Humdinger, crusoe.

nbw: Desist with the ad-hominems please, or marktime will be wishing me dead from a.n other disease again. He gets excited when he's let out for the day and is on a yellow card from a previous incident. Please don't encourage him. Last time he said he was father Christmas, just because Brightgreen disagreed with him and then confirmed that he (brightgreen) WAS a geneticist. Confusing for my simple brain. I don't believe he's father Christmas at all, btw, but then I have always believed I have a faulty logic gland - and you can quote me on that.

I'm sorry Crusoe, but I can't make head or tail of what you have written to me here. It seems pretty pointless to debate if we don't speak the same language.

Let's pick up on just one of your assertions.:
“The incidence of asthma has been found to be five times more common in vaccinated children.”
The Lancet, 1994"

First of all could we have a full reference for the Lancet paper please? I could only find reference to this on what can only be described as anti-vaccination websites. Instead when I search the peer-reviewed literature for evidence of asthma linking to vaccination, I find that the current consensus seems to be that while the findings of early research was inconsistent, more recent large scale studies show no link. See eg. the attached.

Posted By: crusoeYou use good argument technique in asking me to show the Lancet reference, which I may or may not be able to do (watch this space), which throws the argument back into my court, but it is argument technique to win an argument, not address the problem or find answers, or you would be answering - or at least reflecting on - those other quotes I gave.

Unfortunately, a very common kind of tactic, even (especially?) on this forum.

Very selective use of "evidence" there...............

I peripherally looked at one supposed link between vaccination and illness a few years ago, when working for an epidemiologist. I started off being convinced of the link, based on the supposed evidence that was being presented in the popular press at the time. A few days later it became clear that the vast majority of the work that purported to show a causative link between a vaccine and an illness was deeply flawed. Much was simply bad science, an awful lot wasn't science at all, just very selective excerpts from other literature, and in the end the three of us looking at this concluded that there was no evidence of any linkage at all.

This was several years ago, and was not undertaken as work, it was done in our own time to try and help a colleague who's young son had recently been diagnosed as being on the autistic spectrum. She (who was a biochemist, with a PhD) was convinced that there had to be some scientific basis for the much publicised link with vaccination, as were the rest of us when we started our review of the available evidence. TBH, we were taken aback at just how very poor the basic science was supporting the supposed causative link in this case, all the more so because some supposedly eminent scientists had lent some support to the theory at various times.

The primary problem is that once one individual asserted the probability of a causative link, many others failed to review his evidence properly before supporting that assertion. The driving force behind this false theory seemed to be an individual seeking to understand why the incidence of autism was apparently increasing, and, it now transpires, a certain element of potential financial gain. I believe that he may have made the absolutely classic error when initially looking at available data (a point that ST has made here before about statistics and data) of assuming that correlation implied causation.

He's not alone, it's extremely tempting to look at data, see two or more apparently similar looking patterns of change over a period of time and assume they are connected. Unfortunately we now tend to collect masses of data on everything, far more than we did years ago, and so it is far easier for gross errors of this kind to be made. Very often, similar patterns in data aren't actually causally connected, although I believe that it is human nature to want to try and make causal connections where none may exist. In this particular case the saddest part is the number of deaths that may have been prevented had this greedy and misguided man not acted as he did. Deaths that I hope rest heavily on the shoulders of Wakefield and perhaps his colleague Walker-Smith (both of whom have now, thankfully, been struck off, I believe).

Here's another example of how the ready availability of data today can lead to false conclusions as to cause. For the past 45 years I've been part of a long term familial study into a disease. When the study started the disease was believed to be fairly new, as there were very few recorded instances of the symptoms earlier than around 1900. As a result, the leading theory then was that something in the modern environment had changed and was now causing this disease. After a lot of work it was eventually found that the disease has been with us for centuries, but because it doesn't often kill people before they reach the age of 40 or so, it wasn't being recorded before around 1850, simply because a lot of people died of other causes before this disease could get around to killing them.

There is a strong lesson here; don't automatically trust any evidence purporting to show definitive causative links between a factor in our lives and a disease unless the evidence is overwhelmingly conclusive and you've thoroughly checked it. Much of the above "evidence" elsewhere in this thread is, from that which I've taken the time to cross check, far from conclusive IMHO, I'm afraid, plus there are too many selective and one-sided quotes of rather dodgy statistics, too. I'm no fan of the pharmaceutical industry, BWT, and have no axe to grind on either side.

FWIW, the Lancet did at least have the sense to publish the GMC findings regarding the fraud by Wakefield, et al, over the false link between the MMR vaccine and autism: http://www.gmc-uk.org/Wakefield_SPM_and_SANCTION.pdf_32595267.pdf and http://www.gmc-uk.org/Professor_Walker_Smith_SPM.pdf_32595970.pdf

They also published a refutation of the paper they published back in 1998 that caused the whole sad affair, and which has since spawned many other similar claims, most emanating from some of the false premises that Wakefield, and to a lesser extent Walker-Smith, originally propagated.

It's a great shame the Lancet didn't peer review Wakefield's paper before publishing it. Had they done so then they may have prevented some children from dying as a consequence of his misguided views. It's another strong reason for ALL scientific work to be properly peer reviewed before publication, something that is now increasingly rare given the ease with which false and misleading information can be spread around via the internet.

Does not having vaccinations reduce asthma cases?

I quite like Quackwatch (mentioned in the curezone page), and Ben Goldacre

Hey, you leave Thunderbirds alone or you'l have joe90 on your case JSH!! :)

Not such a sad fiasco, Dr Wakefield's, as it is leading to court decisions - based on proof - (they wouldn't put up the money unless it was proven!) that some vaccination schedules DO cause disease in some children and should be studied more before applying the intervention.

Making comments like you are, you are clearly not even reading the alternative views expressed, like those of Dr Jonas Salk, creator of the oral polio vaccine, who testified that the vaccine itself led to the propagation of the disease. And which is now known to cause cancer. It doesn't come much more from the horse's mouth than that.

So I am afraid that simply parroting emotive pharma-chants like 'the kids will die' is an attempt to stifle debate because you all 'know' this emperor has superb sartorial tastes

Steamy: quackwatchwatch is even better! Stephen Barrett & co given a taste of their own medicine!

Another vaccine-asthma study: nbw, this IS from a anti-vaccine website. Who else do you think might publish it?

EARLIER VACCINATION CAUSES ASTHMA
AshtmaBy Mark F. Blaxill http://www.ageofautism.com/2008/07/earlier-vaccina.html#more

Lost amidst all the furor over the role of vaccines in autism has been the role that vaccine administration plays in causing other chronic childhood diseases like asthma and juvenile diabetes. But the evidence that vaccine administration, especially early administration of DPT vaccine, increases the risk of developing asthma (for the purposes of simplicity, let’s shorten that phrase to causes asthma for what follows) is compelling. If you look at the totality of the published evidence the picture is admittedly somewhat mixed, but for anyone with an open mind and a critical eye, the argument for a strong role for vaccines as a cause of asthma is persuasive.

And for any parent trying to figure out whether or not to comply with the aggressive and crowded vaccine schedules, the message from this evidence is simple. Don’t comply. Go slower than they want you to. Take responsibility for your own child’s health. Because recent research shows not simply that vaccines cause asthma, but that the sooner you give your child some vaccines the higher the odds that your child will develop asthma. These are obviously critical and controversial points, so let’s take a some time to review some of this research.
In a study published earlier this year, a group of Canadian researchers from the University of Manitoba examined the connection between asthma and vaccines in one of the largest studies ever to address the question. What they found was clear and striking. The earlier children received their DPT shots, the higher their odds of developing asthma by their seventh year of age. To be more precise, among children born in Manitoba in 1995 who received their first shot on time (on or before two months of age), nearly 14% subsequently developed asthma. By comparison, among children who received their first shot late (six months or later), less than 6% developed asthma. That’s a “crude odds ratio” (before statistical adjustments for “confounders” that might bias the result) of 2.6, meaning that a child vaccinated on schedule is over two and half times more likely to develop asthma than a child vaccinated late. Quote ends.

Ah, the much-touted open mind....until it hits you personally (cue Congressman Dan Burton and his testimony about his vaccine-injured grandson) you don't even know it's closed.

And Dr Antony Morris, former chief vaccine control officer and research virologist, FDA, quoted above, who said that 'There is a great deal of evidence that immunization of children does more harm than good'. Surely a man with no axe to grind, and one who should know. Why would he say that - to further his career?

JSH: Simple question - have you read Wakefield's book and his defence? Open minded and all that? Or been prepared to listen to the people who wanted a scapegoat for the attack on their particular sacred cow? I have read both, and made my mind up accordingly. Surely, that's what an expert witness (been there) should do.

You say that 'the incidence of vaccine-related side effects is low and very well documented by the HPA'. Really? Keeping repeating that may reassure the public, but it doesn't seem to be halting the flood of studies showing precisely opposite. A few here for your delectation:

Canada
*McDonald KL, Huq SI, Lix LM, Becker AB, Kozyrskyj AL. Delay in diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus vaccination is associated with a reduced risk of childhood asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2008;121(3):626-31.

New Zealand
*Kemp T, Pearce N, Fitzharris P, Crane J, Fergusson D, St George I, Wickens K, Beasley R. Is infant immunization a risk factor for childhood asthma or allergy? Epidemiology. 1997;8(6):678-80.

*Wickens K, Crane J, Kemp T, Lewis S, D'Souza W, Sawyer G, Stone L, Tohill S, Kennedy J, Slater T, Rains N, Pearce N. A case-control study of risk factors for asthma in New Zealand children. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2001;25(1):44-9.

United Kingdom
*Odent MR, Culpin EE, Kimmel T. Pertussis vaccination and asthma: is there a link? JAMA. 1994;272(8):592-3.

*Farooqi IS, Hopkin JM. Early childhood infection and atopic disorder. Thorax. 1998;53(11):927-32.

*McKeever TM, Lewis SA, Smith C, Hubbard R. Vaccination and allergic disease: a birth cohort study. Am J Public Health. 2004;94(6):985-9

*Maitra A, Sherriff A, Griffiths M, Henderson J; Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children Study Team. Pertussis vaccination in infancy and asthma or allergy in later childhood: birth cohort study. BMJ. 2004;328(7445):925-6.

*Bernsen RM, de Jongste JC, Koes BW, Aardoom HA, van der Wouden JC. Diphtheria tetanus pertussis poliomyelitis vaccination and reported atopic disorders in 8-12-year-old children. Vaccine. 2006 15;24(12):2035-42.

*Bernsen RM, Nagelkerke NJ, Thijs C, van der Wouden JC. Reported pertussis infection and risk of atopy in 8- to 12-yr-old vaccinated and non-vaccinated children. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2008;19(1):46-52.

United States
*Hurwitz EL, Morgenstern H. Effects of diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis or tetanus vaccination on allergies and allergy-related respiratory symptoms among children and adolescents in the United States. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2000;23(2):81-90.

*DeStefano F, Gu D, Kramarz P, Truman BI, Iademarco MF, Mullooly JP, Jackson LA, Davis RL, Black SB, Shinefield HR, Marcy SM, Ward JI, Chen RT; Vaccine Safety Datalink Research Group. Childhood vaccinations and risk of asthma. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2002;21(6):498-504.

Mullooly JP, Pearson J, Drew L, Schuler R, Maher J, Gargiullo P, DeStefano F, Chen R; Vaccine Safety Datalink Working Group. Wheezing lower respiratory disease and vaccination of full-term infants. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2002 ;11(1):21-30.

The latter study may be familiar.....read what one author has to say about it, at the bottom. Below, down there....after examining the import of the Manitoba study quoted earlier.

"It’s also important to recognize that this Canadian study isn’t covering virgin territory. Although it’s the first to examine the specific question of vaccination timing so carefully (as opposed to a simpler vax/unvax study design), it’s not the first to address the question of vaccination and asthma. Far from it. Indeed there’s a long parade of studies, covering many different countries, many different vaccines and using many different study designs. At the highest level, these studies come in two flavors.

The first are the less formal vax/unvax surveys, the kind conducted by outsiders to the medical establishment who are worried that the insiders are out of control and not paying attention to the epidemic of chronic disease. Without large resources, prestigious institutions and large research budgets behind them, these efforts pursue the simplest path with the least complexity: they go out and find two populations—one vaccinated and one not—and compare their health outcomes. Time after time, studies like these, whether from our own sponsor Generation Rescue, the Dutch Association for Conscientious Vaccination, or the Immunization Awareness Society in New Zealand, yield similar findings when it comes to asthma. Vaccinated children always have sharply higher risk of developing asthma than unvaccinated children, anywhere from two to six times higher.

There is, of course, another class of study, the kind that makes its way into an indexed medical journal. And although the evidence from this body of work is less consistent than the grass-roots efforts, the weight of evidence among this group of studies is remarkably similar as well. I’ve read through a large number of them myself (I have provided a list of the most relevant published studies below) and I will summarize them here only briefly. Suffice it to say, there are a number of recognizable patterns in these studies, most of which (like the Manitoba study) focus on the DPT shot. A few (most notably two German studies) actually have shown a protective effect of vaccination.. But the majority of them report some kind of elevated asthma risk with vaccination: anywhere from 20% higher to 14 times higher. These studies often draw on smaller samples than the Manitoba study(following hundreds rather than thousands of infants), which is why the Manitoba analysis, with a study population of over 11,000 was so informative..

In fact, every study with a sample population larger than 10,000 shows a significant link between vaccines and asthma: every study, that is, except one performed by the CDC under the guise of the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) program. The CDC has conducted a number of studies on vaccines and asthma. In every case, after deploying elaborate statistical gyrations not at all unlike the infamous Verstraeten study, the authors conclude that vaccines have nothing to do with asthma. The CDC never met a vaccine that made a child sick, so not surprisingly, these studies unfailingly deliver the party line: “do what we tell you to do”. End quotes.

Wonder why nbw chose THAT one then?

As for Wakefield's study, small it may have been, but it has been replicated several times, surprisingly with similar effects.

New Investigation Defends Wakefield's Lancet Study

At the heart of the Wakefield controversy has been whether or not the children in the study were, in fact, diagnosed with non-specific colitis, or if that information had been fabricated -- allegations that were largely initiated by investigative journalist Brian Deer.

Writing in the BMJ, research microbiologist David Lewis, of the National Whistleblowers Center, explains that he reviewed histopathological grading sheets by two of Dr. Wakefield's coauthors, pathologists Amar Dhillon and Andrew Anthony, and concluded there was no fraud committed by Dr. Wakefield:

"As a research microbiologist involved with the collection and examination of colonic biopsy samples, I do not believe that Dr. Wakefield intentionally misinterpreted the grading sheets as evidence of "non-specific colitis." Dhillon indicated "non-specific" in a box associated, in some cases, with other forms of colitis. In addition, if Anthony's grading sheets are similar to ones he completed for the Lancet article, they suggest that he diagnosed "colitis" in a number of the children."

In a press release, Lewis continued:

"The grading sheets and other evidence in Wakefield's files clearly show that it is unreasonable to conclude, based on a comparison of the histological records, that Andrew Wakefield 'faked' a link between the MMR vaccine and autism.

Now that these records have seen the light of day, it is time for others to stop using them for this purpose as well. False allegations of research misconduct can destroy the careers of even the most accomplished and reputable scientists overnight. It may take years for them to prove their innocence; and even then the damages are often irreparable. In cases where mistakes are made, every effort should be taken to fully restore the reputations and careers of scientists who are falsely accused of research misconduct."

