Wakefield’s research: from The Lancet to Medical Veritas?

9 Feb

The Lancet is one of the medical community’s premier journals. As such, tetting a paper into such a journal is a big accomplishment for any medical researcher. When Dr. Andrew Wakefield chose to submit his 1998 study to The Lancet, it is likely he wanted to put it in as high a profile journal as possible. One can speculate how the Andrew Wakefield of 1998 would have viewed publishing his work in Medical Veritas, a newer journal which, well, is not generally highly regarded. Somehow, this observer thinks Dr. Wakefield would not have welcomed a suggestion to submit to Medical Veritas had it existed at the time.

Frequent readers to LeftBrainRightBrain, or most places autism is discussed for that matter, will know that Dr. Wakefield’s study has been retracted by the editors at The Lancet.

Frequent readers here may be also familiar with the magazine, Medical Veritas as it has been the home for a number of questionable autism/vaccine articles. If you aren’t familiar with Medical Veritas, let’s just say that Medical Veritas is not in the same league as the Lancet, to put it mildly.

Why bring these two very disparate journals into this blog post? Well, Medical Veritas has offered to republish Dr. Wakefield’s study:

So with zero confidence in The Lancet, Dr. Horton, those paying his salary, and those criticizing him for his actions, Medical Veritas editors are inviting Dr. Wakefield to re-publish his controversial paper in their next issue.

Wow. What a strange move, and on so many fronts. The most obvious being–what sort of standards does Medical Veritas show when it is willing to publish a paper that has been found to be so fatally flawed? It is really hard to consider that this offer was serious. The Royal Free Hospital, Dr. Wakefield’s employer, assigned the copyright to his paper to The Lancet. The study, even retracted, likely remains the property of The Lancet. Also, it isn’t Dr. Wakefield’s right to decide for his coauthors whether to submit to another journal.

The strangeness goes on and on. Let me just pick out one more oddity of this offer by “the editors” of Medical Veritas. Dr. Wakefield is one of the editors. Yes, one read is that Dr. Wakefield has basically invited himself to reprint “his” paper in Medical Veritas.

Just when you thought the story of the Wakefied/Lancet paper couldn’t get stranger.

About these ads

95 Responses to “Wakefield’s research: from The Lancet to Medical Veritas?”

  1. David N. Brown February 13, 2010 at 07:03 #

    “The main advances in combating disease over 200 years have been better food and clean drinking water. Improved sanitation, less overcrowded and better living conditions also contribute.”

    Using this as as argument against vaccination approximates classism- and anti-vaccination is overwhelmingly centered in the upper class. Better food and sanitation are characteristic of higher social classes. In contrast to publicly funded vaccinations, they can never apply evenly throughout a society. And “less overcrowded” carries absolutely sinister conotations. The only reliable way to make an area “less overcrowded” is to kill people! Perhaps, in your heart, that is what you are really thinking of.

  2. Chris February 13, 2010 at 08:06 #

    Marsha, the ChildHealthSafety charts use a long time span and only measles deaths. Deaths are affected by other factors over the two centuries. These include improved nutrition (fresh food with Vitamin A were not as available during winter 150 years ago), sanitation (sewers and clean water), and medical care (like antibiotics to take care of opportunistic bacterial infections or even respiratory equipment for pneumonia).

    What you really need to look at is the incidence of the disease to see if a vaccine is effective. Because this is the only thing that the vaccine will effect. Here is a table of the incidence of measles taken from a table on page 9 of:
    http://www.census.gov/prod/99pubs/99statab/sec31.pdf:

    Year…. Rate per 100000 of population who got measles

    1912 . . . 310.0
    1920 . . . 480.5
    1925 . . . 194.3
    1930 . . . 340.8
    1935 . . . 584.6
    1940 . . . 220.7
    1945 . . . 110.2
    1950 . . . 210.1
    1955 . . . 337.9
    1960 . . . 245.4
    1965 . . . 135.1
    1970 . . . . 23.2
    1975 . . . . 11.3
    1980 . . . . . 5.9
    1985 . . . . . 1.2
    1990 . . . . .11.2
    1991 . . . . . .3.8
    1992 . . . . . .0.9
    1993 . . . . . .0.1
    1994 . . . . . .0.4
    1995 . . . . . .0.1
    1996 . . . . . .0.2
    1997 . . . . . 0.1

    Now please answer this question: What happened between 1960 and 1970? Did food, sanitation and medical care change that much during that decade?

  3. Chris February 13, 2010 at 08:09 #

    There is a graphical representation and further explanation of the misuse of death data on this website:
    http://www.iayork.com/MysteryRays/2009/09/02/measles-deaths-pre-vaccine/

  4. Marsha February 13, 2010 at 19:42 #

    I don’t have the time to put in here it would take to play the game of helping you people keep up the deception in all this useless back & forth banter.

    I am sorry for you to have to say enough people don’t read this thread to warrant the time it would take here to play along to answer your questions.

    Questions that are obviously just little traps in hope to stifle truth from coming out but if you are really asking any of them in all seriousness, you should know the answers already from all we have sent you.

    People here obviously aren’t paying us any attention at all, maybe because motives have been of ill intention from the start.

    Shills or just duped, you have your minds made up so either way, why bother? I doubt you even read or study anything at all, we send you, anyway.

    If I thought there were people serious & genuinely seeking truth here, who are silently watching, I would gladly participate in the back & forth you want to generate in ganging up on the truth.

    I’ll only say in correction of what I already said here that disease rates aren’t what went down by the time vaccinations entered the picture. Death rates did.

    No one can do the research for those who might actually want to learn the truth. The comments at this site will help all who need an education on vaccinations who want to know the facts, if there be anyone like that here;

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/06/mumps-outbreak-strikes-30_n_452427.html?page=2&show_comment_id=40104578#comment_40104578

    &

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/11/mumps-outbreak-tops-1500-_n_458603.html?show_comment_id=40099469#comment_40099469

    If you are shills for the corporate big boys such as big pHARMa you can stay here & talk among yourselves to keep up with the pretence you hope others will peek in & buy or you can join in the real debates.

    I warn you though, the BS will be ripped apart there unlike here where you all hang together & gang up on good people like Sherri.

    There are myriads of people reading at Huffingtonpost.com looking for truth & there’s always these ongoing debates, maninly in the “Living” section of their site.

    There are many regulars there commenting who lay wait to discredit anything alternative to their agenda who out number the truth tellers so you’ll have a lot of company but their numbers are not enough to keep the truth from shining through, unlike here where deception seems to be ruling.

    The practice going on here says it all & you should be ashamed.

    Not only can’t you prove your case, you have to resort to attacking the messenger instead of the content of the messages as evidenced in this thread.

    Too bad. Because it’s you who are losing out. I hope some of you soon admit your errors & join the correct & moral side of humanity for your sakes.

    You, who have been part of the witch hunt up front against Andrew Wakefield who are trying to purposely deceive people will get your due very soon & it won’t be pretty for you.

    One poster put it in a nut shell & hit the nail perfectly on the head;

    “You can have people take vaccination against serious disease seriously.

    Or, you can sell people dangerous and unnecessary vaccines against less dangerous illnesses and have people lose all faith in vaccination.

    You can’t have both”

    “The only wholly safe vaccine is a vaccine that is never used” Dr James A. Shannon, National Institute of Health, USA

    To begin educating yourselves, you can google or use any search engines of your choice & type in, “truth about vaccinations” where you’ll see many pages of a multitude of articles.

    Most people are smart enough to sort out dis-information by weighing all the details & facts & using their common sense if they have been given a fair share.

    No one should ever take the word of another on such an important matter. They need to seek the truth on their own because our children are too important not to.

    Many are ignorant, innocently, because they listen to the wrong people. They listen to those who parrot what they’re told & they listen to shills who are in the pockets of special interests.

    The good news is people are waking by the masses & much wiser now.

    The guilty in this horrid cover up, purposely deceiving us, will be meeting the wrath of our people & have to face the music very soon.

    I can’t wait till this whole matter against Wakefield goes back to court. It won’t be possible to pull another kangaroo court with so many watching now.

    Thanks to Wakefield & the controversy of the witch hunt against the good doctor, too many will be watching for that.

    Choose your sides wisely, people. This is the divide of good against evil & we all know who will be winning. No more using our children as guinea pigs as they have been for far too long in the name of greed. No more!

    Sorry for the length of this but I did have a lot to say. I’ll probably not be commenting much here any more so you don’t have to worry about lengthy posts from me any more.

    But I will be alerting others of the existence of this blog so you can expect people from both sides of the issue to be popping in.

  5. Dedj February 13, 2010 at 20:22 #

    Marsha, you can run away if you need to, but remember that your defence of Sherri has not addressed a single concern regarding her behaviour. Given that you’re just as willing to blithely insult others, thats no suprise.

    “But I will be alerting others of the existence of this blog so you can expect people from both sides of the issue to be popping in.”

    People from both sides already pop in here, both from the UK and US vaxx-skeptic camps. Regular commentators include autism moms and vaxx-skeptic journalists alike.

    Individuals from here have been featured in AoA articles, with comments directly lifted from here. The content of this site is commented on in numerous vaxx-skeptic forums. Members of management staff from national vaxx-skeptic organisations can and have commented here.

    You must be very new to all this if you think you’re the first person (or even in the first 100) on the vaxx-skeptic side to come here, or if you think ‘alerting others’ (a careless choice of words given your earlier threats – it comes across as a threat to get others to come here and ‘gang up’) is actually needed.

    In the meantime, you’ve made some serious claims. You need serious evidence to back them up.

    Please don’t embarrass yourself by coming back before you have it.

  6. Chris February 13, 2010 at 20:29 #

    Marsha has pulled out the same old tired lies that have been dealt with over and over and over on this website. Including the very tired and unproven Pharma Shill Gambit.

    Sigh. Can’t they think of something more original. No, wait… they can’t because they read it off of the same four websites, that get copied to another website and so it goes (I saw some of those same lies on Usenet over ten years ago!)

  7. Marsha February 13, 2010 at 21:11 #

    I didn’t go any where & run away. I’ll be back. But not to play games your way. I’m inviting others right now & came for the link. I’m inviting foe & friend to witness the truth as it really is. Are you all ready, are you game for a real debate with those who, like Sheri, have huge wells full of factual & credible information?

    I doubt it because you can’t cover up truth forever.

    Hold on, we’ll be right back.

  8. Dedj February 13, 2010 at 21:26 #

    “I didn’t go any where & run away.”

    Except, you didn’t answer the questions put to you, despite the fact that they directly related to the claims you made.

    In other words, you looked like you were running away.

    Somehow, it’s taken you well over two hours to collect and present data that you should already have at hand, or at least have quick access to.

    Despite taking these extra two hours out, you’ve failed to come back with even a single link, instead threatening to get your mates.

    In other words, it looks like you don’t have any answers.

    “But not to play games your way.”

    No one here is playing games. You were asked questions directly related to your assertions. Calling them games is pure invention by you.

    “Are you all ready, are you game for a real debate with those who, like Sheri, have huge wells full of factual & credible information?”

    A real debate requires that arguements be properly atributed and facts are referenced and presented within context – something Sherri failed to do despite repeated requests. You have had a few days to address the concerns – openly stated to you in a reply – that there are regarding Sherri’s behaviour.

    It is noted that you have failed to even try.

    “Hold on, we’ll be right back.”

    Ah, so you are, in fact, gathering forces to ‘gang up’ on the people here.

    I’d advise you to take a moment, imagine your behaviour and threats in another context, then imagine you were an observer to someone else behaving that way. Not very impressive.

    In the meantime, you have serious questions to answer.

  9. Marsha February 13, 2010 at 22:33 #

    Unlike some others, I have been busy elsewhere doing more important things so as to help little innocent children “stuck”, pun intended. in the middle of this.

    I have been advised not to waste my time here & it’s probably pretty good advise.

    But, I don’t always take the good advise I’m given. And who knows? My friend could be wrong.

    I wanted to check back to see if my post was still there & to see if anyone like the bad guy I invited here had come.

    Before I answer any of your, what I believe to be insincere questions, I have a serious one.

    Why should I waste my time getting back to questions in a hurried manner, no matter how easy it may be, in your opinions, to just answer them, when they could be deleted as you have many other posts here?

    Wouldn’t that be a waste of time? My time is valuable & I already told you I’ll answer any questions in my time. Not yours. It’s no cop out, not when you people don’t play by fair rules it’s not. It’s necessary & soon all will come out in the wash.

    Answer them I will as I said in my time. Then maybe I’ll have your undivided attention by then & it won’t be so easy for you to do to me what you did to that nurse. I will answer every question for the sake of anyone genuine here when I decide to.

    Don’t worry. I told you friends & foe will be invited. So far I only posted at one of the sites at Huffington Post, I planned to.

    I planned to post at many differing articles at that best on line newspaper there is in cyberspace (Huffingtonpost.com) but I decided to stop there due to thinking maybe my friend might be right & you people here weren’t worth the effort. My friend did discourage me in my efforts here but we’ll do it with what audience we have instead of going for the great big one I invisioned.

    This particular thread is off the website at HuffPo so no new readers will be looking in. You’ll probaly get more of your kind here due to their lurking & waiting to stifle truth & spread dis-information. It’s doubtful anyone but those bad boys will be looking in now because it’s their job.

    See for yourself the converation I just had with a known shill, like some here who have to be in the pockets of special interests like big pHARMa, I’m pretty sure. That are you are just too lazy to do proper research & ignore all people try to educate you in.

    Here’s the link to that, basically, closed thread;

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kim-stagliano/the-censorship-of-autism_b_446295.html?show_comment_id=40114606#comment_40114606

    And here’s what I wrote to the shill in the invite;

    Sheldon101 said:

    “As to the parents, they believed vaccine damaged their child in 1996, why would you expect it to change in 2010.”

    I said;

    Are you kidding?

    If Wakefield was guilty of what the witch hunters say, those parents would have realized they’d been duped & be all over him.

    As for the coward Brian Deer, he’s at the following bogus blog still working to deceive:

    http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2010/02/wakefields-research-from-the-lancet-to-medical-veritas/

    There’s a registered nurse there kicking their butts, including Deer’s but they have been deleting many of her informative posts.

    I just posted there & if they haven’t gotten around to deleting it yet as they have been known to do, especially to that smart nurse, it will still be there.

  10. Chris February 13, 2010 at 23:04 #

    Ah, yes… Kim Stagliano. She has three daughters with autism, and the youngest has never been vaccinated. Not exactly what I call the best source of unbiased information. She blew several irony meters with that Huff-Po piece:
    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/02/how_can_i_resist_such_a_request.php

    Oh, and when you do have a moment to do research… as you find out what happened to the incidence of measles in the USA between 1960 and 1970, could you also find the answer to this question:

    The MMR vaccine that was introduced in the UK in 1992 was approved in the USA in 1971. Yes, you read that right: 39 years ago. Now if the MMR causes autism and intestinal issues, do you have the evidence to show that there were real increases of those conditions in the USA starting almost four decades ago?

  11. Marsha February 13, 2010 at 23:35 #

    Ah, yes, Kim.

    I posted the following at her blog as you can see;

    Kim did well on CNN as you can see at the following link. The sad excuse for a doctor that followed her was as evil as they come because he’s a liar &he knows it. Why is it when people “lie” some get a half smirk that can’t be denied on their face? Bush used to have that look a lot, didn’t he?

    http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/health/2010/02/03/cohen.stagliano.autism.vaccines.cnn?iref=allsearch

    The doctor who followed Kim did look shifty &condescending to me & anyone who’s looked into this whole matter in depth with a fair share of common sense can see right through him.

    He says it’s over & vaccinations are off the hook?

    He and his cohorts wish.

    Wakefield woke a lot of people up & those who know the truth, thank him for that. Now there’s a much better chance of getting on that road to recovery sooner thanks to Wakefield. No matter what anyone says about him, it changes nothing in the way of justice in this matter being the end result, sooner than later, thanks to Wakefield & the likes of Kim Stagliano.

    End of my comment;

    It will all be coming out in the wash very soon

    You’ll get my opinion since that seems so important to you that will come with detailed facts, soon enough.

    I wonder where Sheldon is? I was hoping he’d at least be here before the debate begins up. I haven’t had a chance to see if any of you may have joined in at the debates going on at HuffPo, yet, but I hope there are new commenters.

    Doesn’t anybody new here have anything to say? I know Sheldon’s looking in or when he comes I’m sure he’ll be speaking up. It usually doen’t take him very long to jump on every opportunity that arises, he’s that good.

    I’m sure he’ll be here. He’s one of the best who works to stifle truth & oppose those whose voices have been ignored in the past.

    No more!

    Is there anybody out there besides those already who have spoken out that have something to say?

    I didn’t think there was a big audience here but certainly someone on either side of this matter has something to say.

    Speak up for the children if you’re out there, either side, please. Our children are too important not to,
    no matter which side you be on.

  12. Dedj February 13, 2010 at 23:44 #

    “Why should I waste my time getting back to questions in a hurried manner, no matter how easy it may be, in your opinions, to just answer them, when they could be deleted as you have many other posts here?”

    No one mentioned a ‘hurried manner’. You have come back a couple of times now, over an entire afternoon, to make long winding posts.

    Odd that you have time to do that, but not time to even attempt to answer questions.

    “I already told you I’ll answer any questions in my time. Not yours.”

    Sorry, but that looks exactly like a cop-out. You made several assertions and when called to back them up, you failed to even try, instead you ran this diversion.

    That is the behaviour of someone who is unlikely to have an answer even in thier ‘own time’.

    “That are you are just too lazy to do proper research & ignore all people try to educate you in.”

    You see, you fling derisive language about, yet complain when minimal standards are enforced.

    “Are you kidding?

    If Wakefield was guilty of what the witch hunters say, those parents would have realized they’d been duped & been all over him.”

    Are YOU kidding? Not only do you have the story utterly wrong (Wakefield was supposed to have duped the Lancet, the readers of his 1998 paper, the Press and those that wrote into the Lancet – not just the parents), but if the parents had been duped, you’ve provided no mechanism by which they ‘would have’ cottoned on.

    You’re trying to claim that untrained, unqualified, invested parents would 100% have realised. How? When?

    Some of the proven charges have nothing to do with the parents, as you would know had you read the report.

    “There’s a registered nurse there kicking their butts, including Deer’s but they have been deleting many of her informative posts.”

    Aside from the issue of whether she is a registered nurse, she certainly has not been doing that, and has been asked to stay on topic and stay appropriate several times. She has failed to display minimum standards of behaviour and discussion throughout the thread. You only turn a blind eye to it because you engage in similar tactics yourself and you agree with her.

    You have failed agian to even acknowledge the concerns regarding her behaviour. Do so in your next post.

    By your own admission, you have revisited and posted on the thread several times, have came back several times to check things, and have spent time posting about this thread elsewhere, yet you cant even get around to answering even one question?

    I definetly call bull shit on that one. Massive piles of it.

    BTW, I have no power to delete posts. Everytime you respond to a point I made, but then accuse me of doing something someone else did (if they did it at all), the dimmer and less well balanced you look.

    You can ‘do it in my own time’ if you want, but you have to accept that that just reads like a total cop out.

  13. sheldon101 February 14, 2010 at 05:50 #

    They sunk themselves.
    —————–
    Hi folks, sheldon101 reporting in.

    I see I’m supposed to be here. Sorry, didn’t realize that. Really like this blog, haven’t figured out RSS yet. Came here as a link from Huffington-Post where I hang out.

    I see I’ve been attacked as a shill and worse. I understand why, because I tend to research before I write. When it was H1N1, I often brought new pieces of information together.

    On Wakefield, much of it is using the documents Brian Deer put up on his website and bringing to an audience at Huffington-Post that doesn’t know about it. Rarely, I can add something to what Brian Deer has.

    I think I’ve beat him to a small degree by writing more on 162-95 and in including excerpts from that funny complaint to the GMC by the we love Wakefield brigade.
    http://vaccineswork.blogspot.com/2010/02/162-95-in-one-paragraph-or-sinking.html
    http://vaccineswork.blogspot.com/2010/01/16295-or-162-95-two-studies-defense-of.html

    One point where I disagree with his highlights essay is his view that Wakefield just wanted to get into the guts of autistic children. I think that Wakefield wanted to get into the guts of children who didn’t have clinical indications for Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. Those kids would have a colonoscopy done on them in the normal course of events.

    But Wakefield 12 in The Lancet and Krigsman and his 143 consecutive colonoscopies without mentioning Crohn’s are all about finding a new pathology that is linked/limited to ASD, this autistic enterocolitis.

    The Documents
    ————–
    Wakefield supporters refuse to do their due diligence by working through Brian Deer’s web site and reading the documents that the conspirators produced themselves. They are a wonderful example of confirmation bias and demonizing those who you disagree with.

    This is funny, because they all think of themselves as parents and others who have done the research and made their decision against vaccines based on the research they’ve done. Except either they can’t understand Deer’s documents or they haven’t read them.

    Ignore his prose and read the documents. One major problem with the web site is that I can’t find a single master list of all the documents on Wakefield (it may be there somewhere, but I cant’ find it). And it is just so easy to get lost.

    Even with that criticism (and some broken links), if you read the GMC panel’s decision with the documents, it is clear that they were guilty of everything they were charged with and much more.

    I believe you can decide that they were guilty as hell by just reading 3 documents and the GMC panel decision http://tinyurl.com/gmc-fact-finding .

    First, read the two 172-96 documents http://briandeer.com/mmr/royal-free-11.htm and http://briandeer.com/wakefield/protocol-1996.htm . Very similar documents were passed to legal aid a month or two earlier. Brian, is that legal aid document on the website somewhere?

    They tell you that there was a planned research project going on. The details are worth reading in detail.

    All that remains is deciding if it was this research project that ended up in The Lancet. Wakefield’s defense is that the Legal Aid work and the research project had nothing to do with the Lancet paper and that they started work on 172-96 in the fall of 1997.

    This was the key to their defense.

    Speaking through Bill Long, Wakefield explains:
    –start excerpt—-
    With this conflict resolved and the money having a home, the Legal Aid study, Study One,[172-96] could begin. It actually began in Oct. 1997 and concluded in 1999. But what is more revealing for our purposes is that the July 3, 1997 letter from Wakefield to the NHS Chief Executive mentions in passing that the study which would appear in the Lancet , which I have called Study Two, was already completed . Note the following sentence:

    “Please find enclosed a copy of our first paper submitted to the Lancet concerning children under investigation. This has been an extremely successful study and has clearly demonstrated a new pathology in these children and put the Royal Free Hospital at the world leader in this field.”
    http://www.drbilllong.com/Autism/WakefieldVII.html
    ——– end excerpt—-

    Wakefield makes the same claim himself

    From Issue 33 2009 of the magazine The Autism File there is an article written by Wakefield Historical Perspective “That Paper.” It has been posted online.
    http://www.rescuepost.com/files/autismfile_us33-wakefield.pdf
    Under a large headline Myths: The Lancet Paper is this:
    did not have Ethics Committee (EC) approval
    False – The research element of the paper that required such an approval, detailed systematic analysis of children’s intestinal biopsies, was covered by the necessary EC approval (footnote 13)
    Footnote 13 on the last page
    Ethical Practices Committee approval 162/95. Date of approval September 5, 1995. Carroll, M. to Walker-Smith, J.

    So to determine most of the case, we have to decide whether what gets published in The Lancet is the Legal Aid (172-96) protocol.
    There are lots of way this defense can be proven false. Here is one: If we have evidence that the legal aid study started before the fall of 1997, we know that Wakefield’s defense is false.

    Hmmmm…where can we find a 3rd party who has no reason to lie and is getting information from Wakefield?

    Read page 4 of the Spring 1997 newsletter.
    http://briandeer.com/wakefield/dawbarns-news.htm DAwbarns newsletter
    and you find out that kids have been tested already, under the legal aid protocol which is 172-96.
    —quote begins —
    Under the heading Pilot Study
    The pilot study (being coordinated by Dr. Andrew Wakefield of the Royal Free Hostpital ) has already started and a number of children has alreadystarted and a number of chiuldren have already been tested. Preliminary indications are that there is a strong link between the vaccine and inflammatory bowel disease.

    We are now awaiting the results of a more detailed analysis. This included the use of a technique called polymerase chain reaction [PCR] which may give us some very significant information. The aim of the pilot study is to pave the way for a wider investigation of the problems associated with these vaccines.
    —quote ends–

    Of course, the paragraph about PCR is a lie coming from Wakefield. He had the results from Chadwick as the samples were tested. All of them were either false or found to be false positives.

    Which means that The Lancet paper was a research project. Why is this so important? Because if it is a research project then Wakefield has to say so in his paper. This was a key charge where Wakefield was found dishonest at page 44 of http://tinyurl.com/gmc-fact-finding

    You see, a peer reviewer would naturally want to compare the research protocol to what the paper has to say, especially for a controversial topic like this. And that would be the end of the paper as there are minor problems, like the kids don’t match those who are supposed to be in the paper, they’ve left out Nick Chadwick’s work, they’ve left out that the conspirators organized who was coming in for testing and even the order in which they came to the hospital. See http://briandeer.com/wakefield/thirty-children.htm

    If The Lancet paper is 172-96 modified, most of what was left was matching what was done to each kid. Was it proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that procedures were carried out on autistic children that were not clinically indicated. That is giving the conspirators the very best possible chance of getting a not proven decision.

    But they failed, because they put down on paper their diagnosis of the children, which didn’t need these procedures. And why they were doing it, for research on vaccines and autism.

    One question I’d love an answer to is whether they thought they could avoid the Ethics Committee (because if they were to be believed they were only doing clinically indicated procedures and a few extra biopsies) and were forced to the Committee by concerns of the hospital as evidenced by the Sept 4 letter of the hospital boss telling Wakefield to get an approval document right quick. http://briandeer.com/wakefield/ros-sim.htm

    A comment on Big Pharma and Wakefield
    ———-
    It is hilarious reading that Wakefield was a rebel and that he was a courageous underdog. Baloney. Wakefield’s paper was trash. Despite public health concerns, Horton of The Lancet and Zuckerman, dean of the Medical School pushed an publicized Wakefield and his paper. It wasn’t a case of the establishment against Wakefield, it was a case of the establishment not caring so much and two members of it, abusing their positions for parochial benefits to their institutions.

    I wonder if the GMC might have gone after Horton if the standard of proof had been reduced to a balance of probabilities at that time.

  14. Broken Link February 14, 2010 at 07:22 #

    Marsha wrote: “It will all be coming out in the wash very soon”

    Yes, Marsha, it’s all coming out in the wash, but not the way you’d hope. If I google “Wakefield retraction”, I find under the heading “A Welcome Retraction”, 1064 articles.

    Just above this is the AoA story, where Jim and Jenny go on about the 14 monkeys. There are apparently 23 stories relating to this, but well, not all of them are supportive of Wakers and the anti-vaxers. In fact, the first few are:

    ___

    The Bicker With Wakefield: The Real Reasons Why “Lancet” Was Right to Retract Psychology Today (blog)
    Lancet Disavowal of Autism Vaccine Connection May Lead to More Immunizations Voice of America
    Parents urged to protect children with MMR jab Kent News

    __

    Here, on this blog, you may find some dedicated people willing to give you some time to refute your nonsense on this issue. But you are not going to find any support in the rest of the mainstream media. Despite Sheri’s exhortations to “keep up the good fight”, or what ever else she’s been feeding you people, you can’t keep up with the relentless tide of the truth that is finally being realized by the rest of the world. And it’s about time.

  15. sheldon101 February 14, 2010 at 07:30 #

    Marsha Attacks me
    —————–
    I’m used to personal attacks. I get more than usual at Huffington-Post. I didn’t realize that I had violated some rule over there as far as Marsha is concerned. I’m only here by chance. But I like some of the company. Any site where Brian Deer participates is worthwhile when it comes to Wakefield.

    The person who posts here as Marsha is time4truthnow at Huffington-Post. She’s new over there and one of the most annoying as she flaps her gums about how those who disagree with her are all rotten nasty people. Hilariously, she complains about Huff-Po moderation. She and the other woo supporters get treated more favorably than I ever do. I’ve been forced to get my digs just by using the facts…it has been a learning experience.

    Ultimately, her complaint is that I didn’t give a full measured response to all of her comment.

    I wrote:

    GMC LISTENED TO WAKEFIELD
    ———————————————-
    As to the parents, they believed vaccine damaged their child in 1996, why would you expect it to change in 2010.

    They state: “investigations were carried out without distress to our children.” I’ve gone through every procedure except for the EEG and the lumbar puncture. Even allowing for some procedures being carried out under a general, it would be distressing to an adult, let alone an autistic child.

    The accusations came from the scientific community that believed the results false in some way. But it was Brian Deer who made this insanity public. Once done, the GMC used its own authority to start the investigation.

    Although it would be nice to think that Wakefield helped them make up their mind, that doesn’t seem to be true. But you couldn’t blame them

    “It has been proposed that my role in this matter should bem investigated by the General Medical Council (GMC). I not only welcome this, I insist on it and I will be making contact with the GMC personally, in the forthcoming week.”
    Andrew Wakefield – February 2004
    ———end comment——

    Hmmm…I’m grabbing the quote from Brian Deer’s work (start of his highlights paper) …and he reads this blog.

    If you had provided a link to a source at your site, I would have included a link. I remember being surprised that there wasn’t one. Maybe I can make up to it here.

    ———–
    Marsha has a hissy fit that I don’t respond more to her response to this comment.

    I’m sorry that Marsha is upset with me for not giving her a complete answer to her satisfaction. In my defense, I don’t owe anyone a response, particularly a snivelling writer who attacks the motives of those she disagrees with (currently more than anyone else at Huffington-Post) and mostly parrots, poorly, the Wakefield line of the day.

    But I have responded to this question on the same day, in a more polite request. Unfortunately, it never made it to Huff-Po. Here is a new version of it. Because it gives a flavor of the nuanced quality of my work.

    If I were in the shoes of those parents who were clients/contacts of the lawyer Barr and I read a request for parents to contact Barr with details about bowel problems with kids and the kid had those problems then I’d write it up. And if resulted in an appointment with a renowned child gastro (Walker-Smith) I would follow it up.

    And if Walker-Smith thinks that a nasty week of procedures is a good idea, I would go along. I would go along even if I figured out the procedures were not clinically indicated (which is very unlikely). After all, he was the expert, maybe he could find something useful. And as to it being research, why not do it, if it might somehow lead to money from a lawsuit.

    Walker-Smith is an expert, he isn’t going to put my kid into danger.
    As a parent, I’m not bound by the ethics of a doctor, I can take a wider view of my kid’s best interests.

    As to continuing to believe, why not? I went along with it the past, why not continue to do it. And I’ll get all that support from the anti-vaccination groups.

    And the message of the anti-vaccine groups is so wonderful for the parents…you are not to blame. It is something else, the external, the vaccines, not your fault, nothing to do with genetics, nothing to do with what you ate or drank when pregnant.

    So snivelling Marsha, feel better now?

  16. sheldon101 February 14, 2010 at 09:21 #

    Editing gremlin.

    My long comment has a section that begins

    But there is proof he lied. Here is just one route to the truth.
    http://briandeer.com/wakefield/dawbarns-news.htm
    Under the heading Pilot Study

    I left out the key detail. This was the Spring 1997 newsletter, according to Brian Deer of May 1997.

    So Wakefield has reported to the lawyer that kids have been seen under the legal aid project by the spring of 1997 which means that Wakefield lied and that the Lancet paper is based on the legal aid documents and 172-96. That sinks the three conspirators.

    What about Walker-Smith and Murch?
    —–
    At one time, I thought it was a shame that they would be ‘erased from the register.’ Not any more. They knew what they were doing and lied about it.

    Erased from Register
    ———–
    The phrase ‘erased from register’ sounded like there might be a ceremony where some great book or computer print out is opened up and their names erased. I was hoping it might be televised. So I asked the GMC. Sadly, all they do is change a field on a database to the value for erased.

  17. sheldon101 February 14, 2010 at 18:27 #

    The source of the quote of Wakefield requesting a GMC hearing is a 2004 statement by Wakefield, found at Brian Deer’s web site. http://briandeer.com/mmr/wakefield-sly.htm

    Wakefield made a similar comment to the BBC in 2004.

    He welcomed the GMC investigation. “I not only welcome this, I insist on it,” he said.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3512195.stm

  18. Concerned May 1, 2011 at 19:56 #

    It is no doubt that vaccinations can cause reactions, not only to children but to adults,too. What is a concern that the children are being vaccinated without any blood test to confirm if they are yet anemic.
    What most of the children will likely have in common and those not vaccinated but yet have autism(s), is anemia by early umbilical cord clamping. That the parents can’t see when the doctors clamp off a pulsating and functioning umbilical cord. The parents will not be told how much blood is drained from the placenta, through the means of the cord (called cord blood) is then practically used.
    There are secrets of the institution who allow false policies to call this placenta blood excess blood, residual blood, unimportant blood elements for the need of the child, but somehow approve a policy to allow their taking the blood for practical use. Go to http://www.medical-truths.com and find how how much blood was put into blood banks that had been wrongfully deprived the infants. Now review the policies of instant and early cord clamping weakening the child and it goes back to before and after 1801.
    We can’t know the hearts of man when they say the child will be weaker if the cord is tied too soon as much of the placenta blood is trapped in the placenta that otherwise would be inside the baby. Was this a method of choice of after birth care to the discretion of the doctors from which source of society, the rich or the poor, gave blood, weakening some disadvantaged persons. This is called Social Darwinism, one of the evil ‘isms’ of the world’s philosophies.
    The person is none other then one who comes from the family of Evolutionists believers, the survival of the fittest, the Grandfather of Charles Darwin, Dr. Erasmus Darwin. His article was may have been published in the Lancet, original articals, it was originally dated, 1801, and comments and quotes were made known in the Lancet (original articles) by Dr. Mavis Gunther, London, Uk, 1957. She stated the unassisted birth the infant thrives. Today, weakened infants are almost injected within hours of their birth with stuff like Heb B, a STD injection.

    Would not making this a public medical law make sense – to leave the umbilical cord alone until after the placenta is birthed, and all pulsation in the cord ceases. And might it be a coincidence that the public is largely not informed. That the disadvantaged children’s parents do not know to go back and review “was the cord clamped before the placenta was birthed or not?” There is likely your common cause anemic children, then injected with heavy metals – mercury. The low red celled baby is going to be more compromised then those infants who received full placenta blood infusion.
    More blood is safer then lowered blood volume and pressure.
    Animals are kinder to their offspring then mankind is to his.
    dyoung@pris.ca

  19. Chris May 1, 2011 at 21:06 #

    I tend to disregard a whole comment when there is a big glaring error. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt for writing what you did on an old article until I saw: Heb B, a STD injection. Oh, and then there was invoking an ingredient that was removed over ten years ago.

  20. Marsha May 2, 2011 at 04:43 #

    Boy aren’t you in the dark, Chris.

  21. Marsha May 2, 2011 at 04:49 #

    I don’t recall if I posted this wonderful news here or not.

    Read it & weep, you who are shills, & those you have duped, & use to deceive. Complain about the sources & ignore the content. Deny all you want. It will do you no good because truth’s out;

    Before the good doctor, Wakefield, was sacrificed & framed, we were already on the warpath to save our children from further harm. We thank him for his part in calling attention to the facts & helping raise awareness, knowing all the time his career would be at risk because of it.

    And his work has been replicated as I’ll show you in my next comment.

    Listen to this in depth round table investigation on Jan. 27th as the cover up is exposed beyond a shadow of a doubt;

    http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-gary-null-show-wnye/

    Hear Brian Deer’s interview on Jan. 25th where he reveals, clearly, what’s really what. He hangs himself with his own words, dodging questions & changing the subject as anyone can see, in his obvious ploy to try to pull off the “Elaborate Fraud” he represents­­­­ but accuses Dr. Wakefield of.

    “Documents emerge proving Dr Andrew Wakefield innocent; BMJ and Brian Deer caught misreprese­­nting­­ the facts”

    http://nearing.newsvine.com/_news/2011/01/27/5935264-documents-emerge-proving-dr-andrew-wakefield-innocent-bmj-and-brian-deer-caught-misrepresenting-the-facts

    “Dr Wakefield demands retraction from BMJ after documents prove innocence from allegation­­­­s of vaccine autism data fraud

    http://www.activistpost.com/2011/01/dr-wakefield-demands-retraction-from.html

    “Wakefield Gives Proof: No Fraud. Brian Deer Lied”

    http://www.gaia-health.com/articles351/000394-wakefield-proof-no-fraud.shtml

  22. sharon May 2, 2011 at 05:15 #

    Holy Moses, is there a factory with a production line of trolls somewhere? They just keep coming. Or are they all the same few people just changing their online names?

  23. Chris May 2, 2011 at 05:30 #

    Perhaps “Concerned” was Marsha, who graced us with her long winded typing about a year ago.

  24. Mo1 May 2, 2011 at 08:59 #

    Sharon
    “Or are they all the same few people just changing their online names?”

    Strange you say that. We have 464 members on”Find us on Facebook” but only several regular commenter’s from the list of members defending vaccines, seems a low correlation? One volunteer is worth ten pressed men they say.

  25. sharon May 2, 2011 at 09:05 #

    Hi Mo1, what group exactly are you referring to? Who is “we”?

    • Sullivan May 2, 2011 at 14:41 #

      Sharon,

      Mo1 is also sniffer. I wouldn’t be surprised if this is the same person behind AWOL.

    • Sullivan May 2, 2011 at 18:11 #

      Hi Mo1, what group exactly are you referring to? Who is “we”?

      Sharon,

      Sniffer and Mo1 are the same person. Very likely someone from the not so distant past in these discussions. When he says “We have 464 members on”Find us on Facebook”’, I have my guesses as to where to look. If I really cared.

      But, hey Mo1 is proud of whatever group he represents. I’d be willing to hear what group he’s talking about.

  26. Science Mom May 2, 2011 at 17:39 #

    And his work has been replicated as I’ll show you in my next comment.

    I’m waiting with baited breath for this one sniffer.

  27. sharon May 2, 2011 at 23:43 #

    @Sullivan, thanks, thought so.

  28. H1TRjX4ChuQX July 8, 2013 at 12:46 #

    889519 322496I genuinely treasure your work , Great post. 286979

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Tweets that mention Wakefield’s research: from The Lancet to Medical Veritas? -- Topsy.com - February 9, 2010

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Kev, Reasonable Hank. Reasonable Hank said: RT @kevleitch: Wakefield’s research: from The Lancet to Medical Veritas?: .. http://bit.ly/bcmCCQ // hilarious!! [...]

  2. blog-thing : Andrew Wakefield, the never ending story - February 15, 2010

    [...] the complaint after it was made aware of Brian Deer’s allegations. As Deer points out in this comment on LBRB Wakefield’s parent supporters may have packed the public gallery and joined protests outside [...]

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 1,034 other followers

%d bloggers like this: