More Green Authoritarian Thought Policing. Free Speech. MMR Vaccines. Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe

To all my Green Party friends, and others who care.
I need your support. The film Vaxxed is showing in Brussels is because of the French Green MEP Michèle Rivasi who is a member of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety.
This Green MEP has given a platform to the massively discredited Andrew Wakefield and his propaganda film Vaxxed.
The film contains thinly veiled hate speech towards people with autism and is based on lies. It has been demonstrated conclusively that there is NO link between vaccines and autism, yet this man is out there spreading conspiracy theories which damage not just the autistic community but society as a whole.
It was thanks to this man’s fraudulent research back in the late 1990’s that we now see preventable diseases like measles returning, and people have died because of declining vaccination rates.
I can contact my MEPs, but there’s just one of me. Therefore I ask all my Green Party and other science literate friends to please look into this and help us get this screening stopped.
I don’t know what the Green Party is doing promoting a film that’s based on lies. This is shameful and wrong, and discredits the party, making us look like uneducated fools.
John StumblesBeth CharleyRobert Marcel McDermottMarcia Friedman Malory, Zion Lights, Ian MoltonCeridwen DuckDavid MaloneChris WorfolkNatalie BennettCaroline Lucas, please tag any friends who can help the autistic community stop this hatred and dangerous misinformation being given a platform in Brussels by a Green MEP.
It is bad enough that Trump believes Wakefield’s conspiracy therories, we must stop this misinformation from being spread. This is not ‘alternative facts’, this is DANGEROUS.
(adapted and corrected from a post shared by a friend)

“Vaxxed” was made by the discredited former doctor Andrew Wakefield, who attended one of Donald Trump’s inaugural balls last month.
UK.BUSINESSINSIDER.COM

LikeShow more reactions

Comment

Comments
Caroline Leonora Boreham
Caroline Leonora Boreham Don’t know anything about Andrew Wakefield. More generally… I vaccinate my kids. But I think its unscientific to unquestioningly accept every *new* vaccine that’s on the market. Because its just that – a market (pharma giants inventing and selling new products, e.g. the rotavirus one, the girls’ cervical cancer one), and mistakes get made. The rotavirus one was withdrawn in the US because it caused bowel obstruction in babies. The swine flu one in the UK was withdrawn because it caused narcolepsy, leading to a nurse’s suicide – google them. Vaccines protect us from a lot of horrible infectious diseases. We should have all the tried and tested ones protecting us from all the old ‘biggies’. But its unscientific to believe you can *only* have the desired result in a complex biological organism and not potentially some undesired results too. Even in the NHS makes mistakes sometimes (it takes a few years for the latest research findings to effect an actual change in practice, as seen in maternity services). The flu vaccine only protects against last years strains. I’m not going to unquestioningly accept the girls cervical cancer one until I’ve looked into it. People should be free to make a decision about each one, weighing up different size risks, known risks versus unknown risks, moral obligation to rest of population versus individual right not to be forced to ingest something against her will. My mum is a social worker and used to have a brain-damaged client who received special ongoing compensation money from the government because the brain-damage was caused by his babyhood vaccines. It is inconceivable to me that my mum has made that up, as she has no motive to do so (she is pro-vaccine and not very political, conservative as hell, just reporting on her social work case from the 70s). Unfortunately people on both sides of the arguiment shut down reasonable debate with black & white thinking. The tone that anti-anti-vaxxers take suggests they are not primarily concerned with saving lives. It seems to be more to do with venting hatred in one of the few channels still ‘allowed’ (its often mothers who are wary of vaccines so the vaccine debate is a safe outlet for misogeny). Can’t comment on Andrew Wakefield as I don’t know anything about him, but isn’t it a bit of a jump to suggest that the the anti-vax movement is about hating autistic people ?

Steve Ogden
Steve Ogden All vaccines, all medicines have side effects, paracetamol kills, aspirin attacks the stomach lining etc. What is unique about the Wakefield case is the fact that he created bad science to pursue his own objectives. It wasn’t an accident, it wasn’t bad luck, it was deliberate misinformation that is still killing people.

Steve Ogden
Steve Ogden For information, the flu virus protects against what is expected to be the dominant strain in the year ahead and is designed with that in mind. Some years it will be that last year’s strain is expected to be dominant, sometimes it will be a diffrent oSee More

John Stumbles
John Stumbles Caroline it is not unscientific for people who understand the science to question any vaccine (or other medical, or other scientific subject). And that’s what happens – that’s how science works.
.
What is unscientific is people who don’t have the scienSee More

Ruth Jennaway
Ruth Jennaway If you want the wiki on ex-physician Andrew Wakefield it is here.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield

Andrew Jeremy Wakefield (born c. 3 September 1956) is a British former gastroenterologist and medical researcher, known for his fraudulent 1998 research paper in support of the now-discredited claim that there was a link between the administration of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine, and…
EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG

John Compost Cossham
John Compost Cossham People often worry about ‘side effects’.

This is a hypothetical situation with made up but not unbelievable figures to illustrate how vaccines benefit society.

There are always some side effects to every medication, in some people. Most medicines do not have severe side effects, and the numbers of people who get side effects are measured in the region of a few per thousand who take the medicine, or a few per ten thousand, ie not very many. However, how do we know whether these side effects are ‘worth’ risking?
In society we tend to look to the ‘greater good’, don’t we? So imagine this hypothetical scenario: If we do nothing, an illness passes through a small town of 10,000 people and 500 people get the illness, and 100 people die every winter. However, if we do something to try to prevent that, such as vaccinating the whole population, or all the vulnerable population, only 10 people die of the thing but sadly one dies of the preventative…. so instead of 100 people dying, 11 die. Which would you prefer? 100 people dying, or 11 people dying?

Additionally when large numbers of people are vaccinated, the disease passes from person to person much more slowly and, if enough people are protected and when the infectious agent is breathed in, they do not succumb to the illness, and thus don’t pass it on, the illness can get stopped in its tracks. This was first noticed in domesticated food animals, hence its name ‘herd immunity’, but it’s evident in humans too, and recently, because of the criminal actions of Wakefield and gullible people who think that ‘big pharma’ is only out to make money (which isn’t true, by the way) the incidence of common but deadly preventable illnesses has started to rise again.

Nerina Onion
Nerina Onion Worth checking out the articles in the BMJ by Brian Deer who exposed Wakefield. There are 3 – here’s the first:http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5347

In the first part of a special BMJ series, Brian Deer exposes the bogus data behind claims that launched a worldwide scare over the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine, and reveals how the appearance of a link with autism was manufactured at a London medical school When I broke the news to the fathe…
BMJ.COM

John Compost Cossham
John Compost Cossham Autism is a fairly newly understood condition. When I was a child I was just described as odd, disruptive, intelligent but naughty. They didn’t know about ADHD or Autism being distinct things.

In the past month, a friend in his 40s who 21 years ago was diagnosed with bipolar disorder – hyper mania has been re-diagnosed as Aspergers plus hyper mania. He’s the same person and hasn’t suddenly ‘become autistic’, but the set of behaviours he exhibits fits this named condition far better. So the numbers jumped up another one with him. He will now receive more appropriate treatment and help.

Tania Thorn
Tania Thorn I’d absolutely second the point about recognition. I’m a psychologist working in secondary care and I’ve seen the situation shift from colleagues having a pretty good idea that their clients were on the asd spectrum, but being reluctant to share that hypothesis with them because they weren’t in a position to formally diagnose them (I always pushed them to tell people their ideas anyway; I think people have a right to know even tentative hypotheses), to a situation where we have an adult ASD clinic. I’ve referred clients in their 70s where it has high explanatory value but it has never been considered because it wasn’t a thing when they were younger.

So, absolutely, not just an increase in recognition for youngsters, but also a lot more adults.

Personally, working in dementia, I feel that although everyone’s different, many people benefit from having a framework for what’s going on, even if it might be a label associated with some stigma. I’ve met some very clever and interesting people on the asd spectrum who certainly see it that way.

John Stumbles
John Stumbles It’s not about science (which is robust and in which competing scientific views are not just tolerated but actively sought and welcomed); it is about propaganda. John and others are seeking to prevent a propaganda film being given publicity

John Stumbles
John Stumbles Scientists are not Ephors: they are not appointed. Anyone can contribute to scientific discussion. But making propaganda films by cutting and splicing the words of a scientist to create a different meaning and mixing it up with anecdotes and emotive devices and selling it to a non-scientific audience is not participating in scientific discussion.

Roger Lewis
Roger Lewis John. every one has a right to defend themselves against accusations made by others. You make allegations against Dr Wakefield others disagree with you, see article below.
Thank you for letting me know about the film, I will now watch it and report bacSee More

Roger Lewis
Roger Lewis Ian actually the claims made about what Wakefield is called ´guilty´of are claims it is actually a verdict and not a finality . the fact that he was found guilty is different to the fact of his guilt. There are such things as miscarriages of justice and when new evidence is presented Verdicts can be overturned, a Guilty verdict is not a fixed immutable scientific fact. A scientific fact itself is not fixed and immutable either.
Here’s a bit of basic Feynman on the scientific method.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw

Roger Lewis
Roger Lewis Ian, One does not find evidence when one does not look for it or where people are encouraged not to hear the words of someone in their own defence. This sort of scientific witch hunt is common see the BBC documentary series Heretic or The Movie Cool itSee More

John Stumbles
John Stumbles Roger you could make the same argument about the tentative nature of scientific understanding and consensus about the evidence for climate change, HIV AIDS, tobacco and cancer, the Holocaust, evolution and the shape of the planet we live on.
Claiming that there is vastly greater uncertainty than there actually is is an established tactic of those who don’t like the degree of consensus that actually exists, don’t have any actual evidence with which to challenge current understanding but wish to muddy the waters.
The generic name for such people is denialists.

Roger Lewis
Roger Lewis As it happens John I do not believe in the AGW CO2 hypothesis, and deplore the science as politics discourse promoted by spin doctors as opposed to scientific doctors.
If the scientific evidence is as you say please provide links to the research and I will happily review it. Doing science by sophistry is not something I engage in.

Roger Lewis
Roger Lewis http://morganverkamp.com/statement-of-william-w-thompson…/

My name is William Thompson. I am a Senior Scientist with the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention, where I have worked since 1998.

I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed.

Statement of William W. Thompson, Ph.D., Regarding the 2004 Article Examining the Possibility of a Relationship Between MMR Vaccine and Autism
MORGANVERKAMP.COM

Advertisements

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: