Send in Rapid Responses
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletter-submit/328/7442/726-a
*******
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7442/726-a
BMJ  2004;328:726 (27 March), doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7442.726-a
MP raises new allegations against Andrew Wakefield
*******
"The scandal of all of this is that, to the question 'how many deaths and
injuries in the UK are caused by vaccinations' the answer is 'who's
counting?'. In other words, no one in the UK is routinely compiling the
data from which any correlation can be made between medication administered
and death or injury arising.

So who, Mr Harris, is acting responsibly? My money is on Wakefield. "


RAPID RESPONSES TO ABOVE.......

MP raises new allegations against Andrew Wakefield
TIME FOR POLITICIANS TO ACT RESPONSIBLY AND ADDRESS THE ISSUES 26 March 2004
Clifford G. Miller,
Solicitor and graduate physicist
Beckenham, Kent, BR3
Send response to journal:
Re: TIME FOR POLITICIANS TO ACT RESPONSIBLY AND ADDRESS THE ISSUES


Email Clifford G. Miller


 Devotees of 'Yes, Minister' know Sir Humphrey's advice. If you cannot
attack the opponent's case, attack him personally. Dr Andrew Wakefield was
and remains eminent in his field. He was eminent the day before the Lancet
paper and he remains so after, with numerous other papers to his credit. He
is a man of great courage; to be admired.

The most responsible and statesmanlike approach to this matter is to
address the real issues affecting the nation. Some are summarised below. It
would help if Evan Harris' approach were tempered with those points and
that he addressed the real issues. The present call is to a dance with
shadow and illusions.

There are those who claim there is no 'scientific evidence' or 'scientific
proof' to establish or disprove a causal connection between MMR and autism.
That is grossly misleading as I demonstrated in "The Unreliability of
Scientific Papers as Evidence"
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/328/7440/602-c .

Here is a summary of the current position:-

*there is ample challenge-dechallenge-rechallenge evidence of a causal
connection between MMR and autism; there is ample science on
challenge-dechallenge-rechallenge to support that conclusion;

*government chooses to ignore the evidence, citing science as justification
for doing so; the science is unreliable because, in going on its very
limited but specific enquiry, science ignores the primary evidence (in an
arrogant and dismissive way - eg. 'unless I saw in controlled scientific
conditions which I dictate, I will not accept it') even though that
evidence is convincing or compelling;

*science is a slow process because science ignores all of the stable hands
and people at the racecourse saying 'it went that way' and spends its time,
with its instruments and other paraphernalia going over the scene. Science
will try to ascertain whether a racehorse had been in the stable and if not
what kind of animal it was. Science's likely second answer being 'a
hamster' and the first 'there is no scientific evidence, at the time
claimed, any animal was in the stable';

*the very nature of scientific investigation means it cannot prove there is
no causal connection. It can only (in time) find out what the causes are of
the problems (but only if someone bothers to look, and right now the tap
for funds for that kind of research is tightly held shut by the hands of
the establishment);

*most of those engaged in science are in denial and are not just not
looking, but looking in the other direction; in cases like this, science
can only be relied on to confirm what the existing evidence is already
telling us (but not if no one looks of course). Science also goes on to
tell us why and how it is happening and with great certainty and precision.
But it does so long, long after the event and after the damage that gives
us the original evidence has already been done;

*science can go and track down precisely what the exact cause of the
problem is, but in the meantime, parents must be given full information and
physicians are warned the decision is the parents' and they must be fully
informed when they make it;

*government does not appear to be acting responsibly because
+ it hides the information people need to make their own informed decision
about immunisation. This may be because it has been administering poisons
in vaccines to its own (our) children, knowing there is cause for concern,
so does not want to admit this or because it will undermine confidence in
immunisation by admitting there are risks and that will cost it some money;
+ it then fails to go on and deal with the issues to find out what is
happening and further fails to then use that information to improve
immunisation technology for the good of the nation;
+ it abuses the term 'scientific evidence' and fails to apply the correct
standard of proof to its decision-making, and causes some of the children
of this nation and their families to pay a terrible human price;

*government and money has abused the science to poison and thereby maim its
own citizens (the youngest and most helpless ones at that);

*the full extent of the problem and its individual cost and cost to the
nation is unknown because all of these phenomena/maladies have not been
surveyed.

The scandal of all of this is that, to the question 'how many deaths and
injuries in the UK are caused by vaccinations' the answer is 'who's
counting?'. In other words, no one in the UK is routinely compiling the
data from which any correlation can be made between medication administered
and death or injury arising.

So who, Mr Harris, is acting responsibly? My money is on Wakefield.

Competing interests: Close relative with life threatening food allergy.