Question:
MMR injections were considered safe. Now a family has been paid out due to the effects of MMR what is going om?
Scouse
2010-08-31 11:13:49 UTC
A doctor who disputed this was struck off for all sorts of things. the authorities have always said it was afe and now a family have been offered and accepted I think £90k (too small an amount i think) after 18 years.
if the vaccine was safe why pay out/ if it is not safe perhaps the maverick doctor should be reinstated.
Looks like another thalidomide type cover up to me.
Ten answers:
onlymatch4u
2010-08-31 11:30:39 UTC
Anyone that defies the Drug Companies will be demonized. Here is a web site that you can view an interview with that doctor you mentioned, Dr. Wakefield. Instead of listening to the complete ridicule orchestrated by BIG PHARMA, you can make up your own mind about what this guy has done:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIsFW5phHas&feature=player_embedded#!



The MMR vaccine is a tragedy that should never have been created. The pharmaceutical companies are NOT about health. Here is a great video for you to watch of a Pharmaceutical REP that got sick of the propaganda and false marketing rhetoric she was being asked to promote:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqmeB6GB25Q



The Australians have just banned the flu vaccine for the entire country and for good reason.



Australian health authorities have been urging parents there to vaccinate their children against the flu, propagating the mythology that flu vaccines are both safe and effective. But this time around, many Australian parents found out the hard way that they were being lied to.



It didn't take long to realize the truth after their children start going into convulsions following the flu vaccine injections. Other children began vomiting or exhibiting dangerously high levels of fever. One child has gone into a coma and may never recover.



As reported in WA Today (http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/f...)



"Perth mother of two Bea Flint said her 11-month-old boy Avery had a seizure after receiving the first dose of the two-dose flu vaccination on Saturday. Mrs Flint said that after the 9am vaccination she noticed Avery had a minor temperature about 2pm. At 7.45pm, Avery started whimpering and moaning. When Mrs Flint got to his cot the baby had vomited and was lying on his side having a seizure. 'He couldn't cry - his head was hanging down in the car seat and he couldn't move. I was petrified - it was one of the worst experiences of my life."



The story goes on to say, "The doctor who treated Avery told Mrs Flint her baby was the fifth child with similar symptoms admitted to the hospital that day."



In other words, this was no rare event. Vaccinated children suffering severe convulsions were piling up in hospital emergency rooms across the country.



The real kicker, though, is that children started having convulsions two weeks ago but Australian health authorities ignored them, insisting that the vaccine was safe and causing it to be injected in yet more babies. Two weeks later, with dozens more children experiencing convulsions (and who knows how many thousands actually being harmed in less obvious ways), Commonwealth chief health officer Professor Jim Bishop finally announced the vaccination ban.



Remember: Health authorities in Australia, UK, the United States and everywhere else have relentlessly insisted that flu vaccines are perfectly safe and can't possibly harm anyone. In the U.S., the FDA has given its approval to the very same flu vaccine that's harming children in Australia, and the CDC has insisted that all children in the USA -- regardless of age -- should now be injected with this very same flu vaccine.



So now we've got a vaccine that Australia has banned by the USA somehow says is safe enough to inject into a six-month-old infant. How many convulsing babies will it take in the U.S. before American parents realize the truth about flu vaccines?



The amount of money to be made on vaccines is way to lucrative for drug companies to abandon simply because it is damaging people. If you believe that these guys are about health and do not take profit as their primary goal, watch this:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg-52mHIjhs&feature=related



Thalidomide problem you mentioned is near and dear to my heart. My cousin took Thalidamide and had a son born with NO ARMS. She got NO compensation from the government or from the drug company. Did you know that drug companies are still making Thalidamide and doctors are still prescribing it? Of course they tell people just one pill can cause birth defects, so don't take it if you are pregnant. What about those women who don't know they are pregnant? Why is this drug still on the market today? PROFIT.



We are in a battle for our existence and very lives with these people promoting this garbage. Please understand that politicians are getting huge bags of money from these guys and the laws are being skewed toward drug company agendas. Is it no wonder billions of dollars are being extracted and directed toward medical research that does NOT solve the big problems, but does generate drugs that TREAT SYMPTOMS. That's where the money is, not in cures.



What is so entirely incredible is that these people tell you that vaccination is the best form of prevention. What a complete crock of garbage that is. That is INDOCTRINATION and marketing genius because people are believing that. Anyone that is promoting that idea must have gotten their education out of a corn flake box or have been caught up in the indoctrination being taught in schools where BIG MONEY has been injected by drug companies to promote their agenda.



To tell people AUTISM is not caused by vaccinations is more indoctrination, not good science. Why aren't the drug companies or the government sponsoring a study to show why over 30,000 patients of Dr. Einenstein in Chicago, Illinois have never seen a case of Autism. The Amish there do NOT get Autism and DO NOT GET VACCINATED! What are they afraid of? Finding the truth?



