MMR the rights and wrongs

[chesters1]

Well if 10% of poles died then 10% of the rest of us should have died - and we didn't so what does that tell you ? Wherever you read that it was garbage. Try doing a little bit of searching on the drug trials database, the EMEA and the FDA websites and then re-evaluate the 'evidence'.

 

The vaccine is a totally different drug than what was made for bird flu - they are totally different viruses and neither vaccine protect against the other.

 

I'm not really sure why you keep referencing the government. They don't make drugs and never have, they don't even license them.

 

 

 

 

Yes Barry, I'll comment. For a start drugs never stop being on a drug trial. Adverse events reports are taken (by law) for the entire lifecycle of a drug. So if any problems were seen then they would have been reported, and the health agencies have immediate acc ess to all that data and that's why drugs such as Vioxx were withdrawn from the market.

 

Rob.

 

errm no vaccine can do anything for flu it may hurry it along but jabs do bugger all ,i still say the bird flu one is now the one were getting hense doing bugger all in reality

you dont think bad news is broadcast only when people (the homeless generally are expendable in most countries) drop down dead in sufficient numbers to cause concern amongst the middle class and above thats why poor people do the guiny pig trials for a pittance Tamiflu isn't strain specific its a general flu jab nothing more as is relenza

the drug was rushed into britain because the gov love to lick arse and licking an powerful ex american statemans ass could do wonders for retiring MP's

 

BRITAIN

 

Researchers question Tamiflu's effectiveness

 

LONDON — British researchers say there is little evidence Tamiflu stops complications in healthy people who catch the flu, though public health officials contend the swine flu drug reduces flu hospitalizations and deaths. In their article in the British journal BMJ, researchers at the Cochrane Review, an international nonprofit group that reviews health information, looked at previous studies of Tamiflu as used for seasonal flu. The World Health Organization says Tamiflu should be used for people at risk of complications, such as pregnant women, the elderly, children, and those with underlying medical problems.

 

show me beyond doubt that tamiflu has saved anyone please ,governments run the country they licence drugs via quangos did tamiflu get 10 years testing?

people still think drug companies invesnt drugs out of the goodness of their hearts ,they do not they do it for money and money attracts the greedy both have no qualms hiding things you may not want to see

we see it all revealed in the "global warming" scam were being taxed to the hilt with its just the top of the pyramid billions are being made through people that dont give a toss about anything but themselves ,the "facts" are their facts or rather anything that they want you to believe the bad news is hidden away ,theres probably far more bad news than good news but what do they care they are in it for money

Edited February 5, 2010 by chesters1

[corydoras]

Well if 10% of poles died then 10% of the rest of us should have died - and we didn't so what does that tell you ? Wherever you read that it was garbage. Try doing a little bit of searching on the drug trials database, the EMEA and the FDA websites and then re-evaluate the 'evidence'.

 

The vaccine is a totally different drug than what was made for bird flu - they are totally different viruses and neither vaccine protect against the other.

 

I'm not really sure why you keep referencing the government. They don't make drugs and never have, they don't even license them.

 

 

 

 

Yes Barry, I'll comment. For a start drugs never stop being on a drug trial. Adverse events reports are taken (by law) for the entire lifecycle of a drug. So if any problems were seen then they would have been reported, and the health agencies have immediate access to all that data and that's why drugs such as Vioxx were withdrawn from the market.

 

Rob.

Surprise, surprise, Ill comment too.

Anyone wish to discount this bit:

 

The vaccine was introduced into the UK in 1988 without adequate safety testing.1 Not one of the safety trials on the MMR ‘actively’ followed up the vaccinated children for more than six weeks, and most no longer than three weeks.2 The trials would not have been able to detect either rare, or long-term, side effects of the vaccine, such as autism and bowel disease.

According to who exactly? Surprise, surprise, according to Dr Richard Halvorsen, the Medical Director of the Baby Jabs site and the main source of the drivel witten on the subject in the Daily Mail and Daily Express.

 

What else does the good doctor have to say on his website? He claims that MMR contains live 'attenuated' viruses. Sounds spooky, scary even. Injecting a child with live viruses doesn't sound like a good idea. What the good doctor DOESN'T tell us is this.

 

The single shot measles vaccine contains an attenuated live virus.

The single shot mumps vaccine contains an attenuated live virus.

The single shot rubella shot contains, wait forit, wait for it, an attenuated live virus.

 

Nor does he explain that the vaccines for polio, chicken-pox, yellow fever, most flu vaccines whether for seasonal flu or H5N1 both for injection and for throat spray are attenuted live virus vaccines. Why is that I wonder?

 

Whatever else the good doctor is, he is one champion cherry picker.

[corydoras]

All my offspring had the MMR vaccine, including my first born who was born with a hole in the heart.

[The Flying Tench]

No, no, and thrice no. It's not a fascinating link. It's a web site using fear uncertaintcy and doubt to sell a totally unnecessary product.

 

What clear evidence? The evidence that MMR is linked to Autism not is not 'overwhelming'. The plural of anecdotes is NOT data. Becoming a mother does not endow one with some instant mystic powers.

 

The proof that MMR does NOT cause Autism does not cause MMR is indeed overwhelming.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC554056/

 

Cory, you say that your link gives overwhelming evidence that the MMR does not cause autism. But the link says it gives the strongest evidence yet it is not the MAIN cause. 'The strongest evidence yet', but it is not denying that MMR might be a cause.

 

And the plural of anecdotes IS data. Not very ordered data, admittedly, but still data. How many people do you know who are convinced that the MMR triggered their child's autism? When you have the chance to talk to these people you can weigh up what they are saying. Personally, I am 'on the fence'. I do give some credibility to the latest scientific trials, but unless they were done with enormous sample sizes it would be impossible to show that MMR doesn't trigger autism in, say, one in 100 children. And that is a significant risk. I suppose one would really need to talk to a lot of parents to judge the anecdotal evidence, but judging from the few I have talked to, and many more I have read about, my view is that it gives naught for comfort re the MMR.

[RobStubbs]

errm no vaccine can do anything for flu it may hurry it along but jabs do bugger all ,i still say the bird flu one is now the one were getting hense doing bugger all in reality

 

Say what you like Chesters, it doesn't make it true. If you could be bothered doing a little bit of research then you'd find out the real facts.

 

you dont think bad news is broadcast only when people (the homeless generally are expendable in most countries) drop down dead in sufficient numbers to cause concern amongst the middle class and above thats why poor people do the guiny pig trials for a pittance Tamiflu isn't strain specific its a general flu jab nothing more as is relenza the drug was rushed into britain because the gov love to lick arse and licking an powerful ex american statemans ass could do wonders for retiring MP's

 

You really do spout drivel at times. How many people do you know that dropped down dead after getting the flu jabs ? According to you 1 in 10 of us should have. Now much as the press won't publish everything, I think that may make the papers.

 

As for drug trials - have you ever done them, or even read about them ? No I thought not. I've done lots in my time, and I got paid a few hundred quid a time for doing so. If you bothered seeing who volunteered for trials, you'll see that nowadays it's generally graduate students because the money is that good.

 

No one ever said tamiflu or relenza were strain specific, they work against all strains of flu - I must be missing the point but I would have thought that was a bonus given how many people die each year of any strain of flu.

 

Also when do you think Tamiflu and relenza were 'rushed through' ? Tamiflu was licensed in I think 1999, relenza a year or two later. I worked on the later in 1995 or so, so it's been around for more than a few years.

 

Rob.

[corydoras]

Cory, you say that your link gives overwhelming evidence that the MMR does not cause autism. But the link says it gives the strongest evidence yet it is not the MAIN cause. 'The strongest evidence yet', but it is not denying that MMR might be a cause.

 

And the plural of anecdotes IS data. Not very ordered data, admittedly, but still data. How many people do you know who are convinced that the MMR triggered their child's autism? When you have the chance to talk to these people you can weigh up what they are saying. Personally, I am 'on the fence'. I do give some credibility to the latest scientific trials, but unless they were done with enormous sample sizes it would be impossible to show that MMR doesn't trigger autism in, say, one in 100 children. And that is a significant risk. I suppose one would really need to talk to a lot of parents to judge the anecdotal evidence, but judging from the few I have talked to, and many more I have read about, my view is that it gives naught for comfort re the MMR.

 

If you want proof that MMR can never, ever, ever cause autism then you won't find it. Just like one cannot prove that God does not exist, one can never 'prove' a negative.

 

Since when has the plural of anecdote been data? Ordered or otherwise, just how do you work that out?

 

The Japanase trial was based on over 30,000 children. 30,000 IS a large trial.

 

The latest study, of 31 426 children in the Japanese city of Yokahama, examined the incidence of autism between 1988 and 1996, a period when uptake of the MMR vaccination steadily declined before being withdrawn in 1993 and replaced by single vaccines (published online in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry ).

Yet the incidence of autism continued to rise, from 48 cases per 10 000 children born in 1988 to 117.2 per 10 000 born in 1996. The same pattern was observed for the particular form of autism that Dr Wakefield linked to the MMR vaccine.

 

For 'balance' the Wakefield study was based on 12 children.

[corydoras]

having been in R&D the report is always biased to the payer ,the bits supporting the "thing" become prevalent whilst those not sit at the end ,its simple bad report no more funding .the R&D ers are not biased but their work goes through several "layers" before being given back to the funder.

whilst all the findings are there the bullet points in the final paper end up being prominent to the funders point of veiw.If ofcourse the findings are grossly against the funders thinking then the whole lots shredded and not mentioned ,companies cannot deliberately let out dangerous things so the research showing they knew is hushed up.

statistics also are easily biased.

a poll taken outside a shop of those coming out will show a higher % of shoppers using that shop than if it were down the road outside another.

a report on traffic congestion will always show more vehicles using that road in the rush hour ,even more in the rush hour on schooldays but would be completely different at 11 am .you want something to support you then you do the research the way it always does

 

we take things at face value usually but how many "facts" being reinvestigated are the opposite or biased to what is published ,theres been several "facts" outed purely because the research wasnt carried out correctly ,finding the funding to disprove a theory is far harder than getting it to approve it in the first place so it becomes a "fact" even if entirely wrong until some researcher later working on something similar finds the error and even then as its a "fact" and scientists names hanging on them by not doubting it the research hits a wall of abuse ,the chap that said bugs lived in our guts comes to mind ,his name was mud for years until someone else found them.

now stomach ulcers which were said to be caused by injury to the gut and scientists and surgeons made money curing the incurable are now obselete simply with a prescription because the research was totally wrong but excepted by the "scientists" as a fact and no doupt fortunes made selling crap medicine that was supposed to help the condition (belladonna for one) but didnt do much at all.

 

the high "bran" diet was disproved when they studied it closer ,the green tea wonder drug disproved as rubbish when all the facts were included etc etc at the time they were front page miracle discoveries now swiftly dropped in the shredder.

now a complete planet has become a rock but scientists believed it was a planet and eventually it became a fact

 

who's to bet the sudden increase in overweight humans doesnt boil down to simple over eating but a un natural ingrediant in the food that fools fat cells into storing fat .i predict transfats are part of it ,will the suppliers or makers of food fund the research? ,not a hope they have far to much money to lose and research centers need money for research so cant fund independent research or if they did would swiftly lose funding by the very same companies if it were supposed they were!

So scientist shred the data they dont't like? I'm sorry mate but I have never heard so much crap spuoted in all my life.

 

Yes advice from scientists changes from time to time as we learn more. Science is not written immutibly in stone. Read the Bible if that's what makes you feel comfortable.

 

Why are there so many obese people these days? Because there are one helluva lot of fat lazy bastids who consume more calories than they burn off. Simples!, not very 'politically correct' but simple maths.

Calories consumed >= calories used=fat people.

Edited February 5, 2010 by corydoras

[corydoras]

Say what you like Chesters, it doesn't make it true. If you could be bothered doing a little bit of research then you'd find out the real facts.

 

 

 

You really do spout drivel at times. How many people do you know that dropped down dead after getting the flu jabs ? According to you 1 in 10 of us should have. Now much as the press won't publish everything, I think that may make the papers.

 

As for drug trials - have you ever done them, or even read about them ? No I thought not. I've done lots in my time, and I got paid a few hundred quid a time for doing so. If you bothered seeing who volunteered for trials, you'll see that nowadays it's generally graduate students because the money is that good.

 

No one ever said tamiflu or relenza were strain specific, they work against all strains of flu - I must be missing the point but I would have thought that was a bonus given how many people die each year of any strain of flu.

 

Also when do you think Tamiflu and relenza were 'rushed through' ? Tamiflu was licensed in I think 1999, relenza a year or two later. I worked on the later in 1995 or so, so it's been around for more than a few years.

 

Rob.

I did a bit of checking on this Polish trial and there is some truth in it. Homeless and poor people were used in a rather dodgy looking trial of some anti flu vaccine or drug, and there were indeed fatalaties as a result, but nowhere can I find anything to indicate that it was the vaccine that would be administered here or in the good old US of A. As you say, if that were the case we would be dropping like flies.

[chesters1]

So scientist shred the data they dont't like? I'm sorry mate but I have never heard so much crap spuoted in all my life.

 

Yes advice from scientists changes from time to time as we learn more. Science is not written immutibly in stone. Read the Bible if that's what makes you feel comfortable.

 

Why are there so many obese people these days? Because there are one helluva lot of fat lazy bastids who consume more calories than they burn off. Simples!, not very 'politically correct' but simple maths.

Calories consumed >= calories used=fat people.

 

no its just not used in the results ,i have done R&D and one paper i wrote was nothing like the one issued to the company who paid for it.

you dont seem to realise money is involved you as a researcher give a really bad paper you can BET your bottom dollar you wont be invited to research that companies things again ,they will simply pretend your research didnt exist and find a researcher more to their way of thinking.

seen it with my own eyes

not just fat = obese transfats appear (at the moment) to trigger something in some people but on the whole i agree excersise burns calories and then fat.

Trouble is are we obese? or just fat whats the baseline its based on? ,a victorian dock worker who works physically all day on a restricted diet or a manager behind a desk on a better one? without knowing what the standard is you can say anything if it involves money you will say anything if the end result benefits your/companies pocket.

as for drug trial yes i have and sleep ones as well at the uni ,a technicians pay is woefully small

Edited February 5, 2010 by chesters1

[corydoras]

I'm not one for putting words in peoples mouths chesters but you SEEM to be claiming that science is riddled with confirmation bias and that most research can be dismissed out of hand because the reserachers have been bought off. Please correct me if I have the wrong end of the stick here.