Parents Duped by Junk Science on Autism, Says Doctor
New America Media, Commentary, Rahul K. Parikh, Posted: Aug 12, 2007
The first case of the autism trial is over, though the court’s decision is still several months away. That was the case involving 12-year-old Michelle Cedillo. Her family is claiming damages from the government’s Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) because they believe vaccines caused Michelle to develop autism. Almost 5,000 families are waiting in line behind the Cedillos to make the same claim, but the prospects aren’t good.
The government’s closing argument was this: The plaintiffs had been forced to rely on “junk science,” science that is inaccurate, created out of self-interest, and it didn’t deserve to be in a courtroom. After all, the best-conducted studies have supported vaccine safety for years.
The junk science started with the work of Dr. Andrew Wakefield, the father of the vaccine equals autism theory. A gastro-enterologist in Britain, he published a study in 1998 linking the Measles Mumps Rubella (MMR) vaccine with autism. His study included just 12 kids, but it created a stir. What we didn’t know at the time was that families who sought to sue vaccine manufacturers funded his research. Secondly, Wakefield himself had filed a patent for a replacement MMR vaccine a year before his study was published.
Further, his groundbreaking results were the outcome of a common experimental error. In short, he had reported a false positive finding, caused by overly sensitive technology. In fact, Wakefield has recently been recalled to the UK from his new home in Texas to face charges by the British medical board related to all of this.
The respected medical journal, Lancet, has since retracted Wakefield’s paper. Subsequent studies containing hundreds of thousands of kids verified the safety of the MMR vaccine.
This may have ended the story, but a twist kept it going.
In 2000, concern was deepening over the use of mercury-based preservatives in biologic materials like vaccines and other medications. A 1997 law required the Food and Drug Administration to assess their role. The CDC convened a meeting to evaluate this issue in childhood vaccines.
Right away, there were things about this meeting that looked suspicious. For example, it was held at a secluded location in rural Georgia (apparently, the CDC’s space was being used for another conference). While it included government officials, academics, and representatives of the pharmaceutical industry, autism advocates and other doubters of vaccine safety were not invited. In addition, there was a slight delay in the release of the meeting’s transcript — which was termed “embargoing of the transcript.”
The location, participants, and transcript delay fueled the suspicion of environmental lawyer Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. In 2005, he published pieces in Rolling Stone and the online magazine, Salon.com, accusing the government of covering up the truth about vaccines and autism.
Certainly, it would have been more prudent of the CDC to appear more transparent, but the truth is, the best, unbiased evidence has failed to demonstrate a link between thimerasol (the name of the mercury-based vaccine preservative) and autism. However, junk science continues to persuade many.
Father and son Mark and David Geier have written much about it. In 2003, they published a study in which they showed a downward trend in autism rates following the removal of Thimerasol from vaccines. For anti-vaccine advocates, this was proof positive that they were right.
But let’s look more closely: First, the Geiers do more than research together. Mark Geier is a physician who founded and runs Genetic Center of America, which specializes in autistic clients. Therapies he provides include controversial therapies like chelation to “detoxify” autistic kids. More recently, he’s started injecting autistic kids with the drug, Lupron, which halts a child’s progression into puberty. While Lupron is an approved drug for the treatment of premature puberty, Dr. Geier has been using it off label because he believes it improves the release of toxic substances from the body. He has filed two patents for this use.
David Geier runs a legal consulting business that specializes in vaccine injury claims. He routinely offers up his dad as an expert witness in these trials.
During many of these trials, special masters (judges who preside over these proceedings), have refused to take Dr. Geier’s testimony into account because of his lack of credibility. One was so taken aback by his lack of competency that he remarked in his judgment of a 2003 proceeding that “it is doubtful that Dr. Geier fulfilled the American Medical Association’s requirements to be an expert witness.”
Consistent with this, the Geier’s Thimerasol study is useless for both its internal validity (how the data was gathered and interpreted) as well as for its motives: Is there a better example of a conflict of interest than a father and son who publish studies that help sell their homegrown brand of medicine, and then use those same studies as evidence in a court of law to rake in consulting fees?
