Fact checking Brian Deer on Andrew Wakefield

11 Jan

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

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

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

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

Emphasis added.

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

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

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

“ Dear Dr Wakefield

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

Best wishes.”

emphasis added.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here’s the “new patient” note:

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

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

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

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

On page 50:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  1. Gina January 28, 2011 at 19:34 #

    @Rosemary: “Gina if you think the bigotry you direct to parents and their disabled children is normal – God help you.

    To quote your own ill manners – ‘Go scratch.’”

    How am I a bigot? Please, do show me. I think you are using words without knowing their meanings. I understand you mean to be insulting, which if fine by me, but at least have the decency to be truthful at it. I can take an insult like a big girl, but you suck at it.

  2. Kev January 28, 2011 at 20:02 #

    Ms Cousins.

    You had your chance. Now you’re just being plain old boring as well as insulting, you’ve given up any pretence at debate, therefore I’ll remove you from it.

  3. Gina January 28, 2011 at 20:25 #

    Wow, you guys. Sullivan, Kev, Sheldon, Science Mom, et al: I was not aware of the…um…disposition of the Wakefield supporters. Like Seth Mnookin points out, I made the false assumption that there was a balanced debate on this topic. I didn’t think this discussion would go from back and forth to nonsense. This isn’t just about Wakefield, this is about the faith that’s been put in this man. I’m just really surprised at the lengths some will go in protection of this man. He’s just a man.

  4. century January 28, 2011 at 20:34 #

    Does anyone know anything of the children who went to the US to have lumbar punctures for the UK litigation?

    Have any of the parent’s of these kids made complains against AW?

    (ps as an aside – some of the posts are soooooo long that one loses interest before reading to the end)

  5. Broken Link January 28, 2011 at 20:37 #

    Gina,

    Wakefield is not “just” a man. He’s a handsome, charismatic man, with a plummy, sexy accent and a superficially plausible story. He confirms the beliefs of some parents. And he “listens” to them. That’s all that is needed. They would follow him to the ends of the earth, and never notice that he was really out to enrich himself off their problems the whole time.

  6. AWOL January 28, 2011 at 20:59 #

    @Sullivan
    All the answers you seek can be answered by Dr Wakefield 21 minutes in on the Gary Null show(URL below) just click on the green band to 21 minutes and listen for around 5mins more if you need to ..

    http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-gary-null-show-wnye/

    “It seems to me that keeping track of those approval documents would be an important thing to do.
    Why didn’t Wakefield submit a copy of the approvals to the GMC?
    The GMC did have that approval. That’s part of why this is such a ridiculous claim.
    In addition—Brian Deer would not have been responsible for supplying this to the GMC. ”………

    I don’t see Brian Deer entering the arena him being the”Investigator gladiator Journo”he purports’ to be you would think it was right up his street…but the opposite is evident .Deer has gone to ground and remaining silent..for the first time ever..long may it continue as the snowball is gathering speed and getting bigger…

    • Sullivan January 28, 2011 at 21:42 #

      AWOL,

      the answers I’ve sought are to be found in
      1) the fact that multiple studies have shown no sign of a link between MMR and autism
      2) the GMC decision, which found Andrew Wakefield guilty of numerous ethical lapses
      3) the hundreds of pages of GMC transcripts
      4) the multiple instances of Mr. Wakefield making claims in his defense that are contradicted by the facts. Quite often by the facts he himself relies upon.

      I count myself as lucky to have had the time to evaluate Mr. Wakefield’s claims and actions for myself. I count myself as lucky that he didn’t directly harm my family.

    • Sullivan January 28, 2011 at 22:43 #

      AWOL,

      can you point me to where Andrew Wakefield has responded to the BMJ, on the BMJ site? Has he submitted a response to the journal, or his he just defending himself in the press?

      Has he actually commented anywhere on a UK based site with his allegations against Brian Deer? Or is he just relying on others?

  7. Jen January 28, 2011 at 21:31 #

    Often times GMC FTP hearing outcomes are decided before they begin – i have seen this before with other doctors, on unrelated issues.

  8. Science Mom January 28, 2011 at 22:00 #

    Often times GMC FTP hearing outcomes are decided before they begin – i have seen this before with other doctors, on unrelated issues.

    Please elaborate and provide cases.

    @ Gina. The Wakefield/vaccine-autism crusaders are nothing more than a cult. They are becoming increasing unhinged the more negative press they receive and the more credibility they lose. I believe, at this stage, it’s either realise they are completely and utterly wrong or lash out. It’s obvious which course they have chosen.

  9. AWOL January 28, 2011 at 22:01 #

    I count myself as lucky to have had the time to evaluate Mr. Wakefield’s claims and actions for myself. I count myself as lucky that he didn’t directly harm my family.

    Tut ,tut,
    You evaluate on the evidence you have before you based on what Deer, supplied ,never supplied ,to the GMC.

    Very narrow specs on tonight Sullivan,you being the un-biased person you write to be ;and open to reason .I expected more from you ..oh! well !!hey ho..

    • Sullivan January 28, 2011 at 22:20 #

      AWOL,

      Do you really believe that the GMC only worked on the documents that Brian Deer supplied them? Seriously, is this something you believe? I only ask because it is so obviously false that it boggles the mind why you would even imply that you believe it.

      You guys need to stop making Brian Deer into some sort of bogyman and start actually addressing the real issues at hand with Andrew Wakefield.

      I don’t expect you to do it. It’s been 13 years. But, face it. Brian Deer isn’t the reason why Andrew Wakefield was found guilty of ethical lapses. Andrew Wakefield created his own mess. He now has a lot of help, but the facts are plain.

  10. Jen January 28, 2011 at 22:06 #

    @Sciencemom

    Dr barry Durrant-Peatfield
    Dr Gordon R B Skinner
    Dr Sarah Myhill

    all of whom were taken before the FTP / IOP without a single patient complaint.

    Peatfield resigned before his trial.

    Skinner’s IOP conditions have recently expired. He never harmed anyone but patients were not allowed to testify – i know, i was there.

    Myhill’s inability to prescribe for 12 months, imposed back last October i think, was recently overturned by the GMC. She is going to the high court over patient confidentiality issues – the GMC got ahold of her patients’ records illegally and she is taking them to task for it.

  11. Jen January 28, 2011 at 22:12 #

    in fact, i was not present at Myhill’s because i had a new baby and couldnt, but i know the lay public were nt allowed to speak at Skinner’s several IOPs, and afaik, they were not allowed to speak at Myhill’s either.

  12. Chris January 28, 2011 at 22:12 #

    AWOL, will you please stop spamming Gary Null’s radio show? You aren’t even specifying a particular podcast, but just the radio show. And today’s show does not include Wakefield.

    Perhaps you could be cogent and useful and answer my questions about exactly which of the studies have independently replicated Wakefield’s finding, and be specific on how many children were involved and which particular MMR vaccine they received. Also explain how the Taylor study (I linked to the full table multiple times) replicates Wakefield, when it says it does not.

  13. AWOL January 28, 2011 at 22:24 #

    Chris who is spamming,everyone else gets it on ,that link including myself, you aren`t competent with simple tasks,whats the point giving complex detail?

    So far as your questions go this has been answered to the point where I am no longer allowed to repeat the list supporting Wakefields studies..your ploy is no more that diversion

  14. AWOL January 28, 2011 at 22:51 #

    Sullivan.

    I put it to you did Deer supply all the documents that could have lost Deer the case ,and his employment ,and the millions of pounds he is making just now from Merck ?

    Lets be reasonable about this ,more documents are coming to light all the time for whatever reason Deer never included. Dr Wakefield is now publicly demanding a retraction from the British Medical Journal an Deer. Documents just made public reveal that another medical research team which included JWS independently documented evidence of a possible MMR vaccine – autism link 14 months before Dr Wakefield’s paper first appears in The Lancet — based on several of the same children appearing in Dr Wakefield’s study.

    These documents include detailed clinical notes describing the pathology in seven children following MMR vaccination. These notes include references to “autism” and chronic gastrointestinal inflammation, among others.

    This evidence, refutes the accusations of fraud leveled against Dr Andrew Wakefield by the B M J,and Deer. This evidence was made available to the BMJ before the publication of their accusations, but they chose to ignore it. Go to link below and title/pdf NO FRAUD, NO HOAX. Here’sProof ,

    http://vaccinesafetyfirst.com/Home.html

    Maybe Deer could come forward like a Journo gladiator and explain why he has mis-lead you, Sullivan.

    • Sullivan January 28, 2011 at 23:10 #

      AWOL,

      “millions of pounds he is making just now from Merck ?”

      That is defamatory. You are making claims which you know to be false in an effort to defame Brian Deer.

      Once again, the depths people sink to in order to support a Andrew Wakefield, a man proven guilty of ethics violations. It amazes me.

      As to “vaccinesafetyfirst.com”….doesn’t answer my question at all, does it? I asked if Mr. Wakefield was making any of his allegations on a UK site, or directly to the BMJ. He can’t make claims that Brian Deer is being paid by “big pharma” without having to support it. So he won’t.

      VaccineSafetyFirst is based in Northern California. It is run by an artist who has written a 9/11 Truther musical. Sorry if I find that at least a little amusing.

      • Sullivan January 28, 2011 at 23:16 #

        Will Mr. Wakefield make the original of that document public? Pretty easy to do, isn’t it?

        I’d like to see it. The document he shows lists child 9 as having “2 years behavioral change – 2.5 years”
        2 to 2.5 years is the behavioral change….

        Funny that. In the Lancet, Mr. Wakefield claimed that Child 9 had behavioral changes at 18 months.

        Mr. Wakefield can respond directly to the BMJ. He should do so. He should supply evidence to back up his attacks against Brian Deer. He’s made them, let him back them up.

  15. AWOL January 28, 2011 at 22:53 #

    AWOL,

    “can you point me to where Andrew Wakefield has responded to the BMJ, on the BMJ site? Has he submitted a response to the journal, or his he just defending himself in the press?

    Has he actually commented anywhere on a UK based site with his allegations against Brian Deer? Or is he just relying on others?”

    Pleasure,my friend…go to Wakefield response to the GMC

    http://vaccinesafetyfirst.com/Home.html

  16. Chris January 28, 2011 at 23:02 #

    AWOL, the phone number on the contact page resolves to California. That is not in the UK.

    Edit to add, more on that website:
    http://www.skepdic.com/skeptimedia/skeptimedia122.html

  17. AWOL January 28, 2011 at 23:09 #

    Dr Wakefield’s studies supported below..

    Instructions for Chris ,
    Click left hand side of your mouse and you should go to a page saying Vaccine Safety First, glance down and you will see a title “Studies That Support Wakefield” again, just click left hand side of your mouse and you should go to a page .On that page you will see 4 pages of support.You can do it…

    http://vaccinesafetyfirst.com/Home.html

  18. Science Mom January 28, 2011 at 23:15 #

    Dr barry Durrant-Peatfield
    Dr Gordon R B Skinner
    Dr Sarah Myhill

    all of whom were taken before the FTP / IOP without a single patient complaint.

    Peatfield resigned before his trial.

    Skinner’s IOP conditions have recently expired. He never harmed anyone but patients were not allowed to testify – i know, i was there.

    Myhill’s inability to prescribe for 12 months, imposed back last October i think, was recently overturned by the GMC. She is going to the high court over patient confidentiality issues – the GMC got ahold of her patients’ records illegally and she is taking them to task for it.

    Jen, I’m afraid that your claims don’t even hold up under scrutiny with the most cursory examination. Including this claim:

    Often times GMC FTP hearing outcomes are decided before they begin – i have seen this before with other doctors, on unrelated issues.

    The cases were not decided before their hearings. In Durant-Peatfield’s case, he was suspended pending investigation; he chose to resign. Given the nature of his activities, it was not unreasonable to do this. Skinner did have at least one patient complaint and was miffed that he couldn’t uncover the identity of that patient. He also had numerous patients testify on his behalf. Myhill’s suspension was imposed May 2010 and is for 18 months so hasn’t expired.

    Patient complaints aren’t, nor shouldn’t be required for FTP actions. Patients aren’t always the best judges of medical ethics and in these cases, as with Wakefield, patients need protection from these physicians.

  19. Chris January 28, 2011 at 23:20 #

    AWOL, I showed you that the site you are now spamming is neither in the UK nor does it show any papers that independently (that means neither Wakefield nor Krigsman can be authors) show Wakefield’s findings on children (that means no adults), or what specific MMR vaccine was used (many of them don’t even mention it).

    Try again, only with more data.

  20. Science Mom January 28, 2011 at 23:21 #

    Dr Wakefield’s studies supported below..

    Instructions for Chris ,
    Click left hand side of your mouse and you should go to a page saying Vaccine Safety First, glance down and you will see a title “Studies That Support Wakefield” again, just click left hand side of your mouse and you should go to a page .On that page you will see 4 pages of support.You can do it…

    You have been blocked from repeating this citation list because that is all you do. You refuse to discuss even a single one and how it supports Wakefield. You are allowed to do that no doubt. Why do you keep citing the list and not answer the question?

  21. Brian Morgan January 28, 2011 at 23:29 #

    The phone number 650-685-0435 belongs to Horn Productions Inc. of Hillsborough, and that’s not the Sheffield UK Hillsborough but the Californian one.

    Horn Productions is run by Elizabeth Horn, and there’s more research to be done about the latter’s connections if any with autism, Dr Andrew Wakefield and whatever else.

  22. AWOL January 28, 2011 at 23:33 #

    “millions of pounds he is making just now from Merck ?”

    “That is defamatory. You are making claims which you know to be false in an effort to defame Brian Deer.”

    Dear Sullivan,you make the same groundless claims about Dr Wakefield backed by liar for hire Deer.

    As to “vaccinesafetyfirst.com”….doesn’t answer my question at all, does it? I asked if Mr. Wakefield was making any of his allegations on a UK site, or directly to the BMJ.”

    One would assume so he has listed a statement on the site I gave you ..e-mails on it have now been removed concerning Greepants from the GMC..

    BMJ/Deer Allegation One:
    Dr. Wakefield altered clinical findings in the LANCET case series to report bowel disease in the
    children where none existed
    Dr. Wakefield’s response:
    The findings reported in the LANCET case series reflect exactly what Professor
    John Walker-Smith recorded in his notes for a scientific meeting 14 months before the case
    series was published (see Walker-Smith document). The clinical assessments of these 7
    children were Professor Walker-Smiths (not Dr. Wakefield’s); the findings were supported
    by senior pathologist Dr. Dhillon; and they match exactly what was published in the
    LANCET. This document confirms beyond doubt that Dr. Wakefield committed no fraud.
    No histories were altered for the LANCET case series, and this document proves that.
    In the BMJ, Deer provided a table comparing what he had found in the General
    Practitioner’s (GP) records and what was reported in The LANCET paper. He cited
    inconsistencies as evidence of fraud. First, the GP records (other than a referral letter to
    the Pediatric Gastroenterology team) were not available to doctors who wrote The
    LANCET paper, so fraudulent misrepresentation was not possible. Second, Deer used
    wrong or incomplete information from the GP records in order to create the impressi

    He can’t make claims that Brian Deer is being paid by “big pharma” without having to support it. So he won’t.

    B-u-t- its just fine for Deer ,to say the same about Deer which he cant support and any allegations by Deer have been thrown out…

    Again, he has been telling porkies, to you Sullivan..

    • Sullivan January 28, 2011 at 23:39 #

      Child 9. First behavioral symptoms reported in the Lancet as 18 months. In the transcript of the document that Mr. Wakefield has supplied, it is listed as 2-2.5 years.

      I didn’t get that from Brian Deer. All of it is from Andrew Wakefield. And it doesn’t add up.

      You will not respond directly to this, as you never do. You seem to be on a mission to defame Mr. Deer as often as possible in this discussion. If you had real evidence, it would have appeared by now.

  23. Chris January 28, 2011 at 23:37 #

    AWOL, I have looked at that page of citations.

    I noticed many include Wakefield and/or Krigsman as authors. That is not independent, so that leaves out almost a full page.

    I also checked, and several are not indexed on PubMed. That includes one by Krigsman, and a poster presentation that was not formally published. That leaves out a few more.

    Several of the papers are on adults, and usually just a few. Those are not children. I assume you know the difference.

    Many of the papers do not even mention measles, nor the MMR. There is one paper from Japan, but as I told you earlier: they had a different MMR vaccine from either of the ones used in the UK between 1988 and 1998. So they do not count.

    I also pointed out that one paper seems to specifically look into Wakefield’s claims and comes up with the conclusion that the gastrointestinal disorder Wakefield invented does not exist, and the MMR vaccine is not associated with autism. So its inclusion in that list is extremely bizarre.

    Now, AWOL, you are to specifically note which paper on that list actually supports Wakefield’s finding and explain exactly in your own words how:

    1- It is independent (do I need to define that again?)

    2- How many children (do you need a criteria of the difference between “child” and “adult”?)

    3- Which particular MMR vaccine was under investigation?

  24. John Fryer Chemist January 28, 2011 at 23:40 #

    Andrew Wakefield

    Jayne Donegan

    Sarah Myhill

    Are 3 doctors critical of vaccines in the sense that proper debate and science is stifled.

    Here is someone elses comment that matches my own views.

    The General Medical Council is apparently afraid to allow scientific debate or to allow doctors to hold any opinions not endorsed by them, even if there is adequate impartial scientific data to back up that doctor’s individual opinion.

    Most of the medical pioneers of the last four hundred years would most definitely have been struck off by the GMC for daring to differ with their entrenched and hallowed views………what a good thing hindsight has 20-20 vision 🙂

  25. AWOL January 28, 2011 at 23:41 #

    AWOL, I showed you that the site you are now spamming is neither in the UK nor does it show any papers that independently (that means neither Wakefield nor Krigsman can be authors) show Wakefield’s findings on children (that means no adults), or what specific MMR vaccine was used (many of them don’t even mention it).

    Try again, only with more data.

    Chris..not a problem..

    Scientists fear MMR link to autism….

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-388051/Scientists-fear-MMR-link-autism.html

  26. Brian Morgan January 28, 2011 at 23:43 #

    This doesn’t make sense: “He can’t make claims that Brian Deer is being paid by “big pharma” without having to support it. So he won’t.

    B-u-t- its just fine for Deer ,to say the same about Deer which he cant support and any allegations by Deer have been thrown out…

    Again, he has been telling porkies, to you Sullivan.”

    Will someone please explain?

    Is Brian Deer in contact with Sullivan? This message list contains a serious allegation about Deer and Merck which if this were my board I would have to remove.

    • Sullivan January 29, 2011 at 00:00 #

      Brian Morgan,

      if Mr. Deer sees and wishes me to remove those comments, I will do so quickly. They are defamatory, and they show that some of Mr. Wakefield’s supporters have no interest in the truth. At this point, there is just an angry, vengeful response.

      I have no desire to see the comments here go on to 600. If the conversation were valuable, that would be one thing. But time and again, Mr. Wakefield’s supporters have resorted to falsehood, and personal attack against people in this discussion. There is no value in continuing that.

      Mr. Wakefield is encouraged to take whatever case he believes he has to the BMJ. As I noted in the blog post above, many “facts” in the Lancet article do not match the information given in the records discussed at the GMC hearing. Records that Mr. Wakefield had access to at the time. In the discussion we have uncovered yet more inconsistencies. Ironically, those were uncovered by people attempting to defend Andrew Wakefield. But, after providing the full quotes, rather than the carefully cherry-picked data, it was clear that the facts and the report in the Lancet do not mesh.

      The Andrew Wakefield story has done siphoned a lot of energy away from the autism communities. This discussion has been a bit of a microcosm of that, with much energy wasted in countering misinformation and falsehood.

      The facts are clear.

      Mr. Wakefield was wrong. He was wrong when he tried to link MMR and autism.
      Mr. Wakefield committed several ethics violations in the process of doing his work
      Mr. Wakefield’s reported results do not match the facts.
      Mr. Wakefield had multiple undeclared conflicts of interest through his business schemes and his position as an expert consultant to the MMR litigation.

      He has no one to blame but himself. He has a lot of people to apologize to.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: