« Co-schooling exchange. | Main | Introduction to the Devout Life 5-18: Final advice. And reader question. »

06 January 2011


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

LeeAnn Balbirona

Wow, fraud on this scale, that led to so much waste and worry; might it actually lead to prison time for this guy? He certainly should be stripped of whatever credentials that remain.


Have you ever read "Unraveling the Mystery of Autism and Pervasive Developmental Disorder" by Karyn Serousi? As a scientist, you might cringe at some of it, but it is very well written and her husband is a scientist. The book is sort of a combo between personal story/experience and science to understand and back it up. If nothing else, it is just a good and interesting book.

I think in general that vaccines are good and have done a great deal of good in this world. I have serious "issues" with the fetal-tissue connection. And I think it is very unrealistic to think that vaccines will never have adverse affects on people -- despite the infinite combos of DNA. To me, denying potential for different reactions is like saying that since some people are not affected adversely by eating bread then no one is adversely affected.

I think a "slow and steady" route is the best way. There is no rush. And besides -- the effect of the vaccines can wear off. From what I understand, the vaccine for chicken pox (can't recall the technical name) is only effective for about 10 years. Whereas once a child gets it, the immunities are there for life. I would never presume to say that is the case for all illnesses, or that this is the best solution. I just can't stand it when people assume one "way" is the right "way" when it comes to vaccines.

I'll get off my soapbox now. :)

Barbara C.

I kind of had my doubts about this particular issue anyway...most things I've read point to a genetic connection for autism.

But I don't think that babies need quite as many vaccinations in the first year as they are scheduled to receive. I think the schedule is based on the fear that parents won't bring the kids back for vaccinations at later ages, so they overload them as babies.


"I think the schedule is based on the fear that parents won't bring the kids back for vaccinations at later ages, so they overload them as babies."

Agreed on that last bit. That's the kind of thing I mean when I say I prefer individual- rather than population-focused medicine. Tailoring the vaccination schedule to what's best for the child in his family - individual. Recommending a schedule based on what statistically will lead to the most kids receiving the most vaccinations - population based. I understand the motives, but my responsibility is first to my child and secondarily to the rest of the population.


"I think the schedule is based on the fear that parents won't bring the kids back for vaccinations at later ages, so they overload them as babies."

I think it's also geared towards babies that are in daycare and that are, therefore, exposed to many more things at a very young age. I know I'm incredibly blessed to be able to stay home with my children, and that one of the extra benefits of this is less exposure in the first 2 years of life to all kinds of nasties.


Some of the vaccines they schedule early really do protect against diseases to which young infants are very vulnerable--pertussis, for instance, and rotavirus. But I don't buy at all that babies born to Hep-B-negative mothers need to be getting the Hep B vaccine at birth; that is clearly a decision calculated to benefit other babies, not mine. And I, too, am troubled by the use of cell lines derived from aborted fetuses and the way the measles vaccine, which I would really like to be able to give my child with a clear conscience, is offered ONLY in combination with a fetal-cell-line-origin vaccine (rubella).

Thanks for this post--your blog is one of my favorites!

Morgan D.

I would encourage you to read/listen to these bits of information before coming to a conclusion on whether or not it was indeed a fraud:





I looked. I saw nothing that refutes the claims that the children's health histories were cherrypicked and altered for inclusion in the paper. I also saw nothing that gives a sufficient explanation for why Dr. Wakefield's disastrous ethical conflicts of interest were not disclosed from the beginning. These are serious problems, and my judgment is that it was correct to retract the paper and now it is correct to ignore the research as it is irredeemably tainted.

Whether the fraud was deliberate is not within my ability to judge. It looks bad.


The role of the lawyers in helping should not be ignored here.Their actions deserve to be called into question. Read the article...


..it is astonishing how many millions of public money were wasted by their actions.


Yeah, people in the UK ought to be up in arms about it.

I suppose that many of the parents who skipped the MMR vaccine were predisposed to vaccinate less anyway, but surely there were a lot of people on the margins who were tipped away from vaccination because of the apparent evidence -- people who, *had the later-retracted paper not existed,* would have made a different choice. All of these people are justifiably angry, because it's not a choice without consequence.

I mean, Dr. Sears cited Wakefield (not without reservation, but still) in his book _The Vaccine Book._ Sears is on the crunchy end of mainstream parenting, but mainstream he is.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Screen Shot 2015-07-19 at 6.07.09 PM
My Photo

I think I read something somewhere about this

  • Google

    bearing blog


Become a Fan