With all of these strikes against the Geiers, how could their work get published? The fact that there are two types of journals explains this. There are those journals in which studies submitted for publication are carefully peer reviewed. And there are those that are not, allowing dubious work to slip by. The Geiers published this study, as well as all of their others, in the latter kind.
The Geier’s work is typical of the quality and ethics of many anti-vaccine researchers. Although they did not testify in the Cedillos’ case, their studies exemplify the government’s claim that this is junk science.
Will the omnibus verdict, and its exposure of junk science, be a death knell for the autism equals vaccines myth? Probably not. What’s unfortunate is that too many families have their emotional and financial hopes pinned on theories created by those with a lot to gain by promoting them. Obviously, families have the right to question the safety of what they give their children. The debate about vaccines was settled by well designed and well conducted scientific studies a long time ago. Trials don’t change that.
Dr. Rahul K.Parikh is a pediatrician practising in Walnut Creek, Calif.
Page
1 of 1
|
User Comments
Carol Eshleman on Aug 21, 2007 at 15:00:39 said:
I've done extensive reading, and I believe that there is a considerable amount of evidence which points to the vaccines as being a major trigger for the autism epidemic. Any doctor who becomes convinced of this cannot morally pretend that he isn't aware of the information-the Hippocratic oath is to "first, do no harm". Yet, when he or she attempts to help patients (knowing the type of statements and innuendos to which they will be subjected), and when the parents of patients say that they are seeing visible improvement, many people will say that it's just anecdotal, there's no solid research, the doctors just want to make money, the parents are just clutching at straws, etc.
Why are there no large-scale trials set up? Because they are expensive, and because no one will be able to profit.(Unlike the large, expensive studies, which the drug companies set up, because they know that they will receive many times the cost of the study from the sale of an expensive new drug, which will be used for most of the patient's life- the focus usually seems to be on control, not cure). Also, if these large-scale trials are set up, they will point the finger of blame at those in the pharmaceutical industry, and in the government,etc. who ignored the evidence of harm. What would that do to the bottom-line?
Companies are afraid of the spector of bankruptcy,government is afraid of biological warfare, humanitarians are afraid of another great plague...but in their fear, they may be causing an even greater epidemic. I say investigate- fully, completely, honestly- and let the chips fall where they may. There are many parents of kids with autism, who would love to participate in studies of dietary supplementation and manipulation, chelation (possibly a low-dose protocol like that of Dr. Andrew Hall Cutler), some anti-yeast, and anti-viral protocols, and hyperbaric oxygen therapy, because they believe that these therapies offer the best chance of a more normal life for their child, and many of us have done some of these things, and have seen results, but don't have enough money to do as much as we feel our child needs.
Mr. and Mrs. Bill Gates- I believe that you are truly trying to help children with your vaccine programs, but in saving some children from death from some diseases, you may be ruining the lives of others. I ask you to consider funding a trial in the US, which would utilize these methods which I have mentioned, and substantiate any improvements with video, and include a variety of academic and behavioural assessments, as well as physical tests of blood and urine, with frequent checks on the levels of mercury, lead, aluminum, antimony, arsenic, etc., which is secreted during the periods of chelation. Perhaps you might contact the Autism Research Institute, attend a training on the DAN protocol, read David Kirby's Evidence of Harm, look at the research of the Geiers, read information from Dr. Andrew Hall Cutler, Dr. Krigsman, Dr. Wakefield, Dr. Megson, etc. I can give you names and numbers of many parents who would love to have their children participate in this study!! Thank you for your consideration of this proposal.
slippinaway on Aug 15, 2007 at 14:41:03 said:
Dr. Parikh concludes \"The debate about vaccines was settled by well designed and well conducted scientific studies a long time ago.\"
Let\'s look at MMR as Dr. Parikh likes to throw ad hominem attacks at Dr. Wakefield. Let\'s forget the fact that the mortality from measles was on its way out before the introduction of measles or mmr vaccines. Let\'s look at the safety that was \"proven a long time ago\":
In October 2005, the Oxford Cochrane Collaboration published a review focusing on the MMR vaccine. They published an article reviewing 31 epidemiologic studies on the MMR vaccine. Of some 5000 papers which were reviewed, they were left with only 31 which met their criteria.
Regarding safety from the review, Cochrane stated \"we found only limited evidence of the safety of MMR compared to its single component vaccines from studies that had a low risk of bias.\"
...\"the design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing, are largely inadequate.\"
...\"we found problematic internal validity...and...biases...influenced our confidence in their findings.\"
...\"not all reports offered adequate explanations for missing data.\"
...\"external validity of included studies was also low.\"
...\"descriptions of...populations, response rates...vaccine content and exposure...were poorly and inconsistently reported...[I]nadequate and inconsistent descriptions of reported outcomes...limited observation periods...selective reporting of results contributed to our decision not to attempt pooling data by study design.\"
Despite all of the above, the Cochrane review believes in the safety of MMR by stating \"the safety record of MMR is possibly best attested by its almost universal use.\"
Where is the junk science to be found Dr. Parikh? I\'m afraid it is located in your age old and time proven \"well designed and well conducted scientific studies\".
Yes, universal use with basically no follow-up reporting. For example, it is well known that less than 10% of adverse reactions are reported to the U.S. based voluntary reporting system known as VAERS. To state the MMR is safe because of its universal application, with no follow-up or unbiased research..., is only spoken with a quack.
Perhaps you\'d like to tell us how many adverse vaccine reactions you\'ve reported to VAERS Dr. Parikh? Perhaps you\'d like to tell us if one of your patients has a reaction to penicillin if you\'d give it to them again like you would a vaccine?
Next time you go about publishing rubbish Dr. Parikh I suggest you back it with substance instead of innuendo and vitriolic unsubstantiated attacks.
P. Palucci on Aug 15, 2007 at 11:18:57 said:
In my comment, I referred to the "comments above". Of course, I was not speaking of the article itself, but to those written by caring, educated parents who dare to disagree with the paid puppets of big pHARMa.
P. Palucci on Aug 15, 2007 at 09:47:34 said:
The comments above reflect my own feelings toward this "ho-hum, been there, heard that junk science" approach to the intentional poisoning of our children "for the greater good". Oh, excuse me, did I forget to mention "and for the greater profit"? The facts that were covered by other educated parents far outweigh the lame "so-called facts" that Dr.Parikh wants his readership to believe. Therefore, I want to say that I agree with these educated parents, and will just say "AMEN"!
I will only add this: My grandson was the only child of four who was fully vaccinated up to 19 months, and was given a flu shot. He began his regression that very night.. getting worse as time went on. He didn't begin to emerge from that world until we began our biomedical journey, including chelation, at the age of 3 1/2. He was turned away from early intervention due to the sheer volume of children receiving services (gee, I wonder why???) and was denied insurance coverage for speech therapy. He was placed in a special needs pre-school 20 hrs a week for 2 school terms, receiving only 40 min. per MONTH of Speech and 10 min. per MONTH of OT! No ABA, just what the financially strapped school system that was in academic emergency could offer him. It wasn't until biomedical intervention and no more vaccinations, that he began to return to us. When his Educational Team acknowledged his process of recovery, they realized that they were unable to meet his needs. Now, in a fully adequate autism program, he is able to catch up. The fog is no longer entrapping his ability to learn. We are confident that his diagnosis of "autism" will soon be removed. Biomedical intervention is NOT "junk science"! It is a process that can reverse the poisonous effects of mercury, aluminum, formeldahyde, anti-freeze, polysorbate 80, MSG (free glutamates), dead and/or live viruses, chick embryos, monkey cells... I could go on... that were injecetd into children like my grandson.
To "the good Dr.", as many have referred to him in a "tongue in cheek" manner : Get off the big pHARMa bandwagon and start thinking about your own children and grandchildren...even if you don't care what happens to ours. You aren't protecting your patients by pushing immunizations the way they are designed...you are helping to harm them in more ways than autism alone can!
Oh, one more little tidbit that reinforces my stand on tainted vaccines: My other daughter, in light of my encouraging her to educate herself before vaccinating her newborn, choose to selectivly vaccinate. At 2 months, she allowed her Ped to scare her into giving her son all but the Hep B. He had a mild reaction of a fever and slight rash that evening. At the 4 month check-up, she allowed only the HIB (which even I am not totally against). It contained only a "trace" of thimerasol (1:10000). He still broke out in a rash on his face. This eventually cleared up, but it is a warning that this child may be pre-disposed to chemical sensitivities and is an "at risk" child. He will receive no further vaccines unless they can be absolutely PROVEN safe... CAN THEY, DR. PARIKH? Will it EVER be in the best interest of big pHARMa to develop vaccines that are SAFE for ALL children??????
Until that day comes, get off your soapbox and start reporting the truth. Too many children and their families have been affected already!!!!
VJ West on Aug 14, 2007 at 18:31:21 said:
Junk science isn't parents spending hours in the middle of the night over chemistry and biology and research journals...junk science is when pediatricians and general practitioners and clinics turn parents away when their child has a reaction to a vaccine, and tell the parents this is "normal".
Junk science is those doctors & practitioners failing to notify VAERS of each and every incident, failure to treat the reactions and advising the parents they must continue that assault "for the greater good".
Junk science is when a vaccine observation period is artificially shortened to determine "safety", and continues to be too short of a time period even when the data has been determined flawed due to the short observation period.
Those who sit and do head counts on affected children or literal head counts on damaged DNA may hang onto their jobs and research grants a little while longer, but parents & grandparents are becoming as or more educated than these so-called scientists, like Dr Parikh, who fail to keep an open mind on possibilities.
Perhaps it is because these parents and grandparents never dreamed of having an affected child, and the likes of Dr Parikh make a career of denial.
Incognito on Aug 14, 2007 at 00:38:04 said:
Well all know the medical industry is trust worth, anyone that believes this is just junk science believers. Now if you excuse me you CONSPIRACY THEORIST, I'm gonna go have a smoke because there are medical experts that says smoking dosen't cause cancer.
MikeBTexas on Aug 13, 2007 at 22:03:07 said:
And another thing:
Next time you complain about someone not disclosing conflicts of interest ensure you mention that you work for Kaiser Permanente, a 31 billion dollar a year medical insurance company which is headquartered 16 small miles from your office, and from your own homepage your own words indicate your mind is made up and you are not interested in any new information on the subject:
"In my practice of medicine, I approach families looking to work with them and involve them in decision making about how to help their children grow up healthy. In doing so, I attempt to give them the best evidence-based options of care and try to educate them. I have two strong beliefs in my philosophy of medicine: First, I urge all my patients to be routinely immunized, as I strongly believe that the benefits of vaccines far outweigh their risks. Second, I am judicious in my use of antibiotics and other medicines, and prefer only to prescribe these medications when I feel they are necessary." - from the home page of Rahul K. Parikh
MikeBTexas on Aug 13, 2007 at 21:41:06 said:
I just about puke when I read an article like this... "A slight delay in releasing the transcript.." ??? SafeMinds had to sue in FIOA for years to get this transcript and all the scientific data that was presented has been "lost". CDC broke their own internal public notification rules by not telling the public about this meeting, and the director of World Health Organization goes as far as saying no study should every be done questioning the long term safety of vacinations because they vaccinated a hundred million people last year and they are going to vaccinate a hundred million each in in the future no matter what.
Do a little research and present both sides! Average readers probably think parents sound like nuts but that is because we keep having to respond to junk reporting like yours. Honest people are not sure what causes autism, but honest people (and doctors) are also not sure what DOESN'T cause autism. The difference is one group actually wants to find out the truth.
Marcy Kelly on Aug 13, 2007 at 09:01:45 said:
The only thing that parents are being duped for is believing blindly that pharmaceutical manufacturers, the FDA, the CDC and the NIH have patient safety first and foremost in their minds when developing, approving and researching vaccines. If you were to document in your publication the conflicts of interest of the individuals in the above-mentioned organizations in the studies and articles that promote vaccines as completely safe, it would consume your entire publication. Follow the money to "vaccines = profit" and I have yet to read an article or study by an "expert" who wasn't working on the side as a consultant for one of the pharma companies. How about an article of those ethics?
interested party on Aug 13, 2007 at 07:40:24 said:
while i don't claim to know whether or not vaccines contribute to autism, certainly one can't deny that mercury is highly toxic and it was removed for good reason.
there is also the issue of the vaccines themselves, even now that thimerosol has been removed. pumping a small child full of so many viruses at once is questionable. the number of vaccinations has risen significantly in the past 25 years.
there are new studies being commissioned and the answers to this issue remain to be found. in the meantime, parents demanding answers is the best spur towards the truth.
Gregory Kruse on Aug 13, 2007 at 06:11:59 said:
I really believe that parents of autistic children know the cause of autism better than all the researchers in the world. That's typical autism talking there. Parents should take a look at themselves when they search for a cause. What have they done to themselves before they became parents that could have been toxic? How much autistic tendency is present in their genetic codes? I read much about children who are autistic, but there never seems to be an autistic parent visible.
joe harris on Aug 13, 2007 at 01:51:18 said:
With all of these strikes against the Geiers, how could their work get published? The fact that there are two types of journals explains this. There are those journals in which studies submitted for publication are carefully peer reviewed. And there are those that are not, allowing dubious work to slip by. The Geiers published this study, as well as all of their others, in the latter kind.
I tried very hard not to bring my experience
with a journal in which studies submitted for publication are carefully peer reviewed. in this forum. As the good DR.
wrote. This actually happened. When I found out Verstraetens work was moved 5 times to
almost no side efects and put in the
prestiegeious journal of the AAP I called
down to the journal and asked how his work could have been put in thier journal when he had not worked for the CDC in three and a half years. Would that not present a conflict of interest I asked what if any thing would
be a conflict of interest at thier journal
he was working at glaxo S.K. which at that time was in litagation against parents for thimerosal damage which presents a direct conflict of interest. Keep in mind there was
only one call and both her and I were very
calm she then told me that was a very good
question. she said she would have someone get back to me. The phone rang I answered it. It was blocked unknown name unknown number. The
man identified him self by saying quote
"I am the top doc of this journal and I am telling you if you call us back if you
bother us again on this issue there will
be a knock at your door and you know what that means ". I did not say anything at first
I just thought about what he said, Then I said
what did you just say to me. he said quote
"you heard me " and then he hung up the phone
So you now know why when asked is that peer reveiwed and in a prestiegeious journal
I laugh. Would a prestiegeious journal
call the dad of a severly mercury poisoned
child who was only trying to find out why
Verstraetens work was published. If he was
so clearly conflicted by working at GSK
It's things like this that make you wonder
about conspiracy not saying there is one.
But he the top doc wanted to put the fear
in me for some reason. Later I found out what
made him so paranoid they the CDC was practicly begging the journal to publish the Danish study which was clearly fraud
you talk about dubious work. With the danish study claiming that when the thimerosal was removed the incedence of autism actually went up, then declaired that there must be a "neuro-protective" effect on children in thimerosal. thank GOD
for the FOIA a review of e-mails exchanged between the Danish researchers and the CDC reveals that the statement "From 1991 until 2000 the incidence increased and continued to rise after the removal of thimerosal from vaccines, including increases among children born after the discontinuation of thimerosal" may not have been true.
In an e-mail on 11/13/2002 at 09:24, "co-author" Marlene B. Lauritsen informed Drs. Madsen, Thorsen and Schendel of the CDC:
"But the incidence and prevalence are still decreasing in 2001".
