Like many we are visiting family in the US where there are outbreaks. I cannot remember whether I had measles or not as a child in the 50s. It seems the CDC guidance to "health workers born before 1957" is to get vaccinated. We decided to enquire here in Scotland. The NHS run travel clinics offer required travel vaccines, and do offer an MMR at £20.00 per jag. The private pharmacy is around double that price. Given that the required two jags are 4 weeks apart and advice given was to have it " in ones system 8weeks before travel" those of like mind to us may well be unprepared and exposed. Surely given this most infectious disease and the insane fad against vaccination in the US, MMRs should be offered free here in the UK to those who wish them, before international holiday travel picks up.
The additional risk you haven't raised, is that any research conducted under RFK's control, given his bias and the individuals he may recruit, may also be flawed or even fraudulent.
"The risk of ASD in the group of vaccinated children was THE SAME as that in the unvaccinated children. "
No it wasn't the same. According to the study "the relative risk of autistic disorder in the group of vaccinated children, as compared with the unvaccinated group, was 0.92 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.68 to 1.24), and the relative risk of another autistic-spectrum disorder was 0.83 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.65 to 1.07).
This is because it was "A Population-Based Study". They tell you right at the beginning of the title that it is flawed research. Not completely useless because if you look at table 2 for less that 6 months the relative risk was 0.39 and then jumped to 1.38 for 6 to 11 months after 'vaccination'. You can see for age of 'vaccination' the relative risk was 1.2 for 25-35 months and then dropped to .56 for greater the 35 months. This shows that despite the groups not being random and the over all results being skewed there is still some footprint of the impact of 'vaccination'.
However I urge people to read at least part 1 of the British Medical Journal series on this linked from the page sited in this sentence:
"The results were misleading, couldn’t be reproduced, the research unethical (for example highly invasive unnecessary procedures were performed on children with ASD) and there was a clear conflict of interest regarding Mr Wakefield’s funding."
This sentence seems quite strong, but it is actually professionally understated. The issues with the Wakefield paper are mind blowing. Here's the direct link:
Thank you for this summary. It is insane how one's person's fraud can cause so much damage, in further research conducted but worst of all, preventable deaths :(.
Like many we are visiting family in the US where there are outbreaks. I cannot remember whether I had measles or not as a child in the 50s. It seems the CDC guidance to "health workers born before 1957" is to get vaccinated. We decided to enquire here in Scotland. The NHS run travel clinics offer required travel vaccines, and do offer an MMR at £20.00 per jag. The private pharmacy is around double that price. Given that the required two jags are 4 weeks apart and advice given was to have it " in ones system 8weeks before travel" those of like mind to us may well be unprepared and exposed. Surely given this most infectious disease and the insane fad against vaccination in the US, MMRs should be offered free here in the UK to those who wish them, before international holiday travel picks up.
Thank you for such a clear summary.
The additional risk you haven't raised, is that any research conducted under RFK's control, given his bias and the individuals he may recruit, may also be flawed or even fraudulent.
I’m afraid, the outcome of the new ‘study’ has been ordered too. How come that nobody from CDC dare to speak up?
"The risk of ASD in the group of vaccinated children was THE SAME as that in the unvaccinated children. "
No it wasn't the same. According to the study "the relative risk of autistic disorder in the group of vaccinated children, as compared with the unvaccinated group, was 0.92 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.68 to 1.24), and the relative risk of another autistic-spectrum disorder was 0.83 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.65 to 1.07).
This is because it was "A Population-Based Study". They tell you right at the beginning of the title that it is flawed research. Not completely useless because if you look at table 2 for less that 6 months the relative risk was 0.39 and then jumped to 1.38 for 6 to 11 months after 'vaccination'. You can see for age of 'vaccination' the relative risk was 1.2 for 25-35 months and then dropped to .56 for greater the 35 months. This shows that despite the groups not being random and the over all results being skewed there is still some footprint of the impact of 'vaccination'.
This is such a good summary.
However I urge people to read at least part 1 of the British Medical Journal series on this linked from the page sited in this sentence:
"The results were misleading, couldn’t be reproduced, the research unethical (for example highly invasive unnecessary procedures were performed on children with ASD) and there was a clear conflict of interest regarding Mr Wakefield’s funding."
This sentence seems quite strong, but it is actually professionally understated. The issues with the Wakefield paper are mind blowing. Here's the direct link:
https://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5347.full
Thank you for highlighting these concerns and writing so clearly.
Thank you for this summary. It is insane how one's person's fraud can cause so much damage, in further research conducted but worst of all, preventable deaths :(.
Really important, thank you