Here's an excellent web site to view in regard to Autism, vaccinations and 30 years of research done by this woman:



www.marytocco.com



The U.S. government has paid out over $1.5 billion dollars to vaccine victims. Congress passed a law in 1996 that says no one can sue a drug company for vaccine damage. If vaccines were safe, why did we need a law to prevent suing them? The $1.5 billion dollars paid by our government did NOT come from the drug companies, but from the U.S. taxpayer! ! ! Shouldn't the drug companies be paying for all this damage? Why the taxpayer. We didn't create the garbage. The victim is paying for the crimes; does that sound like justice to you?



EDIT: I see the nurse is vomiting the usual "conspiracy theory" rhetoric. Where did I ever mention that? It is about PROFIT and SHAREHOLDER value, not health, not conspiracy, not anything to do with providing better quality of life for anyone. I WILL NOT BE IGNORED! ! !



EDIT: "Rhianna" You really need to get another profession.



"Vaccines are not a profitable business?" Where in the world did you get that piece of ridiculous notion? Do you really think people are going to believe you? Let's see what Bruce Carlson says in an annual survey of the vaccine industry:



http://wanttoknow.info/a-WHO-exaggerated-H1N1-threat

http://wanttoknow.info/a-Swine-flu-experts-paid-drug-companies



Americans are still debating whether to roll up their sleeves for a swine flu shot, but companies have already figured it out: vaccines are good for business. Drug companies have sold $1.5 billion worth of swine flu shots, in addition to the $1 billion for seasonal flu they booked earlier this year. These inoculations are part of a much wider and rapidly growing $20 billion global vaccine market. "The vaccine market is booming," says Bruce Carlson, spokesperson at market research firm Kalorama, which publishes an annual survey of the vaccine industry.



I know you are thinking that kind of profit is trivial compared to the enormous profits they make on other drugs to the tune of 500,000 percent on some. I suppose on that basis you may have a point, but you see in the real world businesses do not ever make that kind of profit.



Where's your proof Australia is back in business with the vaccines? You really need to get a life. By the way, if you want to get rid of that peanut allergy, let me know, I can truly help you with that. Your drugs and surgery are not going to help you with that.



EDIT: "Duck" can you show us the specific data that Measles kill a million kids per year? A million kids? That's a lot of funerals and that is 4 times the number of U.S. soldiers killed in the entire Vietnam War! Why didn't we just drop the Measles virus on the North Vietnamese? I am soooo afraid now. I had the measles as a child and didn't die. Am I an exception?



Rianna, again when you are presented with absolute facts you come up with some ridiculous statement. The Einenstein clinic in Chicago has over 30,000 Amish children that do NOT get vaccinated and none of those non vaccinated children have AUTISM. That is a fact. Show me where that is not a true statement. You can't. I know Einenstein! I can get you his phone number to verify that. You are truly a piece of work.



good luck to you
anonymous
2010-09-01 17:43:37 UTC
The child, Robert Fletcher, now 18, does not have autism. He has a disability that includes frequent epileptic fits. The appeal was allowed on this basis:



"'It is this temporal association that provides the link. It is this that has shown on the balance of probabilities that the vaccination triggered the epilepsy". http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1307095/Family-win-18-year-fight-MMR-damage-son--90-000-payout-concerns-vaccine-surfaced.html



"Balance of probabilities".... hardly definitive.



Mrs Fletcher set up and runs pressure group 'JABS' - Justice, Awareness and Basic

Support. With a name like that, its clear what the goals are here.



I'd say the compensation decision is purely a political one, and not an evidence based one.



@onlymatch4u, I don't know how you could lay straight in bed.
anonymous
2010-08-31 11:48:14 UTC
You're getting confused. Nothing in medicine is 100% risk free, - NOTHING in life is. All vaccines have a nonzero risk, but the risks of the disease are far greater than those of the vaccine, although sadly not in this guys case. However, this does not mean that the MMR vaccine is unsafe. The thoroughly discredited "Dr". Wakefield claimed there was a link between the MMR vaccine and Autism. His claims are still false. This boy does not have autism, and that's not in dispute either.



Edit: Ignore the crazy conspiracy theorist.



The Australians have NOT banned the flu vaccine. The program was briefly halted last year because there was a problem with a particular batch of vaccines. The problem has been rectified and the program has been reinstated. You are lying.



Contrary to what Onlymatch4u says, vaccines are not all that profitable to Big Pharma, and the only reason drug companies were made immune from prosecution is simply as an incentive for drug companies to continue making them, otherwise few drug companies would bother.



Drug companies stand to make more money from uncontrolled diseases.



There is NO MMR-autism link, only the scientifically illiterate still suggest there is a link. The Amish DO vaccinate, and Amish children DO get Autism. Autism is quite clearly not caused by the MMR. Data disproves this theory.



"Dr". Wakefiled was dishonest in every aspect. The MMR causing autism suggestion was based on one single study that was never reproduced. This chap has inadvertently put lives at risk. The GMC have also evoked his license.

"Dr" Wakefield also accepted a substantial amount of money to find a a link between the MMR and autism, which he failed to disclose to the Lancet. Of course the cranks won't accept this, and have instead decided that there has been a conspiracy to silence him.



Onlymatch4u, you are a very dishonest man, who clearly has a hidden agenda.

========================================

Edit: No Lisa, the DM's reporting is always very poor. It's well known for it's awful journalism.

=========================================



Edit: No, you're missing the point, this was a legal ruling rather than a truely confirmed medical one. There are specific rules for vaccine compensation.

==========================================

Edit: @Onlymatch4u: You wanted evidence that Australia have resumed the flu vaccination for children under 5. Here: http://www.healthemergency.gov.au/internet/healthemergency/publishing.nsf/content/health-swine_influenza-index.htm



As I stated before, drug companies stand to make more money from uncontrolled flu- think about all the drugs used in hospital admissions, antivirals and antibiotics for possible secondary bacterial infections. If they want to make more money, vaccines clearly aren't the way to go.



I don't think you have any idea how much money the pharmaceutical companies actually make. If you look at what they make in comparison from other drugs (e.g. Statins) the money they make from vaccines pale into insignificance. It's peanuts....speaking of peanuts, don't you worry about my peanut allergy; but I'm at work right now and one of the Doctors standing next to me has a special interest in allergies. He would really like to know how you can prevent or cure an IgE-mediated response. Do enlighten us.



And I'm sure Weise Ente would be interested to hear about this too.
tamboy
2010-08-31 11:26:23 UTC
your so called maverick doctor linked the jab to autism.this person had an adverse reaction to the jab causing fits and brain damage.nothing to do with the 1998 lancet article.all medicines carry risk of serious reaction,especially the most common penicillin.if my neice gets it again she would die.eh above says not been around long.first mmr jab was devloped in the 60'''s.
Flizbap 2.0
2010-09-01 05:08:59 UTC
Vaccines are piss poor business, I could sell someone ONE vaccine for the rest of their lives or I could toss the vaccines in the bin and wait for that someone to get sick and then charge them for hospital stay, shots, and pills up the wazoo.



Which one sounds more profitable to you?



Vaccines save lives.



And lots of Amish do vaccinate, they enjoy feeling safe too. The same reason they put reflective decals on their buggys.
Weise Ente
2010-08-31 12:23:49 UTC
Vaccines have a nonzero risk, but they are far, far safer than the alternative. It's a matter of comparing the risks of vaccinating to those of not vaccinating.



Measles kills a million kids a year. It is not a benign disease.



This doesn't change the fact Wakefield was a dishonest scumbag who published a fraudulent paper.



Edit: Lisa, probably because the Daily Mail is a horribly unreliable news source.
Tulip
2010-08-31 11:26:57 UTC
The vaccine is essentially safe but nothing in medicine is 100%. Get a grip here. Meantime this vaccine has been around for 45 years, I would hardly call that new and experimental. Where do folks get their info anyway??
free-if-not-happy
2010-08-31 11:24:33 UTC
The thing with this is that it hasn't been around for that long a time. There was an enormous demand for protection againstmeasles mumps and rubella- so of course one was created that was technically safe. The thing is, it takes a while for new medicines to prove that they actually are safe. The public were old it was safe because technically it should be, an the government needed to wipe out the mmr problem. They're paying out because it's their fault the mmr was unsafe for that family- they said it was but it wasn't. The "maverick doctor" worried the government - people are supposed to be able to trust doctors- if they start saying they think it's unsafe, the public would get worked up even further and refuse to give their children the jab- which could cause an epidemic. The fact of the matter is, the doctors and people saying there's a problem with the jab are right. As are the government. Most people take the jab fine- some don't. In the end it's up to the individual to weigh the benefits and risks and come to their own decision.
Lisa
2010-08-31 14:18:36 UTC
I find it interesting that three years ago, the newspaper reported that the boy had autism, but now that he has officially been paid off for MMR injury, the newspaper went out of their way to mention that he doesn't have autism. Hmmm.



August 28, 2010 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1307095/Family-win-18-year-fight-MMR-damage-son--90-000-payout-concerns-vaccine-surfaced.html#ixzz0y0tUXHnq

July 11, 2007 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-467323/Who-telling-truth-MMR-jabs-autism.html#ixzz0y35RkJa8



and £90k is just plain insulting for the extent of his injuries, especially after the government dragged out the litigation for 16 years!
Creed
2010-08-31 12:02:10 UTC
I agree with Rhianna!


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...