Wakefield is Not the Only Researcher to Look Into the Possible Connection Between MMR Vaccine, Bowel Disease and Autism

While the press continues to battle over Dr. Wakefield's purported guilt or innocence, the bigger issue -- that there appears to be a connection between inflammation, and particularly gut inflammation, and autism -- is getting lost in the shuffle. Plus, other research has confirmed Wakefield's hotly contested findings, linking the MMR triple vaccine with bowel disease and autism -- contrary to what you might hear in the press.

The Daily Mail reported:

" … a team from the Wake Forest University School of Medicine in North Carolina are examining 275 children with regressive autism and bowel disease - and of the 82 tested so far, 70 prove positive for the measles virus … the team's leader, Dr Stephen Walker, said: 'Of the handful of results we have in so far, all are vaccine strain and none are wild measles.

This research proves that in the gastrointestinal tract of a number of children who have been diagnosed with regressive autism, there is evidence of measles virus. What it means is that the study done earlier by Dr Wakefield and published in 1998 is correct.

That study didn't draw any conclusions about specifically what it means to find measles virus in the gut, but the implication is it may be coming from the MMR vaccine. If that's the case, and this live virus is residing in the gastrointestinal tract of some children, and then they have GI inflammation and other problems, it may be related to the MMR."

The lead researcher, Stephen J. Walker, Ph.D., was also quick to state however, that this does not necessarily mean the MMR vaccine causes autism. Still, his research notes the same connection that Wakefield's team did, which is that many autistic children have chronic bowel inflammation, and have the vaccine strain of the measles virus in their intestines.

Says Dr. Wakefield of his original 1998 findings:

"… it's been replicated in Canada, in the U.S., in Venezuela, in Italy… [but] they never get mentioned. All you ever hear is that no one else has ever been able to replicate the findings. I'm afraid that is false."

You can see a list of 28 studies from around the world that support Dr. Wakefield's controversial findings in this past article. In addition to his hotly contested MMR study, Dr. Wakefield has published dozens of peer-reviewed papers looking at the mechanism and cause of inflammatory bowel disease, and has extensively investigated the brain-bowel connection in the context of children with developmental disorders such as autism. As described below, other researchers are also doing the same …

End quotes

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: crusoe</cite>JSH: Simple question - have you read Wakefield's book and his defence? Open minded and all that? Or been prepared to listen to the people who wanted a scapegoat for the attack on their particular sacred cow? I have read both, and made my mind up accordingly. Surely, that's what an expert witness (been there) should do.

You say that 'the incidence of vaccine-related side effects is low and very well documented by the HPA'. Really? Keeping repeating that may reassure the public, but it doesn't seem to be halting the flood of studies showing precisely opposite. </blockquote>

The three of us read every bit of peer reviewed research we could lay our hands on. Most of it seemed to conflict with the non-peer reviewed publications from the anti-vaccine lobby. No real surprise there, there are some people who have an almost religious fervour when it comes to being selective about the things they choose to believe. Interestingly, most of the non-peer reviewed work was published after the Lancet paper, leading all three of us to agree that it's publication had triggered a wave of anti-vaccine feeling around the world. Because much of the anti-vaccine lobby work was based on the premise that Wakefield et al had already made a causative link, it was often of poor quality. Starting any study with the false presumption that there is already a proven causal link will always, without exception, lead to bias, whether intentional or accidental. It's a fundamental reason for the adoption of double blind studies when investigating any human-related activity, we know only too well how even the very best intentioned researchers will influence outcomes otherwise, often completely unwittingly.

Our approach was simple, if a paper hadn't been peer reviewed by a recognised journal or authority, then it was discounted. This did mean that a great deal of anecdotal "evidence" was not considered. This was the approach that Wakefield et al should have taken, instead he chose to publish some extremely poorly researched work, work where the methodology was clearly questionable and from which reasonable conclusions could not be drawn.

We couldn't find at the time (2005) any significant evidence to causally link MMR and autism. We weren't alone in that finding. Over the next three years our colleagues over the road did exhaustive research into the supposed link, they too concluded that there wasn't one. It was this collective evidence that finally caused the bubble to burst around Wakefield, nothing more. AFAIK the accusations made that the drug companies were influential in the case against Wakefield is mainly rubbish. MMR was out of patent and far from being a money spinner for the drug companies - they'd have liked nothing better than for MMR to be withdrawn and for them to have been given the chance to develop a new vaccine, with all the associated high profits from patent protection for the first few years.

FWIW I don't see Wakefield as a rogue. From reading his work I believe that he genuinely felt there was a connection between MMR and autism. It's transparently clear that his research was deeply flawed, but the same could be said for many others who have single mindedly sought to prove something they strongly believe in. I'm not convinced that the media concentration on his own patent, and the fact that he stood to gain financially if MMR was discredited, is particularly relevant. I think he just got caught up in his own self-belief, persuaded others he was on to something, and failed to apply the proper scientific method to his work. He was aided and abetted by the failure of The Lancet to even check his findings before publication, let alone perform a proper peer review. Once the genie was out of the bottle the flood gates opened, allowing many with unexplained illness to wrongly pin the blame on vaccination.

A large part of the problem here is selective quoting. People do it to me all the time, because if I don't know something to be fact I am always a little circumspect with my choice of words. You'll see me using words like "may", "possibly", or even "probably" when I believe there's insufficient evidence to positively prove something one way or the other.

Some will cherry pick my words, and choose to use them selectively, perhaps because of their devout belief in something, and either see my circumspection as lending support to their position, or may use it to discredit the balanced view I've tried to present. Exactly the same has been done by those with a particular belief when quoting from some of the peer reviewed papers.

In this instance I've repeatedly said that there is no evidence to support Wakefield's claim. His claim was specific, based on the study of 12 children with inflammatory bowel disease, and relied on a poor scientific method. That much is clear. Have I said that there is NOT a link between MMR vaccination and illness ? No, I haven't, not once, all I've said is that the evidence presented for the link between MMR and autism isn't conclusive, or even particularly valid.

Lack of conclusive evidence is just that, a lack of conclusive evidence. In scientific terms it's a little like the Scottish verdict. There are many things science cannot yet prove, and many, many more that science cannot yet disprove. There may be a causal link between vaccination and illness, there may not. So far there is no convincing evidence to PROVE that vaccination can cause illness, just a lot of theories as to how it might, some inconclusive studies that hint at one or two possible connections, but statistically these are down in the noise. Maybe some future research will show a link, maybe it won't.

All we can say at the moment is that the probability of their being such a causal link is low, as we've amassed a fairly large amount of data over many years, analysed it in some detail, and have concluded that overall there's insufficient proof. Looked at rationally, between 80 and 94% of the youth of the UK (and many more around the world) have received this vaccine over the last 35 years or so. That amounts to many millions of vaccinations in the UK alone, and many tens of millions more around the world. If there was a statistically significant incidence of disease or illness associated with the vaccine then it should, given the size of the sample, and the concentration on analysing it over the past few years, be possible to derive a correlation that might lead to an investigation that might show a causal link. So far no such causal link has been proved.

See , very dangerous these UPVC windows , they create all sorts of trouble.
How about 3's the magic number.
going back to the dangers of UPVC windows , what the thoughts on the combined fire risk when install with eps EWI ,
Possible scenerio
fire starts in kitchen , upvc windows melts , catchs on fire , exposes eps ewi which then melts and flames run up behind thincoat render making it act like a chimney. lots of toxic smoke and melting plastics.
A few case of this in Europe on flat etc

JSH: As for courts settling matters for convenience at minimum cost, that tends to mock the appearance of expert witnesses such as yourself. I cannot agree with you on this either I am afraid. The $ multi-billion settlements in the US are likewise not a question of convenience but require proof of vaccine damage, in narrow-definition criteria without which those settlements would not be paid.

Yeah, and you can get mobility allowance by cutting off your hand.