Posted by Dad
on November 12, 2000 at 22:37:35:
In Reply to: Where is all the evidence that the other side has? If they have it why wasn't it discussed in detail? posted by Liz R on November 12, 2000 at 19:29:17:
Well, certainly not the expose that one would have hoped for, and yet it is exposure. I was not surprised with the format; I am glad that CBS chose to play it as an inquiry and not an inquisition; God Bless Ed Bradley for being a very level headed person. I do think they could have dedicated a bit more time to the segment, to better explore exactly what Wakefield's theory is, instead of the vaguemention almost as an aside that it received, but I guess the world needed to know about those naked Brits and their pin-ups for charity.
(Disclaimer: I do not mean to make light about anyone who comes up with a novel and basically harmless and fun way to raise nearly 3/4 of a million dollars for cancer research, or any other similar cause. I salute these women for their courage, their ingenuity, and the remarkable good taste they displayed in the layout of their calendar. I can envision as many if not more sales actually going to women, as it was more an exercise in empowerment of the female in her less than perfect form than it was in titlation of the male organ.)
It is interesting to note thatin their efforts to debunk Wakefield, the vaccine police are using the very tactics (unwarranted fear campaign) they accuse we parents of using to defame their sacred MMR. They claim that by promoting doubt of the safety of the triple shot, Wakefield is guilty of causing millions to not get vaccinated, thereby risking major outbreaks of measles. I don't know what these good "drs." are listening to, but I clearly heard Wakefield say he did not advocate not getting vaccinated, but rather to break the shots down and space them out. His (Wakefield) argument about the govt's responsibility to use the safer method is sound both logically and morally.
Their (the bullies) argument that breaking it down will cause parents to fail to follow thru with the regiment is also fallacious. 21 shots in the current battery, 21 shots before age 5, 21 shots before you are cleared to enter school. I believe most parents will get the three individual shots with little problem. We take our babies to the doctor at least twice a year until they are schools aged. I trust the doctors to remind us which letter of the alphabet we are on.
I did not hear them refute any of Wakefield's theory per se, except to dismiss it as so much heresy in its entirety. I recall from history that the locked up Galileo for suggesting not all heavenly bodies revolved around the Earth, and they laughed at Columbus for suggesting the Earth was round. One day science will catch up and we shall see who was correct and who was wrong.
I do not trust the govt. agencies to always tell us the truth, nor to have conducted proper studies. I believe they rely too heavily upon in-house studies conducted by the makers of the vaccines; remember the lessons of the once-thought safe Rotashield, and the current anthrax debacle.
My proposal still stands as a way to test Wakefield's hypothesis. Take three states with negative opulation growth (I would chose Alaska, North Dakota and West Virginia as suitable) and do not use MMR, but rather single shot vaccines spaced 6 mos. apart. Then after 3 years or so, see if the rate of prevalance there is less than in the "control" states. That will go a long way to supporting or disproving Dr. Wakefield.
Oh yeh, and I was also disappointed that they didn't mention the work (so recently published) by Dr. Singh which also suggests there is a very direct connection between MMR and some autism. Perhaps on another show.
Just for the record, I do not think my boy, my beautiful little red-head, my strange, silent cherub is indeed spawned of the MMR. Looking back, he did not regress after receiving this shot. That does not mean I do not think that some children may indeed be the product of a faulty innoculation.
My boy is the way he is due to Thimerasol damage.