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

60 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.

      • Michael Polidori May 25, 2014 at 00:17 #

        There was NEVER a claim from Dr Walker Smith or his defense team that Dr Wakefield had “hoodwinked” him.

        As usual, Chris will tell any lie to prop up the drug industry’s reputation and denigrate Dr Wakefield, a HERO of modern medicine. This will be borne out by history and hopefully some of the lying done by the bevy of shills here at “left-my-brain-out-in-the-rain.co.uk.” will also have their true identities exposed, alongside their lies and deceptions…

        No mainstream media carries the “hoodwinked” claim “Chris” made here other than in blogs or replies to otherwise factual articles. Chris is the one trying to hoodwink anyone reading this article and comments.

        The only “hoodwinking” claim that I have seen in medicine or medical journals was NEJM editor Jeffrey Drazen claiming Merck had “hoodwinked” him and his editorial staff by falsifying data submitted for Vioxx studies NEJM published.

        In spite of the KNOWN fraud committed by Merck in multiple studies submitted on Vioxx in multiple journals NOT ONE OF MERCK’S FRAUDULENT STUDIES HAS BEEN RETRACTED.

        Merck killed tens of thousands of Americans (According to estimates by The Lancet article on that debacle), many more worldwide. Since it has been proved that Merck executives scientists and researchers knowingly lied about the deaths and injuries proved to be caused by Vioxx (In Merck’s own studies!!) they are all guilty of murder.. And that is not too strong a word. They knew people were going to die and they knew the victims and their doctors, were not being properly warned about the dangers of their product to cause heart attacks and strokes.

        Merck and publishing giant Elsevier went further than Merck‘s simple data tampering. They collaborated on a FAKE JOURNAL promoting Vioxx with completely fraudulent studies.
        The Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine. – http://www.ajbjm.com – article by Professor Sheldon Krimsky on the fraud.

        Elsevier published other fake journals for multiple drug companies, but since the subpoena Elsevier was served was only related to Merck and Vioxx, Elsevier refused to release any other journal titles or the companies’ names who paid for their publication…

        Nothing like apologizing to the world for deceiving doctors and patients and then refusing to reveal the extent of the fraud for which you are apologizing… more evidence of the corruption and simple wanton disregard , even scorn, of the truth coming from the drug industry, deceiving not only the public but all manner of doctor and researchers.

        Some of these same companies publishing FAKE journals are making our kids vaccines. The two MMR makers (Merck and Glaxo) have been fraudulently persecuting Dr Wakefield and Dr Walker-Smith for over a decade… these are the people, the ones making the corporate decisions to lie and deceive, that Chris, Sullivan and Gorski defend in these pages of tripe they try to pass off as science-based.

        As Always,
        In the interest of truth,
        Michael Polidori

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) May 27, 2014 at 05:20 #

        A very quick skim of the GMC hearing testimony by Prof. Walker-Smith shows that Mr. Wakefield did not fully disclose the nature of his (Mr. Wakefield’s) contract with the Royal Free. In specific the fact that Mr. Wakefield was not allowed direct clinical control over patients.

        Shall I look for more examples of misleading? Mr. Wakefield has a pattern of misleading through omission and partial truths. I don’t think Prof. Walker-Smith used the term “hoodwink” nor did Chris claim that exact term was used.

        Andrew Wakefield was found guilty of unethical actions in his work at the Royal Free. He clearly lied on TV when asked about his patent–a demonstrable lie both in the evidence available at the time and in the evidence later disclosed in the GMC hearing. So if your contention is that Mr. Wakefield never misled Prof. Walker-Smith I’d say you are incorrect. I’d also ask what do you think makes the Professor so special?

        Was Prof. Walker-Smith aware of Nicolas Chadwick’s negative PCR results? If so, how is that not being “hoodwinked”. If so, why did the good professor not disclose those facts to the public.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) May 27, 2014 at 05:21 #

        If you are so interested in the truth, why do you fail to present it?

      • Chris May 27, 2014 at 07:05 #

        “As usual, Chris will tell any lie to prop up the drug industry’s reputation and denigrate Dr Wakefield, a HERO of modern medicine.”

        Um, no. I am not the one posting random comments on very very old threads. What you would do. Since you are responding several months later to my reply to you on a three year old comment

        When will you answer my questions posed to you years ago, like this one which is also from three years ago!

        Mr. Polidori, you really need to work on your time machine.

        Also try to vet your “hero worship” algorithm. So exactly where is Wakefield licensed to practice medicine? Or are you just a Wakefield fanboi due to the smarmy English accent that accentuates the charm he shares with many sociopaths? Do you also send money to folks in Nigeria because they send you nice emails promising you lots of money for a small fee?

      • Chris May 27, 2014 at 07:11 #

        “What you would do.” … should be:

        “Which is what you would do.”

        Sorry for the grammatical flub. There may be more, but it is past my bedtime.

        Though in my defense I am waiting for youngest child who is twenty years old to come home, but I may crash before that. I am glad I had her clean the litter box before she left for her holiday outing with friends.

      • Chris May 27, 2014 at 07:40 #

        Youngest child is home. Yay! Sorry, but events more than a thousand miles away make me anxious about all of my college age kids.

        But, Mr. Polidori, I do have a question for you. Will you answer within a year or wait for another three years?

        The MMR vaccine was introduced in the USA in 1971, and it was the preferred vaccine for the 1978 Vaccine Elimination Program. So it was used in a country much larger than the UK for a much longer time when Wakefield came up with his hypothesis that it was associated with autism.

        So, Mr. Polidori, your task is to provide the verifiable documentation dated before 1990 that autism rose steeply in the USA coinciding the use of the MMR vaccine during the 1970s and 1980s. This would give us evidence that Wakefield’s hypothesis was not due to a pile of taxpayer funded legal aide funds provided to him by Richard Barr. Where is that evidence?

  21. Michael Polidori May 29, 2014 at 07:39 #

    @Sullivan –
    Sullivan says – “A very quick skim of the GMC hearing testimony by Prof. Walker-Smith shows that Mr. Wakefield did not fully disclose the nature of his (Mr. Wakefield’s) contract with the Royal Free. In specific the fact that Mr. Wakefield was not allowed direct clinical control over patients.”

    My reply – Sullivan brings up an irrelevant issue. “Chris” and I were discussing “Chris'” lie that Dr Walker -Smith claimed Dr Wakefield hoodwinked him, as a defense in his APPEAL of the GMC’s WRONGFUL revocation of his license.
    “Chris” and I were not the GMC trial which Sullivan references (but, significantly, does not quote), but Dr Smith’s appeal which restored his license and exposed the GMC trial as as a fraud.

    http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/503.html

    Chief Justice Mitting decision, in the APPEAL, lambasted the GMC for poor procedures and wrong conclusions.
    1. ” the panel’s overall conclusion that Professor Walker-Smith was guilty of serious professional misconduct was flawed”
    2. The panel used “…inadequate and superficial reasoning ”
    3. The panel came to “,,,in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion.”
    4. “…an error from which many of the subsequent weaknesses in the panel’s determination flowed.” – Mitting says the weaknesses in the panel’s determination FLOWED!!!. FLOWED!!!
    5. “The panel’s determination cannot stand…”

    When talking about the time period of the GMC trial it was “Dr Wakefield” not “Mr Wakefield” that had the contract with the Royal Free Hospital. Sullivan goes out of his way to emphasize the revocation of Dr Wakefield’s license instead of using the title he had during the time-frame that Sullivan referred to. Another example of Sullivan’s bias and apparent hatred of then, Dr Wakefield (and now Mr).

    Sullivan goes on to say – “Shall I look for more examples of misleading?”

    My reply – You haven’t given any examples that Dr/Professor Walker-Smith claimed (during his APPEAL of the GMC’s fraudulent trial revoking his license) to have been misled by Dr Wakefield.

    Nor did Sullivan reference any webpage or quote any statement proving that Dr Wakefield lied, deceived or misrepresented in any way. If Dr Wakefield was such a bad person and doctor, why doesn’t Sullivan et al have any direct evidence they can quote?
    P.S. Sullivan et al – don’t use Brian Deer, a reporter with no medical or scientific training, and a proved liar/deceiver. Nor use Fiona Godlee’s (chief editor of BMJ) unqualified and un-investigated and un-reviewed publication & deceptive support of Deer’s fabrications in the BMJ. Godlee was already forced to publish her conflicts of interest in receiving substantial funding from MMR makers Merck and Glaxo. She did so in her own journal. Forced to do so by none other than Dr Andrew Wakefield.

    Further evidence that Dr Walker-Smith was in agreement with Dr Wakefield’s MMR/enterocolitis/autism hypothesis is a quote from Dr Walker/Smith in Justice Mitting’s decision – “I think Crohn’s disease is unlikely. Dr. Wakefield has the view that there may be some kind of other inflammation which may be a relevant factor in child 2’s illness and we now have a programme for investigating children who have autism and a possible reaction to immunisation.”

    This from a doctor wrongfully pursued and convicted by a GMC (General Medical Council) hellbent on protecting the MMR and Glaxo’s coffers, rather than getting to the truth of the vaccine/autism/entero-colitis issues. That same doctor who agreed that the vaccination/entero-colitis/autism issue was a viable hypothesis, worthy of clinical investigation, had his license to practice restored!!

    After reading Justice Mitting’s decision, I believe it was Dr Smith’s on-the-record statement, about autism being a possible reaction to immunization, that made him a target of GSK (Glaxo Smith Kline).

    I also believe it is GSK executives who influenced the GMC to pull the trigger on his and Dr Wakefield’s licenses. (Other players directly compensated by Glaxo – James Murdoch; Brian Deer’s employer – Crispin Davis; CEO of Elsevier (which, in 2004, was publishing 9 fake journals in Australia, one for MMR maker Merck), Brother of Judge Nigel Davis (who stopped MMR litigation funding), Boss of The Lancet’s Richard Horton (who attacked Dr Wakefield in 2004 after years of supporting his research)… there are dozens of others, well known to Sullivan et al.

    Sullivan says – “Mr. Wakefield has a pattern of misleading through omission and partial truths.”.

    My reply – Sullivan alludes to a “pattern of misleading” by Dr Wakefield, but fails to give one supported reference or quote… let’s see any statements or actions by Dr Wakefield or Mr Wakefield that could be interpreted as a “pattern of misleading”.

    It is crystal clear that Sullivan et al are misleading/deceiving/lying, not Dr or Mr Wakefield.

    Sullivan says – “I don’t think Prof. Walker-Smith used the term “hoodwink” nor did Chris claim that exact term was used.”

    My reply – Resorting to semantics on behalf of “Chris” without any accompanying evidence that Dr Smith made a claim against Dr Wakefield of deception or lying or misleading is more disingenuous garbage from Sullivan.

    Sullivan says – “Andrew Wakefield was found guilty of unethical actions in his work at the Royal Free.”

    My reply – Yes… the first time Sullivan has posted the truth in his latest post.

    What he doesn’t also admit is the whole truth in light of Justice Mitting’s restoration of Dr Walker-Smith’s license.
    Justice Mitting, in the case of Dr/Professor Walker-Smith, accused the convicting GMC panel of –
    1. ” the panel’s overall conclusion that Professor Walker-Smith was guilty of serious professional misconduct was flawed”
    2. The panel used “…inadequate and superficial reasoning ”
    3. The panel came to “,,,in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion.”
    4. The panel committed “…an error from which many of the subsequent weaknesses in the panel’s determination flowed.” –

    Worth repeating LOUDLY – “MANY OF THE SUBSEQUENT WEAKNESSES” – “FLOWED”… so many “weaknesses in the panel’s determination” that they “FLOWED”!!!!

    5. “The panel’s determination cannot stand…”.

    It was this same biased weak inadequately reasoning and superficially reasoning panel that convicted Dr Wakefield. Did those same panel members use the same “inadequate and superficial reasoning” and come to flawed conclusions in Dr Wakefield’s conviction?

    Sullivan says – “He clearly lied on TV when asked about his patent–a demonstrable lie both in the evidence available at the time and in the evidence later disclosed in the GMC hearing.”

    My reply – What did Dr Wakefield say? Again Sullivan claims Dr Wakefield lied, but doesn’t include a quote, a reference nor how it is tied to “Chris’s” claim Dr Wakefield deceived/hoodwinked Dr Walker-Smith (whose claim Sullivan is attempting to defend).

    Sullivan says – “So if your contention is that Mr. Wakefield never mis-led Prof. Walker-Smith I’d say you are incorrect. I’d also ask what do you think makes the Professor so special?”

    My reply – As I have demonstrated above Sullivan never proves anything regarding Dr Wakefield deceiving or lying to or even name-calling regarding Dr Walker-Smith.
    As for Sullivan asking “what… makes the Professor so special”… Is Sullivan in third grade? What kind of question is that in defense of “Chris” claiming Dr Wakefield “hoodwinked” Dr Walker-Smith?

    Finally, Sullivan offers an hypothesis in the form of a question – “Was Prof. Walker-Smith aware of Nicolas Chadwick’s negative PCR results? If so, how is that not being “hoodwinked”. If so, why did the good professor not disclose those facts to the public.”

    My reply – Instead of guessing that you are defending “Chris”, try gathering some facts and posting them with links.

    As always,
    In the interest of truth,
    Michael Polidori

    • Chris May 29, 2014 at 20:25 #

      Professor Walker-Smith is still not Mr. Wakefield. Mr. Wakefield has been legally stripped of any medical practice privileges. What Professor Walker-Smith has accomplished legally has not bearing on Wakefield.

      Now where is that data dated before 1990 that shows autism in the USA increased during the 1970s and 1980s with the use of the MMR after it was introduced in 1971? Since the USA is a much larger country and used the MMR much longer than the UK, it should have been notices.

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) May 29, 2014 at 22:20 #

      I wish you were more than interested in truth. I wish you understood it.

      Prof. Walker-Smith was misled by Andrew Wakefield in regards to the nature of his contract. Through omission, Prof. Walker-Smith was unaware that Mr. Wakefield was not allowed clinical care of patients. He was “surprised” to find that out much later.

      Since you misunderstood that point, or do not wish to understand it, I’m not reading beyond the first few lines of your reply. Good luck in your interest. People who support Andrew Wakefield, given his blatant lies, are contradictory.

  22. michael0156 June 3, 2014 at 05:56 #

    “Chris” lies again. He says “What Professor Walker-Smith has accomplished legally has not bearing on Wakefield”.
    My reply – Certainly it does. Justice Mitting, who restored Dr Smith’s medical license, severely criticized the GMC panel that convicted Drs Walker-Smith, Murch and Wakefield.

    If you ignore the information I supply, I will simply repeat it.

    Chief Justice Mitting’s decision, in Dr Walker-Smith’s appeal, lambasted the GMC for poor procedures and wrong conclusions.
    1. ” the panel’s overall conclusion that Professor Walker-Smith was guilty of serious professional misconduct was flawed”
    2. The panel used “…inadequate and superficial reasoning ”
    3. The panel came to “,,,in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion.”
    4. The panel committed “…an error from which many of the subsequent weaknesses in the panel’s determination flowed.” –
    Mitting says the weaknesses in the panel’s determination FLOWED!!!. FLOWED!!!
    5. “The panel’s determination cannot stand…”

    The same panel went after Dr Wakefield and Dr Murch. The same error prone, superficially reasoning, flawed conclusion making panel which made determinations so filled with weaknesses they “FLOWED!!!”

    Then “Chris” disingenuously demands “data before 1990 that showed autism increased. Now where is that data dated before 1990 that shows autism in the USA increased during the 1970s and 1980s with the use of the MMR after it was introduced in 1971?”

    The cases of autism have increased 33 fold since 1988. That was the beginning of the era when vaccine makers were protected by law from lawsuits for injuries known to be caused by vaccines. In the USA the law that protected them was the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (passed and signed in 1986, fully effective in 1988).

    Since then no one can sue a vaccine manufacturer for injuries vaccines are known to cause. Since that law passed vaccinations TRIPLED and autism diagnoses steadily increased every year while the number of vaccines steadily increased… vaccines that are proved to cause neurological injury and death, in kids who were not properly screened before vaccinating.

    Without improvements in screening the increasing number of vaccines increased the number of injuries, including causing brain damage and autoimmune neurological problems, among many other injuries,

    The lack of effective or improved screening and tripling vaccinations caused rising autoimmune problems and neurologically injured children. And it is not just MMR that injures kids’ brains and immune systems.

    Check the vaccine injury table here – http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/vaccinetable.html

    MMR package insert here – http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/m/mmr_ii/mmr_ii_pi.pdf

    The MMR package insert has 12 pages of warnings precautions and contraindications that should be reviewed by every parent, health professional, and vaccinee for EVERY vaccine that is administered. That is the only way to properly screen, and the lack of proper screening and the hands-off regulatory practices at the FDA are causing the dramatic tragic rise in neurologically and immunologically damaged kids and adults, all over the world, where USA style immunizations are given.

    • Chris June 3, 2014 at 16:22 #

      Mr. Polidori, so what? What Walker-Smith did has no bearing Wakefield’s legal restrictions on practicing medicine.

      Also, take a closer look at those NVICP numbers. How many were compensated for MMR claims compared to the number of MMR doses given?

      In addition only two years are befor 1990, and none of those are for autism.

      Total fail.

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) June 6, 2014 at 02:05 #

      Ah, so now you start to drop the pretense of politeness and call people liars. Mr. Wakefield knew he was taking the risk of throwing his life away when he started acting unethically. I will never understand why people are content to follow his example and throw their efforts away as his fans.

      “Chief Justice Mitting’s decision, in Dr Walker-Smith’s appeal, lambasted the GMC for poor procedures and wrong conclusions.”

      Where is the appeal ruling on Mr. Wakefield? That’s right, it doesn’t exist. Mr. Wakefield was found guilty (among his many charges) of taking clinical responsibility for patients when he was expressly forbidden from doing so.

      You do understand what that means, right? It means that is a count which by definition, Prof. Walker-Smith’s appeal has no bearing upon. It’s one of many.

      Mr. Wakefield was unethical. He was caught. Unless you can send him back in time to change his actions, nothing you can say changes that.

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) June 6, 2014 at 02:13 #

      By which we see, again, that the defense of Mr. Wakefield is the defense of the idea that

      Or, to put it another way, those who promote the idea that vaccines have caused an epidemic of autism are willing to embrace unethical people as long as they hold the same view. Mr. Wakefield can do and never has done any wrong. His unethical behavior is excused by apologists who need him to promote the idea that vaccines cause autism.

      What does this tell us about the movement? Nothing good.

      Again, tell me how his statements that his patent was not for a vaccine are not a lie. Also, consider his defense for taking blood from children at a birthday party–an unethical act. His defense? He lied. He made up the story because he thought it was funny. Did he bring anyone in to corroborate that he’s merely a liar and not the sort of person who pays kids for blood at a birthday party? No. Seems pretty simple thing to do.

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) June 6, 2014 at 02:14 #

      I would LOVE to see what would have happened if Mr. Wakefield had appealed. His license would still be gone.

  23. michael0156 June 3, 2014 at 06:08 #

    Sullivan continues his factless rant.

    He pretends to repeat his defense of Chris’ statement that Dr Wakefield “hoodwinked” Dr Walker-Smith and that was used as part of his successful defense and restoration of Dr Smith’s license…

    But neither Chris or his rescuer, sullivan, produce a single referenced statement or court record to demonstrate this.

    sullivan now pretends that Dr Wakefield committed some sin of ommission, but again has no specifics or evidence or references.

    then he states I am not interested in the truth and’or I don’t or choose not to understand it… again without a single shred of evidence or reference to what it is I don’t or refuse to understand.

    After making up these insults, sullivan says those fabrications are why he didn’t read past the first few lines of my post… So Sullivan makes up a reason to ifnore everything I posted… a rather obvious way to avoid embarassing himself by trying to discuss his truth compared to my truth… that is really sad, for all the kids who will be injured by parents falling for the deceptions of chris and sullivan.

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) June 6, 2014 at 02:01 #

      I do not pretend anything. I accept the fact that Mr. Wakefield was found proved of multiple counts of unethical behavior. I agree with those findings.

      It’s tough when you have to defend the likes of Mr. Wakefield to make your point. He has such a fan base. Such a lot of wasted efforts. But, do continue to throw your taunts. It shows how little you have in the way of actual substance to discuss.

      • michael0156 June 17, 2014 at 05:06 #

        Again sullivan avoids supplying any information I demanded about all of the accusations he has made against me and Dr Wakefield.

        What sin of ommission did Dr Wakefield commit? Where is the evidence?

        Sullivan stated I am not interested in the truth. Again I am demanding he post the specifics about what truth am I ignoring and the facts and/or evidence that support his so-far-baseless accusations.

        Again sullivan and chris haven’t addressed any of the evidence I have presented here showing that vaccines cause neurological injury and extensive screening must be done before we vaccinate ANYONE with ANY vaccine.

        Here is a quote from one of my posts –

        “Check the vaccine injury table here – http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/vaccinetable.html

        MMR package insert here – http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/m/mmr_ii/mmr_ii_pi.pdf

        The MMR package insert has 12 pages of warnings precautions and contraindications that should be reviewed by every parent, health professional, and vaccinee for EVERY vaccine that is administered. That is the only way to properly screen, and the lack of proper screening and the hands-off regulatory practices at the FDA are causing the dramatic tragic rise in neurologically and immunologically damaged kids and adults, all over the world, where USA style immunizations are given.”

        Dr Wakefield called for more study of the MMR vaccine and its relationship to possibly causing neurological injury. His 1998 paper is, to this day, supported by the 12 co-authors. This is true of even the 10 co-authors signing the infamous “Retraction of an Interpretation” – .

        http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2804%2915715-2/fulltext

        Anyone who honestly reads the “Retraction of an interpretation” knows the 10 authors of this “retraction” are attempting to retract an opinion which is not part of the 1998 paper.

        Here is a quote from the original 1998 paper – “We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described.”

        Those 10 co-authors simply repeated what was in the paper and they also said – “While much uncertainty remains about the nature of these changes, we believe it important that such work continues, as autistic children can potentially be helped by recognition and treatment of gastrointestinal problems.”

        The “uncertainty” is whether MMR is related to the gastrointestinal changes, or if there are other causes.
        “… we believe it important that such work continues…” is referring to the work they did with Dr Wakefield on that 1998 paper, which they still support.

        They also stated in their “Retraction of an Interpretation” – “the possibility of such a link was raised and consequent events have had major implications for public health. In view of this, we consider now is the appropriate time that we should together formally retract the interpretation placed upon these findings in the paper”
        Who raised this possibility and was this in the paper?
        Who placed this interpretation on the findings?
        It is not in the paper itself, which declares no such association was proved.

        In a news conference Dr Wakefield recommended single shots for measles mumps and rubella instead of the three-in-one MMR, until a clinical study cleared MMR of any connection to gastrointestinal infection.
        Many mainstream media misinterpreted and mis-reported those comments as a statement that MMR was proved connected to autism.
        THAT is the “interpretation placed upon these findings in the paper” that the 10 were trying to retract.
        Those 10 authors did not and do not retract anything that was in the 1998 paper. In their “retraction” they quote studies that had occurred that supported their 1998 paper. I believe they were coerced to produce something, and this ambiguous non-retraction is what they mutually created and agreed to publish.

        The original paper is still available at The Lancet here –

        http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2897%2911096-0/fulltext

        The “Retraction of an Interpretation” is available to view here if you sign-up for free at The Lancet – http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2804%2915715-2/fulltext

        Studies quoted in “The Retraction…” that support the 1998 paper’s findings –

        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12352252

        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12010627

        The 10 CLEARLY support the study in the “retraction” so what did they retract? They retracted someone else’s opinion or the media’s mis-reporting of the study’s meaning.
        Of course they couldn’t retract either of those as they were not part of the paper nor was it their opinion as expressed in the paper.

        This is a much more complete and accurate picture of what happened. There is still much more to this story of the horrible and very public persecution and vilification of of an honest man, a renowned gastroenterologist, who has the best interests and health of not only those 12 children in his study but ALL children everywhere – Doctor Wakefield.

        Chris and Sullivan need to get on board and stop contributing to the damge we inflict on onnocent children by improperly screening and inadvertantly vaccinating kids who are susceptable to being injured by toxins or contaminants in vaccines or the live component of some vaccines.

        Proper screening would save lives and prevent injuries. Safer less toxic vaccines would improve herd immunity by allowing a larger portion of our population to be vaccinated.

        As always,
        In the interest of truth and the protection of children,
        Michael Polidori

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) June 17, 2014 at 20:07 #

        “Sullivan stated I am not interested in the truth. ”

        Not a statement. An observation. You refuse to listen. You go over and over and over and over and over and over and over the same territory and don’t listen. Then you accuse others of not answering your questions.

        I wish you well with your admiration of Andrew Wakefield. It’s a huge waste of your time. Sort of like collecting baseball cards of second rate athletes who were caught cheating and were thrown out of the league.

        “In a news conference Dr Wakefield recommended single shots for measles mumps and rubella instead of the three-in-one MMR, until a clinical study cleared MMR of any connection to gastrointestinal infection.”

        Yep. A very irresponsible act. What data did he have for this? NONE. He claims to have done a lot of literature research which he has not shared, then or now.

        Mr. Wakefield made huge mistakes and is paying for it. Very mildly, I’ll add. Gee, he has been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars a year here in the US. Claiming he has been “villified” and “persecuted” is utter nonsense. When you act unethically, lie and spread misinformation that leads to harm of thousands of people, it is just and right that there should be some consequences. Landing a job at Thoughtful House and then getting rich people to support his multiple useless efforts since is not in any way justice.

        Again, good luck with your praise of the man. Wakefield at least profited from his admiration of himself. You, well, are throwing your time and effort away.

        With this, you are done. As in, if you comment again it will not be approved.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) June 17, 2014 at 20:39 #

        How can you be such a fan of Mr. Wakefield and not know the facts?

        Mr. Wakefield did not tell the public that he was actively working for the attorneys litigating the MMR cases–since before the patients came in to the Royal Free. He has some nonsense about a statement he made but it’s nonsense. Even his own colleagues didn’t know. Sin. Of. Ommision.

        He lies. Consider his statement on this TV show:

        It’s a lie. He had a patent for a vaccine. That is clear and in the public domain in his patent application. His business plans to develop the vaccine were made public after this TV showed aired and further clarified the truth.

        Consider Mr. Deer’s article:

        The press conference and video boosted the commercial plans, which were moving forward behind the scenes. The following week, Wakefield brought two associates to the school for an already scheduled meeting with the finance officer Tarhan. One was the father of child 10 in the paper. The other was a venture capitalist. And two days after the meeting, they submitted a 13 page proposal to launch a joint business with the school. It would be focused on a new company, Immunospecifics Biotechnologies Ltd, aiming not only to produce a diagnostic test, as proposed 18 months earlier, but also “immunotherapeutics and vaccines.”

        emphasis added.

        and

        The revised business plan was ambitious and detailed, aiming to raise £2.1m from investors. It spanned the detection of Crohn’s disease, the treatment of autism, and “a replacement for attenuated viral vaccines.”

        source

        His patent, which claims ” A composition according to Claim 1 adapted for use as a vaccine for the prophylaxis of measles virus.”

        Prophylaxis of measles virus–prevention. Not treatment. Prevention. It’s a claim for a classic vaccine.

        His initial submission clearly states that it is *both* a therapy and a vaccine (in reality it is neither)

        http://briandeer.com/wakefield/vaccine-patent.htm

        What did he write in the body of his patent?

        It has now also been shown that use of the MMR vaccine (which is taken to include live attenuated measles vaccine virus, measles virus, mumps vaccine virus and rubella vaccine virus, and wild strains of the aforementioned viruses) results in ileal lymphoid nodular hyperplasia, chronic colitis and pervasive developmental disorder including autism (RBD) , in some infants.

        That’s a claim–made *before* the Lancet article was published–that the MMR *causes autism*

        In a couple paragraphs he states

        What is needed therefore is a safer vaccine which does not give rise to~these problems, and a treatment for those with existing IBD. I have now discovered a combined vaccine/therapeutic agent which is not only most probably safer to administer to children and others by way of vaccination/immunisation, but which also can be used to treat IBD whether as a complete cure or to alleviate symptoms.

        So, MMR causes autism, there is a need for a “safer” vaccine and he says he has one.

        But on TV he claims it wasn’t a vaccine.

        That’s what we call in my house a lie. Mr Wakefield and his supporters tend to redefine common words, but this as as clear as it gets.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) June 21, 2014 at 18:21 #

        “Again sullivan avoids supplying any information I demanded…”

        By what right do you claim to be able to come to my site and demand anything?

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) June 21, 2014 at 18:31 #

        My apologies–the statement about neurodiversity was on another article.

        Here it is again:

        Neurodiveristy–the understanding that there is a diversity of neurology in the human population. That while some will face greater challenges due to their neurology, that they are disabled by their neurology, they retain the same rights as anyone else. That those rights include the right to dignity and, as much as possible, self determination. A person’s value is not diminished by disability.

        I can not see excluding that viewpoint from the IACC as a good thing.

      • Chris June 21, 2014 at 23:17 #

        “By what right do you claim to be able to come to my site and demand anything?”

        Especially since the information has been supplied to him, plus explained to him in great deal over the past several years not only on this thread but elsewhere. Having a conversation with a table leg would be more productive than one with Mr. Polidori.

  24. michael0156 June 22, 2014 at 05:42 #

    Again you don;t address any of the facts I have presented and you disingenuously claim I don;t have the right to demand that you substantiate the accusations you have leveled against me.

    Then you simply state you will not approve any further comments from me (but you can erase that declaration anytime you feel like it, making it appear that I have admitted defeat by not posting any longer, instead of you actually banning me from commenting.)

    Your relying on Brian Deer to supply patent information and a description of Dr Wakefield’s thought processes is also laughable. Why not simply reference the patent itself?

    The patent doesn’t belong to Dr Wakefield. In the patent application he named The Royal Free Hospital as the registered owner of the patent. The Royal Free Hospital would have benefitted if the ideas behind the idea were valid. They were not and the treatment didn’t work as hoped.

    But the real truth is that Dr Wakefield was selfless in giving up his opportunity to cash in on his invention, if it had worked, along with treating tens of thousands to millions who have been adversely affected by MMR vaccine, it would have made him a wealthy man… which he knew full well, yet since the first day that patent was approved it belonged to the hospital, and not the man.

    You again post a factless unsupported rant and you dont address any of the information in my post or explain your unsubstantiated comment that I am not interested in the truth.

    Stop referencing a reporter with no scientific training who spent the last 20 years of his life in support of the drug and vaccine industries.

    Start paying attention to what I have posted and address those issues or DEMONSTRATE where any of the ideas I have posted are wrong or fraudulent.

    Stop hurting kids!!

    • Chris June 22, 2014 at 07:49 #

      Yawn.

      • Michael Polidori June 22, 2014 at 17:23 #

        Again “Chris” doesn’t address any of the issues I raise.

        I favor herd immunity, which only can happen through a vaccination program.
        Properly run vaccination programs protects kids and adults that have genetic, congenital, acquired immune problems or sensitivities to vaccine toxins/contaminants & can’t be vaccinated.
        Healthy kids don’t need vaccines. Their immune systems can handle wild childhood diseases, children’s or adults’ impaired immune systems cannot.

        Blindly vaccinating everyone ironically injures the very kids a proper program would protect.

        Vaccines don’t apparently injure everyone, or even most. But ineffective, non-existent or improperly researched screening is responsible for the injuries that do occur (as well as unsafe, unnecessary vaccines or too-many-at-one-time).

        The MMR package insert has 12 pages of warnings & contraindications. There are 100s of thousands who should not get MMR, based on the warnings in the insert.
        Merck’s MMR package insert should be the model for ALL inserts, but it still needs better structure & made understandable for most parents.

        http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/m/mmr_ii/mmr_ii_pi.pdf

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) June 22, 2014 at 20:05 #

      Goodbye Mr. Polidori.

      Pointing out that when you come into my space and demand things, you are being rude. Of course, you “demanded” things which you have been given repeatedly. For example, you asked about evidence that Mr. Wakefield lies. He does. Evidence given. Repeatedly. And ignored. Hence, Goodbye Mr. Pilidori.

      You, sir, are the problem. Don’t try to blameshift that away. You, sir, are part of the effort to spread misinformation and doubt about vaccines. Thankfully you are very inept, so your impact is small.

      You, sir, in feeding the idea that autism is caused by vaccines are part of the problem in causing parents to go through life carrying huge guilt. As a fallout of this, you are helping the charlatans who feed on our community by offering faux therapies which harm disabled children.

      You, sir, are the problem.

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) June 22, 2014 at 20:10 #

      “But the real truth is that Dr Wakefield was selfless in giving up his opportunity to cash in on his invention”

      Talk about hero worship overtaking facts. He had plans, spelled out in detail, about how he would make a profit. Shared with the hospital. Why do you lie? Are you ignorant or are you just making things up?

      Aside from his business plan, here’s a fact you should consider: Mr. Wakefield was *required* to name the Royal Free as assignee of the patent. That’s the way it works when a researcher patents something (take a look at my >100 patents…all assigned to my employers). It came out later (GMC hearings and Mr. Deer’s reporting) that Mr. Wakefield filed the patent without his employer’s knowledge. Big mistake there.

      “Why not simply reference the patent itself”

      I did. The links above show that. Which shows us–you either don’t read or you lie. Either way, goodbye.

      Ever seen his estate in Texas? I guess “selfless” means something different to you.

  25. Michael Polidori June 22, 2014 at 18:04 #

    Continuation –
    Vaccine package inserts should be required reading w/ signatures from parents & health care workers acknowledging ALL warnings & contraindications and how they might apply to the vaccinee were considered.

    Adding to problems of mandatory vaccines for everyone & improper screening is the lack of active surveillance – actually looking for the injuries vaccines are causing & adding/ modifying screening criteria.

    In the USA we have passive surveillance, no requirement for reporting or investigation. VAERS, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.
    The HHS/CDC has this to say about VAERS – “Under-reporting” is one of the main limitations of passive surveillance systems, including VAERS. The term, under-reporting refers to the fact that VAERS receives reports for only a small fraction of actual adverse events.
    Source – http://vaers.hhs.gov/data/index

    If you don’t actively look for the injuries and deaths that vaccines are causing then you certainly won’t know how many occur or why they happen – continued below….

  26. Michael Polidori June 22, 2014 at 18:05 #

    Continuation –
    Manuals on statistics define “small fraction” as 1-5%. Based on the HHS/CDC statement and VAERS reports in 2011, a below average year, the following numbers are crudely estimated – Search VAERS at http://www.medalerts.org
    2011 VAERS reports –
    All reported adverse events – 26,000+ –
    HHS estimate of actual # of adverse events – 520,000 to 2.6 MILLION
    VAERS reported serious events requiring hospitalization – 3,800+
    HHS estimate of actual # of serious events – 76,000 to 380,000
    VAERS reported deaths – 209
    HHS estimate of actual vaccine-associated deaths – 4,180 to 20,900

    Ignoring investigation into actual vaccine associated injuries is unscientific, healthcare bereft & head-in-the-sand nonsense that blindly & ignorantly supports drug industry propaganda, protecting drug company profits from paying for injuries and deaths caused by vaccines.

    “Chris” and “Sullivan” are part of the problem, ignoring or belittling the simple truths I post and then threatening to ban me.

    • Chris June 22, 2014 at 18:15 #

      Yawn.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) June 22, 2014 at 20:11 #

        You won’t be bored any more. I don’t need to waste my time with people who lie for other liars. That would be Mr. Polidori lying for Mr. Wakefield.

      • Chris June 22, 2014 at 22:38 #

        Thank you. I was about to just link to posts up thread made years ago that answered him. He is a broken record.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) June 23, 2014 at 04:37 #

        Five years is more than enough time for him to make his case.

        I don’t understand why people get so fixated on Andrew Wakefield. It’s often as much or more about the man than the science. Sure, Mr. Wakefield has multiple demonstrated ethical lapses. But that’s all secondary to the fact that he was wrong. Well, OK, some of his ethical lapses involved avoiding the fact that he’s wrong (like, say, neglecting to inform the public of his post-doc’s results showing no presence of measles virus in intestinal tissues).

      • Chris June 23, 2014 at 05:05 #

        He seems to have a bug up his butt about Wakefield. So much so that when he was banned here he decided to reply to a comment I made almost three years ago. I suspect he has issues that are similar to someone else. I will no longer bow to his demands when he ignores the answers, it is a pointless exercise.

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 1,049 other followers

%d bloggers like this: