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

09 Feb 2010

Author: Sullivan
Comments: 94

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

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 Wakefield’s study has been retracted by the editors at The Lancet.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.

Link to this post?

If you want to reference this post in your site, use the code below to link to me from your website.

<a href="http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2010/02/wakefields-research-from-the-lancet-to-medical-veritas/">Wakefield’s research: from The Lancet to Medical Veritas?</a>

Comments

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

Sheri Nakken RN MA
February 9th, 2010
01:55:09

Its really easy to let the press and drug companies and TV ads tell you what to think

But…......

#1 – just because a journal retracts it 12 years later, doesn’t mean it isn’t valid (journal owned by a company beholden to many drug companies)

#2 – he never said MMR caused autism
Here is the summary of the paper – read for yourself
http://www.thelancet.com/journ.....0/fulltext

#3 – full paper here, that Lancet retracted – http://www.autismresourceconne.....mphoid.pdf
last paragraph “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.”

#4 it is a paper on 12 children with children with chronic enterocolitis and regressive developmental disorder. A paper – not a study – no controls needed. It was a paper looking at 12 children

#5 – many studies show the possibility of a connection to MMR

#6. – http://www.la-press.com/clinic.....n-ch-a1816
another paper

#7 – Acute Encephalopathy Followed by Permanent Brain Injury or Death Associated With Further Attenuated Measles Vaccines: A Review of Claims Submitted to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
Received Jul 30, 1997; accepted Sep 23, 1997.
PEDIATRICS Vol. 101 No. 3 March 1998, pp. 383-387
http://pediatrics.aappublicati...../101/3/383

#8 – “The paper was partially retracted in 2004, by 10 of the 12 authors involved”
No, the interpretation of the paper was retracted….............
http://www.thelancet.com/journ.....2/fulltext – We wish to make it clear that in this paper no causal link was established between MMR vaccine and autism as the data were insufficient. However, the possibility of such a link was raised and consequent events have had major implications for public health

Read for yourself – that is hard for most….....don’t let political machinations by drug companies and the powers that be fool you

Please do better research next time

Sheri Nakken, RN, MA
Sullivan
February 9th, 2010
02:12:51

Sheri Nakken, RN, MA,

Perhaps you could actually respond to the blog post? Perhaps you could read it?

Did my post say, for example, “The paper was partially retracted in 2004, by 10 of the 12 authors involved”? You put that in quotes as though you are responding to something.

“just because a journal retracts it 12 years later, doesn’t mean it isn’t valid”

Just because a paper is published in The Lancet doesn’t mean that it is valid. As we have just seen.

Are you another hit-and-run commenter or will you stay and discuss?
Tweets that mention Wakefield’s research: from The Lancet to Medical Veritas? -- Topsy.com
February 9th, 2010
02:59:05

[...] 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!! [...]
advodiaboli
February 9th, 2010
04:00:19

Nov. 26th, 2009: “of course I think that nothing is worth the risk as I know vaccines do NOT give immunity”:

– Sheri Nakken, happily taking your money to offer “informed choice”.

Speaking of numbered lists…, Oct. 25th, 2009:

Sheri Nakken took great pleasure in mocking the fact someone advised her on the lack of knowledge she presents on her site, and Sheri suggested AVN members “write” to the author. “Write” is AVN code for abuse, threaten, insult, torment, etc. What they do to grieving parents who loose infants to the preventable diseases the AVN has ensured re-emerge – because pertussis, hepatitis, measles, mumps, rubella, febrile seizures, SSP, encephalitis, ulcerated corneas, etc… are all “good”, thus the parents must be to blame.
———-

Sheri wrote about the 12 points below;

“go (sic) this by email today….... ...may want to wirte to Ms. Cabel (who is part of the Cabal).
———-

But of course. Anyone who isn’t part of the AVN’s synchronised mantra is a member of an evil global force.

Sheri is yet to respond to the challenge, and an AVN member was banned for pointing out responding to any challenge was an ideal way to secure integrity. This also equates to an “enemy” of some type or makes one a “septic” – misspelling of “skeptic”. I do not know if that person was “a skeptic”, but have seen many, many kicked off for thinking independently. Clearly, one is either ‘with them or against them’.

From: Meryl Dorey
To: AVN@yahoogroups. com
Sent: Fri, 30 October, 2009 6:55:35 PM
Subject: Re: [AVN] Re: email from someone who doesn’t like my website.

“Please excuse my delay in kicking this septic off of the list. I have been extremely busy over this last few days. And is it just me or do words like ad hominem make anyone else cringe? The language is so … patent. It is like they are all referring to a script and just putting in pat phrases. I mean, if you want to criticise, that’s fine – but criticise the science – not the person.

All the best,
Meryl”.

Ah, the “science”. And Sheri’s answer remains as absent as the brave questioner.

Here is what the tears were about, sent by email, to Sheri who cannot answer – but can garner fellow anti-vaxxers to harass rather than offer evidence/rebuttal.

Reasons why your site should be removed off the internet:

1. It is completely untrustworthy.

2. Your information is not based on solid scientific research.

3. Your site is focused on selling books, which is completely biased.

4. You are not endorsed by a health agency or an association.

5. You don’t refer to any organizations that are responsible for
maintaining standards.

6. No experts have reviewed your information.

7. Your information is old.

8. Your information is based on opinion and not solid scientific
research. Sound scientific research is often supported by
universities or professional associations which yours isn’t.

9. Your claim is based on the idea of a conspiracy and emotion.
10. Your site discourages us from working with our health care provider.

11. Anyone can create a website. Your information is not scientifically valid.

12. You are putting thousands of children’s lives at risk.
Think about it…..

http://health.groups.yahoo.com.....sage/40917

Sheri who copies, pastes and slabs entire junk science opinion pieces dominates the Yahoo! list. This includes deleting posts, then banning members – perhaps donating [not enough] members – who express the slightest confidence in vaccines.

Do not trust Sheri Nakken.
Sheri Nakken RN MA
February 9th, 2010
04:10:21

just read the papers for yourself
they speak for themselves
but that sometimes is too hard
Dedj
February 9th, 2010
04:28:40

That wasn’t what you were asked Sheri.

It’s ironic that you should cast out snide insults and implicit accusations of stupidity and ignorance, yet you can’t deal with a reasonably well written blog post, even after explicit correction.

“Read for yourself – that is hard for most”

Certainly seems hard for you, as you have demonstrated.

You’ve had 20 years of doing this and the best you can come up with is a out of context cut’n’paste list and vague assertion that we should ‘read up’

Do better or kindly take your baseless insults and attitude elsewhere. Mothering.com is more your level.
Sullivan
February 9th, 2010
05:18:40

Dedj,

she’s quite right. It is hard to read those articles when they have RETRACTED splayed across the pages ;)
Clay
February 9th, 2010
05:48:54

Well hey, Sheri, I was just talking about you the other day.

http://cometscorner-clay.blogs.....ccine.html

After the article about Gates backing research for a vaccine for malaria, it’s all about you, hon. We know all about you. Did you visit ol’ Boyd Haley when you went to the Tea Party convention?
HCN
February 9th, 2010
06:55:51

So Sheri, do you remember what 0.2% works out in numbers?

I remember you don’t seem to do so well with maths:
http://groups.google.com/group.....ab8c?hl=en …

Begin Quote:
> So what does 0.2% calculate to in numbers

1 in 500

> Sheri

End Quote

Of course, you have identified yourself as a “homeopath” ... ooh, super pseudoscience! You must be incredibly math impaired to thing that a substance diluted way past reality is effective.

So, Ms. Nakken, do you have any real evidence that the MMR vaccine is worse than measles, mumps and rubella? I believe I asked you that years ago, and you never really answered. The link to a retracted article does not count, and the Pediatrics article you linked to said “Conclusions. This clustering suggests that a causal relationship between measles vaccine and encephalopathy may exist as a rare complication of measles immunization.”

Did you notice the word “rare” in there? Yes, there is a one in a million chance of a bad outcome. How does that compare with the actual diseases?
HCN
February 9th, 2010
07:05:42

By the way, Ms. Nakken, how current is your nurse registration? Don’t you have to keep that updated? Doesn’t it require a test of basic knowledge, include basic mathematics?
HCN
February 9th, 2010
08:02:48

The Internets are great, I looked it up (at least for the state of California). Ms. Nakken have you qualified by testing for the Registered Nurse designation in the past eight years? If you have not, I would suggest that you no longer included “RN” after your name.

Of course, we all know that Andrew Wakefield is not licensed to practice medicine in Texas.
Kev
February 9th, 2010
09:30:36

Ms. Nakken, you say ‘he never said MMR caused autism’...here are some quotes from the press conference given by Wakers to accompny the paper:

...I have to say that there is sufficient anxiety in my own mind of the safety, the long term safety of the polyvalent, that is the MMR vaccination in combination, that I think that it should be suspended in favour of the single vaccines…

... the risk of this particular syndrome developing is related to the combined vaccine, the MMR…

...the behavioural or developmental change tends to occur quite soon after administration, and this is where, why parents or GPs or paediatricians have been able to make the link, the association with MMR…

How is that not suggesting at the very least that autism can be caused by MMR?
Visitor
February 9th, 2010
10:12:13

Oh yes, that’s the Lancet paper that wasn’t about MMR. The one where a link between MMR and autism for 8 of 12 children is the FIRST finding, and FIRST result, and the “possible environmental trigger” set out in its conclusions. The one where autism came on within 14 days of vaccination (ho ho). And which, when I just ran a word search across the PDF, came up with “MMR” 15 times. And which was published with an editorial from CDC on MMR vaccination, and a video and press conference where Dr Wakefield called for MMR to be suspended.

Ooh, yes, Ms Naken. You’re a really smooth operator.

It’s truly fascinating how, after a decade in which Wakefield toured the world with this paper as being the foundation of the whole thing, when he ends up in front of the GMC he switches the lie he’s telling, and all his little minnows like Ms Naken, who spent half her life putting up nasty little posts on bulletin boards, try to somehow retrieve the situation by claiming that it wasn’t about MMR.

Oh, and by the way, it had controls! Try reading it sometime. You might learn something.
Dawn
February 9th, 2010
13:15:39

@HCN, etc. To answer your questions about renewing a nursing license: in most states, once you have passed the boards, you simply need to do a certain number of continuing education credits per year to renew. Mathmatics are not required; actually, thinking is not required for renewal as you can simply go to seminars, sit and learn nothing, and get the certificate at the end of the day. (yes, I am a nurse and yes, I have a CURRENT, active, nursing license in the state I currently live in)

I’m curious about Ms Nakken’s credentials. Why on earth does she feel she has to put RN, MA after her name? And what is your MA in, Ms Nakken? What is your Bachelor’s degree in? As a nurse whose credentials probably surpass yours, I’m curious to know.
(Graduate, University of Michigan School of Nursing, BSN, Graduate, MSN, SUNY Stony Brook)
Squillo
February 9th, 2010
19:00:27

I don’t find Medical Veritas’ offer that strange. The title alone makes it clear to most observers that the journal isn’t primarily about science, but about politics and PR.

The offer is a smooth PR move designed to provide yet another opportunity to paint Wakefield as a brave maverick docctor™ and martyr, and give more talking points to the anti-vax groups who will use it as another opportunity to take advantage of the naivte of the general public in matters of science.

Here’s my prediction:

1. Wakefield supporters will say, “See? Another journal thinks the study is valid! The Lancet is just in the pocket of Big Pharma and the government who want to suppress the autism-vaccine connection.”

2. The Lancet, and possibly the other authors, will refuse to permit their copyrighted work to be reprinted in Medical Veritas.

3. This will prompt many further cries of “censorship” from groups supporting Wakefield, and be cited as more “proof” that TPTB control mainstream science journals like The Lancet to ensure The Truth (Veritas, doncha know?) never gets out.

Create a new controversy to deflect from the real story. It’s PR 101. Wakefield and his supporters have a pretty good history of harnessing this tactic to turn attention from the basic facts of the sad saga of Andy Wakefield.
Marsha
February 9th, 2010
19:18:32

Is this about Wakefield or “get the nurse” for trying to help the truth to this matter come out? How critical & judgmental when we have important things at hand to discuss & get to the bottom of.

This is sad!

All is coming out in the wash & the bad guys in this mess are finally being exposed. Because of heroes like Dr. Wakefield we’ll soon be on the road to recovery we need to be on. We, who are paying attention with a fair share of common sense, know who the ones are that actually have the well being of our children & nation at heart.

Wakefield has been the scapegoat in calling the “much needed” attention to this whole charade of atrocity & I thank & commend him. Very soon parents & their children will be thanking him for the change he & those like him will bring to this sad state of a world we have become due to greed of man. Men & women responsible for taking something meant for good & turning it in to something evil are soon to be replaced as much revamping & restructuring of the system & entities associated in this matter, who have taken the wrong turn, resulting in this epidemic of injury & harm that’s been done to our children. To a higher court we will go now and the world is, thankfully & finally paying attention

“False Testimony Denies Dr Wakefield a Fair Hearing at MMR GMC Witchhunt”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related

“Mums ejected from the GMC Dr Wakefield Witch-hunt Trial Speak out”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....&NR=1

v=VyvKnavzPjM=related

Who do you believe people? Those who are taking part in this witch hunt against Wakefield or the Mothers who were thrown out of that kangaroo court in that video?

The fight is on so watch out bad boys because the good guys are taking over.
Sullivan
February 9th, 2010
19:29:36

Marsha,

my heroes, and the heroes for my kid, don’t subject children to unwarranted medical procedures. This is especially true of invasive medical procedures.

We appear to view the world differently, you and I.
Sheri Nakken RN MA
February 9th, 2010
19:31:33

Below is a short form FAQ about the GMC case of Dr. Andrew Wakefield and colleagues Professor John Walker-Smith and Professor Simon Murch

Did the Ethics Practices Committee of the Royal Free Hospital NHS approve Dr. Wakefield and colleagues’ proposal for research biopsies to be conducted on children which ultimately resulted in publication by the Lancet?

YES . The Ethical Practices Committee of the Royal Free Hospital NHS Trust approved proposal # 162-95 before any biopsies were collected for the case study on the Lancet 12.

Was the 1998 Lancet article based on a research study or a case study?

The Lancet article was based on a case study. Case studies do not have control groups.

Did the 1998 Lancet case report say that the MMR vaccine causes autism?

NO. The Lancet case report reads, “We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome (autistic enterocolitis) described.” The Lancet case report ends with a call for additional research. “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.”

If the Lancet case report did not say MMR vaccine causes autism, what did some of the co-authors partially retract in 2004?

Nothing. Some of the original co-authors partially retracted an interpretation despite the fact that it never existed in the case report.

The co-author’s partial retraction reads, “We wish to make it clear that in this paper no causal link was established between MMR vaccine and autism as the data were insufficient. However, 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, according to precedent.”

Again, the original case report itself never interpreted the data as establishing a causal link between MMR and autism, so there was no “causal” interpretation to retract.

If the Lancet case report did not say MMR causes autism, and if his collection of biopsies for research purposes was pre-approved by the Ethical Practices Committee, why is there a case against Dr. Wakefield (and colleagues)?

Medical authorities in the UK (and the United States) do not like it when licensed medical professionals ask questions about vaccine safety. Licensed medical professionals and medical researchers who question vaccine safety are more difficult to dismiss than parents who notice adverse reactions after vaccination.

The prosecution of Dr. Wakefield, Professor Walker-Smith and Professor Murch is an example and warning to other licensed medical professionals and researchers. The warning is clear: if you question the safety of a vaccine, you put your license and career at risk.

Does industry have anything to gain by prosecuting Dr. Wakefield, Professor Walker-Smith and Professor Murch?

Yes, possibly. Industry may use the prosecution of Dr. Wakefield and colleagues in an effort to argue that the MMR vaccine is safe. Merck manufactures both MMR vaccine and Proquad vaccine. In 2009, Merck eliminated the option of single dose Measles, Mumps and Rubella vaccines when they announced they are discontinuing the manufacture of those monovalent vaccines. Now that the single dose option is no longer available, Merck’s would benefit if the public perceived MMR’s 3-live-viruses-in-1-shot as a safe option for customers wary of Merck’s new 4-live-viruses-in-1-shot Proquad.

Additionally, in internal emails regarding Vioxx in Australia, Merck employees discuss”destroying” doctors critical of their products “where they live”. MMR is a Merck product. Dr. Wakefield, Professor Walker-Smith and Professor Murch all lived in the UK at the time this study was conducted.
Sheri Nakken RN MA
February 9th, 2010
19:33:21

Drug companies inject kids for their so-called studies all the time – ethical – they seem to think so. They take blood from them and any other studies deemed necessary during their minimum study.

Every time a child gets a vaccine its an unwarranted medical procedure. Further post-marketing experimentation
Sheri Nakken RN MA
February 9th, 2010
19:37:30

Other studies…......

Submitted by Teresa Binstock on February 9, 2010 – 9:03am.

The original findings of enterocolitis in many but not all autistic children has been replicated several times (eg, 1-3). Furthermore, a month after Wakefield et al was published in The Lancet (Feb 1998), the journal Pediatrics published a study reporting that among various vaccines related to mumps, measles, and rubella, the MMR was by far the most likely to induce neurologic damage or even death (4). The abstract of that study is available free online and merits perusal, as does the whole-text article (4). Wakefield et al’s speculation about a possible autism-MMR connection was not as far afield as The Lancet retraction would have us believe. Furthermore, two newer studies have documented associations between HepB vaccinations and autism and also the need for special education services (5-6).

1. Enterocolitis in children with developmental disorders
Am J Gastroenterol. 2000 Sep;95(9):2285-95.
http://www.nature.com/ajg/jour.....0579a.html

2. Autistic enterocolitis: Fact or fiction?
{excellent, brief overview}
Can J Gastroenterol. 2009 Feb;23(2):95-8.
http://www.pulsus.com/journals.....38;isArt=t

3. Clinical Presentation and Histologic Findings at Ileocolonoscopy in Children with Autistic Spectrum Disorder and Chronic Gastrointestinal Symptoms
Autism Insights 2010:2 1-11; 27 Jan 2010
http://www.la-press.com/clinic.....n-ch-a1816

4. Acute Encephalopathy Followed by Permanent Brain Injury or Death Associated With Further Attenuated Measles Vaccines: A Review of Claims Submitted to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
Robert E. Weibel et al.
Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation, National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, Health Resources and Services Administration, Public Health Service, Rockville, Maryland; and the DaggerOffice of the General Counsel, United States Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, Maryland.
PEDIATRICS Vol. 101 No. 3 March 1998, pp. 383-387
http://pediatrics.aappublicati...../101/3/383

5. Hepatitis B triple series vaccine and developmental disability in US children aged 1-9 years
Gallagher C, Goodman M. Toxicol Environ Chem 2008 90(5):997-1008.
{free online}
http://fourteenstudies.org/pdf/hep_b.pdf

“The odds of receiving EIS were approximately nine times as great for vaccinated boys… as for unvaccinated boys…, after adjustment for confounders.”

6. Hepatitis B vaccination of male neonates and autism
[conference abstract as published]
CM Gallagher, MS Goodman, Graduate Program in Public
Health, Stony Brook University Medical Center, Stony Brook, NY
Annals of Epidemiology, p659
Vol. 19, No. 9 Abstracts (ACE) September 2009: 651–680

” Findings suggest that U.S. male neonates vaccinated with hepatitis B vaccine had a 3-fold greater risk of ASD; risk was greatest for non-white boys.”
Sullivan
February 9th, 2010
19:51:08

Sheri Nakken RN MA,

You really don’t care about the actual topic, do you? You just seem to want to use this thread for your own mini blog posts.

Too bad you are just plain wrong. If you actually cared about whether the team at the Royal Free had ethical approval to do the tests, you would discuss the lumbar punctures. Even if we accept that there was approval in place for gut biopsies, there wasn’t anything in place for the some of the lumbar punctures as they were done before the approval was granted.

Also, the approval for any of the tests only was in place when they were done during clinically necessary tests. Many tests were made, samples taken, that had nothing to do with the clinical interests of the child.

If Dr. Wakefield’s paper didn’t claim MMR causes autism, why did he make the totally unsupported statements he made in the press conference?

The warning is clear: if you question the safety of a vaccine, you put your license and career at risk.

Funny, I know of someone who questioned whether a certain vaccine was safe enough for general use. The vaccine was smallpox, and the researcher was Paul Offit. His career seems to have survived.

Why? He made his claims responsibly.
Dedj
February 9th, 2010
20:09:11

“Did the Ethics Practices Committee of the Royal Free Hospital NHS approve Dr. Wakefield and colleagues’ proposal for research biopsies to be conducted on children which ultimately resulted in publication by the Lancet?

YES . The Ethical Practices Committee of the Royal Free Hospital NHS Trust approved proposal # 162-95 before any biopsies were collected for the case study on the Lancet 12.”

Proposal 162-95 appears to be related to the taking of research samples during colonoscopies.

Sheri – if you continue to show a lack of common decency and inability to address the thread topic, I will have no choice but to report your comments as spam to the blog administrators.

Deal with the thread topic or take your cut and paste crusade elsewhere.

At no point does it appear to give permission for non-clinical research only colonoscopies to be preformed.
Brian Deer
February 9th, 2010
20:24:25

Dedj,

Almost right. But I’m sure you wouldn’t want to pass on even slightly misleading information. There is enough of that about already. 162-95 gave permission for John Walker-Smith’s team to take TWO extra biopsies for research purposes, with informed consent. This was a carry-over from a previous hospital where he worked. It gave no other permissions, and in the case of the Lancet children, eight paired biopsies were generally taken for what a statutory tribunal has determined to be research purposes. On top of that were ileocolonoscopies, EEGs, lumbar punctures, barium meals, MRIs, GAs (sometimes), upper endoscopies (sometimes).

Wakefield, of course, has spread around the story that 162-95 gave permission for all that he was involved in. As ever, untrue. Pitiful really. But people believe it.
Sullivan
February 9th, 2010
20:30:22

Brian Deer,

MRI’s sound somewhat innocuous to many readers. (and others will point out how the noise and closed spaces are very distressing to many people). However in order to perform an MRI on a severely disabled child, it is often necessary to use anesthesia. Anesthesia itself is a serious procedure especially on young children.

Was there any information about whether the children needed to be anesthetized for the MRI studies?
Oriel
February 9th, 2010
20:37:38

Martha, any ideas on how the parents who were thrown out of the GMC hearing whilst the Chairman was trying to deliver the Findings of Fact, square the fact that Dr Wakefield and his legal team did not call them as witnesses, thereby giving them a voice and an opportunity to give their opinions to the panel, at an appropriate time?

Much has been made of the fact that the GMC denied the parents a voice in the hearing but I’m not aware of anyone explaining why it was the Defendants chose not to give them a voice either. In fact, given the content of the parents speeches outside the GMC, it seems incredulous that the three doctors did not call the parents to deliver such supportive testimonies to the panel.

I just don’t get it.
Dedj
February 9th, 2010
21:14:47

“Almost right. But I’m sure you wouldn’t want to pass on even slightly misleading information.”

As far as I’m aware, what I said is simplified, but still completely correct. Remember, we’re dealing with Sheri’s specific claim, not giving an overview of the proposal and approval. A full recount of the approval is not needed for the purposes of rebutting Sheri, or rather her source that she failed to properly attribute to (i.e. plagiarised).

The approval appears to have been for taking research samples during routine proceedures, not for the proceedures to be performed for research purposes. I assure you that there was no intent to provide ‘misleading’ information, but if we are truly dealing with people who either lack relevent knowledge or capacity to understand the distinction, then gawd help us.
daedalus2u
February 9th, 2010
21:30:15

The GMC case was not about the science, it was purely about factual matters. Did X happen? Did Y happen before Z? Is what was written in the Lancet paper the same as what the children’s medical records say?

There is no point in calling witnesses who were not present when the events under investigation transpired. They cannot have valid testimony as to events they were not present to witness.

There are multiple false statements in the Lancet paper. We don’t even need to look at the conclusions to know that the paper must be retracted. When a paper has false data, the paper must be retracted. It is gross scientific misconduct to allow a paper with false data to enter, or to remain in the scientific literature. This is not a close call.

Medical Veritas is on the same level as Whale.to, not a site that is to be used for anything but entertainment, for examples of how not to do things.

If Medical Veritas is willing to print Wakefield’s Lancet paper, even after knowing that it has false data in it, then Medical Veritas has just proven itself to be anti-science and completely unreliable. This is not a close call. Plenty of unreliable sites have the Wakefield paper, that one more adds it is of no consequence. It simply gives those of us who care a measure by which to judge the site. It is total BS crap.
Brian Deer
February 9th, 2010
21:46:36

You see this is the problem. Dedj bought into the idea that Wakefield had a research approval, when he didn’t. And now daedelus has bought into the idea that parentrs didn’t have the chance to give evidence, when they did.

Not only could Wakefield have called anybody he wanted (and he called nobody whatsoever, and didn’t even ask questions of the government’s vaccine supremo), but a parent of one of the 12 kids – Rochelle Poulter – DID give evidence. She appeared in August 2007 for the prosecution, and gave them a mass of documents which were devastating to Wakefield’s case. One of the letters was to Walker-Smith where she says that he’d told her that the research might not help her child, but might help other children. Devastating stuff.

You have to bear in mind that a calculated campaign of misinformation has been organised. You simply can’t believe bits of gossip, or assume that some aspect of them may be true, and then argue over details.

If you go back six years to when I first took a crack at the Lancet paper and got it partially retracted, the story then went round that only an “interpretation” by others had been retracted. This went on for years. Now that I’ve got the full retraction, the story goes round that it wasn’t about MMR at all.

These things you are debating: they just ain’t true.
Corina Becker
February 9th, 2010
21:47:19

Marsha, as an autistic adult, I doubt that I will be thanking Wakefield for anything anytime soon.

In my opinion, as an autistic who does not have GI issues and whose regressions have nothing to do with vaccines and “toxins”, Wakefield is a slimy con artist whose real motives are to promote his own measles vaccine.
Dedj
February 9th, 2010
23:24:28

“Dedj bought into the idea that Wakefield had a research approval, when he didn’t”

No I didn’t. That’s the total opposite of what I did say, and I did not specifically mention Wakefield at all.

None of them had the research approval alledged to be covered by 162-95 at all, and only one (not Wakefield) appears to have had any approval to take non-clinical samples, which did not extend to approval to perform the proceedures for research purposes only.
Sheri Nakken RN MA
February 10th, 2010
01:46:55

Corrine
How fortunate for you. I’m sorry you don’t have compassion for the children and teens who are injured now with so many serious immune system and neurological injuries.

You can count your blessings, not to live in constant pain, with diarrhea constantly, unable to tolerate any food, with fulminate yeast infections throughout your body, unable to even speak of your pain, beating your head against the wall.

Walk a mile in their shoes or their parent’s shoes. You would be grateful for a doctor who listened to you.

He never had a measles vaccine to promote.
Sheri Nakken RN MA
February 10th, 2010
01:48:17

who cares if Lancet retracts it?
the world does not revolve around the opinion of Lancet or you, the reporter who is the only one who filed charges.
Sheri Nakken RN MA
February 10th, 2010
01:57:05

http://www.autismone.org/conte.....div-phd-jd

On Second Looking into the Case of Dr. Andrew J. Wakefield by William Long, MDiv, PhD, JD
Sullivan
February 10th, 2010
01:57:36

Sheri Nakken RN MA,

if you didn’t care, you wouldn’t have spent so much time here giving us all the talking points.

I see that you don’t read critically and you like to repeat misinformation. No one filed charges against Dr. Wakefield. The GMC brought the charges without a complainant.

And, yes, I’ve checked. You, obviously, have not.
Sullivan
February 10th, 2010
01:59:14

Sheri Nakken RN MA,

it is one thing to propagate misinformation in support of bad science.

it is another to do so in an effort to insult one of our valued commenters. Should you like to characterize anyone as not having compassion for children again, I suggest you limit yourself to those who have been proven by hearing to have acted with callous disregard for suffering.
Sullivan
February 10th, 2010
02:00:18

“You would be grateful for a doctor who listened to you.”

I’d rather have a doctor who tells me the truth than one who listens to me.

Just me. I can tell I won’t be knocking on your door for services anytime soon.
Sullivan
February 10th, 2010
02:01:45

Just for the record—
unless Sherri Nakken (letters following name) has anything real to add, I have no intention of approving her comments in this discussion.
David N. Brown
February 10th, 2010
02:11:35

“the reporter who is the only one who filed charges.”
We’ve got a live one on the “Brian Deer, Complainant” myth!
Dedj
February 10th, 2010
02:13:27

“He never had a measles vaccine to promote.”

Wakefield has not denied the existence of his patent.

The patent clearly lays out a preperation to be used as a vaccine component, and secondarily as a treatment in IBD. There are a number of posts on this blog that discuss this, including some with direct quotes or page and paragraph references.

Technically correct that he did not have a rival vaccine. Utterly incorrect if you wish to claim he therefore held no interest in seeing the MMR versions in use be discontinued.

It’s like claiming Shell have no interest in cars using oil products because they don’t directly sell cars themselves, just an essential component.
Sullivan
February 10th, 2010
02:14:18

David N. Brown,

As it happens, I have a post going up on that shortly.
Sullivan
February 10th, 2010
03:06:45

Sheri Nakken RN MA,

please don’t use pseudonyms in this thread.
Marsha
February 10th, 2010
16:40:03

Discredited Defamation: The Fallacious Case against Dr. Andrew Wakefield by Polly Tommey

http://wwwDOTautismoneDOTorg/c.....lly-tommey

Here’s more proof of the witch hunt this has been. The good doctor has been black balled by special interests and words now coming out big time. Polly Tommey is but one witness and many more will be coming forward.

Sullivan, why are you threatening not to allow Sherri’s posts? That’s not fair just because you disagree. If you censor like that, word “will” get around and the end result will be your own discrediting.
Kev
February 10th, 2010
17:00:32

He’s saying that unless people have more to add to the debate than simply posting links, then running away then there;s no point them contributing at all. Surely its not difficult to debate properly is it?
Dedj
February 10th, 2010
17:08:43

If you can’t see why:

Plagiarising another persons work, and then presenting it out of context and with no discussion
Posting irrelevently and repeatedly off topic despite direct requests not to do so
Making implicit accusations of ignorance
Attempting to use pseudonym’s for no apparent functional purpose (i.e. sock puppetry)
Making personal insults and accusations agianst a long standing commentator

might, just might be seen as unreasonable behaviour from a previously registered professional (who never the less uses the professional title) who presents herself as informed and ambiguously ‘better’ than the rest of us, then making threats to ‘discredit’ people for enforcing minimum standards of civil behaviour doesn’t reflect very well on you.

You are clearly only agreeing with Sheri’s behaviour because you agree with her opinions. The two things are entirely seperate.

Re: Polly Tommey. Please. Proof? All you have there is 3 pages of a invested person attempting to imply a conspiracy with little more evidence than the fact that she was asked not to mention him.

No evidence that any of the charges were false. Plenty of nameless sources and accusations of cloak and dagger behaviour and outright deception on the part of bloggers.
Marcia
February 10th, 2010
18:21:29

UK “Faked” National Autism Data To Declare MMR Vaccine “Safe”
http://childhealthsafety.wordp.....utismlink/

I’m a little confused – why should anyone want to debate the personal attacks made? They are best left ignored.

And plagarism is when you post things people have written, not URLs
Insults can only be made against new people?

Marcia
Sullivan
February 10th, 2010
19:19:19

Marcia,

we covered the NAS survey of 1 in 100 adults a long time ago. If the writers of the self-styled “ChildHealthSafety” blog want to discuss our take on it, they are welcome to do so.

Frankly, I can’t fathom why people who claim to be working in the best interests of autistics would go to such lengths to deny the existence of adult autistics. From my perspective, they are sacrificing both the possibility to improve the life of those autistics and the future quality of life of the minor autistics.

If we don’t understand the needs of adult autistics, how are we supposed to support them? The adult autistic population is vastly under recognized and under served.

I’m biased. I want a better life for my kid. I also can’t see sacrificing the well being of millions of people to promote an “epidemic”.
Dedj
February 10th, 2010
19:19:35

“I’m a little confused – why should anyone want to debate the personal attacks made? They are best left ignored.”

Yes you definetly are. We shouldn’t, and they should be.

“And plagarism is when you post things people have written, not URLs”

Sheri’s short form FAQ post is from AoA, she could be the original authour but hasn’t declared herself such, or if she did I must have missed it.

“Insults can only be made against new people?”

This was never said or implied. It’s also such a stupid arguement to make, it’s actually quite insulting for you to have presumed it was my arguement. You will retract it in your next post.

And as for the link. Again, it’s an invested authour making spurious, unsubstantiated and unevidenced implicit and open accusations agianst a multitude of people who are individually more qualified and experienced than a handful of JStones.

Little evidence for the rumours is posted. Misunderstanding of the selection process is made. ‘Problems’ are stated with no evidence that said problems exist, with at least one remark worded to imply improper recruitment.

Poor quality work from a source that none of us here are likely to hold any faith in. We’ve dealt with him here before, called him out on errors, and faced nothing but blame dodging and sarcasm.

Do better next time.
Broken Link
February 10th, 2010
22:59:06

I don’t think you need to either block or pay attention to Sheri Nakken’s postings. She’s all over EoH, trying to get people to comment on all the blogs/articles that are discussing Wakefield:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/.....age/104265
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/.....age/104267

and she’s posting the same garbage all over the internet. For example, try googling

“company beholden” nakken

You can see she’s posted the same cut and paste nonsense at at least 4 other blogs.
Broken Link
February 10th, 2010
23:06:10

Oh, and for those studies purportedly “confirming” Wakefield’s work, that’s been beautifully debunked here:

http://justthevax.blogspot.com.....eally.html

Summary is:

“So what do we have here? Three (3) genuinely published cases of autistic adults who had consulted a doctor for gastrointestinal problems and were found to have gastrointestinal problems. One conference report from April 2005 that has not gone through peer review and has not appeared in a real journal in the 5 years since the conference. One real study looking at over 50 autistic children which does not confirm Wakefield’s findings. And finally, one study by Wakefield’s buddies in a freshly founded journal run by Andrew Wakefield and his buddies, to say that their buddy Andy was really right all along – how is that for “independent” confirmation?!”
Clay
February 10th, 2010
23:18:07

Er, try this one:

http://homeopathysnc.org/HOMEO.....Kindem.jpg
Sullivan
February 10th, 2010
23:32:13

Thanks Broken Link,

she posted, what, 8 off topic comments that are filled with junk logic? Pretty clear it was some sort of spam attempt to help Dr. Wakefield.

But, hey, it’s censorship if I stop letting her post, right?

Clay, I’m not sure I’m comfortable with links to her pictures. Her words make the case—she’s not one who looks critically at what she posts on the net. The pictures are all public, I know.
Joseph
February 11th, 2010
00:52:22

UK “Faked” National Autism Data To Declare MMR Vaccine “Safe” http://childhealthsafety.wordp…..utismlink/

That article by John Stone (what a surprise) is a dishonest misrepresentation of the NHS survey, and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the methodology of the survey and, apparently, probability theory. More likely, John Stone is pretending not to get the methodology of the survey, and how it is that they projected prevalence from the number of autistics found.

Some claims appear to be entirely made up. For example, I read nothing in the report to the effect that no “classic” autistic adults were found. (This was a survey of autistics living in private households only, so they are probably not completely representative of all autistics, though.)
Brian Deer
February 11th, 2010
08:35:52

I’d say that, aside from Carol Stott slurping on a plastic bottle of water and cackling like a strangled hen while the prosecution accused Wakefield of tampering with a document, the most striking incident at the GMC hearing was during the chairman’s reading of the findings on day 197.

Dr Kumar had just started reading “Ileal lymphoid nodular hyperplasia, non-specific…” At this moment, John Stone started shouting “Wrong paper! Wrong paper!” and ran out of the room.

As we all strained to refocus on the findings, I’m sure it wasn’t only me who weighed the odds that for two-and-a-half years, a panel of three doctors and two lay members, plus five QCs and their supporting teams of solicitors and juniors, three medically-qualified defendants, and (usually) myself in the corner, had all been reading the wrong research report, and that, in the nick of time, Mr Stone had pointed this out.

You couldn’t make it up.
Sheri Nakken RN MA
February 11th, 2010
20:12:04

But you made it up, BD, at god knows whose behest…..............kangaroo courts deserve zoo-like reactions.

Glaxo links by so many involved in the persecution of Wakefield

how many times can the name GLAXO come up? (one of the makers of MMR)

Medico Legal Investigations, a company that is completely funded by the Pharmaceutical Industry. There are clearly matters of conflict of interest even in the initial stages of the prosecution.

In 2004, the High Court Judge Sir Nigel Davis, in a closed hearing, rejected the appeals made on behalf of vaccine damaged children whose legal aid had been withdrawn for a coming court case, which would ultimately represent some 2,000 cases. Weeks after this decision had been made, it was reported that the Judge had failed to disclose that his brother was a non-executive board director of GSK, defendants in the case. The case had been in progress for nearly ten years and was only months away from it’s hearing in the High Court. The science lobby groups funded by the drug companies and especially Lord Dick Taverne the founder of Sense About Science and previously a major PR handmaiden for the pharmaceutical industry had campaigned heavily to get legal aid taken from the parents. After it was publicized about the conflict of interest, Brian Deer accused him of being ‘cruel’ to
the scions of the Davis family.

During Dr Wakefield’s defense case the fact that Richard Horton’s line manager at the Lancet, the Director of the Elsevier publishing company, was also a non executive director of GlaxoSmithKline, was reinforced. Dr Horton gave evidence claiming that Dr Wakefield had failed to provide him with evidence of his conflict of interest in relation to money that the Legal Aid Board had granted the Royal Free Hospital. This evidence did not seem to coincide with the historical record. Dr Horton made no declaration at the beginning of his evidence that he was on speaking terms with one of the GSK directors or indeed that such a person acted as his line manager at the Lancet.

Dr Kumar is the Chair of the GMC fitness to practice panel that heard the case of Dr Wakefield, Professor Walker-Smith and Professor Simon Murch. Kumar has numerous financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry including stock holdings with Glaxo, the manufacturer of the MMR.
Visitor
February 12th, 2010
12:43:58

Does anybody think this “Nakken” character even exists? “She” has collected together, cut-and-paste, a collection of totally untrue claims which have evidently been cooked up in some witches’ kitchen of blogger fabrications. To correct “her”, for instance:

1. The name “Glaxo” has never come up in any context relating to Wakefield’s disgrace, other than in the aforementioned fabrications.

2. Medicolegal investigations, or the pharmaceutical industry, has never come up, and never had anything to do with the Wakefield issue, other than in the aforementioned fabrications.

3. Sir Nigel Davis never had anything to do with the GMC case, and was never a judge in the MMR case. He undertook a judicial review of a narrow issue as to whether the Legal Services Commission should be asked to review its previous decision, taken on advice from an independent panel, and the claimants own barristers, that the Wakefield theory of autism couldn’t be sustained at trial. The issue of his brother was looked into and found to be irrelevant.

4. Sense about Science and Dick Taverne never campaigned, or made any statement at all, about legal aid in the MMR case. This was another fabrication, as above.

5. Brian Deer never said anything about being cruel to scions of anybody.

6. Dr Horton’s “line manager” (sometimes described in the fabrications as his “on line manager”, whatever that is), is his publisher. Reed-Elsevier is a giant multinational publishing house, within which the editor of the Lancet is but a middle-manager, and does not report to the chief executive. The line-manager thing was just a concoction of some idiot who didn’t know the meaning of the words.

7. Dr Horton’s evidence was accepted and found proved, on the criminal standard of proof, by the GMC panel. If it was plainly wrong, it could be overturned in the High Court, and Wakefield will be a happy man today. However, it was plainly right, and Wakefield knows that he is finished on four counts of proven dishonesty, for which the sanction is erasure.

8. Dr Kumar had no conflict of interest. This was accepted by all parties at the hearing, including in submissions by Wakefield. The allegation that he has “numerous financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry” is simply a fabrication.

My view is that this Nakken character is a malicious troll, who, apart from evidently knowing so little about MMR, public policy, the organization of business, or the Wakefield case that “she” can be assumed to be writing falsely on anything where “her” name appears, “she” is so plainly intending to mislead that “she” should be banned from this site.
Clay
February 12th, 2010
13:28:44

Visitor said:
“Does anybody think this “Nakken” character even exists?”

She exists, alright, but all that you say about her is entirely true. I think that she exhibits a sort of “homeopathic thinking”, meaning that any logic emanating from her is reduced to a solution of one part in a billion, resulting in a veritable flood of nonsense! ;-)
Dawn
February 12th, 2010
14:07:57

I’m just amused by Ms Nakken; when I asked her to post HER credentials (February 9th), all I got were crickets chirping. Is she who she really claims she is, with an RN and MA?

As far as Medical Veritas goes, it is a sham journal. I can remember seeing it way back in physician offices (family members who are MDs) and reading some of the articles. Even as a girl in high school I could tell most of the articles were nuts. (ETA: Back then, it was a “freebie” journal I believe; certainly non of the doctors actually subscribed to it.)
WEL
February 12th, 2010
14:15:00

Sheri,were you one of the parent litigants in the MMR litigation in the UK?

I was, and my memories of the experiences at the ‘coal face’ differ significantly from the version you’re churning out. Justice Davis upheld the decision by the Legal Services Commission to withdraw Legal Aid on the basis that the lawyers acting on behalf of the “vaccine damaged children” had stated that as things stood they could not bring a viable case to prove a causal link between ASD and the MMR vaccine.(£18m from the public purse had been invested in the case). In the event that Justice Davis had granted the appeals, I can only guess at the public uprising, to say nothing of the number of appeals subsequently lodged had word got round that the LSC were now funding cases with no prospects of success!. As long as the claimants own lawyers were saying that the case had no merit, it was irrelevant who the judge was on the day…..... the outcome was bound to be the same. The LSC did not remove funding for the children until such times as their lawyers stated there was prospects of success.

Recent events may go some way to explaining why the claimants ended up with no case. Where were the child claimants were going to get expert witnesses to support their claims that there was a causal link between the MMR vaccine and ASD? Dr Wakefield one of the most highly paid expert witnesses has recently bamboozled everyone by insisting that he never said the MMR vaccine was implicated in any of his findings begging the question….........why he employed as a lead witness in a litigation, the success of which, was entirely dependant on proving a causal link between the MMR vaccine and ASD in litigant children.!!

No wonder the lawyers were forced into admitting that the case had no prospects and even less of a wonder that the LSC called a halt to the funding.

Please feel free to educate me as to how Justice Davis could have upheld the claimants appeals in these circumstances and how he could have justified the further squandering of public funds on the case.
Broken Link
February 12th, 2010
14:53:09

No, Sheri Nakken is a virulent anti-vaxer of long-standing. She’s a homeopath who works in Washington State. Here’s her signature line on EoH, where she regularly advertises her “courses” which spread dis-information amongst the most vulnerable.

Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Washington State, USA
Vaccines – http://vaccinationdangers.wordpress.com/ Homeopathy http://homeopathycures.wordpress.com
Vaccine Dangers, Childhood Disease Classes, new Holistic Baby Class & Homeopathy Online/email courses – next classes start February 24 & 25
Broken Link
February 12th, 2010
14:58:16

Well, well. She also runs an anti-vax yahoo group, which she claims is the busiest on the internet. Judging from her posting frequency on EoH, I’d bet she’s the author of most of the posts.

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/vaccinations/

I’m very tempted to join under a sock puppet and attempt to bring some truth there.
Evil Possum
February 13th, 2010
00:21:08

Visitor,
“He undertook a judicial review of a narrow issue as to whether the Legal Services Commission should be asked to review its previous decision…”
I have wondered about what would have happened if Davis had ruled for the MMR claimants. Mike Stanton has offered the opinion that this would have secured future fundine. But from what you are saying, all a ruling would have done was require another “review” by the same people who had decided to cut the funding in the first place. In that case, there would have been nothing Davis COULD have done that would have ensured ANY amount of future funding.
I would be interested in what evidence you have for your interpretation.
Marsha
February 13th, 2010
04:22:17

I’ve been watching the unfair gang up on Sherri & I’m very sorry to see this when I know Serri’s motive is to help others. Please think about the children, people & know that’s why Sherri does what she does.

It seems all this (too much)vaccination against what was common childhood disease has put us back to the dark ages. Jeopardizing, harming & even destroying immune systems that were well able to take care of us like Mother Nature intended.

We’ve been duped because disease was on the decline before vaccinations. We need rethink all we’ve been taught for the sake of children.

Yes, we can be skeptics but we better check this one out carefully to be sure by researching many different sources to begin with.

Don’t let people who think they know the facts tell you anything. Do the research yourself. Our children are too important to take the word of people, some of who may be in the pockets of special interests in this political embargo that’s been goin on..

GRAPHICAL EVIDENCE SHOWS VACCINES DIDN’T SAVE US

http://www.vaclib.org/sites/debate/web1.html

“Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries of Official Statistics”

http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/

“This is the data the drug industry do not want you to see. Here 2 centuries of UK, USA and Australian official death statistics show conclusively and scientifically modern medicine is not responsible for and played little part in substantially improved life expectancy and survival from disease in western economies.

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. This is also borne out in published peer reviewed research”
Sullivan
February 13th, 2010
05:07:47

Marsha,

I guess we read different history books. The books I read said that in the dark ages kids died of these diseases. All the time.

I notice that I am not supposed to believe people who think they know the facts…that is unless they write for the self-styled “childhealthsafety” blog.

If you think that vaccines don’t work, you are either wildly misinformed or you are antivaccine and purposely trying to mislead people. I rarely use the antivaccine term, by the way.

Tell me, when did the rate of HepB start to fall in the US? When did Hib start to fall? I guess the 1960’s were a time of bad sanitation in the US, when measles and rubella were rampant?

Tell me, what advance in sanitation and food made Measles and Rubella go away at exactly the same time as the vaccine was rolled out.

Seriously, I’d love to hear the answer to that one. I’ll wait while you check “ChildHealthSafety” for the answer.
David N. Brown
February 13th, 2010
06:54:59

Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries of Official Statistics”

What TOUR graphs show re measles is an approximately constant rate of measles cases and a steady decline in deats up to the mid-1960s WHEN MEASLES VACCINES WERE INVENTED followed by a dramatic drop in cases and deaths thereafter.
So, how do you propose to interpret this data as ANYTHING BUT evidence of the effectiveness of vaccination?
David N. Brown
February 13th, 2010
07:03:41

“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.
Chris
February 13th, 2010
08:06:15

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/99p...../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?
Chris
February 13th, 2010
08:09:18

There is a graphical representation and further explanation of the misuse of death data on this website:
http://www.iayork.com/MysteryR.....e-vaccine/
Marsha
February 13th, 2010
19:42:22

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/.....t_40104578

&

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....t_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.
Dedj
February 13th, 2010
20:22:00

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.
Chris
February 13th, 2010
20:29:41

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!)
Marsha
February 13th, 2010
21:11:32

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.
Dedj
February 13th, 2010
21:26:11

“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.
Marsha
February 13th, 2010
22:33:23

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/.....t_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......l-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.
Chris
February 13th, 2010
23:04:58

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/insole.....equest.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?
Marsha
February 13th, 2010
23:35:17

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/?/vid.....=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.
Dedj
February 13th, 2010
23:44:49

“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.
sheldon101
February 14th, 2010
05:50:19

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.c.....nking.html
http://vaccineswork.blogspot.c.....se-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/Auti.....—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/file.....efield.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.
Broken Link
February 14th, 2010
07:22:22

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.
sheldon101
February 14th, 2010
07:30:57

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?
sheldon101
February 14th, 2010
09:21:24

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.
sheldon101
February 14th, 2010
18:27:57

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
blog-thing : Andrew Wakefield, the never ending story
February 15th, 2010
01:31:47

[...] 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 [...]
Concerned
May 1st, 2011
19:56:57

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
Chris
May 1st, 2011
21:06:02

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.
Marsha
May 2nd, 2011
04:43:01

Boy aren’t you in the dark, Chris.
Marsha
May 2nd, 2011
04:49:14

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.progressiveradionet.....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/_n.....-the-facts

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

http://www.activistpost.com/20.....-from.html

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

http://www.gaia-health.com/art.....raud.shtml
sharon
May 2nd, 2011
05:15:25

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?
Chris
May 2nd, 2011
05:30:42

Perhaps “Concerned” was Marsha, who graced us with her long winded typing about a year ago.
Mo1
May 2nd, 2011
08:59:13

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.
sharon
May 2nd, 2011
09:05:17

Hi Mo1, what group exactly are you referring to? Who is “we”?
Sullivan
May 2nd, 2011
14:41:42

Sharon,

Mo1 is also sniffer. I wouldn’t be surprised if this is the same person behind AWOL.
Science Mom
May 2nd, 2011
17:39:17

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.
Sullivan
May 2nd, 2011
18:11:51

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.
sharon
May 2nd, 2011
23:43:25

@Sullivan, thanks, thought so.