andrew wakefield

I got lazy here and am starting by quoting Mike Adams of “Natural News” (www.naturalnews.com) That’s because I want to make separate comments of my own about this topic. Mike loves the conspiracy stuff and does it rather well, so I’ll just bow to him in one of those rare moments when I leave it […]

I got lazy here and am starting by quoting Mike Adams of “Natural News” (www.naturalnews.com) That’s because I want to make separate comments of my own about this topic. Mike loves the conspiracy stuff and does it rather well, so I’ll just bow to him in one of those rare moments when I leave it […] The post Andrew Wakefield, Me and The British Medical Journal appeared first on Dr. Keith Scott-Mumby.

It would be a bad doctor who said, “So what?” we shouldn’t vaccinate. It needs thinking about carefully in context It appears that deaths from measles are falling rapidly. That’s cause for celebration. Measles is pretty deadly, never forget that. For sure, part of this decline is misdiagnosing the real cause of death. But I accept a genuine decline. The researchers found measles deaths worldwide fell from more than 535,000 in 2000 to around 139,000 in 2010. That’s a pretty big fall off (75% drop). We can’t put everything down to faking results. The big question is: how much of the fall is due to the measles vaccination program? How much of it would happen anyway? It is idle (and stupid) to simply dismiss any benefits, just because the measles vaccine seems very likely implicated in toxic nerve inflammations afterwards. If there is good and there is harm, the question is: do they balance? No deaths is good. Would you rather have no deaths and autism? Or would you rather have the deaths than risk that any medical interference might trigger autism? If you think the answer is easy, you either don’t understand the question, or you are ignorant and prejudiced, in my view. It’s a very difficult epidemiological question and it polarizes even holistic doctors.

It would be a bad doctor who said, “So what?” we shouldn’t vaccinate. It needs thinking about carefully in context It appears that deaths from measles are falling rapidly. That’s cause for celebration. Measles is pretty deadly, never forget that. For sure, part of this decline is misdiagnosing the real cause of death. But I accept a genuine decline. The researchers found measles deaths worldwide fell from more than 535,000 in 2000 to around 139,000 in 2010. That’s a pretty big fall off (75% drop). We can’t put everything down to faking results. The big question is: how much of the fall is due to the measles vaccination program? How much of it would happen anyway? It is idle (and stupid) to simply dismiss any benefits, just because the measles vaccine seems very likely implicated in toxic nerve inflammations afterwards. If there is good and there is harm, the question is: do they balance? No deaths is good. Would you rather have no deaths and autism? Or would you rather have the deaths than risk that any medical interference might trigger autism? If you think the answer is easy, you either don’t understand the question, or you are ignorant and prejudiced, in my view. It’s a very difficult epidemiological question and it polarizes even holistic doctors.

Recently I was approached by a researcher and asked some broad questions about childhood vaccinations and their consequences. It’s not very efficient to write for just one reader, so I thought I would share it with the many. Here’s my response: My opinion overall is that childhood vaccinations are over rated. We are used to fudging of side effects and overstating the protective effect, so it’s hard to accept the overall supposed social value. There are several obvious problems. First, mother gives the typical child plenty of antibodies for the first few months and to blunder in with vaccinations before the 6th month is pretty unscientific. Secondly, the “schedule” recommended has clearly more to do with making Pharma profits than actual scientifically justifiable needs (many other countries do not administer anywhere near the number of shots that US kids get). It is possible to well protect a child with far fewer shots. I think there is every reason to be extremely wary that vaccinations can cause neurological inflammations and possibly autism. For me, it was one of those clinical things: you know, after the 25th Mom comes in and says “Well, he was fine till has vaccinations and then started to go backwards in development…” you begin to realize there is a pattern building up. That’s how discoveries start. But note that I do not and never have believed that mercury is the problem. I think it’s the organisms and almost certainly the measles virus. I cite Andrew Wakefield’s work and point out that the accusations against him have been proven false, over and over. But orthodoxy will not admit they were wrong: clearly driven by desire to protect the industry, not the children. I do not believe that parents should be advised to avoid having their children vaccinated. With a sensible schedule, I have no problem that vaccination has value, if that’s what the parents want. But parents MUST have the final say, not public employee bullies.

Recently I was approached by a researcher and asked some broad questions about childhood vaccinations and their consequences. It’s not very efficient to write for just one reader, so I thought I would share it with the many. Here’s my response: My opinion overall is that childhood vaccinations are over rated. We are used to fudging of side effects and overstating the protective effect, so it’s hard to accept the overall supposed social value. There are several obvious problems. First, mother gives the typical child plenty of antibodies for the first few months and to blunder in with vaccinations before the 6th month is pretty unscientific. Secondly, the “schedule” recommended has clearly more to do with making Pharma profits than actual scientifically justifiable needs (many other countries do not administer anywhere near the number of shots that US kids get). It is possible to well protect a child with far fewer shots. I think there is every reason to be extremely wary that vaccinations can cause neurological inflammations and possibly autism. For me, it was one of those clinical things: you know, after the 25th Mom comes in and says “Well, he was fine till has vaccinations and then started to go backwards in development…” you begin to realize there is a pattern building up. That’s how discoveries start. But note that I do not and never have believed that mercury is the problem. I think it’s the organisms and almost certainly the measles virus. I cite Andrew Wakefield’s work and point out that the accusations against him have been proven false, over and over. But orthodoxy will not admit they were wrong: clearly driven by desire to protect the industry, not the children. I do not believe that parents should be advised to avoid having their children vaccinated. With a sensible schedule, I have no problem that vaccination has value, if that’s what the parents want. But parents MUST have the final say, not public employee bullies.

Those who have been my subscribers any length of time know where I stand on the mercury-autism link. There isn’t one! Now a new study has shown yet again that exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines in infancy or in the womb is not associated with an increased risk for developing autism. Of course mere facts and good science don’t worry the Internet “experts”, who ramble on about conspiracies to hide the truth, as if every scientist and doctor in the world was a corrupted puppet of Big Pharma. They have their prejudice and are not going to let mere evidence sway them from their rigid views. The fact is, as I have said often, kids get autism who have never had any vaccinations, never mind whether with mercury or not. Moreover there is the problem of explaining why boys have a far higher incidence of autism than girls. That suggests genes are at least partly involved. Mercury should not selectively attack one gender or the other.

Those who have been my subscribers any length of time know where I stand on the mercury-autism link. There isn’t one! Now a new study has shown yet again that exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines in infancy or in the womb is not associated with an increased risk for developing autism. Of course mere facts and good science don’t worry the Internet “experts”, who ramble on about conspiracies to hide the truth, as if every scientist and doctor in the world was a corrupted puppet of Big Pharma. They have their prejudice and are not going to let mere evidence sway them from their rigid views. The fact is, as I have said often, kids get autism who have never had any vaccinations, never mind whether with mercury or not. Moreover there is the problem of explaining why boys have a far higher incidence of autism than girls. That suggests genes are at least partly involved. Mercury should not selectively attack one gender or the other.