Autism: How Childhood Vaccines Became Villains (Newsweek)

Post Reply New Topic

Autism: How Childhood Vaccines Became Villains (Newsweek)

"Anatomy of a Scare

"When one study linked childhood vaccines to autism, it set off a panic. The research didn't hold up, but some wounded families can't move on.

"By Sharon Begley | NEWSWEEK
Published Feb 21, 2009
From the magazine issue dated Mar 2, 2009

"Like many people in London on that bleak February day in 1998, biochemist Nicholas Chadwick was eager to hear what the scientists would say. The Royal Free Hospital, where he was a graduate student in the lab of gastroenterologist Andrew Wakefield, had called a press conference to unveil the results of a new study. With flashbulbs popping, Wakefield stepped up to the bank of microphones: he and his colleagues, he said, had discovered a new syndrome that they believed was triggered by the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine. In eight of the 12 children in their study, being published that day in the respected journal The Lancet, they had found severe intestinal inflammation, with the symptoms striking six days, on average, after the children received the MMR. But hospitals don't hold elaborate press conferences for studies of gut problems. The reason for all the hoopla was that nine of the children in the study also had autism, and the tragic disease had seized them between one and 14 days after their MMR jab. The vaccine, Wakefield suggested, had damaged the intestine—in particular, the measles part had caused serious inflammation—allowing harmful proteins to leak from the gut into the bloodstream and from there to the brain, where they damaged neurons in a way that triggered autism. Although in their paper the scientists noted that 'we did not prove an association' between the MMR and autism, Wakefield was adamant. 'It's a moral issue for me,' he said, 'and I can't support the continued use of [the MMR] until this issue has been resolved.'..."

more...

Bribes in science, by lawyers trying to get a class action suit going.

What I find interesting is the lack of scientific method, first on his study, then on the part of his debunker, who said, some things in the lab wobbled.

Then the Court says it all proves we are not guilty, and we control the evidence.

I think the answer is to bribe smarter Scientists.

"It is a moral issue for me." Puts it in the realm of Mathematics, not Bio/Chem.

I think this is an Immoral fraction of the truth.

Vaccines? I always figured it was fire retardant. Still think it is. Light the damn spark and let's set the world on fire.

And the fact remains, besides my above point at it with a sharp stick method of humor, they still don't have a freakin clue what the fire retardants do with the build up in the human body. So they decided to point to vaccines? Idiots. It's not nice to have baby's or anyone else get burned, but I wonder what the long range effects of the chemicals absorbed to the ratio of burned people might be. And no I don't think it has anything to do with the subject at hand here on WP, however, there is the unknown and the effects, like I said, have not been studied in detail, to my knowledge. Chemical overload, some might be good and others bad.

We should still have vaccines as these diseases had not been wiped out yet. However, there should be more care handling the manufacturing as well as the delivery of such vaccines onto us, as it is still unclear how does it make us auties/aspies.

Great article. Seriously.

Except for that last line: "a cruel disease"??? Gimme a break.

Ditto.

I even wonder if that last line was added by "The Editor" (whoever that was), as it seemed to be at odds with the tone throughout the rest of her article.