Andrew Wakefield gives NBC “talking points”

11 Sep

Dr. Wakefield “took issue” with a recent Dateline episode discussing him and his work. Thoughtful House (his clinic) has offered Dateline some talking points to, I gather, give “the full story” that Dateline supposedly missed.

Since there is next to zero chance that Dateline will act on them, I thought I would take a look at the talking points:

A. There has been extensive replication of the finding of bowel disease in children with autism (ASD) from five different countries. These findings have been published in peer-reviewed journals or presented at scientific meetings. It is therefore incorrect and misleading of Matt Lauer to have stated that every aspect of my original hypothesis has been disproved. On the contrary, the main findings of the original Lancet paper, that is, bowel disease in autistic children, has been repeatedly confirmed. This obvious inaccuracy requires clarification by NBC.

One of my many failings is that I am a sloppy writer and, yet, I key in on imprecise language in the work of others. Case in point:

“On the contrary, the main findings of the original Lancet paper, that is, bowel disease in autistic children, has been repeatedly confirmed. “

“…the main point of the Lancet paper, bowel disease in autistic children…”

Very imprecise. What about bowel disease in autistic children is the finding of the Lancet article that Dr. Wakefield wants us to know? The statement is so vague that all we are left with is the fact that some autistic children have bowel disease.

This is misdirection on Dr. Wakefield’s part. It isn’t even good misdirection. The Dateline story wasn’t “the career of Andrew Wakefield, what he got right and wrong”. It was about the assertions that MMR cause autism.

Dr. Wakefield makes it appear that this statement was Matt Lauer’s. It is a fine point, but Matt Lauer didn’t state that “…every aspect of my original hypothesis has been disproved”. The statement was from the American Academy of Pediatrics, which Matt Lauer quoted with attribution.

It’s worth recalling what the Lancet paper stated. The concluding paragraph of the 1998 Lancet article was:

We have identified a chronic enterocolitis in children that may be related to neuropsychiatric dysfunction. In most cases, onset of symptoms was after measles, mumps, and rubella immunisation. Further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome and its possible relation to this vaccine.

Had Dr. Wakefield himself distanced himself from the MMR-causation theory in the last 10 years, even a little, I’d think it reasonable for him to emphasize the the idea that he brought to light GI disturbances in autistic kids. But he hasn’t. It isn’t what the Dateline story was about.

The big question, if he thought this was important, why didn’t Dr. Wakefield himself emphasize that in the interview?

Dr. Wakefield’s second point:

B. The shortcomings and the flaws of the studies quoted by Dr. Offit, claiming to disprove an association between vaccines and autism, were not discussed in the program. In my interview with Mr. Lauer I took as an example a paper from Dr. DeStefano from the CDC claiming to exonerate MMR that actually showed that a younger age of vaccination with MMR is associated with a greater risk of autism. This study confirms the association and has been falsely portrayed as vindicating the vaccine. This should have been included in order to provide balance to the program.

Can someone tell me what DeStefano paper and what analysis he is talking about?

C. Reference was made to an autistic child in the vaccine court whose claim for MMR damage was overturned by the judge. No reference was made to the successful vaccine court case on behalf of the child Bailey Banks, coming just one week after the unsuccessful claim described by Mr. Lauer, in which the judge ruled that MMR vaccine can cause autism. Therefore, in the view of vaccine court, it is not a question of whether or not MMR can cause autism, but rather how many children are affected.

The case referred to in the Dateline episode was that of Michelle Cedillo. Her’s was the first “test case” to be heard by the Autism Omnibus Proceeding.

Her case was first heard by a “special master”, who denied compensation. The case then was appealed, and the judge didn’t “overturn” anything. The judge upheld the original decision.

The Bailey Banks case is one that gets debated a lot on the net. Rather than go into that again, let’s ask: how does this relate to Dr. Wakefield’s research? Perhaps I missed it as I did some very quick searches, but I didn’t find anything in the Bailey Banks decision that had anything to do with digestion/inflamation/enterocolitis/constipation/diarrhea… I think you get the idea–the case has nothing to do with Dr. Wakefield’s ideas about autism and the gut.

I.e. Wakefield’s point C is another diversionary tactic.

D. There was a complete absence of comment on the lack of any adequate safety studies of childhood vaccines and the vaccine schedule in particular. There was no mention of the admission by vaccine regulators that there is no data on the long-term safety of vaccines, the chronic disease burden caused by vaccines, and the likely potentially harmful interactions between various vaccines in the routine schedule.

Have you heard the phrase “diversionary tactic” too often yet? What does any of this have to do with whether Dr. Wakefield’s research? This is a favored diversion in online discussions of vaccines/autism. When people run out of real ammunition (and they do quickly), switch to trying to debate general safety of vaccines–and it almost worked. Instead of addressing some of your comments, I’ll move on to your fifth point:

E. Undue credibility was given to Brian Deer, a discredited freelancejournalist, whose false reporting has caused so much misunderstanding and damage to children through the misrepresentation of the doctors and parents who were seeking answers to the vaccine-autism question. Deer has repeatedly misled the public and the medical profession and has been unable to respond to clear evidence of his false reporting in the Sunday Times through the UK’s Press Complaints Commission.

Nice slam, there, Dr. Wakefield. Given the sloppy nature of your previous comments, I am impressed that you pulled this together so well.

You make it seem like it is accepted that Brian Deer is “discredited”. I guess if you don’t get out of Thoughtful House or autism-parent conventions, you might think that.

The “unable to respond…” bit is pretty classic. The Press Complaints Commission isn’t hearing the complaint until after your own GMC hearing, correct? So, I guess he has been unable to respond at the PCC. But, did that really stop him from responding? I seem to recall a pretty sharp worded response that Orac hosted on Respectful Insolence.

Didn’t you, Dr. Wakefield, bring that complaint to the PCC? If so, nice job leaving out the fact. It would come across quite differently had you stated: “…and has yet been unable to respond to clear my claims of his false reporting in the Sunday Times through the UK’s Press Complaints Commission.”

F. It was not disclosed that I have repeatedly invited Dr. Offit to take part in public debate on the safety of MMR vaccine and the false and misleading claims that he has made in the media and his book. He has refused to accept this invitation and has continued to hide from an open and honest debate.

Why would NBC waste time on this? Was it pertinent to the discussion? Answer: no.

I think they did you a favor by not mentioning it. No one looks good with the “So and So won’t debate me” argument. They just don’t. The “please debate me” argument is a staple of the crank. I doubt you wish to appear to be in that category, do you?

Academics “debate” in the literature, not on some stage. If you want to debate Dr. Offit, come up with some good research. Publish it.

Alternatively, if you want to see how a Wakefield/Offit debate comes out, read “autism’s false prophets”. If that is “hiding”, he hasn’t done a very good job of it.

G. NBC alluded briefly to the fact that Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, was informed of my participation as a medical expert in the MMR litigation almost one year before publication of the Lancet paper in 1998. NBC failed to clarify that when Horton was challenged to respond to the fact that when he so enthusiastically denounced me and the paper in 2004 the Lancet staff was already fully aware of the facts and at that time did not consider them to be relevant. Horton refused to be interviewed by NBC and the interview segment shown was from 2004. This refusal is in sharp contrast to his willingness to denounce me in the media in 2004. NBC also failed to mention that in the light of these facts Horton has been reported to UK’s General Medical Council on an allegation of perjury.

Even if true, this is just more diversions. If you thought it important enough to fax all this information to the Lancet, why didn’t you include a conflict of interest statement in the article itself? The referees would have appreciated that, I believe. Was there any mention of potential conflicts of interest in your cover letter to The Lancet when you submitted the paper? Or in the cover letter for your acceptance? All of those were places where you should have made such statements.

H. It was unfortunate that NBC, having stated their determination to resist external pressure to distort the balance of the program, yielded to such pressure from the American Academy of Pediatrics, allowing them the final word in the program while denying representation from the National Autism Association who put forward to NBC a rational and well reasoned call for further science to resolve this very real issue.

I’m sorry, but are you seriously putting he “National Autism Association” on equal footing with the American Academy of Pediatrics? How many members does the NAA have? (a lot less than the AAP) What is the name of their journal (they don’t have one) What is the impact factor of their journal? (Pediatrics is a very well respected journal).

Given the NAA’s recent childish antics with their attempted slime job against Dr. Offit (which you, Dr. Wakefield, participated in), I think that Dateline has been proven correct for not airing their comments.

