Categories
Antivaccine nonsense Bad science Medicine Pseudoscience

When new school antivaxxer Steve Kirsch met old school antivaxxer Andrew Wakefield

Steve Kirsch interviewed Andrew Wakefield, demonstrating that there is no distance between “new school” and “old school” antivaxxers anymore. Also, they are antivaccine, with Wakefield saying there is no safe vaccine.

Recently, I’ve been writing about the “new school” antivaccine movement that arose during the COVID-19 pandemic to oppose COVID-19 vaccines is becoming increasingly indistinguishable from “old school” antivaxxers, the ones who falsely claimed that vaccines cause autism, autoimmune diseases, the “sickest generation” of children, and even death. In particular, I saw this confluence at the Better Way Conference held in Bath, England last month, where new school antivaxxers like Robert Malone were echoing old school antivaxxer Del Bigtree‘s attacks on the children’s immunization schedule, which included hoary old antivax tropes, such as “too many too soon.”

Steve Kirsch, as readers might remember, is a former tech bro and entrepreneur who started out during the pandemic as a semi-reasonable advocate for testing repurposed drugs to combat COVID-19 and fund research into such treatments. Unfortunately, it didn’t take long for him to go full conspiracy crank and, more recently, full tilt antivaccine. Indeed, last month he hosted a conference at which he claimed based on an Internet survey introduced on his Substack that COVID-19 vaccines had killed a half a million people. These days, he’s been reduced to begging experts on public health and infectious disease to “debate me” in order to “prove” that vaccines are safe.

And, apparently, to interviewing Andrew Wakefield after lamenting a “hit piece” by the New York Timesfrom 2019.

There’s no more “old school” antivaxxer out there than Andrew Wakefield, who almost single-handedly ignited the most recent iteration of the antivaccine movement with a poor quality case series published in 1998 in The Lancet that claimed to link the MMR vaccine with “autistic enterocolitis.” True, the DPT scare in the 1980s did fire up an antivaccine movement and even led to the passage of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986 (which antivaxxers hate) to prevent vaccine manufacturers from abandoning the US market en masse due to the tsunami of lawsuits provoked by the scare, but for some reason Andrew Wakefield’s pseudoscience really resonated and for nearly 13 years did real damage; that is, until Brian Deer’s reporting demonstrated it to have been fraudulent. Also, Wakefield’s was struck off in the UK (i.e., the revocation of his medical license), which also helped. Despite those much deserved humiliations, Wakefield remained very popular among antivaxxers as a “martyr” and even helped Del Bigtree make an antivax propaganda film (VAXXED) in 2016. COVID-19 does seem to have led to new school antivaxxers eclipsing the very much old school Wakefield (his attempts to demonize COVID-19 vaccines notwithstanding), but he’s still out there grifting, hence the interview (I guess), even though I haven’t heard much from him lately.

So it was with some interest that I perused Kirsch’s interview with Wakefield and even watched the video, albeit not all of it, given that it’s an hour and a half long:

New school meets old school.

Kirsch begins by asking old school Wakefield to introduce himself, which results in a narrative that regular readers have heard many times before. Wakefield claims that he became interested in whether MMR causes autism in 1995-1996, when (or so he says) parents started telling him stories about how their children were “absolutely normal” before getting the MMR, but then had a seizure or “went to sleep for three days” and when they woke up “they were gone.” (Notice the conflation of being autistic with the “real child” being “gone.” That is an incredibly common narrative among antivaxxers.)

I don’t necessarily want to retread a lot of the same sorts of narratives that I’ve heard before many times from Andy ad nauseam in interviews, writings, and even in documentaries, although I do feel obligated to point out that this “observation” supposedly raising suspicions about a link between MMR and autism came about as a result of a trial lawyer seeking to sue vaccine manufacturers approaching Wakefield and paying him £400,000 to find evidence of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. Let’s go on, though, because pointing out that Wakefield lies constantly is like pointing out that water is wet.

A lot of the answers that Kirsch got from Wakefield will be familiar, the same old justifications, but if you want evidence to counter claims that Wakefield is not antivaccine, Kirsch helpfully supplies it—inadvertently:

  1. Are there any safe vaccines? No.
  2. What do they think your motivation is? They know his motivation is to save lives.
  3. What’s the real story behind this quote from CNN: “An investigation published by the British medical journal BMJ concludes the study’s author, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, misrepresented or altered the medical histories of all 12 of the patients whose cases formed the basis of the 1998 study — and that there was “no doubt” Wakefield was responsible.” It was a setup. All the authors support the study.
  4. Why didn’t your other collaborators stand up for the truth? Do you still talk to them? Some caved to the pressure to admit something that the paper never said.
  5. Will anyone debate you face-to-face, on-camera, for a live discussion? Never happened.
  6. Why is there no risk-benefit data for any childhood vaccine? How can they justify this with a straight face? No. They are never challenged on it.
  7. How old were you when you turned “anti-vaxxer”? About 30 years old.
  8. What was your “red pill” moment when you realized that what you had been told was all a lie? When mothers told him their stories connecting the vaccine with autism. Too many cases where kids were perfectly fine before the vax and changed suddenly after the vax. This sounded just like the COVID vaccines.
  9. What is the best way to convince people that you got it right? He’s made movies.
  10. Do you have any friends in mainstream media? I know the feeling! Not that he knows about.
  11. Are there any doctors who tell you privately they support you, but admit they can’t say so publicly? Plenty. He can’t reveal who they are.

I’ll briefly comment on these points:

  1. So Wakefield states that there are no safe vaccines. That is rather the definition of “antivaccine,” wouldn’t you say?
  2. Of course, the saintly St. Andrew is only in it it to save lives! Perish the thought that he made money from trial lawyers back in the 1990s and that he has been grifting on his claim that MMR vaccines cause autism for 24 years.
  3. The authors supported the study, until they didn’t after the realization that they’d been played by Andy…
  4. …and, of course, they “caved to the pressure,” rather than admitting a mistake.
  5. Here we go again, with the challenge to a “debate.” While it’s true that, as far as I’ve been able to ascertain, no scientist has publicly “debated” Wakefield, his desperate “challenges” notwithstanding, ironically enough, one physician, Michael Fitzgerald, has said that he’d debate Wakefield. Wakefield consistently dodged such challenges.
  6. This is utter nonsense. Childhood vaccines are among the most studied interventions there are.
  7. So Wakefield was about 30 years old when he turned antivax? Given that he was born in 1956, that would imply that he became antivax a good ten years before the 1996 timeframe when he started investigating the MMR vaccine. Interesting, but not surprising.
  8. Wakefield’s “red pill” moment is, of course, a familiar story that he’s told many, many times before.
  9. I laughed out loud at this. Wakefield is convincing people he’s right by making movies? That tracks.
  10. Sadly, Wakefield has many sympathizers, some in the mainstream media.
  11. And, of course, there are lots of doctors who “secretly” support Wakefield but are too afraid to say anything! Same as it ever was for every Brave Maverick Doctor who spreads conspiracy theories and becomes viewed as a crank claims that.

So the conclusion of this interview really nails the confluence between old school and new school antivaxxers. For example, Kirsch amplifies Wakefield’s messages that “you’ll be WAY healthier if you AVOID *ALL* vaccines” and “vaccines do cause autism.” Again, I don’t know how you can interpret statements like this as being anything other than antivaccine, particularly the statement that you’ll be “way healthier” if you eschew not just some vaccines, but all vaccines. He then parrots hoary old antivax tropes that were ancient before COVID-19 ever hit, such as:

  • “It’s not clear at all that vaccination did anything to eradicate diseases.” This is, of course, a variant of the “vaccines didn’t save us” or the “sanitation did it, not vaccines” gambit, both very much old school antivax tropes that have been resurrected for COVID-19. Of course, sanitation is not particularly effective against diseases that are primarily airborne, like measles or COVID-19, and “natural herd immunity” never eradicated a single disease. It always took vaccines.
  • “Vaccines can be quite problematic since unlike recovered immunity, the immunity doesn’t last. You’d have been much better off getting the virus when you were young.” This is, of course, the claim that “natural immunity” is always better than vaccine-induced immunity. Of course, given the rate of reinfection with COVID-19 and waning “natural immunity” after infection, coupled with the rise of more transmissible variants of SARS-CoV-2 that also have increasing abilities to evade preexisting immunity (vaccine-induced or postinfection), “natural immunity” isn’t actually that long lasting or great for COVID-19. Also, even for diseases—such as measles—for which postinfection immunity is long lasting, even lifetime, attaining “natural immunity” means suffering through the disease and risking the complications, such as pneumonia, neurologic injury, immune system suppression, and death.
  • “The CDC, FDA, NIH and drug companies are adept at silencing critics, especially if you lack the funds to properly defend yourself.” This is, of course, the central conspiracy theory of the antivaccine movement, that “they” know vaccines “don’t work”/”are harmful” but “they” cover it up.

As I’ve been arguing, there is increasingly very little daylight between old school and new school antivaxxers. Those of us who have followed the antivaccine movement are not surprised by this. After all, all science denial is based on conspiracy theories. Because of this, there is a strong tendency to embrace other sets of pseudoscience and conspiracy theories once one has embraced one set. Steve Kirsch is simply much further along in the process than, for instance, other new school antivaxxers like Geert Vanden Bossche.

They’ll get there, though. At least, the vast majority of them will. Other than rare exceptions, once you go full antivax, unfortunately, you don’t come back.

By Orac

Orac is the nom de blog of a humble surgeon/scientist who has an ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually give a rodent's posterior about his copious verbal meanderings, but just barely small enough to admit to himself that few probably will. That surgeon is otherwise known as David Gorski.

That this particular surgeon has chosen his nom de blog based on a rather cranky and arrogant computer shaped like a clear box of blinking lights that he originally encountered when he became a fan of a 35 year old British SF television show whose special effects were renowned for their BBC/Doctor Who-style low budget look, but whose stories nonetheless resulted in some of the best, most innovative science fiction ever televised, should tell you nearly all that you need to know about Orac. (That, and the length of the preceding sentence.)

DISCLAIMER:: The various written meanderings here are the opinions of Orac and Orac alone, written on his own time. They should never be construed as representing the opinions of any other person or entity, especially Orac's cancer center, department of surgery, medical school, or university. Also note that Orac is nonpartisan; he is more than willing to criticize the statements of anyone, regardless of of political leanings, if that anyone advocates pseudoscience or quackery. Finally, medical commentary is not to be construed in any way as medical advice.

To contact Orac: [email protected]

301 replies on “When new school antivaxxer Steve Kirsch met old school antivaxxer Andrew Wakefield”

All this time, Andrew Wakefield has been claiming that he isn’t anti-vaccine, despite now admitting he became anti-vaccine in the 1980s.

All my illusions are busted.

In fairness, Wakefield didn’t exactly say that he was antivax in the 1980s, but he did say that his “red pill” moment was then, which meant that he had started on his journey to become an antivaxxer at least by the late 1980s.

LOL. Everyone here knows the precise moment Wakers turned anti-vax: .5 seconds after he realized his wizard scheme to earn billions by selling his own patented measles vaccine after nuking the competition’s with evil PR went full tits up.

Honestly, Wakefield’s bust-ass scam is a cause-effect conspiracy so simple even NWO Bootlicker here ought to be physically incapable of joining the dots. That they reject the math anyway tells you everything you need to know about who these people really are. As I’ve said often, there is little about these people that cannot be sufficiently explained by a Cluster B diagnosis, and Wakefield is a Grade-A psychopath through and through.

What a leader to have! Makes even Wayne LaPierre look a class act. And he murders kids [by proxy] too.

“Some people just need killing.” – Barry Eisler

I have followed Wakefield’s antics since the late 1990s. I am well aware that he is just another narcissist. I doubt much he said in the interview with Steve Kirsch is actually true (well some of it my be by accident). Andy says whatever he thinks his horde of adoring fans will send most money in for.

I rather suspect that you can point to the time he went anti-vax as being after he realised the Royal Free was really wanting him to replicate his results in a larger study – and there was this new group of adoring fans in the US after he had appeared on 60 Minutes. So the end of 2001. Prior to that Wakefield still thought he could exploit the MMR scare he had created to sell his vaccine and diagnostic tests.

“Andy says whatever he thinks his horde of adoring fans will send most money in for.”

Quite. The logic of Wakefield, Adams, et al is a simple one: “Whatever Sells.”

Wakefield was never pro- or anti-vaccine; he was always pro-Andy. Everything he’s ever said and done has always been to serve that cause, nothing else.

Honestly, I don’t despise these malevolent individuals nearly as much as I despise their gagging fans. They are merely apex predators acting according to their nature. Know to recognize the predator, you limit what they can do to predate you.

The people who willingly throw themselves to these monsters, who want—choose—to be lied to; those are the true scum. Because they are legion: the critical multiplier that enables mass harm. Junkies seeking endless gratification, there is little these adulating audiences will not sell out for their fix. Not only themselves, but those around them as well. Just like good Conservative Catholics, feeding their children to monsters.

And when called out on the consequences of their callous behavior. They do not recoil from themselves in horror, but instead double down to protect that Belief above everyone else.

Willful self-deception. Been there, done that. What a cheap piece of shit to sell one’s humanity for.

The bit I found most entertaining was when he claims he should have won against me and the BMJ in Texas. This is his opinion, as opposed to the Texas appeal court, which concluded there was no legal basis for his claim, as my journalism wasn’t directed at Texas, and never mentioned Texas. Both the journal’s editor and I felt pangs of regret that our anti-SLAPP motion was never heard, since Wakefield had no case.

Here is the court of appeal’s opinion. https://briandeer.com/solved/slapp-appeal-dismissal.pdf

We would gladly have met him in Texas (as I was keen to do when he sued me vexatiously in London), but a defamation case under US law would have been thrown out on lack of malice, which would have meant no vindication or a kind I would have got in London (where the judge could have branded him a liar and fraudster). More importantly, while Wakefield was being funded by misleading rich Americans into believing my stories were all “lies,” we relied on the BMJ’s insurers.

No UK nsurance company, or indeed defendant, in their right mind would go to trial inTexas on the Wakefield fraud because we know what their tactics would have been. In order to mount a defense, we would have had to fly our witnesses (many of them rather old) to Austin and put them up in a hotel. We saw in an early hearing that Wakefield’s lawyers would resort to shenannigans such as arranging simultaneous appearances before two different judges (foiled by us with a phone call between courtrooms).

We would thus reasonably expect all manner of delays and adjournments from Wakefield’s side, racking up massive costs, and probably witnesses saying they simply couldn’t wait any longer.

Nevertheless, as I make clear in an article at my website, it’s possible as a result of my book, The Doctor Who Fooled the World, for anybody to deduce a priori that Wakefield’s exposure was thoroughly justified.

https://briandeer.com/fact-checking-investigation.htm

“Some folks suckered by this manipulative individual don’t seem to recognize that (unlike Wakefield) if I made up stuff I’d be professionally finished and, especially with England’s defamation laws famously favorable to plaintiffs, might expect to lose my home to legal bills.

“This extraordinary story is so detailed and my reporting so persistent, moreover, that either it’s honest and correct — in substance and sting — or Wakefield would have to be victim to the most sustained campaign of malicious libel in the history of journalism, leaving my publishers contractually entitled to pulp my book and to require me to pick up the tab.

“And in case you labor under the “pharma shill” deception, I’ve volunteered all sources of money:

“‘The investigation that became The Doctor Who Fooled the World was funded entirely by The Sunday Times, London; the Channel 4 TV network; The BMJ; publishers’ advances for this book; and a check from Wakefield’s lawyers, on his behalf, to cover legal expenses for my website.'”

“The book has been cleared by libel specialists in New York and London. Under penalty of perjury, I’ve filed hundreds of pages of statements for courts and been deposed by Wakefield’s lawyers for six-and-a-half hours.

“This story is, and would have to be, true.”

Hi Brian:

Nice to see you follow this blog as it’s excellent. You mention your book, “The Doctor Who Fooled the World; but I HIGHLY RECOMMEND IT. I dare any anti-vaxxer who trusts Wakefield to read it carefully and then, if they are even a bit open-minded, to still trust him. Besides, reads well like an old-fashioned detective novel. And, of course, everyone else should read it to gather overwhelming ammunition that Wakefield is and was a FRAUD.

One minor point. I would change the title to: “The Doctor Who Tried To Fool The World”
?

Second the book recommendation.

I agree that the case would have been thrown out on malice, but depending on the court, at least some courts in the past also addressed truth before getting to malice. Once the materials are before the judges, they can decide where to focus.

I agree it’s a pity it never got there.

Interesting that he says that all the authors stand behind the paper, in spite of 10 ‘disowning’ their own paper. But, in the world of Wakefied and his friends, who need facts?

To be more precise, 10 or 13 Wakefield co-authors on the Lancet paper retracted the interpretation of the paper (most prominently by Wakefield himself) that linked the MMR to autism. Those co-authors didn’t disavow the paper itself.

In the Wakefield tradition of incompetent antivax “science”, there’s today’s Natural News article about a “shocking” discovery which purports to explain sudden death in vaccine recipients.

Noted scientist Mike Adams explains that he’s come into possession of disturbing intravascular objects courtesy of an unnamed “reputable source in the field of embalming”, presumably a mortician. Mike believes they are not “normal” blood clots, but contain nanowires and “silicon microchip-like structures”, and indicate that the body is being programmed to fabricate foreign proteins within blood vessels.

Mike says: “I welcome input from other experts who may have other theories or explanations of where this is coming from.”

Well alrighty then.

First of all, Adams refers to his efforts to unravel the mystery of these deposits as “microscopy”, when virtually all of the images in the article are macroscopic close-up photos. He claims that normal clots are gelatinous and rubbery, but this refers to pseudoclots found at autopsy due to circulation ceasing at death. Med students learn in their second-year pathology classes that such deposits, referred to as “chicken fat” and “currant jelly” (from deposits of plasma and red blood cells, respectively) can be distinguished from premortem clots which may have medical significance, on the basis of the latter’s firmer consistency, frequent attachment to blood vessels, more fibrous appearance and critically by the microscopic appearance of definite layering of fibrin, platelets and blood cells, visible to the naked eye as “lines of Zahn”. Adams could have settled the question about whether the gunk he displays in his photos represents actual premortem clots by taking thin sections and preparing them for actual microphotographs, where we could have seen whether such layering and potential influx of granulation tissue were present, meaning they were real clots that could have contributed to death. But he doesn’t bother.

Instead we have his “shocking” macrophotos, all of which could represent meaningless postmortem agglomerations of blood components after exposure to embalming fluid and air drying (in particular, some images are strongly reminiscent of “chicken fat” and “currant jelly”* postmortem deposits left out to dry.

The results of Adams’ “investigation” are, if possible, even more embarrassing evidence of his scientific incompetence than NN’s earlier revelations about Chicken McNuggets. They also remind me of images eagerly posted on Morgellons’ websites which are supposed to represent sinister fibers and critters but look like nothing more than amorphous junk and contaminant glop.

*apologies for the food-like descriptors, but it’s part of a longstanding tradition in pathology.

The “interpretation” is a section of the Wakefield paper, conveniently titled “Interpretation.” This is the conclusions of the authors, previously known in The Lancet, as “Conclusions.”

In the event, the paper was retracted in its entirety by The Lancet in 2010 , shortly before Wakefield was struck from the medical register on charges of fraud, dishonesty in his research, and the unethical treatment of developmentally-challenged children.

