Tag Archives: Child Health Safety

Vaccine induced autism – how Meryl Dorey misled her Woodford audience

Posted in Anti-Vaccination Lobby, Health, Legal, Scam, Science by

Meryl Dorey is shown to have presented material to the audience at Woodford that in two cases argues vaccine induced autism where there is clearly none. In one case the word “autism” has been inserted, additionally, in a descriptive or qualitative fashion on her slide yet it is not present in the court ruling or transcript from where she sourced her text. In another instance there are no cases of autism following, or because of, vaccination. One awaits an explanation from Meryl Wynn Dorey.

There is an awful amount of misinformation on Meryl Dorey’s Woodford slides. Let’s examine the fatally flawed attempt to exhume the “vaccines cause autism” corpse. This is the heading of slide 18:

Meryl Dorey’s Woodford slide number 18

Not much ambiguity there I’d say. But there was seemingly intentional manipulation of a source document providing more misinformation on that slide. Dorey has usurped the case of Bailey Banks.

Bailey was indeed compensated for a vaccine injury. Was it autism, as alleged on Dorey’s slide? No.

The US Court of Federal Claims case file states clearly in it’s opening index: “Non-autistic developmental delay”.

A search of the Claims case file yields a very similar text to that which Dorey provided to her Woodford audience. There is only a one word difference. “[Autism]”. Here is the original text on page 27 of the claims file:

The Court found that Bailey would not have suffered this delay but for the administration of the MMR vaccine, and that this chain of causation was not too remote, but was rather a proximate sequence of cause and effect leading inexorably from vaccination to Pervasive Developmental Delay.

That is all. It seems Meryl Dorey needs to explain this striking addition that quite plainly seeks to falsify the court ruling. The evidence is damning indeed.

On page 2 the fact that compensation is not for autism is stressed implicitly [Bold mine]:

Pervasive Developmental Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS) is a ‘subthreshold’ condition in which some – but not all – features of autism or another explicitly identified Pervasive Developmental Disorder are identified. PDD-NOS is often incorrectly referred to as simply “PDD.” The term PDD refers to the class of conditions to which autism belongs. PDD is NOT itself a diagnosis, while PDD-NOS IS a diagnosis. The term Pervasive Developmental Disorder – Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS; also referred to as “atypical personality development,” “atypical PDD,” or “atypical autism”) is included in DSM-IV to encompass cases where there is marked impairment of social interaction, communication, and/or stereotyped behavior patterns or interest, but when full features for autism or another explicitly defined PDD are not met.
It should be emphasized that this ”subthreshold” category is thus defined implicitly, that is, no specific guidelines for diagnosis are provided. While deficits in peer relations and unusual sensitivities are typically noted, social skills are less impaired than in classical autism.

On page 6 [Bold mine]:

Among the physicians treating Bailey, a neurologist named Dr. Ivan Lopez personally examined Bailey and diagnosed Bailey as follows:

This patient has developmental delay probably secondary to an episode of acute demyelinating encephalomyelitis that he had at 18 months of age after the vaccine. He certainly does not ___ [sic] for autism because over here we can find a specific reason for his condition and this is not just coming up with no reason.

And [Bold mine]:

As Petitioner’s testifying expert witness, Dr. Lopez maintained, reiterated, and elaborated upon this threshhold diagnosis.

Dr. Lopez’s diagnosis appears to conflict with the diagnosis given by Bailey’s pediatrician on 20 May 2004, who saddled Bailey’s condition with the generalized term “autism”; however, that pediatrician later acknowledged that use of the term autism was used merely as a simplification for non-medical school personnel, and that pervasive developmental delay “is the correct [i.e. technical] diagnosis.” Another pediatrician’s diagnosis noted that Bailey’s condition “seems to be a global developmental delay with autistic features as opposed to an actual autistic spectrum disorder.”

A footnote on page 16 reads [Bold mine]:

Respondent seems to have abandoned the earlier argument that Bailey suffered from autism, instead of PDD. The Court notes the various similarities between Bailey’s condition and autism as defined above, but nonetheless rules that PDD better and more precisely describes Bailey’s condition and symptoms than does autism. Respondent’s acknowledgment serves to reaffirm the Court’s conclusion on this point.

So, what does all this mean? The opening text of the ruling informs us that the court accepts that Bailey, “suffered a seizure and Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis” leading to PDD. The court also accepts that compensation should be paid because the court is of the view the seizure and condition would not have occurred without the administration of MMR.

Is the court right? It doesn’t matter. The legal decision must be respected. What we can clearly see is that PDD is considered quite different from autism. Bailey suffered a single traumatic event – not a gradual decline into autism as the customary antivaccination lobby tale goes. Autism is a collection of symptoms with a genetic component. Clearly in this case Bailey does not fit, nor has been found to fit a diagnosis of autism.

This makes his case no less tragic. I can’t stress that enough. What I will stress is that Meryl Dorey sourced her one liner from the same document I have quoted above. She is certain to have read that this child does not have autism and was not compensated for autism brought on by vaccination. She would have read that PDD is not the same as autism. But Meryl Dorey chose to select one line and alter it fallaciously to mislead her audience into believing compensation had been paid for autism brought on by MMR.

Meryl Dorey has again committed plagiarism and fraud in her quest to mislead the Australian public. Her disdain for this young boy is clear. Her disrespect for court proceedings and this ruling is manifest. Her callous disregard for Aussies at Woodford Folk Festival is exposed for all to see.

You may wonder where are all the other Baileys? Well, let’s meet 83 similar cases – an old trick of Meryl’s debunked back in May 2011 and covered here in June 2011. Just like PDD may produce symptoms like autism, so do many other types of brain injury. Add these to autistic children who are vaccinated and the language in VICP case files is easily abused.

Also on Meryl’s slide was this ambiguous claim. I’ve made it kind of easy to spot the semantics. “Associated”? Where is the cause? So, here we are almost 8 months since it was debunked and the best Meryl Dorey can manage is a semantic trick. The URL leads here to a PR Newswire article that has the same heading as on her slide.

It’s a SafeMinds.org media release. Safe Minds is non scientific and partisan. Led by parents of autistic children they seek to increase research into neurological damage from exposure to mercury in medical products.

I for one find it strange that Dorey was billed as an expert on autism yet was unable to source the original paper I’ve linked to below. Is this because she gets more bang for her buck with the tone of this heading? The article is biased in the extreme. There appears to be little doubt that the Safe Minds media release colours the issue in Dorey’s favour and away from the cautious approach of scientific inquiry.

Just how unreliable is this source from our self appointed vaccine expert? Back on June 7th, 2011 I wrote a piece called The “Groundbreaking” Vaccine-Autism Investigation Release of May 10th 2011. It addresses this caper which can only be described as an insult to her audience.

I focused primarily on the pseudoscience and demonstrably false fear mongering cobbled together under the auspices of “research scholar” Mary Holland. Mary is a vaccine-autism profiteer and co-author of Vaccine Epidemic: How Corporate Greed Biased Science and Coercive Government Threaten Our Human rights, Our Health and Our Children.

I also exposed Meryl Dorey’s stupendous deception a full week later on 102.9 KOFM that “hundreds perhaps thousands of families” had been compensated because their children “have become autistic after vaccination”. That it was “a fact” that vaccines cause autism.

There had been ample media prodding in the lead up to May 10th with the word “groundbreaking” popping up quite a lot. The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) had been “quietly” and “secretly” working in the shadows it seemed “paying off” vaccine injured children with autism. On May 10th itself, Meryl Dorey claimed:

You cannot hold the truth back forever. And when that dam breaks, the flood will wash away those who have suppressed these facts to the detriment of our kids. It is time for the piper to be paid.

Oh my!

The “groundbreaking investigation” turned out to be an enormous flop. As promised at high noon on Tuesday May 10th 2011 Holland’s team assembled on the steps of the US Court of Claims at 717 Madison Place in Washington DC. They were presenting a paper of sorts, Unanswered Questions from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: A review of compensated cases of vaccine induced brain injury. By the end of the lengthy live press statement, the caper had been largely dismissed and debunked as wordplay.

As you can read in the post linked above, certain media outlets were contacted by Pace Law School students, using the Pace Law School name. This was of course, news to Pace Law Administration. From Lisa Jo Rudy writing for About.com [bold mine]:

I just heard from a representative from the Public Relations department at Pace University School of Law. She wondered why a press release cited in my earlier blog would say that members of their law school had been involved with the investigation into and presentation of “Unanswered Questions From the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: A Review of Compensated Cases of Vaccine-Induced Brain Injury,” when there was no such involvement in either the investigation or the presentation.

I did respond to Danielle Orsino, who sent out the press release, asking the question:
Were there cases in which the vaccine court awarded a settlement for damage that manifested itself as the symptoms of an autism spectrum disorder? Was the term “autism” ever used to describe the outcome of vaccine damage (eg, “the child suffered from neurological damage resulting in autism”)?
Danielle responded quickly, saying “The study strongly suggests a link between autism and vaccines. The study found that of those who had been compensated for brain damage due to vaccines, a much-higher-than-average number also had autism. The study makes an extremely strong case for the vaccine-autism connection, which is why the study’s authors are urging Congress to investigate the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.”
This response seems to suggest that the simple answer to my question is “no”.

I wrote at the time, Reading the document reveals ample use of terms such as “settled cases suggesting autism”, “language that strongly suggests autistic features”, “published decisions that used terms related to autism”, “payment of vaccine injured children with autism”, and not – as Seth Mnookin pointed out – “because of their autism”. More so, the authors spend some time arguing why there should be no distinction between autism and autism-like symptoms. This is a major concession they award themselves. The paper includes caregiver opinion, parental opinion, phrases from doctors who gave evidence at hearings and provides a case table of “Language suggesting autism or autistic-like symptoms”.

It further emerged that only 21 cases came from the VICP case files. 62 were gathered by phone calls and social communication questionnaires with other compensated families. It went as far as referencing The Age of Autism: Mercury, Medicine and a Manmade Epidemic [2010] by Dan Olmsted and Mark Blaxill. There was no ethics approval, and no independent evaluation. Many were children with autism who received a vaccination and reacted. Others were children with mitochondrial enzyme disorders known to lead to encephalopathy. Most were genuine cases of encephalopathy following vaccination at the rate of about 1 in 1 million. That’s up to 1,000 times less than measles induced encephalopathy.

For our purposes, we need to note that Meryl Dorey was claiming “possibly thousands” of compensation cases when only 21 already dismissed cases could be found. Then before heading to Woodford Meryl spoke to Helen on 3CR and, whilst now aware of the sample size, still falsely claimed:

Um, autism is I believe, related very strongly to vaccination… and in the United States they’ve actually paid compensation to at least 83 families who children became autistic after vaccination whilst claiming that vaccines can’t cause autism.

Meryl’s other slide – number 17 – can be dismissed instantly. Her claim on that slide is that diagnoses are rising. This has nothing to do with vaccination and everything to do with diagnostic technique. Her cited South Korean study sampled students in mainstream schools managing 12 hour days six days per week. This is indicative of how wide the spectrum is. The autism rate in Australia is officially 1 in 160. In the UK and USA it is 1 in 100 – 1%. Some research suggests 1% in Australia also.

There are five reasons posed for the rise in autism. None mention vaccination.

  • The actual frequency of autism may have increased, meaning more children have it
  • There is increased case reporting, leading to greater findings, better use of funding and hightened awareness
  • Changes in the DSM-III-R and DSM-IV diagnostic criteria may account for more cases
  • Earlier diagnoses have essentially added a new younger demographic to the the existing demographic of children – ie; it spans more years
  • When we examine rising autism figures we find a corresponding drop in other types of mental disability and retardation, meaning they are now within the autism spectrum

Research using modern diagnostic criteria on adults also finds a 1% rate in adults, suggesting changes in mode of diagnosis play a huge role in perceived “epidemics”. In Brugha’s survey [ doi:10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.38] he found not one adult diagnosed with autism knew they had the condition. This tells us the criteria to diagnose them a generation ago did not exist.

All up it seems Meryl Dorey has a lot of explaining to do. Debunked scams, fraud, a useless “association” and unverified musings. It’s nice to know some things remain predictable.

For Aussies, the news remains good. Vaccines do not cause autism.

Measles: A Gift from a Goddess?

Posted in Anti-Vaccination Lobby, Health, Scam, Science by

One of the more ridiculous falsehoods spread by Meryl Dorey in her promotion of disease as better than vaccination, is that in ancient Sanskrit “measles” means “gift from a goddess”.

She further claims that this is so because robust health and “huge” growth follows measles. Which is not exactly what I’d expect to see in a child who’d been bed ridden, suffering fevers perhaps seizures, diarrhea, exhaustion, malnourishment, drowsiness, muscle pain, photophobia, dry cough, bloody nose, possible brain damage, etc, etc and of course the chance of death. This entire claim is utterly bogus and toweringly irresponsible given that some listeners will be influenced by it.

From page 26 of Dorey’s Iverell Forum presentation slides (AVN seminar teachings)

In fact the Sanskrit मसूरिका or “masuurikaa” translates variously as measles, lentil, eruption of lentil shaped pustules, procuress (female procurer) and smallpox. So, with apologies to Sanskrit we shall move on to examine exactly what relationship a Goddess may have with this disease and why. As with many early cultures and belief systems, significant phases in life are assumed controlled by divine power. Diseases are believed to come in response to divine retribution, anger, punishment or even the working of an evil witch or sorcerer.

With respect to this Merylism we at least have enough to visit the beliefs of rural Indian folk. Here we find the goddess Sitala Mataji also known as Shitala, Sheetala or just Sitala. Broadly speaking Sitala Mataji is the Hindu pox goddess, worshipped in Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh and particularly in Northern India and Western Bengal. With Bengal situated in the north-east of the Indian sub-continent geographical proximity supports a common anthropological view of infectious disease.

Sitala Mataji loves cold and coolness and this is reflected in her name. She likes cold food offerings cooked the day before. One derivation Shitala Devi means the Cold Goddess. Measles is caused by the anger of Sitala Mataji. When we talk about measles and this goddess it’s important to realise this is understanding measles in strictly religious terms. Hindus may refer to measles as choti mai or choti mata (the smaller mother) whilst smallpox is bari mai or bari mata (the larger mother). Before the eradication of smallpox in the 1970’s Sitala was associated with smallpox.

According to legend Sitala is one of seven sisters who live in the neem tree and who bring epidemic diseases. She is often in the company of Gheṇṭukarṇa, the god of skin diseases, Jvarāsura, the fever demon, the Cauṣaṭṭī Rogas, (the sixty-four epidemics), Olāi Caṇḍi/Olāi Bibi, the goddess of cholera, and Raktāvatī, the goddess of blood infections. The measles rash represents “heat” and “dirt” that must come out lest the child die. Child talismans of goat, lion or bear hair warding off the fear which measles brings, and indeed the way measles “frightens” children strongly reflect links to the spirit world.

Shrines to Sitala Mataji can be found near neem trees. Other talismans against evil spirits and fear include spreading neem leaves and rose petals across a child’s bed in the case of Punjabi Christians who also spread neem leaves on the floor and use them to brush the measles rash. Hindus place neem leaves over the entryway to the house and under the infected child’s bed.

They would also keep a can of wet cow dung at their door or child’s door so that people entering – who may be “impure” – can put their feet or leg in the wet dung which is “pure”, before entering to visit the victim. A herb kala dana which is also used for Evil Eye infections should be burnt as it’s smoke is good for measles, assisting the rash to “come out”. Some herbal teas assist in promoting fever which is viewed as assisting the heat and rash to leave the body.

Although Sitala looks out for children and mothers she is simultaneously destructive and protective. In An anthropology of infectious disease: international health perspectives, Inhorn and Brown (1997) cite a number of authors, writing:

Although Sitala is by nature cool when she is angry she becomes heated and attacks with pox diseases, overheating her victims as well. Excess heat in the body then causes the skin rash to appear. The idea is that the disease of measles is the goddess and that when measles occurs the goddess herself is within her victims, burning them. From this it follows that measles victims themselves are in something resembling a “godlike” state and it is appropriate for them and their families to follow a restricted “purification” diet while the disease is in progress [p. 308].

In order to placate Sitala Mataji parents wait until about the fifth day and having wrapped their child tightly in a white cloth take them for a blessing at the temple. The tight wrapping also increases perspiration and the progression of the rash. On returning from the temple wet cow dung is used to make symbols resembling ⋂ on the wall of the house or house compound.

Cotton wool is spaced out evenly stuck to the dung. Red ceremonial worship powder is dabbed onto the cotton wool as Sitala is further encouraged to chill out (no pun intended) with prayers said in the child’s name. The symbols also serve to warn others away.

As expected in areas of counterfeit vaccines/medication and where less than half of “allopaths” are properly qualified there are stories of families following doctors orders to the letter only to loose the child. Others who sought to placate Sitala Mataji and went to the temple found their child recovered. Some Hindu women suggest these beliefs and strong relationship between measles and Sitala are a “carryover” from when smallpox was a major killer.

The legend of the vengeful burning arises from the story of a poor daughter in law ordered by her cranky mother in law to prepare sweets and food for the Sitala Satam celebrations, which were the next day. The daughter in law did but exhausted and having fed her child about 11pm, fell asleep. At the stroke of midnight Sitala Mataji came by and was burnt by the stove which had not been put out. Sitala cursed this woman and said “As I was burnt so let your child be burnt”.

On waking the woman realised her folly and saw her child was burnt. Other villagers pointed out it was the young mother’s fault that Sitala had been pained by the hot stove, become angry and thus, that her child had become burnt. The woman got permission to seek Sitala in the forest and eventually came upon an old woman with dandruff and “some tiny microbes” in her hair. The old lady asked where she was going and if she could spare time to clean her hair of insects and such. The young mother being a rather selfless type complied, handing her baby to the old woman.

After about an hour the baby revived and cried and the mother suddenly realised the old woman was Sitala Mataji in disguise. Showing devotion she fell into the holy lotus position and begged forgiveness for her mistake. This made Sitala very happy who forgave the young mother and promised to always be helpful to her – as long as no stoves were left on on that particular day. The next year the young mother’s jealous sister in law purposely left her stove on so her child would be burnt by Sitala Mataji. She journeyed into the forest but ignored the old woman and returned with a dead baby.

Devastated, crying, seeking forgiveness from the young mother and praying with true devotion to Sitala Mataji she begged the goddess “to make the dead child alive”. Sitala Mataji then blessed this child and later the jealous daughter made a confession and asked for forgiveness. So, the festival became one celebrated with devotion. All sweets and food are prepared the day before. Stoves are turned off and sprinkled with water. Devotees have a cold bath in the morning, and it is women and small children who worship mostly seeking blessing from the goddess Sitala Mataji.

The impact of this legend may be rightly gauged as profound. The life and death of a child is solely down to offending or proper appeasement of the goddess Sitala Mataji. In some North Indian villages as reported by Inhorn and Brown [p. 311] 74% of mothers believe measles cannot be prevented “whether through immunisation or otherwise”. It is a dangerous yet essential part of life. 70% believe no doctors should be seen lest the goddess – who resides within measles – is offended. Of 18 cases among Sikhs in India none were taken to a doctor. Three died [p. 313].

Apart from increasing perspiration, wrapping also prevents “measles-associated pneumonia” – a widely held fear. It is believed pneumonia is caused by cold. Even after recovery, isolation and wrapping continues to prevent “breathing problems”. Sitala has a brother god who causes the gasping for breath seen in pneumonia which suggests measles-pneumonia is also a part of Hindu mythology. In families with severe poverty and illiteracy other children die of dehydration from measles induced diarrhea, which is also seen as a means of removing the heat inflicted by Sitala Mataji.

In simple terms, in the cultures Dorey was misrepresenting, measles is seen as a curse from a goddess. One who demands in response such absolute devotion that children die as their superstitious parents fear offending her with medicine and instead smear cow dung on the walls of their home, pray and burn ritual herbs. In a fit of anger she attacks and burns small children through the fault of the mother who must then carry the burden of hit and miss spiritual appeasement. It is these very beliefs and others like them that will for a long time prevent significant reduction of measles in developing nations.

Clearly there is no gift from any goddess. No “huge” growth spurt. Only a pitiful struggle for survival and the fear of Sitala’s brother god. Ken McLeod on page 24 of Meryl Dorey’s trouble with the truth part 3: lies and fraud offers [bold mine]:

In a Sanskrit dictionary the word “masuri ” means “small-pox,” and the Sanskrit equivalent of the English word “measles” is “masurika मसूरिका”, from ‘a kind of herb’, ‘lentil’ or ‘pillow’, as in “an eruption of lentil-shaped pustules.” There is no etymology involving gifts from goddesses. The World Health Organisation tells of a superstition in the Indian subcontinent that smallpox resulted from a wrathful kiss by the Goddess of Smallpox, Shitala Mata. That is quite the opposite to Dorey’s claim.

One must pause and wonder if Dorey has any remote appreciation of the harsh living conditions and unbridled suffering such villagers may endure. Or if she understands their struggle as she sprouts her own cow dung over the simple truths that control their quality of life. If she is so inclined then why not smear cow dung on her own walls or offer a can full at the next pox party?

Strange isn’t it. We won’t see the antivaccination devotees stepping in wet cow dung before crossing the threshold to visit a sick child. Nor would we see devotees of Sitala Mataji giving their children the saliva of children already infected with measles. All things considered I’m pretty sure who is the most misguided.

Gift from a Goddess? I call cow dung.

Wakefield innocent, Deer lied, Earth flat

Posted in Denialism, Health, Legal, Science by

The good citizens from The Twilight Zones of teh interwebs keep us reliably informed, in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary, that Wakefield is “innocent”.

Andrew Wakefield is infamous for the fraudulent invention of ileal hyperplasia and non-specific colitis induced by the measles component of MMR. Leaving the bowel damaged and “leaky”, this allowed the escape of opioid peptides into the bloodstream and eventually the brain whereby they caused autism. So infamous, that two words, “Wakefield innocent” are only rivalled in this story by “Deer lied”, yet another commandment from The Twilight Zone.

Yet innocent of exactly what aspect of the raft of calculated, cruel and callous transgressions committed? Or what part of his planning and financial inducements leading up to his academic fraud? The invasive abuse of his small sample and manipulation of data gleaned? The fabricated patient selection criteria, clinical histories, and neuropsychiatric diagnoses? Or how his filing for a patent for a “safer [monovalent] measles vaccine” in June 1997 predicated his surprise (in fact well kept secret) announcement to the press in February 1998 that MMR was a likely cause of autistic disorders?

In general it doesn’t really matter. So distorted has the issue become in almost 14 years that specifics don’t count. In effect “Wakefield innocent” is a vaccine myth with multiple faces. A licence to not vaccinate. It means that all vaccines do horrible damage to children. That they do so due to ghastly toxins with long dastardly names, heavy metals that poison the brain, alien cells and viruses that ravage young bodies, promote disease, drain vitality, bring death and much more.

“Deer lied” is the inescapable binary to this scenario. It signifies his mythical role as a Big Pharma hit man paid a whopping journalists salary with expenses to destroy Wakefield. To keep the truth hidden by governments, pharmaceutical companies and medical establishments. That vaccines are not only unnecessary but experimental, or knowingly useless poison pushed for profit. The conspiracy is all powerful and so encompassing it accommodates any bizarre fantasy. Evidence has no impact.

Today “Wakefield innocent” can also mean all vaccines cause autism and brain damage. That they do not prevent disease. That they are not needed. That today’s children are the sickest of any generation in memory. That vitamins, a few herbs, some homeopathic hanky panky and a connection with the cosmos is all that’s needed to defeat vaccine preventable disease.

The real point is, those defending Wakefield have just as much a predetermined agenda as he did. Facts will not get in their way. The BMJ is “disgraced”, in a “panic” or existing in terror of the day Wakefield is “vindicated”. As Meryl Dorey puts it, “digging a deeper and deeper hole”.

Three weeks after the BMJ published Brian Deer’s How the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed, eminent enemy of conventional medicine Mike Adams gushed, Documents emerge proving Dr Andrew Wakefield innocent; BMJ and Brian Deer caught misrepresenting the facts. Really? A Trifecta Mike? Do tell:

Newly-revealed documents show that on December 20th, 1996, a meeting of The Inflammatory Bowel Disease Study Group based at the Royal Free Hospital Medical School featured a presentation by Professor Walker-Smith on seven of the children who would later become part of the group of patients Dr Wakefield wrote about in his 1998 The Lancet paper (which was later retracted by The Lancet) […]

These documents reveal that the British Medical Journal has been caught in its own fraud for willfully ignoring this evidence, which was presented to it long before its recent publication of Brian Deer’s article calling Dr Wakefield a fraud […]

[Brian Deer] lied about his identity and entered the home of one of the parents of the autism children. Specifically, he claimed he was working for The Sunday Times even though he was never a Sunday Times employee.

It’s pretty much a direct copy and paste of Wakefield’s own document. That and email correspondence with Fiona Godlee is here in PDF under the amusing Gaia Health heading DR. ANDREW WAKEFIELD WAS RIGHT. BRIAN DEER IS THE LIAR. THERE WAS NO FRAUD. NO HOAX. HERE’S PROOF. Age of Autism, Vaccine Safety First, Child Health Safety…etc, all crowed vindication.

The nonsense about Brian Deer is hearsay from a “letter to The Sunday Times”, seeming to serve no purpose beyond trying to label him a liar. Wakefield himself also alludes to the BMJ not “checking facts”. Yet the actual “proof” strikes me as tenuous. Wakefield confidently writes:

I present evidence that completely negates the allegations that I committed scientific fraud. Brian Deer and Dr. Godlee of the British Medical Journal (BMJ) knew or should have known about the facts set out below before publishing their false allegations. [….]

His [Professor John Walker-Smith’s] notes of the presentation continued: “I wish today, to present some preliminary details concerning seven children, all boys, who appear to have entero-colitis and disintegrative disorder, probably autism, following MMR.

Speaking of not checking facts. Deer had already quite arguably dispatched with Wakefield’s chronological innocence in writing How the case was fixed…:

Curiously, however, Wakefield had already identified such a syndrome before the project which would reputedly discover it. “Children with enteritis/disintegrative disorder [an expression he used for bowel inflammation and regressive autism] form part of a new syndrome,” he and Barr explained in a confidential grant application to the UK government’s Legal Aid Board before any of the children were investigated.

And that grant application happened to be submitted 6 1/2 months earlier than Walker-Smith’s presentation. It was:

Proposed protocol and costing proposals for testing a selected number of MR and MMR vaccinated children (and attached specification). Submitted to the Legal Aid Board 6 June 1996. [GMC fitness to practise panel hearing in the case of Wakefield, Walker-Smith and Murch. Day 11.]

We can even get more fussy and note the language used in describing bowel inflammation and autism. Entero-colitis (used by Walker-Smith) is inflammation of the colon and small intestine. Enteritis (used over 6 months earlier by Wakefield) is inflammation of the small intestine. Both use “disintegrative disorder”. Confidentially Wakefield was postulating a “new syndrome” well before Walker-Smith offered “preliminary details”.

Just recently on November 9th this year some new information arose when David Lewis published a letter in the BMJ. Lewis came to review histopathological grading sheets that Wakefield claims were filled out and solely interpreted by co-authors Dr. Amar Dhillon and Dr. Andrew Anthony. This was after Lewis attended, “a vaccine safety conference in Jamaica, where Andrew Wakefield discussed his research”, that was a five star extravaganza paid for by the “vaccine-safety” promoters. Wakefield was the headline act.

Lewis argued in the BMJ that he did:

… not believe that Dr. Wakefield intentionally misinterpreted the grading sheets as evidence of “non-specific colitis”.

So, who is David Lewis? Well for Aussies or anyone familiar with the Australian Vaccination Network and their main academic supporter, Dr. Brian Martin, supervisor of anti-vax conspirator and PhD candidate Judy Wilyman, this is a bit creepy. Lewis is from the US National Whistleblowers Center. Brian Martin is president of Whistleblowers Australia.

Brian Martin wrote the “document” the AVN have used to dismiss the HCCC public health and OLGR charitable status findings as an attack on free speech. He has written on successfully raising dissent against scientific, government and academic consensus. He has also written extensively on challenging the origin of AIDS, going as far in 1998 to link it to the polio vaccine. He denies having any position on vaccination.

Lewis bills himself similarly:

My responsibilities include investigating “institutional research misconduct” in which government, industry, and academic institutions use false allegations of research misconduct to suppress research.

Nature News reports that Lewis claims he was “falsely accused of misconduct after alleging links between human illness and the spreading of sewage sludge”. Either way he was ejected post haste from the EPA. The US National Whistleblowers Center is listed under “Suppression of dissent” Contacts on Brian Martin’s website. Both Dorey and Wakefield have indisputably been shown to cause damage to public health and act illegally. Ironically, Wakefield’s treatment of one whistleblower is available thanks to Brian Deer.

Before publishing Lewis’ article the BMJ had gastroenterologist Ingvar Bjarnason review the material. He claimed there was insufficient evidence to support a new disease, as Wakefield et al. had done. He also notes that “The data are subjective. It’s different to say it’s deliberate falsification”.

The last sentence caused some in The Twilight Zone to go into overdrive. Brian Deer’s Charges Against Wakefield Are False: Documents Analyzed by Outside Expert offers Gaia Health. Who regrettably also adds the somewhat partisan claim:

In the end, as with most things involving conventional medicine, it’s all about money. The lives of children have been sacrificed—and continue to be laid on the altar of Profits and Greed.

Age of Autism also seize upon the few words to suggest the BMJ is crumbling and attack BMJ editor-in-chief Dr Fiona Godlee for “declaring war” on University College London. Rather, Godlee wants a parliamentary investigation. She is quite rightly stressing that UCL, who it’s been alleged used Wakefield’s claims to get money, must finalise their own inquiry having had 8 months to begin. Medical News Today quote Godlee who wrote to UCL:

Continuing failure to get to the bottom of the vaccine scandal raises serious questions about the prevailing culture of our academic institutions and attitudes to the integrity of their output. Given the extent of involvement of senior personnel at the highest level, only an independent inquiry will be credible.

This is not a call to debate whether MMR causes autism. Science has asked that question and answered it. We need to know what happened in this inglorious chapter in medicine. Who did what, and why?

The fact that the grading sheets from Dr. Dhillon show no abnormal pathology raises the question of Wakefield’s falsification of “non-specific colitis” and ileal-lymphoid nodular hyperplasia in autistic children. Wakefield omitted that Ileal-lymphoid nodular hyperplasia was viewed as benign and “normal” in children by gastroenterologists.

His supporters now seem to argue he did not intentionally misrepresent histopathological data. This is strange given the mammoth effort to show that inflammatory disease has been confirmed in the intestines of autistic children, and “in five different countries” according to Wakefield on Age of Autism in April this year. Yet Pediatrics published findings from an expert panel in January 2010 stating no GI disturbance specific to autism had been established.

Wakefield seems content to pick and choose, shaping his innocence in retrospect. The original paper states he “assessed” biopsy specimens. Wakefield claimed two years ago, “Dr Dhillon’s diagnosis formed the basis for what was reported in the Lancet, I played no part in the diagnostic process at all.” Which is also strange given that Dhillon did not report any children as having enterocolitis. Yet Wakefield’s paper argued a finding of “autistic enterocolitis” which formed the basis for the primary submission of lawyers in the failed multi-party MMR lawsuits in Britain.

For colitis to be present epithelial damage must have occurred. But Dhillon recorded nothing of the sort. Deer writes:

No cell counts or clinical diagnoses appear on the forms, and neither Crohn’s disease nor ulcerative colitis was even considered “possible” by Dhillon.

Nor did Dhillon use the term “non-specific colitis”, reported in 11 of the 12 children five of whom were acute. Dhillon’s grading sheets did have a tick box for “non-specific” and from here Wakefield took his cue to claim “non-specific colitis”. Paola Domizio, a consultant histopathologist and professor of pathology education at Queen Mary’s College, London who was “astonished” at the normality of the specimen findings suggests the “non-specific” option allowed Dhillon to note “changes of uncertain significance”.

Walker-Smith conducted blood tests and colonoscopies – both of which showed no pathology. Still in search of abnormality Walker-Smith ordered ileocolonoscopies on these very ill children. The biopsies returned normal findings. All these tests were omitted from the final paper. Only when Wakefield got hold of Dhillon’s grading sheets – which also showed nothing abnormal – did “autistic enterocolitis” emerge.

Consultant histopathologist Susan Davies had documented healthy biopsies which were reported as diseased in a draft paper. After raising concerns about reported “colitis” she deferred to Dhillon after a research “review”. It seems clear that the team was intent on showing this “new condition”. In the case of one 3 year old boy Susan Davies and Amar Dhillon “found mild caecal inflammation, with no abnormality or changes in other biopsies”. When the final paper was published the same boy had the mild inflammation changed to, “Acute caecal cryptitis and chronic non-specific colitis.”

Even had the dodgy data been sound the omission of the fact almost all the children had chronic constipation would have clinical implications. Deer writes:

This omission of constipation was no small matter. It went to the heart of how the paper would be read. Specialists told me that both mild inflammation and prominent lymphoid follicles may be expected to be associated with this sign.

“The increase of colonic lymphoid aggregates found in severely constipated patients may represent a protective mucosal mechanism toward the chronic fecal stasis,” suggests a team of Italian and Swiss researchers, for example, in a study of adults.

But such prosaic observations would not have helped the lawsuits—for which Wakefield was hired before any child was referred, and which in the UK paid him more than £400 000. Five other Royal Free doctors—Davies and Dhillon were not among them—shared more than £100 000 to back him.

If there is one word that does not apply to Andrew Wakefield it is “innocent”. Fiona Godlee estimates at least six more of his reports need independent investigation and the exact role of the other authors must be elucidated.

£400 000 to push along lawsuits against MMR, plus vaccine patents, plus income from treating this new “syndrome” is a lot of reasons for Wakefield to lose his objectivity. Supporters need to snap to and remember this is not about vague interpretation of histology samples.

Labelled dishonest, irresponsible, unethical and showing “callous disregard for the distress and pain of children”, Wakefield was eventually struck from the medical register. “Erased” is the term used. His syndrome was a foregone conclusion. He joked about buying blood from children who vomited and passed out.

His fraudulent paper was retracted by Lancet editor, Richard Horton. Expunged from the evidence base of our species’ medical knowledge library to be a tad dramatic. But not before ten of the thirteen authors had removed their names, stating there was insufficient evidence for an association between MMR and autism whilst also expressing regret over the “major implications for public health”.

Another paper attempting to link thimerosal – he was learning on his feet – with neurological problems was withdrawn from the journal NeuroToxicology. He has never apologised, nor admitted his obvious guilt. He has become a beacon for disturbed and mistaken followers and quickly turned that fact into a huge income, feigning compassion as a seeker of truth. Wakefield can never be “innocent” for his crimes are so multitudinous.

So next time you hear of another anti-vaccine zealot bellowing “Wakefield innocent”, you’re entitled to ask, “Of what exactly?”

“Vaccine Shedding”: Time Up For Another Vaccine Myth

Posted in Anti-Vaccination Lobby, Denialism, Health, Science by

One myth often pulled out by antivaccination lobbyists to malign vaccine safety is the senseless term “Vaccine Shedding”.

Whilst in context we all know what is meant, it’s worth pausing to consider that the term is a byproduct, if you will, of the antivaccination movement’s skill at sowing misinformation. The unrivaled ability to scan a headline and regurgitate some ghastly tale about vaccines. To squeeze another fallacious vaccine “danger” onto the shelf, content in the knowledge it will soon have a life of it’s own.

The colloquial use of this nonsensical term seeks to convey that an individual who has been vaccinated can readily shed part of the vaccine and cause infection in the unvaccinated. Which by definition demands them to have shed not a vaccine but an infectious agent. Indeed a virus or bacterium. Which by extension demands the vaccine to contain a live virus or bacteria. This then opens the door to viral shedding the vast complexities of vaccine induced immunity and viable modes of excretion – aka shedding. That won’t stop your garden variety anti-vaxxer claiming any vaccine can lead to infection of the unvaccinated via this ghastly “vaccine shedding”.

But that’s only part of the story. “Vaccine shedding” is a double barrelled myth in that transmission is assumed to occur ipso facto. Shedding is not transmission. Period. Yet denial of vaccine efficacy requires internalisation of some whacky stuff. Including the erroneous belief that viral shedding follows MMR vaccination. Yet worse is the myth that inactivated vaccines pose the risk of infection due to “vaccine shedding”.  Pertussis often brings out the malicious side of anti-vaxxers. DTaP is inactivated. Indeed the pertussis component is acellular. Update: The acellular pertussis vaccine is an example of a subunit vaccine.

So, you may wonder at the nature of Cynthia Janak who writes in Will the vaccinated infect the unvaccinated? That is the question with Whooping cough:

Before I continue I want to tell you about a fact that is known by the CDC, etc. That is called vaccine shedding. This is the transmission of the virus from a vaccinated person to an unvaccinated person. [….] I want you to understand that this is true for vaccines including the Whooping Cough. What you could have happen is that all these parents and child care workers are going to get the vaccine and then take care of children. [….] The vaccinated have the potential to infect the unvaccinated child. This could cause the next epidemic of disease like what happened with the small pox epidemic.

So, in Cynthia’s mind “vaccine shedding” is, “…transmission of the virus from a vaccinated person to an unvaccinated person”. Wrong. And it’s true for whooping cough. Impossible. Yet Cynthia Janak asserts there’s potential for an epidemic like smallpox? Pure fiction. Contracting pertussis because an unvaccinated and infected child or adult who ignores boosters has breathed on someone is, however, a simple fact. Aiming to inflate the danger of her misguided concern about “vaccine shedding” as “known by the CDC”, Cynthia uses references to FluMist.

FluMist a live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) sprayed into the nostrils and well understood regarding shedding. Concerns about administering a live virus this way should be respected. So should the facts about any risks. It sheds in low concentration for short periods via nasal discharge. It is not associated with person to person transmission. Given that wild type influenza sheds at far higher concentration, is found on fixtures, objects, skin and is strongly associated with transmission, severe illness and complications it seems Cynthia has been selective about what’s “known by the CDC”.

“Vaccine shedding” is better suited to mid 19th century notions like the infectious miasma, wafting about in terrifying unseen clouds held aloft by our lack of knowledge. Nor does the rare instance of shedding suddenly turn any agent into a virus with the infectious capability of Ebola. But anti-vax voices are often raised in triumph that the crime of “vaccine shedding” places the community at greater risk than the rising numbers of unvaccinated.

The scale of error associated with this belief is akin to the myth of potential vaccine injuries outweighing the benefits of vaccination. Serious injuries that do occur are primarily in populations genetically predisposed to latent complications and manifestation is extremely rare. Injuries, disability and death from vaccine preventable disease would occur at magnitudes many hundreds or thousands of times greater and can manifest in anyone. Vaccine injuries are artificially inflated by confusing correlation (sometimes years apart) with causation, and by including red marks, crying, sleep disturbance or omitting that event X was a serious allergic reaction to latex syringe components. Similarly, arguing ones unvaccinated child is at risk from, or has been infected by, a recently vaccinated child is quite a claim.

Viral shedding itself is by no means ignored by the medical community. It’s of primary concern in the management of immune compromised patients, pregnant women and newborns. Varicella is an excellent example in that a.) viral shedding is well understood and b.) the risk from shedding can be discerned from precautions taken. Following varicella vaccination, viral shedding can be detected in the stools for six weeks.

In the case of immunodeficiency disorders or immune suppression from drugs, transfusions, stem cell transplant, chemotherapy etc, the recommendations are to avoid contact with fecal matter of vaccinated subjects and to observe good hygiene. To put this in context, unvaccinated children who spend one hour in a room with an infected child (shedding varicella) stand a 95% chance of contracting varicella (chicken pox). This is why vaccination against varicella is vital and choosing to not vaccinate your child places him or her and by extension countless others at risk of serious complication.

For nursing mothers post natal varicella vaccination need not be delayed if they are varicella-susceptible as varicella hasn’t been found in breast milk post maternal vaccination. There is no problematic risk of viral shedding to newborns provided hand washing and other hygiene measures are followed.

Whilst rare, a post-varicella immunisation vesicular rash can form. Again whilst quite rare, viral shedding can occur at this site. Plainly stated it’s incredibly rare for an unvaccinated child to be infected with varicella from a vaccinated subject and a series of events, including transmission, must occur within a small window of opportunity. Greatest precautions must be taken in the case of immune suppression. Writing in Vaccines in immunocompromised patients, Janet R. Serwint, MD Consulting Editor notes:

Because the varicella virus rarely can be shed through a postimmunization vesicular rash that may develop, recommendations include avoiding contact until the rash resolves.

In March this year there was an interesting case of viral shedding. The antivaccination lobby bellowed that Varicella zoster virus DNA had been found in the saliva of people over 60 vaccinated with the live Zostavax vaccine manufactured by Merck. In this age group Herpes zoster (shingles) is the target. Shingles is the result of infection with VZV earlier in life which may reactivate as immunity declines or from novel infection. Despite blog headings like Vaccinated people SHED LIVE HERPES for up to a month AFTER vaccination, be aware it was 2 of 36 “vaccinated people” who made the grade.

There was no indication of infection risk at the time. Today transmission is considered rare. Packet inserts carried the standard warnings found in varicella immunisations to avoid contact with infants, nursing mothers and immunocompromised individuals. “Doctors never tell you this”, lied the anti-vax lobby. The end result is that, fortuitously, it appears a saliva test could be developed allowing for detection and antiviral therapy before the painful rash appears. All up with rare potential for transmission from about 5% of recipients of a vaccine that’s not widely used it was a non event.

With MMR the lack of viral shedding renders any risk of horizontal transmission in this manner null and void. If challenged with the claim of “vaccine shedding” specific to Measles, Mumps, Rubella vaccination you’re being misled.

Peak shedding of Rotavirus occurs on “post-vaccination days 6 through 8”. Published in The Lancet Rotavirus vaccines: viral shedding and risk of transmission, notes:

Immunocompromised contacts should be advised to avoid contact with stool from the immunised child if possible, particularly after the first vaccine dose for at least 14 days. Since the risk of vaccine transmission and subsequent vaccine-derived disease with the current vaccines is much less than the risk of wild type rotavirus disease in immunocompromised contacts, vaccination should be encouraged.

The “vaccine shedding” bogeyman got a free kick with the FluMist LAIV vaccine. You may remember the hype. The spraying of “living influenza virus” straight into children’s brains was going to lead to mutation and death on an unprecedented scale. It would genetically revert to the wild type. Transmission would thus be uncontrolled. It would quickly prove useless against changing seasonal strains. ADR’s would rise…. and so on. Ultimately the cost proved to be a deterrent. Mayo Clinic have produced a welcome article on LAIV Myths.

In a comprehensive 2008 study with a sample aged 2 – 49 years, shedding “of short duration and at low titers” was detected in nasal swabs on days 1 – 11. LAIV recipients “should only avoid contact with severely immunocompromised persons for 7 days after vaccination”.

On Shedding and Transmission of Vaccine Viruses, in a larger piece on influenza vaccination of HCP, the CDC write:

One concern regarding use of LAIV among HCP has been the potential for transmitting vaccine virus from persons receiving vaccine to nonimmune patients at high risk. Available data indicate that children and adults vaccinated with LAIV can shed vaccine viruses for >2 days after vaccination, although in lower titers than typically occur with shedding of wild-type influenza viruses. Shedding should not be equated with person-to-person transmission of vaccine viruses, although transmission of shed vaccine viruses from vaccinated persons to nonvaccinated persons has been documented in rare instances among children in a day care center.

One study conducted in a child care center assessed transmissibility of vaccine viruses from 98 vaccinated persons to 99 unvaccinated controls aged 8–36 months; 80% of vaccine recipients shed one or more virus strains (mean duration: 7.6 days). [….] The estimated probability of acquiring vaccine virus after close contact with a single LAIV recipient in this child care population was 0.6%–2.4%.

It was also documented that should HIV positive children be exposed to LAIV shedding, “… serious adverse outcomes would not be expected to occur frequently”. So the combination of live virus shedding and immune deficiency in the case of LAIV presents low risk. Certainly the overall risk associated with the rare transmission following shedding after LAIV is insignificant given the risk of regular influenza virus transmission.

We’re running out of dramatic scenarios for the antivaccination lobby to cling to. With polio the wild virus replicates in the intestine and is shed in stools for up to a month. Transmission in developed nations is thus faecal-oral like other stool shed viral components. It is of course so rare as to be unheard of. However, given that the IOM report into evidence and causality of vaccine adverse effects found a causal link between the oral polio vaccine (OPV) and vaccine associated paralytic polio (or Vaccine Derived Polio Virus), we should seriously consider shedding in areas where this is documented.

In fact the question has been asked if prolonged VDPV shedding could be a source of reintroduction following polio eradication. The more compromised the immune system the more likely the individual is to have problems with vaccine induced immunity. A study looking for VDPV shedding in immune deficient subjects in Abidjan, Cote d’Ivoire found no cases in a sample of 419, and therefore a “minimal risk of reintroduction [after eradication]”. In respect of general exposure to shedding in these environments transmission of the wild type polio virus eliminates any concern over post vaccination viral shedding. Crowding, sewerage, water quality etc all contribute to wild polio spread in ways that do not apply to the developed world.

Remembering that viral shedding is of paramount concern in the management of immune deficiency and immunocompromise, let’s revisit the Janet R. Serwint, MD of Vaccines in immunocompromised patients. Rather than warn against exposure to immunised children the recommendation is to ensure schedules are up to date and an annual inactivated influenza vaccine is on board. Pay attention to reference to MMR, varicella and rotavirus:

One strategy worth emphasizing is the immunization of household contacts, particularly other children and adolescents in the family. This procedure is essential to try to minimize exposure of the immunocompromised patient to household contacts who might contract vaccine-preventable illnesses. Pediatric health-care clinicians need to update and review the vaccine status of all siblings and pediatric-age household members. Annual influenza vaccination of all family members with inactivated influenza vaccine is recommended in addition to ensuring routine immunization of all other recommended vaccines.

MMR, varicella, and rotavirus vaccines, although live viral vaccines, are recommended for immunocompetent household contacts because transmission of the virus is rare. The lack of viral shedding with MMR eliminates concern regarding transmission. Because the varicella virus rarely can be shed through a postimmunization vesicular rash that may develop, recommendations include avoiding contact until the rash resolves. For the rotavirus vaccine, avoidance of contact with the stools by the immunocompromised patient and good hand hygiene measures by all family members for at least 1 week after vaccination should be implemented.

In conclusion it’s clear that “vaccine shedding” is a nonsense phrase. The lack of accounts of children transmitting viruses to younger siblings and friends after vaccination is a dead giveaway. Whilst viral shedding is a reality we can be confident that:

  • Viral shedding applies only to live virus vaccines and is significantly low, low risk
  • Post vaccination viral shedding of rotavirus and varicella is detected in the stools for 4-6 weeks respectively. It’s of such low risk as to be of cautionary interest regarding immunocompromised individuals
  • Genuine concern about viral shedding in these groups is managed with sound hygiene and avoiding contact with stools
  • In rare cases of post varicella immunisation vesicular rash shedding may occur. Transmission is still unlikely
  • The lack of viral shedding following MMR eliminates any concerns about transmission
  • Claims of DTaP shedding and transmission are bogus
  • Stories about whooping cough transmission from vaccine shedding are demonstrably false
  • Stories of polio infection being a risk due to shedding are designed to scare
  • Antivaccination lobbyists use false and incomplete information about shedding to create fear of vaccines/the vaccinated
  • Shedding of LAIV is at markedly low concentration, short duration and transmission is dwarfed by seasonal influenza transmission
  • Accurate information about the topic is drowned out by antivaccination sites and “mothering” forums making inaccurate claims

Update: April 13th 2015 – Added references;
Is the MMR vaccine spreading the measles virus?: The question of shedding

Case of vaccine-associated measles five weeks post-immunisation, British Columbia, Canada, October 2013: http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=20649
Live Attenuated Influenza Vaccine [LAIV] (The Nasal Spray Flu Vaccine): http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/nasalspray.htm
Live Attenuated Vaccines (LAV): http://vaccine-safety-training.org/live-attenuated-vaccines.html
Measles – Q&A about Disease & Vaccine: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/measles/faqs-dis-vac-risks.htm
Measles: Questions and Answers: http://www.immunize.org/catg.d/p4209.pdf?q=measles
Measles Vaccination: http://www.cdc.gov/measles/vaccination.html
Rotarix WHO leaflet – tube: http://www.who.int/immunization_standards/vaccine_quality/Rotarix_liquid_tube_product_insert_text_2009.pdf?ua=1
Rotavirus: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/rota.pdf
Transmission of Measles: http://www.cdc.gov/measles/about/transmission.html

The Polio Crusade

Posted in Anti-Vaccination Lobby, Health, Human Rights, Science by

For an American citizen, Meryl Dorey, president of The Australian Vaccination Network pays scant attention to her homelands recent history.

The tragedies caused by polio were fierce and unrelenting. ‘‘It was an atmosphere of grief, terror, and helpless rage,’’ remembered a nurse who worked on the medical wards at a Pittsburgh hospital. ‘‘It was horrible. I remember a high school boy weeping because he was completely paralyzed and couldn’t move a hand to kill himself. I remember paralyzed women in iron lungs giving birth to normal babies.’’ [….]

Four of the boys got polio that summer. One day no one could find our head counselor, Bill Lilly. He took what happened to those boys pretty hard. The police were called and, after they searched all around the lake, they found that Bill had hung himself from a tree – hung himself. We were all huddled around the beach when the police came to tell us. I’ll never forget it.’’ [Source]

As is plain in the video below by 1950 33,000 polio cases in which 50% affected children under 10 were reported. Whilst it was uncommon to catch, remote to be injured by, and extremely rare to die from polio, Americans feared it almost as much as the atomic bomb. As one who claims vaccination had no impact on polio at all – personal hygiene, public sanitation, clean water and mama’s apple pie eliminated vaccine preventable diseases – this video holds a surprise for Meryl Dorey.

In the post war years clean water and public sanitation meant less prevalence of a milder, wild type of polio virus. Previously maternal antibodies and/or exposure to this wild type from very young ages had equipped the young with sufficient immunity. Polio is taken in orally and water or vapour are it’s most common mode of infection. In a more prosperous America exposure was occurring later in life, particularly during summer months. The virus itself was more virulent and within a few seasons was also striking adults severely.

In a nutshell, as described by eloquently by Dr. Paul Offit, as sanitation improved exposure occurred later and cases rose. And so pfft! goes another well worn antivaccination lie, recently peddled by Viera Scheibner on Sunrise TV.

Of course today, anti-vaxxers carry the burning Stupid as a beacon to light their way and tend to blame almost any outbreak on vaccination. Indeed only a day or so before the video below aired, Meryl Dorey refers to this viral polio outbreak in China as “vaccine associated polio”, blaming the vaccine. Even worse, she linked to the same article as here, which kinda informs the reader by paragraph two. Even worse… well no, actually so incredibly stupid it hurts to comprehend, Dorey thinks the file picture is an account of it’s own as to what’s happening. I shag you not. She writes;

What type of vaccine do they use in China – is it oral or injected? The picture looks like someone getting oral in which case, that is most likely where the outbreak is coming from

That’s our girl! “Australia’s leading expert on vaccines” looked at the picture.

A member of her Facebook page decided to point this out. The brave Emma Hill was banned, her comment deleted to make room for vaccine blaming and business briskly resumed. Meryl hates suppression of dissent or impinging on free speech as she often opines. She just has a unique way of showing it.

Pre Ban Hammer

Post Ban Hammer

As Emma notes the outbreak is caused by WPV1 spreading from Pakistan. But in defence of Meryl, we’re now getting into facts and that just won’t do. So, back to 1950’s America.

This doco looks at the impact of increasingly devastating outbreaks, infantile paralysis, the quest for a vaccine under Jonas Salk and the development of government quality control following the Cutter Incident. As documented well, also by Dr. Paul Offit poor quality control led to live virus vaccines being distributed and consequent infection in some cases.  Program centres around Wytheville in the US.

Enjoy…