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 
Honestly Miller, just STFU already, collect some donations from your JABS loonies mates and help Wakers sue BMJ, Deer and the Sunday Times. The fact that you are pleading your case on freakin blogs is a vapid gesture that is only deriving some satisfaction for yourself but doesn’t change the landscape of what the facts are one whit. I support Deer’s decision to refuse to engage you directly; it wouldn’t do any good and obviously has your knickers in a perma-wedge.
Science Mom January 21st, 2011 19:03:08
sheldon101 January 21st, 2011 18:56:38
Still waiting to hear from Mr Deer.
Now that doctors have been caught out by my witnesses they have sheepishly held up their hands and apologised – so at last the inaccuracies of his medical records have been acknowledged and things are looking up.
The point I am making is that much emphasis is placed on opinion and guesswork as being fact until such time as evidence to the contrary is supplied.
Opinion is what it is. Opinion is neither fact nor science. What’s more – ‘bad science’ is neither opinion, fact or science. Bad science does not exist for it is absolutely nothing.
Those who claim to be experts in bad science, therefore, are experts in zilch.
Thanks Science Mom – so where is Mr Deer, then? You didn’t say.
John, John, John
Over at Huff-Po you kept telling me that the rule for distinguishing medical research (which needed advance ethical approval) was Wakefield’s ferry tale. That as long as you were just doing normal treatment no advance ethics committee approval was needed. But if you were doing something in addition — like more lab tests on samples you already had permission to take it wasn’t research.
On the face of it, this is nuts. If a doctor thought up a new procedure on a patient before the doctor, then permission would be needed in advance. So the patients is dying as they’re trying to get a quorum, right?
Dr. Pegg made clear that the guiding document for the ethics Committee was a 1990 document from the Dept. of Health that looked to the intent of the doctor. If it was to generalize, to develop for publication, to systematize, it needed advance permission. Sure sounds like what a bunch of medical academics were doing.
If that wasn’t obvious before applying to the committee, it became obvious during the procedure. If we pretend that the procedures carried out on the kids were just clinical practice, then there would be no need to discuss them as it wouldn’t be part of the jurisdiction.
Anyhow, John, you’ve got to do something about the creativity of your inventions. Martin Walker is doing much better.
Sheldon101
I always appreciate your relative courtesy – but what’s happened to Brian Deer. He issued what looked like a challenge before and now he has disappeared.
@ChildHealthSafety: “All argument and opinion.The BMJ has made new allegations of fraud which Mr Deer cannot justify. He has been asked to answer numerous times and has failed. Now he has come here to post – it is only his answers which are relevant. Waiting to hear from Mr Deer.””
He has justified his allegations. You simply refuse to acknowledge their validity. That refusal does not equate to invalidity. Therefore, no matter how, when, who and in what context Mr. Deer answers, you will never been satisfied or swayed in your denial of his evidence. You are not seeking answers; you do not expect a response. And you believe, falsely, that him not responding to you legitimizes your position.
Wakefield can rectify all these supposed unanswered questions by simply filing a libel suit against Brian Deer and the BMJ. If he believes in himself half as much as you believe in him, I would expect him to do it immediately.
Right, because journalists don’t ever — ever — use false pretenses (e.g. hidden cameras, false occupations) to get a scoop.
Really? Is that what the argument has devolved to at this point?
Gina
No, Deer hasn’t had to answer anything. BMJ have failed to even post questions about his data while he hops about the web pretending he’s on top of the game. So he showed up here this afternoon for a moment and now he’s disappeared again. What a farce!
@John Stone “No, Deer hasn’t had to answer anything.”
You know, it would be nice if were all make a commitment not to misquote or misconstrue. I did not say he answered, or will answer, to anyone. What I said was CHS would not be receptive to those answers if and/or when they come. And that the lack of response from Deer is being used by CHS, and you as it seems, as some sort of validation of your position.
It’s a farce to ask questions you do not want answers to, and would never believe anyway. There is nothing Deer would or could say to sway your beliefs. If that’s not true, say so.
John, we know that Wakefield and his lawyers have had the medical records of the children since 2006. We are over a century later and Bleak House if fiction.
Deer made a motion to use the medical records in his defense to Wakefield’s lawsuit. The GMC sent the medical records to Wakefield for his to prepare his defense to the GMC charges. Through the lawsuit, Wakefield had to tell Deer about the existence of the medical records.
So they’ve had 4 years with the records. So where is Wakefield pointing to errors in the articles. By errors, I mean the facts as presented are wrong. That’s different from Wakefield presenting other aspects of the medical records. If Deer states that a discharge summary says a,b and c —where’s Wakefield saying it actually says d,e and f. Nowhere.
But to date, Wakefield hasn’t supplied the d,e and f.
John Stone, CHS et al – no one, repeat no one is at your beck and call. Brian Deer has put forward an explanation. You can choose to believe it or not. The facts are however, that his words have been fact checked and printed in a peer reviewed journal. Yours haven’t. If you or AJ Wakefield feel that anything – _anything_ – in it is untrue then stop demanding to hear from anyone and explain yourselves. If you can’t do that – and I speak as the administrator of this site – go away. At the moment you’re adding absolutely nothing of value to any debate whatsoever.
Clear?
A couple of points
1) With about 30 minutes of work, I found the names of three of the Lancet 12 children in sources that predate Brian Deer’s investigation. I am not stunned that an experienced journalist was able to discern who they are.
2) It is acceptable for a journalist to use “surreptitions” or “undercover” methods of gathering information that is in the public’s interest. One site on journalistic ethics puts it this way:
Which saved me the time of interviewing a journalism ethics professor. I don’t know when it was disclosed that Mr. Deer used these methods, or by whom. Given that some of the people questioning Mr. Deer are writers for the blog, Age of Autism, which decided that the basics of journalistic ethics were to be abandoned from the start, this entire discussion is a bit of a farce. Given that Andrew Wakefield is proven guilty of multiple ethical violations, this discussion is worse than a farce.
Attempts to divert attention away from Andrew Wakefield at this point speak more to the ethics of those questioning Mr. Deer than to Mr. Deer’s ethics.
I’ve said it before–if you guys had not only a firm footing in ethics, but also a firm footing in what serves your own best interests, you would jettison Andrew Wakefield. He really is hurting the cause of parents who believe their children are vaccine injured and are wishing to pursue both the legal and medical concerns of their children.
Let’s see if I have this correct–
A number of people, at least some of whom have participated in creating misinformation to smear Brian Deer, are asking for Brian Deer to respond to them. Somehow they are surprised that after years of this twisting of facts, Mr. Deer doesn’t respond to them.
And they are surprised?
Again, this speaks far more to the ethics (or lack thereof) of those questioning, not Mr. Deer.
You guys should be cleaning up your own house. Starting with cutting ties with Andrew Wakefield. I don’t see that happening any time soon, though.
@Joseph
“Right, because journalists don’t ever—ever—use false pretenses (e.g. hidden cameras, false occupations) to get a scoop.”
JosephAnother pretence is
Deer say`s today 11:43:06
“The reason was to ascertain what these people would say to a reporter they didn’t know, know of, or be capable of researching on Google. In short, to obtain a forensically neutral account.”
In fact what he said to Glenn Frankel and proves false pretence ,base 1 and passed it
Washington Sunday, July 11, 2004; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41450-2004Jul10_3.html
“Deer said he used a false name — Lawrence is actually his middle name — because he didn’t want Kessick to check his web site and find out that one of his specialties was tracking down false claims of damage from vaccines”
Lied again Brian to your supporters on here no less!!
Brian come and tell the truth it’s a big albatross, to carry round your neck for the rest of time on your own …even your supporters dont know what your game is …
Oh dear, so he’s pissed off again before anyone could ask him anything.
Last warning John.
Kev January 21st, 2011 20:26:14
No he has not and no they [facts] have not.
OK Kev – sorry for that.
Sullivan
“Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story”
I never , ever, seen Brian, disclosing that he used a false pretence to obtain his information to the GMC or anywhere ?I assume Brian kept quiet about 2004 because he thought he got away with it.
Other matters spring to mind that Brian probably thinks we have forgotten about or don’t have copies of(you all know what they are)..
Huge albatross to carry around your neck until the end of time ,on your own..
Why should anyone on this earth want to cut ties with a scientist?
Name me one scientist, since the day of creation, who has gone down in history as a villain? One scientist?
The villains are those who speak of science being ‘bad.’
I repeat science is not, nor ever has been ‘bad.’
Science is the epitome of all creation.
Science is the architect of the Universe.
Andrew Wakefield is a scientist.
Because Andrew Wakefield isn’t a scientist. He was never really very good. His publication record is not great. Even avoiding the fraud and the deceptions, the Lancet study wasn’t that good. He took ideas from other people–B12, GI disease, MMR connection. He tried to create a new “syndrome” out of this, but he didn’t have the data (again, even ignoring the falsifications) then.
He published almost nothing for his first 10 years of his career. Most of his publications since the Lancet article have been junk. Many will be withdrawn in the coming months.
He wasted hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars on primate studies that were so poorly planned (by him) that they had no hope of returning real data. For example.
Even if you think he is a scientist, not all scientists are good. Someone has to be the worst.
@Rosemary Cousins:
“Name me one scientist, since the day of creation, who has gone down in history as a villain? One scientist?”
One? Josef Mengele (sorry for the Godwining everyone)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Mengele
“Andrew Wakefield is a scientist.”
Perhaps you should tell him to follow the scientific method next time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Gina,
I think one could take Bettleheim as an example that wouldn’t be Godwin-worthy. I think in the autism communities, one would have a hard time finding people who think of him as not a villain.
However, I have often thought that invoking Bettleheim is so over done that it is in itself a Godwin-like event.
“Why should anyone on this earth want to cut ties with a scientist?”
Science and scientists are not the same thing. Scientists are human and thus fully capable of being unethical, criminal, fraudulent, misguided, paid-off, self-interested, or just plain wrong.
Science is neither bad nor good, although the ends that it is used for can be, as can the methods and conditions underwhich it is conducted. This is why we have systems of ethics regarding science and research.
Science is a generally self-correcting system of methods for determining data and generating reasonably unbiased and honest consensus interpretations and applications.
Scientists can be honest people or unethical bell-ends.
Do not confuse the two again.
@Dedj: fantastic point! That may highlight one of the darkest aspect of Wakefield’s deception.
@Sullivan: You’re example is far more relevant than mine. Can I change my answer? Couldn’t help but to go to the dark place like that, but that’s not me making a Nazi analogy here. I’m just saying that Mengele was a scientist that went down in history as the villain. No analogy. (trying to de-Godwin it a bit)
Hi new to all this have so I thought I’d be clear about some things I am the parent of an ASD child fully vaccinated. I don’t relate that to vaccine. I am interested in digging down into news and have a look at things from another perspective. My issues I bring are in regards to procedural fairness ie fair media coverage and the rights of parents.
I make no claim to Wakefields guilt or innocence just that I see a lot of different things going on.
Cheers
I suppose my first question then goes ?
Isn’t it the right of parents to have legal address ?
Well then the first part of the conspiracy falls down and is just normal practice ?
Blackheart you will only get dis-information on here and abuse..
You might want to contact any or all of the following
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
Blackheart sorry to read your post ,
You would be better at the sites below for an answer..
http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/
or
http://www.jabs.org.uk/
Goodluck
Also go to
Then read the commetary
http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs017/1101201531086/archive/1104211374694.html
Such an honest,respectable,career..
Sullivan
“A couple of points
1) With about 30 minutes of work, I found the names of three of the Lancet 12 children in sources that predate Brian Deer’s investigation. ”
Can you post your links very interesting if true..
AWOL,
I could supply the links, but I will not.
The letter signed by 8 of the Lancet 12 parents I saw had them using only first initial and last name. The information is in the public domain, but I will not provide the links. Believe me or not. It is there.
Hi Blackheart, perhaps you could clarify the question? I’m not sure what it is you are asking.
Sullivan
Gina
Dedj
Science Mom
The silence from Mr Deer continues. The continuing silence looks really bad.
Mr Deer has made very serious allegations of fraud against all the authors of the 1998 Lancet paper and that the parents are liars.
When his stories fail to stand up and he is asked to address what appear fatal flaws and inconsistencies which reflect on his professionlism, ethics, honesty and personal and professional integrity he refuses to answer and goes to ground.
The British Medical Journal has clammed up as well. No answers there either – just censorship of their Rapid Responses comment forum so tough questions do not get posted.
It would be appreciated if Mr Deer could please answer the questions posed on LBRB and on Dr Gorski’s ORAC blog and on his own blog in The Guardian and those put to the BMJ, including for example those about Child 1, 8 and 11.
With what Mr Deer publised on his Guardian blog, the inconsistencies in what he has already published, the little he has said, the failures to answer does not look good at all.
On the one hand Mr Deer should answer and answers are demanded and on the other no doubt many who want answers have mixed feelings because of how bad Mr Deer’s silence looks.
It is also interesting that when this was asked of Sullivan these comments got busy with folks parachuting in from commenting on other blogs to pad it so that no one might notice Sullivan failed to answer, just as been happening in Mr Deer’s case:
Funny things – Sullivan seems to be running Kev’s blog these days and gives the impression of being available to comment 24 hours a day.
Can we have some answers from Sullivan too please?
I warned you to stop demanding things of people on here. No one is at your beck and call. This is your last warning. Debate the issues or shut up. If you continue to demand things of other commenters then you’ll get banned.
Gina – Josef Mengele – also know as the Angel of Death was not a scientist. He was a physician who separated children from their parents so that he could inflict pain on them.
Sound familiar?
Dedj – I agree that scientists are only human and thus fully capable of being unethical, criminal, fraudulent, misguided, paid-off, self interested and just plain wrong. But then you will find those traits in all walks of life.
For example the evidence which was used to attempt to pariah Andrew Wakefield was fraudulent.
Andrew Wakefield’s thank you to parents
http://www.cryshame.co.uk/
To all parents:
“I am immensely grateful to you for your wonderful support. Your voices are being heard around the world and that is precisely why our opponents have become so vicious. The only hope of victory for those who oppose the recognition of what has happened to your children for what it is and a Safety-First vaccine policy, is to divide us. Together we have come too far, for too long, for good reason, to be divided. Each attack makes us stronger and more determined. Science and safety must be the new language of vaccine policy. Solidarity will ensure this happens.”
Andy
——————————————————————————–
I can’t speak for others, but the above doesn’t really sit well with me. What happened to look to the facts yourself and come to your own conclusions?
The Wakefield paper has been dismantled effectively by Brian Deer but there are also 12 author authors none to my knowledge has ever claimed the data was fraudulent.
Do they not take the criticism also?
Nobody can advance knowledge without exposing themselves to criticism and the treatment of Wakefield is perverse but oddly still not complete.
While we can see the failings of the paper probably as I said due to the nature of its speed and the output of this person and others.
Apart from Brian Deer, there are many others who have spent so much time and effort to discredit the paper that without knowing their motive as well as source of funding it is difficult to know why they are so persistant.
Any one piece of work has little individual merit in normal cases and this piece of work as many mention does not really cover new ground but did expose old ideas in a very public way.
This is at the seat of the problem. Many, many people have strong reservations about medical interventions and their lack of checking for safety.
The interventions here did produce one catastrophic accident that negated any and all contributions of money to the Royal Free or the scientists involved.
The covering up of both harm and monies received is to me the worst of this saga.
Too many research papers get fundings which negate any value, too many papers get published especially in this field with no contribution to science. To say for example there is no evidence of autism from MMR vaccines is comforting but contributes absolutely nothing to the origin of autism. Why do 95 per cent of papers just come up with no knowledge like this? Too many papers again get churned out with such speed that even if results are obtained they need double and treble checking.
I do support Andrew Wakefield in his later work where he sees harm for example in mercury vaccines. Although effectively written off as science of merit, we do have even the hardest critics finding some results are correct. There is a sub-section of autism people with other problems of which gut problems are now recognised as being one complication.
The problem here which is unplatable is that the notion that autism is purely some disorganisation of neurons cannot be true. This is the important factor. Autism is and is increasingly thought of as a real illness and as such should be capable of both cure but more important PREVENTION.
England and the USA do have the worlds worst record of such cases, growing relentlessly over the past 20 years and arguably against the background of the most intrusive amount of protective vaccines.
Most people here seem to agree that trouble started for mosr cases well before the MMR vaccine but this just means the three or how many vaccines earlier may not be 100 per cent protective.
It is sad that with all our knowledge we still have babies in the womb exposed to known TOXIC amounts of mercury.
Yes there are many villainous scientists and doctors and how many are villains while thinking they are GODS?
By the way, what is The Serious Fraud Squad?
That’s it, I have tried to stay out of this thread for the most part. I felt as if all my points were being addressed well enough by others. But there comes a point, when you actually have a child with Autism, that you can’t help feeling others, not looking at anyone in particular CHS, are simply using this forum to meet some narcissistic personal agenda.
Never once have you, CHS, expressed any concern for ASD children. You clearly see this site as nothing more than a forum for playing semi intellectual mind games. A game incidentally you lost a long time ago.
So here’s my question to you. Do you care about children and/or adults with Autism?
Sharon good attempt at diversion..JABS would help you with that question..
Oh Sharon – I have a friend in you. Are you managing to get your child’s needs met at school? Did you manage to get the diagnosis of ASD through the normal NHS services or did you make the diagnosis yourself?
I will add, with scepticism, that somebody who is able to identify semi intellectual mind games and claims to have an understanding of narcissism has chosen a relatively strange question to ask CHS.
Do you really think he is going to reply to an almost monosyllabic grunt of a question from someone who claims to be an authority on psychology.
I meant to add…………when she clearly isn’t!
CHS seems to have a tenuous grasp on reality.
This is true. But if the rest of the CHS blather is also true, then why is Andrew Wakefield not suing Brian Deer and the BMJ? Having a self-appointed minion prattle nonsensically away on a private website is hardly the correct response.
Go tell Andrew Wakefield to sue, CHS, or be quiet. Your prattle here is only revealing your contempt for autistic children and your lack of logical skills.
Broken Link January 22nd, 2011 14:13:19
LOL.
…. are the other authors ….
… the other authors ….
LOL.
Broken Link
As the football chant goes “you only blog when your winning”
Dry your eyes; possibly you may be able to explain the silence on here and the BMJ? Strange you all, are usually back slapping Deer ,Deer comes down of his pedestal and blogs, his “glee blogging” has stopped?
The glee blogging, is usually spares nobody, autistic kids, disabled kids, the diagnosis of the kids, anyone or anything that is questioning ,vaccines linked to Autism.
Despite the efforts many a time before; many a time the “line has been drawn under the mmr autism debate”, funnily not this time it hasn’t been mentioned. why? Because you all know were not going away, were not going to be silenced, and the truth will out soon…
AWOL: “As the football chant goes “you only blog when your winning””
This isn’t a game. If you are here for “winning or losing”, please leave. This isn’t a debate club. This is a serious discussion about serious accusations of fraud and proven ethical lapses by Andrew Wakefield.
Broken Link January 22nd, 2011 14:13:19
And of course Mr Deer has interviewed only one of the Lancet 12 childrens’ parents but he is calling them all liars.
But then his Guardian blog shows he is a conspiracy theorist who publishes stories which do not stand up and when challenged he goes to ground, just like now.
“And of course Mr Deer has interviewed only one of the Lancet 12 childrens’ parents but he is calling them all liars.”
Do you have a quote where he calls them all liars? What are you basing that accusation upon?
As to the first part of your statement, it is clearly false. Clearly as in you really should know it is false.
Let’s see, he interviewed Child 11’s father for the BMJ paper. There has been much discussion upthread about another mother he interviewed. That’s two right there.
Here’s the segment on Anderson Cooper 360
ChildHealthSafety, would you like to rephrase your statement?
@Rosemary Cousins:
Just so we are all clear:
Medicine IS science. Are we all in agreement?
“Gina – Josef Mengele – also know as the Angel of Death was not a scientist.”
Yes, he was. He performed research and experiments. If you believe Wakefield a scientist (and you do, your quote @January 21st, 2011, 22:18:20 “Andrew Wakefield is a scientist.”) then you must believe Josef Mengele a scientist as well.
“He was a physician who separated children from their parents so that he could inflict pain on them. Sound familiar?”
Wakefield and Walker-Smith unnecessarily performed “colonoscopies, colon biopsies and lumbar punctures (“spinal taps”).” Spinal taps are incredibly painful. Wakefield and Walker-Smith were by no mean Nazis, but your characterization above fits their conduct in the Lancet paper research.
Gina – can you explain why it is you think the mentally ill, the autistic and those with learning difficulties should be denied the normal medical treatment and care which others naturally receive?
Rosemary, where did Gina say that?
With CHS, Stone and AWOL spamming here, I must have missed it. Could you please point to the post and give the quote.
CHS, I can’t see a place for me to comment on an error in your website. Did I miss a place for comments?
Here’s the issue. The nonsense is by Martin Walker so its no surprise he’s got it wrong. The issue is with the 1988 UK introduction of urabe strain containing MMR.
“SK&F was provided with a blanket indemnity in that contract by the NHS Procurement Directorate.”
That’s not true. The vaccine maker delivered the vaccine to the NHS named distributor. If the distributor screwed things up, without more, the vaccine maker would be liable. So the contract has the NHS indemnify the vaccine maker under these circumstances.
http://vaccineswork.blogspot.com/2010/05/urabe-mmr-no-indemnity.htm
As with other pages on this story on your home page, please make a correction in a different color and list the correction at the top.
Rosemary:
Gina actually said:
Rosemary, I could ask you why you think the “mentally ill, the autistic and those with learning difficulties” should be tortured with unnecessary invasive, painful and risky procedures?
The findings from the GMC were that the procedures on the children were not medically indicated. There is a risk involved with those procedures, and there has to be a very good reason to subject any child to that kind of invasive medical testing.
As opposed to this paper attempting to replicate Wakefield. The human subjects were decided on by the following:
As you can see these children were getting medical care, and not being tortured needlessly.
Chris,
“The findings from the GMC were that the procedures on the children were not medically indicated”
To be precise, the GMC found that these procedures were not always medically indicated. In some cases, some or all of the procedures were indicated. In some cases they were not.
No one objects to people–disabled or not–getting medical care that is indicated. What is offensive here is the cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all approach that Mr. Wakefield applied to these children. It is part of what makes it very clear that this was a research project from the start, not a case-series as he has painted it.
Sheldon here is the full statement ..”blanket indemnity” it was…
• SK&F was provided with a blanket indemnity in that contract by the NHS Procurement Directorate
• the contract was signed up by the backdoor through the North East Thames Regional Health Authority as agent for the NHS Procurement Directorate rather than being a contract directly entered into with the NHS Procurement Directorate which negotiated the contract or the NHS Executive of the time
• there was no Parliamentary scrutiny of this and it seems to have been effected in a manner Ministerially deniable
Sullivan ,below your hypocritical ,do they make made to measure vaccines yet ?last time I looked your 3 month baby would have to weigh 21stone to be within the FDA recommended dose of mercury, by body weight ..yawn!!!
“What is offensive here is the cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all approach that Mr. Wakefield applied to these children.”
As you say below Chris, this only applies if the kids are Autistic .If the kids are N.T. does not apply. yawn!!
“There is a risk involved with those procedures, and there has to be a very good reason to subject any child to that kind of invasive medical testing”
Sullivan it wouldnt matter what conclusions Dr Wakefield would arrive at Deer would lie about it as he has .With nobody questioning Deers credence,concerning the whole affair and,most recently the BMJ articles ,which he cant defend,nor can the BMJ hence the blanket ban…whats the point of coming to a personal conclusion,bit senseles ,is it not??
“Sullivan ,below your hypocritical ,do they make made to measure vaccines yet ?last time I looked your 3 month baby would have to weigh 21stone to be within the FDA recommended dose of mercury, by body weight ..yawn”
How much mercury in in a the pediatric vaccines given to children today? Answer: basically none.
You make a number of mistakes in the above statement. First off, I believe it is an EPA regulation, not an FDA recommendation that you are referring to. Second, the EPA regulation is for the mercury content a person is chronically exposed to, not a single dose. Third, the recommendations were based on methyl mercury, known to be more toxic than ethyl mercury in vaccines, so the recommendation would be even lower.
I have no problem with them removing mercury from vaccines. I do have a problem with the fear mongering that has gone on before and since.
As to the real question of dosage of vaccines–vaccines usually contain a single virus particle, say of measles, rubella , mumps, or small fractions of a particle, as with pertussis. How would they change the dose by weight? Consider, say, measles in the environment, how many virus particles do you think a person is usually exposed to? Let’s say you were sitting in that waiting room in San Diego when the vaccine-rejectionist mother brought her infected baby in. How many virus particles do you think the other children–including those who got sick–were exposed to?
Contrary to popular belief with the few of you, if you were to consult a human rights specialist, you would be informed that a mother together with her chosen physician have the joint right to decide what treatment is best for the child.
The State which includes the GMC does not have authority to ride rough shod over parental rights.
A mother, not the State, is the best person to judge whether or not her child is in pain. The State has an abysmal track record of loving care towards children and they are renowned for selective blindness to basic observations. Even if the State did not have an abysmal track record, the right of a parent overrides that of the State.
Why is it that someone like me would make myself a sitting target from less than compassionate people like you?
Rehearsal.
Ooops, sorry for overstating. You are right. The GMC ruling gives the Code number of children who did not have the procedure medically indicated.