Unless you’ve lived on a different planet for the past ten years, you’ve heard of autism and the possible connection to the MMR vaccine. It is a debate that will not go away.
Thousands of parents, including myself, are convinced that our children were fine until they received the triple injection for measles, mumps and rubella.
While we all agree that it doesn’t affect everyone, we all know deep down that was the reason our normally developing children took a totally devastating and irreversible path. The problem is testing it. Within the health authorities there appears to be a gagging order.
Autism was described on the news the other day as a “living nightmare” and it certainly affects everyone involved, twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, fifty-two weeks a year until eternity.
Therefore, it is not surprising that we would like to make sure that other families do not have to suffer in the same way.
Another person who felt the same concern was Dr. Andrew Wakefield, who first highlighted the possible connection in 1998 when he published an article in The Lancet. It was based on research that he and his fellow researchers, Professors John Walker-Smith and Simon Murch, had carried out at the Royal Free Hospital in London and suggested a link between MMR, autism and intestinal disease.
However, far from being satisfied with the reason for the autism pandemic (which has skyrocketed from 1: 2500 in 1993 to 1: 100 in 2007) could have been discovered, the powers that be offended and not only discredited and belittled their findings, but instead harassed him outside the UK.
So why were they so upset?
The establishment does not like anyone who stands up to them and dares to suggest that their policies do not suit everyone. As a result of the Lancet report, adoption of the MMR vaccine plummeted.
Since you can no longer receive single shots in most areas, parents were not vaccinating their children. However, when I was a child they didn’t exist anyway and it was an accepted part of life that at some point we would get measles, mumps and chicken pox.
No one I’ve ever heard of caught all three at the same time.
Vaccines have been developed to eradicate preventable communicable diseases, and single doses for measles, mumps, and rubella had worked perfectly until 1988, when triple the amount was introduced.
However, someone somewhere decided that instead of asking parents to take their young children for three different injections, they would simply combine the three live viruses and save time, money, and stress.
The problem is that the safety of the triple was never properly tested and several experienced doctors felt the decision to authorize it was premature. Just because they worked well separately did not mean that combining the three live viruses was a wise decision.
Even if the safety data tests for MMR were carried out for a maximum of 63 days, as we are led to believe that it is still not long enough to establish autism, as often the symptoms are part of a gradual process.
The few people who participated in the trials were asked to report a “major illness”. Since autism is a multifactorial disorder, it affects each individual differently and we know that it does not affect everyone. Also, autism was pretty rare back then, so people wouldn’t have been looking for the same symptoms that are so common today.
The security tests were flawed and the whole thing smells a bit like not what you know but who you know. A 2001 Sunday Times article revealed that a third of the government committee that advised on the safety of the MMR vaccine had financial interests in the pharmaceutical companies that made the vaccine, so it is not surprising that the MMR vaccine was licensed. .
Since then, the autism rate has skyrocketed and now Dr. Andrew Wakefield is on trial by the General Medical Council. It can be removed if convicted.
And what exactly is he guilty of?
Well, it is not to challenge health authorities to lift their heads out of the sand and admit the possibility that there is a connection between MMR and autism for some children. Instead, it is for being “irresponsible and unethical” in the way he conducted his research.
It seems to me that the case of being “irresponsible and unethical” is addressing the wrong person, although I suppose the British Committee on Medicines Safety 1988 would not agree, right?