Autism Blog - Attorney for Prof. Walker-Smith: alleged link between MMR and autism utterly disproved

14 Feb 2012

Author: Sullivan
Comments: 126

Attorney for Prof. Walker-Smith: alleged link between MMR and autism utterly disproved

Prof. John Walker-Smith was a colleague of Andrew Wakefield, a co-author on the no-retracted 1998 Lancet paper and shared the same fate as Mr. Wakefield after the General Medical Council Hearings: he was struck off the medical register. Prof. Walker-Smith has appealed (Mr. Wakefield did not). A few news stories have come up about this appeal. In Doctor struck off over MMR controversy appeals against ruling, the Guardian notes:

Prof John Walker-Smith tells high court he was denied a fair hearing before he was struck off by the General Medical Council

Many are looking to this appeal for vindication of Mr. Wakefield and his theories on MMR being linked to and causal in autism. Prof. Walker-Smith’s attorney appears to have made a rather clear statement to the contrary:

Miller said it had been important that the disciplinary panel “separate out research from the clinical medicine – but that was a task that appeared to be beyond them”.

The judge asked Miller whether the alleged link between MMR and the vaccine “has now been utterly disproved” in the opinion of “respectable medical opinion”.

Miller said that was “exactly” the position.

edit to add:

I took the statement “The judge asked Miller whether the alleged link between MMR and the vaccine “has now been utterly disproved” ” to be a mistaken report by the Guardian because, as written, it does not make sense. My own interpretation was that the actual question was whether the MMR and autism was the point. However, I should have made that assumption very clear in the above piece and I apologize for that. I have written the paper as well as some other people who might be able to clarify the statement.

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/2012/02/attorney-for-prof-walker-smith-alleged-link-between-mmr-and-autism-utterly-disproved/">Attorney for Prof. Walker-Smith: alleged link between MMR and autism utterly disproved</a>

Comments

126 Responses to “Attorney for Prof. Walker-Smith: alleged link between MMR and autism utterly disproved”

Autism Blog – Attorney for Prof. Walker-Smith: alleged link between … | My Autism Site | All About Autism
February 14th, 2012
08:51:01

[...] The rest is here: Autism Blog – Attorney for Prof. Walker-Smith: alleged link between … [...]
MikeMa
February 14th, 2012
12:15:14

Having trouble not smiling.

I wonder if this will affect Wakefield’s attack on Deer and Godlee. Probably not but I thought that Wakers could hardly be put in a worse light when something like this comes along.
Anne
February 14th, 2012
17:06:18

“Separate out research from the clinical medicine” – does that mean separate Wakefield from Walker-Smith? Is Professor Walker-Smith going to distance himself from Wakefield in this appeal? That’s what I’m wondering.
MikeMa
February 14th, 2012
17:46:34

@Anne,
Sure does sound like it. If he can make the case that his research and records were not tainted and responsible for or connected with Wakefield’s fraud, he may gain ground.
Patricia
February 14th, 2012
17:46:34

Anne. You have missed the point. The vital distinction made quite clear in this High Court Appeal, is that the treatment of the very sick children by Prof Walker Smith and his team using colonoscopies and lumbar punctures was routine procedure with all the necessary ethical permissions being given, agreed to by the parents, it was not, as claimed by the prosecuting counsel at the GMC hearing, done for Research purposes, but was normal practice and out of very necessary clinical need. The panel at the GMC were made to understand, by the prosecuting counsel, that the treatment was done as a sinister procedure for unethical purposes i.e.utterly twisting the facts to suit their own political will.

Wakefield never said that the MMR vaccine directly caused autism. He said it appeared to cause gut problems that, possibly, could lead to autism, but that this hypothesis needed more research to find out what was happening. In other words there was a link, that was all he said. But that was enough to bring the wrath of God i.e. the UK government in the shape of the Public Health dept. down upon him.

Prof Walker Smith was the clinical practitioner and as such was already distanced from Dr Wakefield who was and is a researcher.
Science Mom
February 14th, 2012
18:02:23

Anne. You have missed the point. The vital distinction made quite clear in this High Court Appeal, is that the treatment of the very sick children by Prof Walker Smith and his team using colonoscopies and lumbar punctures was routine procedure with all the necessary ethical permissions being given, agreed to by the parents, it was not, as claimed by the prosecuting counsel at the GMC hearing, done for Research purposes, but was normal practice and out of very necessary clinical need.

No Patricia, YOU miss the point. Firstly, most of the children were not very sick and thus, in many cases, colonoscopies and lumbar punctures were NOT medically indicated. That is partly what got Walker-Smith in trouble. It was Wakefield’s research/lawsuit fodder objectives which drove these procedures so it’s going to be difficult to tease clinical indication out from research.

Wakefield never said that the MMR vaccine directly caused autism. He said it appeared to cause gut problems that, possibly, could lead to autism, but that this hypothesis needed more research to find out what was happening. In other words there was a link, that was all he said. But that was enough to bring the wrath of God i.e. the UK government in the shape of the Public Health dept. down upon him.

Oh would you stop it with this load of bollocks. He did make the claim in the Royal Free Press conference and in a Pediatrics commentary. He danced around it nicely but let’s cut the crap; we all know what he did and what his intention was.

Prof Walker Smith was the clinical practitioner and as such was already distanced from Dr Wakefield who was and is a researcher.

Except that Wakefield acted as a clinician when he wasn’t supposed to. HELLO, GMC charges proved against him. He also isn’t much of a researcher any more unless somehow the Austin, TX Pack and Mail has research facilities now.
Chris
February 14th, 2012
18:24:43

Patricia:

Wakefield never said that the MMR vaccine directly caused autism. He said it appeared to cause gut problems that, possibly, could lead to autism, but that this hypothesis needed more research to find out what was happening.

To pile on to what Science Mom said, he did not even show the “gut problems” were caused by the MMR vaccine in the Lancet paper.

And in addition:

He never specified which MMR vaccine was the culprit. His teeny tiny case series included kids with at least three MMR vaccines with different vaccine strains of both measles and mumps, and possibly at least four manufacturers. By the time his study was concluded the UK had already removed two of the MMR versions, and was on a completely different one than what was used in 1992.

He never gave any reasoning for telling parents to use only single jabs. A suggestion that led to illegal importing of a single mumps vaccine that contained the Urabe strain of mumps, which is the component that led the UK to remove two MMR versions in 1992.

Wakefield was also completely unaware that the USA has been using an MMR vaccine since 1971. If he had, he would have referenced “gut problems” and autism dating from 1971 to 1998. I have never seen any of those cites. Have you, Patricia? If you have, do please list them.
Patricia
February 14th, 2012
18:43:41

Hmmm…such a lot of aggression from you Anne, I can´t help wondering why….? And so much wrong information.

Let us wait to see what the High Court decides shall we?
That is a proper court of Law.
MI Dawn
February 14th, 2012
18:54:21

@Patricia: please just tell WHICH of the 12 children were “very sick” and therefore had colonoscopies and lumbar punctures clinically indicated by their medical records? I’ll even give you a by and say some of the children DID have GI issues (many of which were documented prior to them getting the MMR, imagine that!), but for which child(ren) were lumbar punctures indicated? Those are VERY invasive procedures.

And before Patricia jumps on me: YES - children have GI issues. They have allergies, gluten intolerance, IBS, GERD, etc. This is NOT solely the realm of the autistic child and any child with GI issues that interfere with quality of life for the child need to have those issues addressed and treated appropriately. But you don’t start out with the big guns for treatment when you haven’t tried even the Nerf gun.
Sullivan
February 14th, 2012
18:56:38

Wakefield never said that the MMR vaccine directly caused autism

In the Lancet article of 1998, Mr. Wakefield refers to the MMR as one of the “the apparent precipitating events”

In his patent application he wrote:

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

About as clear and direct a statement as could be made.

In an article in The Telegraph from January 2001, Shame on officials who say MMR is safe, Mr Wakefield is quoted as saying

Our new paper is not anti-vaccine. It is about the safest way in which to deliver these vaccines to children in order to protect them against acute infectious disease and against the long-term adverse reactions that I believe we are now seeing

In a speech he gave in 2002, he states that not only does he think there is harm being caused by vaccines, but that the officials in charge know about it and are hiding it. (emphasis added)

“We are in the midst of an international epidemic. Those responsible for investigating and dealing with this epidemic have failed. Among the reasons for this failure is the fact that they are faced with the prospect that they themselves may be responsible for the epidemic.

“Therefore, in their efforts to exonerate themselves they are an impediment to progress. I believe that public health officials know there is a problem; they are, however, willing to deny the problem and accept the loss of an unknown number of children on the basis that the success of public health policy – mandatory vaccination – by necessity involves sacrifice.

“Neither I, nor my colleagues subscribe to the belief that any child is expendable. History has encountered and dealt with such beliefs.

“You, the parent’s and children, are the source of the inspiration and strength for our endeavours; our quest for truth through science – a science that is compassionate, uncompromising and uncompromised.

“I do not mean to stir you to mutiny, but be assured that armed with this science it is in your power to force this issue, in your pediatricians office, in Congress, in the Law Courts.

“Keep faith with your instincts. They have served you well.”

In testifying before a congressional hearingin April 2000 he stated (emphasis added)

So finally, in summary, we have an environmental insult in perhaps a genetically susceptible child. The problem is that if you go to Sweden now, autism
affects over 1.2 percent of the pediatric population. So if there is a genetic background, it is clearly widely distributed within the population. We believe that in many children, clearly, the subset of autistics, it leads to gut infection and damage; that leads to an ingress, an impaired metabolism, degradation of these chemicals from the gut which then get through and impact upon the brain.

In the video for the press conference for his 1998 Lancet article, he stated:

My opinion, again, is that the monovalent, the single vaccines, measles, mumps and rubella, are likely in this context to be safer than the polyvalent vaccine.

How exactly is the monovalent vaccine “safer” if he isn’t claiming the MMR is somehow unsafe? And “in this context”? The context of the paper was GI disease and PDD. Not GI disease in those with PDD. Check the title.

Also from that press conference:

Again, this was very contentious and you would not get consensus from all members of the group on this, but that is my feeling, that the, the risk of this particular syndrome developing is related to the combined vaccine, the MMR, rather than the single vaccines.

He was very clear to his coworkers about his feelings about the MMR. From Day 13 of the GMC hearings, we have Prof. Berelowitz (a co-author on the paper) stating:

“The first time I met Dr Wakefield in the senior common room, I had no inkling then that he had very strong views about the MMR. I had no inkling then. I thought we were just engaged in pure science. It became clear to me over time that he had a very strong view – very very strong views – about the MMR and how toxic it was. Those views were not shared by the rest of our team to the best of my knowledge.”

Shall we put to rest the notion that Mr. Wakefield “Wakefield never said that the MMR vaccine directly caused autism.” No “appeared” and no “possibly could lead to”. He said the MMR is clearly causal and that it causes both GI problems and autism.

“In other words there was a link, that was all he said. ”

Just flatly not true.
Sullivan
February 14th, 2012
19:13:25

The vital distinction made quite clear in this High Court Appeal, is that the treatment of the very sick children by Prof Walker Smith and his team using colonoscopies and lumbar punctures was routine procedure with all the necessary ethical permissions being given

Lumbar punctures are routine procedures?

Prof. Berelewitz (collaborator on the studies undertaken at the Royal Free) stated in his GMC testimony:

“We do not, in child psychiatry at the Royal Free, do lumbar punctures in our assessment of an ordinary child with autism without any other clinical hypothesis. But I cannot say further than that.”

No one has ever even suggested a lumbar puncture to us for our child. I read a number of autism yahoo groups and I can’t recall ever seeing someone mention going in for a lumbar puncture.

Colonoscopies are not routine. They are invasive procedures which are warranted when clinically indicated.

The ethical permissions were not given. The research project was not in place at the time most of these procedures were performed.
Sullivan
February 14th, 2012
19:16:00

Hmmm…such a lot of aggression from you Anne

Please point to what Anne wrote that you consider “aggression”.

I’ll help you out, here’s what she wrote, in total:

“Separate out research from the clinical medicine” – does that mean separate Wakefield from Walker-Smith? Is Professor Walker-Smith going to distance himself from Wakefield in this appeal? That’s what I’m wondering.

I’ll help even more. It isn’t aggressive. Why did you chose such a strange debate tactic? Why not just have a discussion of facts?
Patricia
February 14th, 2012
19:29:44

Sullivan I thankyou for putting up all those quotes and the links. To me they tell a story of a very brave doctor – notably a research scientist, with some grave concerns about the effect upon some children of being given the triple vaccine. A man who through this last period of 10 to 12 years has become ever more concerned and his comments reflect this growing conviction.

We really don´t need to nitpick over what Andrew Wakefield has or has not said over the course of this last decade. The fact that it caused a mass panic within the UK Public Health system at the outset is their concern, not ours, Joe Public. And please don´t expound that fatuous argument about the “thousands of children needlessly dying worldwide” because of the decline in uptake Wakefield´s words produced; that is plain statistical rubbish and alarmist propoganda from the profiteers and the politicians.

The main point which comes across to those who have followed the plight of these Doctors and to those most concerned i.e.the parents of these children, is that Vaccines may not be the God given answer to controlling disease, particularly when given to infants whose immune systems are not fully developed. It is purely for economic reasons and expediency that they are administered in this “one fits all” manner. And for Profit of course. Let us not forget the pharma “monkeys” in all this.
As Miller said yesterday in court…”there are doubters and believers”. I go along with that. And I don´t find it necessary to tear a man to shreds because of my own personal beliefs.
Patricia
February 14th, 2012
19:33:15

PS My apologies to Anne. It was ScienceMom´s “load of bollocks” I found rather alarming. No further comment on her.
Sullivan
February 14th, 2012
19:40:14

Patricia,

So, you are clearly shown multiple instances where the story that

Mr. Wakefield had strong convictions about the MMR before the Lancet. He felt strongly enough to write the Chief Medical Officer to stop a program to give MMR boosters. The UK should thank the man who didn’t accept Mr. Wakefield’s advice. It would have led to a great deal of suffering.

I see you are abandoning discussion for slogans. “Pharma monkeys” “For Profit”, “One size fits all”. But when other people present you with facts, they are using “alarmist propoganda”. Sure, this type of argument style clearly worked on you. But I have to say that it is exactly the sort of thing which made me question supporters of Andrew Wakefield. Why can’t they work from facts? Why retreat to slogans and attacks?

I don’t find it necessary to “tear a man to shreds” at all. I do think that Mr. Wakefield should have been man enough to own his mistakes. They were big and they were numerous. He wasn’t “torn to shreds”. He lost a license which even he admitted he no longer needed. Hardly a punishment which fit the transgressions.
Sullivan
February 14th, 2012
19:41:18

Ah, “load of bollocks” is “aggressive”???
Patricia
February 14th, 2012
19:51:57

To a rare dame like me Sullivan, yes.
Sullivan
February 14th, 2012
20:01:24

I won’t share with you my inbox from major Wakefield supporters then.
Science Mom
February 14th, 2012
20:12:05

Let us wait to see what the High Court decides shall we?
That is a proper court of Law.

And what of it? This is Dr. Walker-Smith’s appeal, not Wakefield’s so even if the former does prevail, it has no impact on Wakefield’s guilt and unethical actions.

Sullivan I thankyou for putting up all those quotes and the links. To me they tell a story of a very brave doctor – notably a research scientist, with some grave concerns about the effect upon some children of being given the triple vaccine. A man who through this last period of 10 to 12 years has become ever more concerned and his comments reflect this growing conviction.

We really don´t need to nitpick over what Andrew Wakefield has or has not said over the course of this last decade.

It’s so obvious what you are doing here. First you say, “he never claimed MMR caused GI pathology and autism” now when presented with irrefutable proof of his statements to that effect, “we don’t need to nitpick…” I have no problems stating that you are delusional if all you can glean from the transcripts is that, “To me they tell a story of a very brave doctor – notably a research scientist, with some grave concerns about the effect upon some children of being given the triple vaccine.”

Good grief, the man is an embarrassment to researchers everywhere and has become the poster boy for what not to do in medical/scientific research. And you think he’s a very brave doctor? He lied to the very people who looked to him for help and still is to keep his pathetic livelihood going. He should be thrown under the bus, not revered and in the meantime, very good, honest and ethical researchers are toiling to find answers for people and you don’t even know their names. Gah, the Wakefield worship is sickening.

The fact that it caused a mass panic within the UK Public Health system at the outset is their concern, not ours, Joe Public.

Nice dismissive attitude for what your ‘very brave doctor’ caused and it isn’t limited to the UK, it’s quite apparent in the U.S. too and it IS everyone’s problem as it’s a matter of public health you selfish woman.

And please don´t expound that fatuous argument about the “thousands of children needlessly dying worldwide” because of the decline in uptake Wakefield´s words produced; that is plain statistical rubbish and alarmist propoganda from the profiteers and the politicians.

Pathetic strawman. Thousands of children in the EU and U.S. have been needlessly infected with measles and some have died or is that a stat that inconveniences your echo chamber?

PS My apologies to Anne. It was ScienceMom´s “load of bollocks” I found rather alarming. No further comment on her.

Oh poor speshul snowflake you; you don’t know what alarming is you ‘rare dame’.
Sullivan
February 14th, 2012
20:24:58

Someone has to call it: moving goalposts.

From “Wakefield never said…” to “We really don´t need to nitpick over what Andrew Wakefield has or has not said…” in a single conversation.

By some definitions, Mr. Wakefield could be considered quite brave. Anyone who could stand up in public with all his conflicts of interest, money making schemes, poor science, hidden negative results, unethical behavior (we could go on and on) and not only flatly deny his transgressions but also put needless fear into millions of people. There are people who would call that “brave”.

He doesn’t rise to the level of “brave” in my books. Bravery would be to accept his mistakes and try to fix the problems he created. It would take a rare man to own up to that much. Mr. Wakefield is not up to the task.
Chris
February 14th, 2012
22:37:09

Patricia, could you please tell me which MMR vaccine was being studied by Wakefield? Also, please point me to the the literature dated between 1971 and 1998 that shows there was a concern with the MMR vaccine introduced in the USA in 1971.

Also, where is the concern on the outbreak of measles in Europe that has hospitalized over 7000, and caused at six deaths in France?
Sullivan
February 14th, 2012
22:46:56

While we are at it:

BBC in 2002:

WAKEFIELD: .. these children received not one dose but three doses of the MMR vaccine, and what we see in many of these children is a double hit phenomenon. They regress after the first dose and then they regress further after the second dose. This child did not receive his first MMR vaccine until he was 4 years 3 months of age. He then deteriorated into autism, a disintegrative disorder. He then received his second dose at 9 years of age and disintegrated catastrophically. He became incontinent of faeces and urine and he lost all his residual skills. This is not coincidence.

emphasis added.

and

Dr Wakefield’s wife, Carmel, told Panorama that their first two children were given the vaccine.

“But then as Andy’s work was unfolding and the potential link to MMR and problems began to unfold, then we had to reappraise our policy on vaccinating our own children, so our second two children have not had MMR vaccination,” she said.
Lawrence
February 14th, 2012
23:11:32

@Chris – don’t you know? Diseases are natural, children getting sick, hospitalized and dying is perfectly natural.

Its the vaccines that are un-natural. I mean, imagine the savings in education costs along if these diseases were allowed to run rampant, the natural way, and thin the population as they’ve done in the past.

That’s a perfectly logical argument based on what the anti-vaccine crowd is shooting for. Totally insane, but totally logical.

If I was McCoy, I’d call them all Green-Blooded Bastards.
dr treg
February 15th, 2012
02:08:26

Having been trained by and worked with Professor J.A. Walker-Smith (aka affectionately as JAWS on the blood request forms) at St Bartholomew`s Hospital, London I can inform the site that he actually a human being and not a monster.
He seemed to have gained the Professorship by research into celiac disease. I don`t know for sure but he may have been one of the early doctors to biopsy the small intestine to confirm the inflammatory changes related to gluten intake.
This led onto the discovery that other conditions caused similar inflammatory changes.
That is the measure of the man.

Professor Murch or Dr Murch his junior doctor at the time was collecting blood for TNF measurements in inflammatory bowel disease in affected children.

They both seem to have moved to the Royal Free Hospital when Barts joined up with the less fashionable London Hospital.

It seems that the Prof engaged in research into the possibility that MMR caused g-i symptoms and autistic-like behavior in children.

I would like to argue that the two Professors are meticulous in their work and will biopsy/sample if need be in order to validate or refute a scientific theory.

The MMR autism causation was excluded but one must remember at the time that the initial MMR was causing unacceptable meningo-encephalitis and the mumps component had to be changed.

In the context of the concern of MMR at the time I would forgive these scientists after they thought they were doing their best.

I believe that the media to some extent hijacked the flawed studies from the Lancet which led onto the drop in the immunisation rates of the populace.

Personally I believe that within the next few years that many psychiatric diseases will have lumbar punctures to assess lymphocyte/cytokine/various protein e.g. amyloid levels.

Perhaps in several years time the preserved lumbar puncture fluid of the children in the study will yield some new findings related to their autistic behavior.

Only an opinion, but to err is human.

However, sometimes scientists cannot swallow their pride.
Sullivan
February 15th, 2012
02:38:12

No one has called Prof. Walker-Smith “a monster”.

“I believe that the media to some extent hijacked the flawed studies from the Lancet which led onto the drop in the immunisation rates of the populace.”

The media certainly has a lot of blame in this mess.

“The MMR autism causation was excluded but one must remember at the time that the initial MMR was causing unacceptable meningo-encephalitis and the mumps component had to be changed.”

The heavy irony being that Mr. Wakefield and Mr. Barr did not pursue this angle, even after being informed of some of the details of approval by their “whistleblower”. To further add irony, Mr. Wakefield’s call for single vaccines resulted in people importing the Urabe strain mumps vaccine. It was the UK government, not Mr. Wakefield, who stepped in to stop that practice.
Chris
February 15th, 2012
02:43:34

Dr. Treg:

The MMR autism causation was excluded but one must remember at the time that the initial MMR was causing unacceptable meningo-encephalitis and the mumps component had to be changed.

And the two MMR vaccines with Urabe mumps were removed in 1992. Why would that be an issue in 1998? Did Wakefield actually spend more than six years on his research?
dr treg
February 15th, 2012
02:52:13

“And the two MMR vaccines with Urabe mumps were removed in 1992. Why would that be an issue in 1998? Did Wakefield actually spend more than six years on his research?”

“A late-1980s trial in Britain of a form of the MMR vaccine containing the Urabe mumps strain produced three cases of probably associated febrile convulsions per 1,000 vaccinations.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M.....abe_strain

It seems as though in the past there was usually a lag period of years between initial suspicions and eventual withdrawal of a drug?

Sometimes in medicine what is obvious takes years to sort out i.e. now using beta-blockers in heart failure which we were taught were never to be used in our training in the 1970s.
dr treg
February 15th, 2012
02:59:34

On a final note my trainer told me “hard cases make bad law”.

I feel Prof Walker-Smith should be reinstated to the GMC Register for honour`s sake. He is very highly regarded for his work on celiac disease and is primarily a scientist. His challenge at such a high level suggests he is hurting very much and I feel for the chap. It would be awful if he went to his death with such dishonor to his name. Once again I argue that to err is human.

Only a personal view.
Science Mom
February 15th, 2012
03:47:47

Perhaps in several years time the preserved lumbar puncture fluid of the children in the study will yield some new findings related to their autistic behavior.

Believe me, there are several who would like to have these samples (none of them being Wakefield or a sympathiser), along with the colon biopsies to test. However they don’t seem to be anywhere to be found oddly enough.

I feel Prof Walker-Smith should be reinstated to the GMC Register for honour`s sake. He is very highly regarded for his work on celiac disease and is primarily a scientist. His challenge at such a high level suggests he is hurting very much and I feel for the chap. It would be awful if he went to his death with such dishonor to his name. Once again I argue that to err is human.

Believe it or not, I feel sorry for him too. He was a highly-regarded physician who made a considerable contribution to his profession. He had the misfortune of either trusting Wakefield and/or hoping for that “big thing” to retire in glory with. But at this juncture, it is up to the appellate to decide whether he was unjustly stripped of his license and if he is truly guilty of the charges proved against him, then his laurels shouldn’t determine this but his actions involving the Lancet children.
Chris
February 15th, 2012
04:09:34

Dr. Treg, from your Wiki link:

The UK National Health Service introduced an MMR vaccine using the Urabe mumps strain in 1988, replacing it entirely with the Jeryl Lynn strain in September 1992 following the identification of an unacceptable risk of aseptic meningitis 15–35 days after vaccination.[25

The lag was the four years for Wakefield to made aware of the issue. And for some reason he ignored the mumps bit and went after measles.

Now, that you have finally caught up to speed on what we told you about the Urabe mumps timeline, could you please tell us which MMR vaccine Wakefield based is research on? If it was only on those with the Urabe mumps strain, why was their an American kid in the case series?
Chris
February 15th, 2012
04:13:25

Ugh, I am weary… “Now, that you have finally caught up to speed on what we told you about the Urabe mumps timeline, could you please tell us which MMR vaccine Wakefield based his research on? If it was only on those with the Urabe mumps strain, why was there an American kid in the case series?”
Anne
February 15th, 2012
06:42:41

Patricia, I don’t know if I missed the point or not. I’d have to look at the Professor’s briefs.
Chris
February 15th, 2012
08:14:06

Dr. Treg, why is it a bit deal that Wakefield finally decided to deal with the Urabe mumps issue at least three years after is was resolved? Isn’t that a bit late?
lilady
February 15th, 2012
09:07:26

I believe the reasons why each child supposedly underwent colonoscopy procedures have been well-documented here. These procedures which require bowel cleansing prior to the procedure and anesthesia during the procedure for biopsies, were unwarranted, according to evidence offered during the GMC hearing. If Walker-Smith and Wakefield had “other” information from the children’s charts, the actual biopsy reports and the actual specimens fixed and preserved in paraffin blogs, why didn’t they submit them to the GMC? These reports and specimens (all of them), mysteriously went “missing” and have remained “missing”.

We know from the record of the GMC hearing that:

Wakefield was hired as an “expert witness by the plaintiffs’ attorney and had already received substantial sums to set up the plaintiffs’ case against the vaccine manufacturers.

Parents of autistic children were referred to Richard Barr by an active member of the JABS group (a notorious anti-vax website)...who herself had already signed up two of her children to be named plaintiffs.

Wakefield set up two corporations; one company was to develop and market a single antigen vaccine that Wakefield had the patent on. The other company was an-off shore (in Ireland) corporation named after his wife Carmel; set up for the sole purposes of developing and marketing lab test kits for the new disease (regressive autistic enterocolitis) that Wakefield had “discovered” and for developing and marketing treatments for his “new” disease.

Excuse me, has someone offered any justification for performing invasive and painful lumbar punctures on these children? What is the medical justification for these LPs on kids whose sole diagnosis is autism and who may or most likely did not have have gastic problems?

I am a recently retired public health nurse who worked in the Division of Communicable Disease Control in a large County Health Department. Kids and adults who have meningeal signs indicating bacterial or viral meningitis/encephalitis typically do undergo LPs to obtain spinal fluid for culture/sensitivity to antibiotics tests, for virology studies, to measure “opening pressure” at the time of the LP and to measure WBCs (pleocytosis) in the spinal fluid.

Other medical indications for LPs might be to test for Multiple Dystrophies, for brain cancers, or due to a dramatic change in seizure patterns…which none of the children in the study ever experienced.

Whether or not Walker-Smith is able to retrieve his license, will be decided by the court. It does not, in any manner, have an effect on the findings of the GMC in the matter of Andrew Wakefield and the decision of the GMC to strike him from the register.
lilady
February 15th, 2012
09:10:15

I’m a newbie here. Why do some of my comments have lines drawn through them?
Century
February 15th, 2012
09:29:01

“The judge asked Miller whether the alleged link between MMR and the vaccine..”

Either crap reporting or crap question by the judge – both quite worrying!
Patricia
February 15th, 2012
12:12:23

Century
Crap reporting or crap question…you have my sympathies. But it is a relevent question in this case. The judge wanted a clear answer from Walker´s counsel. Is this link between the vaccine and autism now completely dispproved by “the respectable medical profession”. (I like the irony of the use of the word “respectable”). Miller´s reply was succinct. “Correct”.
In other words the Judge is playing it by the letter as in – let us make a clear distinction between Wakefield´s beliefs and the Establishment.
And why not? If it gets Prof Walker Smith off the hook I am all for it. Wakefield will understand, probably expected it. Sad, but inevitable. He will have his own day in court I hope.

“There are doubters and there are believers your Honour…..” I like this quote the best.
Patricia
February 15th, 2012
12:21:15

Dr Treg

Thankyou. The voice of reason and humanity.
And yes indeed some blogs and some posters on some sites (this one???) do regard Prof Walker Smith as a monster. A depraved monster who performed sinister and uneccesary invasive procedures on healthy children purely for ….what?

God give me grace and patience. I have read the most appalling and scurrilous statements on these blogs about both Wakefield and Walker Smith. Statements that leave one faintly disgusted and yet intrigued. Why do some posters deem it so necessary to carry on slandering these Doctors, what could possibly be their motives? If they regard these men as such monstrous and worthless human beings why then do they insist on scurrying to every blog which supports an opposite opinion, or jump on any supporters who may dare to invade their own playground?
Beats me.
Science Mom
February 15th, 2012
13:20:21

And yes indeed some blogs and some posters on some sites (this one???) do regard Prof Walker Smith as a monster. A depraved monster who performed sinister and uneccesary invasive procedures on healthy children purely for ….what?

No, the monster would be Wakefield.

Why do some posters deem it so necessary to carry on slandering these Doctors, what could possibly be their motives?

It isn’t slander when statements are derived from investigations into Wakefield’s misdeeds. As for motives, to make sure that everyone knows that is willing to rely upon actual evidence that is, that MMR doesn’t cause autism and the claim was completely fabricated for monetary and professional gain. What are your motives for vehemently defending him by lying? You seem perfectly happy spamming the very blogs you are criticising with rubbish.
Krebiozen
February 15th, 2012
17:20:02

FWIW I have examined hundreds, or possibly thousands, of CSF samples in UK biochemistry laboratories over more than 20 years. I don’t remember ever receiving one that had been taken to investigate autism or any other PDD. The vast majority were from children with suspected meningitis, with a few from children and adults with suspected brain bleeds and rarely from people with suspected MS (we would sometimes do electrophoresis of CSF looking for oligoclonal bands) or rarer conditions. Lumbar puncture certainly isn’t part of a routine investigation of PDDs in the UK.
Chris
February 15th, 2012
17:24:45

Patricia:

Why do some posters deem it so necessary to carry on slandering these Doctors, what could possibly be their motives?

How are my questions and clarification of the Urabe mumps timelime slandering any doctors? Please, if you have some information on what Wakefield used to make his suggestion for parents to use single jabs, share them. A suggestion that had parents giving their children a single mumps jab using the Urabe strain that the UK had removed six years before:

This is not a new safety issue but has been considered at this point due to notifications
received by MCA to import these vaccines. The risk of Urabe mumps vaccine meningitis has been recognised for over 10 years. Indeed, MMR vaccines containing the Urabe mumps strain has not been used in the UK since 1992 due to this risk. Since then, the only MMR vaccines used in the UK have contained Jeryl Lynn mumps strain.

Show us the scientific papers dated from 1971 he used to determine the MMR vaccine was dangerous. Show the papers that identified an increase in autism starting in the USA in 1971.
Denice Walter
February 15th, 2012
19:34:50

@ Sullivan:
I hate to be picky- because you’re doing a great job here- but I will be anyway. It’s about the issue of titles- Oh, what shall we call Wakefield? I realise that you use Mister-( which is OK for any male person, I suppose)- some use Doctor- which may be correct in that he may be Struck-off but he did complete his requirements prior to his infamy. BUT Mister could also refer to a surgeon ( from old usage )so it could be mis-interpretted as could Doctor which may be used to de-emphasise his Struck-off status: his followers lovingly refer to him this way exclusively. I would try to avoid anything remotely respectful or that implies he is entitled to certain priviledges to which he isn’t.
So what do we call him?
dt
February 15th, 2012
19:37:03

FWIW I actually feel sorry for Murch and Walker-Smith too. How such a well regarded and experienced gastroenterologist could be bamboozled by Wakefield and effectively coerced into carrying out his wishes is inexplicable – it speaks volumes of Wakefield’s convictions, single mindedness and persuasive abilities, or W-Smith’s pliability, inoffensiveness and wish to comply.

Most of the Lancet 12 had no clinical indication for invasive colonoscopy/biopsy or lumbar punctures, yet W-S went along with the flow, it seems. Was there some irresistable momentum to the investigation of these kids? Did the doctors all get caught up in the excitement of the moment, the novelty of doing what they thought was cutting edge research, and look no further than the end of their endoscopes?

PS I recall one child underwent MRI and LP even when W-S stated unequivocally “Not for MRI/LP” in the notes.
dt
February 15th, 2012
19:41:37

@Denise
I always chuckle when I think of that film [Dragnet] where the heroine was referred to throughout as “The Virgin Connie Swale”.
Perhaps we should just call him: “The Fraud Andrew Wakefield”?
lilady
February 15th, 2012
19:57:27

There is the matter of Wakefield’s Consent Form that parents of autistic children signed prior to their child undergoing colonoscopy/biopsies. Wakefield even “admits” that he is using the children as guinea pigs to prove his newly discovered disorder…that was based solely on anecdotal reports linking the onset of regressive autism following MMR immunization.

The Colonoscopy/Biopsy Consent Form also minimizes the risks inherent in this invasive procedure. Does Wakefield, and now his supporters, consider Jack Piper’s injuries (12 bowel perforations, septic shock which led to major organ failure which now requires intensive around-the-clock care) as just “collateral damages”?
Sullivan
February 15th, 2012
20:18:15

Denice Walter,

Here’s my thoughts on the use of honorifics. I reserve “Doctor” for a treating physician. Mr. and Ms. for adult non treating physicians.

For the record, I have never asked anyone to call me “Doctor” even though I hold a Ph.D..
Sullivan
February 15th, 2012
20:22:47

Patricia,

please point to specific instances of what you consider “slander”.

It’s an easy attack to claim “slander” without backing up such statements.

If they regard these men as such monstrous and worthless human beings why then do they insist on scurrying to every blog which supports an opposite opinion, or jump on any supporters who may dare to invade their own playground?

Let’s think of the blog that most supports Andrew Wakefield. Show me where I or any of the commenters here have commented there? Either by “scurrying” or otherwise? (nice rat imagery with the “scurrying” comment. But you are supposedly the polite one in this conversation?!?).

I guess accuracy and staying on point isn’t to be expected from you.
Sullivan
February 15th, 2012
20:23:33

“(I like the irony of the use of the word “respectable”)”

So do I. It separates 99.99+% of the profession from people like Andrew Wakefield.
Sullivan
February 15th, 2012
20:24:52

“I’m a newbie here. Why do some of my comments have lines drawn through them?”

I don’t know why WordPress did that. Your stentences stated with “-”. When I removed them, the strike through lines were gone.
Denice Walter
February 15th, 2012
20:51:42

@ dt:

I would be careful about using that particular word- people have been sued for it.

@ Sullivan:

I was being ( partially) facetious.
lilady
February 15th, 2012
21:43:20
Thanks Sullivan…for the fix.

Adding to my comments and to Krebiozen’s comments regarding diagnostic lumbar punctures…

My profoundly and multiply disabled immune suppressed child who died seven years ago, did undergo dozens of LPs for suspected meningitis. Several times ceftriaxone IV was started until cultures of his spinal fluid were negative for bacterial meningitis.

If you have ever been at the bedside of your disabled child who underwent these painful and invasive procedures, you would have compassion for children who were used as guinea pigs by Wakefield.
- My son had a rare genetic disorder with profound mental retardation, spastic quadriparesis, partially controlled grand mal seizure disorder, pancytopenia which caused his immune suppression and frequent internal bleeds. He also had autistic-like behaviors.
brian
February 15th, 2012
21:56:52

It’s difficult to separate Walker-Smith’s contributions to the Lancet paper from Wakefield’s proven dishonest and probably fraudulent manipulation of the data in that recently-retracted paper. However, Walker-Smith clearly indicated in the case of one child in the Lancet series that that child should “not to have MRI or LP [lumbar puncture, an invasive procedure]; nonetheless, Wakefield, who had no pediatric qualifications and who did not, in fact, have a clinical appointment and thus the right and ability to order tests on children, signed orders above his signature in the chart of that child, who ended up having both the MRI and the lumbar puncture that were allowed by Wakefield’s research protocol only if clinically appropriate and which were, according to the expert in the field, explicitly countermanded. Walker-Smith’s reputations suffers because he did not at that point tear Wakefield a new one.
lilady
February 15th, 2012
23:00:30

I myself found the questioning of Walker-Smith’s attorney by the judge, somewhat “odd”. I am not a lawyer, but have followed some cases here in the United States, where since-retired physicians who lost their licenses years ago due to gross negligence or prescribing dangerous treatments, have been reinstated by medical licensing boards…with the stipulation that they would never again practice. Might this be the case here?

Walker-Smith did have a long career-untainted by any misconduct-until he got involved with Wakefield. Walker-Smith would have retired with his license and reputation intact were it not for Wakefield’s schemes and misdeeds.

No matter how the court rules regarding Walker-Smith’s medical license…the notorious anti-vax websites will spin the ruling thusly:

~~Walker~~Smith’s license has been re-instated, ergo Wakefield must be innocent and his licensed should be re-instated.

~~Walker~~Smith did not prevail which only proves that brave maverick doctors such as our hero Andy, cannot get a fair hearing anywhere in the U.K.
Science Mom
February 15th, 2012
23:20:21

WalkerSmith’s license has been re-instated, ergo Wakefield must be innocent and his licensed should be re-instated.

lilady, are you using hyphens? If you want to bullet your points, you can do that with asterisks (*) or list item html code:
List item 1
List item 2
List item 3

which may or may not work, we’ll see when I post.

But to the point, yes the Wakers disciples will see it as an exoneration by proxy but Wakers will never ever get his license re-instated, particularly as he has let the appeal deadline lapse. Very telling in itself.

WalkerSmith did not prevail which only proves that brave maverick doctors such as our hero Andy, cannot get a fair hearing anywhere in the U.K.

And what will all these U.S.-centric anti-vaxxers do who have been crowing about Wakers only getting a fair trial in the U.S. when he gets SLAPPed? I know I shouldn’t speculate so, particularly since I’m nothing even resembling a lawyer but even I can recognise a frivolous suit when I see it.
Sullivan
February 16th, 2012
00:02:22

Denice Walter,

I figured as much, but I couldn’t find a good way to word my response.

Brian, are you thinking of this (Day 82)

QWhy in this child did you state that he should not have an MRI and he should not have a lumbar puncture?
AThis child had Asperger’s Syndrome and I was not convinced of regression of the severity that we had seen in other children as being a characteristic feature, and I did not think the child had a cerebral disintegrative disorder, or a cerebral degenerative disorder, I think is the phrase we have been using. When I saw Child 2, when I saw Child 9, it was very likely to me that this child had some kind of neurological disorder, certainly not a psychiatric disorder, but I did not form that opinion in this child – Child 12 – and so I, and with the support of my colleagues, reached the decision that this child did not have these investigations.

and

QWe have just seen a note from two days before, or three days before, in which you had said “Not for MRI”.
AYes.

QDo you understand how this came about, that here is a consent form for an MRI?
AIt is quite astonishing. I looked at these notes and saw that a lumbar puncture must have been done. I am astonished. I have absolutely no explanation as to why that happened.
lilady
February 16th, 2012
00:11:29

@ Science Mom: Thanks for your advice. I did use hyphens to bullet my remarks. However when I posted above “brian” about my son I used asterisks…and I got unintended boldface print. I’m just a techie-deficient poster, who has only learned recently to link an article.

Getting back to Wakefield’s latest stunt in Texas. We are all awaiting the “discovery” phase of the lawsuit, the EBTs (examinations before trial), the subpoenas being served on “reluctant witnesses” and the actual trial…if it gets that far. My guess is that Wakefield will discontinue the action, but I believe he will still be SLAPPed and will have to pay the costs incurred by each of the three defendants.
sharon earles
February 16th, 2012
00:51:15

i have a 7 year old son that has autism ., he never showed any sighs until he got the mmr shot.
dr treg
February 16th, 2012
01:07:43

You must not enter anything like that on this site as the causation theory has been “utterly” disproved.

Utterly def: “completely and without qualification; used informally as intensifiers”

However, it is interesting that in Children`s Medicine we are told to listen to the mother in particular, but in this scenario it seems that that advice is not upheld.

My view is that autism as with most brain conditions is in part neuro-inflammatory/genetic and in some children an environmental immunogen can provoke the onset of symptoms.

Time will tell if a small percentage of children with autism have reacted in an idiosyncratic manner to MMR although the numbers are so small that they will never show up in a double blind controlled clinical trial.
Chris
February 16th, 2012
01:19:53

Ms. Earles, the MMR is given at about the time the first signs of autism show up. If any version of the MMR was a cause of autism, there would be data from the time it was first introduced. What evidence is there that there was an increase of autism in the USA in 1971?
brian
February 16th, 2012
01:51:16

Sullivan, I also found these points interesting on Day 28 and Day 36.

Day 28:

Ward round [a review of cases conducted by the senior physician as a teaching method for junior physicians] Professor Walker-Smith”. . . and then it says, “not to have MRI or L.P.”

Day 36:

[T]he next day, a ward round with Professor Walker-Smith, the results of the colonoscopy and then: “Not to have MRI or LP” and Wednesday to have his barium meal, so there were apparently instructions that he should not have those investigations, but despite that he did have a lumbar puncture and an MRI on 9 January.

“

On 10 January child 12 has his [evoked potentials] . . . that is apparently requested by Dr Wakefield, it is his signature at the bottom. Can I ask the same question: if that was a clinical investigation would you expect to see the request signed by him [Wakefield]? [Professor Sir Michael Rutter] No.

Going back to the investigations which were ordered and took place: I have taken you to the history of how Professor Walker-Smith apparently said this child was not to have an MRI or an LP. Were you able to see anything in the records which explained why, despite that instruction, this child went ahead and had those investigations? [Professor Rutter] . . . [T]here is a clear statement in the records that on Professor Walker-Smith’s ward round he made an explicit statement, which I have to presume is accurately reported in the notes, that this child should not have the MRI and lumbar puncture. It is baffling as to why the child, despite the senior consultant, Professor, making a statement of that kind, on the basis of a ward round – so it is not just a passing comment in the corridor – why this went ahead.

Dr. Rutter also said this on Day 36:

I think both in terms of the referral but more particularly in terms of the fact that the research protocol was proceeded with come what may, in spite of a clear statement that the child should not have MRI and lumbar puncture, one has to see this as driven by research rather than clinical need. Of course, one has got to go on to say that even if one viewed it as a research case, it clearly does not fit the criteria put forward in the research protocol.

Accordingly, the GMC found:

. . . Dr Wakefield caused three of these young and vulnerable children, (nos. 3, 9 and 12) to undergo the invasive procedure of lumbar puncture when such investigation was for research purposes and was not clinically indicated. This action was contrary to his representation to the Ethics Committee that all the procedures were clinically indicated. In nine of the eleven children (2,1, 3, 4, 9, 5,12, 8 and 7) the Panel has found that Dr Wakefield acted contrary to the clinical interests of each child.
Roger Kulp
February 16th, 2012
04:19:10

I really can’t believe we are still arguing about this stuff.As an adult autistic,with a lifelong history of small bowel disease,so severe it has caused my bones to be underdeveloped,For me to have rickets,and muscle wasting all of my life,CoQ10 malabsorption that mimics mitochondrial disease,folate and B12 malabsorption so bad it mimics metabolic disease of B12,you name it.You don’t need to tell me that autism and GI disease are connected.And that’s just the start of my medical issues.

It is present at birth,and very often it is autoimmune,and often happens in families where there are histories of autoimmune or GI disease.It’s in the genes.My nonautistic mother has had bowel disease,though not as bad as mine,since she was a small child.

There are a lot of very sick autistics out there,and just as many adults as children,with complex medical issues.It didn’t start with the MMR,or even with Kanner.There are books like this from the 1800s

http://www.freefictionbooks.or.....?start=191

that are probably talking about autism.

We are living in an exciting time,when science is doing amazing things in finding new genetic syndromes,like Dravet Syndrome,to explain the different types of autism,or finding autism associated with dozens of pre existing syndromes,from 22q11.2 deletion,to fatty acid oxidation disorders.If your child is sick,your time would be better spent learning about these syndromes,and pushing your doctor for tests.This is complicated stuff,and your child may have genetic features of many syndromes,like I do,but no clear diagnosis.I am now going to go to Massachusetts General soon,but I suspect I may have a very new,yet unnamed syndrome,that is part metabolic,part autoimmune.

Rather than engaging these people,the autism community’s time would be better spent encouraging that adults with autism,be screened,and treated,for some of these diseases.Obviously we are out there.
Science Mom
February 16th, 2012
04:43:53

You must not enter anything like that on this site as the causation theory has been “utterly” disproved.

Utterly def: “completely and without qualification; used informally as intensifiers”

Of course, take the ambiguous word of a completely random stranger on the internet just because “she said so”. I know how much you loathe sceptics not-a-doctor treg although there is something to be said about weighing all evidence which would include thorough examination of medical records. Or does that inconvenience your “narrative”?

However, it is interesting that in Children`s Medicine we are told to listen to the mother in particular, but in this scenario it seems that that advice is not upheld.

Who said? Parental observations can be helpful in determining factors for diagnosing uncomplicated cases or factor in for pursuing specialists for complicated cases. If parents can just march in with their child’s diagnosis, then why even bother stopping at a doctor’s office? You have a very strange notion for the actual value of parental reporting, which is often highly flawed and easily manipulated.

My view is that autism as with most brain conditions is in part neuro-inflammatory/genetic and in some children an environmental immunogen can provoke the onset of symptoms.

That’s nice and a good thing you aren’t actually a physician nor a neurology researcher.

Time will tell if a small percentage of children with autism have reacted in an idiosyncratic manner to MMR although the numbers are so small that they will never show up in a double blind controlled clinical trial.

How convenient, that way you get to keep pulling your pompous speculations from your nether-regions.
dr treg
February 16th, 2012
05:23:04

It is good that we all have our own opinions about psychiatric disease. Open-mindedness and lack of prejudice is the way forward. Perhaps in view of our ignorance, manners should be upheld and other people`s views respected.

“Parental observations can be helpful in determining factors for diagnosing uncomplicated cases or factor in for pursuing specialists for complicated cases.”

“You have a very strange notion for the actual value of parental reporting, which is often highly flawed and easily manipulated.”

– I do not comprehend what you are inferring.

As a scientist I don`t believe anything unless I have evaluated it myself.

Perhaps autism arouses more visceral responses than depression, anxiety , schizophrenia or dependency. I dont know.

I feel that your entry seems to be very angry.

I did not wish to seem pompous. I read about neuro-inflammation in autism from the Johns Hopkins Neuroimmunopathological Laboratory site.
http://www.neuro.jhmi.edu/neur.....m_faqs.htm
Patricia
February 16th, 2012
10:24:41

Science Mom

Ad Hominem ad Nauseam.
Science Mom
February 16th, 2012
13:12:10

Patricia, I see that you cannot, as a genuine person would, acknowledge your error regarding your beliefs about Wakefield so you throw out a lame distraction instead.
Patricia
February 16th, 2012
13:28:24

Science mom
You wish.
MikeMa
February 16th, 2012
15:51:27

Patricia,
We all wish. Wakefield is a fraud. Walker-Smith may have been complicit or not. Regardless of the outcome of W-S’s legal battle, nothing can remove the taint from Wakefield. The evidence is too deep and pervasive.
dt
February 16th, 2012
16:01:48

Dr treg, you earlier said: “The MMR autism causation was excluded but one must remember at the time that the initial MMR was causing unacceptable meningo-encephalitis and the mumps component had to be changed.”

I am curious as to why you think the aseptic meningitis caused by Urabe mumps was “unacceptable”? It is after all a pretty mild complication of mumps itself, occuring in up to 30% of all cases.

How can the use of a vaccine to PREVENT mumps (and therefore prevent up to 3 kids in every 10 getting aseptic meningits) be unacceptable, just because it caused the same meningitis at a rate of around one in 11,000 vaccinated kids?
Chris
February 16th, 2012
17:13:23

I love how they try to rewrite history, thinking they have just discovered the issue with the Urabe mumps strain. Except it was resolved years before Wakefield even was aware of the MMR. Plus, because of Wakefield, parents had their kids vaccinated with a single mumps vaccine that used the Urabe strain.

And neither Patricia nor Dr. Treg have come up with what evidence Wakefield used for that suggestion. An MMR which is very close to what the UK uses now, had been in use since 1971. There was at least twenty years of data that Wakefield could have used in his “research”, so what papers did he use to determine there was an issue? Where are the papers showing there was an increase in autism and “gut problems” in the USA dating back to 1971?
Immunisations, really necessary??! - Page 10
February 16th, 2012
20:42:54

[...] is if the initial trial was fair and questioning the link between autism and bowel disorders. Autism Blog – Attorney for Prof. Walker-Smith: alleged link between MMR and autism utterly disproved… Originally Posted by Georgia M(10) More studies. I think they might be [...]
Science Mom
February 16th, 2012
22:17:24

“Parental observations can be helpful in determining factors for diagnosing uncomplicated cases or factor in for pursuing specialists for complicated cases.”

“You have a very strange notion for the actual value of parental reporting, which is often highly flawed and easily manipulated.”

I do not comprehend what you are inferring.

Why not? You did say this after all:

However, it is interesting that in Children`s Medicine we are told to listen to the mother in particular, but in this scenario it seems that that advice is not upheld.

It’s really straight forward. You are implying that we should all just take an unsupported statement as fact because it appears to be uttered by a mother.

As a scientist I don`t believe anything unless I have evaluated it myself.

And yet you make silly statements as above and try to psychoanalyse me below.

Perhaps autism arouses more visceral responses than depression, anxiety , schizophrenia or dependency. I dont know.

No, blatant stupidity and intentional deception do.

I feel that your entry seems to be very angry.

You mistake confident bluntness with anger? Analyse that.

I did not wish to seem pompous. I read about neuro-inflammation in autism from the Johns Hopkins Neuroimmunopathological Laboratory site.
http://www.neuro.jhmi.edu/neur…..m_faqs.htm

And an example of how a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Making statements of fact with no basis is pompous.
dr treg
February 17th, 2012
01:22:01

Your denial of the importance of listening to mother`s observations and the genetic/neuro-inflammatory research findings in autism is fascinating.
Sullivan
February 17th, 2012
01:38:42

I did not wish to seem pompous. I read about neuro-inflammation in autism from the Johns Hopkins Neuroimmunopathological Laboratory site.

When it comes to the question of whether this work supports the notion that the MMR vaccine causes autism, I would suggest one read the expert report that Dr. Zimmerman produced for the Omnibus Autism Proceeding. As one of the researchers in neuro-inflammation at Hopkins, I assume you will consider his opinion highly relevant:

There is no scientific basis for a connection between measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine or mercury (Hg) intoxication and autism. Despite well intentioned and thoughtful hypotheses and widespread beliefs about apparent connections with autism and regression, there is no sound evidence to support a causative relationship with exposure to both, or either, MMR and/or Hg.
Sullivan
February 17th, 2012
01:42:30

Your denial of the importance of listening to mother`s observations and the genetic/neuro-inflammatory research findings in autism is fascinating.

Ironic that you were writing that sentence while I was writing my last comment. What is your view after reading the expert report from Dr. Zimmerman?

Are you willing to accept the opinion of one of the researchers in the Hopkins neuro-inflammation/autism group?
Sullivan
February 17th, 2012
01:45:55

“Your denial of the importance of listening to mother`s observations ”

Ironically, you are ignoring a mother’s observations here. I am assuming that you (Dr. Treg) are not a mother, while I am assume (I think safely) that “Science Mom” is a mother.
dr treg
February 17th, 2012
02:01:27

I agree with Dr Zimmerman who stated:
“There is no sound evidence to support a causative relationship with exposure to both, or either, MMR and/or Hg.”

I am uninterested re your assumptions about who “Science Mom” is, but whoever they are, they certainly make one realise how careful you have to be with what you post on this site. Not for the squeamish.
Sullivan
February 17th, 2012
02:20:41

dr treg,

“I am uninterested re your assumptions about who “Science Mom” is, ”

Nice dodge. There is hypocrisy at play where you get to pick which mothers we listen to. Science Mom is very direct, to be sure. She can also back up what she has to say. I have not seen this as much from you.
Chris
February 17th, 2012
07:19:55

Much earlier Dr. Treg wrote:

The MMR autism causation was excluded but one must remember at the time that the initial MMR was causing unacceptable meningo-encephalitis and the mumps component had to be changed.

I quoted this bit from you earlier asking you how this was an issue in 1998 when the UK had rectified it in 1992. But you seem to have forgotten.

You also seemed to have ignored that I have mentioned that an MMR vaccine was introduced in the USA in 1971. That was truly the “initial vaccine.” It did not, nor does it now have issues with unacceptable meningo-encephalitis. The USA version had, and still has the Jeryl Lynn mumps strain, the one that has been used in the UK since 1992. So why was this an issue in 1998?

I am still waiting for you to address those questions. Plus, I really want to know what evidence Wakefield was using to suggest parents only have their children vaccinated with single vaccines. A statement that meant the illegal importation of a mumps vaccine using the dreaded Urabe strain. Why have you ignored that?

And since a version of the MMR with the Jeryl Lynn mumps strain had been used in the USA since 1971, what evidence is there that particular vaccine caused autism and gut problems? Since the MMR vaccine used today is very similar to that vaccine, surely that would be important.
Patricia
February 17th, 2012
09:56:27

http://news.uk.msn.com/mmr-row.....ision-fair

Yesterday in the High Court. Now the Judge is confused. Not surprisingly, since the new counsel for the GMC is stating that “despite inadequate reasons being given at the GMC hearing , their decision over Prof Walker Smith was not wrong”...
Excuse me?
Say that again please?

Interesting.
Patricia
February 17th, 2012
11:10:16

Sullivan

Science Mom is “direct”? Isn´t that a euphamism for “likes to insult people who don´t agree with her….opinions?” And they are only opinions you know.
Please don´t start believing that this blog is a Court of Law. And that all who post on her have all the facts of this case at their disposal. Now that would be unintelligent wouldn´t it.
Julian Frost
February 17th, 2012
12:10:43

@Patricia:

despite inadequate reasons being given at the GMC hearing , their decision over Prof Walker Smith was not wrong.

This isn’t quite the “gotcha!!” you seem to think it is. “Inadequate reasons being given” may simply mean the GMC Hearing failed to clearly explain how the verdict against John Walker Smith was reached.
Patricia
February 17th, 2012
12:26:11

Julian

I never said Gotcha. Never implied it either. I am as confused as anyone else. I do however find it odd.
If the GMC failed to clearly explain to anyone how their decision was reached then it needs to be brought into the Appeal Court and discovered and clarified.
Angela Kennedy
February 17th, 2012
12:30:10

Erm – “The judge asked Miller whether the alleged link between MMR and the vaccine “has now been utterly disproved” in the opinion of “respectable medical opinion”.

Miller said that was “exactly” the position.

Asked whether that was also the case in relation to autism and some types of bowel disorder, Miller said: “There are still doubters and believers on that.”

Are we to believe the Judge was saying the link between the MMR vaccine and the vaccine (what?) has now been ‘utterly disproved’?

HUH?

Any more accurate quotations around on what was actually said?
Patricia
February 17th, 2012
13:00:25

Angela note the use of the word “respectable”. I am quite sure the Judge himself knows there are many in the medical world who would disagree. Respectable or otherwise. This is the High Court of the UK. This is the respectable face of the medical establishment Angela.
DT
February 17th, 2012
14:10:36

“On the fourth day of his challenge, the judge said that the case had been “complex and difficult from the start – it greatly troubles me”.”

Where does it say the judge is “confused”, Patricia?
Science Mom
February 17th, 2012
14:24:29

Your denial of the importance of listening to mother`s observations and the genetic/neuro-inflammatory research findings in autism is fascinating.

I would be rather disappointed if my paediatrician let me diagnose my children based upon my observations. I said that parental reporting can be helpful but it can also be biased and flawed. A physician will filter what is germane, not simply accept a parental diagnosis of cause and effect as you seem to be implying.
dt
February 17th, 2012
14:28:08

“The professor is being supported by the parents of many children with autism and bowel disease seen by him at the Royal Free Hospital, north London, up to his retirement in 2001. They say one consequence of the GMC’s decision is that families now face serious difficulties in finding NHS treatment for autistic children with bowel disease.”

No, that cannot be right. Walker Smith retired many years before his GMC case, so the families cannot imply that they cannot get treatment for their children with bowel disease because they can no longer be seen by him.

If they mean that it is difficult for autistic children to get bowel disease investigated, that might be the case, but it still has nothing whatsoever to do with the GMC action against Walker Smith.

I think the parents are using a form of special pleading here to try and highlight the plight of their children and falsely link it with this particular case, when it has nothing to do with it.

Alternatively, should the appeal succeed and Walker Smith be re-instated on the medical register, this will have zero relvance for the investigation of bowel disease in autism. So why ramp it up as an issue, other than as some form of emotional blackmail – the “why won’t someone think of the children” fallacy.
Science Mom
February 17th, 2012
14:34:06

Science Mom is “direct”? Isn´t that a euphamism for “likes to insult people who don´t agree with her….opinions?” And they are only opinions you know.

You made a claim that Wakefield never stated he said MMR caused autism, you were presented with abundant evidence to the contrary and instead of admitting your error, you shifted the goalposts. This is dishonest and deserves to be called out.

Please don´t start believing that this blog is a Court of Law. And that all who post on her have all the facts of this case at their disposal. Now that would be unintelligent wouldn´t it.

You do like strawman arguments don’t you. We do have the facts of the GMC case and numerous other sources at our disposal and have limited commentary to those. It is you that seems to believe that Walker-Smith has been falsely proved guilty of multiple ethics violations when the appeal is not even decided.
dt
February 17th, 2012
15:02:11

I see the basis for the appeal apears to be that the Lancet children DID have clinical indications for colonoscopy (and lumbar punctures too I suppose they will say) and they were not performed for research purposes. This would stand in clear contradiction of the GMC findings on many of the cases.

I note some of the cases had little in the way of significant bowel symptoms – I believe one case was actually discharged by Walker Smith from clinic, but following persuasion by Wakefield, the child was recalled out of the blue and admitted for investigations. I’d like to see how his legal team argue that it was WS who thought the child needed these invasive tests if he himself had discharged the child from follow-up.

Also, many kids had blood work done, which included markers of inflammation such as the C reactive protein (CRP, a prime indicator of bowel inflammation). We know that those without a raised CRP are unlikely to have inflammation, and that colonoscopy in these children is not indicated.

How do we know this? Here are details from a paper:

“We have found the C reactive protein to be the most sensitive inflammatory indicator at diagnosis [of imlammatory bowel disease].”

“Thus normal investigations [CRP] may be of use in avoiding total colonoscopy in patients with functional abdominal pain. This is even more important in children.”

“We suggest that these simple tests [ie CRP] should be performed early in all children with chronic gastrointestinal symptoms. Abnormalities suggest the need for early referral, whereas normal investigations and no history of rectal bleeding make chronic inflammatory bowel disease unlikely. This policy should lead to swifter diagnosis in children with inflammatory bowel disease and may spare many others invasive investigations.”

I wonder which eminent paediatric gastroenterologist published this paper saying that these tests could spare children “invasive investigations” [ie colonoscopy]?

Oh, I see it was someone called Walker Smith…... I wonder who he might be?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm.....0-0084.pdf
Patricia
February 17th, 2012
15:23:01

Walker Smith? Who is he? Well he is only one of the world´s most eminent paediatric gastroenterologists. But of course you know far more than he does.
Patricia
February 17th, 2012
15:29:04

DT You mean he is not confused? Ooooh you are clever.
Angela Kennedy
February 17th, 2012
15:46:02

Patricia – but more importantly – others including who posted this blog entry:

Look carefully at the section of the Guardian report I highlighted.

The Judge is alleged to have said words to the effect that the link between MMR vaccine and another vaccine has been utterly disproved! A QC has allegedly agreed.

So there is NO link between two types of vaccine???

The Guardian report is gobbledegook. From it we cannot know WHAT has been, in the OPINION of some people, ‘utterly disproved’. From this piece of gobbledegook, people have been filling in the gap in linguistic logic with their own preconceptions.

WHAT was actually said? Unless there is a clear and accurate quotation somewhere else, we can’t know.
Patricia
February 17th, 2012
19:04:45

http://www.guardian.co.uk/soci.....NTCMP=SRCH

...It´s between the MMR and autism Angela. Chinese whispers got to you I suspect.
Patricia
February 17th, 2012
19:08:36

Hang on – Angela is quite CORRECT - in the Guardian link it is gobbldegook last time I looked it said autism and the MMR. Now it says vaccine and the MMR. Am wondering if it is a typo. I´ll check eleswhere.
Chris
February 17th, 2012
19:31:31

It looks like a typo.

But the question still remains, one that no one will answer: which MMR vaccine?

One with the Urabe or Jeryl Lynn mumps strains, or the perhaps the Schwartz or Enders-Edmonston measles strains?
Patricia
February 17th, 2012
19:32:40

No way of knowing what that Judge said. Angela and Century are absolutely right, it doesn´t make any sense whatsoever. I assumed (mea culpa one should never assume) in one of my comments that he was linking MMR and autism, which would have made some sense. He wasn´t, not according to the Guardian that is, which could have made an error. So, I give up. Anyone else find another report of that quote? Or does anyone else have any idea what the Judge meant?
dt
February 17th, 2012
19:51:24

patricia said:

“Walker Smith? Who is he? Well he is only one of the world´s most eminent paediatric gastroenterologists. But of course you know far more than he does.”

You miss my point. If one of the world’s most eminent paediatric gastroenterologists (WS) writes a peer-reviewed scientific paper categorically stating that children without raised markers of inflammation such as CRP have little likelihood of having inflammatory bowel disease and should be “spared invasive investigations” such as colonoscopy, then why would he explicitly go against his own considered opinion and recommendations when it came to some of the Lancet children, and advise that children did require these investigations?

It is not me saying I know better than the research and clinical teams at the Royal Free, it is Walker Smith himself who is saying he knows better.

Hung by his own petard, I would say.

Answer me this: Why did he expressly ignore his own expert opinion?
Angela Kennedy
February 17th, 2012
20:07:16

I’ve written to the Guardian about this as below. This matters because the other sentence about bowel disorder and autism mean the actual statement about SOMETHING being allegedly ‘utterly disproved’ really does need clarifying – though I can see why people would prefer to make arbitrary speculations :(

Dear Madam or Sir,

I refer to the article in Monday’s Guardian “Doctor struck off over MMR controversy appeals against ruling”:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/soci.....NETTXT9038

The article at one points reads:

“The judge asked Miller whether the alleged link between MMR and the vaccine “has now been utterly disproved” in the opinion of “respectable medical opinion”.

Miller said that was “exactly” the position.

Asked whether that was also the case in relation to autism and some types of bowel disorder, Miller said: “There are still doubters and believers on that.”

MMR is a vaccine. Did the judge actually say that a link between one named vaccine and another (un-named but called ‘the) vaccine has been ‘utterly disproved’? And did Walker-Smith’s QC say that was ‘exactly’ the position?

It is like saying the link between a named dog (let’s call her Daisy) and another, un-named (but called ‘the’) dog, had been ‘utterly disproved’.

Either the journalist has misquoted the judge and QC, in which case you should correct, or the judge and QC made these mistakes in court, in which case you should clarify. There may even be another explanation I have not thought of.

It makes a difference because Guardian Readers cannot know confidently what has been allegedly ‘utterly disproved’, or how these relate to what might have been said, by the judge and the QC, about autism and bowel disorder (as mentioned above).

There is already so much confusion and misinformation (not to mention ideology) inherent in the various discourses around the MMR vaccine. I believe it is the Guardian’s duty to establish the correct quotes so as not to add to this woeful quagmire.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require more information/clarification.
Patricia
February 17th, 2012
20:08:15

How can I possibly answer for or on behalf of Prof Walker? How can I possibly know what decisions he took,or why? I wasn´t there at his side when he undertook any treatments of any child at any Hospital and I have little or no faith in the veracity of much of what has been reported in the media or even at the GMC hearing.

Let him please speak for himself at this proper High Court of Appeal?
Patricia
February 17th, 2012
20:10:44

Angela an excellent letter. Well done. I also just sent an email to the Guardian re this question.
Patricia
February 17th, 2012
20:17:48

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....06137.html

Interesting posts on the “inadequate reasons”.
Sullivan
February 17th, 2012
20:22:41

Angela Kennedy,

I also wrote the Guardian asking for clarification. Also a few other people whom I believe might be able to explain what was actually said.

“I wasn´t there at his side when he undertook any treatments of any child at any Hospital and I have little or no faith in the veracity of much of what has been reported in the media or even at the GMC hearing.’

“even at the GMC hearing”?

Even what was said by Prof. Walker-Smith, Mr. Wakefield, and others who were active in the research?
Patricia
February 17th, 2012
20:40:19

Verbatim accounts yes of course. I was refering to reported hearsay. But still that doesn´t allow me to answer your question.
Patricia
February 17th, 2012
21:35:59

http://news.uk.msn.com/health/.....mmr-appeal

Today. The Court reserves judgement.
Patricia
February 17th, 2012
21:38:31

I presume it means to wait for more information before coming to a judgement.
brian
February 18th, 2012
01:41:10

GMC Fitness to Practice Hearing, Day 100:
[Q] You did say that as you continued to see children with autism and bowel problems, the association with MMR “faded away” is the expression you used.
[Dr. Walker-Smith] Yes.

Dr. Walker-Smith was the senior author among the ten authors of the Lancet paper who retracted its interpretation years before the entire paper was formally retracted. The retracted “interpretation” was explicitly “the possibility of such a link [between the administration of MMR and the onset of autism]” . . . . Walker-Smith and his co-authors continued: “In view of this, we consider now is the appropriate time that we should together formally retract the interpretation placed upon these findings in the paper, according to precedent.”
Patricia
February 18th, 2012
12:56:34

Brian this is exactly what the “conflicting expert opinions” reference is all about. Walker Smith is a clinician and Wakefield is the research scientist. Are they not allowed to hold differing opinions? Wakefield says there could be a causal link between the MMR and gut inflammations and autism but that “more research needs to be done”. Walker Smith believes that particular theory is “fading”. So?? “Fading” doesn´t imply “vanished” to me. Who knows for sure who is right? The Jury is still out over this issue IMO. Expert opinions differ the whole world over. There is corroborating evidence of Wakefield´s theories coming in from all over the world. But there is still not enough consensus. So?? Why not keep an open mind? The first and foremost and the most vital ethic has been adhered to in this whole case NO HARM HAS BEEN DONE. Only to the profits of the pharma industry and to the Public Health credibility of the UK. And so what?! BUT NOT TO CHILDREN. Unless of course you believe the rank recesses of Brian Deer´s imagination. That is something for your own conscience to decide. Walker Smith has said over and over that these very sick children who were given colonospopies were treated thus for reasons of clinical need – and that the children were properly and routinely sedated during such procedures. Their parents witnessed this and agreed. This has been evidenced by the team that assisted him.

What exactly is it about these two conflicting impressions from two very different experts that seems to cause you and your fellow supporters so much grief? Doesn´t the dynamics of different approaches, different hypotheses promote a healthy atmosphere in any research Institution? As long as all the ethical permissions etc were adhered to – which they were – despite protestations from some quarters to the contrary. As for the rest of the retractors on the team, well they were scared to hell of losing their jobs is my own “opinion”.

So a dedicated research scientist (who cannot afford to appeal against the GMC in a High Court) goes it alone and, in his own words, knowingly lets his job “go down the toilet” in order to pursue what he genuinely still believes is a tragic mistake. i.e. vaccines which are designed to be “one size fits all”. I like this man. Wish there were more like him. His reputation is something that does matter to him and he has proved this by his recent actions.

Is it all those insane and sinister lies about “uneccesary invasive procedures” taking place that still bugs you or is it Deer and Godlee´s wild accusations (now who is talking conspiracy theories?) that within the medical research Institutions in the UK, wholesale fraud and corruption is taking place and that these Hospitals are in dire need of a Government enquiry? The British Government so far are not convinced of Godlee´s scenario and seem in no hurry whatsoever to set up enquiries at her behest. Her letters to them have received short shrift.
MikeMa
February 18th, 2012
14:11:15

Patricia,
You are really a Wakefan.
NO HARM DONE. Thousands sickened, some dead as a result of drop in vaccination.
...rank recesses of Brina Deer’s imagination. He collected an presented evidence. He helped prove Wakefield was/is a fraud, your deluded conspiracy theories notwithstanding. Wakers hand picked 12 kids, falsified data, and maybe threw Walker-Smith and others under the bus to further his own financial gain.
Yours is the truly rank mind.
Patricia
February 18th, 2012
14:38:23

Mikma and what is it with you and yours that feels compels to hurl personal insults and dramatic overexaggerations and untruths at opposing viewpoints? That is what I find highly suspect.
MikeMa
February 18th, 2012
14:51:40

Patricia,
You called the excellent investigative work done by Deer the result of a rank mind. I returned that.
You claim no harm done. Do you not recognize the sharp and persistent rise in vaccine preventable disease a result of Wakefield’s fraud?
You seem to reject the claim that Wakers was a fraud in spite of overwhelming evidence.
I don’t give a damn what you find suspect only what you can prove.
MikeMa
February 18th, 2012
14:52:58

Patricia,
If you cannot stand the hotter environment here in the real world, go back to that manicured, sterile sandbox at AoA.
dt
February 18th, 2012
15:06:55

@ Patricia – wow!

There is corroborating evidence of Wakefield´s theories coming in from all over the world.

Be specific. Wakefield’s theory was that measles virus in MMR was the acute trigger for bowel inflammation which then led to autism because it allowed certain neurotoxins to enter the circulation from the gut.

Now please, please point us to a single study which has corroborated this. I’ll donate $1000 to Age of Autism if you can.

There are plenty of papers showing autistic kids get bowel problems. That’s hardly news or unique, and it is disingenuous for Wakefans to point to these quite irrelevant studies as “corroborating his theories”.

NO HARM HAS BEEN DONE. Only to the profits of the pharma industry and to the Public Health credibility of the UK. And so what?! BUT NOT TO CHILDREN.

The issue of harm to all the kids dead or damaged worldwide because of reductions in vaccination rates has been mentioned. Wake up and smell the coffee, would you?

We also know that having invasive procedures such as colonoscopy and bowel biopsies and lumbar punctures are risky … they have complication rates way in excess of those ever seen with any vaccine. One of the Royal Free children, Jack Piper, suffered multiple bowel perforations, nearly died and spent 3 months in intensive care following one of the colonoscopies in Wakefield’s unit. We have heard from testimony that some of the Lancet children were so resistant to having things like blood tests done they had to be physically restrained by 3 adults. How do you think those kids felt when having long pipes poked up their backsides to bite out pieces of bowel, or having needles stuck into their spines? Even if anesthetised, do you think that comes without risk of harm?

I never cease to be amazed that people who supposedly care so deeply about the health and welfare of children that they cannot countenance the tiny risk of a one in a million anaphylaxis reaction from a vaccine, or a one in 10 thousand risk of aseptic meningits can so cavalierly dismiss the use of invasive, unnecessary tests like colonoscopic biopsy which carry mortalities several orders of magnitude in excess of those linked to any vaccine.

Walker Smith has said over and over that these very sick children who were given colonospopies were treated thus for reasons of clinical need – and that the children were properly and routinely sedated during such procedures. Their parents witnessed this and agreed. This has been evidenced by the team that assisted him.

Are you deaf as well as blind? Walker Smith has published guidelines dictating the circumstances when invasive colonoscopy is needed, and specified that those without blood indicators of inflammation (raised CRP) should be spared the risks of these invasive procedures.

Many of the Lancet 12 did not have raised inflammatory markers. They had the procedures because Wakefield twisted a few arms. One child had been discharged from follow-up by WS, only for Wakefield to arrange 6 months later for the child to come in for colonoscopy. One child had this written in his notes by WS: “Not for MRI or LP”, yet the tests were done, overuling his advice.
The GMC detail each and every case where there was NO clinical indication for LP or colonoscopy, yet they were done. Why?

As long as all the ethical permissions etc were adhered to – which they were – despite protestations from some quarters to the contrary.

I think you need to look at the detail of the GMC findings again. Pretending that there were no violations of protocols or ethics might make you feel good inside, but it just ain’t so.

As for the rest of the retractors on the team, well they were scared to hell of losing their jobs is my own “opinion”.

Walker Smith was one of the “retractors”, among other distinguished names, who were horrified when they heard about Wakefield’s breaches of ethics and conflicts of interest. I hope you aren’t accusing WS of acting the way he did because he was scared of losing his job?

Is it all those insane and sinister lies about “uneccesary invasive procedures” taking place that still bugs you

Vide supra. I assume you are suggesting that every child who has autism has a clinical needs for a lumbar puncture? And that every autistic child with constipation or bowel problems has a clinical need for colonoscopy? Let’s see, I make it one boy in 66 that has autism….. I guess that means one boy in 66 needs an LP and since around half of autistic kids have bowel problems then 1 in 130 need colonoscopy. You do agree, I assume.
Patricia
February 18th, 2012
16:10:26

DT You know as well as I do that there are other replications of Wakefield´s work. This link is one of many. And I donn´t beieve for a moment that it will satisfy you enough to donate 1000 dollars to AoA. I shan´t hold my breath.
http://abbykorinnelee.hubpages.....y-Findings.

It was myself that raised the issue of “dead or damaged children as a result of the reduction in vaccine rates”. Ho hum, statistics can do anything you want them to, didn´t you know that? It´s the pharma industry´s favourite alarmist propaganda tool.

Of course colonoscopies are risky. All surgery or invasive treatment is risky. Do you really believe Walker Smith was blissfully unaware of this fact and he just went ahead blithely doing what he does the best in the world, for fun???

As for Walker Smith being “horrified” (exaggeration again) by Wakefield´s so called breaches of protocol, these are all false and have now been proved to be so. The retractors, including Walker Smith were unhappy with the interpretation being given to the Paper, not with the actual findings. See link above if you need it.

And now I have a life to get on with.
brian
February 18th, 2012
17:25:07

Patricia, there has been no replication of Wakefield’s preliminary results suggesting that receipt of MMR was associated with the onset of both bowel problems and ASD. Wakefield had the opportunity to replicate and extend the findings of what Walker-Smith termed a “pilot” study when the Royal Free, which after all employed Wakefield full-time as a researcher, offered him the time, salary, and support necessary to attempt to replicate his work in a larger study of 150 children using his already-assembled team, but Wakefield refused.

The article you linked is a yet another recycled reference to preliminary work presented as an abstract at the 2006 IMFAR. Not surprisingly, it remains unpublished almost six years later since another study presented at that same meeting (and published soon thereafter) demonstrated that the assay produced uniformly false-positive results by reacting with human DNA rather than with measles virus RNA. Moreover, the abstract did not address the timing of the onset of either ASD or bowel problems relative to the receipt of MMR, so as written it was at most an attempt to replicate some of Wakefield’s other discredited work rather than the work reported in the retracted Lancet article, and the lead author of that abstract noted that “We haven’t done anything to demonstrate that the measles virus is causing autism or even causing bowel disease.”

Honestly, the people who make the ridiculous claim that Wakefied’s preliminary results that temporally linked MMR with the onset of ASD and bowel problems have been replicated don’t understand what it means to replicate a scientific study. The authors of the only real attempt to replicate Wakefield’s preliminary result concluded: “The work reported here eliminates the remaining support for the hypothesis that autism with GI complaints is related to MMR vaccine exposure. We found no relationship between the timing of MMR vaccs Wakefield used to allegedly detect measles virus in the biopsy samples of children with ASD turned out to detect a laboratory DNA contaminant and human DNA rather than specifically measles virus RNA. ine and the onset of either GI complaints or autism.” [PLoS One. 2008 Sep 4;3(9):e3140]
Denice Walter
February 18th, 2012
17:27:04

Purely as an observer, it’s intriguing that AJW’s supporters now rally around W-S: do they suppose that if the latter is exonerated it will somehow illustrate the GMC’s error about AJW? As if their situations were interchangeable and their respective levels of participation in the project were equivalent? Will all the other facts that were uncovered dissolve into thin air? Do they seriously believe that if W-S prevails AJW’s former status will be miraculously restored? Or that a further investigation into the entire affair will spontaneously materialise? It seems too much like an example of contagious magic to me. Supporters need to take a giant step back and look at the whole picture rather than obsessing over details, then re-think it through again. ( Hint: Andy didn’t appeal).

The continuing saga of AJW is truly a field day for psychologists. Like manna from heaven.
brian
February 18th, 2012
17:35:16

The final line in the third paragraph of my post above should have read:

“The work reported here eliminates the remaining support for the hypothesis that autism with GI complaints is related to MMR vaccine exposure. We found no relationship between the timing of MMR vaccine and the onset of either GI complaints or autism.” [PLoS One. 2008 Sep 4;3(9):e3140]
MikeMa
February 18th, 2012
17:38:27

Patricia says “And now I have a life to get on with.”

I doubt that. You have tried to defend a fraud and made that an important part of your life. Too bad.
Sullivan
February 18th, 2012
18:01:29

Mikma and what is it with you and yours that feels compels to hurl personal insults and dramatic overexaggerations and untruths at opposing viewpoints? That is what I find highly suspect.

Can we assume from the above that you don’t read the Age of Autism blog? Or that you find them highly suspect?
Sullivan
February 18th, 2012
18:09:39

“Walker Smith believes that particular theory is “fading”. So?? “Fading” doesn´t imply “vanished” to me. Who knows for sure who is right? ”

Prof. Walker-Smith either accepts the idea that Wakefield’s MMR-autism hypothesis failed or he isn’t as good a researcher as people make him out to be. I am not judging my view of the facts in the matter on his opinion.

“Walker Smith has said over and over that these very sick children who were given colonospopies were treated thus for reasons of clinical need ”

The General Medical Council disagreed. Strongly. They based this on, amongst other things, 4 or 5 days of testimony from a gastroenterologist.

“The first and foremost and the most vital ethic has been adhered to in this whole case NO HARM HAS BEEN DONE”

Millions of dollars in research funding spent to chase down an idea put forth fraudulently? Man-years of researcher time which could have been applied to something valuable. Parents made to feel guilty about the harm they supposedly did to their children. Children and adults subjected to “therapies” with no evidence to suggest they might be helpful and with very real possibilities of adverse reactions.

We have different definitions of “no harm has been done”.

And this before we count the child mentioned above whose bowel was perforated multiple times at the Royal Free (by someone other than Walker-Smith). Before we consider the millions of pounds of taxpayer money spent in the UK chasing an idea that had no sound basis.
Chris
February 18th, 2012
18:19:46

Patricia:

The first and foremost and the most vital ethic has been adhered to in this whole case NO HARM HAS BEEN DONE.

So this is not really happening: European countries must take action now to prevent continued measles outbreaks in 2012? You don’t think hospitalizations and actual deaths are harmful:

he WHO’s newest measles summary in the Weekly Epidemiological Record reports more than 26,000 cases of measles in 36 European countries from January-October 2011, with more than 14,000 of those in France. Despite strong health systems, Western European countries have reported 83% of these cases. These outbreaks have caused nine deaths, including six in France, and 7288 hospitalizations.

Really, Patricia? How is the above an exaggeration? Or untrue? Have you ever had a child in the hospital? It is not a happy fun time trip to the playground. I know this from a bit too much experience.
Sullivan
February 18th, 2012
18:39:44

DT You know as well as I do that there are other replications of Wakefield´s work.

Let’s leave aside the Sally Beck story from years ago which seems to magically pop again every month or so. It refers to an IMFAR abstract for a study which was never published (even though the author of that study is now an editor for the “journal” autism insights.)

Where are the papers that show
a) MMR administration precedes GI complaints and autistic regression in a significant fraction of cases?
a1) that autism symptoms for children with GI complaints occur within 2 weeks of MMR administration (as reported in the Lancet)
b) the presence of measles virus in tissue samples from the vast majority of autistic children with GI complaints (as in Uhlman et al.)
c) the presence of “ileal nodular hyperplasia” in the majority of autistic children with GI comlaints.
d) the existence of a medical entity “autistic enterocolitis”

“Do you really believe Walker Smith was blissfully unaware of this fact and he just went ahead blithely doing what he does the best in the world, for fun???”

Did anyone ever make that assertion? No. Prof Walker-Smith was well aware of the fact that these were “high risk” procedures.

A major question (which the GMC answered) was whether these procedures were clinically indicated for all the children. The GMC ruled that they were not.
lilady
February 18th, 2012
20:04:52

As I stated in a prior post, no matter if or when W-S has his license restored, it will have no impact on the decision by the GMC to strike Wakefield from the register. Wakefield had an opportunity to defend himself during the hearing…and he didn’t. Wakefield had the opportunity to appeal the GMC decision…and he didn’t. Wakefield commenced a lawsuit against Brian Deer for defamation, then discontinued it and was ordered to pay Deer’s legal costs. Why?

Wakefield also had the funds (money provided to him for “expert witness” testimony and the huge salary he was paid as Executive Director of Thoughtful House) to mount a defense during the GMC hearing, to appeal the findings of the GMC and to continue his defamation lawsuit against Deer.

We are not discussing an indigent defendant or an indigent plaintiff in these actions. The issue here is Wakefield’s “setting up” the plaintiffs’ cases against vaccine manufacturers, using and egregiously abusing his patients as his guinea pigs, subjecting those children to painful, invasive and not-medically-indicated colonoscopies and LPs and violating the standards of care for these defenseless children.

What happened to all the tissue specimens and the pathology reports that “might have” exonerated Wakefield and Walker-Smith?

Perhaps the most (unintentionally) hilarious aspect of the Wakefield saga is the lawsuit he instituted in Texas, against Deer, Fiona Godlee and the BMJ. Adding to the hilarity is the support that Wakefield has garnered from Age of Autism for this frivolous lawsuit.

“And now I have a life to get on with.” Presumably Patricia has donated to the “Wakefield Justice Fund” and will be attending the fundraiser to be held in California, next month.
Jack
February 18th, 2012
20:53:11

The Guardian article now reads:

‘The judge asked Miller whether the alleged link between MMR and autism “has now been utterly disproved” in the opinion of “respectable medical opinion”.

Miller said that was “exactly” the position.’

• This article was amended on 18 February 2012. The original said the judge asked Miller whether the alleged link “between MMR and the vaccine” had been disproven. This has been corrected.’

http://www.guardian.co.uk/soci.....mr-appeals
Sullivan
February 19th, 2012
04:42:19

Thanks Jack. Glad they read our letters. Probably not the correction expected by some.
dt
February 19th, 2012
09:20:59

Just to pick up the “Pharma profit” fallacy that people like Patricia trot out each time Wakefield and MMR are discussed. The implication is that Pharma are joined in major conspiracy to discredit Wakefield, because it would somehow be in their financial best interests to do so.

The truth is quite different. MMR is a relatively cheap vaccine. Wakefield called for use of single measles, mumps and rubella vaccines. The cost of the individual monovalent vaccines exceeds the cost of the combined MMR.

Now you think Pharma would have been delighted for that to become the official policy because they would stand to make more profit.

Patricia needs to rethink her conspiracy theory again, since it is deficient in logic and plausibility.
Patricia
March 7th, 2012
18:21:44

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/hea.....k-off.html

Patricia doesn´t need to rethink her conspiracy theories. Today is a victory for the truth, for reason, for clarity and for Justice.
And where I wonder does this leave the so called “award winning” journalist Brian Deer´s fraudulent and malicious theories? It was his and his alone, venomous and utterly unfounded interpretation of events, that drew the case deliberately to the attention of the GMC - who in turn were utterly inadequate to deal with his allegations and the subsequent case, in acknowledgment of which they have now established a new Medical Practice Tribunal.
Shame on them. Shame on the Sunday Times. Shame on the British media which hands out self congratulatory and wholly undeserved Awards like candy. They reward and they propagate fallacious lies. And they have put this distinguished and much loved and respected Professor Walker Smith through hell for 10 long years. Unforgivable.

A High Court Judge has today restored his dignity.