>It's also a known fact Andrew Wakefield’s 1998 research paper, that tried to discredit the MMR vaccine by linking it to other complications is fraudulent and wrong.
1. Straw man
2. The paper didn't "try to discredit the MMR vaccine" it said: "We identified associated gastrointestinal disease and developmental regression in a group of previously normal children, which was generally associated in time with possible environmental triggers." and recommended/asked for further studies. It may have been dead wrong. I don't care. It was never the sort of thing that a reasonable person would base a decision to vaccinate solely upon.
>That research paper was nothing more than a work of fiction.
Did you read it? It's a pretty low quality paper, it was a "study" of 12 patients. Hardly enough statistics to make any strong conclusion. No reasonable person would consider it such a strong statement.
>The problem is, decades on 'vaccine victims' still quote Andrew Wakefield’s research paper as a reason to not vaccinate.
They don't need to do that. They can just use the CDC data or the NVIC data. Or the drug companies' own data (when they've been forced to release it)
>Those are the 'vaccine victims' he was referring to and they are alive and well, working hard to bring back the iron lung hospital wards of the 1950s with their stupidity and ignorance.
I like your links to photos of Polio victims. Thankfully, people back then weren't afraid to notice that the first generation of Polio vaccines actually gave Polio to some who took them. Instead of denying the possibility that their vaccine was imperfect, or telling everyone "our vaccine is good enough!, sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet", they improved/perfected the vaccine. Good for them. Shame on their successors.
> The paper didn't "try to discredit the MMR vaccine"
Smells like an attempt to discredit MMR to me:
According to a major investigative feature by Brian Deer, in 1996 Dr Wakefield was retained by the solicitor Richard Barr to carry out investigations on a number of children with autism and bowel problems (1). The object of these investigations was to confirm parents' claims that their children's behavioural and digestive symptoms had been caused by the MMR vaccine, so that they could claim compensation from the vaccine manufacturers.
It appears that four or five of the children included in the series of 12 cases reported in the Lancet were in the group represented by Barr.
To decide whether to use a vaccine that can eliminate 40,000 annual cases of Polio and the only side effect might be it could be harmful to a few people is a no brainer.
To use your own words, sure vaccines can harm a very small number of people, but that same vaccine will be extremely beneficial to huge numbers of people.
"We have identified a chronic enterocolitis in children that may be related to neuropsychiatric dysfunction. In most cases, onset of symptoms was after measles, mumps, and rubella immunisation. Further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome and its possible relation to this vaccine. "
It was a study of twelve (12!) children! To credit Wakefield with sole responsibility of the "MMR scare" over that simple statement is crazy. There is no way that Wakefield's paper single-handedly sparked and sustained this debacle for some fifteen years now.
What really smells in this affair is Brian Deer, a journalist in the employ of a director of GSK (James Murdoch), who himself made the initial report against Wakefield et al to the British GMC while simultaneously reporting on the scandal (while denying that he had anything to do with the initial report). As bad as Wakefield's paper was, it was nothing compared to the farce that followed in the form of the GMC hearings, BMJ's character assassination, and later retraction[2] The whole thing is a farce from one end to the other.
>The simple fact is vaccination works.
Of course it does. Stop with the straw man already. But, vaccines aren't flawless. They aren't perfectly safe, and in some cases the risks outweigh the benefits. Effort should be concentrated on perfecting vaccines, not denial of fallibility. Until then, a proper weighting of risks and benefits is required.
>People need to get over it and get vaccinated.
Shall we sign you up for Gardasil, and perhaps the new Acne vaccine? Have you had a Rotavirus booster? Of course you have. Better safe than sorry!
> Thankfully, people back then weren't afraid to notice that the first generation of Polio vaccines actually gave Polio to some who took them. Instead of denying the possibility that their vaccine was imperfect, or telling everyone "our vaccine is good enough!, sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet", they improved/perfected the vaccine
This is untrue. An experiment in the 30s at New York University did indeed give polio to some people, but that was never marketed as a workable vaccine. The vaccine developed in the early 50s, which was marketed, was extremely effective, developed by different people, and is still in use today.
The oral polio vaccine, which was developed later, is also in use today (though it is being discontinued in the developed world), and that one _is_ known to very occasionally induce polio.
So, to be clear, the first generation of polio vaccines did _not_ give polio to those who took them. The second generation, which has historically been more popular because people are more comfortable with oral than injected vaccines, occasionally does, though it's extremely rare.
>So, to be clear, the first generation of polio vaccines did _not_ give polio to those who took them. The second generation, which has historically been more popular because people are more comfortable with oral than injected vaccines, occasionally does, though it's extremely rare.
My recollection of the details was mistaken. Thanks for the correction.
1. Straw man
2. The paper didn't "try to discredit the MMR vaccine" it said: "We identified associated gastrointestinal disease and developmental regression in a group of previously normal children, which was generally associated in time with possible environmental triggers." and recommended/asked for further studies. It may have been dead wrong. I don't care. It was never the sort of thing that a reasonable person would base a decision to vaccinate solely upon.
>That research paper was nothing more than a work of fiction.
Did you read it? It's a pretty low quality paper, it was a "study" of 12 patients. Hardly enough statistics to make any strong conclusion. No reasonable person would consider it such a strong statement.
>The problem is, decades on 'vaccine victims' still quote Andrew Wakefield’s research paper as a reason to not vaccinate.
They don't need to do that. They can just use the CDC data or the NVIC data. Or the drug companies' own data (when they've been forced to release it)
>Those are the 'vaccine victims' he was referring to and they are alive and well, working hard to bring back the iron lung hospital wards of the 1950s with their stupidity and ignorance.
I like your links to photos of Polio victims. Thankfully, people back then weren't afraid to notice that the first generation of Polio vaccines actually gave Polio to some who took them. Instead of denying the possibility that their vaccine was imperfect, or telling everyone "our vaccine is good enough!, sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet", they improved/perfected the vaccine. Good for them. Shame on their successors.