Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Twitter
Support

 

Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Skinny hockey | Main | More splicing, more hiding the decline »
Monday
Mar142011

Stringer on climate and MMR

Graham Stringer has an interesting article in Manchester Confidential. It looks at parallels between the inquiries into the MMR scare and Climategate.

Let me be clear I am not accusing Professor Phil Jones and his colleagues at the Climatic Research Unit of the UEA of Wakefield-style fraud but I am concerned that the two investigations into the leaked e-mails suffered from the same flaws as the medical and scientific investigations into Wakefield.

Read the whole thing.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (59)

I cannot comment on whether the Wakefield comparison was or was not appropriate, but unfortunately it is resulting in some distraction from the main issue. That Graham Stringer. MP, member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, in a position of some authority on the inner workings of the establishment, has the bravery, as no small risk to his political career, to call time on the abuse of science in the politicised holy grail of climate change.

Now I dont know if it started in the environmental appropriation of academia, central government or in the Royal Society, NERC, DEFRA or profligate quangos and NGO's, many of which appear to be highly incestual, that have parasitically or symbiotically luxuriated on profligate public funding. But they all fail the ultimate litmus test of honesty to condemn bad science. They appear even to defend and whitewash or even to actively promote, or at the least to stand aside and watch, the deliberate exaggeration and manipulation of data to promote socio-political propaganda, especially to schoolchilden, a disgraceful and utter abomination.

A man with honour and gonads 2

Mar 14, 2011 at 11:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterPharos

@ Roy

Indeed, but the issue with Wakefield was that in opposing MMR, he convinced a lot of parents that all vaccines should be avoided, even those given singly. They did so in a righteous glow of self-congratulation and certainty that the riskiest course was actually safest.

The parallels with CAGW alarmists are exact, because they too are relying on something dressed up as science, and shrilly asserting that they have the answers because an "expert" told them so. In fact the relevant scientific discipline in both cases, Wakefield's and the CAGW loonies, isn't the apparent one at all.

In Wakefield's case, all that was required to debunk his claims was the revelation that his sample size was fewer than 20 children. In CAGW's case they too have an inadequate sample - 150 years out of 4 billion, and about 30 years of satellite and icecap data.

Wakefield was a doctor and he might well have a view on childhood illnesses, but what are his credentials for drawing statistical inferences? None. Ditto Michael Mann, who ought to know climate is a chaotic system by now but was arrogant enough to presume to understand statistics too. The psyentists doing this stuff have zero claim to authority when it comes to processing data AFAIC unless a proper statistician has audited their claims.

Then, of course, there is the meta evidence: the fact that Wakefield stood to make money out of his work, and the fact that the Lancet has published quite a lot of crap in recent years.

In each case, all the alarmists had, by way of an argument, was "I am convinced because an authority told me so, even though I haven't understood what area of authority is relevant and thus whether the authority is an authority at all".

That is in essence the whole pro-CAGW argument and the reason for their rage: they believe it because they just do, and they hate you because you just don't. They feel entitled to tell you what to think and to insult you for thinking differently. This is why Zed spends so long on this blog complaining that we're not posting about what s/he thinks we should be posting about. The totalitarian streak is not far below the surface.

Mar 14, 2011 at 11:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterJustice4Rinka

I should like to point out that Timothy Wirth was a former Senator (Colorado) and a Democrat when he made that statement.

Mar 15, 2011 at 2:48 AM | Unregistered Commenterjorgekafkazar

Unfortunately, I doubt Mr Stringer's article will have much impact. After all his was a minority position of the select committee report. Governments are very set in their ways. Every little helps, though.

And ZED should reflect that omission of the MMR affair would not alter the article's conclusions in any signiificant way. Otherwise, I symathize with the view that he/she should be welcomed on this blog because of the insights on warmist mindset he/she provides, and agree with the second paragraph of his/her original post (and quite right too!)although "anything" is a bit of a stretch.

Mar 15, 2011 at 5:59 AM | Unregistered CommenterEclesiastical Uncle

“For those of us who don't like what she says. let them join me in ignoring her”.

Isn’t that what climate scientists are accused of doing? I’m sure you people can come up with something more appropriate. Sorry Don P just saying.

Mar 15, 2011 at 8:07 AM | Unregistered CommenterMartyn

J4R

I don’t want to start a diatribe about vaccination, but I assure you that those of us who refused MMR for our children do not feel “a righteous glow of self-congratulation and certainty”.

It was a difficult decision, in the teeth of a barrage of misinformation from the DoH and the media. I was swung by two things - a good friend with a PhD in biochemistry had refused all vaccinations for his brood, and the previously undamaged daughter of a colleague became severely autistic within weeks of her jab. AFAIK, no-one has yet explained the rise in autism, although that was seen to drop when the mercury was belatedly removed from the vaccine!

Agree with you about Zed, though...

Mar 15, 2011 at 9:05 AM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

James P - FYI there never was any mercury in MMR, but I do agree that mercury most likely has a role to play in a majority or significant minority of regressive autism cases. I too weighed up the pros and cons and decided against jabs for my two (J4R - after a lot of research a relatively easy decision but I can assure you no self congratulation - I had read what the Roslin scientists had said about their trials with triple bovine vaccines, and was also far from impressed with the local paediatrician who for at least 10 years had been happily jabbing 8 week old babies unaware that thimerisol preservative was 50% mercury by volume). It's very easy for the older generation to be in favour of vaccines - for example in the sixties or seventies most kids only got 3 or 4 jabs, and the first of these were administered when the child was at least 9 months old. Nowadays, kids are expected to have at least 30 different shots in the first 13 months, and the earliest at 8 weeks or even on the day they are born for some infants. Far too many, far too young - long before immune systems are even partially developed to cope with the attenuated viruses, preservatives, or aluminium based adjuvants.

Anyway, fwiw, here's my take/explanation on the autism epidemic -
The kids got the mercury from the old DTP vaccine which they get at 8, 10 and again at 12 weeks. Most kids have the ability to excrete this Hg, but a minority who probably have a genetic disorder and are unable to do so, and consequently are prone to suffer from immune system disorders.

These kids are then knocked for six when they get the first MMR at 13 months. So for most kids who develop regressive/acquired autism, the MMR is not the root of the problem, just the trigger. [Although as Dr Wakefield's findings (that there is a measles-gut-bowel-regressive autism connection in a small subset of children) have been replicated in 25 studies in 5 continents it probably can also be the root]. It is worth noting that kids who do have problems excreting Hg, will not show up as having high mercury levels when they are tested for this - they analysis the hair, but as most Hg is excreted through the hair, and they are not good at it, they will actually have very little in their hair. Because it is still in their blood and brain...

Aside from the mercury issue, the early version of MMR which used the Urabe strain of mumps also had direct consequences for some children (numerous deaths by meningitis iirc) , which is why the Canadian government quickly withdrew it. They then reported this problem to the UK vaccine committee which went ahead anyway, and licensed and distributed the same Urabe strain version, but then quietly withdrew it after deaths began to get reported here. [That's one of the reasons why the government and JCVI committee here have been so determined to quash anyone who dares question the safety of MMR - they have blood on their hands].

Anyway, to get back to the mercury connection, they banned Hg from UK childhood vaccines in 2004, so acquired autism/ASD rates should have started to fall in the last few years (and I think this trend was observed in some American states which banned Hg a year or so before us). However, in the last 3 years, they have really been pushing the winter flu and swine flu vaccines on pregnant women, and of course these nearly all versions of these vaccines contain mercury preservatives. The effects of Hg in placental blood are generally not good for the foetus, which is why even the vaccine loving authorities didn't push this winter's flu vaccine too hard on mum's to be still in the first trimester, and weren't too heavy with 2nd and 3rd trimester mums. Even so there were numerous stories of miscarriages this winter, which may or may not have been vaccine related - as usual no-one will investigate. It may not just be the Hg in the swine flu vaccines though, afaik there's a lot of aluminium, so potential synergistic effects are a concern, as is the squalene. Cynics would suggest that the pharmacueticals are just keeping the mercury rates in the next generation topped up just enough so that autism rates don't fall to quickly, and to be honest I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case.

Like climate science, vaccine science is full of politics and skulduggery, and takes a fair bit of research and time to get your head around, something which sadly new parents don't generally have.

As for risk, I fully accept that there is a risk not vaccinating, but there's also a considerable risk vaccinating, which has been played down to such an extent by the medical authorities, that now I have little if any trust in anything they say. For anyone interested, John Stone and Bill Welsh deserve a lot of credit for their efforts to seek justice for the MMR children, and Martin Walker likewise for his stalwart efforts in covering the politically instigated GMC witch hunt against Dr Wakefield.

Mar 17, 2011 at 12:10 AM | Unregistered Commenterlapogus

Also worth viewing is this 1 hour film about Brian Deer and his Conflicts of interest.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id_AxZ3zHAc

let me just remind you all that if the climate had changed as dramatically as the increase in autism has from 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 64 in just 20 years .

We would all be toasted or under 50 ft of water.

also note Dr Fiona Godlees statement last week about Brian Deers latest piece published in the BMJ
regarding BMJ links to Glaxo and Merck.
"We didn't declare these competing interests because it didn't occur to us to do so "

http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d1335.full/reply#bmj_el_251470

Mar 20, 2011 at 11:41 PM | Unregistered Commenterparent

Indeed matthu @10:35am, the broader perspective that these scientists have become hostage to is the agenda of Common Purpose , the sinister Political movement that is hiding behind it's guise of being a training charity.

Jul 8, 2011 at 7:47 AM | Unregistered CommenterThebigredbus

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>