The single sentence that appears in the 1998 Wakefield et al Lancet paper under the heading “Interpretation” cites unspecified “environmental triggers” of alleged gastrointestinal lesions and autism. Statements suggesting a link between them and vaccination came in the Discussion section (amplified by Wakefield’s subsequent press conference remarks), and such interpretation is what most of Wakefield’s co-authors tried to dissociate themselves from, after The Lancet paper was seized on by antivaxers. Key passage in the co-authors’ “retraction of an interpretation”:

“We wish to make it clear that in this paper no causal link was established between MMR vaccine and autism as the data were insufficient. However, the possibility of such a link was raised and consequent events have had major implications for public health. In view of this, we consider now is the appropriate time that we should together formally retract the interpretation placed upon these findings in the paper, according to precedent.”

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(04)15715-2/fulltext

(the above link may require free Lancet registration)

Yes, so they were retracting the claim to have linked autism to environmental triggers, and the paper goes on to say what they were: MMR in eight of 12 cases within 14 days of administration, plus some bits and pieces. Because the “Interpretation” is the overall conclusion, it is indeed a single sentence. So, the retracted their overall conclusion.

Trust me. I had it retracted – and it took me a long time.

Meanwhile, the medical establishment whined and carped about there being no controls in a clinical case series, and how there were only 12 patients (compared with the classical description of autism in 11 patients, and the first characterisation of what became known as AIDS in five gay men in Los Angeles).

Maybe if they hadn’t been so incensed with the impertinence of someone criticising vaccines, they might have noticed it was a scam. But they didn’t, and when I did, they tried to cover it up.

https://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-paper.pdf

Maybe if they hadn’t been so incensed with the impertinence of someone criticising vaccines, they might have noticed it was a scam.

And this is why informed outsiders are so vital. Their vision unclouded by decades of ingrained baggage, they may easily see what institutional insiders are quite blind to; and, crucially, frame it in terms clear and open to everyone, not padded to protect their own ego’s comfort. Because every emperor lacks clothes. What distinguishes the healthy society from a toxic one is its willingness not to cover that up.

There is no shame in being flawed, fallible, wrong; only in denying it.

Alas, for every Deer there is easily a hundred Mike Adamses and a thousand NWO Reporters, cosplay pretenders hopped up on grandiose narcissism fueled on dangerously motivated reasoning and total absence/rejection of honest self-awareness; compounding the corruption, enabling the abuse, and the abusers, not tearing it to the ground. And their Emperors, from Andrew thru Donald, all thank you for your service, loyal bootlickers, for they could never take Power without you.

“but contain nanowires and “silicon microchip-like structures”, and indicate that the body is being programmed to fabricate foreign proteins”

Did he find a battery though?

For the past year or more, I wondered what Andy was doing- he was rather silent. I only heard that his relationship with Elle MacPherson was over from her agents. He was nowhere to be seen until recently when he appeared at a conference with Mike Adams and other altie loons, then he released his latest cinematic marvel at CHD. I watched a few of his film clips about how vaccines impact women’s fertility in Kenya which we’ve heard from other sources for years.

You need to sign up with email to view the 30 minute long film- which I didn’t do. They are also asking followers to present the film locally to “inform” people ( and probably raise money).
It isn’t clear where Andy is living as he was divorced from Carmel a while ago ( she got a house in Texas) and no longer is attached to Elle ( her mansion in Florida). Where is Andy? Hopefully far away from me.
-btw- it seems that many alties are jumping on the Kirsch bandwagon: instant exposure to lots of uncritical followers

Orac writes,

“So Wakefield states that there are no safe vaccines. That is rather the definition of “antivaccine,” wouldn’t you say?”

MJD says,

In my opinion, Andrew Wakefield is not antivaccine but antidisestabolishmentvaccine (ADV). Andrew Wakefield was a vaccine safety advocate* but the trauma of scientific failure has created an ADV mindset.

*Not everyone is safe after a vaccination(s) and the mechanism-of-action is explained and verified.

Idw56old writes,

“And you wonder why you’re considered a joke.”

MJD says,

Antidisestabolishmentvaccine (ADV) is really about no vaccine mandates. Hope that brings clarity, Idw56old.

BTW, I met Andrew Wakefield in Austin Texas many years ago and he was gracious and scholarly. Although, he’s made enemies and needs to be more scholarly about vaccine safety.

@ Orac,

Entertaining post! What’s the probability of MJD getting out of RI auto-moderation in the next decade?

@ Idw56old,

I’m a huge fan of Orac and some Respectful Insolence minions (e.g., has)…NOT Andrew Wakefield.

has’s teachings on narcissism and anti-vax is a great read.

Antidisestabolishmentvaccine (ADV) is really about no vaccine mandates.

It’s an inept attempt to ape the term Antidisestablishmentarianism, which unlike your contracted word salad actually confers a meaning.

After the Covid vax mess I’m willing to embrace the term anti-vaccine for now. Can revisit if some balance returns to the system in the future.

john, you’re not anti-vaccine because the system is out of whack: you’re anti-vaccine because you consider it to be out of whack based on nothing more than your imagination and floods of lies from others like you.

Nah. Look at the Novavax or the child vax hearings. No risk/reward showing whatsoever. Just rubber stamps. 75 years to produce safety documents that should be released as a matter of course. It’s quite objectively out of whack.

All that said, love the illustration for this post. One of my favorite movies to be sure. Love the naked people out of the bathroom speech :).

FDA are releasing these safety documents now. Are there any relevations ?
FDA has not approved Novavax yet. Its panel of experts have recommended it.

John, your dishonesty is jumping the gun.

The Gaithersburg biotech is now a step away from potentially getting its first product to market, after the Food and Drug Administration’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee gave its nod to Novavax’s experimental Covid-19 vaccine at its meeting Tuesday.

The FDA, which typically listens to the advisory committee’s recommendations, must now decide whether to greenlight the protein-based shot for emergency use authorization for adults in the U.S. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would then have to endorse its use.

Here’s the real question: do you ever make a decision or a statement based on facts, or is it always your limited knowledge and understanding that drives you?

you got me! the panel rubber stamped it as it waits on the FDA whose minions are more interested in jobs at Moderna and Pfizer ;).

you got me! the panel rubber stamped it as it waits on the FDA whose minions are more interested in jobs at Moderna and Pfizer ;).

Wow, classic you: deflect the fact you were caught in a bald faced lie by making an assertion for which you have no evidence. You’re really a bit of work — like fresh cement after cats and dog walked through it before it cured: ugly and worthless.

So you’re too uneducated to learn why it’s taking so long to release medical records?

Do you want your medical records released to just anyone? Are you that stupid?

Seems stupid to make medical decisions based on political rational, but you are who you are.

Most anti-vax’ers I’m talked to actually think that there’s some scientific evidence behind their beliefs. At lest, you admit that you’re not actually anti-vax for any real scientific/medical reason, and self awareness is a good thing.

Ultimately the decision about whether to go forward is about trust. The system is not trustworthy.

I would hope that the question of vaccine use would be one of health/science/medicine. Should that be the issue, as apposed to your personal problems with (some of?) the people approving the therapeutic? (

But I’ll take the bait – what would you need to see to trust the data? Who do you trust (beside yourself…)? VRBPAC) has 15 members – do you distrust all of them?

“The system is not trustworthy.”

No shit, Sherlock. Find us any system that isn’t; we’ll wait. That’s why checks and balances. Confidence intervals. Replication. So that, while we can never say with 100% certainty “It’s all good”, we can say with a very high level of confidence “It’s magnitudes better than the alternative.”

You know what else is not trustworthy? Alt-Med. Antivaxxers. Fascist GOP. So where’s all your checks and balances, you autorimming assholes.

Safeguards? You don’t even do safewords!

Fascist GOP? They are the only ones promoting choice. How is choice fascism? The GOP is wrong about some things, but it bears no resemblance to fascism.

Yawn indeed. Wasn’t it a left wing person that tried to assassinate a Supreme Court justice. As far as I’m aware the only one killed at the Capital was a demonstrator. Salon is a Shit Lib publication.

Funny how you ignore the academic publication I also included. I can also provide many more references. But do go on and ignore and engage in desperate whataboutism.

As far as I’m aware the only one killed at the Capital was a demonstrator.

john you are, of course, ignoring the police (who the fascists [that is the correct term)] on the right claim to love) who were badly injured during the attempted coup, and ignoring the ones who died from injuries inflicted by trump’s domestic terrorists. (Ashli Babbitt was the only terrorist who was shot while storming the Capitol — she died later. Are you defending her? Some of the other criminals died as a result of falls of their own making. )

Brian Sicknick was badly injured by the terrorists you defend, and died the next day
Howard Liebengood was defending the Capitol. He died by suicide three days after the attack
Jeffrey Smith (MPD) was struck in the head with a pole by some of trump’s terrorists and badly injured. He also took his own life

By the way — the right isn’t about “choice” — it’s about

— limiting voting options for minorities, the poor, and women
— limiting rights in general for the same people mentioned above
— pushing lies about the “dangers” of mail in ballots to argue the 2020 election was “stolen” from their racist party leader
— criminalizing abortions (and at least here in MI some want to re-criminalize birth control and same-sex marriage)
— pushing the “CRT is taught everywhere” crap when they have no idea what that means

and more authoritarian BS based on their ignorance. I get that’s why you defend them, but don’t think for a second there is any truth to the notion that the current right stands for “choice”. It stands for allowing any behavior, no matter how vile, to go unpunished as long as it is done by a rich white male.

“The system is not trustworthy.”

In that case, it’s imperative for John to reject any and all elements of “the system”, including police protection, utilities and health care services. Get off the grid and go it alone; it’s the only way you can be safe and true to your principles.

In practice, John will keeping sponging off “the system” as it suits him.

‘John will keeping sponging off “the system” as it suits him’

Ah, a libertarian.

@Orac on gaslighting: “It’s an old Soviet propaganda technique.”

It’s standard behavior for domestic abusers too. John knows how to pick his side.

“Not trustworthy” is being way too generous–the system is corrupt to the core. We have a CDC that has told so many monumental lies over the years, the only reason so many people still trust them is because they don’t know about them.

If you look at the response to COVID19, it is virtually identical to the response during the Spanish flu a century ago–right down to the experimental vaccines, which were administered to millions in the military, residents of state institutions, employees of large corporations and more. They were all based on a theory about what caused the flu that has since been discredited. https://doi.org/10.1177/00333549101250S306 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/00333549101250S306

Today, the CDC just brazenly lies and claims Spanish flu vaccines didn’t exist. Just one of the CDC’s countless lies.

Of course, SARS CoV2 virus has atually been isolated., and vaccines target it. Very different than Spanish flu.

I’m confused – They had a vaccine, or they didn’t? Or the vaccine was the wrong one? I can’t follow your ‘logic’ – they had the wrong vaccine in 1918, and therefore the COVID-19 response is wrong? The CDC says that they had “no vaccine to protect against influenza infection”, which is correct, isn’t it?

Are you making a case that 1918 vaccine’s manufacturing faltered without the stage of FDA approval? Sounds logical.

I’m happy to see how much we have advanced in +100 years. Aren’t you?

You’re right: altes/ anti-vaxxers usually present studies and news stories to their marks who then repeat them.

Often what is presented is dodgy research ( done by other cranks) or misinterpreted decently done research. They do the same with news. During the pandemic, many alties made use of figures or quotes misapplying them or leaving put salient data.
We see examples of this all of the time at RI when trolls show their ‘evidence’

One of the loons I survey presents ‘research’ daily which is usually findings from nutrition journals / cites for other woo-meisters, e.g. a particular biochemical component of broccoli or tomatoes has incredible results on cancer cells. Berries work against dementia. Or that a certain fruit works better than OTC meds for pain.

If these finding were true, people would just shop at the green grocer rather than at the pharmacy. But they don’t!

I’d say I’ve read enough and seen enough over the past year or so to convince me that no one pushing these jabs really can predict what’s going to happen with the requisite accuracy for me to feel comfortable with them. This has led me to question (and admittedly I had before after researching the way the system functions) the safety of everything on the schedule, particularly anything that hasn’t stood the test of time for long enough to get a good picture of reactions and efficacy. Indeed this era has confirmed for me that one should always pause when considering new interventions coming out of these players.

I’d say I’ve read enough and seen enough over the past year or so to convince me that no one pushing these jabs really can predict what’s going to happen with the requisite accuracy for me to feel comfortable with them.

What have you read and seen, Timmy? Is the anatomical doll going to be needed?

@ johnlabarge

You write: “I’d say I’ve read enough and seen enough over the past year or so to convince me that no one pushing these jabs really can predict what’s going to happen with the requisite accuracy for me to feel comfortable with them.”

So, what have you read? Did you go to FDA website, look up a specific vaccine, then read all the studies and info used by them to approve it? Did you search PubMed to find any particular vaccine, then search for safety studies, which would include long-term follow-ups? Did you check out the CDC websites for vaccine safety and for particular vaccines? Have you tried to actually learn how vaccines work; that is, the basics of immunology?

If not, then what you’ve read is mainly opinion pieces on various blogs/websites, written by antivaxxers, based on lies, distortions, etc.

And I won’t repeat what Orac has written on VAERS or what I have written in comments. If you base your position on VAERS, you are just plain WRONG!

So, keep making a fool of yourself. You’re in good company; e.g., Kay West, Ginny Stoner, etc.

John was very clear – there doesn’t seem to be a scientific/medical/health basis for his anti-vax stance. It’s political – he distrusts anyone supporting vaccine use, for no reason other than their support. And it seems that his distrust of the research is similarly based on people citing it to support vaccination. So citing research is useless, because John’s conclusions don’t seem to be evidence-based.

so citing research is useless, because John’s conclusions don’t seem to be evidence-based.

He did describe conclusions from RCTs as “just someone’s opinion”, so your comment is spot on.

That’s not correct. I distrust because the system is out of balance and it’s not possible to separate the confirmation and other bias (conflicts etc.) from the truth. Censorship and peer review and group think make it impossible. The reason behind that is mostly political, but not completely. Academia is infected with the bias through investment and otherwise. Eliminating the control group isn’t science and mandates eliminate the market protections. The only partial remedy that I see that is possible is waiting it out to make sure.

@jiohn labarge Where is the censorship ? Antivaxxers make a lot of noice. It is tjust that nobody belvies them.
I you write a paper, you should disclose COI. Investing in the product you discuss is a vry obvious one,

Academia is infected with the bias through investment and otherwise.

There are more and more cases of rich right wingers exerting excessive influence over academic decisions due to the donations they make, that’s true. It’s scary, as their goal is to shut down areas of research that go against the conservative mindset.

If you meant something else — than, as usual, you have no effing idea what you’re talking about.

@jiohn labarge Where is the censorship ?

Aarno, as you point out, there is no censorship of the type labarge hints at. It’s as much fiction as my thick luxurious hair.

So I don’t take the FDA’s word for it on food either. Try to stay away from most packaged food. Any packaged food I eat is from brands I trust usually from Whole Foods or some like store. Look up trans fat and FDA. The FDA is corrupt.

You shouldn’t get out of bed (might fall). Don’t shower (might slip). Dont’ drive a car (might crash). Don’t breathe (might aspirate). Why do anything, since we’re all JUST GONNA DIE.

They live among us.

I do lots of things. I just d on’t accept a corrupt system’s medical advice at face value. Indeed I’ve had covid already.

What advice you do accept ? Suppplement pushers selling their product ?
No one has said that every COVID case is dangerous. Regardless of that, there are million deaths.
Because you like anecdotes, I know someone who has had COVID twice. Your inmmunity may be of little value for immunity.

I do lots of things. I just d on’t accept a corrupt system’s medical advice at face value. Indeed I’ve had covid already.

On the premise that the “corrupt system” recommends avoiding the disease?

I don’t know if you’ve seen the news or anything like that, but people getting the COVID vaccine are not avoiding the disease.

@john labarge Nobody in the system has claime that vacccines are 100% perfect. Check efficcy reporte in trials.

I do hope you change your mind, John, because the shingles are horrifically painful and tetanus is a terrible way to die.

Uneducated, ridiculous, pathetic and anti-vax. You’re batting 1000%.

Your stupid blog isn’t evidence of anything, by the way, stop bringing “substack” blogs as if they mean anything to actual scientists.

The COVID vaccine is effective, reduces transmission and mortality. Suck it up, you anti-vax POS and go away.

s/uneducated/unbrainwashed/ that Substack blog cites a study fella and that study ain’t good for the vaccine. Heard quad vaxxed Fauci got Covid. I guess the math caught up with the reduction of transmission

Perhaps you shoul actually think the math. 100% will mean that noboy will get COVID. 95% will mean that somebody will indeed get, but it is still useful. If you go Las Vegas, would you say that 95% change to win is same same as no change ?

Sooo, the primary thesis of the OP is ‘Andy Wakefield is an antivaxer’? And the secondary thesis is ‘Steve Kirsch is also an antivaxer’? This reminds me of the first four sentences from the primer in my 8th grade German class (about as far as I got learning that or any language) “Deutschland ist ein land. Man nent Deutschland ein land. Oestereich ist auch ein land. Man nent Oestereich auch ein land.”

Deep, if you think about it.

I notice that Orac commented on the previous thread last night that Andy may be “.. desperately grasping for relevance..” in the new socio-political clime of anti-vax as shown here. Needing to appear with Kirsch and RFK jr, not able to go-it-alone as an anti-vax celebrity. I have no idea where his money comes from these days. Does he have a “charity”? Own anything other than a “film company”? Work at anything else other than griftng?

I’ve always felt that many altie/ anti-vaxxers primarily function as entertainers and thus, as a ( low level) sex symbol to lonely, distressed women who buy into their line of BS. Like teen age fans, are they buying the so-called substance of the performance, e.g. a hit record, movie ot “theory”, or how the fellow measures up as potential boyfriend/ fantasy material? Sorry I had to be so blunt but I imagine that quite a few of our brave, maverick rebels are in this category.

Yeah. I had referred to Andy’s new movie as a moldy-oldy antivax tour (since it’s also got Polly Tommey, Brian Hooker, et al.), wondering though if that still has any audience draw, like Styx and Cheap Trick still getting booking in the native American casinos out here. And I liked Orac’s reply about Andy having drifted into irrelevance in the age of COVID, and he didn’t see that changing. (I also liked that he hooted at Styx, but had a kind word for Cheap Trick…)

So, if anything, I’d read Andy’s appearance with Steve Kirsch as a sign of exhaustion (or even ‘desperation’?) on the part of Kirsch. Like he couldn’t come up with anyone relevant to the new spins on the old talking points for the Foxy-Rogany crowd. Hmm. on second thought, I can imagine a way Kirsch might have spun a chat with Andy to suit his present purposes, but I’m not going to watch a 90 minute video to check, nor identify that spin tactic in case Kirsch (or other new school AVs) haven’t thought of it themselves.

Don’t tell me, let me guess:
Graton? Or Geyserville? Or on 101 in Mendo County?
I’ve been drag… taken to Native casinos on both coasts so I know!
I don’t gamble but sometimes like the restaurants/ cocktail bars or walking around people watching.

As an aside, I actually did like Styx a lot when I was in high school in the late 1970s. In my defense, it was the late 1970s, and I was in high school.

@ Denice
I drove up to Sacramento and back Saturday on an errand, saw some billboards advertising coming attractions, but didn’t note which casinos had the bands. I haven’t been to any of the casinos out here. I can’t imagine they rate compared to the two huge ones that were just down the freeway from me in CT: Foxwoods (meh) and Mohegan Sun, where I used to go for pub quiz, and found the decor entertainingly tacky. I neither gamble nor drink, and the nostalgia band gigs aren’t really my thing, so I’m not really a casino kind of guy. There is a Phillipino card room just around the corner, though, which I mean to look around some day out of curiosity…

@ Orac
I’m old enough now that, while I can remember heading to the used record store to unload albums by bands I had, uhh, outgrown, I’ve forgotten which bands they were.

<

blockquote> . . . Indeed, last month he hosted a conference at which he claimed based on an Internet survey introduced on his Substack that COVID-19 vaccines had killed a half a million people. . .
How could anyone question the scientific validity and reliability of that kind of data? It makes Ms. “Covid vaccines have killed more people than all other previous ones combined” Stoner’s reliance on raw VAERS reports look so shoddy.

Damn the lack of editing comments! combined with my typing skills. It should be:

. . . Indeed, last month he hosted a conference at which he claimed based on an Internet survey introduced on his Substack that COVID-19 vaccines had killed a half a million people. . .

How could anyone question the scientific validity and reliability of that kind of data? It makes Ms. “Covid vaccines have killed more people than all other previous ones combined” Stoner’s reliance on raw VAERS reports look so shoddy.

How I am reluctant to join the bitching…

Anyway, I will ask again. Without Wakefield, who here thinks we would have never had an ‘antivaxx’ movement?

Also, speaking of Kirsch, did Bieber really suffer a vaccine injury?

PS: Orac lately these blogs are coming off as rather stale and even if I am trying to do my part to jazz them up. Orac, I am giving you permission to blog about something far more interesting: monkeypox.

https://www.australiannationalreview.com/covid-19-deaths-and-injuries/why-im-99-certain-that-justin-biebers-facial-paralysis-was-caused-by-the-c0vid-vaxxine/

@Room Temp IQ: “[bollox bollox bollox]”

You know what causes Ramsay Hunt? You do. Antivaxxers. Because it’s caused by the same virus as chickenpox and shingles, varicella zoster, and there’s a vaccine against that. The longer you filthy disease perverts keep these diseases in circulation, the more you make others suffer. And it makes your panties damp having that power.

@ Greg

The beginning of the current antivax movement could be attributed to Barbara Loe Fischer who founded the National Vaccine Information Center (delusions of grandeur name because small office in Virginia with couple of people). Focus was DPT vaccine. She was wrong; but what else is new about antivaxxers? However, for whatever reason, didn’t gain large following. Wakefield’s press conference with his 1998 article got the ball rolling.

And Greg, you write: “I am giving you permission to blog about something far more interesting: monkeypox.”

First, monkeypox is not highly transmissible in general, need close contact, so highly unlikely will cause epidemic in US. Second, do you suffer from delusions of grandeur or just your sick sense of humor? You “giving permission????”

There were anti-vaccination groups in the 1880s, but I’m not sure of their long term influence.

Anti Vaccination Society of America, 1879
New England Anti Compulsory Vaccination League, 1882,
Anti-vaccination League of New York City, 1885

The John Birch society in the early 60s were also anti-science, especially regarding fluoridation of water, although if I remember correctly they weren’t keen on vaccines in general.

The beginning of the current antivax movement could be attributed to Barbara Loe Fischer who founded the National Vaccine Information Center

We should also give credit to Dr Robert S Mendelsohn, who published his “best-seller” Confessions of a Medical Heretic in 1979, which was staunchly antivax along with a lot of other wild ranting about contemporary medical practice.

https://quackwatch.org/11ind/mendelsohn/

In a bad career move, Dr Mendelsohn died in 1998 at the age of 62.

Joel, you have nerve addressing me. The last time we corresponded, you threatened to beat me and put me in the hospital. On top of that, you got Orac to ban me.

And, Orac, the fink, didn’t even announced that I was banned. Five times I have been banned here, and Orac couldn’t even report that last one. Orac, I have earned my stripes around here; please respect them!

A 75 year-old man threatening to fight someone that pisses him off on the ‘net. How absolutely ridiculous! Even think of the logistics; I am in Canada and you are in the States. Where would we meet to fight, Joel? Buffalo?!

Nevermind that I am unvaxxed and wouldn’t be allowed in the country. I suppose I could’ve gotten a fake pass, but do I really want to risk getting in deep poo-poo with a border agent just to fight you, Joel?! Absolutely ridiculous!

Anyway, Orac, if you will keep taking orders from Joel, address his comment about monkeypox in your next blog.

On top of that, you got Orac to ban me.

Was that the second or the third time? (It’d be hard to beat the first for sheer entertainment value, though.)

Just wondering whether the next would be a hat trick or a golden sombrero.

Monkeypox comes from from Africa, where COVID vacination rate is low (DRC specifically).
It comes from monkeys.It is a monley disease, as name suggest.
It is cause by a DNA virus. TLR8 is relevant here. TLRs all rognize a vry spciic pattern.

Arno, while monkeypox was first observed in a monkey, the main hosts/reservoirs are actually rodents. (I see that WHO is intending to change the name.)

@Allison Yes, rodents can carry it, too. Monkeypox is ndemic to Africa, however.

Joel, you have nerve addressing me.

That “meet in Buffalo” routine still cracks me up. Prop. 13 forbids poutine, after all.

K, Joel, I’ll make you a deal: you address this article and I’ll look into landing a fake vaccination pass so we can meet up in Buffalo for a fight. What do you think of the claim that mRNA vaccination shutting down the toll-like receptors could account for these strange viral infections that we are currently seeing such as Bieber’s condition and monkeypox?

@justatech
When we last corresponded on this, you wrote nothing about TLR4. That was also a receptor that Andres et al reported as suppressed after mRNA vaccination.

https://azradale.substack.com/p/monkeypox-and-the-covid-19-vaccine?s=r

The TLR4 knockouts were some of my better mice, good breeders, didn’t eat their babies.

And you never responded to my questions about the people who have died of monkey pox this year. You know, the people who were very highly unlikely to have gotten an mRNA-based COVID vaccine?

Hey Greg, do you know why TLRs are called Toll-Like Receptors?

JT, you didn’t really answer the question. What is the relationship between TLR4 and DNA viruses?

As for the Africans that died this year that were unlikely to have received mRNA vaccine, it’s irrelevant to the mRNA vaccination status of current monkeypox victims in non-endemic countries.

@Greg TLR4 have no relationship with DNA viruses, I reognizes lipopolysaccharide of Gram negative bacteria.

Greg, to repeat Aarno: TLR4 has nothing to do with DNA viruses, TLR4 recognizes LPS (a sugar on the surface of bacterial).

And I’m glad to see you state (even if you don’t seem to be able to connect the dots) that people who have died of monkeypox this year haven’t had an mRNA-based COVID vaccine, therefore the mRNA COVID vaccines are irrelevant to the conversation about monkeypox.

. ..the mRNA COVID vaccines are irrelevant to the conversation about monkeypox.

JT, just curious, if you were to hazard a guess, which one of these scenarios do you believe is the most likely one.

A, health officials haven’t gathered data on the vaccination status of monkeypox victims.

B, they have obtained such data, but they consider it irrelevant information and see no point of releasing it.

C, they have obtained such data and are deliberately withholding it because it is unfavorable to Covid vaccination.

JT, an added bonus question, which option do you think I would consider most likely?

Well, that reply was no surprise from Gerg, who of course cannot himself kick the football and must compensate somehow.

I can only hope that he doesn’t have any pets. But anyway, let me adjust something:

therefore the mRNA COVID vaccines you are irrelevant to the conversation about monkeypox.

And I’m glad to see you state (even if you don’t seem to be able to connect the dots

I am connecting the dots alright, JT. How can I not help it when the game has become so predictable!

When Bigtree, or RFKjr, or any other notable ‘antivaxx’ figure for that matter launches their FOIA that forces the CDC to release the vaccination status of monkeypox victims, expect the defense that it is the immunocompromised Gays that are more prone to monkeypox, and, out of precaution, they happen to be more vaxxed.

@ Greg:
your first reply: B (because there is no relationship), and obviously you think C. Because you 1) hate vaccines and 2) hate the entire concept of public health.
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that you’re so excited about monkeypox, it’s a new disease for you to demand other people suffer.

Your second reply “FOIA that forces the CDC to release the vaccination status of monkeypox victims, ” What a gross violation of private medical information. Why do you think that you should be allowed to have other people’s medical information?
And before you start, I know that you would never be satisfied with reasonable data like de-identified aggregate data. No, you want every single thing about every single patient so could can say terrible things about them. (Don’t think I didn’t see your homophobia there.)

Oh, and what if a study was released describing the COVID vaccine status of these patients and it was all over the map with exactly zero pattern or consistency? Would you let off about the mRNA vaccines? Of course not. You’d just pick up those goalposts and keep moving them.

Your second reply “FOIA that forces the CDC to release the vaccination status of monkeypox victims, ” What a gross violation of private medical information

JT, I notice you are starting to get a little hot under the collar. Why?

JT, here in Canada we have around 187 cases of monkeypox. Where is the violation in saying 18 of the cases are Covid unvaxxed and the rest are vaxxed. Are names, ages, and addresses being released?

I am connecting the dots alright

Uh-huh.

expect the defense that it is the immunocompromised Gays that are more prone to monkeypox, and, out of precaution, they happen to be more vaxxed

It’s totally kewl how monkeypox looks like fancy poutine. Anyway, you’ve done a very poor job of concealing your queer-loathing.

@Greg You want to have list of people having monkeypox, with adresses ?
Well, you would not get it.

Anyway, you’ve done a very poor job of concealing your queer-loathing.

Look at the pot calling the kettle black. Who are the true ones peddling homophobia, Narad?

You guys f’ed up people’s immune system, and, apparently, Gays are suffering the most and then we see a parade of articles chalking up monkeypox to Gays’ promiscuity. In that Subtrak article, Dr Williams mentioned men have been sleeping with men for ages, yet, all of a sudden, monkey pox has arrived in their community. It is remarkable that this simple observation is escaping everyone else.

@ Greg “JT, I notice you are starting to get a little hot under the collar. Why?”

Because you’re a loathsome jerk who wants other people to suffer diseases, Greg. Believe it or not, some of us with functional empathy, find that very upsetting.
Then there’s your whole position as an argumentative know-nothing who categorically refuses to learn anything, and continuously negates and berates people who have earned expertise.

Oh yeah, and then there’s the racist, homophobic streak, that’s gross too.

(I know you’re trying to imply that “the lady doth protest too much” but no, you’re wrong, you have no idea what a TLR is, or how to run a clinical trial, or what’s involved in any kind of epidemiological research, and it’s frustrating to having to littering the comment thread with untruths and lies.)

(I know you’re trying to imply that “the lady doth protest too much” but no, you’re wrong, you have no idea what a TLR is, or how to run a clinical trial, or what’s involved in any kind of epidemiological research

JT, I cannot express how unsettling it is to see our exchanges deteriorating to you becoming this upset. How I pray that you will calm down and take a deep breath.

JT, notwithstanding your expertise in running clinical trials and epidemiology research, could you please point out the flaws in my basic arguments. I will lay them out in point form so that no one is confused.

First, mRNA vaccination is known to suppress the TLRs

Second, TLRs are an important part of innate immunity that can guard against viral infections such as monkepox.

Third, the monkeypox virus is known to antagonize the TLRs (thanks Aarno for the confirmation).

Fourth, knowing these three factors and having no hard data from health authorities to refute a correlation, it is reasonable to suspect that mRNA vaccination might be causing the monkeypox outbreaks that we are currently witnessing.

PS: JT, again, I don’t desire to get you this upset. If my points still bother you so much, I will understand if you don’t respond.

Where would we meet to fight, Joel? Buffalo?!

K, Joel, I’ll make you a deal: you address this article and I’ll look into landing a fake vaccination pass so we can meet up in Buffalo for a fight.

It’s always more amusing when Gerg doesn’t understand the problem but keeps at it anyway.

K, and Dr Verbose is now conspicuously quiet. Joel, you have a PhD and MPH (lord knows how you insist on reminding us of such!), put them to use. Could mRNA vaccination suppression of the TLRs account for these unusual viral infections that we are currently witnessing?

This tired, ridiculous trope has been old for OVER A YEAR:

“Aarno Syvänensays:
November 17, 2021 at 9:06 am
@Greg As I said, it is not suppression. Fohse et al speak about upregulation and downregulation of some TLRs, which it quite different thing,Half life of vaccine mRNA is here:
Holtkamp S, Kreiter S, Selmi A, Simon P, Koslowski M, Huber C, Türeci O, Sahin U. Modification of antigen-encoding RNA increases stability, translational efficacy, and T-cell stimulatory capacity of dendritic cells. Blood. 2006 Dec 15;108(13):4009-17. doi: 10.1182/blood-2006-04-015024. Epub 2006 Aug 29. PMID: 16940422.
Estimate is 24 h. MRNA is not needed after it is translated.”

You don’t know what the hell you are talking about. YOU DON’T. It’s pathetic to watch. Find another hobby, man. This is just sad. If you read that they had placed magnesium in the vaccine to reduce NF-κB activation, you would be trying to find a way to blame magnesium for cancer, HIV, blonde hair in babies, decreased church attendance, yada, yada…

This tired, ridiculous trope has been old for OVER A YEAR:

Medical, what better way to put it to bed then than reporting the Covid vaccination status of monkeypox victims? Who knows, maybe the finding will reveal that vaccination is protective against monkeypox! What are public health bodies waiting for?

@JT
This article seems to be contradicting you that TLRs are so specific for the type of virus they recognize. It appears the recognition pattern is more diffuse, and different TLRs can recognize DNA viruses such as monkeypox. Please advise.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8301327/

@Greg Can you give an actual citation. There is Cite button in the Pubmed page. Push it. copy the content and paste it to your comment.
Pubmed website is not always avaiable.

@Greg Now I got the paper. Yep, poxviruses are complicated, containing many proteins.
Fohse et al said this:
The response of innate immune cells to TLR4 and TLR7/8 ligands was lower after BNT162b2 vaccination, while fungi-induced cytokine responses were stronger.
So some additional TLRs were up,and some were down

@Greg In addition, poxviruses suppress innate immune system by binding TRL receptors:
Harte MT, Haga IR, Maloney G, Gray P, Reading PC, Bartlett NW, Smith GL, Bowie A, O’Neill LA. The poxvirus protein A52R targets Toll-like receptor signaling complexes to suppress host defense. J Exp Med. 2003 Feb 3;197(3):343-51. doi: 10.1084/jem.20021652. PMID: 12566418; PMCID: PMC2193841.

So, I’ve been pondering something for a while now. When Bossche arrived on the scene, he spoke of how innate immunity was compromised by mRNA vaccination with spike antibodies out competing the innate anitibodies at binding sites and resulting in reinfections from this domination of such fine-tailored antibodies. . Bossche also cautioned of a time to come where the virus would mutate and fully escape the existing spike antibodies.

At the time, I did not understood this concern. I suggested that the virus fully evading the spike antibodies might be a good thing. The innate anitibodies would no longer be outcompeted, and they would once again have a chance to work.

Sure enough, Omicron hit and with it the evidence that that mutation was evading the Wuhan spike antibodies. Also, in a surprising turn, Bossche came around to my viewpoint that, facing no competition, the innate antibodies would once again have a chance to fight the virus. In his ‘Like a Virgin’ post, he suggested that with innate immunity freed, Omicron might actually serve as a live virus that build herd-immunity and end the pandemic.

Of course, we all know that did not occur and reinfections are persisting after Omicron infections. For his part, Bossche has updated his ideas and is now suggesting that it is the non-binding antibodies that are out-competing the innate antibodies and which is leading to disease enhancement or ADE. Yes, it is reasonable argument that dominance of non-binding antibodies can lead to ADE, but why did Bossche not initially predict this? To Bossche’s credit, In some of his newer talks he is actually conceding the oversight.

Folks, don’t get me wrong, as an ‘antivaxxer’, I love Bossche. At nights, listening to him speak of how mass vaccination is the gravest sin that will eventually send humanity to hell serves as the sweetest lullabies that puts me in the most tranquil sleep. Still, is Bossche getting it right about non-binding antibodies defeating innante immunity and resulting in ADE and the high infectious precious we are witnessing with Omicron?

Or, is it suppression of the TLRs by mRNA vaccination the ultimate culprit that is impairing innate immunity. Reflecting, hampered innate anitbodies from ADE can account for the high Covid infectious pressure, but what accounts for these strange viral conditions that are cropping up such as monkeypox and Bieber’s condition? A general impairment of the innate system from suppression of the TLRs could account for these conditions. It could also cause the high Covid re-infections that we are witnessing. I like simple explanations!

https://www.voiceforscienceandsolidarity.org/scientific-blog/like-a-virgin-untouched-forever

Greg In addition, poxviruses suppress innate immune system by binding TRL receptors:

Thanks Aarno. Are Poxviruses more likely to antagonize the TRLs than other viruses?

So, why does mRNA vaccination reduce severe outcomes but it does such a poor job at preventing infections? Here we are told it’s waning antibodies that results in reinfections whereas T-cells stop severe outcomes.

How this is possible is somewhat of a mystery. We must remember that immune cells work in concert, so, if antibodies are down, helper cells and t-cells are also likely affected.

Enter the competing explanation that it’s suppression of the TLRs that is reducing severe outcomes. Vaccinees are not as prone to the cytokines storm caused by a hyper- vigilant innate response.

The better outcome against severe illness that they enjoy may not be entirely good news then.. It may actually be the harbinger of crap to come.

What we “must remember” is that Greg is doggedly ignorant about immunology as well as vaccine effectiveness.

“During December 14, 2020–August 14, 2021, full vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines was 80% effective in preventing RT-PCR–confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection among frontline workers, further affirming the highly protective benefit of full vaccination up to and through the most recent summer U.S. COVID-19 pandemic waves.”

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7034e4.htm

http://webmd.com/vaccines/covid-19-vaccine/news/20210722/gold-standard-study-mrna-vaccines-prevent-infection

The mRNA vaccines prove less effective over time (omigod, they’re not perfect), but still offer a great deal of protection against both infection and serious disease, something antivaxers can’t deny or obfuscate, to their great frustration.

@Greg You repeat old stories. Omicron came orm South Africa. a oountry with low vaccination rate.
There are no innae antibodies, antibosies are product of adaptive .immne system.
There are no cases of ADE after COVID vaccination.
Fohse et all said that some TLRs are upregulated. some downregulate.Besides of that, TLR9 targets DNA viruses.
Yes, poxviruses suppress immune response more than RNA viruses. They have bigger genome.
Actually COVID vaccines do prevent transmission, too

Greg, TLRs don’t recognize viruses. They recognize small subcomponents like polysaccharides, lipoproteins, and types of RNA and DNA. They don’t recognize whole viruses.

Also, you are suddenly harping on about TLRs as though they are the whole of the innate immune system. They aren’t. Not by a long shot. The innate immune system is far more complex than you seen to understand (the same can be said for the adaptive immune system). It’s not one thing, or even two things. It’s dozens of things working in concert and in parallel.
That’s why knocking out a single TLR doesn’t result in death of that animal. That’s why people with very low CD4 counts don’t die instantly.

Go take some classes in immunology and come back when you’re ready to start with something other than a conclusion.

Also, you are suddenly harping on about TLRs as though they are the whole of the innate immune system. They aren’t. Not by a long shot. The innate immune system is far more complex than you seen to understand (the same can be said for the adaptive immune system). It’s not one thing, or even two things. It’s dozens of things working in concert and in parallel.
That’s why knocking out a single TLR doesn’t result in death of that animal. That’s why people with very low CD4 counts don’t die instantly.

JT, I’ll leave Dr Williams from the Subtrak article to respond to that…

The immune system is a symphony of complex responses, so an altered TLR response does not guarantee successful infection upon exposure to monkeypox virus—but it does increase the chances of it, since a major, initial defence mechanism has been weakened; especially if other factors increase that susceptibility.

@Greg COVID vaccinationrate in Africa is very low. There is no reason to o useless tests.

Fisher only picked up the idea that her son might be vaccine damaged when she watched a TV programme based on another TV programme from where the worldwide DTP scare started: at a hospital in London. Nothing from Fisher was new.

greg, that “article” is as stupid as anything you or the stoner-meister has posted. Foolish use of VAERS data, assuming that things that happen after a vaccination were caused by the vaccination — essentially, you clowns make your own conclusions then employ bad assumptions and misused data to play until you “justify” them.

I did laugh at two things at that site: the author made fancy tables, each with a single row, to summarize the facts that 6 out of 6 and 5 out of 5 things each corresponded to 100%. Only a moron would do that — but then, it is someone you reference, so…

Greg’s idea of “jazzing up” RI is to post a link to a site that hosts anti-Ukrainian Russian state propaganda (via RT News), Wakefield worship and other anti-“vaxxine” drivel, and a shitload of paranoid ravings from David Icke.

Keeping company with the lowest of bottom feeders, eh Greg?

fwiw: I think we would have had an antivax movement without Wakefield, and not just because (as Joel and Idw note) there was an antivax movement before Wakefield. It might not have happened in the same way, at the same time, or to the same degree… but in the last analysis I think we’d have wound up in a quite similar place nevertheless. In some ways, Andy was just in the right wrong place at the right wrong time, and if not him, someone else would have turned a syringe into a lightning rod for some of the storms brewing in post-industrial society.

I believe that Wakefield did inspire previously anti-vax-in-their-own-practice-only pediatricians (and some non-pediatric physicians) to become publicly disinforming anti-vax physicians. I’d care a lot less about the likes of Bob Sears and Paul Thomas if they weren’t so publicly dedicated to promoting their anti-vax lies.

It might not have happened in the same way, at the same time, or to the same degree…

I could easily see it growing from the attitudes against government programs [other than the military] that have been brewing on the right for some time — especially since Reagan really gave them energy with his BS.

“In some ways, Andy was just in the right wrong place at the right wrong time,……………”

For those who wished to avoid addressing/ litigating the Urabe vaccine strain induced issues and claims, he was definitely in the right place at the right time!

So it’s not his fault? Or do you blame his for keeping your issue from the news?

The politicization of vaccines has done a lot of damage to those who may have been hurt by vaccines (as by any therapeutic). Wakefield is not on your side, and he doesn’t care about you.

You care about the truth, and he only dares about himself. It’s a shame how he had made your life harder.

This invenion proteted people rom smallpox.Very brillianr,iI woul say. And where did you gget horse pus ? Vaccinia is cowpox virus

“You guys f’ed up people’s immune system”

Go Eff yourself, liar. You have no evidence of this, whatsoever. You’re just playing “what if” and making shiat up.

Take your homophobic nonsense somewhere else, like powerline or stormfront.

There are whispers that Covid-19 vaccinations have an unusual side effect. Specifically, several individuals have communicated that after said vaccinations there is a complete absence of an alcohol induced hangover. My brother, who drinks copious amount of alcohol, is amazed so far.

@Orac’s minions,

Is the incidence of such a surprising and unexpected side effect good or bad? Please advise.

I will wager Wakefraud is financially hurting and hope Kirsch and other tech bros will help him out. (cue “I’m just a gigolo” by David Lee Roth….).

That is very convincing!

Look at how ORAC posts an article authored by him because he is scared to venture into engagements outside his well constructed echo chamber.

A true scientist confident of his positions would have no problem entering into debates with those whom he criticizes and disagrees with and would be eager for this type of dialogue.

Apparently ORAC wants and needs to stay safe because he does not fit the bill.

Evidently you didn’t notice that the Kirsch “challenge” has expired.

Beyond that, it’s similar to other bogus vaccine “challenges” in the past from antivaxers like RFK Jr. and Jock Doubleday, with complex terms designed to frustrate participants and/or lack of means to enforce judgments.

Kirsch set this one up to make sure he would never have to pay anything, assuming he has $1 million lying around and is willing to bet it (and why should any party taking part in such a farce be compelled to fork over $1 million up front)?

“Each party shall appoint a retired judge of their choice, and those two judges shall appoint 3 retired judges who are not vaccinated (way to put your thumb on the scales, Steve) and who are mutually agreeable to both of the judges. The appointed judges shall then recuse themselves leaving the 3 mutually agreeable “jurors.”
…There is a payout only if the jurors are unanimously in agreement that one of the parties is correct.”

So, seeing there’s bound to be a Kirsch ringer on the “jury”, there’s no chance he can lose. Of course, it’d never get to that stage anyway.

“12. Once this term sheet is signed by both parties, both parties shall enter into good faith negotiations to develop a formal definitive agreement incorporating these terms.”

That one loophole offers plenty of chances for Kirsch to back out while complaining that his opponent lacks “good faith”.

All that these antivax “challenges” offer is publicity for the antivaxer.* Though very rarely, one slips up (haven’t seen that this bozo actually paid up though).

http://bbc.com/news/world-europe-31864218

*As a mega-computer once said, “The only way to win is not to play.”

Note: Lanka was able to wriggle out of paying the judgment after another court found that the exact contest requirements weren’t met. Close call though.

haven’t seen that this bozo actually paid up though

Oh, look, Lanka has a podcast (as in, one episode).

Leave everything you once thought you knew about viruses and disease at the door. Stefan Lanka gives a comprehensive history of virology and why one of the most important points to stress moving forward in our history is that viruses have never been isolated, are not contagious and do not cause disease.

Stefan Lanka: I guess he’s moved on to anti-vax after his storied career in hiv /aids denialism. so have Farber, Ruggiero, a few others. More potential marks and less definitive meds.

Winning a debate has nothing to do with truth and evidence and everything to do with convincing rhetoric (ie, who tells the best lies).

You’re tilting at windmills, sir.

Yep. If debates could guarantee truth then there’d be no wrongful convictions and it wouldn’t matter how much your lawyer costs per hour.

If ORAC is so confident; he should engage instead of writing/hiding behind these impotent blogs.

He should be the one initiating the discourse.

Again, ORAC is scared to venture into engagements outside his well constructed echo chamber. The only person to engage thus far has been Yuri Deigin.

A true scientist confident of his positions would have no problem entering into debates with those whom he criticizes and disagrees with and would be eager for this type of dialogue.

What is obvious is that ORAC wants and needs to stay safe because he does not fit the bill.

Let the games being and let the audience decide.

Although that will never happen because ORAC is too scared.

Scientiic debates happen in scintiic journals. There hyave been no dialogues in science afte Galileo.

“Let the games being and let the audience decide.”

See?

You yourself understand that debates are not about finding facts and evidence, they are entertainment.

You keep talking about what a “true scientist” would do: please then, do enlighten us about the clinical trials you’ve run, the studies you’ve designed, heck, even your lab work.

Gee, only 30 stipulations and that’s before the attorney gets involved. No f***ng way any rational person is going to accept that nonsense. I’d soon sign a timeshare lease. Go away, Cerviche.

An antivaxxer would simply lie (like vaccines are not placebo tested, Supeme Court considers them unavoidable unsafe). You need the check the facts, but this requires a googl search. Listeners will bcase impatient.,
Even worse for a debate will be a misquote. Now the twhole paper must be read. Listeners will certainly drop out,

@ Greg

NOPE MORON, Orac doesn’t take orders from me. He banned you because you are a JERK! As for beating you up, yep, I wrote that; but made it clear it was only a thought with no intent to really carry it out, especially because of 3,000 mile distance. And Canada actually has higher vaccination rates than US, (87%) etc. and lower per capita COVID deaths, so, to some extent you are protected because others are vaccinated.

I may have already posted before; but I did an MA in social psychology at Carleton University in Ottawa, 1968-1970. Kept in touch with several Canadian friends who now have passed away. Like every nation, there are always JERKS like you; but my two years in Canada were quite positive. My friends tried to get me to stay; but I moved to Sweden. Only returned to the States because my family needed me. Otherwise my time in both Canada and Sweden were the best years of my life. If I were younger would move back to Sweden or, maybe, Canada, especially une banlieu nord de Montreal

@Joel

So you are saying that ORAC has no charisma and is camera shy?

Yes, I have witnessed him meander in answering questions like a slinking weasel before in an open public forum.

You have a point there.

@ Cervantes

Anyone who has studied how debates work knows that they more often than not do NOT lead to results based on which argument is best. First, limited time to make an argument, often only a few minutes, which doesn’t allow one to actually develop it. Second, charisma/personality, etc. However, there have been the equivalent of written debates in various medical journals, magazines, etc. Orac articles here include links to references and in-depth discussions, neither would be possible in a live debate.

So, what you write is nothing but BS

Do you use Cervantes because you like tilting at windmills? If so, don’t, as he was far more entertaining

So, if debating the cranks is below Orac, I’ll ask again, what is the point of this blog? Is it not a faux debate, but where Orac steps in the ring with a negative caricature of his opponent and then stats flailing away at it as his self-appointed cheerleaders root him on? Is this not truly the bottom-feeder of debates?! Why won’t Orac put up or shut up?!

Of course, that was a rhetorical question. We all know the answer.

Cranks get the opportunity to make their case in this forum; their claims are amply quoted and dissected. Not infrequently one of them will make an aggrieved public response to getting sent up on RI, resulting in a followup here for educational and amusement purposes.

Now that’s a much more informative way to debate, without interruptions, GIsh galloping and biased judges.

It’s not anyone’s fault but Greg’s that his own debate skills are so poor.

“negative caricature” ???

The descriptions of you and the other scientifically illiterate serial liars is pretty spot on. The fact that you folks don’t like being identified for what you is irrelevant.

So, if debating the cranks is below Orac, I’ll ask again, what is the point of this blog?

The point is you, Gerg, like everything else.

Not that I’d want to be around one day when you realize that you could be sliced in half and nothing would come out other than some strange, foul-smelling paste.

What would be truly amusing would be the blog’s simply moving lock, stock, and barrel without telling you. In the meantime, effective solutions (as in effective field theory) will have to do.

We do debate here, but your silly Gish Gallops can be ignored. And since you anti-vaxxers debate vaccines even more poorly than pigeons play chess, if you really start to crap all over the board then Orac can ban you.

@Greg Point of these comments is that one can read the links offered and do internet searh before answering. Not possible when debating. During a debate antivaxxer can say things you are saying. How to prove hin wrong ?

“The rest of the fake allegation is coming from Deer.”

Nope. The manipulation of the pathology reports is well documented by the UK and in multiple studies. This means that the study was fake. The conclusions were drawn up before the study even happened, with Wakefield knowing what he would find and then faking data and manipulating it to get what he wanted.

You’re another of the uneducated dregs that can’t even understand research methods or how to evaluate research, why are you just repeating the unsubstantiated BS you read on your stupid anti-vax blogs?

@Harrison –

So you are saying that ORAC has no charisma and is camera shy?

Yes, I have witnessed him meander in answering questions like a slinking weasel before in an open public forum.

You have a point there.

Maybe that is why ORAC is a lonely man with way too much time in his hands.

PS – ORAC needs to work out the kinks in answering questions in this blog.

Silly troll. I am under no obligation to answer anyone. My posts speak for themselves, and, rather than wasting my time sparring with antivax trolls in the comment section, I generally prefer to devote my blogging time to writing new content that might actually be read, rather than a comment buried deep in a comment threat that no one but the regulars will see.

Yet ORAC is responding.

Must have hit a nerve shining a light on the obvious cowardice.

Yes, the posts do speak for themselves!

They are Safe Zones from which to navigate without ever mustering the courage to truly engage those whom they are written about.

Have you notied that there are lots of antivaxxers commenting ? Very similar to Kirsch,

@ Greg

You want a real debate. Carefully read Orac’s article, then write a reasoned logical scientific refutation, including references and submit it as a comment. If it really is a reasoned logical scientific comment backed with references I am confident Orac will allow your comment. Not once have I ever read a single comment by you that is more than empty-headed displays of stupidity. In previous articles I have written long, very long, comments, sometimes with more than a dozen references and Orac has allowed them.

I doubt you are capable of actually formulating a real debate piece. You are just TOO STUPID. Any moron can post your meaningless comments

Why are all you anti-vaxxers so triggered of late? I sense a disturbance in your farce…

Yeah right.

Being reduced to grunts and other primitive ejaculations is generally and correctly ceding the point.

Of course, this isn’t really necessary when “the point” is “lol.”

I am somewhat heartened that some here concede that there would be an ‘antivax’ movement without Wakefield. For all the allegations about Wakefield’s fraud, we must remember that it were the parents that approached him at the Royal Free Hospital about vaccines destroying their kids — and as they continue to do to this day but with it now being a tsunami of claims

So, without Wakefield, would these complaitants simply be satisfied by the authorities assertion that vaccines do not cause autism because they studied thimerosal and MMR — and no matter how ‘dubious’ these studies are?! I think not.

And, an added bonus question, where would Brian Deer be without Wakefield? Deer, I see you kicking around here; please feel free to answer. Do you think you need Wakefield more than Wakefield needs you?

Oh please. Deer was a well regarded investigative journalist with a long history of quality journalism before he investigated Wakefield. He’d have been just fine.?

Greg,

You raise an interesting question – did the ‘research’ conducted by Wakefield help or hinder those parents cause? Don’t you think that they deserved a doctor who can actually conduct research, or don’t you think they care? I would feel betrayed, but I get that you ‘believe’ that Wakefield.
And how exactly do you think that Wakefield’s fraud make any difference to the treatment of their “complaitants”?

David, I will honestly give you credit for taking a step towards objectivity. Anyway, they say you shouldn’t answer a question with a question, but I can’t resist; with the examples of Handley, or Exley, or Thomas, would ‘proper’ research ever have been tolerated or would it have still been the case of the first to be Wakefielded.

I don’t know – but I do feel that ‘Dr’ Wakfeild did his best to keep this from being a question of science. He gave his followers false hope, built on lies, and greatly contributed to the antiscience environment we are living through. So maybe he helped them – but hurt the rest of us.

But we also know that if Wakfeild had done a ‘proper’ study, he probably wouldn’t have gotten the answer he wanted. So maybe he would have hurt those parents. And we know that anti-vaxxer’s never let the research get in their way…

Hanley, Exley and Thomas has ben evaluated by Orac. You should speak about Hviid, Why a careful analysis did nor conirm a connection between vaccines and autism ?

@ Greg

NOPE. It wasn’t the parents who approached Wakefield. He contacted doctors, etc. I actually have all of Brian Deer’s articles and his webpage gives much more AND I downloaded complete transcripts of hearings that took away his medical license. Read his book: “The Doctor Who Fooled the World”. And Wakefield formed a company to sell single measles shots, instead of MMR. What does that tell you?

And, as Orac also writes, Deer was an AWARD WINNING JOURNALIST before investigation of Wakefield.

You are typical of people who post comments without actually doing any investigating, just commenting based on your rigid ideological biases or more just to irritate people than to actually enter into a dialogue.

NOPE. It wasn’t the parents who approached Wakefield. He contacted doctors,

Academic, Joel! It was first the parents that felt MMR damaged their kids. How they connected with Wakefield is pretty much irrelevant.

The parents believing that vaccines damaged their kids were the seeds that started it all. Those seeds continue to grow today and with it now growing into the mother of all plants.

There is the ‘antivaxx’ movement for you in a nutshell and what all the Wakefield scapegoating cannot deny. If the seeds of parents telling their stories weren’t so fertile, the plant would have shriveled up and died a long time ago despite all the watering Wakefield gave to it.

It is very relevant that Wakefield faked a paper for trial lawyers. Parents would have been better served with a honest investigation. Not to mention the children, who became subjects of useless quack therapies.

‘Faked a paper’? What was he found guilty of? Undeclared COI and performing unethical experiments on kids. The rest of the fake allegation is coming from Deer.

You want to see COI, and, worse, studies riddled design flaws? Look no further than the MMR and Thimerosal studies. Which scientists are getting disbarred for them? And, let’s not even mention Thompson and company’s bonfire with their study’s data.

As I insinuated to David, where protecting vaccines are concerned, even if Wakefield was the Pope, you guys would’ve found dirt on him.

‘Faked a paper’?

Wakefield changed the time between MMR vaccination and the onset of autism behaviours for most of the children. He also changed the conclusions of the pathology reports.

Pretty much the whole paper ended up being fake.

And, let’s not even mention Thompson and company’s bonfire with their study’s data.

You mean Brian Hooker’s incompetent reanalysis of Thompson’s data? The one that was so incompetent that it was retracted from a pay to publish journal?

When all you can present to support your claims are turds, it is no wonder others see you as full of faeces, Greg.

“If the seeds of parents telling their stories weren’t so fertile, the plant would have shriveled up and died a long time ago”

You only have to look at the many contradictory religions existing today, not to mention the many ‘aliens built the pyramids’ type conspiracy theories, to realise that the ground is fertile because of the amount of shit it contains.

Seriously, Qanon debunks this argument all on its own.

Millions of people follow Qanon, not because it is true, but because it panders to their prejudices.

and as they continue to do to this day but with it now being a tsunami of claims

Claims without any proof of causation, or even association.

… authorities [sic] assertion that vaccines do not cause autism because they studied thimerosal and MMR — and no matter how ‘dubious’ these studies are?!

“dubious”? You’ve demonstrated you don’t know much of anything, and now we can add your lack of understanding of statistics to the mix.

We should remember that it was a lawyers’ group that recruited Wakefield, to help them benefit from an expected tsunami of cash from vaccine makers. Lawyers still managed to cash in from the MMR-autism scare – their clients didn’t.

“The original MMR vaccine litigation was supposed to be worth billions in compensation, not mere millions, but it cost millions in legal aid,” Shaw told the Times. “There was also a huge personal cost for the families involved – all the raised hopes and expectations, driven by the irresponsible media frenzy based on an unsubstantiated health scare and junk science. Not one penny in compensation was obtained for any child. The families are now just beginning to recover and take stock. They are scrutinising the actions of their former lawyers and medical advisers.”

http://theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/26/mmr-autism-lawyers-sued-hodge-jones-allen-claim-legal-aid

How right you are! The MR/MMR litigation was intended to address all claims in respect of these vaccines but ended up morphing into a class action solely to investigate whether or not the measles strain caused ASD/IBD and no one has ever explained how that came about. Claims involving the rubella and mumps components never saw the light of day despite there being an abundance of ready made evidence to support causation between the Urabe mumps strain and neurological injuries. Why did the claimants legal team chose to bring what was so obviously a more difficult case to prove over one involving the Urabe strain? Why was a claim, which would ultimately drain the public purse of over £26m in Legal Aid and involve years of investigative work, prioritised over one involving the Urabe containing vaccines?

As you rightly state, when the case collapsed the children and their families all went home empty handed, while the lawyers and experts clearly did not!

@ Wendy Stephen

You just don’t give up. You claimed unilateral damage to your daughters hearing after vaccination, then said your claim denied, then said you would share the denial letter (long time ago in exchange of comments on Every Child by Two, note I saved the exchange), then changed your mind. Your current comment doesn’t give any valid references, just people should take your word for it. YIKES!

So, black out personal info and cut and paste the denial letter. They had to give a reason. Otherwise, you lack any and all credibility

Hi Joel

You’re absolutely right, where Urabe is concerned I don’t give up!

Incidentally, you wouldn’t either if you’d been where I’ve been in relation to the subject.

I think if you revisit the ECBT material you’ll not find an agreement from me to let you have a copy of the VDPU rejection letter for my daughters claim. What you will find is repeated requests and increasing pressure from you for me to do so. (I’ve got the material downloaded too!) But just to set the record straight, my daughters 2011 VDPU refusal was very well covered in the public domain, not by me, but by several reputable writers/journalists ie Dominic Kennedy, The Times (4/9/12 ) “MMR Caused Childrens Deafness.

No reputable journalist or newspaper would have published without proof of the story and I had to provide all the necessary evidence which I was happy to do. (Including the letter you refer to)

But by way of an update, that was many years ago and the claim trundled on through many appeals etc until 2020 before it was finally concluded.

YIKES eh!!!

And as for sources for what I stated above…………………..

(a) The Practice Directions signed by Lord Bingham of Cornhill in July 1999 lawfully set out the scope of the MR/MMR litigation to include all claims in respect of those vaccines.
(b) The amount of funding provided under Legal Aid for the litigation has been disclosed under the FOIA which makes it readily accessible to members of the public, including you.
(c) The presiding Judge in the MR/MMR litigation in a judgement towards the end of the class action memorialises the fact that claims involving the rubella and mumps components of the vaccines had never been addressed at all.

@Wendy Stephen
a) Legal aid was used to fund Wakefield’s fraudulent study
b) Lawyers thought that this was irrefutable evidence, and stick with it. Actual neurologists quicly rubbished the claim. Nice example showing that dishonesty does not pay.

@Wendy

You have no plausibility. You have no scientific evidence and you’re trying to abuse courts as if they are scientific establishments.

Do you even understand the concept of plausibility? Anecdotes aren’t enough. You have to have SOMETHING and you have nothing. Having nothing after this long means you LOST. You are a loser. That’s what you’ll always be and it’s why you’re here, whining and trying desperately to convince scientists of something. You’re not going to do any good here, you’re not even a good person. You’re deluded.

Wendy, nothing you have brought has indicated any plausibility. Negative research doesn’t get published very often, and so it’s pretty safe to conclude, given the overall safety signatures of the MMR, that it’s incredibly safe and that your claims and irritating lies are nothing more than your beliefs and desires.

Lawyers had a fraudulent paper produced by Wakefield, and they stick with it, There were no paper about Uribe strain produced,

Aarno,

You may find this interesting.

Lord McColl of Dulwich raised the issue of the MMR litigation Legal Aid on 16th March 2010 in the House of Commons and asked whether or not monies would be recovered from Andrew Wakefield, Alexander Harris solicitors, Simeon Maskray QC , Augustus Ullstein QC and Jeremy Stewart-Smith QC only to be advised that the LSC had no plans to recover legal aid from the parties.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldhansrd/text/100316w0004.htm

@Wendy

I’m curious why you cultists can’t accept defeat? Why come here and whine and lie? There is no scientific evidence linking deafness to an MMR or MR vaccination. You have NOTHING and courts, including settlements, don’t determine causation. They are not scientific evidence.

Jay, (I’ll play along)

What is the “defeat” you are referring to?

Since my sole interest lay with the Urabe/mumps vaccine claims which were never litigated, there is no issue of “defeat” for this particular group of claimants. Their claims were never heard. No one knows what conclusion the court might have reached for the Urabe /mumps claimants if presented with case studies and supporting evidence for a biological plausibility that mumps vaccine could cause sensorineural deafness and other neurological conditions.

I’ll make it easy and provide three examples (many others exist) of what might have been presented to a court demonstrating biologic plausibility that mumps vaccine could cause sensorineural deafness. (see below)

I would also draw your attention to this case where “proof” of causation was accepted and recognised based upon certain features of a claim and in the absence of “causation or “scientific evidence”.

Judgment in Case C-621/15 N. W and Others v Sanofi Pasteur MSD and Others

“The temporal proximity between the administering of a vaccine and the occurrence of a disease, the lack of personal and familial history of the person vaccinated and the existence of a significant number of reported cases of the disease occurring following such vaccines being administered may, where applicable, constitute sufficient evidence to make out such proof”

More recently a UK solicitor successfully argued and won a case at a vaccine damage appeal tribunal that absence of epidemiological evidence does not evidence absence of causation. In short, in as much as there was no epidemiological evidence supporting causation there was also no epidemiological evidence arguing against it. The claimant won their case.

(First Tier tribunal hearing before tribunal judge Phillip Barbour 13/3/20, Redacted vs The Secretary of State for Work and pensions)

(1)

Adverse Events Associated with Childhood Vaccines: Evidence Bearing on Causality.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK236288/

There is demonstrated biologic plausibility that mumps vaccine could cause sensorineural deafness, in that wild-type mumps virus is associated with the condition.

A 7-year-old girl who had audiometry 2 years earlier for an unstated reason developed total deafness in the left ear 11 days after an injection of MMR. This was not preceded by any symptoms such as dizziness or earache. There was no recovery of hearing (Nabe-Nielsen and Walter, 1988a,b). A 3-year-old girl was evaluated because of bilateral deafness. At the age of 15 months she received MMR. Ten days later, she developed high fever, headache, ataxia, and irritability, which lasted several days. Nystagmus was noted. She recovered spontaneously, but soon after she was noted to have hearing impairment. On evaluation at the age of 3 years, she had moderate to severe bilateral, unremitting sensorineural deafness (Brodsky and Stanievich, 1985).

(2)
Reports of sensorineural deafness after measles, mumps, and rubella immunisation.
B J Stewart and P U Prabhu

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1029435/

There have been nine reports of sensorineural hearing loss after measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) immunisation. In three cases the deafness was unrelated to MMR immunisation. In six cases the cause was unknown and MMR remained a possible aetiology. Any risk associated with attenuated viruses must be weighed against the risks of the natural diseases.

(3)
[Bilateral acute profound deafness after MMR vaccination–report of a case]
[Article in Japanese]
K Koga 1 , N Kawashiro, A Araki, M Watanabe

Abstract
In April 1989 the MMR vaccination program had started, and until October, 1989, 630,000 children received vaccination. In is, however, well known that many children developed various complication including aseptic meningitis after vaccination, and the MMR vaccination program has discontinued. This report described a case of bilateral acute profound deafness most likely due to MMR vaccination. The cause of this deafness was presumed to be mumps vaccination. The bases of the presumption are as follows: the meningitis after MMR vaccination was elicited by PCR method to be caused by mumps vaccine,………

“The claimant won their case.”

So they can win the case but not prove causation? Better tell the anti-vaxxers that, because they usually argue that a successful case equals proof of causation.

Personally I don’t care what the judge says. As long as the arbiter of actual truth is science rather than opinion.

@Wendy Stephen UK judge did not mention a plausible hypothesis how MMR vaccine caused deafness. Did you lose for this reason ?

@Wendy

Still nothing but anecdotal or court-based nonsense and no real science of any real causational plausibility.

You lost. You will always be a loser. You are NOT a scientist and you never will be.

Just accept it and move on.

Jay, (happy to play along once more)

The scientists (and everyone else) on here will be able to verify for themselves everything I have stated either via the links/references I have provided or with a bit of research so there is no question of me having to “convince” them of anything. They can determine for themselves whether or not the facts I’ve provided are correct and I’m not aware of anyone questioning the veracity of anything I’ve posted (excluding you that is)

I’ve been on the receiving end of a few rude comments ie loser, deluded, not even a good person etc etc but they have come from you and could not be viewed by anyone (not even scientists) as a viable challenge or contradiction to my posts.

Actullry, trial lawyers wanted to sue, and send parents to Wakefield. He write a fraudulent paper.
You speak about parents. What about children ? Geier and Geier actually chemically castrated them. This was a result of thimerosal scare.
Thimerosal was actually removed from childhood vacines long since, and autism rates continued rising . Care to comment that

To clarify the two possible means by which a claim alleging injury following an MR/MMR vaccine might have been brought in the UK.

(1) The MR/MMR litigation held in the Royal Courts of Justice before a succession of Judges/Masters brought under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and/ or a claim in negligence. The legal team chose the CPA leaving claimants with the burden of proving that the vaccines were defective within the meaning of the Act. Despite there being upwards of 20 conditions alleged in respect of each of the measles, mumps and rubella components, only claims in respect of ASD/IBD and measles virus were progressed leaving all the others in abeyance. When the ASD/IBD claims fell (and Legal Aid was lost) so to did all the others even though they had never seen the inside of a courtroom! It follows that since no claim other than that involving ASD/IBD and measles virus were litigated no one knows what the outcome might have been for all the others and there was no issue of them having been defeated. They were never litigated. The Judges never saw any legal argument/evidence or heard any aspect of any claim other than that involving ASD and IBD.

(2) The Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme where claims can be brought under the Vaccine Damage Payment Act of 1979. Initially claims are decided by medical assessors essentially on paper but appeals brought before First Tier Tribunal and secondly an Upper Tier Tribunal are before a 3 person panel with medical experts, solicitors and a legally qualified Chairperson (ie a Judge). The VDPA requires an applicant to meet two sets of criteria (a) that on the balance of probability their injury was caused by the alleged vaccine and (b) that they are over 60% disabled in the opinion of the VDPS assessors.

Two entirely different things.

Jay, (I’ll play along again though your style does seem familiar to me)

I’ve already asked you what “defeat” you are referring to in your earlier posts but you have chosen not to answer.

Now I will ask what it was that I “lost” (according to you).

One thing we can agree on is that I’m not a scientist (I have never stated that I am) but I don’t need to be to relay a factual account of the MR/MMR litigation and how the Urabe, mumps and rubella claims were placed in abeyance for years while the ASD/IBD/measles virus claims were progressed and then abandoned before any Judge/court had an opportunity to decide on the viability of the claims (or otherwise).

As for accepting things and moving on, I think it’s you who has to accept that much though you would wish it to be otherwise, whether or not the Rubella, Mumps and Urabe based claims were meritorious has yet to be decided. The outcome of the ASD/IBD /measles virus claims along with the investigations, expert reports, drain on the Legal Aid etc etc has no bearing on anything other than the ASD/IBD claims.

For decades it has been convenient to circulate the impression that all claims in the MR/MMR litigation failed when they did not, only those alleging ASD/IBD and causation with the measles virus while the others lost out by default on the cost benefit rule and were never litigated at all.

No one requires a scientific qualification to relay the facts. None of the claims alleging injury with the rubella component, the mumps component and specifically the Urabe vaccine “lost”.

“No one requires a scientific qualification to relay the facts.”

Except what you think are “facts” aren’t.

That’s why I keep pointing out you aren’t a scientist, you have no clue about plausibility, or even why 6 cases isn’t anything to draw any kind of conclusion about. The number of cases is SOOOO incredibly low that there is no way you can draw any conclusions from it, yet that is exactly what you are doing and refusing to admit you LOST. You lost a long time ago, but you keep beating a dead horse like the good little anti-vaxxer Wakerfield trained you to be.

……”like the good little anti-vaxxer Wakerfield trained you to be”

Everyone on here must be falling about in fits of laughter at this one!. Don’t you read newspapers?

“but with it now being a tsunami of claims”

You’re a liar, Greg. That’s plain and simple. The number of claims is TINY and the link to the vaccine is actually minimal and unscientific.

@ Cervantes

Perhaps you think, for instance, we should outlaw book reviews, after all, they don’t allow for public debate. How about Editorials in Newspapers and Magazines? As for charisma or not, public debates, as I explained and you are obviously too stupid to understand, don’t allow one time to develop a position. Often people are advised to stick to just a couple/three points and one can’t give a reference list for those who want to check out claims.

We should remember this number when we consider anti-vax’s effects on how people behave:

( from an AP story on Novavax, last 2 days)-
“.. only 27 million US adults remain unvaccinated..” ( for Covid19)
which means that the overwhelming majority IS vaccinated against Covid.

That is a small but not insignificant number. Ten percent perhaps?
Of course, activists might carp that many were forced into vaccination for work, travel or university; I doubt that that group is very large but at any rate, they’re now vaccinated.

Anti-vaxxers/ altie thought leaders would lead the general public to believe that people are rejecting vaccines on a large scale which is obviously not true. Del Bigtree yaps, ” We’re WINNING!” and woo-meisters proclaim a Great Awakening which includes moving to anti-vax friendly “free” locales, quitting their jobs or homeschooling their children to get around vaccine requirements. These manoeuverings are certainly drastic and involve major planning and expenses that I doubt will be undertaken by very many people. Only the most entrenched will even consider them. School exemption requests in various jurisdictions do not support a large rejection of vaccines. The most adamant believers mistakenly think that their own odd beliefs are more common than data suggests.

@ Denice Walter

If unvaccinated randomly dispersed through population, then, basically, we’ve achieved herd immunity; i.e., random few cases; but won’t spread. However, if unvaccinated higher percentage in certain areas, they risk epidemic outbreaks.

In addition, even if high vaccination in areas, protection diminishes over time, so also important people get boosters.

CDC breaks it down by age group.

63% 18-24
67.2% 25-39
70.4% 40-49
81.7% 50-64
93.6% 65-74
88%. 75+

Where did the number you posted come from?
Seems off.

Everybody always wants to think they’re winning… In reality it’s much more complicated, like you know.

What does winning mean?

I would posit that Covid has change the landscape of the anti-vaccine movement.

I would also posit that the bulk of population is either disinterested or has no idea about vaccines…

although, I would say this was more of a remarkable event that could change that. I’m not saying that it did change it, it has the potential to change it.

In General, There are the fringes that are arguing, maybe I’m wrong… But it seems that way to me.

One question would be how did the Covid vaccine compare to normal flu vaccine over the years, as far as acceptance and uptake? It’s probably pretty similar… Which would indicate that there’s not much of a change in the hill of distribution.

Another question would be, Has the rate of childhood vaccinations changed at all? That would be an important bellwether.

The song remains the same.

RE THE 27 MILLION:

See AP News June 6 “FDA advises Novavax…” by Lauran Neergaard

Quite a few stories about Novavax on AP in the week 6-13 June preceding my comment, this one was probably the one I saw.

27M out of 270M adults ( estimate) is not a failure.

@ Wendy Stephen

According to Times article your daughter received vaccine in 1991. You write there was delay because of measles litigation; but when did you first get her hearing loss diagnosed? How long between vaccine and diagnosis? And when did you submit your claim?

And I did my own search for articles on Urabe vaccine and hearing loss and found only single-case papers and small case series, the ones you list above. I suggest you look up the Logical Fallacy of Post Hoc Ergo Prompter Hoc.

And if you shared the letter with the Times, why are you so reluctant to make it public? Quite simply, newspapers have based stories on papers evidence that later refuted. So, given my background and education, I would like to see the actual evidence, not some short summary in a newspaper.

According to Times article she won her case; but was denied because she still had hearing in one ear. In US, she would, if valid, have received monies, just less.

As others point out, we just have your word for it and vaccine courts don’t always base their decisions on the best medical evidence. Just as an hypothesis, she could have received the vaccine; but then suffered from some low level infection or she could have had a genetic predisposition that only developed together with other bodily changes as she grew older. Anecdotal case reports can only be used to generate hypotheses. So, share the letter, that is, put up or shut up.

I suggest you look up the Logical Fallacy of Post Hoc Ergo Prompter Hoc.

Please stop doing this over and over. It’s as though you’re composing from a template.

“vaccine courts don’t always base their decisions on the best medical evidence”

I know I’m going to regret this, but what does a vaccine court base their decisions on if not the best medical evidence?

In case of table injury, temporal connection is enough. Otherwise:
1) a medical theory causally connecting the vaccination and the injury;
2) a logical sequence of cause and effect showing that the vaccination was the reason for the injury; and
3) a showing of a proximate temporal relationship between vaccination and injury.
Point is “amedical theory”. What is quality of this theory ?

@ Wendy Stephen

I found the following: “Miss Stephen, from Stonehaven, in Aberdeenshire, was 15 months old when she was given the inoculation in 1991. A health visitor recorded hearing problems at 18 months old, although previous tests had been normal, and in 1996 she was diagnosed with deafness.” OK, so now I have this data; but I need to know on what basis her medical records believed she was deafened by the vaccine. Again Post Hoc Ergo Prompter Hoc. Just because something follows something doesn’t mean the former caused the latter. Maybe her medical records include some explanation of the mechanism involved, etc.

In any case, all we have is your word and a newspaper article and, as I wrote above, they may have seen the rejection letter; but the evidence it was based on may have been flawed.

However, for sake of argument, let’s assume the vaccine did cause you daughter’s deafness. You do know that mumps was the leading cause of deafness in children prior to the vaccine? And even if we believe the dozen or so cases after the vaccine, these are far less than from the natural infection. And, it is also possible that your daughter had some genetic predisposition that the vaccine affected; but if an attenuated mumps vaccine did this, then had there not been a vaccine and most kids did get mumps, there is a possibility she would have lost her hearing in either case; but the vaccine prevented a much larger number of cases of hearing loss. Just an hypothesis; but not unreasonable. Why would a weakened mumps cause hearing loss and not assuming that a full-blown mumps would NOT have?

Hi Joel

“However, for sake of argument, let’s assume the vaccine did cause you daughter’s deafness.”

Ok, let us agree on that.

“You do know that mumps was the leading cause of deafness in children prior to the vaccine?”

Yes I do, and that was one of the arguments for introducing a mumps vaccine.

“And even if we believe the dozen or so cases after the vaccine, these are far less than from the natural infection.”

Absolutely.

“And, it is also possible that your daughter had some genetic predisposition”

You’re grasping at straws with this one. Do you really believe that legal and medical experts working up a case for a claim wouldn’t have ruled that in /out? My daughter’s hearing was tested and found to be normal prior to Pluserix and all other possible causes of the profound sensorineural hearing loss subsequently detected were investigated and ruled out.

“had there not been a vaccine and most kids did get mumps, there is a possibility she would have lost her hearing in either case;”

Yes, there is the possibility that had she contracted wild type mumps she might have suffered deafness but your point is irrelevant since she did not contract wild type mumps infection .She got the Pluserix form of MMR with the Urabe mumps strain and suffered sensorineural deafness. Irrespective of the stats for wild type mumps which we don’t seem to disagree on, it is still the case that my daughter’s sensorineural deafness was vaccine induced not a result of wild type mumps.

“the vaccine prevented a much larger number of cases of hearing loss.”

Agreed but of what relevance is the fact that vaccination prevented deafness in a much larger number of cases to my daughter’s particular set of circumstances when the vaccine caused her deafness ?

“Why would a weakened mumps cause hearing loss and not assuming that a full-blown mumps would NOT have?”

You’re overlooking the fact that the Urabe strain was insufficiently attenuated so it was not as “weakened” as it should have been. Failure to sufficiently attenuate the Urabe strain resulted in it being more reactogenic and would have made it more like wild type mumps infection with regards to the potential for causing hearing loss. Weakening the mumps virus in vaccines usually means that recipients received a much smaller viral assault than that which occurs with wild type mumps but that was not the case with Urabe. It was not sufficiently “weakened”.

@ Wendy Steven

As I wrote earlier, court decisions don’t always reflect science. By analogy, in criminal cases, sometimes guilty go free and sometimes innocents are convicted. But Court decisions even worse because they don’t understand science! ! ! Despite NARAD not liking it, I repeat you should read up on the Logical Fallacy of Post Hoc Ergo Prompter Hoc. I doubt you will.

So you refer to Case-621/15

Of course, given you rigid bias, you either didn’t find or ignored the following:

“This case commentary examines the CJEU’s recent decision in C-621/15 W and Others v
Sanofi PasteurMSD SNC [2017] ECR I. This commentary critically examines the decision
through the lens of the cultural conflict between law and science. We argue that the
CJEU’s decision reflects both a distortion of scientific knowledge and an improper indifference
to the legitimate methods by which scientific knowledge is generated in the context
of vaccines. These judicial approaches may, the authors argue, inadvertently fuel the vaccine
scepticism that is growing across the developed world, and in particular in Europe.”
[Smillie LR et al (2018 Feb 1). Commentary: C-621/15 – W AND OTHERS v SANOFI PASTEUR: AN EXAMPLE
OF JUDICIAL DISTORTION AND INDIFFERENCE TO SCIENCE. Medical Law Review; 26(1): 134-145.] [NOTE.ALL can be found by just cut and pasting complete title in Google search]

A couple of others:

Dorit Rubinstein Reiss (2020 Aug 13). European court vaccine decision – a legal analysis. Skeptical Raptor

oracknows (2017 Jun 21). Quoth the Court of Justice of the European Union: “Let’s make it easier for plaintiffs suing for ‘vaccine injury’ on dubious grounds to prevail!” | ScienceBlogs

Novella (2017 Jun 22). Terrible Decision from the Court of Justice of the European Union. NeuroLogica Blog.

And you list a few case studies; but I actually have far more.

However, I also repeat that if a weakened/attenuated mumps virus vaccine caused hearing loss, then exposure to the natural virus would be highly likely to have done the same and we know that up to 4% of kids infected with natural mumps had some hearing loss, sometimes temporary, sometimes permanent. And we know that almost ALL kids got mumps. I certainly did, both cheeks.

However, if the only reason the court refused payment was because of a cut-off percentage ranking of disability, I disagree with this. In US, Vaccine Court awards based on percentage of disability without some arbitrary cut-off point.

However, having lived in Sweden for 10 years where I saw children with various handicaps receive top quality care, special ed, etc. I would prefer that US and UK devote far more resources to ALL children. We have infectious diseases currently that can cause various disabilities with no current vaccines. In US, some Federal Programs; but wide variance between States how much they supplement in order to have good programs, etc. My guess is same in UK?

AND I STILL WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE ACTUAL LETTER TO RECEIVED. WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO HIDE? SIMPLY BLACK OUT PERSONAL INFO AND GET IT INTO A COMMENT

Despite NARAD not liking it, I repeat you should read up on the Logical Fallacy of Post Hoc Ergo Prompter Hoc.

Well, JOEL, stubbornly misspelling Your Trademark Phrase certainly seems to be an Odd Choice.

@ Narad

Thanks for the correction. I had a course in Logic as an undergraduate in 1964, included a book on Logical Fallacies. A long time ago. I should have looked it up; but guess my spelling memory not as good as it used to be. Oh well.

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

And I won’t stop using it, with correct spelling, because maybe sooner or later some of the antivaxxers will be forced to recognize it. Probably not; but even with arthritis in my hands, doesn’t take much effort.

@ Wendy Stephen

NOPE. Somehow the wrong spelling just locked into my memory and even when I read articles that contained it, didn’t notice. Psychological experiments over decades look at how ones subconscious fill in things.

And I am fluent at Swedish, can read French and German, and used to have about a 2,000 word vocabulary in Japanese and Hebrew.

How many languages do you know?

Yep, I accepted and appreciated Narad’s correcting me; but not his added insult, totally unnecessary, especially coming from someone as bright as he is; but coming from you. Well . . .

@ Wendy Stephen

So, how come you didn’t notice it before Narad?

And spelling less important than not even understanding what a genetic predisposition is? WOW!

@ Narad

You write: “stubbornly misspelling Your Trademark Phrase certainly seems to be an Odd Choice”

So, are you a mind-reader? Nope, not stubborn, just unconsciously started years ago misspelling and no one until now pointed it out.

So, feel free to attack me, if it makes you feel better. Yep, focus on trivia. Oh well; but thanks all the same, wish someone had pointed out my misspelling earlier.

@ Narad

Yep, obsess on the spelling issue. You have lowered my opinion of you, focusing on trivia. I also make typos, partly because of serious arthritis in my hands. Feel free to point them out as well.

For the uninitiated, you are missing a teachable moment here. At times, Management will go out of its way to suggest this blog is authentic rather than a steaming pile of pharma propaganda. One such attempt involves trying to pass off its cyborgs as real people with sincere beliefs and who will occasionally disagree.

Here, we are witnessing an ‘argument’ between Narad (bot-XVM24QRP) and Joel (bot-PHD87MPH). It really is brilliant theatre!

This blog is not a plle of antivax proganda. Try to make one good argument,

@ Wendy Stephen

You write: “You’re grasping at straws with this one. Do you really believe that legal and medical experts working up a case for a claim wouldn’t have ruled that in /out? My daughter’s hearing was tested and found to be normal prior to Pluserix and all other possible causes of the profound sensorineural hearing loss subsequently detected were investigated and ruled out.”

Nope, not grasping at straws. First, how would one test for a genetic predisposition? Do you NOT understand what a genetic predisposition is? Predisposition means potential, not actual. If she had NEVER received the vaccine or been exposed to mumps, then there would have been no way of knowing she had such a genetic predisposition. For instance, each and every person has a slightly different immune system. Now, if a person has an immune system that is not as good at recognizing a specific set of antigens on a specific microbe; e.g., mumps, or overreact then that person would be more vulnerable. Now that mumps almost doesn’t exist in world, little incentive to spend vast sums of research funds to do genetic sequencing of the who lost hearing and those that didn’t; but, who knows, maybe someone will.

You write: “You’re overlooking the fact that the Urabe strain was insufficiently attenuated so it was not as “weakened” as it should have been. Failure to sufficiently attenuate the Urabe strain resulted in it being more reactogenic and would have made it more like wild type mumps infection with regards to the potential for causing hearing loss. Weakening the mumps virus in vaccines usually means that recipients received a much smaller viral assault than that which occurs with wild type mumps but that was not the case with Urabe. It was not sufficiently “weakened”.

True; but doesn’t change my first hypothesis, just means was easier to overcome certain individual’s immune system; that is, resulting in inflammation that, among other things, damage hearing. And doesn’t change fact that the natural mumps would do the same, even easier. And, once again, almost everyone at some time became infected with mumps.

One other possibility. Imagine someone gets a vaccine. Vaccine elicits response from immune system; but full protection takes 10 or more days. Now imagine before day 10 or higher, that person is exposed to the actual microbe. Well, immune system, depending on how far along in developing, will still have some ability to contain the microbe; but not complete, so, maybe, only loss of hearing rather than full-blown systemic disease.

Of course, nothing will change your mind. On the other hand, I accept the small possibility that something about the specific vaccine gives it the lions share of responsibility. But, the number of kids losing hearing from the actual disease exponentially higher, so until a newer or alternative vaccine was available, still gives an excellent cost/benefit ratio. And, in fact, after eliminated from use in UK, still was used for a long time in developing nations.

And, I repeat, that if the council decided vaccine was cause, then it was wrong to use an artificial percentage disability to decide whether or not to award someone. And, again, we need to devote more of our tax monies to helping people, not bailing out and supporting wealthy corporations and individuals and not military spending that is way beyond needs for defense. In US, heads of military testified before Congress they neither needed, nor wanted a new tank and fighter plane; but Congress voted for it, literally 100s of billions of dollars that could have gone to help/support/improve people’s lives. And in US we have 4% of world’s population with 25% of prisoners with estimates of 10s of thousands TOTALLY innocent and even more given draconian sentences for minor offenses. We even have a for-profit system. Since my pre-teen years when there was a documentary series on TV, 1957, Court of Last Resort, of how voluntary criminologist were able to free innocent people, I’ve read lots about this subject and our criminal injustice systems bends over backwards to not overturn sentences.

So, given the council’s decision, I think you should have received the award; but as my previous comment makes clear, the decision was NOT based on science.

AND ONCE MORE, WHY WON’T YOU SHARE THE ACTUAL LETTER OF DENIAL YOU RECEIVED? QUITE SIMPLY, YOU LACK CREDIBILITY, COME ACROSS AS OBSESSED, MORE THAN RATIONAL. Newspapers don’t always evaluate research/medical studies accurately and certainly don’t explain how conclusions were reached.

Though on a different adverse event, myocarditis and covid vaccine, following article basically says what I said, i.e., that vaccine actually protected individuals who were prone to myocarditis by giving milder infection. I actually came up with hypothesis and shared it with number of people before I found the article:

Ferreira (2022 Apr 9). Higher myocarditis risk after COVID-19 than mRNA vaccination; contrary to Peter McCullough’s claim, young persons decrease their risk by getting vaccinated. Health Feedback. Available at;

https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/higher-myocarditis-risk-after-covid-19-than-mrna-vaccination-contrary-peter-mcculloughs-claim/

“But, the number of kids losing hearing from the actual disease exponentially higher, so until a newer or alternative vaccine was available, still gives an excellent cost/benefit ratio. And, in fact, after eliminated from use in UK, still was used for a long time in developing nations.”

Now, now, Joel you’re being a bit disingenuous here. Pluserix was introduced into the UK in October 1988 with the Urabe mumps strain onboard. A month or so later the MMR II brand of vaccine (Merck today but MSD back then) was marketed in the UK containing the Jeryl Lynn mumps strain (which didn’t have the same problematic issues) was introduced alongside Pluserix (and Immravax at the beginning of 1990).

MMR II had been licensed in the UK (but never marketed until 1988) since 1972. Mumpsvax (monovalent mumps vaccine) containing Jeryl Lynn strain was licensed in the UK at that time too.

There was no question of having to wait around until a “newer or alternative vaccine was available”. MMR II was licensed in the UK (albeit MMR I formulation) in 1972 long before Pluserix or Immravax were ever marketed. The “alternative” vaccine was therefore around not only at the same time as Pluserix, but licensed long before it!

And as for “cost/benefit ratio”, my research provides a confused picture. One set of documents/official memos/supply contracts support Pluserix being a cheaper vaccine while others support MMR II as being the cheaper option.

What evidence do you have that Pluserix had an “excellent” cost/benefit ratio and how do you know it was the best option in this regard?

@ Wendy Stephen

Yet, Jeryl Lynn licensed early on and if UK had decided to purchase it, fine; but at the time there was no evidence Urabe had any problems, so once decided to switch, importing/ramping up production needed. Don’t you understand such a simple concept?

As for: “What evidence do you have that Pluserix had an “excellent” cost/benefit ratio and how do you know it was the best option in this regard?”

I have several papers; here is one:

The issue of cost differences between strains of mumps vaccine
viruses used in preparation of the MMR vaccine is not a trivial
one. The most recent information from UNICEF indicates that
the cost per dose of MMR made with the Urabe mumps strain
is USD$1.00 while the cost per dose of MMR made with the
Jeryl Lynn strain is USD$2.50.7 A similar price difference between
these two vaccine preparations is reflected in the pricing offered
by the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) to countries
in Latin America and the Caribbean.8 Such cost differences are
important factors for consideration in many countries that are
working to finance basic immunization programmes. A limited
number of cost/benefit studies have been reported; the majority
of these studies have been performed with the Jeryl Lynn
strain.9–13 Despite their focus on the more expensive Jeryl Lynn
strain, these studies found vaccination to be cost effective and
beneficial. In developing countries, where few cost/benefit analyses
have been performed, the cost of the vaccine-related adverse
events and the underlying health burden associated with wild
mumps also needs to be clarified and included in considerations
for immunization programmes.
The most recent World Health Organization (WHO) position
paper on mumps vaccine concluded that while ‘the available
data suggest that vaccines using certain strains may have higher
rates of aseptic meningitis … all available mumps vaccine preparations
are acceptable for use in immunization programs’ . . .The Urabe and Leningrad series of mumps vaccine virus strains continue to be used around the world, particularly in developing countries where cost is an issue.”

This paper is from 2002, doesn’t even mention hearing problems with Urabe and makes clear Urabe still being used around the world, mainly developing countries; but also developed ones.”

Fullerton KE and Reef SE (2002). Commentary: Ongoing debate over the safety of the different mumps vaccine strains impacts mumps disease control’. International Journal of Epidemiology; 31: 983-984

Joel you stated…

“Yet, Jeryl Lynn licensed early on and if UK had decided to purchase it, fine; but at the time there was no evidence Urabe had any problems, so once decided to switch, importing/ramping up production needed. Don’t you understand such a simple concept?”

Pluserix with the Urabe strain (Trivirix in Canada) was licensed in the UK in June 1988 and marketed in October 1988.

A paper by Mc Donald et al “Clinical and Epidemiologic features of mumps meningoencephalitis and possible vaccine related disease “ records the fact that Trivirix had been withdrawn in Montreal due to cases of CNS infection (Mumps meningitis) in February 1988, four months before the UK licensed it and eight months before it was marketed.

(Vol 8, Number 11, November 1989 The Paediatric Infectious Disease Journal)

“At our institution there have been no further cases of CNS infection since the vaccine was withdrawn in February 1988 (unpublished data)”

The feedback from Canada and the fact they ceased using Urabe prior to the UK introducing it, doesn’t support your argument that there was no evidence that Urabe “had any problem”. The supply contracts for the Urabe containing Pluserix and Immravax and MMR II (Jeryl Lynn) were signed after the Canadian problem with mumps meningitis became apparent and they stopped using it.

In fact, Urabe was found to be a problematic vaccine as early as 1973 when it displayed viral interference with the other component parts in trivalent vaccines to the point that Japan decided not to use it! Between then and the UK launch in 1988, several papers concluded that the component parts were displaying signs of viral interference and Belgium experienced cases of anaphylaxis. A 9th December 1987 newspaper report (La Presse, Montreal Mercredi) ten months before the UK launch of Urabe containing MMR, reported on the loss of a $4m contract to supply Trivirix by the Institut D’ Armand Frappier in Canada because of the problems they were experiencing.

None of which supports an argument for there being no evidence that Urabe containing MMR’s “had any problems” at the time.

(1)
SOURCE Effects and side effects of a new trivalent combined measles mumps and rubella (MMR ) vaccine Mitsuhisa Isozaki, Harumi Kuno-Sakai, Nobukazu, Hoshi, Ryozo Takesue, Iwao Takakura, Mikio Kimnura, Masanori, Hikino and Mikio Mitsuda Tokai J Exp Clin Med. Vol 7, No 5 pp.547-550, 1982
QUOTE
“In Japan, the first trial on MMR vaccine was performed in 1973. However, it was found that the measles vaccine and mumps vaccine showed interference under certain conditions. The MMR vaccine, therefore, has not been generally used in this country, although there have been some field trials on the MMR in the past decade. ”

(2)
SOURCE Evaluation of mumps antibodies after Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR vaccines. Kazuyo Ozaki, Harumi Kuno-Sakai, and Mikio Kimura. Tokai J Exp Clin Med, Vol 12 No 5,6 pp 305-311, 1987
QUOTE
“The first field trial of MMR was carried out in Japan in 1974 using Takeda MMR, Kitasato MMR, and Osaka Microbial Institute (Biken) MMR. In that study, each manufacturer used their own live attenuated vaccines for each
component of measles, mumps and rubella. The study was completed but no further steps for commercial use of MMR vaccines were taken. At that time the mumps vaccine and rubella vaccine were not approved for use in Japan, They were afraid that interference among three vaccines might be present. In addition, there might be a chance of increase in adverse reactions to vaccines when three vaccines were combined”

(3)
Effect of simultaneous administration of live measles vaccine on the “take rate” of live mumps vaccine.
André FE, Peetermans J.
During the course of clinical studies to develop a new bivalent measles-mumps vaccine, it was established that simultaneous administration of live measles and mumps vaccines at doses contained in the monovalent vaccines resulted in a reduced seroconversion rate against mumps but not against measles. This one-way interference was resolved by increasing the dose of the mumps component in the bivalent measles-mumps and the trivalent measles-mumps-rubella vaccines above that in the monovalent mumps vaccine. On the other hand, it was not necessary to adjust the doses of the measles and rubella components in the combined vaccines. This observation requires that not only the titres of vaccine viruses must be carefully adjusted in combined live mumps vaccines but also that the heat-stability of each component in such vaccines be carefully determined to ensure that interference is not a problem during the complete shelf-life of the product. The relative doses at release of combined mumps vaccines using the Urabe Am 9 strain and the heat-stability characteristics of these products will be presented and discussed.
Dev Biol Stand. 1986;65:101-7.

(4)

Folia Pharmacotherapeutica, 14:71(1987) records eight cases of anaphylaxis and two cases of shock reactions to Pluserix from the centre for Adverse Drug Reaction Monitoring in Belgium.

My question to you…………………..

“What evidence do you have that Pluserix had an “excellent” cost/benefit ratio and how do you know it was the best option in this regard?”

I maybe didn’t make myself clear or maybe I misunderstood your point but I was referring to the cost benefit analysis that made Pluserix a viable choice at the time when the UK chose the brands of MMR they intended using ie 1987/1988.

The BNF (No 18 and 19) of the time (SEPT 1989, SEPT 1990) costs Pluserix at £9.70 a dose.

The 23rd August 1988 UK supply contract for Pluserix costed it as £3.80 per dose.

In the Memo to the UK Ministers (30th March 1987) there was “an assumption” that MMR would cost £3 per dose.

The Working Party for the Introduction of MMR (25th February 1987) contains the fact that MSD had quoted 99p per dose for MMR II (based on an assumption of high demand in the catch up phase of the roll out) with the subsequent price being in the region of £2 per dose.

In the 23rd January 1987 Minutes for the same committee a Dr E Miller quotes the “likely” cost of the SmithKline and French vaccine (ie Pluserix) to be “not more than £3 a dose”

This site quoted Jeryl Lynn containing vaccines to be 4 times more costly that Urabe strain MMR.

http://www.paediatriconcall.com/fordoctor/DiseasesandCondition/mmr_vaccine.asp

“This proves that the Jerryl Lynn strain is much safer. However the JL strain containing MMR vaccine is 3-4 times more costly than Urabe strain MMR. In (the) west the Urabe strain is not used at all and most of the countries use JL strain.”

A very confusing picture but it appears (from this) that the safer Jeryl Lynn containing MMR was cheaper than the more problematic Urabe containing Pluserix and I wondered what you based your statement on.

@ Wendy Stephen

You write: “Now, now, Joel you’re being a bit disingenuous here.”

Did you not understand the sentence: “so until a newer or alternative vaccine was available.” “ Alternative Available”. Since the UK was using the Urabe, when they decided to switch, it took time to import/produce Jeryl Lynn. Yep, if it had been chosen earlier, then production would have already have increased. And it wasn’t until data developed about higher risk for aseptic meningitis that the switch was called for. And some studies found the Urabe conferred higher antibody levels. And, as I wrote, it was still used for years in developing nations, partly because it was less expensive together with conferring good immunity.

I am trying to remain civil; but if you ever call me a liar again, I will respond in kind.

However, you ignore that you didn’t even understand what a “genetic predisposition” is. You ignore the articles I included that criticized the courts “unscientific” basis for their decision.

And you ignore my request for you posting the denial letter you received. Once more, what do you have to hide?

So, all-in-all you ignore anything that challenges your biased rigid opinion.

You even ignore that I stated that since court ruled they believed caused by vaccine it was wrong to draw an arbitrary percentage disability for pay-outs. And you ignore that I support using tax monies to help ALL children with disabilities and support for their families than current programs.

It is a waste of time to exchange comments with someone who doesn’t understand or even try to such things as “genetic predisposition”, who repeats something as trivial as a misspelling. Given, you refuse to understand that Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc is a strong logical fallacy that applies to case reports. Yep, focus on the spelling, not your ignorance or refusal to even consider its application to hearing loss and Urabe.

EITHER POST THE REJECTION LETTER OR JUST CONTINUE TO LACK ANY CREDIBILITY.

Joel you stated……….

“Since the UK was using the Urabe, when they decided to switch, it took time to import/produce Jeryl Lynn. Yep, if it had been chosen earlier, then production would have already have increased. And it wasn’t until data developed about higher risk for aseptic meningitis that the switch was called for. And some studies found the Urabe conferred higher antibody levels”

What do you rely on to evidence the fact that “it took time to import/produce Jeryl Lynn”.

The UK was using 3 versions of MMR ie Pluserix and Immravax (Urabe) and MMR II (Jeryl Lynn) between 1988 and 1992 . (1990 and 1992 for Immravax)
The “switch” you refer took the form of increasing the existing MMR II supply to 100% of the UK market from the original 15%.

The withdrawal of the Urabe containing vaccines occurred on 14th September 1992 after two scientists Colville and Pugh evidenced the risk of mumps meningitis to be much higher than previously ‘guesstimated’ with the JCVI committee noting in their Minutes that by 25th September (ie eleven days after the withdrawal) an extra 150k does of MMR II had been issued to our NHS with a request to further increase supply to 800K doses.

There was no problem with sourcing extra supplies of MMR II noted anywhere (unless you know differently) something that could have been initiated at any time during the previous 4 years and saved a lot of children from mumps meningitis. Clearly production of MMR II was increased with no problem in the supply chain. It was recorded as early as 17th May 1988 in the Minutes of the working party for the introduction of MMR into the UK that Wellcome (distributors of MMR II in the UK) had contacted the DOH requesting to join the UK market. The supply could have been 100% MMR II from the outset.

There is evidence that Urabe conferred higher antibody levels but it was also much more reactogenic making a choice between the two types of mumps vaccines of (a) higher immunity from mumps but a greater chance of suffering mumps meningitis and associated lasting sequelae (Urabe) versus lower immunity (Jeryl Lynn) but less chance of suffering mumps meningitis.

“Analyses of the predicted community benefit arising from mass immunization using two mumps vaccine strains which differ in their efficacy and complication rates” by DJ Noakes PhD and RM Anderson FRS.

@ EVERYONE

You may have noticed the quote I included above somehow changes the original format, looks bad. I cut and pasted it into the comment box. It looked fine; but when posted . . . Not the first time this has happened. I guess I could type it in; but, with arthritis in my hands, I tried to minimize when can cut and paste. And in past, sometimes cut and paste looks fine. Oh well

Copying and pasting from a PDF is the most common reason for that — the line breaks have to be removed by hand.

@ Narad

Sounds right. I think next time I’ll first cut and paste into word, then see if I can remove the line breaks, then cut and paste into comment???

I’ll first cut and paste into word, then see if I can remove the line breaks, then cut and paste into comment???

Word at least allows one to show the markup, so it should work. Notepad doesn’t work well, as it will just move the line breaks around unless the text is saved as a single line. I generally just do it in the comment box.

@ Wendy Stephen

You write: “There was no problem with sourcing extra supplies of MMR II noted anywhere (unless you know differently) something that could have been initiated at any time during the previous 4 years and saved a lot of children from mumps meningitis.”

And I agree; but UK chose to use Urabe. At the time there was NO evidence it caused aseptic meningitis, so, yep, once recognized, UK was able to get Urabe vaccine.

Don’t you understand plain English. Once more, UK chose Urabe over MMR II when there was NO evidence of any problems with it, so, once there was, UK switched. However, during time, MMR II was being distributed elsewhere and, once UK opted for it, production increased. Again, don’t you understand plain English.

And you continue to ignore other points that I made:

Critique of court decision regarding Urabe and Hearing Loss. When one looks at the high number vaccinated with Urabe and the extremely few with hearing loss, together with being case studies, unless one can with reasonable scientific validity explain relationship, simply Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, something you apparently refuse to even consider.

You don’t understand what a genetic predisposition is. Simply, means potential to develop; but not automatic. And there are studies showing that hearing loss occurred early on; but was so slight, unnoticeble; but developed over time. Other genetic studies of various disorders that infant developed normally, then regressed. And on and on it goes. And I could give a list of supporting papers; but you would just ignore them.

There is also possibility that your daughter was actually infected with mumps just before vaccination or during first few days. It takes immune system 10 or more days after vaccination to rev up to complete protection, etc.

You don’t have to agree with any of the above, just admit possibility; but it has to be the vaccine in your mind.

And you continue to refuse to post the rejection letter you received. Almost nobody on this website and others takes your word for it.

And, just to be clear, maybe, just maybe, something during manufacture of Urabe vaccine; e.g., trace chemicals, interaction with, etc. could be the sole cause of the hearing loss; but one could postulate this for just about anything sold on the market. Without some valid scientific basis; e.g., analysis of various hearing tissues, finding such traces, etc. we would basically end up removing lots of products from market, especially medicines and vaccines and we would all be in trouble. How could one analyze various hearing tissues? Tragic; but people do die and more advance autopsies could be performed.

And you ignore that I support taxpayer paid for quality programs to help all kids with various handicaps, including hearing loss. So, instead of awarding those kids who got a vaccine, a minority of those with hearing loss, I want my taxes to help ALL of them and their families.

SO KEEP DISPLAYING YOUR INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY AND IGNORING MOST OF WHAT I WRITE.

YOUR CONTINUED COMMENTS JUST KEEP DIGGING A DEEPER HOLE FOR YOU

Joel,

“Once more, UK chose Urabe over MMR II when there was NO evidence of any problems with it, so, once there was, UK switched.”

Have you missed one of my earlier posts where I laid out some of the problems (with links) which were identified with Urabe from as far back as 1986, long before the UK “chose it over MMR”.

Now that you’ve drawn everyone’s attention to the issue, maybe you could assist in explaining WHY the UK would have chosen Urabe over MMR with such a problematic background, with particular regard to the fact that Canada had ceased using it altogether!

@ Wendy Stephen

You gave the following reference: ““Analyses of the predicted community benefit arising from mass immunization using two mumps vaccine strains which differ in their efficacy and complication rates” by DJ Noakes PhD and RM Anderson FRS.”

I did search of PubMed, Google Scholar, and Google, using title, names of authors, etc. did NOT find. Please give a more complete reference; e.g., government report, conference paper, etc. with appropriate title of where found, date, and if possible link.

However, my guess is that it is based on findings of aseptic meningitis that led to switch away from Urabe, quite simply, wasn’t written at time UK decided to choose Urabe; but, as opposed to you, I am quite willing to read it carefully.

My copy of this paper came in a bundle of material from the Joint Committee On Vaccination and Immunisation dated 1/11/91 under the Freedom Of Information Act 2000

@ Wendy Stephen

You did notice that the document you refer to is dated January 19, 1991? And I did find an article that refers to it that said basically over the past 12 months reports on aseptic meningitis have been coming it. So the Joint Committee met and summarized what was known, 3 years after introduction of the Urabe vaccine. Once more you display your dishonesty. If there was reasonable evidence of problems with Urabe during first year of its use, 1988, or even second year of its use, and they still didn’t act, then you might have a case; but, even so, the problem was aseptic meningitis, not hearing loss AND, though unpleasant, aseptic meningitis is not the meningitis people think about, basically, it is a benign condition.

And if you really want to be honest, scan in the entire document, e-mail it to Orac as pdf and ask him to pass it on to me. I bet he will. Not certain; but hopeful.

And, as usual, you avoid all of my other points, including answering your question whether Urabe was less expensive. Just plain dishonest. YOU HAVE NO CREDIBILITY.

However, let me explain something, which I’m certain you will ignore. All of us, myself included, have “blind spots.” Basically we have opinions that we have had for a long time, defend them. However, some people, once confronted with strong evidence, not one or two, but many, though unpleasant, eventually have to accept we were wrong; but others, despite overwhelming evidence, never change their minds.

I have NOT even asked you to say outright you are wrong, just admit that you could be wrong, something you apparently are incapable of. No evidence from your comments you even tried to read, for instance, the papers I listed challenging the courts decision. No evidence you now understand what a genetic predisposition is. So, explaining where you got a document that I and others can’t check out, doesn’t given you any credibility.

p.s. I tried to find contact information for the Joint Committee, just in case they might be willing to release the document, couldn’t find it. Will try again later

AS FOR URABE, THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS A POOR CHOICE COMPARED WITH OTHERS. EVERYONE HAS PERFECT VISION IN HINDSIGHT.

@ Wendy Stephen

I am quite aware that basically NOTHING will change your mind, so am I wasting time posting comments. NOPE because gives the many open-minded people following this blog example of how once counters people who are wrong with logic, science, and valid references that others can access.

So, basically you just continue to reinforce the above.

I’m pretty confident that the many open-minded people who follow this blog can make up their own minds on where the truth lies, follow references, and decide for themselves whether or not my posts on the subject are accurate without any intervention or examples from you on how to challenge the content.

@ Wendy Stephen

Found the following from Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization:

“MMR adverse events – BPSU Surveillance
Dr Begg presented JCVI/91/11 with graphs. The reports of possible mumps vaccine meningo – encephalitis.” [JCVI, May 3, 1991]

“MMR: Replacement of Urabe Vaccines
MMRII Vaccine Supply
“The Committee was advised that, since the 25 September, an extra 150K doses of vaccine had been issued. The distribution of vaccine had been analyzed; this had shown up regional inequalities which were unjustifiable.” [JCVI, Nov 6, 1991]

Unfortunately, no earlier minutes were listed; but, note. May 3, 1991 “possible meningo – encephalitis. And the change followed as noted in the next meeting; but there were problems in distribution.

So, no indication of info on encephalitis prior to this or they would have mentioned it.

So, again, at time Urabe chosen, NO EVIDENCE of problems compared to other vaccines and when info available they did act; but it took time to arrange for proper distribution.

NOTE. I assume the report you obtain from January 1991 was sent to JCVI committee members and was basis of May discussion.

YOU JUST DON’T GET ANYTHING RIGHT

Joel, I’m going to respond to two of your posts at once.

You wrote

“If there was reasonable evidence of problems with Urabe during first year of its use, 1988, or even second year of its use, and they still didn’t act, then you might have a case; but, even so, the problem was aseptic meningitis, not hearing loss AND, though unpleasant, aseptic meningitis is not the meningitis people think about, basically, it is a benign condition.”

AND

“So, no indication of info on encephalitis prior to this or they would have mentioned it.”

I’m hoping that the Minutes of the Committee for the Safety of Medicines (CSM) dated 28th September 1989 (eleven months after the launch of the MMR) with 11 Professors and 24 Doctors on the committee will be viewed as “reasonable evidence” even by you.

From the CSM Minutes item 14.2, 28/2/89

“the committee noted that there had been ten cases for mumps meningitis following meningitis reactions of MMR of which three were causally related to the MMR vaccine”

Not sensorineural deafness but mumps meningitis. The BPSU in the UK carried out surveillance of the cases and re-evaluated them after a year. Only one condition was noted by our Department Of Health as a lasting sequelae….sensorineural deafness! ( see Stewart and Prabhu paper on Sensorineural deafness I previously referenced)

You also wrote……

“So, again, at time Urabe chosen, NO EVIDENCE of problems compared to other vaccines and when info available they did act; but it took time to arrange for proper distribution.”

Are you aware that prior to the launch of Pluserix in the UK, Canada had stopped using it in 1986 due to it having caused mumps meningitis in recipient kids. You’ll find reference to that in the JCVI Minutes.

And as for this bit “YOU JUST DON’T GET ANYTHING RIGHT” ……………!

@ Wendy Stephen

Steward & Prabhu paper:

“For six of the children, the cause of deafness is unknown and MMR immunisation remains one possibility. It is difficult to disentangle causal and temporally associated events. The incidence of sudden hearing loss in adulthood is 5-20 per
100 000 person years and it is bilateral in 2% of cases. If these figures applied to children, then more than six cases should have been reported, simply by chance, within a year of MMR immunisation. Unfortunately, there are no equivalent data for children. . . It is not statistically significant that no cases have been reported to the CSM among those who received the Jeryl Lynn strain. Both mumps strains have previously been reported to cause deafness. . . Any risk of deafness after MMR immunisation is small and must be weighed against the risks of the natural diseases.”

So, risk of sudden hearing loss in adults 5-10 per 100 000; but they don’t have data for kids. Maybe they would have found similar numbers, maybe smaller; but still existent. And deafness had been reported for both strains.

ONCE MORE YOU EITHER DON’T READ CAREFULLY, OR . . .???

Note. as I wrote in previous comment, I have a number of papers on mumps and hearing loss, all based on one case study or a few cases.

And notice their last sentence: “Any risk of deafness after MMR immunisation is small and must be weighed against the risks of the natural diseases.”

So, cases found originally in both strains, remember I copied from Daily Mail where they said didn’t know if risk was same for meningitis between different vaccines at time.

You continue to miss: with hindsight we have perfect vision, Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, etc.

Joel,

You said……

“So, cases found originally in both strains, remember I copied from Daily Mail where they said didn’t know if risk was same for meningitis between different vaccines at time.”

No cases of mumps meningitis were ever detected with mumps strain in MMR II vaccine. (if you know differently then please reference…not the Daily Mail though.)

Even today that remains the case. A 2007 paper “Risk of mumps-related aseptic meningitis minimal with current MMR vaccine formulation”, Jim Glare, Hospital Pharmacist, Am J Epidemiol 2007; 165: 704-9 includes the following………..

ABSTRACT

“An epidemiological study has shown that the currently used MMR vaccine is not associated with the increased risk of mumps-virus linked aseptic meningitis caused by earlier versions. MMR vaccine used in the UK up to 1992 contained the Urabe strain of mumps virus.”

And in conclusion…………

“There were no confirmed cases of mumps-virus associated aseptic meningitis related to the new vaccine, compared to four cases in the run-up to the withdrawal of the old. Furthermore, there were no confirmed cases after administration of over 1.6 million doses to children aged 12-23 months. The calculated risk for aseptic meningitis for the new vaccine is less than one in 27,000, compared to an observed risk of about one in 12,400 for the Urabe strain-containing vaccine. An increased risk of convulsion in the period six to eleven days after administration was found, which is consistent with the known effects of measles vaccine: such convulsions have no long-term implications.

The authors conclude that there is no evidence from their study that the new formulations of MMR vaccine are associated with aseptic meningitis caused by the measles component. They note that such studies using active surveillance can provide safety information impossible to obtain from conventional pre-licensing studies”

Colville & Pugh (PHL, University Hospital, Queens Medical Centre Nottingham) were the two people in the UK who determined the true rate of meningitis post MMR vaccine. They had a letter published in The Lancet Vol 340, Sept 26th 1992 which included the following…

“Health authority records show that 22 817 children in the second year of life received MMR in the period under review. 80% of the vaccine issued within the period contained the Urabe strain. This gives a rate of virologically confirmed and suspected MMR- associated meningitis of 1 in 3800 doses (95% confidence interval 1 in 211 to 1 in 18 977) in the Nottingham area. All the cases followed Urabe –containing vaccines”

Like it or not mumps meningitis was only identified in relation to the Urabe strain and not the Jeryl Lynn (MMR II) something which remains the case today over thirty years later.

@ Wendy Stephen

You write: ““the committee noted that there had been ten cases for mumps meningitis following meningitis reactions of MMR of which three were causally related to the MMR vaccine””

Well, couldn’t find it; but question is why they didn’t act? First, as I’ve written earlier, determinations of causation of so few cases are questionable. Maybe correct, maybe not. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. Try to understand what this means! ! !

You write: “Are you aware that prior to the launch of Pluserix in the UK, Canada had stopped using it in 1986 due to it having caused mumps meningitis in recipient kids. You’ll find reference to that in the JCVI Minutes.”

Yep, i read it; but also read that Canada had adequate availability of other vaccines and no clear evidence that it was causative; but, of course, erring on the side of caution is always worthwhile. Again, Canada had immediate access to other vaccines. If they had NOT they would either continued with Urabe or halted vaccination program until supplies available; however, with the latter they would have had cases of natural mumps.

You continue to ignore that with few cases extremely difficult to determine causation. Especially at the time medical science was less advanced. And as I explained, perhaps, the Urabe vaccine for some reason had same effect on some kids as the actual mumps would have had and the other vaccines, slightly different in composition didn’t. But no one could have known in advance.

As I wrote above, I don’t completely rule it out; but if it were so, question is still if the kids who developed problems from vaccine would have also from natural mumps. As we know risk for meningitis was far greater with regular mumps, same with hearing loss, and almost ALL children got the mumps.

What would you have done if you were planning to get your daughter the mumps vaccine and she came down with mumps just before and eventually had hearing problems?

You have been obsessing on this topic for around 20 years. Nothing will change. Why not devote your efforts in lobbying Parliament to vastly improve support for ALL kids with problems, including medical help, educational help, social help to families.

By the way, I am glad I have all my senses, well, fairly good at my age; but I wonder if I had a choice which sense would I want to
partially lose?

Questions:
Did your daughter have difficulties acquiring language? Correct pronunciation, etc?
Did your daughter have difficulty in school, listening to teacher, etc? Did she succeed in school?
Did your daughter get a driver’s license?
Does your daughter listen to music, enjoy it? Watch TV, go to movies?
I’m not downplaying losing hearing in one ear, bilateral hearing always better; but how much has it impacted her life?

If the award had been approved, what would you be doing; e.g., obsessing over Urabe? Or . . .?

p.s. you could also scan in the Minutes of the Committee for the Safety of Medicines (CSM) dated 28th September 1989 and also e-mail pdf to Orac.

You write: “I’m hoping that the Minutes of the Committee for the Safety of Medicines (CSM) dated 28th September 1989 (eleven months after the launch of the MMR) with 11 Professors and 24 Doctors on the committee will be viewed as “reasonable evidence” even by you.”

Did ALL the committee members agree and what was the basis? You could just scan in certain sections and post in comment.

From the Daily Mail [Melanie Phillips “The History of MMR’s safety” NOTE. couldn’t find date]
“In 1992, the particular type of MMR being used was withdrawn, as it was discovered that the Urabe strain of mumps vaccine in the mix was causing an alarming amount of aseptic meningitis.
The Department of Health then switched to an alternative MMR vaccine made by a different manufacturer.
But it had known of concerns about Urabe before it first introduced that vaccine in 1989. [concerns???]
Months previously, Canada had suspended its use of the Urabestrain MMR after discovering the risk of aseptic meningitis, and switched to an alternative vaccine. However, the Department of Health went ahead nevertheless and introduced it into the UK.
Dr Elizabeth Miller, head of the vaccines division of the Public Health Laboratory Service, was involved in eventually identifying the Urabe risk in Britain.
Although the Department of Health knew about the Canadian evidence before it introduced the Urabe vaccine here, she said, the risk was considered low, at one in every 100,000 doses. It was also unclear at the time, she said, whether the alternative vaccine posed a similar risk. [risk low, unclear whether alternative posed a similar risk???]
Nevertheless, she said, the department identified Urabe strain MMR as something for which surveillance needed to be introduced.”

NOTE THAT RISK LOW, UNCLEAR WHETHER ALTERNATIVE POSED A SIMILAR RISK??? SO, IF IT TURNED OUT THAT THE ALTERNATIVE VACCINES ENDED UP ALSO WITH SMALL NUMBER OF CASES OF ASEPTIC MENINGITIS, WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE SAID THEN? OR THEY COULD HAVE SUSPENDED VACCINATIONS AND HAD FAR GREATER NUMBER OF CASES. THE WORLD ISN’T BLACK AND WHITE. AS I WROTE ABOVE, WITH HINDSIGHT WE ALL HAVE PERFECT VISION.

Joel,

You said…………….
“Well, couldn’t find it; but question is why they didn’t act?”

As unlikely as it seems, it appears that you have raised a point that we can both 100% agree on! Amazing. We’ve made progress. Why didn’t they act?

You said………………..

“Yep, i read it; but also read that Canada had adequate availability of other vaccines and no clear evidence that it was causative; but, of course, erring on the side of caution is always worthwhile. Again, Canada had immediate access to other vaccines.”

What’s your source for saying that Canada had an adequate availability of other vaccines? You’ve argued relentlessly that the UK didn’t so how dio you know Canada did? The UK, it appears from the official references I have supplied had easy access to supplies of an alternative vaccine within a very short time of a decision to do so. Why do you support erring on the side of caution in Canada while going to all manner of lengths to defend (a )the introduction of it in the UK (after Canada ceased using it and (b) the continued use of it in the UK for 4 years even after early reports showed it causing the exact same problem in British children as it had done in the Canadians?

You said…………..

“If they had NOT they would either continued with Urabe or halted vaccination program until supplies available; however, with the latter they would have had cases of natural mumps.”

Continuing with the Urabe vaccine, based on the the entire history we know about it today and their own experiences they would have had increasing numbers of cases of mumps meningitis and the risk of neurological complications. There was an additional problem in Canada (again before Pluserix was licensed in the UK).

In “Liability Insurance Crisis in Supply”, David Gill, (The Fraser Institute)……….

“For fifteen months, The Institut De Armand Frappier of Montreal, a supplier of measles mumps and rubella vaccine in Canada has looked unsuccessfully for a new insurer. If it cannot find an insurer in the near future, production of the vaccine may be discontinued”

Might explain why in 1986 the “manufacturer of Trivirix voluntarily discontinued the distribution of the vaccine in Canada until laboratory data were available to demonstrate that the mumps virus isolated from these vaccine recipients were not related to the Urabe mumps vaccine strain” (CDWR, 15th December 1990 Vol 16-50)

Of course it became clear that the isolates did match the Urabe vaccine strain! It’s a pity for the sake of all the Urabe vaccine victims they hadn’t voluntarily chosen not to distribute it in the UK also.

You said…………….

“As I wrote above, I don’t completely rule it out; but if it were so, question is still if the kids who developed problems from vaccine would have also from natural mumps. As we know risk for meningitis was far greater with regular mumps, same with hearing loss, and almost ALL children got the mumps.”

We agreed on that but it doesn’t change the fact that some children (sadly) suffered very badly not from wild type mumps, but with vaccine induced injuries. In the case of Urabe it was because the vaccine was insufficiently attenuated ie the manufacturing process was not as it should have been to give vaccinees the level of safety they would have been entitled to expect of the product and they suffered because of it.

Your quote from a newspaper article……………..

“Although the Department of Health knew about the Canadian evidence before it introduced the Urabe vaccine here, she said, the risk was considered low, at one in every 100,000 doses. It was also unclear at the time, she said, whether the alternative vaccine posed a similar risk.”

The Canadian risk resulting in them abandoning Urabe vaccine was 1 in 62,000 cases.

“Since the laboratory findings confirmed conclusively that the meningitis observed in recipients of Trivirix vaccine (1case per 62,000 doses distributed), was caused by the Urabe mumps vaccine, the latter vaccine was not considered safe for immunization of Canadian children” (CDWR, 15th December 1990 Vol 16-50)

And as for an alternative vaccine posing a similar risk!!! The alternative vaccine in this instance was MMR II which had been used all over the world (Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands Germany France and Italy) but particularly in the US (9 years) before it was introduced into the UK with no reports of mumps meningitis. With that track record and the sheer volume of MMR II administered it was obvious even before the UK introduced a single MMR vaccine that MMR II didn’t have the same risk.

It’s way past time for that old carrot, whereby the UK waited around to be sure the alternative MMR II vaccine didn’t have the same problem before abandoning Urabe, was put to bed.

You wrote…….

NOTE THAT RISK LOW, UNCLEAR WHETHER ALTERNATIVE POSED A SIMILAR RISK??? SO, IF IT TURNED OUT THAT THE ALTERNATIVE VACCINES ENDED UP ALSO WITH SMALL NUMBER OF CASES OF ASEPTIC MENINGITIS, WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE SAID THEN? OR THEY COULD HAVE SUSPENDED VACCINATIONS AND HAD FAR GREATER NUMBER OF CASES. THE WORLD ISN’T BLACK AND WHITE. AS I WROTE ABOVE, WITH HINDSIGHT WE ALL HAVE PERFECT VISION.

See above. I’ll reiterate………… 9 years of usage in the US alone without including the worldwide usage stands testimony to the fact that before the UK administered the very first dose of MMR, the MMR II didn’t have the same problems as Urabe.

@ Wendy Stephen

I just submitted Freedom of Information requests for Minutes of the Committee for the Safety of Medicines (CSM) dated 28th September 1989 and the DJ Noakes and Ron Anderson. Analysis of the Predicted Community Benefit Arising from Mass Immunization Using Two Mumps Vaccine Strains which Differ in Efficacy and Complication Rates

You write: “Are you aware that prior to the launch of Pluserix in the UK, Canada had stopped using it in 1986 due to it having caused mumps meningitis in recipient kids. You’ll find reference to that in the JCVI Minutes. . . . Might explain why in 1986 the “manufacturer of Trivirix voluntarily discontinued the distribution of the vaccine in Canada until laboratory data were available to demonstrate that the mumps virus isolated from these vaccine recipients were not related to the Urabe mumps vaccine strain” (CDWR, 15th December 1990 Vol 16-50)”

“CLINICAL TRIAL OF TRIVIRIX @ FOR MEASLES, MUMPS
AND RUBELLA IMMUNIZATION

Editorial Notes: This product is now licensed for use in Canada”
[Canada Diseases Weekly Report (May 10, 1986) Vol. 12-19]

“The measles, mumps and rubella vaccine (TRIVIRIX) was licensed in Canada in 1986. . . The rate of CSN reaction found (1 case per 100,000). When 5 additional such cases of aseptic meningitis were reported [footnote 2], careful analysis of the epidemiological data on viral meningitis in Canada demonstrated that it was unlikely that these cases had occurred by chance alone. Consequently, the manufacturer of TRIVIRIX voluntarily discontinued the distribution of the vaccine in Canada until laboratory data were available to demonstrate that the mumps viruses isolated from these vaccine recipients were not related to the Urabe mumps vaccine strain. . . Effective May 1990, TRIVIRIX measles, mumps and rubella vaccine is no longer licensed for sale in Canada. Recent laboratory findings . . . related to the Urabe strain. It is know that the incidence of meningitis following natural mumps infection is high: symptomatic disease has been estimated to occur in about 10% of cases. The infection follows the course of benign aseptic meningitis and usually has no sequelae”

Wow! According to you they stopped using it in 1986, just when they approved it after a clinical trial comparing it with the other mumps vaccines. And footnote 2 is : Hockin JC, Furesz J. CDWR (1988 Nov 19);14:210-11.
The Hockin CDWR “In a July 18th memo to all physicians in Ontario receiving vaccines directly from Ontario Government requested the return of any remaining stock of TRIVIRIX vaccine from doctors’ office.”

And the confirming lab studies were: Forsey T et al (1990 Apr 1). Differentiation of vaccine and wild mumps viruses using the polymerase chain reaction. Journal of General Virology; 71: 987-90; Takahasi M et al. (1990 Apr). MMR vaccine considered as the cause of aseptic meningitis. Japanese Medical Journal; No 2441: 43-5

So, let’s summarize:

You claim discontinued in 1986; but this was year it was approved after clinical trial comparing with other vaccines. Not until July 18, 1988 was vaccine recalled; but not by ALL provinces and then its license was withdrawn May 1990, which was based on published articles from 1990.

In addition, mumps encephalitis occurs in approximately 10% of natural mumps cases, only 1% of vaccinated cases, so, as I’ve explained umpteen times, you either ignore that unvaccinated at much higher risk, especially given almost ALL children got mumps or dishonestly make up numbers.

According to Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization (1988 Oct 20): “Dr Barnes reported that Wellcome will distribute MMR vaccine manufactured by Merck, Sharp and Dohme and that it was hope that 200,000 doses would become available by November 1988. . . Professor Campbell said that there was concern in many regions about the shortage of vaccine. . . In the ensuing discussion it was suggested that local shortages of vaccine might have been caused by faults in regional distribution . . . Dr McFarlane said that in the Oxford District Health Authority there was a shortfalll in the Departmental funding for MMR in that there was only sufficient money to pay for half the cost of the vaccine.”

I have more articles/papers that discuss this; but not worth my time. I’ve wasted too much time already. I went back over our exchange on ECBT and you were just as illogical, unscientific, maybe dishonest as here. I’m an old man with time on my hands; but why are you continuing to devote time and effort, especially on something that happened over 30 years ago, happened to you over a decade ago, and both UK and US regulations, etc. for approval for vaccines have tightened. Are you trying to support antivaxxers? Are you just obsessed psychologically?

I have several hundred articles and papers on Urabe, Triverix, or Pluserix. Given just how dishonest you are and that I am behind in books and papers I want to read, not worth finding more evidence. Doesn’t really matter because fact is valid evidence of aseptic meningitis and Urabe not until 1990 and, again, risk much smaller from vaccine than natural infection. And as Elizabeth Miller and others made clear, not certain other vaccines might not also cause (at least not certain prior to, perhaps, 1989, etc.)

In any case, just your continuing to claim removed in Canada in 1986 is enough.

So, just how DISHONEST are you???

One last point; however, something I do not have enough info to be certain about. I spoke with organization for hearing impaired. According to them, partial or even complete loss of hearing in one ear in a child, while not good, does NOT lead to major expenses/handicap, since, though you didn’t answer my questions above, kids go to regular school, regular classes, etc. So, I know nurses not paid well and, personally, I think nurses the backbone of healthcare, the most important asset, not doctors, I wonder why you obsess about being denied money for your child’s hearing loss. Maybe, you were just hoping for a windfall. Nothing wrong with that; but if no funds had been offered to anyone, would you still be obsessed? How is your daughter doing nowadays? AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, I HAVE WRITTEN HOW I SUPPORT HELPING ALL CHILDREN WHO HAVE HANDICAPS AND THEIR FAMILIES; YET NOT A WORD OF SUPPORT FOR THAT. WHILE MAYBE YOU JUST DIDN’T NOTICE WHAT I WROTE; BUT MAYBE AN INDICATION YOU DON’T CARE ABOUT OTHER CHILDREN. I PERSONALLY CARE ABOUT ALL CHILDREN AND WOULD BE WILLING TO PAY HIGHER TAXES TO HELP THEM.

Now, feel free to get the last word. If I receive papers from my Freedom of Information Request I may post another comment as I imagine you only gave part of what they contained, just as you did with Steward & Prabhu paper and other extracted or paraphrased claims.

Joel,

I think we need to agree to disagree on many aspects of this and leave it there otherwise we’ll still be at it at Christmas. I’m not clear as to why you work so very hard at trying to disprove the fact that Urabe caused mumps meningitis in some recipient children and or neurological injury. I’m not sure why it is so very important to you that you discredit me. Much though I have enjoyed our exchanges and valued your civility on this occasion, like you, I have other things to attend to and I agree with the point you are making.

I apologise for the error in stating 1986 when it should be 1988 when they removed it in Canada. You are absolutely correct that the first removal of Urabe from Canada was February 1988 in Montreal, seven months before it was introduced here. See how I can acknowledge my mistakes! If an individual’s level of dishonesty is measured by the inclusion of one mistake, you better look out!

Now in conclusion I’ll try to address some of your questions.

“I wonder why you obsess about being denied money for your child’s hearing loss. Maybe, you were just hoping for a windfall.”

Firstly, any “windfall” wouldn’t come to me, it goes to the child and/or held in trust until they are 21yrs and shown to have capacity. Secondly, you have no idea what the outcome of my daughters case was. The Times Newspaper article in 2012 covered the initial refusal by the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme to make an award and I have no intention of sharing any documents from that case with you…now or ever. Thirdly, I have no reason to be “obsessed” by Urabe. I merely fight their corner as a very viable group who received absolutely no recognition /compensation for being injured by a dangerous vaccine which was insufficiently attenuated and were treated very shabbily in the MMR litigation. It isn’t all about my daughter and never has been. There are many others. My petitioning and appearances in the Scottish Parliament were in respect of all Urabe injured children/young people and evidence that fact.

Perhaps the question for you in displaying sensitivity towards children with disabilities is why aren’t you supportive of the children who suffered neurological injuries after receiving a Urabe vaccine? I have more than enough material to write a book on the real Urabe story and I might now do that.

“BUT MAYBE AN INDICATION YOU DON’T CARE ABOUT OTHER CHILDREN”

Even for you Joel that’s a bit mean. I have for many years now been an appointed Guardian for a man of 58yrs with profound learning difficulties and a mental age of 5yrs (Smith Magenis Syndrome). Although not technically a child he has been and always will be a child requiring my Guardianship. There is no advantage to the Guardian in accepting the role other than the satisfaction of assisting someone who is very vulnerable and otherwise alone in the world. Throw your many insults at me if it makes you feel better but not this one. You aren’t the only person who provides care/support for vulnerable /disadvantaged people. I’ve also worked for a charity for 23 years and vulnerable disabled people have always been a part of that. You don’t hold a monopoly on caring.

I am truly sorry that you’ve had to go to all the trouble of submitting FOIA’s for the JCVI/CSM Minutes when I’m sitting here with them and have shared them with many people over the years. Unfortunately with the cutting of the costs budget allowed for each FOIA it’s unlikely you’ll get them as the request will probably be over budget. It’s a real pain.
Had things been a bit more cordial between us instead of arguing all this time we might have been able to figure out a way for me to send them to you (Not Orac)
In conclusion I apologise again for my one mistake in all our exchanges in stating 1986 instead of 1988 and I wish you well with your research etc. Meanwhile I’m sorry to disappoint you but I will always continue to campaign for the Urabe vaccine injured.
I wish you well.

@ Wendy Stephen

Why am I posting comments in response to yours? If you are just obsessing over something from years ago, maybe a waste of time; however, if your intent is to promote antivaccinaion or, even if not your intent, if antivaxxers use, then a problem. Note that antivaxxers don’t care if happened decades ago and regulations, etc. have been improved, in some ways just like you keep bringing up the past. So, a few simple questions:

One. Do you support vaccines?
Two. Do you and your daughter get annual flu shots?
Three. Don’t know your age; but if older, did you get the Shingrix vaccine, vaccine protection against Shingles?
Four. Did you and daughter get one of the COVID-19 vaccines?

You can elaborate on any and all of the above, not just a simple yes or no.

And, as I’ve written umpteen times, cut and paste the rejection letter you received. Otherwise, you have NO CREDIBILITY. I and probably others want to see exactly what they wrote; not what you claim.

And by the way, starting in 1990s studies have been conducted that, among other things, found that the Urabe vaccine had small genomic differences from Jeryll Lynn. More epidemiological studies as more cases available provide better data. Etc. etc. So, there are now studies that give SOME evidence that Urabe vaccine responsible for some cases; but, again cases much lower than from actual mumps. However, SOME EVIDENCE not same as STRONG EVIDENCE, more like circumstantial evidence. As for Jeryll Lynn used elsewhere, as I’ve commented on above, there was NO indication that Urabe vaccine was less safe until 1988-89 and good evidence it provided stronger immunity. You just refuse to accept that WITH HINDSIGHT WE ALL HAVE PERFECT VISION. If no indication, then decision to use reasonable. However, you can criticize UK for not following precautionary principle, that is, once reports came in, arranging to make available Jeryll Lynne; but, at the time, such reports based on case studies could be just Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc, something you refuse to even consider.

And once more, if the letter of denial you receive clearly said they believed your daughter’s deafness result of Pluserix and only denied you payment based on percentage disability, then you have every right to be angry. However, while I agree you should have received the monies, their decision it was caused by Pluserix depends on what evidence they based it on, as articles I posted criticizing court decisions make clear.

And I repeat, that I am willing to pay higher taxes, having misused taxes(e.g., subsidizing wealthy people and corporations) redirected, ALL to actually help kids and even adults with various handicaps and their respective families. Not just someone who got a vaccine. A child with a handicap is a child with a handicap, regardless of how acquired.

Years ago I knew a family who intentionally adopted a little girl with Down Syndrome. Since they ran a small business their medical insurance premiums skyrocketed because kids with Down Syndrome often need open heart surgery and hip surgery. In addition, at the time there was little funding for special ed kids, so they had to put her in expensive private school. Things have improved; but not nearly as much as they should and as more conservative governments get elected, well . . . In any case, they were NOT a wealthy family; but they sacrificed for their little girl, who I met numerous times. A very sweet little girl.

So, again, why are you still posting about the past? Either you are simply an obsessive neurotic and/or you are an antivaxxer???

“Why am I posting comments in response to yours?”

Don’t know, you tell me.

“So, again, why are you still posting about the past? Either you are simply an obsessive neurotic and/or you are an antivaxxer???”

You and Jay who posted earlier on here might want to get together and read up some of the newspaper articles which feature me. For the second time, everyone else on here is probably falling about with laughter.

Definitely. positively, no more to say on that!

For the second time, everyone else on here is probably falling about with laughter.

P(B | A) sinks that boat.

@ Wendy Stephen

You write: ““Why am I posting comments in response to yours?”

Don’t know, you tell me.

“So, again, why are you still posting about the past? Either you are simply an obsessive neurotic and/or you are an antivaxxer???”

I explained why, that antivaxxers jump at anything that criticizes a vaccine, even if it it 30 years ago and even if regulations, etc have improved immensely. I asked you a few simple questions and if you support vaccines, etc. So, I guess your refusal to answer such a simple question says it all.

YOU ARE TOTALLY DISHONEST AND, I’M TIRED OF YOUR DISHONESTY. I CAREFULLY EXPLAINED, FOR INSTANCE, THAT WHEN THEY DECIDED ON URABE, DIDN’T MATTER IF JERYL LYNN USED ELSEWHERE WITH NO ADVERSE EVENTS BECAUSE THE CLINICAL TRIAL IN CANADA FOUND NONE. I EXPLAINED THAT, DESPITE YOUR NOT UNDERSTANDING SCIENCE, THE BASIS FOR DECIDING SO FEW CASES IS EXTREMELY DIFFICULT, AND POSTED ARTICLES THAT SUPPORT THIS POSITION. I EXPLAINED THAT REAL MUMPS CAUSES 100 TIMES AS MUCH ASEPTIC MENINGITIS AS VACCINE AND EVEN IF NUMBERS DIFFER WITH DIFFERENT STUDIES, STILL REAL MUMPS MUCH HIGHER AND I EXPLAINED AND SO DID OTHER COMMENTERS THAT UNLESS YOU POST THE DENIAL LETTER, YOU LACK ANY AND ALL CREDIBILITY. APPARENTLY YOU ARE EITHER TOO STUPID TO UNDERSTAND OR JUST TO DISHONEST.

I ASKED SIMPLE QUESTIONS REGARDING LIFE CIRCUMSTANCES OF YOUR DAUGHTER; E.G., SCHOOLING, JOB, DRIVING, ETC. YOU AVOID THESE AND I ASKED IF YOU SUPPORT PROGRAMS TO HELP ALL KIDS WITH DISABILITIES AND THEIR FAMILIES. ASKED SEVERAL TIMES, SO, I GUESS YOUR REFUSAL TO ANSWER ANOTHER SIMPLE QUESTION SAYS IT ALL.

@ Wendy Stephen

Oops! I forgot the one claim made by you that proves beyond any doubt that you are a dishonest liar, namely, your claim that Canada withdrew the Urabe vaccine in 1986.

Want to respond to Orac? Here's your chance. Leave a reply! Just make sure that you've read the Comment Policy (link located in the main menu in the upper right hand corner of the page) first if you're new here!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: