2013 MEASLES NEWS: The UK’s Fake Welsh Measles Epidemic – Only 8 Cases Confirmed For March – 302 Wrongly Diagnosed and “Notified” By Docs

[ED: CHECK OUT UPDATE MEASLES UK 2013 – Health Officials in Tail-Spin Over Vastly Hyped Claims of Welsh Measles Epidemic – BBC Removes False Claims from Website - ADDED 12 May 2013 @ 0400 UTC/00:00 EST/05:00 GMT]

[ED: CHECK OUT COMMENTS AT END FOR LATEST FIGURES FOR APRIL AND DISCUSSION - ADDED 4 May 2013 @ 10:30 UTC/05:30 EST/11:30 GMT]

UPDATE 13/5/13 – April figures:

We stated on May 3, when this article was posted

.. if the figures for April are wildly different, you will know for sure someone is not telling it as it is.”

We were 100% right.

Public Health Wales own figures of confirmed measles cases to the end of March 2013 were 8 for the whole of Wales:

All Wales surveillance of laboratory confirmed infections – CDSC Wales monthly report – Report date: Tue 02 Apr 2013 – Data to end of week: 2013 Week 13

See Table on Page 18 “2013 – Reports of Measles virus by LHB/LA of residence by month (table 2 of 2)”

The figures HPW published in their monthly report to the end of February were also 8 confirmed cases.  By Sunday 14th April the figures reported for March in the weekly reports issued during April totalled 15 for the period to 31 March.  By Tuesday 7th May the March figure was stated to be 22.

Public Health Wales own information also states:

Reported notifications of measles usually far exceed the actual numbers of confirmed cases. Other rashes are often mistaken for measles.”  Measles Public Health Wales Health Protection Division – [accessed & added to CHS 12 May 2013].

But Public Health Wales claimed vastly more laboratory confirmed measles cases than existed in confirmations from their own laboratory and England combined.

To put the following into context in the first three weeks of 1959 there were 41,000 cases reported in England and Wales.  In the British Medical Journal doctors described measles as “mild”: British Medical Journal Tells Us – Measles Is Not The Scary Disease The Press Want You To Think It Is

This is what was put out on British news by Public Health Wales during April 2013:

Chronology of claims of confirmed cases – source ITV News:

Wed 03 Apr 2013 – Last week the number of confirmed cases stood 432 [ED: sic].

That was the number claimed to the end of March.

Fri 05 Apr 2013 – The number of confirmed measles cases in the Swansea area has risen by 47 this week, according to the latest figures from Public Health Wales.  It now stands at 588 – a slight increase from the 541 cases confirmed earlier this week.

And that was just for the Swansea area – one city and surrounding area – not the whole of Wales.

Thu 18 Apr 2013 – Public Health Wales will release the latest figures for the ongoing measles outbreak today. On Tuesday the number of confirmed cases had risen to 765.

Fri 19 Apr 2013 – There are now over 800 confirmed cases in Wales.

Thu 25 Apr 2013 –  Earlier this week the number of confirmed cases of the virus stood at 886 – a rise of 78 new cases since last Thursday.

Sat 27 Apr 2013 – latest figures from Public Health Wales revealed the number of confirmed cases of measles reached 942.

Tue 30 Apr 2013 – The number of measles cases continues to rise and has now reached 1,011, according to figures released today by Public Health Wales.

None of this was true.  Public Health Wales never did have the numbers of cases they were claiming as confirmed.

By 2nd May it was reported confirmed cases for Wales were 370 with 850 tested and with 1,170 notified.  Suddenly the numbers of cases claimed by Public Health Wales as confirmed had fallen by nearly two thirds: MMR vaccination drive targets 43,000 children as measles epidemic spreads Press Association The Guardian, Thursday 2 May 2013.

It is claimed recently some laboratory tests had been sent to England for testing and that the figures were not in Public Health Wales’ own reports.  However, when the February and March figures were published by Health Protection Wales, no qualification to that effect appeared either on the HPW’s website and it does not appear in the reports,  so was thus not being applied to the February and March figures by Public Health Wales.   It appears a more recent claim added to HPW’s website on 9th May.

UPDATE 17 MAY

If HPW’s 9th May claim is correct [that their figures do not include tests carried out in England of Welsh notifications] the one case in Swansea is likely to have been bolstered by one confirmation from an English laboratory – making two confirmed cases in March in Swansea when HPW’s figures for notifications were 181 cases in Swansea and on 26th March HPW claimed 432 cases in the whole of Wales.

It can be seen that less than half of confirmations come from England – as more recent figures issued by HPW show.

The number of tests from England can be seen from HPW’s 2nd May news release stating: “The number of laboratory confirmed cases in the outbreak stands at 370 out of a total of 850 samples tested.” … “Across the whole of Wales the total is 1,170.”   as their latest report published 15th May shows 209 confirmed cases in April. So less than half the tests – 161 appear to have been carried out in England.

And as reported here, their figures to 31st March showed 8 confirmed cases to the end of March for all Wales – 1 in Swansea and two more in the Swansea area.

——-  ******* ——-

NOW FOLLOWS THE ORIGINAL 3RD MAY CHS ARTICLE AS PUBLISHED HERE:

Big Headline – but a very short posting to the links to the official figures just published by Public Health Wales.  You will not believe your eyes – so download them and see for yourself. Links to the full official statistics reports below from Public Health Wales.

If you take any notice of the British press you will know that the “epicenter” of this British epidemic of epic earthquake proportions – is Swansea in Wales UK.  That is where all the fuss is about.

Guess how many cases of measles there really were – no – not the huge numbers  the British media reported.

Public Health Wales figures to the end of March recorded just ONE laboratory confirmed case out of 183 notified cases in March – that is 18,200% over-diagnosed – or put another way – 0.005 of notified measles cases were really measles.  And hey, lots of them have not been vaccinated and they still have not caught measles.  How about that.

[ED's REQUEST TO READERS: - repost link to this on Facebook, blogs, websites, Twitter, newspaper online comments please & email your families and friends - people are being scammed by health officials and the media - (added: 5/May/2013)

http://wp.me/pfSi7-1Qh].

For the entire period 1 January to March 31, 2013 for the whole of Wales Public Health Wales own reports recorded there were just 26 laboratory confirmed cases out of 446 notifications: 10 in January, 8 in February.  And in March just eight cases out of 302 notifications for the whole of Wales

That is a percentage rate of over-diagnosis and over-notification in March of 3774% or just 0.027 of notified cases were actually measles – and it is medical professionals who do the diagnosing and notifying.  Kind of knocks your faith in the ability of doctors to diagnose a basic childhood illness.  And we must not forget the poor man who died – but no one knows what he died of and three doctors did not diagnose it as measles.

But the British media lapped it up – after all – it was a death and you know how they love to wave the shroud to sell their papers in an ever-dwindling market.  Journalism – a dying profession in more ways than one.

Photos – 7th April 2013 – British Media Report on Massive queues as emergency immunisation centres open in Swansea:

[click on photo for enlarged image in new window]

Swansea1 (10)Swansea1 (5)Swansea1 (12)

And the media hype is exactly the same kind of tosh from public health officials that we saw over SARS, then bird ‘flu, then swine ‘flu.

Now you can see the extent of the scam being run by public health officials in Wales, UK.

Don’t bother buying newspapers or believing the garbage news from the BBC and other TV “journalists”.  These people are just irresponsible scaremongers.  You cannot trust a word they write or broadcast. Or are they just morons or what?  Not the kind of profession Joseph Pulitzer describes here:

An able, disinterested, public-spirited press, with trained intelligence to know the right and courage to do it, can preserve that public virtue without which popular government is a sham and a mockery.”

You can rely on good old CHS because we let you check out the figures here all by yourself.  Compare these two separate official reports – one is laboratory confirmed cases and the other is notifications:

All Wales surveillance of laboratory confirmed infections – CDSC Wales monthly report – Report date: Tue 02 Apr 2013 – Data to end of week: 2013 Week 13

See Table on Page 18 “2013 – Reports of Measles virus by LHB/LA of residence by month (table 2 of 2)”

And compare with this:

All Wales surveillance of notifiable communicable diseases – CDSC Wales monthly report – Report date: Tue 02 Apr 2013 – Data to end of week: 2013 Week 13

See Table on Page 4 “2013 – Notifications of Measles by LHB/LA of residence by month (table 2 of 2)”

BUT: the really interesting bit will be the figures for April. When there is a big panic on stirred up in 66 million people of the UK by just a handful of health officials and the completely useless easily manipulated British media, doctors will be notifying the spots on their tablecloths as measles.  So if the figures for April are wildly different, you will know for sure someone is not telling it as it is.

Let’s wait for the April figures. 

And in ten years time might we be amused by a confession like:

Oh dear, how the janitor when cleaning up accidentally spilled measles virus into all of those negative samples by accident before I tested them, and he did not tell me til yesterday.

So the one case in Swansea from 181 notifications is likely to have been bolstered by another confirmation from an English laboratory – making two confirmed cases in March in Swansea when HPW were claiming 181 cases notified and claiming to the public there were 432 cases in the whole of Wales.

About these ads

130 Responses

  1. Thanks CHS how many deaths have they caused,how many disabled children ,howmany autistic kids,how many diabetis kids…through this untested vaccine… the list grows all the time nothing to do with vaccines but of course they know its to do with the following

    For sure vaccines are safe so why do they have a vaccine injury compensation board in the UK??

    This is a list of the ideas the mainstream media has offered over the last 2 years (particularly the joke factory being run by the BBC).
    Possible explanations or the current scientific theories on the Autism epidemic :
    1. Older Fathers
    2. Older Grandfathers
    3. Watching too much TV
    4. Near major Road traffic
    5. Mother was abused as a child
    6. Because we saw the film Rainman when we were young , Uta Frith (a scientist with 40 years experience in the autism field)I did send a question to dear Uta to which she has never replied , which was , I also saw the film the Exorcist , and did she think that might have had any bearing on my childs outcome .
    7. Sunlight levels
    8. Genetic heritable condition
    9. Obese Mothers
    10. Using Facebook & the internet
    11. Placenta folds may predict autism risk
    12. Babies born weighing more than 9lb 14oz or under 5lb 5oz have a higher of developing autism
    Can you add to my list perhaps ? I am going cold..

    Angus

  2. Yes-and try this one on notified measles cases in the Swansea area:-

    http://www.wales.nhs.uk/sitesplus/888/page/66389#d

    “Data on confirmed measles cases and their immunisation history continues to be actively collected during the outbreak. The validity of the data will not be finally confirmed and published until after the outbreak is over.”

    Scroll down to the block graph which shows the largest ‘spike’ to be 1-4 year olds. Hey-Wait a minute. Didn’t they tell us mostly teenagers were getting infected?…..and that 1-4 year olds were nearly all vaccinated? Of course NONE of these cases was CONFIRMED.

    So the £10 million cost of all those emergency vaccines and the further £20million to vaccinate anything that moves in the UK, would appear to be a waste of taxpayers’ money, a nice little earner for the vaccine manufacturers and a great opportunity to blame Andrew Wakefield (again) for yet another UK Government ‘cock up’.

  3. ED: We have updated the headline, text and the figures since the article was first posted @ 21:19 UTC. [22:19 BST, 17:19 EDT]

  4. I’m new to this subject area. Can you clarify for me please, would all the notified cases have been tested? So there were lots of lab tests done and only 1 in Swansea was positive, the rest were negative? Or are notified cases not tested, so we don’t really know what they were? Thanks.

  5. I’ve been pursuing these figures for the last week or so, so thanks.

    I thought it’s been interesting that the post mortem on that fellow who died with measles in him, was announced as ‘inconclusive’.

    This seems rather odd to me and I’m suspecting that it’s more that they’re waiting till the epidemic is ‘over’ and the campaign has achieved it’s vaccination targets, before they announce the actual results proper.

    The other thing is the media release dated may 2, 2013, here – http://www.wales.nhs.uk/sitesplus/888/news/27029 – mentions that the total confirmed is 370 out of 850 samples tested, but the dates are not clear for this stat.

    I will be having a look more deeply later ( when I have time ) but where are these differing and increased figures coming from do you know ? april figures not released ? ( like I said I can’t look properly until later )

    Those pre april stats are extraordinary really.

    One of the questions I will be asking them is why they release reported measles stats instead of waiting for the confirmed ones when they have a reponsibility to manage community anxieties and concerns.

    The media’s reasons for doing so I already know the answer to. Nothing new there.

  6. So this would suggest that Doctors in Wales report first, then do a blood test later?

    It just goes to show that many Doctors these days wouldn’t know childhood diseases anymore if they fell over them, most doctors who saw these diseases every day have most probably now long retired, this is why these diseases can be so dangerous now, it can take a while for your GP to diagnose.

  7. I don’t have a complete insight into the report numbers and what they actually mean, but the reports and numbers you have actually posted I think are completely misunderstood by yourself. I say this because, they are quite different from the overall stats, and this page actually gives some insght into how accurate the notifications are .. ie pretty accurate (as since notifications have been confirmed by oral fluid IgM).

    http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733811358

    One other point I would make, any one who trivializes either Bird Flu or SARS is making quite apparent what a fool they are. Both of these organisms are extremely virulent. Should bird flu actually manage to mutate to allow human to human spread (which has been achieved in a lab) then it is truly frightening what could happen should it spread to the wider community.

  8. The main aim of this measles campaign is to manufacture mass hysteria so that we go get the MMR vaccine and then the drug companies, the medics and government can make a great deal of money out of it. That is what it is all about, so they over-exaggerate, lie and make grand assumptions, and they also practice bad science and bad medicine to catch as many people in the measles net. This is all that this campaign is about, nothing more. Take the profit out of it and no one would be interested. We must understand that the medics do not understand the mechanisms of disease and so they try their best to get rid of symptoms through suppression with drugs and vaccines and if and when these symptoms go away, which means that they push these symptoms back inside the body instead of managing the illness, then they celebrate a success. But this so-called success is not immunity, it is suppression in all its glory. When we suppress disease symptoms, we will make ourselves sick. So in this case, we go to the doctor who systematically makes us sick. That is a form of madness.

  9. ED: @athinkingmother

    Hi, this information should assist you. All notified cases are laboratory tested. So basically Public Health Wales have been telling whoppers.

    HPA National Measles Guidelines – Local & Regional Services Version 1.2: 28th October 2010

    SURVEILLANCE OF MEASLES
    Measles remains a notifiable disease under the Health Protection Legislation (England) Guidance 2010. ….
    Since November 1994, enhanced surveillance including oral fluid testing of all notified and suspected cases has been provided through the Centre for Infections. CfI supplies each health protection unit with a set of oral fluid testing kits. When a case of suspected measles is reported and/or notified to the local health protection unit, an oral fluid kit is sent to the case, or the parent or general practitioner of the case. Samples should be taken as soon as possible after measles is suspected, and posted or couriered back to the Virus Reference Department, where it is tested for anti-measles IgM and/or measles RNA. Results are reported back to the patient’s GP and the local HPU.
    Staff at CfI follow up cases confirmed at the Virus Reference Laboratory and all confirmed cases reported from local diagnostic laboratories to obtain further epidemiological and clinical information and to confirm the precise vaccination details. Confirmatory testing, genotyping and further characterization is undertaken at the WHO Global Specialised Reference Laboratory based at Colindale. Measles virus sequences are entered on the WHO global Measles Nucleotide Sequence (MeaNS) database hosted at CfI.
    CfI is responsible for reporting on a monthly basis case-based information on confirmed cases to the European surveillance network (EU-VACnet) and this information is forwarded to WHO European region.(see appendix 2 – surveillance definitions). VRD also report monthly data on the numbers of samples tested for measles to the WHO laboratory network.

    4. Minimum details to be taken when a case is reported
    When a case is reported or notified to an HPU, the following information is essential for the risk assessment of the case.

    Callers details:
    o Name, address, designation and contact number
    Demographic details
    • Name, DOB, sex, ethnicity, and NHS number
    • Address, including postcode
    • Current residence if not the home address
    • Contact phone number and contact details of parent if case is a child
    • Occupation (if relevant)
    • Place of work/education (if relevant)
    • *GP name and address and phone number
    • *Member of hard to reach population (eg. Steiner, travelling family)?
    Clinical/epidemiological assessment
    • Clinical information (including onset dates for prodrome, rash and diagnosis)
    • *Immunisation history
    • *Contact with confirmed or suspected case?
    • *UK and non UK travel in previous 4 weeks?
    • *Context: e.g. high risk population (e.g. international students, Steiner, traveller family?)
    * Information required in addition to the routine information collected on all notifiable diseases

  10. And are these the april figures ( or am I in the wrong pdf ? )

    http://www2.nphs.wales.nhs.uk:8080/CommunitySurveillanceDocs.nsf/815f97434d281f8b80257508003d3986/3ee3e9eb68cab2c380257b5c0048a7e1/$FILE/weekly%20201317%20lab.pdf

    This report puts confirmed measles in wales at around 162 ( total including wks 12 & 13 = 177 so I subtracted the 2/6/5/2 numbers in those weeks ( not april ) to get 162 )

    Have I got this right ?

  11. Latest update from April show a larger increase. http://www2.nphs.wales.nhs.uk:8080/CommunitySurveillanceDocs.nsf/

    Another 177 lab confirmed in April – But still no epidemic.

  12. [ED: @Colin O’Shea

    Colin you seem to miss the point. And you do not have a grasp of the overall picture either.

    The public have been told there is a massive outbreak of measles in Swansea with masses of unvaccinated children and adults at risk.

    But the true picture is that only one person in March out of 183 notified cases tested postive for measles.

    So how come all those unvaccinated individuals are not falling like flies.

    Additionally, you need to read this CHS article to get a grasp of the overall picture and some of the truth about measles:-
    British Medical Journal Tells Us – Measles Is Not The Scary Disease The Press Want You To Think It Is

    Some highlights from the British Medical Journal showing how mild measles was in 1959 and it has been getting progressively milder year on year:

    In the first three weeks of this year about 41,000 cases of measles were recorded in England and Wales. This is well above the corresponding figures of the last two years – namely, about 9,000 in 1958 and 28,000 in 1957 – though it is below the highest levels reached in the last nine years.

    measles is nowadays normally a mild infection, and they rarely have occasion to give prophylactic gamma globulin.

    “No special features have been noted in this relatively mild epidemic.”

    Over the past 10 years there have been few serious complications at any age, and all children have made complete recoveries. As a result of this reasoning no special attempts have been made at prevention even in young infants in whom the disease has not been found to be especially serious.

    Clearly, you cannot be taken seriously about bird flu and SARS and seem to want to rewrite history. [We notice you omit swine flu.]

    Neither Bird flu nor SARS came to anything. In fact it seems the way these diseases will transfer to humans is by issuing genetically modified viruses. Baxter Pharmaceutical appear to have been ahead of the game – in what was considered to be impossible to do accidentally – in 2011 they issued vaccines containing the virus and it was only because one country bothered to test on animals that anyone found out – all the animals died:

    US Drug Company Released Deadly Virus In EU In Vaccine

    Now if you are in the vaccine business, that is the way to generate a market for your products – create the disease and then issue the vaccine for it. Just like the plot of a Hollywood movie. But that was real life.

  13. [ED: @Rabbitk

    Thanks for the new figures for April. They appear provisional, but just as we predicted there is something odd looking here.

    These people have burned their boats. It is impossible to know what to believe.

    The total notified cases in Wales for the 4 weeks April 1st to 28th = 565.

    But the total laboratory confirmed cases for the same period = 162.

    So suddenly doctors in Wales have been massively more successful in diagnosing measles in April compared to March. Now they only over-diagnose 2.5 extra cases for every one correctly diagnosed or 250% over diagnosed or 0.3 cases of notified cases are measles compared to 18,200% over-diagnosed or 0.005 of notified measles cases were really measles.

    So it looks like in 10 years time we are going to be told - true confession style:

    "Oh dear, the janitor when cleaning up accidentally spilled measles virus into all of those negative samples by accident before I tested them, and he did not tell me til yesterday."]

  14. [ED: @paul

    Thanks.

    Here are the links to the latest figures for 4 complete weeks Monday 1st April to Sunday April 28th – Week 17.

    Don’t forget to compare the Laboratory confirmed to Notified:

    Notified by Week

    Laboratory confirmed by Week.

    And these figures were published on 30th April so why were they not released to the media?

  15. At the Anonymous “Childsafety”,

    Clearly you can’t read, the link I posted or the basic information supplied. The listed notifications are corrected. ie they have been tested via Oral fluid IgM for measles. So they are essentially accurate data. THAT IS – ALL THE CORRECTED NOTIFICATIONS HAVE TESTED POSITIVE TO MEASLES. Compare these to the number of uncorrected. The Oral fluid IgM test appears to be around 95% accurate to lab testing, according to what I have read. But, I am not a specialist in the field so I would happily be corrected by someone who knows more. I would suspect the lab testing is only done is specific instances when there is issue with the oral test, or some other indication. One can clearly see from the figures that many of the notifications for what ever reason don’t end up being tested and are left out of the confirmed notifications. So clearly the confirmed notifications is an underestimate of the true number of cases in the epidemic.

    That you misrepresent the number so, even when presented with clear information means you are either intentionally deceptive in the the interpretation of the numbers or unable to understand them. I honestly don’t care which you are.

    Bird flu, is still around and has a documented case mortality of over 60%, and these numbers are easy to find. In 1918 the Spanish flu had a case mortality of 10 percent and it killed tens of millions of people worldwide. If you can’t add the dots to what would happen should human to human transmission occur with the bird flu then I refer back to the previous paragraph.

  16. [ED: @Colin O’Shea

    Colin, the abuse and derogatory remarks don't work on this site - except they make you look very unreasonable and the other guy much more so.

    We were pointing out that you fail to grasp the overall picture - and we spelt it out for you in spades.

    Your scaremongering and shroud-waving tactics don't cut it here either. Its facts, facts, facts all the way.

    Now you seem to ignore that in the first three weeks of 1959 there were 41,000 cases of measles and doctors writing in the British Medical Journal were unconcerned because it was then considered a mild disease for the vast majority. And it has become milder as time passes.

    The only other difference today is that drug companies sell vaccines and are immune to damages actions pretty much worldwide. And our health officials issue misleading information and cannot be trusted whilst they promote the drug industry agenda.

    Hey, Colin - in Century 21 there is still no effective treatment for measles. It is a scandal that our great medical "science" has failed to produce an effective treatment for a basic childhood illness.

    And millions of third world children who have died despite vaccinations might have been saved if we had one.

    And if we had, we would not be engaging in this dialogue because there would be nothing to shroud wave about for public health officials.

    They are the irresponsible ones - as are the media for not doing their job.

    Oh, and Colin, anyone can post on blogs under any name they like - they can even use a name like "Colin O'Shea" but it does not have to be a real name.]

  17. With all due respect, they do not laboratory test for measles in all cases, as it is a disease with easily recognisable clinical signs as so it would be a waste of tax payers money if it will not change the treatment. (Just like a doctor will diagnose chicken pox by looking at the lesions). So no conspiracy here at all.

  18. [...] by Heidi Stevenson, with credit to Child Health Safety [...]

  19. Can we ever trust any statistics from any authorities/pharma?
    Read this charming story.
    The Norwegian Public Health Institute (FHI) adapts information from WHO to suit situations in Norway.
    They were obviously too eager to push the MMR vaccine and in their “adapting” the info from WHO:

    The institute recently published that 350000 children die from measles yearly in the world. My friend Dag F noticed this on FHI’s FB site and asked them to correct the figure to those of the WHO: 158000.

    They corrected, but Dag F then asked them to correct again as they had stated that the deaths applied to children when it should be both adults and children. The institute corrected again and explained that they had worked a bit too quickly (!)

    The Institute is used to having almost sole monopoly for info to the public and obviously does not reckon that anyone compares their information with other sources.

  20. But oral measles tests can often be negative if the rash has been present less than 3 days so a negative test doesn’t necessarily mean it’s not measles. Plus not all samples will get tested in an outbreak due to the numbers involved so I don’t think confirmed cases numbers mean much at the moment

  21. It has been said that the Oral fluid IgM test appears to be around 95% effective, but this says to me that this test is deeply flawed and so we cannot accept testing based on a flawed testing kit. This reminds me of the so-called hiv tests, none of which test for so-called hiv. Regardless, lab technicians translate these tests into the language of hiv, and this depends on the fashion and the politics of the day.

    And so if a person is black, gay or poverty stricken, as an example, then they are more likely to receive an hiv positive diagnosis than someone white from high society.

    So when the health authorities need a measles positive test to support their campaign, then once again the lab technicians do what they are programed to do and translate a so-called positive test result as measles. So we have a welsh man who died, and the media say that this was the first measles death, but if there had been say a polio epidemic or a mumps epidemic, then the diagnostic test result would then be translated into polio or mumps, whatever the case may be. This is what goes on, and so these testing kits are not to be relied upon.

    If we base our numbers on testing kits, then we are completely wasting our time. They did this with so-called hiv, regardless that we have never manufactured a testing kit that is able to test for ‘hiv’. Being as this is the case, then no one has hiv until a testing kit can be manufactured that is able to detect it. I do not think that this will ever happen. I suggest we watch the film House of Numbers on youtube that covers this issue. But let’s look at The Body Shop website where it states this…

    “In 2003, UNAIDS reported that approximately one third, or 12.1 million, of those estimated to be living with HIV/AIDS worldwide were under the age of 25. There are almost 6,000 infections per day among 15-24 year olds, one every 15 seconds.“

    Being as there is no test, then the reality is that no one is hiv positive, but UNAIDS need to conjure up and falsify these numbers because only then does this generate funding, and so the drug companies, governments and medics can make a huge profit. Measles epidemics and polio epidemics and hiv epidemics are no different, it’s merely bad politics and bad science joining hands, to generate more and more dollar bills. Business is business, and that is how it is. We must never underestimate human greed.

  22. [ED: @Allie Woodward

    Regrettably you have posted here without reading the facts first.

    This is wrong “they do not laboratory test for measles in all cases“.

    We have already posted here May 4, 2013 at 8:08 am the links to and quotes from the HPA National Measles Guidelines – Local & Regional Services Version 1.2: 28th October 2010.

    These set out the requirements for testing and all notified cases are meant to be tested, so you are wrong about what is meant to be done and the reason you give is also wrong.

    Your reason is “as it is a disease with easily recognisable clinical signs“. Anyone can see from the figures all over this article showing massive over-diagnosis of non-measles cases as measles. So that suggests that to doctors it is not such an easily recognisable disease.

    And the BMJ from 1959 does suggest you might have a point that it is a waste of taxpayers money to test for a disease which should by now be so mild as not to be a major problem. But if it is in rare cases the problem is the medical profession’s failure to ensure an effective treatment for a basic childhood disease.

    And purleease – if you want to lose the argument start suggesting conspiracy is alleged – not only is it not – when people start falling back on that kind of tosh it is because they know they are wrong.

    But everyone who has actually read the information here can see how wrong you are anyhow.

    Thanks for helping everyone see that.

  23. [ED: @A dyer 2013/05/04 at 1:15 pm

    Thanks for that. No citation for the claim made.

    And even without it the problem is that these are the official figures being put out by Health Protection Wales. They are good enough for them and they are publishing them to the public.

    But hey, why let facts get in the way of creating FUD - fear, uncertainty and doubt.]

  24. [ED: @John Wantling 2013/05/04 at 1:35 pm

    Unfortunately no citation for the claim made.

    The previous commenter claims negative tests do not mean it is not measles and you are suggesting that positive tests might not be measles.

    Nice timing - looks like your comment cancels out @A Dyer's comment - if we want to be simplistic about it.

    Citations would be nice.]

  25. [...] hey, lots of them have not been vaccinated and they still have not caught measles. How about that. 2013 MEASLES NEWS: The UK’s Fake Welsh Measles Epidemic – Only 8 Cases Confirmed For Mar… __________________ Cowards jailed Terry Tremaine because they're afraid of him. Stop The Hate. [...]

  26. Negative tests, positive tests, this is a Pandora’s box. Check out The Perth Group website, and like I say, watch House of Numbers and the answer to hiv testing kits are in that film. I would suggest that measles testing is also based on similar lines.

  27. Do we catch measles? I don’t think it is so simple. There may be some kind of contact disease involved, but I doubt that it is as simplistic as germ causing disease. Measles is a childhood disease and it comes and goes for a reason and in a certain time period. Viera Scheibner states that this is a disease that concerns detoxification and also childhood development and so symptoms should not be ‘got rid’ of through suppression such as vaccines and drugs. This is dangerous as this can cause very serious problems. When a measles child is treated by a medical doctor, this treatment based on suppression may well kill the child. The doctor then shouts out from the rooftops that measles is a killer, but it may have been the medical treatment that caused that to happen. Poor measles management. The reason for this is that medical doctors do not understand the mechanisms of disease. We rarely hear the full story. I tend to feel that contact with a measles child sets off a process that is ready to surface. This may be why not all children develop measles from a measles party. I don’t know what that process is, but I would be interested if anyone does. All a measles vaccine will do is poison the child, cause a serious immune system crisis, which is so serious that the body puts all other less threatening disease on hold, such as measles, and then a doctor comes along and seeing no symptoms, then celebrates a successful vaccine, and this suppression he calls immunity. That is madness, but this seems to be the reality. Homeopaths think along these lines. This is why vaccines and poor medical treatment and blind ignorance are far worse than the measles disease itself.

  28. Reblogged this on rudehealth and commented:
    Thanks to eagle-eyed Child Health Safety we can see the truth behind the measles media hysteria. I wonder if any of those rabid pro-vaccine folk will comment on this? I very much doubt it…

  29. In the NHS briefing linked below it states that due to the high number cases it is not likely that laboratory confirmation will occur.

    http://www.wales.nhs.uk/sitesplus/888/page/66389

    Personally I believe that it is a waste of tax payers money to test everyone in a cluster of cases. The NHS is stretched enough as it is

    As far as my use of the term conspiracy is concerned, you are seeming to imply that the government has a vested interest in lying to the general public over this matter. Which as the definition if conspiracy is “evil, unlawful, treacherous or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons”, I felt that that summed up your view. My mistake.

  30. [ED: Allie Woodward 2013/05/04 at 5:25 pm

    Stop wasting people’s time. You are dissembling. Changing your story. And being defensive.

    Previously you made out it was generally the case that “they do not laboratory test for measles in all cases, as it is a disease with easily recognisable clinical signs“.

    Now you are saying that in Wales in this particular case as Health Protection Wales stated on their websiteUsually, a notification of measles is laboratory confirmed” but “it is possible” …. “due to the high numbers of notifications” that “not all clinically-diagnosed cases will undergo subsequent laboratory testing“.

    That is completely different to your previous argument.

    So having been shown to be in error you will not accept you were putting forth misleading information.

    And Public Health Wales has published results of testing carried out. So looks like you are wrong all round and just compounding the matter and being a nuisance.

    It is called “trolling” and you have just shown that is what you are doing.

  31. Once again, a bunch of people who don’t understand medicine – doctors often diagnose imperially and don’t run lab tests when the observable data makes lab work unnecessary. Lab tests are not required to diagnose measles, it is easily diagnosed differentially based on very specific rash pattern and incubation time.

  32. [ED: @KMT 2013/05/04 at 6:53 pm

    You are another who does not read the article and/or comments before posting.

    Already dealt with.

    Next please.]

  33. I am interested to know how many of the confirmed cases are in children who have been fully vaccinated, will this information be available? I know of at least one…

  34. I live in the area ‘affected’, have a wide circle of friends and acquaintances, and work with 60 members of staff (including health professionals). I do not know of anyone, or anyone who knows of anyone, who has been confirmed with measles. Rather odd!

  35. [...] here for anyone interested. 2013 MEASLES NEWS: The UK?s Fake Welsh Measles Epidemic ? Only 8 Cases Confirmed For March ? 302 Wro… Reply With [...]

  36. This article is wrong. NOT ALL notified cases are being tested for confirmation. The lab test are run for few cases.

  37. [ED: @Meme 2013/05/05 at 12:18 pm

    This comment is from someone at a fake email address who also provides no source to back up this claim.

    But fortunately “Meme” appears not to have read this article and the comments because we have covered the point – here:

    May 4, 2013 at 8:08 am

    Here is an extract for readers’ convenience:

    HPA National Measles Guidelines – Local & Regional Services Version 1.2: 28th October 2010

    “Since November 1994, enhanced surveillance including oral fluid testing of all notified and suspected cases has been provided through the Centre for Infections. CfI supplies each health protection unit with a set of oral fluid testing kits. When a case of suspected measles is reported and/or notified to the local health protection unit, an oral fluid kit is sent to the case, or the parent or general practitioner of the case. Samples should be taken as soon as possible after measles is suspected, and posted or couriered back to the Virus Reference Department, where it is tested for anti-measles IgM and/or measles RNA. Results are reported back to the patient’s GP and the local HPU.

    Staff at CfI follow up cases confirmed at the Virus Reference Laboratory and all confirmed cases reported from local diagnostic laboratories to obtain further epidemiological and clinical information and to confirm the precise vaccination details. Confirmatory testing, genotyping and further characterization is undertaken at the WHO Global Specialised Reference Laboratory based at Colindale. Measles virus sequences are entered on the WHO global Measles Nucleotide Sequence (MeaNS) database hosted at CfI.

    CfI is responsible for reporting on a monthly basis case-based information on confirmed cases to the European surveillance network (EU-VACnet) and this information is forwarded to WHO European region.(see appendix 2 – surveillance definitions). VRD also report monthly data on the numbers of samples tested for measles to the WHO laboratory network.”

  38. [...] with credit to Child Health Safety [...]

  39. Hi

    I come at this from a slightly different angle, as the father of a two year old with Leukemia. The children’s cancer ward which my son is being treated on was exposed to the disease this week, so all the children had to be given a blood product which contains anti-bodies which they hope will give these children who don’t have functioning immune systems some protection.

    This treatment had a side effect of inducing a fit in a couple of the children treated and it was all pretty unpleasant.

    I understand that parents are concerned about vaccines, but for the most vulnerable in society, I wish people would have their children immunised.

  40. [...] by Heidi Stevenson, with credit to Child Health  [...]

  41. [...] by Heidi Stevenson, with credit to Child Health Safety [...]

  42. [ED: @Jim May 5, 2013 at 7:48 pm

    What do you say to my friend whose son lived with lupus until he was 25 and died suddenly after years of living with the threat to his life which it posed? Lupus is caused by vaccination. Should children who would otherwise grow up healthy and strong be sacrified in that way?

    US Government Concedes Hep B Vaccine Causes Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

    And what about all those children with autism - should they be sacrified in such a manner? US Government health officials confirmed in 2008 to US national broadcast news media that vaccines cause autistic conditions. And on the advice of the expert advisors the US Department of Health and Human Services conceded in a number of cases in the US Federal Court that vaccines cause autistic conditions:

    Vaccination Causes Autism – Say US Government & Merck’s Director of Vaccines

    The Italian Health Ministry on the advice of its experts also conceded that Valentino Bocca's autistic condition was caused by the same MMR vaccine - MMR II given in the UK and USA:

    Italian court reignites MMR vaccine debate after award over child with autism The Independent Sunday 17 June 2012

    Landmark ruling in an Italian court has said Valentino Bocca's autism was provoked by the MMR jab he had at aged nine months DailyMail 15 June 2012

    And the huge increases in life threatening allergies and conditions like childhood diabetes occurring since the roll out of mass multiple vaccine programmes across the first world?

    What of the children who developed childhood multiple sclerosis which emerged in France following the introduction of mass Hepatitis B vaccination when childhood multiple sclerosis was unknown before then? There was a criminal investigation in France into the roll out of that programme: UK Government Caught Lying On Baby Hep B Vax Safety

    How many children and their families should suffer who would not otherwise have done?]

  43. Sadly these cancer children are very ill and so you then make a giant leap in faith by justifying a measles vaccine. This is a typical response because in this you clearly believe that vaccines are effective in protecting children. But if you go into that word ‘effective’, as opposed to making a grand assumption and taking a giant leap, then you will find that a vaccine is basically foreign matter that should never ever be injected into the flesh, and so as far as the cells of the body are concerned, this is a poison and so a very serious threat to the health and life of the patient.

    Also take into consideration that a medical doctor does not understand the mechanisms of disease especially childhood diseases and any serious threat of poisoning will interfere and suppress such diseases, and so a vaccines does not immunise, it merely pushes the symptoms of measles as an example, back into the body. So we have a cancer child who is being treated by cancer drugs which is probably the wrong thing to do, and then we introduce a vaccine poison or in this case blood products containing antibodies, another can of worms, and then the children suffer from fits, which is hardly surprising.

    We are all conditioned to believe that disease justifies vaccine and this is a common reaction, but a sick child needs good medical treatment, not a chemo poison or a vaccine poison. Dr. Peter Lind in his article titled ‘Vaccination is not immunity’ states that vaccinations and antibiotics given to newborns and older children puts them at risk for debilitating long term neurological reactions. Long-term immunity is often impaired. We are experiencing this today the world over.
    http://www.wellnessreport.net/blog.html

    Notice that he does not say that vaccines protect a child from harm and produce a healthy child. We may believe this because this is how we are conditioned, but the reality is quite another matter. This belief that we have, that vaccine is the answer to measles, is wishful and magical thinking, but this is an immediate unthinking emotional reaction simply because we do not know the mechanisms of disease. It is no different to medical voodoo, belief in dreams, trances, and ritual possessions, deceptive or delusive nonsense, and this is how primitive our thinking and our medicine is when we respond like this. To understand vaccines, we must also understand that process of conditioning. When we believe or assume, then we do not understand this process, and so we then close our eyes and poison en masse.

  44. Angus,
    I listened to a joke and laughed a lot whilst pregnant. Does that account for my sons Autism?

  45. [ED: @Elizabeth Gillespie 2013/05/06 at 6:31 am

    Does Watching TV Cause Autism? TIME Health & Family By Claudia Wallis Friday, Oct. 20, 2006

    Find out how the medical establishment came to blame mothers as the cause of autism for most of the 20th century. Rollover the magnets to see each man's role in the history of autism blame: : History of Autism Blame US Public Broadcast Service July 16, 2002

    The official line is no one "knows" what causes autism but they are all certain it is not vaccines - pretty neat argument. Flawed, but neat.]

  46. [ED: Measles Outbreaks - Major Conflict in official figures for England & Wales for 2012 from Public Health England.

    One set of figures say 2030 laboratory confirmed cases and the other set say 1137.

    Twice the number of laboratory confirmed cases in one set of figures compared to the other but both are meant to be laboratory confirmed for the same year.

    And it is now May 2013 and these are the 2012 figures.

    1) Here it is 2030 lab confirmed cases:

    Last reviewed: 22 February 2013 - Data for 2012 stated "provisional"

    Year Measles Mumps Rubella

    2012* 2030 2466 65

    *Provisional data

    Confirmed cases of Measles, Mumps and Rubella 1996-2012 - ALL LABORATORY CONFIRMED CASES OF MEASLES, MUMPS & RUBELLA England and Wales, 1996 - 2012*

    2) Here it is 1137 lab confirmed cases:

    Last reviewed: 22 February 2013

    Only the last quarter for 2012 is stated "provisional".

    Tested
    Confirmed
    Year
    Quarter
    Uncorrected
    Notified
    Cases
    Number
    %
    Number
    %
    2012* 4th 1664 944 56.7% 309 32.7%
    2012 3rd 1307 873 66.8% 241 27.6%
    2012 2nd 1192# 1454 121.9% 419 28.8%
    2012 1st 982# 1277 130.0% 168 13.2%

    Measles notifications (confirmed cases) England and Wales 1995 - 2012* by quarter]

  47. Reblogged this on Carole….

  48. Weren’t there more than 80 hospital admissions related to measles? Don’t they count?

  49. [ED: @Ken Reibel 2013/05/06 at 6:29 pm

    No, Ken, not if they are not measles.

    And 80 cases - can you cite a reliable source for that? And 80 where? Wales or somewhere else?

    And "related to measles"? What like a cousin virus from a different tribe of viruses just visiting from Wisconsin?

    Sorry Ken, viruses which are "just visiting" and are not really measles don't count as measles.

    And what system are you suggesting is in place for checking and validating the admissions records of individual hospitals to audit and see if they are accurate?

    And talking of visitors, are you going to be a good fellow whilst you are visiting here Ken or have you come here to stir it?]

  50. excellent info – well backed up and excellent destruction of trolls and other people not correctly reading the info. Check out 25 ways to suppress the truth, http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html very enlightening, some good examples on these posts methinks.

  51. [ED: @changinglivesstives 2013/05/07 at 3:50 pm

    Thanks. If that is what you think, then how about you reblog it on your blog - might get the message out further.]

  52. I’ve given this a fairly quick go over and I’m almost certain this blog post is misrepresenting the facts.

    “Guess how many cases of measles there really were – no – not the huge numbers the British media reported.

    There was just ONE laboratory confirmed case out of 183 notified cases in March – that is 18,200% over-diagnosed – or put another way – 0.005 of notified measles cases were really measles. And hey, lots of them have not been vaccinated and they still have not caught measles. How about that.”

    To understand this I just needed to understand what “laboratory confirmed” means. It means that the case has been examined by a laboratory which confirmed that yes, the case is measles.

    This does not mean that all the other cases weren’t measles!

    Therefore the entire premise that only a small fraction of the reported cases were actually measles, is a logical fallacy. It may be the truth, it may not be, no-one knows. Due to the risks involved it is wise to err on the side of caution and make an assumption (yes it’s fine to do sometimes) that a percentage of the reported cases that weren’t laboratory confirmed, were indeed measles.

    Looking at some news reports and the official health site it is possible that that some reports have in a way, conflated, the rise in cases, I don’t know for sure but it looks like this is more to do with the way that the current levels are portrayed rather than the overall rise which seems apparent from looking at the historical data, particularly with it’s peak in 2009 recently but since then some years have seen little some have seen more. This all needs to be taken into account when analysing the situation.

    I don’t dismiss the idea that all of this could be a bit of engineering but I think it’s safe to say that the way the issue is being portrayed here is misleading and potentially dangerous.

  53. [ED: @Joe Chapman 2013/05/07 at 7:40 pm

    Nice try Joe, but it does not wash. You are way off.

    The average ratio of tested to notified over the past 18 years is 87%.

    Your "fairly quick go over" is totally inadequate.]

  54. As a newcomer to all this, I’ve just been on to the CDSC figures – they say April (all of Wales figures) 621 notifications. Right? And in May, so far 33 notifications.
    Then as for confirmed: in April, 216; May, 22 confirmed.
    None of this seems to match with the figures from the sites mentioned in the above comments – am I looking at the correct columns?
    Don’t know about adding and subtracting, but I do know that something’s afoot, and am totally grateful to CHS for their info.

    My mom, fortunately, was a nurse and just put us to bed in a darkened room with a cloth over our eyes along with plenty of fluids and sympathy. Seems to me those were “the good old days” – and I’ve read the BMJ ’59 article – but now everything’s so twisted now no one knows how to deal with measles naturally. Viva Andrew Wakefield.

  55. Well Ed its now 279 lab confirmed cases in Wales so far this year & the graph looks like a pretty good outbreak of measles to me

    http://www2.nphs.wales.nhs.uk:8080/CommunitySurveillanceDocs.nsf/($All)/E26DD2EEC96007F180257B64005807A5/$File/monthly%20lab%202013May.pdf?OpenElement

  56. [ED: @Occam 2013/05/08 at 6:47 pm

    41,000 cases in first three weeks of 1959 and the docs were not even flustered - not a problem - now that is an outbreak and no one was bovvered:

    British Medical Journal Tells Us – Measles Is Not The Scary Disease The Press Want You To Think It Is

    279 lab confirmed cases in a population of 3 million. Nothing compared to the number of kids who get autism and much else from the vaccines.

    So what have you got against innocent kids Occam? Are you still bullying the poor old mothers over at the JABS forum? Its all a bit of sport for you this trolling - for them its their lives and their kids lives.

    You are such a nice boy.]

  57. Just wanted to say thanks to a friend for bringing me to this site. She was adamant that the media was lying and suggested I read this site to get the facts. 2 minutes worth of googling was enough to reveal that the ‘notification’ of measles is mandatory, and ‘lab testing’ was optional. 2 minutes it took me to find this out. There is *no* correlation between the figure for notifications and the figure for lab confirmed cases.

    The hypocrisy of the author in stating that the media are lying, whilst TOTALLY misrepresenting the numbers is astounding. I pointed out this hypocrisy, along with the complete lack of an apology or correction from the author. She is upset that this site has lied to her and happily will not be reading again.

    Come on dear readers. Use your noodles and do 2 minutes of basic research before believing ANY of the nonsense spouted on this site. Doctors by law have to notify the local authority of suspected measles. In years gone by this would have been reasonably rare due to inoculation, so would have been worth having a lab test to confirm. In the last few weeks when its clear there is an outbreak of this highly contagious disease, it is more important to start treatment immediately than to waste time having each suspected case sent for lab testing.

    [ED: The disinformation trolls are out in force. This commenter is another using a fake email address and fake name.

    And this is baloney intended to mislead it is a completely false claim that: "There is *no* correlation between the figure for notifications and the figure for lab confirmed cases. "

    87% of measles notifications over the past 18 years have been tested and the information has been published online by the Health Protection Agency.

    So "2 minutes worth of googling was enough" is another false claim.

    What is more we published the link to the quarterly figures from 1996 to 2012. The average is 87% are tested from all notified. So a further claim by this commenter is TOTALLY false and no one is "misrepresenting the numbers". What a Troll.

    Measles notifications (confirmed cases) England and Wales 1995 - 2012* by quarter]

  58. @ childhealthsafety

    What is your source for,

    “The average ratio of tested to notified over the past 18 years is 87%.” ?

    Thanks

    [ED: we have provided the link twice already - and one of those is immediately above.]

  59. You flatter to deceive Ed, 1959 OK, that was the year 98 people died from measles in the UK, is that acceptable, 100-150 people dying every year pre-vaccination, do you want to go back to those days? So I guess from the lack of a coherent response that your headline claim of only 1 confirmed case out of 183 reported cases was a little premature & you do accept that there is indeed an outbreak of measles occurring in the South Wales area which just so happens to coincide with the coverage of the local paper that ran a virulent anti-MMR campaign post AW.

    It happened in Quebec, it’s happened in Europe now it’s happened in Wales: measles outbreaks focused in the un-vaccinated population, evidence of the Welsh outbreak so far indicates 99% protection with 2 doses of MMR, as disclosed at Colindale last week. So a simple & polite question Ed do you accept that there is an outbreak of measles in South Wales?

    [ED: You appear to live in the past. The current rate of mortality from measles is nil deaths in healthy children in over 76,000 cases since 1992:
    Official Data Confirms – 20th Century Measles Deaths Would Fall Exponentially – And Regardless of Measles Or MMR Vaccine

    As for an "outbreak", we do not know what that means. There were 2030 confirmed cases in 2012. That does not appear to be being called an "outbreak".

    What is your point?]

  60. Thanks @childhealthsafety.

    The ‘#’ footnote on that table says that it’s possible for specimens to be sent in early, without being notified? If that is the case, AND it is also possible for notifications to be sent, but with no subsequent specimens, there are *serious* problems with the integrity/usefulness of this data. And the fact that the ‘#’ ‘phenomenon’ only happened when the tested/notified ratio was above 100%, smacks of “excusing some data but not other data.”

    Combine this with journalists who know nothing about the limitations of statistics/data collecting or basic maths, and you’re left with most reports citing useless numbers, mainly cherry-picked to support whichever argument they want to advocate.

    [ED: Will you have seen the figures but just will not admit that the rates of testing upon which the official figures are based are very high. And that was the point. The few quarters marked with a # symbol in 18 years - or 72 quarters mean nothing of the sort you claim. From the majority of the figures you can see that the rates of testing are high. They are so high in fact that the Health Protection Agency is content with them as a sensible indication of the true rates of infection.

    In other words, Will, having dealt with the main point you are trolling on - trying to pick holes so you don't have to admit the point has been fully addressed.

    But that is what you intended to do from the first moment you posted. Sooo obvious Will.]

  61. I don’t know why you are accusing me of ‘trolling’. All I tried to do is sensibly point out the limitations of the data. I gave no opinion on your inference of the data.

    If you can’t discuss something without mocking people then it’s not very constructive/scientific, is it? Sadly, it only leads me to assume you don’t understand what I’m saying.

    [ED: Will, you came to this site to quibble and argue. It was obvious from the outset. You quibbled and argued in your last comment and now you are quibbling and arguing again. It is done to disrupt. That is trolling.

    You also still do not accept the main point - but Health Protection England and Health Protection Wales do - they use the data and cite it.]

  62. This measles issue is about mass hysteria because measles is a natural childhood disease and it’s something that is necessary to detoxify and develop, it comes and goes, and we should not fear a disease such as this. You say that there are 279 lab confirmed cases in Wales but these testing kits are very much flawed and no one can take these numbers seriously. 1959, the year 98 people died from measles in the UK, but these so-called measles cases would have been under a medical doctor who would probably have no understanding of childhood diseases, and so they would use suppression drugs to ‘get rid’ of the symptoms, and this in itself would kill some, if not all of these children, so when they say that this or that child died of measles, was that true, of was it poor measles management. Sadly, we never hear the full story. To understand a measles death, we need to know the intimacies of each individual case, the history of treatment etc. To look at a statistic is meaningless. 99% protection with 2 doses of MMR, I do not think so, this word ‘protection’ means that MMR interferes and suppresses symptoms, and this is not immunity. So MMR may equal no symptoms, but this may not be good news as we may want to believe, in fact, getting rid of symptoms may cause auto-immune disease and chronic illness, so let’s not celebrate MMR too quickly. ‘Vaccination is not immunity’ is an article written by Dr. Peter Lind on the Washington Times website. He concludes that vaccinations and antibiotics given to newborns and older children puts them at risk for debilitating long term neurological reactions. Long-term immunity is often impaired. We are experiencing this today the world over. The whole issue of vaccinations is deeply flawed and this is why we should all cease vaccination of children, adults and animals. We have been misguided and lied to for reasons of human greed and this is basically rotten science and rotten medicine and rotten thinking. The answer to measles is safe management – Dr Jayne Donegan and Trevor Gunn talk about these issues in the UK. A so-called outbreak of measles in South Wales is something that we need to understand and not to fear and wage war upon.

  63. […] De (vermeende!) mazelenepidemie in Wales houdt intussen de gemoederen flink bezig. De media schijnen echter niet op de hoogte te zijn van de gekleurde en aangedikte argumenten die de (farma)overheid gebruikt bij de dringende oproep om toch zo snel mogelijk die prik te halen, ‘want anders….!’ Nochtans worden ze van diverse kanten dagelijks gewezen op tegengeluiden. Het zou interessant zijn om te vernemen of een wakkere dokter of verpleegster eveneens toegang heeft tot de officiële gezondheidsstatistieken, die aantonen dat er de afgelopen maanden slechts sprake was van een miniem aantal geregistreerde mazelengevallen. Tijdens de periode van 1 januari tot 31 maart, werden er in heel Wales (3 milj. inwoners) amper 26 laboratorium bevestigde gevallen genoteerd! Lees verder : http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2013/05/03/2013-uk-fake-measles-epidemic/ […]

  64. Dear Ed
    Sorry but read on from the HPA stats that you reference, in the words of the game show host, You Said ” The current rate of mortality from measles is nil deaths in healthy children in over 76,000 cases since 1992:” But They (the HPA) said
    ” Prior to 2006, the last death from acute measles was in 1992.
    All other measles deaths, since 1992, shown above are in older individuals and were caused by the late effects of measles. These infections were acquired during the 1980s or earlier, when epidemics of measles occurred.”
    There were actually 21 deaths from measles in that period, & that’s the site you quote.
    If you only want to count acute measles deaths then look at the recent European outbreak
    “High numbers of measles cases in Europe which began in 2010 continued in 2011, with more than 30,000 cases in each of those years. Overall, with more than 30,000 cases of measles in Europe in 2011, 8 deaths, 27 cases of measles encephalitis, and 1,482 cases of pneumonia, most cases were in unvaccinated (82%) or incompletely vaccinated (13%) people.”

    http://pediatrics.about.com/od/measles/a/measles-outbreak.htm

    My point Ed? Very simple measles continues to kill people, at a rate of 1 to every 2000 odd cases & it is focused on the unvaccinated population as shown in Europe and now in wales, apologies Ed am I allowed 2 points?

    [ED: No. “Nil point” for accuracy and 1000 points for being a troll, in exactly the same way you have been a pest on the JABS website and many many others for many years.

    You completely ignore the fact in the last 20 years there have been 80,000+ measles cases [counting up to now] in England & Wales and zero deaths in healthy individuals from acute measles in that time.

    That is a clear and completely true and accurate statement which the vast majority of people find surprising in the light of the information health officials put in the media.

    600,000 people die every year in the UK.

    The tiny number of claimed UK deaths you cite which were attributed to measles are not even mentioned or counted by health officials here who ignore them as not relevant.

    They are claimed to be latent – caused by measles contracted well over two decades ago and not from anyone getting a measles infection in the last 20 years in the UK.

    You ignore that completely.

    There was one death in a 14 year old on immunosuppressant drugs for a lung condition and one in an immunocompromised child [according to the HPA] since 1992. That gives a chance of nil deaths per annum in healthy children since 1992 over the entire population of England and Wales – which is roughly 55 million and 0.1 deaths per annum in immunocompromised children. And the 2008 death is according to Office for National Statistics now doubted to have been a measles death.

    But we do have vast numbers of children with autistic conditions, life threatening allergies, asthma, diabetes, cancers and more. Autistic conditions outnumber all other conditions vastly with 1 in 64 children and 1 in 40 being a boy:
    Vaccination Causes Autism – Say US Government & Merck’s Director of Vaccines

    And the Italian Health Ministry also appears to agree having conceded causation on the advice of their expert advisors last year in the Valention Bocca case.

    So what have you got against the majority of children in this country that you create all this fuss about figures even officials do not consider relevant and ignore the serious chronic conditions being caused to vast numbers of British children by vaccines.

    What kind of person are you? A pretty sick one – because you obsessively spend your time on all of this and should know the reality whereas the average person does not.

    You then cite a load of figures off an “About.com” blog, which are not official publications and nothing to with the UK and clearly just as overblown as the UK figures.

    You troll around the web posting interminable drivel and even ignore the official figures and official statements to make some bizarre point – the relevance of which escapes us.

    Trolling about measles across the internet and blogosphere under numerous sockpuppet names and being a pest appears to be your only pastime.

    You appear to be an obsessive troll – but thanks for the opportunity to let people see that.

    And it is worth noting that even as long ago as 1959 docs considered measles to be a mild disease and nothing to get excited about:

    British Medical Journal Tells Us – Measles Is Not The Scary Disease The Press Want You To Think It Is

    And that it was getting milder all the time:
    Official Data Confirms – 20th Century Measles Deaths Would Fall Exponentially – And Regardless of Measles Or MMR Vaccine

    So that we would eventually end up with the position we see today – 80,000+ measles cases in over 20 years and no deaths from acute measles in any healthy individuals.

  65. Thought this may be useful addition to topic – ‘Vitamin C, Infectious Diseases & Toxins – Curing the Incurable’ Thomas E Levy, MD, JD.Chapter 2, Page 66. Claims Measles is curable and preventable.

  66. I am unsure if we can ‘cure’ measles as such, but there is plenty information such as this on the whale.to website. Some children suffer measles badly and others less so and perhaps others with hardly any noticeable symptoms, so there are reasons why this happens. The medics cannot explain this because they see measles as a war on germs and so they have no language and understanding of the mechanisms involved. Perhaps high vitamin C or whatever has an effect on symptoms. Perhaps those children who suffer harsh symptoms are malnourished in some way, for example, bottle-fed, junk food etc. This would explain the death rate of children in third world countries, who we are told succumb to measles, but who actually die of malnutrition. John Wantling, Rochdale, UK

  67. “Please note that samples taken from patients in Wales are not always submitted to laboratories in Wales for confirmation of the organism causing illness. This is particularly true for suspected cases of measles and mumps where the majority of samples are sent directly to the specialist reference laboratory in England for confirmation. Confirmations made by labs from outside of Wales will not appear on the CoSurv All Wales Surveillance of Laboratory-Confirmed Infections reports as these only include data submitted by or via Welsh laboratories. As a consequence, totals of laboratory-confirmed cases of some diseases in Wales (such as measles and mumps) maybe higher than those published in these monthly reports.”

    http://www.wales.nhs.uk/sites3/page.cfm?orgid=457&pid=27920

    [ED: Your point? If you read further you will see:

    "............... notifiable diseases rates for Wales are also compiled by our database, CoSurv and this is the data reported in the notifications monthly report listed above. In most instances, the NOIDS data for Wales from both the HPA and CoSurv will be the same but there will be occasion when slight differences may occur."

    http://www.wales.nhs.uk/sites3/page.cfm?orgid=457&pid=27920

    And over the past 18 years 87% of notifications are tested.

    http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733811358

    It is all here on the CHS site:

    http://wp.me/pfSi7-1Qh

    So no one is being misled by CHS. Can’t say the same for the rest of you though.]

  68. […] Here, Child Health Safety looks at the recent outbreak in Wales and makes a number of confident assertions that turn out to be untrue. It is claimed that measles has been “18,200% over-diagnosed” and “0.005 of notified measles cases were really measles” in March. There are similar claims made for other time periods, including the claim of 26 confirmed cases out of 446 in the first quarter of 2013. CHS boldly proclaims that “Now you can see the extent of the scam being run by public health officials in Wales, UK.” (There is another claim shortly after this: “You can rely on good old CHS because we let you check out the figures here all by yourself.”) Following this, links to NHS documents are posted by CHS. That’s right – the proof of the scam apparently comes from documents made available to the public by the alleged scammers themselves! I’m a little surprised that even CHS didn’t pause for thought at that point. […]

    [ED: James Cole seems to have it wrong again as we noted on his blog ourselves:

    1. ChildHealthSafety said, May 10, 2013 at 11:47 am

    Misleading everyone again James.

    Over the past 18 year 87% of notifications are tested.

    http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733811358

    It is all there on the CHS site:

    http://wp.me/pfSi7-1Qh

    Be a good fellow and do make sure you post this comment won’t you.

    And

    “Additionally, notifiable diseases rates for Wales are also compiled by our database, CoSurv and this is the data reported in the notifications monthly report listed above. In most instances, the NOIDS data for Wales from both the HPA and CoSurv will be the same but there will be occasion when slight differences may occur.”

    http://www.wales.nhs.uk/sites3/page.cfm?orgid=457&pid=27920

    So no one is being misled by CHS. Can’t say the same for the rest of you though.

    ______________

    5. ChildHealthSafety said, May 10, 2013 at 12:06 pm

    Nice try Rob but HP Wales confirms CHS has the correct data from the monthly reports:

    “Additionally, notifiable diseases rates for Wales are also compiled by our database, CoSurv and this is the data reported in the notifications monthly report listed above. In most instances, the NOIDS data for Wales from both the HPA and CoSurv will be the same but there will be occasion when slight differences may occur.”

    http://www.wales.nhs.uk/sites3/page.cfm?orgid=457&pid=27920 ]

  69. My point has nothing to do with notifiable diseases reporting so reference to this and suggestions of ‘slight differences’ can only be taken as a deflection tactic, or lack of understanding on your part CHS.

    The paragraph I quoted is relevant to the All-Wales Surveillance Laboratory-Confirmed Infections, which is a central part of your conspiracy.

    I’ll spell it out for you.

    You’re original claim was that there were just 26 lab confirmed cases between Jan and Mar 13 using the Monthly All-Wales Laboratory-Confirmed Infections

    http://www2.nphs.wales.nhs.uk:8080/CommunitySurveillanceDocs.nsf/3dc04669c9e1eaa880257062003b246b/38c4ee86b5fd701e80257b41003cdc52/$FILE/monthly%20lab%20201303.pdf

    and that this showed doctors were massively over-reporting and incompetent.

    We now know that

    “the majority of [lab confirmation] samples are sent directly to the specialist reference laboratory in England for confirmation. Confirmations made by labs from outside of Wales will not appear on the CoSurv All Wales Surveillance of Laboratory-Confirmed Infections reports”

    Conclusion: The figures you used for laboratory confirmed cases excludes the majority of cases and are demonstrably wrong.

    [ED: except you left out this bit:

    .... notifiable diseases rates for Wales are also compiled by our database, CoSurv and this is the data reported in the notifications monthly report listed above. In most instances, the NOIDS data for Wales from both the HPA and CoSurv will be the same but there will be occasion when slight differences may occur.

    http://www.wales.nhs.uk/sites3/page.cfm?orgid=457&pid=27920

    The Health Protection Wales monthly reports may have slight differences from those compiled by the specialist reference laboratory in England.

    And the fact that over the past 18 years 87% of notification are tested:

    http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733811358

    Conclusion: The figures used for laboratory confirmed cases includes the majority of cases and are demonstrably right.

    And nowhere has CHS suggested there is any conspiracy - when that is the fall back you show you know you have already lost the argument.]

  70. ED said: “And nowhere has CHS suggested there is any conspiracy”.
    Actually that is exactly what you very explicitly suggest when you say “people are being scammed by health officials and the media” and claim there is a “scam being run by public health officials in Wales”. You are claiming deliberate deception by public health officials; a conspiracy to deceive.

    The page which ED/CHS cites (http://www.wales.nhs.uk/sites3/page.cfm?orgid=457&pid=27920) to claim that “figures used for laboratory confirmed cases includes the majority of cases and are demonstrably right” explicitly says, in bold text, that the figures cited here by ED/CHS exclude the majority of notified cases because it excludes samples which have been tested outside Wales and the majority of samples are sent to England for testing:

    “Please note that samples taken from patients in Wales are not always submitted to laboratories in Wales for confirmation of the organism causing illness. This is particularly true for suspected cases of measles and mumps where the majority of samples are sent directly to the specialist reference laboratory in England for confirmation. Confirmations made by labs from outside of Wales will not appear on the CoSurv All Wales Surveillance of Laboratory-Confirmed Infections reports as these only include data submitted by or via Welsh laboratories. As a consequence, totals of laboratory-confirmed cases of some diseases in Wales (such as measles and mumps) maybe higher than those published in these monthly reports.”

    [ED: you still ignore that further down the page they say The Health Protection Wales monthly reports may have slight differences from those compiled by the specialist reference laboratory in England.

    And the latter compiles all the figures.

    .... notifiable diseases rates for Wales are also compiled by our database, CoSurv and this is the data reported in the notifications monthly report listed above. In most instances, the NOIDS data for Wales from both the HPA and CoSurv will be the same but there will be occasion when slight differences may occur.

    http://www.wales.nhs.uk/sites3/page.cfm?orgid=457&pid=27920

    And as we have already stated that over the past 18 years 87% of notification are tested:

    http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733811358

    Conclusion: The figures used for laboratory confirmed cases includes the majority of cases and are demonstrably right.

    And nowhere has CHS suggested there is any conspiracy - the public may be being scammed but it is you who are saying that is the result of a conspiracy - and when that is the fall back you show you know you have already lost the argument.]

  71. I left it out for a very simple reason.

    Because its in the section on NOIDs and it specifically applies to notifiable disease rates. In real terms all it says is that Statutory NOIDS reports of notifiable diseases doctors give the HPA are generally in agreement with the monthly CoSurv figures for notifications. Nothing more.

    Both of these are about notifications, and have no bearing or relationship to the laboratory testing.

    The point I made is specifically about lab tests and is the basis for some of your bigger claims. Would you care to respond to the points made, or is defection the response of choice of good ol’ reliable CHS?

    From the article

    “Now you can see the extent of the scam being run by public health officials in Wales, UK”

    Sounds like a suggestion of conspiracy to me. I stand by that point.

    [ED: Your problem is Rob – you are saying the figures for tested are higher than those in the reports of tested and compiled and published by Public Health Wales – but you provide no evidence of that. It also says “not always” and “the majority of samples are sent directly to the specialist reference laboratory in England for confirmation“.

    If that were the case then “confirmation” means the result are sent back to Public Health Wales. There is no point sending them for “confirmation” if the results are not sent back. So Public Health Wales will have ALL the data. And “confirmation” indicates these are confirmations of what have already been tested – notwithstanding the rest of the paragraph to which you refer – a Freudian slip perchance?

    Additionally, there is no point publishing weekly reports and then updating in monthly reports if the data are incomplete.

    Furthermore, the reports themselves published by Public Health Wales contain no such qualification and set out the figures as all of the laboratory tested cases.

    If the reports were that incorrect there would be no point publishing them.

    And the monthly reports we have seen do not appear to have any qualification to the effect that they do not contain all of the lab results – including those confirmed for them outside Wales.

    So even if you were to be proven right – of which there is no evidence produced to date you are – you cannot say CHS is in error relying on officially published and explicitly titled “All Wales surveillance of laboratory confirmed infections”. If they are wrong the Public Health Wales must take full responsibility and accept they were wrong to publish them – but then it seems illogical for them to publish such reports if incomplete.

    But so far upon all the hard evidence produced, not only is what you say and what you quote logically nonsensical – there is nothing to support your assertion in relation to the reports as published.

    But if you do come up with other figures we should be pleased to know of them and where they can be found. And if they are wildly higher than those published by Public Health Wales without qualification we suggest you take it up with them. They published them for everyone to read – without any qualification whatsoever – CHS did not publish them.

    And we suggest you should tone down your accusation of conspiracy by public health officials. That is your assertion and not ours.

    What is more the public are clearly being scammed. After all they were being told 1 in 1000 would die when completely false.

    In the last 20 years+ since 1992 there have been 80,000+ measles cases [counting up to now] in England & Wales and zero deaths in healthy individuals from acute measles in that time. That is a clear and completely true and accurate statement which the vast majority of people find surprising in the light of the information health officials put in the media. They would surely conclude they are being scammed but there is no evidence that is the result of a conspiracy by public health officials.

    So we completely disassociate this site with your baseless allegation against public health officials in Wales and we suggest strongly that you retract it immediately.]

  72. ED/CHS is perfectly aware of but chooses to ignore a paragraph explicitly stating that the figures he’s using for laboratory confirmations exclude the majority of notified measles cases.

    ED/CHS also says there is a scam being run by public health officials but says this isn’t claiming a conspiracy. Deliberate wrongdoing (such as a scam) being committed by a group (such as public health officials) is the very definition of a conspiracy.

    I feel that when we cannot agree about the meaning of words clearly written in front of us then any further discussion is futile.

    [ED: We strongly recommend you follow our advice here 2013/05/10 at 2:49 pm as we strongly disassociate ourselves from you assertion that public health officials have engaged in a conspiracy to deceive the public. That is your assertion - not ours and there is not a shred of evidence to back it up. Wholly irresponsible of you to make such an assertion - but then what can you expect of bloggers like you and "Slipp" Digby. Many a Slipp in more ways than one.

    And both your assertions are answered in full in the same comment by us. ]

  73. No, their assertion is that YOU have asserted that public health officials have engaged in a conspiracy to deceive the public. They are correct in their assertion, since you have clearly stated that you believe said public health officials are running a scam, or in other words, a conspiracy to deceive the public.

    “ED’s REQUEST TO READERS: – … – people are being scammed by health officials and the media – (added: 5/May/2013)”

    Is it really that difficult to understand?

    [ED: Lee, is it so difficult for you to understand that “scam” does not mean “conspiracy to deceive”. And there is no evidence whatsoever to justify your claim that public health officials have engaged in a conspiracy to deceive and you should retract that remark immediately. We totally disassociate ourselves from your unfounded claims against Welsh public health officials or [anyone else for that matter].

    There is however clear evidence that some individuals were scamming the public. We include in that the claim 1 in 1000 would die from measles when completely false and members of the public would feel they had been scammed. But that is not the same as claiming officials entered into an agreement to make false claims to the public about anything. But you choose not to understand to post your unfounded allegations against public health officials.]

  74. CHS, you are correct to state that there is not a shred of evidence to support an allegation of conspiracy (which, despite your unconvincing denials, is what your original post implied). It would also be correct to state that there is not a shred of evidence of a ‘scam’ or of ‘whoppers’ being told, which is what was confidently stated by you in your original post.

    I think you should retract your false claims and apologise to Public Health Wales for your smears.

    [ED: Thanks jdc but just dealt with in reply to the prior comment from Lee in which you will see that “scam” is appropriate but the wholly inappropriate and unfound allegations by you and others against public health officials in Wales of engaging in a conspiracy to deceive are wholly unfounded without a shred of evidence and you should retract immediately [and indeed apologise to them unreservedly as should the others]. It is the kind of irresponsible conduct we have come to expect from you.]

  75. CHS, I haven’t made any allegations – you have. You’ve explicitly stated that there has been a scam, you’ve explicitly stated that lies have been told, and the clear implication is that there has been a conspiracy to mislead the public. If you want to attempt to clarify your comments then that’s fine, but don’t pretend that others have made allegations.

    I don’t think you need worry too much about whether you’ve implied there is a conspiracy or not (though I think it’s pretty clear that you have) when you’ve already explicitly made false allegations of a ‘scam’ and of ‘whoppers’ being told.

    There was no scam, there were no whoppers. There was a misconstrual of some figures on your part and a failure to seek clarification on those figures.

    You got it wrong. It’s a shame you won’t retract your false claims and apologise.

    [ED: jdc

    "you've explicitly stated that lies have been told".

    False.

    "the clear implication is that there has been a conspiracy to mislead the public".

    Complete bunk. That is you saying it. You are saying that a scam = a conspiracy. You should apologise to Welsh public health officials and retract unreservedly.

    "There was no scam, there were no whoppers."

    Like the claim 1 in 1000 will die when there have been no deaths of any healthy individuals from acute measles in the past 20 years in the UK in over 80,000+ cases. Let us see zero divided (by 80,000 x 20) = hmmmm tough one for you jdc - is that zero or will you and your chums get even close to figuring out it is an infinitely small chance of a death?

    "There was a misconstrual of some figures on your part".

    No one has shown any figures are not correct - not only has no one shown any "misconstrued or misrepresented" figures but we have shown we have not misconstrued or misrepresented.

    This is entirely a personal problem of yours jdc - you just can never accept or admit you are wrong - but instead come here and make wild and false claims without anything to back them up. That includes that the scam perpetrated on the public over the fake Welsh measles epidemic is according to you - a conspiracy to deceive. We have repeatedly suggested you should retract your allegation against Welsh public health officials as wholly without justification without a shred of evidnece and apologise unreservedly.

    You choose not to but we have distanced ourselves from such inappropriate claims.]

  76. Apparently it is that difficult to understand, for you at least. I am NOT accusing officials of taking part in a conspiracy to scam the public, I am asserting that YOU have accused officials of taking part in a conspiracy to scam the public. If you really are incapable of comprehending the difference, I’m afraid there isn’t much hope.

    [ED: Well Lee, maybe you do not understand why we repeat this point? Maybe you think we have some concern about what you claim.

    The one and only reason is because it shows you folks post completely false information and keep on doing so. Aside from that and ensuring we distance ourselves from such an assertion made by you that is fine.

    So now do you get the point?

    We keep repeating we have never asserted or accused anyone of being involved in a conspiracy to scam or deceive because you folks making such a claim that we have done is plainly and simply untrue.

    It is that simple. Nowhere have we done that; nowhere can you find that stated and you repeatedly making such a claim does not make it so. We keep repeating it because it is untrue.

    Do you understand Lee?

    Saying the public have been scammed is not saying there was a conspiracy to deceive or scam. These are completely different issues.

    The only reason to repeat it is to show how you guys take plain ordinary English words and claim they mean something they don't.

    Do you see now Lee?

    It is otherwise irrelevant what you say.

    Are the lights coming on Lee.

    Nah? Thought not.]

  77. You say it’s false that you have made allegations of lying. What do you think the word “whopper” means? http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2013/05/03/2013-uk-fake-measles-epidemic/#comment-121170

    Oh look: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/whopper

    [ED: We have. The definition given in that free online dictionary is "A gross untruth."

    But jdc that is not the same as lying.

    If you go to the same online dictionary for the definition of lying it says:

    "telling or containing lies; deliberately untruthful."

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/lying

    And the definition of lie is:

    1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
    2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/lie

    Just because something is a gross untruth does not mean the person saying that gross untruth is lying. They may honestly believe it.

    For example, claiming 1 in 1000 people will die from measles is a whopper but the person saying that may truly believe it. It only becomes a lie when they know it is untrue or have no honest belief as to the truth of that statement.

    It would be like accusing a journalist who publishes an opinion piece making such a claim of lying when the journalist is simply repeating something told which the journalist honestly believes. It may be a whopper but the journalist is not lying.

    Now do you see? Or is this another time when you just will not accept you are wrong?]

    Do you have your own personal definition of whopper that you are using here? Perhaps you’d be good enough to tell us what your definition is.

    You are saying that a scam = a conspiracy. You should apologise to Welsh public health officials and retract unreservedly.

    No, what I am saying is that despite your claims there has been no scam and no conspiracy. I’m not sure why you want me to apologise to Public Health Wales for pointing out that they haven’t lied, perpetrated a scam, and engaged in a conspiracy to mislead the public.

    [ED: jdc, have you not figured it out yet?

    If not then go see the response to Lee's comment just before this one.

    There is no smoke. There are no mirrors. It is just plain English.

    The public have clearly been scammed. But just as a whopper may be a gross untruth, it does not mean the person saying it is lying and so it is not a lie but an untruth. There has to be an element of intention to deceive.

    Now do you see?

    No?

    Thought not.]

    No one has shown any figures are not correct – not only has no one shown any “misconstrued or misrepresented” figures but we have shown we have not misconstrued or misrepresented.

    Actually, Public Health Wales have shown in their reply to me that you have misconstrued the figures. If you have read my post you will have noted that you were wrong to claim only 26 notifications out of 446 had tested positive (those tested in English labs were not included in the figures for cases confirmed in Welsh labs) and wrong to claim that all notifications were tested (this was something you simply assumed had happened and PHW have now confirmed had not).

    [ED: jdc we have clearly made the position plain in our response to Slippy. You cannot with any validity make the claims you do.

    [ED: Your problem is Slipp – you are saying the figures for tested are higher than those in the reports of tested and compiled and published by Public Health Wales – but you provide no evidence of that. It also says “not always” and “the majority of samples are sent directly to the specialist reference laboratory in England for confirmation“.

    If that were the case then “confirmation” means the result are sent back to Public Health Wales. There is no point sending them for “confirmation” if the results are not sent back. So Public Health Wales will have ALL the data. And “confirmation” indicates these are confirmations of what have already been tested – notwithstanding the rest of the paragraph to which you refer – a Freudian slip perchance?

    Additionally, there is no point publishing weekly reports and then updating in monthly reports if the data are incomplete.

    Furthermore, the reports themselves published by Public Health Wales contain no such qualification and set out the figures as all of the laboratory tested cases.

    If the reports were that incorrect there would be no point publishing them.

    And the monthly reports we have seen do not appear to have any qualification to the effect that they do not contain all of the lab results – including those confirmed for them outside Wales.

    So even if you were to be proven right – of which there is no evidence produced to date you are – you cannot say CHS is in error relying on officially published and explicitly titled “All Wales surveillance of laboratory confirmed infections”. If they are wrong the Public Health Wales must take full responsibility and accept they were wrong to publish them – but then it seems illogical for them to publish such reports if incomplete.

    But so far upon all the hard evidence produced, not only is what you say and what you quote logically nonsensical – there is nothing to support your assertion in relation to the reports as published.

    But if you do come up with other figures we should be pleased to know of them and where they can be found. And if they are wildly higher than those published by Public Health Wales without qualification we suggest you take it up with them. They published them for everyone to read – without any qualification whatsoever – CHS did not publish them.

    And we suggest you should tone down your accusation of conspiracy by public health officials. That is your assertion and not ours.

    What is more the public are clearly being scammed. After all they were being told 1 in 1000 would die when completely false.

    In the last 20 years+ since 1992 there have been 80,000+ measles cases [counting up to now] in England & Wales and zero deaths in healthy individuals from acute measles in that time. That is a clear and completely true and accurate statement which the vast majority of people find surprising in the light of the information health officials put in the media. They would surely conclude they are being scammed but there is no evidence that is the result of a conspiracy by public health officials.

    So we completely disassociate this site with your baseless allegation against public health officials in Wales and we suggest strongly that you retract it immediately.]”
    Are you beginning to get there jdc?

    This is entirely a personal problem of yours jdc – you just can never accept or admit you are wrong – but instead come here and make wild and false claims without anything to back them up.

    Now, this description does remind me of someone but it’s not me. Who could I be thinking of? Oh yes, it’s you Child Health Safety. It’s not uncommon for people to falsely accuse others of doing that which they themselves are guilty of. Especially when that person is a Wakefield supporter such as yourself or Martin Walker: http://jdc325.wordpress.com/2012/08/12/claims-of-unethical-skeptics-a-mirror-image-of-the-truth/ You were wrong about all notifications being tested, you failed to understand that not all lab-confirmed cases appeared in the figures you based your argument on and you refuse to admit your failings. As for making wild and false claims, have you read your own blog post and subsequent comments? Because you have made false and wild claims about a fake measles epidemic, whoppers, and a scam. All wild, all false, and all yours.

    [ED: Yawn. Been round the block a dozen times but it still makes no difference.]

  78. It seems to me that CHS is quite properly reporting a situation, not making specific allegations when it is not clear who is to blame for what. There is obviously a problem though if the data does not exist to support press reports and nothing is done by officials to contradict them.

  79. Talking of whoppers, the South Wales Evening Post ran with this story yesterday; “CONFIRMED cases of measles in the Swansea area have risen to 1,074.”, even though the latest measles outbreak data from Public Health Wales shows there are 1080 suspected measles *notifications* in Swansea, Neath Port Talbot, Bridgend, Carmarthenshire, Ceredigion, Pembrokeshire and Powys.

    And of course, the all Wales surveillance of laboratory *confirmed* measles infections for Swansea stands at 94, and 279 for the whole of Wales.

    The South Wales Evening Post know very well there are nowhere near 1,074 confirmed cases of measles, not least because I have repeatedly pointed out to them that Public Health Wales clearly say; “Reported notifications of measles usually far exceed the actual numbers of confirmed cases. Other rashes are often mistaken for measles.”.

    I have just spent an hour or so editing a Wikipedia article on the so-called, ‘2013 Swansea measles epidemic’, which used inaccurate media reports to claim there were 1,074 confirmed cases of measles in the Swansea area.

    It’s a shame some of those criticising CHS aren’t as bothered by these exaggerated measles numbers as they are nitpicking over semantics here…

  80. CHS

    You have used the word ‘scam’ explicitly on this page;

    scam
    n : a fraudulent business scheme [syn: cozenage]
    v : deprive of by deceit; “He swindled me out of my
    inheritance”; “She defrauded the customers who trusted
    her”; “the cashier gypped me when he gave me too little
    change”

    http://dictionary.die.net/scam

    You said, “Now you can see the extent of the scam being run by public health officials in Wales, UK.”

    How do public officials “run” a “scam” without conspiring or engaging in a conspiracy?

    conspire
    v 1: engage in plotting or enter into a conspiracy, swear
    together; “They conspired to overthrow the government”
    [syn: cabal, complot, conjure, machinate]
    2: act in unison or agreement and in secret towards a deceitful
    or illegal purpose; “The two companies conspired to cause
    the value of the stock to fall” [syn: collude]

    http://dictionary.die.net/conspire

    conspiracy
    n 1: a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an
    unlawful act [syn: confederacy]
    2: a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially
    a political plot) [syn: cabal]
    3: a group of conspirators banded together to achieve some
    harmful or illegal purpose [syn: confederacy]

    http://dictionary.die.net/conspiracy

    I thank you for your time and expect a lucid and succinct explanation will be forthcoming.

    PJL

    It is not “nit-picking over semantics” when someone accuses public authorities of running a scam in defiance of the evidence. Instead we have CHS engaging in an hilarious display of casuistry.

    [ED: The public clearly appear to being scammed. There seems little doubt about that. But it is a giant leap of faith to claim there is a conspiracy by two or more to achieve that. It has been spelt out repeatedly. It is not "nit-picking over semantics". You fail to understand the distinction - your problem - not ours. We disassociate ourselves from any such accusation by you for which there is not a shred of evidence and recommend you apologise unreservedly and retract such claim.

    You must be one of the BadScience forum people - the ones who pose as understanding all about science but - as you so ably demonstrate - seem to understand much less about much more besides.

    Others reading here can understand the distinction and we are grateful for your assistance in helping point it out.]

  81. ED

    I’m sorry but your reply simply will not do. But I’m amused, so let’s carry on.

    In your reply you told us who was being scammed, in your view “The public clearly appear to being scammed.” So, we must ask, by whom?

    Originally you described “the scam being run by public health officials in Wales, UK.”

    1. You say it is a “scam”
    2. You say it is being “run”.
    3. The people running it are “public health officials”. That is a plural. This plurality of people are, you claim, running a scam.

    Please explain, clearly and concisely, how a scam is run by more than one person without there being a conspiracy. You will recall that a conspiracy is when people “act in unison or agreement and in secret towards a deceitful or illegal purpose”.

    Please note that I am intrigued by what looks like a policy of holding comments in moderation until you have formulated your pat little replies.

    I have no interest in your speculation about my identity. Suffice to say an invigilator invigilates. If you wish to reveal your real world identity then things might be different.

  82. ED

    jdc325, on May 10, 2013 at 10:18 pm said:
    You say it’s false that you have made allegations of lying. What do you think the word “whopper” means? http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2013/05/03/2013-uk-fake-measles-epidemic/#comment-121170
    Oh look: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/whopper

    [ED: We have. The definition given in that free online dictionary is “A gross untruth.”
    But jdc that is not the same as lying.

    It’s not “The definition”, it’s one of the definitions listed on that page. Perhaps reading exhausts you, but if you read a little further down the page to which jdc523 linked you will find;

    whopper [ˈwɒpə]
    n Informal
    1. anything uncommonly large of its kind
    2. a big lie

    I think, when you use the phrase “telling whoppers”, a perfectly natural synonym for whopper in that context is ‘lie’. People who are merely mistaken do not tell whoppers. Liars tell whoppers. The inference that you claim Public Health Wales is lying is obvious and rational.

    Why do you wish to quibble and obfuscate over the natural meaning of the words that you have used? Either apologise for using incautious language and withdraw the accusations, or show some cojones and stand up for what you have said. Of course, if you take the latter course you will need to address the evidence that you have been given that your presentation of the facts is in error. Perhaps when you wrote “0.005 of notified measles cases were really measles.” that was you telling whoppers, as you wish to define the word, and not lying. It’s so hard to tell.

    [ED: Ah - now it is "using incautious language".

    And if you track back through the comments, this started out with the claim there was an accusation of a conspiracy to deceive. Having realised that is incorrect, we see you are making a big change of tack. So you appear to accept that the original claim is wrong and that no one has been accused of a conspiracy.

    So here we have a new one. That is progress.

    Having lost the argument you now want to start a new one. You want to run the argument that some individual is accused of lying. And to get there you have to go through a convoluted chain of reasoning.

    We smell big big Troll.

    And you are cherry-picking. If you scroll further down the page you referred to you will see the definition of "whopper" includes "fabrication, falsehood, untruth, tall story" none of those meanings connote that the person making the statement concerned is doing so intending to deceive. Those are all describing the statement and not the state of knowledge or mind of the person making the statement.

    Got it yet? No? Thought not.

    And no one has been accused of lying.

    Here endeth the nth lesson where "n" is approaching a large number]

  83. ED

    So you appear to accept that the original claim is wrong and that no one has been accused of a conspiracy.

    No, not at all. I’m sorry you found my chain of reasoning convoluted. I thought it was pretty simple. I hoped I’d made it quite clear that your accusations were equivalent to accusations of a conspiracy.

    You accused public health officials of running a scam. Scams involve deceit. Running a scam with more than one person requires a conspiracy to deceive. That’s kinda it. Only three steps. None of them controversial or difficult to understand.

    Really quite straightforward.

    You seem to have created a problem for yourself. You are happy to accuse public officials of running a scam but for some reason cannot equate that to them conspiring to deceive. I have no idea why you think it would matter whether or not there was a sliver of daylight between those two formulations of the same idea.

    If you think you’re being clever to avoid an accusation of libel being made against you by describing the statements themselves but apparently not the state of mind of the people making the statement, I think you’ll find that falsely accusing people of running a scam is libellous in itself. However, you are safe on two counts;
    1. You have named no individuals.
    2. No one in their right mind really cares what you think and would not bother to pursue you, which would only bolster your sense of grandeur.
    No, indeed. You’re quite safe here in your echo chamber.

    Anyway, off you go and think of a reply while this moulders in moderation for a while. It’s obviously important to you not to leave posts on view without your little ripostes appended to them.

    [ED: “You are happy to accuse public officials of running a scam but for some reason cannot equate that to them conspiring to deceive. I have no idea why you think it would matter whether or not there was a sliver of daylight between those two formulations of the same idea.

    Your inability to understand is not our problem. You have made it clear that [and presumably the others appear to have pursued this because] you and they think that is “to avoid an accusation of libel being made against” us.

    On the contrary, we expressly disassociate from these claims made by you and others because not only is there not a shred of evidence to support a conspiracy – the people at risk are the makers of the claims – you and others. All your assertions are based on supposition.

    And it is utterly bizarre that you engage in these exchanges for the simple reason that Public Health Wales was telling the public and the media there were hundreds of cases of measles when they not only did not have the figures to back it up but the figures they did have at the time were 8 for February and 8 for March.

    And what makes it worse is they did that when it is well known the cases are heavily overdiagnosed [ie wrongly] as measles – but they gave the figures out anyway.

    Reported notifications of measles usually far exceed the actual numbers of confirmed cases. Other rashes are often mistaken for measles.” from Measles – Public Health Wales Health Protection Division.

    Do you agree or not that is a scam on the public? And whilst the scam has been run by public health officials in Wales, there is no evidence that any individual has done so knowingly and we cannot say it is the result of a conspiracy.

    We don’t have the libel problem – it is all yours.

    If you do not understand that we cannot help you.]

  84. the definition of “whopper” includes “fabrication, falsehood, untruth, tall story” none of those meanings connote that the person making the statement concerned is doing so intending to deceive.

    The rabbit hole just gets deeper and this is getting hilarious. Now you wish us to accept that fabricating untruths involves no intention to deceive. Please explain how to fabricate untruth without intending to deceive.

    If you can honestly look at yourself in the mirror and say those things with a straight-face then, fair enough, good on you, you are an absolute ninja of self-deception.

    CHS, this is proving to be great fun. I wonder whether your supporters find your silly games with semantics to be as acutely embarrassing as they should. It does all rather go to the heart of your credibility. If you play fast and loose with the meanings of ordinary English words, at some stage even the densest jabbophobe might cease to regard you as an authority on even the simplest matters.

    [ED: it sure is fun because you just cannot grasp the distinctions.

    "you wish us to accept that fabricating untruths involves no intention to deceive"

    Nowhere have we said any individual has fabricated an untruth. Yes the claims made are untrue. Yes they are contrary to the evidence available. But there is no evidence anyone who has made those claims to the media or the public has done so knowing them to be untrue and similarly there is no evidence anyone has engaged in a conspiracy to deceive. Public Health Wales is a big organisation - how the current situation has come about - who knows but those are allegations you just cannot make - there is no evidence whatsoever. You can suppose all you like.

    Are the lights coming on yet?

    Or are you just going on and on because you already realise you are wrong but cannot come to accept it?]

  85. Look, CHS, this has been an absolute blast, but I have other things to do now so I’ll get back to you in a few hours. I hope you’ll have come up with something useful to say.

    Ta ta for now.

    [ED - no - soon it is going to be Ta ta for good].

  86. No, one more thing. I can really only think of one reason why you are playing these games. Have you realised that you have been caught out libelling a public authority, but don’t want to admit it and retract, so instead you try to maintain it never happened, that the words you used don’t mean what the proverbial Clapham bus passenger would think they mean?

    Other than actual insanity I can see no other explanation for your behaviour. Why not just act like a grown-up, admit where you got things wrong and make the corrections?

    [ED: LOL - "I can see no other explanation for your behaviour. Exactly your problem. We can and have told you often enough but you just cannot grasp it."]

  87. [ED: Comment deleted.

    Posted using a fake email address by a person trolling and part of a forum whose members block discussion but some of whose members for sport in their spare time disrupt other fora on the internet and attack, bully, abuse and harass ordinary people and parents of very sick children wanting to share information. These kinds of groups are organised for just such a purpose on the internet "The time for talking has passed. I draw the line at kidnapping, incidentally." on sites owned and operated by opinion formers in the mainstream medical professions.]

  88. [ED: Comment deleted.

    Posted using a fake email address by a person trolling and part of a forum whose members block discussion but some of whose members for sport in their spare time disrupt other fora on the internet and attack, bully, abuse and harass ordinary people and parents of very sick children wanting to share information. These kinds of groups are organised for just such a purpose on the internet "The time for talking has passed. I draw the line at kidnapping, incidentally." on sites owned and operated by opinion formers in the mainstream medical professions.]

  89. [ED: Comment deleted.

    Posted using a fake email address by a person trolling and part of a forum whose members block discussion but some of whose members for sport in their spare time disrupt other fora on the internet and attack, bully, abuse and harass ordinary people and parents of very sick children wanting to share information. These kinds of groups are organised for just such a purpose on the internet "The time for talking has passed. I draw the line at kidnapping, incidentally." on sites owned and operated by opinion formers in the mainstream medical professions.]

  90. And whilst the scam has been run by public health officials in Wales, there is no evidence that any individual has done so knowingly and we cannot say it is the result of a conspiracy.

    How do you run a scam unknowingly?

    Is it a reflex thing like blushing? “Ooh, I went to work today and ran a scam for 8 hours and just didn’t know I was doing it.”

    I think prison is full of a lot of fraudsters who would have loved that to be a secure defence. “Yes, m’lud, I ran a scam by accident. Nothing to do with me, guv.”

    No, CHS, that just will not do. It’s dictionary corner time again. A scam involves conscious knowing effort.

    scam
n : a fraudulent business scheme [syn: cozenage]
v : deprive of by deceit; “He swindled me out of my
inheritance”; “She defrauded the customers who trusted
her”; “the cashier gypped me when he gave me too little
change”

    Sorry, you’ve been busted.

    [ED: "How do you run a scam unknowingly?"

    Not our problem. There is a scam. It is run by public health officials in Wales. There is no evidence this is the result of a conspiracy and no evidence to implicate any one or more individuals as being knowingly involved - whether involved in fact or not.

    If you want to allege more than the existence of a scam you need more evidence.

    That is as far as the evidence goes.

    Got it? Nah - thought not.]

  91. […] De (vermeende!) mazelenepidemie in Wales houdt intussen de gemoederen flink bezig. De media schijnen echter niet op de hoogte te zijn van de gekleurde en aangedikte argumenten die de (farma)overheid gebruikt bij de dringende oproep om toch zo snel mogelijk die prik te halen, ‘want anders….!’ Nochtans worden ze van diverse kanten dagelijks gewezen op tegengeluiden. Het zou interessant zijn om te vernemen of een wakkere dokter of verpleegster eveneens toegang heeft tot de officiële gezondheidsstatistieken, die aantonen dat er de afgelopen maanden slechts sprake was van een miniem aantal geregistreerde mazelengevallen. Tijdens de periode van 1 januari tot 31 maart, werden er in heel Wales (3 milj. inwoners) amper 26 laboratorium bevestigde gevallen genoteerd! Lees verder : http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2013/05/03/2013-uk-fake-measles-epidemic/ […]

  92. great report. Where can i find the same link to the lab and notification reports that are up tp date ie include the data from april?

    [ED:

    http://www2.nphs.wales.nhs.uk:8080/CommunitySurveillanceDocs.nsf/

    Click on arrows next to “Published” to sort in date order for latest.

    But more false claims debunked in the Update here:

    UPDATE MEASLES UK 2013 – BBC News Secretly Removes Fake News Claims from Website – Health Officials in Tail-Spin Over Vastly Hyped Claims of Welsh Measles Epidemic

    Also check this out.

    The BadScience bloggers are saying Public Health Wales claims “The majority of laboratory tests conducted for measles ….. were actually undertaken by …. Public Health England ….. are not included”.

    Which looks like “the dog ate my homework”.

    “majority” = 51%+.

    For April 73% of notifications were tested [figures given to media in May - 1,170 notified: lab confirmed 370: tested 850].
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/may/02/measles-epidemic-swansea-teenagers-targeted-vaccinations

    So Public Health Wales alleged excuse would mean 123% of notifications are tested.

    850/1170 = 73%

    Add in PHW’s alleged missing 51%+ gives 123%.

    Seems their excuse is not likely to be valid.

  93. [ED: Comment deleted.

    Posted using a fake email address by a person trolling and part of a forum whose members block discussion but some of whose members for sport in their spare time disrupt other fora on the internet and attack, bully, abuse and harass ordinary people and parents of very sick children wanting to share information. These kinds of groups are organised for just such a purpose on the internet "The time for talking has passed. I draw the line at kidnapping, incidentally." on sites owned and operated by opinion formers in the mainstream medical professions.]

  94. ED/CHS says above that “Public Health Wales alleged excuse would mean 123% of notifications are tested.”

    I do not understand where CHS gets this “123% of notifications are tested” rate from. I’d be grateful if someone could explain, showing the working and the source of the numbers used. Thanks.

    [ED: Rob that 123% of notifications are tested is the inevitable conclusion of your subscription to jdc’s claim that “the majority of samples are sent directly to the specialist reference laboratory in England for confirmation. Confirmations made by labs from outside of Wales will not appear on the …. Laboratory-Confirmed Infections reports ”

    A “majority” is 51% or more.

    The totals given out in April to the media were: 1,170 notified: lab confirmed 370: tested 850 – which are for the year to date for Wales.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/may/02/measles-epidemic-swansea-teenagers-targeted-vaccinations

    The total notifications reported by NOIDs for the entire year to 28 April was 987 and 1062 to 5th May – that is the absolute official total – no give or take.

    But if we still take the much higher figures given to the Guardian – even though wrong and too high – those figures show 73% were tested – 850/1170.

    [NOIDS would give 80-86% tested].

    So bearing in mind that NOIDS is the absolute statutory reference figure – it is simply not possible for 51%+ of the test results to be languishing in England and not to be included in the figures published in the Guardian from Health Protection Wales.

    That would give a figure of 123% or higher – 73% + 51% = 123%

    So reliance on the 51%+ excuse from Health Protection Wales as alleged by jdc is claimed by HPW is clearly not appropriate.]

  95. [ED: Comment deleted.

    Posted using a fake email address by a person trolling and part of a forum whose members block discussion but some of whose members for sport in their spare time disrupt other fora on the internet and attack, bully, abuse and harass ordinary people and parents of very sick children wanting to share information. These kinds of groups are organised for just such a purpose on the internet "The time for talking has passed. I draw the line at kidnapping, incidentally." on sites owned and operated by opinion formers in the mainstream medical professions.]

  96. Ah, I see what’s happened. Unfortunately it’s wrong both in terms of data and arithmetic.

    As is explained here http://www.wales.nhs.uk/sites3/page.cfm?orgid=457&pid=27920 confirmations made by labs from outside Wales (the majority, for measles) do not appear in the CoSurv All Wales Surveillance of Laboratory-Confirmed Infections.

    However, the “1,170 cases [reported, and the] number of laboratory confirmed cases in the outbreak stands at 370 out of a total of 850 samples tested” figure from the Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/may/02/measles-epidemic-swansea-teenagers-targeted-vaccinations is not using the CoSurv numbers. This means the numbers in the Guardian article might not exclude the samples tested in England. This means the “850 samples tested from 1170 cases” (73% of notifications tested) figure might well include testing which has been done in England.

    The “123%” figure is arrived at by adding together numbers which have nothing to do with one another; “850 samples tested from 1170 cases” (73%), plus “majority” (51%) = 123% (actually 73+51=124 but hey).

    You can’t add together percentages which relate to different things (“notifications tested” + “samples sent to England for testing”) and expect the answer to be meaningful.

    [ED: Rob - your argument is that half of the 850 samples are in England - ie 425 - with no results provided to Wales through January to date.

    Which means you are arguing that 370 out of 425 samples in Wales have been tested and proven positive.

    Is that correct?

    Testing takes 1/2 a day for antibody testing or one day for PCR testing - and they don't do them one at a time.

    It also does not explain why Public Health Wales claim that all of the tests from January through to March are still sitting in England with no test results. Just not credible. And the CHS article is about February and March figures - not April - which were provided and well before jdc posted.

    So Rob - what do you say has become of the England test results from Jan to March? Do you say they are all still sitting in England or what?

    Remember that jdc posted on 10th May that they were all still sitting in a lab in England.

    And if Public Health Wales did not have half the test results because they were sitting in a lab in England - don't you think they might have mentioned that to the Guardian? After all it might just be relevant.

    If your suggestion were to be correct that would still have no effect on the validity of the posting for reasons already stated.

    It makes matters worse. All Public Health Wales had to do - if you were to be right - would be to tell the truth.

    But that does not seem to be what happened - at least not until later in April when the media found out the figures given for cases were not all measles.

    And there is this problem still to sort out:

    "Reported notifications of measles usually far exceed the actual numbers of confirmed cases. Other rashes are often mistaken for measles.” Measles - Public Health Wales Health Protection Division.

    Your argument would mean that contrary to what is well known - 87% of notifications would have tested positive - a pretty remarkable result.

    What do you say to that?

    Another problem is this - the total tested in the April figures were 162 or thereabouts - it may have been 163.

    And for January to March it was 26 - a total of confirmed cases of 189.

    So if half the results were still sitting in England - the figure for confirmed given to the Guardian for confirmed cases was 370.

    What do you say?]

  97. [ED: Comment deleted.

    Posted using a fake email address by a person trolling and part of a forum whose members block discussion but some of whose members for sport in their spare time disrupt other fora on the internet and attack, bully, abuse and harass ordinary people and parents of very sick children wanting to share information. These kinds of groups are organised for just such a purpose on the internet "The time for talking has passed. I draw the line at kidnapping, incidentally." on sites owned and operated by opinion formers in the mainstream medical professions.]

  98. Rob: “the total tested in the April figures” should be “the total tested and confirmed in the April figures published by Public Health Wales”.

    And you do seem to be acknowledging that the 370 out of a total of 850 samples tested figure does include figures from England – is that right?

  99. [ED: Comment deleted.

    Posted using a fake email address by a person trolling and part of a forum whose members block discussion but some of whose members for sport in their spare time disrupt other fora on the internet and attack, bully, abuse and harass ordinary people and parents of very sick children wanting to share information. These kinds of groups are organised for just such a purpose on the internet "The time for talking has passed. I draw the line at kidnapping, incidentally." on sites owned and operated by opinion formers in the mainstream medical professions.]

  100. CHS, I only back here to ask how you produced the “123% of notifications are tested” claim from. I thank you for explaining where you got it from, and I have explained how your data and arithmetic for it are both wrong.
    I won’t be drawn into further discussion because, as stated previously, when we cannot agree about the meaning of words clearly written in front of us then any further discussion is futile.

  101. Just to remark that the proposition that it is impossible for the authorities to keep track of saliva samples over geographic boundaries and that someone could not actually transfer the data back to Wales instantly if they cared to is preposterous beyond words. It is not exactly sending a message to the other end of the empire before the days of telecommunications – perhaps Elizabeth Miller’s messengers have been kidnapped on the way from Colindale to Cardiff?

  102. Pluserix, whose proposition was that? I don’t recall anybody arguing that it was impossible for the authorities to keep track of samples. I thought the proposition was that not all the tested samples were included in the figures in the documents that CHS had based his claims on.

    [ED: @jdc 2013/05/15 at 5:54 pm

    What is your point?

    You mean that HPW did not tell the media they did not have reliable figures over the entire period they were crying “wolf”?

    Don’t you agree it is wholly irresponsible of HPW to grossly overstate the figures – without telling the public their own figures in their own official reports are misleading and incorrect and inaccurate? And that claim was first made on 9th May – the day before you published your blog – a week after the CHS article and never ever made before in six years they have published official unqualified reports of notifications and confirmed cases.

    Everyone is entitled to rely on official unqualified reports to show that claims by the officials who publish them are not true. And they still are not true.

    It is preposterous for you to criticise CHS for pointing out that HPW simply did not have the evidence to back up their claims and that the evidence they did have and published showed what they were claiming in the press was way out.

    You don’t agree it is wholly irresponsible of HPW not to tell the public the truth.

    And which reports ever published by HPW can be relied on by anyone now jdc? And HPW are vague about it.

    When did this lame excuse come up that they did not have all the figures because they were in England? 9th May – over three months after they started the scare.

    You published a blog as if everyone knew or could easily find out that HPW’s figures are inaccurate incomplete and misleading when HPW made such a claim – [according to you] – only on 9th May – a week after CHS blog was published and the day before you published your blog.

    And you knew it – because you were the person who raised it with them as you admit on your blog – but you never once told anyone the truth of that jdc.

    You made no mention of on your blog that this new claim by HPW – that they did not have all the figures because half were in England – was made for the first time ever the day before you published your blog.

    You also have been asked numerous times but refuse to produce the full exchanges of correspondence you claim as evidence. And that appears to be because it is a new claim by HPW Wales – never in the entire 6 year period starting 2007 they have published official unqualified infectious disease reports to the public have they ever attempted to qualify the reports to the effect their own reports are misleading and incorrect and inaccurate.

    HPW were not telling the press their figures were wrong during the entire period from 2nd February jdc, that they did not have the figures and their own figures were wildly insccurate misleading and incomplete and were claiming large numbers of cases which did not exist.

    Which reports does it apply to? The public should be told. All published since 2007? Or only those reports published after 9th May when a disclaimer was added to their website after you wrote to them about the figures after CHS’s article was published.

    HPW were causing a scare – a public panic – “crisis” in their own words.

    They were claiming continuously to the media over February and March many more cases than existed. They did not have the evidence to back that up.

    Unsurprisingly, you make no criticism of that.

    When they did publish in May the numbers of total confirmed cases for the entire period January to April there were 370 confirmed cases over the entire period when previously claiming week after week there were hundreds and then over a thousand over the prior weeks.

    But you don’t admit that.

    370 must include the figures tested in England or else you end up with impossible figures like 123% tested when it cannot possibly be true.

    And they confirm doctors heavily overdiagnose measles. They eventually confirmed they had 1170 notifications [and that is compared to 370 confirmed].

    But you don’t admit that.

    The public are entitled to rely upon official figures published completely unqualified in official reports to show what officials claim to the media is not true – and it was not true.

    You are not decrying what PHW were doing – all they had to do was tell the truth. But they did not – they set out to cause a panic.]

  103. [ED: This comment was "2nd Invigilator" trolling again under a yet a different fake email address. Failing yet again to answer what has already been put to him elsewhere and instead changing the subject.

    Waiting for jdc to answer.]

  104. jdc was asked to answer the following elsewhere but has not so we post it here.

    “jdc has gone to great lengths on his blog to make accusations that CHS has been misleading, making mistakes “blunders” and suchlike.

    There instead appears a sleight of hand practised here.

    PHW has never qualified its “All Wales surveillance of laboratory confirmed infections”. These have always been published unqualified.

    Anyone downloading the reports would be entitled to expect them to contain exactly what they say they contain “All Wales surveillance of laboratory confirmed infections” – A point made a number of times.

    It is a logical absurdity for the claim to be made now that they only contain half the data. A report not containing all the surveillance would not have that as a title.

    All the reports since 2007 and prior to 9th May have been published unqualified. The qualification claimed now by jdc was not applied by PHW when the February and March reports were published. They were unqualified and official documents titled and containing “All Wales surveillance of laboratory confirmed infections”.

    But more than that – the February figures were not available when PHW started the scare at the beginning of February. And at the beginning of March they only had the February figures as they stood then of a handful of confirmed cases. But they were making outlandish claims to having hundreds of confirmed cases when they did not have them – irrespective of any alleged missing figures from England.

    And as the April figure of 370 confirmations shows, they were claiming large numbers of confirmed cases throughout which they did not have. Those they eventually had, they did not have when making the claims that they did have them. And there were more that they did not and never will have – because the cases do not exist.

    Thus, the main point of the article was and remains valid. There were and remain vastly fewer measles cases than PHW claimed.

    Anyone would be have every right to be very surprised by what jdc says he was told by Public Health Wales. It does not ring true. But he did not or chose not to question it – or perhaps he did. He can answer that.

    Regrettably jdc has not published all they said – in fact he has published nothing to show that anything he claims they wrote they did write.

    Nor will he give any information about who he emailed nor who replied for anyone to check. That is a surprising lack of candour. After all – it is just an email exchange which he has already cited and quoted. He would expect substantiation if it were someone else making the claims.

    So what happened in May?

    What was initially puzzling was that jdc’s post did not cite the paragraph Rob cited [May 10, 2013 at 12:28 pm] explaining this sentence about the HPW reports: “Confirmations made by labs from outside of Wales will not appear on the CoSurv All Wales Surveillance of Laboratory-Confirmed Infections reports.”

    jdc’s failure to cite the page on which that text appears is odd. It is the page linking to the reports for downloading. It would have substantiated his claims without his needing to make enquiry of anyone.

    The bold text paragraph stands out on that page – but it was not familiar – but should have been if it had appeared there. It was the PHW web page linking to the download location when we downloaded the reports on 3rd May.

    That qualification paragraph has never existed on PHW’s website – not since reports were first published in 2007.

    It was put up the day before jdc posted. So what seems a sleight of hand comes into view.

    A Google search also confirms that paragraph appeared first to Google bots 4 days ago – the day jdc posted – 10th May – it is so newly appeared.

    Had that text been on the website “a few days” earlier when jdc says he contacted PHW, jdc would not have needed to write to anyone because he could have cited the webpage as substantiation – but as at that time that qualifying text was just not there.

    So jdc did not have it and made the enquiry of PHW.

    But that enquiry was made days before he posted and before the new qualifying paragraph was – seemingly hurriedly – put on HPW’s web page.

    jdc wrote “It’s taken .. a few days to get round to posting this … because …. I like to check my facts before I publish.”. This shows he emailed PHW several days before his 10th May blog post about CHS’s article. PHW wrote back to – no doubt eager to assist.

    And PHW are suddenly and conveniently claiming their practice – which has existed since 2007 – of publishing unqualified reports of ALL the data for the whole of Wales – has changed in the twinkle of an eye.

    This indicates that before jdc posted making his allegations he knew there was no such qualification on the reports or on the website before and certainly not when the CHS post was made. He posted after it appeared.

    And if jdc did cite the page that could draw attention to it from the outset. Someone reading closely – as he might and seems to himself – realise that the qualification paragraph – which Rob has cited and quoted – had only just been added to PHW’s web page.

    That would “blow the gaff”.

    The hastily added text of the qualification is surprisingly equivocal “samples taken from patients in Wales are not always submitted to laboratories in Wales for confirmation of the organism causing illness”. So sometimes they are always submitted – like in February and March. In fact it looks very much like they always are done locally.

    The only reason PHW might want to have assistance in testing is if more samples came in than their facilities would deal with. But clearly, the figures show the February and March notifications should easily be within their ability. The April ones might also have been – but might not.

    And this sudden addition and change by PHW to the web page comes on April’s heels when notifications are claimed to be higher than ever before. In other words, it was only in April that a need to send samples to England for testing is likely to have arisen. The February and March notifications were much lower.

    And the lack of any such a qualification on PHW’s web page since 2007 is testimony that there has been no need to make such a qualification. And there appears there was no need before April. And if there was a need and it was not made before 9th May, that is PHW’s error and problem. It is not and cannot be of anyone else’s making whether CHS’ or of anyone else who relied on official unqualified reports.

    Such a qualification ought to appear prominently in all reports – not isolated on a web page where readers of the reports may never see it. That is clearly because it never had been PHW’s practice to issue qualified reports – and especially ones with only half the data. That would be a pointless exercise.

    Of the claim in PHW’s text “This is particularly true for suspected cases of measles and mumps” there is no need to single these out. They have according to PHW not been that common before. There are many other infectious diseases – flu is just one which is likely to more common and frequent. Singling out measles and mumps in the middle of what is claimed to be an epidemic over all other diseases in text added only on 9th May suggests it has only just been added because of the need in April to call in outside help.

    Readers were expressly directed to the comments and discussion placed in big red capital letters at the very beginning of the CHS article – showing expressly there were more figures to come. It was not a “done deal” and no one was given that impression.

    It was stated expressly in the article itself “… the really interesting bit will be the figures for April. … if the figures for April are wildly different, you will know for sure someone is not telling it as it is. ” This was not the last word.

    In the comments section many have commented providing information and clarifications.

    So all the bluster on jdc’s blog is just that. Nit-picking about decimal points features widely but not so much about the main issue the article raises and makes. jdc tries hard to allege fault where none can fairly be directed – save with PHW and in circumstances in which it is an open question that he knew that when he posted. Whether or not any qualification was appropriate, PHW publish and published unqualified reports as they have done since 2007 which anyone should be entitled to rely on as official documents containing the information the reports expressly claim in their titles they do. We made the point before several times.

    And the reports can be relied on by CHS and others to show PHW had far few confirmed reports and still have far fewer when they were making public claims they had hundreds.

    And our later articles on the same topic show just how much of a scam this all is. That it is a scam is clear. It does not fall to CHS to ascertain how it came about or who is and is not responsible for it. That is for PHW.

    But overall there is a big question mark over jdc posting this blog – he failed to do just what he claims at the outset to do – check his facts. And that is in circumstances in which he either knew or ought to know the facts or not made claims about facts he did not know.

    Does he know any February or March samples were sent to England for testing – no.

    Does he know if only the April samples were sent – no.

    Did he know the new paragraph was only added on 9th May? It certainly looks unlikely he did not.

    Did he know the reports have always been published unqualified? He could have worked that one out for himself – just from the illogical nature of what he claims PHW said to add a qualification after the event – and to unqualified published official reports.

    Yet he published his blog all the same – not knowing what he should have.

    And he must have known the figure of 370 confirmed cases included results from England.

    And he must know from the April figures that the majority of confirmed cases were for April.

    And he certainly does know that 850 samples were tested. And he certainly does know the NOIDS figures. He can calculate the proportion tested of all notifications from those figures – it is between 80 to 86% – just as the average from the last 18 years shows can be expected.

    And he must know doctors substantially over diagnose measles – even HPW admit that in clear terms. The best they ever seem to have done with measles is between three to four times and at worst at least 73 out of every 74.

    Does jdc deny HPW claimed substantially more confirmed cases than the figures they gave out to the media for April which include the figure of 370.

    Above all else, jdc published his blog on 10th May – the day after PHW introduced for the first time ever the qualification upon which he bases his entire blog – and that it was all done several days after he had expressly emailed them about these matters and no doubt about CHS’ 3rd May article.

    It appears extraordinarily manipulative and underhand. Perhaps it is not. jdc might want to answer. He should also for clarity publish the full text of his communcations with PHW – with nothing omitted.”

  105. @Rob May 14, 2013 at 9:47 am

    “I won’t be drawn into further discussion”

    [ED: Because even on your figures you also end up with an impossible figure for numbers tested - unless PHW did have the test results from England.

    And in February and March they were claiming far higher figures for cases than existed - and they admit that doctors substantially over diagnose measles cases.

    And as a hurriedly added qualification to HPW's website on 9th May was not there when the February and March figures were published by them - nor was it in any of the February or March reports.

    So there is nothing to say the February and March figures published by them were in any way wrong - nothing to say those figures were not all the test results available from anywhere at that time. Nothing to say any tests had been sent to England for those months.

    But if HPW want to now claim their figures are wrong - fine - the figures they gave to the media clearly are wrong.

    You cannot issue figures claiming 73% of all notifications have been tested whilst at the same time claiming over half the test results are in England and not in your figures.

    You end up with an impossible figure for numbers tested.]

  106. [ED elsewhere “2nd Invigilator” has been repeatedly asked to answer the following:

    “…. as stated ad nauseum – stating that there is a scam over the figures does not equal an accusation of conspiracy – ……. You are determined to infer it does.

    Do you accept that PHW have made claims during March and April in particular of hundreds of confirmed cases when they did not have the figures to back that up?

    And particularly if you do accept that then it is fair to say it appears to be a scam or is a scam.

    But that is not levelling an accusation of conspiracy against anyone. How that situation over the figures has come about is yet to be determined. And it is does not even come close to accusing two or more people of entering into an agreement to that end.

    It could be concerted behaviour where one or more people act towards a common design sharing common goals to achieve an end result. It could be that some people do what they are told. It could be some people acting on their own initiative – it could be many things.

    But without the facts of how it has come about one cannot come to a conclusion that one person saying there is a scam is the same as that person saying there is a conspiracy.

    The chains of reasoning turning to dictionary definitions and suchlike is a reductionist approach to saying if a + b + c then the answer must be d.

    Saying you infer there is an accusation of conspiracy is your inference – it does not put words into anyone’s mouth that are not and were not there. It is pure inference and nothing more.

    If you claim that the accusation of a scam is in truth the same as an accusation of conspiracy you have to first exclude all other possibilities – which you have not done – and some possibilities have been indicated above.

    ……. there has been nothing said which alleges two or more people have engaged in a conspiracy. Neither you nor I know how it has come about that PHW has claimed substantially more confirmed cases than they had the confirmations to back up.

    When the figure of 370 was recently issued via the media it is clearly very much lower than the numbers being claimed as confirmations.

    One might argue the media misinterpreted what they were told but the confirmation was has been used at least once weekly and many more times over many weeks. That appears uncorrected by HPW.

    …..

    How can you expect anyone to take what you say seriously ……

    And ….. – coupled with the prospect of a total absence of civility – as already ably demonstrated …. – that the prospect of any dialogue looks like a long haul.

    The loop has been gone over and over on your conspiracy point that it is tedious with the prospect of more of the same with all the rest.

  107. ChildHealthSafety, I would like to bring this news report to your attention. This is only a single report, but it clearly demonstrates the dangers of allowing measles vaccination rates to fall.

    A 10 month old girl contacts measles before she can be vaccinated against it and 12 years later after a harrowing illness, she dies. It is anti-vaccination people like yourself that are complicit in such deaths. I think you should be ashamed of yourself.

    [ED: It sad for that family in Australia that they lost a child. But what of the health and safety of all the other children? There is nothing "anti-vaccination" about protecting children from harm

    With 80,000+ measles cases in the UK since 1992 there has not a single death in any healthy child or adult from acute measles contracted in that time in 20 years. But parents are being frightened by just the kind of story you cite - it is scaremongering and shroud-waving to take one case out of context and in a different country.

    So what do you say to a father - a friend - whose son lived with lupus until he was 25 and died suddenly after years of living with the threat to his life which it posed? What do you say to him? Lupus is caused by vaccination. Should children who would otherwise grow up healthy and strong be sacrified in that way?

    US Government Concedes Hep B Vaccine Causes Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

    And what about all those children with autism - should they be sacrified in such a manner? US Government health officials confirmed in 2008 to US national broadcast news media that vaccines cause autistic conditions. And on the advice of the expert advisors the US Department of Health and Human Services conceded in a number of cases in the US Federal Court that vaccines cause autistic conditions:

    Vaccination Causes Autism – Say US Government & Merck’s Director of Vaccines

    The Italian Health Ministry on the advice of its experts also conceded that Valentino Bocca's autistic condition was caused by the same MMR vaccine - MMR II given in the UK and USA:

    Italian court reignites MMR vaccine debate after award over child with autism The Independent Sunday 17 June 2012

    Landmark ruling in an Italian court has said Valentino Bocca's autism was provoked by the MMR jab he had at aged nine months DailyMail 15 June 2012

    And the huge increases in life threatening allergies and conditions like childhood diabetes occurring since the roll out of mass multiple vaccine programmes across the first world?

    What of the children who developed childhood multiple sclerosis which emerged in France following the introduction of mass Hepatitis B vaccination when childhood multiple sclerosis was unknown before then? There was a criminal investigation in France into the roll out of that programme: UK Government Caught Lying On Baby Hep B Vax Safety

    And with high levels of under reporting of cases like that the statistics health officials cite comparing harms of vaccine to harms of disease are meaningless - they are never corrected for under reporting of the adverse effects of the vaccines - and the starting point for the level of under reporting for any drug is 98 not reported in every hundred: Spontaneous adverse drug reaction reporting vs event monitoring: a comparison.

    How many children and their families should suffer who would not otherwise have done?]

  108. [ED: This comment was "2nd Invigilator" trolling again under a yet a different fake email address.]

  109. [ED: This comment was "2nd Invigilator" trolling again under a yet a different fake email address.]

  110. [ED: This comment was "2nd Invigilator" trolling again under a different fake email address.]

  111. [ED: On a different blog where the BadScience crowd gather and after 110 comments a concession has been made that:

    "1. It may be that the way measles cases have been reported in publicly available material has lacked clarity."

    But still OK for Public Health Wales to "tidy it up" later to claim the data is different from what it was when they published their unqualified official reports:

    "It is perfectly in order that the presentation of data is tidied up if it is pointed out that an inaccurate picture may be obtained by people accessing those materials."

    So we cannot trust any information issued by Public Health Wales because it is OK for them later to claim the data was a completely different than they first said it was.

    Fine. Pretty much what CHS has been saying all along. We cannot trust their data.]

  112. As part of the so-called ‘global measles eradication’ plan, by the World Health Organisation, data from all member states is collected and monitored. It is therefore interesting to note figures up until 11 April 2013 show there have been 84 confirmed cases of measles for the whole of the UK.

    Scroll down 3/4 of the page here to see: http://www.who.int/immunization_monitoring/diseases/measlesreportedcasesbycountry.pdf

  113. [ED: Comment deleted.

    Posted using a fake email address by a person trolling and part of a forum whose members block discussion but some of whose members for sport in their spare time disrupt other fora on the internet and attack, bully, abuse and harass ordinary people and parents of very sick children wanting to share information. These kinds of groups are organised for just such a purpose on the internet "The time for talking has passed. I draw the line at kidnapping, incidentally." on sites owned and operated by opinion formers in the mainstream medical professions.]

  114. [ED: Comment deleted.

    Posted using a fake email address by a person trolling and part of a forum whose members block discussion but some of whose members for sport in their spare time disrupt other fora on the internet and attack, bully, abuse and harass ordinary people and parents of very sick children wanting to share information. These kinds of groups are organised for just such a purpose on the internet "The time for talking has passed. I draw the line at kidnapping, incidentally." on sites owned and operated by opinion formers in the mainstream medical professions.]

  115. [ED: Comment deleted.

    Posted using a fake email address by a person trolling and part of a forum whose members block discussion but some of whose members for sport in their spare time disrupt other fora on the internet and attack, bully, abuse and harass ordinary people and parents of very sick children wanting to share information. These kinds of groups are organised for just such a purpose on the internet "The time for talking has passed. I draw the line at kidnapping, incidentally." on sites owned and operated by opinion formers in the mainstream medical professions.]

  116. [ED: Comment deleted.

    Posted using a fake email address by a person trolling and part of a forum whose members block discussion but some of whose members for sport in their spare time disrupt other fora on the internet and attack, bully, abuse and harass ordinary people and parents of very sick children wanting to share information. These kinds of groups are organised for just such a purpose on the internet "The time for talking has passed. I draw the line at kidnapping, incidentally." on sites owned and operated by opinion formers in the mainstream medical professions.]

  117. [ED: Comment deleted.

    Posted using a fake email address by a person trolling and part of a forum whose members block discussion but some of whose members for sport in their spare time disrupt other fora on the internet and attack, bully, abuse and harass ordinary people and parents of very sick children wanting to share information. These kinds of groups are organised for just such a purpose on the internet "The time for talking has passed. I draw the line at kidnapping, incidentally." on sites owned and operated by opinion formers in the mainstream medical professions.]

  118. [ED: Comment deleted.

    Posted using a fake email address by a person trolling and part of a forum whose members block discussion but some of whose members for sport in their spare time disrupt other fora on the internet and attack, bully, abuse and harass ordinary people and parents of very sick children wanting to share information. These kinds of groups are organised for just such a purpose on the internet "The time for talking has passed. I draw the line at kidnapping, incidentally." on sites owned and operated by opinion formers in the mainstream medical professions.]

  119. Boo!!

    [ED: This comment was one of six in a row by Chris "2nd Invigilator" trolling and spamming again under different fake email addresses. Chris "2nd Invigilator" is part of the Badscience crowd some of whom engage in bullying and abuse of people who post on fora and websites and attack parents of very sick children who want to exchange information and engage in dialogue. The BadScience Forum crowd go along to these sites intentionally to disrupt.]

  120. You published a blog as if everyone knew or could easily find out that HPW’s figures are inaccurate incomplete and misleading…

    Anybody who wished to do so could have easily found out that PHW’s figures did not include cases confirmed in English labs and that not all notifications were tested by simply emailing PHW, as I did.

    I did so because the figures you presented seemed surprising. When a statistic looks odd, I might well question whether it is accurate. Your statistics (e.g. 1 in 183 notifications of measles actually being measles) looked odd, so I sought clarification.

    I emailed PHW because the figures on your blog didn’t make sense to me. You didn’t bother to email them – presumably because you thought the figures did make sense. They fitted in with what you wanted to believe – that there wasn’t a worrying outbreak of measles in Wales and public health officials were making it all up. You wanted to believe that all notifications were tested, you wanted to believe that 99.5% of notifications of measles were not really measles and you wanted to believe that the outbreak in Wales wasn’t really happening.

    You were wrong on all counts.

    HPW made such a claim – [according to you] – only on 9th May – a week after CHS blog was published and the day before you published your blog.

    And you knew it – because you were the person who raised it with them as you admit on your blog – but you never once told anyone the truth of that jdc.

    You made no mention of on your blog that this new claim by HPW – that they did not have all the figures because half were in England – was made for the first time ever the day before you published your blog.

    I knew they had claimed that their figures did not include notifications tested in English labs and that they had claimed that not all notifications had been tested because they made those claims in an email to me. At the time of posting my blog I was unaware that they had confirmed this elsewhere. I find it odd that you are concerned that I failed to mention something that I was not aware of.

    You also have been asked numerous times but refuse to produce the full exchanges of correspondence you claim as evidence. And that appears to be because it is a new claim by HPW Wales – never in the entire 6 year period starting 2007 they have published official unqualified infectious disease reports to the public have they ever attempted to qualify the reports to the effect their own reports are misleading and incorrect and inaccurate.

    No, I refuse to publish the full exchanges of correspondence (a) because I have already published the parts of the correspondence that I relied upon for my blog post and (b) because at present I don’t feel like indulging your demands. I have indulged you before when you demanded that I publish the full exchange of emails with Sue Reid. Which, funnily enough, I had already done in my original post. When I pointed this out, you then claimed (without any basis for doing so) that I hadn’t and demanded evidence that I had. I ended up posting once again the emails, this time including the headers and boilerplate disclaimers the Mail use. This wasn’t enough for you. You claimed that there were emails missing. So I posted a screenshot of my gmail inbox. That seemed to stop you from making false claims about missing emails. Funnily enough, that’s the only occasion that I can remember you changing your mind when presented with evidence. You didn’t admit that you were wrong to claim that there were missing emails or apologise for falsely accusing me of misleading people though.

    You never do admit to your mistakes and you never offer apologies where they are due. You could prove me wrong by admitting that you made several claims in your post that turned out to be incorrect and apologising to PHW for your false accusations of a ‘scam’, ‘whoppers’ and a ‘fake epidemic’. I bet you won’t though.

  121. [ED: Comment deleted.

    Posted using a fake email address by a person trolling and part of a forum whose members block discussion but some of whose members for sport in their spare time disrupt other fora on the internet and attack, bully, abuse and harass ordinary people and parents of very sick children wanting to share information. These kinds of groups are organised for just such a purpose on the internet "The time for talking has passed. I draw the line at kidnapping, incidentally." on sites owned and operated by opinion formers in the mainstream medical professions.]

  122. [ED: Comment deleted.

    Posted using a fake email address by a person trolling and part of a forum whose members block discussion but some of whose members for sport in their spare time disrupt other fora on the internet and attack, bully, abuse and harass ordinary people and parents of very sick children wanting to share information. These kinds of groups are organised for just such a purpose on the internet "The time for talking has passed. I draw the line at kidnapping, incidentally." on sites owned and operated by opinion formers in the mainstream medical professions.]

  123. [ED: 2 1/2 days late and many reminders later on his own blog,eventually jdc responds. But again fails to answer.

    His main point is CHS got the figures wrong and misled.

    We also note now that before jdc published he could easily have verified claimed confirmed cases [such as on 3rd April of 432] were false.

    He could easily have calculated from the April figures published in all the media that there could have been no more than 48 laboratory confirmed cases in the period January 1 to March 31 from English and Welsh laboratories – compared to the 26 CHS cited from HPW’s figures.

    So he knew or ought to have known before he ever wrote his blog that the allegations of error and misleading by CHS were not true.

    CHS’ update showing 22 confirmed cases for March [as claimed in April] must have been close to the final total if not the final total itself.

    WHAT JDC DOES NOT ANSWER

    The article said “Let’s wait for the April figures”. We pointed out CHS went out of its way to ensure that prominently on the article itself anyone reading would know “This was not the last word”. [And we note now updates were provided and updated articles were also published].

    NOT ANSWERED

    The main point was Health Protection Wales were issuing vastly inflated figures claiming far more measles cases in February and March than there were. That was and remains true.

    NOT ANSWERED

    He claims it was an error not to check with Health Protection Wales.

    No one should have to – these are official figures in official unqualified reports titled “All Wales surveillance of laboratory confirmed infections”, published without any qualification in the reports and on HPW’s website.

    NOT ANSWERED

    HPW were making grossly inflated claims of hundreds of cases in March when they only had the February figures of a handful of cases.

    NOT ANSWERED

    HPW did not tell the media they did not have reliable figures over the entire period they were crying “wolf”

    NOT ANSWERED

    HPW’s reports can be relied on by CHS and others to show there were far fewer confirmed cases than HPW were claiming.

    NOT ANSWERED

    PHW has never qualified its “All Wales surveillance of laboratory confirmed infections”.
    These have always been published unqualified.

    NOT ANSWERED

    He produced nothing to show the February and March figures were missing any data.

    NOT ANSWERED

    The qualification HPW made on its website was added on 9th May and no reports prior to that date had ever been qualified in any way.

    NOT ANSWERED

    When they started the scare at the beginning of February they had neither the February or March figures.

    NOT ANSWERED

    The figures published in April of 370 confirmed cases must have included the alleged English laboratory confirmations.

    NOT ANSWERED

    Those figures showed HPW were claiming vastly more cases than they had data to justify. The cases did not exist.

    NOT ANSWERED.

    The main point of the article was and remains valid.

    NOT ANSWERED

    jdc has not subtantiated his claims to what HPW wrote to him. He has not published the full exchanges of correspondence upon which he based his allegations. There should be no problem if he has nothing to hide.

    HE REFUSES TO DO THIS

    HPW’s 9th May qualification is vague. There is nothing in it to suggest it applied to the February and March reports.

    NOT ANSWERED

    The 9th May qualification says sometimes samples are sent to England for testing. It does not say that was done in the case of the February or March reports.

    NOT ANSWERED

    It was only in April that HPW might have wanted to send samples to England for testing.

    NOT ANSWERED

    If such a qualification was to apply to any of the prior published reports that should have appeared prominently in the reports.

    NOT ANSWERED

    It has never been HPW’s practice to issue qualified reports.

    NOT ANSWERED

    He was nit-picking about decimal points.

    NOT ANSWERED

    It does not fall to CHS to ascertain how this scam came about and who is and is not responsible. That is for HPW.

    NOT ANSWERED

    Jdc posted the blog when he had failed to check his facts. And that is in circumstances in which he either knew or ought to know the facts or not made claims about facts he did not know.

    NOT ANSWERED

    Does he know any February or March samples were sent to England for testing – no.

    NOT ANSWERED

    Did he know the reports have always been published unqualified? He could have worked that one out for himself.

    NOT ANSWERED

    He must have known the figure of 370 confirmed cases included results from England.

    NOT ANSWERED

    He must know from the April figures that the majority of confirmed cases were for April.

    NOT ANSWERED

    He could calculate the proportion tested of all notifications from April 850 figure, and the NOIDs figures of between 80 to 86% – just as the average from the last 18 years shows can be expected.

    NOT ANSWERED

    Doctors substantially over diagnose measles – even HPW admit that in clear terms.

    NOT ANSWERED

    Does jdc deny HPW claimed substantially more confirmed cases than the figures they gave out to the media for April which include the figure of 370.

    NOT ANSWERED

    Does he agree it is wholly irresponsible of HPW to grossly overstate the figures

    NOT ANSWERED

    Does he agree it is irresponsible of HPW not to tell the public their own figures in their own official reports are misleading and incorrect and inaccurate?

    NOT ANSWERED

    It is preposterous of him to criticise CHS for pointing out that HPW simply did not have the evidence to back up their claims and that the evidence they did have and published showed what they were claiming in the press was way out.

    NOT ANSWERED

    Doesn’t he agree it is wholly irresponsible of HPW not to tell the public the truth.

    NOT ANSWERED

    HPW were not telling the press their figures were wrong during the entire period from 2nd February that they did not have the figures and their own figures were wildly insccurate misleading and incomplete and were claiming large numbers of cases which did not exist.

    NOT ANSWERED

    HPW were causing a scare – a public panic – “crisis” in their own words. They were claiming continuously to the media over February and March many more cases than existed. They did not have the evidence to back that up.

    jdc made no criticism of that.

    NOT ANSWERED

    He does not criticise what HPW were doing – all they had to do was tell the truth. But they did not – they set out to cause a panic.

    NOT ANSWERED]

  124. [ED: Comment deleted.

    Posted using a fake email address by a person trolling and part of a forum whose members block discussion but some of whose members for sport in their spare time disrupt other fora on the internet and attack, bully, abuse and harass ordinary people and parents of very sick children wanting to share information. These kinds of groups are organised for just such a purpose on the internet "The time for talking has passed. I draw the line at kidnapping, incidentally." on sites owned and operated by opinion formers in the mainstream medical professions.]

  125. If HPW’s 9th May claim is correct [that their figures do not include tests carried out in England of Welsh notifications] the one case in Swansea is likely to have been bolstered by one confirmation from an English laboratory – making two confirmed cases in March in Swansea when HPW’s figures for notifications were 181 cases in Swansea and on 26th March HPW claimed 432 cases in the whole of Wales.

    It can be seen that less than half of confirmations come from England – as more recent figures issued by HPW show.

    The number of tests from England can be seen from HPW’s 2nd May news release stating: “The number of laboratory confirmed cases in the outbreak stands at 370 out of a total of 850 samples tested.” … “Across the whole of Wales the total is 1,170.” as their latest report published 15th May shows 209 confirmed cases in April. So less than half the tests – 161 appear to have been carried out in England.

    And as reported here, their figures to 31st March showed 8 confirmed cases to the end of March for all Wales – 1 in Swansea and two more in the Swansea area.

  126. jdc

    “You never do admit to your mistakes and you never offer apologies where they are due.”

  127. jdc

    CHS said it was one confirmed in 181 notifications and “Let’s wait for the figures for April”.

    Having waited it turns out to be two confirmed in 181 notified and when Public Health Wales were claiming 432 cases in the whole of Wales.

  128. Yawn.

    None of what you have posted in this thread supports the claims you made that I criticised in my post.

    Try again, CHS.

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,037 other followers

%d bloggers like this: