Autism Blog - Fact checking Brian Deer on Andrew Wakefield

11 Jan 2011

Author: Sullivan
Comments: 592

Fact checking Brian Deer on Andrew Wakefield

As Kev recently wrote here on LeftBrainRightBrain, the main defense of Andrew Wakefield is not a defense at all, but an attack on Brian Deer. Rather than look at the facts laid out in the BMJ article, people are claiming that Andrew Wakefield couldn’t possibly have “fixed” the data (lead authors can and have do this, see our recent post). Also, that Andrew Wakefield didn’t have access to the full records of the children, so that he couldn’t have known that there were contradictory data in those records.

It is an odd argument in that it concedes that yes, indeed, the “facts” in the Lancet article do not match the children’s medical records.

It is also an odd argument because it ignores the citations that Brian Deer makes in his article. Mr. Deer cites where he gets the information that contradicts Andrew Wakefield’s reports. Many of which are not hidden in the child’s records but were available to Mr. Wakefield at the time he wrote his article for the Lancet.

Mr. Wakefield has reported in his Lancet article (now retracted) that “We identified associated gastrointestinal disease and developmental regression in a group of previously normal children, which was generally associated in time with possible environmental triggers. ”

Emphasis added.

As Brian Deer has noted in his article in the BMJ, this is not the case. Many of the children reported upon were not “previously normal”. We here at LeftBrainRightBrain have the luxury of more space than did Mr. Deer, so let’s check a few of Mr. Deer’s statements, shall we? Let’s look at the children that Mr. Deer commented upon in his article.

Early on in his article, Mr. Deer refers to Child 8. Child 8 was noted as having facial dysmorphisms. Further, the doctors treating Child 8 “...had significant concerns about her development some months before she had her MMR Vaccination”.

Here is a letter sent to Andrew Wakefield on 3 October, 1996. The Lancet article wasn’t published until 1998:

“ Dear Dr Wakefield

[Child 8’s] mother has been into see me and said that you need a referral letter from me in order to accept Child 8 into your investigation programme. I gather this is a specific area of expertise relating to the possible effects of vaccine damage and her ongoing GI Tract symptoms. As far as I am concerned, if [Mrs 8] is happy to proceed with this and it gives her any further information and peace of mind, I am sure it would be beneficial for both her and for [Child 8]. I enclose photocopies of some recent correspondence which gives a fair idea of [Child 8’s] current state. I would simply reiterate Dr Houlsby’s recent comment that both the hospital and members of the Primary Care Team involved with [Child 8] had significant concerns about her development some months before she had her MMR Vaccination. I take Mum’s point that she has video evidence of [Child 8] saying a few words prior to this vaccination being given and her vocal abilities are now nil but I do not think we can be entirely convinced as yet that the vaccine is the central cause of her current difficulties. However, I am quite prepared to support [Mrs 8] in her quest for further information and I hope some useful results come from these tests.

Best wishes.”

emphasis added.

This was presented to the GMC on Day 29 of the hearing. Mr. Wakefield knew Child 8’s physicians questioned whether child 8 was “previously normal” when he wrote the article in the Lancet. It is unclear if Mr. Wakefield sought out those physicians, or if the “recent correspondence” also noted those early signs. But we do know that Andrew Wakefield had more than just the parent’s report on the child’s history and that the physicians disagreed with the parent’s impression. Given the contradiction between the two sources, at the very least, Mr. Wakefield should have sought out the child’s records.

As an aside here, Child 8 was already funded by legal aid at the time of referral. Mr. Wakefield has claimed that children were not already a part of litigation when they were seen by him at the Royal Free. This is also noted in an doctor’s note in the transcripts:

“Mum taking her to Dr Wakefield, Royal Free hospital for CT scan and gut biopsies.
? Crohn’s – will need a letter.
Dr Wakefield to phone me.
Funded through legal aid.”

Again, the child was “funded through legal aide” before referral to Mr. Wakefield.

Here is how Child 4 is reported in The Lancet paper:

One child (child four) had received monovalent measles vaccine at 15 months, after which his development slowed (confirmed by professional assessors). No association was made with the vaccine at this time. He received a dose of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine at age 4·5 years, the day after which his mother described a striking deterioration in his behaviour that she did link with the immunisation.

“Confirmed by professional assessors”. I find this interesting. One of the defenses of Mr. Wakefield is that “he was just reporting what parents told him”. But, there it is, “confirmed by professional assessors”. Andrew Wakfield had “professional assessors” check the validity of the claims. Have Andrew Wakefield’s supporters actually read the paper?

Was there anything in this child’s records that a “professional assessor” might flag as possibly showing signs of delay before vaccination? Here is the letter from Child 4’s doctor to Mr. Wakefield dated 1 July 1996.

“Following our recent telephone conversation I would be grateful if you could arrange an appropriate ECR appointment for [4] to undergo assessment regarding his possible autism and his bowel problems.

[Child 4] has had long standing difficulties and shows severe learning difficulties and also bowel disturbance and his mother has always found it difficult to accept that there was no known cause for [Child 4]’s disorder. A few years ago she was chasing the idea that he might have a metabolic disorder and I enclose a copy of a letter I wrote to Dr Wraith in Manchester at that time although his reply was he did not see any value in further tests along these lines. I’m aware that you are looking at the possible links between measles vaccine and various difficulties and [Child 4] certainly had MMR in 1988. In general [Child 4]’s mother thinks that he developed normally initially and then subsequently his problems worsened and he lost some of the milestones he had achieved but that he has subsequently improved on something of a restrictive exclusion diet. The professionals who have known [Child 4] since birth do not entirely agree with this however and there is a suggestion that some of [Child 4]’s problems may have started before vaccination.

Since 1994 4 has continued to have intermittent problems with his bowels and diarrhoea that [Mrs 4] relates to food intake; he has had a negative test for celiac disease and has on at least 2 occasions had giardia but he has had no further investigations regarding the cause of these symptoms.

As I say, [Mrs 4] is convinced that both [Child 4]’s behaviour and his diarrhoea are triggered by his diet and she has him on something of a restrictive exclusion diet. He has not gained weight and we have been very concerned about this and [Mrs 4] feels that this is despite him being on a more normal diet. We have therefore not made any assessment as to whether his failure to gain weight might be due to an inadequate diet or to possible malabsorption.

I would be grateful if you could arrange an appropriate appointment and would be very interested if you feel [Child 4] fits into the sort of category of patient that you are interested in looking at further”.

From Day 6 of the GMC hearing. Note that the “...had MMR in 1988” is likely incorrect and that it was the monovalent measles vaccine in 1988.

Again, Mr. Wakefield was alerted to a child having possible problems before MMR administration, but reported the child as “previously normal”. We are left with a question, did Mr. Wakefield just fail to follow up on this possibility or did he know the details and misreport them?

Here is a statement in the child’s records. Whether this was available to Mr. Wakefield at the time of writing the article in The Lancet is unclear:

A delayed development was acknowledged by the health visitor at 1 year of age but at this stage [Mrs 4] did not accept that [Child 4] was slow.

Here is a letter written to Child 4’s physician after his time with the Royal Free team:

“I will write to Dr Wakefield to see if I have any better luck at getting a summary of their investigations and conclusions. [Child 4] had a course of (I think) sulphasalazine after his investigation at the Royal Free Hospital. He became acutely distressed, apparently with abdominal pain and his autism and behaviour did not improve. It was therefore discontinued after a fortnight”.

Apparently, the therapies Mr. Wakefield’s team supplied were not always beneficial.

Let’s move on to Child 1. Mr. Deer reports in the BMJ:

The remaining five children served Wakefield’s claims no better. There was still no convincing MMR syndrome. Child 1, aged 3 years when he was referred to London, lived 100 miles from the Royal Free, and had an older brother who was diagnosed as autistic.76 Child 1’s recorded story began when he was aged 9 months, with a “new patient” note by general practitioner Andrea Barrow. One of the mother’s concerns was that he could not hear properly—which might sound like a hallmark presentation of classical autism, the emergence of which is often insidious. Indeed, a Royal Free history, by neurologist and coauthor Peter Harvey, noted “normal milestones” until “18 months or so.”

Child 1 was vaccinated at 12 months of age, however. Thus neither 9 nor 18 months helped Wakefield’s case. But in the Lancet, the “first behavioural symptom” was reported “1 week” after the injection, holding the evidence for the lawsuit on track.

Here’s the “new patient” note:

“New patient – recently posted from XXXX. Mum worried re hearing/wax in ears/? Discharge left ear … Reassured.” Then “(NB – older brother … ? behaviour probs and ? family dynamics ?)”.

Here’s the statement by Dr. Harvey (of the Royal Free): “after normal milestones a deterioration from 18 months or so”. The referral letter for this child, sent to the Royal Free, states that the child was normal until age 15 months.

Here is a statement from the records at the Royal Free (day 24 of the transcripts):

“Child 1 was admitted for further investigation of his autism and specifically to look into a possible association between his neurological condition and any gastrointestinal disorders. The main problems are a “classical” autism diagnosed a year ago and of diarrhoea.”

On page 50:

“His diarrhoea started approximately 18 months ago. He passes five watery stools a day which contain no blood or mucous. They do contain some undigested food. He appears to have no control over his bowel movements and frequency is increasing. His appetite has always been poor and there has been no obvious change in this. He has only very occasional episodes of vomiting.

He is up-to-date with his immunisations, including his MMR at 12 months of age. There is obvious parental concern that this has some bearing on his subsequent condition.”

Perhaps not consistent, but Andrew Wakefield knew that the child’s records did not place concern until much time had passed since the MMR vaccination.

The “onset of behavioral symptoms” reported in The Lancet does derive from parental report. But not a very strong report. A letter to Andrew Wakefield about child 1 put it like this:

“I saw this interesting child with autism which began some weeks following MMR although there was 7-10 days after the MMR at the age of 1 a brief illness during which he was pale, possibly had fever and his mother said he may have been delirious. [Mrs 1] was keen that you would have a look at a document that she got concerning homeopathic remedies and I am passing this on to you.”

So, Mr. Wakefield reported Child 1 as having first symptom 1 week after MMR. If you include “fever/delirium”. Not exactly an autism symptom. But developmentally the child was noted as being normal until 15 or 18 months? Is that “fixing” data or just something less than accurate?

The Wakefield 1998 Lancet article did not give an accurate picture of these children, based on the records available to Mr. Wakefield at the time. And that is the important fact: Mr. Wakefield had access to information that put his reported findings into question.

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/2011/01/7246/">Fact checking Brian Deer on Andrew Wakefield</a>

Comments

592 Responses to “Fact checking Brian Deer on Andrew Wakefield”

Tweets that mention Autism Blog - Fact checking Brian Deer on Andrew Wakefield « Left Brain/Right Brain -- Topsy.com
January 11th, 2011
08:28:52

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Kev. Kev said: Fact checking Brian Deer on Andrew Wakefield: As Kev recently wrote here on LeftBrainRightBrain, th… http://bit.ly/gCJcSY [...]
ChildHealthSafety
January 11th, 2011
10:56:36

Where is the medical expert confirming what “previously normal” means. We cannot go by what Deer says. He does not know that “prospective developmental records from parents, health visitors, and general practitioners.” in the Lancet paper refers to the Red Book held by parents and not the prior clinical notes which the Royal Free team did not have.

Maybe you should read “Callous Disregard” which sets it out. Here is an extract:-

“Child 8’s history required particularly careful attention. In her first year of life, Child 8’s mother became concerned that she was not developing as rapidly as had her older sister. When she was 10 months old, she was referred to a developmental pediatrician.

His expert opinion was that her developmental trajectory was normal.

She was later diagnosed with coarctation of the aorta (a narrowing of the main artery leading from the heart). This was corrected by major surgery and she made an excellent recovery. From this point on, she made rapid gains in speech and other aspects of her development.

Contemporaneous records described her mother as having been “delighted” with her subsequent progress. She received her MMR at the age of 18 months. Twenty-four hours later, she developed a rash and fever and started having febrile convulsions, requiring hospitalization for 5 days. Her regression followed immediately with behavioral deterioration, loss of words and vocalization, screaming, hyperacusis (an excessive sensitivity to sounds), loss of coordination3 and nocturnal muscle jerks. There are multiple references in her medical records of her mother’s clear association between her daughter’s MMR vaccine and her dramatic deterioration.

Interestingly, her GP had referred her for developmental follow-up at 17 months of age, just 1 month before her vaccine.

The developmental pediatrician had assessed her and concluded that she was still developing normally, albeit at the slower end of the range, which was unsurprising in view of her aortic coarctation and major surgery.

What is striking is that when she was reviewed again by the same developmental pediatrician a matter of weeks after her MMR vaccine, he considered her to be

…globally developmentally delayed functioning at about the one
year level. ”
Kev
January 11th, 2011
11:09:22

lol…let me get this straight Clifford…you want us to take the word of Andrew Wakefield? Don’t think so.
ChildHealthSafety
January 11th, 2011
11:14:47

LOL - that is from the records in the GMC - all sets of medical records including those not available to the Royal Free Team.

So you don’t want to accept the word of the doctors who saw and treated child 8 before child 8 went to the Royal Free? Hah!

Desperate dissembling when Deer’s story has collapsed.
Visitor
January 11th, 2011
11:16:33

“If you are lying, then your book is lying” – Anderson Cooper to Wakefield. Does Clifford Miller not have access to the GMC transcript? He does, but he doesn’t like what it says, so he goes to his master’s official text.
ChildHealthSafety
January 11th, 2011
11:33:50

Those are the opinions of the medical professionals who treated Child 8.

Child 8 was “previously normal” according to those prior independent opinions.

Deny it as much as you desire.
Rek
January 11th, 2011
12:19:53

This debate has some frightening parallels with Tea Party vs. The World. You are (pointlessly)preaching to the converted.
Kev
January 11th, 2011
13:08:36

So you don’t want to accept the word of the doctors who saw and treated child 8 before child 8 went to the Royal Free? Hah!

I’m saying I don’t take Wakefield’s word for it in his book. I’ll do my own fact checking if you can’t supply a primary source.
Sullivan
January 11th, 2011
13:13:02

Kev,

It’s simple. Andrew Wakefield was an early proponent of neurodiversity and accepted that “normal” includes the broad spectrum of human neurology. Must be it, right?
Catherina
January 11th, 2011
13:16:45

So, Mr. Wakefield reported Child 1 as having first symptom 1 week after MMR. If you include “fever/delirium”. Not exactly an autism symptom.

Parents usually claim brain damage due to encephalitis (or the like) following MMR, taking the high fever as a symptom of the encephalitis.

Real vaccine damage by MMR looks a lot more dramatic than that (see for example juliagrimesjourney.blogspot.com):

Julia had been seizing most of the night, was transported to the nearest ER for stabilization, and then airlifted to Miami Children’s hospital, where she stayed in PICU and the neurology ward for nearly one month. Her diagnosis? Encephalitis (inflammation of her brain) most likely attributed to the MMR-V (measles, mumps, reubella, chicken pox) vaccine she had received nine days previously. When Julia left the hospital, she was functioning at an 8 week level. She is globally delayed, nonverbal and has significant left sided hemiplegia along with severe behavior issues.
BoB
January 11th, 2011
15:05:49

You don’t have to be a medical expert to understand what “previously normal” means. Failing to meet milestones and being referred to a developmental pediatrician are not examples of “normal” development. I’m going to go with the BMJ editorial on this one, either Wakefield was knowingly committing fraud or he is a front runner for the single most inept doctor in British history.
Dawn
January 11th, 2011
15:58:02

I love the way Clifford seems to imply that Deer claims
Wakers had the ORIGINAL medical records and changed them. I doubt
that the original records exist anywhere but where they should
exist – in the office(s) of the physician who created them. Copies
of the records, however, are probably in several places. Nor did I
ever think Deer was saying Wakers had access to the original
records and changed them. Wakers probably had, as is usual in the
medical world, either copies of the patient’s file or a consult
note from the requesting physician. As any medical person will tell
you, most consult notes (at least where the GP isn’t trying to
imply the patient is – um – a little “off”) have some history to
them. When the problem began as reported to the GP, what the GP has
done in regards to treatment or other referrals, anything else
medically important for the consultant to know. If Child 8 was
referred to a developmental specialist at 8 months of age, child 8
was NOT developing normally – or at least what the GP recognized as
normally. While I can’t speak for the UK, here in the USA you would
not be sent to a specialist for normal development. The specialist
may have concluded the child was fine but that does not negate that
the parent(s) and GP felt something was wrong.
Leila
January 11th, 2011
16:18:24

I think it’s pretty much established that Wakefield has
zero credibility. It’s kind of beating on a dead horse, so it would
be nice if the autism blogs just close this chapter and help send
this guy into oblivion faster. On the other hand the anti-vaccine
movement will go on no matter what the studies say and how much the
“doctors” and “scientists” from their camp are publicly
humiliated.
Visitor
January 11th, 2011
17:02:38

Dear Dr Wakefield…

[Child 8’s] mother has been into see me and said that you need a referral letter from me in order to accept Child 8 into your investigation programme. I gather this is a specific area of expertise relating to the possible effects of vaccine damage and her ongoing GI Tract symptoms. As far as I am concerned, if [Mrs 8] is happy to proceed with this and it gives her any further information and peace of mind, I am sure it would be beneficial for both her and for [Child 8]. I enclose photocopies of some recent correspondence which gives a fair idea of [Child 8’s] current state. I would simply reiterate Dr Houlsby’s recent comment that both the hospital and members of the Primary Care Team involved with [Child 8] had significant concerns about her development some months before she had her MMR Vaccination. I take Mum’s point that she has video evidence of [Child 8] saying a few words prior to this vaccination being given and her vocal abilities are now nil but I do not think we can be entirely convinced as yet that the vaccine is the central cause of her current difficulties. However, I am quite prepared to support [Mrs 8] in her quest for further information and I hope some useful results come from these tests.
Ann
January 11th, 2011
17:15:53

I’ve been following this since 2008, which is hardly long enough, but I’m perpetually surprised at how much continued misinformation keeps flooding out about this. I think it’s great that you keep breaking this down into fact and address this relentlessly, because it would’ve been so much easier to have just given up by now. This is the kind of quality, fact-driven information we need. Thank you!
Brian Deer
January 11th, 2011
17:54:13

Hey Kev,

It’s times like this I wished I Twittered. BBC Radio 4’s Media Show just called me and said they were having to cancel a discussion of MMR because they couldn’t find any journalist to speak against me.

That’s journalists not willing to appear on the Media Show.
Sullivan
January 11th, 2011
18:49:03

Leila,

I agree with you for the most part. I had hoped to put Mr. Wakefield behind me. I expect that after this burst of attention, he will drop once again into relative obscurity.

Two factors are at play here now. First is that there is a big interest in this from people not familiar to the story. The interest level is really high. Second, many people may have a hard time reconciling the shear audacity of the situation. Even though I have delved into this deeper than most, I still find it hard to believe that someone could stand in front of clear, damning evidence and try to wave it away. I find it even harder that people will abet this behavior.

Per Orac at the respectful insolence blog, the next installment in the BMJ series is supposed to be on the business schemes that Mr. Wakefield had planned. Much of this came out during the GMC hearing, and there are details that are, again, audacious and likely new to most readers.
Kev
January 11th, 2011
20:07:53

Brian – you know thats because they’re not in the pay of the Illuminati like wot you are ;)
Kev
January 11th, 2011
20:20:08

Sully, you’re a genius ;)
ChildHealthSafety
January 11th, 2011
21:23:00

Kev,

Brian Deer should say whether he has the developmental pediatrician’s assessment of Child 8 cited in “Callous Disregard” which I quoted earlier:

“The developmental pediatrician had assessed her and concluded that she was still developing normally, albeit at the slower end of the range …”

Does he also have the review by the same developmental pediatrician:

“a matter of weeks after her MMR vaccine, he considered her to be

…globally developmentally delayed functioning at about the one
year level.”
Sullivan
January 11th, 2011
21:59:25

ChildHealthSafety,

let’s look at the whole quote, shall we? I’ll hi-lite some passages (this is from the GMC testimony, hence the break with “..and he gives some detail in relation to that” statement):

“I was asked to see [Child 8] last year when there was concern about her development generally. When I saw her in clinic at the age of ten and a half months I discovered that she had a coarctation, and referred her to the paediatric cardiologists. This was repaired surgically, and she is now well from this point of view. However concern about her development persists. She was born at term”,

and he gives some details in relation to that.

“She was recently admitted to the ward following a febrile convulsion in association with gastroenteritis.

When I reviewed her in clinic recently I confirmed that she is globally developmentally delayed, functioning at about a one year level on Denver Developmental Assessment. Her growth has been satisfactory. Her appearance is somewhat unusual with a bossed forehead and deep set eyes, but I could find no other dysmorphic features. General examination is unremarkable. There were no neurological abnormalities other than the developmental delay.

I would be grateful if you would arrange for further assessment through the Special Needs Team”.

So, he “confirmed” developmental delay because, “concern about her development persists“.

Here’s another note from her pediatrician at a later date—He had time to take into account the whole history here:

I feel it is quite clear from her records that there were significant concerns about [Child 8] from well before her MMR although it may be that something to do with the vaccine made things worse for her – I really don’t feel qualified to comment on this.
Sullivan
January 11th, 2011
22:17:00

According to Andrew Wakefield in “Callous Disregard”

“Twenty-four hours later, she developed a rash and fever and started having febrile convulsions, requiring hospitalization for 5 day”

Here’s what her pediatrician wrote:

“Her mother is now convinced that [Child 8]’s problems effectively started after her MMR injection. She had quite a severe reaction to this vaccine and was admitted with a febrile convulsion following an episode of gastroenteritis a few weeks after her MMR. ”

24 hours, or a few weeks? It is noted as “two weeks” after the MMR in other places, ~~including in the intake note for the hospital.~~ (note—this part of this statement was incorrect)

It appears as though “Callous Disregard” may be reporting the facts a bit off, doesn’t it?
Sullivan
January 11th, 2011
22:27:35

For the record—those are from day 29 of the GMC transcripts
ChildHealthSafety
January 11th, 2011
22:59:11

Thanks Sullivan for setting out Child 8’s condition after the MMR vaccine. [You left out this bit ” .... so a matter of a few weeks after the MMR. He says,...”].

But this is what the developmental pediatrician stated before MMR:-

“..... There were no neurological abnormalities and I felt that her development was within normal limits.

My impression was that she is a child who is developing within normal limits, but in whom I thought I may have found congenital heart disease as an incidental finding.”

Her development was previously normal prior to the MMR.

Thanks for your help. It shows that Wakefield in Callous Disregard is medically correct.

It seems to be the case that Brian Deer may have omitted to mention this sort of detail in the material he used to persuade the BMJ to make their allegation of fraud.

Why do you think that was?
ChildHealthSafety
January 11th, 2011
23:38:29

Sullivan,

Where is the inaccuracy?

“Twenty-four hours later, she developed a rash and fever and started having febrile convulsions, requiring hospitalization for 5 days.”

Where does it say the hospitalization was within 24 hours?

It says she started having febrile convulsions 24 hours after MMR.

It does not say the first febrile convulsion led to hospitalization within 24 hours of MMR. It says “febrile convulsions” led to hospitalization. It is clearly a later one which did.

You seem to be grasping at straws. That one sentence is a summary of far more detail from the documents.

Is this the kind of detail Brian Deer used to persuade the BMJ to make allegations of fraud? It is starting to look like it.

And the allegations of fraud are about the content of The Lancet paper so lets see those first please.

But that puts paid to your first here about “Callous Disregard”.
Dedj
January 11th, 2011
23:44:07

It also says ‘after an episode of gastroenteritis’ which was ‘a few weeks after’.

What an amazing coincidence that you missed that part out.

Pure amazing. The part that damages your arguement the most and you somehow managed to completely exclude it. No mention of it at all, despite the vast importance of it.

Let’s be fair to you and assume that was an oversight and not deliberate. If not, you owe Sullivan one hell of an explanation.
Sullivan
January 12th, 2011
00:04:36

ChildHealthSafety,

Do you want to address the issue that the child’s doctor clearly considered that she had developmental concerns before the MMR. And that the doctor still thought that, even after the seizures and gastroenteritis ensued?
Sullivan
January 12th, 2011
00:12:45

“It says she started having febrile convulsions 24 hours after MMR.”

the book says this. The records do not.

Much of our discussion recently centred around [Child 8’s] mother’s concerns that her problems stemmed from her MMR vaccination at 19 months. She tells me that a couple of weeks after the injection she developed a measles rash and was very poorly with it. She subsequently fitted and was admitted to hospital where she was found to be dehydrated.

Here’s another letter from the GMC transcript:

Two months later, we see the letter at page 150, on 23 November 1994, a letter from the paediatric cardiologist Mr Hunter to Dr Houlsby, paediatrician and he says:

“I wonder if you would be kind enough to see this child again. She came back for follow up on 22 November 1994. At 17 months she seems to be making progress after her operation. However, her mother was full of worries and concerns, some of which appeared to be justified. At the present moment [child 8] is on Captopril 2mg three times a day and Atenolol 12.5mg per day. The problems that her mother perceives are failure to progress past developmental milestones. At 17 months she gets around in a baby walker and crawls but is not walking on her own. She stands holding on to furniture and pulls herself up. She is able to [walk] along the settee and will walk holding two hands. She has a somewhat bossed forehead and deep set eyes which we think probably resemble the facial appearance of the paternal side of the family. Nonetheless it is a slightly unusually shaped head and in association with the moderate amount of delay I think this merits some developmental follow up. Since her operation there has been disturbance of sleep pattern …”

And he gives details of that.

He concludes the letter on the next page, page 151, the final sentence:

“I would be grateful if you could see her and follow her from the developmental point of view and advise the parents.”

“The problems that her mother perceives are failure to progress past developmental milestones.” This is prior to the MMR.

followed by an exchange with her GP:

By this stage, November 1994 had you in your role as the GP become aware of worries and concerns over child 8’s development?
AYes.

QHad those worries and concerns been expressed to you by child 8’s mother?
AYes.

QBroadly speaking, were they concerns about her failure to progress past the expected developmental milestones?
AAbsolutely, yes.

QAt this stage I think it is right that child 8 had not had her MMR vaccination.
AThat is right.

This child had issues. Major ones. Possibly a reaction to the vaccine. But to claim this child was “normal” prior to the MMR vaccine is false.
ChildHealthSafety
January 12th, 2011
01:53:16

LBRB has only just posted @00:16 what we wrote @21:59 [shown as 22:59 on this blog].

So only now can we refer to it.

__________________________

Sullivan @00:12:-

It is the specialist’s opinion and not the guess-work of a non-specialist generalist General Practitioner which is applicable.

You say “This child had issues. Major ones. Possibly a reaction to the vaccine. But to claim this child was “normal” prior to the MMR vaccine is false.”

But the specialist developmental pediatrician disagrees. The developmental pediatrician stated before MMR:-

“..... There were no neurological abnormalities and I felt that her development was within normal limits.”

Her development was previously normal prior to the MMR.

And read The Lancet Paper specifically about child eight.

It says all these children had:

“a history of normal development followed by loss of acquired skills”

And it says about child 8:-

“Prospective developmental records showed satisfactory achievement of early milestones in all children. The only girl (child number eight) was noted to be a slow trained at the time or because behavioural features made children unable to communicate symptoms.”

Where is the “fraud” Brian Deer persuaded the BMJ to allege?

Show us.
Sullivan
January 12th, 2011
01:56:42

Shall we put these statements into a timeline?

10.5 months of age (May 1994): “There were no neurological abnormalities and I felt that her development was within normal limits”

17 months of age: “The problems that her mother perceives are failure to progress past developmental milestones.”

19 months of age (27 Janurary, 1995): MMR vaccination

7 February 1995: pediatrician makes a house call on the family “Reaction to measles vaccine and pink left ear – amoxyl”. No discussion of seizures.

13 February: notes indicating hospitalized after seizure.

From this we can conclude a few things. First off, the data at hand do not support the idea that the child had seizures within 24 hours of MMR as Mr. Wakefield states in his book. If you have another source to cite, I welcome it. There are indeed indications that the child was delayed before MMR. After the seizure, the child does appear to have had a decline.

Here is a statement by the child’s GP after age 3:

The fever associated convulsion which she had in February 1995 was in the context of a diarrhoeal illness associated with fever two weeks after her MMR immunisation. I feel therefore that it is extremely unlikely that the MMR was the cause of her present problems.”
Sullivan
January 12th, 2011
02:03:34

But the specialist developmental pediatrician disagrees. The developmental pediatrician stated before MMR:-

Yes, at 10.5 months of age. By 17 months of age, there were signs of delay.

Her development was previously normal prior to the MMR.

False. At 17 months of age, even the mother felt the child was missing developmental milestones “The problems that her mother perceives are failure to progress past developmental milestones”

The child was also not walking at 17 months. ” She stands holding on to furniture and pulls herself up. She is able to [walk] along the settee and will walk holding two hands. ” That’s delayed. That is not a delay that involves “unable to communicate symptoms”.
Sullivan
January 12th, 2011
02:20:48

ChildHealthSafety,

I think we’ve covered Child 8 in depth. We even found out how Mr. Wakefield created a false appearance of a lack of developmental delay before MMR: he chose an evaluation at 10.5 months and ignored the 17 month evaluation.

You’ve ignored the other children mentioned in the above piece. Do you have an explanation for why their records were misreported?
ChildHealthSafety
January 12th, 2011
02:48:19

Sullivan @ 01:56

You seem to have missed out age 15 months from your timeline where the developmental pediatrician stated:

“I felt that her abilities, although delayed on the average age of attainment were not outside the range of normal. Her growth has been satisfactory.”

That was two months before her MMR and takes into account the mother’s expressed anxieties.

So no, you have not covered child 8 in depth and particularly you missed the specialist’s assessment of child 8 two months before her MMR vaccination which records her development as within the normal range.

And are you going to distinguish between documents available to the Royal Free team from those not available?

And are you going to distinguish what others at the Royal Free provided to Wakefield from the bits the BMJ claim in broad brush are fraud?

So, again, please point out where the fraud is?
ChildHealthSafety
January 12th, 2011
03:19:52

Sullivan @ January 12th, 2011 00:12:45

“It says she started having febrile convulsions 24 hours after MMR.”

“the book says this. The records do not.”

Let us look at the one sentence in the book [ie not The Lancet paper] which summarises the child’s position: “Twenty-four hours later, she developed a rash and fever and started having febrile convulsions, requiring hospitalization for 5 days.”

The records do show she developed a rash and a fever within 24 hours. The records do show she had febrile convulsions but do not record when they started. The records do show one of them lead to hospitalisation but not within 24 hours. So in that one short sentence summary the reference to 24 hours appears to be to the onset of rash and the fever.

And what is the mother’s account? Oh, yes, the GMC failed to call the mother. We only have the GPs account in August 2007 of events 11 and more years earlier.

The GP records appear a little on the vague side and the GP is not sure about dates either:-

“QIs that correct?
AIt is the 27th not the 7th I think. On mine it says the 7th but I think it was the 27th.

“QWhat was the mother of Child 8’s perception of Child 8’s reaction to the vaccine?

AI felt that the mother was concerned fairly soon after the vaccine – I think I saw her at home on a home visit shortly after the vaccination – she had had a kind of feverish reaction to it. There obviously was no suggestion of delay at that point. Several months later her mum said she had been looking at a video when Child 8 had a little bit of speech before the vaccination and she felt that that had reduced post-vaccination.”

Not a very complete picture to start accusing anyone of fraud is it.

So where is the fraud?
ChildHealthSafety
January 12th, 2011
03:29:36

In the reply to Sullivan @ 01:56 that should read 18 months for 15 months [ie on 22 December 1994].

It seems Child 8 was aged 18 months when the developmental pediatrician stated:

“I felt that her abilities, although delayed on the average age of attainment were not outside the range of normal. Her growth has been satisfactory.”

And this was just over a month before her MMR vaccination.
Sullivan
January 12th, 2011
03:42:57

Here’s the full statement from December 1994. I will emphasize the sentence ChildHealthSafety left out:

“When I saw her in clinic yesterday she was coryzal and miserable. She did not cooperate well with developmental assessment but I felt that her abilities, although delayed on the average age of attainment were not outside the range of normal. Her growth has been satisfactory.

As I was unable to perform a satisfactory assessment, I am arranging to review her in two months time.”
Sullivan
January 12th, 2011
03:49:55

The only instance of “rash” in the transcripts on Day 26 is this statement from July 1996:

Much of our discussion recently centred around [Child 8’s] mother’s concerns that her problems stemmed from her MMR vaccination at 19 months. She tells me that a couple of weeks after the injection she developed a measles rash and was very poorly with it.

emphasis added.

What are you basing the statement of a rash within 24 hours upon?
Sullivan
January 12th, 2011
03:58:36

Do you have a similar set of arguments for the rest of the charges against Mr. Wakefield? Having shown that Mr. Wakefield not only crafted a story to his liking in the Lancet, we see that he did the same in his book.

Anderson Cooper called it correctly, it appears.
sheldon101
January 12th, 2011
05:08:44

Brian Deer discussed child 11 first. It was a good choice because the facts and situation are so clear.

Child 11 was an American so the medical history received by Wakefield had to be records brought to the hospital or information supplied to the hospital.

According to the hospital discharge summary, the kid had signs of regressive autism a month before MMR vaccination. And a week after MMR vaccination the kid had a chest infection.

The paper reported that the first behavioral signs of Child 11 occurred one week after vaccination.

Nice and sweet.
Chris
January 12th, 2011
05:30:42

The interesting thing about Child 11 is that he was American. As an American he was given the MMR with the Jeryl Lynn strain of mumps virus. Since the other children were in the UK they got another MMR vaccine depending on their age, the one used before 1992 had the Urabe strain of mumps.

So the questions are:

1) Which MMR vaccine was being studied?

2) If the biggest difference between the vaccines was the mumps strain, why is measles the focus?
ChildHealthSafety
January 12th, 2011
10:17:58

Sullivan January 12th, 2011 03:42

“Here’s the full statement from December 1994. I will emphasize the sentence ChildHealthSafety left out”

You forget the point which made in The Lancet paper about Child 8 and all the children and over which the BMJ has inappropriately cried “fraud”. It says all these children had:

“a history of normal development followed by loss of acquired skills”.

And we have shown that according to the specialist concerned Child was develomentally normal.

That was the issue The 1998 Royal Free Lancet paper was reporting on scientifically and medically as an “early report” and calling for further investigation.

What you are all helping to demonstrate is that to a medical layman on a mission to discredit Wakefield, Brian Deer, just like LBRB, picks things which are not relevant to the scientific and medical issue in hand.

And the best example on the point appears to be Child 8 who was within the range of normal development but who was not misreported by anyone.

As was pointed out clearly in The Lancet paper: it says about child 8:-

“Prospective developmental records showed satisfactory achievement of early milestones in all children. The only girl (child number eight) was noted to be a slow trained at the time or because behavioural features made children unable to communicate symptoms.”

So where is the “fraud” Brian Deer persuaded the BMJ to allege?
ChildHealthSafety
January 12th, 2011
16:56:07

Kev, Sullivan, Re sheldon101 January 12th, 2011 05:08

“Brian Deer discussed child 11 first. It was a good choice because the facts and situation are so clear.”

OK. Child 8 has been dealt with. To move on to Child 11 needs Brian Deer to confirm where he got Child 11’s medical records from first?

The information cannot have come from the GMC transcripts. Child 11 was not mentioned at the GMC.

If Child 11’s medical records were disclosed in the Wakefield v Channel 4 and Deer libel proceedings is there a Court order from Eady J or any other Judge authorising use by Brian Deer for publication in The Sunday Times, The British Medical Journal or anywhere else?

And if not what is the legal and ethical authority permitting the use Brian Deer, The Sunday Times and the BMJ has made of them? And is there a human rights waiver from Child 11’s parents.
Julian Frost
January 12th, 2011
19:31:44

ChildHealthSafety is deliberately missing the point.

You forget the point which made in The Lancet paper about Child 8 and all the children and over which the BMJ has inappropriately cried “fraud”. It says all these children had:

“a history of normal development followed by loss of acquired skills”.
The Lancet report (written by Wakefield) said that. The children’s own records said something different. That’s your fraud right there CHS.
Sullivan
January 12th, 2011
19:51:44

“Child 11 was not mentioned at the GMC.”

Sure he was. On 11 different days. A detailed discussion of his medical records was not included.

Given that Brian Deer visited and interviewed Child 11’s father, who was highly critical of Mr. Wakefield, I don’t find it surprising that Mr. Deer may have information about this child’s records.
ChildHealthSafety
January 12th, 2011
19:52:12

Julian Frost @ January 12th, 2011

“ChildHealthSafety is deliberately missing the point.”

No. You have not been reading the posts. All dealt with above.
ChildHealthSafety
January 12th, 2011
19:59:06

Sullivan @ January 12th, 2011 19:51:44

’ “Child 11 was not mentioned at the GMC.” ’

‘Sure he was.’

Day 64. Ms Smith cross examines Wakefield and mentions child 11 and that they have not looked at this child because “his records are not available”

“Doctor, before I go on to that child, because we know, of course, that that child, Child JS, was not one of the Lancet children, I just want to ask you one or two questions about the only Lancet child whom we have not looked at because his records are not available, and I think it is right that the other Lancet child, who is No 11 in The Lancet paper, you accept was a child from XXX?

A That is correct.”

So as previously stated, Brian Deer need to confirm where he got Child 11’s medical records from.

The information cannot have come from the GMC transcripts.

If Child 11’s medical records were disclosed in the Wakefield v Channel 4 and Deer libel proceedings is there a Court order from Eady J or any other Judge authorising use by Brian Deer for publication in The Sunday Times, The British Medical Journal or anywhere else?

And if not what is the legal and ethical authority permitting the use Brian Deer, The Sunday Times and the BMJ has made of them? And is there a human rights waiver from Child 11’s parents.
Sullivan
January 12th, 2011
20:09:26

Yes, child 8 has been dealt with—except that you disagree and cherry pick a fragment of one evaluation notes.
Sullivan
January 12th, 2011
20:25:51

Child 11 was mentioned day 1, day 30, day 32, day 54….many days.

The fact is that we can’t confirm his records. What do we always hear in defense of Mr. Wakefield? Listen to the parents, isn’t that it? Here’s what the father said:

“From the information you provided me on our son, who I was shocked to hear had been included in their published study,” he wrote to me, after we met again in California, “the data clearly appeared to be distorted.”

If you have data to refute the parent, I’d love to hear it. Otherwise we should move on.
ChildHealthSafety
January 12th, 2011
20:48:25

Sullivan January 12th, 2011 @ 20:25

“Child 11 … The fact is that we can’t confirm his records.”

Does Brian Deer have the records or not?

If not how can he claim Child 11 is an example of fraud?

We have already seen that allegation does not stack up for Child 8 either.

That is 2 out of 12.

So where is the fraud? Still looking for it and it is not yet found.

Got any more examples of “fraud”? You have 10 to choose from next.
Julian Frost
January 12th, 2011
20:56:09

Again, ChildHealthSafety:
The children’s records said one thing, Wakefield’s paper said another. That’s where Wakefield committed his fraud.
Visitor
January 12th, 2011
20:57:55

‘From the information you provided me on our son, who I was shocked to hear had been included in their published study,’ he wrote to me, after we met again in California, ‘the data clearly appeared to be distorted.’

He backed his concerns with medical records, including a Royal Free discharge summary

(The stupid – it burns)
ChildHealthSafety
January 12th, 2011
21:05:24

Julian Frost January 12th, 2011 @ 20:56

“The children’s records said one thing, Wakefield’s paper said another. That’s where Wakefield committed his fraud.”

Really? Not so far for Child 8 and Child 11.

Facts please not rhetoric.
ChildHealthSafety
January 12th, 2011
21:57:52
Visitor January 12th, 2011 – 20:57

“‘From the information you provided me on our son … the data clearly appeared to be distorted.’’ .... He backed his concerns with medical records, including a Royal Free discharge summary.”

So where are these records and what information did Deer provide to the parent?

What is worse is that in his February 2009 Sunday Times Article Deer made a completely different claim. A fraud allegation for Child 11 does not stack up with what Deer has previously published.

The Feb 2009 article dealt in detail with the anomalies Deer alleged he had found including allegations of inconsistencies in developmental records. But nothing was said about an anomaly with Child 11’s developmental records.

We already know Deer’s word cannot be accepted:
- a fraud allegation cannot apply to Child 8
- there are no records for Child 11 so no one can base an allegation of fraud on that either.
So where is the fraud?
sheldon101
January 12th, 2011
22:18:52

So childhealthsafety what’s your position on the two articles. You are a solicitor, aren’t you. Surely you realize that UK lawyers would have gone over them very carefully, especially the second article. I say especially the second article because Wakefield’s reputation isn’t worth much. But the university, hospital and people named do have valuable reputations, worth suing for defamation.

So is the first article a complete lie? Is the second article a complete lie?
Sullivan
January 12th, 2011
22:44:26

We have the parental report on child 11. If that’s not good enough for you, please take all other parental reports out of the discussion.

I find this exercise somewhat interesting. Delving deeper has shown more, not less misrepresentations by Andrew Wakefield. His mischaracterization of child 4 (claiming a reaction within 24 hours) shows me why he didn’t pursue his press complaints commission action. Clearly he was going to fail.

Doing a little more checking, Child 5 had serious febrile seizures long before the MMR. Age 11 months, 10 minute seizure, followed by 2 more. Sounds like the sort of detail I would have liked to know, rather than a claim of “previously normal”.

Here’s a note in the record for this child—

At one year he had convulsions which led to a further hospital admission but these appear to have been due to a high fever. From then on his parents noticed a difference in his development and feel that these febrile epileptic seizures continue to the present day. In general he showed a good physical development, sitting up at 3 months, walking round the furniture at 6 months and walking properly at 11 months. At 10 months of age he was saying mummy and daddy but then became very miserable and appeared to lose ground in his development after he had been in hospital

So, after the seizures his parents noticed a difference in his development. That’s April 1990. His MMR was August 1990. And, yet, Mr. Wakefield reported first behavioral symptom as 18 months.

Shall we go on? How many fabrications by Mr. Wakefield are needed to demonstrate fraud?
BoB
January 12th, 2011
23:08:13

“When I saw her in clinic yesterday she was coryzal and miserable. She did not cooperate well with developmental assessment but I felt that her abilities, although delayed on the average age of attainment were not outside the range of normal. Her growth has been satisfactory.

As I was unable to perform a satisfactory assessment, I am arranging to review her in two months time.

Let’s review shall we, child 8 failed multiple milestones, child 8 possibly had minor facial deformations, both child 8’s parents and doctors had sufficient concerns about her development to refer her to a developmental pediatrician. The pediatrician on evaluating her concluded that child 8 was developmentally below average but probably within the range of normal (which is distinct to saying she was normal). The developmental pediatrician remained sufficiently concerned to require multiple follow ups of child 8 to monitor her progression.

From all this Wakefield simply reports “previously normal”. Now is this an accurate description or is it a fabrication? Considering the evidence in it totality I know which one I believe. However ask yourself this ChildHealthSafety would you use this phrase “previously normal” to sum up child 8’s medical history? If the answer is no then you probably have your answer about whether Wakefield committed fraud.
Visitor
January 12th, 2011
23:28:18

This Clifford Miller may be a solicitor, but he clearly has some kind of disorder. He simply keeps asserting over and over. No matter what you tell him, he will keep saying the same thing. No matter what the evidence is, he will keep saying the same thing. He then sums up on himself, saying the same thing. He has got something wrong with him.
Dedj
January 13th, 2011
02:26:17

Regarding Child 8:

It appears she had develpmental concerns early on, severe enough to warrant a referral.
It appears an formal assessment could not be carried out due to non-compliance.
She appeared low-normal based on observational assessment only, not formal (meaning standardised, normalised, or cross-rated) assessment.
There were enough residual concerns for a formal assessment to be warranted.
Formal assessment indicated she was developmentally delayed.

This seems like a fairly straight forward progression from reporting by parents up to formal assessment.

It’s very odd then, that this progression is causing CHS so much difficulty, given how easy it is to understand (because it’s openly stated) that the inital consultation did not include a sufficient assessment.

The assessment progression predates the purported cause by nearly a year, and does not contradict any earlier formal assessments (as there do not appear to have been any completed successfully).

It is not hard to imagine – as Sullivan directly quotes – that the review was the culmination of the assessment process, rather than a fresh assessment of previous non-existant impairments. As John Stone likes to point out, discrepancies are the norm. A harsh and noticable change in condition in a short space of time, in front of the same clinician, is something that would have undoubtedly been something of importance to include in the clinical notes.

Oddly, this information is lacking from CHS’s posts, despite the huge importance to it, and that fact that it would act as serious support for his arguement. One can only conclude that it therefore does not exist, and that Sullivans reading of the notes is therefore the most accurate.

Any evidence of a full assessment in the prior session would be good.
ChildHealthSafety
January 13th, 2011
02:54:30

Dedj January 13th, 2011 @ 02:26

“Regarding Child 8: ..... Any evidence of a full assessment in the prior session would be good.”

This should help you:-

“May 1994 age 10.5 months: “There were no neurological abnormalities and I felt that her development was within normal limits”

17 months of age: “The problems that her mother perceives are failure to progress past developmental milestones.”

23 December 1994 (approx 18 months) – developmental pediatrician wrote: “I felt that her abilities, although delayed on the average age of attainment were not outside the range of normal. Her growth has been satisfactory.”

27 January, 1995: MMR vaccination

17 February 1995: The developmental pediatrician writes three weeks after MMR:

“When I reviewed her in clinic recently I confirmed that she is globally developmentally delayed, functioning at about a one year level on Denver Developmental Assessment. ...... General examination is unremarkable. There were no neurological abnormalities other than the developmental delay.”
Sullivan
January 13th, 2011
02:59:10

Why do you always edit out these key parts of the statement?

“When I saw her in clinic yesterday she was coryzal and miserable. She did not cooperate well with developmental assessment but I felt that her abilities, although delayed on the average age of attainment were not outside the range of normal. Her growth has been satisfactory.

As I was unable to perform a satisfactory assessment, I am arranging to review her in two months time.”

Pretty key information for someone to evaluate these claims.

Editing out key information seems to be not limited to Mr. Wakefield.
Sullivan
January 13th, 2011
03:00:41

ChildHealthSafety,

do you consider lead poisoning to be an important confounding factor? Given that one child had lead levels over 2.5X the reference range for lead, couldn’t that be something that might be important to disclose to the public?
Dedj
January 13th, 2011
03:06:19

“This should help you:-”

Why was that supposed to be helpful?

It contained no new information, contains information that had to be handed to you on a plate, and does not contain the relevant information that I asked for.

It’s a rather worrying sign that maybe you do not understand how the assessment process works, and thus are unaware of the irrelevance of your answer.

There is the Denver Developmental Assessment mentioned in the review session, which is a fairly standard developmental assessment, but none is mentioned as being successfully completed in the initial session.

Does the following statement appear in relation to Child 8 or not?

“As I was unable to perform a satisfactory assessment, I am arranging to review her in two months time.”

If not, where and what was the initial assessment, was it the Denver or another standardised assessment?

If so, where is the clinicians note detailing the noticable and swift deterioration?
Sullivan
January 13th, 2011
03:07:54

We can include the the full statement that ChildHealthSafety focuses upon, complete with the concluding statement from the testimony:

“She was recently admitted to the ward following a febrile convulsion in association with gastroenteritis.

When I reviewed her in clinic recently I confirmed that she is globally developmentally delayed, functioning at about a one year level on Denver Developmental Assessment. Her growth has been satisfactory. Her appearance is somewhat unusual with a bossed forehead and deep set eyes, but I could find no other dysmorphic features. General examination is unremarkable. There were no neurological abnormalities other than the developmental delay.

I would be grateful if you would arrange for further assessment through the Special Needs Team”.

He ends on the next page by saying,

“I will continue to review her in my clinic and have made arrangements to see her again in three months time”.

Dr Jelley, is that the first time that the worries that had been expressed at an earlier stage were formally confirmed on assessment by Dr Houlsby?

AThat is correct.

Emphasis added.

“Is that the first time that the worries that had been expressed at an earlier stage were formally confirmed on assessment”

That’s how the doctor interpreted the statement.
ChildHealthSafety
January 13th, 2011
03:08:08

Sullivan January 12th, 2011 22:44

“We have the parental report on child 11. If that’s not good enough for you, please take all other parental reports out of the discussion.”

You miss the point. If Brian Deer is alleging fraud then he must compare the data and results provided to Wakefield by the Royal Free team with what is in the paper.

What he has done instead is compare the wrong information. Clearly, his lack of medical qualifications has resulted in the current mess he is now in over this.

Take the example of Child 8 – it is the specialist developmental pediatrian’s opinion which counts. Neither the GP nor the mother is competent to provide the specialist assessment of whether the child’s development was in the normal range. And neither of them did – it was the developmental pediatrician who did that.

So we say again, show us where the fraud is.
sheldon101
January 13th, 2011
03:15:15

Re visitor and comment on Miller being a solicitor.

Not fair. It isn’t unusual for people to be perfectly rational except for one idea. When it comes to vaccine, Maher is one example. Another example is Leonard Lopate who does some great documentary-type radio work for WNYC.
Dedj
January 13th, 2011
03:25:21

“That’s how the doctor interpreted the statement.”

I’m amazed it can be interpreted any other way.

The assessment process had clearly not stopped at the initial session, and the wording of the outcome of the review session is firmly clear in the Denver Ax being in reference to previous concerns.

This before/after dichotomy of CHS is confusing, as none of the sources he uses mean what he claims they do. As you have aptly demonstrated, they say the exact opposite.
Dedj
January 13th, 2011
03:35:50

There is no evidence to suggest that the review session was because of new developmental concerns arising from the MMR (although the parents probably remember it that way).

If there were, it would be odd as it was a review session, not a fresh referral. Clinics do not retain clients they feel do not require their services.

All of the information to support Sullivans interpretation is explicit and non-ambiguous.
ChildHealthSafety
January 13th, 2011
03:50:11

I notice our prior comment posted at 03:08 am your blog time [02:08 real time] has not gone up but several other posts have from Brian Deer’s defenders. This is not the first time that has happened.

You can therefore continue this dialogue on ChildHealthSafety here:-

“Wakefield & MMR – BRIAN DEER CANNOT TELL US WHERE THE FRAUD IS”
http://tinyurl.com/5vs8rwt

The challenge is out on CHS to Brian Deer to explain where the fraud is whether or not you post this or the prior one.

The Lancet paper stated at the outset that all these children had:

“a history of normal development followed by loss of acquired skills”.”

That was a main scientific and medical issue being examined.

Child 8 was developmentally within the normal range as repeatedly stated by the developmental pediatrician.

Nothing else is relevant to the issue the paper was examining – whether the children had a history of normal development.

Child 8 was the worst example you Sullivan chose for this blog and it has been shown that the 1998 Lancet paper is accurate on Child 8. Child 11 has no medical notes available so Brian Deer has insufficient information.
ChildHealthSafety
January 13th, 2011
03:56:32

The following is the prior comment to which we referred and which still has not been posted. So you can post on CHS now instead here:

“Wakefield & MMR – BRIAN DEER CANNOT TELL US WHERE THE FRAUD IS”
http://tinyurl.com/5vs8rwt

POST STILL NOT POSTED
_________________________________________________

ChildHealthSafety Your comment is awaiting moderation.
January 13th, 2011
03:08:08

Sullivan January 12th, 2011 22:44

“We have the parental report on child 11. If that’s not good enough for you, please take all other parental reports out of the discussion.”

You miss the point. If Brian Deer is alleging fraud then he must compare the data and results provided to Wakefield by the Royal Free team with what is in the paper.

What he has done instead is compare the wrong information. Clearly, his lack of medical qualifications has resulted in the current mess he is now in over this.

Take the example of Child 8 – it is the specialist developmental pediatrian’s opinion which counts. Neither the GP nor the mother is competent to provide the specialist assessment of whether the child’s development was in the normal range. And neither of them did – it was the developmental pediatrician who did that.

So we say again, show us where the fraud is.
Children First
January 13th, 2011
05:03:46

I live in Canada, not the US or the UK. Do parents sign off on medical records in those areas? Here we do not. I obtained a copy of my child’s medical records recently and was surprised at what was missing. Many important details were not recorded, and in one case, the exact concern that brought us to the ER was completely omitted (head-to-toe blister-type rash) when they found he also had an ear infection. Records show we were there for an ear infection only. Just one example. My personal experience shows me that medical records are not guaranteed to be 100% accurate. I have since been photographing and documenting everything myself. If it weren’t for video cameras, many doctors would not even believe in the reality of “autistic regression”. Parents have been discredited in many ways, for far too long. But now, technology will help with that.
Visitor
January 13th, 2011
06:20:29

Children first: You are getting it round the wrong way. Deer doesnt base his case on what is missing, but what is there. For example, diagnoses which preclude regressive autism, parents making allegations against MMR which are not in the paper, and pre-existing delays. What is missing seems mainly to be in the published paper, not in the records.
Children First
January 13th, 2011
07:06:49

How does one know what may or may not be missing, if it is not there? My point is, medical records are not guaranteed to be accurate and I doubt I am the only parent to whom this has happened. Where medical errors are known to occur in the physical realm, why would we not expect them to occur on paper? I urge all of my friends to record data for themselves, with witnesses. What we are given as “truth” may not be worth the paper it’s written on.
ChildHealthSafety
January 13th, 2011
09:34:14

The challenge is still out for Brian Deer.

Tell us where the fraud is. You can come to our blog here and tell us.

“Wakefield & MMR – BRIAN DEER CANNOT TELL US WHERE THE FRAUD IS”
http://tinyurl.com/5vs8rwt

If Brian Deer is alleging fraud then he must compare the data and results provided to Wakefield by the Royal Free team with what is in the paper.

What he has done instead is compare the wrong information.

So much for being the first journalist to go behind a medical paper and find the ‘truth’.

We are waiting. There are Children 1 to 7, 9 to 10 and 12 yet to go. Still plenty for you to show us where the fraud is.

Let’s see a nice table comparing the data and results the Royal Free specialists provided to Wakefield with what is in the 1998 Lancet paper.

Come on Brian – let’s see it.
BoB
January 13th, 2011
09:36:54

ChildHealth’s argument mainly centres on picking out a single line of child 8’s medical record and then misreading it. No where in the December 94 write up will you find a statement saying that child 8 was developmentally normal. You will however find statements that the pediatrician was unable to complete diagnostic testing, that he was concerned for the development of child 8, and that further consultations where required.

Yes, the pediatricians general impression from the incomplete battery of tests at the December 94 consultation was that the child was at the bottom end of normal, he remained however (as was explicitly made clear to Wakefield) significantly concerned. By no stretch of the imagination is this synonymous with the Pediatrician declaring that child 8 was developmentally “normal” as Wakefield alleges.

Ask yourself how would a lay person, scientist, or doctor would interpret the statement “previously normal”? Does it in anyway remotely resembling the case history of child 8?

No on all three counts.
SB
January 13th, 2011
10:30:41

Bob. I know Clifford Miller and I can assure you you are not only wasting your time trying to debate him, but you are making things worse all round.

He has no interest in autism or vaccines or child health safety. What he needs to do is cause other people distress. He feeds on this. He will revel in your frustration, drink himself into a stupor, guffawing to himself about how upset he has made people.

This is what some of these people do. They do it because they do it. If it was not so poisonous, I would say that is all there is to it.
Kev
January 13th, 2011
12:07:39

CHS - a few of us have already pointed it out to you time and time again. You refuse to see what’s in front of your face. Which is your prerogative of course.
Dawn
January 13th, 2011
14:28:17

@Children First: guess what? Medical records AREN’T complete. If you are seen in a hospital emergency room by an ER doc, your own physician may not even know about the visit until you tell him/her. Your physician is dependent on the documentation of the other physician and what you tell him. An ER discharge summary will have on it the major reason for treatment which may NOT be why you went to the ER.

For example: I went to the ER because I fell off a ladder and thought I’d broken my ankle. The final ER diagnosis on the discharge record was for a wrist fracture….I hadn’t even realized I had injured my wrist. My ankle, which just turned out to be badly bruised, was not mentioned on the discharge summary. (It was documented in the ER notes, but those are not a part of the summary nor are they sent to your private physician – if he/she gets anything at all, it’s only the discharge summary).

And, doctors are human. If your doctor saw you in the ER for a rash and ear infection, he/she may only note the issue he feels was important for follow up in the office notes. Takes less time and writing that way.

Keeping your own documentation is a good idea – IF you write daily. If you have to look back 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month, you are not accurate. And parents don’t see things dispassionately. I recall a discussion where a mother tried to prove her child was “previously normal” when video tapes showed that the child actually was not normal but the parents mis-interpreted the behaviors.
Sullivan
January 13th, 2011
15:19:05

SB,

thankfully Mr. Miller doesn’t frustrate me. He reminds me of the people who push the idea that Wakefield had approval for his research project because one of his colleagues had permission to take 2 extra mucosal samples. It’s so clearly wrong, but the plan seems to be to raise the noise level so high as to drown out the facts.
Sullivan
January 13th, 2011
15:25:25

Children First,

so, if medical records aren’t to be trusted and, if ChildHealthSafety were correct with this statement “Neither the GP nor the mother is competent to provide the specialist assessment of whether the child’s development was in the normal range”, what’s left?

I am amazed that ChildHealthSafety went so far off-script with that one. Claiming that parents aren’t “competent” enough to give an assessment of their own children is 180 degrees opposite of what Mr. Wakefield’s supporters base their views upon.

If were to throw out parental observations, because parents aren’t competent to provide them as ChilHealthSafety asserts, the Lancet article falls as there is no parental recall on timing of symptoms following MMR vaccination.
Dedj
January 13th, 2011
16:32:49

“Child 8 was developmentally within the normal range as repeatedly stated by the developmental pediatrician.”

First, it appears to have been stated only once, and only in relation to an incomplete or insufficient assessment. Second, the paediatrician appears to have completed a formal assessment as part of a ‘review’ session, based on continuing concerns, and does not appear to have noted any significant changes.

There is no suggestion that the two sessions contained functionally and clinically seperate fully completed and sufficient assessments. As Sullivan has pointed out repeatedly, the second session appears to be a direct continuation of the first.

No statement supporting the view that the post-MMR assessment was clinically seperate from the pre-MMR assessment process has been supplied, despite the extreme importance of such a statement.

However, multiple statements that support the idea that the post-MMR assessment was a direct continuation of pre-MMR concerns exist, and have not been shown to be false.

The only supportable conclusion is that the latter assessment is clinically superior to the first, and should be considered to be the ‘proper’ assessment, and should be considered to be based on concerns that pre-existed the MMR until much stronger evidence is provided. A simplistic before/after comparison does not cut it, for reasons that have been extensively laid out.

No one here has any problem with the idea of a full assessment being superior to an abortive assessment, nor do they have any problem with the idea of a full assessment discovering more than an abortive initial assessment. No one, that is, except CHS.

Had Child 8 not had the MMR, their assessment progression would have been unremarkable, and no one would have had any difficulty in regarding the initial assessment as less valid.

The problem here is, is that CHS’s point is technically correct – as long as you fail to acknowledge the context and later statements – yet a fuller exploration of the assessment process indicates that the second assessment supercedes the first and was based on contemporary concerns – i.e. that it was not a new referral or was not for new concerns.

CHS is treating the assessments as equally valid and clinically seperate, when there are multiple statements that indicate otherwise. ‘Somehow’, CHS repeatedly fails to provide this full context in their arguement, despite it being hugely important to correctly intepreting Deers claims.

It seems we are only supposed to trust developmental paediatricians when they say what CHS wants them to.
sheldon101
January 13th, 2011
17:00:08

Re Sullivan’s comment about advance ethical permission

Eloquently and succinctly put. Much better wording than I’ve used.
Kevin
January 13th, 2011
17:00:42

Just a thing to note here: In my son’s own doctor’s medical records it is noted that his ‘reaction’ started on a much later date than the first date that we called her with our concerns over his 24 hour fever and screaming. Furthermore, in the notes, there is an entire section where either the Dr or the staff “whited it out”. When I confronted her about the discrepancy, she quickly told us that she could no longer see us as patients and that we should find another doctor.

Doctor’s do make mistakes and try to cover them up. No one is infallible.
ChildHealthSafety
January 13th, 2011
18:59:31

Sullivan January 13th, 2011 @ 15:25

“so, if medical records aren’t to be trusted and … “Neither the GP nor the mother is competent to provide the specialist assessment of whether the child’s development was in the normal range”, what’s left?”

The specialist – in Child 8’s case the developmental pediatrician who saw her twice before MMR [a month before] and a few weeks after and who was not part of the Royal Free. Her history was within the normal range.

Is Brian Deer yet ready to come over to CHS to deal with the rest of the children?

Waiting for him here:-
“Wakefield & MMR – BRIAN DEER CANNOT TELL US WHERE THE FRAUD IS”
http://tinyurl.com/5vs8rwt
Children First
January 13th, 2011
19:05:58

Thanks Kevin. It’s nice to see some purity here. It’s troublesome that many above are here only to defend their personal conclusions, with closed minds. This is going nowhere.
Sullivan
January 13th, 2011
19:22:05

Children First,

could you defend what appears to be your personal conclusions? I have presented information to support my conclusions and have pulled more and more as the discussion has gone on. It is very easy to dismiss data and interpretation with a pronouncement like “closed minds” and “defend personal conclusions”. Or, has ChildHealthSafety has done, try to keep score like this is some sort of debate club rather than a reasoned discussion.

The facts are there—Wakefield’s paper doesn’t accurately represent the data he had in hand. The discussion above shows that repeatedly and in multiple instances. The discussion has shown that Mr. Wakefield misrepresented the facts in his own defense attempt (Callous Disregard). His claim of child 8 having a reaction within 24 hours is not supported by any available data.

ChildHealthSafety shows that by carefully editing out key passages in doctor’s notes, he can create the appearance that Mr. Wakefield was correct. It is a circular argument: misrepresenting the data now doesn’t defend Mr. Wakefield misrepresenting the data 13 years ago.
Sullivan
January 13th, 2011
19:24:10

Children First,

do you agree with ChildHealthSafety’s claim that parents are not competent to report their own children’s developmental status? This seems key to his argument and would fall into the realm of an attempt to try to defend his own personal conclusion.
Children First
January 13th, 2011
20:24:16

ChildHealthSafety is entitled to his/her own opinions, as are you, and it matters not who agrees or disagrees with him/her or others. My personal issue is with defending already made-up minds. Few are here in pursuit of answers, and only to defend views. And to answer your previous question, no I will not share my child’s private medical records online (or even privately with you). My child’s medical records are private.
Children First
January 13th, 2011
20:37:53

My apologies upfront, but please refrain from asking further questions directly of me. I was just visiting the site briefly, and won’t see further posts. Good luck with your debate.
Sullivan
January 13th, 2011
21:03:53

Children First,

Good luck in your endeavors. I will note that you had an opportunity to respond before leaving and you declined that opportunity.
Sullivan
January 13th, 2011
21:15:24

Children First,

It is unfortunate that you have left us as I don’t understand who you believe asked for access to your child’s medical records. It certainly wasn’t me.

I am certainly interested in pursuing answers. Where we diverge is that the answers I find are clearly at odds with the assertions made by Mr. Wakefield and ChildHealthSafety.
sheldon101
January 13th, 2011
23:14:17

If we can’t trust the parents and their were huge problems with the medical records and what Wakefield saw and didn’t see, then how did Wakefield know what to write about the medical history of each child. Perhaps an Ouija board?
Squillo
January 14th, 2011
00:17:07

Not anxious to wade too deep into this already aging thread, but have to say I’m interested in the debate over what/when and Child 8 in no small part because his/her assessment history mirror’s my son’s.

When we first voiced concerns to our pediatrician, she disagreed, but sent us for an eval by a developmental pediatrician, who noted mostly normal (but slow-end) development, but difficulty in doing the assessment. No diagnosis. Recommended re-eval after a year. 18 months later, autism diagnosis by the same devel. ped.
AWOL
January 16th, 2011
01:26:39

Squillo so sorry to read that, it took us the same 18months for diagnosis(even without it you know) .Thanks to Deer thousands are appearing now with severe Autism .When Dr Wakefield et-al were preparing court material they could have, and would have been treating our kids…SHAME ON DEER…SHAME ON ALL WHO SUPPORT HIM ON HERE AS WELL.
Sullivan
January 16th, 2011
01:43:30

AWOL,

Are you suggesting that wakefield should have been treating children instead of being in the GM C hearings?

Are you aware that he is legally unable to treat in the US? He has no license. One of the problems he got himself into was participating in the clinical aspects of the children at the royal free hospital, as his post expressly forbade that. He was a researcher with no treatment privileges.
trrll
January 16th, 2011
02:37:30

There seems to be some confusion about scientific ethics. It is considered fraud to omit information that might cast doubt on your hypothesis, even if you personally feel that information is incorrect or misleading.

Let us suppose, for the sake of the argument, that Wakefield had two conflicting reports from physicians, Physician 1, a GP, reports concerns that the child has not been developing normally from an early age, but Physician 2, a specialist in neurological disease, felt that the child’s pre-vaccination development was within normal limits.

If Wakefield were to report, “Although the child’s GP reported concerns about early development pre-vaccination, a specialist in neurological disease disagreed and considered early development to be within normal limits. Because of the GP’s lack of certification in diagnosis of developmental delays, we rank the child’s early development as normal,” that would be scientifically legitimate, as it provides full information to the reader, who can then decide whether he agrees or disagrees with the authors’ criteria for weighting developmental assessments.

On the other hand, to completely omit any mention of a discrepancy in diagnosis between the two physicians would constitute scientific fraud.

The rules of science are quite clear: you don’t get to pick and choose which information to report. You have to report all of it. If you choose to discount some of it, you have to specify what you are discounting and why.
AWOL
January 16th, 2011
14:44:31

Sulliavan and trrll

Yes trrll only when its Dr Wakefield and the Royal Free are the rules cast in stone,I ask you is Deer now going to after all the memmbers of staff at the Royal Free possibly including the cleaners and kitchen staff,not many left now that he can go after..

Most of Deer’s spurious “evidence” is not permissible in The High Court I believe Dr Wakefield has lodged an appeal on the verdict of the GMC hearing ,so its early days to throw away the key,. If Deer and the GMC , are so cock sure, of the stance and the “evidence” why is it Deer and the GMC wont answer any, of the many questions being asked of them concerning Deers ,wonderland stories ,why?
Dawn
January 16th, 2011
14:44:46

First, let me say if Kevin reported truly and there are “whited out” sections in his child’s medical records, he should report that physician to the medical board. Records should NEVER be whited out. In case of an error (i.e. medical information for one patient got written on another patient’s chart – yes, it does happen) the data should be stricken out with one or two lines through it and the word “error” with initials and date written next to it. I can’t speak for any other place but the US, but a medical record in the US with that sort of issue would be highly suspect legally.

Second: I don’t see where anyone asked Children for her child’s medical records. But, since she ran away, I don’t think we will ever know who she is implying would do so.

Lastly: Anyone with medical knowledge who reads a record such as Child 8 knows that the doctor has concerns. Doctors don’t keep patients who don’t need them. The fact that the Developmental specialist saw child 8 several times means that there was something to be concerned about. You don’t need to do developmental testing on a child who is developmentally normal; you can look at that child, even coryzal and miserable, and see they are developing normally. You do (or plan to do in the future when the child is healthy and can perform to the best of their ability) full testing on a child who does not appear to be developing normally.
Science Mom
January 16th, 2011
17:34:54

AWOL:

Most of Deer’s spurious “evidence” is not permissible in The High Court I believe Dr Wakefield has lodged an appeal on the verdict of the GMC hearing ,so its early days to throw away the key,. If Deer and the GMC , are so cock sure, of the stance and the “evidence” why is it Deer and the GMC wont answer any, of the many questions being asked of them concerning Deers ,wonderland stories ,why?

Wakefield has claimed he would appeal and had 28 days from the GMC ruling last May to do so but I don’t see that he has. And so what if he has? It’s not as though merely filing an appeal exonerates him.

Mr. Deer has put forth his evidence in the form of easy-to-read features in the BMJ; he is under no obligation to answer to internet whiners, even though he has made numerous comments here and on Respectful Insolence. This is all rather elementary, if Wakefield has been libelled, he can seek relief in the UK court system, which is very plaintiff-friendly. He hasn’t done so, nor have any of his half-brained sycophants, even those with law degrees done so. Instead they are taking their case to the internet. Pretty weaksauce if you ask me.
sheldon101
January 16th, 2011
19:26:10

AWOL wrote:

Most of Deer’s spurious “evidence” is not permissible in The High Court I believe Dr Wakefield has lodged an appeal on the verdict of the GMC hearing ,so its early days to throw away the key,. If Deer and the GMC , are so cock sure, of the stance and the “evidence” why is it Deer and the GMC wont answer any, of the many questions being asked of them concerning Deers ,wonderland stories ,why?

Um… Brian Deer wasn’t a witness at the GMC. I don’t think his stories were introduced as witnesses.

Brian Deer supplied his stories and other information to the ‘prosecutors’ and they used it as they chose.

Wakefield is shown as appealing on the GMC site, inasmuch as his erasure is not yet in force.

The information used in the appeal will be the transcipts, evidence and decision of the GMC. I can’t see any reason for either side to even try to introduce new evidence.
AWOL
January 16th, 2011
19:45:30

@sheldon
When and where did I say Deer was a witness?
When and where did I say his stories were witnesses?
My point is most of the conjecture Deer put forward has not a grain of truth in it and would have been thrown out before reaching The High Court.

Yes,,, I have just pointed out above that Brian Deer grudgingly posted on ORACS blog Dr Wakefield has appealed Deer only admitted and posted this after being hectored by a poster “One Queer Fish” into a reply as obviously ORAC et-al pleaded with Deer to clarify to stop the forum pharma bloggers from making a bigger arse of themselves.
Deer hadn’t even informed his supporters and friends that Dr Wakefield had raised an appeal…with friends like Deer who needs enemies…

I am 100% sure new evidence shall be introduced 100% sure of that…

In the meantime, Mr Deer and the BMJ could reply to the many questions circulating but they aren’t –cant because it seems they cannot defend Deer’s conjecture in wonderland ..time for bed Alice
AWOL
January 16th, 2011
19:54:07

this should have gone up first

Science Mom

Ill be brief do your research a bit more before putting pen to paper.Here is Brian Deer on ORACS blog

http://scienceblogs.com/insole.....nt-3093837

“311 With regard to Wakefield’s purported appeal, I’m afraid it’s the same old story. He has filed a document, but has done so “in person” (meaning without representation) because, on advice from his GMC defence legal team, the Medical Protection Society has declined to fund an appeal.
I guess they figure they’ve thrown enough of their members’ money down the toilet.
So, he has a document filed, so he can say he is appealing, but he doesn’t actually do anything to progress it – as he tried to do with his libel action, and which he did with a complaint two years ago to the Press Complaints Commission.
I’m not sure what the GMC does in this situation.
Posted by: Brian Deer | January 14, 2011 3:34 PM”

Fine since Deer writes it ,it has to be right for you to believe it.28 days to raise and however long the GMC want to take before responding…
The rest of your abuse doesn’t merit a polite reply just to say as Deer has proved you wrong above complain to him for not informing you, not whoever it is your referring to above.
No replies have been sent by the GMC r.e. Deer’s latest adventures in wonderland, and Deer has gone quiet remarkable for someone who seeks attention so much…ADHD possibly…
Science Mom
January 16th, 2011
20:28:36

AWOL:

Fine since Deer writes it ,it has to be right for you to believe it.28 days to raise and however long the GMC want to take before responding…
The rest of your abuse doesn’t merit a polite reply just to say as Deer has proved you wrong above complain to him for not informing you, not whoever it is your referring to above.
No replies have been sent by the GMC r.e. Deer’s latest adventures in wonderland, and Deer has gone quiet remarkable for someone who seeks attention so much…ADHD possibly…

As I stated, it doesn’t matter if Wakefield has filed an appeal to the GMC ruling. If it was that important, I would have done my due diligence by investigating that. But thanks for supplying Mr. Deer’s report of Wakefield’s appeal application, it looks as though he is swinging in the wind solo on this. Come back when and if he actually pursues it and prevails.

Mr. Deer isn’t required to keep me personally informed of the Wakefield issue. He has published his results of his investigation in BMJ; he is also not obligated to make personal appearances to answer the vapid charges by Wakefield’s deluded supporters either. You haven’t provided a single shred of evidence to the contrary to Mr. Deer’s reports, just the predictable, “He’s a lying poopie-head”. So tell Wakefield to file a libel suit against Deer, BMJ and the Sunday Times if Deer is wrong. Why hasn’t Wakefield vowed to do this instead of whining about Deer in the press?

You simply can’t answer that can you?
AWOL
January 16th, 2011
21:40:49

@Science Mom

To cut to the chase ,if Dr Wakefield raised libel ,Dr Wakefield would have to disclose information to Deer while his appeal is being considered by the Kangeroo GMC Board (K.G.B.) .Think hard now, who would benefit from that scenario remembering Deer has broken his Oath and used the evidence he obtained from Judge Eady in the previous libel when he was only meant to use it for his defence(the material you see in his latest wonderland pieces came from Eady).
I ask you,is it any coincidence Deer knows he can bait Dr Wakefield to proceed with libel as he knows Dr Wakefield once bitten twice shy…was that simple enough for you??
Kev
January 16th, 2011
21:49:15

If thats cutting to the chase AWOL I’d hate to see you being verbose lol…what a pile of shite.
Sullivan
January 16th, 2011
21:52:06

So, Mr. Deer somehow tricked Mr. Wakefield into bringing complaints…twice? It’s Brian Deer’s fault that Mr. Wakefield put forth complaints that he (Dr. Wakefield) couldn’t support?

The term here is Blameshifting.
AWOL
January 16th, 2011
22:05:17

Kev

It was cutting to the chase I just answered her last three and a half lines and ignored the othe ,mumbo..

Sullivan

You know very well that Dr Wakefield stopped the libel because of the GMC complaint and the disclosure by Judge Eady of medical notes which Deer is using now and breaking his Oath to Judge Eady and the Uk Justice system. Just as well Dr Wakefield stopped the libel, before Deer got the name of the kitchen staff and the cleaners and everyone else at the Royal Free as they would have been,fingered by Deer in his Wonderland allegations as well.. Just like s a used condom Deer will be dumped when the deed is done ..
Science Mom
January 16th, 2011
22:11:57

AWOL:

To cut to the chase ,if Dr Wakefield raised libel ,Dr Wakefield would have to disclose information to Deer while his appeal is being considered by the Kangeroo GMC Board (K.G.B.).

Are you daft? If Wakers had evidence that would have exonerated him during the GMC hearing, he would have presented it. As it stood; he made no attempt to defend himself. If he possessed some super secret information that would exonerate him in an appeal, it would be the same that could prove Deer was in error.

Think hard now, who would benefit from that scenario remembering Deer has broken his Oath and used the evidence he obtained from Judge Eady in the previous libel when he was only meant to use it for his defence(the material you see in his latest wonderland pieces came from Eady).

No hard thinking required, you’re lobbing softballs. Deer didn’t break his oath; he was constrained from using the discovery materials from Waker’s libel suit against him since the suit was dropped. And he did so until after the GMC hearing, during which, all of the same materials were presented and made public. The only ‘Wonderland’ is the one you seem to exist in.

I ask you,is it any coincidence Deer knows he can bait Dr Wakefield to proceed with libel as he knows Dr Wakefield once bitten twice shy…was that simple enough for you??

Simple, yes but also a big load of bollocks. Do you honestly believe that he, the Sunday Times and BMJ would be banking on Wakers being reluctant to proceed with a libel suit rather than, oh say, fact-checking the hell out of Deer’s investigations so that it would withstand scrutiny by any standard of evidence? That was a rhetorical question since it is clear that you are incapable of reporting any factual information.
AWOL
January 16th, 2011
22:29:13

Science Mom When did you ever hear of an appeal while your case is still running?Appeals are after the hearing Dr Wakefield is waiting for guidance from the GMC concerning his appeal….so whatever material he has just now for his appeal he would have to provide that to any hypothetical appeal..Get it??

Wrong Deer was only permitted to use any documentation for his defence ..end of period Deer has broken his oath … since you only listen to Deer see for yourself

http://briandeer.com/wakefield/eady-gmc.htm

Hey, your not often right, but your wrong again..the fact checking has been done and a multitude of answers are waiting to be answered this is on Kevs blog so you should pay attention..

http://leftbrainrightbrain.co......ent-127533

Beggar’s belief why the GMC and rapid fire Deer don’t reply??

Factual enough for you??heaps more if you can take it in..
AWOL
January 16th, 2011
22:30:45

corrected meant to read

material he has just now for his appeal he would have to provide that to any hypothetical LIBEL CASE..Get it??
sheldon101
January 16th, 2011
23:26:41

Rather than just spout nonsense, ask questions.

To help with Wakefield’s defense, the GMC supplied Wakefield with medical records.

At the same time, Wakefield was suing Deer. As part of the discovery process, Wakefield had to supply the information he had, which included the records the GMC sent him.

Deer wanted to use the GMC information, but the GMC objected. So a motion was held before a judge. The judge held that Deer could use the information in the lawsuit. He used them under supervision.

Wakefield dropped the lawsuit. So Deer couldn’t use the information in the records.

At the GMC hearing, the GMC made public the medical records of the kids. And that’s how Deer got legal access to the records.

There’s no advice from the GMC. The GMC decided to erase Wakefield. Wakefield has filed a notice of appeal, acting for himself. The usual way insincere appeals are eliminated is because the appealing party doesn’t order the transcripts. A court reporter take notes or uses a steno during a hearing or trial. But they are only transcribed if somoeone is going to order and pay for them. And the cost of transcripts can be huge. In Wakefield, the GMC did transcripts. So aside from filing fees, there’s no cost to Wakefield of appealing.
ChildHealthSafety
January 16th, 2011
23:34:19

sheldon101 January 16th, 2011 23:26

And the cost of transcripts can be huge. In Wakefield, the GMC did transcripts. So aside from filing fees, there’s no cost to Wakefield of appealing.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha ….

An appeal just involves filing transcripts. Tooo funny.

You seem know just as much about vaccine safety.
AWOL
January 16th, 2011
23:47:55

@sheldon

Swat up time the longer the questions remain unanswered the more dispondent your side is going to get

“if you look at Deer’s report, in most cases he is comparing the Royal Free’s own records with the Lancet paper”

Mr Deer has done it a tad shoddily it seems. How that got past the “peer reviewers” raises questions about what “peer review” means at the BMJ.

Unfortunately Mr Deer appears to have gone to ground and is not even answering basic questions put to him on his new Guardian blog.

Instead his “big sis” ploy is to get the BMJ Deputy Editor to post instead – she says “if you don’t like what we say sue us”. Which is a remarkable position for a supposedly peer reviewed journal to take.

“In most cases” takes on a new meaning regarding Child 11 – remember these are allegations of fraud being made – see below.

And we see you, like the usual suspects on a Kev Leitch blog. engage in the usual personal attacks on people who are not around to defend themselves. Nice. The usual bully tactics.

Regrettably “visitor” it is the answers from Mr Deer himself which are needed – the horse’s mouth so-to-speak and not the go-betweens on Kevin Leitch’s blog.

Can we have answers from Mr Deer please or is he continuing to hide?

__________________________

Examples Mr Deer refuses to answer. Perhaps he might step out of the shadows now and deal with them?:-

Child 1, 8, 11

In order to “go behind” the 1998 Lancet paper, Mr Deer needed the original data and records provided to Mr Andrew Wakefield by his 12 other professional specialist colleagues at The Royal Free Hospital, London.

Does Mr Deer have exactly that data and those records? Or has Mr Deer instead relied on such of the NHS records of children either disclosed to him under Court rules [CPR 31.22] in the Wakefield v Channel 4 & Deer libel litigation and/or information contained in the transcripts of the General Medical Council proceedings.

Child 11’s medical records were not available for the GMC hearings. Very little mention was made of Child 11. Can Mr Deer explain upon what particular medical records for Child 11 he relies?

DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORIES

This is what the 1998 Royal Free Lancet paper said about all the Lancet 12 children:-

they had “a history of normal development followed by loss of acquired skills”.

That was a main issue the 1998 Royal Free Lancet paper was reporting on scientifically and medically. It also states clearly it was an “early report” and called for further investigation.

CHILD 8

Mr Deer says about Child 8:-

“But although the paper specified that all 12 children were “previously normal,” [Child 8] had developmental delays, and also facial dysmorphisms, noted before MMR vaccination.

For Child 8 specifically the Lancet paper stated:-

“Prospective developmental records showed satisfactory achievement of early milestones in all children. The only girl (child number eight) was noted to be a slow developer compared to her older sister.”

Let us now compare what The General Medical Council hearing transcripts show regarding Child 8’s specialist developmental pediatrician’s opinions. This specialist was not any part of the Royal Free team and was part of the normal UK NHS health service.

May 1994 age 10.5 months:

“There were no neurological abnormalities and I felt that her development was within normal limits”

23 December 1994 (approx 18 months) – developmental pediatrician wrote:

“I felt that her abilities, although delayed on the average age of attainment were not outside the range of normal. Her growth has been satisfactory.”

17 February 1995: The developmental pediatrician writes three weeks after MMR:

“When I reviewed her in clinic recently I confirmed that she is globally developmentally delayed, functioning at about a one year level on Denver Developmental Assessment. ...... General examination is unremarkable. There were no neurological abnormalities other than the developmental delay.”

As this is a scientific medical paper specifically focussed on developmental histories, can Mr Deer please explain where he believes the discrepancy is between what is reported in the Lancet paper and what the developmental pediatrician recorded in his clinical opinion.

Can Mr Deer also please confirm that the appropriate opinion to rely on in such a case is that of the specialist developmental pediatrician and not the views of Child 8’s mother nor the view of the referring General Practitioner.

Would Mr Deer like to confirm that in scientific terms in a scientific medical paper reporting on the history of development, Child 8’s clinical history was normal prior to MMR vaccination – or as the specialist developmental pediatrician stated within the “normal range”.

CHILD 11

Assuming Mr Deer did not have Child 11’s full medical records, on what basis can anyone make a serious allegation of fraud?

CHILD 1

Mr Deer implies [but does not say] that Child 1 may have had symptoms of an autistic condition aged 9 months – well before the MMR vaccination:

“One of the mother’s concerns was that he could not hear properly—which might sound like a hallmark presentation of classical autism, the emergence of which is often insidious.”

The additional GP records disclosed in the GMC proceedings (but not available to the Royal Free team) contain an entry documenting in addition to his mother’s concerns about Child 1’s hearing, her additional concern was about a discharge from Child 1’s left ear. Is it not correct that this concern is not suggestive of an incipient developmental disorder but of an ear infection?

BMJ FACT CHECKING

In The Sunday Times last, 9th January, Mr Deer says he insisted the BMJ checked his facts. Did they do so? And if so, what did they do?

INSPECTION OF DATA

Perhaps Mr Deer would be kind enough to confirm where the data relied on in this article can be inspected please?

Mr Deer claims to have gone behind the Royal Free’s 1998 Lancet paper to expose fundamental flaws.

Would Mr Deer perhaps agree that it now seems from this BMJ paper by him that is not what he has done?

It appears Mr Deer has compared the Lancet paper’s findings with the childrens’ GP records instead of with the data and results provided to Mr Andrew Wakefield’s other 12 authors on an interdisciplinary team of medical specialists.

It would be helpful for Mr Deer to explain how on such a basis can an allegation of fraud be sustained?

If Mr Deer wanted to “go behind” the paper then he needed to have the data and results provided for the preparation of the Lancet paper and compare it with the contents of that paper.

The 1998 Lancet paper was written by Mr Andrew Wakefield based on the data and results provided to him by those other 12 specialists.

If there was any falsification as is now being alleged in the British Medical Journal Mr Wakefield’s 12 other authors would have noticed immediately.

Those other authors had the initial referral letter from the GP, the “Red Book” of developmental progress [held by the parents], fresh parental histories taken by Professor Walker-Smith [not Wakefield], test and clinical examination results and any further information in any ensuing correspondence with GPs.

The Royal Free Team did their own examinations, took fresh histories and made their own specialist diagnoses afresh. They did not rely on family doctor [ie. non specialist] GP records. This is standard practice in British NHS hospitals.

GP records are made by non specialists [General Practitioners], taken over years, by more than one person, omit information provided by parents and contain other information unknown to parents.

It is also clear from the transcripts at the GMC that the GP records are riven with fundamental errors like incorrect dates of vaccinations [eg. Child 8 – 7th January instead of 27th January – “I think” said the GP in evidence] and incorrect types of vaccinations being recorded [eg. Child 4 – was it measles vaccine or was it MMR - the records say MMR - the GP said in evidence it was measles].

Additionally the 1998 Lancet paper stated prominently on the first page “Early Report” and it called for further investigation.

Does Mr Deer not agree that an “early report” is an alert to other medical practitioners of a potential problem and not a claim to have found and proven one?
Sullivan
January 17th, 2011
01:09:30

Sheldon

A number of vaccine “safety” orgs stepped forward to pay Mr. Wakefield after Thoughtful House let him go.

I have no doubt that if they felt that Mr. Wakefield could prevail against Mr. Deer, the financial backing would appear quickly.

Mr. Wakefield is now a spokesman for those orgs. His previous salary was $270,000 per year. If the can support Mr. Wakefield, they can pay his legal fees.
sheldon101
January 17th, 2011
01:25:35

CHS, you’re a UK solicitor. If one is appealing and doesn’t have to ask permission and you’re not meaning to actually sincerely argue it what are the difficult steps beyond filing the appeal with whatever grounds you want, filing the transcipt and writing any garbage in the written argument. As long as Wakefield doesn’t need permission, why can’t he insincerely drag out the process?
sheldon101
January 17th, 2011
01:39:18

Don’t understand how the game is played!————————————————————Here and elsewhere Wakefield apologists demonstrate that they don’t know the rules or pretend they don’t.

Here is the rule.
1. Pretend (It is pretend, because it is false) that Wakefield had a random group of kids with GI symptoms who were normal before MMR and developed autism days after MMR.

Kids who aren’t normal before MMR don’t support his case.

There can be differences in opinions of whether a kid is normal or not. Wakefield has to prove his case. So if there’s a difference of opinion, then at a very minimum the paper has to say so. I’d argue that this is sufficient to count as symptoms before MMR. But I might be satisfied with uncertain.

Now that doesn’t apply to Child 8 where a REFERRAL letter is sent to Wakefield. Or child 11 where there is a discharge summary by one of the co-authors. They count as symptoms before MMR.
Science Mom
January 17th, 2011
01:42:18

By the way, AWOL here is also One Queer Fish on Respectful Insolence.

Science Mom When did you ever hear of an appeal while your case is still running?Appeals are after the hearing Dr Wakefield is waiting for guidance from the GMC concerning his appeal….so whatever material he has just now for his appeal he would have to provide that to any hypothetical appeal..Get it??

I don’t think you ‘get it’ fish. You are conflating terminology. Nothing is stopping Wakers from instigating a libel suit against Deer ‘while waiting guidance from the GMC’. Nothing is preventing Wakers from filing a PCC complaint and announcing he is suing Deer for libel. The problem is, is that his argument amounts to:

“These allegations are false. Read my book.”

Wrong Deer was only permitted to use any documentation for his defence ..end of period Deer has broken his oath … since you only listen to Deer see for yourself

Sheldon covered that, so no need to reiterate. No broken oath and funny, no one else, especially in a position of actual authority thinks so either.

Hey, your not often right, but your wrong again..the fact checking has been done and a multitude of answers are waiting to be answered this is on Kevs blog so you should pay attention..

Yes, the fact-checking took place prior to Deer publishing the BMJ features; there is no onus for him to run about answering the caterwauling from Wakefield sycophants on the interwebz. Linking back to one of your own comments is weak gruel.

Beggar’s belief why the GMC and rapid fire Deer don’t reply??

What part of this don’t you understand? They don’t have to. Your non-acceptance of the evidence against Wakers does not constitute a continued discussion on behalf of anyone else.

Factual enough for you??heaps more if you can take it in..

Actually, no. Other than confirming that Wakefield filed an appeal, your screeds have been remarkably fact-free.
Sullivan
January 17th, 2011
01:43:07

Sheldon101,

I haven’t checked all the other kids. The one with high lead levels stuck in my mind because of the heavy metal causation hypothesis. Well, that and the fact that Wakefields team chose to not treat.
BoB
January 17th, 2011
07:39:43

At this points things are simply getting silly, Wakefield doesn’t want to sue Deer because he has a secret cache of new evidence that he doesn’t want anybody seeing before his appeal?
Let us engage our brains for a second 1)Wakefield does not have any substantial new evidence because if he did he would of submitted it to the GMC during his trial. 2)If the BMJ article’s were either inaccurate or unfair in it’s reporting of the publicly available information as Wakefield alleges then he could bring a libel case against Deer without needing to submit anything new to the public record.

My faith in AWOL and ChildHealth has now become so low that I am forced to point out the glaringly obvious. The Dr Houlsby mentioned in Dr. Jelley’s referral letter (above) is the developmental pediatrician that assessed child 8. The information in that letter is crystal clear evidence that 1) Wakefield had sufficient information to know that child 8’s medical history was not “previously normal” and 2)That Wakefield was made aware that Dr Houlsby did not share Wakefield’s view that there was any severe deterioration in child 8 condition following MMR. The fact that Wakefield has the balls to say ten years later that not only was child 8 normal pre-MMR but that it wasn’t him that diagnosed her as such is staggering, even more mind blowing is that people believe him.
ChildHealthSafety
January 17th, 2011
14:38:14

BoB January 17th, 2011 07:39

“At this points things are simply getting silly … Wakefield had sufficient information to know that child 8’s medical history was not “previously normal”.”

That is not the issue the Lancet paper was addressing.This is what the 1998 Royal Free Lancet paper said about all the Lancet 12 children – they had:-

“a history of normal development followed by loss of acquired skills”.

Child 8 had a history of normal development followed by loss of acquired skills. Her developmental pediatrician specifically stated that about one month before MMR when 18 months old her development was within the normal range – that is a medical assessment.

About one month after she had lost skills and was functioning developmentally at a one year old’s level.

The childrens’ development was a main issue The 1998 Royal Free Lancet paper was reporting on scientifically and medically. It also states clearly it was an “early report” and called for further investigation.

For Child 8 specifically the Lancet paper stated:-

Prospective developmental records showed satisfactory achievement of early milestones in all children. The only girl (child number eight) was noted to be a slow developer compared to her older sister.”

That is all accurate and not misleading.

Yes I agree “At this points things are simply getting silly”.

If you are going to read a medical science paper then you must read it as a scientist and not as part of the great unwashed going “ooo, ahh but there were facial dismorphisms which my kid did not have so she was not developmentally normal”. Medically and scientifically she was developing within the normal range and then regressed immediately from an 18 month level to 12 months.

That is a stark and startling regression.

In medical and scientific terms Child 8 had a history of normal development before her MMR. The records show that.

You can spin it any way you want as has Brian Deer.

Who still has not answered any of the questions.
Dawn
January 17th, 2011
14:49:54

@CHS: for the last time: Child 8 did NOT have a history of normal development. Being consistently on the “low end” of normal is not normal. Some children DO develop different skills at different paces – They may not walk until 15 months (late), but they are using a pincer grasp at 7 months (early). And again, the developmental specialist was not able to TEST Child 8 until after the MMR because Child 8 was non-cooperative due to illness. His comment that growth was normal after the surgery reflects physical growth.

Go be Wakers solicter, CHS, and sue us all for libel because we are calling you, Wakers and all his defendents liars. Why not? You are in the UK where libel laws are very liberal and pro-plaintiff. Go for it unless you KNOW Deer is right and you are wrong.

(crickets, anyone?)
AWOL
January 17th, 2011
16:21:03

Science Mom

Your entitled to your opinions but I just feel sorry for anyone not clued up in the Autism debate reading your posts as they are all based on the lies of Deer ,nothing in-between .

Sheldon you get down from whatever your on and smell the rosies.

Brian Deer answer the questions your supporters are becoming weary and running out of logical answers you’ve really got them confused what to say this time even Sullivan seems stumped and short with the replies where in previous arguments he has written reams.
Dedj
January 17th, 2011
18:01:31

“Being consistently on the “low end” of normal is not normal.”

Especially not if the same assessing clinician later ‘confirms’ that the client is not normal once they get around to performing a full and sufficient assessment.

Under normal circumstance, Child 8’s assessment progression would not attract comment – no-one would seriously suggest that the follow-on assessment was an assessment of entirely new impairments – that is, unless said person was trying to prove a pre-conceived point.

I’m still waiting for the comment from the clinician involved that states the assessment was anything other than a normal follow-on from a previously abortive assessment. Claiming she ‘regressed’ without documented evidence from the person most likely to have spotted and noted it is simply not behaviour that should be tolerated in any discussion of Child 8.
ChildHealthSafety
January 17th, 2011
18:11:53

Dedj January 17th, 2011 18:01:31

“Being consistently on the “low end” of normal is not normal.”

Dissembling.

It is a sad fact that 50% of the population are below average intelligence – which ones would you say are “not within the normal range” of intelligence or development?

And the Lancet paper noted:

“Prospective developmental records showed satisfactory achievement of early milestones in all children. The only girl (child number eight) was noted to be a slow developer compared to her older sister.””

Where is the fraud? Nowhere. You can argue all you like.

Brian Deer remains silent.
sheldon101
January 17th, 2011
18:15:52

If the subject had been buying a used car and Wakefield was the proverbial ‘used car salesman’ then maybe, just maybe, the information on child 8 in the paper maybe, just maybe might be acceptable.

But that’s not the case as far as the GMC is concerned and that’s not the case where a scientific paper is concerned. And especially not when the the selection proces of the kids has been dishonesly described in the paper and elsewhere.

It isn’t a game of gotcha, which is what Wakefield supporters are playing at. What made the paper publication worthy in the paper was tht kids were normal before MMR. Arguing over the precise wording isn’t how scientific papers are evaluated, especially when other failings make it very, very likely that the wording is meant to mislead.

If you don’t like that answer, here’s another. Pretend it was OK for Wakefield to word the information on Child 8 the way he wanted. But at the same time, he has to include clear information from the referral letter sent to him and specify the source as a referral letter. And let the editor and peer reviewers make up their mind as to whether to publish the paper. For some strange reason, Wakefield didn’t do that. Perhaps it was concern that the paper would be round filed.
ChildHealthSafety
January 17th, 2011
18:30:22

Dedj January 17th, 2011 18:01:31

“I’m still waiting for the comment from the clinician involved that states the assessment was anything other than a normal follow-on from a previously abortive assessment.”

Here is it. The General Medical Council hearing transcripts show regarding Child 8’s specialist developmental pediatrician, [who was not any part of the Royal Free team and was part of the normal UK NHS health service] said on 17 February 1995 three weeks after MMR:

“When I reviewed her in clinic recently I confirmed that she is globally developmentally delayed, functioning at about a one year level on Denver Developmental Assessment. ...... General examination is unremarkable. There were no neurological abnormalities other than the developmental delay.”

Follow the evidence.

Mr Deer remains silent.
ChildHealthSafety
January 17th, 2011
18:33:45

sheldon101 January 17th, 2011 18:15:52

Dissembling.

We need Mr Deer’s answer.
Dedj
January 17th, 2011
19:06:22

“Dedj January 17th, 2011 18:01:31

“Being consistently on the “low end” of normal is not normal.”

Dissembling.

It is a sad fact that 50% of the population are below average intelligence – which ones would you say are “not within the normal range” of intelligence or development?”

First up, you have quoted me quoting someone else, yet have responded as if I was the original authour.

Second, you should be aware of such things as standard deviations and percentiles, as they apply to determining where normal and sub-normal are. Go away and gain this awareness.

Third, any chance of maybe, someday, if someone holds your hand for you, if someone reads out the longer words for you, if you get a good run-up and a good following wind, actually coming around to thinking about addressing the idea that Child 8’s follow-on assessment was a follow-on assessment of the earlier abortive one and not an assessment of new impairments.

Are you, are are you not, going to provide any information that would indicate the follow-on assessment was, in fact, assessing post-MMR damage? A quote saying such from the clinician? A new referral letter? A discharge sheet? Anything at all, that hasn’t been shown to be missing extreme amounts of context by Sullivan?

i.e., are you going to start posting evidence or going to continue in totally missing out the important bits about Child 8 – the bits which (‘coincidentally’ I’m sure) are the most damaging to your case?
Dedj
January 17th, 2011
19:16:19

“We need Mr Deer’s answer.”

This does not mean he has to supply an answer, especially given that his original article identifies several examples, with references to original documents and later findings.

That you don’t like or understand the answer is not an indication that he has not provided one.
AWOL
January 17th, 2011
19:30:00

Why the silence Dedj,Deer is someone who blood sucks attention wherever he goes even bating sick children and parents outside the GMC for the sake of attention see the link below .

For Deer, to keep so,so quiet, a bit strange somewhat,is it not??

Deer attention seeking outside the GMC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cq5BuVHu4Uw
ChildHealthSafety
January 17th, 2011
19:52:10

Dedj January 17th, 2011 19:16:19

’ “We need Mr Deer’s answer.”

This does not mean he has to supply an answer’

Dissembling. Yes he does. Deal with here January 17, 2011 8:58 AM - Misdirected criticism by someone from whom I would never have expected it

We need Mr Deer’s answer.
ChildHealthSafety
January 17th, 2011
19:53:10

CORRECTION “dealt with here”
Dedj
January 17th, 2011
20:13:10

“For Deer, to keep so,so quiet, a bit strange somewhat,is it not??”

He hasn’t been quiet.

CHS:

“Dissembling”

To accuse someone of ‘dissembling’ is to accuse them of concealing true intentions or to be intentionally misleading.

What do you believe my post is attempting to conceal? What do you believe is intentionally misleading?

“Dealt with here”

No, it wasn’t. Repeating an assertion does not make it true.

The BMJ have no responsibility to answer any and all questions. The responsiblity you are attempting to claim they have only extends to “scientific peer review”, a category in which neither your nor John Stones questions can be deemed to qualify.

The BMJ have no responsibility to answer questions that are poorly argued, badly constructed, or which do not faithfully recount the situation, or which do not accurately deal with the material at hand.

If Mr Deer does ever deign to answer your questions, you should consider it to be a sign that he has had a very slow week.

As long as you fail to properly address the concerns that have been put to you and about you, you have no standing to demand the same of Deer.

I await the data that I have requested multiple times. Failure to respond with a direct reference by the end of next week will be taken as confirmation that such data does not exist, i.e. that the context and interpretation of Child 8 that has been argued by Sullivan is the factually correct and clinically valid one.

Get to it, boyo.
Science Mom
January 17th, 2011
20:21:14

Dedj, instead of continuing to go round and round with these hatstands, AWOL/One Queer Fish and Cliff Miller/CHS, who will clearly never accept the evidence, who can only caterwaul on the interwebz and who dishonestly insist that Deer is silent on the matter, might I suggest the considerably more productive and less painful activity of ramming your head full-on into a concrete wall?

This is what these two do, it is their raison d’être, given they don’t seem to have much of a life otherwise. Let them fall into even deeper obscurity where they belong.
ChildHealthSafety
January 17th, 2011
20:32:34

Dedj – January 17th, 2011 20:13:10

Is this a British pantomime? “Oh yes it is” – “Oh no it isn’t”. “Look out behind you.”:-

He hasn’t been quiet.

“Dealt with here” No, it wasn’t.

The BMJ have no responsibility to answer

And this is rich:

As long as you fail to properly address the concerns that have been put to you and about you, you have no standing to demand the same of Deer.

As long as Mr Deer fails to properly address the concerns that have been put to him you have no standing to demand the same of anyone.

He cannot answer them. And if they were tosh as you want to suggest, but which they are not, he could bat them away in two shakes of a lamb’s tail – but he has not and cannot. Hence the silence from him and the BMJ.
AWOL
January 17th, 2011
20:49:52

Very strange from “La la la I can’t hear you.”

Dedj can you tell “La la la I can’t hear you.”

to remove his fingers from his ears and stop singing

huge ammount of people want to speak to “La la la I can’t hear you.”

P.S. We would like to hear from you Brian
Sullivan
January 17th, 2011
21:13:13

Dedj,

as you can see, ChildHealthSafety and AWOL stopped conversing and are just making noise at this point. They are trying to manufacture a controversy about Brian Deer to deflect attention away from Andrew Wakefield’s multiple ethical lapses.

Brian Deer broke details about the children’s medical history in a news story last year. If people felt there was a real legal problem with him having access to the information he has discussed, a lawsuit would have ensued then. The group of the Lancet 12 parents who still back Mr. Wakefield (only 9 of the parents signed on to the letter last I saw) could easily obtain the financial backing to bring suit if they felt that their rights were infringed upon. They didn’t then and there’s no indication that they are now.

So, other than in comments here, RI and on the CHS blog (which apparently no one is reading or CHS would have made good on his word to take his leave of us here) where has anything been “put to Mr. Deer”?

The sad thing is that ChildHealthSafety started out as really the only person trying to defend Andrew Wakefield with actual facts. AWOL is far more typical in approach in that he/she posts comments mostly devoid of facts and certainly has stayed clear of actually addressing the very serious allegations made by the BMJ (or the offenses found proved by the GMC, for that matter). CHS showed why people don’t try to defend Mr. Wakefield on the facts: the facts are against him. CHS only dug a deeper hole by exposing misrepresentations by Mr. Wakefield in his book.

1) Andrew Wakefield was wrong. There is no association between MMR and autism. His data doesn’t even suggest an association, when misrepresentations are removed.
2) Andrew Wakefield lied, repeatedly, about his conflicts of interest. He lied even to his own colleagues, who learned of the COI’s from Brian Deer.

Let’s not forgot that he subjected children, disabled children, far more than just the Lancet 12, to invasive procedures in order to collect data for the litigation he was actively assisting and was actively hiding.

The question is not whether Mr. Wakefield should have been struck off and his research discredited. The question at hand is how many offenses he was guilty of that would have caused his fate—a fate of his own making.
ChildHealthSafety
January 17th, 2011
21:43:50

AWOL January 17th, 2011 20:49:52

LOL.
Dedj
January 17th, 2011
21:47:50

“And this is rich:”

No, it isn’t.

You are the one making demands of Deer without providing justification for why he should meet those demands.

You are already in a discussion regarding Child 8, and have already claimed to have knowledge of Child 8.

It is thus entirely reasonable to expect you to actually have that knowledge. As we are already engaged on Child 8, it is not unreasonable to ask you for details that you should already be aware of and be in possession of, especially as you should have been the one to bring these details up first.

If you’re going to try to pull a “I know you are, but what am I?2 style stunt again, please do it in a way that actually makes sense.

You are very clearly making demands of another person when you clearly cannot meet the same demands yourself. What another person does or does not do has no bearing on whether or not I can point out the discrepancy.

Unless you wish to accuse me of being Brian Deer, your retort is both illogical and does not answer any of the concerns put to you. Effectively, you’ve made my arguement for me.
AWOL
January 17th, 2011
22:48:51

1.as you can see, ChildHealthSafety and AWOL stopped conversing and are just making noise at this point. They are trying to manufacture a controversy about Brian Deer to deflect attention away from Andrew Wakefield’s multiple ethical lapses.
Brian Deer broke details about the children’s medical history in a news story last year.
Not so quick Sullivan.. Deer had access to the medical records of the Lancet 12 children long before the GMC hearing, which is apparently illegal

If people felt there was a real legal problem with him having access to the information he has discussed, a lawsuit would have ensued then.
Here’s a Lancet 12 parent’s recent complaint to the BMJ for his most recent article:

The group of the Lancet 12 parents who still back Mr. Wakefield (only 9 of the parents signed on to the letter last I saw) could easily obtain the financial backing to bring suit if they felt that their rights were infringed upon.
Two live abroad and couldn’t be contacted all 10 in the UK signed. The 2 abroad I believe now wish to sign also.No libel,while the GMC appeal is still open.

They didn’t then and there’s no indication that they are now.
As above complaints have been flying in I believe from all the Lancet 12 to various controlling bodies.Ever hear of the domino effect ,Sullivan?
So, other than in comments here, RI and on the CHS blog (which apparently no one is reading or CHS would have made good on his word to take his leave of us here) where has anything been “put to Mr. Deer”?
As above complaints have been sent in and questions are waiting to be answered from lawyers to Deer, maybe he’s been advised to keep his shit hole shut, once and for all.
The sad thing is that ChildHealthSafety started out as really the only person trying to defend Andrew Wakefield with actual facts.
I can think of several on here and goodness knows how many postings and posters have not had the privalige of posting on here .I myself have had at least 5 posts stopped from being posted…selective and biased spring to mind.
AWOL is far more typical in approach in that he/she posts comments mostly devoid of facts and certainly has stayed clear of actually addressing the very serious allegations made by the BMJ (or the offenses found proved by the GMC, for that matter).
For the reason only I don’t wish to repeat questions that are similar to CHS.
CHS showed why people don’t try to defend Mr. Wakefield on the facts:
Eh!Still Dr …
the facts are against him. CHS only dug a deeper hole by exposing misrepresentations by Mr. Wakefield in his book.
Now that’s a laugh!!ha,ha,ha,
1)Andrew Wakefield was wrong. There is no association between MMR and autism. His data doesn’t even suggest an association, when” So all the organisations below that support Wakefield are WRONG,and all the studies below are WRONG on whos says ..Deer of course??
2)
3)Age of Autism
Autism Action Network
Autism Media Channel
Autism One
Autism File Global
Autism Research Institute
Elizabeth Birt Center for Autism Law and Advocacy
Generation Rescue
National Autism Association
Schafer Autism Report
TACA-Talk About Curing Autism
The Autism Trust USA/UK
The Coalition for SafeMinds
Unlocking Autism

The following peer-reviewed papers support Dr. Wakefield’s original findings:

Furlano R, Anthony A, Day R, Brown A, Mc Garvey L, Thomson M, et al. “Colonic CD8 and T cell filtration with epithelial damage in children with autism.” J Pediatr 2001;138:366-72.

Sabra S, Bellanti JA, Colon AR. “Ileal lymphoid hyperplasia, non-specific colitis and pervasive developmental disorder in children”. The Lancet 1998;352:234-5.

Torrente F., Machado N., Perez-Machado M., Furlano R., Thomson M., Davies S., Wakefield AJ, Walker-Smith JA, Murch SH. “Enteropathy with T cell infiltration and epithelial IgG deposition in autism.” Molecular Psychiatry. 2002;7:375-382.

Wakefield AJ, Anthony A, Murch SH, Thomson M, Montgomery SM, Davies S, Walker-Smith JA. “Enterocolitis in children with developmental disorder.” American Journal of Gastroenterology 2000;95:2285-2295.

Ashwood P, Anthony A, Pellicer AA, Torrente F, Wakefield AJ. “Intestinal lymphocyte populations in children with regressive autism: evidence for extensive mucosal immunopathology.” Journal of Clinical Immunology, 2003;23:504-517.

The following peer-reviewed papers replicate Dr. Wakefield’s original findings:

Gonzalez, L. et al., “Endoscopic and Histological Characteristics of the Digestive Mucosa in Autistic Children with gastro-Intestinal Symptoms”. Arch Venez Pueric Pediatr, 2005;69:19-25.

Balzola, F., et al., “Panenteric IBD-like disease in a patient with regressive autism shown for the first time by wireless capsule enteroscopy: Another piece in the jig-saw of the gut-brain syndrome?” American Journal of Gastroenterology, 2005. 100(4): p. 979- 981.

Balzola F et al . “Autistic enterocolitis: confirmation of a new inflammatory bowel disease in an Italian cohort of patients.” Gastroenterology 2005;128(Suppl. 2);A-303.

These are the articles on treatment of gastrointestinal symptoms in autistic children:

Buie T, et al. Pediatrics. 2010 Jan;125 Suppl 1:S19-29. Recommendations for evaluation and treatment of common gastrointestinal problems in children with ASDs.

Buie T, et al. Pediatrics. 2010 Jan;125 Suppl 1:S1-18. Evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of gastrointestinal disorders in individuals with ASDs: a consensus report.
misrepresentations are removed.

Andrew Wakefield lied, repeatedly, about his conflicts of interest. He lied even to his own colleagues, who learned of the COI’s from Brian Deer.
So says “La la la I can’t hear you.” Well then one person against the parents, all the organisations above, all the scientists above …I could go on..

Let’s not forgot that he subjected children, disabled children, far more than just the Lancet 12, to invasive procedures in order to collect data for the litigation he was actively assisting and was actively hiding.
HAS ANYONE COMPLAINED APART FROM “La la la I can’t hear you.”

The question is not whether Mr. Wakefield should have been struck off and his research discredited. The question at hand is how many offenses he was guilty of that would have caused his fate—a fate of his own making.
Premature to discuss a fate the GMC appeal has still to run..

“La la la I can’t hear you.” is rapidly developing own-goal status for the pro vaccine lobby. Fingers out yet Brian???
AWOL
January 17th, 2011
22:57:56

1.as you can see, ChildHealthSafety and AWOL stopped conversing and are just making noise at this point. They are trying to manufacture a controversy about Brian Deer to deflect attention away from Andrew Wakefield’s multiple ethical lapses.
Brian Deer broke details about the children’s medical history in a news story last year.
Not so quick Sullivan.. Deer had access to the medical records of the Lancet 12 children long before the GMC hearing, which is apparently illegal
http://www.ageofautism.com/201.....fraud.html

If people felt there was a real legal problem with him having access to the information he has discussed, a lawsuit would have ensued then.
Here’s a Lancet 12 parent’s recent complaint to the BMJ for his most recent article:
http://www.ageofautism.com/201.....fraud.html
The group of the Lancet 12 parents who still back Mr. Wakefield (only 9 of the parents signed on to the letter last I saw) could easily obtain the financial backing to bring suit if they felt that their rights were infringed upon.
Two live abroad and couldn’t be contacted all 10 in the UK signed. The 2 abroad I believe now wish to sign also. No libel, while the GMC appeal is still open.
They didn’t then and there’s no indication that they are now.
As above complaints have been flying in I believe from all the Lancet 12 to various controlling bodies.Ever hear of the domino effect ,Sullivan?
So, other than in comments here, RI and on the CHS blog (which apparently no one is reading or CHS would have made good on his word to take his leave of us here) where has anything been “put to Mr. Deer”?
As above complaints have been sent in and questions are waiting to be answered from lawyers to Deer, maybe he’s been advised to keep his shit hole shut, once and for all.
The sad thing is that ChildHealthSafety started out as really the only person trying to defend Andrew Wakefield with actual facts.
I can think of several on here and goodness knows how many postings and posters have not had the privilege of posting on here .I myself have had at least 5 posts stopped from being posted…selective and biased spring to mind.
AWOL is far more typical in approach in that he/she posts comments mostly devoid of facts and certainly has stayed clear of actually addressing the very serious allegations made by the BMJ (or the offenses found proved by the GMC, for that matter).
For the reason only I don’t wish to repeat questions that are similar to CHS.
CHS showed why people don’t try to defend Mr. Wakefield on the facts:
Eh! Still Dr …
the facts are against him. CHS only dug a deeper hole by exposing misrepresentations by Mr. Wakefield in his book.
Now that’s a laugh!!ha,ha,ha,
Andrew Wakefield was wrong. There is no association between MMR and autism. His data doesn’t even suggest an association, when”
1)
2) So all the organisations below that support Wakefield are WRONG, and all the studies below are WRONG on who’s says ..Deer of course??
3)
4)Age of Autism
Autism Action Network
Autism Media Channel
Autism One
Autism File Global
Autism Research Institute
Elizabeth Birt Center for Autism Law and Advocacy
Generation Rescue
National Autism Association
Schafer Autism Report
TACA-Talk About Curing Autism
The Autism Trust USA/UK
The Coalition for SafeMinds
Unlocking Autism

The following peer-reviewed papers support Dr. Wakefield’s original findings:

Furlano R, Anthony A, Day R, Brown A, Mc Garvey L, Thomson M, et al. “Colonic CD8 and T cell filtration with epithelial damage in children with autism.” J Pediatr 2001;138:366-72.

Sabra S, Bellanti JA, Colon AR. “Ileal lymphoid hyperplasia, non-specific colitis and pervasive developmental disorder in children”. The Lancet 1998;352:234-5.

Torrente F., Machado N., Perez-Machado M., Furlano R., Thomson M., Davies S., Wakefield AJ, Walker-Smith JA, Murch SH. “Enteropathy with T cell infiltration and epithelial IgG deposition in autism.” Molecular Psychiatry. 2002;7:375-382.

Wakefield AJ, Anthony A, Murch SH, Thomson M, Montgomery SM, Davies S, Walker-Smith JA. “Enterocolitis in children with developmental disorder.” American Journal of Gastroenterology 2000;95:2285-2295.

Ashwood P, Anthony A, Pellicer AA, Torrente F, Wakefield AJ. “Intestinal lymphocyte populations in children with regressive autism: evidence for extensive mucosal immunopathology.” Journal of Clinical Immunology, 2003;23:504-517.

The following peer-reviewed papers replicate Dr. Wakefield’s original findings:

Gonzalez, L. et al., “Endoscopic and Histological Characteristics of the Digestive Mucosa in Autistic Children with gastro-Intestinal Symptoms”. Arch Venez Pueric Pediatr, 2005;69:19-25.

Balzola, F., et al., “Panenteric IBD-like disease in a patient with regressive autism shown for the first time by wireless capsule enteroscopy: Another piece in the jig-saw of the gut-brain syndrome?” American Journal of Gastroenterology, 2005. 100(4): p. 979- 981.

Balzola F et al . “Autistic enterocolitis: confirmation of a new inflammatory bowel disease in an Italian cohort of patients.” Gastroenterology 2005;128(Suppl. 2);A-303.

These are the articles on treatment of gastrointestinal symptoms in autistic children:

Buie T, et al. Pediatrics. 2010 Jan;125 Suppl 1:S19-29. Recommendations for evaluation and treatment of common gastrointestinal problems in children with ASDs.

Buie T, et al. Pediatrics. 2010 Jan;125 Suppl 1:S1-18. Evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of gastrointestinal disorders in individuals with ASDs: a consensus report.
misrepresentations are removed.

5)
2) Andrew Wakefield lied, repeatedly, about his conflicts of interest. He lied even to his own colleagues, who learned of the COI’s from Brian Deer.
So says “La la la I can’t hear you.” Well then one person against the parents, all the organisations above, all the scientists above …I could go on..

Let’s not forgot that he subjected children, disabled children, far more than just the Lancet 12, to invasive procedures in order to collect data for the litigation he was actively assisting and was actively hiding.
HAS ANYONE COMPLAINED APART FROM “La la la I can’t hear you.”

The question is not whether Mr. Wakefield should have been struck off and his research discredited. The question at hand is how many offenses he was guilty of that would have caused his fate—a fate of his own making.
Premature to discuss a fate the GMC appeal has still to run..

“La la la I can’t hear you.” is rapidly developing own-goal status for the pro vaccine lobby. Fingers out yet Brian???
AWOL
January 17th, 2011
23:27:46

1.as you can see, ChildHealthSafety and AWOL stopped conversing and are just making noise at this point. They are trying to manufacture a controversy about Brian Deer to deflect attention away from Andrew Wakefield’s multiple ethical lapses.
Brian Deer broke details about the children’s medical history in a news story last year.

Not so quick Sullivan.. Deer had access to the medical records of the Lancet 12 children long before the GMC hearing, which is apparently illegal

http://www.ageofautism.com/201.....fraud.html

If people felt there was a real legal problem with him having access to the information he has discussed, a lawsuit would have ensued then.

Here’s a Lancet 12 parent’s recent complaint to the BMJ for his most recent article:
http://www.ageofautism.com/201.....fraud.html

The group of the Lancet 12 parents who still back Mr. Wakefield (only 9 of the parents signed on to the letter last I saw) could easily obtain the financial backing to bring suit if they felt that their rights were infringed upon.

Two live abroad and couldn’t be contacted all 10 in the UK signed. The 2 abroad I believe now wish to sign also. No libel, while the GMC appeal is still open.

They didn’t then and there’s no indication that they are now.

As above complaints have been flying in I believe from all the Lancet 12 to various controlling bodies.Ever hear of the domino effect ,Sullivan?

So, other than in comments here, RI and on the CHS blog (which apparently no one is reading or CHS would have made good on his word to take his leave of us here) where has anything been “put to Mr. Deer”?

As above complaints have been sent in and questions are waiting to be answered from lawyers to Deer, maybe he’s been advised to keep his shit hole shut, once and for all.

The sad thing is that ChildHealthSafety started out as really the only person trying to defend Andrew Wakefield with actual facts.

I can think of several on here and goodness knows how many postings and posters have not had the privilege of posting on here .I myself have had at least 5 posts stopped from being posted…selective and biased spring to mind.

AWOL is far more typical in approach in that he/she posts comments mostly devoid of facts and certainly has stayed clear of actually addressing the very serious allegations made by the BMJ (or the offenses found proved by the GMC, for that matter).

For the reason only I don’t wish to repeat questions that are similar to CHS.

CHS showed why people don’t try to defend Mr. Wakefield on the facts:

Eh! Still Dr …

the facts are against him. CHS only dug a deeper hole by exposing misrepresentations by Mr. Wakefield in his book.

Now that’s a laugh!!ha,ha,ha,

Andrew Wakefield was wrong. There is no association between MMR and autism. His data doesn’t even suggest an association, when”
1)
2) So all the organisations below that support Wakefield are WRONG, and all the studies below are WRONG on who’s says ..Deer of course??
3)
4)Age of Autism
Autism Action Network
Autism Media Channel
Autism One
Autism File Global
Autism Research Institute
Elizabeth Birt Center for Autism Law and Advocacy
Generation Rescue
National Autism Association
Schafer Autism Report
TACA-Talk About Curing Autism
The Autism Trust USA/UK
The Coalition for SafeMinds
Unlocking Autism

The following peer-reviewed papers support Dr. Wakefield’s original findings:

Furlano R, Anthony A, Day R, Brown A, Mc Garvey L, Thomson M, et al. “Colonic CD8 and T cell filtration with epithelial damage in children with autism.” J Pediatr 2001;138:366-72.

Sabra S, Bellanti JA, Colon AR. “Ileal lymphoid hyperplasia, non-specific colitis and pervasive developmental disorder in children”. The Lancet 1998;352:234-5.

Torrente F., Machado N., Perez-Machado M., Furlano R., Thomson M., Davies S., Wakefield AJ, Walker-Smith JA, Murch SH. “Enteropathy with T cell infiltration and epithelial IgG deposition in autism.” Molecular Psychiatry. 2002;7:375-382.

Wakefield AJ, Anthony A, Murch SH, Thomson M, Montgomery SM, Davies S, Walker-Smith JA. “Enterocolitis in children with developmental disorder.” American Journal of Gastroenterology 2000;95:2285-2295.

Ashwood P, Anthony A, Pellicer AA, Torrente F, Wakefield AJ. “Intestinal lymphocyte populations in children with regressive autism: evidence for extensive mucosal immunopathology.” Journal of Clinical Immunology, 2003;23:504-517.

The following peer-reviewed papers replicate Dr. Wakefield’s original findings:

Gonzalez, L. et al., “Endoscopic and Histological Characteristics of the Digestive Mucosa in Autistic Children with gastro-Intestinal Symptoms”. Arch Venez Pueric Pediatr, 2005;69:19-25.

Balzola, F., et al., “Panenteric IBD-like disease in a patient with regressive autism shown for the first time by wireless capsule enteroscopy: Another piece in the jig-saw of the gut-brain syndrome?” American Journal of Gastroenterology, 2005. 100(4): p. 979- 981.

Balzola F et al . “Autistic enterocolitis: confirmation of a new inflammatory bowel disease in an Italian cohort of patients.” Gastroenterology 2005;128(Suppl. 2);A-303.

These are the articles on treatment of gastrointestinal symptoms in autistic children:

Buie T, et al. Pediatrics. 2010 Jan;125 Suppl 1:S19-29. Recommendations for evaluation and treatment of common gastrointestinal problems in children with ASDs.

Buie T, et al. Pediatrics. 2010 Jan;125 Suppl 1:S1-18. Evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of gastrointestinal disorders in individuals with ASDs: a consensus report.
misrepresentations are removed.

Andrew Wakefield lied, repeatedly, about his conflicts of interest. He lied even to his own colleagues, who learned of the COI’s from Brian Deer.
So says “La la la I can’t hear you.” Well then one person against the parents, all the organisations above, all the scientists above …I could go on..

Let’s not forgot that he subjected children, disabled children, far more than just the Lancet 12, to invasive procedures in order to collect data for the litigation he was actively assisting and was actively hiding.

HAS ANYONE COMPLAINED APART FROM “La la la I can’t hear you.”

The question is not whether Mr. Wakefield should have been struck off and his research discredited. The question at hand is how many offenses he was guilty of that would have caused his fate—a fate of his own making.

Premature to discuss a fate the GMC appeal has still to run..

“La la la I can’t hear you.” is rapidly developing own-goal status for the pro vaccine lobby. Fingers out yet Brian???
AWOL
January 17th, 2011
23:56:02

I just submitted a 3 page reply but Ben discarded it ..probably chs did the same…
sharon
January 18th, 2011
01:46:43

ChildHealthSafety, you should know that assessments of intelligence and development are not one in the same thing. The child you refer to ad nauseum was clearly causing concerns from a developmental point of view for quite some time. A child who was developing normally would not have been referred for ongoing observation and assessment as this child was.
Sullivan
January 18th, 2011
04:08:46

AWOL,

let’s see, Brian Deer’s actions are “apparently” illegal and your source for that isn’t any law, but the blog “Age of Autism”?

Your appeal to authority is a list of autism organizations (plus the Age of Autism, a business venture by autism community outsider Dan Olmsted)? Do I have any difficulty thinking that these groups, many of whom are currently paying Andrew Wakefield as a spokesperson, as wrong? Doesn’t take an instant to accept that they can be, and in this case are, wrong. They’ve already shown themselves to be willing to use lies in an effort to smear Brian Deer with the claim that he was started on and supported for 4 years by a “pharma front group”.

You cite the papers that they try to pass off as “independent confirmation” of Mr. Wakefield’s work. Besides padding out your multiple posts, they aren’t independent and they don’t replicate his work. They certainly don’t replicate his assertions that the MMR vaccine could be causal in autism.
Sullivan
January 18th, 2011
04:35:21

Dedj,

you’ve got it right, they have devolved into a rather childish game. But at least ChildHealthSafety tried to work from the facts at first. And, now, he’s at least giving the full quote from the developmental eval.

But he wants us to believe that a child was found to be “normal” and they held another evaluation a few months later. Strains credulity, doesn’t it? That an evaluator would say want to return so shortly after testing a “normal” child. In addition to that, CHS’s thesis is that the child had regressed dramatically in that period, but the assessor didn’t note, “this child changed dramatically in the past few months” but, instead, says that he “confirms” the delay.

I realize this is a rewrite of your statement below:

Third, any chance of maybe, someday, if someone holds your hand for you, if someone reads out the longer words for you, if you get a good run-up and a good following wind, actually coming around to thinking about addressing the idea that Child 8’s follow-on assessment was a follow-on assessment of the earlier abortive one and not an assessment of new impairments.

Are you, are are you not, going to provide any information that would indicate the follow-on assessment was, in fact, assessing post-MMR damage? A quote saying such from the clinician? A new referral letter? A discharge sheet? Anything at all, that hasn’t been shown to be missing extreme amounts of context by Sullivan?
BoB
January 18th, 2011
09:36:25

What ChildHealthSafety is currently doing is making a jackass of himself there is simply no other way to describe it. Wakefield was explicitly told it was the opinion of the developmental pediatrician that child 8’s developmental problems began pre-MMR. Wakefield then ignored Dr. Houlsby’s expert opinion, and retrospectively assessed child 8 as developmentally normal prior to MMR despite having no grounds (or particular expertise) to do so. He falsely implies within Callous Disregard that Dr. Houlsby had made a definitive statement that child 8 was developmentally normal prior to MMR, which is not the case. The only evidence Wakefield presents in defense of this interpretation is a heavily truncated extract of of Dr. Houlsby 18 months assessment, within which it is categorically stated by Dr. Houlsby that he was unable to complete the assessment to a satisfactory level to either diagnose or rule out a developmental disorder. He also made it extremely clear in information that was relayed to Wakefield that he remained significantly concerned about child 8’s development following this assessment. Hence what grounds did Wakefield have to definitively report within his study that child 8 was developmentally normal prior to MMR? None.

Furthermore at the GMC hearing Sir Michael Rutter arguably the foremost child psychiatrist in Britain was asked to review Child 8’s case history. He concluded: “there does not seem much doubt that there was some sort of pervasive developmental disorder that could be regarded as falling on the autism spectrum at an earlier point.”

The only one who seems to be having trouble reading things objectively as a scientist appears to be Mr. Miller.
AWOL
January 18th, 2011
12:09:55

Sullivan if I can interrupt your childish huddle with Dedj and bring you both , the sad news (for you Sulliavan ,Dedj, and “La la la I can’t hear you.”) uummm. .conflict of interest, peer reviewed, GMC panel springs to mind.

Very likely “ la,la, I can’t hear you” shall have to withdraw his article wont you Mr Deer…coincidence or was Marcovitch the Patsy, and the Patsy is always last to know…

http://www.ageofautism.com/201.....-else.html

Why the dishonesty ?why are you all trying to limit discussion?.
Gray Falcon
January 18th, 2011
17:41:40

AWOL, let me explain your problem. You’re trying to protect Wakefield by discrediting Deer, which seems like a logical step. The problem is, the physical evidence is still there, so your actions are completely meaningless.
Sullivan
January 18th, 2011
19:42:44

Grey Falcon,

very true. The way I tend to put it is this: let’s assume that Brian Deer is everything and more that people accuse him of (he isn’t, but let’s assume). Does that excuse Andrew Wakefield for his multiple ethical failures?

This is why people are trying to shape the message that “one lone journalist” is behind all the allegations. We are supposed to ignore the evidence collected, ignore the findings of the GMC, ignore the fact that his data supposedly linking MMR to autism failed to be replicated, ignore basically everything except what Andrew Wakefield has said and written.

The thing is, I have read and listened to Andrew Wakefield. He fails miserably when put to the truth test.
AWOL
January 18th, 2011
20:23:57

Grey Falcon and Sullivan,
Deer has discredited everything he has written thanks to his non reply to explain glaring inaccuracies in his latest article.

“why people are trying to shape the message that “one lone journalist” is behind all the allegations.”

I detect Sulliavan that your trying to spread the blame for the obvious collapse of Deer .The longer Deer and the BMJ commits to non reply the worse the collapse will be(I feel for him) two fingers down the throat and puke.

Dr Wakefield`s work has been replicated world wide as I posted above.
ChildHealthSafety
January 18th, 2011
20:35:01

BoB January 18th, 2011 09:36:25 said:-

“Wakefield was explicitly told it was the opinion of the developmental pediatrician that child 8’s developmental problems began pre-MMR.”

Really? Where does it say that? This is what the GMC transcripts show the developmental history of Child 8 shows a history development within the “normal range” with a dramatic regression three weeks after MMR as recorded by the specialist developmental pediatrician [not part of the Royal Free Hospital or the Lancet team]:-

23 December 1994 (approx 18 months) – developmental pediatrician wrote:

“I felt that her abilities, although delayed on the average age of attainment were not outside the range of normal. Her growth has been satisfactory.”

27 January, 1995: MMR vaccination

17 February 1995: The developmental pediatrician writes three weeks after MMR:

“When I reviewed her in clinic recently I confirmed that she is globally developmentally delayed, functioning at about a one year level on Denver Developmental Assessment. ...... General examination is unremarkable. There were no neurological abnormalities other than the developmental delay.”
Sullivan
January 18th, 2011
20:42:39

Ah, back to cherry picking the December 1994 report. A report which clearly stated that the doctor was unable to complete a satisfactory evaluation.

Does the UK have such a surplus of developmental pediatricians that they revisit normal children after only 2 months? Are they so poor at their job that they don’t make note of a child who was “normal” in December but in February, after an assessment of global developmental delay, the doctor says “general examination is unremakable”?

Sorry, CHS, failure to alert the public about this is clear misrepresentation.

How about the other failings of Mr. Wakefield in his paper? I see that you studiously ignore those.
ChildHealthSafety
January 18th, 2011
21:07:33

Sullivan – January 18th, 2011 – 20:42:39 said:-

“Ah, back to cherry picking the December 1994 report. A report which clearly stated that the doctor was unable to complete a satisfactory evaluation.”

Off topic and old territory. The Lancet Paper stated all these children had:

“a history of normal development followed by loss of acquired skills”

Child 8’s history showed her development was “within the normal range” shown just above from the GMC transcripts January 18th, 2011. That shows the relevant “history” for development.

That is accurately recorded in The Lancet paper including what was said about Child 8 specifically:

“Prospective developmental records showed satisfactory achievement of early milestones in all children. The only girl (child number eight) was noted to be a slow developer compared to her older sister.”

No misrepresentation.

End of.
Science Mom
January 18th, 2011
21:31:09

Dr Wakefield`s work has been replicated world wide as I posted above.

No, it hasn’t: http://justthevax.blogspot.com.....eally.html

That’s five off your list. Pick another and tell me how it replicates Waker’s work.
Sullivan
January 18th, 2011
21:58:08

ChildHealthSafety,

you are taking us back over the same ground over and over again. Child 8 was one of the multiple children misrepresented by Mr. Wakefield.
Calli Arcale
January 18th, 2011
22:29:01

Off topic and old territory. The Lancet Paper stated all these children had:

OR, to summarize, Wakefield didn’t alter the story as he told it in the Lancet, and I can prove it because it’s consistent with what’s in the Lancet. Which follows from what you said earlier, which was attempting to back up Wakefield’s claims by citing “Callous Disregard”.

WTF? I mean, seriously, that is my reaction to that. How can you possibly think that even constitutes an argument?

(Okay, I do get what you’re saying, that you’re saying the Lancet is consistent with the GMC —except that it’s not. The only thing it’s consistent with is Wakefield’s claims. Be careful with the circular logic; it will only make you dizzy.)
sheldon101
January 18th, 2011
22:53:14

Cheating————
Let us pretend that everything CHS says about the children is true (we are pretending, after all). That doesn’t means Wakefield is innocent. Because he left out contradictory information consistently, that didn’t support his argument.

So all the question about what this consultant said or that consultant said are ultimately irrelevant if there is a clear pattern of excluding information that contradicts his case. And the easiest example is child 8’s referral letter because it was require and was sent to Wakefield. It ‘reiterates’ the view of the GP and her team that the child was not developmentally normal before MMR. It reiterates, in another words Dr. Jelley told him at least once before.
AWOL
January 18th, 2011
23:04:19

Science Mom .I had a look at your blog and it is very disappointing, at best derisible. I thought SHIT I am now going to read through pages of peer reviewed comment nothing just a Pharma bloggers opinion. It’s the same with when Deer was asked why Autism rates have spiralled if its not vaccination ,Deer responds, “I don’t know, I am not a doctor.” Fair enough. Yet why did they hire at best a “free- lance” journalist to “investigate” and evaluate the complex medical records of sick children with autism? Insane.

Anyone is free to “investigate” and report anything they want but our government doesn’t commission wacky reporters or Bloggers off the streets to evaluate children’s confidential and complex medical histories. Why would I risk my child on your say so, a blogger for Pharma??

Sulliavan and Calli,

Seem ,to have a problem with, the detail in The Lancet. Is the Pharma Cartel, going to sacrifice the Lancet for the greater good??Why blame CHS he`s just reporting what the Lancet supports ??

“La la la I can’t hear you.” (havent you Brian) has said ,over the last, couple of years ,that, peer review journals are full of fraud. Horton and Goldacre seem the obvious targets.. Time to come out and talk, Brian, the snowball is huge…
ChildHealthSafety
January 18th, 2011
23:17:44

Sullivan January 18th, 2011 21:58:08

ChildHealthSafety, you are taking us back over the same ground over and over again.

No. This was a response to someone else taking us back over that ground.

All there is here is argument and supposition.

What is needed is for Mr Deer to answer the queries.

Still waiting.
Sullivan
January 18th, 2011
23:40:16

Still waiting for Mr. Deer? Have you checked the BMJ website?

http://leftbrainrightbrain.co......-for-data/

http://podcasts.bmj.com/bmj/20.....-for-data/
Sullivan
January 18th, 2011
23:42:15

Science Mom,

you’re a “blogger for Pharma”! We can’t listen to you! Who cares about your so-called “facts” when they disagree with the official approved Wakefield script?
sharon
January 19th, 2011
00:45:49

Jeez AWOL, you sound pretty pissed off about something. Perhaps you need a calming homeopathic remedy? While you are at it book in to get your chakras realigned. And maybe a purple chrystal in your left pocket for clarity and centredness.
ChildHealthSafety
January 19th, 2011
01:13:00

Sullivan January 18th, 2011 23:40:16

“Still waiting for Mr. Deer? Have you checked the BMJ website?”

Yep. No answers there. Tried his Guardian blog – no answers there [that is the one where he sets out his big conspiracy theories about everyone in medicine protecting Wakefield from Mr Deer’s fraud allegations – like, Dr Paul Offit, Dr Benjamin Goldacre, Dr Michael Fitzpatrick and Dr Evan Harris MP[-ex]. He thinks the BMJ and the Lancet are in on it and are an “insidious cartel” in British medical publishing. Bit odd all that.

Ben Goldacre posted – confused by Mr Deer’s attack on him and why no one was reporting Mr Deer’s great expose – but still nothing from Mr Deer.

Even the BMJ Deputy Editor Tricia Groves popped up to say they were taking the 5th Amendment and if no one liked it they could sue.

Then another journalist popped up and posted.

And in between loads of people with fun names posted.

But no Mr Deer and no answers.
Science Mom
January 19th, 2011
01:21:10

Science Mom .I had a look at your blog and it is very disappointing, at best derisible. I thought SHIT I am now going to read through pages of peer reviewed comment nothing just a Pharma bloggers opinion. It’s the same with when Deer was asked why Autism rates have spiralled if its not vaccination ,Deer responds, “I don’t know, I am not a doctor.” Fair enough. Yet why did they hire at best a “free- lance” journalist to “investigate” and evaluate the complex medical records of sick children with autism? Insane.

Ah, so predictably lazy and dishonest. The very tact you are taking with the Deer features. Don’t like my co-author’s assessments? Well then why don’t you pick one off of your list and tell me why it supports/replicates Waker’s work. I presume you have read them all, should be easy for you. Go on now.

Sullivan, I know right?
Sullivan
January 19th, 2011
02:17:47

Science Mom,

are you actually asking him/her to back up her claims with discussion? Very optimistic of you. The discussion on your blog about the way Mr. Wakefield misrepresented the “independent confirmation” of his results was excellent. It inspired me to double check Mr. Wakefield’s citations whenever I had questions and time. It has shown me very clearly that (a) Mr. Wakefield uses citations which are often non-supportive of his claims and (b) it works. People echo his claims.

The sad thing is that I see this happening now with his supporters. A soon-to-be-release book uses the exact same tactic, with references which just fail upon inspection.

One that sticks in my mind was his claim in “Callous Disregard” that “This fact [Mr. Wakefield’s involvement as a medical expert] was also reported in the national press 15 months prior to publication[17].”

Citation 17 was this news article (found now on Brian Deer’s website), which doesn’t mention Andrew Wakefield at all. If you assume that “Royal Free Hospital” = “Andrew Wakefield”, I guess it would be a disclosure.

William is one of 10 children taking part in a pilot study at the Royal Free Hospital in London, which is investigating possible links between the measles vaccine with the bowel disorder Crohn’s Disease, and with autism. The study is being organised by Norfolk solicitors Dawbarns, one of two firms awarded a contract in 1994 to co-ordinate claims resulting from the MMR vaccine.

The funny thing is the above statement actually discloses the opposite of some of Mr. Wakefield’s key claims. It shows clearly that the children were indeed involved in litigation prior to the publication in the Lancet (and at the time of the research project Mr. Wakefield was conducting with them). It shows clearly that Dawbarns had an active hand in the research.

This all became crystal clear with the GMC hearing, and, yet, Mr. Wakefield still denies the facts.
Sullivan
January 19th, 2011
02:20:19

Well, ChildHealthSafety,

whatever you are looking for in a statement by Brian Deer, it isn’t here. He isn’t part of this blog. He’s answered the question of how he was funded. He’s answered the question of why he as a journalist was involved in this. He’s answered the question of the children’s medical records.

The faux controversy you are creating around Mr. Deer is weak and it is telling. If you had the facts to defend Andrew Wakefield, you’d use them.
ChildHealthSafety
January 19th, 2011
10:20:34

Sullivan January 19th, 2011 02:20:19

“whatever you are looking for in a statement by Brian Deer, it isn’t here.”

Perspicacious of you. Just wanted to make sure he had gone to ground. Which he has – even on his own blog.

“BMJ peer reviewed author fails to answer” – pretty poor – and pretty poor for a journalist too.

The only reason we are still here is because you guys want to talk. If you stop commenting on our posts we can go away happy in the knowledge Mr Deer has vanished from the blogosphere when it comes to pertinent questions about his BMJ pieces.

“He isn’t part of this blog.”

But he reads it and posts here so he knows people are asking questions. He also is in communication with you and Kev and others who post here.

Who knows – some people think he is you and some people think he is Kev and some people think other things. That is the thing about anonymity on blogs – people can think you are anyone they want to. It has gotten people into difficulties in the past and will continue to in the future no doubt.

“He’s answered the question of how he was funded.”

Nah and we are not asking that question here. He provided a response not an answer. What he has said raises many more questions and again he is not answering them. But we are not asking them here.

“He’s answered the question of why he as a journalist was involved in this.”

Nah. Don’t think so. And we are not asking that question here.

He provided a response not an answer. He has said why he was first hired to write stories in Feb 2004.

What he has said raises many more questions and again he is not answering them. But we are not asking them here.

He is clearly not involved in “this” as a journalist.

If he was not paid to attend the open GMC hearings [about 180 of the 200], that is not because he is a journalist. A jobbing journalist would never spend that amount of time unpaid.

And look at his obsessive website – hundreds of pages – if he was not paid to create that he has not been doing that for journalistic purposes.

The kinds of personal abusive and insulting remarks he publishes about people on his website and on blogs show he is not professional.

“He’s answered the question of the children’s medical records.”

Nah. He has provided contradictory responses over time – not answers. What he has said raises many more questions and again he is not answering them.

“The faux controversy you are creating around Mr. Deer is weak and it is telling. If you had the facts to defend Andrew Wakefield, you’d use them.”

Rhetoric. It is common on Kev’s blog for people to state exactly the opposite of what others have said.

Remember when Kev accused the Polings of being liars?

“Lies, Damn Lies and Blog Posts “
John Fryer Chemist
January 19th, 2011
12:05:40

The MMR in UK which is directly or indirectly criticised by Andrew Wakefield in favour of a single vaccine for measles is from Merck.

Merck who are known to target and destroy those who criticise its products.

I have not seen this side of the debate discussed.

Also the nature of Deer and where he gets his money can only be answered if we know clearly where all moniers come from as we do for Andrew.

Has he (Deer) ever directly or indirectly received funding from Merck? And if so how much and when?

Also I believe autism with gut problems has been in the literature since the 70’s and is not first brought to light by the 13 from the Royal Free in the late 90’s.
AWOL
January 19th, 2011
12:48:28

Sullivan,Sharon Science Mom ,

You all have to realise that you have been sucked in by psychopath Brian Deer.

To quote George Bush
:

There is an enemy that lurks, a dangerous group of
people that want to do harm to the American people.

Like Deer the vast majority of psychopaths are not crazed axe murderers Deer has no conscience he is manipulative, glib, deceptive, parasitic, irresponsible, selfish, callous, promiscuous, impulsive, antisocial, and aggressive.

His main defect—is his severe emotional detachment or a total lack of empathy and remorse ,for the children he names and shames constantly in his articles —and he conceals this lacking effectively ,to do him justice.

Science Mom if I were to take issue with one point in your article I ,could quicker write a follow up to “Origin Of The Species by Darwin ” and call it “Destruction Of The Species by Pharma bloggers”, your out on your own with that your Pharma science has nothing to do with safety of the Human Species, diametrically opposite in fact.

Sharon any freebies you can send me my way please do ,mind you Pharma products not welcome ,so pointless me leaving my address.

Sulliavan ,as above you need to get a life mate, all this blogging your starting to believe it yourself now ,soon you will be writing for Deer .

Oh!did I mention Deer any sight Offitt ,yet hear anything Offit yet?
Sullivan
January 19th, 2011
15:27:24

So, you want the last word? That’s what you seem to be saying CHS.
Sullivan
January 19th, 2011
15:31:10

Brian Deer has not “gone to ground” as you assert. He has an interview in the BMJ podcast which answers many of your questions.

The fake controversy about Brian Deer is a convenient smokescreen. It allows you to avoid the multiple proven ethical violations of Andrew Wakefield. It allows you to avoid the fact that he was wrong about MMR and autism.
Sullivan
January 19th, 2011
15:34:08

AWOL,

You only make yourself look bad with smears like psychopath and axe murderers. I guess you are never going to discuss facts or address the serious questions posed by Andrew Wakefield’s ethical lapses.
ChildHealthSafety
January 19th, 2011
15:36:05

Sullivan – January 19th, 2011 15:31:10

“Brian Deer has …. an interview in the BMJ podcast which answers many of your questions.”

Can you post a link to it please?
Sullivan
January 19th, 2011
15:42:36

John Fryer Chemist,

I somehow doubt Merck would be interested in paying Brian Deer given his treatment of Vioxx.

The notion that he is secretly funded by big pharma was shown to be a smear campaign when Andrew Wakefield and others concocted the idea and spread it publicly that he was funded by a “front group”. As I blogged, all one had to do is contact the supposed “front group” for accurate information. Not the first made up story by that team.
Dedj
January 19th, 2011
15:44:08

“The only reason we are still here is because you guys want to talk. If you stop commenting on our posts we can go away happy in the knowledge Mr Deer has vanished from the blogosphere when it comes to pertinent questions about his BMJ pieces.”

In other words, if we shut up and stop indicating where you are factually wrong, you will claim victory.

Mr Deer has not been silent in answering questions, this has been indicated to you, including some links.

I went to his guardian blog. In order to find your posts within the noise I had to make judicious use of ctrl+f. In order to find your question, I had to scroll down a lot of text that barely touches on the article responded to. Other posts were even worse, often barely making sense and sometimes including no actual question.

In essence, a person with interest in finding your question and who knew where to look and who used a function to find it, still had trouble distinguishing your posts from the general background noise. I doubt Deer has the same level of time or interest to do the same.

Just because you want an answer doesn’t mean Deer has to answer, even assuming he’s seen your question at all, and assuming he views your question as worthwhile answering, given that his entire article is dedicated to providing exactly the data you ask for.

Just because you think your question is valid (it isn’t) and important (it isn’t) doesn’t mean anyone else has to.

We are here because you cannot and will not accept the word of Child 8’s developmental paediatrician, except for a small cherry-picked excerpt that provisionally appears to support your view, yet is clinically untenable.

As long as you continue to behave in this way, you will have your behaviour held up and examined.
Sullivan
January 19th, 2011
15:45:54

CHS,

I did post a link to it and to my blog piece on it. You even responded to the comment. I already gathered that you ignored what I clearly indicated in favor of your own version of the facts.
Science Mom
January 19th, 2011
16:48:39

are you actually asking him/her to back up her claims with discussion? Very optimistic of you. The discussion on your blog about the way Mr. Wakefield misrepresented the “independent confirmation” of his results was excellent. It inspired me to double check Mr. Wakefield’s citations whenever I had questions and time. It has shown me very clearly that (a) Mr. Wakefield uses citations which are often non-supportive of his claims and (b) it works. People echo his claims.

Thanks Sullivan, it seems as though that post is being read quite a bit and Catherina deserves the credit for that. I posed that question to AWOL because I know that he hasn’t read any of those studies. I also know I will never get a relevant response (as evidenced a couple of comments above) because I never do from anyone who uses that Gish Gallup. If they had to actually examine the studies, it becomes so evident that they are not supportive of Wakefield’s work at all. But it is easier to not read them and continue to exist in their cognitive dissonance state.
ChildHealthSafety
January 19th, 2011
17:41:08

Sullivan – January 19th, 2011 15:45:54

“I did post a link to it and to my blog piece on it. You even responded to the comment. I already gathered that you ignored what I clearly indicated in favor of your own version of the facts.”

Thanks.

Here are the direct links to the podcast:-

Listen now
http://podcasts.bmj.com/bmj/20.....for-data/#

Play in popup
http://podcasts.bmj.com/bmj/20.....for-data/#

Download
http://podcasts.bmj.com/themes.....r-data.mp3
ChildHealthSafety
January 19th, 2011
18:19:01

The bottom line in Mr Deer’s fraud allegations is there was and has been no fraud.

Wakefield did not generate the data or results provided by the other 12 specialist medical professionals at The Royal Free Hospital.

If Mr Deer wished to allege he did then he should have compared that data and those results with what is reported in The Royal Free Hospital team’s 1998 Lancet paper.

He did not. He already has confirmed he did not know what “prospective developmental record” means and that he has never seen any of the Lancet 12 childrens’ Red Books containing records of achievement of developmental milestones.

Wakefield faithfully reported the data and results provided to him and which he did not generate.

All other debates on the matter are pointless. Rummaging in transcripts of GP records and suchlike.

Ergo, case closed.
AWOL
January 19th, 2011
18:22:32

Science Mom ,Read it binned it…utter bollocks!!
Sullivan
January 19th, 2011
19:12:37

Yes, ChildHealthSafety, those are the links on the webpage I referred you to a while back.
http://leftbrainrightbrain.co......ent-128361

Perhaps you should have noticed that you weren’t paying attention when I mentioned “podcast” after that comment.
Sullivan
January 19th, 2011
19:18:12

Wakefield did not generate the data or results provided by the other 12 specialist medical professionals at The Royal Free Hospital.

Goes without saying. It isn’t the point. Do you see that? The point is that he didn’t report accurately the data and results provided by the other 12 specialists, and the data available to him directly in terms of the records provided with the children’s intake. That’s why it is an accusation of fraud against Mr. Wakefield and not against his entire team.

All other debates on the matter are pointless. Rummaging in transcripts of GP records and suchlike.

Ergo, case closed.

Of course. Why go to the facts when you can read Mr. Wakefield’s book? What did Anderson Cooper say, “If you are lying in your paper, you are lying in your book”. Sorry, I’ll continue to fact check Mr. Wakefield rather than take his or your word.

The fact of the matter is that the Lancet article misrepresented the data on the children. Mr. Wakefield as senior author on the paper is the one responsible.
ChildHealthSafety
January 19th, 2011
20:30:44

Sullivan January 19th, 2011 – 19:18:12

“The point is that he didn’t report accurately the data and results provided by the other 12 specialists”

.

That is not what Mr Deer appears to be saying. And it is not something he can say.

He not only has not produced the data and results the other 12 provided to Wakefield but he has never even seen any of the childrens’ Red Books containing prospective developmental records. So Mr Deer cannot even argue that.

“The fact of the matter is that the Lancet article misrepresented the data on the children. Mr. Wakefield as senior author on the paper is the one responsible.”

That also is not what Mr Deer is saying. Mr Deer is saying Mr Wakefield changed the data and records but not a scrap of evidence has been produced of exactly what the other 12 provided to Mr Wakefield.

That does not take an allegation of fraud to base 1 let alone past it.

So what Mr Deer needs to do now is to start accusing all 13 of a conspiracy in the way he has accused the medical profession of conspiring to prevent this “fraud” being revealed by his enormous intellectual and journalist abilities and in the way he has accused the BMJ and the Lancet of being an insidious cartel inside medical publishing in Britain.

In fact, it seems he has already started accusing two of the others already by implication now that his main allegation is falling apart.

Maybe we will see all of them prosecuted for a fraud they did not commit?

Will Professor Sir Michael Rutter and others in the GMC hearings be a witness in that trial or will the medical profession conspire to prevent the alleged “fraud” being revealed?
Sullivan
January 19th, 2011
20:38:58

“Mr Deer is saying Mr Wakefield changed the data and records”

Ah, the root of the misunderstanding. Tell me, specifically, where Mr. says that Mr. Wakefield changed the data and the records.

You can’t. Mr. Deer showed that Mr. Wakefield misrepresented the data and the records in his paper. Mr. Deer used the data and the records to substantiate his allegations.
ChildHealthSafety
January 19th, 2011
20:49:21

Sullivan January 19th, 2011 20:38:58

“Mr. Deer showed that Mr. Wakefield misrepresented the data and the records in his paper.”

Mr Deer has never produced the data and records the other 12 provided to Mr Wakefield and that is because he has never had or seen it.

“Mr. Deer used the data and the records to substantiate his allegations.”

Where exactly is the allegation that Mr Wakefield falsified the data and results provided to him by the other 12 Royal Free Hospital specialist medical professionals?

This includes in anything Mr Deer has published in the past 7 years including in his first 2004 Sunday Times articles.

And where exactly is set out the details of that data and those results?

Unless Mr Deer can provide them then the British Medical Journal stands in the position of making an allegation of fraud which it cannot substantiate.

Could Mr Deer answer that please?
sheldon101
January 19th, 2011
20:55:33

CHS and AWOL add evidence to the multiverse theory. In our universe, I suggest either locking the comments or blocking CHS and AWOL.

“Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes time and annoys the pig”
Science Mom
January 19th, 2011
21:41:08

Science Mom ,Read it binned it…utter bollocks!!

Oh your list of citations alleged supporting Wakefield’s work? I absolutely agree. Well done sir.
AWOL
January 19th, 2011
22:11:51

Sheldon teaching pigs to sing ,can’t say Ive done that is that what they teach you at Pharma, Pharm ? how strange..Science Mom, might be able to help teach pigs , as its only pigs that agree and understand her blogger opinions’...and holds out, contradicting peer reviewed, on opinion Aye right..

No sign of Deer popping up to answer Lancet questions yet ?
ChildHealthSafety
January 19th, 2011
23:23:12

Any takers? Mr Deer perhaps?

Contrary to what Mr Deer says, the records appear to show that Child 1 regressed after the MMR vaccine.

If Mr Deer wishes to cite evidence to the contrary, please can he indicate where it may be found?

The GMC transcript records that the referral letter to The Royal Free Hospital from Child 1’s family doctor stated:-

“[Child 1] initially developed normally, reaching the normal milestones until he was about 15 months old. He then regressed and has now been diagnosed as autistic …..”

That shows Child 1 had regressive autism. Mr Deer appears to be engaging in a semantic distinction without a difference.

“Regressive autism” not a formal diagnostic term under DSM IV or ICD 9 or 10 but is a term used to distinguish an autistic condition which appears to start at birth from an autistic condition which occurs after a period of normal development where the child regresses into an autistic condition.

And what did the family doctor records show?

Before MMR:-

“4.11.93”, which records that Child 1 is:

“New patient – recently posted from XXXX. Mum worried re hearing/wax in ears/? Discharge left ear … Reassured.”

MMR 19 January 1994

After MMR:-

“Little co-operation with psychomotor assessment. Will not obey. Tantrums when denied. Does not seem to understand or express speech very much.”

That is not the same child behaviourally but that is Child 1 before and after MMR.

Child 1 – Hearing

11.3.93 [age 2 months] Health visitor record:

“Hearing and development normal.”

12.8.93 [age 7 months] Health visitor record:

“Hearing and development normal.”

And the family doctor records as seen above shows that the family doctor reassured the mother about Child 1’s hearing on 4.11.93.

But after MMR on 19 January 1994 Child 1’s hearing was not normal according to the results of the audiology tests.

The records shows as of 27 February 1995:-

“Child 1 was tested by distraction technique using a variety of high and low frequency signals, namely to Voice, High Frequency Rattle, Low frequency Signal and the G Chime Bar. He responded at minimal levels to all these Msignals bilaterally. We are satisfied that Child 1’s hearing is adequate for normal development of speech and have discharged him from this clinic.””

But Child 1 did not develop normal speech and lost the few words gained prior to MMR.
Sullivan
January 20th, 2011
00:05:09

Mr. Deer’s table has a question mark for Child 1’s regression. He does not say yes or no to whether the evidence is clear in this case. What he does state clearly is that child 1’s regression did not occur within days of the MMR vaccine. The data you provide confirms that. The MMR vaccine was given at 12 months. You are citing data claiming a regression at 15 months.

Here is another example of the methods you engage to make your case:

“New patient – recently posted from XXXX. Mum worried re hearing/wax in ears/? Discharge left ear … Reassured.”

MMR 19 January 1994

After MMR:-

“Little co-operation with psychomotor assessment. Will not obey. Tantrums when denied. Does not seem to understand or express speech very much.”

That is not the same child behaviourally but that is Child 1 before and after MMR.

That quote is from his 21 month checkup. You make it appear as though it was directly after the MMR vaccine (at 12 months). In addition, you cherry pick the quote. Could it be that the last statement goes against your argument. Here is that quote in full:

“Little co-operation with psychomotor assessment. Will not obey. Tantrums when denied. Does not seem to understand or express speech very much. (cf probs with older brother). Discuss with health visitor for check audio. Re-assess in early 95. Long chat with mum – ? over protecting. ‘Little stimulus for child to develop language etc if its every wish is being instantly met!’. Physical exam & development – normal.”

Emphasis added.

“Physical exam and development—normal” At 21 months.

I think a question mark for whether this child regressed would be accurate.

It is very hard to justify why this conversation continues.
Gray Falcon
January 20th, 2011
01:32:27

Once again, note the obsession with the identity of the one making the arguments. They’re demanding Mr. Deer come in himself to answer the questions, even though the answers are there in the evidence, for anyone to see. He doesn’t need to come in, the answers were already given in plain English, that’s all there is to it.
ChildHealthSafety
January 20th, 2011
01:51:57

Sullivan January 20th, 2011 00:05:09

“You are citing data claiming a regression at 15 months.”

No. That is citing the GMC transcripts recording the family doctor [GP] referral letter to The Royal Free Hospital.

What Mr Deer failed to understand because he has no medical background is that the reason why it was thought these children had disintegrative disorder is because the regression is progressive over time.

The family doctor [GP] notes will be unlikely to record the first signs of onset of symptoms. What they do confirm is that by no later than 15 months the child had regressed into autism.

To ascertain first onset of symptoms requires a parental history.

Unfortunately for Mr Deer he simply wanted to claim the parents were lying to get money in a scam.

The reality of course is these parents had no idea what was happening to their child and watched a progressive deterioration over time – for some it would be faster than others.

It is terribly sad that these parents have been put through this horror by Mr Deer, but there we are, there is no turning back the clock.

“You make it appear as though it was directly after the MMR vaccine (at 12 months).”

Agreed it can be read that way. Not intentional. It was straightforward from the dates cited to see the regression into autism confirmed at 15 months and MMR at 12 months.
Sullivan
January 20th, 2011
01:59:58

“You are citing data claiming a regression at 15 months.”

No. That is citing the GMC transcripts recording the family doctor [GP] referral letter to The Royal Free Hospital.

Which is data. Nice try at a diversion. You are citing data—from the GMC transcripts—claiming regression at 15 months.

“initially developed normally, reaching the normal milestones until he was about 15 months old. He then regressed….”

So, 3 months after MMR, he regressed, according to that statement. Not “no later than 15 months” as you now assert. It’s clear in the text you yourself cite.

That is well outside the window that Wakefield claimed “In these eight children the average interval from exposure to first behavioural symptoms was 6·3 days (range 1-14).”

“It is terribly sad that these parents have been put through this horror by Mr Deer”

It is terribly sad that disabled children were subjected to invasive tests that were not in their clinical interests.

You haven’t addressed the fact that you cherry picked again. At age 21 months:

“Little co-operation with psychomotor assessment. Will not obey. Tantrums when denied. Does not seem to understand or express speech very much. (cf probs with older brother). Discuss with health visitor for check audio. Re-assess in early 95. Long chat with mum – ? over protecting. ‘Little stimulus for child to develop language etc if its every wish is being instantly met!’. Physical exam & development – normal.”
ChildHealthSafety
January 20th, 2011
02:14:47

It has been noticed that you have only just posted our comment from 6 hours ago – January 19th, 2011 20:49:21.

Anyone reading the latest comments could easily miss that and lose the sense of the thread and think that no reply was provided to Sullivan January 19th, 2011 20:38:58 when it was and 6 hours ago.

Looks like we are back to playing “will we won’t we post replies”?
Sullivan
January 20th, 2011
02:26:42

ChildHealthSafety,

yep. I miss comments in the moderation queue sometimes. Sorry for the delay. But, since you said a long while back in this discussion that you were leaving for good, there’s no harm done, right?
ChildHealthSafety
January 20th, 2011
02:34:59

Sullivan – January 20th, 2011 01:59:58

“the GMC transcripts recording the family doctor [GP] referral letter to The Royal Free Hospital … is data.”

No. That is knowledge.

Data are raw facts and figures – not immediately useful e.g. AFO9724. Data on its own has no meaning. Data given meaning or context is information. Knowledge is having the ability to apply information i.e. is an understanding of “rules”. For example, “smoking can cause cancer”, “run and you will get there faster”. A “knowledge worker” is someone whose employment requires understanding rules related to a particular task. A doctor has an understanding of the rules of medicine, a lawyer understands the law.

“So, 3 months after MMR, he regressed, according to that statement. Not “no later than 15 months” as you now assert. It’s clear in the text you yourself cite.”

The position is clear from the explanation already provided here January 20th, 2011 01:51:57.

People reading can make their own minds up, assuming any are other than ourselves.
ChildHealthSafety
January 20th, 2011
02:38:43

Sullivan January 20th, 2011 02:26:42

“yep. I miss comments in the moderation queue sometimes. Sorry for the delay.”

No problem. Not life-threatening.
Broken Link
January 20th, 2011
02:53:23

ChildHealthSafety:

Can I ask you a sincere question? If you really think these children have been put through horror by Brian Deer, what do you really think they were put through by Andrew Wakefield? A lumbar puncture is just a piece of cake, right? How about a colonoscopy? Now imagine you are a tiny child, and one who doesn’t understand English well yet. And you are asked to have a tube stuck up your butt. But that’s OK. Because that terribly charismatic doctor said you should have one.

The horror imposed on those kids was all on Wakefield’s part. It doesn’t matter how much in love the mothers were with Wakefield. What was done to those kids was just so far beyond the pale. And you sit there trying to find trivial excuses for this abhorrent behavior.

You call yourself “Childhealthsafety”. More like “If someone attractive tells me that my kid needs to be tortured, I’m going to accept that.” Safety, my butt.
ChildHealthSafety
January 20th, 2011
03:22:32

Broken Link January 20th, 2011 02:53:23

“Can I ask you a sincere question? If you really think these children have been put through horror by Brian Deer, what do you really think they were put through by Andrew Wakefield?”

There is an advantage in knowing some of the families whose children were treated at the Royal Free. An example is a family with several adult medical professionals including a pediatrician who was most grateful 1) that the child concerned was admitted to Walker-Smith’s clinic and 2) grateful to discover what had happened to the child. That remains the case to this day.

That is because the family was then put in a position in which they could implement measures to enable the child to recover partially, which the child did to the extent of being able to attend school normally which would not have been possible otherwise. There was very marked improvement but not a full recovery.

The child was an example of many rechallenge cases.

You feel the way you do because the parents’ stories have not been told. If you want to know more you should read “Silenced Witnesses” – there are two volumes and it is in paperback.

If the children were badly treated the parents would have been the first to step in and complain to the GMC but they did not because the children were seen for their clinical needs and treated.

What you also do not realise is that there were not just 12 children. There were children coming through to The Royal Free Hospital over several years earlier than and many more were seen and treated after the 12 reported in The Lancet.

If that many children were ill-treated in the way Mr Deer describes parents would have been coming forward with complaints in droves but they did not.

The only formal complaints were from Mr Deer.
John Fryer Chemist
January 20th, 2011
09:36:46

Andrew Wakefield has produced more than 100 published papers and of course the fact one is in question naturally means all the others need examining.

But what about all the other papers produced like toilet rolls? Many a re self evidently rubbish. Papers by his rivals and opponents in the UK health system are pure garbage. Scott Taylor who can give lethal shots of organomercury compounds and convince readers the exposure is ZERO by subtracting 183 days from the age of the child when injected. Hardly good when a child is 183 days old.

Most individual papers by anyone are very lightweight material and only grow in significance when backed up by countless others.

The idea that autism people or a sub-set have gastro problems is now accepted and pre-dates the Royal Free work.

If you take a paper published every two months then this is the scope of the work and its merit.

To spend 12 years and many peoples expensive time including lawyers, doctors and jounalists shows to the ordinary person a clear and obvious Witch Hunt.

This paper was the work of two people and the role of Andrew Wakefield was that of a writer.

Without his input this work would rest as unpublished information. It had already expanded to several times the original study so the 12 patients represented a small number of those examined.

No child is normally diagnosed as autism before three years and the MMR is at one year.

People claiming prior autism states seem to be in advance of medical expertise even in 2011.

This paper is now very old and I sincerely believe that Andrew may have advanced his ideas on cause of autism from these early studies.

Even he would agree with many critics here that the source of most autism is earlier in life than the MMR.

To extend the criticism of Andrew to all the staff at the Royal Free is a bold and reckless move.

It does show that any paper and this one is no exception should be read with a public health warning.

But of course it was read to the public with a public health warning originally supported by his boss at the Royal Free, the editor of the Lancet, Horton and the PM, the Right Honorable Tony Blair.

Today most people have got off the boat except for Andrew Wakefield. The co-authors with two exceptions have escaped the backlash.

I think despite the huge amount of material so far in the public domain it merely shows to get full knowledge of what went on will be forever impossible.
John Fryer Chemist
January 20th, 2011
09:46:48

The treatments meted out to the children were wrong and the ethics were not worked out before except for carte blanche.

But why were they necessary? One reason is that evidence of harm is needed to get compensation for harm done.

More than ten million pounds were spent on an abortive process in law which resulted in not one penny going to any person with autism.

A result was successful last year to a person who has worked selflessly for 18 years and finally got a settlement less than the figure quoted as just a generation ago.

Not only are doctors giving these children a bad time but public money in the purse for those few damaged by our society are not getting where the money is needed and deserved except in rare cases.

In this instance Deer is already known for chasing up those in receipt of vaccine damages to denounce them as bad people.

With one first exception as mentioned he has changed direction by 180 degrees and has obtained the situation where he attacks mercilessly without any known sources of money but he does maintain his protection today of vaccine giants.
Broken Link
January 20th, 2011
13:44:04

I don’t think the only complaints were from Mr Deer. I sincerely doubt that any of those disabled children happily underwent all the highly invasive procedures. I am certain that there was resistance, crying and pain inflicted. But you don’t count those kids as real do you CHS? They were unable to launch a formal complaint because (a) they were underage and (b) disabled. That’s the reason why this was so blatantly unethical, and why safeguards to prevent this happening are in place.

And there WAS a complaint by parents. Maybe not against Wakefield, but against his partner in all this, Simon Murch. The child, Jack, had his colonoscopy in 1998, while Wakefield was still at the Royal Free, and still working on the Unigenetics measles virus paper. Jack may not be part of the Lancet children, but probably was one of the O’Leary 91. The child had his bowel perforated in 12 places.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/hea.....a-pig.html

“High Court papers alleged that the colonoscopy procedure performed on Jack in 1998 was ‘not clinically indicated or justified’. They also claimed the ‘principal reason’ for the surgery was to further research into links between autism and bowel conditions rather than Jack’s clinical needs.

The documents also claimed that Jack’s parents were not warned of the risks of the procedure or the ‘controversial and uncertain’ link between autism and bowel conditions. This meant the surgery was performed ‘without lawful consent’ and was an ‘assault’ on Jack.”
Brian Deer
January 20th, 2011
14:13:47

Hi Broken Link,

I never made any complaints, and would have no standing to do so. I supplied information to the GMC, a statutory regulator, as a matter of public duty. Journalists do this all the time, on everything from defence contracting to snooker fixing.

The complainant was the GMC, which conducted the case on its own initiative. Various drunken buffoons have tried to confuse people, but that is the position. It is explained here:

http://briandeer.com/solved/st.....ts.htm#gmc
ChildHealthSafety
January 20th, 2011
14:26:00

Broken Link January 20th, 2011 13:44:04

Interestingly, Mr Deer surfaced briefly elsewhere on LBRB last night.

Still no answers from him.

All else is argument and opinion. It is Mr Deer’s answers which are needed.
AWOL
January 20th, 2011
15:41:09

Lumber punctures, colonoscopy’s are only painful and invasive when they are given to Autistic children, that’s what your saying Broken Link isn’t it?
I have a friend who has a boy aged 9 years old(Neuro Typical) they took him in and done colonoscopy ,based on a low white blood count “just incase” The boy has no problems with his bowls, gut, turd`s etc but just in case they thought they might find something they gave him a colonoscopy (glad to say they found nothing).
The boy was given an, anaesthetic cream on the back of his hand and then an aesthetic injection on the back of his hand ,he says he never felt a thing ,just a bit funny in his stomach when they pulled the tube out.

Are you, thanks to lbrb going to ban colonoscopies and lumber punctures for the foreseeable future on all children..as they say , up your arse.
Broken Link
January 20th, 2011
16:02:14

Hi Brian Deer,

Yes, I fully acknowledge that you were not the person making the formal complaint to the GMC. But, I do think that your articles were a complaint, in that you made an “utterance of pain, displeasure, annoyance, etc.” in your news articles. Just as I’m sure that the child victims also complained.

When CHS says that there were no “formal complaints” from the parents, many would read this as “the parents were all very happy with the whole thing”. Indeed, he makes that very implication in @January 20th, 2011 03:22:32.
Broken Link
January 20th, 2011
16:06:18

CHS,

Why do we need to know about what Brian Deer says about Jack and his perforated colon? I’d like you to acknowledge that there was a fully justified parental complaint, and more particularly a formal complaint, against the research program at the Royal Free.

And this nonsense about “nobody complained” has to stop. Jack’s parents complained. Those vulnerable children certainly complained, but their cries were not heard.
Sullivan
January 20th, 2011
16:08:33

Broken Link,

Child 11’s father seems a bit upset at this all. The child whose intestine was punctured in multiple places at the royal free certainly suffered and his patents sued and won. The child described in the discussion who reacted adversely to the anti inflammatory medication is, I think, an example of a story which should have been made public, rather than the usual stories about how everything wakefield’s team did worked out so well.
AWOL
January 20th, 2011
16:27:43

The above notwithstanding, whether or not Mr. Deer initiated the GMC investigation as
‘complainant’ in his letter dated Feb. 25, 2004, or acted as an ‘informant’ in an
investigation already begun by the GMC, he did not disclose his own direct participation
in the GMC investigation in his most recent accounts in the Sunday Times, intending to
give the public the misimpression that he was acting as a neutral and disinterested
reporter. By failing to disclose his dual role, Deer has breached the ethical standards of
professional journalism and has no place in further reporting on Dr Wakefield in this
matter. In breech of PCC rules and any ethical standard of journalistic conduct, it is
alleged that Mr Deer has sought to mislead, not only by his non-disclosure of matters
material to his conflict of interest, but in denying his role in these matters. Based upon the
available evidence, one can reasonably conclude that these allegations are true.

You say Brian ,cant hear you speak up???
Broken Link
January 20th, 2011
16:32:22

Absent without leave,

The invasive procedures performed on those children were not medically necessary, based on the exhaustive investigation of the GMC. No one said that medically necessary invasive procedures should not be performed.

And it’s nice that your friend’s son did not suffer. But I’m sure that his parents explained it all carefully to him, and he was able to understand. A severely disabled child is not likely to understand why those things are happening.

And it wasn’t just colonoscopies, it was lumbar punctures, barium meals, blood draws. All fraudulently twisted to earn Wakefield a lot of money.
Broken Link
January 20th, 2011
16:35:54

The invasive procedures performed on those children were not medically necessary, based on the exhaustive investigation of the GMC. No one said that medically necessary invasive procedures should not be performed.

And it’s nice that your friend’s son did not suffer. But I’m sure that his parents explained it all carefully to him, and he was able to understand. A severely disabled child is not likely to understand why those things are happening.

And it wasn’t just colonoscopies, it was lumbar punctures, barium meals, blood draws. All fraudulently twisted to earn Wakefield a lot of money.
AWOL
January 20th, 2011
16:47:00

Well you obviously never picked up that my friends son has a low blood count,they didnt get that through looking at his urine.The child was not toldwhat exactly,was going to happen all he felt was a funny feeling in his gut,he is was not aware of the tube entry

The only person who stands to make money from this is Mr. Deer had and continues to have an irreconcilable conflict of
interest in the reporting of the GMC hearing against Dr Wakefield and any and all matters arising from it, on the basis that, in the light of all of the available evidence, he was the person who made the original complaint against Dr Wakefield and his
colleagues.

His professional reputation was inevitably invested in the outcome of the charges against Dr Wakefield. Further, by willfully offering up his own research documents and source materials, Deer places himself in collusion with a regulatory
agency by acting as an ex officio investigative arm of the GMC. Any ‘public interest’ claim does not mitigate misleading readers of the Sunday Times and the editor denies he was an employee..

Just who do you think your talking to??
sheldon101
January 20th, 2011
18:10:27

There is one set of documents, the transcripts and records made public at the GMC hearing. Brian Deer used them to write the BMJ articles. The BMJ used them to check the articles.

If Brian Deer spent a year here commenting, your answer would be to deny the accuracy of what he writes here.

So the real issue is whether you believe the BMJ has checked Deer’s articles against the transcripts? And since Wakefield hasn’t been silent and has the same transcipts, why he hasn’t pointed to factual errors in the articles. A factual error would be “the articles says a and refers to footnote 25. Footnote 25 says “dr. x, day 27, page 35”. This is wrong because day 27, page 35 is actually testimony by dr. y.
sheldon101
January 20th, 2011
18:15:09

I know I should stay away, but there is something fascinating to read and comment on the delusions of people and their refusal to apply simple logic to one area, but are otherwise normal.
Broken Link
January 20th, 2011
19:23:28

“The only person who stands to make money from this is Mr. Deer ”

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Wakefield not only stood to make, but did actually make a huge amount of money from this whole thing. He was planning to make a lot more. Those facts are a matter of record, not opinion.

Brian Deer’s professional reputation has been greatly enhanced by his work, and for very good reason. Wakefield’s has been sent spiraling downwards also for very good reason. Are you suggesting that Brian Deer is wrong because he is held in high regard by the BMJ and by many other thoughtful people who admire his work?
Sullivan
January 20th, 2011
19:51:18

Broken Link,

Let’s see, Andrew Wakefield made something like $US750,000 just from his consulting fees to the Legal Aid Board. He landed a $270,000 job in the US. How does that salary compare to what an academic GI doc makes in the UK? He spelled out business plans to make millions of dollars.
ChildHealthSafety
January 20th, 2011
21:24:11

Brian Deer January 20th, 2011 14:13:47

I never made any complaints ….. The complainant was the GMC …. Various drunken buffoons have tried to confuse people.

Judge Eady:-

“3. Well before the programme was broadcast Mr Deer had made a complaint to the GMC about the Claimant. His communications were made on 25 February, 12 March and 1 July 2004.”

http://briandeer.com/wakefield/eady-gmc.htm

And this says nothing about not making complaints:-

“BD’s investigation led to the GMC proceedings referred to in this report, including the charges. He made many submissions of information but was not a party or witness in the case, nor involved in its conduct.”

“Secrets of the MMR scare – How the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed”. BMJ Jan 2011 – Brian Deer journalist London, UK

Another “hit and run” but no answers.

Please answer the issues posed here and on Dr Gorski’s ORAC blog and on your own blog in The Guardian and those put to the BMJ, including for example those here about Child 1, 8 and 11.

Can we see something approaching a professional response to serious issues instead of abuse and insults please?
AWOL
January 20th, 2011
21:54:58

Right ,Deer did it for the love of the children he was just an honest Joe the Journo doing his job with no conflicts of interest working for the Times..thats what he lied to the GMC , and you all endorse that .. what a pack of lies.

Brian Deer has been at the epicentre of this enormous whirlwind, of lies and deceit, from the out set before the GMC involved itself on the say of John Reid the Health Minister of course Deers strings being pulled by Medico Legal Investigations.

At the same time “super hero “(to you lot ) Honest Joe Deer The Journo,over the space of 7 years ,works his arse of ,its all go, and he is Complainant ,Investigator Journo, Health expert, solver, Lie teller, not just in the Uk but in the US as well, in-between taking copious notes of the GMC hearings going by the detail and length of his documents, even although he does not write shorthand, rushing home transcribing the notes into articles, updating his massive web blog, making further notes talking at Universities, blogging on lbrb and other sites ,in between con tricking the parents of disabled children in Ireland and the UK, attending court cases involving MMR vaccine damage etc…ALL ON IS JACK TODD..As Martin Walker writes today in AOA “The Great Pretender how apt …and all the time he does it for a square meal and a cup of coffee from the coffeE machine at the GMC…

Brian Deer AKA Son Of Krypton
AWOL
January 21st, 2011
00:58:43

Gary Null Show brodcasted today 20/01/11 ,listen to Isabella Thomas,Jackie Fletcher and Clifford ..( a challenge for Deer)

http://www.progressiveradionet.....show-wnye/

Nobody is going away ..until we have the truth

WHO, is going to start spilling the Beans Brian ,WHO?
sharon
January 21st, 2011
01:26:56

The World Health Organisation? That’s the most sensible thing you have said so far Absent Without.
Sullivan
January 21st, 2011
01:27:25

Clifford Miller must have been happy to be able to present his ideas where no one would challenge his facts. The presenter starts out with a number of straw man arguments, so it’s pretty clear where this is going.

It’s too bad David Kirby has moved on. He was much better at presenting the talking points.
ChildHealthSafety
January 21st, 2011
01:35:49

sheldon101 – January 20th, 2011 18:10:27

A factual error would be “the articles says a and refers to footnote 25. Footnote 25 says “dr. x, day 27, page 35”. This is wrong because day 27, page 35 is actually testimony by dr. y.

This is a problem with the way the transcripts have been released as MS .doc format and not as .pdfs following the page numbering of paper transcripts issued, used and quoted in the GMC proceedings.

The pagination of the .doc versions can often be different from one person’s computer to another.
sheldon101
January 21st, 2011
03:09:29

CHS is a solicitor, but even a law school dropout knows that words depend on context. For the libel lawsuit, it was good enough to describe Deer’s emails as complaints. But morphing that to mean that Deer was the complainant in the GMC hearings is misleading at best. And as I’m sure he knows, the GMC have stated that there was no complainant.

Deer says the GMC called him on the Monday and he emailed them on the Wednesday. But perhaps Deer is lying. Is Deer lying when he says that on the Monday, Wakefield called upon the GMC to investigate him. Assuming that’s true, then Wakefield was the complainant. Eh?

If there was a problem with pagination, the solution is to provide enough context so everyone can agree.
ChildHealthSafety
January 21st, 2011
03:24:02

sheldon101 January 21st, 2011 03:09:29

“even a law school dropout knows that”

So tell us Sheldon101, are you a law school dropout? Just so we know whether you have the appropriate qualifications to advise, counsellor.

GMC proceedings can be brought in the name of the complainant, with the GMC providing the legal resources or by the GMC alone. In this case the GMC took it forward.

A finding of fact in a decision of the English High Court is legally binding on Mr Deer – he was a party to the proceedings and if he did not agree with the judgement – especially as a journalist seeking to write about the case – he could have appealed.

He did not.
Sullivan
January 21st, 2011
03:28:17

From the transcripts, day 122. Ms. Smith, attorney for the GMC is summarizing the case:

Subsequently the General Medical Council investigated what you also know is the complex background to the case, and I should remind you that the prosecution has been brought solely on the instructions of the General Medical Council – Mr Deer is not the complainant. The fact is that no matter how this issue came to prominence the public interest issues raised meant that the General Medical Council investigation was inevitably required. We submit you should bear in mind that the whole edifice of published scientific papers is inevitably built on trust. These doctors submitted a paper to The Lancet all those years ago expressly representing that they had ethics committee approval for the investigation carried out on these children. There would have been no reason to investigate the accuracy of that statement.

Emphasis added.
Sullivan
January 21st, 2011
03:29:49

So tell us Sheldon101, are you a law school dropout? Just so we know whether you have the appropriate qualifications to advise, counsellor.

More to the point: was the information he brought forward incorrect, counselor? Do words depend on context in a legal proceeding?
ChildHealthSafety
January 21st, 2011
03:40:41

Sullivan January 21st, 2011 03:28:17

transcripts, day 122. .... the prosecution has been brought solely on the instructions of the General Medical Council – Mr Deer is not the complainant.

Exactly as already noted. Mr Deer made the complaints and the GMC ran the case and was named as the complainant of record rather than being brought in the name of the complainant of fact, Mr Deer.

What’s your point exactly?
Sullivan
January 21st, 2011
03:43:14

GMC proceedings can be brought in the name of the complainant, with the GMC providing the legal resources or by the GMC alone. In this case the GMC took it forward.

Interesting phrasing. Worthy of an attorney. It appears to address the issue without actually doing so. Yes, the GMC took it forward. They could have done so with or without Mr. Deer as complainant. The statement does not address the fact that Mr. Deer was not the complainant.
ChildHealthSafety
January 21st, 2011
03:45:04

Meanwhile ….

...... the silence from Mr Deer continues – no answers to questions put.
Sullivan
January 21st, 2011
03:46:11

“Complainant of fact”. Is that a real term used by the GMC, or something you have created?

“Complainant of fact” is a search that returns only one hit on Google. There’s a name for such rare occurrences, but it escapes me at this point.

It strikes this reader that “Complainant of fact” is a way to get around the fact that the accusation that Brian Deer is the complainant was false. What evidence do you propose that Mr. Wakefield isn’t the “Complainant of fact”, as he actively called for a GMC hearing into his own actions?
Sullivan
January 21st, 2011
03:48:07

And, there is silence from ChildHealthSafety on his newly coined term, “complainant of fact”. Can you point to a blog post of yours where you use the term?

Isn’t this phrase just a way to avoid having to apologize to Mr. Deer for creating a controversy where none existed?
ChildHealthSafety
January 21st, 2011
04:01:14

Sullivan January 21st, 2011 03:46:11

What evidence do you propose that Mr. Wakefield isn’t the “Complainant of fact”

A legally binding decision on Mr Deer of the English High Court which went this way:-

Judge Eady:-

“3. Well before the programme was broadcast Mr Deer had made a complaint to the GMC about the Claimant. His communications were made on 25 February, 12 March and 1 July 2004.”

Mr Deer could have appealed.

He did not.

Still no answers from Mr Deer on the questions put to him. Silence.
Sullivan
January 21st, 2011
04:05:22

Can you point to a blog post of yours where you use the term?

Isn’t this phrase just a way to avoid having to apologize to Mr. Deer for creating a controversy where none existed?

You made the term up. You have “evidence” that he is the “complainant of fact” because, having created the term, you can define it as you wish.

Will you answer the questions above put to you? I know the answer to the first one: you can’t. There isn’t one. Search google for “complainant of fact” for your blog and there are zero hits.

I could just as easily claim that Mr. Wakefield is the “complainant of fact” as he did call for an investigation.
ChildHealthSafety
January 21st, 2011
04:07:01

Sullivan January 21st, 2011 03:48:07

“complainant of fact” .... Isn’t this phrase just a way to avoid having to apologize to Mr. Deer for creating a controversy where none existed?

Mr Deer created the controversy. He made complaints, not telling anyone he had done, and was reporting the case to make money for himself.

What is complicated about that?

What’s your point exactly?
Sullivan
January 21st, 2011
04:09:08

Nothing is complicated about the question I have posed repeatedly now: didn’t you just make up the term “complainant of fact”?

Show me where you or anyone has used the term before.
Sullivan
January 21st, 2011
04:10:36

“Mr Deer created the controversy. ”

I believe that honor goes to Andrew Wakefield. When you create fraudulent research, hide conflicts of interest, subject children to medical procedures that are not in their clinical interests….you can expect controversy.
ChildHealthSafety
January 21st, 2011
04:14:44

Sullivan January 21st, 2011 04:10:36

When you create fraudulent research …

Still waiting for Mr Deer to provide the clarifications requested regarding his allegations of fraud.

Won’t answer = can’t answer.
Dedj
January 21st, 2011
04:16:58

“Mr Deer could have appealed.

He did not.”

Because he’s not pedantic and the decision was overwhelmingly to his benefit. There is no reason to appeal a strongly posistive decision on the basis of a small error of fact.

Interstingly enough, the copies of the ‘complaint letters’ that were circulating the net some while back were neither written as complaints, not submitted under the complaints process, nor did they contain any actual complaint.

Irrelevancy aside, I note with interest that another discussion about what Deer should/should not (do) have done if he was (is) the complainant has devolved into yet more unsubstantiated personal hackage.

If Deer has unduly influenced the GMC hearing, or used information that would constitute insider knowledge, kindly provide a direct reference to his wrongdoings, including the PCC complaint and the libel or criminal prosecution that is being taken against him.

If Deer is known to have misrepresented the hearings, then provide a direct reference, including a correction.
ChildHealthSafety
January 21st, 2011
04:19:18

Sullivan January 21st, 2011 04:09:08

the term “complainant of fact”

Do you seriously disagree that as a matter of fact Mr Deer submitted the complaints he did?

Yawn. Its been fun.

But I have to go to work now.
Sullivan
January 21st, 2011
04:20:35

Won’t answer = can’t answer.

A bit ironic you saying that just now, isn’t it? Can you answer on whether you made up the term “complainant of fact”?

Can you answer about whether Mr. Deer was the complainant. (you know, using the term in the actual definition used by the GMC)

Can you point to a blog post of yours where you use the term?

Isn’t this phrase just a way to avoid having to apologize to Mr. Deer for creating a controversy where none existed?

Won’t answer = can’t answer.
Dedj
January 21st, 2011
04:22:01

“He made complaints, not telling anyone he had done so”

Who was he obligated to have told?

“and was reporting the case to make money for himself.”

Yes, journalists do tend to expect to be paid.

Have that knowledge for free.
Sullivan
January 21st, 2011
04:22:47

Dedj,

following the logic recently put to us, Mr. Deer should have appealed. That way he would be able to report on the appeal and make more money.

All this is a smokescreen to avoid the real problems: Mr. Wakefield’s fraudulent research.
Sullivan
January 21st, 2011
04:27:01

I see you dodge the question again. Very much like a lawyer. Make it seem as though you have answered without actually doing so.

Won’t answer = can’t answer.

How about a question you can answer: how long do you suppose it will take before the Uhlman paper is retracted? Quite clearly it should be. The subject pool is contaminated by the same bias as the Lancet article. The team neglected to discuss their negative results from PCR tests.
ChildHealthSafety
January 21st, 2011
04:27:32

Sullivan January 21st, 2011 04:20:35

Can you answer about whether Mr. Deer was the complainant.

Done repeatedly. Describing someone as a complainant of fact describes someone who as a matter of fact lodged complaints.

Tortuous.

Got to go.
ChildHealthSafety
January 21st, 2011
04:31:34

Sullivan – at lots of times above

Daddy,

What is a cow?

Its a big animal with a head and legs and a tail and a body.

Why does a cow have legs?

So it can walk around.

Why does it walk around?

So it can move to different places.

Why does it move to different places?

And so on.
Sullivan
January 21st, 2011
04:34:37

Done repeatedly. Describing someone as a complainant of fact describes someone who as a matter of fact lodged complaints.

False. Complainant has a specific meaning withing the GMC context. Mr. Deer is not the Complainant, as the GMC has clearly stated, both in the transcripts and elsewhere.

You used the term in the specific meaning repeatedly for the past few years. You are now changing the definition. Moving goalposts.

Yes, this does get old. Lack of integrity in Mr. Wakefield is reflected by a lack of integrity of his supporters. You attempted to create a controversy where none existed, and you don’t have the guts to man up to it. Wakefield has repeatedly lied about his actions and he doesn’t have the guts to man up either. You are fortunate that your demonstrated lack of integrity is orders of magnitude smaller than Mr. Wakefield’s.

Just as obvious, though.
Sullivan
January 21st, 2011
04:37:43

ChildHealthSafety,

please, you are embarrassing yourself. I would do you a service to delete your comments. However, with the great quantity of embarrassing work you have created, it would do no good.

Your lack of integrity, lack of honor, lack of adult behavior is a prime example of what the supporters of Andrew Wakefield have had to go through to create the image that a man with multiple, proved ethical lapses is somehow a hero. Out of politeness, I have let you get away with it unchallenged here, but, truly, I can not understand how a person who has looked at the facts in any detail can mislead others as you have.
ChildHealthSafety
January 21st, 2011
04:43:25

Sullivan January 21st, 2011 04:34:37

False. Complainant has a specific meaning withing the GMC context.

Precisely. That describes the complainant of record. That is why describing someone as a complainant of fact describes someone who as a matter of fact lodged complaints whether or not they are the complainant of record.

The controversy Mr Deer created is one of ethics in journalism. So will argue he has created the appearance – he will say unintentionally – of making complaints so he can report on the story.

So where is the difference from Wakefield who is accused of being hired as an expert witness in legal proceedings when he was writing up a paper relating to the subject matter of the proceedings?

I really must go now.
ChildHealthSafety
January 21st, 2011
04:50:05

Sullivan January 21st, 2011 04:37:43

“you are embarrassing yourself … the great quantity of embarrassing work you have created ….. Your lack of integrity, lack of honor, lack of adult behavior …. how a person … can mislead others as you have.”

Thank you for sharing your views.
sheldon101
January 21st, 2011
05:26:00

Since I was using the words law school drop out, it was fair to inquire about law school. Except that I’ve realized that I was way too generous. For “law school drop out”, read “high school drop out.” I was not a high school drop out.

But I do have questions about the UK legal training scheme where a graduate to repeatedly not understand a simple concept. The other explanation is that you do understand the concept but are pretending otherwise. Nah, behavior like that would be too much like hero’s behavior.
Sullivan
January 21st, 2011
05:27:29

Can you really not see the difference? I somehow doubt it.
Sullivan
January 21st, 2011
05:45:44

Sheldon101,

An attorney’s duty is to present his/her client’s case.

Scientists, however, should present facts.
Sullivan
January 21st, 2011
05:53:49

CHS,
No problem. Can’t avoid the truth while pointing out your avoidance issues, right?
sheldon101
January 21st, 2011
07:30:10

I’ve assumed that CHS is not here as a solicitor acting on behalf of a real or imaginary client. Because in that case, who cares what he says.

Rather that (choke, gasp, laugh) that CHS is here as just another seeker after the truth.

It would be nice if CHS stated that he wasn’t here as a legal advocate or debater or solicitor.
Sullivan
January 21st, 2011
08:31:15

Sheldon101,

It’s a safe assumption that CHS is not here representing Andrew Wakefield as anything other than s spokesman.

Ironic, that. CHS tried to create a story that Brian Deer isn’t responding when It’s Andrew Wakefield who is avoiding the questions. All Mr. Wakefield has done is throw mud. Not even convincingly.

Here’s a bit from Anderson Cooper

COOPER: Brian Deer has talked to the patients—has talked to the parents—has talked to the parents of the patients who were in your original study. And he discovered that not one of the 12 cases you claim to have studied was free of—quote—“misrepresentation or alteration.”

In no single case could the medical records be fully reconciled with the descriptions, diagnoses or histories published in the journal. Some of the parents in your original study say what you claimed about their kids’ medical histories was not true.

Are those parents now lying?

WAKEFIELD: That is false. He has not interviewed the parents. That is absolutely not true.

Wakefield claimed to have not read the BMJ article. Could be true, as Brian Deer opened it with an interview with a patent.

If that isn’t embarrassing enough, his own defenders claim that one of Brian Deer’s faults is using a false name when interviewing a parent.

The problem with elaborate lies in the Internet age is that one is too easily found out. This has been the case with Andrew Wakefield time and again.
sheldon101
January 21st, 2011
08:43:58

I’ve assumed that CHS is here as just another person with a viewpoint based on the facts. If CHS is some formal or informal spokesperson, then CHS should say so. Aren’t we entitled to know who the shills for Wakefield are (paid or unpaid)?
Sullivan
January 21st, 2011
09:19:45

I see this another way. Mr. Wakefield is currently supported by a coalition of organizations. Yet they do not make this clear when the make statements of support for the man. These are hardly independent as those orgs have a vested interest in Mr. Wakefield’s reputation.

I have no idea what connection CHS has to Mr. Wakefield. I doubt it is anything formal. It isn’t something I have spent any time pondering or intend to.
Sullivan
January 21st, 2011
09:21:00

I probably should have written “self appointed” spokesman.
Brian Deer
January 21st, 2011
11:43:06

Sullivan,

I did indeed use my middle rather than last name when interviewing two individuals at the very beginning of my investigation. I did so after approval both from editorial and legal managers. The reason was to ascertain what these people would say to a reporter they didn’t know, know of, or be capable of researching on Google. In short, to obtain a forensically neutral account.

One of them told me that Wakefield’s research subjects were JABS members. The other gave a totally different account of her child’s history to the one she apparently told at the Royal Free. Over the years, the case against MMR had switched from being a sudden-onset syndrome to an insidiously emergent syndrome (obviously to rake in a lot more claimants). Her story had changed, in parallel, with the passage of time, such that it could not be reconciled with the paper.

I’m proud that standard investigative techniques, used routinely by proficient journalists, including the use of pseudonymns and the supply of findings to regulators for statutory inquiry, led to the nailing of the charlatan Wakefield and the unmasking of his research fraud.

I’m entirely satisfied that nobody has identified any material action or inaction on my part concerning the MMR investigation such that I have done what I should not have done, or failed to do what I should have done.
AWOL
January 21st, 2011
14:44:33

As Mr Deer has just admitted that …

“Sullivan,

“I did indeed use my middle rather than last name when interviewing two individuals at the very beginning of my investigation.”

So, Brian if you are prepared to use deception to get the story why should we believe the story??why?
ChildHealthSafety
January 21st, 2011
14:59:50

Brian Deer January 21st, 2011 11:43:06

“I’m entirely satisfied that nobody has identified any material action or inaction on my part concerning the MMR investigation such that I have done what I should not have done, or failed to do what I should have done.”

“nobody has identified”

So Mr Deer seems to be saying merely that no one has identified any.

Would Mr Deer like to clarify that? Is he saying there has been none or just that none has been identified. It is what is sometimes described as a “pregnant negative”, so the question is a legitimate one to put to him.

Has Mr Deer any explanation for why the BMJ refuse to confirm or deny whether their “peer review” included checking the facts and references in the articles of his they published recently and fastidiously avoid answering questions about material discrepancies?

It would be appreciated if he could please answer the questions posed on LBRB and on Dr Gorski’s ORAC blog and on his own blog in The Guardian and those put to the BMJ, including for example those here about Child 1, 8 and 11.

The silence to date from a peer reviewed author and journalist and from editors of a peer reviewed journal is unhelpful and sows doubt which open responses might easily dispel.
ChildHealthSafety
January 21st, 2011
15:06:24

Sullivan January 21st, 2011 09:21:00

I probably should have written “self appointed” spokesman.

Hmmmm …. interesting thought. So what is your position and affiliations Sullivan? Are you completely anonymous or have you stated anything about who you are anywhere and what you do?
John Stone
January 21st, 2011
15:59:23

“I’m entirely satisfied that nobody has identified any material action or inaction on my part concerning the MMR investigation such that I have done what I should not have done, or failed to do what I should have done.”

I wonder if Brian Deer can shed any light on the removal of a sequence of posts in British Medical Journal last March. The letters followed his statement:

“I know the names and family backgrounds of all 12 of the children enrolled in the study, including the child enrolled from the United States.”

After the removal Sharon Davies, the letters editor, posted the opaque statement:

“Following a legal complaint several responses have been removed.”

http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c644.full/reply

These included the removal of the remark by Dr F Edward Yazbak

“I must say that I am troubled that Mr. Deer was able to obtain the names and family backgrounds of the 12 original study patients.”

Which suggests that in the BMJ you are not even allowed to express concern (which goes beyond any normal legal objection). I wonder, since BMJ have been of no help over this whatsoever whether Deer can offer any explanation. Would he mind if I re-posted all the removed letters here? Would he be prepared to answer them?

I am also troubled by his preparedness and that of the Sunday Times to enter into deception (using his middle name rather than his surname) to get their story. What credence can be given to the result given that we have no means of authenticating what was said to him or the exact context?
Gina
January 21st, 2011
16:01:24

I’m sorry to throw myself into the fray, but I have a question. In regards to the motives of the complainant, do they have any actual relevance if the complaint brought is proven true and valid?

I think others have made this clear here and elsewhere, but even if Mr. Deer was everything said or worse, charges against Wakefield were proven. To first identify (falsely) and single out the complainant and take issue with potential motive is to leap frog over questioning the validity of the charges brought, the evidence presented and the verdict rendered. There’s deliberate avoidance here. That means either two things: you’re dim or you have no valid issue with steps 1-3, and character assassination is much easier.
Gina
January 21st, 2011
16:08:43

“What credence can be given to the result given that we have no means of authenticating what was said to him or the exact context?”

Are the individuals interviewed by Deer under the pseudonym claiming misrepresentation in his reporting? If not, then your question is irrelevant.
Science Mom
January 21st, 2011
16:45:25

CHS’s, Stone’s and AWOL’s complaints are that Mr. Deer used some deception to catch a liar, not that the liar’s lying wasn’t proven. And you jokers wonder why you aren’t taken seriously. If Wakers hadn’t done anything wrong, no amount of deception on Mr. Deer’s part would have been fruitful.

As to knowing who the Lancet 12 were. They sued GSK and they self-identified.
ChildHealthSafety
January 21st, 2011
17:22:03

Sullivan January 21st, 2011 08:31:15

“COOPER: Brian Deer has talked to the patients—has talked to the parents—has talked to the parents of the patients who were in your original study.”

No he did not. He claims here to have spoken to only two of them.

Any straw in the wind here it seems.
ChildHealthSafety
January 21st, 2011
17:37:16

Gina January 21st, 2011 16:01:24
Gina January 21st, 2011 16:08:43
Science Mom January 21st, 2011 16:45:25

All argument and opinion.

The BMJ has made new allegations of fraud which Mr Deer cannot justify. He has been asked to answer numerous times and has failed.

Now he has come here to post – it is only his answers which are relevant.

Waiting to hear from Mr Deer.
ChildHealthSafety
January 21st, 2011
17:59:14

Science Mom January 21st, 2011 16:45:25

As to knowing who the Lancet 12 were. They sued GSK and they self-identified.

Factually completely incorrect. Perfect example of why Mr Deer needs to answer for himself.
Rosemary Cousins
January 21st, 2011
18:41:07

Since we are on the theme of deception and self interest, I would like to make the point that my son’s medical records, part of which are lawfully in my possession – are partly factually inaccurate. Either doctors, documenting his history, misheard the facts as supplied or they deliberately fabricated the records.

Why would they do that, do you think?
sheldon101
January 21st, 2011
18:56:38

You shouldn’t have worn white shoes after labour day.
Julian Frost
January 21st, 2011
19:01:10

@ ChildHealthSafety & AWOL,
You accuse Brian Deer of being dishonest, yet you yourselves show dishonesty. It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that Deer was given the children’s medical records as part of the discovery when Andrew Wakefield sued him for libel, yet you persist in claiming that he gained the records dishonestly, even illegally.

Has Mr Deer any explanation for why the BMJ refuse to confirm or deny whether their “peer review” included checking the facts and references in the articles of his they published recently and fastidiously avoid answering questions about material discrepancies?

Probably because it’s none of your business. Having said that, the UK is known as being exceptionally plaintiff-friendly when it comes to libel lawsuits, and given that Wakefield has already brought one libel action against Deer, I find it very hard to believe that the BMJ editors did not go over Deer’s claims with a fine-tooth comb.
Science Mom
January 21st, 2011
19:03:08

The BMJ has made new allegations of fraud which Mr Deer cannot justify. He has been asked to answer numerous times and has failed.

Honestly Miller, just STFU already, collect some donations from your JABS loonies mates and help Wakers sue BMJ, Deer and the Sunday Times. The fact that you are pleading your case on freakin blogs is a vapid gesture that is only deriving some satisfaction for yourself but doesn’t change the landscape of what the facts are one whit. I support Deer’s decision to refuse to engage you directly; it wouldn’t do any good and obviously has your knickers in a perma-wedge.
ChildHealthSafety
January 21st, 2011
19:07:02

Science Mom January 21st, 2011 19:03:08
sheldon101 January 21st, 2011 18:56:38

Still waiting to hear from Mr Deer.
Rosemary Cousins
January 21st, 2011
19:17:13

Now that doctors have been caught out by my witnesses they have sheepishly held up their hands and apologised – so at last the inaccuracies of his medical records have been acknowledged and things are looking up.

The point I am making is that much emphasis is placed on opinion and guesswork as being fact until such time as evidence to the contrary is supplied.

Opinion is what it is. Opinion is neither fact nor science. What’s more – ‘bad science’ is neither opinion, fact or science. Bad science does not exist for it is absolutely nothing.

Those who claim to be experts in bad science, therefore, are experts in zilch.
John Stone
January 21st, 2011
19:23:51

Thanks Science Mom – so where is Mr Deer, then? You didn’t say.
sheldon101
January 21st, 2011
19:35:16

John, John, John

Over at Huff-Po you kept telling me that the rule for distinguishing medical research (which needed advance ethical approval) was Wakefield’s ferry tale. That as long as you were just doing normal treatment no advance ethics committee approval was needed. But if you were doing something in addition—- like more lab tests on samples you already had permission to take it wasn’t research.

On the face of it, this is nuts. If a doctor thought up a new procedure on a patient before the doctor, then permission would be needed in advance. So the patients is dying as they’re trying to get a quorum, right?

Dr. Pegg made clear that the guiding document for the ethics Committee was a 1990 document from the Dept. of Health that looked to the intent of the doctor. If it was to generalize, to develop for publication, to systematize, it needed advance permission. Sure sounds like what a bunch of medical academics were doing.

If that wasn’t obvious before applying to the committee, it became obvious during the procedure. If we pretend that the procedures carried out on the kids were just clinical practice, then there would be no need to discuss them as it wouldn’t be part of the jurisdiction.

Anyhow, John, you’ve got to do something about the creativity of your inventions. Martin Walker is doing much better.
John Stone
January 21st, 2011
19:51:46

Sheldon101

I always appreciate your relative courtesy – but what’s happened to Brian Deer. He issued what looked like a challenge before and now he has disappeared.
Gina
January 21st, 2011
19:52:00

@ChildHealthSafety: “All argument and opinion.The BMJ has made new allegations of fraud which Mr Deer cannot justify. He has been asked to answer numerous times and has failed. Now he has come here to post – it is only his answers which are relevant. Waiting to hear from Mr Deer.””

He has justified his allegations. You simply refuse to acknowledge their validity. That refusal does not equate to invalidity. Therefore, no matter how, when, who and in what context Mr. Deer answers, you will never been satisfied or swayed in your denial of his evidence. You are not seeking answers; you do not expect a response. And you believe, falsely, that him not responding to you legitimizes your position.

Wakefield can rectify all these supposed unanswered questions by simply filing a libel suit against Brian Deer and the BMJ. If he believes in himself half as much as you believe in him, I would expect him to do it immediately.
Joseph
January 21st, 2011
20:02:14

I am also troubled by his preparedness and that of the Sunday Times to enter into deception (using his middle name rather than his surname) to get their story. What credence can be given to the result given that we have no means of authenticating what was said to him or the exact context?

Right, because journalists don’t ever—ever—use false pretenses (e.g. hidden cameras, false occupations) to get a scoop.

Really? Is that what the argument has devolved to at this point?
John Stone
January 21st, 2011
20:03:57

Gina

No, Deer hasn’t had to answer anything. BMJ have failed to even post questions about his data while he hops about the web pretending he’s on top of the game. So he showed up here this afternoon for a moment and now he’s disappeared again. What a farce!
Gina
January 21st, 2011
20:08:52

@John Stone “No, Deer hasn’t had to answer anything.”

You know, it would be nice if were all make a commitment not to misquote or misconstrue. I did not say he answered, or will answer, to anyone. What I said was CHS would not be receptive to those answers if and/or when they come. And that the lack of response from Deer is being used by CHS, and you as it seems, as some sort of validation of your position.

It’s a farce to ask questions you do not want answers to, and would never believe anyway. There is nothing Deer would or could say to sway your beliefs. If that’s not true, say so.
sheldon101
January 21st, 2011
20:26:01

John, we know that Wakefield and his lawyers have had the medical records of the children since 2006. We are over a century later and Bleak House if fiction.

Deer made a motion to use the medical records in his defense to Wakefield’s lawsuit. The GMC sent the medical records to Wakefield for his to prepare his defense to the GMC charges. Through the lawsuit, Wakefield had to tell Deer about the existence of the medical records.

So they’ve had 4 years with the records. So where is Wakefield pointing to errors in the articles. By errors, I mean the facts as presented are wrong. That’s different from Wakefield presenting other aspects of the medical records. If Deer states that a discharge summary says a,b and c—-where’s Wakefield saying it actually says d,e and f. Nowhere.

But to date, Wakefield hasn’t supplied the d,e and f.
Kev
January 21st, 2011
20:26:14

John Stone, CHS et al – no one, repeat no one is at your beck and call. Brian Deer has put forward an explanation. You can choose to believe it or not. The facts are however, that his words have been fact checked and printed in a peer reviewed journal. Yours haven’t. If you or AJ Wakefield feel that anything – anything – in it is untrue then stop demanding to hear from anyone and explain yourselves. If you can’t do that – and I speak as the administrator of this site – go away. At the moment you’re adding absolutely nothing of value to any debate whatsoever.

Clear?
AWOL
January 21st, 2011
20:27:40

@Joseph

“Right, because journalists don’t ever—ever—use false pretenses (e.g. hidden cameras, false occupations) to get a scoop.”

JosephAnother pretence is

Deer say`s today 11:43:06

“The reason was to ascertain what these people would say to a reporter they didn’t know, know of, or be capable of researching on Google. In short, to obtain a forensically neutral account.”

In fact what he said to Glenn Frankel and proves false pretence ,base 1 and passed it

Washington Sunday, July 11, 2004; Page A01

http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....l10_3.html

“Deer said he used a false name—Lawrence is actually his middle name—because he didn’t want Kessick to check his web site and find out that one of his specialties was tracking down false claims of damage from vaccines”

Lied again Brian to your supporters on here no less!!

Brian come and tell the truth it’s a big albatross, to carry round your neck for the rest of time on your own …even your supporters dont know what your game is …
John Stone
January 21st, 2011
20:35:35

Oh dear, so he’s pissed off again before anyone could ask him anything.
Kev
January 21st, 2011
20:44:21

Last warning John.
Sullivan
January 21st, 2011
21:27:38

A couple of points

1) With about 30 minutes of work, I found the names of three of the Lancet 12 children in sources that predate Brian Deer’s investigation. I am not stunned that an experienced journalist was able to discern who they are.

2) It is acceptable for a journalist to use “surreptitions” or “undercover” methods of gathering information that is in the public’s interest. One site on journalistic ethics puts it this way:

Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story

Which saved me the time of interviewing a journalism ethics professor. I don’t know when it was disclosed that Mr. Deer used these methods, or by whom. Given that some of the people questioning Mr. Deer are writers for the blog, Age of Autism, which decided that the basics of journalistic ethics were to be abandoned from the start, this entire discussion is a bit of a farce. Given that Andrew Wakefield is proven guilty of multiple ethical violations, this discussion is worse than a farce.

Attempts to divert attention away from Andrew Wakefield at this point speak more to the ethics of those questioning Mr. Deer than to Mr. Deer’s ethics.

I’ve said it before—if you guys had not only a firm footing in ethics, but also a firm footing in what serves your own best interests, you would jettison Andrew Wakefield. He really is hurting the cause of parents who believe their children are vaccine injured and are wishing to pursue both the legal and medical concerns of their children.
Sullivan
January 21st, 2011
21:35:24

Let’s see if I have this correct—
A number of people, at least some of whom have participated in creating misinformation to smear Brian Deer, are asking for Brian Deer to respond to them. Somehow they are surprised that after years of this twisting of facts, Mr. Deer doesn’t respond to them.

And they are surprised?

Again, this speaks far more to the ethics (or lack thereof) of those questioning, not Mr. Deer.

You guys should be cleaning up your own house. Starting with cutting ties with Andrew Wakefield. I don’t see that happening any time soon, though.
ChildHealthSafety
January 21st, 2011
21:42:38

Kev January 21st, 2011 20:26:14

“Brian Deer has put forward an explanation…... The facts are however, that his words have been fact checked and printed in a peer reviewed journal.”

No he has not and no they [facts] have not.
John Stone
January 21st, 2011
21:47:50

OK Kev – sorry for that.
AWOL
January 21st, 2011
22:09:49

Sullivan

“Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story”

I never , ever, seen Brian, disclosing that he used a false pretence to obtain his information to the GMC or anywhere ?I assume Brian kept quiet about 2004 because he thought he got away with it.

Other matters spring to mind that Brian probably thinks we have forgotten about or don’t have copies of(you all know what they are)..

Huge albatross to carry around your neck until the end of time ,on your own..
Rosemary Cousins
January 21st, 2011
22:18:20

Why should anyone on this earth want to cut ties with a scientist?

Name me one scientist, since the day of creation, who has gone down in history as a villain? One scientist?

The villains are those who speak of science being ‘bad.’

I repeat science is not, nor ever has been ‘bad.’

Science is the epitome of all creation.

Science is the architect of the Universe.

Andrew Wakefield is a scientist.
Gina
January 21st, 2011
22:25:54

@Rosemary Cousins:

“Name me one scientist, since the day of creation, who has gone down in history as a villain? One scientist?”

One? Josef Mengele (sorry for the Godwining everyone)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Mengele

“Andrew Wakefield is a scientist.”

Perhaps you should tell him to follow the scientific method next time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Sullivan
January 21st, 2011
22:34:35

Because Andrew Wakefield isn’t a scientist. He was never really very good. His publication record is not great. Even avoiding the fraud and the deceptions, the Lancet study wasn’t that good. He took ideas from other people—B12, GI disease, MMR connection. He tried to create a new “syndrome” out of this, but he didn’t have the data (again, even ignoring the falsifications) then.

He published almost nothing for his first 10 years of his career. Most of his publications since the Lancet article have been junk. Many will be withdrawn in the coming months.

He wasted hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars on primate studies that were so poorly planned (by him) that they had no hope of returning real data. For example.

Even if you think he is a scientist, not all scientists are good. Someone has to be the worst.
Dedj
January 21st, 2011
22:36:21

“Why should anyone on this earth want to cut ties with a scientist?”

Science and scientists are not the same thing. Scientists are human and thus fully capable of being unethical, criminal, fraudulent, misguided, paid-off, self-interested, or just plain wrong.

Science is neither bad nor good, although the ends that it is used for can be, as can the methods and conditions underwhich it is conducted. This is why we have systems of ethics regarding science and research.

Science is a generally self-correcting system of methods for determining data and generating reasonably unbiased and honest consensus interpretations and applications.

Scientists can be honest people or unethical bell-ends.

Do not confuse the two again.
Sullivan
January 21st, 2011
22:36:33

Gina,

I think one could take Bettleheim as an example that wouldn’t be Godwin-worthy. I think in the autism communities, one would have a hard time finding people who think of him as not a villain.

However, I have often thought that invoking Bettleheim is so over done that it is in itself a Godwin-like event.
Gina
January 21st, 2011
22:49:10

@Dedj: fantastic point! That may highlight one of the darkest aspect of Wakefield’s deception.

@Sullivan: You’re example is far more relevant than mine. Can I change my answer? Couldn’t help but to go to the dark place like that, but that’s not me making a Nazi analogy here. I’m just saying that Mengele was a scientist that went down in history as the villain. No analogy. (trying to de-Godwin it a bit)
Blackheart the pirate
January 21st, 2011
22:54:20

Hi new to all this have so I thought I’d be clear about some things I am the parent of an ASD child fully vaccinated. I don’t relate that to vaccine. I am interested in digging down into news and have a look at things from another perspective. My issues I bring are in regards to procedural fairness ie fair media coverage and the rights of parents.
I make no claim to Wakefields guilt or innocence just that I see a lot of different things going on.

Cheers
Blackheart
January 21st, 2011
23:01:47

I suppose my first question then goes ?

Isn’t it the right of parents to have legal address ?

Well then the first part of the conspiracy falls down and is just normal practice ?
AWOL
January 21st, 2011
23:05:23

Blackheart you will only get dis-information on here and abuse..

You might want to contact any or all of the following

Age of Autism
Autism Action Network
Autism Media Channel
Autism One
Autism File Global
Autism Research Institute
Elizabeth Birt Center for Autism Law and Advocacy
Generation Rescue
National Autism Association
Schafer Autism Report
TACA-Talk About Curing Autism
The Autism Trust USA/UK
The Coalition for SafeMinds
Unlocking Autism
AWOL
January 21st, 2011
23:19:54

Blackheart sorry to read your post ,

You would be better at the sites below for an answer..

http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/

or

http://www.jabs.org.uk/

Goodluck
AWOL
January 21st, 2011
23:26:36

Also go to

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZT2FYCPISk

Then read the commetary

http://archive.constantcontact.....74694.html

Such an honest,respectable,career..
AWOL
January 21st, 2011
23:38:17

Sullivan

“A couple of points

1) With about 30 minutes of work, I found the names of three of the Lancet 12 children in sources that predate Brian Deer’s investigation. ”

Can you post your links very interesting if true..
sharon
January 22nd, 2011
01:11:43

Hi Blackheart, perhaps you could clarify the question? I’m not sure what it is you are asking.
Sullivan
January 22nd, 2011
02:00:13

AWOL,

I could supply the links, but I will not.

The letter signed by 8 of the Lancet 12 parents I saw had them using only first initial and last name. The information is in the public domain, but I will not provide the links. Believe me or not. It is there.
ChildHealthSafety
January 22nd, 2011
09:58:45

Sullivan
Gina
Dedj
Science Mom

The silence from Mr Deer continues. The continuing silence looks really bad.

Mr Deer has made very serious allegations of fraud against all the authors of the 1998 Lancet paper and that the parents are liars.

When his stories fail to stand up and he is asked to address what appear fatal flaws and inconsistencies which reflect on his professionlism, ethics, honesty and personal and professional integrity he refuses to answer and goes to ground.

The British Medical Journal has clammed up as well. No answers there either – just censorship of their Rapid Responses comment forum so tough questions do not get posted.

It would be appreciated if Mr Deer could please answer the questions posed on LBRB and on Dr Gorski’s ORAC blog and on his own blog in The Guardian and those put to the BMJ, including for example those about Child 1, 8 and 11.

With what Mr Deer publised on his Guardian blog, the inconsistencies in what he has already published, the little he has said, the failures to answer does not look good at all.

On the one hand Mr Deer should answer and answers are demanded and on the other no doubt many who want answers have mixed feelings because of how bad Mr Deer’s silence looks.

It is also interesting that when this was asked of Sullivan these comments got busy with folks parachuting in from commenting on other blogs to pad it so that no one might notice Sullivan failed to answer, just as been happening in Mr Deer’s case:

Sullivan January 21st, 2011 09:21:00

“I probably should have written “self appointed” spokesman.”

Hmmmm …. interesting thought. So what is your position and affiliations Sullivan? Are you completely anonymous or have you stated anything about who you are anywhere and what you do?

Funny things – Sullivan seems to be running Kev’s blog these days and gives the impression of being available to comment 24 hours a day.

Can we have some answers from Sullivan too please?
Kev
January 22nd, 2011
10:15:01

I warned you to stop demanding things of people on here. No one is at your beck and call. This is your last warning. Debate the issues or shut up. If you continue to demand things of other commenters then you’ll get banned.
Rosemary Cousins
January 22nd, 2011
10:25:25

Gina – Josef Mengele – also know as the Angel of Death was not a scientist. He was a physician who separated children from their parents so that he could inflict pain on them.

Sound familiar?
Rosemary Cousins
January 22nd, 2011
10:46:32

Dedj – I agree that scientists are only human and thus fully capable of being unethical, criminal, fraudulent, misguided, paid-off, self interested and just plain wrong. But then you will find those traits in all walks of life.

For example the evidence which was used to attempt to pariah Andrew Wakefield was fraudulent.
AWOL
January 22nd, 2011
12:01:27

Andrew Wakefield’s thank you to parents

http://www.cryshame.co.uk/

To all parents:

“I am immensely grateful to you for your wonderful support. Your voices are being heard around the world and that is precisely why our opponents have become so vicious. The only hope of victory for those who oppose the recognition of what has happened to your children for what it is and a Safety-First vaccine policy, is to divide us. Together we have come too far, for too long, for good reason, to be divided. Each attack makes us stronger and more determined. Science and safety must be the new language of vaccine policy. Solidarity will ensure this happens.”

Andy

————————————————————————————————————————
John Fryer Chemist
January 22nd, 2011
12:03:19

The Wakefield paper has been dismantled effectively by Brian Deer but there are also 12 author authors none to my knowledge has ever claimed the data was fraudulent.

Do they not take the criticism also?

Nobody can advance knowledge without exposing themselves to criticism and the treatment of Wakefield is perverse but oddly still not complete.

While we can see the failings of the paper probably as I said due to the nature of its speed and the output of this person and others.

Apart from Brian Deer, there are many others who have spent so much time and effort to discredit the paper that without knowing their motive as well as source of funding it is difficult to know why they are so persistant.

Any one piece of work has little individual merit in normal cases and this piece of work as many mention does not really cover new ground but did expose old ideas in a very public way.

This is at the seat of the problem. Many, many people have strong reservations about medical interventions and their lack of checking for safety.

The interventions here did produce one catastrophic accident that negated any and all contributions of money to the Royal Free or the scientists involved.

The covering up of both harm and monies received is to me the worst of this saga.

Too many research papers get fundings which negate any value, too many papers get published especially in this field with no contribution to science. To say for example there is no evidence of autism from MMR vaccines is comforting but contributes absolutely nothing to the origin of autism. Why do 95 per cent of papers just come up with no knowledge like this? Too many papers again get churned out with such speed that even if results are obtained they need double and treble checking.

I do support Andrew Wakefield in his later work where he sees harm for example in mercury vaccines. Although effectively written off as science of merit, we do have even the hardest critics finding some results are correct. There is a sub-section of autism people with other problems of which gut problems are now recognised as being one complication.

The problem here which is unplatable is that the notion that autism is purely some disorganisation of neurons cannot be true. This is the important factor. Autism is and is increasingly thought of as a real illness and as such should be capable of both cure but more important PREVENTION.

England and the USA do have the worlds worst record of such cases, growing relentlessly over the past 20 years and arguably against the background of the most intrusive amount of protective vaccines.

Most people here seem to agree that trouble started for mosr cases well before the MMR vaccine but this just means the three or how many vaccines earlier may not be 100 per cent protective.

It is sad that with all our knowledge we still have babies in the womb exposed to known TOXIC amounts of mercury.

Yes there are many villainous scientists and doctors and how many are villains while thinking they are GODS?
Rosemary Cousins
January 22nd, 2011
12:41:11

By the way, what is The Serious Fraud Squad?
sharon
January 22nd, 2011
13:02:44

That’s it, I have tried to stay out of this thread for the most part. I felt as if all my points were being addressed well enough by others. But there comes a point, when you actually have a child with Autism, that you can’t help feeling others, not looking at anyone in particular CHS, are simply using this forum to meet some narcissistic personal agenda.
Never once have you, CHS, expressed any concern for ASD children. You clearly see this site as nothing more than a forum for playing semi intellectual mind games. A game incidentally you lost a long time ago.
So here’s my question to you. Do you care about children and/or adults with Autism?
AWOL
January 22nd, 2011
13:40:59

Sharon good attempt at diversion..JABS would help you with that question..
Rosemary Cousins
January 22nd, 2011
14:08:30

Oh Sharon – I have a friend in you. Are you managing to get your child’s needs met at school? Did you manage to get the diagnosis of ASD through the normal NHS services or did you make the diagnosis yourself?

I will add, with scepticism, that somebody who is able to identify semi intellectual mind games and claims to have an understanding of narcissism has chosen a relatively strange question to ask CHS.

Do you really think he is going to reply to an almost monosyllabic grunt of a question from someone who claims to be an authority on psychology.
Rosemary Cousins
January 22nd, 2011
14:11:57

I meant to add….........when she clearly isn’t!
Broken Link
January 22nd, 2011
14:13:19

CHS seems to have a tenuous grasp on reality.

Mr Deer has made very serious allegations of fraud against all the authors of the 1998 Lancet paper

This is true. But if the rest of the CHS blather is also true, then why is Andrew Wakefield not suing Brian Deer and the BMJ? Having a self-appointed minion prattle nonsensically away on a private website is hardly the correct response.

Go tell Andrew Wakefield to sue, CHS, or be quiet. Your prattle here is only revealing your contempt for autistic children and your lack of logical skills.
ChildHealthSafety
January 22nd, 2011
14:35:13

Broken Link January 22nd, 2011 14:13:19

“CHS seems to have a tenuous grasp on reality.”

LOL.

“Mr Deer has made very serious allegations of fraud against all the authors of the 1998 Lancet paper”

“then why”

.... are the other authors ….

“not suing Brian Deer and the BMJ?”

“Go tell”

... the other authors ….

“to sue …. or be quiet. Your prattle here is only revealing your contempt for autistic children and your lack of logical skills.”

LOL.
AWOL
January 22nd, 2011
14:41:33

Broken Link

As the football chant goes “you only blog when your winning”

Dry your eyes; possibly you may be able to explain the silence on here and the BMJ? Strange you all, are usually back slapping Deer ,Deer comes down of his pedestal and blogs, his “glee blogging” has stopped?

The glee blogging, is usually spares nobody, autistic kids, disabled kids, the diagnosis of the kids, anyone or anything that is questioning ,vaccines linked to Autism.

Despite the efforts many a time before; many a time the “line has been drawn under the mmr autism debate”, funnily not this time it hasn’t been mentioned. why? Because you all know were not going away, were not going to be silenced, and the truth will out soon…
ChildHealthSafety
January 22nd, 2011
14:42:14

Broken Link January 22nd, 2011 14:13:19

And of course Mr Deer has interviewed only one of the Lancet 12 childrens’ parents but he is calling them all liars.

But then his Guardian blog shows he is a conspiracy theorist who publishes stories which do not stand up and when challenged he goes to ground, just like now.
Gina
January 22nd, 2011
16:40:46

@Rosemary Cousins:

Just so we are all clear:

Medicine IS science. Are we all in agreement?

“Gina – Josef Mengele – also know as the Angel of Death was not a scientist.”

Yes, he was. He performed research and experiments. If you believe Wakefield a scientist (and you do, your quote @January 21st, 2011, 22:18:20 “Andrew Wakefield is a scientist.”) then you must believe Josef Mengele a scientist as well.

“He was a physician who separated children from their parents so that he could inflict pain on them. Sound familiar?”

Wakefield and Walker-Smith unnecessarily performed “colonoscopies, colon biopsies and lumbar punctures (“spinal taps”).” Spinal taps are incredibly painful. Wakefield and Walker-Smith were by no mean Nazis, but your characterization above fits their conduct in the Lancet paper research.
Sullivan
January 22nd, 2011
19:23:39

“And of course Mr Deer has interviewed only one of the Lancet 12 childrens’ parents but he is calling them all liars.”

Do you have a quote where he calls them all liars? What are you basing that accusation upon?

As to the first part of your statement, it is clearly false. Clearly as in you really should know it is false.

Let’s see, he interviewed Child 11’s father for the BMJ paper. There has been much discussion upthread about another mother he interviewed. That’s two right there.

Here’s the segment on Anderson Cooper 360

COOPER: I asked Wakefield to respond to your reporting that—that—that states that medical records of all of the 12 cases that he initially cited in his “Lancet” paper back in 1998, that—that none of them were accurate, fully accurate.

I want to you listen to what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WAKEFIELD: That is false. He has not interviewed the parents. That is absolutely not true.

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: So, you’re saying the parents—no parents say that what—that what you have said about their children’s medical histories is false?

WAKEFIELD: No, they don’t. What I have said and what has been reported in that paper by me and my colleagues is exactly what we saw.

(CROSSTALK)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Did you speak to any of the parents from the 12 cases?

DEER: I personally interviewed one, two, three families of the 12. Somebody else—two others were interviewed on my behalf by other journalists. So, that’s five of the 12.

Oh, no, actually, I interview—and I have had conversations with another, so quite a substantial number…

ChildHealthSafety, would you like to rephrase your statement?
Sullivan
January 22nd, 2011
19:24:58

AWOL: “As the football chant goes “you only blog when your winning””

This isn’t a game. If you are here for “winning or losing”, please leave. This isn’t a debate club. This is a serious discussion about serious accusations of fraud and proven ethical lapses by Andrew Wakefield.
Sullivan
January 22nd, 2011
19:28:56

Andrew Wakefield’s thank you to parents

http://www.cryshame.co.uk/

To all parents:

“I am immensely grateful to you for your wonderful support. Your voices are being heard around the world and that is precisely why our opponents have become so vicious. The only hope of victory for those who oppose the recognition of what has happened to your children for what it is and a Safety-First vaccine policy, is to divide us. Together we have come too far, for too long, for good reason, to be divided. Each attack makes us stronger and more determined. Science and safety must be the new language of vaccine policy. Solidarity will ensure this happens.”

Andy

I can’t speak for others, but the above doesn’t really sit well with me. What happened to look to the facts yourself and come to your own conclusions?
Rosemary Cousins
January 22nd, 2011
19:57:10

Gina – can you explain why it is you think the mentally ill, the autistic and those with learning difficulties should be denied the normal medical treatment and care which others naturally receive?
Chris
January 22nd, 2011
20:00:32

Rosemary, where did Gina say that?

With CHS, Stone and AWOL spamming here, I must have missed it. Could you please point to the post and give the quote.
sheldon101
January 22nd, 2011
20:06:35

CHS, I can’t see a place for me to comment on an error in your website. Did I miss a place for comments?

Here’s the issue. The nonsense is by Martin Walker so its no surprise he’s got it wrong. The issue is with the 1988 UK introduction of urabe strain containing MMR.

“SK&F was provided with a blanket indemnity in that contract by the NHS Procurement Directorate.”

That’s not true. The vaccine maker delivered the vaccine to the NHS named distributor. If the distributor screwed things up, without more, the vaccine maker would be liable. So the contract has the NHS indemnify the vaccine maker under these circumstances.

http://vaccineswork.blogspot.c.....emnity.htm

As with other pages on this story on your home page, please make a correction in a different color and list the correction at the top.
Chris
January 22nd, 2011
20:14:14

Rosemary:

Gina – can you explain why it is you think the mentally ill, the autistic and those with learning difficulties should be denied the normal medical treatment and care which others naturally receive?

Gina actually said:

Wakefield and Walker-Smith unnecessarily performed “colonoscopies, colon biopsies and lumbar punctures (“spinal taps”).” Spinal taps are incredibly painful. Wakefield and Walker-Smith were by no mean Nazis, but your characterization above fits their conduct in the Lancet paper research.

Rosemary, I could ask you why you think the “mentally ill, the autistic and those with learning difficulties” should be tortured with unnecessary invasive, painful and risky procedures?

The findings from the GMC were that the procedures on the children were not medically indicated. There is a risk involved with those procedures, and there has to be a very good reason to subject any child to that kind of invasive medical testing.

As opposed to this paper attempting to replicate Wakefield. The human subjects were decided on by the following:

Families of potential subjects were invited to participate if ileocolonoscopy with biopsy was specifically indicated as part of clinical care. Invited children were scheduled for upper and/or lower endoscopic procedures based on clinical imperative. Routine informed consent for clinical procedures was obtained by the gastroenterologist. Informed consent procedures detailed additional research procedures to be performed, and specific written permission was provided by consenting parents and guardians and children capable of providing assent (7 years or older).

As you can see these children were getting medical care, and not being tortured needlessly.
Sullivan
January 22nd, 2011
20:24:53

Chris,

“The findings from the GMC were that the procedures on the children were not medically indicated”

To be precise, the GMC found that these procedures were not always medically indicated. In some cases, some or all of the procedures were indicated. In some cases they were not.

No one objects to people—disabled or not—getting medical care that is indicated. What is offensive here is the cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all approach that Mr. Wakefield applied to these children. It is part of what makes it very clear that this was a research project from the start, not a case-series as he has painted it.
AWOL
January 22nd, 2011
21:08:48

Sheldon here is the full statement ..”blanket indemnity” it was…

• SK&F was provided with a blanket indemnity in that contract by the NHS Procurement Directorate

• the contract was signed up by the backdoor through the North East Thames Regional Health Authority as agent for the NHS Procurement Directorate rather than being a contract directly entered into with the NHS Procurement Directorate which negotiated the contract or the NHS Executive of the time

• there was no Parliamentary scrutiny of this and it seems to have been effected in a manner Ministerially deniable

Sullivan ,below your hypocritical ,do they make made to measure vaccines yet ?last time I looked your 3 month baby would have to weigh 21stone to be within the FDA recommended dose of mercury, by body weight ..yawn

“What is offensive here is the cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all approach that Mr. Wakefield applied to these children.”

As you say below Chris, this only applies if the kids are Autistic .If the kids are N.T. does not apply. yawn!!

“There is a risk involved with those procedures, and there has to be a very good reason to subject any child to that kind of invasive medical testing”

Sullivan it wouldnt matter what conclusions Dr Wakefield would arrive at Deer would lie about it as he has .With nobody questioning Deers credence,concerning the whole affair and,most recently the BMJ articles ,which he cant defend,nor can the BMJ hence the blanket ban…whats the point of coming to a personal conclusion,bit senseles ,is it not??
Rosemary Cousins
January 22nd, 2011
21:14:33

Contrary to popular belief with the few of you, if you were to consult a human rights specialist, you would be informed that a mother together with her chosen physician have the joint right to decide what treatment is best for the child.

The State which includes the GMC does not have authority to ride rough shod over parental rights.

A mother, not the State, is the best person to judge whether or not her child is in pain. The State has an abysmal track record of loving care towards children and they are renowned for selective blindness to basic observations. Even if the State did not have an abysmal track record, the right of a parent overrides that of the State.

Why is it that someone like me would make myself a sitting target from less than compassionate people like you?

Rehearsal.
Chris
January 22nd, 2011
21:37:34

Ooops, sorry for overstating. You are right. The GMC ruling gives the Code number of children who did not have the procedure medically indicated.
Rosemary Cousins
January 22nd, 2011
22:15:17

In their opinion – an opinion which was flawed by fraudalent evidence
Rosemary Cousins
January 22nd, 2011
22:23:49

Contrary to popular belief with the few of you, if you were to consult a human rights specialist, you would be informed that a mother, together with her chosen physician have the joint right to decide what treatment is best for the child.

The State which includes the GMC, does not have authority to ride rough shod over parental rights.

A mother, not the State is the best person to judge whether or not her child is in pain. The State has an abysmal track record of loving care towards children and they are renowned for selective blindness to basic observations. Even if the State did not have an abysmal track record, the right of the parent overrides that of the State.

Why is it that someone like me would make myself a sitting target for less than compassionate people like you?

Rehearsal!
Chris
January 22nd, 2011
22:39:56

Whose opinion? And what fraudulent evidence?

Of course, this whole discourse is silly. It was just a series of case studies, where the outcome for Crohn’s disease was negative, and at no point was the MMR implicated for autism. The now retracted Lancet paper should never have seen the light of day.

It was a poor excuse to put those children through risky medical procedures that literally found nothing (as noted by Dr. Chadwick’s testimony in the US Autism Omnibus proceedings). It is even worse that in the end the data on the children was altered.

The subsequent studies showed that the paper was wrong, and the vaccine that has been used in the USA since 1971 has no association with either Crohn’s or autism. The time many of you folks should have moved on was over five years ago. Get over it already!
sheldon101
January 22nd, 2011
22:47:43

It was just Wakefield before the disciplinary panel. A great doctor’s life and reputation were ruined by his involvement with Wakefield’s weirdness.

Walker-Smith was THE pediatric gastroenterologist in the UK. The standard of proof for the GMC was beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet, the GMC panel found === the most damning is at the end…

e. You caused Child 2 to undergo a,
i. colonoscopy,
Found proved
ii. barium meal and follow-through,
Found proved
which was not clinically indicated,
Found proved
The Panel accepted your own evidence that the child’s condition
was improving at this stage and therefore these investigations
were not clinically indicated. ”

“e. You caused Child 1 to undergo an attempt at colonoscopy when
such an investigation was not clinically indicated,
Found proved
The Panel was satisfied that you considered that the child had the
features of toddler’s diarrhoea and therefore a colonoscopy would
not be clinically indicated.”

“e. You caused Child 3 to undergo a,
i. colonoscopy,
Found proved. The Panel notes the handwritten note on the
letter of 18 July 1996 where Dr Casson records he has
discussed the undertaking of a colonoscopy with you and
Dr Murch.
ii. barium meal and follow-through,
Found proved.
The letter dated 18 July 1996 from you to Dr Wakefield
where you state Child 3 will undergo colonoscopy “followed
by your intensive investigations”, together with the clinical
notes of this Child persuaded the Panel that he had
undergone the barium meal and follow-through and
because he was under your clinical care, you had caused it.
which was not clinically indicated,
Found proved
EXPERTS ON BOTH SIDES, Professor Booth and Dr Miller,
agreed that a colonoscopy (and therefore the barium meal
and follow through) would not be clinically indicated at this
stage.
”
sharon
January 22nd, 2011
23:33:02

AWOL and Rosemary, why so bitter and angry at a simple question? Am I supposed to know something about NHS other than what he says in this forum? Because I have no idea who he is. I only go by what I read here, and this circular argument does indeed come across as nothing more than intellectual exercise.
I was not intending to divert, I was genuinely interested to hear what NHS had to say. He cries on here about Brian Deer not answering his questions, but you both seem to feel the need to step in to act as his running dogs while he remains silent in response to me. This only compounds my suspicion that he is here only to engage with those who want to debate a point that has been made ad nauseum.

Also Rosemary, your comment to me seems to imply that those who may be challenged in the area of communication are not welcome to enter into a debate on this thread. I feel that’s particularly insensitive considering this is site dedicated to Autism.
Sullivan
January 22nd, 2011
23:55:55

Searching around, I found this interesting article on the UK Human Rights blog:

Medical records not as private as they may first appear under human rights law

The conclusion of that article is:

The outcome of Mr Rimmer’s case was similar to the outcome in most such cases; the records of the patients were disclosed and probably would have been even if they did not consent to that disclosure.

Does this mean that the courts are riding roughshod over patients’ rights to confidentiality? In practice, this is not the case. The courts take very seriously the confidentiality of patients’ records, and the decision to disclose is never taken lightly, particularly in cases where the patient has not consented to disclosure.

Whilst records will not be disclosed or disclosed in full in all cases, it does seem perfectly reasonable that the efficient prosecutions of allegedly dodgy doctors and dentists will usually take precedence over the disclosure of their patients’ otherwise confidential medical records. This is in the interests of public protection and therefore well within the exceptions built into Article 8 of the European Convention.

I take privacy issues very seriously. Especially the privacy of children. But I believe the law is clear that the public interest can overcome personal privacy. The GMC did take great effort to insure that the names of the children were not disclosed in the transcripts. They attempted to keep the live discussions from divulging names as well, using “child 1”, “Mrs. 12” and the like.
Sullivan
January 23rd, 2011
00:00:18

“Contrary to popular belief with the few of you, if you were to consult a human rights specialist, you would be informed that a mother, together with her chosen physician have the joint right to decide what treatment is best for the child.”

The government gives great leeway to parents and doctors, as they should. However, a parent and a doctor can not make decisions which impinge on the child’s basic rights. For example, if a parent and physician decide to deny a child live-saving therapy, the government can and has intervened.
sheldon101
January 23rd, 2011
00:06:15

Improvements in surgery and artificial blood have made them less common but there used to be a fair number of cases of Jehovah’s witnesses and blood transfusions that came before the courts.
Sullivan
January 23rd, 2011
00:06:38

“Sullivan ,below your hypocritical ,do they make made to measure vaccines yet ?last time I looked your 3 month baby would have to weigh 21stone to be within the FDA recommended dose of mercury, by body weight ..yawn”

How much mercury in in a the pediatric vaccines given to children today? Answer: basically none.

You make a number of mistakes in the above statement. First off, I believe it is an EPA regulation, not an FDA recommendation that you are referring to. Second, the EPA regulation is for the mercury content a person is chronically exposed to, not a single dose. Third, the recommendations were based on methyl mercury, known to be more toxic than ethyl mercury in vaccines, so the recommendation would be even lower.

I have no problem with them removing mercury from vaccines. I do have a problem with the fear mongering that has gone on before and since.

As to the real question of dosage of vaccines—vaccines usually contain a single virus particle, say of measles, rubella , mumps, or small fractions of a particle, as with pertussis. How would they change the dose by weight? Consider, say, measles in the environment, how many virus particles do you think a person is usually exposed to? Let’s say you were sitting in that waiting room in San Diego when the vaccine-rejectionist mother brought her infected baby in. How many virus particles do you think the other children—including those who got sick—were exposed to?
sharon
January 23rd, 2011
00:41:20

There is a recent Australian case. This year the Victorian court made orders to ensure a 5 year old girl be vaccinated at the request of her father, and against the wishes of the mother.
Gina
January 23rd, 2011
01:03:19

I was’t going to reply to Rosemary’s ridiculous implication that I do not care about the fair medical treatment of the autistc. And since others here have done so, I’d just recover the ground.

But, Rosemary, I want you to know the pitfalls of jumping to such conclusions: I grew up with my autistic great uncle living with us. He had been institutionalized and rceived shock therapy for years. He was prodomenantly non-verbal for most of his life. Most people think of children when autism comes up but I have a much different perspective. What that man endured because he was disabled he will never be able to articulate. But his guardians put him there because doctors told them it was right. Parents don’t always know best. And clearly neithers do doctors. Your assumption was stupid at best and based solely on my differing opinion. That is the epitome of closed-mindedness. If you’re not here open to ideas and dialogue, why are you here?

PS my uncle is now 82 and he is fabulous.
AWOL
January 23rd, 2011
01:12:04

1.@Sullivan
“the records of the patients were disclosed and probably would have been even if they did not consent to that disclosure.”

Rimmer you example;,so far as the debate here is concerned Brian Deer had the medical files of the children which he stole from the Royal Free before he was given Authorization for use in his defence of libel by Judge Eady,I know of 3 Lancet parents who can confirm that Deer had someor all of the medical notes before Eady(B.E.).Why isn’t Deer up for Breach Of Human Rights??Why indeed why??plus all the rest of his crimes??

“How much mercury in in a the pediatric vaccines given to children today? Answer: basically none.”

Not so quick Sulliavan even the mercury free vaccines have mercury in them called,Excipients ;excipients are substances used in the production of vaccines which are not actualy added ingredients in the vaccine.

These excipients, including mercury, remain in trace amounts in the vaccine.

There is NO safe level of mercury or it’s derivative, thimerosal.

Currently, according to the CDC, (I refer to the FDAand not the EFA because info is easier found in America than in Europe)the following vaccines which are marketed as mercury free, actually do have mercury in them (less than 3mcgs per vaccine, but still dangerous to human health).

DTaP (Tripedia),DTaP/HIB (TriHIBit) ,DT (Sanofi) ,Hep B (Engerix-B),
Hep A/Hep B (Twinrix) ,Influenza (Fluarix, Flulaval, Fluvirin and Fluzone brands),Japanese Encephalitis (JE-Vax) ,Meningococcal (Menomune),DT (Decavac) ,DT (Massachusetts).

There will be additional vaccines which are also available in the UK which also contain trace amounts of thimerosal and are marketed as ‘thimerosal free’.
For Further CDC, Excipients

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pu.....able-2.pdf

“ Third, the recommendations were based on methyl mercury, known to be more toxic than ethyl mercury in vaccines, so the recommendation would be even lower”

Methylmercury and its past use as a fungicide is well documented. You try to lie, that this form of mercury is much different than ethylmercury, the type found in vaccines as you rightly say above . This is in spite of the fact that ethylmercury was used for the same purpose. In fact Sullivan , Ethylmercurric Chloride, the material used as a fungicide (which was banned long ago) is what is used to make thimerosal. This can be easily confirmed by looking in a Merck Index. We now know that this type of mercury deposits twice as much inorganic mercury in the brains of primates as compared to equal doses of methylmercury Inorganic mercury, following the de-methylation of organic mercury, has been identified as the primary neurotoxic agent in primate studies ..I could go on and the least mercury in vaccines the better ,even better no vaccines at all is the ideal for me.

“How would they change the dose by weight?”

Well they cant can they? so whats the point of debating that one ,very logical just ban vaccines …AND

“How many virus particles do you think the other children—including those who got sick—were exposed to?”

Well now how didn’t I fall for that one…yawn!!

God its no good still bored??

yawn!!
Sullivan
January 23rd, 2011
02:08:05

Deer isn’t up for breach of human rights because he did t breach human rights. Pretty simple there. He didn’t need a court’s permission to investigate medical matters which are in the public’s interest.

As to mercury, the levels in current vaccines are way below the levels that supposedly caused an ” epidemic”. For Wakefield’s monkey studies they tested vaccines at parts per billion, over 1000 times lower than before. That’s at the level found in food.

If mercury had been the cause of an autism epidemic, we would now be at safe levels. Since autism rates show no signs of dropping with this now lower level of mercury, we know that mercury isn’t the cause of the rise. Add to that the recent study that shows no increased risk of autism with mercury exposure, and it’s time to put that hypothesis to rest.
sheldon101
January 23rd, 2011
03:31:47

Let us pretend that in 2003 Deer nefariously broke into the records office of the Royal Free hospital and using a metal chain (to ensure the right distance for good pictures) took photographs of the kids records using his cigarette lighter hiding minox camera.

So he broke the criminal law. And let us pretend that he broke it again when he used that information for his stories for Channel 4 and Sunday Times. And that the parents of the kids can sue him civilly for breaching the privacy of the kids.

Bad Brian, Bad Brian Deer.

The GMC obtains the records using his statutory powers so they have them legally. I haven’t heard of any claim that the records aren’t what they purport to be. So bad Brian Deer’s actions aren’t relevant.

And then bad Brian Deer writes articles based on the records made public by the GMC. And even Brian Deer was bad in getting the records in the first place, it doesn’t effect his use of them in the articles.

It comes down to this. If the parents have a problem—- then they can sue or try to interest the police. Wakefield doesn’t have an interest.

But I can understand why Wakefield apologists try this idiocy. It is just another attempt to deflect attention from the blatantly obvious fraud.
sheldon101
January 23rd, 2011
03:37:43

I haven’t looked into the UK story. I think the UK went thimerosal free (except for influenza vaccine) earlier than the US. I think that’s true for Canada too.

Some DT vaccines given as booster if you step on a nail are still in 10 dose vials with thimerosal.

But there just isn’t any thimerosal used as a preservative in the routinely given vaccines for kids in Canada and the US. The latest expiry date was 2001. One DTaP vaccine, Tripedia, uses thimerosal in making the vaccine, it is removed, leaving only a trace. I don’t know how popular Tripedia is in the US. I don’t think it is used much. In Canada, a DTaP-IPV vaccine is used.
daedalus2u
January 23rd, 2011
03:39:30

Sullivan, there you have it. How can Brian Deer possibly recognize human rights violations by Wakefield if Brian Deer has not commited human rights violations himself?

That is all that Wakefield’s minions are saying, that it takes one to know one.
sheldon101
January 23rd, 2011
03:50:50

So Wakefield doesn’t have a legal interest in what Bad Brian Deer to get the information in 2004. So he doesn’t have any interest today.

There’s also another problem. If Brian Deer did something bad, that was before the ruling in the libel lawsuit. So where are the parents complaints from back then? And did they complain and have them rejected? I’m betting that someone looked into the issue years ago and got nowhere.
Sullivan
January 23rd, 2011
06:10:36

Sheldon101,

The thimerosal exposures in the UK were never as high as in the US. And, yet, the reported autism rate in the UK was much higher back then (about 1% in the UK compared to about .67 or less in the US).

One of the big facts against the mercury hypothesis.
sheldon101
January 23rd, 2011
07:23:09

I didn’t know there was a difference in autism rates. I knew that Canada and European countries had quietly switched to single dose vaccines earlier than the loud US decision.
sheldon101
January 23rd, 2011
07:38:58

daedelus, assuming that Brian Deer did anything that violated laws or rules or merely was given material by others then any of Deer’s sins were against the parents and not Wakefield.

Once more, the issue is between legal and ethical authorities in the UK, the parents and Brian Deer. Despite what Wakefield or the parents want others to think, Wakefield has no legal or ethical standing to complain.

Perhaps the parents made official complaints or went to the police, but all I know is that one of them appeared and made brief submissions opposing Deer’s motion to inspect the medical records in the hands of Wakefield in the libel lawsuit.

As to your logic, it doesn’t seem to work. A cop can’t recognize murder unless he’s murdered himself? I guess there would be more live fire exercises in police training.
ChildHealthSafety
January 23rd, 2011
09:07:13

Sullivan January 23rd, 2011 02:08:05

How surprising this thread is continuing!

Just so people can see how misleading Sullivan and friends Sheldon101, Gina, and Sharon can be, here is an example from Sullivan:=

As to mercury, the levels in current vaccines are way below the levels that supposedly caused an ” epidemic”.

There is no safe level of mercury. The US Environmental Protection Agency has a “Reference Dose” – not a safe level. The UK Committee on toxicity has a limit for a “tolerable limit”.

These limite do not mean there is no damage caused by the mercury in these organo-mercuric compounds. These limits are set as the levels at which we cannot measure the immediate effects – and not that there are no effects.

Mercury containing Thiomersal has never been clinically trialled for safety for use in any pharmaceuticals.

It was recommended to be taken out of contact lens solution and cosmetics like lipsticks following the European Medicines Agency warning that it causes people who did not previously have any allergies to develop allergies.

So here we are not even talking about brain damage caused by the neurotoxicity of mercury.

Got any double blind placebo controlled randomised clinical trials proving thiomersal has no acute affects and got any long term follow up proving there are no delayed or chronic effects?

Remember vaccines are given to healthy people who in first world economies are unlikely to suffer serious harm from the infectious disease concerned, so you have to be practically certain the vaccine causes no harm.

And of course for that matter there have been no double blind placebo controlled randomised clinical trials carried out on any pediatric vaccine and health officials fail to monitor adverse effects safely and fail to carry out studies comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated for total health outcomes.

So if the vaccines are safe as health official claim [except they do cause autistic conditions as various US officials and agencies have confirmed] then where is the proper evidence – there have been no proper safety studies carried out.

Conclusion – Governments lie about vaccine safety and they do not know what they are talking about because they simply do not have the evidence upon which to make their claims.

OK Sullivan and friends – over to you. Let’s see you all deny that lot and give us all the benefit of your spin.
John Fryer Chemist
January 23rd, 2011
10:12:16

Sullivan

You say the mercury hypothesis needs dropping but in fact, it is not hypothesis but fact that mercury compounds are both cumulative and do destroy brain cells.

Arguments of: In test tubes and faulty research recently that tries to tell us that mercury is quickly eliminated are just further examples of ignoring evidence and bad science.

Further the removal of one brain destroyer has been more than compensated for by the addition of other spurious and possible lesser brain destroyers but at higher levels. (aluminium)

As to the fact that UK has less mercury given to infants with their vaccines but more autism this is simply not true.

If you calculate the amounts of mercury given when very young the UK figure matches very well the relative number of autism cases historically.

UK give multiple vaccines in quick succession at 2, 3 and 4 months and many of these had more mercury than the USA equivalents.

To drop the notion that a brain destroyer is not a brain destroyer is only good for those supporting all the doctors, governments and industry that increased dosage of mercury for all infants from 1990 and later years. (Neil Halsey for example single handedly bringing in the one day mercury vaccine for USA children and a Scottish person responsible for the advance UK programme both of which started at around 1990 or so)

We need transparency in what is in vaccines and transparency in testing supposed non active brain destroying chemicals and not the current usage of brain destroying chemicals as the control and then saying vaccines are safe as they kill 6 people without the vaccine and only 4 with the vaccine component added. Ergo: We can uise the vaccine safely. Such work by vaccine companies is a licence to KILL condoned by government.

Now this is CLEAR fraud and not good for the health of our children.

I still insist that when receiving my vaccines in the 50’s the safety of 1 adverse event in 50 million was right.

Todays one child in 2 000 that dies when healthy and one in 100 with autism is DISTURBING until we find answers that are not more lies.

The Deer vs Wakefield issue is a distraction from todays total medical catastrophe for the newborn for which no authority will dare to admit they know why it happened and because of denial mean the slaughter and injuries continue in 2011.

We have been there before and we will go there again until people are allowed to publish damning research even if 95 per cent faulty or whatever.

One piece of research has an impact of close to zero but has been elevated to the level of total insanity only matched by the deaths and injuries to babies often who dont even get born alive.
Rosemary Cousins
January 23rd, 2011
11:00:29

Sharon – I have nothing against vaccinations. Both my children have been vaccinated, as have I. The parents of the vaccine damaged children had nothing against vaccinations for they took their children to be vaccinated. And I cannot comment in detail about the Australian case you speak of because I don’t know the details.

But I will say that when I speak of ‘mothers’ having rights – I use the word lightly – and of course fathers have rights also. Rights which override the supposed right of the State – as you have now demonstrated with your example case in Australia.

The case to which you refer, in Australia, illustrates that the parents have the right to choose. Parents are only able to make an informed choice, in the best interests of their child, if all facts are before them to enable them to make the decision.

For example if a couple has two children, one with the genetic predisposition to mitochondrial dysfunction, the other with no such problems – the couple may choose specific vaccines for one and not the other.

That is my understanding of what I have read about mitochondrial dysfunction, anyway. I suppose only a geneticist would be able to say whether I am spot with my interpretation of what I have read or whether I am missing the point.

If the parents disagree with each other – and one parent would like to risk vaccine damage for the child susceptible to mitochondrial dysfunction – then of course the case would need to go to court. The judge will base his decision, then, on the word of the medical expert which in this case is the geneticist.

Which brings me to the point that the GMC should have brought into Dr Andrew Wakefield’s case the medical expertise of a geneticist.

Did the GMC do that? Because I think you will find that if they did not, then they,the GMC, being part of the State, have violated Dr Wakefield’s human rights.
Rosemary Cousins
January 23rd, 2011
11:22:10

Sharon – I have to say again that I am amazed that someone who claims to have an understanding of semi-intellectual mind games and narcissism has no understanding that bitterness and anger are a derivative (for want of a better word) of loss and grief.

To imply that you yourself are immune to grief and the feelings of loss that encompass that grief, puts me in the mind of a very cold individual. May I politely suggest that you direct your claimed psychological expertise to yourself rather than to others.
sharon
January 23rd, 2011
11:45:19

Rosemary how have you concluded I am immune to grief and feelings of loss? To the contrary actually, if you read my blog you will see that is not the case at all. I’m really not sure how you have deduced that from anything I said, but apologise if you feel I was insensitive to any loss you feel.

As for the Australian case, it is my understanding that the father was able to demonstrate there was no sound reason for the mother to object on the grounds of health concerns, or otherwise. I did try to leave a link earlier but it failed, and I didnt try again, however a google search will bring it up pronto if you are interested.
David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E.
January 23rd, 2011
12:48:41

“Deer has discredited everything he has written thanks to his non reply to explain glaring inaccuracies in his latest article.”

You delusional twat!

Go on, bugger off.There’s real people debating stuff here. You’re a total irrelevance.
AWOL
January 23rd, 2011
13:24:57

@ Sullivan

“DON’T`MENTION THE WAR”
Without mentioning “The War” (Deers non defence of the GMC questions)This lbrb site is becoming more similar to “Faulty Towers” every day without the humour.

1.“Deer isn’t up for breach of human rights because he did t breach human rights. Pretty simple there. He didn’t need a court’s permission to investigate medical matters which are in the public’s interest.”

That’s not what the Lancet parents know.
You should re- phrase, Pharma interest for public interest. You sound thrilled that the Human Rights of the children were chucked out the window so a two bit journo could finger the papers at his leisure in his flat and wherever else, Deer , probably has a copy in his iphone. Has apple done an “App” for the Lancet 12 medical files, yet Sullivan?
As for epidemic you admit to that Sullivan, thanks. Yes, this is going to remain like this for at least the next 17 years with numbers increasing due to the damage done by the killer vaccines, full of mercury and goodness knows what else.Not forgetting the increase of vaccines now given to children . Then you have the panic Jab(swine flu) packed solid with mercury ,flu jab,cervarix,etc ,reduce it from others , put it in another, and increase the dosage.. s-h-i-f-f-f-t-t-t-y???

@Sheldon
“Deer nefariously broke into the records office of the Royal Free hospital”
I never said by what means he stole the documents, but he technically stole them ,look up the definition of stole ,before holding forth please.
“So he broke the criminal law.”
Music to my ears,Yes Deer did indeed break the law.
“Bad Brian, Bad Brian Deer”
Your right again ,but if I were to mention the” War “ I would be banned..thanks
“I haven’t heard of any claim that the records aren’t what they purport to be”

Again without mentioning “The War” as above ” (Deers non defence of the GMC questions) your probably right ,without Deer coming back to defend the articles ,we don’t have his side of the argument but from the Lancet 12 side big problems, full of lies by Deer in the GMC articles.
“blatantly obvious fraud”

Exactly Deer is a fraud.
(Mercury) “it is removed, leaving only a trace”

I knew you would argue that and no links ,hence my angle with excipient`s Sullivan trying the same tacts.

Daedelus
“How can Brian Deer possibly recognize human rights violations by Wakefield if Brian Deer has not commited human rights violations himself?”
Deer is the only person on the planet to complain ,no parents, the kids,no other health body complained,and when he was treating kids related to medical experts , bit strange that ?is it not?surely people in the medical profession would have smelt a rat??if the parents never..

Sheldon

“If Brian Deer did something bad, that was before the ruling in the libel lawsuit. So where are the parents complaints from back then?”

You on your side would never hear of the multitude of complaints’, FOI
requests, all knocked back..,so far. So,far with Deers recent diatribe in the GMC papers I know of least several complaints from the parents to the GMC.Sad times for the world indeed, lets hope Wiki leaks lets bits out. fingers crossed.

Sullivan

1.The thimerosal exposures in the UK were never as high as in the US. And, yet, the reported autism rate in the UK was much higher back then (about 1% in the UK compared to about .67 or less in the US).
I assume you base on the 2004 study These studies were carried out in the United States, in Great Britain, in Denmark and Sweden. These studies covered hundreds of thousands of individuals, children, in these populations. They compared systematically in different ways whether you received vaccine with no thimerosal, with some thimerosal, with more thimerosal, and they looked at the relationship of those experiences with the development of autism. Uniformly, the best of those studies all show no association between receiving vaccine of different amounts with thimerosal or without and the development of autism. It was the absence of that association which was the main reason for reaching the conclusion that the evidence points to no association between vaccines and autism.

Sharon,

“Rosemary how have you concluded I am immune to grief and feelings of loss?”

If you were genuine with that comment,you would not be here defending Deer and all pharma stands for…which is death and destruction of children through vaccines.

.
sheldon101
January 23rd, 2011
14:31:05

Rosemary, you don’t need to be a geneticist or even have high school biology (me) to research the issue. You just need to realize that for almost any medical condition, there will be a group on the internet.

The US vaccine compensation program paid Hannah Poling compensation. Under similar circumstances they are likely to do the same again. That’s despite a lot of questioning of the concession. And that doesn’t mean that these kids shouldn’t be vaccinated.

“THE UMDF garners national media attention when the Scientific and Medical Advisory Board issues a statement on vaccines and mitochondrial disease. The statement was in response to numerous questions about vaccine safety and mitochondrial disease. The questions arose from a lawsuit against the Federal Government by the Poling family. The Poling’s claimed that their daughter, Hannah, who
suffered an underlying mitochondrial disorder, developed autism after undergoing a series of vaccinations. The UMDF’s SMAB stated “there are no scientific studies documenting that childhood vaccinations cause mitochondrial diseases or worsen mitochondrial disease symptoms. In the absence of scientific evidence, the UMDF cannot confirm any association between mitochondrial diseases and vaccines”.

From the 2007-2008 Annual Report of the United Mitochondrial Disease Foundation

http://www.umnnual_report_2007.....jxMCKQdUQg

By the way, compensation wasn’t paid because vaccines caused or contributed to autism. It was paid because there was (according to the US government) a plausible biological mechanism linking vaccines to the worsening of her condition which resulted in autistic-like symptoms. Autistic-like.

Wakefield’s research was into the genetic causes of ASD. So I really doubt that the GMC called a geneticist. Of course Wakefield could have called one, just like he could have called the parents (who wanted to testify on his behalf) and he could have called co-authors of the paper or others at the Royal Free or he could have called experts on research ethics. Interestingly enough, none of the 3 doctors called any witnesses.
sheldon101
January 23rd, 2011
14:32:48

Last paragraph should begin “Wakefield’s research WASN’T”
Rosemary Cousins
January 23rd, 2011
15:04:56

Of course we all have a right to voice an opinion as to whether or not our neighbours should have their children vaccinated but we have no moral right to insist they do. Such is the law.

In the case of warring parents, all steps must be taken to ensure that when the case is heard in court, the ultimate medical expert witness provides a statement, to the Judge, as to the genetic predispostion of the child in question.

Without all relevant information before the Judge, to enable him to make a decision in the child’s best interests, you will end up with a situation similar to that of Dr Wakefield and the GMC whereby his conviction was based on fraudulent evidence.
daedalus2u
January 23rd, 2011
17:30:55

Sheldon, it was meant to be nonsensical, I was trying to be humorous.

Rosemary, Wakefield had the opportunity to present any and all evidence at the GMC hearing. He presented nothing. He presented nothing to dispute or refute the evidence that was presented.

The law doesn’t specify what is “moral”, it specifies what is “legal”. Morality is a personal decision, I think it is immoral for a parent to not vaccinate their child against medical advice, even if they have the legal authority to do so. I consider it to be a form of child abuse. I also think it violates the implied social contract that parents have with each other and with the rest of society to raise the next generation to be healthy and responsible adults.

I think it is immoral to be unwilling to accept the de minimus harm from vaccinating an otherwise healthy child which then jeopardizes herd immunity and so poses grave risks on the health and lives of those who cannot be vaccinated.

An adult choosing to not vaccinate themselves and only risking their own health (as for example by rejecting tetanus vaccination) is not immoral, morality having to do with interactions with other individuals, it is merely stupid. A parent not vaccinating their otherwise healthy child for communicable diseases like MMR is both immoral (because of the effects on herd immunity and their child) and stupid (because the risks from infection to their child outweigh the de minimus risk from vaccination).

It is both immoral and stupid, even if it is legal. That it is immoral and stupid can’t be changed. That it is legal can be changed.

I have every legal and moral right to insist that parents who do not vaccinate their otherwise healthy child against communicable diseases are being immoral and stupid. I have every moral and legal right to work to change the law such that refusal to vaccinate for communicable diseases according to medical advice does not remain legal. The question for me is does changing the legality of it cause people to do things that are even more immoral and even more stupid and even more harmful? That question is very difficult for me because anti-vaxers don’t base their actions on an understanding of reality and so are unpredictable.
Rosemary Cousins
January 23rd, 2011
18:29:55

Daedalus

The entire structure of the Human Rights Charter was founded on morality.

A man is innocent until proven guilty – that is the law.

Dr Wakefield was not proven guilty. He was accused and convicted of wrong doing by the corrupt GMC.

Had he have stood in the dock in a regular court of law, the case would have been thrown out.
Drive-by comment
January 23rd, 2011
19:19:55

Rosemary says: ‘Had he have stood in the dock in a regular court of law, the case would have been thrown out.’

So why didn’t he? Why didn’t he appeal to the courts over his GMC conviction (against a criminal standard of proof) for dishonesty and conspiracy to assault autistic children?

He had that right. Did he take it? No. Now he cant and his conviction stands for all time.

Did he call any witness to the GMC hearing? Any parent, fellow doctor, nurse, scientist? No.

Why did he start a libel action against Deer, then try to have it put on hold, so he could tell people he was suing but not actually do it? And then why did he abandon it after a judge laid into him for trying to gag the press, and after he had spent about $2m in costs, and send Deer a check?

What’s your evidence Rosemary?
sheldon101
January 23rd, 2011
20:17:24

Bizzare.
Julian Frost
January 23rd, 2011
21:16:09

Rosemary:

A man is innocent until proven guilty – that is the law.

Dr Wakefield was not proven guilty. He was accused and convicted of wrong doing by the corrupt GMC.

Wrong, I’m afraid. Wakefield had over 30 charges against him “found proven”. He WAS found guilty. Many of the charges were “Admitted, and found proven” i.e. Wakefield pled guilty to the charges.
Dawn
January 23rd, 2011
21:59:20

@John Fryer Chemist: well, let’s start with the fact that 10 of the 12 authors disclaimed the paper and its results in (IIRC) 2008 when they discovered that the lab results were fraudulently changed from normal to abnormal. You can go from there.

@CHS: yes, thimerosal was removed from contact lens solustions because people were developing allergies to it after years of use and, since other solutions that were antibacterial had been developed, thimerosal was not needed. The other solutions are more expensive, but less likely to cause allergies.

My daughter developed an allergy to strawberries after years of eating them and foods flavored with strawberry juice. Should I now demand all those food flavored with strawberry juice be taken off the market to protect my daughter and others like her? There are other flavorings that can be used, after all.

I still can’t believe these idiots are going off about thimerosal. We had it in our vaccines, we had it slopped all over our open wounds when injured (and yeah, THERE it was going directly into the blood). We used it to paint ourselves when we wanted to play cowboys and indians so the indians would have red faces. The levels of autism were not any different. AND THE MMR NEVER HAD THIMEROSAL IN IT ANYWAY!!

And I wish AWOL, CHS and others would learn about the dose making the poison…
Rosemary Cousins
January 23rd, 2011
22:25:48

Dawn – yes and look at the state of you now

Fly by night – sorry I mean drive by – I refer you to the fraudulent GMC who will offer you relentless explanations which should keep you buzzing

Julian Frost – the king of opinion – your opinion does not surpass medical science.
Julian Frost
January 23rd, 2011
22:51:36

@ Rosemary:

Julian Frost – the king of opinion – your opinion does not surpass medical science.

Says the commenter who called the GMC corrupt and claimed that had Wakefield faced charges in a regular court the case would have been thrown out.
Irony Meter go BOOMM!!
Dawn, the coauthors retracted their authorship in 2004, shortly after Deer’s first expose.
ChildHealthSafety
January 23rd, 2011
23:01:22

Julian Frost January 23rd, 2011 21:16:09

Wakefield had over 30 charges against him “found proven”. .... Many of the charges were “Admitted, and found proven” i.e. Wakefield pled guilty to the charges.

LOL - scraping the barrel a bit here.

Like where he was found guilty of being a licensed medical practitioner? Looks like all licensed doctors must be struck off immediately. They are all guilty.

1. At all material times you were,

a. A UK registered medical practitioner,

Admitted and found proved

b. Employed by the Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine,
initially as a Senior Lecturer in the Departments of Medicine and
Histopathology and from 1 May 1997 as a Reader in
Experimental Gastroenterology,

Admitted and found proved

c. An Honorary Consultant in Experimental Gastroenterology at the Royal Free Hospital;

Admitted and found proved
ChildHealthSafety
January 23rd, 2011
23:08:14

Dawn January 23rd, 2011 21:59:20

Should I now demand all those food flavored with strawberry juice be taken off the market to protect my daughter and others like her?

Only if you have evidence it is a sensitisation agent. Do you?

Do you think foods containing strawberry juice should carry a warning that it is an allergen to protect your daughter? And if so what have you done and are doing about it?

Nothing? If so that makes me wonder about everything else you say if you are not taking steps to protect your daughter.
ChildHealthSafety
January 23rd, 2011
23:24:44

Julian Frost January 23rd, 2011 22:51:36

Dawn, the coauthors retracted their authorship in 2004, shortly after Deer’s first expose.

Wrong. One sentence was retracted. The authors did not retract the paper or their authorship.

The retraction wss headed “Retraction of an Interpretation”.

“Interpretation. We identified associated gastrointestinal disease and developmental regression in a group of previously normal children, which was generally associated in time with possible environmental triggers.”

Nothing else was retracted. And as a matter of logic you cannot retract an interpretation of a possibility [ie. here of “environmental triggers”].

So the retraction was meaningless and no doubt the authors realised they were retracting nothing but doing so got them off the hook in the public eye.
sharon
January 23rd, 2011
23:33:57

@ AWOL, I’d really like to hear the throught process on your statement to me above as it seems inherently disjointed and unreasonable. Actually on the other hand dont bother, I really don’t give a shit.
Gina
January 23rd, 2011
23:48:07

@CHS: I’ve said nothing misleading. Got proof? Cite it or go scratch.

@Rosemary: you’re distorting comments and confusing basic concepts by design as it seems. I don’t know what you’re even doing here if it’s not to learn or educate. Worst yet you call the GMC corrupt without an ounce of evidence. You clearly protect Wakefield’s professional interests intensely while maligning other professional reputations in the process. Do you not see your own hypocracy?

@AWOL: put the tin foil back on.
sheldon101
January 23rd, 2011
23:59:03

CHS: If I look at your website, will I see the retraction of the statement that MMR vaccine makers were given blanket immunity?

And where can I make a comment about the error on your website?
sheldon101
January 24th, 2011
00:18:54

CHS, you stopped too early

”
‘2. Your Honorary Consultant appointment was subject to a stipulation that you would not have any involvement in the clinical management of patients;
Found proved
The Panel has accepted the wording of the job description and the letter of employment (contract) sent to you, which show clearly that you would not be involved in a clinical management role with patients.

In the May 2010 sanctions decision
”
The Panel has already found proved that Dr Wakefield’s Honorary Consultant appointment was subject to a stipulation that he would not have any involvement in the clinical management of patients. On five occasions (child 2, 4, 5, 12 and 7) he ordered investigations on children, when he had no paediatric qualifications, and in contravention of the limitations on his appointment. The Panel considered this alone constituted a breach of trust of patients and employers alike.
”
AWOL
January 24th, 2011
00:20:25

sheldon

“CHS: If I look at your website, will I see the retraction of the statement that MMR vaccine makers were given blanket immunity?”

It would be more appropriate if you would donate to CHF,and give a written apology forth with…IT IS CAST IN STONE

With respect to the indemnity offered by the DoH to UK manufacturers, Professor Salisbury has both denied and acknowledged its existence. A series of emails from Professor Salisbury have been brought to our attention:

On Sept 13th 2006, Professor Salisbury states:

“as has been stated on innumerable occasions, there was no immunity/indemnity given to MMR manufacturers”

Later on the 23rd of March 2007 he states:

“We have found that North East Thames District Health Authority (that no longer exists) agreed with at least one MMR vaccine manufacturer to indemnify them against outcomes that were consequences of failure by We can find no further evidence of any other indemnification with regard to MMR vaccine made by North East Thames District Health Authority.”

And then in an email sent on 3rd April 2007 he states:

“In the contract between NHS Procurement Directorate, acting by its agent NETRHA, and Smith Kline & French (SKF), there is a paragraph on indemnity to SK&F:”

“NHS shall indemnify SK&F against any proven loss which SK&F shall suffer as a result of any act or omission of the Nominated Distributor in connection with the performance or non performance of this Agreement where such act or omission appears to be within the scope of the Nominated Distributor’s authority as agent of NHS provided that SK&F shall immediately notify NHS of any claim under the provisions of this clause”

The indemnity is an “all cause” indemnity. Clearly the JCVI and the UK government understood at least one of the MMR manufacturers to be indemnified when marketing their MMR product. This is confirmed in the unambiguous JCVI minutes of May 7th 1993:

‘SKB continued to sell the Urabe strain vaccine without liability.’
ChildHealthSafety
January 24th, 2011
01:23:26

sheldon101 January 24th, 2011 00:18:54

“CHS, you stopped too early”

Wrong. It was answering the allegation Wakefield admitted numerous charges of professional misconduct when that was and remains untrue.

So does your posting a point wholly irrelevant to what was stated amount to trolling?
ChildHealthSafety
January 24th, 2011
01:29:09

sheldon101 January 23rd, 2011 23:59:03

CHS: If I look at your website, will I see the retraction of the statement that MMR vaccine makers were given blanket immunity?

No. The auppliers were. The indemnity covered Pluserix MMR distributed through the official distributor and not Pluserix MMR distributed through any other means such as direct sales by the manufacturer.

You choose not to agree.

And where can I make a comment about the error on your website?

Nowhere. Weren’t you banned for trolling?
ChildHealthSafety
January 24th, 2011
15:11:55

Gina January 23rd, 2011 23:48:07

@CHS: I’ve said nothing misleading. Got proof? Cite it or go scratch

Here is an example:-

Gina January 22nd, 2011 16:40:46

Medicine IS science. Are we all in agreement?

Medicine, as Dr. William Osler put it, is an “art of
probabilities,” or at best, a “science of uncertainty”.

“The Quotable Osler” Silverman ME, Murray TJ, Bryan CS, eds.
Philadelphia, Pa.: American College of Physicians; 2002.
John Fryer Chemist
January 24th, 2011
18:20:59

At Sullivan

The arguments about fraud must include all 13 scientists involved.

Why is Andrew Wakefield singled out?

The old research in the glare of recent publicity, future work is perhaps of a poor quality but typical of much published research. Often hasty, not checked and full of glaring errors if people take the trouble to look, which sadly they rarely do.

There are 76 medical drugs under current scutiny by the French scientists and doctors of which two are hot news for the known harm done to hundreds of patients.

This research produced one catastrophe but the 76 under investigation have killed hundreds and possibly thousands of patients.

What concerns me is the over condemnation of Andrew Wakefield selectively over his dozen collaborators.

His motives are clear in that he is going after harm and thought he had a strong lead on one cause of autism. This is now accepted as largely incorrect.

He has moved on to other causes more likely to be involved and his and the others involved did put MMR under the spotlight. Thimerosal never will be proved safe to inject into anyone.

The whole of the medical profession can be summed up by the faults real and imaginary in this case.

Large sums of money do only mean that you are over loyal to the person with the purse strings.

The drug companies pay huge sums to many doctors, politicians et al and transparency is vital.

The huge sums paid to Andrew Wakefield alone make any work by him subject to close scrutiny but likewise this applies to hundreds of other unrelated workers.

Thomas Verstraeten and his top job in a vaccine company is but one counter example.

The level of farce of this case was brought home to me when the Medical board charged him with being a doctor to which he of course pleaded guilty.

This is the Alice in Wonderland World of Witch Hunting hat has put this person out of a job out of his country and cost him much more than any money he unwisely chose to take.

If only the same rules were applied to everyone in the medical, legal, political world we would have a much better idea of harm from chemicals.

It is hard to believe even in France we have recently just one case of agricultural chemicals known to have cause cancer and even here it is not the pesticide but the solvent that gets the blame. A simple change of solvent and it will be another 50 years to get at harm to humans from chemicals designed to kill every living insect, fungus et al but totally harmless to man. If you believe this you are in the same camp as those that believe the brain destroying deliberate addition to childrens vaccines is totally safe.
sheldon101
January 24th, 2011
21:07:42

Re: Indemnity for MMR

There was a problem with the way the comments ate the link to my blog posting. So I’ve made a tinyurl http://tinyurl.com/indemnity-truth and if that doesn’t work google “vaccines work urabe mmr – no indemnity” without quotes.

The key clause of the contract is:

“NHS shall indemnify SK&F against any proven loss which SK&F shall suffer as a result of any act or omission of the Nominated Distributor in connection with the performance or non performance of this Agreement where such act or omission appears to be within the scope of the Nominated Distributor’s authority as agent of NHS provided that SK&F shall immediately notify NHS of any claim under the provisions of this clause.”

That’s pretty straightforward. I think was a standard clause in NHS contracts. The indemnity is limited to actions or omissions by the distributor. Does it apply if there is a piece of finger in a sealed vial of vaccine? No. So it isn’t a blanket indemnity.

And CHS’ claim was that it was a blanket indemnity.

CHS’s answer is to say that my information is wrong—- with the implication that if it is correct, he will make the correction.

Tell me when the correction has been made.
Sullivan
January 24th, 2011
21:43:12

ChildHealthSafety—Has this really devolved into quibbling about whether medicine is a science? Having had it demonstrated time and again that your positions about Mr. Wakefield are unsupportable, that the man did engage in fraud and unethical behavior, you now try to discredit people in this discussion with claims that they are wrong about whether medicine is a science or not?

Instead of a quote, how about a definition?

med·i·cine (md-sn)
n.
1.
a. The science of diagnosing, treating, or preventing disease and other damage to the body or mind.
b. The branch of this science encompassing treatment by drugs, diet, exercise, and other nonsurgical means.
2. The practice of medicine.
3. An agent, such as a drug, used to treat disease or injury.
4. Something that serves as a remedy or corrective: medicine for rebuilding the economy; measures that were harsh medicine.
5.
a. Shamanistic practices or beliefs, especially among Native Americans.
b. Something, such as a ritual practice or sacred object, believed to control natural or supernatural powers or serve as a preventive or remedy.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/medicine " rel="nofollow">“the art or science of restoring or preserving health”

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Medicine" rel="nofollow">
Medicine is a branch of health science concerned with restoring and maintaining health and wellness. Broadly, it is the practical science of preventing and curing diseases. However, medicine often refers more specifically to matters dealt with by physicians and surgeons.

It is perfectly reasonable to call medicine a science.

It is perfectly reasonable to call Andrew Wakefield’s work a fraud.
AWOL
January 24th, 2011
21:50:12

Go to….

http://www.dh.gov.uk/ab/JCVI/DH_095050

Then …..

“Download minutes 1993”

http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_cons.....117403.pdf

AND QUOTE…

“whilst SKB continued to sell the Urabe strain vaccine without liability.”

That looks like a blanket to me ?

Mind you,” horse to water “I cant make you drink it.Just like the BMJ papers when you want to believe Mr Deer at all times is correct …Emperors, and new clothes, spring to mind ..must come as a shock?
ChildHealthSafety
January 24th, 2011
21:55:34

sheldon101 January 24th, 2011 21:07:42

Re: Indemnity for MMR ..... The key clause of the contract” .... I think was a standard clause in NHS contracts. The indemnity is limited to actions or omissions by the distributor. .... And CHS’ claim was that it was a blanket indemnity. Tell me when the correction has been made.

The indemnity indemnifies against all acts of the distributor including lawful ones [all causes], which includes distributing the vaccine. That triggers no-fault liability for the supplier under The Consumer Protection Act 1987. That law was passed by the English Parliament the year before the contract was signed.

Provided the supplier had disclosed to the UK licensing authority all the problems with Trivirix in Canada, which it appears from an ABPI statement was done, the supplier could have no liability in negligence.

The clause is not standard. Normally the customer is indemnified by the supplier. In this contract the NHS is not – more than a bit unusual.

No correction necessary.
Sullivan
January 25th, 2011
00:04:15

While people go back and forth on the question of “liability” vs. “blanket liability”, perhaps those who have followed the UK MMR-with-Urabe-strain-mumps story can point me to where Andrew Wakefield made use of the information the “whistleblower” gave him.

I’d hate to think that Mr. Wakefield sat on that information for 10 years, while he pushed his own, incorrect, hypothesis of MMR causing injury.
sheldon101
January 25th, 2011
06:03:03

CHS —so you’re saying that there was no direct relationship between the vaccine maker and the person getting vaccinated which would allow the person getting vaccinated to sue the vaccine maker?

If that’s true, then did the MMR causes autism lawsuit kids sue the distributor or the vaccine maker? So the lawsuit was really against the NHS and not the vaccine makers? And what MMR vaccines was he suing the urabe or the Jeryl Lynn?

Which was after 1992. I think that was the case. So were this second set of MMR maker’s indemnified as well? After all there was UK MMR litigation from 1996 or earlier until legal aid recognized it couldn’t win in 2003.

Did the second Jeryl Lynn NHS contracts have the same indemnification clause and was this the UK way of protecting MMR makers from lawsuits similar to the US,The US had passed the childhood vaccination program in 1986. And although the issue is now before the US Supreme Court, the vaccine maker and the US gov’t is arguing that aside from badly made vaccine or not warning properly, the vaccine makers weren’t liable. And that not being liable would apply to design issues (which would seem to apply to urabe).

If the first got indemnification and the second Jeryl-Lynn didn’t get indemnification who has seen the NHS contract showing that’s the case.

My idea might be wrong. But I want to know the story of the lawsuits for MMR causing autism.
Rosemary Cousins
January 25th, 2011
09:00:30

Medicine was created by scientists – scientists such as Louis Pasteur.

When science is replicated, time and time again, such as in Dr Andrew Wakefield’s case – then you have scientific proof. In other words you have, ‘The truth of science.’

Louis Pasteur and Andrew Wakefield have created, through science, ‘jobs’ for GPs and Psychiatrists to practice medicine. Frequently those practicing medicine do not want to understand the science behind their practice.

When I state that the GMC is corrupt. What I mean is that they provided no evidence to show that Dr Wakefield’s science was not replicated. No evidence equals fraudulent evidence in my view.

You cannot convict a man without evidence.
Rosemary Cousins
January 25th, 2011
09:20:54

Further more the GMC and the BMJ,ie the practitioners of medicine, who will always be subservient to science, have purposely created, through Brian Deer, a platform with which to spiel their fanatical hatred towards a great scientist.
Rosemary Cousins
January 25th, 2011
09:39:18

You frequently find that weak women bob and curtsy to even weaker men who hold positions of power.

Men frequently employ weak women because weak women don’t ask questions – they just follow instructions.

The problem is, when there is a crisis such as the one that the BMJ is facing at the moment, the weak women in editorial positions are caught out – and so are the even weaker men, for that matter.
ChildHealthSafety
January 25th, 2011
11:15:09

sheldon101 January 25th, 2011 06:03:03

..... there was no direct relationship …. which would allow the person getting vaccinated to sue the vaccine maker? ... did the MMR causes autism lawsuit kids sue the distributor or the vaccine maker? ... the lawsuit was really against the NHS …. ? ... what MMR vaccines was he suing …? ... So were this second set of MMR maker’s indemnified as well? ..... I want to know the story of the lawsuits for MMR causing autism.

The litigation was under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and in negligence. Your original point was answered in spades but you lack the good grace to acknowledge it but instead reveal a manifold lack of knowledge and want comprehensive lessons in the history of this exercise in governmental and medical corruption.

Ye Gods. Is this trolling because it looks like it to us.
Broken Link
January 25th, 2011
13:33:35

Rosemary,

Wakefield’s science has not been replicated. That is a falsehood told to his believers to keep them in line.

1. The list of papers that is usually provided to substantiate the claim of replication ARE NOT REPLICATIONS. See the link on my ‘nym. Wakefield relies on his supporters to have faith in him, and not to independently check the papers in this list.

2. The only attempt to replicate the Lancet paper found that it could not be replicated. See PMID: 18769550, the entire paper can be read for free online.

3. The Royal Free offered Wakefield a large sum of grant money to replicate the Lancet work. He declined to do so. That’s because he knew he couldn’t because he’d fixed the data on the first paper.

Rosemary, I know you are a serious person. I hope that you will do some independent work of you own and look at these issues for yourself rather than relying on what Wakefield tells you.
ChildHealthSafety
January 25th, 2011
13:45:14

It is difficult to avoid noticing how the posting of so many CHS comments are delayed. This has come to be routine.

Numerous posts made later by others appear and then eventually an earlier CHS posts go up – but it appears in the list of comments in the order the posts were made.

Here is another illustration – a posting made @1015 real time UK [ie. 1115 lbrb time]

___________________

sheldon101 January 25th, 2011 06:03:03

..... there was no direct relationship …. which would allow the person getting vaccinated to sue the vaccine maker? ... did the MMR causes autism lawsuit kids sue the distributor or the vaccine maker? ... the lawsuit was really against the NHS …. ? ... what MMR vaccines was he suing …? ... So were this second set of MMR maker’s indemnified as well? ..... I want to know the story of the lawsuits for MMR causing autism.

The litigation was under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and in negligence. Your original point was answered in spades but you lack the good grace to acknowledge it but instead reveal a manifold lack of knowledge and want comprehensive lessons in the history of this exercise in governmental and medical corruption.

Ye Gods. Is this trolling because it looks like it to us.
AWOL
January 25th, 2011
13:51:27

@ Sullivan

“It is perfectly reasonable to call Andrew Wakefield’s work a fraud.”

it’s “The pot calling the kettle black” again,!aren’t we Sullivan?

As Blaylock points out here

http://www.autismtodayonline.c.....e-program/

“I find it ironic that the media, the British government, and leaders in medical academia jumped on board attacking and destroying Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s reputation based on “fraud” charges related to a study he conducted about the link between the measles vaccine and autism.
It is ironic for a number of reasons. How can the British government, itself drowning in deception at every level, dare accuse anyone of fraud?
The panel assembled by the government and academia to judge Wakefield, ironically, dares to speak of fraud, yet their main complaint is that his findings “might endanger the ‘sacrosanct’ vaccine program,” not that his principal findings were wrong. In fact, several independent researchers found the same measles vaccine-related colitis that he described.”

Here’s another…
http://gaia-health.com/article.....ions.shtml

Brian Deer’s ‘Wakefield Fraud’ Report Is Full of Misrepresentations
Big Pharma must be utterly terrified of Wakefield’s observations to have unleashed such utterly fraudulent claims of fraud against him. This is an analysis of just how misleading Deer’s claims are.
by Heidi Stevenson
6 January 2011

Today, news has burst out all over the world with the claim that Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s study, which finds a possible association in gastrointestinal disease, developmental regression, and the MMR vaccine, is a fraud. The source is the British Medical Journal and a report by Brian Deer that they’re publishing. He claims to have compared the medical records of the 12 children studied and also to have recently interviewed parents of those children

You see Sullivan I could fill the lbrb band width with hundreds of sites that disagree with yours and Deers argument of Fraud ..and at the same time ,relentlessly , the BMJ suppress any critical comment of Deers work hiding under the cloak of “respectable accademia”
AWOL
January 25th, 2011
13:57:53

“Broken link” the above post fits so wear it”., same to Sheldon…

Until you pharma trolls can supply links backing up what you claim and state which most of you don`t do, nobody can hold your comments as matter of fact,and is only your opinion, not worth the band width it is written on ,which costs Kev money.
Chris
January 25th, 2011
16:01:14

Rosemary Cousins:

When science is replicated, time and time again, such as in Dr Andrew Wakefield’s case – then you have scientific proof. In other words you have, ‘The truth of science.’

I think we should make a rule that whenever someone makes that silly claim that they list the papers and explain in their own words why they think it is “independent” (means that neither Wakefield nor his associates be involved, including Krigsman), include specifically which MMR vaccine was used and have at least a dozen children as subjects. Ms. Cousins, so any of the papers listed by Wakefield quality?
Gina
January 25th, 2011
16:22:05

@ChildHealthSafety
January 24th, 2011
15:11:55

“Medicine, as Dr. William Osler put it, is an “art of
probabilities,” or at best, a “science of uncertainty”.

“The Quotable Osler” Silverman ME, Murray TJ, Bryan CS, eds.
Philadelphia, Pa.: American College of Physicians; 2002.”

Are you taking this quotation on face value? Do you believe that, in any interpretation you’ve conjured, it supports that medicine is NOT science? Do you even KNOW what you’ve quoted and in what context it is referenced in the citation you provided? Obviously not; here’s why:

1-You’ve quoted, via a source that sourced from another, from a paper on the use of scientific evidence within the legal and medical fields. Here is the paper:
http://www.ids-healthcare.com/.....0Legal.pdf
Read it. It supports the scientific method, something your buddy Wakefield shuns.

2-The context of the quotation does not suggests that medicine isn’t science. That uncertainties exist does not mean that all is uncertain. Medicine is not finite; it expands and evolves as industry leaders innovate. Unless you want to go back to bloodletting and leeches. Furthermore, Medicine is both science and art. They can coexist, despite what you may think.

3-You’ve, in absolutely no way, supported your accusation that I’m misleading. This attempt was utter failure, and I think it shows pretty clearly that you do not have the analytical ability to argue point for point. This is why you argue in circles.

So, I say again, go scratch.
Gina
January 25th, 2011
16:27:33

@Sullivan
January 24th, 2011
21:43:12

Very well said! I, too, cannot understand how this is devolving to some as an argument of what science is. They are attempting to throw the baby out with the bathwater, so guess you know they are out of ammo.
Rosemary Cousins
January 25th, 2011
16:30:16

Broken Link and Chris – You have shown no evidence that you have sought the expert medical opinion of a geneticist to back up yours claims.

Until such time as you do you may as well piss into the wind.
Gina
January 25th, 2011
16:39:28

@Rosemary:

“When science is replicated, time and time again, such as in Dr Andrew Wakefield’s case – then you have scientific proof. In other words you have, ‘The truth of science.’......
When I state that the GMC is corrupt. What I mean is that they provided no evidence to show that Dr Wakefield’s science was not replicated. No evidence equals fraudulent evidence in my view.”

First off, his Lancet paper’s hypothesis has not been replicated. If it has, show the links please.

Second, Wakefield himself said and still says frequently that his study/review did not support with evidence a directly link between MMR and autism. Therefore, even if you can prove his results replicated (which you can’t), you still will not be able to prove that the MMR/autism link is proven—-based 100% on Wakefield’s own assertions.

Third, and finally, the corruption of the GMC is not evident in anything you’ve said. You’re explanation still doesn’t make any sense, and the GMC where presiding over Wakefield’s fitness to practice, not over fraud. You’ve still maligned a professional council with no evidence, and clearly no understanding of their purpose or the proceedings involving Wakefield.
Broken Link
January 25th, 2011
16:49:03

Just in case it might reach Rosemary and her co-believers, there is a new article on Spiked, read it by clicking on my ‘nym. You all are trusting Andy too much!

It begins:

‘I trusted Andy.’

That was how John Walker-Smith, the former senior paediatric gastroenterologist at the Royal Free Hospital in London, explained to the General Medical Council that he did not know which case was which in the list of children included in the paper he published in the Lancet in 1998 together with the former gastroenterology researcher Andrew Wakefield, suggesting a link between the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine (MMR) and autism.

Indeed, Walker-Smith trusted Andy so much that he did not even bother to read the final draft that Wakefield, the lead author, submitted. Walker-Smith has paid a high price for his misplaced trust: last May he was struck off the medical register with Wakefield after the GMC upheld numerous charges in relation to the production and presentation of the Lancet paper.
Rosemary Cousins
January 25th, 2011
16:53:19

Make no mistake, Gina, medicine is neither art nor science. So, I say to you, ‘Go scratch – preferably in private.’
Gina
January 25th, 2011
17:02:17

@Rosemary: “Make no mistake, Gina, medicine is neither art nor science.”

So, what is it then? Voodoo? What was it when you proclaimed Wakefield, a medical doctor by training, a scientist? Seriously, what is medicine, in your estimation? I’m honestly waiting with baited breath for this one.

“So, I say to you, ‘Go scratch – preferably in private.’” Trust me, lady, I am scratching….my head at your baffling comments (insert corny rimshot here).
Broken Link
January 25th, 2011
17:05:31

Rosemary,

Have your consulted any expert OTHER than Wakefield?

I fail to see how I need to consult an expert to read some of the documents I have pointed out to you. It is easy to read the PMID: 18769550 paper. It clearly says in plain English why it does not replicate Wakefield’s findings. Here is the abstract:

PLoS One. 2008 Sep 4;3(9):e3140.
Lack of association between measles virus vaccine and autism with enteropathy: a case-control study.

Hornig M, Briese T, Buie T, Bauman ML, Lauwers G, Siemetzki U, Hummel K, Rota PA, Bellini WJ, O’Leary JJ, Sheils O, Alden E, Pickering L, Lipkin WI.

Center for Infection and Immunity, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States of America. mady.hornig@columbia.edu
Abstract

BACKGROUND: The presence of measles virus (MV) RNA in bowel tissue from children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) and gastrointestinal (GI) disturbances was reported in 1998. Subsequent investigations found no associations between MV exposure and ASD but did not test for the presence of MV RNA in bowel or focus on children with ASD and GI disturbances. Failure to replicate the original study design may contribute to continued public concern with respect to the safety of the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine.

METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The objective of this case-control study was to determine whether children with GI disturbances and autism are more likely than children with GI disturbances alone to have MV RNA and/or inflammation in bowel tissues and if autism and/or GI episode onset relate temporally to receipt of MMR. The sample was an age-matched group of US children undergoing clinically-indicated ileocolonoscopy. Ileal and cecal tissues from 25 children with autism and GI disturbances and 13 children with GI disturbances alone (controls) were evaluated by real-time reverse transcription (RT)-PCR for presence of MV RNA in three laboratories blinded to diagnosis, including one wherein the original findings suggesting a link between MV and ASD were reported. The temporal order of onset of GI episodes and autism relative to timing of MMR administration was examined. We found no differences between case and control groups in the presence of MV RNA in ileum and cecum. Results were consistent across the three laboratory sites. GI symptom and autism onset were unrelated to MMR timing. Eighty-eight percent of ASD cases had behavioral regression.

CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: This study provides strong evidence against association of autism with persistent MV RNA in the GI tract or MMR exposure. Autism with GI disturbances is associated with elevated rates of regression in language or other skills and may represent an endophenotype distinct from other ASD.
Rosemary Cousins
January 25th, 2011
17:20:13

Go scratch Gina

Fancy palming off contaminated vaccines to Third World countries?

For your sake, I hope you do not have any connections to pharmaceutical companies. Because if you do, you are part of the GMC corruption.
Rosemary Cousins
January 25th, 2011
17:24:37

Broken Link – well, that is your problem, you see – you cannot grasp that in order to prove, in court, that a man is guilty,you need to provide evidence.

I do not, nor does Dr Wakefield need to provide evidence of his innocence.

It is you, his accuser, who needs to supply evidence.

I am waiting – where is it?
Rosemary Cousins
January 25th, 2011
17:29:24

I must admit a comment I made this morning took six hours to show and then appeared at the earlier time I made it
Gina
January 25th, 2011
17:29:51

@Rosemary: “Go scratch Gina

Fancy palming off contaminated vaccines to Third World countries?

For your sake, I hope you do not have any connections to pharmaceutical companies. Because if you do, you are part of the GMC corruption.”

I disagree with you, and you struggle to debate me, so I must be part of some evil conspiracy or maniacal plot, right? That’s hardly reasonable.

If you feel you must now demonize me than you’re never going to get anywhere here. Or anywhere for that matter. Either come at me with some usable, relevant facts or don’t bother addressing me at all. You’re subterfuge is pointless and boring.
Broken Link
January 25th, 2011
17:31:48

Rosemary,

The evidence of Wakefield’s guilt with respect to the GMC charges – mainly unethical behavior towards children – is contained in the GMC transcript. I understand that you can order a paper copy.

The evidence of his fraud is contained in Brian Deer’s BMJ articles – which are well referenced.

If either of these were false, then Wakefield would be advised to sue and/or appeal. Since he has done neither, then I can conclude that he has no grounds to do so.

Brian Deer’s accusations are extremely serious. If they were false, they would be defamatory, and Wakefield would be due a huge settlement. The evidence of Wakefield’s own actions proves that they are not. Instead he simply denies everything, and tries to maintain his base of true believers. But even those are slipping away – see the blog of Craig Willoughby for example.
Gina
January 25th, 2011
17:38:02

@ Broken Link – I’m in the states but I think our legal system is similar to the UK. If Wakefield were to bring a libel suit against Deer, then he’d be the plaintiff, with Deer the defendant, and the burden of proof would be on Wakefield, right? Can anyone confirm that for me?

I ask because the burden of proof seems to be the crux of argument in the back and forth of you and Rosemary. Of course, after that burden is established, then the validity of the evidence presented comes into question.
Rosemary Cousins
January 25th, 2011
17:53:13

What is the Sratch talking about?
Chris
January 25th, 2011
18:09:54

Ms. Cousins:

Broken Link and Chris – You have shown no evidence that you have sought the expert medical opinion of a geneticist to back up yours claims.

What claim did I make that requires a geneticist?

You made the claim that Wakefield’s retracted study has been replicated. It is up to you to support that claim with evidence. At the moment, the Gish Gallop list that is on Waker’s website has no study that even attempts to independently replicate his findings with MMR, children and gastrointestinal issues. If you have the PubMed Identification Number (PMID) of an independent study other than the Hornig paper that I listed before and that Broken Link just posted, please present it.

Also, to show you are not just cutting and pasting from a website explain how it is “independent” (especially if the names “Wakefield” or “Krigsman” are in the list of authors), how many children were in the study and, this is very important, which version of the MMR vaccine the children received (there are globally about half a dozen different ones).

While you are at it, kindly tell us exactly which MMR vaccine the retracted Lancet paper was about. Was it the MMR vaccine approved for use in the UK before or after 1992?

You made a claim, you support it. Or just don’t make the claim.

As far as Wakefield being guilty, here is some evidence.

As far as the retracted Lancet paper being a load of crap there are these:

Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2010 May;29(5):397-400.
Lack of association between measles-mumps-rubella vaccination and autism in children: a case-control study.
Mrozek-Budzyn D, Kieltyka A, Majewska R.

Lack of Association between Measles Virus Vaccine and Autism with Enteropathy: A Case-Control Study.
Hornig M et al.
PLoS ONE 2008; 3(9): e3140 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0003140

*Subjects: 25 children with autism and GI disturbances and 13 children with GI disturbances alone (controls)

Measles Vaccination and Antibody Response in Autism Spectrum Disorders.
Baird G et al.
Arch Dis Child 2008; 93(10):832-7.
Subjects: 98 vaccinated children aged 10-12 years in the UK with autism spectrum disorder (ASD); two control groups of similar age: 52 children with special educational needs but no ASD and 90 children in the typically developing group

MMR-Vaccine and Regression in Autism Spectrum Disorders: Negative Results Presented from Japan.
Uchiyama T et al.
J Autism Dev Disord 2007; 37(2):210-7

*Subjects: 904 children with autism spectrum disorder
(Note: MMR was used in Japan only between 1989 and 1993.)

No effect of MMR withdrawal on the incidence of autism: a total population study.
Honda H, Shimizu Y, Rutter M.
J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2005 Jun;46(6):572-9.

(note the Japanese MMR had the Urabe strain of mumps, just like the UK MMR used between 1988 and 1992)

No Evidence of Persisting Measles Virus in Peripheral Blood Mononuclear Cells from Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder.
D’Souza Y et al.
Pediatrics 2006; 118(4):1664-75

*Subjects: 54 children with autism spectrum disorder and 34 developmentally normal children

Relationship between MMR Vaccine and Autism.
Klein KC, Diehl EB.
Ann Pharmacother. 2004; 38(7-8):1297-300

*Literature review of 10 studies

MMR Vaccination and Pervasive Developmental Disorders: A Case-Control Study.
Smeeth L et al.
Lancet 2004; 364(9438):963-9

*Subjects: 1294 cases and 4469 controls

Age at First Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccination in Children with Autism and School-Matched Control Subjects: A Population-Based Study in Metropolitan Atlanta.
DeStefano F et al. Pediatrics 2004; 113(2): 259-66

*Subjects: 624 children with autism and 1,824 controls

Prevalence of Autism and Parentally Reported Triggers in a North East London Population.
Lingam R et al.
Arch Dis Child 2003; 88(8):666-70

*Subjects: 567 children with autistic spectrum disorder

Neurologic Disorders after Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccination.
Makela A et al.
Pediatrics 2002; 110:957-63

*Subjects: 535,544 children vaccinated between November 1982 and June 1986 in Finland

Relation of Childhood Gastrointestinal Disorders to Autism: Nested Case Control Study Using Data from the UK General Practice Research Database.
Black C et al.
BMJ 2002; 325:419-21

*Subjects: 96 children diagnosed with autism and 449 controls

Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Bowel Problems or Developmental Regression in Children with Autism: Population Study.
Taylor B et al.
BMJ 2002; 324(7334):393-6

*Subjects: 278 children with core autism and 195 with atypical autism

No Evidence for a New Variant of Measles-Mumps-Rubella-Induced Autism.
Fombonne E et al.
Pediatrics 2001;108(4):E58

*Subjects: 262 autistic children (pre- and post-MMR samples)

Measles-Mumps-Rubella and Other Measles-Containing Vaccines Do Not Increase the Risk for Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Case-Control Study from the Vaccine Safety Datalink Project.
Davis RL et al.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2001;155(3):354-9

*Subjects: 155 persons with IBD with up to 5 controls each

Time Trends in Autism and in MMR Immunization Coverage in California.
Dales L et al.
JAMA 2001; 285(9):1183-5

*Subjects: Children born in 1980-94 who were enrolled in California kindergartens (survey samples of 600–1,900 children each year)

Mumps, Measles, and Rubella Vaccine and the Incidence of Autism Recorded by General Practitioners: A Time Trend Analysis.
Kaye JA et al.
BMJ 2001; 322:460-63

*Subjects: 305 children with autism

Further Evidence of the Absence of Measles Virus Genome Sequence in Full Thickness Intestinal Specimens from Patients with Crohn’s Disease.
Afzal MA, et al.
J Med Virol 2000; 62(3):377-82

*Subjects: Specimens from patients with Crohn’s disease

Autism and Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccine: No Epidemiological Evidence for a Causal Association.
Taylor B et al.
Lancet 1999;353 (9169):2026-9

*Subjects: 498 children with autism

Absence of Detectable Measles Virus Genome Sequence in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Tissues and Peripheral Blood Lymphocytes.
Afzal MA et al.
J Med Virol 1998; 55(3):243-9

*Subjects: 93 colonoscopic biopsies and 31 peripheral blood lymphocyte preparations

No Evidence for Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccine-Associated Inflammatory Bowel Disease or Autism in a 14-year Prospective Study.
Peltola H et al.
Lancet 1998; 351:1327-8

*Subjects: 3,000,000 doses of MMR vaccine

Exposure to Measles in Utero and Crohn’s Disease: Danish Register Study.
Nielsen LL et al.
BMJ 1998; 316(7126):196-7

*Subjects: 472 women with measles
Chris
January 25th, 2011
18:27:45

Gina:

Broken Link – I’m in the states but I think our legal system is similar to the UK. If Wakefield were to bring a libel suit against Deer, then he’d be the plaintiff, with Deer the defendant, and the burden of proof would be on Wakefield, right? Can anyone confirm that for me?

Actually, I believe it is the opposite, which is why reform English libel laws are now a hot topic: http://www.libelreform.org/

Dr. Ben Goldacre’s book, Bad Science has a chapter about Mathias Rath that had to left out of the first edition due to a libel suit. Rath lost, but The Guardian still had to shell out lots of money to prove Goldacre was telling the truth.

I believe that if any of the Wakefield supporters have the actual evidence of what they are accusing Deer of, then they should sue him or shut up. So far all I have seen them do is nonsensical hand waving, especially the bit about bringing a geneticist (autism != mitochondrial disorder). Since Wakefield had to pay Deer when he attempted to sue him for libel, the supporters will have to come up with some better evidence.
sheldon101
January 25th, 2011
18:53:58

CHS - here’s the problem. Barr was suing somebody over MMR in the UK.
Was he suing the distributor or was he suing the vaccine maker or was he suing the NHS.

And if he sued the distributor or the vaccine maker, were either indemnified by the NHS or the UK government?

Pretty simple questions.
Gray Falcon
January 25th, 2011
19:06:13

Broken Link and Chris – You have shown no evidence that you have sought the expert medical opinion of a geneticist to back up yours claims.

Rosemary, you seem to be operating on the “Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney” standard of burden of proof. A given claim is assumed true until someone manages to prove a mutually exclusive statement true otherwise. For example, in the “Ace Attorney” games, all but one of the cases require exonerating your client by proving someone else was the real criminal. This is not the official standard of proof of real-world courts, and certainly not how science works.

We don’t need to prove that autism has a genetic cause to call Wakefield’s claims into question, we only need to call into question his evidence. And proving that Wakefield falsified his study simply requires showing that the evidence is consistent with that claim, which is what Brian Deer has done. If you want to argue this case, don’t argue semantics, don’t argue character, focus on the evidence.
Rosemary Cousins
January 25th, 2011
19:58:44

Gray Falcon – I have never heard of ‘Phoenix Wright. Ace Attorney’ to which you refer. I have to say that I am sceptical of your explanation.

Coincidentally I have just received an email from my MP’s office in which I am being offered help.

Steve Barclay MP did apparently once have a career as a lawyer.

I am going to ask him to oversee this blog.
Science Mom
January 25th, 2011
20:16:09

Steve Barclay MP did apparently once have a career as a lawyer.

I am going to ask him to oversee this blog.

Good luck with that. ‘Oversee’ on what grounds and what do you think any consequences will be? You may wish to rethink your choice of debates if your own ignorance of the topic leads to “Mummy, make them stop saying meanie things to me”.
Gray Falcon
January 25th, 2011
20:19:17

“Ace Attorney” is a popular series of video games (technically visual novels), and was only used as an analogy. The general setup of a typical case is that the player character is presented a client accused of a crime, and has to prove them innocent by cross-examining the witnesses and searching the crime scenes for evidence, finding the real culprit in the process. The point of my analogy was that you were trying to shift the burden of proof.

This is why you should look up anything you find unfamiliar, rather than simply react. Why, for example, are you skeptical of my explanation? Don’t just dismiss, give evidence!
Chris
January 25th, 2011
20:23:42

Ms. Cousins, are you going to ever share with us the studies that independently replicated Wakefield’s now retracted Lancet paper? Remember we need you to show that they were independent, how many children were involved and which particular MMR vaccine the children received.

I also note that you brought up mitochondrial disorders. Can you please show us the papers indexed in PubMed that show mitochondrial disorders are common in autism, or that most people with mitochondrial disorders have autism? I would also ask that you do not include any papers that have Miss Hannah Poling’s father as an author.

Science Mom, does she consider being asked to prove her claims as being “mean”?

Ms. Cousins, if you want this blog overseen, I suggest you look up the definition of “Streisand” effect. You should see how well that worked for the British Chiropractic Association.
Rosemary Cousins
January 25th, 2011
20:33:38

Science Mum – Yes I am the proud mummy to a 33 year old baby.

Does that make you feel powerful?
Rosemary Cousins
January 25th, 2011
20:35:19

Keep it coming.
Gina
January 25th, 2011
20:44:27

@Rosemary: Overseen? If I didn’t know better, I’d have thought that a threat. The implication is that you believe the opposing view-holders here are in need of some sort of an authoritative rap on the knuckles; is that true? Do you believe us to be out of line?

If that is the case, I find it quite ironic as you’ve been the one making wildly unsupported claims on behalf of Wakefield and others’ behalf, unfounded accusations against governmental councils and ridiculous observations of contributors of this blog. Then, when pressed, you’ve dodged providing any reasonable explanations.

Either you can cite studies that replicated Wakefield’s work or you can’t. Either you can cite specific instances of corruption within the GMC or you can’t. Chris laid you out pretty well earlier today, and you’ve yet to respond to that, so you must not have anything to contradict his post. Chris is on the money with the “Streisand Effect.” I’d look it up if I were you.
Chris
January 25th, 2011
20:54:52

Ms. Cousins, please find those studies that independently replicated Wakefield’s Lancet study.

Also, about being overseen: you are the one that said “Dr Wakefield was not proven guilty. He was accused and convicted of wrong doing by the corrupt GMC.”

What evidence do you have that the GMC is corrupt? Isn’t that considered libel in your country?
Kev
January 25th, 2011
21:01:21

Ms Cousins, you’re becoming threatening. Desist, remove yourself or be removed.
Science Mom
January 25th, 2011
21:12:07

Science Mum – Yes I am the proud mummy to a 33 year old baby.

Does that make you feel powerful?

No, it makes me pity you.
Rosemary Cousins
January 25th, 2011
21:47:53

Well like wise.
Rosemary Cousins
January 25th, 2011
21:53:25

Ohhhh I’m a threat am I? That’s a laugh.

Grow up.
Sullivan
January 25th, 2011
22:01:01

sheldon101,

I doubt that you will get a direct answer from ChildHealthSafety as to your question about whether the litigation was directed at the MMR manufacturers. This is because it quite clearly was the case that the manufacturers were the target of the case.

Let’s go through some of the GMC transcripts. The big one is last—
Quite clearly, the GMC was of the opinion that the MMR litigation was focused on the manufacturers of the MMR vaccine. One of the charges reads—

Mr Barr had the benefit of public funding from the Legal Aid Board in relation to the pursuit of litigation against manufacturers of the MMR vaccine (‘the MMR litigation’),

Here’s a letter from Child 6’s GP

“I understand that you are willing to see this child who is known to be on the autistic spectrum disorder and is one of the children who is currently part of the litigation cohort against the manufacturers of the vaccine MMR.

Here is a segment of Day 11 testimony:

QMrs Cowie, I think you have been asked to review some documents which have been disclosed to the General Medical Council by what is now the Legal Services Commission but was the Legal Aid Board.

AYes.,

QWhich related to the funding of a multi-party action against the manufacturers of the MMR vaccine.

AYes.

QDuring the time when you were a solicitor at the Legal Aid Board, were you asked to work on issues related to the public funding of that piece of litigation?
AYes.

So, a solicitor from the LAB considered it to be an action against the manufacturers.

Here is a letter from Andrew Wakefield himself, July 3, 1997, explaining the situation:

Further to our conversation the other day and your subsequent letter, I am writing to confirm that there is no conflict of interest in relation to the Legal Aid funding for our clinical study of children with autism and intestinal inflammation.

This study, which has been sponsored by the Legal Aid Board, is similar to a study they have sponsored as an investigation into Gulf War Syndrome. There are no preconditions to our grant. Furthermore, there is no intention whatever on behalf of the Legal Aid Board or its agents to take action against the National Health Service: it is against the manufacturers of vaccine that any future actions will be taken if and when our studies indicate that is a valid strategy.

Please find enclosed a copy of our first paper submitted to The Lancet concerning the 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 as the world leader in this field. We are aware of 300 children who merit investigation under this protocol, most of these as ECRs (or commissioned referrals for the future).

Thank you very much for your help in this matter. If there are any further questions, please do not hesitate to get in contact with me.”

Repeated for emphasis: Furthermore, there is no intention whatever on behalf of the Legal Aid Board or its agents to take action against the National Health Service: it is against the manufacturers of vaccine that any future actions will be taken if and when our studies indicate that is a valid strategy.

As an aside, this letter also shows that in Mr. Wakefield’s mind, the Lancet paper was part of the Legal Aid funded study. Study—a term he tries to distance himself from now.
Kev
January 25th, 2011
22:04:24

I didn’t say you were a threat Ms Cousins, I said you were being threatening. This is a place for debate, not threats. If you can’t debate and resort to threats, remove yourself or be removed – which is it? Behave, remove yourself or be removed – your choice.
Rosemary Cousins
January 25th, 2011
22:28:10

I will behave Kev. Just as long as when someone is less than nice to me you pick them up on it?
Gina
January 25th, 2011
22:31:14

@Sullivan: “As an aside, this letter also shows that in Mr. Wakefield’s mind, the Lancet paper was part of the Legal Aid funded study. Study—a term he tries to distance himself from now.”

Yes, Wakefield isn’t the only one I’ve seen turn “study” into “review.”

@Kev: I don’t know if you’ll get a direct response from Rosemary. She’s yet to give me one. But I will stop now, because I don’t want to add fuel to the fire and I don’t want anyone to get removed. We’re grown adults. I hope we can play nice in the sandbox.
Kev
January 25th, 2011
22:31:17

No, you don’t get to dictate any terms of use to me. However, you can rest assured that if someone threatens you with legal action as you have done, my response to them will be the same.
Dedj
January 25th, 2011
22:37:37

To be fair, Rose did not threaten legal action.

She merely informed us that she wishes to have this website monitored by her MP. The implicit threat was that he may be the one to take action.
Dedj
January 25th, 2011
22:41:03

Of course, her MP would have to remain within The Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament, and may not wish to be seen as supporting her contention that the GMC is corrupt.
AWOL
January 25th, 2011
23:20:21

Sullivan

Your so wrong…

“Furthermore, there is no intention whatever on behalf of the Legal Aid Board or its agents to take action against the National Health Service: it is against the manufacturers of vaccine that any future actions will be taken if and when our studies indicate that is a valid strategy.”

Who is coughing, up the pittance, here for mmr damage??

Were all of these children killed by the triple MMR jab?
13/1/02 Sunday Express
Focus By Lucy Johnston
Health Editor
AT LEAST 26 families claim their children died as a result of the controversial measles, mumps and rubella jab, the Sunday Express can reveal.
In some cases the Government has awarded parents up to £100,000 under its 1979 vaccine damage Payment Act. In others, post mortem reports concluded the jab was the most likely cause of death. Despite this, the Department of Health insists no child has ever died from MMR.
This assertion is a key aspect of its £3 million publicity drive to persuade parents the vaccine is entirely safe.
It contradicts the view of the US Government, which accepts children die from MMR and awards compensation as a result. Most children do not react to the jab, but medical literature supports the view that MMR can occasionally kill. The parents are now demanding an official inquiry into the deaths. Julie Roberts, 40, whose daughter Stacey died, said: “The Government should take responsibility. It has never given proper warnings of the risk and still doesn’t despite the evidence. Tony Blair can see his children at home. I have to visit my daughter at her grave.”
Experts writing in the Journal of Pediatrics concluded that of 48 children who reacted to the measles component of the jab, eight died and the rest had seizures or brain damage. And a recent study on 1.8 million children by the Finnish Health Board linked neurological reactions, allergic attacks, epilepsy and meningitis to the vaccine. Our research follows speculation over whether Tony Blair’s 19-month-old son Leo has had the MMR jab. The Prime Minister has said he fully supports the vaccine but will not say if Leo has had it.
Many of the families of children who have died have taken legal action. Richard Barr, of solicitors Alexander Harris, has details of 24 cases. He said: “It is widely acknowledged in medical literature and by the American government that the triple vaccine can, on rare occasions, kill, yet this Government won’t accept it.”
Jackie Fletcher, of the pressure group Jabs, which is trying to highlight the potential dangers, said: “The Government should be giving people full and accurate information about health risks.”
But a Department of Health spokesman insisted: “Parents who received payments after their children died following MMR would not get the money now as science has moved on. MMR protects against death and we stand by the fact that no child has died as a result of MMR.”
Wendy Francis’s son, Robert, began behaving abnormally two years after he had MMR in January 1990. He lost control of his movements and slept for 18 hours at a time. Within months he fell into a coma and died in December. Robert, then seven, had developed a degeneratative brain condition called SSPE (sub-acute sclerosis pan encephalitis), linked to the measles component.
The disease can have a long incubation period and Mrs Francis, 40, an auxillary nurse and Robert’s consultant think the vaccine was the only way Robert could have developed it. The family, from Easington, north Yorkshire, are taking legal action against the vaccine’s manufacturer.
Ashley Shipman was born in 1985 and was a healthy three-year-old when he received the MMR vaccine. When he was nine his parents Elaine and Andrew of Eastwood, Nottingham, noticed he was having problems with his balance and co-ordination. He too was diagnosed with SSPE and died in June 1999, aged 14. They received £30,000 compensation.
His father, a lorry driver, said: “We took Ashley into hospital in October 1994 and by Christmas he was in a wheelchair. We were told by the consultant who treated him that his condition was caused by his vaccination.”
In 1995 the Government’s vaccine damage tribunal paid £30,000 compensation to James Smith, of Gateshead, for brain damage after he was given MMR at the age of four. James died nine years later aged 13. Biopsy material taken from his brain and intestines will form a central plank of the scientific evidence in support of a legal case due to be heard in October next year. Up to 300 cases relate to this brand of vaccine – Pluserix – which was banned by the Department of Health in 1992 after being linked with meningitis. This was two years after an identical vaccine was banned in Canada.
John and Faye Smith say the jab transformed their healthy, intelligent son into a child needing round-the-clock care. It took them six years and four hearings, however, to persuade the vaccine damage tribunal of this.
Faye, 59, said: “It’s not about money, but truth. It’s diabolical that the Government refuses to acknowledge the risks of MMR.”
Judith Dwyer, 45, of Tongwynlaif, near Cardiff, received a payment after her four-year-old daughter Chloe died following a “booster” jab in 1989. She too was given a version later banned because of its dangerous side effects. Chloe developed pins and needles in her legs, then paralysis and problems breathing. She was rushed to hospital but it was too late.
After an eight-year fight Judith, an intensive care technician, persuaded a tribunal the jab was the likely cause of Chloe’s death. In September 1996 it accepted this and paid out.
Mother of two Judith said: “Health visitors called me a scare mongerer and laughed. But we fought to raise the profile of vaccine damage.” Stacey Berry, of Atherton, Manchester was 13 when she had a booster jab in November 1994. Days later she started having fits, “stopped smiling, and stared into space.” She was diagnosed with the brain disease SSPE and given two years to live. She died in November 2000, aged 19. A post mortem examination concluded the disease was a “rare complication” of the vaccine”.
Christopher Coulter was 15 when he suffered a fit and died in his sleep 10 days after being vaccinated. He had an unblemished health record and no history of epilepsy but no explanation has been offered other than the statement on his death certificate – “asphyxiation due to severe epileptic seizure”. His mother Anne of Hillsborough, northern Ireland said: “Nothing would replace Christopher, but I want answers. I want peace of mind for my daughters should they ever have children.”
Hannah Buxton was 18 months old when she reacted to her first MMR jab. She started having fits and died 18 months later in February 1992. Parents Carol and Tony of Towcester, Northants, did not know Hannah had been given the strain of vaccine later withdrawn after it was deemed unsafe. In March that year a tribunal blamed the vaccine for her death. Nicola Gentle, 29, of Plymouth, Devon, is convinced her 15-month-old baby Emma Jane died because of the triple vaccine she was given in September 1998. Within six hours she was on a life-support machine. Three days later she was brain dead but a coroner said he could not say for certain whether or not MMR had killed her.
Shirley Fitzgerald’s son Kieren was given the MMR jab in June 1991 when he was 14 months. He reacted within days. “He stopped smiling, laughing and crying and became frightened of his toys,” said Shirley. Kieren also developed bowel problems – linked to MMR by some scientists. In July 1992, he died, aged two. Toddler Harriet Moore died following an MMR vaccination in 1998. Six weeks later she suffered fits and died in her parents arms. Sarah and Pat Moore, of Peasedown St John, near Bath, took the case to tribunal.
Jade Scrimger was vaccinated with MMR at 17 months and died from meningitis three days later in October 1998. Her mother Sheena has since discovered the drug used on her daughter was later banned by the Department of Health because it caused meningitis. She has abandoned the idea of taking legal action against the vaccine manufacturers, however, because lawyers say it is not worth it. In Britain the maximum award for a child’s death is £7,500. Five days after Elaine Adam’s 16-month-old son Stevie was given the MMR vaccine 1991 he too developed meningitis and died. Elaine and her husband Robert, of East Kilbride, were convinced MMR was to blame but their fears were dismissed by doctors. Mrs Adam has refused to allow her second child, Terry, six, to have the jab.
sheldon101
January 25th, 2011
23:33:21

Thanks Sullivan for the information.

If there had been an indemnification by the NHS for the vaccine makers, it should have been there.

So, it looks like the plain language of the contract governed. If the vaccine maker screwed up and got sued, there was no indemnification. If the distributor screwed up and there was a claim against the vaccine maker, NHS agreed to indemnify the vaccine maker.

For example, MMR has to be kept at proper temperature and the use of dry ice can get it too cold. If the vaccine is stored properly by the vaccine maker and too cold by the distributor, it won’t work. If there are lawsuits because the MMR doesn’t work, the vaccine maker might get sued. That’s the screwup of the distributor and it is only fair that the burden not fall on the vaccine maker.

Seem like a correction is needed.
Chris
January 26th, 2011
01:00:18

Ms. Cousins, I have a question about one of the studies that Wakefield claims replicates his findings (from the “Research” page of his Callous-Disregard website): Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Bowel Problems or Developmental Regression in Children with Autism: Population Study. It clearly states in the conclusion:

These findings provide no support for an MMR associated “new variant” form of autism with developmental regression and bowel problems, and further evidence against involvement of MMR vaccine in the initiation of autism.

Please explain how that replicates Wakefield’s findings and shows harm from the MMR vaccine.
AWOL
January 26th, 2011
01:23:46

Chris
” (from the “Research” page of his Callous-Disregard website):”

can you give me the quote from Aw`s book please as i dont have mine here just now having lent it to my next door neighbour who has 2 autistic granchildren..

I suppose all the dead children above are frauds as well..even although “THE GOVERMENT” paid out the pittance and not the manufacturer …

Sheldon

Blanket indemnity is, blanket indemnity ;go look at the JVCI trancripts of meetings above that i posted …nothing is ever going to be put on the doorstep of Pharma ,hence the robust defence from Brian Deer ,instigated by Dr John Reid ,Health Minister..because the goverment would have to foot the bill for a vaccine that Canada withdrew because of the killing it was doing to babies its in the JVCI minutes they dont try to hide that, why are you??(dont mention the great big elephant sitting in the corner) because nobody will see it if you dont…duh!!
ChildHealthSafety
January 26th, 2011
01:58:41

Sullivan January 24th, 2011 21:43:12

“Has this really devolved into quibbling about whether medicine is a science?”

Oh, you mean medicine is a “science” like sociology or economics or perhaps you include “domestic science” – the “soft” sciences – which unlike the “pure” sciences can have attempts at applying the scientific method but which are often not adaptable to the full application of the scientific method.

“It is perfectly reasonable to call medicine a science.”

I disagree and I am not alone in this.

This is what former British Medical Journal editor Richard Smith had to say in the BMJ on the matter and he is right:-

“Some doctors are scientists — just as some politicians are scientists — but most are not. As medical students they were filled full with information on biochemistry, anatomy, physiology, and other sciences, but information does not a scientist make — otherwise, you could become a scientist by watching the Discovery channel.”

BMJ 2004;28 (Published 17 June 2004)
Doctors are not scientists Richard Smith editor

Doctors do not receive a scientific training to qualify to practice as a medical doctor.

“Having had it demonstrated time and again that your positions about Mr. Wakefield are unsupportable”

Really. We are still waiting for Brian Deer to answer the questions put to him on this blog, Dr Gorski’s blog, his own blog in The Guardian newspaper and to the British Medical journal.

You and Kev do not like anyone asking him to answer and threaten excommunication. But the questions still remain unanswered.

“It is perfectly reasonable to call Andrew Wakefield’s work a fraud.”

Not if you do not have the evidence. And now everyone knows Mr Deer does not have the data provided to Andrew Wakefield by the 12 other members of the Royal Free Hospital team which was used in The Lancet paper. And now it is clear that the information he used was inaccurate, out of date, riven with errors and was cobbled together by non-specialists who were not addressing the specific issues investigated at The Royal Free Hospital London.

If you do not have the evidence you cannot make the claim – not validly at least.

Mr Deer’s story just did not and does not stand up and now he has confirmed he did not have the evidence to support his claims and those made in the British Medical Journal.

You are still denying the undeniable.

If you still maintain Deer’s story stands up, show us all the data and results provided to Andrew Wakefield by the Royal Free team to write the Lancet paper and show us where the paper diverges. Mr Deer’s problem and now that of the BMJ is that it does not.
ChildHealthSafety
January 26th, 2011
02:05:41

sheldon101 January 25th, 2011 18:53:58

“CHS – here’s the problem. Barr was suing somebody over MMR in the UK. Was he suing the distributor or was he suing the vaccine maker or was he suing the NHS. And if he sued the distributor or the vaccine maker, were either indemnified by the NHS or the UK government? Pretty simple questions.”

Simple questions but no problem.

What’s the problem and what is your point? None? Thought so. If you had one you would have made it.
Sullivan
January 26th, 2011
02:06:58

“Really. We are still waiting for Brian Deer to answer the questions put to him on this blog, Dr Gorski’s blog, his own blog in The Guardian newspaper and to the British Medical journal.”

Yes, really. Has nothing to do with Brian Deer. You do see that your statement doesn’t follow at all from what I wrote, don’t you. I do and I bet most readers do. It’s a nice try at diversion, but obvious.
ChildHealthSafety
January 26th, 2011
02:23:21

sheldon101 January 25th, 2011 23:33:21

If the distributor screwed up and there was a claim against the vaccine maker, NHS agreed to indemnify the vaccine maker. Seem like a correction is needed.

Yes. From Sheldon101. If the product was safe when supplied and the distributor caused a defect, the distributor would be liable. A claim against the manufacturer could not succeed.

There was little purpose for the indemnity other than to shield the manufacturer from claims under the Consumer Protection Act 1987.

And you still have not addressed the lack of logic of a customer indemnifying the supplier when that is highly unusual.
Chris
January 26th, 2011
02:30:32

CHS:

Really. We are still waiting for Brian Deer to answer the questions put to him on this blog, Dr Gorski’s blog, his own blog in The Guardian newspaper and to the British Medical journal.

So sue him. Make him come defend himself, though you will have to be prepared to also answer some awkward questions.

In the mean time, since you seem to be staying up into the wee hours: do you want to answer my questions posed to Ms. Cousins? Surely you know exactly which studies independently validate Dr. Wakefield’s findings. Because the Taylor one I just listed above certainly doesn’t.
ChildHealthSafety
January 26th, 2011
02:56:42

Chris January 26th, 2011 02:30:32

“CHS: We are still waiting for Brian Deer to answer the questions put to him …..”

Chris:

“So sue him.”

LOL. “Judge, Mr Deer is a journalist by profession and as a journalist knows the importance of answering questions when his story does not stand up. He won’t answer questions on leftbrainrightbrain blog. Can you order him to pay up a lot of cash and jail him, pretty please.”

Yep. Sounds like that will work.
Science Mom
January 26th, 2011
03:16:09

Really. We are still waiting for Brian Deer to answer the questions put to him on this blog, Dr Gorski’s blog, his own blog in The Guardian newspaper and to the British Medical journal.

Who are ‘we’ and what makes you think you are of any relevance to this issue that Mr Deer needs to answer above and beyond the BMJ? By the way, I seem to have missed Wakefield’s rapid response to the BMJ or his appearance anywhere on blogs whose readership doesn’t swoon at his very photo.

You and Kev do not like anyone asking him to answer and threaten excommunication. But the questions still remain unanswered.

Wah, wah, wah. You’re not asking, you’re demanding, as though Mr. Deer is beholden to LB/RB or RI. Your insipid questions remain unanswered in your own mind. Wakers can put together his own rebuttal and submit it to BMJ; the fact that he is content to let his ankle-biting lapdogs do his dirty work is very telling of his reluctance to take the fight to the arena.
sheldon101
January 26th, 2011
03:56:26

Deceitful CHS and Martin Walker———————
1.The issue: As part of the program of vilifying the UK decision to adopt urabe mumps strain MMR vaccination by the UK, there’s a specific claim that the NHS contract ITSELF provided blank indemnification to the vaccine maker for any claims made upon it.

2. I claimed that the clause in question did no such thing. It merely indemnified the vaccine maker for claims made against it due to the actions of the NHS selected distributors.

3. Nothing I’ve read contradicts the straight forward wording of the clause.

4. So what’s CHS going on about?

In 1986, the US passed a vaccine compensation program. According to the vaccine makers and the US gov’t the deal was this. Provided a biologically plausible claim was made (good enough wording) that a vaccine caused or contributed to a condition compensation would be paid with funding coming from a tax on vaccines. You couldn’t sue the vaccine maker if your claim was some design defect in the vaccine. You could sue if the vaccine was physically not properly made. Waiting for judgement before the US Supreme Court is a claim that design defect claims weren’t prevented totally, but mus be decided on an CASE BY CASE basis to whether or not the claimed design defect was unavoidable. In the specific case, the design defect was selling DTP (whole cell pertussis) when a DTaP (acellular Pertussis) vaccine could /should/might have been sold.

I’ve done what I should have done on the UK legislation. The UK has its own vaccine compensation program.

Under the 1987 statute the vaccine makers were subject to no-fault liabilty but at the same time there was a defense that made design defect cases harder.
http://www.scottish.parliament.....n00-74.pdf

The claim in the UK MMR litigation was a design defect type claim. And rather than hearing the cases one by one, they were being heard together. And UK Legal Aid funded them starting in 1992. The UK used urabe strain MMR from 1988-1992. And the lawsuit was against the UK vaccine makers.

So the indemnification clause didn’t prevent lawsuits against the vaccine makers. Ultimately, the 1987 law might do so. Martin Walker, not surprisingly, got it wrong. But he’s not a solicitor familiar with the legal issues.

On the other hand, CHS is a solicitor familiar with the legal issues. Leaving aside the morality of his adopting Walker’s fantasies and his comments to me, CHS should prominently correct his blog. That would be in keeping with his attitude here toward Brian Deer.
Chris
January 26th, 2011
03:58:03

Sure, CHS, so you are saying Mr. Deer’s story does not stand up? Well, do tell us exactly which papers actually support Wakefield’s findings in the Lancet paper. Be sure to make sure it is independent (or explain very carefully why Wakefield or Krigsman is on the author list), tell us how many children were studied, and which MMR vaccine they received.

Also tell us how the Taylor paper replicates Wakefield’s findings.

Well, it probably did. It replicated the true findings, not the ones that Wakefield wrote.
Sullivan
January 26th, 2011
04:33:37

ChildHealthSafety,

Brian Deer answers a number of questions on the Gary Null show. (here http://www.progressiveradionet.....-3pm.html)

Brian Deer got access to the medical records of 11 of 12 of the children from….Andrew Wakefield. Yep. When Andrew Wakefield sued Brian Deer, Mr. Deer got access to read the records. He didn’t get to keep them. He wasn’t able to use that information obtained at that time. But, when the GMC hearing was held, he was well prepared to watch out for specifics that he recalled. He was, however, able to obtain the expert reports from the MMR litigation. Brian Deer obtained the IRB papers from the Royal Free through the freedom of information act.

Interestingly—Gary Null fell for the idea that the Lancet Paper showed a causal link between MMR and GI issues—and that there are papers that replicate that non-fact. He mentions that there is a “likely causal relationship between measles and gastrointestinal problems…”
Kev
January 26th, 2011
07:59:48

Really. We are still waiting for Brian Deer to answer the questions put to him on this blog, Dr Gorski’s blog, his own blog in The Guardian newspaper and to the British Medical journal.

2 week suspension.
Rosemary Cousins
January 26th, 2011
11:43:39

Observations of a child are crucial to establishing the correct treatment.

Correct me if I am wrong but the State does not monitor children for fear of being accused of child abuse.
Rosemary Cousins
January 26th, 2011
11:55:22

Correct me, again, if I am wrong – but isn’t there now genetic evidence to prove that vaccines do cause damage in those with a genetic predispostion?
Rosemary Cousins
January 26th, 2011
12:10:40

I thought that the Government was aware of the neuroscience and genetic breakthroughs achieved by scientists in the UK which prove a vaccine link to autism?

Steve Barclay MP?
Rosemary Cousins
January 26th, 2011
12:13:00

We need comments as to whether those on this blog are aware of the above breakthroughs established by British scientists?

Am I correct or not?

Prime Minister?
AWOL
January 26th, 2011
13:24:12

@sullivan

“Interestingly—Gary Null fell for the idea that the Lancet Paper showed a causal link between MMR and GI issues—and that there are papers that replicate that non-fact. He mentions that there is a “likely causal relationship between measles and gastrointestinal problems…” ”

Ive posted this before and had “ScienceMom” pointing me to her opinnion,and all the back slapping that she gets for a diatribe.

I see you Pharma Trolls cant bear to comment on,that are ” tip of the iceberg” vaccine deaths, the poor children and babies , that have died from vaccines??Shame on you all ..

The truth is that Dr. Wakefield’s findings of bowel disease in association with autism have been replicated (see references) and his work along with that of other doctors has advanced the treatment of these children to the point that the journal, Pediatrics, has published a paper on the treatment for gastrointestinal symptoms in children with autism. The epidemiological studies that claim to prove there is no link between the MMR and autism have not had the statistical power to rule out a link for a subset of susceptible children. Much study remains to be done. Attempts to “shoot the messenger” will only result in further erosion of public trust.

Age of Autism
Autism Action Network
Autism Media Channel
Autism One
Autism File Global
Autism Research Institute
Elizabeth Birt Center for Autism Law and Advocacy
Generation Rescue
National Autism Association
Schafer Autism Report
TACA-Talk About Curing Autism
The Autism Trust USA/UK
The Coalition for SafeMinds
Unlocking Autism

The following peer-reviewed papers support Dr. Wakefield’s original findings:

Furlano R, Anthony A, Day R, Brown A, Mc Garvey L, Thomson M, et al. “Colonic CD8 and T cell filtration with epithelial damage in children with autism.” J Pediatr 2001;138:366-72.

Sabra S, Bellanti JA, Colon AR. “Ileal lymphoid hyperplasia, non-specific colitis and pervasive developmental disorder in children”. The Lancet 1998;352:234-5.

Torrente F., Machado N., Perez-Machado M., Furlano R., Thomson M., Davies S., Wakefield AJ, Walker-Smith JA, Murch SH. “Enteropathy with T cell infiltration and epithelial IgG deposition in autism.” Molecular Psychiatry. 2002;7:375-382.

Wakefield AJ, Anthony A, Murch SH, Thomson M, Montgomery SM, Davies S, Walker-Smith JA. “Enterocolitis in children with developmental disorder.” American Journal of Gastroenterology 2000;95:2285-2295.

Ashwood P, Anthony A, Pellicer AA, Torrente F, Wakefield AJ. “Intestinal lymphocyte populations in children with regressive autism: evidence for extensive mucosal immunopathology.” Journal of Clinical Immunology, 2003;23:504-517.

The following peer-reviewed papers replicate Dr. Wakefield’s original findings:

Gonzalez, L. et al., “Endoscopic and Histological Characteristics of the Digestive Mucosa in Autistic Children with gastro-Intestinal Symptoms”. Arch Venez Pueric Pediatr, 2005;69:19-25.

Balzola, F., et al., “Panenteric IBD-like disease in a patient with regressive autism shown for the first time by wireless capsule enteroscopy: Another piece in the jig-saw of the gut-brain syndrome?” American Journal of Gastroenterology, 2005. 100(4): p. 979- 981.

Balzola F et al . “Autistic enterocolitis: confirmation of a new inflammatory bowel disease in an Italian cohort of patients.” Gastroenterology 2005;128(Suppl. 2);A-303.

These are the articles on treatment of gastrointestinal symptoms in autistic children:

Buie T, et al. Pediatrics. 2010 Jan;125 Suppl 1:S19-29. Recommendations for evaluation and treatment of common gastrointestinal problems in children with ASDs.

Buie T, et al. Pediatrics. 2010 Jan;125 Suppl 1:S1-18. Evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of gastrointestinal disorders in individuals with ASDs: a consensus report.
sharon
January 26th, 2011
13:59:03

@ Rosemary, can you post a link in relation to your above assertions?
Rosemary Cousins
January 26th, 2011
14:17:16

No.
Gray Falcon
January 26th, 2011
15:22:35

Rosemary: Then what, exactly, are you hoping to accomplish? Simply put, you can’t make assertions without providing evidence. Try to understand the concept of burden of proof first.

AWOL: That exact same list was posted before, and debunked repeatedly. Why do you think it might work this time? Are you an economist, perhaps?
Science Mom
January 26th, 2011
15:32:20

The truth is that Dr. Wakefield’s findings of bowel disease in association with autism have been replicated (see references) and his work along with that of other doctors has advanced the treatment of these children to the point that the journal, Pediatrics, has published a paper on the treatment for gastrointestinal symptoms in children with autism.

No, Wakefield’s work has not been replicated with the same results, just the opposite in fact. None of your citations supports nor replicates Waker’s claims and you can’t pull a single one and explain how it does, just keep posting an irrelevant citation list. Your reference to the Pediatrics paper demonstrates your ignorance on the topic. Autistic children having an increased prevalence of GI symptoms does not support Waker’s claim of ‘autistic enterocolitis’ because that isn’t what has been found.

The epidemiological studies that claim to prove there is no link between the MMR and autism have not had the statistical power to rule out a link for a subset of susceptible children. Much study remains to be done. Attempts to “shoot the messenger” will only result in further erosion of public trust.

Bollocks. Wakefield claimed to have found over 80% of autistic children with measles vaccine virus in their guts (co-authored with O’Leary). That means that only 35 autistic children are needed for adequate sample power to detect a statistically significant proportion of children with ‘susceptibility’. It’s been examined and not found via Afzal et al., DeStefano et al. and Hornig et al. Incidentally, Dr. Afzal asked Wakers for his samples to test and he refused. So much for his desire for independent replication.
Chris
January 26th, 2011
16:04:23

Ms. Cousins:

Correct me, again, if I am wrong – but isn’t there now genetic evidence to prove that vaccines do cause damage in those with a genetic predispostion?

If you make a claim, then you must provide the supporting evidence for that claim. Otherwise you are spouting nonsense.

Again, provide the evidence that mitochondrial diseases are common in autistic children and/or most people with mitochondrial have autism. Also list the papers that replicated Wakefield by noting how they are independent, how many children were involved and which MMR vaccine affected them.

Also, how exactly does the Taylor, et al paper confirm Wakefield when it specifically says it does not?

You’ve had all night to find the answers. Now answer them or stop spamming this blog.
Chris
January 26th, 2011
17:05:14

Ms. Cousins:

We need comments as to whether those on this blog are aware of the above breakthroughs established by British scientists?

Am I correct or not?

Prime Minister?

You have to tell us what those are by providing the PubMed identification numbers of the specific papers.

“Prime Minister”? Surely, your government would be interested in the libelous statements you made about the GMC.
John Stone
January 26th, 2011
18:00:40

ScienceMom

No, Wakefield’s work has not been replicated with the same results, just the opposite in fact. None of your citations supports nor replicates Waker’s claims and you can’t pull a single one and explain how it does, just keep posting an irrelevant citation list.

Try:

Balzola F et al . “Autistic enterocolitis: confirmation of a new inflammatory bowel disease in an Italian cohort of patients.” Gastroenterology 2005;128(Suppl. 2);A-303.
Gray Falcon
January 26th, 2011
18:07:09

John Stone, the article you posted (again), has already been covered on this page: http://leftbrainrightbrain.co......tis-exist/

Similarly, Balzola et al, number 4, is a meeting abstract (if anyone has access, could they email me that abstract, please) that never saw the light of day as a peer reviewed study.

Do your research first.
Science Mom
January 26th, 2011
18:18:41

@ John Stone, did you even bother to read the abstract? Because that’s all it is and as my co-author, Gray Falcon and Sullivan have already pointed out, a meeting abstract and not even published. But more importantly, how does this:

Nine consecutive male pts (mean age 18 years, range 7-30 years) with a diagnosis of autism according to ICD-10 criteria that showed chronic intestinal symptoms (abdominal pain, bloating, constipation and/or diarrhoea) were enrolled. After routinely blood and stool tests, gastroscopy and colonoscopy with multiple biopsies were performed under sedation. A wireless enteroscopy capsule was also performed in 3 adult pts.

replicate Waker’s findings? These were adults, no regression and no measles virus in their guts. It does replicate Waker’s work in that there was no control group, congratulations. What part of ND people have GI disorders too don’t you understand Einstein? This isn’t a unique finding and isn’t an exclusive finding for autistics. Honestly, your lot keep making fools of yourselves with this desperate grasp to make Wakefield right, instead of just walking away from the lout and expending your energy elsewhere. He won’t be vindicated and he won’t suddenly, not be a lying bastard. Suck it up.
Julian Frost
January 26th, 2011
18:44:13

@ Rosemary Cousins:

Correct me, again, if I am wrong – but isn’t there now genetic evidence to prove that vaccines do cause damage in those with a genetic predispostion?

If you are referring to the Hannah Poling case, no. Hannah had an underlying mitochondrial disorder and received nine vaccinations in one day. The Special Master ruled that this could have aggravated her condition. Hannah did not have autism.
Rosemary Cousins
January 26th, 2011
18:51:42

It is a fact that health professionals do not observe the mentally ill or children for fear of being accused of child abuse.

Without observations, symptoms cannot be identified and treated.

Unless Brian Deer pulled the pants of the children down to assess their stools he would never know whether or not their symptoms warranted investigation. His statements just don’t ring true.
Dedj
January 26th, 2011
19:05:03

“It is a fact that health professionals do not observe the mentally ill or children for fear of being accused of child abuse.”

I’m not aware of any AHP who has, or would, refrain from any such observation for the reason you have laid out.

Refraining from observing adverse health affects in a child under thier care could be considered a deriliction of duty under the Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct.

Please provide a reference for your assertions and ensure they are properly laid out.
Rosemary Cousins
January 26th, 2011
19:07:24

Richard Smith Editor of the BMJ wrote:-

Some doctors are scientists – just as some politicians are scientists -but most are not. As medical students they were filled full with information on biochemistry, anatomy, physiology and other sciences, but information does not a scientist make – otherwise, you could become a scientist by watching the Discovery Channel.
Gray Falcon
January 26th, 2011
19:11:18

Some doctors are scientists – just as some politicians are scientists -but most are not. As medical students they were filled full with information on biochemistry, anatomy, physiology and other sciences, but information does not a scientist make – otherwise, you could become a scientist by watching the Discovery Channel.

You missed the next sentence:

A scientist is somebody who constantly questions, generates falsifiable hypotheses, and collects data from well designed experiments—the kind of people who brush their teeth on only one side of their mouth to see whether brushing your teeth has any benefit.

A scientist doesn’t just make a reasonable-sounding statement and expect it to be believed, he searches for evidence of the statement’s truth. For example, when you state “It is a fact that health professionals do not observe the mentally ill or children for fear of being accused of child abuse.”, you need to provide evidence that this is actually the case.
Science Mom
January 26th, 2011
19:17:03

Some doctors are scientists – just as some politicians are scientists -but most are not. As medical students they were filled full with information on biochemistry, anatomy, physiology and other sciences, but information does not a scientist make – otherwise, you could become a scientist by watching the Discovery Channel.

So tell me Rosemary, why then, do the likes of you, John Stone and Clifford Miller constantly try to play ‘junior scientists’ just because you have autistic children? None of you have the backgrounds to parse or qualify scientific literature so none of you really have any business trying to tell others that Wakefield’s studies are valid.
Rosemary Cousins
January 26th, 2011
19:17:56

Dedj You are absolutely spot on there about your explanation.

I am afraid I cannot go into detail for fear of jeopardising my up and coming court case.
Gray Falcon
January 26th, 2011
19:22:17

How will justifying the statement “It is a fact that health professionals do not observe the mentally ill or children for fear of being accused of child abuse.” jeopardize your case? Or any of your other claims?
Dedj
January 26th, 2011
19:23:37

“I am afraid I cannot go into detail for fear of jeopardising my up and coming court case.”

You should not go into detail about your up and coming court case.

You should provide a reference for your blanket assertion, or at least go back to it and lay it out correctly.
AWOL
January 26th, 2011
19:26:58

“Science Mom” swivel on it….more available if I am allowed to publish…

http://www.vaccinesafetyfirst......%20doc.pdf

Gastrointestinal disease in autism:
REPLICATION and SUPPORTIVE STUDIES
Key
Replication studies at the Royal Free**
Replication of case series showing bowel disease in autism by independent groups##
Invited articles*#
Wakefield AJ., Puleston J. Montgomery SM., Anthony A., O’Leary J.J., Murch SH Entero-colonic
encephalopathy, autism and opioid receptor ligands. Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics.
2002;16:663-674

**Torrente F., Machado N., Perez-Machado M., Furlano R., Thomson M., Davies S., Wakefield AJ,
Walker-Smith JA, Murch SH. Enteropathy with T cell infiltration and epithelial IgG deposition in autism.
Molecular Psychiatry. 2002;7:375-382

**Torrente F, Anthony A. Focal-enhanced gastritis in regressive autism with features distinct from Crohn?s
disease and helicobacter Pylori gastritis. Am J Gastroenterol 2004;99:598-605.

*#Wakefield AJ. The Gut-Brain Axis in Childhood developmental Disorders. Journal of Pediatric
Gastroenterology and Nutrition. 2002;34:S14-S17

*#Wakefield AJ. Entero-colitis, Autism and Measles Virus. Consensus in Child Neurology. 2002;6:74-77

**Ashwood P, Anthony A, Pellicer AA, Torrente F, Wakefield AJ. Intestinal lymphocyte populations in
children with regressive autism: Evidence for extensive mucosal immunopathology. Journal of Clinical
Immunology, 2003;23:504-517

**Ashwood P, Anthony A, Torrente F, Wakefield AJ., Spontaneous mucosal lymphocyte cytokine profiles
in children with regressive autism and gastrointestinal symptoms: Mucosal immune activation and
reduced counter regulatory interleukin-10. Journal of Clinical Immunology. 2004:24:664-673

**Ashwood P, Wakefield AJ. Immune activation of peripheral blood and mucosal CD3+ lymphocyte
cytokine profiles in children with autism and gastrointestinal symptoms. J Neuroimmunol.
2006;173:126-34

**Anthony A, Ashwood P., Wakefield AJ. The significance of ileo-colonic lymphoid nodular hyperplasia
in children with autistic spectrum disorder. European Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology
2005;17:827-36

**Furlano RI, et al. Colonic CD8 and gamma delta T-cell infiltration with epithelial damage in children
with autism. J Pediatr. 2001;138:366-72.

**Wakefield AJ, Ashwood P, Limb K, Anthony A. The significance of ileo-colonic lymphoid nodular
hyperplasia in children with autistic spectrum disorder. Eur J Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2005;17:827-36.

*#Wakefield AJ. Enterocolitis, autism and measles virus. Mol Psychiatry. 2002;7 Suppl 2:S44-6.

*#Wakefield AJ, et al. Autism, viral infection and measles-mumps-rubella vaccination. Israeli Med Assoc
J. 1999 Nov;1(3):183-7.
Wakefield AJ. MMR vaccination and autism. Lancet. 1999;354:949-50.
1

Afzal N, et al. Constipation with acquired megarectum in children with autism. Pediatrics.
2003;112:939-42.

##Balzola F, Barbon V, Repici A, Rizzetto M. Panenteric IBD-like disease in a patient with regressive
autism shown for the first time by the wireless capsule enteroscopy: another piece in the jigsaw of this
gut-brain syndrome? Am J Gastro. 2005; 979-981. (Italian replication)

##Balzola F, et al. Autistic enterocolitis: confirmation of a new inflammatory bowel disease in an Italian
cohort of patients. Gastroenterology.2005;128:Suppl.2;A-303. . (Italian replication)

##Balzola F, et al. Beneficial behavioural effects of IBD therapy and gluten/casein-free diet in an Italian
cohort of patients with autistic enterocolitis followed over one year. Gastroenterology, 2006:30; suppl. 2
S1364 A-21. . (Italian replication)
Buie T, et al. Evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of gastrointestinal disorders in individuals with ASDs:
a consensus report. Pediatrics. 2010;125 Suppl 1:S1-18.
Buie T, Fuchs GJ 3rd, Furuta GT, Kooros K, Levy J, Lewis JD, Wershil BK, Winter H. Recommendations
for evaluation and treatment of common gastrointestinal problems in children with ASDs. Pediatrics.
2010;125 Suppl 1:S19-29.
Cade R, et al. Autism and schizophrenia: intestinal disorders. Nutritional Neuroscience 3: 57-72, 2000.
Cade JR, et al. Autism and schizophrenia linked to malfunctioning enzyme for milk protein digestion.
Autism, Mar 1999.

##Chen B, Girgis S, El-Matary W. Childhood autism and eosinophilic colitis. Digestion. 2010;81:127-9.
(Canadian replication)
DeFelice ML, et al. Intestinal cytokines in children with pervasive developmental disorders. Am J
Gastroenterol 2003;98:1777-82:
D’Eufemia P, et al. Abnormal intestinal permeability in children with autism. Acta Paediatr.
1996;85:1076-9.

##Galiatsatos P, et al. Autistic enterocolitis: fact or fiction? Can J Gastroenterol 2009;23:95-98. (Canadian
replication)
Genuis SJ, Bouchard TP. Celiac Disease Presenting as Autism. J Child Neurol. 2009

##Gonzalez L, Lopez K, Navarro D, Negron L, Flores L, Rodriguez R, Martinez M, Sabra A. Endoscopic
and Histological Characteristics of the digestive mucosa in autistic children with gastrointestinal
symptoms. Arch Venez Pueric Pediatr 69;1:19-25 (Venezuelan replication)

##Horvath K et al. Gastrointestinal abnormalities in children with autistic disorder. J Pediatr.
1999;135:559-63. (US replication)
Horvath K, Perman JA. Autism and gastrointestinal symptoms. Curr Gastroenterol Rep.2002;4:251-8.

##Horvath K, Perman JA. Autistic disorder and gastrointestinal disease. Curr Opin Pediatr.2002;14:583-7.
Kawashima H et al. Detection and sequencing of measles virus from peripheral mononuclear cells from
patients with inflammatory bowel disease and autism. Dig Dis Sci. 2000;45:723-9.
2

Kushak R, Winter H, Farber N, Buie T. Gastrointestinal symptoms and intestinal disaccharidase activities
in children with autism. Abstract of presentation to the North American Society of Pediatric
Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, Annual Meeting, October 20-22, 2005, Salt Lake City, Utah.
D’Eufemia P, Celli M, Finnochiaro R, et al. Abnormal intestinal permeability in children with autism.
Acta Pediatrica. 1996;85:1076-1079.
Horvath K, Collins RM, Rabsztyn R et al. Secretin improves intestinal permeability in autistic children. J.
Ped. Gastroenterol. Nutr. 2000;S31:31
De Magistris L, Familiari V, Pascotto A, et al. Alterations of the intestinal barrier in patients with autism
spectrum disorders and in their first-degree relatives. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2010;51:418-24.
Knivsberg AM, Reichelt KL, Hoien T, Nodland M. A randomised, controlled study of dietary intervention
in autistic syndromes. Nutr Neurosci. 2002;5:251–61.

##Krigsman A, Boris M, Goldblatt A et al. Clinical Presentation and Histologic Findings at
Ileocolonoscopy in Children with Autistic Spectrum Disorder and Chronic Gastrointestinal Symptoms.
Autism Insights 2010;2:1-11 (US replication)
McGinnis WR. Mercury and autistic gut disease. Environ Health Perspect. 2001;109:A303-4.
Melmed RD, Schneider CK, Fabes RA. Metabolic markers and gastrointestinal symptoms in children
with autism and related disorders. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2000:31;S31-32.
Nikolov, RN, et al, Gastrointestinal symptoms in a sample of children with pervasive developmental
disorders. J Autism Dev Disord. 2009;39:405-13.
Parracho HM, Bingham MO, Gibson GR, McCartney AL. Differences between the gut microflora of
children with autistic spectrum disorders and that of healthy children. J Med Microbiol. 2005;54:987-91.
Quigley EM, Hurley D. Autism and the gastrointestinal tract. Am J Gastroenterol. 2000;95:2154-6.
Reichelt KL, Knivsberg AM. Can the pathophysiology of autism be explained by the nature of the
discovered urine peptides? Nutr Neurosci. 2003;6:19-28.
Reichelt KL, et al. Probable Etiology and Possible Treatment of Childhood Autism. Brain Dysfuntion
1991;4:308-319.
Reichelt KL, Knivsberg AM. The possibility and probability of a gut-to-brain connection in autism. Ann
Clin Psychiatry. 2009;21:205-11.
Sandler RH, et al. Short-term benefit from oral vancomycin treatment of regressive onset autism. J Child
Neurol. 2000;15:429.
Schneider CK, Melmed RD, Barstow LE, Enriquez FJ, Ranger-Moore J, Ostrem JA. Oral Human
Immunoglobulin for Children with Autism and Gastrointestinal Dysfunction: A Prospective, Open-Label
Study. J Autism Dev Disord. 2006 Jul 15.
Song Y, Liu C, Finegold SM. Real-time PCR quantitation of clostridia in feces of autistic children. Appl
Environ Microbiol. 2004;70:6459-65.
3Taylor B, Miller E, Lingam R, Andrews N, Simmons A, Stowe J. Measles, mumps, and rubella
vaccination and bowel problems or developmental regression in children with autism: population study.
BMJ. 2002;324:393-6.
Valicenti-McDermott M, et al. Frequency of gastrointestinal symptoms in children with autistic spectrum
disorders and association with family history of autoimmune disease. J Dev Behav Pediatr.
2006;27:S128-36.
Valicenti-McDermott MD, McVicar K, Cohen HJ, Wershil BK, Shinnar S. Gastrointestinal symptoms in
children with an autism spectrum disorder and language regression. Pediatr Neurol. 2008;39:392-8.
Welch MG, Welch-Horan TB, Anwar M, Anwar N, Ludwig RJ, Ruggiero DA. Brain effects of chronic
IBD in areas abnormal in autism and treatment by single neuropeptides secretin and oxytocin. J Mol
Neurosci 2005;25:259-74.
White JF. Intestinal pathophysiology in autism. Exp Biol Med. 2003 Jun;228 (6):639-49.
Whiteley P, Shattock P. Biochemical aspects in autism spectrum disorders: updating the opioid-excess
theory and presenting new opportunities for biomedical intervention. Expert Opin There Targets. 2002
Apr;6(2):175-83.
Lucarelli S, Frediani T, Zingoni AM, et al Food allergy and infantile autism. Panminerva
Med. 1995;37:137-41.
Whitely P, Haracopos D, Knivsberg AM, Reichelt KL, Parlar S, Jacobsen J, Seim A, Pedersen
L, Schondel M, Shattock P. The ScanBrit randomised, controlled, single-blind study of a gluten- and
casein-free dietary intervention for children with autism spectrum disorders. Nutr
Neurosci. 2010;13:87-100.
H Jyonouchi, Geng L, Ruby A, Reddy C, et al. Dysregulated Innate Immune Responses in Young
Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders: Their Relationship to Gastrointestinal Symptoms and Dietary
Intervention. J Pediatr 2005;146:605-10
Jyonouchi H. Food Allergy and Autism Spectrum Disorders: Is There a Link? Curr Allergy Asthma
Rep. 2009;9:194-201
4
AWOL
January 26th, 2011
19:41:18

“Science Mom” swivel on it….

http://www.vaccinesafetyfirst......%20doc.pdf

Gastrointestinal disease in autism:
REPLICATION and SUPPORTIVE STUDIES
Key
Replication studies at the Royal Free**
Replication of case series showing bowel disease in autism by independent groups##
Invited articles*#
Julian Frost
January 26th, 2011
20:01:03

And how many of those studies genuinely (and INDEPENDENTLY) replicate Wakefield’s findings, hmm?
Chris
January 26th, 2011
20:02:06

AWOL, included in that list is the paper I noted earlier:
Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Bowel Problems or Developmental Regression in Children with Autism: Population Study. It clearly states in the conclusion:

These findings provide no support for an MMR associated “new variant” form of autism with developmental regression and bowel problems, and further evidence against involvement of MMR vaccine in the initiation of autism.

Please explain how that replicates Wakefield’s findings and shows harm from the MMR vaccine.
Kev
January 26th, 2011
20:02:40

AWOL…all the studies you link to have been discussed and refuted. Some of them aren’t even decent studies. More than a few bear the name of one AJ Wakefield.

You are adding next to nothing to the debate right now and telling women to ‘swivel on it’ is fairly abusive. Watch your step.
Science Mom
January 26th, 2011
20:14:58

Gastrointestinal disease in autism:
REPLICATION and SUPPORTIVE STUDIES

You lost this argument long ago, ‘swivel on it’ puts you beneath contempt. You just keep repeating the same list but refuse to pick out a study and explain why it supports Wakefield. None of them do, even his own since replication isn’t valid unless done so by others, and the rest don’t have anything to do with his pet hypothesis of ‘autistic enterocolitis’. If it had such strength of replication and support, it would be a recognised diagnosis and it isn’t. Put up or shut up you bore.
Sullivan
January 26th, 2011
20:45:06

“Gastrointestinal disease in autism”

And? There is no story in the fact that some autistics have gastrointestinal disease. Being autistic does not make one immune to GI disease, any more than it makes one immune to any other disease.

From the 1998 Lancet article:

We describe a pattern of colitis and ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia in children with developmental disorders. Intestinal and behavioural pathologies may have occurred together by chance, reflecting a selection bias in a self-referred group; however, the uniformity of the intestinal pathological changes and the fact that previous studies have found intestinal dysfunction in children with autistic-spectrum disorders, suggests that the connection is real and reflects a unique disease process.

Emphasis added.

First, even Mr. Wakefield acknowledges that GI dysfunction in autistics was known before his work. So, replications of “Gastrointestinal disease in autism” is not a replication of his work, but of previous work.

Second, he is suggesting that there is a connection between the two. Not just that autistics have GI diseases. Beyond that, he suggests in his paper that not only is there a connection, but that the GI disease is somehow causal to the autism.

Third, he claims a uniformity of ” intestinal pathological changes”. This isn’t even borne out in his own patient set, as Brian Deer has shown.
Rosemary Cousins
January 26th, 2011
20:47:32

The point I am making about Richard Smith’s (Editor BMJ) comments is that those who sat in judgement of Andrew Wakefield were not scientists they just thought they were because they had watched the Discovery Channel, so to speak.
Rosemary Cousins
January 26th, 2011
20:54:35

I happened to see an article in the Daily Mail a couple of days ago about the young woman who was paralysed from the waist down after the swine flu jab. Apparently neurologists confirmed the paralysis was due to a rare reaction to the vaccination. Sad though. I suppose if she had been genetically assessed as to her genetic predisposition before hand, the paralysis could have been avoided.

Prime Minister?
Science Mom
January 26th, 2011
21:07:34

The point I am making about Richard Smith’s (Editor BMJ) comments is that those who sat in judgement of Andrew Wakefield were not scientists they just thought they were because they had watched the Discovery Channel, so to speak.

Those who sit on the GMC and who presided over Wakefield’s case were patently qualified to render judgement on his unethical treatment of research subjects and his phony IRB and not because they watched the Discovery Channel but because they have the backgrounds to do so. If there were procedural errors with Waker’s hearing, then he could have appealed on those grounds. Why didn’t he?
Gray Falcon
January 26th, 2011
21:08:41

The point I am making about Richard Smith’s (Editor BMJ) comments is that those who sat in judgement of Andrew Wakefield were not scientists they just thought they were because they had watched the Discovery Channel, so to speak.

Your evidence for this accusation?

I happened to see an article in the Daily Mail a couple of days ago about the young woman who was paralysed from the waist down after the swine flu jab. Apparently neurologists confirmed the paralysis was due to a rare reaction to the vaccination. Sad though. I suppose if she had been genetically assessed as to her genetic predisposition before hand, the paralysis could have been avoided.

That has nothing to do with Wakefield. At all. Don’t change the subject.

Prime Minister?

Are you still making threats? After being given a sharp warning?
AWOL
January 26th, 2011
21:24:21

S&M ,Sullivan ,Kev et-al

Brian Deer has contributed wholly to the media misrepresentation of Andrew Wakefields study. The paper was a five page case study, not a double-blind test drawing conclusive results. It studied 12 children and made no claims, it merely posited hypotheses. The paper concludes…

“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.”

These sorts of studies are done all the time in science and are generally ignored because they don’t prove anything. They merely function as springboards for further scientific research.

Wakefield’s paper however generated enormous controversy because he dared to even hypostasise that vaccines and autism might be link ,threatening the Pharma`s sacred golden calf, of vaccines. Another point you all miss is that the GMC alleged conflicts of interest and unethical treatment of test subjects, it had nothing to do with the quality of his scientific research. The GMC panel that found him guilty of “callous disregard” focused on alleged conflicts of interest and unethical treatment of test subjects.

Lets get it straight …focus trolls..

The Lancet, the journal the paper was published in, is owned by global publishing giant Reed-Elsevier. Reed-Elsevier own 2,460 scientific journals, aswell as the magazine New Scientist.

I’ll say that again, 2,460 scientific journals! – It’s no wonder scientists who dissent from any ‘consensus’ are so easily shut out of the ‘credible’ peer-reviewed literature when a significant amount of that literature is owned by a single publishing conglomerate. They’re like the science and medicine equivalent of News Corp!

It gets worse. Reed-Elsevier’s CEO, Sir Crispin Davis, is a non-executive director of GlaxoSmithKline! And his brother, Sir Nigel Davis, was a judge who withdrew legal aid from families who claimed their children were damaged by GlaxoSmithKline’s MMR vaccine.

Worse still, in 2009 the pharmaceutical giant Merck was sued for paying Elsevier to create a fake journal to promote their products.

Reed-Elsevier’s former chairman, Jan Hommen, attended Bilderberg in 2007 and 2010.

Interestingly, Reed-Elsevier was also the company Peter Power of visor consultants was running mock terror drills for on the morning of 7/7.

Brian Deer, the journalist making all these allegations about Dr. Wakefield, has been supported in his efforts by Channel 4, Murdoch’s Sunday Times and MedicoLegal Investigations, a private company owned by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry!

The network of corruption is so in your face but trust in Deer is wholesale and the denial amongst you all is alarming. And forgot to add that the GMC ,and the BMJ are far from pharma funding Mars is closer ..for a level playing field….
Sullivan
January 26th, 2011
21:25:48

As Gray Falcon notes, this is a diversion, but can you provide a link to the Daily Mail article you refer to?

I found these stories (and more) on the Daily Mail website with a search for “vaccine”.

Swine flu, hard questions and a father’s agony (father talking about his daughter dying from swine flu and asking why under 5 year old kids were excluded from the vaccine)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/hea.....under.html" rel="nofollow">IVF toddler twins struck down with meningitis… but only one survives after hospital blunder (parents lose a child and support research into a vaccine for this form of meningitis)

Flu death toll doubles: As virus claims 254 lives, GPs face being stripped of their power to order jabs

My baby nearly died when the hospital that failed Lana Ameen sent him home with swine flu

Grandmother dies from swine flu AFTER she has the jab (vaccine failure)

My darling daughter died for the lack of a £6 jab: Grief and anger of swine flu victim’s doctor father

Flu deaths double to 112 as parents of victim, 3, call for all children to get vaccine

It was a week and then she was gone: Fit and healthy mother-of-three dies from swine flu
Sullivan
January 26th, 2011
21:31:43

“The paper was a five page case study, not a double-blind test drawing conclusive results.”

According to JB Handley, Andrew Wakefield supporter and founder of Generation Rescue, “Without a real control group, the conclusions of a study on the potential harm of a drug are 100% useless.” That didn’t stop JB Handley from claiming that the Wakefield’s 1998 Lancet study is evidence that the MMR causes intestinal inflammation and the “resultant behaviors”.

I realize that you are not JB Handley, but the community supporting Andrew Wakefield is trying to have it both ways. It is proof, except when it works against Andrew Wakefield.

That said, you do realize that you are repeating a known falsehood here, don’t you: “Brian Deer, the journalist making all these allegations about Dr. Wakefield, has been supported in his efforts by Channel 4, Murdoch’s Sunday Times and MedicoLegal Investigations, a private company owned by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry!”

MedicoLegal Investigations spoke with Brian Deer for one meeting, discussing medical ethics questions. They did not support Brian Deer and they are not owned by the ABPI. That sort of information comes to those who actually ask questions, rather than rely upon the ChildHealthSafety blog.
Sullivan
January 26th, 2011
21:33:31

I’ll say that again, 2,460 scientific journals! – It’s no wonder scientists who dissent from any ‘consensus’ are so easily shut out of the ‘credible’ peer-reviewed literature when a significant amount of that literature is owned by a single publishing conglomerate. They’re like the science and medicine equivalent of News Corp!

Elselvier also owns “Medical Hypotheses”, a pseudo journal which has published many junk science papers on autism, including the seminal paper claiming autism is caused by thimerosal.

Sort of works against your notion, doesn’t it?
Kev
January 26th, 2011
21:54:41

Lets get it straight …focus trolls..

Last chance.
sheldon101
January 26th, 2011
22:13:57

The woman has transverse myelitis. The story is a year old. What evidence is that is linkied with the 2009H1N1 vaccination, except that it happened a day after vaccination?
Joseph
January 26th, 2011
22:24:50

It studied 12 children and made no claims, it merely posited hypotheses.

@AWOL: Except for the claim of having discovered a new syndrome: autistic enterocolitis. No biggie, I guess.

These sorts of studies are done all the time in science and are generally ignored because they don’t prove anything. They merely function as springboards for further scientific research.

Fraud can’t be excused simply on the basis that the study was small or inconclusive. What matters is the damage to the public interest.

Wakefield’s paper however generated enormous controversy because he dared to even hypostasise that vaccines and autism might be link

That and the fraud stuff. If scientific fraud weren’t so frowned upon, I guess Wakefield would be fine.

The network of corruption is so in your face

If it’s so in your face, why aren’t you able to demonstrate convincingly that it exists?

There was corruption, alright: that which Wakefield perpetrated.
AWOL
January 26th, 2011
23:33:01

Sullivan

“MedicoLegal Investigations spoke with Brian Deer for one meeting, discussing medical ethics questions.

Was the one meeting with Deer for his bank account details?

They did not support Brian Deer and they are not owned by the ABPI.(Deer Deer) That sort of information comes to those who actually ask questions, rather than rely upon the ChildHealthSafety blog.”Qui!

Sullivan what`s printed on the web site is..mmm? I wont exchange
ad-hom as Kev thinks you all need to be mothered..

http://www.medicolegal-investi.....index.html

“The only UK company specialising in research fraud/misconduct investigations now supported by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry.”

“I realize that you are not JB Handley, but the community supporting Andrew Wakefield is trying to have it both ways. It is proof, except when it works against Andrew Wakefield.”

JB Handly can write what he wants if he wants to believe that so be it he has his reasons .It is proof except when it works against Pharma..la la

1.“Elselvier also owns “Medical Hypotheses”, … Sort of works against your notion, doesn’t it? ”

Well by maths , 2,459 scientific journals! Still doing the Pharma Gap band dance of ..say oops upside your head say oops upside your head..la la… point is Sullivan?

?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N19NmO3NP4

Joseph

You just need to go and read a lot more before putting pen to paper…mmm
sheldon101
January 26th, 2011
23:36:49

Did Brian Deer say the following?

“Dr Wakefield was, as you know, a senior author of the Lancet paper, and publication of the paper, together with the commentary and the observations that he made at the press briefing, has led on the evidence that you have received to a downturn, or at least did turn to a downturn, in vaccination rates for the MMR vaccine. That is a fact. And it is a fact, even though Dr Wakefield may have been justified in publishing the paper; even though he held honest views about the safety of the MMR vaccine, and even though he advocated the use of a single vaccine. The fact of the linkage between the paper and the press briefing and the downturn is a fact, and it is not difficult to imagine that in some quarters he would be heavily criticised for that fact. The Panel is bound to be aware that such criticism has been made.”
AWOL
January 26th, 2011
23:59:06

Sheldon as I said comment21:24:21

“Brian Deer has contributed wholly to the media misrepresentation of Andrew Wakefields study.”

AND

” The paper was a five page case study, not a double-blind test drawing conclusive results. It studied 12 children and made no claims, it merely posited hypotheses. The paper concludes”

I also state ..

” These sorts of studies are done all the time in science and are generally ignored because they don’t prove anything. They merely function as springboards for further scientific research.”

My point is, why ?come crying to me if Brian Deer has hyped the whole matter up.Hoodwinking ,you all into a state of complete darkness?

Mind you he has led more than you on here into the dark such as the paper at the BMJ ..whats that all about???more hype and spin from Deer keeping himself in work…nothing more..
AWOL
January 27th, 2011
00:13:02

Sullivan

“MedicoLegal Investigations spoke with Brian Deer for one meeting, discussing medical ethics questions.”

Was the one meeting with Deer for his bank account details?

“They did not support Brian Deer and they are not owned by the ABPI. That sort of information comes to those who actually ask questions, rather than rely upon the ChildHealthSafety blog.”

Well Sullivan, its not what`s printed on the web site..mmm? I wont exchange ad-hom as Kev thinks you all need to be mothered..

http://www.medicolegal-investi.....index.html

“The only UK company specialising in research fraud/misconduct investigations now supported by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry.”

Sullivan so far as you say“I realize that you are not JB Handley, but the community supporting Andrew Wakefield is trying to have it both ways. It is proof, except when it works against Andrew Wakefield.”

JB Handly can write what he wants he has his reasons .It is proof except when it works against Pharma..la la you should have said..

1.“Elselvier also owns “Medical Hypotheses”, … Sort of works against your notion, doesn’t it? ”

Well by maths , 2,459 scientific journals! Still doing the Pharma Gap band dance of ..say oops upside your head say oops upside your head..la la… point is Sulliavan??

Joseph

You just need to go and read a lot more before putting pen to paper…mmm If I comment I`ll be evicted from the big Kev brother house…
AWOL
January 27th, 2011
00:17:32

I see my reply to Sullivan is not coming up??Probably come up buried behind 10 postings, nothing like burying bad news quickly all at the one time even
Sullivan
January 27th, 2011
01:29:10

Or…it could be in the 1,800 spam messages in the spam queue.

You have yet to produce anything like “bad news”. Just unsupported assertions, character smears and threats. I just found about 4 messages in the queue and popped them loose.
Sullivan
January 27th, 2011
01:46:08

AWOL,

Owned is not the same thing as supported. From the link you provided:
“The only UK company specialising in research fraud/misconduct investigations now supported by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry”

From a statement by MLI:

The statement in bold lettering is totally false. We had no idea he was undertaking this investigation until he was about halfway through. At that point, and knowing that we were the only people in Europe experienced in the investigation of research fraud and misconduct, he contacted us to seek advice on a general issue related to Ethics Committees. We had a one off meeting with him and were able to offer guidance without knowing the details of the confidential investigation. I would like to know how anyone can say we are a pharmaceutical front group – we have always retained our independence.
We have never been owned or controlled by the ABPI - that is complete and utter nonsense. We have been supported by the ABPI and, indeed, the medical Royal Colleges. In order to ease our cashflow crises (there is never enough work to cover the costs of running a business) a few pharma companies paid an annual subscription to us in return for reduced rates for training and investigations. That does not mean that we were controlled by them. I pay annual subscriptions to magazines and get cheaper copies but I do not have editorial control!
Finally we specialise in the investigation of possible fraud/misconduct in research. When we are 70% certain that we have enough evidence to prove serious professional misconduct we report the facts to the GMC who conduct an Inquiry into the allegations. We also investigate other health sector matters and if a criminal offence is disclosed we report to the police or embark upon a private prosecution through the lawyers of our clients (other statutory bodies). The protection of patients is primarily our concern.
I hope this helps

The statement in bold referred to above is: “When Brian Deer began his investigation of Andy Wakefield, he was supported by a pharmaceutical front group”

So, Mr. Deer (a) only received a one-off meeting with MLI to discuss issues of fraud and misconduct and (b) MLI is not and has not been owned by ABPI.

You see misconduct everywhere but where it is most obvious: in Andrew Wakefield.
sheldon101
January 27th, 2011
04:27:00

January 26th, 2011
23:36:49
Did Brian Deer say the following?

“Dr Wakefield was, as you know, a senior author of the Lancet paper, and publication of the paper, together with the commentary and the observations that he made at the press briefing…

Everyone who thought it was Wakefield’s barrister gets a point.
Rosemary Cousins
January 27th, 2011
10:03:24

SCIENTISTS ARE THE KING OF THE BEASTS

It is my genuine understanding, from the information which I have before me (details of which I cannot go into because of my up and coming court case) that a team of British neuroscientists/geneticists have made a major discovery in our genes and as a consequence now have a massive understanding of the shift in the human gene pool.

The Government must make a statement.
John Stone
January 27th, 2011
10:19:18

Balzola abstract here:-

http://justthevax.blogspot.com.....-bomb.html

Autistic enterocolitis: confirmation of a new inflammatory bowel disease in an Italian cohort of patients.
Federico Balzola, Clauser Daniela*, Alessandro Repici, Valeria Barbon, Anna Sapino***, Cristiana Barbera**, Pier Luigi Calvo**, Marina Gandione*, Roberto Rigardetto*, Mario Rizzetto.

Dept of Gastroenterology. University of Turin. Molinette Hospital Turin, Italy

*Dept of Neuropsychiatry for Children. University of Turin Regina Margherita Pediatric Hospital, Turin, Italy ** Dept of Pediatric Gastroenterology. University of Turin Regina Margherita Pediatric Hospital, Turin, Italy *** Dept of Biomedical Science and Human Oncology University of Turin

Although the causes of autism are largely unknown, this long-life developmental disorder is now recognised to affect as many as 1 to 500 children. An upper and lower intestinal disease has been recently described in these patients (pts) in spite of gastrointestinal symptoms have been reported by the parents back more many years. This disorder comprising ileo-colonic lymphoid nodular hyperplasia (LNH) and chronic inflammatory colonic disease was called autistic enterocolitis: an association between autism and bowel disease was then proposed.

Nine consecutive male pts (mean age 18 years, range 7-30 years) with a diagnosis of autism according to ICD-10 criteria that showed chronic intestinal symptoms (abdominal pain, bloating, constipation and/or diarrhoea) were enrolled. After routinely blood and stool tests, gastroscopy and colonoscopy with multiple biopsies were performed under sedation. A wireless enteroscopy capsule was also performed in 3 adult pts.

Anemia and fecal blood positive test were found in 2 pts and 3 pts, respectively. Gastroscopy revealed mucosal gastritis in 4 pts, esophagitis in 1 and duodenitis in 1 pts. Histological findings showed a chronic inflammation of the stomach and duodenum in 6 pts (66%) but inconsistent with celiac disease. Macroscopic mucosal abnormalities (aphtoid ulcerations and loss of vascular pattern) were found in 1 pts (11%) at colonoscopy and a LNH in the terminal ileum in 4 pts. (44%) Microscopic colitis with intraepithelial lymphocytes and eosinophils infiltrations, mucosal atrophy and follicular hyperplasia was histologically present in all the pts (100%) whereas a chronic inflammation with iperemia and villous shortening of the terminal ileum was shown in 6 (66%) pts. The wireless capsule revealed areas of bleeding or patchy erythema, mucosal erosions and ulcers in both jejunum and ileum in 1 patients whereas a particular chronic jejunum and ileal erosive pattern was evident in the other two.

These preliminary data are strongly consistent with previous descriptions of autistic enterocolitis and supported a not-coincidental occurrence. Moreover, they showed for the first time a small intestinal involvement, suggesting a panenteric localisation of this new IBD. The treatment to gain clinical remission has still to be tried and it will be extremely important to ameliorate the quality of life of such pts who are likely to be overlooked because of their long-life problems in the communication of symptoms.
Rosemary Cousins
January 27th, 2011
11:11:44

JOURNALISTS TAKE NOTE:

I draw the attention of journalists and members of the Government to the comments of some individuals on this autism blog. A blog which was set up as a platform by a denomination of The State itself.

The relentless persecution parents of the disabled have endured at the hands of The State is there for all the world to see.
Rosemary Cousins
January 27th, 2011
12:45:55

A FISH ROTS FROM THE HEAD
Catherina
January 27th, 2011
13:00:09

Good morning, Mr Stone.

The abstract you have posted from Federico Balzola is just that, a conference abstract. It was presented in 2005, so over 5 years ago and has not seen the light of day as a proper, peer reviewed study yet. My guess is, that it won’t (although Dr. Balzola showed some motivation on tour with that circus).

What we would really be after is an independent verification of Andrew Wakefield’s (fraudulent, it has been alleged) claims. I am not sure that a conference abstract by a gastrointestinal surgeon, who was “awarded training from 1994 to 1995 at Royal Free Hospital in London on measles implication in inflammatory bowel disease”, described as “an ex research fellow in AJW’s lab” and by Wakefield as “my ex student” (PMID: 8961895, PMID: 9789132) is totally independent.
Joseph
January 27th, 2011
13:34:53

What does the Bazola abstract show exactly? It appears that they enrolled 9 autistic children who had “chronic intestinal symptoms (abdominal pain, bloating, constipation and/or diarrhoea).” Then they find that (surprise, surprise) these children have a number of clinical GI anomalies.

That’s hardly a replication. There’s no mention of MMR, when they had it, regression, etc.

To actually put forth the existence of a new syndrome, they would’ve had to enroll N matched non-autistic children with the same GI complaints (abdominal pain, bloating, constipation and/or diarrhoea) and then compare clinical findings. They didn’t do this, so it’s not surprising the paper remained an abstract and never got to a journal.
Kev
January 27th, 2011
13:35:47

A blog which was set up as a platform by a denomination of The State itself.

Careful Ms Cousins, you’re at best, wrong and at worst, lying. This blog was set up by me at the behest of no one at all.
Drive-by comment
January 27th, 2011
13:36:08

The trainees under Wakefield were generally qrateful since he was often able to get them money from drug companies. Having said that, a number were not, and have subsequently made complaints about him to Deer: Nick Chadwick being the most publicised example.
Rosemary Cousins
January 27th, 2011
13:51:50

Kev

A denomination of The State means exactly that and not The State in essence.

By using the descriptive term ‘denomination’ I mean by association.
Joseph
January 27th, 2011
14:48:35

A denomination of The State means exactly that and not The State in essence. By using the descriptive term ‘denomination’ I mean by association.

@Rosemary: Could you translate this gibberish into English?
sheldon101
January 27th, 2011
16:02:19

Kev: Consider banning Rosemary. Her comment:
“JOURNALISTS TAKE NOTE:

I draw the attention of journalists and members of the Government to the comments of some individuals on this autism blog. A blog which was set up as a platform by a denomination of The State itself.

The relentless persecution parents of the disabled have endured at the hands of The State is there for all the world to see.”

is intended to chill free discussion at this website.
Brian Morgan
January 27th, 2011
16:27:50

Well I’m a journalist, and I don’t think these comments are taken seriously. In my opinion they certainly don’t “chill free discussion”. They’re just ignored. Yes they take up space and slow down reading of other posts. Any decision as to banning must be carefully considered though because inevitably some will condemn this as restricting free discussion about vaccine and autism issues.

Is this person the same as Bowrain who contributed to the Guardian? There was a fair amount of deleted comments from him/her.

Over to you Kev.
Chris
January 27th, 2011
16:34:30

Ms. Cousins, you are making absolutely no sense. Could you please show evidence for the claims you have made on this thread:

1) Exactly which of those studies you claim have independently (means neither Wakefield nor Krigsman can be an author) replicated Wakefield’s Lancet findings. Please include the number of children (this means no adults) and which version of the MMR vaccine they received (this means that measles vaccination must be at least mentioned, and would be either of the two used in the UK between 1988 and 1998).

2) How exactly does this paper replicate Wakefield’s findings?

3) Explain exactly what evidence you have to call the GMC corrupt. You made a very libelous statement as a citizen of a country with very expensive libel laws. I assume you have iron-clad documentation to defend yourself.

And just out of curiosity, why did you ask Steve Barclay MP to help you? Why are you calling a Member of Parliament “Prime Minister”? It makes me wonder about your statements like “A denomination of The State means exactly that and not The State in essence”, when you cannot even keep straight the hierarchy of your own government.
John Stone
January 27th, 2011
17:28:28

Catherina

Of course, if something becomes a heresy then it might be difficult to publish, but so what?
Gina
January 27th, 2011
17:30:57

@Rosemary: seriously, buy a dictionary. You say:”Kev

A denomination of The State means exactly that and not The State in essence.

By using the descriptive term ‘denomination’ I mean by association.”

If you mean association, then use association and not denomination. But it doesn’t matter, because they are both contextually wrong for the point you are trying to make. Association or denomination, neither is true. You were, at one point in this discussion, acting civil and reasonable. Now, you’re completely incomprehensible.

In all your demands of evidence from Mr. Deer, you’ve not had the courtesy to support any of your own assertions yourself. You’re a hypocrite.
Catherina
January 27th, 2011
17:55:40

John,

what a poor excuse, really. If someone had the appropriate study with appropriate design and controls, then we would see it published (and you’d really need a full paper to judge on the data). But of course, if the premise of the study was totally made up, then it will be difficult to reproduce it.

I am not saying that there is no dogma and that dogma can be a significant hurdle to publish new and different findings (or new interpretations of old findings). However, dogma will most effectively be challenged from within the system, not by press releases, anti-dogma conferences etc. The high quality science to support Andrew Wakefield is just not there, and not every “heretic” is a Gallileo. Some are just plain wrong.
Science Mom
January 27th, 2011
19:10:03

Of course, if something becomes a heresy then it might be difficult to publish, but so what?

Ditto to Catherina. You’re making excuses. It didn’t stop Wakefield from publishing numerous methodologically-poor papers, didn’t stop Hewitson from the same and didn’t stop Goodman and Gallagher. You put the information out there and let the scientific/medical communities judge the validity of the methods and results. We aren’t swayed by introductions and discussions like you.
Sullivan
January 27th, 2011
19:28:00

If something is wrong, it should be difficult to publish. Didn’t work out that way in 1998, did it?
Catherina
January 27th, 2011
19:55:40

didn’t 4 out of 6 reviewers catch it even back then?
Sullivan
January 27th, 2011
21:34:45

didn’t 4 out of 6 reviewers catch it even back then?

Yes. I don’t know what is standard for The Lancet, but 6 reviewers is high for most journals. This tells me that the editor probably got the rejections first, and then sent the manuscript out for a second set of referee reports.

In other words, it should have been rejected. Either the authors asked for reconsideration or the editor decided on his own to get more referees in order to justify publishing.
Brian Morgan
January 27th, 2011
22:16:15

Sullivan said: “This tells me that the editor probably got the rejections first, and then sent the manuscript out for a second set of referee reports.”

Can you direct me to a good source for this? I’ve tried a Google search and nothing comes up near the top.
Catherina
January 27th, 2011
22:17:46

I have NEVER heard of 6 for a paper. For grants this happens, but papers you are usually looking at 2 or 3. Interesting thought with a whole second set of reviewers.

Well, if Horton’s idea was to be controversial, he has certainly achieved that…
John Fryer Chemist
January 27th, 2011
22:52:23

The worth of any single paper is very limited and the 12 year taking down of this paper is unparalled in the history of research papers and it seems the taking down of just one of 13 authors will go on for the next 12 years.

Any criticism of any paper in this depth is bound to bring up problems and the biggest problem as mentioned is that a single paper is a speck in the knowledge of man.

Most of what is in this paper has been published both before and after and of course denied in papers as well.

As a chemist it seems implausible that a vaccine given so long after many other more toxic vaccines would be the main culprit for gut problems or autism and I suspect that it has taken discussion away from mercury vaccines administered in much greater amounts from 1990 or so.

If a non toxic vaccine is arguably bad at 18 months than how about highly toxic vaccines with brain destroying mercury compounds at the age of 2 months, one day or while the baby is in the womb?

Further other non toxic proteins in DTP can explain why we get so much food intolerance.

Harm from vaccines was established more than a hundred years ago.

Natural immunity from breast feeding has been rode rough shod over and exposes little infants to harm when fed on material from unrelated animals and more often today GMO altered as well.

Gut problems and autism have been linked since 1971 at least.

Problems from specifically the measles component were also suggested before this publication.

Some people even accuse Andrew Wakefield of plagiarism rather than reinforcing knowledge.

There are still die hards that think autism is some rain-man syndrome where genius is the syndrome of autism.

It is in fact so wide in its repercussions that it cannot be solely genetic or just a simple disorder of neuron wiring.

Andrew Wakefield links autism to gut problems and the incidence of just under half shows it is important.

Also there are links to epilepsy, links to poor hearing et al.

We need to move forward and think of the injury caused and increasing that needs addressing today.

This paper is important to many people on both sides of the argument.

How about an independent re-write taking into account the limitations put forward?

How about studying these people now at age 14 or so?

Before this paper came out I had the view that 95 per cent of published papers were of low quality and if the rules of thumb here are used I would think my view was not far from the truth.

Andrew Wakefield was very young when he published this paper with others and it is clear his knowledge and expertise in this field has increased to the point where even he must be embarrassed by errors he made while preparing or publishing this paper.

The destruction of the worth of any person who produces research questioning established common sense will only mean the true cause of how ever many cases of autism people cannot agree on in todays world will forever largely remain a mystery.

This area of modern health or ill-health is just one more complete unknown to go with a dozen or more other modern medical catastrophes.
Sullivan
January 27th, 2011
23:05:09

Brian Morgan,

Sullivan said: “This tells me that the editor probably got the rejections first, and then sent the manuscript out for a second set of referee reports.”

Can you direct me to a good source for this? I’ve tried a Google search and nothing comes up near the top.

that is my suspicion based on the fact that they had 6 referees. As Catherina comments, 2 or 3 referees is normal for a journal. Assuming that, the editor must have sent the Wakefield Lancet paper out for the first set of referees and had rejections come back. Otherwise, no reason to send out for more.

An author can challenge referee reports and ask for a review. It is the editor’s discretion as to how to handle such a request. He/she can either (a) make an editorial decision to reject or accept the paper based on the existing reports, (b) send back to the original referees, or© find new referees.

Assuming that the paper went through more than one referee cycle (and I consider that a pretty good bet given 6 referees), the question then becomes whether the request for extra review came from Mr. Wakefield or was solely the decision of the Lancet editor.
Brian Morgan
January 27th, 2011
23:20:06

I’ve got a lot of catching up to do, and whilst I have myself exposed unethical research and mis-reporting in papers, and been exposed with others to very serious ad-hominem attacks as a result, I’ve yet to see any of the research papers withdrawn. Maybe now’s the time to press for this.

Where will I see a reference to the 6 referees in the Lancet paper?
AWOL
January 28th, 2011
00:07:10

Need answers to your questions?live today, Dr Wakefield on the Gary Null Show

http://www.progressiveradionet.....show-wnye/
Gray Falcon
January 28th, 2011
00:16:23

Here’s my question: “Dr. Wakefield, have you no sense of human decency?”
AWOL
January 28th, 2011
00:30:39

Maurice Hilleman,(55mins in) is on it as well..your hero..go listen..now!!
Gray Falcon
January 28th, 2011
00:36:56

They have a man dead six years on a live radio show? That’s pretty impressive.
Sullivan
January 28th, 2011
00:43:14

“Where will I see a reference to the 6 referees in the Lancet paper?”

I know that Paul Offit mentions this in Autism’s False Prophets.

Here is a section of the transcript, day 16. They are questioning Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet:

QIf he decides that it is appropriate to send it out for peer review, at that stage, how many reviewers would it go to?
AThe paper would be sent to three external reviewers plus a statistician. It is very important to have a statistical adviser take a look at the design of the study.

So, the paper was sent to 3 referees initially.

Dr. Horton discusses the process further:

QOnce that process is complete, they have seen the paper and written reports on it, what happens next?
AThose reports back in 1997 would have been sent in my mail, collated by the editor and, when all the reports were available, then he or she would present the paper plus the peer review comments at the Thursday afternoon editorial meeting and the debate would ensue.

QIs it customary for people who have reviewed the paper to say critical things as well as positive things?
AExtremely, yes, very much so.

QHow do you handle those as far as the authors of the paper are concerned?
AWe have two separate components. They say things that they are happy to be transmitted to the authors and they also provide confidential comments that they say they report to the editors, which often presents us with a tricky situation because they are frequently very polite to authors and somewhat less polite when they are discussing a paper in front of us privately.

QOn those parts that they are happy to have relayed to the authors, do you discuss any criticisms that have been made?
AOn the Thursday afternoon meetings?

QOr at all?
AWe certainly debate all the pros and cons of the paper at the manuscript meeting and make a decision then whether we are going to reject the paper, seek further opinion or open negotiations with the authors.

QWill there be, at that state, any general discussion about other matters which might be relevant to publication?
ACertainly we will be discussing whether the paper has aspects of it that might cause controversy and should be considered in judging a paper, whether there are any conflicts of interest that should be taken into account in considering the paper or any other aspects of the work that might have cause for concern.

QAt the end of that meeting, do you then make a final decision as to whether you are going to reject the paper or admit it for publication?
AThree options: either to reject, to open negotiations or to seek further opinion.

Q Can you tell us what open negotiations means?
A That means that if there are questions raised by one or more of the peer reviewers that we think require explanation or further elucidation in a revised manuscript by the authors, then we will go back to the authors and say please can you take a look at your paper, in the light of these reviewers’ comments, and make the necessary adjustments. They hopefully will take account of those questions, submit a revised version of the paper and then we go back into a Thursday afternoon discussion to decide whether that is acceptable or not.

Q The third option you said was to seek a further opinion. Is that over and above the peer reviews you have already had done?
A Yes, that is right. Particularly I would say now that is quite a common option but back in 1997 it was less common.
AWOL
January 28th, 2011
00:48:55

Yes! Hilleman was an atheist.

Hilleman is on it for sure. He`s all dressed up and no place to go.

Go listen he can tell you how America won at the Olympics “because the weight from the multiple cancer tumors was weighing them down and the Russians were the first to be tested on with the monkey vaccines.. (no joke) Brian Deer is on it lieing for all he is worth as only he can..
Sullivan
January 28th, 2011
01:14:24

Gary Null falls for Mr. Wakefield’s excuse that he actually had permission to do the work he did. There was approval to take 2 extra mucosal samples from endoscopies. Mr. Wakefield has claimed that this covered him to do all the investigations his team did (barium meals, MRI, lumbar punctures, etc…).

He discloses that he is “the only journalist anywhere, in the world, other than Brian Deer” to have the approval and claims this wasn’t provided to the GMC.

Poor Gary. He makes such a dramatic statement. He claims the GMC didn’t have this information and claims that Brian Deer held it back.

The man really needs to do the least bit of homework to back up his claims. There was a ton of discussion on precisely this issue at the GMC. Over and over and over. The GMC made it clear that Andrew Wakefield’s defense in this regard was unsupported by the facts.

Makes a good drama, though.
Brian Morgan
January 28th, 2011
01:26:47

I’m just a little bit concerned about potentially conflicting interests held by Gary Null. http://www.garynull.com/

And – to my query: “Where will I see a reference to the 6 referees in the Lancet paper?” The response was: “I know that Paul Offit mentions this in Autism’s False Prophets.” Can someone find me the quote?
Sullivan
January 28th, 2011
02:19:27

Brian Morgan,

If I can find the book at home, I should be able to get the quote shortly.
sheldon101
January 28th, 2011
02:59:45

Gary Null’s research on the 162/95 issue is as deep as the research he did for his Ph.D.
Rosemary Cousins
January 28th, 2011
11:59:14

Dr Andrew Wakefield is fantastic and proves beyond any shadow of a doubt the fraudulent activities of the BMJ and Brian Deer.

Tick, tock, tick, tock Brian Deer.
Rosemary Cousins
January 28th, 2011
12:04:11

It’s sink or swim time Brian Deer. What are you going to do?
sharon
January 28th, 2011
12:07:30

Rosemary you are just embarrassing yourself. Well you have been for a while, but now it’s toe curling.
Rosemary Cousins
January 28th, 2011
12:42:30

WHEN BRIAN DEER FALLS TO HIS KNEES, THE THUD WILL REVERBERATE AROUND BIG BEN - SO LISTEN CAREFULLY
AWOL
January 28th, 2011
12:43:39

“Gary Null falls for Mr. Wakefield’s excuse that he actually had permission to do the work he did. There was approval to take 2 extra mucosal samples from endoscopies. Mr. Wakefield has claimed that this covered him to do all the investigations his team did (barium meals, MRI, lumbar punctures, etc…).”

You have this arse about face. Deer has provided only two approvals, when Gary Null said he was sitting with multiple approvals that Brian Deer also had, which Deer never showed to the GMC.The claim for only two is a fraud Sullivan, and you know it…

Cherry picking,Fraud, by Deer springs to mind
Rosemary Cousins
January 28th, 2011
13:45:05

You can’t put the ‘book’ down, though, can you Sharon – absolutely glued to it.

Sharon claims to be the personification of knowledge on semi intellectualism and narcissism yet fell at the first fence when asked to reveal her hand.

And you call me an embarrassment Sharon?
Rosemary Cousins
January 28th, 2011
13:48:05

Sharon – what is your problem with me? Get a life.
Visitor
January 28th, 2011
13:49:55

“The Panel heard that ethical approval had been sought and granted for other trials and it has been specifically suggested that Project 172-96 was never undertaken and that in fact, the Lancet 12 children’s investigations were clinically indicated and the research parts of those clinically justified investigations were covered by Project 162-95. In the light of all the available evidence, the Panel rejected this proposition.”

GMC fitness to practise panel: 28 January 2010.
Broken Link
January 28th, 2011
14:01:55

I can’t believe I had the impression that Rosemary was “serious”. Delusional, yes. Blathering, yes.
Rosemary Cousins
January 28th, 2011
14:06:54

What I meant to say, Sharon, was ‘Get a life, preferably on the Sunday Times where they cater for your type of female brain – vacuous.’

As I have said before, weak women such as ‘Sharon’ and Fiona Godlee don’t ask questions – they merely follow the instructions of even weaker men.
Rosemary Cousins
January 28th, 2011
14:16:37

Broken link – looking back over your previous comments – you like Brian Deer are disgusting.
Rosemary Cousins
January 28th, 2011
14:17:51

Filthy disgusting person making comments on a public platform about other peoples children.
AWOL
January 28th, 2011
16:02:10

Visitor

Two right don’t make one massive wrong..
1.“The Panel heard that ethical approval had been sought and granted for other trials and it has been specifically suggested that Project 172-96 was never undertaken and that in fact, the Lancet 12 children’s investigations were clinically indicated and the research parts of those clinically justified investigations were covered by Project 162-95. In the light of all the available evidence, the Panel rejected this proposition.”
GMC fitness to practise panel: 28 January 2010.

What does the above say quote?
“In the light of all the “”AVAILABLE EVIDENCE”“, the Panel rejected this proposition.”

Meaning if Deer never provided the evidence to the GMC,the GMC never went looking. Deer supplied two approvals’ no more depite him sitting with hundreds in his flat and wherever else he looked at the medical files(under supervision HA)…the GMC wouldn’t accept a request from JWS to have the multitude of other approvals included as evidence.. kangeroo court.. and you have your non-result for Deer and Medico Legal(non).

And with the GMC and Deer going to ground not defending any of the questions and the most recent articles the problems for Deer and the GMC snowball and gather pace.
Gina
January 28th, 2011
16:43:25

@Rosemary: “WHEN BRIAN DEER FALLS TO HIS KNEES, THE THUD WILL REVERBERATE AROUND BIG BEN - SO LISTEN CAREFULLY”

What prompted this?! You’re slipping away from reason, Rosemary. Please join us again for normal conversation.
daedalus2u
January 28th, 2011
16:56:14

Can someone explain to me why Brian Deer would be the one to have the only copy of the approvals of the IRB to Wakefield to do the invasive research that Wakefield claimed to have approval for?

It seems to me that keeping track of those approval documents would be an important thing to do.

Why didn’t Wakefield submit a copy of the approvals to the GMC?
Brian Morgan
January 28th, 2011
17:12:03

There is a route for at least partial accountability to Dr Andrew Wakefield, for any alleged errors in reporting by the BMJ, which is through the Press Complaints Commission. The BMJ explains this on their own website.

http://resources.bmj.com/bmj/a.....-procedure
sheldon101
January 28th, 2011
17:53:56

Re 162/95 and 172/96 and visitor:

Whether one believes the fairy tales of Wakefield, Walker-Smith and Murch or not, you don’t understand the issue. Which is whether the work for the 1998 paper had advance ethical approval by the ethics committee?
Visitor
January 28th, 2011
18:03:28

Here is one of countless references to the document being presented and discussed at the GMC:

COONAN: I want to turn, please, to another aspect of this early period and we can see that in relation to Child 1 it is the first child who was admitted on 21 July 1996. We see also a few days later that Child 1 was investigated and we have just put down the colonoscopy and the EEG investigations; there may have been others but those are the two important ones for present purposes. In relation to Child 1 did you carry out any specific research activity?

WAKEFIELD:Yes, I did. His biopsies were examined for evidence of measles virus and for various characteristics of the disease process which he turned out to have, a focal, active inflammation of the intestine. This was done under the ethical approval 162-95 which was awarded to Professor Walker-Smith when he arrived at the Royal Free.

COONAN: Can we look at that, please, it is volume 1, page 86A to C. I want to pick it up first of all at 86C, from Maureen Carroll, the secretary at the Ethical Practice Sub-Committee at the Royal Free. It is dated 5 September 1995:

“I am pleased to be able to inform you that your recent submission to the EP Sub-Committee has now received approval by Chairman’s Action.”

Code number 162-95 has been given and then at 86A Professor Walker-Smith had written to Baroness Gardner who was then the chair of the Ethics Committee, setting out what had been happening at Barts during his time there.

“As you know my department transfer to the Royal Free on 1 September. For some years at Barts during the course of colonoscopy in children we have had ethical permission to take two extra mucosal biopsies for research purposes. During colonoscopy children routinely have multiple biopsies taken for diagnostic purposes. The parents have signed a form as attached granting permission. These biopsies are used for a variety of ‘research’ investigations such as cytokine production where on occasion information of direct and immediate importance to the child’s illness has been obtained as well as of research importance.

I would be grateful if you would grant permission for this to continue after our move to the Royal Free.”
AWOL
January 28th, 2011
18:37:50

Visitor ,daedalus2u

Need answers to your questions?, Dr Wakefield on the Gary Null Show

http://www.progressiveradionet…..show-wnye/
Sullivan
January 28th, 2011
19:20:09

Re 162/95 and 172/96 and visitor:

Whether one believes the fairy tales of Wakefield, Walker-Smith and Murch or not, you don’t understand the issue. Which is whether the work for the 1998 paper had advance ethical approval by the ethics committee?

No, they did not. They had permission to take two extra mucosal samples during endoscopies which were clinically indicated. That’s it. Here are a few of the examples of what they did not have ethics approval to do:

1) Subject children to endoscopies which were not clinically indicated
1b) take samples form the children in (1) for research purposes

2) subject children to lumbar punctures when they were not clinically indicated.
2b) use the data from the children in (2) for research purposes.

We can go on and on, but those are very clear violations.
Sullivan
January 28th, 2011
19:23:27

Can someone explain to me why Brian Deer would be the one to have the only copy of the approvals of the IRB to Wakefield to do the invasive research that Wakefield claimed to have approval for?

It seems to me that keeping track of those approval documents would be an important thing to do.

Why didn’t Wakefield submit a copy of the approvals to the GMC?

The GMC did have that approval. That’s part of why this is such a ridiculous claim.

In addition—Brian Deer would not have been responsible for supplying this to the GMC. The Royal Free would have been. If this was important to Andrew Wakefield, and it wasn’t supplied, then Mr. Wakefield himself could have supplied it.

They are trying to make a 100+ day hearing look like a deal cut in a backroom between Brian Deer and the GMC. But, as you can see, some people fall for it. Many more are left confused by it. That, I feel, is the point of all these strange defenses proposed. Confuse people so they won’t see the very clear, very damning, proven charges against Andrew Wakefield.
Rosemary Cousins
January 28th, 2011
19:25:01

Gina if you think the bigotry you direct to parents and their disabled children is normal – God help you.

To quote your own ill manners – ‘Go scratch.’
Rosemary Cousins
January 28th, 2011
19:31:05

Sullivan

It is said that one judges a man by the company he keeps.

Brian Deer is a filthy corrupt liar. Take a long swim, Deer, preferably in the Thames.

And take your inadequate friends with you.

With weights on.
Gina
January 28th, 2011
19:34:43

@Rosemary: “Gina if you think the bigotry you direct to parents and their disabled children is normal – God help you.

To quote your own ill manners – ‘Go scratch.’”

How am I a bigot? Please, do show me. I think you are using words without knowing their meanings. I understand you mean to be insulting, which if fine by me, but at least have the decency to be truthful at it. I can take an insult like a big girl, but you suck at it.
Sullivan
January 28th, 2011
19:35:24

Rosemary Cousins,

I should do your cause a favor and start editing your comments. Your responses are really most telling about you, not the people you are attacking.
Kev
January 28th, 2011
20:02:58

Ms Cousins.

You had your chance. Now you’re just being plain old boring as well as insulting, you’ve given up any pretence at debate, therefore I’ll remove you from it.
Gina
January 28th, 2011
20:25:13

Wow, you guys. Sullivan, Kev, Sheldon, Science Mom, et al: I was not aware of the…um…disposition of the Wakefield supporters. Like Seth Mnookin points out, I made the false assumption that there was a balanced debate on this topic. I didn’t think this discussion would go from back and forth to nonsense. This isn’t just about Wakefield, this is about the faith that’s been put in this man. I’m just really surprised at the lengths some will go in protection of this man. He’s just a man.
century
January 28th, 2011
20:34:30

Does anyone know anything of the children who went to the US to have lumbar punctures for the UK litigation?

Have any of the parent’s of these kids made complains against AW?

(ps as an aside – some of the posts are soooooo long that one loses interest before reading to the end)
Broken Link
January 28th, 2011
20:37:29

Gina,

Wakefield is not “just” a man. He’s a handsome, charismatic man, with a plummy, sexy accent and a superficially plausible story. He confirms the beliefs of some parents. And he “listens” to them. That’s all that is needed. They would follow him to the ends of the earth, and never notice that he was really out to enrich himself off their problems the whole time.
AWOL
January 28th, 2011
20:59:44

@Sullivan
All the answers you seek can be answered by Dr Wakefield 21 minutes in on the Gary Null show(URL below) just click on the green band to 21 minutes and listen for around 5mins more if you need to ..

http://www.progressiveradionet.....show-wnye/

“It seems to me that keeping track of those approval documents would be an important thing to do.
Why didn’t Wakefield submit a copy of the approvals to the GMC?
The GMC did have that approval. That’s part of why this is such a ridiculous claim.
In addition—Brian Deer would not have been responsible for supplying this to the GMC. ”.........

I don’t see Brian Deer entering the arena him being the”Investigator gladiator Journo”he purports’ to be you would think it was right up his street…but the opposite is evident .Deer has gone to ground and remaining silent..for the first time ever..long may it continue as the snowball is gathering speed and getting bigger…
Jen
January 28th, 2011
21:31:45

Often times GMC FTP hearing outcomes are decided before they begin – i have seen this before with other doctors, on unrelated issues.
Sullivan
January 28th, 2011
21:42:45

AWOL,

the answers I’ve sought are to be found in
1) the fact that multiple studies have shown no sign of a link between MMR and autism
2) the GMC decision, which found Andrew Wakefield guilty of numerous ethical lapses
3) the hundreds of pages of GMC transcripts
4) the multiple instances of Mr. Wakefield making claims in his defense that are contradicted by the facts. Quite often by the facts he himself relies upon.

I count myself as lucky to have had the time to evaluate Mr. Wakefield’s claims and actions for myself. I count myself as lucky that he didn’t directly harm my family.
Science Mom
January 28th, 2011
22:00:53

Often times GMC FTP hearing outcomes are decided before they begin – i have seen this before with other doctors, on unrelated issues.

Please elaborate and provide cases.

@ Gina. The Wakefield/vaccine-autism crusaders are nothing more than a cult. They are becoming increasing unhinged the more negative press they receive and the more credibility they lose. I believe, at this stage, it’s either realise they are completely and utterly wrong or lash out. It’s obvious which course they have chosen.
AWOL
January 28th, 2011
22:01:24

I count myself as lucky to have had the time to evaluate Mr. Wakefield’s claims and actions for myself. I count myself as lucky that he didn’t directly harm my family.

Tut ,tut,
You evaluate on the evidence you have before you based on what Deer, supplied ,never supplied ,to the GMC.

Very narrow specs on tonight Sullivan,you being the un-biased person you write to be ;and open to reason .I expected more from you ..oh! well !!hey ho..
Jen
January 28th, 2011
22:06:01

@Sciencemom

Dr barry Durrant-Peatfield
Dr Gordon R B Skinner
Dr Sarah Myhill

all of whom were taken before the FTP / IOP without a single patient complaint.

Peatfield resigned before his trial.

Skinner’s IOP conditions have recently expired. He never harmed anyone but patients were not allowed to testify – i know, i was there.

Myhill’s inability to prescribe for 12 months, imposed back last October i think, was recently overturned by the GMC. She is going to the high court over patient confidentiality issues – the GMC got ahold of her patients’ records illegally and she is taking them to task for it.
Jen
January 28th, 2011
22:12:33

in fact, i was not present at Myhill’s because i had a new baby and couldnt, but i know the lay public were nt allowed to speak at Skinner’s several IOPs, and afaik, they were not allowed to speak at Myhill’s either.
Chris
January 28th, 2011
22:12:56

AWOL, will you please stop spamming Gary Null’s radio show? You aren’t even specifying a particular podcast, but just the radio show. And today’s show does not include Wakefield.

Perhaps you could be cogent and useful and answer my questions about exactly which of the studies have independently replicated Wakefield’s finding, and be specific on how many children were involved and which particular MMR vaccine they received. Also explain how the Taylor study (I linked to the full table multiple times) replicates Wakefield, when it says it does not.
Sullivan
January 28th, 2011
22:20:33

AWOL,

Do you really believe that the GMC only worked on the documents that Brian Deer supplied them? Seriously, is this something you believe? I only ask because it is so obviously false that it boggles the mind why you would even imply that you believe it.

You guys need to stop making Brian Deer into some sort of bogyman and start actually addressing the real issues at hand with Andrew Wakefield.

I don’t expect you to do it. It’s been 13 years. But, face it. Brian Deer isn’t the reason why Andrew Wakefield was found guilty of ethical lapses. Andrew Wakefield created his own mess. He now has a lot of help, but the facts are plain.
AWOL
January 28th, 2011
22:24:27

Chris who is spamming,everyone else gets it on ,that link including myself, you aren`t competent with simple tasks,whats the point giving complex detail?

So far as your questions go this has been answered to the point where I am no longer allowed to repeat the list supporting Wakefields studies..your ploy is no more that diversion
Sullivan
January 28th, 2011
22:43:10

AWOL,

can you point me to where Andrew Wakefield has responded to the BMJ, on the BMJ site? Has he submitted a response to the journal, or his he just defending himself in the press?

Has he actually commented anywhere on a UK based site with his allegations against Brian Deer? Or is he just relying on others?
AWOL
January 28th, 2011
22:51:02

Sullivan.

I put it to you did Deer supply all the documents that could have lost Deer the case ,and his employment ,and the millions of pounds he is making just now from Merck ?

Lets be reasonable about this ,more documents are coming to light all the time for whatever reason Deer never included. Dr Wakefield is now publicly demanding a retraction from the British Medical Journal an Deer. Documents just made public reveal that another medical research team which included JWS independently documented evidence of a possible MMR vaccine – autism link 14 months before Dr Wakefield’s paper first appears in The Lancet—based on several of the same children appearing in Dr Wakefield’s study.

These documents include detailed clinical notes describing the pathology in seven children following MMR vaccination. These notes include references to “autism” and chronic gastrointestinal inflammation, among others.

This evidence, refutes the accusations of fraud leveled against Dr Andrew Wakefield by the B M J,and Deer. This evidence was made available to the BMJ before the publication of their accusations, but they chose to ignore it. Go to link below and title/pdf NO FRAUD, NO HOAX. Here’sProof ,

http://vaccinesafetyfirst.com/Home.html

Maybe Deer could come forward like a Journo gladiator and explain why he has mis-lead you, Sullivan.
AWOL
January 28th, 2011
22:53:19

AWOL,

“can you point me to where Andrew Wakefield has responded to the BMJ, on the BMJ site? Has he submitted a response to the journal, or his he just defending himself in the press?

Has he actually commented anywhere on a UK based site with his allegations against Brian Deer? Or is he just relying on others?”

Pleasure,my friend…go to Wakefield response to the GMC

http://vaccinesafetyfirst.com/Home.html
Chris
January 28th, 2011
23:02:36

AWOL, the phone number on the contact page resolves to California. That is not in the UK.

Edit to add, more on that website:
http://www.skepdic.com/skeptim.....ia122.html
AWOL
January 28th, 2011
23:09:31

Dr Wakefield’s studies supported below..

Instructions for Chris ,
Click left hand side of your mouse and you should go to a page saying Vaccine Safety First, glance down and you will see a title “Studies That Support Wakefield” again, just click left hand side of your mouse and you should go to a page .On that page you will see 4 pages of support.You can do it…

http://vaccinesafetyfirst.com/Home.html
Sullivan
January 28th, 2011
23:10:34

AWOL,

“millions of pounds he is making just now from Merck ?”

That is defamatory. You are making claims which you know to be false in an effort to defame Brian Deer.

Once again, the depths people sink to in order to support a Andrew Wakefield, a man proven guilty of ethics violations. It amazes me.

As to “vaccinesafetyfirst.com”....doesn’t answer my question at all, does it? I asked if Mr. Wakefield was making any of his allegations on a UK site, or directly to the BMJ. He can’t make claims that Brian Deer is being paid by “big pharma” without having to support it. So he won’t.

VaccineSafetyFirst is based in Northern California. It is run by an artist who has written a 9/11 Truther musical. Sorry if I find that at least a little amusing.
Science Mom
January 28th, 2011
23:15:04

Dr barry Durrant-Peatfield
Dr Gordon R B Skinner
Dr Sarah Myhill

all of whom were taken before the FTP / IOP without a single patient complaint.

Peatfield resigned before his trial.

Skinner’s IOP conditions have recently expired. He never harmed anyone but patients were not allowed to testify – i know, i was there.

Myhill’s inability to prescribe for 12 months, imposed back last October i think, was recently overturned by the GMC. She is going to the high court over patient confidentiality issues – the GMC got ahold of her patients’ records illegally and she is taking them to task for it.

Jen, I’m afraid that your claims don’t even hold up under scrutiny with the most cursory examination. Including this claim:

Often times GMC FTP hearing outcomes are decided before they begin – i have seen this before with other doctors, on unrelated issues.

The cases were not decided before their hearings. In Durant-Peatfield’s case, he was suspended pending investigation; he chose to resign. Given the nature of his activities, it was not unreasonable to do this. Skinner did have at least one patient complaint and was miffed that he couldn’t uncover the identity of that patient. He also had numerous patients testify on his behalf. Myhill’s suspension was imposed May 2010 and is for 18 months so hasn’t expired.

Patient complaints aren’t, nor shouldn’t be required for FTP actions. Patients aren’t always the best judges of medical ethics and in these cases, as with Wakefield, patients need protection from these physicians.
Sullivan
January 28th, 2011
23:16:54

Will Mr. Wakefield make the original of that document public? Pretty easy to do, isn’t it?

I’d like to see it. The document he shows lists child 9 as having “2 years behavioral change – 2.5 years”
2 to 2.5 years is the behavioral change….

Funny that. In the Lancet, Mr. Wakefield claimed that Child 9 had behavioral changes at 18 months.

Mr. Wakefield can respond directly to the BMJ. He should do so. He should supply evidence to back up his attacks against Brian Deer. He’s made them, let him back them up.
Chris
January 28th, 2011
23:20:04

AWOL, I showed you that the site you are now spamming is neither in the UK nor does it show any papers that independently (that means neither Wakefield nor Krigsman can be authors) show Wakefield’s findings on children (that means no adults), or what specific MMR vaccine was used (many of them don’t even mention it).

Try again, only with more data.
Science Mom
January 28th, 2011
23:21:15

Dr Wakefield’s studies supported below..

Instructions for Chris ,
Click left hand side of your mouse and you should go to a page saying Vaccine Safety First, glance down and you will see a title “Studies That Support Wakefield” again, just click left hand side of your mouse and you should go to a page .On that page you will see 4 pages of support.You can do it…

You have been blocked from repeating this citation list because that is all you do. You refuse to discuss even a single one and how it supports Wakefield. You are allowed to do that no doubt. Why do you keep citing the list and not answer the question?
Brian Morgan
January 28th, 2011
23:29:22

The phone number 650-685-0435 belongs to Horn Productions Inc. of Hillsborough, and that’s not the Sheffield UK Hillsborough but the Californian one.

Horn Productions is run by Elizabeth Horn, and there’s more research to be done about the latter’s connections if any with autism, Dr Andrew Wakefield and whatever else.
AWOL
January 28th, 2011
23:33:25

“millions of pounds he is making just now from Merck ?”

“That is defamatory. You are making claims which you know to be false in an effort to defame Brian Deer.”

Dear Sullivan,you make the same groundless claims about Dr Wakefield backed by liar for hire Deer.

”

As to “vaccinesafetyfirst.com”....doesn’t answer my question at all, does it? I asked if Mr. Wakefield was making any of his allegations on a UK site, or directly to the BMJ.”

One would assume so he has listed a statement on the site I gave you ..e-mails on it have now been removed concerning Greepants from the GMC..

BMJ/Deer Allegation One:
Dr. Wakefield altered clinical findings in the LANCET case series to report bowel disease in the
children where none existed
Dr. Wakefield’s response:
The findings reported in the LANCET case series reflect exactly what Professor
John Walker-Smith recorded in his notes for a scientific meeting 14 months before the case
series was published (see Walker-Smith document). The clinical assessments of these 7
children were Professor Walker-Smiths (not Dr. Wakefield’s); the findings were supported
by senior pathologist Dr. Dhillon; and they match exactly what was published in the
LANCET. This document confirms beyond doubt that Dr. Wakefield committed no fraud.
No histories were altered for the LANCET case series, and this document proves that.
In the BMJ, Deer provided a table comparing what he had found in the General
Practitioner’s (GP) records and what was reported in The LANCET paper. He cited
inconsistencies as evidence of fraud. First, the GP records (other than a referral letter to
the Pediatric Gastroenterology team) were not available to doctors who wrote The
LANCET paper, so fraudulent misrepresentation was not possible. Second, Deer used
wrong or incomplete information from the GP records in order to create the impressi

He can’t make claims that Brian Deer is being paid by “big pharma” without having to support it. So he won’t.

B-u-t- its just fine for Deer ,to say the same about Deer which he cant support and any allegations by Deer have been thrown out…

Again, he has been telling porkies, to you Sullivan..
Chris
January 28th, 2011
23:37:04

AWOL, I have looked at that page of citations.

I noticed many include Wakefield and/or Krigsman as authors. That is not independent, so that leaves out almost a full page.

I also checked, and several are not indexed on PubMed. That includes one by Krigsman, and a poster presentation that was not formally published. That leaves out a few more.

Several of the papers are on adults, and usually just a few. Those are not children. I assume you know the difference.

Many of the papers do not even mention measles, nor the MMR. There is one paper from Japan, but as I told you earlier: they had a different MMR vaccine from either of the ones used in the UK between 1988 and 1998. So they do not count.

I also pointed out that one paper seems to specifically look into Wakefield’s claims and comes up with the conclusion that the gastrointestinal disorder Wakefield invented does not exist, and the MMR vaccine is not associated with autism. So its inclusion in that list is extremely bizarre.

Now, AWOL, you are to specifically note which paper on that list actually supports Wakefield’s finding and explain exactly in your own words how:

1- It is independent (do I need to define that again?)

2- How many children (do you need a criteria of the difference between “child” and “adult”?)

3- Which particular MMR vaccine was under investigation?
Sullivan
January 28th, 2011
23:39:41

Child 9. First behavioral symptoms reported in the Lancet as 18 months. In the transcript of the document that Mr. Wakefield has supplied, it is listed as 2-2.5 years.

I didn’t get that from Brian Deer. All of it is from Andrew Wakefield. And it doesn’t add up.

You will not respond directly to this, as you never do. You seem to be on a mission to defame Mr. Deer as often as possible in this discussion. If you had real evidence, it would have appeared by now.
John Fryer Chemist
January 28th, 2011
23:40:53

Andrew Wakefield

Jayne Donegan

Sarah Myhill

Are 3 doctors critical of vaccines in the sense that proper debate and science is stifled.

Here is someone elses comment that matches my own views.

The General Medical Council is apparently afraid to allow scientific debate or to allow doctors to hold any opinions not endorsed by them, even if there is adequate impartial scientific data to back up that doctor’s individual opinion.

Most of the medical pioneers of the last four hundred years would most definitely have been struck off by the GMC for daring to differ with their entrenched and hallowed views…......what a good thing hindsight has 20-20 vision :-)
AWOL
January 28th, 2011
23:41:19

AWOL, I showed you that the site you are now spamming is neither in the UK nor does it show any papers that independently (that means neither Wakefield nor Krigsman can be authors) show Wakefield’s findings on children (that means no adults), or what specific MMR vaccine was used (many of them don’t even mention it).

Try again, only with more data.

Chris..not a problem..

Scientists fear MMR link to autism….

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....utism.html
Brian Morgan
January 28th, 2011
23:43:37

This doesn’t make sense: “He can’t make claims that Brian Deer is being paid by “big pharma” without having to support it. So he won’t.

B-u-t- its just fine for Deer ,to say the same about Deer which he cant support and any allegations by Deer have been thrown out…

Again, he has been telling porkies, to you Sullivan.”

Will someone please explain?

Is Brian Deer in contact with Sullivan? This message list contains a serious allegation about Deer and Merck which if this were my board I would have to remove.
Sullivan
January 29th, 2011
00:00:49

Brian Morgan,

if Mr. Deer sees and wishes me to remove those comments, I will do so quickly. They are defamatory, and they show that some of Mr. Wakefield’s supporters have no interest in the truth. At this point, there is just an angry, vengeful response.

I have no desire to see the comments here go on to 600. If the conversation were valuable, that would be one thing. But time and again, Mr. Wakefield’s supporters have resorted to falsehood, and personal attack against people in this discussion. There is no value in continuing that.

Mr. Wakefield is encouraged to take whatever case he believes he has to the BMJ. As I noted in the blog post above, many “facts” in the Lancet article do not match the information given in the records discussed at the GMC hearing. Records that Mr. Wakefield had access to at the time. In the discussion we have uncovered yet more inconsistencies. Ironically, those were uncovered by people attempting to defend Andrew Wakefield. But, after providing the full quotes, rather than the carefully cherry-picked data, it was clear that the facts and the report in the Lancet do not mesh.

The Andrew Wakefield story has done siphoned a lot of energy away from the autism communities. This discussion has been a bit of a microcosm of that, with much energy wasted in countering misinformation and falsehood.

The facts are clear.

Mr. Wakefield was wrong. He was wrong when he tried to link MMR and autism.
Mr. Wakefield committed several ethics violations in the process of doing his work
Mr. Wakefield’s reported results do not match the facts.
Mr. Wakefield had multiple undeclared conflicts of interest through his business schemes and his position as an expert consultant to the MMR litigation.

He has no one to blame but himself. He has a lot of people to apologize to.