Bad news for liars, good news for kids

rpautrey2 wrote:
REALITY!
Excerpt From:

The Drug Story
Hans Ruesch

America's Medico-Drug Cartel

The medico-drug cartel was summed up by J.W. Hodge, M.D.,

This guy is, by definition, an anti-vac liar sociopath.

In article ,
rpautrey2 wrote:
REALITY!
Excerpt From:

The Drug Story
Hans Ruesch

And we should believe this silly screed is "reality" because?

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"Without Bush, what will America's schoolchildren have to look down on?"
-- Bill Maher

On Jan 14, 4:45*am, Mark Probert wrote:


Paul: The medico-drug cartel was summed up by J.W. Hodge, M.D.,

Probert This guy is, by definition, an anti-vac liar sociopath.

Here's a question or two regarding this subject..

I'm taking it you work for a claims investigation service based on
what you have said; what difference would it be
to you or your company if an insurance company pays a claim for as
you say, a "fringe," treatment
or not?? I guess what I don't understand about the insurance world
works. If I understand correctly, don't most
alternative therapies cost much less than conventional treatments??
Would it not be cheaper for an
insurance company to pay on a cheaper form of medical treatment then
have an insured spend buko bucks
in the conventional medicine world which costs the insurance world
more money? I have always assumed
insurance companies were in business to make a profit---just like
everyone else!!

On Jan 13, 8:24*pm, Mark Probert wrote:


Still some of my worst nightmares.

I thought I was your only nightmare!!

On Jan 12, 9:24*pm, Mark wrote:
Having earned my medical degree from the University of Kentucky (and
thankfully, never having encountered "Dr." Boyd Hayley), I can only
state the obvious: nutjobs can crawl out of the woodwork anywhere.
Aus has its Carole, Kentucky has its Boyd...even Costa Rica has its
[wipe the slime from my keyboard] Ilena, and Indiana, home of James
Dean, has its Jan.



Mark L, I have a hypothetical situation for you:

If I remember correctly, you work for some kind of Medical group.
Say you have a child that comes to
see you with his parents because they want a 3rd opinion -- ---the
chances for survival of the child are slim with the other two proposed
therapies. The parents tell you that they have heard about a
therapy that
as Probert likes to call it, that is "fringe" that there have been
some limited studies done about--say in Denmark and in Germany, but
nothing stateside, but there is a strong possibility that these large
doses of Vitamin supplement IVS might work for the child. As a
doctor, what do you do in a case like this? You already know the odds
of the chance for survival for the other two methods. The parents
have handed over to you the studies from that they pulled out of peer
reviewed journals. Based on the information you know about the other
two treatments, then seeing this rather limited alternative medicine
study information from Europe with good results, what would you
recommend? Would you abandon the conventional treatment way of
thinking to recommend trying the alternative medicine therapy, or
would you stand by it all of the way because you work for a Medical
group and your colleagues would not favor your decision?

"Mark Probert" wrote:
No, it is the vaccines. There is NO PROOF WHATSOEVER that anything put
into vaccines poses a health risk.


A sidelight for those following the Vaccination conflict.

This stunning censored interview was cut from the TV program The
Health Century due to its huge liability -- the admission that the
Merck drug company has been injecting cancer viruses into people
worldwide.


This clip is shocking in many ways, one of which is how much
lack
of care was used in developing vaccines. Some folks will tell you
that the drug industry has since become wonderfully caring and
cautious. Use your common sense and past experience with the drug
industry, and don't be intimidated by the usual suspects around here
that don't want you to see this, so you'll miss some truth from the
mouths of the scientists that did it and laughed about it later.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edikv0zbAlU

"Mark Probert" repeated..the
repeated..repeatedly

This guy is, by definition, an anti-vac liar sociopath.

