Dr Sarah Myhill – Yet More Dangerous Advice?

December 21, 2011 at 4:18 pm (Dangerously Wrong) ()

I’ve written about Dr Myhill several times now. Previously, I’ve pointed out various incorrect assertions and unsubstantiated claims relating specifically to vaccination.

For example, Myhill has claimed that it was known that vaccinations were partly to blame for Gulf War Syndrome (this is untrue), that mumps before puberty is a minor illness (complications can include pancreatitis, encephalitis, and sensorineural hearing loss – not to mention death), that mercury is a cause of autism (it isn’t), and she has also made the flat-out wrong assertion that MMR contained mercury (i.e. ethylmercury from thimerosal) and aluminium (MMR contains neither ingredient and is in fact a live vaccine, so would never have thimerosal added to it). Dr Myhill has also made unsubstantiated claims about vaccination and CFS, and the risks and benefits of flu vaccination. There is also the mischaracterisation of squalene as “a toxic lipid”.

Myhill is clearly staggeringly ill-informed about vaccination. She’s not alone in that, but it is particularly worrying that someone so ill-informed should be publishing such misinformation on their website in their role as a doctor. Even more worrying – the GMC seems to be unable or unwilling to do anything about this. Here’s what the GMC have to say about good medical practice:

Good Medical Practice sets out the principles and values on which good practice is founded; these principles together describe medical professionalism in action. The guidance is addressed to doctors, but it is also intended to let the public know what they can expect from doctors.

I would like to draw readers’ attention to the following, taken from the GMC’s guide: “You must keep your knowledge and skills up to date throughout your working life“; “If you publish information about your medical services, you must make sure the information is factual and verifiable“; and “In Good Medical Practice the terms ‘you must’ and ‘you should’ are used in the following ways: ‘You must’ is used for an overriding duty or principle.” The statements on Dr Myhill’s website regarding vaccination illustrate that she has failed to keep her knowledge up to date and ensure that the information she has published is factual and verifiable. Good Medical Practice also states: “Serious or persistent failure to follow this guidance will put your registration at risk.” Dr Myhill’s failure to follow this guidance is certainly persistent.

If the GMC’s guidance is intended to let the public know what they can expect from doctors, and it also states that doctors publishing information about their medical services must make sure the information is factual and verifiable, then the public are being misled. We cannot expect information published by Dr Myhill to be factual and verifiable (some of it demonstrably is not), and we cannot expect the GMC to take action regarding published information that is untrue or unverifiable.

My comments above are all based on the fact that Dr Myhill has published statements on her website regarding vaccination that are unsupported by evidence, misleading, or untrue (and has been allowed by the GMC to continue to publish these statements on her website). But it’s not just vaccination.

Dr Myhill recommends that “Babies should be laid on their sides, not on their tummies” (link). This contradicts NHS advice, as can be seen on this webpage: link (“Place your baby on their back to sleep from the very beginning, for both day and night sleeps. This will reduce the risk of cot death. It’s not as safe for babies to sleep on their sides as on their backs.“). If the NHS information is correct – that placing babies on their backs to sleep reduces the risk of cot death, and that it is not as safe for babies to sleep on their sides as on their backs – then why does Dr Myhill advise otherwise?

85 Comments

  1. yamahdi345 said,

    You seem to be victimising this lady. You claim you are against bullshit. This might be more believable if you were more balanced in your attacks.
    I haven’t read much of your stuff (thankfully)-it just appeared in my email.
    Big pharma is, of course, blemish free. Everything they tell you is absolutely true- their clinical trials could stand scrutiny from the lord himself.
    What has Dr Sarah Myhill to gain by saying these things? It would appear to me that she has a great deal more to lose by sticking her neck out for people like you to have a chop at.
    I have no connection with Dr Sarah Myhill but I don’t like bully boys.
    Please correct if I’m wrong (I’m sure you will) if you have indeed written incisive articles illuminating the flaws of big pharma and the mainstream medical profession.
    Direct me to them and I will read them with interest.
    The pharmaceutical industry on the other hand has a great deal to lose if any of its products are found to be flawed and a great deal of power and influence to be brought to bear making sure that these failings are not readily discovered.
    Come on, give people a more balanced view. You are coming across as rather petty and it is beginning to smack of vindictiveness.
    By the way, how do you earn a crust?

  2. Cybertiger said,

    Oh, for goodness sake, jdc532, you are a sanctimonious little sh*t! Go get a life!

  3. yamahdi345 said,

    Hi again, thought I’d check out squalene for myself.
    Read Dr Mercola’s coments on this, quite interesting
    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/08/04/squalene-the-swine-flu-vaccines-dirty-little-secret-exposed.aspx
    It is always a good idea to get a balanced view on things.
    Perhaps you will start attacking him then and at least give Sarah Myhill a rest.
    .

  4. yamahdi345 said,

    Also meant to add- did you ask Sarah Myhill out and she rejected you?
    Or were your views warped by a bad experience with an alternative therapist?

  5. Susan Shilson (@pumpkinface) said,

    yamahdi345 said, “The pharmaceutical industry on the other hand has a great deal to lose if any of its products are found to be flawed and a great deal of power and influence to be brought to bear making sure that these failings are not readily discovered.”

    The reach of the pharmaceutical industry isn’t exactly the question here but may I direct you to

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16080776

    They are partly in financial trouble because, when clinical trials are done properly, they don’t always support the “Big pharma” view of their products, so why do you think the company concerned didn’t use their “power and influence” to suppress those results?

  6. Jenny Allan said,

    From above:-
    ‘If the NHS information is correct – that placing babies on their backs to sleep reduces the risk of cot death, and that it is not as safe for babies to sleep on their sides as on their backs – then why does Dr Myhill advise otherwise?’

    When my children were born, more than 40 years ago, I was advised by the midwives and doctors to lay the newborn babies on their sides. The reasoning behind this was that babies often bring up some of their milk feed and this would prevent the babies from choking on their own vomit. This logic still applies today. I am unsure why the NHS website advises laying babies on their backs, but the NHS quite often changes its collective opinion. Dr Myhill’s advice is, in my opinion, the safer option. As far as I know there are no statistics in existence to back up the NHS’s assertion that laying babies on their backs prevents cot deaths.

  7. johnd said,

    Jenny Allan, see these:

    http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/34/4/874.full.pdf
    http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/pediatrics;116/5/1245.pdf
    http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/173_04_210800/mitchell/mitchell.html
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9783832

    A small sample of the many studies that can be found supporting supine over prone or lateral initial sleeping positions. There are many more, easily found with a google search.

  8. Cybertiger said,

    @Jenny

    Regarding baby sleeping position: before the infinitely tiresome jdc352 wades in with yet more scientific evidence set in stone like the Ten Commandments, I thought I’d append the advice on risk put out by the Foundation for the Study of Infant Deaths,

    http://fsid.org.uk/document.doc?id=42

    When it comes to human beings, jdc253, and other animals, nothing can be set in stone. That’s the message I get from “the scientific evidence” – which, as always, is something very different from “the truth”.

  9. Cybertiger said,

    @Pumpkinface

    http://www.diabetes.co.uk/news/2011/Nov/drug-company-fined-for-avandia-marketing-96123537.html

    GSK makes a lot of dosh from developing and marketing vaccines. GSK expects to make a lot of dosh from selling vaccines in the future. GSK has just been fined nearly GBP1.9 billion “for their development and marketing of the type 2 diabetes drug Avandia, as well as the sales and marketing of two anti-depressants and problems with the Medicaid Rebate Program.”

    “Andrew Witty, chief executive of the firm, “This is a significant step toward resolving difficult, long-standing matters which do not reflect the company that we are today.””

    GSK has invested huge amounts in discrediting vaccine safety critics. What sort of company is GSK today?

  10. Jenny Allan said,

    Thank you cybertiger. Just to enlarge on this subject there were 4 studies in the above document, out of 121 mentioned in total, claimed as supporting evidence against placing babies on their sides. These were:-

    42. Oyen N, Markestad T, Skaerven R, Irgens LM, Helweg-Larsen K, Alm B, et al. Combined effects of sleeping position and prenatal risk factors in sudden infant death syndrome: the Nordic Epidemiological SIDS Study. Pediatrics. 1997 Oct;100(4):613-21.
    43. Blair PS, Platt MW, Smith IJ, Fleming PJ. Sudden infant death syndrome and sleeping position in pre-term and low birth weight infants: an opportunity for targeted intervention. Arch Dis Child. 2006 Feb;91(2):101-6.
    46. Scragg RK, Mitchell EA. Side sleeping position and bed sharing in the sudden infant death syndrome. Ann Med. 1998 Aug;30(4):345-9.
    47. Mitchell EA, Tuohy PG, Brunt JM, Thompson JM, Clements MS, Stewart AW, et al. Risk factors for sudden infant death syndrome following the prevention campaign in New Zealand: a prospective study. Pediatrics. 1997 Nov;100(5):835-40.

    I am always suspicious when so called ‘research papers’ are treated as having been written on ‘tablets of stone’ ONLY when they ‘support’ an establishment or corporate point of view, and can be ‘rubbished’ like the Wakefield et al 1998 Lancet paper when they DON’T!!

    NONE of the above papers are based on RECENT evidence, (the most recent being data from 2006, which dealt solely with premature and low birth weight infants), and they ALL apparently used ‘anecdotal’ evidence for comparison. I accept that there is good evidence against placing a baby on its front, but this flimsy stuff IS NOT good evidence against placing a baby on its side. There are also many other factors to take into consideration, including the ones quoted in the document.

    It is interesting to note that vaccinations are NOT included on the list of risk factors for SIDS.

  11. Cybertiger said,

    Jenny said,

    “It is interesting to note that vaccinations are NOT included on the list of risk factors for SIDS.”

    Sally Clark’s son Harry died on the day he received his first vaccinations. Professor Sir Roy Meadow preferred the diagnosis of ‘murder by mother’ to a proper investigation of the role of vaccination in the baby’s death. Wasn’t Sir Roy removed from the medical register for the dangerous bungling of a murder investigation?

  12. Cybertiger said,

    @Pumpkinface

    http://www.tinyurls.co.uk/b1j

    GSK makes a lot of dosh from developing and marketing vaccines. GSK expects to make a lot more dosh from selling vaccines in the future. GSK has just been fined nearly GBP1.9 billion “for their development and marketing of the type 2 diabetes drug Avandia, as well as the sales and marketing of two anti-depressants and problems with the Medicaid Rebate Program.”

    “Andrew Witty, chief executive of the firm, “This is a significant step toward resolving difficult, long-standing matters which do not reflect the company that we are today.””

    Today, the board of GSK contains such luminaries at Sir Crispin Davis, brother of High Court Judge, Sir Nigel – and James Murdoch. GSK has recently invested huge amounts in discrediting vaccine safety critics. Pumpkinface: this company continues to abuse its “power and influence” for the good of who?

  13. Cybertiger said,

    Sir Crispin Davis is still on the board of GSK along with James Murdoch.

    http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Crispin_Davis

    And Sir Crispin has a brother called Nigel – Sir Nigel.

    http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Nigel_Davis

    And what is a shark-like shyster like James Murdoch doing on the board of a pharmaceutical giant? Any thoughts, Pumpkinface?

  14. mike ward said,

    The stupid – it burns

  15. jdc325 said,

    @yamahdi345

    “Please correct if I’m wrong (I’m sure you will) if you have indeed written incisive articles illuminating the flaws of big pharma and the mainstream medical profession.
    Direct me to them and I will read them with interest.”

    I’m afraid I haven’t written any incisive articles illuminating the flaws of big pharma and mainstream medicine. I have, though, written about big pharma on a few occasions. There’s Big Pharma – Pill Pushers, about pharmaceutical companies spending almost twice as much on promotion as they do on R&D. This post wasn’t exactly complimentary about Big Pharma, and I wrote about some of the breaches of the of the Prescription Medicines Code of Practice reported here.

    There are other blogs of course that do focus on the behaviour of Big Pharma. Try http://www.pharmalot.com/

    I wonder if anyone ever writes to them to complain about their failure to provide ‘balance’ by criticising alternative therapists or doctors with non-mainstream views.

  16. jdc325 said,

    @cybertiger, @Jenny Allan

    “It is interesting to note that vaccinations are NOT included on the list of risk factors for SIDS.”

    Not really – researchers have found no association between SIDS and vaccination. See the CDC page on SIDS and vaccination.

  17. jdc325 said,

    @yamahdi345,

    “Hi again, thought I’d check out squalene for myself.
    Read Dr Mercola’s coments on this, quite interesting”

    I’m afraid you’ve chosen a poor source of information on squalene. Joseph Mercola is a font of misinformation. From your link:

    Gulf War veterans with Gulf War Syndrome (GWS) received anthrax vaccines which contained squalene.[ix] MF59 (the Novartis squalene adjuvant) was an unapproved ingredient in experimental anthrax vaccines and has since been linked to the devastating autoimmune diseases suffered by countless Gulf War vets.[x]

    Now, is this true? No.

    Squalene:

    Nearly a decade ago, squalene was supposed to be the experimental anthrax vaccine ingredient that caused the onset of Persian Gulf War syndrome in many veterans, since antibodies to squalene were detected in the blood of most patients affected by this syndrome. This evidence has raised a widespread concern about the safety of squalene containing adjuvants (especially MF59) of influenza vaccines. Nevertheless, further clinical evidence clearly suggested that squalene is poorly immunogenic, that low titres of antibodies to squalene can be also detected in sera from healthy individuals, and that neither the presence of anti-squalene antibodies nor their titre is significantly increased by immunization with vaccines containing squalene (or MF59) as an adjuvant.

    Anthrax vaccine:

    Variations in the frequency or severity (as judged by hospitalization and/or loss of duty) of reported AEs did not suggest a significant problem with (1) a particular lot of AVA, (2) recurrent AEs after multiple doses or (3) vaccination of persons with a concomitant illness or those given other vaccines or medications.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12062677

    17 lots of Anthrax Vaccine Adsorbed administered to members of the US Armed Forces. No squalene has been detected in any lot. The results of these analyses provide direct evidence for the absence of squalene as an ingredient or a manufacturing contaminant in Anthrax Vaccine Adsorbed.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16762524

    The overall results of this investigation provide direct evidence for the absence of squalene in nearly all of anthrax vaccine preparations tested.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19379786

    We found no association between squalene antibody status and chronic multisymptom illness (p=0.465). The etiology of Gulf War syndrome remains unknown, but should not include squalene antibody status.

    Squalene is safe, was not an ingredient in the anthrax vaccines given to soldiers, and cannot possibly have caused Gulf War Syndrome. Anyone who says otherwise is either misinformed, or is deliberately misinforming you.

    As for writing about Mercola rather than Myhill, I have already done so: https://jdc325.wordpress.com/category/nutritionism/dr-joseph-mercola/

  18. jdc325 said,

    @yamahdi345

    “victimising… I don’t like bully boys… petty… vindictiveness”
    I don’t think that valid criticism of untrue statements published on a doctor’s website amounts to victimisation, bullying, or vindictiveness.

    I do think, though, that vindictiveness could be accurately used to describe the actions of those who instigated a complaint against a clinical scientist in revenge for his criticism of untrue statements published on a doctor’s website: reprisal. See also this. Do you agree?

  19. jdc325 said,

    @Jenny Allan

    “Dr Myhill’s advice is, in my opinion, the safer option. As far as I know there are no statistics in existence to back up the NHS’s assertion that laying babies on their backs prevents cot deaths.”

    Since johnd has kindly provided links to four studies (of many) that support the advice that laying babies on their backs is best, perhaps you’d like to reconsider?

    I should point out that your complaint about the lack of evidence to support the NHS position (several studies, one as recent as 2006) can be compared to my complaint about Dr Myhill’s maverick advice which is supported by a single reference. From 1994. I don’t recall reading any complaint from you regarding the lack of substantial, recent evidence to support Myhill’s assertions…

  20. Cybertiger said,

    jdc325 said,

    … “researchers have found no association between SIDS and vaccination.”

    Harry Clark was a tragic case of SIDS until Meadow appeared on the scene. However, the good professor was never very clear about whether the baby had been smothered or shaken to death by his mother – but the expert witness was certain, beyond any reasonable doubt, that murder it was. Of course, Sally Clark was eventually exonerated of killing her baby: so who was the murderer? Well, jdc523?

  21. Cybertiger said,

    @jdc352

    “So who was the murderer?”

    And before you tell us it was Dad what did it, remember that Professor David Southall got there before you. And Southall blurted out the scientific truth of the matter … while the missus was banged up for life for murdering both babies. Mike Ward is right … the stupid, it burns!!!!!

  22. Cybertiger said,

    @jdc523

    Your blog indicates 20 comments, but my last was number 21. Which comment is missing?

  23. jdc325 said,

    “Your blog indicates 20 comments, but my last was number 21. Which comment is missing?”
    I’ll have a look and see why that is.

  24. jdc325 said,

    @Cybertiger,

    The missing comment is a duplicate of your earlier comment addressed to @Pumpkinface.

  25. jdc325 said,

    @Cybertiger

    If you’re trying to suggest that the vaccination coinciding with the death of Harry Clark is meaningful, then I suggest that you re-read the blogpost that you commented on here.

    If you are asking me to speculate on why Christopher and Harry died, I’m afraid I’m going to have to disappoint you. It’s perhaps worth mentioning, though, that there was some evidence to suggest that the death could have been due to natural causes: link. The medical experts differed in their interpretations of the evidence, but it was sufficient to see the verdict quashed by the Court of Appeal.

  26. Cybertiger said,

    @jdc253

    “@Cybertiger, The missing comment is a duplicate of your earlier comment addressed to @Pumpkinface.”

    Neither comment resulted in the comment tally increasing by one – at the time I actually posted them. However, there was no indication that either comment was awaiting moderation or had been dumped in the spam eater. I naturally assumed that you might be deploying a little technical deceit and deception in the management of comments on your blog. Why wouldn’t I?

  27. jdc325 said,

    “Neither comment resulted in the comment tally increasing by one – at the time I actually posted them. However, there was no indication that either comment was awaiting moderation or had been dumped in the spam eater.”
    You posted the same comment twice. WordPress automatically put both comments in “pending”.

    “I naturally assumed that you might be deploying a little technical deceit and deception in the management of comments on your blog. Why wouldn’t I?”
    I was offline at the time you posted those comments. Your assumption was mistaken. But then, most of your assumptions are.

  28. Cybertiger said,

    Why are both, non-identical, if somewhat similar comments, still visible to me (nos 9 &12) with nothing to indicate either is in any way pending or otherwise consigned to the garbage bin?

  29. Cybertiger said,

    jdc532 said,

    “If you are asking me to speculate on why Christopher and Harry died, I’m afraid I’m going to have to disappoint you.

    I merely speculated that you might agree with Mike ‘the stupid – it burns’ Ward. I’m disappointed because he’s actually spot on.

  30. Cybertiger said,

    My last comment was entered as No. 29 and yet at the top of the commentary it indicates that there are 28 comments. Which comment is missing? Come on, jdc325, explain properly.

  31. jdc325 said,

    “Why are both, non-identical, if somewhat similar comments, still visible to me (nos 9 &12) with nothing to indicate either is in any way pending or otherwise consigned to the garbage bin?”
    They were automatically moved to pending by WordPress. If you want to know more about why comments were still visible to you then perhaps you should email WordPress and ask them how the platform works.

    I’ve fished your other comment out of the pending tray. Why you might want to post two almost-identical comments is beyond me. Why you see a conspiracy where none exists is not. I’ve read your increasingly bizarre comments in various places over the years and your refusal to accept the simple, banal truth of a situation is entirely unsurprising to me.

  32. Cybertiger said,

    The banality of … jdc’s blog … and his blogging skills! Give me strength!

    PS. Hurrah, the numbering now tallies.

  33. Cybertiger said,

    Where’s Dr. Deetee, UK guest blogger from the Blackpool Christmas illuminations? When he can smell spilt blood, this particular cheerful cove is soon on the scene to spill some more of Myhill’s blood. Where’s the Blackpool Werewolf? Plonker!

  34. Cybertiger said,

    @jdc352

    WordPress have snaffled my post – fish it out of the WordPress spam eater – there’s a dear, jdc532!

  35. Cybertiger said,

    Was it the use of ‘plonker’, that enduring term of endearment, to doctors that bring the medical profession into dire disrepute? Like Dr. Deetee, the to**er from Blackpool.

  36. jdc325 said,

    Comment duly fished out. Not sure why that got picked up. It was in pending rather than spam. I might have to take a look at my discussion settings.

  37. thedunkster said,

    In my opinion good guys like Andrew Wakefield and Sarah Myhill have nothing to gain and everything to lose by telling the truth. Big pharma doesn’t take prisoners. Pharma is big, bad and dangerous.
    A mother takes her child to her GP to get the MMR jab. shortly afterward, the child now has severe developmental problems that weren’t there before.
    You don’t have to be an Andrew Wakefield to establish a link between this condition and the jab. Try proving this in a court against big pharma- very difficult.
    My wife thought you would make a good Gestapo agent, but I thought you were too slimy for that.

  38. yamahdi345 said,

    With regard to vaccination evidence, for and against, you and I both know that if you rake the internet you can find numerous ‘experts’ producing studies that vociferously support either point of view.
    One could then look and say who has most to gain from this area. The pharmaceutical industry makes squillions from selling these products.
    Look at the swine flu fiasco in Scotland. The government stockpiled this vaccine after advice from experts that there was going to be a pandemic (advised I believe, by physicians in the field, some of whom had links to these companies)
    I’m sure again you’ll try to correct me if you think I’m wrong) Unlike you, due to my job and other factors, I don’t spend my whole life looking up this stuff (although I am interested.)
    The apparency that not everyone develops a condition after vaccination or imbibing some pharmaceutical product does not mean that the condition is imaginary or not linked. Someone might be allergic to peanuts and almost die from the reaction while you could munch them quite safely. I myself was allergic to orange juice as a child and had some quite alarming reactions.
    I asked you before what you did to earn a crust. You didn’t answer. It seems to leave you with an a great deal of free time.
    Are you perhaps in secret pay of big pharma or the GMC and you write the occasional article viewing them in a negative light to throw us off the scent?

  39. Cybertiger said,

    @the dunkster, who said,

    “My wife thought you would make a good Gestapo agent, but I thought you were too slimy for that.”

    In fact, jdc253 reminds me of a Stasi informer in the former GDR. Not long ago I read a book called ‘Stasiland’ by Anna Funder … a real chiller … which makes one ponder the slimy psychology of those petty informers. A short review by the Evening Standard on the inside cover says,

    “Brilliantly illustrates the weird, horrifying, viciously cruel place that was Cold War East Germany … as well as the horror, Funder writes superbly of the absurdities of the Stasi.”

  40. jdc325 said,

    @thedunkster

    “You don’t have to be an Andrew Wakefield to establish a link between this condition and the jab.”
    Research shows no link. And Andrew Wakefield established nothing: in fact, some of the cases used by Wakefield to cause alarm about vaccination were children who had symptoms before they received MMR – so vaccination didn’t even coincide with the onset of their symptoms.

  41. jdc325 said,

    “With regard to vaccination evidence, for and against, you and I both know that if you rake the internet you can find numerous ‘experts’ producing studies that vociferously support either point of view.
    One could then look and say who has most to gain from this area. The pharmaceutical industry makes squillions from selling these products.”

    You could, yamahdi345. Or, you could look at the quality of the studies. Vaccines and autism is the most obvious place to start. Small, unreliable studies are all that the anti-vaccine cranks have to support their discredited hypotheses. While large, well-conducted, reliable trials support the mainstream view that vaccines are not linked to autism.

    Take a look at table 1 from Offit and Gerber’s paper: http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/48/4/456/F1.expansion.html and you’ll see the number of ecological, case control, prospective cohort, and retrospective cohort studies showing no link between MMR and autism. Now point me to the ecological, case control, prospective cohort, and retrospective cohort studies showing a link between MMR and autism…

    Wakefield’s paper was a case report. If you’re familiar with hierarchies of evidence, you’ll be well aware that case reports are considered to be less reliable than case control and cohort studies.

  42. Cybertiger said,

    Patronisingly and tiresomely, jdc352 said,

    “If you’re familiar with hierarchies of evidence, you’ll be well aware that case reports are considered to be less reliable than case control and cohort studies.”

    More tiresome twaddle from jdc532!

    Case series reports are at the bottom of heap in the heirachy of evidence: they prove nothing. And anyway, Wakefield et al said in their report,

    “We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described.”

    Not that any of that mattered to (Dame) Trisha Greenhalgh, dim-professor of General Practice. I think I’ve commented on her dismal inanities,

    here,

    https://jdc325.wordpress.com/2011/11/13/wakefield-and-mmr-new-revelations/#comment-10707

    and here,

    https://jdc325.wordpress.com/2011/11/13/wakefield-and-mmr-new-revelations/#comment-10747

  43. Cybertiger said,

    In April 2004, Professor Trisha Greenhalgh wrote a critical appraisal of the case series report published in the Lancet by Wakefield et al. The analysis took pride of place on Brian Deer’s website,

    http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-greenhalgh.htm

    … and there it stayed for about 6 years … until mysteriously pulled.