I. Dr. Offit cited a large population study of autism and MMR from Denmark in support of his claim to ‘certainty that there is no link.’ This study was so flawed that it was rejected from consideration by the gold standard scientific review by the highly influential Cochrane Collaboration. Dr. Offitt, who is not an epidemiologist, was clearly at a loss to understand the study’s fatal flaws.

“Dr. Offitt, who is not an epidemiologist…” What’s up with that comment? I’m sorry, is Dr. Wakefield an epidemiologist? Answer: no. Do you have to be an epidemiologist to understand the study or it’s strengths or flaws? No.

What fatal flaws is Dr. Wakefield referring to? The big Danish study was by Madsen, et al.. The Cochrane Review lists this study as one of the “cohort studies included in the review”. Not “rejected from consideration”.

That aside, I have the Cochrane Review “Vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella in children (Review)” open. The version I have open is noted: “This is a reprint of a Cochrane review, prepared and maintained by The Cochrane Collaboration and published in The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 3″, so I think it is the most recent.

I guess if the Cochrane review is “highly influential” and the “gold standard” it would make sense to see what they think of the autism/MMR hypothesis, eh? The review states:

No credible evidence of an involvement of MMR with either autism or Crohn’s disease was found.

Was this because they didn’t know about Dr. Wakefield’s work? Hardly. Four of Dr. Wakefield’s papers were listed. All were listed in the “excluded studies” section.

So where does this leave us? We have, what, nine talking points which are mostly diversions or misrepresentations. Anyone wonder why I don’t think Matt Lauer will be responding to these soon?

About these ads

26 Responses to “Andrew Wakefield gives NBC “talking points””

  1. David N. Brown September 11, 2009 at 10:15 #

    Dateline didn’t give Wakefield the hearing he wanted, but CNBC did. Maybe they only did it because they thought they were somehow obligated to give “equal time”. And there’s no sign of NAA, AoA or their media dupes backing away from th at least $29M” figure. That could be worth a post in itself.

  2. KWombles September 11, 2009 at 11:46 #

    Absolutely excellent rebuttal of those “talkin” points, Sullivan!

  3. passionlessDrone September 11, 2009 at 13:15 #

    Hi Sullivan –

    Big post that I can’t analyze fully now. But I can help a little. ( ? )

    The big question, if he thought this was important, why didn’t Dr. Wakefield himself emphasize that in the interview?

    We have no idea what Wakefield tried to emphasize in the interview, only what the NBC editors let through. I’m sure that Mr. Offit and Deer felt that pertinent portions of their interview were not aired.

    Can someone tell me what DeStefano paper and what analysis he is talking about?

    The DeStafano paper is here:

    http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/113/2/259

    Vaccination before 36 months was more common among case children than control children, especially among children 3 to 5 years of age, likely reflecting immunization requirements for enrollment in early intervention programs.

    The number differences are small here, but I’m also a bit skeptical of the claim that the changes are ‘likely’ a result of early intervention programs. I mean it could be the case, but it doesn’t seem like the authors provided any data as towards how many of the children in question actually enrolled in ‘early intervention programs’.

    The timing here just doesn’t make sense for this to work to my mind because it mandates that a large percentage of children were identified as problems and enrolled in ‘early intervention programs’ before the age of three (whether or not a diagnosis was available at age three doesn’t appear to be available information). This may have been possible in the Atlanta area in 2001; I have no idea, but it is difficult to reconcile with my own experiences trying to get my son into any type of early intervention program.

    It would have been a big help if DeStafano had been able to provide actual numbers; i.e.; case children attended early intervention programs in these numbers, but no such information was made available. I’m not sure if this was a lack of data issue or not. (?)

    I’ve seen the claim made that no such immunization requirements exist for early intervetion programs, but there are so many unknowns there that it is difficult to detangle if this is true. Scouring the Internet for what early intervention options were available in Atlanta in 2001, and then determining if they had immunization requirements seemed too daunting a task for very little reward.

    I can’t comment on any other points Wakefield has distributed now. Maybe later.

    - pD

    • Sullivan September 11, 2009 at 21:49 #

      pD–

      thanks for the information. Two questions–do you know where Dr. Wakefield’s analysis of the DeStefano paper is? The closest thing I can find is a paper with Carol Stott as first author. They have a graph of autism by time after vaccination (together with a very strange comparison to non-vaccinated controls). Nothing like what Dr. Wakefield describes.

      Second question–if the DeStefano data aren’t considered good, how can Dr. Wakefield make any conclusions based on them?

  4. Skepticat September 11, 2009 at 15:41 #

    Terrific post, many thanks. Thanks also pD for the informative response.

  5. Izgad September 11, 2009 at 16:13 #

    “I’m sorry, but are you seriously putting he “National Autism Association” on equal footing with the American Academy of Pediatrics?”

    The

  6. brian September 11, 2009 at 16:50 #

    While I don’t doubt Wakefield’s statement to the effect that several workers(including, perhaps, some of Wakefield’s collaborators and business partners) have supported the existence of “autistic enterocolitis”, it also seems that observers on five continents have at various times stated that the earth looks flat to them; it’s useful to consider the totality of the evidence when evaluating controversial claims.

    Eric Fombonne discussed Wakefield’s claims (including Wakefield’s suggestions that measles virus or MMR was associated with Inflammatory Bowel Disease, ulcerative colitis, and Crohn’s disease, as well as with autism) here:

    http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v8/n2/full/4001266a.html

    “How many more well-powered epidemiological investigations of representative samples will be necessary for [Wakefield's] hypothesis to be completely discarded? . . . As Jonathan Swift said: ‘Falsehood flies and the truth comes limping after; so when men come to be undeceived, it is too late: the jest is over and the tale has had its effect’.”

  7. David N. Brown September 11, 2009 at 17:03 #

    Why is Wakefield even being allowed into public discussion? He is very credibly charged with reporting (if not inventing) what he knew to be false as fact. The standard penalty for such behavior in science AND professional media is systematic editorial censorship.

  8. Ringside Seat September 11, 2009 at 18:13 #

    Brian Deer has posted clips from the NBC program:

    http://briandeer.com/solved/dateline-nbc.htm

    • Sullivan September 11, 2009 at 19:11 #

      Ringside Seat–

      thanks for the link. Glad Brian got to see the show in the UK.

      David N. Brown,

      One of the prices we pay in the United States for freedom of speech is that sometimes you have to listen to people who you don’t like.

      There are some very interesting things in the Dateline episode that are worth blogging. There are statements by Dr. Wakefield which, to this observer, don’t match what was said in the past or what is in the public record.

  9. David N. Brown September 11, 2009 at 19:30 #

    Sullivan,
    “Freedom of speech” is not an issue in editorial decisions. It is a longstanding and voluntary practice that, when a scientist or journalist makes a claim he knows to be false, fellow professionals do not publish or favorably cite them in the future. My question is, why haven’t the press blackballed Wakefield the way they would any fellow journalist who made a comparable misrepresentation of fact?

    • Sullivan September 11, 2009 at 19:33 #

      David N. Brown,

      good point.

      But, aside from the NAA “interviewing” him for their press release and Matt Lauer, who has interviewed him lately? It isn’t as though Dr. Wakefield seems to think the Dateline episode was favorable to him.

  10. David N. Brown September 11, 2009 at 20:58 #

    My complaint applies much more to the wretched NAA/Reuters release. I don’t know that much about the Dateline piece. Even in that context, I don’t think it was very appropriate to take a statement from Wakefield unless it included a specific response to very specific accusations by Bustin and Chadwick.

  11. passionlessDrone September 12, 2009 at 01:18 #

    Hi Sullivan –

    Two questions—do you know where Dr. Wakefield’s analysis of the DeStefano paper is?

    I don’t know. (?) My thoughts looking at his quote was that the DeStafano paper enough was sufficient as it showed differential numbers; though I don’t know/think they calculated risk factors. I might have seen something from Yazbak on this once, but I can’t remember. I believe that most “real” scientists tend to hold Yazbak in relatively poor regard as much as Wakefield. His web hits aren’t re-assuring as to quality; at the very least, a quality web presence.

    Second question—if the DeStefano data aren’t considered good, how can Dr. Wakefield make any conclusions based on them?

    I’m not sure if Wakefield (or I) said that the data aren’t good. (?) But that’s always the problem with this type of discussion; the poor nature of diagnostic data can be shaped into whatever pretzel a conclusion demands.

    In any case, the concern I tried to convey was that the assumption made by DeStafano, that enrollment in early intervention programs with requisite immunization was ‘likely’ the reason that children who were immunized later had less autism than those that were immunized earlier, wasn’t really supported by either any data, my experiences, or the timing necessary for children under three to have been flagged, tagged, and entered into early intervention programs; especially eight or ten years ago.

    From the outside, this would seemingly have been relatively simple data to gather; the basis of the study were vaccination records and school records, if any ‘early intervention programs’ were based on public schooling, there should have been records available as towards when a child started in the system. Of course, this makes the assumption that the two school components(before the age of three early intervention programs and kindergarden) communicated. Or maybe there are privately run ‘early intervention programs’ that mandate vaccination that are available in that area. Going deeper is a big task with very small payoff.

    What we do know is that we have no data on which to base this assumption; and that is the kind of thing that sets off my skeptic alarm.

    Honestly, if a time differential were present with the MMR, I’d much more expect it to be focussed in the narrower ranges, say 12 – 14 months, as opposed to 12 – 36 months and > 36 months. That’s the other potential problem with this analysis, it groups 12-17 months together, and 18 onward. Of course, funding, logistics and other factors might make such a thing complicated. You can’t study everything.

    HTH.

    - pD

  12. Michael Polidori November 29, 2009 at 22:32 #

    Sunday Times-James Murdoch owner/Glaxo Board Member- Times reporter Brian Deer complained to the General Medical Council in Feb ’04
    6 years after Wakefield’s study the only complaint is from a lying reporter. No scientist/doctor/epidemiologist authoring counter studies EVER charged Wakefield with fraud
    In July 2009 the Press Complaints Commission of London, an overseeer of journalism in the UK, issued an order for the Sunday Times to remove stories written by Deer about Dr Andrew Wakefield from its web site

    • Sullivan November 30, 2009 at 05:45 #

      Michael Polidori,

      It is interesting to see people repeat the Wakefield party line.

      Did you read the original statement by the PCC or did you just accept the press release from Dr. Wakefield? The Press Complaints Commission suggested that the Times remove some stories. The Times complied. Unfortunately, Dr. Wakefield shot himself in the foot and blew that out of proportion, making claims much like your own. That resulted in the Times putting the stories back online.

      No scientist/doctor/epidemiologist authoring counter studies EVER charged Wakefield with fraud

      I don’t know if they used the word “fraud”. I know that scientists have clearly stated that Dr. Wakefield’s studies reported methodologies that were not the same as actually used. (see, for example, page 15 of the MacDonald report, submitted to the US Court of Federal Claims as part of the Hazelhurst hearings for the Autism Omnibus Proceeding).

      Here is a nice quote from Dr. Nicolas Chadwick, who did the early testing for measles virus in the samples Dr. Wakefield collected from his patients:

      Dr Wakefield was not convinced that my results were actually negative and wanted someone else to repeat the work. I believe that despite my negative results, Dr Wakefield was convinced that measles virus was present in these cells.

      So, he reported methodology he didn’t use (in the Uhlman paper) and ignored negative results and, instead, reported faulty data with positive results.

      To my knowledge, no one outside the GMC has seen the medical records that Brian Deer used for his press reports that Dr. Wakefield “fixed” his data. Let’s wait until that becomes more public and see if people use the “fraud” word, shall we?

  13. Chris November 29, 2009 at 23:08 #

    Michael Polidori, that was a lame, late and factually wrong:
    http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/?p=2542

    Oh, and don’t forget that there was testimony in an American Federal Court that detailed how Wakefield ignored false positives on the PCR results.

  14. David N. Brown November 30, 2009 at 04:55 #

    Mr. Polidori,
    Nothing in Deer’s stories has been proven false, As for the PCC, they did REQUEST that the Times remove the stories while a complaint by Wakefield is arbitrated (which will be after the GMC hearings against Wakefield end). Apparently, the Times complied until Wakefield spoke further on the matter. If you don’t believe me check the Times site.
    Oh, and note that another Wakefield apologist happens to drop in on a blog that publicized the Juli Martinez case.

  15. Michael Polidori July 27, 2011 at 19:37 #

    The PCC was established as an alternative to libel litigation.
    The PCC has no legal or regulatory authority over any media in the UK. It can only recommend or suggest removals or retractions from various media when making a finding.
    The PCC agreed with Dr Wakefield and requested the Sunday Times remove the offending stories from the Times website, which they did.
    When word spread about the PCC decision the Times put the stories back up on the web, defying the PCC’s request. This is rare. Taking a risk into court of the PCC’s request for removal of offending material being introduced as evidence of libel is stupid, unless you know the judiciary will favor you regardless of the truth. Glaxo’s fingerprints are already on one court case at the national level in Britain (Crispin/Nigel Davis), it would be no surprise to find them attempting to influence another outcome.
    The only real power the PCC has is the possible use of their decision and request for removal in court as support for a libel claim. While they have no legal or regulatory authority, their decision may carry weight in court.
    It appears somebody at The Sunday Times followed standard policy when a PCC request for removal or retraction is issued, and promptly removed the offending posts. Once this news spread, someone else revoked that decision and reposted the stories that the PCC requested removal of.
    One thing is guaranteed when dealing with The Sunday Times, Brian Deer & James Murdoch… You cannot rely on their word or their honor or for the truth, much like the LBRB coven of drug industry shills… much like the spin of Sullivan who will undoubtedly weave yet another ball of yarn into a distortion and supression of the truth.

  16. Chris July 27, 2011 at 20:15 #

    Mr. Polidori, why did you wish to rehash that bit of false history after almost two years ago. It was discussed a couple months earlier on this very blog, you may wish to refresh your memory:
    http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2009/07/wakefield-distortion-and-the-sunday-times/

    The Sunday Times put the article up after Wakefield bragged about it in a press release. So to prove they were not “ordered” as Wakefield claimed, it seemed prudent to put the article back online.

    Has the PCC conducted anymore investigation now that the GMC has ruled that Wakefield is guilty of misconduct and can no longer practice medicine in the UK? Is Wakefield actually going to attempt a libel suit? Is he going to sue for libel every single researcher on three continents that did research and published papers that showed he was wrong? Perhaps starting with Dr. Brent Taylor of the Royal Free hospital whose 1999 paper published in the Lancet was titled “Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: no epidemiological evidence for a causal association.”

    What has Wakefield done since appearing an a conspiracy fest in Ireland? Do you have any reliable information that is less than two years old?

  17. Chris July 27, 2011 at 20:28 #

    Funny, I just went back up this thread and noticed I gave the almost the exact same answer to Mr. Polidori almost two years ago. Did I just enter some kind of time vortex?

  18. Brian Morgan July 27, 2011 at 22:41 #

    It comes back the point I have made at least twice recently and it’s a question I will keep asking until answered. Why didn’t AW appeal the GMC ruling? Will he seek permission to appeal out of time? Will his supporters urge him to do so, on the record, here? As long as they keep yachting on the tack that he has done no wrong then they should also support his appeal. Doctors have won appeals against disbarring.

  19. Andrew July 27, 2011 at 23:54 #

    It seems to me that someone who really believed that LBRB was a “coven of drug industry shills” wouldn’t bother posting here, because any posts he made would surely be immediately deleted by the Blofeldesque coven.

    Now a person who gets a thrill out of pretending to be a heroic resister against great odds would love to make posts here, and would enjoy making absurd accusations that he knew were false, just to burnish in his mind the idea that he’s important and powerful, all the while being subconsciously aware that he was pretending. Seems like a sad life.

  20. Michael Polidori February 14, 2013 at 01:07 #

    And now Dr Walker-Smith (Senior researcher on the 1998 Wakefield paper & Dr Wakefield’s alleged co-conspirator) has been cleared of all charges and High Court Justice Mitting severely criticized the GMC for their procedures and conclusions. The GMC has promised not to appeal and also stated they will revamp their procedures to try to prevent this from happening in the future.
    Let the sociopathic shill drivel train begin

    • Chris February 14, 2013 at 01:37 #

      Dr. Walker-Smith’s defense was that he was hoodwinked by Wakefield. Wakefield is still guilty, and still does not have a medical license in any country. Plus, he is not very good at winning lawsuits.

      “Let the sociopathic shill drivel train begin”

      Dude, you are the one posting on a article that is over three years old. Wow, you are out of touch. But, Mr. Polidori, you do have a habit of commenting out of the blue on very very old threads.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Tweets that mention Autism Blog - Andrew Wakefield gives NBC “talking points” « Left Brain/Right Brain -- Topsy.com - September 11, 2009

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by autism_hub and Claire Thomas. autism_hub said: New post: Andrew Wakefield gives NBC “talking points” http://bit.ly/1UbEno [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 954 other followers

%d bloggers like this: