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 
Further more the GMC and the BMJ,ie the practitioners of medicine, who will always be subservient to science, have purposely created, through Brian Deer, a platform with which to spiel their fanatical hatred towards a great scientist.
You frequently find that weak women bob and curtsy to even weaker men who hold positions of power.
Men frequently employ weak women because weak women don’t ask questions – they just follow instructions.
The problem is, when there is a crisis such as the one that the BMJ is facing at the moment, the weak women in editorial positions are caught out – and so are the even weaker men, for that matter.
sheldon101 January 25th, 2011 06:03:03
The litigation was under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and in negligence. Your original point was answered in spades but you lack the good grace to acknowledge it but instead reveal a manifold lack of knowledge and want comprehensive lessons in the history of this exercise in governmental and medical corruption.
Ye Gods. Is this trolling because it looks like it to us.
Rosemary,
Wakefield’s science has not been replicated. That is a falsehood told to his believers to keep them in line.
1. The list of papers that is usually provided to substantiate the claim of replication ARE NOT REPLICATIONS. See the link on my ‘nym. Wakefield relies on his supporters to have faith in him, and not to independently check the papers in this list.
2. The only attempt to replicate the Lancet paper found that it could not be replicated. See PMID: 18769550, the entire paper can be read for free online.
3. The Royal Free offered Wakefield a large sum of grant money to replicate the Lancet work. He declined to do so. That’s because he knew he couldn’t because he’d fixed the data on the first paper.
Rosemary, I know you are a serious person. I hope that you will do some independent work of you own and look at these issues for yourself rather than relying on what Wakefield tells you.
It is difficult to avoid noticing how the posting of so many CHS comments are delayed. This has come to be routine.
Numerous posts made later by others appear and then eventually an earlier CHS posts go up – but it appears in the list of comments in the order the posts were made.
Here is another illustration – a posting made @1015 real time UK [ie. 1115 lbrb time]
_______________________
sheldon101 January 25th, 2011 06:03:03
The litigation was under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and in negligence. Your original point was answered in spades but you lack the good grace to acknowledge it but instead reveal a manifold lack of knowledge and want comprehensive lessons in the history of this exercise in governmental and medical corruption.
Ye Gods. Is this trolling because it looks like it to us.
@ Sullivan
“It is perfectly reasonable to call Andrew Wakefield’s work a fraud.”
it’s “The pot calling the kettle black” again,!aren’t we Sullivan?
As Blaylock points out here
http://www.autismtodayonline.com/2011/autism/blaylock-big-pharma-vilified-researcher-for-threatening-vaccine-program/
“I find it ironic that the media, the British government, and leaders in medical academia jumped on board attacking and destroying Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s reputation based on “fraud” charges related to a study he conducted about the link between the measles vaccine and autism.
It is ironic for a number of reasons. How can the British government, itself drowning in deception at every level, dare accuse anyone of fraud?
The panel assembled by the government and academia to judge Wakefield, ironically, dares to speak of fraud, yet their main complaint is that his findings “might endanger the ‘sacrosanct’ vaccine program,” not that his principal findings were wrong. In fact, several independent researchers found the same measles vaccine-related colitis that he described.”
Here’s another…
http://gaia-health.com/articles351/000374-deer-wakefield-fraud-report-misrepresentations.shtml
Brian Deer’s ‘Wakefield Fraud’ Report Is Full of Misrepresentations
Big Pharma must be utterly terrified of Wakefield’s observations to have unleashed such utterly fraudulent claims of fraud against him. This is an analysis of just how misleading Deer’s claims are.
by Heidi Stevenson
6 January 2011
Today, news has burst out all over the world with the claim that Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s study, which finds a possible association in gastrointestinal disease, developmental regression, and the MMR vaccine, is a fraud. The source is the British Medical Journal and a report by Brian Deer that they’re publishing. He claims to have compared the medical records of the 12 children studied and also to have recently interviewed parents of those children
You see Sullivan I could fill the lbrb band width with hundreds of sites that disagree with yours and Deers argument of Fraud ..and at the same time ,relentlessly , the BMJ suppress any critical comment of Deers work hiding under the cloak of “respectable accademia”
“Broken link” the above post fits so wear it”., same to Sheldon…
Until you pharma trolls can supply links backing up what you claim and state which most of you don`t do, nobody can hold your comments as matter of fact,and is only your opinion, not worth the band width it is written on ,which costs Kev money.
Rosemary Cousins:
I think we should make a rule that whenever someone makes that silly claim that they list the papers and explain in their own words why they think it is “independent” (means that neither Wakefield nor his associates be involved, including Krigsman), include specifically which MMR vaccine was used and have at least a dozen children as subjects. Ms. Cousins, so any of the papers listed by Wakefield quality?
@ChildHealthSafety
January 24th, 2011
15:11:55
“Medicine, as Dr. William Osler put it, is an “art of
probabilities,” or at best, a “science of uncertainty”.
“The Quotable Osler” Silverman ME, Murray TJ, Bryan CS, eds.
Philadelphia, Pa.: American College of Physicians; 2002.”
Are you taking this quotation on face value? Do you believe that, in any interpretation you’ve conjured, it supports that medicine is NOT science? Do you even KNOW what you’ve quoted and in what context it is referenced in the citation you provided? Obviously not; here’s why:
1-You’ve quoted, via a source that sourced from another, from a paper on the use of scientific evidence within the legal and medical fields. Here is the paper:
Click to access Medical%20and%20Legal.pdf
Read it. It supports the scientific method, something your buddy Wakefield shuns.
2-The context of the quotation does not suggests that medicine isn’t science. That uncertainties exist does not mean that all is uncertain. Medicine is not finite; it expands and evolves as industry leaders innovate. Unless you want to go back to bloodletting and leeches. Furthermore, Medicine is both science and art. They can coexist, despite what you may think.
3-You’ve, in absolutely no way, supported your accusation that I’m misleading. This attempt was utter failure, and I think it shows pretty clearly that you do not have the analytical ability to argue point for point. This is why you argue in circles.
So, I say again, go scratch.
@Sullivan
January 24th, 2011
21:43:12
Very well said! I, too, cannot understand how this is devolving to some as an argument of what science is. They are attempting to throw the baby out with the bathwater, so guess you know they are out of ammo.
Broken Link and Chris – You have shown no evidence that you have sought the expert medical opinion of a geneticist to back up yours claims.
Until such time as you do you may as well piss into the wind.
@Rosemary:
“When science is replicated, time and time again, such as in Dr Andrew Wakefield’s case – then you have scientific proof. In other words you have, ‘The truth of science.’……
When I state that the GMC is corrupt. What I mean is that they provided no evidence to show that Dr Wakefield’s science was not replicated. No evidence equals fraudulent evidence in my view.”
First off, his Lancet paper’s hypothesis has not been replicated. If it has, show the links please.
Second, Wakefield himself said and still says frequently that his study/review did not support with evidence a directly link between MMR and autism. Therefore, even if you can prove his results replicated (which you can’t), you still will not be able to prove that the MMR/autism link is proven—based 100% on Wakefield’s own assertions.
Third, and finally, the corruption of the GMC is not evident in anything you’ve said. You’re explanation still doesn’t make any sense, and the GMC where presiding over Wakefield’s fitness to practice, not over fraud. You’ve still maligned a professional council with no evidence, and clearly no understanding of their purpose or the proceedings involving Wakefield.
Just in case it might reach Rosemary and her co-believers, there is a new article on Spiked, read it by clicking on my ‘nym. You all are trusting Andy too much!
It begins:
Make no mistake, Gina, medicine is neither art nor science. So, I say to you, ‘Go scratch – preferably in private.’
@Rosemary: “Make no mistake, Gina, medicine is neither art nor science.”
So, what is it then? Voodoo? What was it when you proclaimed Wakefield, a medical doctor by training, a scientist? Seriously, what is medicine, in your estimation? I’m honestly waiting with baited breath for this one.
“So, I say to you, ‘Go scratch – preferably in private.’” Trust me, lady, I am scratching….my head at your baffling comments (insert corny rimshot here).
Rosemary,
Have your consulted any expert OTHER than Wakefield?
I fail to see how I need to consult an expert to read some of the documents I have pointed out to you. It is easy to read the PMID: 18769550 paper. It clearly says in plain English why it does not replicate Wakefield’s findings. Here is the abstract:
PLoS One. 2008 Sep 4;3(9):e3140.
Lack of association between measles virus vaccine and autism with enteropathy: a case-control study.
Hornig M, Briese T, Buie T, Bauman ML, Lauwers G, Siemetzki U, Hummel K, Rota PA, Bellini WJ, O’Leary JJ, Sheils O, Alden E, Pickering L, Lipkin WI.
Center for Infection and Immunity, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States of America. mady.hornig@columbia.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The presence of measles virus (MV) RNA in bowel tissue from children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) and gastrointestinal (GI) disturbances was reported in 1998. Subsequent investigations found no associations between MV exposure and ASD but did not test for the presence of MV RNA in bowel or focus on children with ASD and GI disturbances. Failure to replicate the original study design may contribute to continued public concern with respect to the safety of the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine.
METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The objective of this case-control study was to determine whether children with GI disturbances and autism are more likely than children with GI disturbances alone to have MV RNA and/or inflammation in bowel tissues and if autism and/or GI episode onset relate temporally to receipt of MMR. The sample was an age-matched group of US children undergoing clinically-indicated ileocolonoscopy. Ileal and cecal tissues from 25 children with autism and GI disturbances and 13 children with GI disturbances alone (controls) were evaluated by real-time reverse transcription (RT)-PCR for presence of MV RNA in three laboratories blinded to diagnosis, including one wherein the original findings suggesting a link between MV and ASD were reported. The temporal order of onset of GI episodes and autism relative to timing of MMR administration was examined. We found no differences between case and control groups in the presence of MV RNA in ileum and cecum. Results were consistent across the three laboratory sites. GI symptom and autism onset were unrelated to MMR timing. Eighty-eight percent of ASD cases had behavioral regression.
CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: This study provides strong evidence against association of autism with persistent MV RNA in the GI tract or MMR exposure. Autism with GI disturbances is associated with elevated rates of regression in language or other skills and may represent an endophenotype distinct from other ASD.
Go scratch Gina
Fancy palming off contaminated vaccines to Third World countries?
For your sake, I hope you do not have any connections to pharmaceutical companies. Because if you do, you are part of the GMC corruption.
Broken Link – well, that is your problem, you see – you cannot grasp that in order to prove, in court, that a man is guilty,you need to provide evidence.
I do not, nor does Dr Wakefield need to provide evidence of his innocence.
It is you, his accuser, who needs to supply evidence.
I am waiting – where is it?
I must admit a comment I made this morning took six hours to show and then appeared at the earlier time I made it
@Rosemary: “Go scratch Gina
Fancy palming off contaminated vaccines to Third World countries?
For your sake, I hope you do not have any connections to pharmaceutical companies. Because if you do, you are part of the GMC corruption.”
I disagree with you, and you struggle to debate me, so I must be part of some evil conspiracy or maniacal plot, right? That’s hardly reasonable.
If you feel you must now demonize me than you’re never going to get anywhere here. Or anywhere for that matter. Either come at me with some usable, relevant facts or don’t bother addressing me at all. You’re subterfuge is pointless and boring.
Rosemary,
The evidence of Wakefield’s guilt with respect to the GMC charges – mainly unethical behavior towards children – is contained in the GMC transcript. I understand that you can order a paper copy.
The evidence of his fraud is contained in Brian Deer’s BMJ articles – which are well referenced.
If either of these were false, then Wakefield would be advised to sue and/or appeal. Since he has done neither, then I can conclude that he has no grounds to do so.
Brian Deer’s accusations are extremely serious. If they were false, they would be defamatory, and Wakefield would be due a huge settlement. The evidence of Wakefield’s own actions proves that they are not. Instead he simply denies everything, and tries to maintain his base of true believers. But even those are slipping away – see the blog of Craig Willoughby for example.
@ Broken Link – I’m in the states but I think our legal system is similar to the UK. If Wakefield were to bring a libel suit against Deer, then he’d be the plaintiff, with Deer the defendant, and the burden of proof would be on Wakefield, right? Can anyone confirm that for me?
I ask because the burden of proof seems to be the crux of argument in the back and forth of you and Rosemary. Of course, after that burden is established, then the validity of the evidence presented comes into question.
What is the Sratch talking about?
Ms. Cousins:
What claim did I make that requires a geneticist?
You made the claim that Wakefield’s retracted study has been replicated. It is up to you to support that claim with evidence. At the moment, the Gish Gallop list that is on Waker’s website has no study that even attempts to independently replicate his findings with MMR, children and gastrointestinal issues. If you have the PubMed Identification Number (PMID) of an independent study other than the Hornig paper that I listed before and that Broken Link just posted, please present it.
Also, to show you are not just cutting and pasting from a website explain how it is “independent” (especially if the names “Wakefield” or “Krigsman” are in the list of authors), how many children were in the study and, this is very important, which version of the MMR vaccine the children received (there are globally about half a dozen different ones).
While you are at it, kindly tell us exactly which MMR vaccine the retracted Lancet paper was about. Was it the MMR vaccine approved for use in the UK before or after 1992?
You made a claim, you support it. Or just don’t make the claim.
As far as Wakefield being guilty, here is some evidence.
As far as the retracted Lancet paper being a load of crap there are these:
Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2010 May;29(5):397-400.
Lack of association between measles-mumps-rubella vaccination and autism in children: a case-control study.
Mrozek-Budzyn D, Kieltyka A, Majewska R.
Lack of Association between Measles Virus Vaccine and Autism with Enteropathy: A Case-Control Study.
Hornig M et al.
PLoS ONE 2008; 3(9): e3140 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0003140
*Subjects: 25 children with autism and GI disturbances and 13 children with GI disturbances alone (controls)
Measles Vaccination and Antibody Response in Autism Spectrum Disorders.
Baird G et al.
Arch Dis Child 2008; 93(10):832-7.
Subjects: 98 vaccinated children aged 10-12 years in the UK with autism spectrum disorder (ASD); two control groups of similar age: 52 children with special educational needs but no ASD and 90 children in the typically developing group
MMR-Vaccine and Regression in Autism Spectrum Disorders: Negative Results Presented from Japan.
Uchiyama T et al.
J Autism Dev Disord 2007; 37(2):210-7
*Subjects: 904 children with autism spectrum disorder
(Note: MMR was used in Japan only between 1989 and 1993.)
No effect of MMR withdrawal on the incidence of autism: a total population study.
Honda H, Shimizu Y, Rutter M.
J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2005 Jun;46(6):572-9.
(note the Japanese MMR had the Urabe strain of mumps, just like the UK MMR used between 1988 and 1992)
No Evidence of Persisting Measles Virus in Peripheral Blood Mononuclear Cells from Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder.
D’Souza Y et al.
Pediatrics 2006; 118(4):1664-75
*Subjects: 54 children with autism spectrum disorder and 34 developmentally normal children
Relationship between MMR Vaccine and Autism.
Klein KC, Diehl EB.
Ann Pharmacother. 2004; 38(7-8):1297-300
*Literature review of 10 studies
MMR Vaccination and Pervasive Developmental Disorders: A Case-Control Study.
Smeeth L et al.
Lancet 2004; 364(9438):963-9
*Subjects: 1294 cases and 4469 controls
Age at First Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccination in Children with Autism and School-Matched Control Subjects: A Population-Based Study in Metropolitan Atlanta.
DeStefano F et al. Pediatrics 2004; 113(2): 259-66
*Subjects: 624 children with autism and 1,824 controls
Prevalence of Autism and Parentally Reported Triggers in a North East London Population.
Lingam R et al.
Arch Dis Child 2003; 88(8):666-70
*Subjects: 567 children with autistic spectrum disorder
Neurologic Disorders after Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccination.
Makela A et al.
Pediatrics 2002; 110:957-63
*Subjects: 535,544 children vaccinated between November 1982 and June 1986 in Finland
Relation of Childhood Gastrointestinal Disorders to Autism: Nested Case Control Study Using Data from the UK General Practice Research Database.
Black C et al.
BMJ 2002; 325:419-21
*Subjects: 96 children diagnosed with autism and 449 controls
Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Bowel Problems or Developmental Regression in Children with Autism: Population Study.
Taylor B et al.
BMJ 2002; 324(7334):393-6
*Subjects: 278 children with core autism and 195 with atypical autism
No Evidence for a New Variant of Measles-Mumps-Rubella-Induced Autism.
Fombonne E et al.
Pediatrics 2001;108(4):E58
*Subjects: 262 autistic children (pre- and post-MMR samples)
Measles-Mumps-Rubella and Other Measles-Containing Vaccines Do Not Increase the Risk for Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Case-Control Study from the Vaccine Safety Datalink Project.
Davis RL et al.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2001;155(3):354-9
*Subjects: 155 persons with IBD with up to 5 controls each
Time Trends in Autism and in MMR Immunization Coverage in California.
Dales L et al.
JAMA 2001; 285(9):1183-5
*Subjects: Children born in 1980-94 who were enrolled in California kindergartens (survey samples of 600–1,900 children each year)
Mumps, Measles, and Rubella Vaccine and the Incidence of Autism Recorded by General Practitioners: A Time Trend Analysis.
Kaye JA et al.
BMJ 2001; 322:460-63
*Subjects: 305 children with autism
Further Evidence of the Absence of Measles Virus Genome Sequence in Full Thickness Intestinal Specimens from Patients with Crohn’s Disease.
Afzal MA, et al.
J Med Virol 2000; 62(3):377-82
*Subjects: Specimens from patients with Crohn’s disease
Autism and Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccine: No Epidemiological Evidence for a Causal Association.
Taylor B et al.
Lancet 1999;353 (9169):2026-9
*Subjects: 498 children with autism
Absence of Detectable Measles Virus Genome Sequence in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Tissues and Peripheral Blood Lymphocytes.
Afzal MA et al.
J Med Virol 1998; 55(3):243-9
*Subjects: 93 colonoscopic biopsies and 31 peripheral blood lymphocyte preparations
No Evidence for Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccine-Associated Inflammatory Bowel Disease or Autism in a 14-year Prospective Study.
Peltola H et al.
Lancet 1998; 351:1327-8
*Subjects: 3,000,000 doses of MMR vaccine
Exposure to Measles in Utero and Crohn’s Disease: Danish Register Study.
Nielsen LL et al.
BMJ 1998; 316(7126):196-7
*Subjects: 472 women with measles
Gina:
Actually, I believe it is the opposite, which is why reform English libel laws are now a hot topic: http://www.libelreform.org/
Dr. Ben Goldacre’s book, Bad Science has a chapter about Mathias Rath that had to left out of the first edition due to a libel suit. Rath lost, but The Guardian still had to shell out lots of money to prove Goldacre was telling the truth.
I believe that if any of the Wakefield supporters have the actual evidence of what they are accusing Deer of, then they should sue him or shut up. So far all I have seen them do is nonsensical hand waving, especially the bit about bringing a geneticist (autism != mitochondrial disorder). Since Wakefield had to pay Deer when he attempted to sue him for libel, the supporters will have to come up with some better evidence.
CHS – here’s the problem. Barr was suing somebody over MMR in the UK.
Was he suing the distributor or was he suing the vaccine maker or was he suing the NHS.
And if he sued the distributor or the vaccine maker, were either indemnified by the NHS or the UK government?
Pretty simple questions.
sheldon101,
I doubt that you will get a direct answer from ChildHealthSafety as to your question about whether the litigation was directed at the MMR manufacturers. This is because it quite clearly was the case that the manufacturers were the target of the case.
Let’s go through some of the GMC transcripts. The big one is last–
Quite clearly, the GMC was of the opinion that the MMR litigation was focused on the manufacturers of the MMR vaccine. One of the charges reads–
Here’s a letter from Child 6’s GP
Here is a segment of Day 11 testimony:
So, a solicitor from the LAB considered it to be an action against the manufacturers.
Here is a letter from Andrew Wakefield himself, July 3, 1997, explaining the situation:
Repeated for emphasis: Furthermore, there is no intention whatever on behalf of the Legal Aid Board or its agents to take action against the National Health Service: it is against the manufacturers of vaccine that any future actions will be taken if and when our studies indicate that is a valid strategy.
As an aside, this letter also shows that in Mr. Wakefield’s mind, the Lancet paper was part of the Legal Aid funded study. Study–a term he tries to distance himself from now.
Rosemary, you seem to be operating on the “Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney” standard of burden of proof. A given claim is assumed true until someone manages to prove a mutually exclusive statement true otherwise. For example, in the “Ace Attorney” games, all but one of the cases require exonerating your client by proving someone else was the real criminal. This is not the official standard of proof of real-world courts, and certainly not how science works.
We don’t need to prove that autism has a genetic cause to call Wakefield’s claims into question, we only need to call into question his evidence. And proving that Wakefield falsified his study simply requires showing that the evidence is consistent with that claim, which is what Brian Deer has done. If you want to argue this case, don’t argue semantics, don’t argue character, focus on the evidence.
Gray Falcon – I have never heard of ‘Phoenix Wright. Ace Attorney’ to which you refer. I have to say that I am sceptical of your explanation.
Coincidentally I have just received an email from my MP’s office in which I am being offered help.
Steve Barclay MP did apparently once have a career as a lawyer.
I am going to ask him to oversee this blog.
Good luck with that. ‘Oversee’ on what grounds and what do you think any consequences will be? You may wish to rethink your choice of debates if your own ignorance of the topic leads to “Mummy, make them stop saying meanie things to me”.
“Ace Attorney” is a popular series of video games (technically visual novels), and was only used as an analogy. The general setup of a typical case is that the player character is presented a client accused of a crime, and has to prove them innocent by cross-examining the witnesses and searching the crime scenes for evidence, finding the real culprit in the process. The point of my analogy was that you were trying to shift the burden of proof.
This is why you should look up anything you find unfamiliar, rather than simply react. Why, for example, are you skeptical of my explanation? Don’t just dismiss, give evidence!
Ms. Cousins, are you going to ever share with us the studies that independently replicated Wakefield’s now retracted Lancet paper? Remember we need you to show that they were independent, how many children were involved and which particular MMR vaccine the children received.
I also note that you brought up mitochondrial disorders. Can you please show us the papers indexed in PubMed that show mitochondrial disorders are common in autism, or that most people with mitochondrial disorders have autism? I would also ask that you do not include any papers that have Miss Hannah Poling’s father as an author.
Science Mom, does she consider being asked to prove her claims as being “mean”?
Ms. Cousins, if you want this blog overseen, I suggest you look up the definition of “Streisand” effect. You should see how well that worked for the British Chiropractic Association.
Science Mum – Yes I am the proud mummy to a 33 year old baby.
Does that make you feel powerful?
Keep it coming.
@Rosemary: Overseen? If I didn’t know better, I’d have thought that a threat. The implication is that you believe the opposing view-holders here are in need of some sort of an authoritative rap on the knuckles; is that true? Do you believe us to be out of line?
If that is the case, I find it quite ironic as you’ve been the one making wildly unsupported claims on behalf of Wakefield and others’ behalf, unfounded accusations against governmental councils and ridiculous observations of contributors of this blog. Then, when pressed, you’ve dodged providing any reasonable explanations.
Either you can cite studies that replicated Wakefield’s work or you can’t. Either you can cite specific instances of corruption within the GMC or you can’t. Chris laid you out pretty well earlier today, and you’ve yet to respond to that, so you must not have anything to contradict his post. Chris is on the money with the “Streisand Effect.” I’d look it up if I were you.
Ms. Cousins, please find those studies that independently replicated Wakefield’s Lancet study.
Also, about being overseen: you are the one that said “Dr Wakefield was not proven guilty. He was accused and convicted of wrong doing by the corrupt GMC.”
What evidence do you have that the GMC is corrupt? Isn’t that considered libel in your country?
Ms Cousins, you’re becoming threatening. Desist, remove yourself or be removed.
No, it makes me pity you.
Well like wise.
Ohhhh I’m a threat am I? That’s a laugh.
Grow up.
I didn’t say you were a threat Ms Cousins, I said you were being threatening. This is a place for debate, not threats. If you can’t debate and resort to threats, remove yourself or be removed – which is it? Behave, remove yourself or be removed – your choice.
I will behave Kev. Just as long as when someone is less than nice to me you pick them up on it?
@Sullivan: “As an aside, this letter also shows that in Mr. Wakefield’s mind, the Lancet paper was part of the Legal Aid funded study. Study—a term he tries to distance himself from now.”
Yes, Wakefield isn’t the only one I’ve seen turn “study” into “review.”
@Kev: I don’t know if you’ll get a direct response from Rosemary. She’s yet to give me one. But I will stop now, because I don’t want to add fuel to the fire and I don’t want anyone to get removed. We’re grown adults. I hope we can play nice in the sandbox.
No, you don’t get to dictate any terms of use to me. However, you can rest assured that if someone threatens you with legal action as you have done, my response to them will be the same.
To be fair, Rose did not threaten legal action.
She merely informed us that she wishes to have this website monitored by her MP. The implicit threat was that he may be the one to take action.
Of course, her MP would have to remain within The Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament, and may not wish to be seen as supporting her contention that the GMC is corrupt.
Sullivan
Your so wrong…
“Furthermore, there is no intention whatever on behalf of the Legal Aid Board or its agents to take action against the National Health Service: it is against the manufacturers of vaccine that any future actions will be taken if and when our studies indicate that is a valid strategy.”
Who is coughing, up the pittance, here for mmr damage??
Were all of these children killed by the triple MMR jab?
13/1/02 Sunday Express
Focus By Lucy Johnston
Health Editor
AT LEAST 26 families claim their children died as a result of the controversial measles, mumps and rubella jab, the Sunday Express can reveal.
In some cases the Government has awarded parents up to £100,000 under its 1979 vaccine damage Payment Act. In others, post mortem reports concluded the jab was the most likely cause of death. Despite this, the Department of Health insists no child has ever died from MMR.
This assertion is a key aspect of its £3 million publicity drive to persuade parents the vaccine is entirely safe.
It contradicts the view of the US Government, which accepts children die from MMR and awards compensation as a result. Most children do not react to the jab, but medical literature supports the view that MMR can occasionally kill. The parents are now demanding an official inquiry into the deaths. Julie Roberts, 40, whose daughter Stacey died, said: “The Government should take responsibility. It has never given proper warnings of the risk and still doesn’t despite the evidence. Tony Blair can see his children at home. I have to visit my daughter at her grave.”
Experts writing in the Journal of Pediatrics concluded that of 48 children who reacted to the measles component of the jab, eight died and the rest had seizures or brain damage. And a recent study on 1.8 million children by the Finnish Health Board linked neurological reactions, allergic attacks, epilepsy and meningitis to the vaccine. Our research follows speculation over whether Tony Blair’s 19-month-old son Leo has had the MMR jab. The Prime Minister has said he fully supports the vaccine but will not say if Leo has had it.
Many of the families of children who have died have taken legal action. Richard Barr, of solicitors Alexander Harris, has details of 24 cases. He said: “It is widely acknowledged in medical literature and by the American government that the triple vaccine can, on rare occasions, kill, yet this Government won’t accept it.”
Jackie Fletcher, of the pressure group Jabs, which is trying to highlight the potential dangers, said: “The Government should be giving people full and accurate information about health risks.”
But a Department of Health spokesman insisted: “Parents who received payments after their children died following MMR would not get the money now as science has moved on. MMR protects against death and we stand by the fact that no child has died as a result of MMR.”
Wendy Francis’s son, Robert, began behaving abnormally two years after he had MMR in January 1990. He lost control of his movements and slept for 18 hours at a time. Within months he fell into a coma and died in December. Robert, then seven, had developed a degeneratative brain condition called SSPE (sub-acute sclerosis pan encephalitis), linked to the measles component.
The disease can have a long incubation period and Mrs Francis, 40, an auxillary nurse and Robert’s consultant think the vaccine was the only way Robert could have developed it. The family, from Easington, north Yorkshire, are taking legal action against the vaccine’s manufacturer.
Ashley Shipman was born in 1985 and was a healthy three-year-old when he received the MMR vaccine. When he was nine his parents Elaine and Andrew of Eastwood, Nottingham, noticed he was having problems with his balance and co-ordination. He too was diagnosed with SSPE and died in June 1999, aged 14. They received £30,000 compensation.
His father, a lorry driver, said: “We took Ashley into hospital in October 1994 and by Christmas he was in a wheelchair. We were told by the consultant who treated him that his condition was caused by his vaccination.”
In 1995 the Government’s vaccine damage tribunal paid £30,000 compensation to James Smith, of Gateshead, for brain damage after he was given MMR at the age of four. James died nine years later aged 13. Biopsy material taken from his brain and intestines will form a central plank of the scientific evidence in support of a legal case due to be heard in October next year. Up to 300 cases relate to this brand of vaccine – Pluserix – which was banned by the Department of Health in 1992 after being linked with meningitis. This was two years after an identical vaccine was banned in Canada.
John and Faye Smith say the jab transformed their healthy, intelligent son into a child needing round-the-clock care. It took them six years and four hearings, however, to persuade the vaccine damage tribunal of this.
Faye, 59, said: “It’s not about money, but truth. It’s diabolical that the Government refuses to acknowledge the risks of MMR.”
Judith Dwyer, 45, of Tongwynlaif, near Cardiff, received a payment after her four-year-old daughter Chloe died following a “booster” jab in 1989. She too was given a version later banned because of its dangerous side effects. Chloe developed pins and needles in her legs, then paralysis and problems breathing. She was rushed to hospital but it was too late.
After an eight-year fight Judith, an intensive care technician, persuaded a tribunal the jab was the likely cause of Chloe’s death. In September 1996 it accepted this and paid out.
Mother of two Judith said: “Health visitors called me a scare mongerer and laughed. But we fought to raise the profile of vaccine damage.” Stacey Berry, of Atherton, Manchester was 13 when she had a booster jab in November 1994. Days later she started having fits, “stopped smiling, and stared into space.” She was diagnosed with the brain disease SSPE and given two years to live. She died in November 2000, aged 19. A post mortem examination concluded the disease was a “rare complication” of the vaccine”.
Christopher Coulter was 15 when he suffered a fit and died in his sleep 10 days after being vaccinated. He had an unblemished health record and no history of epilepsy but no explanation has been offered other than the statement on his death certificate – “asphyxiation due to severe epileptic seizure”. His mother Anne of Hillsborough, northern Ireland said: “Nothing would replace Christopher, but I want answers. I want peace of mind for my daughters should they ever have children.”
Hannah Buxton was 18 months old when she reacted to her first MMR jab. She started having fits and died 18 months later in February 1992. Parents Carol and Tony of Towcester, Northants, did not know Hannah had been given the strain of vaccine later withdrawn after it was deemed unsafe. In March that year a tribunal blamed the vaccine for her death. Nicola Gentle, 29, of Plymouth, Devon, is convinced her 15-month-old baby Emma Jane died because of the triple vaccine she was given in September 1998. Within six hours she was on a life-support machine. Three days later she was brain dead but a coroner said he could not say for certain whether or not MMR had killed her.
Shirley Fitzgerald’s son Kieren was given the MMR jab in June 1991 when he was 14 months. He reacted within days. “He stopped smiling, laughing and crying and became frightened of his toys,” said Shirley. Kieren also developed bowel problems – linked to MMR by some scientists. In July 1992, he died, aged two. Toddler Harriet Moore died following an MMR vaccination in 1998. Six weeks later she suffered fits and died in her parents arms. Sarah and Pat Moore, of Peasedown St John, near Bath, took the case to tribunal.
Jade Scrimger was vaccinated with MMR at 17 months and died from meningitis three days later in October 1998. Her mother Sheena has since discovered the drug used on her daughter was later banned by the Department of Health because it caused meningitis. She has abandoned the idea of taking legal action against the vaccine manufacturers, however, because lawyers say it is not worth it. In Britain the maximum award for a child’s death is £7,500. Five days after Elaine Adam’s 16-month-old son Stevie was given the MMR vaccine 1991 he too developed meningitis and died. Elaine and her husband Robert, of East Kilbride, were convinced MMR was to blame but their fears were dismissed by doctors. Mrs Adam has refused to allow her second child, Terry, six, to have the jab.
Thanks Sullivan for the information.
If there had been an indemnification by the NHS for the vaccine makers, it should have been there.
So, it looks like the plain language of the contract governed. If the vaccine maker screwed up and got sued, there was no indemnification. If the distributor screwed up and there was a claim against the vaccine maker, NHS agreed to indemnify the vaccine maker.
For example, MMR has to be kept at proper temperature and the use of dry ice can get it too cold. If the vaccine is stored properly by the vaccine maker and too cold by the distributor, it won’t work. If there are lawsuits because the MMR doesn’t work, the vaccine maker might get sued. That’s the screwup of the distributor and it is only fair that the burden not fall on the vaccine maker.
Seem like a correction is needed.
Ms. Cousins, I have a question about one of the studies that Wakefield claims replicates his findings (from the “Research” page of his Callous-Disregard website): Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Bowel Problems or Developmental Regression in Children with Autism: Population Study. It clearly states in the conclusion:
Chris
” (from the “Research” page of his Callous-Disregard website):”
can you give me the quote from Aw`s book please as i dont have mine here just now having lent it to my next door neighbour who has 2 autistic granchildren..
I suppose all the dead children above are frauds as well..even although “THE GOVERMENT” paid out the pittance and not the manufacturer …
Sheldon
Blanket indemnity is, blanket indemnity ;go look at the JVCI trancripts of meetings above that i posted …nothing is ever going to be put on the doorstep of Pharma ,hence the robust defence from Brian Deer ,instigated by Dr John Reid ,Health Minister..because the goverment would have to foot the bill for a vaccine that Canada withdrew because of the killing it was doing to babies its in the JVCI minutes they dont try to hide that, why are you??(dont mention the great big elephant sitting in the corner) because nobody will see it if you dont…duh!!
Sullivan January 24th, 2011 21:43:12
Oh, you mean medicine is a “science” like sociology or economics or perhaps you include “domestic science” – the “soft” sciences – which unlike the “pure” sciences can have attempts at applying the scientific method but which are often not adaptable to the full application of the scientific method.
I disagree and I am not alone in this.
This is what former British Medical Journal editor Richard Smith had to say in the BMJ on the matter and he is right:-
BMJ 2004;28 (Published 17 June 2004)
Doctors are not scientists Richard Smith editor
Doctors do not receive a scientific training to qualify to practice as a medical doctor.
Really. We are still waiting for Brian Deer to answer the questions put to him on this blog, Dr Gorski’s blog, his own blog in The Guardian newspaper and to the British Medical journal.
You and Kev do not like anyone asking him to answer and threaten excommunication. But the questions still remain unanswered.
Not if you do not have the evidence. And now everyone knows Mr Deer does not have the data provided to Andrew Wakefield by the 12 other members of the Royal Free Hospital team which was used in The Lancet paper. And now it is clear that the information he used was inaccurate, out of date, riven with errors and was cobbled together by non-specialists who were not addressing the specific issues investigated at The Royal Free Hospital London.
If you do not have the evidence you cannot make the claim – not validly at least.
Mr Deer’s story just did not and does not stand up and now he has confirmed he did not have the evidence to support his claims and those made in the British Medical Journal.
You are still denying the undeniable.
If you still maintain Deer’s story stands up, show us all the data and results provided to Andrew Wakefield by the Royal Free team to write the Lancet paper and show us where the paper diverges. Mr Deer’s problem and now that of the BMJ is that it does not.
“Really. We are still waiting for Brian Deer to answer the questions put to him on this blog, Dr Gorski’s blog, his own blog in The Guardian newspaper and to the British Medical journal.”
Yes, really. Has nothing to do with Brian Deer. You do see that your statement doesn’t follow at all from what I wrote, don’t you. I do and I bet most readers do. It’s a nice try at diversion, but obvious.