The sentences, before and after that unequivocal statement, were blackened with a magic marker before they were released through the Freedom of Information Act.
why must we put up with with people at HHS
who will accidentally poison our children and then lie about it when caught then waste precious time and money trying to
cover up thier lies and deciet with junk
studies
joe harris on Aug 12, 2007 at 16:50:34 said:
You are supposed to be News By Ethnicities
then I think you would be angry to know that something as dangerous as thimerosal
which was removed by vets because of the danger it posed, to our animals pets, in
1990, but not to dangerous for our children
it remained till 2004, Then given as a good will jesture to Ethnicities in third
world countrys. This was discused at a
congressional hearing. One scientist said
as the leader of the world we should tell
the rest of the world how dangerous this
is. And for third world countrys to move to
single dose vials he was interuped by a
spokes person from the WHO by saying do you know how expensive that would be. These people that work in vaccines have there prioritys wrong. A child is a child no matter
what color or were they come from and should be protected from neurltoxins being in childrens vaccines. Here is a look at
thier safe amount
Myth Thimerosal, when used in vaccines, is added in trace amounts.
Truth: Thimerosal is added at a concentration of 1:10000. This is
equivalent to a concentration of 100,000 parts per billion (ppb).
Since thimerosal is half mercury, this puts the concentration of
mercury in a vaccine vial at 50,000 ppb. Liquid waste that exceeds
200 ppb must be disposed of in a special hazardous waste landfill.
Drinking water cannot exceed 2 ppb mercury. Trace would probably be
the last word to use when describing the amount of mercury in
vaccines. some children recieved 9 vaccines
in one day 7 of which contained the mercury
that would be 50,000 PPB x 7 devided by the number of jabs in the vial one of the vaccine Nazis favorite sayings is the Toxicity is in the dose maybe I can help them out here. This is from Merks grandfather of the chlidrens vaccine
program at Merk "When viewed in this way, the mercury load appears rather large," said the memo from Dr. Maurice R.
Hilleman, an internationally renowned vaccinologist. It was written to the president of Merck's vaccine
division. These people LIE more than little children but Oh! Its for the greater good
another DR. Dr. Weil: Page 207: seems he is
concerned about our kids siad We are not talking necessarily about chronic exposure. We are talking about a series of acute exposures and at one point in time that exposure is much greater on one day than any of the Seychelles Islands. The increased incidence of neurobehavioral problems in children in the past few decades is probably real. I work in the school system where my effort is entirely in special education and I have to say that the number of kids getting help in special education is growing nationally and state by state at a rate we have not seen before.
Your article is called Parents (Duped by Junk Science on Autism, Says Doctor) This excerpt is from the simpsonwood meeting from Dr. Brent: Page 229: "The medical legal findings in this study, causal or not, are horrendous and therefore, it is important that the suggested epidemiological, pharmacokinetic, and animal studies be performed. If an allegation was made that a child's neurobehavioral findings were caused by Thimerosal containing vaccines, you could readily find a junk scientist who would support the claim with "a reasonable degree of certainty". But you will not find a scientist with any integrity who would say the reverse with the data that is available. And that is true. So we are in a bad position from the standpoint of defending any lawsuits if they were initiated and I am concerned." I the dad
of a mercury poisoned child. Would like to
know where is the concern for our children its not hard seeing what he said who he represents BIG PHARMA,its funny who he refers to as junk scientist and who has
integrity I thought
true science goes, where the evidence leads
Now with all this in mind who is being DUPED
I heard this the other day don,t remember
who the quote was by " men will trip over
truth get up and then run from it "
Ron Frier on Aug 12, 2007 at 14:43:25 said:
Parents are duped by what is hidden by the media about autism and other neurocognitive and autoimmune disorders.
It has been known since the 1970s that autism is related to a family history of autoimmune disorders, that older paternal age and neurocognitive and autoimmune disorders go hand in hand and that vaccinations are not benign and mercury is a neurotoxin.
\"In 1948 two Harvard Medical School scientists, Randolph Byers and Frederick Moll carried out tests on the DPT at Children’s Hospital in Boston and concluded that severe neurological problems followed administration of the vaccine. The results were published in Pediatrics, a respectable medical journal. The results were completely ignored by the medical and pharmaceutical community. In 1976, Charles Manclark, an FDA scientist, remarked, “The DPT had one of the worst failure rates of any product submitted to the Division of Biologics for testing.” See vaccine truth. org
You are publishing propaganda not news. Vaccinations and older average paternal age are the real reasons for the increase in non-familial autism and autoimmune disorders.
joe harris on Aug 12, 2007 at 13:07:29 said:
This DR.does not no the science, He is most
likely being paid to write these lies for big pharma or the CDC. They and the CDC know that they have destroyed a generation of children. The good DR. attacks DR. Wakfield, I wonder If the good DR.knows wakfields work
has been replacated three times across the world. And as far as his work being removed
from the journal for precievable conflict of interest.Maybe he the good DR. can explain how Verstraeten work getting in the AAP
journal when he had not worked for the CDC in
three and a half years, He went to work for
Glaxo.S.K which at that time was in litagation against parents for thimerosal
damage. Seems to me he had more of a reason
to be removed than did the honorable DR.Wakefield. So much for prestiegeious journals, I now laugh when when someone
asks is that peer reveiwed: and in a
prestiegeious journal, Verstraeten earler
work, You know where he found a link. Before
he was hired away by GSK has been destroyed out of the VSD. dishonorable gerberdine was warned before that happened
by DR.and congressman Dave Weldon, and the office of special counsel, that the earler work was in danger of being destroyed.
And it was. So now who has junk science?
and has to destroy earler work so the real
scientist don't get a chance to evaluate it?
SO WHOS BEEN DUPED NOW
Your readers should know this most parents
know the science better than the the very
conflicted DRs. who create science that is inaccurate, created out of self-interest,
K Mueller on Aug 12, 2007 at 11:40:24 said:
Dr Parikh selectively leaves out the other research (Deth, Hornig, James and others) showing biological mechanisms by which thimerasol could contribute as a factor. He also fails to mention that Dr Wakefield's research has now be replicated by other scientists here in the US and several other countries. Gone to is the fact that other researchers have been shut out and now the government claims the data is missing to key research done by the CDC.
The doctor's assertion that:
"The debate about vaccines was settled by well designed and well conducted scientific studies a long time ago."
Is simply wrong.
There are still no long term double blind studies comparing vaccinated to non-vaccinated populations. There also is very little study, and certainly no long term studies or double blind controlled studies, on the effect of the trend of receiving multiple vaccinations, vaccinating at an earlier age and a more aggressive vaccine schedule.
Because of narrow minded apologists such as Dr Parikh children and families will continue to suffer at increasing rates from the profitable and misguided efforts by pharma, the FDA and the AAP.
Leslie Bradshaw on Aug 12, 2007 at 08:59:52 said:
Dr. Parikh fails to tell the whole truth on many issues. Firstly, Dr. Wakefields research has been replicated by other credible researchers over the past few years. What's more, the main UK research used to follow up / refute his research looked for evidence of vaccine strain measles in the blood, not in the intestines, where he found it - talk about junk science. Additionally, he denigrates the Geiers and their lack of credibility but fails to mention the report last year showing that in his beloved Lancet journal and others, 50% of the supposedly peer reveiwed articles are ghost written by PHd students paid 20 grand to write them by the drug company who sponsored the trial in the frist place. Then drug company just slaps a reputable doctors name on it and submit it so everybody wins - the doctor gets kudos for being published, the PHd student gets 20k toward his med school bills, and the pharma company gets an article that says exactly what it wants. He also fails to mention the the report this summer by a researcher at UC San Francisco showing that drug studies that are favorable towards a given drug are 20 more likley to have been funded by the drug company that paid for the study than by the drug to which it is being compared - junk science by big pharma at its best so you can take all that peer reviewed research and throw it out the window! Lastly, is Dr. Parikh actually serious in saying that mercury is not dangerous?? If it is not, then why is it considered to be the second most toxic substance on the planet, after uranium?? He can't be serious.
-->