With the facts against them Dr. Wakefield’s supporters appeal to emotion

3 Feb

I should stop being shocked and amazed at how little groups like the Age of Autism blog think of their readership. Sorry to put it so bluntly, but it is pretty clear that they expect us all to just read what they have to say and never go to the original sources and think for ourselves.

Case in point, the GMC hearing on Dr. Andrew Wakefield. Dr. Wakefield was guilty of ethical violations in the treatment of his disabled patients. Not once, not twice but many many times. But you wouldn’t know that to read some of the reports on the blogs and even a couple in newspapers.

We have the NAA SafeMinds and TACA telling us all about how bad this ruling is. We have been told that there was “false testimony”.

OK, take a look at the actual charges. Just for a moment. Here are a few examples

1) Dr. Wakefield took money from the Legal Aid Board (LAB) for procedures paid by the NHS. He then diverted some of the LAB money to other projects.

2) Dr. Wakefield got ethical permission to do his study in December 1996, only on patients enrolled after that date. However, he had already started research on children. Here are two examples:

Child 2 had an MRI, colonoscopy and lumbar puncture in September of 1996.

Child 1 was also a research subject without ethical approval. Tests were performed which were not in the clinical interests of the child.

3) For people who promote the myth that “the only thing he did was start early”, note that Dr. Wakefield’s team did invasive tests that were not called for. For example:

Child 3 was also a research subject without ethical approval, having started before the approval. He underwent a lumbar puncture even though: “The Panel has taken into account the fact that there is no evidence in Child 3’s clinical notes to indicate that a lumbar puncture was required.”

Was this the result of some “false testimony? According to the GMC ruling, experts on both sides stated that the lumbar puncture was not clinically indicated.

Experts on both sides, Professor Rutter and Dr Thomas both considered that such a test was not clinically indicated.

Dr. Thomas is not accused by the defenders of Wakefield as “giving false testimony”.

The above are only a few of the examples of clear misconduct on the part of Dr. Wakefield.

How many times must a man be found guilty of not doing what was in his patients’ clinical interests before we are allowed to consider him as, well, someone who doesn’t always put his patient’s clinical interests first?

Kim Stagliano has taken to the Huffington Post with “The Censorship of Autism Treatment“. No mention of the actual charges. No mention of the fact that Andrew Wakefield was guilty. No mention of the fact that Andrew Wakefield’s research efforts for the past 12 years have centered on repairing his own damaged reputation, not on autism treatment.

Can you find a single mention of the word “ethics” in her post? How about any comment about the actual charges levied against Dr. Wakefield?

You know you are in trouble just with the title from this story: MMR doc’s just guilty of caring . At least that article makes one clear statement:

It [the GMC ruling] focused on the methods of research used, some of which were undoubtedly questionable, but which were performed in the name of finding solace for desperate parents convinced their children had changed for ever following their one-size-fits-all MMR injection.

Yes, you can be unethical if you are “finding solace for desperate parents”.

A blog post by the National Autism Association stated:

“Many parents of children with autism view the GMC investigation as little more than character assassination of a physician brave enough to investigate controversial issues”

Well, not this parent. Anyone who paints the GMC investigation as “character assassination” didn’t read the ruling. Seriously, trying to dismiss this fact-filled ruling as “character assassination” is just plain bizarre.

another post comments, discussing the work Dr. Wakefield’s team performed on his study subjects:

the procedures involved were routine


No children were harmed and no parent or guardian has complained about the care these three men provided.

Lumbar punctures are hardly “routine”. Further, there is no reason to do them if not clinically indicated. Colonoscopies are not routine, especially in patients whose symptoms don’t warrant them. Say, as in Child 1.

One child suffered a perforated bowel (in 12 places!). His family won a lawsuit against the Royal Free hospital.

High Court papers alleged that the colonoscopy procedure performed on Jack in 1998 was ‘not clinically indicated or justified’. They also claimed the ‘principal reason’ for the surgery was to further research into links between autism and bowel conditions rather than Jack’s clinical needs.

How does that not count as not “harmed”? Is it because he wasn’t one of the original 12 from the study in The Lancet?

The behavior of the Wakefield supporters is totally predictable. They have no science. They have no first (or second) tier researchers. They rely heavily on Dr. Wakefield. Who else has the perceived stature of Dr. Wakefield for them? When Brian Deer broke the story that Dr. Wakefield may have “fixed” data in his study last year, there was an immediate reaction from the Wakefield supporters: give him faux awards! Make him the keynote speaker at their conventions!

For the past year the message has been “Dr. Wakefield has not been discredited”. They’ve lost that now.

We’ve been warned that they are bringing out their big guns. Yes, David Kirby will blog about this on the Huffington Post. With apologies to Mr. Kirby, but when he’s their “ace in the hole”, you know they don’t have much.

As I finished this, David Kirby came up with his post: “The Lancet Retraction Changes Nothing”. Joining in the style of the times, Mr. Kirby also ignores the actual GMC ruling. Nothing that actually defends Dr. Wakefield against the real charges.

Seriously, go read for yourself. It’s David Kirby with his usual talking points and straw men.

I hope David Kirby is wrong. I hope that things have changed. I hope that the future is a world where the loudest voices in the autism communities fight for a better life for autistics, rather than for a political goal of recognition for bad science, badly done.

I hope.

64 Responses to “With the facts against them Dr. Wakefield’s supporters appeal to emotion”

  1. Dedj February 3, 2010 at 01:51 #

    It’s hard to know what Kirby’s point actually is.

    He doesn’t agree with the opinions on Wakefield? Tough, they’ve been validated by the highest relevant institutional authourity.

    The rest of it is a basic “I don’t want to listen to the opnions of people I disagree with, because some authourities I wouldn’t acknowledge if they disagreed with me have decided to pay minimal lip service to people that agree with me. I will therefore take this as evidence that my side is somehow right, rather than merely loud and annoying.”

    It’s amazing that he has such a standing. But then we have ‘award winning’ ‘autism advocates’ who think name dropping Healy is big, hard and clever.

    That’s the level of intellect and integrity we are dealing with here. And these are their best people.

    • Sullivan February 3, 2010 at 04:51 #


      I usually avoid trying to figure out what motivates people or why they do things. In this case, I’d say David Kirby’s point is to rally the troops. His post is just a cut-and-paste job of all his usual talking points. What is the point, really, of quoting the mitochondrial guys who won’t talk to him any more? Did Wakefield have anything to do with mitochondria? No. Kirby tried to make an escape from autism once, then someone leaked the Hannah Poling story to him. He mashed that story up so bad that the doctors in that community won’t talk to him anymore. He now has a new book coming out. I doubt he will get the audience for that book that he got from his autism book, so he will probably be back.


      thanks for chiming in!


      it is a quote from the ruling. Charge 13.e.ii

  2. Corina Becker February 3, 2010 at 02:49 #

    ” “Many parents of children with autism view the GMC investigation as little more than character assassination of a physician brave enough to investigate controversial issues”

    Well, not this parent.”

    And not this autistic. Good riddance to bad rubbish, I say.

  3. David N. Brown February 3, 2010 at 04:23 #

    “Experts on both sides, Professor Rutter and Dr Thomas both considered that such a test was not clinically indicated.”
    Interesting that the complaint makes no mention of this.

    • Sullivan February 3, 2010 at 05:05 #

      David N. Brown,

      here is a similar comment:

      “Experts on both sides, Professor Booth and Dr Miller, agreed that a colonoscopy (and therefore the barium meal and follow through) would not be clinically indicated at this stage.”

  4. KWombles February 3, 2010 at 04:49 #

    I thought, as a mom of three kids on the spectrum, that it was a damn fine day for the scientific community and for parents and autistics alike that the GMC hearings found what many had long suspected.

  5. Liz Ditz February 3, 2010 at 05:01 #

    Friend Sullivan, as you know I strive for completeness. Have I missed any posts supporting Wakefield here?


    • Sullivan February 3, 2010 at 05:11 #

      Liz Ditz,

      I don’t know how you find all the blog posts you do. It is amazing how few supportive posts there are. I don’t think I ever saw one of those blogs before–that title is painful to read (the one about who controls the BMJ).

  6. Liz Ditz February 3, 2010 at 05:25 #

    Simple, pal —

    a) I only search on blogs in Google
    b) I skip over blogs that are mere repeats of previously published posts (you get good at the detecting after a while)
    c) My only kiddo is an adult & is at college
    d) I have a slightly obsessive personality
    e) I work at home.

    Yeah, I dithered about putting up the whole title of the “controls BMJ” — but then I decided let them sleep in the bed they made.

    And one of the things that’s come out of listing responses to the whole GMC-Lancet-Wakefield thing is an understanding that the rational, science-based community is a lot broader than I previously believed.

  7. David N. Brown February 3, 2010 at 08:11 #

    My point was that in making a complaint against Rutter, Wakefield et al focused exclusively on his testimony about what Wakefield should have disclosed to Horton (which next to Horton’s own testimony should have been redundant) rather than what he had to say about when colonoscopies and lumbar punctures were appropriate.

  8. dr treg February 3, 2010 at 18:36 #

    Immunological abnormalities of CSF (from lumbar puncture) are well-recognised in childhood neuro-psychiatric disease.
    CSF tumor necrosis factor may relate to the severity of the inflammation.
    Indeed recent trials of immunosuppressant drugs in the treatment of autism involve taking lumbar punctures from children with autism for CSF TNF analysis.
    Although Dr Wakefield did not go through the ethics committee it seems that in taking CSF by lumbar puncture from children with autism he may have been a doctor ahead of his time.
    It is not inconceivable that children clinically diagnosed with autism will have lumbar punctures as one of the routine investigations in the near-future.

    • Sullivan February 3, 2010 at 19:02 #

      Although Dr Wakefield did not go through the ethics committee it seems that in taking CSF by lumbar puncture from children with autism he may have been a doctor ahead of his time.

      Really, dr treg?

      Tell me, how was it in the clinical interests of his patients? How was it going to change the course of their treatment? Since it didn’t change the course of their treatment, it wasn’t called for.

      Your scenario is just wrong.

      If we move to a world where dishonesty and ethical lapses are accepted, Dr. Wakefield will be recognized as ahead of his time. I hope I don’t live to see that day.

  9. Prometheus February 3, 2010 at 18:56 #

    “With apologies to Mr. Kirby, but when he’s their “ace in the hole”, you know they don’t have much.”

    David Kirby an “ace in the hole”? More like a trey or a deuce. He’s a bought-and-paid-for ex-journalist writing advertising copy for AoA; his legitimacy – outside the echo-chamber of AoA – is nil.

    As I finished this, David Kirby came up with his post: “The Lancet Retraction Changes Nothing”.”

    Of course, the Lancet retraction changes nothing for the core cadre of “vaccines-cause-autism” because their position was never based on fact. They wanted someone to blame and Wakefield helped them find a convenient target. Since facts had nothing to do with developing their position, facts cannot change it.


  10. Michael Polidori February 3, 2010 at 19:44 #

    Well this blog is filled with a lot of back slapping, along with a lot of winks I’m sure.

    Autism’s cause remains “unknown” (and researching the truth denied). Vaccines are the only feasible idea yet presented, the only correleation CLEARLY occurring, and the one investigation discouraged by most western regulatory authorities.

    What does the status quo offer? It must be genetic, environmental or a combination. Fombonne is the most frequent reference, but he makes his living as an expert witness for the vaccine makers, and is not averse to lying in his unwavering support of deposits into his bank account. Some go so far as to say vaccines have been PROVED to not cause autism, when everyone knows you cannot prove a negative. Those shills still trying to be careful state we do not know autism’s cause, that’s the truth. The best genetic study to date finds a tenuous link to 15% of autistics. Some environmental “studies” ironically are focusing on mercury pollution.

    The only way to ethically resolve the question of a vaccine autism link is to clinically study a large number of children using a toxin-free vaccine schedule. Free of adjuvants (used to reduce the amount of expensive antigen), free of preservatives (required to ship large containers of vaccine, increasing profit margins per dose), without immune reactive substances such as non-self endotoxins and DNA fragments (which are also affected by adjuvants, intensifying/prolonging infant immune reaction to those ontaminants), without the administration of multiple jabs or multi-valent vaccines (which, admitted by Douglas at Merck, can cause “vaccine interference” a difficult problem to overcome which can lead to auto-immunity).

    I love the way you shills try to cloak yourselves as autistic victims yourselves (or parents). Anyone capable of writing “intelligently” does not have regressive autism. You have Asperger’s or “high functioning autism” (which is probably asperger’s by another name) or you are one of the mis-diagnosed that shills claim are the source of autism’s rise. At the worst, you are lying about being autistic, heinously cloaking youself as a victim to lend credibility to disparaging Dr Wakefield or any other person of note to stand up fighting against Big Pharma’s grip on our health and our “regulatory” agencies.

    Dr Andrew Wakefield is a hero of modern medicine. The GMC charges came down to ethical and clinical opinion, charges brought not by any parent or child involved in the research but by Brian Deer, employed by The Sunday Times, which is owned by James Murdoch, who sits on the board of Glaxo, which makes MMR vaccine.

    There was nothing factually wrong with the research or conclusion of the 1998 landmark study. The charges by Deer of data fixing were lies, leading to The Times pulling those stories at the request of the self-regulating media authority in Britain. Dr Wakefield et al stood for 6 years, while the British government stubbornly refused to support single valent vaccination or conduct ANY research in support of finding the truth. The GMC brought before itself a doctor who DID administer single valent vaccinations, attempting to stop him, but then focused on Dr Wakefield as the source of the controversy instead.

    None of the funding for research went into Dr Wakefield’s pocket as many of you people (shills) post. He has been honest and interested in science, not fear mongering, and interested in finding out what has happened to as many as 1 child in 100 afflicted with a modern epidemic. Autism is probably caused by us, certainly perpetuated by Big Pharma who are no strangers to killing their customers intentionally as the American MMR manufacturer did with the drug Vioxx. Unfortunately, you all know that murderering corporation’s name and the many unscrupulous means it will use to make more money. These are the people we entrust the care of our children to?

    • Sullivan February 3, 2010 at 20:21 #

      Michael Polidori.

      Why would I congratulate myself? I didn’t have anything to do with Dr. Wakefield’s research or the GMC hearing. I don’t know what you are implying with your “wink” comment, but I am fairly certain that you are wrong.

      Vaccines are not a “feasible” cause as no one has explained why vaccines would cause autism. Dr. Wakefield’s explanation was never complete, and it was wrong in that there is no persistent measles infection.

      Dr. Fombonne makes his living as an autism researcher.

      If I am a shill, whoever is supposed to pay me has failed miserably in his/her duty. That is a nice way to say, you are just plain wrong. I am the parent of a young autistic child. Learn to deal with the fact that many of us prefer ethical, quality research to what Dr. Wakefield has produced. I don’t have “Asperger” syndrome. I have never pretended to be anything else.

      For what it is worth, a person who is either “high functioning” autistic or has Asperger syndrome *is* autistic. Your claim to the contrary belies your self-professed expertise.

      Brian Deer did not bring the complaint to the GMC. Frankly, I don’t care if he did, but you guys seem to get some enjoyment out of the lie so I will point out it is a lie.

      Dr. Wakefield “a hero of modern medicine”? Excuse me? Has he actually accomplished anything of value in the last 15 years?

      If your very weak connection between Brian Deer and Merck has any weight, how do you explain Mr. Deer’s very critical reporting on Vioxx?

      The Lancet article (landmark? yes–as an example of bad science) was factually wrong on a number of counts. “Sequentially referred”…I guess that means something different to you.

      None of the “research” funding went into Dr. Wakefield’s pocket? Well, he diverted some research funding to other projects, a move called “dishonest”. He also was paid a large sum for his consulting effort. He claims to have donated that money–but didn’t he use that to start ThoughtfuHouse?

      Dr. Wakefield was not “honest”. That’s what it means when he is repeatedly deemed “dishinost” by the GMC.

      As to whom do I entrust the care of my children to…never, ever, ever will Dr. Wakefield’s team get near my child. EVER.

    • Kev February 3, 2010 at 20:25 #

      I would answer you but I’m too busy preparing the way for my reptilian overlords to take control of the planet via the evil population controlling vaccines – a service for which I am handsomely paid in the blood of human babies as well as cash…..oh no! I’ve said too much!! Damn you and your clever commentary Polidori, now I am unmasked!!!!

  11. Brian Deer February 3, 2010 at 20:20 #

    Dear Dr TReg,

    One of the many problems with your hypothesis is that the Royal Free hospital had no department or reputation and next to no expertise in assessing developmental disorders. If you had a child with a developmental disorder in the 1990s, it is one of the last hospitals in Britain where you would have been advised to take them.

    Did they take CSF for the assessment of mitochondrial disorders? Nope. They took it to look for measles virus.

    And all of the children had been very extensively assessed at other hospitals. The old lie about how Dr Wakefield was the only one to listen was exposed for the bullshit that it was when these kids were found to have undergone extremely detailed assessments elsewhere, but when they came to the Royal Free were subjected to a preordained list of tests purely to try to make a case against MMR. A couple of them, for example, were noticeably lead poisoned. Did the Royal Free doctors investigate why?

    Answers on the proverbial postcard.

  12. David N. Brown February 3, 2010 at 20:54 #

    So, we have the Incredibly Lazy Pharma Shill Gambit!
    Also the Only Regressive Autism Is Real Autism Gambit!
    I ran into the Pharma Shill Gambit as a personal attack for the first time last week on a Chicago Tribune forum, where I have been contributing as “evilpossum”. I found it interesting that, when I challenged a couple hecklers to investigate who I am for themselves (I’m not the only one with an “evil possum” handle, but we aren’t many) , and they showed absolutely no interest. One of them said I was egotistical for expecting him to care who I was. My conclusion: Anti-vaxxers care very much about speculating other people’s identities, but not the slightest bit about actually investigating it.

  13. passionlessDrone February 3, 2010 at 21:16 #

    Hi David N. Brown –

    (I’m not the only one with an “evil possum” handle, but we aren’t many)

    The other day I was forced to register with an online gaming community in order to register a video game and the system had the gall to tell me that the passionlessDrone handle was already taken! If I ever find that imposter in Modern Warfare 2, he or she is going down, hard.

    – pD

    • Sullivan February 3, 2010 at 21:29 #

      er…Modern Wafare 2….I may have to find a new handle….

  14. Joseph February 3, 2010 at 21:32 #

    What does the status quo offer? It must be genetic, environmental or a combination.

    This argument is laughable. What it amounts to is this: “It’s better to have answers, even if they are wrong answers.” Nonsense, of course.

    The only way to ethically resolve the question of a vaccine autism link is to clinically study a large number of children using a toxin-free vaccine schedule.

    That wouldn’t work. The anti-vax reaction to a negative result would be to point out that all the children were vaccinated. In fact, anti-vaxers would have an excuse for any negative result of any type of study, as history shows.

    Much of Mr. Polidori’s argument is an Incredibly Lazy Pharma Shill Gambit (ILPSG), as David notes. If there really are so many shills around, writing about autism, this would be serious and incriminating. Shouldn’t there be lots of whistle-blowers by now? You know, perhaps someone was approached by Big Pharma to write blog comments about autism, and they declined. How come we don’t know of such cases? Could it be because the conspiracy only exists in the imagination of some crackpots?

    There was nothing factually wrong with the research or conclusion of the 1998 landmark study. The charges by Deer of data fixing were lies,

    Well, Brian Deer was right about how the verdicts would come down, and his detractors were wrong. In light of this, I’m even more inclined to believe that, in fact, Wakefield fixed his data. I expect the press complaint will be favorable to Brian Deer as well.

    Brian Deer, employed by The Sunday Times, which is owned by James Murdoch, who sits on the board of Glaxo, which makes MMR vaccine.

    I believe you’re confusing James Murdoch with Rupert Murdoch. Either way, Brian Deer is clearly no pharma shill, if you’re at all familiar with his site.

  15. Michael Polidori February 3, 2010 at 21:34 #

    To Sullivan. Most of your repsonse is tripe. I will let you know some facts about Deer’s “tackling” Merck over Vioxx.

    You obviously are unfamiliar with the facts. Deer reported the same storyline Merck was/is promoting. That Merck voluntarily withdrew the drug when it “discovered” in a 2004 trial that it caused cardiac events.

    In Australia ongoing litigation over Vioxx deaths is revealing the true picture. Merck knew all along that Vioxx was killing people, even in the trials before it was released in 1999. Merck covered up the deaths “hoodwinking” the New England Journal of Medicine with falsified data and threatening doctors and scientists who dared to expose the drug for the killer it was.

    Merck finally withdrew the drug when David Graham, FDA Associate Director for Drug Safety, went against his supervisors and in 2004 published a study exposing cardic events caused by Vioxx. He sought whistleblower protection, as his supervisors began to “go after” him attempting to discredit his research. Eric Topol and Steven Nissen of the Cleveland Clinic also felt the sting of Merck’s attacks when they published a study in JAMA in 2000 about Vioxx’s cardiac risks. The FDA turned a blind eye to their research and the work of 6 others who Merck tried to silence, while fabricating more studies declaring Vioxx safe.

    Merck went so far as to bribe Elsevier to publish a FAKE MEDICAL JOURNAL in Australia, hawking it’s products. It was revealed that Elsevier published 8 other fake journals for various Big Pharma companies, with 13 more in the works, all abandoned now, or so we are led to believe.

    Merck finally was forced to withdraw it’s killer a month after the FDA approved it for use in children, but they were allowed to “voluntarily” recall it. Making 11 billion in worldwide sales, Merck offerred 4.5 billion to settle as many as 180,000 injuries including up to 60,000 deaths. Still trying to step over the graves of its customers and make a profit.

    Since Deer did not in 2005, nor in the years since, expose this side of the story, and merely reported the undeniable facts that Merck cannot dispute, and praised Merck for voluntarily withdrawing the drug, I would say he is definitely a shill.

  16. Joseph February 3, 2010 at 21:44 #

    You obviously are unfamiliar with the facts. Deer reported the same storyline Merck was/is promoting. That Merck voluntarily withdrew the drug when it “discovered” in a 2004 trial that it caused cardiac events.

    @Polidori: You’re posting demonstrable falsehoods. It took me a couple minutes to find this page at Brian Deer’s site.

  17. David N. Brown February 3, 2010 at 21:47 #

    “The GMC charges came down to ethical and clinical opinion, charges brought not by any parent or child involved in the research but by Brian Deer…”
    Both Deer and the GMC deny this, and Wakefield has vacillated. In any event, it is possible some kind of investigation was underway before Deer got involved; see “Wakefield’s Inquisition”.

    “The charges by Deer of data fixing were lies, leading to The Times pulling those stories at the request of the self-regulating media authority in Britain.”
    The charges did not originate with Deer, and there has been no finding that they were false. Nancy Snyderman mentioned that Wakefield was being investigated for faking data way back in 2008. The GMC repeatedly ruled that Wakefield inaccurately reported patients’ histories as to whether they had intestinal problems and/or regressive autism. The PCC, in requesting that the Times take down Deer’s report, made NO statement in ANY way implying that they were false. It was Wakefield who attributed that opinion to the PCC, leading the Times to restore the material in a matter of days.

  18. dr treg February 3, 2010 at 22:32 #

    “One of the many problems with your hypothesis is that the Royal Free hospital had no department or reputation and next to no expertise in assessing developmental disorders. If you had a child with a developmental disorder in the 1990s, it is one of the last hospitals in Britain where you would have been advised to take them.”
    You seem to miss the point of referring to the Royal Free Hospital. The children were presumably primarily referred for the investigation of gastro-intestinal symptoms associated with autism and Professor Walker-Smith/Murch are recognised as highly experienced in Paediatric Gastro-enterology – moreso than in District Hospitals from where the children had limited investigations and so were referred by General Paediatric Consultants.

    “Did they take CSF for the assessment of mitochondrial disorders”
    Not sure where you got mitochondrial disorders from.

    It is also worthwhile remembering that the mumps MMR Urabe encephalitis had only happened a few years earlier leading to the withdrawal of the Urabe strain from MMR.

  19. Brian Deer February 4, 2010 at 00:38 #

    No, the GMC position is the same as mine. We are both very accurate on facts. They launched their investigation as a result of my stories of February 2004 in The Sunday Times. This is common practice for the GMC, which often brings complaints of its own against doctors following media concerns, and a subsequent investigation of the facts.

    I have said all along, however, that I was not the complainant in the case. The GMC was the complainant. They brought the case on their own authority, as a matter, in their judgment, of public interest. If I had been the complainant, I would have been entitled to legal representation, and would have been a party in the case.

    I was an “informant”. This means that, at the GMC’s prior request, I supplied it with the full findings and documents of my investigation, which they then spent a couple of years validating and extending into the children’s medical records (which obviously they had access to, but I didn’t). Many journalists co-operate with statutory bodies, and that is quite unexceptional.

    From my point of view, the GMC hearing was an investigative tool, which yielded my stories about Wakefield’s data fixing, which will shortly have the complaint tags removed from the online versions. I have today asked the PCC to activate Wakefield’s purported complaints. If Wakefield wants more of it, he can have as much as he likes.

    I also knew that once the 1998 Lancet study was ruled unethical, Dr Horton would be forced to retract it in full, which is what I told him six years ago this month. Hence my very great interest in the GMC hearing.

    Game, set and match. I thank you.

    There has never been the slightest doubt that (a) my journalism is responsible for what has happened to Wakefield, and (b) I was not the complainant in the GMC case.

    Finally, the old canard about parents not complaining. The parents were not the patients. It is a straightforward matter of law (and I would say moral conscience) that they were in no position to give authority to anyone to perform experiments on their children that were not clinically indicated for the child’s direct benefit. What the parents think of Wakefield, or the clinical indications for ileocolonoscopy, is irrelevant.

    Mercifully, children do have rights. And they have rights not to be used as guinea pigs, whatever any adult may say in the matter.

    I hope that clears up the position.

    By the way, I have updated my summary page:


    • Sullivan February 4, 2010 at 02:27 #

      Brian Deer,

      I appreciate you taking the time to comment here. I must say I grow tired of people claiming you are the “claimant” or however they put it. Frankly I don’t see how it really matters to their argument even if it were true. I also can’t see how the GMC could avoid picking this up after what you showed in your reporting.

    • Mike Altimus November 9, 2014 at 17:58 #

      Sadly Brian Deer, your willingness to claim responsibility for what happened to Dr Wakefield also forces you to take responsibility for what happened to Dr Walker-Smith.

      I’m sure you are aware of what has happened to Dr Walker-Smith’s conviction and how Justice Mitting publicly chastised the GMC for what they did to Dr Smith.

      The GMC representative apologized to the court, significantly not to Dr Smith.

      Mitting exposed the flawed reasoning and invalid conclusions of Dr Smith’s GMC panel… the same panel that stripped Dr Wakefield of his license to practice.

      You should be ashamed Deer, for your part in this. Outwardly, you are clearly not ashamed, concerned or contrite. But no one knows what goes on inside the minds of sociopaths… some end up regretting the consequences of their actions… if they ever have to face them.

      You should visit an autism treatment center and wonder how many kids are there because of your actions. Hold some of those kids, look into the eyes of the children’s parents and brothers and sisters…
      as you just did in your imagination…
      what would you think or say?

      • Chris November 9, 2014 at 19:26 #

        What happened to Wakefield was his own greedy fault. Mr. Deer just happened to be the one that discovered Wakefield’s misdeeds.

        What happened to Walker-Smith in no way exonerates Wakefield’s fraud.

        By the way, many of us who post here have disabled children. We deplore the actions of irresponsible “research” done by the Geiers, Wakefield, Blaxill and the others. They have caused more harm by deflecting limited funds from the needs of our kids to money grubbing lawsuit ploys.

        But if you really really want to defend Wakefield: find the data that will show he did not come up with his “hypothesis” from thin air nor was influenced by the wad of UK tax dollars waved at him by Richard Barr. The MMR vaccine was introduced in the USA in 1971, a country that is much larger than the UK. Find the verifiable documents dated before 1990 that showed autism increased in the USA coincident to the use of the MMR vaccine.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) November 10, 2014 at 05:58 #

        You should be ashamed Deer, for your part in this. Outwardly, you are clearly not ashamed, concerned or contrite. But no one knows what goes on inside the minds of sociopaths… some end up regretting the consequences of their actions… if they ever have to face them.

        Using a psychological diagnosis as an insult and a veiled threat in the same sentence.

        So, you are somehow in charge of all autistic children and can invite people to come to their treatment centers and hold the children? And this would somehow negate all the science that shows that Mr. Wakefield’s autism hypothesis is without merit?

        Even if you had the facts on your side, you would be unconvincing.

  20. _Arthur February 4, 2010 at 01:43 #

    Brian, (from the top of my mind), am I correct that the Lancet article claimed that all 12 kids all suffered from severe constipation ?
    But, (inasmuch the medical records were revealed), no such diagnostic was made during their 5-days hospital stay, no specific treatment was given, and there was no follow-up ?

    That doesn’t square with “severe constipation”, if true.

  21. David N. Brown February 4, 2010 at 03:07 #

    “They launched their investigation as a result of my stories of February 2004 in The Sunday Times.”

    Not to criticize or question your accomplishments, but I am skeptical of this. The investigation materialized very quickly after publication (though I understand you were reporting findings to relevant authorities significantly earlier). I am skeptical whether this could have happened if some people in the GMC had not, at the least, already been suspicious.
    A further issue you might help with: I have a couple posts up at my own sight about a purported “complaint” by Wakefield and/or associates accusing witnesses of “false testimony”. Does this have any official weight? Are there steps the GMC would be required to go through before they dismiss it? And, can those accused sue over it (as I have suggested by email)?

  22. Broken Link February 4, 2010 at 03:43 #

    I woke up this morning to hear the local “medical expert” speaking on our public radio station. He was reporting on the Lancet retraction of Wakefield’s work. As I struggled towards complete consciousness, I was very pleased to hear him say that due to this retraction, he would personally feel more comfortable being very firm with parents expressing worries about the connection between autism and vaccines. He’d be able to assure them that the proponent of these ideas had been thoroughly discredited and they they need not worry.

    That’s the big win in all this. Doctors can point to the Lancet retraction and say that the world’s most prestigious journal has retracted this nonsense. It can be safely ignored.

    Thank you, Brian Deer. Thank you GMC, and thanks, at long last, to the Lancet. It’s about time.

  23. dr treg February 4, 2010 at 04:40 #

    Why are you obsessed about not being the complainent – for fear of retribution?

  24. Science Mom February 4, 2010 at 17:44 #

    Why are you obsessed about not being the complainent – for fear of retribution?

    Why not just for the sake of factual events? I think that if Mr. Deer feared retribution, he wouldn’t have doggedly stayed with this story, considering what he has endured by some of Wakefield’s rabid supporters and even Wakefield himself.

  25. Dedj February 4, 2010 at 17:45 #

    Brian Deer has already faced retribution, including video taped incidences of himself being harassed in busy public places in front of police and security.

    I would suggest his ‘obsession’ stems from the repeated false accusations of him being the complainant, and the laughably illogical attempts to dismiss the case on that basis.

    I don’t think you can call it an obsession if your opponents are the ones making such a (legal, moral and political) fuss out of it. Given how far Deer’s detractors have tried to take the issue, occasionally saying ‘no I’m not’ is positively mild and meek in comparison.

    (edited to change ‘court’ to ‘public’)

  26. David N. Brown February 4, 2010 at 19:30 #

    If you check “Wakefield’s Inquisition”, Wakefield filed a complaint against Deer just for saying that he did NOT make the complaint. It is Wakefield who sows a pattern of obsessive behavior.

  27. Matari February 5, 2010 at 15:57 #

    Hi all, forgive me for butting in, but I am a parent who did not allow my son to have the MMR jab well before the Wakefield case for a number of reasons, not least because my doctor would not guarantee that it was 100% safe. When Wakefield’s work was published and then dismissed, I waited for a very long time for the scientific community to prove to me that Wakefield did not find a link. Now the GMC ruling is in, I can see that his research methodology is highly suspect, but I still cannot find out whether he found a link between the MMR jab and autism. I have found text that points me to other studies that say there is no link, but nothing that says Wakefield did not find the link. Can someone please point me in the right direction?

  28. Joseph February 5, 2010 at 16:21 #

    @Matari: This article by Arthur Allen provides a clear explanation.

  29. Matari February 5, 2010 at 16:37 #

    Hi Joseph Thanks for the link- but it still doesn’t answer my question as a) the article just states that one scientist did not agree with another scientist and b) there is no mention of Wakefield’s research at all. So to re-iterate – can someone point me in the direction of the iempirical evidence that proves that Wakefield did not find a link between the MMR and autism?

  30. Sullivan February 5, 2010 at 16:42 #

    Dr. Wakeifled uses as part of his defense that he never found a link between MMR and autism.

  31. Anne February 5, 2010 at 18:11 #

    Matari, in his paper that was published in the Lancet, Dr. Wakefield wrote that “We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described.”

    This article from the LA Times reports on an email from Dr. Wakefield: “Now Wakefield says his original study didn’t actually make a connection. ‘In fact, the Lancet paper does not claim to confirm a link between the MMR vaccine and autism,’ Wakefield said in an email to the LA Times.”

    The website for Dr. Wakefield’s organization, Thoughtful House, has a statement on the GMC proceeding that says:
    “Have Thoughtful House researchers found any link between the MMR vaccine and autism?
    No such link has been established, but research into a possible connection is ongoing.”

    So Wakefield is saying that he never found a link between the MMR vaccine and autism, from 1998 when the Lancet paper was published, until now.

    So, I’m curious. Do you think that Dr. Wakefield proved a link between MMR and autism? If so, why?

  32. Dawn February 5, 2010 at 21:27 #

    @Matari: of course your doctor would not guarantee that the injection was 100% safe. Nothing in life is 100% safe. Your bed could collapse tonight and kill you. Yes, the risk is very low, but there is a “possible” risk. The same with the MMR (or any vaccine, or any medical treatment, for that matter). There is the “possible” risk that your child could be the one in XXXX that reacts to the vaccine (depending on the reaction, the risk varies). Of my 2 children, when they got their first MMR, one had a fever and a rash from it, the other had no reaction whatsoever. Neither reacted at all (except for soreness at the injection site for 24 hours) to the second injection.

    In his published research, Wakefield wrote that he never found a link between the MMR and autism. In his press conferences, he said things that made people wonder if there just might be a link. But press conferences don’t have to be peer reviewed and papers do have to be. Even with his “ongoing” research, no link has been found, and his results have never been replicated, even by researchers who might prefer that they did replicate his results.

    I hope by this time your child has had his/her MMR, since they are in their teens by now?

  33. Science Mom February 5, 2010 at 21:45 #

    Matari, I think these specifically answer your questions:
    http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0003140 and if you aren’t sick of reading, I highly recommend the OAP Cedillo vs. HHS case:

    The studies all directly refute Wakefield’s claims and Wakefield never found what he said he did.

  34. Steve February 16, 2010 at 06:26 #

    As a parent of an ASD kid i take a more simplistic view of Wakefield et al. The Lancet (popular medical journal) Published a article by Wakefield which has research flaws. The Lancet then retracts after a period of time.

    My concern is not the link with Autism but the real link between the Media, Autism and MMR. We have anedotal evidence from parents, about how their child has signs of autism after the MMR. While Research claiming the MMR is safe, and the real culprit is genetics! This is a perfect conflict for the global media.

    Therefore we have a boxing match. In the red corner MMR allegations(parents), in the Blue corner Genetics(medical Researchers) and the referee tonight – the media.

    The Irony of a cure – Consider a cure is developing and available for children as a vaccination? Will parents fighting the MMR vaccines consider the treatment?

    I personally have an open mind by learning, unerstanding and accepting my 5 yr son’s autism. My job as a parent, is to make my son’s life a quality one amongst his peers.

  35. Michael Polidori August 25, 2011 at 20:56 #

    Denying vaccines (not just MMR) cause neurological disability is foolish and adds to the number of kids injured by avoiding proper research

    The FDA and CDC admit autism is rising at epidemic rates. Genes CANNOT cause epidemics, but increasing environmental triggers can.
    FACT – Vax cause brain damage in some kids
    FACT – Shots have tripled over 22 years
    FACT – Merck’s MMR package insert has 5 pages of adverse events, warnings etc. Merck claims it’s not proved or disproved MMR is the cause, but admits MMR is associated with encephalitis, seizures, arthritis, diabetes and much more.

    In 2008 Dr Bernadine Healy stated in a CBS news interview “Vaccines may cause autism” and “It’s inexcusable the proper research has not been done”. Dr Healy, Dr Wakefield and his 12 co-authors called for clinical research to investigate their 1998 paper and still do. Jenny McCarthy calls for clinical research and “greening vaccines”, is she wrong?

    I don’t agree with everything McCarthy says. I agree with EVERYTHING Drs Healy and Wakefield state. Both honorable people, accomplished physicians, prolific peer reviewed publishers. Both seek to help and protect kids by stopping the damage we cause
    Here is evidence autism is triggered by sensitivity to toxins NOT genes

    April-2011 PMID 21522181 “despite the strong influence of genetic factors, association studies have yet to identify… major effect genes”
    July-2011 PMID 21727249 “Susceptibility to ASD in twins has MODERATE genetic heritability and a SUBSTANTIAL… environmental component”

    Since 1988 we have been making more vax antigens and drugs in gene altered bacteria. The “purified” product is ALWAYS contaminated with toxins and cell debris. Since 1988 we have tripled the number of shots kids get. Since 1988 vax profits and autism have risen. Since 1988 vax makers can’t be sued for the damge they cause

    To increase profits drug companies add preservatives and adjuvants. These for-profit-toxins come with side effects, adding to what infants and kids with immature immune systems & rapidly developing organs must deal with. The denial of the connection of rising autism to rising vaccinations increases the numbers of kids and families thrown into the hellish world of regressive autism with no help, compensation or insurance

    Merck executives and scientists make 13 vaccines and many drugs. In 1996 Vioxx was killing people in clinical trials. Merck’s people hid the info and threatened doctors and researchers like Topol and Nissen who warned us of the dangers. The FDA did nothing then and has done nothing since despite all that has been revealed about Merck’s executives and scientists’ heinous murderous greedy acts

    They lied to the FDA for approval and to journals, including the New England Journal of Medicine, to publish fraudulent support of their killer drug. When FDA Associate director of Drug Safety, David Graham, warned his superiors of his plan to publish a paper about Vioxx deaths he was advised not to and ended up seeking whistleblower protection from the very agency charged with protecting us from bad drugs

    Merck paid Elsevier to publish a fake journal. The degree of Elsevier compliance with MANY drug companies publishing fake journals should have been the death knell for peer review and the start of implementing heavy and honest regulation of the drug industry, but money won out in the end

    Merck advertised Vioxx while publishing “studies” in the fake journal supporting it. Merck’s was one of 22 FAKE journals Elsevier was working on for over 30 drug companies. 9 were published, 13 were in the works, a secret until…

    …Vioxx litigation subpoenas in Australia revealed this SEVERE breach of ethics in 2007. Elsevier publicly apologized. They stopped work on the 22 journals and promised to never do it again… the promise of a PROVED and KNOWING deceiver

    Merck killed 45-60,000 Americans and injured up to 120,000 more with Vioxx (according to The Lancet) and payments so far have amounted to over $4 billion. More were injured and killed worldwide. Merck denies wrongdoing. Everyone at Merck who was knowingly involved should be charged with murder

    These same Merck executives and scientists supervise the creation of about 13 vaccines. They put profits ahead of the lives of customers, they killed parents with Vioxx for money, they have been & will kill and injure kids too… without a conscience… without a concern for anything other than their bottom line

    The denials here that vaccines cause neurological damage and other injuries to kids when Merck’s admits they do helps vax makers profit while hurting kids

    My conflicts? I have a relative with regressive autism, a friend’s daughter has Asperger’s (which is not autism), a friend has suffered a stroke from Vioxx

    • Sullivan August 25, 2011 at 21:50 #

      Michael Polidori,

      a new IOM report is out that may interest you. “Adverse Effects of Vaccines: Evidence and Causality”

      Nice section on MMR and autism. Careful review of the literature–no link.

      You are welcome to discuss (somewhere else, preferably) corporate profits, other injuries, speculations and the like. But the MMR hypothesis is over. Doubly so for Mr. Wakefield’s flawed explanation.

  36. Chris August 26, 2011 at 00:00 #

    Mr. Polidori, the cites you posted are only available as abstracts. They do not mention vaccines. If vaccines are mentioned then you might want to forward the full papers to Sullivan.

    Though I doubt that the MMR would be included, since it is given when a child in at least a year old. It is not relevant to a fetus, which is the time that the environmental impact is suspected. Twins share an environment before they are born. Different things happen to them afterwards, because they are two separate persons.

    • Sullivan August 26, 2011 at 01:02 #


      even with the papers (I’ve read and blogged at least one), I’m still left with “so what”?

      Environmental causation is not the same thing as vaccines. This is where the vaccines-cause-autism groups have failed miserably. They have not, and continue to not support research into environmental causation except vaccines. They can’t understand that vaccines are only a subset of environmental factors and that vaccines have been studied and the two main mechanisms for which vaccines have been proposed to cause autism have failed time and again to show a link.

  37. Chris August 26, 2011 at 02:09 #

    Thanks. I think I remember one of the papers, I will go back and look. Plus link to it after the duplicate comment Mr. Polidori posted on another website.

    Wakefield’s claims did not even match his studies “results” in 1998. They did not make sense in 1998, and they make even less sense after discover the Wakefield’s fraud.

  38. David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E. August 26, 2011 at 09:53 #

    Michael Polidori: “a friend’s daughter has Asperger’s (which is not autism)”

    Who says? You?

    I specialised in autism. The whole bloody lot of it. Asperger syndrome is autism, and is being subsumed into a single category in DSM V … for very good reason: it is autism, just like Kanner’s is autism.

    Get over yourself, dipstick.

  39. David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E. August 26, 2011 at 09:57 #

    hmmm. comment in moderation… only a mild expletive in it…

  40. Michael Polidori November 26, 2011 at 20:33 #

    @Andrews – You are not much of an expert if you believe Aspergers is autism. We are not under the DSM-V yet, which is still in draft form.
    The DSM-IV CLEARLY shows autism and Aspergers as seperate Pervasive Developmental Disorders (PDD) with different sets of criteria.
    The PDD categories are Autism, Retts, Aspergers, Childhood Disintegrative Disorder (CDD) and Pervasive Developmental Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS). CDD is probably autism diagnosed at a later date. Rett’s is known to be a genetic problem with the X chromosome.
    Asperger’s kids are able to communicate but reluctant, above average intelligence, lacking in social skills or confidence (shy), obsessive about ordering things/their work/collecting.
    Autistic kids, for the most part, are unable to communicate, have below average intelligence (of course that evaluation is related to communication problems), have obsessive physical behaviors, cannot work or care for themselves.
    It appears to me that the APA has been told what to do regarding PDDs & the DSM-V. In a 2008 conference on the DSM-V regression was a very hot topic being investigated as under-reported & important or dominant as a sub-class in autistic disorder.
    In the final draft of the DSM-V regression is not mentioned in relation to autism. This is clearly an attempt to supress any idea that regression occurs, when it is well documented that it does.
    Why would anyone want to deny regression in autism?
    Regression indicates genetic pre-disposition and an environmental trigger are involved. There is no environmental trigger that temporally or causally correlates to autism better than vaccines. Causal correlation (not a misnomer or oxymoron) is supported by the fact that vaccines are proved to cause many neurological injuries & impairments in susceptible children & adults. Also Mary Holland’s study shows 83 of 1000 kids who were neurologically damaged by vaccines were also diagnosed with autism AFTER the injury.
    Eliminating the association of autism with regression protects the vaccine industry by subverting the idea that regression occurs at all. This will be coupled by an increasing pressure to blame genes for autism, not genetic pre-disposition triggered by an environmental factor. The DSM-V erases regression in any criteria for autism.
    How’s the ICD dealing with this issue? Any similar connivance happening with it?

    @Joseph – Your link to Brian Deer’s website about Vioxx just confirms what I have said about Deer’s “investigative” reporting. He did not paint the truly heinous picture that is the truth about Merck’s executives and scientists willfully hiding the data & threatening researchers who were using peer review to warn the world about Vioxx hazards.
    Topol and Nissen’s first report was done in 2000, Deer never mentions them. Merck scientist Alise Reicin offered to rewrite their study then threatened their careers when they refused her “offer”, Deer’s “work” ignores this also. Deer doesn’t report on the fake journal Merck bribed Elsevier to publish or the nearly 2 dozen fake journals Elsevier published or prepared for 30 other pharmaceutical companies.
    This should have been the death knell for peer review, and a call for proper regulation of the drug & vaccine industry. Where was Deer on this issue? S-I-L-E-N-T.
    Deer simply reported stories already in the press. Deer continues to ignore new developments in the Vioxx murders, as his last article was in 2005.
    Deer is a shill.

    @joseph – James Murdoch is in charge of The Sunday Times, not Rupert

  41. Chris November 26, 2011 at 21:14 #

    Michael0156, if you have any real evidence that vaccines cause autism, please feel free to share. We would be very grateful if you would show us the real research that a vaccine that has been used in the USA since 1971, the MMR, starting to cause an increase in autism over a decade before it was introduced in the UK.

    Otherwise your opinion means nothing. Just as it has every time you have posted your drive-by fact free comments here over the past few years.

  42. Michael Polidori November 26, 2011 at 22:38 #

    In 2008 Dr Bernadine Healy said in a CBS News Interview “Vaccine may cause autism” & “It’s inexcusable that the proper research has not been done”. The late Dr Healy was a former NIH Director, Professor of Medicine at Johns Hopkins and Chair of the Cleveland Clinic’s Research Institute. Her opinion is expert and relevant.

    I never said MMR is the sole cause of autism or even proved to cause autism. Increasing vaccinations are the only obvious correlation to rising autism. If you have a better candidate for an environmental trigger to cause regressive autism, then post it with evidence to back you up.

    Evidence like this-
    Vaccines are proved to cause many types of neurological damage (Vaccine Injury Table, used to automatically compensate kids presenting with symptoms & appropriately supporting medical records – http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/vaccineinjurytable.pdf ) also ( Merck’s MMR package insert – lists MUCH more neurological injuries/adverse events linked to their MMR during clinical trials – also MMR is linked to autoimmune diseases including Diabetes and 12-26% of women who – http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/m/mmr_ii/mmr_ii_pi.pdf )
    This is not my opinion Chris, these are facts.
    Merck states while their clinical research linked MMR to many types of injuries (5 pages in their package insert of warnings, precautions, adverse events), Merck also says it is not proved that MMR was the cause.
    Merck warns us that MMR may cause these injuries, but says there is no proof. Don’t you think someone should be investigating this so that we know one way or the other?

    Try this side effect Merck reports in thier MMR package insert – “In women, incidence rates for arthritis and arthralgia are generally higher than those seen in children
    (children: 0-3%; women: 12-26%),and the reactions tend to be more marked and of longer duration. Symptoms may persist for a matter of months or on rare occasions for years.”
    Doesn’t an adverse effect on the immune system concern you, especially an autoimmune side effect?

    Yhis is ONE vaccine. There are DOZENS.

    No where do I state MMR causes autism, but it certainly is a reasonable place to start looking. MMR causes neurological impairments & autoimmune disease. Merck has linked it to diabetes, but says it is not proved to cause diabetes. Is this as far as science can take us on this issue? MMR may cause diabetes? We can’t be definitive one way or the other?

    My comments are always full of facts & references, while yours is just a baseless attack paragraph

    Where have you addressed any of my facts or concerns in any of my posts on this page?
    Where do I say that MMR causes autism?
    Where is your proof that vaccines are safe?
    Where are the clinical studies being done to find autism’s cause?

    Many vaccines cause side effects. sometimes it is an error in the manufacture, sometimes it is just the susceptibility of individuals. Over the last 22 years vaccinations have tripled in the USA while autism has climbed epidemically. Cost cutting measures like preservatives, adjuvants and making antigen in genetically engineered bacteria add more contaminants with their own set of side effects.
    The rising autism rates in conjunction with rising vaccinations and rising toxins in vaccine is a classic dose/response relationship indicating PROPER CLINICAL INVESTIGATION is needed.

    Come to the debate with answers, facts, or appropriate questions not merely baseless insults

  43. sharon November 26, 2011 at 23:01 #

    @Michael Polidori, you say regressive autism is evidence of an environmental trigger. But there are also neurological theories that attempt to explain regression. One being that the brain develops too many neural connections (in utero this process starts) and then over compensates by pruning back too many, which may well explain the regressive/lost skills we see. No one is trying to cover up the notion of regression. It is a well recognised yet little understood aspect of autism.
    I don’t have the study at hand but am happy to find it for you. I think it was talked about at the last IMFAR conference (was it Dr Amaral?) Some of the other commenters here no doubt will know the paper I speak of.

  44. sharon November 26, 2011 at 23:06 #

    With apologies to Dr Courchesne this is the study I refer to above,

  45. sharon November 26, 2011 at 23:08 #

    Just tried to post a clip of Dr Eric Courchense explaining the above theory. Do youtube clips automatically go to the spam filter?

  46. Chris November 26, 2011 at 23:33 #

    Michael0156, your Big Pharma Gambit is old and tired, especially since you have been using it for years, just like you post a random comment on an old thread. Do something novel and different, actually post the title, journal, date and authors of real peer reviewed journals.

    The late Dr Healy was a former NIH Director, Professor of Medicine at Johns Hopkins and Chair of the Cleveland Clinic’s Research Institute. Her opinion is expert and relevant.

    Not really. Show us how she became an expert in epidemiology and immunology. She was a cardiologist, she was essentially dismissed from the Red Cross, she lobbied for the tobacco industry and she never did any research on vaccines.

    The subject of this article is Wakefield, the guy who claimed that a vaccine that had been used in the USA since 1971 was dangerous, and who did not even realize that it had been used in the UK since 1992. Nor did he know there were at least three different MMR vaccines used there before 1992. So I will ask you specifically about the MMR vaccine, and if you are honest you will answer them.

    Show us that the MMR is worse than the measles, mumps and rubella. Don’t rely on possible injuries, but real data. In the 1950s measles caused multiple times more injury than the less than 3000 compensated cases in more than twenty years according to http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/statisticsreports.html (which is same source as your scary table). Here is just seven years of data for measles from the CDC Pink Book Appendix G:
    Now for measles:

    Do tell us that the MMR caused the same level of death and disability as measles. And do it using real evidence in the form of titles, journals, dates and authors of the papers to support your answer.

    Otherwise, you are just another spammer.

  47. Wendy Stephen November 27, 2011 at 11:50 #

    Chris, the victims of the Urabe mumps strain included in the Pluserix and Immravax MMR vaccines marketed in the UK who are left struggling with lasting disabilities might put forward a worthy argument to show that for them, having the MMR vaccine was possibly worse than having the illness.

  48. David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E. November 27, 2011 at 12:26 #

    @Andrews – You are not much of an expert if you believe Aspergers is autism. We are not under the DSM-V yet, which is still in draft form.
    The DSM-IV CLEARLY shows autism and Aspergers as seperate Pervasive Developmental Disorders (PDD) with different sets of criteria.

    Wrong. The criteria are actually connected. Moreover, in ICD 10, the criteria specifically refer from AS to IA, which you obviously didn’t know. Dip-shit.

    And since the University of Birmingham have validated my expertise on this issue, your comment on it is basically worthless. Grow a bloody IQ!

  49. Chris November 27, 2011 at 18:49 #

    Wendy Stephen:

    having the MMR vaccine was possibly worse than having the illness.

    It would have helped if you had provided some actual citation, because you are incorrect.

    The level of meningitis from getting the Urabe mumps vaccine was much less than actually getting mumps. The silly thing was that because Wakefield called for single vaccines, the parents got single jabs of measles either with the Urabe strain (which caused more meningitis than the Jeryl Lynn strain), or the Rubino strain (which did not work very well). See: MMR vaccine—worries are not justified

    It says:

    A few years after MMR was introduced, several vaccines were in use from different vaccine manufacturers. It became clear that two MMR vaccines containing a particular type of mumps virus, Urabe, were causing a small increased risk of meningitis.29 This was carefully investigated and these MMR vaccines were withdrawn. However, some children having the separate vaccines have been given the Urabe single mumps vaccine.

    Another mumps vaccine, Rubini, has very poor effectiveness.30 Some children have received this vaccine and are now not adequately protected against mumps.

    Also it references this paper, Risk of aseptic meningitis after measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine in UK children, which says (emphasis added):

    Comparison of national reports of virus-positive mumps meningitis cases before and after the introduction of this vaccine indicated that the risk from wild mumps was about 4-fold higher than from vaccine.

    As you can see the situation was found and rectified in 1992, and the risk of any MMR vaccine was still less than any of the diseases. So there had to be clarification for anything published after that, which Wakefield did not do. The real tragedy of the situation was a lack of a vaccine compensation program in the UK like there was in the USA.

  50. Chris November 27, 2011 at 20:19 #

    Ms. Stephen:

    victims of the Urabe mumps strain included in the Pluserix and Immravax MMR vaccines marketed in the UK who are left struggling with lasting disabilities might put forward a worthy argument to show that for them, having the MMR vaccine was possibly worse than having the illness.

    Remember, when you make what seem like statements of fact, you must provide some kind of verifiable evidence. In Japan the Urabe mumps strain was also used in their MMR, but due to meningitis they completely dropped their MMR vaccine and went to single vaccines.

    Since they made them voluntary, the incidence of measles went up with over eighty deaths. So they went to requiring an MR vaccine (measles, rubella) and voluntary mumps vaccine (which looks like it was still the Urabe strain). So this is what happened:

    A comparative study of the incidence of aseptic meningitis in symptomatic natural mumps patients and monovalent mumps vaccine recipients in Japan.:

    Although aseptic meningitis is a clear side effect of the mumps vaccine, the incidence is considerably lower than among those with symptomatic natural infection.

    Measles vaccine coverage and factors related to uncompleted vaccination among 18-month-old and 36-month-old children in Kyoto, Japan:

    According to an infectious disease surveillance (2000), total measles cases were estimated to be from 180,000 to 210,000, and total deaths were estimated to be 88 [11,12]. Measles cases are most frequently observed among non-immunized children, particularly between 12 to 24 months.

    MMR-Vaccine and Regression in Autism Spectrum Disorders: Negative Results Presented from Japan.
    Uchiyama T et al.
    J Autism Dev Disord 2007; 37(2):210-7

    No effect of MMR withdrawal on the incidence of autism: a total population study.
    Honda H, Shimizu Y, Rutter M.
    J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2005 Jun;46(6):572-9.

    Immunization coverage and natural infection rates of vaccine-preventable diseases among children by questionnaire survey in 2005 in Japan.
    Baba K, Okuno Y, Tanaka-Taya K, Okabe N.
    Vaccine. 2011 Apr 5;29(16):3089-92. Epub 2010 Sep 24.

    The vaccination rates at a low level for these infectious diseases might be one of the most possible risk factors to the high prevalence of the diseases in nursery schools (daycare centers), kindergartens, and elementary schools all over Japan.

    An office-based prospective study of deafness in mumps.
    Hashimoto H, Fujioka M, Kinumaki H; Kinki Ambulatory Pediatrics Study Group.
    Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2009 Mar;28(3):173-5

    The incidence of hearing loss in children due to mumps was 7/7400 (approximately 1/1000 cases), which is higher than previously suggested. Prevention of deafness is another important reason for assuring universal immunization against mumps.

    So, remember, when I ask for actual evidence that any MMR vaccine is more dangerous than measles, mumps and rubella I expect more than a blanket statement. You must provide actual peer reviewed citations to support your argument.

    And since Mr. Polidori is an American, he can limit himself to the MMR vaccine that contains the Jeryl Lynn strand of mumps. Though he as yet to provide some kind of actual argument with data under any of his usernames.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: