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.
Left Brain Right Brain 
Dedj January 17th, 2011 19:16:19
Dissembling. Yes he does. Deal with here January 17, 2011 8:58 AM – Misdirected criticism by someone from whom I would never have expected it
We need Mr Deer’s answer.
CORRECTION “dealt with here”
“For Deer, to keep so,so quiet, a bit strange somewhat,is it not??”
He hasn’t been quiet.
CHS:
“Dissembling”
To accuse someone of ‘dissembling’ is to accuse them of concealing true intentions or to be intentionally misleading.
What do you believe my post is attempting to conceal? What do you believe is intentionally misleading?
“Dealt with here”
No, it wasn’t. Repeating an assertion does not make it true.
The BMJ have no responsibility to answer any and all questions. The responsiblity you are attempting to claim they have only extends to “scientific peer review”, a category in which neither your nor John Stones questions can be deemed to qualify.
The BMJ have no responsibility to answer questions that are poorly argued, badly constructed, or which do not faithfully recount the situation, or which do not accurately deal with the material at hand.
If Mr Deer does ever deign to answer your questions, you should consider it to be a sign that he has had a very slow week.
As long as you fail to properly address the concerns that have been put to you and about you, you have no standing to demand the same of Deer.
I await the data that I have requested multiple times. Failure to respond with a direct reference by the end of next week will be taken as confirmation that such data does not exist, i.e. that the context and interpretation of Child 8 that has been argued by Sullivan is the factually correct and clinically valid one.
Get to it, boyo.
Dedj, instead of continuing to go round and round with these hatstands, AWOL/One Queer Fish and Cliff Miller/CHS, who will clearly never accept the evidence, who can only caterwaul on the interwebz and who dishonestly insist that Deer is silent on the matter, might I suggest the considerably more productive and less painful activity of ramming your head full-on into a concrete wall?
This is what these two do, it is their raison d’être, given they don’t seem to have much of a life otherwise. Let them fall into even deeper obscurity where they belong.
Dedj – January 17th, 2011 20:13:10
Is this a British pantomime? “Oh yes it is” – “Oh no it isn’t”. “Look out behind you.”:-
Very strange from “La la la I can’t hear you.”
Dedj can you tell “La la la I can’t hear you.”
to remove his fingers from his ears and stop singing
huge ammount of people want to speak to “La la la I can’t hear you.”
P.S. We would like to hear from you Brian
Dedj,
as you can see, ChildHealthSafety and AWOL stopped conversing and are just making noise at this point. They are trying to manufacture a controversy about Brian Deer to deflect attention away from Andrew Wakefield’s multiple ethical lapses.
Brian Deer broke details about the children’s medical history in a news story last year. If people felt there was a real legal problem with him having access to the information he has discussed, a lawsuit would have ensued then. The group of the Lancet 12 parents who still back Mr. Wakefield (only 9 of the parents signed on to the letter last I saw) could easily obtain the financial backing to bring suit if they felt that their rights were infringed upon. They didn’t then and there’s no indication that they are now.
So, other than in comments here, RI and on the CHS blog (which apparently no one is reading or CHS would have made good on his word to take his leave of us here) where has anything been “put to Mr. Deer”?
The sad thing is that ChildHealthSafety started out as really the only person trying to defend Andrew Wakefield with actual facts. AWOL is far more typical in approach in that he/she posts comments mostly devoid of facts and certainly has stayed clear of actually addressing the very serious allegations made by the BMJ (or the offenses found proved by the GMC, for that matter). CHS showed why people don’t try to defend Mr. Wakefield on the facts: the facts are against him. CHS only dug a deeper hole by exposing misrepresentations by Mr. Wakefield in his book.
1) Andrew Wakefield was wrong. There is no association between MMR and autism. His data doesn’t even suggest an association, when misrepresentations are removed.
2) Andrew Wakefield lied, repeatedly, about his conflicts of interest. He lied even to his own colleagues, who learned of the COI’s from Brian Deer.
Let’s not forgot that he subjected children, disabled children, far more than just the Lancet 12, to invasive procedures in order to collect data for the litigation he was actively assisting and was actively hiding.
The question is not whether Mr. Wakefield should have been struck off and his research discredited. The question at hand is how many offenses he was guilty of that would have caused his fate–a fate of his own making.
AWOL January 17th, 2011 20:49:52
LOL.
“And this is rich:”
No, it isn’t.
You are the one making demands of Deer without providing justification for why he should meet those demands.
You are already in a discussion regarding Child 8, and have already claimed to have knowledge of Child 8.
It is thus entirely reasonable to expect you to actually have that knowledge. As we are already engaged on Child 8, it is not unreasonable to ask you for details that you should already be aware of and be in possession of, especially as you should have been the one to bring these details up first.
If you’re going to try to pull a “I know you are, but what am I?2 style stunt again, please do it in a way that actually makes sense.
You are very clearly making demands of another person when you clearly cannot meet the same demands yourself. What another person does or does not do has no bearing on whether or not I can point out the discrepancy.
Unless you wish to accuse me of being Brian Deer, your retort is both illogical and does not answer any of the concerns put to you. Effectively, you’ve made my arguement for me.
Dedj,
you’ve got it right, they have devolved into a rather childish game. But at least ChildHealthSafety tried to work from the facts at first. And, now, he’s at least giving the full quote from the developmental eval.
But he wants us to believe that a child was found to be “normal” and they held another evaluation a few months later. Strains credulity, doesn’t it? That an evaluator would say want to return so shortly after testing a “normal” child. In addition to that, CHS’s thesis is that the child had regressed dramatically in that period, but the assessor didn’t note, “this child changed dramatically in the past few months” but, instead, says that he “confirms” the delay.
I realize this is a rewrite of your statement below:
1. as you can see, ChildHealthSafety and AWOL stopped conversing and are just making noise at this point. They are trying to manufacture a controversy about Brian Deer to deflect attention away from Andrew Wakefield’s multiple ethical lapses.
Brian Deer broke details about the children’s medical history in a news story last year.
Not so quick Sullivan.. Deer had access to the medical records of the Lancet 12 children long before the GMC hearing, which is apparently illegal
If people felt there was a real legal problem with him having access to the information he has discussed, a lawsuit would have ensued then.
Here’s a Lancet 12 parent’s recent complaint to the BMJ for his most recent article:
The group of the Lancet 12 parents who still back Mr. Wakefield (only 9 of the parents signed on to the letter last I saw) could easily obtain the financial backing to bring suit if they felt that their rights were infringed upon.
Two live abroad and couldn’t be contacted all 10 in the UK signed. The 2 abroad I believe now wish to sign also.No libel,while the GMC appeal is still open.
They didn’t then and there’s no indication that they are now.
As above complaints have been flying in I believe from all the Lancet 12 to various controlling bodies.Ever hear of the domino effect ,Sullivan?
So, other than in comments here, RI and on the CHS blog (which apparently no one is reading or CHS would have made good on his word to take his leave of us here) where has anything been “put to Mr. Deer”?
As above complaints have been sent in and questions are waiting to be answered from lawyers to Deer, maybe he’s been advised to keep his shit hole shut, once and for all.
The sad thing is that ChildHealthSafety started out as really the only person trying to defend Andrew Wakefield with actual facts.
I can think of several on here and goodness knows how many postings and posters have not had the privalige of posting on here .I myself have had at least 5 posts stopped from being posted…selective and biased spring to mind.
AWOL is far more typical in approach in that he/she posts comments mostly devoid of facts and certainly has stayed clear of actually addressing the very serious allegations made by the BMJ (or the offenses found proved by the GMC, for that matter).
For the reason only I don’t wish to repeat questions that are similar to CHS.
CHS showed why people don’t try to defend Mr. Wakefield on the facts:
Eh!Still Dr …
the facts are against him. CHS only dug a deeper hole by exposing misrepresentations by Mr. Wakefield in his book.
Now that’s a laugh!!ha,ha,ha,
1) Andrew Wakefield was wrong. There is no association between MMR and autism. His data doesn’t even suggest an association, when” So all the organisations below that support Wakefield are WRONG,and all the studies below are WRONG on whos says ..Deer of course??
2)
3) Age of Autism
Autism Action Network
Autism Media Channel
Autism One
Autism File Global
Autism Research Institute
Elizabeth Birt Center for Autism Law and Advocacy
Generation Rescue
National Autism Association
Schafer Autism Report
TACA-Talk About Curing Autism
The Autism Trust USA/UK
The Coalition for SafeMinds
Unlocking Autism
The following peer-reviewed papers support Dr. Wakefield’s original findings:
Furlano R, Anthony A, Day R, Brown A, Mc Garvey L, Thomson M, et al. “Colonic CD8 and T cell filtration with epithelial damage in children with autism.” J Pediatr 2001;138:366-72.
Sabra S, Bellanti JA, Colon AR. “Ileal lymphoid hyperplasia, non-specific colitis and pervasive developmental disorder in children”. The Lancet 1998;352:234-5.
Torrente F., Machado N., Perez-Machado M., Furlano R., Thomson M., Davies S., Wakefield AJ, Walker-Smith JA, Murch SH. “Enteropathy with T cell infiltration and epithelial IgG deposition in autism.” Molecular Psychiatry. 2002;7:375-382.
Wakefield AJ, Anthony A, Murch SH, Thomson M, Montgomery SM, Davies S, Walker-Smith JA. “Enterocolitis in children with developmental disorder.” American Journal of Gastroenterology 2000;95:2285-2295.
Ashwood P, Anthony A, Pellicer AA, Torrente F, Wakefield AJ. “Intestinal lymphocyte populations in children with regressive autism: evidence for extensive mucosal immunopathology.” Journal of Clinical Immunology, 2003;23:504-517.
The following peer-reviewed papers replicate Dr. Wakefield’s original findings:
Gonzalez, L. et al., “Endoscopic and Histological Characteristics of the Digestive Mucosa in Autistic Children with gastro-Intestinal Symptoms”. Arch Venez Pueric Pediatr, 2005;69:19-25.
Balzola, F., et al., “Panenteric IBD-like disease in a patient with regressive autism shown for the first time by wireless capsule enteroscopy: Another piece in the jig-saw of the gut-brain syndrome?” American Journal of Gastroenterology, 2005. 100(4): p. 979- 981.
Balzola F et al . “Autistic enterocolitis: confirmation of a new inflammatory bowel disease in an Italian cohort of patients.” Gastroenterology 2005;128(Suppl. 2);A-303.
These are the articles on treatment of gastrointestinal symptoms in autistic children:
Buie T, et al. Pediatrics. 2010 Jan;125 Suppl 1:S19-29. Recommendations for evaluation and treatment of common gastrointestinal problems in children with ASDs.
Buie T, et al. Pediatrics. 2010 Jan;125 Suppl 1:S1-18. Evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of gastrointestinal disorders in individuals with ASDs: a consensus report.
misrepresentations are removed.
Andrew Wakefield lied, repeatedly, about his conflicts of interest. He lied even to his own colleagues, who learned of the COI’s from Brian Deer.
So says “La la la I can’t hear you.” Well then one person against the parents, all the organisations above, all the scientists above …I could go on..
Let’s not forgot that he subjected children, disabled children, far more than just the Lancet 12, to invasive procedures in order to collect data for the litigation he was actively assisting and was actively hiding.
HAS ANYONE COMPLAINED APART FROM “La la la I can’t hear you.”
The question is not whether Mr. Wakefield should have been struck off and his research discredited. The question at hand is how many offenses he was guilty of that would have caused his fate—a fate of his own making.
Premature to discuss a fate the GMC appeal has still to run..
“La la la I can’t hear you.” is rapidly developing own-goal status for the pro vaccine lobby. Fingers out yet Brian???
1. as you can see, ChildHealthSafety and AWOL stopped conversing and are just making noise at this point. They are trying to manufacture a controversy about Brian Deer to deflect attention away from Andrew Wakefield’s multiple ethical lapses.
Brian Deer broke details about the children’s medical history in a news story last year.
Not so quick Sullivan.. Deer had access to the medical records of the Lancet 12 children long before the GMC hearing, which is apparently illegal
http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/01/keeping-anderson-cooper-honest-is-brian-deer-the-fraud.html
If people felt there was a real legal problem with him having access to the information he has discussed, a lawsuit would have ensued then.
Here’s a Lancet 12 parent’s recent complaint to the BMJ for his most recent article:
http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/01/keeping-anderson-cooper-honest-is-brian-deer-the-fraud.html
The group of the Lancet 12 parents who still back Mr. Wakefield (only 9 of the parents signed on to the letter last I saw) could easily obtain the financial backing to bring suit if they felt that their rights were infringed upon.
Two live abroad and couldn’t be contacted all 10 in the UK signed. The 2 abroad I believe now wish to sign also. No libel, while the GMC appeal is still open.
They didn’t then and there’s no indication that they are now.
As above complaints have been flying in I believe from all the Lancet 12 to various controlling bodies.Ever hear of the domino effect ,Sullivan?
So, other than in comments here, RI and on the CHS blog (which apparently no one is reading or CHS would have made good on his word to take his leave of us here) where has anything been “put to Mr. Deer”?
As above complaints have been sent in and questions are waiting to be answered from lawyers to Deer, maybe he’s been advised to keep his shit hole shut, once and for all.
The sad thing is that ChildHealthSafety started out as really the only person trying to defend Andrew Wakefield with actual facts.
I can think of several on here and goodness knows how many postings and posters have not had the privilege of posting on here .I myself have had at least 5 posts stopped from being posted…selective and biased spring to mind.
AWOL is far more typical in approach in that he/she posts comments mostly devoid of facts and certainly has stayed clear of actually addressing the very serious allegations made by the BMJ (or the offenses found proved by the GMC, for that matter).
For the reason only I don’t wish to repeat questions that are similar to CHS.
CHS showed why people don’t try to defend Mr. Wakefield on the facts:
Eh! Still Dr …
the facts are against him. CHS only dug a deeper hole by exposing misrepresentations by Mr. Wakefield in his book.
Now that’s a laugh!!ha,ha,ha,
Andrew Wakefield was wrong. There is no association between MMR and autism. His data doesn’t even suggest an association, when”
1)
2) So all the organisations below that support Wakefield are WRONG, and all the studies below are WRONG on who’s says ..Deer of course??
3)
4) Age of Autism
Autism Action Network
Autism Media Channel
Autism One
Autism File Global
Autism Research Institute
Elizabeth Birt Center for Autism Law and Advocacy
Generation Rescue
National Autism Association
Schafer Autism Report
TACA-Talk About Curing Autism
The Autism Trust USA/UK
The Coalition for SafeMinds
Unlocking Autism
The following peer-reviewed papers support Dr. Wakefield’s original findings:
Furlano R, Anthony A, Day R, Brown A, Mc Garvey L, Thomson M, et al. “Colonic CD8 and T cell filtration with epithelial damage in children with autism.” J Pediatr 2001;138:366-72.
Sabra S, Bellanti JA, Colon AR. “Ileal lymphoid hyperplasia, non-specific colitis and pervasive developmental disorder in children”. The Lancet 1998;352:234-5.
Torrente F., Machado N., Perez-Machado M., Furlano R., Thomson M., Davies S., Wakefield AJ, Walker-Smith JA, Murch SH. “Enteropathy with T cell infiltration and epithelial IgG deposition in autism.” Molecular Psychiatry. 2002;7:375-382.
Wakefield AJ, Anthony A, Murch SH, Thomson M, Montgomery SM, Davies S, Walker-Smith JA. “Enterocolitis in children with developmental disorder.” American Journal of Gastroenterology 2000;95:2285-2295.
Ashwood P, Anthony A, Pellicer AA, Torrente F, Wakefield AJ. “Intestinal lymphocyte populations in children with regressive autism: evidence for extensive mucosal immunopathology.” Journal of Clinical Immunology, 2003;23:504-517.
The following peer-reviewed papers replicate Dr. Wakefield’s original findings:
Gonzalez, L. et al., “Endoscopic and Histological Characteristics of the Digestive Mucosa in Autistic Children with gastro-Intestinal Symptoms”. Arch Venez Pueric Pediatr, 2005;69:19-25.
Balzola, F., et al., “Panenteric IBD-like disease in a patient with regressive autism shown for the first time by wireless capsule enteroscopy: Another piece in the jig-saw of the gut-brain syndrome?” American Journal of Gastroenterology, 2005. 100(4): p. 979- 981.
Balzola F et al . “Autistic enterocolitis: confirmation of a new inflammatory bowel disease in an Italian cohort of patients.” Gastroenterology 2005;128(Suppl. 2);A-303.
These are the articles on treatment of gastrointestinal symptoms in autistic children:
Buie T, et al. Pediatrics. 2010 Jan;125 Suppl 1:S19-29. Recommendations for evaluation and treatment of common gastrointestinal problems in children with ASDs.
Buie T, et al. Pediatrics. 2010 Jan;125 Suppl 1:S1-18. Evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of gastrointestinal disorders in individuals with ASDs: a consensus report.
misrepresentations are removed.
5)
2) Andrew Wakefield lied, repeatedly, about his conflicts of interest. He lied even to his own colleagues, who learned of the COI’s from Brian Deer.
So says “La la la I can’t hear you.” Well then one person against the parents, all the organisations above, all the scientists above …I could go on..
Let’s not forgot that he subjected children, disabled children, far more than just the Lancet 12, to invasive procedures in order to collect data for the litigation he was actively assisting and was actively hiding.
HAS ANYONE COMPLAINED APART FROM “La la la I can’t hear you.”
The question is not whether Mr. Wakefield should have been struck off and his research discredited. The question at hand is how many offenses he was guilty of that would have caused his fate—a fate of his own making.
Premature to discuss a fate the GMC appeal has still to run..
“La la la I can’t hear you.” is rapidly developing own-goal status for the pro vaccine lobby. Fingers out yet Brian???
1. as you can see, ChildHealthSafety and AWOL stopped conversing and are just making noise at this point. They are trying to manufacture a controversy about Brian Deer to deflect attention away from Andrew Wakefield’s multiple ethical lapses.
Brian Deer broke details about the children’s medical history in a news story last year.
Not so quick Sullivan.. Deer had access to the medical records of the Lancet 12 children long before the GMC hearing, which is apparently illegal
http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/01/keeping-anderson-cooper-honest-is-brian-deer-the-fraud.html
If people felt there was a real legal problem with him having access to the information he has discussed, a lawsuit would have ensued then.
Here’s a Lancet 12 parent’s recent complaint to the BMJ for his most recent article:
http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/01/keeping-anderson-cooper-honest-is-brian-deer-the-fraud.html
The group of the Lancet 12 parents who still back Mr. Wakefield (only 9 of the parents signed on to the letter last I saw) could easily obtain the financial backing to bring suit if they felt that their rights were infringed upon.
Two live abroad and couldn’t be contacted all 10 in the UK signed. The 2 abroad I believe now wish to sign also. No libel, while the GMC appeal is still open.
They didn’t then and there’s no indication that they are now.
As above complaints have been flying in I believe from all the Lancet 12 to various controlling bodies.Ever hear of the domino effect ,Sullivan?
So, other than in comments here, RI and on the CHS blog (which apparently no one is reading or CHS would have made good on his word to take his leave of us here) where has anything been “put to Mr. Deer”?
As above complaints have been sent in and questions are waiting to be answered from lawyers to Deer, maybe he’s been advised to keep his shit hole shut, once and for all.
The sad thing is that ChildHealthSafety started out as really the only person trying to defend Andrew Wakefield with actual facts.
I can think of several on here and goodness knows how many postings and posters have not had the privilege of posting on here .I myself have had at least 5 posts stopped from being posted…selective and biased spring to mind.
AWOL is far more typical in approach in that he/she posts comments mostly devoid of facts and certainly has stayed clear of actually addressing the very serious allegations made by the BMJ (or the offenses found proved by the GMC, for that matter).
For the reason only I don’t wish to repeat questions that are similar to CHS.
CHS showed why people don’t try to defend Mr. Wakefield on the facts:
Eh! Still Dr …
the facts are against him. CHS only dug a deeper hole by exposing misrepresentations by Mr. Wakefield in his book.
Now that’s a laugh!!ha,ha,ha,
Andrew Wakefield was wrong. There is no association between MMR and autism. His data doesn’t even suggest an association, when”
1)
2) So all the organisations below that support Wakefield are WRONG, and all the studies below are WRONG on who’s says ..Deer of course??
3)
4) Age of Autism
Autism Action Network
Autism Media Channel
Autism One
Autism File Global
Autism Research Institute
Elizabeth Birt Center for Autism Law and Advocacy
Generation Rescue
National Autism Association
Schafer Autism Report
TACA-Talk About Curing Autism
The Autism Trust USA/UK
The Coalition for SafeMinds
Unlocking Autism
The following peer-reviewed papers support Dr. Wakefield’s original findings:
Furlano R, Anthony A, Day R, Brown A, Mc Garvey L, Thomson M, et al. “Colonic CD8 and T cell filtration with epithelial damage in children with autism.” J Pediatr 2001;138:366-72.
Sabra S, Bellanti JA, Colon AR. “Ileal lymphoid hyperplasia, non-specific colitis and pervasive developmental disorder in children”. The Lancet 1998;352:234-5.
Torrente F., Machado N., Perez-Machado M., Furlano R., Thomson M., Davies S., Wakefield AJ, Walker-Smith JA, Murch SH. “Enteropathy with T cell infiltration and epithelial IgG deposition in autism.” Molecular Psychiatry. 2002;7:375-382.
Wakefield AJ, Anthony A, Murch SH, Thomson M, Montgomery SM, Davies S, Walker-Smith JA. “Enterocolitis in children with developmental disorder.” American Journal of Gastroenterology 2000;95:2285-2295.
Ashwood P, Anthony A, Pellicer AA, Torrente F, Wakefield AJ. “Intestinal lymphocyte populations in children with regressive autism: evidence for extensive mucosal immunopathology.” Journal of Clinical Immunology, 2003;23:504-517.
The following peer-reviewed papers replicate Dr. Wakefield’s original findings:
Gonzalez, L. et al., “Endoscopic and Histological Characteristics of the Digestive Mucosa in Autistic Children with gastro-Intestinal Symptoms”. Arch Venez Pueric Pediatr, 2005;69:19-25.
Balzola, F., et al., “Panenteric IBD-like disease in a patient with regressive autism shown for the first time by wireless capsule enteroscopy: Another piece in the jig-saw of the gut-brain syndrome?” American Journal of Gastroenterology, 2005. 100(4): p. 979- 981.
Balzola F et al . “Autistic enterocolitis: confirmation of a new inflammatory bowel disease in an Italian cohort of patients.” Gastroenterology 2005;128(Suppl. 2);A-303.
These are the articles on treatment of gastrointestinal symptoms in autistic children:
Buie T, et al. Pediatrics. 2010 Jan;125 Suppl 1:S19-29. Recommendations for evaluation and treatment of common gastrointestinal problems in children with ASDs.
Buie T, et al. Pediatrics. 2010 Jan;125 Suppl 1:S1-18. Evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of gastrointestinal disorders in individuals with ASDs: a consensus report.
misrepresentations are removed.
Andrew Wakefield lied, repeatedly, about his conflicts of interest. He lied even to his own colleagues, who learned of the COI’s from Brian Deer.
So says “La la la I can’t hear you.” Well then one person against the parents, all the organisations above, all the scientists above …I could go on..
Let’s not forgot that he subjected children, disabled children, far more than just the Lancet 12, to invasive procedures in order to collect data for the litigation he was actively assisting and was actively hiding.
HAS ANYONE COMPLAINED APART FROM “La la la I can’t hear you.”
The question is not whether Mr. Wakefield should have been struck off and his research discredited. The question at hand is how many offenses he was guilty of that would have caused his fate—a fate of his own making.
Premature to discuss a fate the GMC appeal has still to run..
“La la la I can’t hear you.” is rapidly developing own-goal status for the pro vaccine lobby. Fingers out yet Brian???
AWOL,
let’s see, Brian Deer’s actions are “apparently” illegal and your source for that isn’t any law, but the blog “Age of Autism”?
Your appeal to authority is a list of autism organizations (plus the Age of Autism, a business venture by autism community outsider Dan Olmsted)? Do I have any difficulty thinking that these groups, many of whom are currently paying Andrew Wakefield as a spokesperson, as wrong? Doesn’t take an instant to accept that they can be, and in this case are, wrong. They’ve already shown themselves to be willing to use lies in an effort to smear Brian Deer with the claim that he was started on and supported for 4 years by a “pharma front group”.
You cite the papers that they try to pass off as “independent confirmation” of Mr. Wakefield’s work. Besides padding out your multiple posts, they aren’t independent and they don’t replicate his work. They certainly don’t replicate his assertions that the MMR vaccine could be causal in autism.
I just submitted a 3 page reply but Ben discarded it ..probably chs did the same…
ChildHealthSafety, you should know that assessments of intelligence and development are not one in the same thing. The child you refer to ad nauseum was clearly causing concerns from a developmental point of view for quite some time. A child who was developing normally would not have been referred for ongoing observation and assessment as this child was.
What ChildHealthSafety is currently doing is making a jackass of himself there is simply no other way to describe it. Wakefield was explicitly told it was the opinion of the developmental pediatrician that child 8’s developmental problems began pre-MMR. Wakefield then ignored Dr. Houlsby’s expert opinion, and retrospectively assessed child 8 as developmentally normal prior to MMR despite having no grounds (or particular expertise) to do so. He falsely implies within Callous Disregard that Dr. Houlsby had made a definitive statement that child 8 was developmentally normal prior to MMR, which is not the case. The only evidence Wakefield presents in defense of this interpretation is a heavily truncated extract of of Dr. Houlsby 18 months assessment, within which it is categorically stated by Dr. Houlsby that he was unable to complete the assessment to a satisfactory level to either diagnose or rule out a developmental disorder. He also made it extremely clear in information that was relayed to Wakefield that he remained significantly concerned about child 8’s development following this assessment. Hence what grounds did Wakefield have to definitively report within his study that child 8 was developmentally normal prior to MMR? None.
Furthermore at the GMC hearing Sir Michael Rutter arguably the foremost child psychiatrist in Britain was asked to review Child 8’s case history. He concluded: “there does not seem much doubt that there was some sort of pervasive developmental disorder that could be regarded as falling on the autism spectrum at an earlier point.”
The only one who seems to be having trouble reading things objectively as a scientist appears to be Mr. Miller.
Sullivan if I can interrupt your childish huddle with Dedj and bring you both , the sad news (for you Sulliavan ,Dedj, and “La la la I can’t hear you.”) uummm. .conflict of interest, peer reviewed, GMC panel springs to mind.
Very likely “ la,la, I can’t hear you” shall have to withdraw his article wont you Mr Deer…coincidence or was Marcovitch the Patsy, and the Patsy is always last to know…
http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/01/harvey-marcovitch-and-brian-deers-investigation-the-lord-high-everything-else.html
Why the dishonesty ?why are you all trying to limit discussion?.
AWOL, let me explain your problem. You’re trying to protect Wakefield by discrediting Deer, which seems like a logical step. The problem is, the physical evidence is still there, so your actions are completely meaningless.
Grey Falcon,
very true. The way I tend to put it is this: let’s assume that Brian Deer is everything and more that people accuse him of (he isn’t, but let’s assume). Does that excuse Andrew Wakefield for his multiple ethical failures?
This is why people are trying to shape the message that “one lone journalist” is behind all the allegations. We are supposed to ignore the evidence collected, ignore the findings of the GMC, ignore the fact that his data supposedly linking MMR to autism failed to be replicated, ignore basically everything except what Andrew Wakefield has said and written.
The thing is, I have read and listened to Andrew Wakefield. He fails miserably when put to the truth test.
Grey Falcon and Sullivan,
Deer has discredited everything he has written thanks to his non reply to explain glaring inaccuracies in his latest article.
“why people are trying to shape the message that “one lone journalist” is behind all the allegations.”
I detect Sulliavan that your trying to spread the blame for the obvious collapse of Deer .The longer Deer and the BMJ commits to non reply the worse the collapse will be(I feel for him) two fingers down the throat and puke.
Dr Wakefield`s work has been replicated world wide as I posted above.
BoB January 18th, 2011 09:36:25 said:-
Really? Where does it say that? This is what the GMC transcripts show the developmental history of Child 8 shows a history development within the “normal range” with a dramatic regression three weeks after MMR as recorded by the specialist developmental pediatrician [not part of the Royal Free Hospital or the Lancet team]:-
23 December 1994 (approx 18 months) – developmental pediatrician wrote:
27 January, 1995: MMR vaccination
17 February 1995: The developmental pediatrician writes three weeks after MMR:
Ah, back to cherry picking the December 1994 report. A report which clearly stated that the doctor was unable to complete a satisfactory evaluation.
Does the UK have such a surplus of developmental pediatricians that they revisit normal children after only 2 months? Are they so poor at their job that they don’t make note of a child who was “normal” in December but in February, after an assessment of global developmental delay, the doctor says “general examination is unremakable”?
Sorry, CHS, failure to alert the public about this is clear misrepresentation.
How about the other failings of Mr. Wakefield in his paper? I see that you studiously ignore those.
Sullivan – January 18th, 2011 – 20:42:39 said:-
Off topic and old territory. The Lancet Paper stated all these children had:
Child 8’s history showed her development was “within the normal range” shown just above from the GMC transcripts January 18th, 2011. That shows the relevant “history” for development.
That is accurately recorded in The Lancet paper including what was said about Child 8 specifically:
No misrepresentation.
End of.
ChildHealthSafety,
you are taking us back over the same ground over and over again. Child 8 was one of the multiple children misrepresented by Mr. Wakefield.
No, it hasn’t: http://justthevax.blogspot.com/2010/02/independent-wakefield-way-really.html
That’s five off your list. Pick another and tell me how it replicates Waker’s work.
Science Mom,
you’re a “blogger for Pharma”! We can’t listen to you! Who cares about your so-called “facts” when they disagree with the official approved Wakefield script?
OR, to summarize, Wakefield didn’t alter the story as he told it in the Lancet, and I can prove it because it’s consistent with what’s in the Lancet. Which follows from what you said earlier, which was attempting to back up Wakefield’s claims by citing “Callous Disregard”.
WTF? I mean, seriously, that is my reaction to that. How can you possibly think that even constitutes an argument?
(Okay, I do get what you’re saying, that you’re saying the Lancet is consistent with the GMC — except that it’s not. The only thing it’s consistent with is Wakefield’s claims. Be careful with the circular logic; it will only make you dizzy.)
Cheating
——–
Let us pretend that everything CHS says about the children is true (we are pretending, after all). That doesn’t means Wakefield is innocent. Because he left out contradictory information consistently, that didn’t support his argument.
So all the question about what this consultant said or that consultant said are ultimately irrelevant if there is a clear pattern of excluding information that contradicts his case. And the easiest example is child 8’s referral letter because it was require and was sent to Wakefield. It ‘reiterates’ the view of the GP and her team that the child was not developmentally normal before MMR. It reiterates, in another words Dr. Jelley told him at least once before.
Science Mom .I had a look at your blog and it is very disappointing, at best derisible. I thought SHIT I am now going to read through pages of peer reviewed comment nothing just a Pharma bloggers opinion. It’s the same with when Deer was asked why Autism rates have spiralled if its not vaccination ,Deer responds, “I don’t know, I am not a doctor.” Fair enough. Yet why did they hire at best a “free- lance” journalist to “investigate” and evaluate the complex medical records of sick children with autism? Insane.
Anyone is free to “investigate” and report anything they want but our government doesn’t commission wacky reporters or Bloggers off the streets to evaluate children’s confidential and complex medical histories. Why would I risk my child on your say so, a blogger for Pharma??
Sulliavan and Calli,
Seem ,to have a problem with, the detail in The Lancet. Is the Pharma Cartel, going to sacrifice the Lancet for the greater good??Why blame CHS he`s just reporting what the Lancet supports ??
“La la la I can’t hear you.” (havent you Brian) has said ,over the last, couple of years ,that, peer review journals are full of fraud. Horton and Goldacre seem the obvious targets.. Time to come out and talk, Brian, the snowball is huge…
Sullivan January 18th, 2011 21:58:08
No. This was a response to someone else taking us back over that ground.
All there is here is argument and supposition.
What is needed is for Mr Deer to answer the queries.
Still waiting.
Still waiting for Mr. Deer? Have you checked the BMJ website?
https://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2011/01/dowsing-for-data/
http://podcasts.bmj.com/bmj/2011/01/14/dowsing-for-data/
Jeez AWOL, you sound pretty pissed off about something. Perhaps you need a calming homeopathic remedy? While you are at it book in to get your chakras realigned. And maybe a purple chrystal in your left pocket for clarity and centredness.
Sullivan January 18th, 2011 23:40:16
Yep. No answers there. Tried his Guardian blog – no answers there [that is the one where he sets out his big conspiracy theories about everyone in medicine protecting Wakefield from Mr Deer’s fraud allegations – like, Dr Paul Offit, Dr Benjamin Goldacre, Dr Michael Fitzpatrick and Dr Evan Harris MP[-ex]. He thinks the BMJ and the Lancet are in on it and are an “insidious cartel” in British medical publishing. Bit odd all that.
Ben Goldacre posted – confused by Mr Deer’s attack on him and why no one was reporting Mr Deer’s great expose – but still nothing from Mr Deer.
Even the BMJ Deputy Editor Tricia Groves popped up to say they were taking the 5th Amendment and if no one liked it they could sue.
Then another journalist popped up and posted.
And in between loads of people with fun names posted.
But no Mr Deer and no answers.
Well, ChildHealthSafety,
whatever you are looking for in a statement by Brian Deer, it isn’t here. He isn’t part of this blog. He’s answered the question of how he was funded. He’s answered the question of why he as a journalist was involved in this. He’s answered the question of the children’s medical records.
The faux controversy you are creating around Mr. Deer is weak and it is telling. If you had the facts to defend Andrew Wakefield, you’d use them.
Ah, so predictably lazy and dishonest. The very tact you are taking with the Deer features. Don’t like my co-author’s assessments? Well then why don’t you pick one off of your list and tell me why it supports/replicates Waker’s work. I presume you have read them all, should be easy for you. Go on now.
Sullivan, I know right?
Science Mom,
are you actually asking him/her to back up her claims with discussion? Very optimistic of you. The discussion on your blog about the way Mr. Wakefield misrepresented the “independent confirmation” of his results was excellent. It inspired me to double check Mr. Wakefield’s citations whenever I had questions and time. It has shown me very clearly that (a) Mr. Wakefield uses citations which are often non-supportive of his claims and (b) it works. People echo his claims.
The sad thing is that I see this happening now with his supporters. A soon-to-be-release book uses the exact same tactic, with references which just fail upon inspection.
One that sticks in my mind was his claim in “Callous Disregard” that “This fact [Mr. Wakefield’s involvement as a medical expert] was also reported in the national press 15 months prior to publication[17].”
Citation 17 was this news article (found now on Brian Deer’s website), which doesn’t mention Andrew Wakefield at all. If you assume that “Royal Free Hospital” = “Andrew Wakefield”, I guess it would be a disclosure.
The funny thing is the above statement actually discloses the opposite of some of Mr. Wakefield’s key claims. It shows clearly that the children were indeed involved in litigation prior to the publication in the Lancet (and at the time of the research project Mr. Wakefield was conducting with them). It shows clearly that Dawbarns had an active hand in the research.
This all became crystal clear with the GMC hearing, and, yet, Mr. Wakefield still denies the facts.
Sullivan January 19th, 2011 02:20:19
Perspicacious of you. Just wanted to make sure he had gone to ground. Which he has – even on his own blog.
“BMJ peer reviewed author fails to answer” – pretty poor – and pretty poor for a journalist too.
The only reason we are still here is because you guys want to talk. If you stop commenting on our posts we can go away happy in the knowledge Mr Deer has vanished from the blogosphere when it comes to pertinent questions about his BMJ pieces.
But he reads it and posts here so he knows people are asking questions. He also is in communication with you and Kev and others who post here.
Who knows – some people think he is you and some people think he is Kev and some people think other things. That is the thing about anonymity on blogs – people can think you are anyone they want to. It has gotten people into difficulties in the past and will continue to in the future no doubt.
Nah and we are not asking that question here. He provided a response not an answer. What he has said raises many more questions and again he is not answering them. But we are not asking them here.
Nah. Don’t think so. And we are not asking that question here.
He provided a response not an answer. He has said why he was first hired to write stories in Feb 2004.
What he has said raises many more questions and again he is not answering them. But we are not asking them here.
He is clearly not involved in “this” as a journalist.
If he was not paid to attend the open GMC hearings [about 180 of the 200], that is not because he is a journalist. A jobbing journalist would never spend that amount of time unpaid.
And look at his obsessive website – hundreds of pages – if he was not paid to create that he has not been doing that for journalistic purposes.
The kinds of personal abusive and insulting remarks he publishes about people on his website and on blogs show he is not professional.
Nah. He has provided contradictory responses over time – not answers. What he has said raises many more questions and again he is not answering them.
Rhetoric. It is common on Kev’s blog for people to state exactly the opposite of what others have said.
Remember when Kev accused the Polings of being liars?
So, you want the last word? That’s what you seem to be saying CHS.
Brian Deer has not “gone to ground” as you assert. He has an interview in the BMJ podcast which answers many of your questions.
The fake controversy about Brian Deer is a convenient smokescreen. It allows you to avoid the multiple proven ethical violations of Andrew Wakefield. It allows you to avoid the fact that he was wrong about MMR and autism.
The MMR in UK which is directly or indirectly criticised by Andrew Wakefield in favour of a single vaccine for measles is from Merck.
Merck who are known to target and destroy those who criticise its products.
I have not seen this side of the debate discussed.
Also the nature of Deer and where he gets his money can only be answered if we know clearly where all moniers come from as we do for Andrew.
Has he (Deer) ever directly or indirectly received funding from Merck? And if so how much and when?
Also I believe autism with gut problems has been in the literature since the 70’s and is not first brought to light by the 13 from the Royal Free in the late 90’s.
John Fryer Chemist,
I somehow doubt Merck would be interested in paying Brian Deer given his treatment of Vioxx.
The notion that he is secretly funded by big pharma was shown to be a smear campaign when Andrew Wakefield and others concocted the idea and spread it publicly that he was funded by a “front group”. As I blogged, all one had to do is contact the supposed “front group” for accurate information. Not the first made up story by that team.
Sullivan,Sharon Science Mom ,
You all have to realise that you have been sucked in by psychopath Brian Deer.
To quote George Bush
:
There is an enemy that lurks, a dangerous group of
people that want to do harm to the American people.
Like Deer the vast majority of psychopaths are not crazed axe murderers Deer has no conscience he is manipulative, glib, deceptive, parasitic, irresponsible, selfish, callous, promiscuous, impulsive, antisocial, and aggressive.
His main defect—is his severe emotional detachment or a total lack of empathy and remorse ,for the children he names and shames constantly in his articles —and he conceals this lacking effectively ,to do him justice.
Science Mom if I were to take issue with one point in your article I ,could quicker write a follow up to “Origin Of The Species by Darwin ” and call it “Destruction Of The Species by Pharma bloggers”, your out on your own with that your Pharma science has nothing to do with safety of the Human Species, diametrically opposite in fact.
Sharon any freebies you can send me my way please do ,mind you Pharma products not welcome ,so pointless me leaving my address.
Sulliavan ,as above you need to get a life mate, all this blogging your starting to believe it yourself now ,soon you will be writing for Deer .
Oh!did I mention Deer any sight Offitt ,yet hear anything Offit yet?
AWOL,
You only make yourself look bad with smears like psychopath and axe murderers. I guess you are never going to discuss facts or address the serious questions posed by Andrew Wakefield’s ethical lapses.
Sullivan – January 19th, 2011 15:31:10
Can you post a link to it please?
CHS,
I did post a link to it and to my blog piece on it. You even responded to the comment. I already gathered that you ignored what I clearly indicated in favor of your own version of the facts.
“The only reason we are still here is because you guys want to talk. If you stop commenting on our posts we can go away happy in the knowledge Mr Deer has vanished from the blogosphere when it comes to pertinent questions about his BMJ pieces.”
In other words, if we shut up and stop indicating where you are factually wrong, you will claim victory.
Mr Deer has not been silent in answering questions, this has been indicated to you, including some links.
I went to his guardian blog. In order to find your posts within the noise I had to make judicious use of ctrl+f. In order to find your question, I had to scroll down a lot of text that barely touches on the article responded to. Other posts were even worse, often barely making sense and sometimes including no actual question.
In essence, a person with interest in finding your question and who knew where to look and who used a function to find it, still had trouble distinguishing your posts from the general background noise. I doubt Deer has the same level of time or interest to do the same.
Just because you want an answer doesn’t mean Deer has to answer, even assuming he’s seen your question at all, and assuming he views your question as worthwhile answering, given that his entire article is dedicated to providing exactly the data you ask for.
Just because you think your question is valid (it isn’t) and important (it isn’t) doesn’t mean anyone else has to.
We are here because you cannot and will not accept the word of Child 8’s developmental paediatrician, except for a small cherry-picked excerpt that provisionally appears to support your view, yet is clinically untenable.
As long as you continue to behave in this way, you will have your behaviour held up and examined.
Thanks Sullivan, it seems as though that post is being read quite a bit and Catherina deserves the credit for that. I posed that question to AWOL because I know that he hasn’t read any of those studies. I also know I will never get a relevant response (as evidenced a couple of comments above) because I never do from anyone who uses that Gish Gallup. If they had to actually examine the studies, it becomes so evident that they are not supportive of Wakefield’s work at all. But it is easier to not read them and continue to exist in their cognitive dissonance state.
Sullivan – January 19th, 2011 15:45:54
Thanks.
Here are the direct links to the podcast:-
Listen now
http://podcasts.bmj.com/bmj/2011/01/14/dowsing-for-data/#
Play in popup
http://podcasts.bmj.com/bmj/2011/01/14/dowsing-for-data/#
Download
[audio src="http://podcasts.bmj.com/themes/bmj/mp3/bmj-podcast-dowsing-for-data.mp3" /]
Yes, ChildHealthSafety, those are the links on the webpage I referred you to a while back.
https://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2011/01/7246/?preview=true&preview_id=7246&preview_nonce=c435c41faf#comment-128361
Perhaps you should have noticed that you weren’t paying attention when I mentioned “podcast” after that comment.
The bottom line in Mr Deer’s fraud allegations is there was and has been no fraud.
Wakefield did not generate the data or results provided by the other 12 specialist medical professionals at The Royal Free Hospital.
If Mr Deer wished to allege he did then he should have compared that data and those results with what is reported in The Royal Free Hospital team’s 1998 Lancet paper.
He did not. He already has confirmed he did not know what “prospective developmental record” means and that he has never seen any of the Lancet 12 childrens’ Red Books containing records of achievement of developmental milestones.
Wakefield faithfully reported the data and results provided to him and which he did not generate.
All other debates on the matter are pointless. Rummaging in transcripts of GP records and suchlike.
Ergo, case closed.
Goes without saying. It isn’t the point. Do you see that? The point is that he didn’t report accurately the data and results provided by the other 12 specialists, and the data available to him directly in terms of the records provided with the children’s intake. That’s why it is an accusation of fraud against Mr. Wakefield and not against his entire team.
Of course. Why go to the facts when you can read Mr. Wakefield’s book? What did Anderson Cooper say, “If you are lying in your paper, you are lying in your book”. Sorry, I’ll continue to fact check Mr. Wakefield rather than take his or your word.
The fact of the matter is that the Lancet article misrepresented the data on the children. Mr. Wakefield as senior author on the paper is the one responsible.
Science Mom ,Read it binned it…utter bollocks!!
Sullivan January 19th, 2011 – 19:18:12
.
That is not what Mr Deer appears to be saying. And it is not something he can say.
He not only has not produced the data and results the other 12 provided to Wakefield but he has never even seen any of the childrens’ Red Books containing prospective developmental records. So Mr Deer cannot even argue that.
That also is not what Mr Deer is saying. Mr Deer is saying Mr Wakefield changed the data and records but not a scrap of evidence has been produced of exactly what the other 12 provided to Mr Wakefield.
That does not take an allegation of fraud to base 1 let alone past it.
So what Mr Deer needs to do now is to start accusing all 13 of a conspiracy in the way he has accused the medical profession of conspiring to prevent this “fraud” being revealed by his enormous intellectual and journalist abilities and in the way he has accused the BMJ and the Lancet of being an insidious cartel inside medical publishing in Britain.
In fact, it seems he has already started accusing two of the others already by implication now that his main allegation is falling apart.
Maybe we will see all of them prosecuted for a fraud they did not commit?
Will Professor Sir Michael Rutter and others in the GMC hearings be a witness in that trial or will the medical profession conspire to prevent the alleged “fraud” being revealed?
“Mr Deer is saying Mr Wakefield changed the data and records”
Ah, the root of the misunderstanding. Tell me, specifically, where Mr. says that Mr. Wakefield changed the data and the records.
You can’t. Mr. Deer showed that Mr. Wakefield misrepresented the data and the records in his paper. Mr. Deer used the data and the records to substantiate his allegations.
Sullivan January 19th, 2011 20:38:58
Mr Deer has never produced the data and records the other 12 provided to Mr Wakefield and that is because he has never had or seen it.
Where exactly is the allegation that Mr Wakefield falsified the data and results provided to him by the other 12 Royal Free Hospital specialist medical professionals?
This includes in anything Mr Deer has published in the past 7 years including in his first 2004 Sunday Times articles.
And where exactly is set out the details of that data and those results?
Unless Mr Deer can provide them then the British Medical Journal stands in the position of making an allegation of fraud which it cannot substantiate.
Could Mr Deer answer that please?
CHS and AWOL add evidence to the multiverse theory. In our universe, I suggest either locking the comments or blocking CHS and AWOL.
“Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes time and annoys the pig”
Oh your list of citations alleged supporting Wakefield’s work? I absolutely agree. Well done sir.
Sheldon teaching pigs to sing ,can’t say Ive done that is that what they teach you at Pharma, Pharm ? how strange..Science Mom, might be able to help teach pigs , as its only pigs that agree and understand her blogger opinions’…and holds out, contradicting peer reviewed, on opinion Aye right..
No sign of Deer popping up to answer Lancet questions yet ?
Any takers? Mr Deer perhaps?
Contrary to what Mr Deer says, the records appear to show that Child 1 regressed after the MMR vaccine.
If Mr Deer wishes to cite evidence to the contrary, please can he indicate where it may be found?
The GMC transcript records that the referral letter to The Royal Free Hospital from Child 1’s family doctor stated:-
“[Child 1] initially developed normally, reaching the normal milestones until he was about 15 months old. He then regressed and has now been diagnosed as autistic …..”
That shows Child 1 had regressive autism. Mr Deer appears to be engaging in a semantic distinction without a difference.
“Regressive autism” not a formal diagnostic term under DSM IV or ICD 9 or 10 but is a term used to distinguish an autistic condition which appears to start at birth from an autistic condition which occurs after a period of normal development where the child regresses into an autistic condition.
And what did the family doctor records show?
Before MMR:-
“4.11.93”, which records that Child 1 is:
“New patient – recently posted from XXXX. Mum worried re hearing/wax in ears/? Discharge left ear … Reassured.”
MMR 19 January 1994
After MMR:-
“Little co-operation with psychomotor assessment. Will not obey. Tantrums when denied. Does not seem to understand or express speech very much.”
That is not the same child behaviourally but that is Child 1 before and after MMR.
Child 1 – Hearing
11.3.93 [age 2 months] Health visitor record:
“Hearing and development normal.”
12.8.93 [age 7 months] Health visitor record:
“Hearing and development normal.”
And the family doctor records as seen above shows that the family doctor reassured the mother about Child 1’s hearing on 4.11.93.
But after MMR on 19 January 1994 Child 1’s hearing was not normal according to the results of the audiology tests.
The records shows as of 27 February 1995:-
“Child 1 was tested by distraction technique using a variety of high and low frequency signals, namely to Voice, High Frequency Rattle, Low frequency Signal and the G Chime Bar. He responded at minimal levels to all these Msignals bilaterally. We are satisfied that Child 1’s hearing is adequate for normal development of speech and have discharged him from this clinic.””
But Child 1 did not develop normal speech and lost the few words gained prior to MMR.
Mr. Deer’s table has a question mark for Child 1’s regression. He does not say yes or no to whether the evidence is clear in this case. What he does state clearly is that child 1’s regression did not occur within days of the MMR vaccine. The data you provide confirms that. The MMR vaccine was given at 12 months. You are citing data claiming a regression at 15 months.
Here is another example of the methods you engage to make your case:
That quote is from his 21 month checkup. You make it appear as though it was directly after the MMR vaccine (at 12 months). In addition, you cherry pick the quote. Could it be that the last statement goes against your argument. Here is that quote in full:
Emphasis added.
“Physical exam and development–normal” At 21 months.
I think a question mark for whether this child regressed would be accurate.
It is very hard to justify why this conversation continues.
Once again, note the obsession with the identity of the one making the arguments. They’re demanding Mr. Deer come in himself to answer the questions, even though the answers are there in the evidence, for anyone to see. He doesn’t need to come in, the answers were already given in plain English, that’s all there is to it.
Sullivan January 20th, 2011 00:05:09
No. That is citing the GMC transcripts recording the family doctor [GP] referral letter to The Royal Free Hospital.
What Mr Deer failed to understand because he has no medical background is that the reason why it was thought these children had disintegrative disorder is because the regression is progressive over time.
The family doctor [GP] notes will be unlikely to record the first signs of onset of symptoms. What they do confirm is that by no later than 15 months the child had regressed into autism.
To ascertain first onset of symptoms requires a parental history.
Unfortunately for Mr Deer he simply wanted to claim the parents were lying to get money in a scam.
The reality of course is these parents had no idea what was happening to their child and watched a progressive deterioration over time – for some it would be faster than others.
It is terribly sad that these parents have been put through this horror by Mr Deer, but there we are, there is no turning back the clock.
Agreed it can be read that way. Not intentional. It was straightforward from the dates cited to see the regression into autism confirmed at 15 months and MMR at 12 months.
Which is data. Nice try at a diversion. You are citing data–from the GMC transcripts–claiming regression at 15 months.
“initially developed normally, reaching the normal milestones until he was about 15 months old. He then regressed….”
So, 3 months after MMR, he regressed, according to that statement. Not “no later than 15 months” as you now assert. It’s clear in the text you yourself cite.
That is well outside the window that Wakefield claimed “In these eight children the average interval from exposure to first behavioural symptoms was 6·3 days (range 1-14).”
“It is terribly sad that these parents have been put through this horror by Mr Deer”
It is terribly sad that disabled children were subjected to invasive tests that were not in their clinical interests.
You haven’t addressed the fact that you cherry picked again. At age 21 months:
It has been noticed that you have only just posted our comment from 6 hours ago – January 19th, 2011 20:49:21.
Anyone reading the latest comments could easily miss that and lose the sense of the thread and think that no reply was provided to Sullivan January 19th, 2011 20:38:58 when it was and 6 hours ago.
Looks like we are back to playing “will we won’t we post replies”?
ChildHealthSafety,
yep. I miss comments in the moderation queue sometimes. Sorry for the delay. But, since you said a long while back in this discussion that you were leaving for good, there’s no harm done, right?
Sullivan – January 20th, 2011 01:59:58
No. That is knowledge.
Data are raw facts and figures – not immediately useful e.g. AFO9724. Data on its own has no meaning. Data given meaning or context is information. Knowledge is having the ability to apply information i.e. is an understanding of “rules”. For example, “smoking can cause cancer”, “run and you will get there faster”. A “knowledge worker” is someone whose employment requires understanding rules related to a particular task. A doctor has an understanding of the rules of medicine, a lawyer understands the law.
The position is clear from the explanation already provided here January 20th, 2011 01:51:57.
People reading can make their own minds up, assuming any are other than ourselves.
Sullivan January 20th, 2011 02:26:42
No problem. Not life-threatening.
ChildHealthSafety:
Can I ask you a sincere question? If you really think these children have been put through horror by Brian Deer, what do you really think they were put through by Andrew Wakefield? A lumbar puncture is just a piece of cake, right? How about a colonoscopy? Now imagine you are a tiny child, and one who doesn’t understand English well yet. And you are asked to have a tube stuck up your butt. But that’s OK. Because that terribly charismatic doctor said you should have one.
The horror imposed on those kids was all on Wakefield’s part. It doesn’t matter how much in love the mothers were with Wakefield. What was done to those kids was just so far beyond the pale. And you sit there trying to find trivial excuses for this abhorrent behavior.
You call yourself “Childhealthsafety”. More like “If someone attractive tells me that my kid needs to be tortured, I’m going to accept that.” Safety, my butt.
Broken Link January 20th, 2011 02:53:23
There is an advantage in knowing some of the families whose children were treated at the Royal Free. An example is a family with several adult medical professionals including a pediatrician who was most grateful 1) that the child concerned was admitted to Walker-Smith’s clinic and 2) grateful to discover what had happened to the child. That remains the case to this day.
That is because the family was then put in a position in which they could implement measures to enable the child to recover partially, which the child did to the extent of being able to attend school normally which would not have been possible otherwise. There was very marked improvement but not a full recovery.
The child was an example of many rechallenge cases.
You feel the way you do because the parents’ stories have not been told. If you want to know more you should read “Silenced Witnesses” – there are two volumes and it is in paperback.
If the children were badly treated the parents would have been the first to step in and complain to the GMC but they did not because the children were seen for their clinical needs and treated.
What you also do not realise is that there were not just 12 children. There were children coming through to The Royal Free Hospital over several years earlier than and many more were seen and treated after the 12 reported in The Lancet.
If that many children were ill-treated in the way Mr Deer describes parents would have been coming forward with complaints in droves but they did not.
The only formal complaints were from Mr Deer.
Andrew Wakefield has produced more than 100 published papers and of course the fact one is in question naturally means all the others need examining.
But what about all the other papers produced like toilet rolls? Many a re self evidently rubbish. Papers by his rivals and opponents in the UK health system are pure garbage. Scott Taylor who can give lethal shots of organomercury compounds and convince readers the exposure is ZERO by subtracting 183 days from the age of the child when injected. Hardly good when a child is 183 days old.
Most individual papers by anyone are very lightweight material and only grow in significance when backed up by countless others.
The idea that autism people or a sub-set have gastro problems is now accepted and pre-dates the Royal Free work.
If you take a paper published every two months then this is the scope of the work and its merit.
To spend 12 years and many peoples expensive time including lawyers, doctors and jounalists shows to the ordinary person a clear and obvious Witch Hunt.
This paper was the work of two people and the role of Andrew Wakefield was that of a writer.
Without his input this work would rest as unpublished information. It had already expanded to several times the original study so the 12 patients represented a small number of those examined.
No child is normally diagnosed as autism before three years and the MMR is at one year.
People claiming prior autism states seem to be in advance of medical expertise even in 2011.
This paper is now very old and I sincerely believe that Andrew may have advanced his ideas on cause of autism from these early studies.
Even he would agree with many critics here that the source of most autism is earlier in life than the MMR.
To extend the criticism of Andrew to all the staff at the Royal Free is a bold and reckless move.
It does show that any paper and this one is no exception should be read with a public health warning.
But of course it was read to the public with a public health warning originally supported by his boss at the Royal Free, the editor of the Lancet, Horton and the PM, the Right Honorable Tony Blair.
Today most people have got off the boat except for Andrew Wakefield. The co-authors with two exceptions have escaped the backlash.
I think despite the huge amount of material so far in the public domain it merely shows to get full knowledge of what went on will be forever impossible.