Groups View all web results » Results 1 - 10 of 16 for
markprobert@lumbercartel. com anti - vac liar sociopath


Groups View all web results » Results 1 - 10 of 204 for
markprobert@lumbercartel. com anti - vac liar


Groups View all web results » Results 1 - 10 of 59 for
markprobert@lumbercartel. com sociopath

"David Wright" wrote in message
. ..
In article
,
rpautrey2 wrote:

"rpautrey2" wrote in message
...
REALITY!
Excerpt From:

The Drug Story
Hans Ruesch

America's Medico-Drug Cartel

The medico-drug cartel was summed up by J.W. Hodge, M.D., of Niagara
Falls,
N.Y., in these words: "The medical monopoly or medical trust,
euphemistically called the American Medical Association, is not merely
the
meanest monopoly ever organized, but the most arrogant, dangerous and
despotic organization which ever managed a free people in this or any
other
age. Any and all methods of healing the sick by means of safe, simple
and
natural remedies are sure to be assailed and denounced by the
arrogant
leaders of the AMA doctors' trust as fakes, frauds and humbugs. Every
practitioner of the healing art who does not ally himself with the
medical
trust is denounced as a 'dangerous quack' and impostor by the
predatory
trust doctors. Every sanitarian who attempts to restore the sick to a
state
of health by natural means without resort to the knife or poisonous
drugs,
disease imparting serums, deadly toxins or vaccines, is at once
pounced upon
by these medical tyrants and fanatics, bitterly denounced, vilified
and
persecuted to the fullest extent."


And we should believe this silly screed is "reality" because?

It is the truth..and not a silly screed.

-- David Wright

http://www.whale.to/vaccines/fombonne_h.html

[2006 July 1 Pediatrics.] "Pervasive Developmental Disorders in Montreal,
Quebec: Prevalence and Links With Immunizations"--- Dr. Fombonne's
[2004 Nov] Smeeth, Fombonne, Hall et al. Rate of First Recorded Diagnosis of
Autism and Other Pervasive Developmental Disorders in United Kingdom General
Practice, 1988 to 2001
[2004 Lancet] "MMR Vaccination And Pervasive Developmental Disorders: A Case
Control Study." By Liam Smeeth, Claire Cook, Eric Fombonne...
[2003 Jan] Fombonne, editorial, Journal of the American Medical Association,
January 1st 2003 Vol 289, No.1 49
[2001 Oct Pediatrics] Fombonne & Chakrabarti, No Evidence for a New Variant
of Measles-Mumps-Rubella-Induced Autism, Pediatrics
[2000-2002 Unpublished Study by Fombonne et al, A Case-Control Study of
Autism In General Practice, UK, Study Period September 2000-August 2002
[1998] Letter by Dr. Eric Fombonne, Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Autism,
Pediatrics, March 28th 1998

[May 2007] The mercury, autism debacle: How stupid do they think we are? by
Michael Wagnitz

http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.co...07/pdf_fs.html
Fombonne is a psychiatrist. Here is what the Cochrane Collaboration said
about Fombonne's last paper regarding a review of the safety of the mmr:
"The number and possible impact of biases in this study is so high that
interpretation of the results is impossible". (page 21)

"E. Fombonne has provided advice on the epidemiology and clinical aspects of
autism to scientists advising parents, to vaccine manufacturers (for a fee),
and to several Government committees." In plainer language, Fombonne had
been a paid adviser to the manufacturers of MMR in the then-impending
1,500-strong class action High Court case in the UK that alleged that MMR
had precipitated children's degeneration into autism. The wisdom of using a
paid witness to the manufacturers, as defendants, in a central authorship
role in a supposedly independent research paper, might be questioned by
many. --David Thrower

I was the first to announce the "autism epidemic", in 1995, and I pointed
out in that article that excessive vaccines were a plausible cause of the
epidemic. As you know, an enormous amount of clinical laboratory research
(as opposed to epidemiological research), has been accumulated since that
time, supporting my position. (I did not know then that the vaccines
contained mercury, although I had been collecting data since 1967 from the
mothers of autistic children, on any dental work they may have had during
their pregnancy.) The evidence is now overwhelming, despite the
misinformation from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the
American Academy of Pediatrics and the Institute of Medicine.------- The
(Pretending to) Combat Autism Act By Bernard Rimland

See: Urinary porphyrin profiles Studies (government) Studies on vaccine
autism link


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[2006 July 1] Pediatrics. "Pervasive Developmental Disorders in Montreal,
Quebec: Prevalence and Links With Immunizations"--- Dr. Fombonne

It is not entirely true that Quebec children have been receiving
thimerosal-free vaccines since 1996. All 3 of the influenza vaccines
licensed in Canada contain thimerosal. Currently, close to a third of Quebec
youngsters are receiving these, as are a number of pregnant women. For
details on this, please visit the links below. Also, it may not be on the
immunization scdedule, but Quebec infants who come from countries (or whose
mothers were born in countries) where hepatitis B is endemic, are
recommended hepatitis B shots as infants. In the U.S.,
non-thimerosal-containing hepatitis B vaccine became licensed in 1999. At
that time, Canada was still using the thimerosal-containing hep B vaccine
for infants. That is stated in a Health Canada Bulletin. I doubt Quebec
somehow managed to get a non-thimerosal-containing hep B vaccine before the
rest of the country and the States (for that matter). Aasa
http://www.vran.org//vaccines/flu/flu_ingredients.htm

[Teresa Binstock Oct 2006] Comment on: Fombonne article - Pediatrics 2006
118(1): e139-e150 - thimerosal aspects Fombonne et al's newest article (1)
prompts questions: Is the article a scientific document? The answer
appears to be No, it is not. If not, then what is the article's purpose?

John P Heptonstall reply to Fombonne article - Pediatrics 2006 118(1):
e139-e150
[July 9, 2006 press release] FOMBONNE AUTISM STUDY RIDDLED WITH
INACCURACIES, RADICAL CONCLUSIONS, SAYS NATIONAL AUTISM ASSOCIATION

Recently, FAIR Autism Media was contacted by Bloomberg Press to comment on
the Fombonne study & article in the Journal of Pediatrics. Dr. David Ayoub
offered his comments to the reporter. This is just another heavily biased
study by an author with a long track record of financial ties to the drug
industry, and whose previous views on the epidemiology of autism have been
discredited,'' wrote Ayoub

SafeMinds Aids to Correct Misinformation
[July 2006] letter to the Guardian (London) which shows this latest study is
junk--Clifford Miller


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[2004 Sept Lancet] "MMR Vaccination And Pervasive Developmental Disorders: A
Case Control Study." By Liam Smeeth, Claire Cook, Eric Fombonne, Lisa
Heavey, Laura C Rodriques, Peter G Smith, Andrew J Hall. Lancet 2004;
364:963-969.

This was an important paper in that it claimed to have looked at a very
large number of child health records, giving it considerable claimed
authority. The study had been set up in the UK in the light of strong public
concern (and probably a degree of internal UK Government unease) over the
safety of MMR vaccination.
Data were abstracted from the UK General Practitioer Research Database.
The study found that:
MMR vaccination was not associated with an increased risk of subsequent PDD
diagnosis. The study found "no convincing evidence" that MMR vaccination
increased the risk of autism or other pervasive developmental disorders
The "odds ratio" associated with MMR vaccination varied according to the
age at which a person joined the GPRD. In particular, the odds ratio
associated with MMR vaccination was higher among children who joined the
GPRD at birth or before their first birthday. This was dismissed as possible
selection bias or a "chance result"
·Research into the cause(s) of autism was urgently needed The study included
over 1,000 cases with a diagnosis of PDD. Despite its size, the study had a
number of drawbacks, some of which the study authors admitted:
some recording of previous vaccination history, where children came onto a
GPRD after date of vaccination, was acknowledged to be possibly incomplete
the study admitted that it was not able to separately identify the subgroup
of cases with regressive symptoms, so as to be able to investigate the
hypothesis that only some children were vulnerable to MMR-induced disease
and that this was always regressive. This was a crucial failing, as this
hypothesis lies at the very heart of the allegations of parents and the
views of researchers such as Dr. Andrew Wakefield. On page 967, the authors
stated that "we were not able to separately identify the sub-group of cases
with regressive symptoms (so as) to investigate the hypothesis that only
some children are vulnerable to MMR-induced disease and that this is always
(in those cases) regressive". The authors thereby are admitting that they
have not, in fact, conducted an investigation of "the Wakefield hypothesis"
The study claimed that its results were similar to a Danish cohort study
(the Madsen et al study). However, the use of thimerosalcontaining vaccines
in Denmark has not matched that in the UK, and so comparing the two
countries' experiences may be inappropriate
The study also had to declare one serious conflict of interest, specifically
that "E. Fombonne has provided advice on the epidemiology and clinical
aspects of autism to scientists advising parents, to vaccine manufacturers
(for a fee), and to several Government committees."
In plainer language, Fombonne had been a paid adviser to the manufacturers
of MMR in the then-impending 1,500-strong class action High Court case in
the UK that alleged that MMR had precipitated children's degeneration into
autism. The wisdom of using a paid witness to the manufacturers, as
defendants, in a central authorship role in a supposedly independent
research paper, might be questioned by many.

This study was heavily criticised:

the study is only epidemiological, not clinical. No children were examined
the UK GP Research Database, the basis for this study, was not designed to
be used for a study such as this
there may have been some misclassification of cases (the authors admitted
this flaw). In fact, it is understood that no fewer than 73 "controls" were
discovered during the course of the study to be "cases", illustrating the
difficulty of relying on the GPRD database
insufficient controls were used. Although the study, which used 1,294 cases
and 4,469 controls, had initially indicated that there would be ten controls
per autism case, 594 cases had fewer than three controls, 72 cases had only
one control and 25 had none at all. It was not explained why the study's
original protocols had been apparently disregarded
only 62% of the children had received MMR before 18 months. Yet the focus of
concern needed to be on infants younger than this, 15 months or less. This
makes the study less relevant to the core area of concern
methodological flaws in the study were pointed out to the study team at
early stages of the study, but do not seem to have been taken into account
the study deliberately excluded children who did not have a record of seeing
their GP in the 12 months prior to the "index date", which was the date at
which the children received a diagnosis of PDD. This could have increased
the risk of excluding children who had undergone definite regression after
MMR
Comment: this study cannot be taken as offering reliable evidence to deny an
MMR/autism link, despite the claims made at the time. It is worth reminding
readers as to the original "Wakefield hypothesis", as published in the
Israeli Medical Association Journal, 1999, Volume I, pp1-5: "There exists a
subset of children who are vulnerable to developing a particular form of
regressive autism following previously normal development, in combination
with a novel form of inflammatory bowel disease. Onset may occur over weeks
or sometimes months, and is triggered by exposure to a measles-containing
vaccine, predominantly the measles mumps rubella vaccine (MMR) that is in
use in much of the world today. This exposure leads to long term infection
with measles virus within key sites, including the intestine where it causes
inflammation."

[pdf March 2006] MMR Vaccine, Thimerosal and Regressive or Late Onset Autism
A Review of the Evidence for a Link Between Vaccination and Regressive
Autism--David Thrower

[Sept 2004] Dr. Wakefield Responds To British Study Clearing MMR Vaccines


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[2004 Nov] Study by Smeeth, Fombonne, Hall et al. Rate of First Recorded
Diagnosis of Autism and Other Pervasive Developmental Disorders in United
Kingdom General Practice, 1988 to 2001 published in BMC Medicine, 2: 39,
November 2004.
This study analysed the rates of first diagnosis of pervasive developmental
disorders amongst people registered with GP practices that were part of the
UK GP Database during 1988-2001. It included 1,410 cases drawn from over 14
million person-years of observation. The main outcome measures were the
rates of diagnosis of PDD, by the year of diagnosis, the year of birth, by
gender and by geographical region.
The study found that:
· the rate increased progressively from 0.40/10,000 person years in 1991 to
2.98 per 10,000 person years in 2001
· there was a similar increase in standardized incidence ratios, from 35 in
1991 to 365 in 2001
· the temporal increase was not limited to children born during specific
years, nor to children diagnosed in a specific time period
· the rate of diagnosis of PDDs other than autism rose from zero for 1988-92
to 1.06 per 10,000 person-years in 2001
· the rate of diagnosis of autism also increased, but to a lesser extent
· there was marked geographical variation in rates, with standardized
incidence ratios varying from 66 in Wales to 141 for SE England
The study concluded that better ascertainment of diagnosis was likely to
have contributed to the observed temporal increase in rates of diagnosis of
PDD, but the authors could not rule out a real increase. The study claimed
to be on of the largest undertaken of trends in the incidence of autism
The study authors had to admit to a considerable number of uncertainties,
and make a number of suppositions. Uncertainties included:
· it was "likely" that a proportion of cases in the "autism" diagnostic
category had a form of PDD other than autism
· the inaccuracy of diagnosis within the GP research database was "likely"
to reflect changes in the definition of PDD
· inflation in the number of cases in later years "could have" occurred as
other PDD diagnoses came into widespread use and some previously-undiagnosed
children were diagnosed
· greater ascertainment of high functioning autism "may partly explain" the
increased incidence of autism
· better detection of less severe cases alone cannot explain all the
increases
· geographical variation "may" reflect differences in service provision and
parental awareness in different regions
· the accuracy of the data "may" have changed during the study period
· these factors "could explain only a very small part" of the increased
rates observed
· the nature of the study precluded the authors from assessing how often
children with PDDs were not diagnosed
The study team concluded that the extent to which the increase in incidence
that were documented was uncertain.
Comment - there are many criticisms that can be made of this study, many of
which are identified by the study team themselves as potential confounding
factors.
The study clearly found large increases, and attempted to shrug these off by
linking them to factors such as better diagnosis and greater awareness.
However, it was unable to accurately weigh these factors and quantify their
individual influence. It is therefore the case that the study has very
limited value. It is again interesting that the study authors seem anxious
to avoid reaching the conclusion that there has been a large real increase
in autism. [pdf March 2006] MMR Vaccine, Thimerosal and Regressive or Late
Onset Autism A Review of the Evidence for a Link Between Vaccination and
Regressive Autism--David Thrower


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[2003 Jan] Fombonne, editorial, Journal of the American Medical Association,
January 1st 2003 Vol 289, No.1 49

At the start of 2003, Dr. Eric Fombonne wrote an editorial in the Journal of
the American Medical association that appeared to acknowledge that there had
been some real increase in autism, but which also attempted to explain this
away to as great a degree as possible through the usual recourse to
references to better awareness, less restrictive criteria and a greater
willingness to diagnose.
Fombonne's key points were that:

That the prevalence rate of 34 per 10,000 (1 in 294) was likely to actually
be an underestimate, because high-functioning autism cases were likely to
have been missed.
The lower reported prevalence in 3- and 4-year olds might reflect lower
sensitivity of case identification for disorders, which were often diagnosed
later
There was an unexpected decrease in prevalence amongst 9- and 10-year olds.
Fombonne dismisses the idea that this might imply that the younger the birth
cohort, the greater the level of autism as being "biologically implausible".
Yet this is open to obvious question - what if an external factor had
altered during this time? Fombonne does not address this possibility.
Fombonne concluded that a rate of 41-45 per 10,000 (1 in 222) might be a
more accurate rate of prevalence. He noted in his editorial that other
studies suggested rates of 60 per 10,000 when pervasive developmental
disorder-not otherwise specified (PDD-NOS) and Aspergers syndrome were taken
account of.
He then addressed the issue as to whether the prevalence of autistic
spectrum disorder (ASD) had increased over time. His benchmark was the 1970s
Wing and Gould study in Camberwell, London, which pointed to a rate of 20
per 10,000 for severe-impairment cases. Other earlier studies had point to
rates of 4 or 5 per 10,000, and more recent studies cited by Fombonne
pointed to rates of more than 10 per 10,000. Fombonne's conclusion was that
the most recent rates of prevalence were three or four times higher than 30
years ago.
Fombonne, seemingly searching for an uncontroversial explanation for any
increase, then examined whether this increase implied a broadening of
criteria and improved methods of case-finding during studies. He pointed to
what he described as the "major" changes in criteria:

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Third Edition
(DSM-III), 1980
DSM Revised Third Edition (DSM IIIR), 1987
DSM Fourth Edition (DSM IV), 1994.
He argued that there was strong evidence that differences in methods for
case finding could account for a "huge" proportion of the variability of
prevalence estimates between surveys. Referral rates were also unreliable,
due to confounding factors. This, and other factors, he concluded, combined
to offer "good" evidence to support the contention that higher rates of
prevalence reflected changes in diagnostic practice, improved identification
and availability of services. The hypothesis of an increasing trend in the
incidence of autism could not, in his view, be fully tested because of the
inadequacy of studies to date. Fombonne dismissed any association with MMR
(citing his own study work and studies by Madsen and by Taylor and Miller as
proof), and dismissed evidence of any connection with thiomersal as being
"weak".

Fombonne was also quoted in the New York Times of 31st December 2002 as
stating: "No strong candidate environmental exposures have been
identified.....Claims of an association with MMR have not been borne out by
recent studies, and evidence for causal association with other exposures
such as mercury-containing vaccines is weak".

The study being commented on by Fombonne was that by Dr. Marshalyn
Yeargin-Allsop et al, detailed earlier. Comment: the editorial by Fombonne
offers no hard evidence against a vaccine/autism link, and, whilst offering
some arguments in favour of questioning the precise scale of the apparent
major rise in autism prevalence, fails to demolish the central assertion of
many parents, that autism has grown immensely in a couple of decades. No
alternative explanations for the rise are offered by the Fombonne editorial.
[pdf March 2006] MMR Vaccine, Thimerosal and Regressive or Late Onset Autism
A Review of the Evidence for a Link Between Vaccination and Regressive
Autism--David Thrower


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[2001 Oct] Fombonne & Chakrabarti, No Evidence for a New Variant of
Measles-Mumps-Rubella-Induced Autism, Pediatrics, Vol. 108 No. 4 October
2001

This paper examined whether there is a new phenotype of autism involving
regression and gastrointestinal symptoms.
It is suggested that where this paper is flawed is in the assumptions
underpinning the hypotheses that are tested. All else stems from that.
Fombonne & Chakrabarti assume that if autistic enterocolitis existed, then
one or more of the following six predictions should be supported by
empirical data:

Prediction (1) - "childhood disintegrative disorder has become more
frequent". (The study found the prevalence of childhood disintegrative
disorder to be 0.6/10,000, or 1 in 16,666. But this seems far too low in
comparison with other recent studies).
Comment - historic data is not available to prove this either way. The claim
that the present rate of 1 in 16,666 represents no increase is further
undermined by its non-credible low level. Other studies have found rates
very many times higher. This strongly suggests that the study is flawed.
Prediction (2) - "the mean age of first parental concern for autistic
children who are exposed to MMR is closer to the mean immunisation age than
in children who are not exposed to MMR."
Comment - the study found that there was no difference in the mean age at
first parental concern between the two samples exposed to MMR (19.3 months
and 19.2 months) and the pre-MMR sample (19.5 months). But no argument has
been presented as to why there should be a difference. A difference might be
expected, but its absence in itself does not prove anything. It is perfectly
possible that childhood disintegrative disorder has several causes, and that
the arresting of development could be noticed at around the same time.
Pre-MMR children who became autistic may well have become so due to an
adverse outcome from monovalent measles vaccine. This possibility does not
seem to have occurred to Fombonne. There is also a simplistic focus upon MMR
alone as a sole factor, working in isolation, rather than as part of a
complex process.
Prediction (3) - "regression in the development of children with autism has
become more common in MMR-vaccinated children." The study found that the
rate of developmental regression reported in the post-MMR sample (15.6%) was
not different from that in the pre-MMR sample (18.4%) and therefore there
was no suggestion that regression in the development course of autism had
increased in frequency since MMR was introduced. The study also found that
in the epidemiologic sample, the subset of autistic children with regression
had no other developmental or clinical characteristics, which would have
argued for a specific etiologically distinct phenotype.
Comment - the samples were small. The study used three samples, a post-MMR
sample of 96 children with PDD, a pre-MMR sample of 98 autistic patients,
and a post-MMR sample of 68 autistic patients. These are very small numbers
to use in a statistically-based study. Fombonne and Chakrabarti's results
should thus be treated with caution, as a few cases either way would impact
upon their conclusions.
Prediction (4) - "the age of onset for autistic children with regression
clusters around the MMR immunisation date and is different from that of
autistic children". The study found that parents of autistic children with
developmental regression detected the first symptoms at a very similar age
(19.8 months) to those of autistic children without regression (19.3
months). The study also found that the mean intervals from MMR immunisation
to parental recognition of autistic symptoms were comparable in autistic
children with or without regression (248 days vs 272 days, not significant).
Comment - but regression might not necessarily be expected to "cluster
round", but may follow MMR at a delay of weeks, months or years. There is
no scientific justification for assuming that children with regression after
MMR should have their condition recognised at a different time to those who
did not regress after MMR. In any event, it is stated that the difference
between 248 days and 272 days is not significant, but it is almost 10%
different, and this difference has not been explained.
Prediction (5) - "children with regressive autism have distinct symptoms and
severity profiles."
Comment - little scientific justification for testing this assumption is
given in the study, which also refers to external features such as
behaviour, when the real focus of interest should be on gut biopsies and
ileocolonoscopies of the actual children, which of course were not done in
this study. Not enough is known about autistic enterocolitis to make such an
assumption about external characteristics into a key test.
Prediction (6) - "regressive autism is associated with gastrointestinal
symptoms and/or inflammatory bowel disorder".
Comment - but the children in this study did not undergo ileocolonoscopy.
Their condition was medically unresearched.
Other comments:
this is a statistical analysis of random groups of children, not of the
children whose cases are going to the High Court. The numbers are extremely
small, too small for a reliable interpretation to be made
The assumption seems to have been made that children could not have been
damaged by vaccines other than MMR. The Lassiter court case outcome (US)
means that there is evidence, that has been accepted in a Court that other
multiple vaccines also trigger autism.
What this study set out to do was not to investigate the cause(s) of damage
to specific children, but to clear MMR of any complicity. At first sight, it
succeeds in the latter, but at closer analysis, it makes numerous unfounded
assumptions that considerably weaken the strength of its conclusions. At
worst, it demonstrates the central flaw of designing a study hoping to
achieve a desired outcome, rather than to investigate a problem.
Overall verdict: this study fails to provide any convincing evidence against
an MMR/autism link.
(Note: this study has been claimed by the UK Medical Research Council to
represent "strong positive evidence" of there being no MMR/autism link)
[pdf March 2006] MMR Vaccine, Thimerosal and Regressive or Late Onset Autism
A Review of the Evidence for a Link Between Vaccination and Regressive
Autism--David Thrower


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[2001 Jan] Paper by Fombonne, Medical Research Council Child Psychiatry Unit
and Institute of Psychiatry, Is There An Epidemic of Autism?, Pediatrics,
January 2001

At the end of January 2001, a paper, "Is There An Epidemic of Autism?" was
published by Dr. Eric Fombonne. The paper sought to deny that autism had
really increased, and criticised the "poor research methodology" of Dr.
Andrew Wakefield, and said "There is no need to raise false alarms on
putative epidemics nor to practice poor science....."

? Fombonne criticises the California increase on the basis of
in-migration, possible changes within the population make-up, the change
from DSM-III to DSM-IIIR in 1987, the introduction of diagnostic categories
for Asperger, Rett and childhood disintegrative disorder in DSM-IV in 1994,
the effects of earlier diagnosis adding to the totals, and other factors.

? His most useful conclusion is that "we simply lack good data". He
raises doubts about the apparent epidemic, but is then unable to refute it
either.

In an excellent FEAT (parents' group) critique (8th Feb 2001), Mark Blaxill
goes carefully through Fombonne's previous work and argues that Fombonne has
become inconsistent. He points out key flaws in Fombonne's previous work,
and criticises his criticisms of the California data and his
scientifically-unsupported assertions [July 2004] MMR and Acquired Autism
(Autistic Enterocolitis) - A Briefing Note by David Thrower


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[2000-2002 Unpublished Study by Fombonne et al, A Case-Control Study of
Autism In General Practice, UK, Study Period September 2000-August 2002

This study, based at the Maudsley Hospital, Denmark Hill, London, is to
assess if exposure to MMR immunisation is a risk factor for autism, and to
assess the exposure to viral infections, both prenatally and postnatally.
Despite the dates, as far as is known the study has yet to report.

The study will use UK GP data, hospital reports and a parents'
questionnaire. It will use over 400 cases of autism and four times as many
controls, selected from a GP database. It is funded by the Medical Research
Council (£351,000). No date has been given for publication of the findings.

(Note: since this study commenced, Professor Fombonne has also agreed to
appear at the forthcoming UK High Court cases as an expert witness on behalf
of the manufacturers of MMR, against the children. His current role within
the study is not known. It is also not known whether the control group will
be "unvaccinated with MMR", "unvaccinated with MR", "unvaccinated with any
measles-containing vaccine", "unvaccinated with thiomersal-containing
vaccines" or "totally unvaccinated", or what the vaccination status of the
control group children's mothers will be. These may affect any study
findings). [July 2004] MMR and Acquired Autism (Autistic Enterocolitis) - A
Briefing Note by David Thrower


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1998] Letter by Dr. Eric Fombonne, Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Autism,
Pediatrics, March 28th 1998

This letter set out two studies that attempted to prove that there was no
connection between inflammatory bowel disease/Crohn's disease and autism.
The first study looked at UK clinical data collected by the Child &
Adolescent Psychiatric Services of the Maudslay Hospital, London.

? For ASD, three diagnostic groups were examined, autism, atypical
autism including disintegrative disorder, and pervasive developmental
disorder

? Medical disorders were coded for a 25-year period, including
Crohn's and ulcerative colitis, for 8889 patients.

? Of the 8889 patients, 987 were born in 1987 or later, and were
therefore most likely to have been exposed to MMR. Of these, 201 had ASD.

? Of the 8889 children, only two had Crohn's, and both were
non-autistic. None had ulcerative colitis.

For the second study, a similar approach was undertaken. Fombonne surveyed
medical, behavioural and intellectual disabilities amongst 6100 French
children.

? He found 174 cases with autism.

? One child of the 6100 had Crohn's, and one had ulcerative
colitis. Neither were autistic

? The conclusion that Fombonne drew was that these data provide no
support for the hypothesis of an association between IBD and autism.

Overall verdict: neither of these studies offer any evidence to disprove an
MMR/autism link. [July 2004] MMR and Acquired Autism (Autistic
Enterocolitis) - A Briefing Note by David Thrower

"Jan Drew" wrote:


"Mark Probert" wrote:
No, it is the vaccines. There is NO PROOF WHATSOEVER that anything put
into vaccines poses a health risk.


A sidelight for those following the Vaccination conflict.

This stunning censored interview was cut from the TV program The
Health Century due to its huge liability -- the admission that the
Merck drug company has been injecting cancer viruses into people
worldwide.

There is no way that any competently and professionally produced
television show would include the idiocy shown in the video. It was
not cut from anything - it was a total fabrication.

The facts of the SV40 problems have been public knowledge for, let's
see, about 50 years, so to say that this is some sort of coverup is
lying. But what else would you expect from liars like Horowitz?



This clip is shocking in many ways, one of which is how much
lack
of care was used in developing vaccines. Some folks will tell you
that the drug industry has since become wonderfully caring and
cautious. Use your common sense and past experience with the drug
industry, and don't be intimidated by the usual suspects around here
that don't want you to see this, so you'll miss some truth from the
mouths of the scientists that did it and laughed about it later.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edikv0zbAlU

The only laughing I hear in the video comes from an added laugh track
showing how anti-vaccination liars use ridicule instead of facts to
promote their sociopathic agenda.


--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

"Mark Probert"

Carole wrote

You need to show what points are wrong and why.


Been there, done that.

Oh, where? Please prove that


Loons do not accept proof.

What proof? Where?

C'mon, Markey, prove it.

Look at yourself.

Do that...Mark S Probert.