From another list regarding vaccines.


----- Original Message -----
From: Embry, Ashton <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 11:39 AM
Subject: [MS] vaccines


> Here is an interesting tidbit for those interested in a more objective
view
> of vaccines (ie not that of the Health Care Industrial Complex.
>
> Scientists: MMR Vaccine Should Not Have Been Licensed
>
>        The controversial vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella (MMR)
should
> never have been licensed, according to a shocking new report to be
published
> next month.
>       Senior clinicians, including a former medicines regulator at the
> department of health, argue that the MMR should not have been licensed in
> 1988 because there was insufficient evidence of its safety and the
decision
> to license it was "premature."
>       The leading authorities in the regulation of medicine are writing in
> the next issue of the journal of Adverse Drug Reactions. They review a
paper
> by Dr Andrew Wakefield, a consultant gastroenterologist at the Royal Free
> Hospital in London, and Dr Scott Montgomery an epidemiologist at
Karolinska
> Hospital in Stockholm, on the process which led up to the introduction of
> the vaccine which has been linked to autism in children. Both are critical
> of the level of evidence supporting the introduction of the jab.
>       Dr Peter Fletcher, who was a senior professional medical officer for
> the department of health in the early 1980s, also criticises the decision
> taken by his successors. In his review, which will also be published in
the
> journal, he says: "Being extremely generous, evidence on safety was very
> thin, being realistic there were too few patients followed-up for
sufficient
> time. Three weeks is not enough, neither is four weeks.
>       "On the basis that effective monovalent vaccines were available, the
> Committee on the Safety of Medicines could be confident that delay in
> granting a licence would not result in a catastrophic epidemic of measles,
> mumps and rubella. Caution should have ruled the day, answers to some
> important questions should have been demanded and encouragement should
have
> been given to conduct a 12-month observational study on 10-15,000 patients
> and a prospective monitoring programme set up with a computerised primary
> care database.
>      The granting of a product licence was definitely premature." Another
> of the reviewers, Professor Duncan Vere, a clinical pharmacologist and
> former member of the Committee on the Safety of Medicines, agrees that the
> observation periods for the tests of MMR were too short.
>       "In almost every case, observation periods were too short to include
> the time of onset of delayed neurological or other adverse events," he
said.
> "Interaction between vaccines had not been considered adequately in
children
> with multiple vaccinations and potentially ill-developed immune systems.
He
> adds: "It is possible that a group of children exists who are developing a
> disorder with gastroenteritis, abnormal reactions to measles virus and
> neurological disease. In the present condition they are highly likely to
be
> vaccinated. The existing data throws no light on the question and new
> comparative studies are needed to seek an answer to it."
>       A note on the paper, which has been seen by the Sunday Herald, says:
> "In view of the serious implications of this paper by Wakefield and
> Montgomery, [it] was sent to a number of referees who have agreed to the
> comments they made on this paper being published.
>       "These referees include the former chair of the medicines
commission,
> a former member of the Committee on the Safety of Medicines, and a former
> principal medical officer in medicines division - now the Medicines
Control
> Agency - of the department of health who served as medical assessor to the
> Committee on the Safety of Medicines."
>       Dr Montgomery, who formerly worked with Dr Wakefield at the Royal
Free
> Hospital in London, said that the opinions of the reviewers were
> particularly interesting due to their background in the licensing of
> medicines. He said: "The people who reviewed this paper used to be in
charge
> of drug safety and what they are saying is: "Should this vaccine have been
> licensed?"
>       Nobody from the journal of Adverse Drug Reactions can officially
> comment on the paper ahead of its publication next month, but a source
from
> the journal said: "All the reviewers conclude that something needs to be
> done about MMR and that there is a case to answer against the vaccine.
"The
> first thing this paper says is that the MMR vaccine should not have been
> licensed. There was not enough evidence of the safety to license it. The
> view is that the evidence was inadequate."
>
>
>
>