The Lancet is one of the medical community’s premier journals. As such, tetting a paper into such a journal is a big accomplishment for any medical researcher. When Dr. Andrew Wakefield chose to submit his 1998 study to The Lancet, it is likely he wanted to put it in as high a profile journal as possible. One can speculate how the Andrew Wakefield of 1998 would have viewed publishing his work in Medical Veritas, a newer journal which, well, is not generally highly regarded. Somehow, this observer thinks Dr. Wakefield would not have welcomed a suggestion to submit to Medical Veritas had it existed at the time.
Frequent readers to LeftBrainRightBrain, or most places autism is discussed for that matter, will know that Dr. Wakefield’s study has been retracted by the editors at The Lancet.
Frequent readers here may be also familiar with the magazine, Medical Veritas as it has been the home for a number of questionable autism/vaccine articles. If you aren’t familiar with Medical Veritas, let’s just say that Medical Veritas is not in the same league as the Lancet, to put it mildly.
Why bring these two very disparate journals into this blog post? Well, Medical Veritas has offered to republish Dr. Wakefield’s study:
So with zero confidence in The Lancet, Dr. Horton, those paying his salary, and those criticizing him for his actions, Medical Veritas editors are inviting Dr. Wakefield to re-publish his controversial paper in their next issue.
Wow. What a strange move, and on so many fronts. The most obvious being–what sort of standards does Medical Veritas show when it is willing to publish a paper that has been found to be so fatally flawed? It is really hard to consider that this offer was serious. The Royal Free Hospital, Dr. Wakefield’s employer, assigned the copyright to his paper to The Lancet. The study, even retracted, likely remains the property of The Lancet. Also, it isn’t Dr. Wakefield’s right to decide for his coauthors whether to submit to another journal.
The strangeness goes on and on. Let me just pick out one more oddity of this offer by “the editors” of Medical Veritas. Dr. Wakefield is one of the editors. Yes, one read is that Dr. Wakefield has basically invited himself to reprint “his” paper in Medical Veritas.
Just when you thought the story of the Wakefied/Lancet paper couldn’t get stranger.
Left Brain Right Brain 
Its really easy to let the press and drug companies and TV ads tell you what to think
But………
#1 – just because a journal retracts it 12 years later, doesn’t mean it isn’t valid (journal owned by a company beholden to many drug companies)
#2 – he never said MMR caused autism
Here is the summary of the paper – read for yourself
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2897%2911096-0/fulltext
#3 – full paper here, that Lancet retracted –
Click to access Ileal-colonic-lymphoid.pdf
last paragraph “We have identified a chronic enterocolitis in children that may be related to neuropsychiatric dysfunction. In most cases, onset of symptoms was after measles, mumps, and rubella immunisation. Further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome and its possible relation to this vaccine.”
#4 it is a paper on 12 children with children with chronic enterocolitis and regressive developmental disorder. A paper – not a study – no controls needed. It was a paper looking at 12 children
#5 – many studies show the possibility of a connection to MMR
#6. – http://www.la-press.com/clinical-presentation-and-histologic-findings-at-ileocolonoscopy-in-ch-a1816
another paper
#7 – Acute Encephalopathy Followed by Permanent Brain Injury or Death Associated With Further Attenuated Measles Vaccines: A Review of Claims Submitted to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
Received Jul 30, 1997; accepted Sep 23, 1997.
PEDIATRICS Vol. 101 No. 3 March 1998, pp. 383-387
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/101/3/383
#8 – “The paper was partially retracted in 2004, by 10 of the 12 authors involved”
No, the interpretation of the paper was retracted…………….
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673604157152/fulltext – We wish to make it clear that in this paper no causal link was established between MMR vaccine and autism as the data were insufficient. However, the possibility of such a link was raised and consequent events have had major implications for public health
Read for yourself – that is hard for most……..don’t let political machinations by drug companies and the powers that be fool you
Please do better research next time
Sheri Nakken, RN, MA
Sheri Nakken, RN, MA,
Perhaps you could actually respond to the blog post? Perhaps you could read it?
Did my post say, for example, “The paper was partially retracted in 2004, by 10 of the 12 authors involved”? You put that in quotes as though you are responding to something.
“just because a journal retracts it 12 years later, doesn’t mean it isn’t valid”
Just because a paper is published in The Lancet doesn’t mean that it is valid. As we have just seen.
Are you another hit-and-run commenter or will you stay and discuss?
Nov. 26th, 2009: “of course I think that nothing is worth the risk as I know vaccines do NOT give immunity”:
– Sheri Nakken, happily taking your money to offer “informed choice”.
Speaking of numbered lists…, Oct. 25th, 2009:
Sheri Nakken took great pleasure in mocking the fact someone advised her on the lack of knowledge she presents on her site, and Sheri suggested AVN members “write” to the author. “Write” is AVN code for abuse, threaten, insult, torment, etc. What they do to grieving parents who loose infants to the preventable diseases the AVN has ensured re-emerge – because pertussis, hepatitis, measles, mumps, rubella, febrile seizures, SSP, encephalitis, ulcerated corneas, etc… are all “good”, thus the parents must be to blame.
——-
Sheri wrote about the 12 points below;
“go (sic) this by email today……. …may want to wirte to Ms. Cabel (who is part of the Cabal).
——-
But of course. Anyone who isn’t part of the AVN’s synchronised mantra is a member of an evil global force.
Sheri is yet to respond to the challenge, and an AVN member was banned for pointing out responding to any challenge was an ideal way to secure integrity. This also equates to an “enemy” of some type or makes one a “septic” – misspelling of “skeptic”. I do not know if that person was “a skeptic”, but have seen many, many kicked off for thinking independently. Clearly, one is either ‘with them or against them’.
From: Meryl Dorey
To: AVN@yahoogroups. com
Sent: Fri, 30 October, 2009 6:55:35 PM
Subject: Re: [AVN] Re: email from someone who doesn’t like my website.
“Please excuse my delay in kicking this septic off of the list. I have been extremely busy over this last few days. And is it just me or do words like ad hominem make anyone else cringe? The language is so … patent. It is like they are all referring to a script and just putting in pat phrases. I mean, if you want to criticise, that’s fine – but criticise the science – not the person.
All the best,
Meryl”.
Ah, the “science”. And Sheri’s answer remains as absent as the brave questioner.
Here is what the tears were about, sent by email, to Sheri who cannot answer – but can garner fellow anti-vaxxers to harass rather than offer evidence/rebuttal.
Reasons why your site should be removed off the internet:
1. It is completely untrustworthy.
2. Your information is not based on solid scientific research.
3. Your site is focused on selling books, which is completely biased.
4. You are not endorsed by a health agency or an association.
5. You don’t refer to any organizations that are responsible for
maintaining standards.
6. No experts have reviewed your information.
7. Your information is old.
8. Your information is based on opinion and not solid scientific
research. Sound scientific research is often supported by
universities or professional associations which yours isn’t.
9. Your claim is based on the idea of a conspiracy and emotion.
10. Your site discourages us from working with our health care provider.
11. Anyone can create a website. Your information is not scientifically valid.
12. You are putting thousands of children’s lives at risk.
Think about it…..
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/AVN/message/40917
Sheri who copies, pastes and slabs entire junk science opinion pieces dominates the Yahoo! list. This includes deleting posts, then banning members – perhaps donating [not enough] members – who express the slightest confidence in vaccines.
Do not trust Sheri Nakken.
just read the papers for yourself
they speak for themselves
but that sometimes is too hard
That wasn’t what you were asked Sheri.
It’s ironic that you should cast out snide insults and implicit accusations of stupidity and ignorance, yet you can’t deal with a reasonably well written blog post, even after explicit correction.
“Read for yourself – that is hard for most”
Certainly seems hard for you, as you have demonstrated.
You’ve had 20 years of doing this and the best you can come up with is a out of context cut’n’paste list and vague assertion that we should ‘read up’
Do better or kindly take your baseless insults and attitude elsewhere. Mothering.com is more your level.
Dedj,
she’s quite right. It is hard to read those articles when they have RETRACTED splayed across the pages 😉
Well hey, Sheri, I was just talking about you the other day.
http://cometscorner-clay.blogspot.com/2010/02/gates-works-for-malaria-vaccine.html
After the article about Gates backing research for a vaccine for malaria, it’s all about you, hon. We know all about you. Did you visit ol’ Boyd Haley when you went to the Tea Party convention?
So Sheri, do you remember what 0.2% works out in numbers?
I remember you don’t seem to do so well with maths:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.kids.health/msg/926522ef91b8ab8c?hl=en …
Begin Quote:
> So what does 0.2% calculate to in numbers
1 in 500
> Sheri
End Quote
Of course, you have identified yourself as a “homeopath” … ooh, super pseudoscience! You must be incredibly math impaired to thing that a substance diluted way past reality is effective.
So, Ms. Nakken, do you have any real evidence that the MMR vaccine is worse than measles, mumps and rubella? I believe I asked you that years ago, and you never really answered. The link to a retracted article does not count, and the Pediatrics article you linked to said “Conclusions. This clustering suggests that a causal relationship between measles vaccine and encephalopathy may exist as a rare complication of measles immunization.”
Did you notice the word “rare” in there? Yes, there is a one in a million chance of a bad outcome. How does that compare with the actual diseases?
By the way, Ms. Nakken, how current is your nurse registration? Don’t you have to keep that updated? Doesn’t it require a test of basic knowledge, include basic mathematics?
The Internets are great, I looked it up (at least for the state of California). Ms. Nakken have you qualified by testing for the Registered Nurse designation in the past eight years? If you have not, I would suggest that you no longer included “RN” after your name.
Of course, we all know that Andrew Wakefield is not licensed to practice medicine in Texas.
Ms. Nakken, you say ‘he never said MMR caused autism’…here are some quotes from the press conference given by Wakers to accompny the paper:
How is that not suggesting at the very least that autism can be caused by MMR?
Oh yes, that’s the Lancet paper that wasn’t about MMR. The one where a link between MMR and autism for 8 of 12 children is the FIRST finding, and FIRST result, and the “possible environmental trigger” set out in its conclusions. The one where autism came on within 14 days of vaccination (ho ho). And which, when I just ran a word search across the PDF, came up with “MMR” 15 times. And which was published with an editorial from CDC on MMR vaccination, and a video and press conference where Dr Wakefield called for MMR to be suspended.
Ooh, yes, Ms Naken. You’re a really smooth operator.
It’s truly fascinating how, after a decade in which Wakefield toured the world with this paper as being the foundation of the whole thing, when he ends up in front of the GMC he switches the lie he’s telling, and all his little minnows like Ms Naken, who spent half her life putting up nasty little posts on bulletin boards, try to somehow retrieve the situation by claiming that it wasn’t about MMR.
Oh, and by the way, it had controls! Try reading it sometime. You might learn something.
@HCN, etc. To answer your questions about renewing a nursing license: in most states, once you have passed the boards, you simply need to do a certain number of continuing education credits per year to renew. Mathmatics are not required; actually, thinking is not required for renewal as you can simply go to seminars, sit and learn nothing, and get the certificate at the end of the day. (yes, I am a nurse and yes, I have a CURRENT, active, nursing license in the state I currently live in)
I’m curious about Ms Nakken’s credentials. Why on earth does she feel she has to put RN, MA after her name? And what is your MA in, Ms Nakken? What is your Bachelor’s degree in? As a nurse whose credentials probably surpass yours, I’m curious to know.
(Graduate, University of Michigan School of Nursing, BSN, Graduate, MSN, SUNY Stony Brook)
I don’t find Medical Veritas’ offer that strange. The title alone makes it clear to most observers that the journal isn’t primarily about science, but about politics and PR.
The offer is a smooth PR move designed to provide yet another opportunity to paint Wakefield as a brave maverick docctor(tm) and martyr, and give more talking points to the anti-vax groups who will use it as another opportunity to take advantage of the naivte of the general public in matters of science.
Here’s my prediction:
1. Wakefield supporters will say, “See? Another journal thinks the study is valid! The Lancet is just in the pocket of Big Pharma and the government who want to suppress the autism-vaccine connection.”
2. The Lancet, and possibly the other authors, will refuse to permit their copyrighted work to be reprinted in Medical Veritas.
3. This will prompt many further cries of “censorship” from groups supporting Wakefield, and be cited as more “proof” that TPTB control mainstream science journals like The Lancet to ensure The Truth (Veritas, doncha know?) never gets out.
Create a new controversy to deflect from the real story. It’s PR 101. Wakefield and his supporters have a pretty good history of harnessing this tactic to turn attention from the basic facts of the sad saga of Andy Wakefield.
Is this about Wakefield or “get the nurse” for trying to help the truth to this matter come out? How critical & judgmental when we have important things at hand to discuss & get to the bottom of.
This is sad!
All is coming out in the wash & the bad guys in this mess are finally being exposed. Because of heroes like Dr. Wakefield we’ll soon be on the road to recovery we need to be on. We, who are paying attention with a fair share of common sense, know who the ones are that actually have the well being of our children & nation at heart.
Wakefield has been the scapegoat in calling the “much needed” attention to this whole charade of atrocity & I thank & commend him. Very soon parents & their children will be thanking him for the change he & those like him will bring to this sad state of a world we have become due to greed of man. Men & women responsible for taking something meant for good & turning it in to something evil are soon to be replaced as much revamping & restructuring of the system & entities associated in this matter, who have taken the wrong turn, resulting in this epidemic of injury & harm that’s been done to our children. To a higher court we will go now and the world is, thankfully & finally paying attention
“False Testimony Denies Dr Wakefield a Fair Hearing at MMR GMC Witchhunt”
“Mums ejected from the GMC Dr Wakefield Witch-hunt Trial Speak out”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeDAKz6fJiA&NR=1
v=VyvKnavzPjM=related
Who do you believe people? Those who are taking part in this witch hunt against Wakefield or the Mothers who were thrown out of that kangaroo court in that video?
The fight is on so watch out bad boys because the good guys are taking over.
Marsha,
my heroes, and the heroes for my kid, don’t subject children to unwarranted medical procedures. This is especially true of invasive medical procedures.
We appear to view the world differently, you and I.
Below is a short form FAQ about the GMC case of Dr. Andrew Wakefield and colleagues Professor John Walker-Smith and Professor Simon Murch
Did the Ethics Practices Committee of the Royal Free Hospital NHS approve Dr. Wakefield and colleagues’ proposal for research biopsies to be conducted on children which ultimately resulted in publication by the Lancet?
YES . The Ethical Practices Committee of the Royal Free Hospital NHS Trust approved proposal # 162-95 before any biopsies were collected for the case study on the Lancet 12.
Was the 1998 Lancet article based on a research study or a case study?
The Lancet article was based on a case study. Case studies do not have control groups.
Did the 1998 Lancet case report say that the MMR vaccine causes autism?
NO. The Lancet case report reads, “We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome (autistic enterocolitis) described.” The Lancet case report ends with a call for additional research. “We have identified a chronic enterocolitis in children that may be related to neuropsychiatric dysfunction. In most cases, onset of symptoms was after measles, mumps, and rubella immunisation. Further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome and its possible relation to this vaccine.”
If the Lancet case report did not say MMR vaccine causes autism, what did some of the co-authors partially retract in 2004?
Nothing. Some of the original co-authors partially retracted an interpretation despite the fact that it never existed in the case report.
The co-author’s partial retraction reads, “We wish to make it clear that in this paper no causal link was established between MMR vaccine and autism as the data were insufficient. However, the possibility of such a link was raised and consequent events have had major implications for public health. In view of this, we consider now is the appropriate time that we should together formally retract the interpretation placed upon these findings in the paper, according to precedent.”
Again, the original case report itself never interpreted the data as establishing a causal link between MMR and autism, so there was no “causal” interpretation to retract.
If the Lancet case report did not say MMR causes autism, and if his collection of biopsies for research purposes was pre-approved by the Ethical Practices Committee, why is there a case against Dr. Wakefield (and colleagues)?
Medical authorities in the UK (and the United States) do not like it when licensed medical professionals ask questions about vaccine safety. Licensed medical professionals and medical researchers who question vaccine safety are more difficult to dismiss than parents who notice adverse reactions after vaccination.
The prosecution of Dr. Wakefield, Professor Walker-Smith and Professor Murch is an example and warning to other licensed medical professionals and researchers. The warning is clear: if you question the safety of a vaccine, you put your license and career at risk.
Does industry have anything to gain by prosecuting Dr. Wakefield, Professor Walker-Smith and Professor Murch?
Yes, possibly. Industry may use the prosecution of Dr. Wakefield and colleagues in an effort to argue that the MMR vaccine is safe. Merck manufactures both MMR vaccine and Proquad vaccine. In 2009, Merck eliminated the option of single dose Measles, Mumps and Rubella vaccines when they announced they are discontinuing the manufacture of those monovalent vaccines. Now that the single dose option is no longer available, Merck’s would benefit if the public perceived MMR’s 3-live-viruses-in-1-shot as a safe option for customers wary of Merck’s new 4-live-viruses-in-1-shot Proquad.
Additionally, in internal emails regarding Vioxx in Australia, Merck employees discuss”destroying” doctors critical of their products “where they live”. MMR is a Merck product. Dr. Wakefield, Professor Walker-Smith and Professor Murch all lived in the UK at the time this study was conducted.
Sheri Nakken RN MA,
You really don’t care about the actual topic, do you? You just seem to want to use this thread for your own mini blog posts.
Too bad you are just plain wrong. If you actually cared about whether the team at the Royal Free had ethical approval to do the tests, you would discuss the lumbar punctures. Even if we accept that there was approval in place for gut biopsies, there wasn’t anything in place for the some of the lumbar punctures as they were done before the approval was granted.
Also, the approval for any of the tests only was in place when they were done during clinically necessary tests. Many tests were made, samples taken, that had nothing to do with the clinical interests of the child.
If Dr. Wakefield’s paper didn’t claim MMR causes autism, why did he make the totally unsupported statements he made in the press conference?
Funny, I know of someone who questioned whether a certain vaccine was safe enough for general use. The vaccine was smallpox, and the researcher was Paul Offit. His career seems to have survived.
Why? He made his claims responsibly.
Drug companies inject kids for their so-called studies all the time – ethical – they seem to think so. They take blood from them and any other studies deemed necessary during their minimum study.
Every time a child gets a vaccine its an unwarranted medical procedure. Further post-marketing experimentation
Other studies………
Submitted by Teresa Binstock on February 9, 2010 – 9:03am.
The original findings of enterocolitis in many but not all autistic children has been replicated several times (eg, 1-3). Furthermore, a month after Wakefield et al was published in The Lancet (Feb 1998), the journal Pediatrics published a study reporting that among various vaccines related to mumps, measles, and rubella, the MMR was by far the most likely to induce neurologic damage or even death (4). The abstract of that study is available free online and merits perusal, as does the whole-text article (4). Wakefield et al’s speculation about a possible autism-MMR connection was not as far afield as The Lancet retraction would have us believe. Furthermore, two newer studies have documented associations between HepB vaccinations and autism and also the need for special education services (5-6).
1. Enterocolitis in children with developmental disorders
Am J Gastroenterol. 2000 Sep;95(9):2285-95.
http://www.nature.com/ajg/journal/v95/n9/abs/ajg2000579a.html
2. Autistic enterocolitis: Fact or fiction?
{excellent, brief overview}
Can J Gastroenterol. 2009 Feb;23(2):95-8.
http://www.pulsus.com/journals/abstract.jsp?sCurrPg=journal&jnlKy=2&atlKy=8619&isuKy=837&isArt=t
3. Clinical Presentation and Histologic Findings at Ileocolonoscopy in Children with Autistic Spectrum Disorder and Chronic Gastrointestinal Symptoms
Autism Insights 2010:2 1-11; 27 Jan 2010
http://www.la-press.com/clinical-presentation-and-histologic-findings-at-ileocolonoscopy-in-ch-a1816
4. Acute Encephalopathy Followed by Permanent Brain Injury or Death Associated With Further Attenuated Measles Vaccines: A Review of Claims Submitted to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
Robert E. Weibel et al.
Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation, National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, Health Resources and Services Administration, Public Health Service, Rockville, Maryland; and the DaggerOffice of the General Counsel, United States Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, Maryland.
PEDIATRICS Vol. 101 No. 3 March 1998, pp. 383-387
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/101/3/383
5. Hepatitis B triple series vaccine and developmental disability in US children aged 1-9 years
Gallagher C, Goodman M. Toxicol Environ Chem 2008 90(5):997-1008.
{free online}
Click to access hep_b.pdf
“The odds of receiving EIS were approximately nine times as great for vaccinated boys… as for unvaccinated boys…, after adjustment for confounders.”
6. Hepatitis B vaccination of male neonates and autism
[conference abstract as published]
CM Gallagher, MS Goodman, Graduate Program in Public
Health, Stony Brook University Medical Center, Stony Brook, NY
Annals of Epidemiology, p659
Vol. 19, No. 9 Abstracts (ACE) September 2009: 651–680
” Findings suggest that U.S. male neonates vaccinated with hepatitis B vaccine had a 3-fold greater risk of ASD; risk was greatest for non-white boys.”
“Did the Ethics Practices Committee of the Royal Free Hospital NHS approve Dr. Wakefield and colleagues’ proposal for research biopsies to be conducted on children which ultimately resulted in publication by the Lancet?
YES . The Ethical Practices Committee of the Royal Free Hospital NHS Trust approved proposal # 162-95 before any biopsies were collected for the case study on the Lancet 12.”
Proposal 162-95 appears to be related to the taking of research samples during colonoscopies.
Sheri – if you continue to show a lack of common decency and inability to address the thread topic, I will have no choice but to report your comments as spam to the blog administrators.
Deal with the thread topic or take your cut and paste crusade elsewhere.
At no point does it appear to give permission for non-clinical research only colonoscopies to be preformed.
Dedj,
Almost right. But I’m sure you wouldn’t want to pass on even slightly misleading information. There is enough of that about already. 162-95 gave permission for John Walker-Smith’s team to take TWO extra biopsies for research purposes, with informed consent. This was a carry-over from a previous hospital where he worked. It gave no other permissions, and in the case of the Lancet children, eight paired biopsies were generally taken for what a statutory tribunal has determined to be research purposes. On top of that were ileocolonoscopies, EEGs, lumbar punctures, barium meals, MRIs, GAs (sometimes), upper endoscopies (sometimes).
Wakefield, of course, has spread around the story that 162-95 gave permission for all that he was involved in. As ever, untrue. Pitiful really. But people believe it.
Brian Deer,
MRI’s sound somewhat innocuous to many readers. (and others will point out how the noise and closed spaces are very distressing to many people). However in order to perform an MRI on a severely disabled child, it is often necessary to use anesthesia. Anesthesia itself is a serious procedure especially on young children.
Was there any information about whether the children needed to be anesthetized for the MRI studies?
Martha, any ideas on how the parents who were thrown out of the GMC hearing whilst the Chairman was trying to deliver the Findings of Fact, square the fact that Dr Wakefield and his legal team did not call them as witnesses, thereby giving them a voice and an opportunity to give their opinions to the panel, at an appropriate time?
Much has been made of the fact that the GMC denied the parents a voice in the hearing but I’m not aware of anyone explaining why it was the Defendants chose not to give them a voice either. In fact, given the content of the parents speeches outside the GMC, it seems incredulous that the three doctors did not call the parents to deliver such supportive testimonies to the panel.
I just don’t get it.
“Almost right. But I’m sure you wouldn’t want to pass on even slightly misleading information.”
As far as I’m aware, what I said is simplified, but still completely correct. Remember, we’re dealing with Sheri’s specific claim, not giving an overview of the proposal and approval. A full recount of the approval is not needed for the purposes of rebutting Sheri, or rather her source that she failed to properly attribute to (i.e. plagiarised).
The approval appears to have been for taking research samples during routine proceedures, not for the proceedures to be performed for research purposes. I assure you that there was no intent to provide ‘misleading’ information, but if we are truly dealing with people who either lack relevent knowledge or capacity to understand the distinction, then gawd help us.
The GMC case was not about the science, it was purely about factual matters. Did X happen? Did Y happen before Z? Is what was written in the Lancet paper the same as what the children’s medical records say?
There is no point in calling witnesses who were not present when the events under investigation transpired. They cannot have valid testimony as to events they were not present to witness.
There are multiple false statements in the Lancet paper. We don’t even need to look at the conclusions to know that the paper must be retracted. When a paper has false data, the paper must be retracted. It is gross scientific misconduct to allow a paper with false data to enter, or to remain in the scientific literature. This is not a close call.
Medical Veritas is on the same level as Whale.to, not a site that is to be used for anything but entertainment, for examples of how not to do things.
If Medical Veritas is willing to print Wakefield’s Lancet paper, even after knowing that it has false data in it, then Medical Veritas has just proven itself to be anti-science and completely unreliable. This is not a close call. Plenty of unreliable sites have the Wakefield paper, that one more adds it is of no consequence. It simply gives those of us who care a measure by which to judge the site. It is total BS crap.
You see this is the problem. Dedj bought into the idea that Wakefield had a research approval, when he didn’t. And now daedelus has bought into the idea that parentrs didn’t have the chance to give evidence, when they did.
Not only could Wakefield have called anybody he wanted (and he called nobody whatsoever, and didn’t even ask questions of the government’s vaccine supremo), but a parent of one of the 12 kids – Rochelle Poulter – DID give evidence. She appeared in August 2007 for the prosecution, and gave them a mass of documents which were devastating to Wakefield’s case. One of the letters was to Walker-Smith where she says that he’d told her that the research might not help her child, but might help other children. Devastating stuff.
You have to bear in mind that a calculated campaign of misinformation has been organised. You simply can’t believe bits of gossip, or assume that some aspect of them may be true, and then argue over details.
If you go back six years to when I first took a crack at the Lancet paper and got it partially retracted, the story then went round that only an “interpretation” by others had been retracted. This went on for years. Now that I’ve got the full retraction, the story goes round that it wasn’t about MMR at all.
These things you are debating: they just ain’t true.
Marsha, as an autistic adult, I doubt that I will be thanking Wakefield for anything anytime soon.
In my opinion, as an autistic who does not have GI issues and whose regressions have nothing to do with vaccines and “toxins”, Wakefield is a slimy con artist whose real motives are to promote his own measles vaccine.
“Dedj bought into the idea that Wakefield had a research approval, when he didn’t”
No I didn’t. That’s the total opposite of what I did say, and I did not specifically mention Wakefield at all.
None of them had the research approval alledged to be covered by 162-95 at all, and only one (not Wakefield) appears to have had any approval to take non-clinical samples, which did not extend to approval to perform the proceedures for research purposes only.
Corrine
How fortunate for you. I’m sorry you don’t have compassion for the children and teens who are injured now with so many serious immune system and neurological injuries.
You can count your blessings, not to live in constant pain, with diarrhea constantly, unable to tolerate any food, with fulminate yeast infections throughout your body, unable to even speak of your pain, beating your head against the wall.
Walk a mile in their shoes or their parent’s shoes. You would be grateful for a doctor who listened to you.
He never had a measles vaccine to promote.
Sheri Nakken RN MA,
it is one thing to propagate misinformation in support of bad science.
it is another to do so in an effort to insult one of our valued commenters. Should you like to characterize anyone as not having compassion for children again, I suggest you limit yourself to those who have been proven by hearing to have acted with callous disregard for suffering.
“You would be grateful for a doctor who listened to you.”
I’d rather have a doctor who tells me the truth than one who listens to me.
Just me. I can tell I won’t be knocking on your door for services anytime soon.
Just for the record–
unless Sherri Nakken (letters following name) has anything real to add, I have no intention of approving her comments in this discussion.
who cares if Lancet retracts it?
the world does not revolve around the opinion of Lancet or you, the reporter who is the only one who filed charges.
Sheri Nakken RN MA,
if you didn’t care, you wouldn’t have spent so much time here giving us all the talking points.
I see that you don’t read critically and you like to repeat misinformation. No one filed charges against Dr. Wakefield. The GMC brought the charges without a complainant.
And, yes, I’ve checked. You, obviously, have not.
http://www.autismone.org/content/second-looking-case-dr-andrew-j-wakefield-william-long-mdiv-phd-jd
On Second Looking into the Case of Dr. Andrew J. Wakefield by William Long, MDiv, PhD, JD
Sheri Nakken RN MA,
please don’t use pseudonyms in this thread.
“the reporter who is the only one who filed charges.”
We’ve got a live one on the “Brian Deer, Complainant” myth!
David N. Brown,
As it happens, I have a post going up on that shortly.
“He never had a measles vaccine to promote.”
Wakefield has not denied the existence of his patent.
The patent clearly lays out a preperation to be used as a vaccine component, and secondarily as a treatment in IBD. There are a number of posts on this blog that discuss this, including some with direct quotes or page and paragraph references.
Technically correct that he did not have a rival vaccine. Utterly incorrect if you wish to claim he therefore held no interest in seeing the MMR versions in use be discontinued.
It’s like claiming Shell have no interest in cars using oil products because they don’t directly sell cars themselves, just an essential component.
Discredited Defamation: The Fallacious Case against Dr. Andrew Wakefield by Polly Tommey
http://wwwDOTautismoneDOTorg/content/discredited-defamation-fallacious-case-against-dr-andrew-wakefield-polly-tommey
Here’s more proof of the witch hunt this has been. The good doctor has been black balled by special interests and words now coming out big time. Polly Tommey is but one witness and many more will be coming forward.
Sullivan, why are you threatening not to allow Sherri’s posts? That’s not fair just because you disagree. If you censor like that, word “will” get around and the end result will be your own discrediting.
He’s saying that unless people have more to add to the debate than simply posting links, then running away then there;s no point them contributing at all. Surely its not difficult to debate properly is it?
If you can’t see why:
Plagiarising another persons work, and then presenting it out of context and with no discussion
Posting irrelevently and repeatedly off topic despite direct requests not to do so
Making implicit accusations of ignorance
Attempting to use pseudonym’s for no apparent functional purpose (i.e. sock puppetry)
Making personal insults and accusations agianst a long standing commentator
might, just might be seen as unreasonable behaviour from a previously registered professional (who never the less uses the professional title) who presents herself as informed and ambiguously ‘better’ than the rest of us, then making threats to ‘discredit’ people for enforcing minimum standards of civil behaviour doesn’t reflect very well on you.
You are clearly only agreeing with Sheri’s behaviour because you agree with her opinions. The two things are entirely seperate.
Re: Polly Tommey. Please. Proof? All you have there is 3 pages of a invested person attempting to imply a conspiracy with little more evidence than the fact that she was asked not to mention him.
No evidence that any of the charges were false. Plenty of nameless sources and accusations of cloak and dagger behaviour and outright deception on the part of bloggers.
UK “Faked” National Autism Data To Declare MMR Vaccine “Safe”
I’m a little confused – why should anyone want to debate the personal attacks made? They are best left ignored.
And plagarism is when you post things people have written, not URLs
Insults can only be made against new people?
Marcia
Marcia,
we covered the NAS survey of 1 in 100 adults a long time ago. If the writers of the self-styled “ChildHealthSafety” blog want to discuss our take on it, they are welcome to do so.
Frankly, I can’t fathom why people who claim to be working in the best interests of autistics would go to such lengths to deny the existence of adult autistics. From my perspective, they are sacrificing both the possibility to improve the life of those autistics *and* the future quality of life of the minor autistics.
If we don’t understand the needs of adult autistics, how are we supposed to support them? The adult autistic population is vastly under recognized and under served.
I’m biased. I want a better life for my kid. I also can’t see sacrificing the well being of millions of people to promote an “epidemic”.
“I’m a little confused – why should anyone want to debate the personal attacks made? They are best left ignored.”
Yes you definetly are. We shouldn’t, and they should be.
“And plagarism is when you post things people have written, not URLs”
Sheri’s short form FAQ post is from AoA, she could be the original authour but hasn’t declared herself such, or if she did I must have missed it.
“Insults can only be made against new people?”
This was never said or implied. It’s also such a stupid arguement to make, it’s actually quite insulting for you to have presumed it was my arguement. You will retract it in your next post.
And as for the link. Again, it’s an invested authour making spurious, unsubstantiated and unevidenced implicit and open accusations agianst a multitude of people who are individually more qualified and experienced than a handful of JStones.
Little evidence for the rumours is posted. Misunderstanding of the selection process is made. ‘Problems’ are stated with no evidence that said problems exist, with at least one remark worded to imply improper recruitment.
Poor quality work from a source that none of us here are likely to hold any faith in. We’ve dealt with him here before, called him out on errors, and faced nothing but blame dodging and sarcasm.
Do better next time.
I don’t think you need to either block or pay attention to Sheri Nakken’s postings. She’s all over EoH, trying to get people to comment on all the blogs/articles that are discussing Wakefield:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EOHarm/message/104265
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EOHarm/message/104267
and she’s posting the same garbage all over the internet. For example, try googling
“company beholden” nakken
You can see she’s posted the same cut and paste nonsense at at least 4 other blogs.
Oh, and for those studies purportedly “confirming” Wakefield’s work, that’s been beautifully debunked here:
http://justthevax.blogspot.com/2010/02/independent-wakefield-way-really.html
Summary is:
“So what do we have here? Three (3) genuinely published cases of autistic adults who had consulted a doctor for gastrointestinal problems and were found to have gastrointestinal problems. One conference report from April 2005 that has not gone through peer review and has not appeared in a real journal in the 5 years since the conference. One real study looking at over 50 autistic children which does not confirm Wakefield’s findings. And finally, one study by Wakefield’s buddies in a freshly founded journal run by Andrew Wakefield and his buddies, to say that their buddy Andy was really right all along – how is that for “independent” confirmation?!”
Er, try this one:
Thanks Broken Link,
she posted, what, 8 off topic comments that are filled with junk logic? Pretty clear it was some sort of spam attempt to help Dr. Wakefield.
But, hey, it’s censorship if I stop letting her post, right?
Clay, I’m not sure I’m comfortable with links to her pictures. Her words make the case–she’s not one who looks critically at what she posts on the net. The pictures are all public, I know.
That article by John Stone (what a surprise) is a dishonest misrepresentation of the NHS survey, and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the methodology of the survey and, apparently, probability theory. More likely, John Stone is pretending not to get the methodology of the survey, and how it is that they projected prevalence from the number of autistics found.
Some claims appear to be entirely made up. For example, I read nothing in the report to the effect that no “classic” autistic adults were found. (This was a survey of autistics living in private households only, so they are probably not completely representative of all autistics, though.)
I’d say that, aside from Carol Stott slurping on a plastic bottle of water and cackling like a strangled hen while the prosecution accused Wakefield of tampering with a document, the most striking incident at the GMC hearing was during the chairman’s reading of the findings on day 197.
Dr Kumar had just started reading “Ileal lymphoid nodular hyperplasia, non-specific…” At this moment, John Stone started shouting “Wrong paper! Wrong paper!” and ran out of the room.
As we all strained to refocus on the findings, I’m sure it wasn’t only me who weighed the odds that for two-and-a-half years, a panel of three doctors and two lay members, plus five QCs and their supporting teams of solicitors and juniors, three medically-qualified defendants, and (usually) myself in the corner, had all been reading the wrong research report, and that, in the nick of time, Mr Stone had pointed this out.
You couldn’t make it up.
But you made it up, BD, at god knows whose behest……………..kangaroo courts deserve zoo-like reactions.
Glaxo links by so many involved in the persecution of Wakefield
how many times can the name GLAXO come up? (one of the makers of MMR)
Medico Legal Investigations, a company that is completely funded by the Pharmaceutical Industry. There are clearly matters of conflict of interest even in the initial stages of the prosecution.
In 2004, the High Court Judge Sir Nigel Davis, in a closed hearing, rejected the appeals made on behalf of vaccine damaged children whose legal aid had been withdrawn for a coming court case, which would ultimately represent some 2,000 cases. Weeks after this decision had been made, it was reported that the Judge had failed to disclose that his brother was a non-executive board director of GSK, defendants in the case. The case had been in progress for nearly ten years and was only months away from it’s hearing in the High Court. The science lobby groups funded by the drug companies and especially Lord Dick Taverne the founder of Sense About Science and previously a major PR handmaiden for the pharmaceutical industry had campaigned heavily to get legal aid taken from the parents. After it was publicized about the conflict of interest, Brian Deer accused him of being ‘cruel’ to
the scions of the Davis family.
During Dr Wakefield’s defense case the fact that Richard Horton’s line manager at the Lancet, the Director of the Elsevier publishing company, was also a non executive director of GlaxoSmithKline, was reinforced. Dr Horton gave evidence claiming that Dr Wakefield had failed to provide him with evidence of his conflict of interest in relation to money that the Legal Aid Board had granted the Royal Free Hospital. This evidence did not seem to coincide with the historical record. Dr Horton made no declaration at the beginning of his evidence that he was on speaking terms with one of the GSK directors or indeed that such a person acted as his line manager at the Lancet.
Dr Kumar is the Chair of the GMC fitness to practice panel that heard the case of Dr Wakefield, Professor Walker-Smith and Professor Simon Murch. Kumar has numerous financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry including stock holdings with Glaxo, the manufacturer of the MMR.
Does anybody think this “Nakken” character even exists? “She” has collected together, cut-and-paste, a collection of totally untrue claims which have evidently been cooked up in some witches’ kitchen of blogger fabrications. To correct “her”, for instance:
1. The name “Glaxo” has never come up in any context relating to Wakefield’s disgrace, other than in the aforementioned fabrications.
2. Medicolegal investigations, or the pharmaceutical industry, has never come up, and never had anything to do with the Wakefield issue, other than in the aforementioned fabrications.
3. Sir Nigel Davis never had anything to do with the GMC case, and was never a judge in the MMR case. He undertook a judicial review of a narrow issue as to whether the Legal Services Commission should be asked to review its previous decision, taken on advice from an independent panel, and the claimants own barristers, that the Wakefield theory of autism couldn’t be sustained at trial. The issue of his brother was looked into and found to be irrelevant.
4. Sense about Science and Dick Taverne never campaigned, or made any statement at all, about legal aid in the MMR case. This was another fabrication, as above.
5. Brian Deer never said anything about being cruel to scions of anybody.
6. Dr Horton’s “line manager” (sometimes described in the fabrications as his “on line manager”, whatever that is), is his publisher. Reed-Elsevier is a giant multinational publishing house, within which the editor of the Lancet is but a middle-manager, and does not report to the chief executive. The line-manager thing was just a concoction of some idiot who didn’t know the meaning of the words.
7. Dr Horton’s evidence was accepted and found proved, on the criminal standard of proof, by the GMC panel. If it was plainly wrong, it could be overturned in the High Court, and Wakefield will be a happy man today. However, it was plainly right, and Wakefield knows that he is finished on four counts of proven dishonesty, for which the sanction is erasure.
8. Dr Kumar had no conflict of interest. This was accepted by all parties at the hearing, including in submissions by Wakefield. The allegation that he has “numerous financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry” is simply a fabrication.
My view is that this Nakken character is a malicious troll, who, apart from evidently knowing so little about MMR, public policy, the organization of business, or the Wakefield case that “she” can be assumed to be writing falsely on anything where “her” name appears, “she” is so plainly intending to mislead that “she” should be banned from this site.
Visitor said:
“Does anybody think this “Nakken” character even exists?”
She exists, alright, but all that you say about her is entirely true. I think that she exhibits a sort of “homeopathic thinking”, meaning that any logic emanating from her is reduced to a solution of one part in a billion, resulting in a veritable flood of nonsense! 😉
I’m just amused by Ms Nakken; when I asked her to post HER credentials (February 9th), all I got were crickets chirping. Is she who she really claims she is, with an RN and MA?
As far as Medical Veritas goes, it is a sham journal. I can remember seeing it way back in physician offices (family members who are MDs) and reading some of the articles. Even as a girl in high school I could tell most of the articles were nuts. (ETA: Back then, it was a “freebie” journal I believe; certainly non of the doctors actually subscribed to it.)
Sheri,were you one of the parent litigants in the MMR litigation in the UK?
I was, and my memories of the experiences at the ‘coal face’ differ significantly from the version you’re churning out. Justice Davis upheld the decision by the Legal Services Commission to withdraw Legal Aid on the basis that the lawyers acting on behalf of the “vaccine damaged children” had stated that as things stood they could not bring a viable case to prove a causal link between ASD and the MMR vaccine.(£18m from the public purse had been invested in the case). In the event that Justice Davis had granted the appeals, I can only guess at the public uprising, to say nothing of the number of appeals subsequently lodged had word got round that the LSC were now funding cases with no prospects of success!. As long as the claimants own lawyers were saying that the case had no merit, it was irrelevant who the judge was on the day…….. the outcome was bound to be the same. The LSC did not remove funding for the children until such times as their lawyers stated there was prospects of success.
Recent events may go some way to explaining why the claimants ended up with no case. Where were the child claimants were going to get expert witnesses to support their claims that there was a causal link between the MMR vaccine and ASD? Dr Wakefield one of the most highly paid expert witnesses has recently bamboozled everyone by insisting that he never said the MMR vaccine was implicated in any of his findings begging the question…………why he employed as a lead witness in a litigation, the success of which, was entirely dependant on proving a causal link between the MMR vaccine and ASD in litigant children.!!
No wonder the lawyers were forced into admitting that the case had no prospects and even less of a wonder that the LSC called a halt to the funding.
Please feel free to educate me as to how Justice Davis could have upheld the claimants appeals in these circumstances and how he could have justified the further squandering of public funds on the case.
No, Sheri Nakken is a virulent anti-vaxer of long-standing. She’s a homeopath who works in Washington State. Here’s her signature line on EoH, where she regularly advertises her “courses” which spread dis-information amongst the most vulnerable.
____
Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Washington State, USA
Vaccines – http://vaccinationdangers.wordpress.com/ Homeopathy http://homeopathycures.wordpress.com
Vaccine Dangers, Childhood Disease Classes, new Holistic Baby Class & Homeopathy Online/email courses – next classes start February 24 & 25
Well, well. She also runs an anti-vax yahoo group, which she claims is the busiest on the internet. Judging from her posting frequency on EoH, I’d bet she’s the author of most of the posts.
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/vaccinations/
I’m very tempted to join under a sock puppet and attempt to bring some truth there.
Visitor,
“He undertook a judicial review of a narrow issue as to whether the Legal Services Commission should be asked to review its previous decision…”
I have wondered about what would have happened if Davis had ruled for the MMR claimants. Mike Stanton has offered the opinion that this would have secured future fundine. But from what you are saying, all a ruling would have done was require another “review” by the same people who had decided to cut the funding in the first place. In that case, there would have been nothing Davis COULD have done that would have ensured ANY amount of future funding.
I would be interested in what evidence you have for your interpretation.
I’ve been watching the unfair gang up on Sherri & I’m very sorry to see this when I know Serri’s motive is to help others. Please think about the children, people & know that’s why Sherri does what she does.
It seems all this (too much)vaccination against what was common childhood disease has put us back to the dark ages. Jeopardizing, harming & even destroying immune systems that were well able to take care of us like Mother Nature intended.
We’ve been duped because disease was on the decline before vaccinations. We need rethink all we’ve been taught for the sake of children.
Yes, we can be skeptics but we better check this one out carefully to be sure by researching many different sources to begin with.
Don’t let people who think they know the facts tell you anything. Do the research yourself. Our children are too important to take the word of people, some of who may be in the pockets of special interests in this political embargo that’s been goin on..
GRAPHICAL EVIDENCE SHOWS VACCINES DIDN’T SAVE US
http://www.vaclib.org/sites/debate/web1.html
“Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries of Official Statistics”
“This is the data the drug industry do not want you to see. Here 2 centuries of UK, USA and Australian official death statistics show conclusively and scientifically modern medicine is not responsible for and played little part in substantially improved life expectancy and survival from disease in western economies.
The main advances in combating disease over 200 years have been better food and clean drinking water. Improved sanitation, less overcrowded and better living conditions also contribute. This is also borne out in published peer reviewed research”
Marsha,
I guess we read different history books. The books I read said that in the dark ages kids died of these diseases. All the time.
I notice that I am not supposed to believe people who think they know the facts…that is unless they write for the self-styled “childhealthsafety” blog.
If you think that vaccines don’t work, you are either wildly misinformed or you are antivaccine and purposely trying to mislead people. I rarely use the antivaccine term, by the way.
Tell me, when did the rate of HepB start to fall in the US? When did Hib start to fall? I guess the 1960’s were a time of bad sanitation in the US, when measles and rubella were rampant?
Tell me, what advance in sanitation and food made Measles and Rubella go away at exactly the same time as the vaccine was rolled out.
Seriously, I’d love to hear the answer to that one. I’ll wait while you check “ChildHealthSafety” for the answer.