links to autism and other adverse events, “…….they’re looking at case reports and trying to decide whether they think the evidence supports a link,” he says. “That’s an unusual way to do science, because now you’re making it more subjective.” [So seeing exemplars of mal-reactions is somehow “anti-scientific” and lacking in objectivity, to this uncomfortable scientist. I bet he is constantly squirming in discomfort. All scientific discovery is through observation – penicillin wasn’t discovered statistical surveys.]
Wright Clayton [MD etc but supposedly pro GOOD science, clear, conclusive science. This so could be in her favour.] says that the panel could not estimate the frequency of adverse effects, most of which are “too rare to measure without conducting very large and expensive studies”. [Clearly they have not looked at anything like enough case studies which are so plentiful and would take negligible extra research. Then they continue:]
She adds that there are ways to bolster future reviews, such as clearer rules for access to electronic patient records. “What would be enormously helpful would be the elaboration of guidelines so that when a clinician immunizes a child and some adverse reaction happens, we know what other information we can get to figure out whether the vaccine did it,” she says.
[Analyse that statement – part one admits collateral damage to the vaccine, part two figures out how to cover it up. I tell you, it’s instinctive to these people! However, access to detailed patient records would indeed be enormously helpful. This was mooted – almost promised – in the UK some ten years ago but it’s all so heavily under lock and key again now. Requires the revolution!]
This, then, concluded their review and very obviously Nature does not question at all and simply pass on received conclusions, hoping to bask in reflected glory. “Are we not obedient sychophants”, they ooze in obsequious, ingratiating manner, “I’m sure you’ll return the complement in due course”. Peer grooming one might call it…..
And they used to be such an important source of cutting edge, objective science.
The Lancet has retracted the 12 year old paper that sparked an international crisis of confidence in the safety of the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine when its lead author suggested a link between the vaccine and autism.
Andrew Wakefield was found guilty by the General Medical Council last week of dishonesty and flouting ethics protocols.
The UK regulator held that Dr Wakefield abused his position, subjected children to intrusive procedures such as lumbar puncture and colonoscopy that were not clinically indicated, carried out research that breached the conditions of ethics committee approval, and brought the medical profession into disrepute.
In a statement published online (www.thelancet.com) the editors of the Lancet said: “Following the judgment of the UK General Medical Council’s Fitness to Practise Panel on Jan 28, 2010, it has become clear that several elements of the 1998 paper by Wakefield et al are incorrect, contrary to the findings of an earlier investigation.
“In particular, the claims in the original paper that children were ‘consecutively referred’ and that investigations were ‘approved’ by the local ethics committee have been …