[*QUOTE*]
Catherina
Re: Broschuere ueber Masern+Mumps+Roeteln
Antworten #11 - Heute um 17:53:14
[...]
Wakefield und Krigsman waren 2002 vor einem Congressional Hearing erschienen und mussten zugeben (Senator Waxman sei sei Dank), dass die Primer, die ausgewählt haben, garnicht zwischen Wildtyp und Masernvirus unterscheiden können (ich sehe gerade beim Durchlesen der Quelle, dass es sogar Wakefield selber war, den Waxman zur Rede gestellt hat):
aus:
TRANSCRIPT--U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, GOVERNMENT REFORM
COMMITTEE HOLDS A HEARING ON THE STATUS OF RESEARCH INTO VACCINE
SAFETY AND AUTISM. JZSell--aa.33467.22; Fed Clearance Candidate ID 377077Zitat:
[***QUOTE***]
WAXMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
...
But I wanted to get on the record some points about Dr. Wakefield's testimony because Dr. Wakefield today testified about an upcoming scientific presentation in Ireland by Dr. O'Leary.
And in this presentation, which is going to take place in July, scientists are presumably going to claim to have found vaccine-strain measles in the intestines of children with developmental disorder.
And I hope to have a copy of that abstract. Do I have a copy of that? I do have a copy of the abstract. And I want to make it a part of the record.
In the abstract, it states that the conclusion that the virus was vaccine-strain, which means caused by the vaccine, is based on one nucleic acid, position number 7901. Now according to the abstract, if the chemical at position 7901 is adenine, then the strain is natural measles virus. But if the chemical is guanine, then the strain is from the vaccine.
According to this abstract, this difference can perfectly distinguish between natural and vaccine strains of the measles. However, according to the Gene Bank website run by the National Institutes of Health, this isn't true. So what we see in this abstract, from what we hear from Dr. Wakefield, there's a real question.
Measles experts have told us that more than 10 natural measles strains have a guanine at position 7901, even though the abstract says that only happens in the vaccine strain. Well, if there are 10 natural measles strains that have that particular chemical positioning, then this theory doesn't hold up. And I have the names of some of those strains. And I expect to even receive othernames, which I want to add to the record later on.
I want to ask Dr. Wakefield, are you aware if Dr. O'Leary has checked the NIH website thoroughly before writing his abstract? And if it is true that position 7901 does not distinguish between natural and vaccine strain measles, would it be fair to say that the conclusion of the abstract remains unproven?
WAKEFIELD: The work was based upon a recent publication by Parks (ph) and colleagues, which may well supercede what is published on the website. And in that study, they make a clear distinction between vaccine and wild types of strains based upon that mutation.
Other questions on this will have to be referred to Professor O'Leary himself, who can't be here.
WAXMAN: Well, I want to ask you whether you know if Dr. O'Leary checked the NIH website thoroughly before writing his abstract?
WAKEFIELD: I know for sure that he has checked the Gene Bank website.
WAXMAN: Well, if it's true that this position 7901 does not distinguish between natural and vaccine strain measles, if that's true, would it be fair to say that the conclusion of the abstract remains unproven?
WAKEFIELD: Yes, it would.
WAXMAN: I want to point out that we have been in contact with Dr. David W.G. Brown (ph), the laboratory director, and Dr. L. Gin (ph), clinical scientist. They are the head of the World Health Organization Collaborating Center for Measles in the United Kingdom.
And according to Dr. Brown (ph), he says the data presented suggesting the presence of fragments of measles vaccine in these tissue samples is not scientifically valid. The authors should have reviewed the measles database fully. And there are a number of questions that he believes should have been evaluated.
Now I guess we'll have to hear from Dr. O'Leary whether he did the work that was required in order to come up with the conclusion that would be beyond doubt the conclusion. Or whether it's simply a conclusion that remains to be unproven.
But Dr. Brown (ph) says the approach described is scientifically flawed and will not reliably discriminate between wild and vaccine strains. He didn't know why the authors did not review available data or discuss with other measles groups with experience in this field.
Sequencing is the definitive technique to discriminate between wild and vaccine strains of measles. And he doesn't know why that wasn't used.
So I want to just make the point here in the time that I have available to me that what we have now presented to us is another conclusion that's made, but it's based on some unproved information from an abstract. And I'm looking at the abstract.
Based on the abstract that Dr. O'Leary is going to be submitting and which Dr. Wakefield submits to us as establishing the point he wants to make, according to the World Health Organization Collaborating Center head, Dr. Brown (ph), it's another unproven theory. And we need to have a lot more questions answered about that particular scientific evaluation.
[***/QUOTE***]
Spiel, Satz und Sieg an Dr. Waxman, der übrigens auch das "Abstinence only" Programm der USAmerikanischen Regierung in seine Teile zerlegt hat -
der Mann hat es drauf und Wakefield ist einfach schlampig (man merke, auch hier ging es um einen Kongressbeitrag, der offensichtlich schlecht recherchiert war).
Zitat:
>Wollen Sie wirklich die Aussage aufrecht erhalten, viele außer Wakefield
>und Mitarbeitern hätten vergeblich nach dem Virus gesucht? Dem von Ihnen
>empfohlenen Kongressbericht des IMFAR Meetings kann ich das nicht
>entnehmen, im Gegenteil, siehe den Artikel: NO EVIDENCE OF PERSISTING
>MEASLES VIRUS IN PERIPHERAL BLOOD MONONUCLEAR CELLS FROM CHILDREN WITH
>AUTISTIC SPECTRUM DISORDER.
Natürlich will ich das aufrecht erhalten, der IMFAR Abstract ist ja nur einer: NO EVIDENCE OF PERSISTING MEASLES VIRUS, in peripheren
Blutzellen (und das ist eine gut kontrollierte Studie).
Pubmed hat mehr:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9274474&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsumhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=8801199&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsumFazit: es gibt keine unabhängige Bestätigung von Wakefields Ideen.
Catherina
[*/QUOTE*]
