AND MORE.....From some of the boys in the UK re: Hear The Silence & Their press release BEFORE the show

[Guest guest]

My contact sent me these

From some of the mmr-can-do-no-wrong boys in the UK re: Hear The Silence &

Their press release BEFORE the show

I am replying to a number of issues around the press statement. This

originatated from Helen and myself, though the wording had input from

a number of people.

It is now in the public domain, so use it as you wish.

The word " significant " is important and was not put in lightly. We

have been criticised in the past for overstating the case and it is

true to say that you cannot prove an absolute negative. We wished to

put out a statement that could not be criticised on these grounds and

we believe we have done so.

The list of people signing up was a compromise, in that we wanted to

get something agreed quickly by those most likely to have an effect.

With more time we would have approached FRHM, but probably not HPA as

it can be seen as a government body.

As regards taking part in the debate, the implication that some of us

were 'persuaded' not to take part is inaccurate (we made independent

decisions for different reasons) and unfortunate as it may add weight

to the conspiracy theory. I do not believe that it would have given

extra publicity by taking part and so I was not in favour of

boycotting it, in principle, as was the view of a number of

colleagues. I have never hesitated to take up the cudgells (can't

spell) when appropriate, however, my concern was that the format of

the debate was not appropriate and that following such a partial

film at such a time of night, there would be little value in it.

I have no question in my mind that the film is irresponsible, but I

am still not sure whether it was right not to take part and I guess I

will never no. However, I am sure that we do need to continue to

engage in debate and ignoring the issue won't make it go away.

Elliman

*************

" Dr Kassianos "

wrote:

> I have pasted the comments received from the e-Group members so far

on one page.

>

> There are no limitations on how this statement can be used. You may

photocopy it for parents or even send it to your local press directly

or through your Primary Care Organisation's press officer.

>

> The Daily Telegraph (DT) and the Daily Mail (DM) have broken the

embargo today. There is an increased activity among the journalists

of the Sunday papers and SKY News as well as Channel 4 have shown

interest. The report of page 6 of the DT [ " TV drama on MMR 'could

cost lives' " ] is a very good report. The one in the DM page 2 [ " TV

film could turn more parents off the triple jab, warn experts " ] is

good but appears under a much larger report under the title " Doctors

banned from handing out single MMR jabs " . There has been such an

advertising campaign by Channel 5 as well as t son, the

actress that plays the mother, that journalists can not wait until

the film is shown.

>

> As regards to the FPHM and HPA, may I ask Elliman to respond,

as I believe very kindly put together a list. Of course, it is

not easy not to omit important organisations and we have to accept

everybody has been working feverishly on this and at the same time

trying to get on with our everyday jobs.

>

> 's point on the use of the word 'significant' is important.

In fact, when I first read the draft and read the word 'significant',

I also thought it could be taken as meaning " there is a link but not

a significant one " . Then I went back and read the sentence again: "

Using a variety of methods, this research has repeatedly shown there

to be no significant link between the vaccine and autism and/or bowel

disease and/or regression of development " . The key word here

is 'research' and it refers to research " contacted on the MMR vaccine

in a number of different countries " , which the docudrama omits to

mention. In research, if there is an association, it has to be

significant. Nonetheless, is right and I wonder if

Elliman will agree with this, in which case we can at least remove

the word 'significant' from our websites and the copies we will give

to our patients. I remember Elliman using the same wording at

the Manchester Immunisation Conference last week but we did not

challenge at the time.

>

> Finally, my guess about this docudrama is that it goes so far that

will make many journalists criticise it and it doing so to some

extent they may support the MMR.

>

>

>

>

> Dr G Kassianos

> 61 Plough Lane

> RG40 1RQ, UK

> Clinic Tel: +44 (0)1344 456535

> Home Tel/Fax: +44 (0)118 9784572

>

> The Daily Mail have broken the embargo and the story appears today

on page

> 2-other papers may well have also covered it.

> Helen Bedford

>

> Thanks for sending that one. Are there any limitation where we can

use it? For example, can I give it to any parents at my next baby

clinic who may have seen the programme? Is it ok to post it on forums

etc?

>

> Thanks,

>

>

> Thanks .

>

> Did you want to keep the list of signatories short? I note no FPHM

or HPA representative...

>

> P.

> English

> Dear

>

> Thanks for sending this out. At risk of being critical of a very

worthwhile initiative, there is one sentence which is in my view

regrettable. This is in paragraph four where it states " the research

has repeatedly shown no significant link between the vaccine and

autism... "

>

> The word " significant " is, I believe, unfortunate. To a

journalist and to those concerned about MMR, the phrase says loudly

and clearly that there may not be a lot of autism cases caused by

MMR, but there are some. We really have to be careful, because of our

cautious scientific background, that we do not give a

misunderstandable message.

> Yes, I know, caution in the scientist always includes leaving

open the fact that you can never prove a negative, so we hedge our

statements around with words like " significant " .

> But there comes a point where you really have to say " has

repeatedly shown no link between... " , not " no significant link

between... " .

> Or you rephrase it as e.g. " there is no evidence for, and a

great deal of evidence against... " , or even " there is no link

between... " or, to further horrify those already by such a definite

statement, " MMR vaccination does not cause autism " . Surely, with the

amount of evidence we now have, it is better to make such a statement

and live with the possibility that in the next 100 years one case of

MMR-induced autism will be definitely proved, than to bear the

consequences of continuing with statements that are perceived by the

media and some of the public as qualified, uncertain, partial.

>

> My reason for writing this message is not to carp at a good and

worthwhile letter, but to make a plea again for how we do things for

the future.

>

> As you will remember, when we first heard of the proposed Hear

the Silence programme + debate, I made a heartfelt plea on this group

(which you supported in your own e-message) that those colleagues who

had agreed to appear on the debate (or who were considering it)

should reconsider on the grounds that it would again lend more

credibility to antivaccine forces when we have repeatedly said that

the hypothesis is dead.

>

> I am glad that most colleagues did eventually decide not to

dignify the debate with their presence; something that could, I my

view have been good ultimately only for the antivaccination lobby.

>

> If anybody wants to challenge me on what I have said above, there

will be a delay before I responde... I'm off abroad again tomorrow

(Sunday) early a.m., and not back till the following Sunday. But I

will respond then...

>

> Christmas and New Year greetings to all.

>

>

>

>

> Dr Aston

> Stoneyacre

> Foxholes Road

> Horwich BL6 6AL

> Lancashire

> England UK

>