    I saved a copy …

    “A critical appraisal of the Wakefield et al paper

    The term ‘critical appraisal’ means a systematic analysis of a study that has been published in a scientific journal (or a study submitted to a scientific journal whose authors seek to publish it), using a checklist of key questions. When a scientist submits a paper to the Lancet, it is sent out to two or more reviewers with expertise in the field, who are required to send back a formal report based on a critical appraisal checklist.

    1. Is the topic area important and relevant to the Lancet’s readership?

    Yes. In 1998, MMR vaccine had recently been introduced in the UK. Autism was rising in incidence. Questions were being asked about a possible link. A paper describing a study that explored this link would certainly have been appropriate to the Lancet and highly relevant to a general medical readership, so long as it was scientifically robust.

    2. Was the study original?

    Yes. At the time, no previous study had explored in this way the link between MMR vaccine, bowel problems and autism in children.

    3. Was the research hypothesis clearly stated?

    No. The paper does not state a research hypothesis at all. Implicitly, the research hypothesis might be stated, “The administration of MMR vaccine to infants increases their risk of developing (a) a particular pattern of inflammatory damage in the gastro-intestinal tract and (b) autism or an autism-like syndrome.”

    4. What was the study design?

    The study design was a descriptive report on 12 children who had been referred to a paediatric gastroenterology clinic with both bowel symptoms (diarrhoea, abdominal pain, bloating, and food intolerance) and pervasive developmental disorder characterised by loss of skills that had been previously acquired. Various blood tests, gastrointestinal biopsies, and a sample of cerebrospinal fluid were taken from the children. The samples were examined to explore the extent of inflammatory reaction in the bowel and to exclude other diseases (such as thyroid disease, inherited metabolic syndromes and so on). Of dozens of tests done on each child, a number were abnormal, though no test was consistently abnormal in all the children. Eleven of the 12 children had microscopic evidence of inflammatory reaction in their bowel. The parents were asked to remember back and identify if and when MMR vaccine was given. In 8 of the 12 children, the onset of developmental delay was said to have occurred within 2 weeks of having the MMR vaccine, and in 3 it was said to have occurred within 48 hours.

    5. Was this design an appropriate way to test the research hypothesis?

    No. If the hypothesis was that there is a causal link between MMR and autism-bowel syndrome, this study design was incapable of proving that link one way or the other. There are six main reasons for this:
    The sample was highly selected – that is, the authors deliberately picked out the tiny number of children who had been referred to a major specialist centre because they had both bowel symptoms and an autism-like syndrome. So the fact that these rare conditions occurred together proves nothing at all. The fact that children with diarrhoea or other chronic gastro-intestinal symptoms have microscopic evidence of inflamed bowels is also, in itself, unsurprising.

    The sample was extremely small. I would expect a scientific study claiming a causal association between two events (in this case, giving MMR vaccine and developing autism-bowel syndrome) to have a formal statistical calculation of the number of individuals that ought to be looked at. This is known as a power calculation. The reason why the Lancet does not normally publish studies on just 12 individuals (the usual number of research participants is several hundred, and not uncommonly, several thousand) is that the smaller the study, the more likely it is that an apparent causal link will turn out to be due to chance association.

    The study had no control group. When studying the possible harmful impact of a vaccine or environmental agent, it is standard scientific practice to include a control group of individuals who have not been exposed to the putative harmful agent. Indeed, epidemiologists can occasionally perform robust studies to explore the causes of rare but devastating events when only tiny numbers of individuals are affected (this was done, for example, to explore the possible link between overhead power lines and leukaemia) by carefully matching these individuals with others who are alike in many ways (age, sex, social class, smoking status and so on) but who have not been exposed to the putative causal agent. This sort of design is known as a case control study. No matching was not done by Wakefield and colleagues, which means we have no way of knowing that the unusual combination of bowel disease and autism-like syndrome might be equally frequent in children who had not received the MMR vaccine.

    The alleged link with MMR vaccine was made on the basis of retrospective parental recall – in other words, parents (who had just signed a consent form to take part in a study of whether there is a link between MMR and autism) were asked to consider how closely in time the vaccine was with the onset of autism-like behaviour pattern in their child. Whilst there is no suggestion that parents deliberately fabricated the closeness of the link, the authors of the paper took no steps to guard against what is known as ‘recall bias’ (that is, remembering a closer association between two events than actually occurred). The notion that a previously healthy child was ‘normal’ one day and showed clear signs of autism the next day is at odds with the clinical course of pervasive developmental disorder. Such syndromes tend to have a period of weeks or months during which the child’s behaviour is causing some concern but is not clearly abnormal. Hence the firm statement of a “48 hour” or “2 week” interval between the administration of the vaccine and the diagnosis of autism is scientifically implausible and requires further explanation.

    The follow-up period during which the children were studied was short – days or weeks rather than months or years.

    The investigators were not ‘blinded’ – that is, the people who examined the children and analysed the specimens all knew that the children had received MMR vaccine and that a question had been raised about the its link with autism-bowel syndrome. They would also have been aware that ‘positive’ findings would be highly likely to lead to a prestigious publication whereas ‘negative’ findings would not. In a scientifically robust study, the people who do the tests should be unaware of the status of the samples.

    6. Were the study’s conclusions supported by the data?

    No. Whilst Wakefield and colleagues stated at one stage in their paper that their findings did not prove a causal link between MMR vaccine and autism-bowel syndrome, the overall tone of the paper strongly suggests that they believed that they had demonstrated such a link. This conclusion is unjustified for the reasons given above.

    7. If the answer to (5) is no, would a more robust design have been practically possible to test the study’s main hypothesis?

    Most certainly, yes. It is worth noting the key principles, set out by Sir Austin Bradford Hill in 1965, of any scientific study that seeks to prove causation rather than merely association:
    Is there evidence from true experiments in humans?
    Is the association strong?
    Is the association consistent from study to study?
    Is the temporal relationship appropriate (i.e. did the postulated cause precede the postulated effect)?
    Is there a dose-response gradient (i.e. does more of the postulated effect follow more of the postulated cause)?
    Does the association make epidemiological sense?
    Does the association make biological sense?
    Is the association specific?
    Is the association analogous to a previously proven causal association?

    A study from Finland, designed to be large enough pick up even very rare events, followed 1.8 million children prospectively from the day they received the MMR vaccine for a full 14 years. The total number of reported vaccine-associated events was 437, and they included allergic reactions and convulsions, but none of the children had autism linked with the vaccine.

    Several subsequent studies, all much larger and better designed than Wakefield’s, have confirmed an absence of excess cases of autism or bowel disease in children who have received MMR vaccine. In 1999, for example, Dr Brent Taylor looked at 500 cases of autism in the Royal Free Hospital and found no excess in immunised children. A very large and well designed study in the USA – with a proper case control design and with all vaccination dates confirmed by medical records – looked at the incidence of inflammatory bowel disease in people who had received MMR vaccine, other measles-containing vaccine, and no vaccine. The risk of inflammatory bowel disease was the same for vaccinated or unvaccinated people. The average time between vaccination and the development of bowel disease was 12 years. Only 1% of cases developed inflammatory bowel disease within a year of vaccination – and 1% of controls developed inflammatory bowel disease during the same time period. This study was cited in the medical journal ‘Bandolier’ and its results are available free online on

    http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/index.html

    In conclusion, the Wakefield study was scientifically flawed on numerous counts. I am surprised that neither the editor nor the reviewers spotted these flaws when the paper was submitted. Had they done so, the public would have been saved the confusion and anxiety caused by false credibility conveyed by publication of the study in this prestigious journal.

    Professor Trisha Greenhalgh OBE MD FRCP FRCGP
    Professor of Primary Health Care and
    Director, Unit for Evidence-Based Practice and Policy
    University College London

    [1] This combination has been given the informal name ‘autism-bowel syndrome’ though no such syndrome is officially accepted in the mainstream medical literature

    [2] Bradford Hill, A, 1965. The environment and disease: association or causation? Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine. Volume 58, 295-300, cited with permission in Greenhalgh T, How to Read a Paper: the basics of evidence-based medicine; London: BMJ Publications, 2nd edition 2002

    [3] A Patja et al. Serious adverse events after measles-mumps-rubella vaccination during a fourteen-year prospective follow up. Pediatric Infectious Diseases Journal 2000 19: 1127-1134.

    [4] B Taylor et al. Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: no epidemiological evidence for a causal association. Lancet 1999 353: 2026-2029.

    [5] RL Davis et al. Measles-mumps-rubella and other measles-containing vaccines do not increase the risk of inflammatory bowel disease. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2001 155: 354-359″

  44. Cybertiger said,

    @jdc352

    Think carefully now: why do you think the Greenhalgh critique was belatedly pulled from Deer’s site?

  45. jdc325 said,

    @Cybertiger,

    I think Deer could answer that better than me. He, after all, is the only one who knows why the critique was removed. Have you asked him?

    If you want me to speculate wildly on possible motivations for the removal, how about: perhaps Deer came to think it inappropriate that Greenhalgh inferred a research hypothesis (given that no research hypothesis was stated by the authors)?

    Why do you think it was pulled?

  46. Cybertiger said,

    jdc352 naively wibbled,

    “I think Deer could answer that better than me. He, after all, is the only one who knows why the critique was removed.”

    Is it possible that Dame Trish also knew why the critique was removed? Perhaps Professor Trisha Greenhalgh OBE MD FRCP FRCGP asked Deer to remove it. Why wouldn’t she? Even you wibbled about its ‘inappropriateness’. I’d have called it ’embarrassing’, to put it ever so politely. Greenhalgh is a leading GP and ever so clever, ever so important and ever so influential. I’m a GP and I feel betrayed.

  47. jdc325 said,

    Speaking as a GP, Cybertiger, what would you say to a parent who wanted advice on sleeping position? Would you advise they put their child to sleep on their back, front, or side?

  48. Cybertiger said,

    Who gives a s*d about your sleeping position. Trussing you up like a turkey would be my advice for Christmas night. Weasel.

  49. alcaponejunior said,

    Every deluded whacko that posts a ranting spewage forth of mercola and mike adams quoting nonsense bumps up your stats a little, JDC. Oops, there goes another one! Glad I could help out!!

    p.s. cybertroller – suck my balls

  50. Peter said,

    As has been said already, there is so much stupid here it burns.

    I’m not referring to jdc325, I’m referring to the attack trolls from gullible land, where they still believe that Wakefield is a hero rather than the disgraced ex-doctor that he is.

  51. Cybertiger said,

    Junior ‘ball-sucker’ Capone and Peter the Great arse … I spy with my little eye … two very fat Christmas turkeys. I understand what Christopher Hitchens meant when he described the Christmas turkey as “a moral and aesthetic nightmare”. Arseholes!

  52. Cybertiger said,

    jdc253 has cleverly established that an upstanding member of the medical establishment has behaved ‘inappropriately’ in a public place … and even provided website content unsupported by evidence, misleading or patently untrue.

    Is honesty important? Is being honest important for anyone; for jdc523, for Christmas arseholes, or even for important doctors, upstanding members of the academic establishment? Does integrity, scientific or otherwise, matter at all?

    jdc352 is a serial GMC complaint maker: is jdc532 going to complain about Professor Trish? Or is jdc235 just another noxious fart for Christmas? Almost certainly!

  53. Robert said,

    Reading the comments section here, I’m at a loss to understand why anyone would continue to engage with a poster who so routinely insults anyone responding to them. I don’t think it would happen in face-to-face communications and I’m not sure why anyone puts up with it on the internet.

    Indeed in continuing to engage someone debating in this style we’re not simply putting up with the method of communication, but we’re in danger of validating or encouraging it. At best it’s a distraction and a waste of everyone’s time, at worst it’s actually crowding out reasoned and polite debate.

    I know there’s a temptation to go for the quick win in debating. Rather than taking on a reasoned and nuanced difference of opinion we can get drawn in to responding to the most unreasonable response, the one that should be easiest to gainsay. I think it’s a tempation we should resist.

    I dunno, I probably could and should have said that all a lot quicker.

    Happy Christmas all
    Rob

  54. Cybertiger said,

    @Robert

    “I probably could and should have said that all a lot quicker.”

    I agree. And without sounding like a pompous ass.

    PS. Of course, it’s only a matter of time before jdc352 presses the WordPress censorship button so that all the Christmas turkeys can once again resume their polite, nuanced and reasoned debate … gobble, gobble.

  55. rf098 said,

    @Cybertwat I’m pleased to see from post 32 that you have now either learned to count or, and this is the more likely explanation, called your mum up to the spare room in her house (which you continue to occupy despite the fact that most people of your age left home between 25 and 30 years ago) so that she could explain how the sequence of natural numbers works. Anyway, the “missing” posts seem to be accounted for so I hope you’re not feeling confused any more.

    @Robert, don’t be unkind to Cyberstupid. Having given the matter considerable thought, I’ve realised that it’s actually rather cruel to ignore him. He needs an outlet for the impotent rage, bitterness and sense of failure that he’s experiencing. He wants to feel that he’s actually a member of human society rather than a lonely, embittered, underachieving loser who is obsessed with bizarre conspiracy theories. He’s certainly not going to get any of that in the real world (I mean, one look at his posts tells you his life’s hardly likely to be a great success story). I think we should all view his contributions to this forum as a form of therapy. Let’s all try to support him through this difficult time.

  56. Cybertiger said,

    @rf098. Wtf! Sssscrew loose, or what ….?!! Scary!

  57. yamahdi345 said,

    Hi I’m beginning to wonder how I managed to get involved in this?
    rf098 would appear to be describing jdc325 rather than cybertiger-(are you jdc’s mum or boyfriend?) Cybertiger has at least admitted to having a profession unlike the other saddos posting. (I’m a primary teacher by the way)
    As I said before this stuff just appeared in my email????
    jdc has yet to tell me his profession and how sad is he??
    I wish my GP was more like Cybertiger than the robotic company man that he is.
    jdc- you seem to ignore parts of the postings that you don’t want to answer.
    As for the quality of the studies would it not be more appropriate to look at who was financing these?
    You wrote (dangerously wrong- Dr Sarah Myhill) What if you are the one who is dangerously wrong? What if someone with half a brain read your well named, ‘Stuff and Nonsense’ and acted on it.
    You still haven’t told me how many medical degrees you have and your background in research. ( I did look up one site that alluded that you might have a connection to altenative health!!)
    Mike- the stupid it burns- must be on fire!! He has to live with himself.
    Fixed and dilated- that about descibes your viewpoint (jdc)
    You also don’t let us into why you are so fixated with these matters- at least Cybertiger has a professional interest.I just find you mildly annoying (perhaps that’s how you get your kicks.)
    http://www.naturalnews.com/032216_Thorsen_fraud.html
    What about this guy? Is he lilly white and the alternative health guys are just out to get him?
    If he is as dishonest as they say, I’m sure he wouldn’t be averse to manipulating a few results.
    I now think that not only are you petty and vindictive but also a trifle obsessive and still a bully boy. Bet you nobody liked you at school.

  58. rf098 said,

    Cyberstupid wrote “Whine, moan …..inane, evidence – free ramblings about conspiracy theories ….whine, moan ….. inane, evidence – free ramblings implying his posts have been deleted …… whine, moan ……. insult (snigger, snigger) ….. inane, evidence – free statements implying he’s a brave crusader for truth and it’s only a matter of time ’til he’s censored ….. whine moan, cough, choke”

    That’s it, let it all out. You’ll feel better soon.

    yamaha3£$6, you’re not very bright, are you?

  59. Cybertiger said,

    rf098 is back! The big, meaningless robot with several loose screws is back. Run for cover.

  60. rf098 said,

    Cyberstupid wrote “Whine, whine, whine …… why is no one taking me seriously? …… whine, whine, whine …..”

    Awwwwwww, Cybermoron, we DO take you seriously. Really, we DO. How’s the therapy going?

  61. yamahdi345 said,

    rf098- brighter than you (which is no great compliment to my intellectual prowess).
    You must have been the moronic playground bully. Which secure unit do you reside in anyway?
    But while this all descends into the level of playground argument- no. wait a minute- playground arguments aren’t this banal.
    I think that I shall delete you all from my life and get back to relative sanity.

  62. Cybertiger said,

    Yet another turkey stuffed for Christmas,

    http://www.meassociation.org.uk/?p=9879

    … quack, gobble, splutter … quack.

  63. Cybertiger said,

    All’s quiet down on the farm,

    http://www.badscience.net/forum/viewforum.php?f=3&sid=de99bd4f193884dacfd08adeb6f67589

    … not a gobble or a quack nor a cluck, not even an oink … about poor old turkey jones (aka jonas the twerp),

    http://www.meassociation.org.uk/?p=9879

    … one of Ben’s flock, so sadly demised … at Christmas.

  64. Cybertiger said,

    Stuff the bad scientists: it’s time Ben Goldacre closed his turkey farm, sent the fowl to slaughter, and then stuffed them all with chestnuts … and a very large onion each. And jdc666’s ‘stuff and nonsense’ needs the same treatment!

  65. Cybertiger said,

    Wot, no comment? Where’s Junior et al? Where’s jdc666? These puffed up turkeys are usually full of gobble: where are Al ‘turkey balls’ Capone and all his fowl friends? Or are they just chicken nuggets after all?

  66. Cybertiger said,

    Come in jdc666 … we know you’re not far away … been peeking at a duck’s CV I see,

    http://www.badscience.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=27225#p723116

    I love stuffed duck … especially with a lemon up its arse. Quaaaaaak!

  67. Rebecca Fisher said,

  68. Diana said,

    Gulf War Syndrome – pathogen: Mycoplasma Fermentans Incognitus (weaponized mycoplasma)

  69. Steff said,

    First off, the writer states “I’ve written about Dr Myhill several times now. Previously, I’ve pointed out various incorrect assertions and unsubstantiated claims relating specifically to vaccination” Please inform us who you are to judge? What are your qualifications? What is your experience? And why you believe your information to be more valid than Dr Myhills? Or possibly why you believe your sources to be more valid than Dr Myhills? I’m sure you are more than aware that the vast majority of research is funded by those who produce, and as such many scientists “skew” data by design, the “correct” results are paid for, this is common knowledge, so just the facts please : ) An uncompromised scientist.

  70. jdc325 said,

    Hi Steff,

    What qualifications and experience do you think are necessary for those who are presenting evidence and pointing out incorrect assertions or unsubstantiated claims?

    Myhill stated on her website that “MMR used to contain mercury, it now contains aluminium” – this is an example of the incorrect assertions I was referring to. Do you agree that this assertion was incorrect? What qualifications and experience are necessary in order to read the patient information leaflets for MMR and spot that the ingredients do not include mercury and aluminium? MMR II and Priorix do not contain aluminium and the MMR vaccine never contained thimerosal or any form of mercury. MMR is a live vaccine and as such would not contain a preservative. It looks like even Dr Myhill agreed that this assertion was incorrect, as she removed it from her website after I contacted her.

  71. medtruth said,

    Maybe a simple mistake.Certainly the vaccinations at 2,4,6, months contained thiomersal.Later quietly removed and now contain Aluminium hydroxide.It was these heavy metals which compromised the infants undeveloped immune system.Once they received the live attenuated MMR their compromised immune system was unable to handle it resulting in the disatrous consequences in many cases.

  72. ChrisP said,

    MMR vaccine contains neither thiomersal, nor aluminium hydroxide. Therefore, the events you propose are not possible.

  73. medtruth said,

    I did not say that.That.I said the the Vaccines given At 2, 4and 6 months contained Thiomersal,Subsequently removed quietly,and now contain Aluminium Hydroxide.I am well aware that MMR itself does not have added toxic metals.I pointed out that it is the vaccines at 2,4 and 6 months that contain the toxic metals. that compromise the infants already immature immune system.When the live atenuated MMR is given the immune system of the infant is unable to handle this, resuling in disastrous consequences in many cases .People like you twist and lie to further your agenda…

  74. ChrisP said,

    Do you understand how the human immune system works?

  75. medtruth said,

    Toxic metals are oxidised to form free radicals which damage cells.Thus an already underdeveloped immune system is compromised..Thus it is unable to overcome the now introduced live attenuated vaccine. Q.E.D.

  76. ChrisP said,

    So the answer is no.

    BTW, just so you know for future reference, breathing produces free radicals, as does moving any muscles.

  77. jdc325 said,

    @medtruth

    Maybe a simple mistake.

    Maybe, yes – but a revealing one nonetheless. It’s not the kind of mistake I would expect somebody knowledgeable about vaccination to make. Oh, and it’s perhaps worth pointing out once more that it wasn’t Myhill or a colleague who spotted the items that needed to be corrected – it took other people to do the fact-checking and contact Dr Myhill to point out various issues.

    The rest of your post, regarding compromised immune systems from previous vaccination and the “disastrous consequences” of MMR vaccination, manages to be both irrelevant and incorrect. TCV and MMR are not associated with autism. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2908388/

  78. medtruth said,

    lots of reactions produce free radicals.however excess free radicals from oxidated toxic metals are harmful to a n already compromised immune system ,thus the problem with the introduction of the live attenuated MMR.,The last comment seems to suggest the old adage if you say sometthing often enough it must be true.

  79. jdc325 said,

    @medtruth

    If you want to judge whether something is true, wouldn’t it be better to consider the evidence supporting a statement rather than the number of times you’ve heard or read it? Read the paper I linked to in support of my statement. It will be more informative than your keeping a count of how many times you’ve been told that MMR and TCV do not cause autism.

  80. Regulation of quackery in the UK » Guy Chapman's Blahg said,

    […] would act to control a doctor who had gone over to the Dark Side, offering quack treatments or promoting bonkers theories, and it is the GMC that should act if someone falsely claims to be a […]

  81. Qi Gong said,

    Every MD I know who has been daring to talk about the real effets of vaccins have their voice shut down, are sent to court by Big Pharma, and have their names throwned in dirt.

    Since you start your complains regarding Dr Myhill with her stance on vaccination which is, by the way scientifically proven (link with scalene in vaccin and an arthritis, non significative benefits of the Flu vaccin, etc.) by independent research, I suspect you have interests in shutting her down rather than opening your mind.

    I find it fascinating that all the patients I’ve treated and have seen and exacerbation of symptoms right after a vaccin has been told it is a coincidence and were, for most not documented except for one due to H1N1 vaccin. by the way study shows that people who got that vaccin are more succestible to getting the flu after and are responsible for spreading it rather than the contrary.

    Only 1/10 of the world population adhere to the western medecine views. Wake up! Excellent for emergency and acute case. A disaster for many chronic conditions. Chineese hospital “cure”. Yes! The “cure” with Medical Qi gong and energy medecine. No pills. Many other aisan modalities are way better to deal with the pollution soup we live in than adding drugs to our system that just add a burden to our liver and camouflage symptoms of intoxication to endocrine dysruptes, heavy metal poisoning, EMF bombardment to our body’s energy field.

    Doom is the one who is the first to be right… The earth is not flat. Energy and mass are different representation of the same thing. Microbes existed prior to the microscope and energy field of our body and earth existed prior to us adding an exponential burden on the planet energy field balance with our desperate need to consume to death and be connected to information we do not have the open mind to use intellegently. Russian used microwaves against the US in the second world war. USA use microwaves in Irak to confused people in villages prior to invasion. russian use the energy field of the body to diagnose disease cheaply before that physically appear.

    Wake up we are on the 21th Century ! I would like to know who you are.

    Qi Gong

  82. Marielle said,

    I like the headline of this article, because it is really stuffed with nonsense :-)
    There is scientific evidence, and there is scientific evidence that is filtered, coloured and selected for both media and medical journals. The studies that count have been paid for by eg those who make the vaccines ;-P

  83. Chris said,

    “The studies that count have been paid for by eg those who make the vaccines ;-P”

    Please go through all of the studies contained in this list: Vaccine Safety: Examine the Evidence.

    Then tell us which ones are paid by the pharmaceutical companies by directly quoting the verbiage in the studies where they identified as the funding agencies.

    For instance, in an older paper, Impact of anti-vaccine movements on pertussis control: the untold story, you would have to tell us which of the following agencies “make the vaccines”:
    Gangarosa International Health Foundation and Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
    World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Georgia (GA), USA
    PHLS Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, London, UK

  84. mythbuster said,

    It is worth noting that in Europe there is no specific vaccine monitoring system in place to collate and record any vaccine reaction data.

    When there is an outbreak of a vaccinated disease it is not possible to refer to data to find out how many of the ‘succumbed’ had actually been already vaccinated.

    So there is no independent data set that can actually validate the efficacy of any single currently used vaccine Chris. It is only by asking those who go down if they were vaccinated and this is not an acceptable scientific position.

    Chris you are an arse, I have tried hard to avoid polemics and rude words but you are a complete shit.

  85. mythbuster said,

    For instance, in an older paper, Impact of anti-vaccine movements on pertussis control: the untold story, you would have to tell us which of the following agencies “make the vaccines”: Chris tosh

    For Pete’s sake, the American Academy of child abusers is no a credible source of anything – its a joke.

    They re invent the word placebo to include the vaccine adjunct itself – there is so much voodoo in this link you posted I can only believe you asked some septic shit for a link and never read it yourself.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: