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 
sheldon101 January 25th, 2011 18:53:58
Simple questions but no problem.
What’s the problem and what is your point? None? Thought so. If you had one you would have made it.
sheldon101 January 25th, 2011 23:33:21
Yes. From Sheldon101. If the product was safe when supplied and the distributor caused a defect, the distributor would be liable. A claim against the manufacturer could not succeed.
There was little purpose for the indemnity other than to shield the manufacturer from claims under the Consumer Protection Act 1987.
And you still have not addressed the lack of logic of a customer indemnifying the supplier when that is highly unusual.
CHS:
So sue him. Make him come defend himself, though you will have to be prepared to also answer some awkward questions.
In the mean time, since you seem to be staying up into the wee hours: do you want to answer my questions posed to Ms. Cousins? Surely you know exactly which studies independently validate Dr. Wakefield’s findings. Because the Taylor one I just listed above certainly doesn’t.
Chris January 26th, 2011 02:30:32
Chris:
LOL. “Judge, Mr Deer is a journalist by profession and as a journalist knows the importance of answering questions when his story does not stand up. He won’t answer questions on leftbrainrightbrain blog. Can you order him to pay up a lot of cash and jail him, pretty please.”
Yep. Sounds like that will work.
ChildHealthSafety,
Brian Deer answers a number of questions on the Gary Null show. (here http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-gary-null-show-wnye/2011/1/25/the-gary-null-show-012511-3pm.html)
Brian Deer got access to the medical records of 11 of 12 of the children from….Andrew Wakefield. Yep. When Andrew Wakefield sued Brian Deer, Mr. Deer got access to read the records. He didn’t get to keep them. He wasn’t able to use that information obtained at that time. But, when the GMC hearing was held, he was well prepared to watch out for specifics that he recalled. He was, however, able to obtain the expert reports from the MMR litigation. Brian Deer obtained the IRB papers from the Royal Free through the freedom of information act.
Interestingly–Gary Null fell for the idea that the Lancet Paper showed a causal link between MMR and GI issues–and that there are papers that replicate that non-fact. He mentions that there is a “likely causal relationship between measles and gastrointestinal problems…”
Who are ‘we’ and what makes you think you are of any relevance to this issue that Mr Deer needs to answer above and beyond the BMJ? By the way, I seem to have missed Wakefield’s rapid response to the BMJ or his appearance anywhere on blogs whose readership doesn’t swoon at his very photo.
Wah, wah, wah. You’re not asking, you’re demanding, as though Mr. Deer is beholden to LB/RB or RI. Your insipid questions remain unanswered in your own mind. Wakers can put together his own rebuttal and submit it to BMJ; the fact that he is content to let his ankle-biting lapdogs do his dirty work is very telling of his reluctance to take the fight to the arena.
Deceitful CHS and Martin Walker
————–
1.The issue: As part of the program of vilifying the UK decision to adopt urabe mumps strain MMR vaccination by the UK, there’s a specific claim that the NHS contract ITSELF provided blank indemnification to the vaccine maker for any claims made upon it.
2. I claimed that the clause in question did no such thing. It merely indemnified the vaccine maker for claims made against it due to the actions of the NHS selected distributors.
3. Nothing I’ve read contradicts the straight forward wording of the clause.
4. So what’s CHS going on about?
In 1986, the US passed a vaccine compensation program. According to the vaccine makers and the US gov’t the deal was this. Provided a biologically plausible claim was made (good enough wording) that a vaccine caused or contributed to a condition compensation would be paid with funding coming from a tax on vaccines. You couldn’t sue the vaccine maker if your claim was some design defect in the vaccine. You could sue if the vaccine was physically not properly made. Waiting for judgement before the US Supreme Court is a claim that design defect claims weren’t prevented totally, but mus be decided on an CASE BY CASE basis to whether or not the claimed design defect was unavoidable. In the specific case, the design defect was selling DTP (whole cell pertussis) when a DTaP (acellular Pertussis) vaccine could /should/might have been sold.
I’ve done what I should have done on the UK legislation. The UK has its own vaccine compensation program.
Under the 1987 statute the vaccine makers were subject to no-fault liabilty but at the same time there was a defense that made design defect cases harder.
Click to access rn00-74.pdf
The claim in the UK MMR litigation was a design defect type claim. And rather than hearing the cases one by one, they were being heard together. And UK Legal Aid funded them starting in 1992. The UK used urabe strain MMR from 1988-1992. And the lawsuit was against the UK vaccine makers.
So the indemnification clause didn’t prevent lawsuits against the vaccine makers. Ultimately, the 1987 law might do so. Martin Walker, not surprisingly, got it wrong. But he’s not a solicitor familiar with the legal issues.
On the other hand, CHS is a solicitor familiar with the legal issues. Leaving aside the morality of his adopting Walker’s fantasies and his comments to me, CHS should prominently correct his blog. That would be in keeping with his attitude here toward Brian Deer.
Sure, CHS, so you are saying Mr. Deer’s story does not stand up? Well, do tell us exactly which papers actually support Wakefield’s findings in the Lancet paper. Be sure to make sure it is independent (or explain very carefully why Wakefield or Krigsman is on the author list), tell us how many children were studied, and which MMR vaccine they received.
Also tell us how the Taylor paper replicates Wakefield’s findings.
Well, it probably did. It replicated the true findings, not the ones that Wakefield wrote.
2 week suspension.
Observations of a child are crucial to establishing the correct treatment.
Correct me if I am wrong but the State does not monitor children for fear of being accused of child abuse.
Correct me, again, if I am wrong – but isn’t there now genetic evidence to prove that vaccines do cause damage in those with a genetic predispostion?
I thought that the Government was aware of the neuroscience and genetic breakthroughs achieved by scientists in the UK which prove a vaccine link to autism?
Steve Barclay MP?
We need comments as to whether those on this blog are aware of the above breakthroughs established by British scientists?
Am I correct or not?
Prime Minister?
@sullivan
“Interestingly—Gary Null fell for the idea that the Lancet Paper showed a causal link between MMR and GI issues—and that there are papers that replicate that non-fact. He mentions that there is a “likely causal relationship between measles and gastrointestinal problems…” ”
Ive posted this before and had “ScienceMom” pointing me to her opinnion,and all the back slapping that she gets for a diatribe.
I see you Pharma Trolls cant bear to comment on,that are ” tip of the iceberg” vaccine deaths, the poor children and babies , that have died from vaccines??Shame on you all ..
The truth is that Dr. Wakefield’s findings of bowel disease in association with autism have been replicated (see references) and his work along with that of other doctors has advanced the treatment of these children to the point that the journal, Pediatrics, has published a paper on the treatment for gastrointestinal symptoms in children with autism. The epidemiological studies that claim to prove there is no link between the MMR and autism have not had the statistical power to rule out a link for a subset of susceptible children. Much study remains to be done. Attempts to “shoot the messenger” will only result in further erosion of public trust.
Age of Autism
Autism Action Network
Autism Media Channel
Autism One
Autism File Global
Autism Research Institute
Elizabeth Birt Center for Autism Law and Advocacy
Generation Rescue
National Autism Association
Schafer Autism Report
TACA-Talk About Curing Autism
The Autism Trust USA/UK
The Coalition for SafeMinds
Unlocking Autism
The following peer-reviewed papers support Dr. Wakefield’s original findings:
Furlano R, Anthony A, Day R, Brown A, Mc Garvey L, Thomson M, et al. “Colonic CD8 and T cell filtration with epithelial damage in children with autism.” J Pediatr 2001;138:366-72.
Sabra S, Bellanti JA, Colon AR. “Ileal lymphoid hyperplasia, non-specific colitis and pervasive developmental disorder in children”. The Lancet 1998;352:234-5.
Torrente F., Machado N., Perez-Machado M., Furlano R., Thomson M., Davies S., Wakefield AJ, Walker-Smith JA, Murch SH. “Enteropathy with T cell infiltration and epithelial IgG deposition in autism.” Molecular Psychiatry. 2002;7:375-382.
Wakefield AJ, Anthony A, Murch SH, Thomson M, Montgomery SM, Davies S, Walker-Smith JA. “Enterocolitis in children with developmental disorder.” American Journal of Gastroenterology 2000;95:2285-2295.
Ashwood P, Anthony A, Pellicer AA, Torrente F, Wakefield AJ. “Intestinal lymphocyte populations in children with regressive autism: evidence for extensive mucosal immunopathology.” Journal of Clinical Immunology, 2003;23:504-517.
The following peer-reviewed papers replicate Dr. Wakefield’s original findings:
Gonzalez, L. et al., “Endoscopic and Histological Characteristics of the Digestive Mucosa in Autistic Children with gastro-Intestinal Symptoms”. Arch Venez Pueric Pediatr, 2005;69:19-25.
Balzola, F., et al., “Panenteric IBD-like disease in a patient with regressive autism shown for the first time by wireless capsule enteroscopy: Another piece in the jig-saw of the gut-brain syndrome?” American Journal of Gastroenterology, 2005. 100(4): p. 979- 981.
Balzola F et al . “Autistic enterocolitis: confirmation of a new inflammatory bowel disease in an Italian cohort of patients.” Gastroenterology 2005;128(Suppl. 2);A-303.
These are the articles on treatment of gastrointestinal symptoms in autistic children:
Buie T, et al. Pediatrics. 2010 Jan;125 Suppl 1:S19-29. Recommendations for evaluation and treatment of common gastrointestinal problems in children with ASDs.
Buie T, et al. Pediatrics. 2010 Jan;125 Suppl 1:S1-18. Evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of gastrointestinal disorders in individuals with ASDs: a consensus report.
@ Rosemary, can you post a link in relation to your above assertions?
No.
Rosemary: Then what, exactly, are you hoping to accomplish? Simply put, you can’t make assertions without providing evidence. Try to understand the concept of burden of proof first.
AWOL: That exact same list was posted before, and debunked repeatedly. Why do you think it might work this time? Are you an economist, perhaps?
No, Wakefield’s work has not been replicated with the same results, just the opposite in fact. None of your citations supports nor replicates Waker’s claims and you can’t pull a single one and explain how it does, just keep posting an irrelevant citation list. Your reference to the Pediatrics paper demonstrates your ignorance on the topic. Autistic children having an increased prevalence of GI symptoms does not support Waker’s claim of ‘autistic enterocolitis’ because that isn’t what has been found.
Bollocks. Wakefield claimed to have found over 80% of autistic children with measles vaccine virus in their guts (co-authored with O’Leary). That means that only 35 autistic children are needed for adequate sample power to detect a statistically significant proportion of children with ‘susceptibility’. It’s been examined and not found via Afzal et al., DeStefano et al. and Hornig et al. Incidentally, Dr. Afzal asked Wakers for his samples to test and he refused. So much for his desire for independent replication.
Ms. Cousins:
If you make a claim, then you must provide the supporting evidence for that claim. Otherwise you are spouting nonsense.
Again, provide the evidence that mitochondrial diseases are common in autistic children and/or most people with mitochondrial have autism. Also list the papers that replicated Wakefield by noting how they are independent, how many children were involved and which MMR vaccine affected them.
Also, how exactly does the Taylor, et al paper confirm Wakefield when it specifically says it does not?
You’ve had all night to find the answers. Now answer them or stop spamming this blog.
Ms. Cousins:
You have to tell us what those are by providing the PubMed identification numbers of the specific papers.
“Prime Minister”? Surely, your government would be interested in the libelous statements you made about the GMC.
ScienceMom
Try:
John Stone, the article you posted (again), has already been covered on this page: https://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2010/04/does-autistic-enterocolitis-exist/
Do your research first.
@ John Stone, did you even bother to read the abstract? Because that’s all it is and as my co-author, Gray Falcon and Sullivan have already pointed out, a meeting abstract and not even published. But more importantly, how does this:
replicate Waker’s findings? These were adults, no regression and no measles virus in their guts. It does replicate Waker’s work in that there was no control group, congratulations. What part of ND people have GI disorders too don’t you understand Einstein? This isn’t a unique finding and isn’t an exclusive finding for autistics. Honestly, your lot keep making fools of yourselves with this desperate grasp to make Wakefield right, instead of just walking away from the lout and expending your energy elsewhere. He won’t be vindicated and he won’t suddenly, not be a lying bastard. Suck it up.
@ Rosemary Cousins:
If you are referring to the Hannah Poling case, no. Hannah had an underlying mitochondrial disorder and received nine vaccinations in one day. The Special Master ruled that this could have aggravated her condition. Hannah did not have autism.
It is a fact that health professionals do not observe the mentally ill or children for fear of being accused of child abuse.
Without observations, symptoms cannot be identified and treated.
Unless Brian Deer pulled the pants of the children down to assess their stools he would never know whether or not their symptoms warranted investigation. His statements just don’t ring true.
“It is a fact that health professionals do not observe the mentally ill or children for fear of being accused of child abuse.”
I’m not aware of any AHP who has, or would, refrain from any such observation for the reason you have laid out.
Refraining from observing adverse health affects in a child under thier care could be considered a deriliction of duty under the Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct.
Please provide a reference for your assertions and ensure they are properly laid out.
Richard Smith Editor of the BMJ wrote:-
Some doctors are scientists – just as some politicians are scientists -but most are not. As medical students they were filled full with information on biochemistry, anatomy, physiology and other sciences, but information does not a scientist make – otherwise, you could become a scientist by watching the Discovery Channel.
You missed the next sentence:
A scientist doesn’t just make a reasonable-sounding statement and expect it to be believed, he searches for evidence of the statement’s truth. For example, when you state “It is a fact that health professionals do not observe the mentally ill or children for fear of being accused of child abuse.”, you need to provide evidence that this is actually the case.
So tell me Rosemary, why then, do the likes of you, John Stone and Clifford Miller constantly try to play ‘junior scientists’ just because you have autistic children? None of you have the backgrounds to parse or qualify scientific literature so none of you really have any business trying to tell others that Wakefield’s studies are valid.
Dedj You are absolutely spot on there about your explanation.
I am afraid I cannot go into detail for fear of jeopardising my up and coming court case.
How will justifying the statement “It is a fact that health professionals do not observe the mentally ill or children for fear of being accused of child abuse.” jeopardize your case? Or any of your other claims?
“I am afraid I cannot go into detail for fear of jeopardising my up and coming court case.”
You should not go into detail about your up and coming court case.
You should provide a reference for your blanket assertion, or at least go back to it and lay it out correctly.
“Science Mom” swivel on it….more available if I am allowed to publish…
Click to access replication%20and%20support%20doc.pdf
Gastrointestinal disease in autism:
REPLICATION and SUPPORTIVE STUDIES
Key
Replication studies at the Royal Free**
Replication of case series showing bowel disease in autism by independent groups##
Invited articles*#
Wakefield AJ., Puleston J. Montgomery SM., Anthony A., O’Leary J.J., Murch SH Entero-colonic
encephalopathy, autism and opioid receptor ligands. Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics.
2002;16:663-674
**Torrente F., Machado N., Perez-Machado M., Furlano R., Thomson M., Davies S., Wakefield AJ,
Walker-Smith JA, Murch SH. Enteropathy with T cell infiltration and epithelial IgG deposition in autism.
Molecular Psychiatry. 2002;7:375-382
**Torrente F, Anthony A. Focal-enhanced gastritis in regressive autism with features distinct from Crohn?s
disease and helicobacter Pylori gastritis. Am J Gastroenterol 2004;99:598-605.
*#Wakefield AJ. The Gut-Brain Axis in Childhood developmental Disorders. Journal of Pediatric
Gastroenterology and Nutrition. 2002;34:S14-S17
*#Wakefield AJ. Entero-colitis, Autism and Measles Virus. Consensus in Child Neurology. 2002;6:74-77
**Ashwood P, Anthony A, Pellicer AA, Torrente F, Wakefield AJ. Intestinal lymphocyte populations in
children with regressive autism: Evidence for extensive mucosal immunopathology. Journal of Clinical
Immunology, 2003;23:504-517
**Ashwood P, Anthony A, Torrente F, Wakefield AJ., Spontaneous mucosal lymphocyte cytokine profiles
in children with regressive autism and gastrointestinal symptoms: Mucosal immune activation and
reduced counter regulatory interleukin-10. Journal of Clinical Immunology. 2004:24:664-673
**Ashwood P, Wakefield AJ. Immune activation of peripheral blood and mucosal CD3+ lymphocyte
cytokine profiles in children with autism and gastrointestinal symptoms. J Neuroimmunol.
2006;173:126-34
**Anthony A, Ashwood P., Wakefield AJ. The significance of ileo-colonic lymphoid nodular hyperplasia
in children with autistic spectrum disorder. European Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology
2005;17:827-36
**Furlano RI, et al. Colonic CD8 and gamma delta T-cell infiltration with epithelial damage in children
with autism. J Pediatr. 2001;138:366-72.
**Wakefield AJ, Ashwood P, Limb K, Anthony A. The significance of ileo-colonic lymphoid nodular
hyperplasia in children with autistic spectrum disorder. Eur J Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2005;17:827-36.
*#Wakefield AJ. Enterocolitis, autism and measles virus. Mol Psychiatry. 2002;7 Suppl 2:S44-6.
*#Wakefield AJ, et al. Autism, viral infection and measles-mumps-rubella vaccination. Israeli Med Assoc
J. 1999 Nov;1(3):183-7.
Wakefield AJ. MMR vaccination and autism. Lancet. 1999;354:949-50.
1
Afzal N, et al. Constipation with acquired megarectum in children with autism. Pediatrics.
2003;112:939-42.
##Balzola F, Barbon V, Repici A, Rizzetto M. Panenteric IBD-like disease in a patient with regressive
autism shown for the first time by the wireless capsule enteroscopy: another piece in the jigsaw of this
gut-brain syndrome? Am J Gastro. 2005; 979-981. (Italian replication)
##Balzola F, et al. Autistic enterocolitis: confirmation of a new inflammatory bowel disease in an Italian
cohort of patients. Gastroenterology.2005;128:Suppl.2;A-303. . (Italian replication)
##Balzola F, et al. Beneficial behavioural effects of IBD therapy and gluten/casein-free diet in an Italian
cohort of patients with autistic enterocolitis followed over one year. Gastroenterology, 2006:30; suppl. 2
S1364 A-21. . (Italian replication)
Buie T, et al. Evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of gastrointestinal disorders in individuals with ASDs:
a consensus report. Pediatrics. 2010;125 Suppl 1:S1-18.
Buie T, Fuchs GJ 3rd, Furuta GT, Kooros K, Levy J, Lewis JD, Wershil BK, Winter H. Recommendations
for evaluation and treatment of common gastrointestinal problems in children with ASDs. Pediatrics.
2010;125 Suppl 1:S19-29.
Cade R, et al. Autism and schizophrenia: intestinal disorders. Nutritional Neuroscience 3: 57-72, 2000.
Cade JR, et al. Autism and schizophrenia linked to malfunctioning enzyme for milk protein digestion.
Autism, Mar 1999.
##Chen B, Girgis S, El-Matary W. Childhood autism and eosinophilic colitis. Digestion. 2010;81:127-9.
(Canadian replication)
DeFelice ML, et al. Intestinal cytokines in children with pervasive developmental disorders. Am J
Gastroenterol 2003;98:1777-82:
D’Eufemia P, et al. Abnormal intestinal permeability in children with autism. Acta Paediatr.
1996;85:1076-9.
##Galiatsatos P, et al. Autistic enterocolitis: fact or fiction? Can J Gastroenterol 2009;23:95-98. (Canadian
replication)
Genuis SJ, Bouchard TP. Celiac Disease Presenting as Autism. J Child Neurol. 2009
##Gonzalez L, Lopez K, Navarro D, Negron L, Flores L, Rodriguez R, Martinez M, Sabra A. Endoscopic
and Histological Characteristics of the digestive mucosa in autistic children with gastrointestinal
symptoms. Arch Venez Pueric Pediatr 69;1:19-25 (Venezuelan replication)
##Horvath K et al. Gastrointestinal abnormalities in children with autistic disorder. J Pediatr.
1999;135:559-63. (US replication)
Horvath K, Perman JA. Autism and gastrointestinal symptoms. Curr Gastroenterol Rep.2002;4:251-8.
##Horvath K, Perman JA. Autistic disorder and gastrointestinal disease. Curr Opin Pediatr.2002;14:583-7.
Kawashima H et al. Detection and sequencing of measles virus from peripheral mononuclear cells from
patients with inflammatory bowel disease and autism. Dig Dis Sci. 2000;45:723-9.
2
Kushak R, Winter H, Farber N, Buie T. Gastrointestinal symptoms and intestinal disaccharidase activities
in children with autism. Abstract of presentation to the North American Society of Pediatric
Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, Annual Meeting, October 20-22, 2005, Salt Lake City, Utah.
D’Eufemia P, Celli M, Finnochiaro R, et al. Abnormal intestinal permeability in children with autism.
Acta Pediatrica. 1996;85:1076-1079.
Horvath K, Collins RM, Rabsztyn R et al. Secretin improves intestinal permeability in autistic children. J.
Ped. Gastroenterol. Nutr. 2000;S31:31
De Magistris L, Familiari V, Pascotto A, et al. Alterations of the intestinal barrier in patients with autism
spectrum disorders and in their first-degree relatives. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2010;51:418-24.
Knivsberg AM, Reichelt KL, Hoien T, Nodland M. A randomised, controlled study of dietary intervention
in autistic syndromes. Nutr Neurosci. 2002;5:251–61.
##Krigsman A, Boris M, Goldblatt A et al. Clinical Presentation and Histologic Findings at
Ileocolonoscopy in Children with Autistic Spectrum Disorder and Chronic Gastrointestinal Symptoms.
Autism Insights 2010;2:1-11 (US replication)
McGinnis WR. Mercury and autistic gut disease. Environ Health Perspect. 2001;109:A303-4.
Melmed RD, Schneider CK, Fabes RA. Metabolic markers and gastrointestinal symptoms in children
with autism and related disorders. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2000:31;S31-32.
Nikolov, RN, et al, Gastrointestinal symptoms in a sample of children with pervasive developmental
disorders. J Autism Dev Disord. 2009;39:405-13.
Parracho HM, Bingham MO, Gibson GR, McCartney AL. Differences between the gut microflora of
children with autistic spectrum disorders and that of healthy children. J Med Microbiol. 2005;54:987-91.
Quigley EM, Hurley D. Autism and the gastrointestinal tract. Am J Gastroenterol. 2000;95:2154-6.
Reichelt KL, Knivsberg AM. Can the pathophysiology of autism be explained by the nature of the
discovered urine peptides? Nutr Neurosci. 2003;6:19-28.
Reichelt KL, et al. Probable Etiology and Possible Treatment of Childhood Autism. Brain Dysfuntion
1991;4:308-319.
Reichelt KL, Knivsberg AM. The possibility and probability of a gut-to-brain connection in autism. Ann
Clin Psychiatry. 2009;21:205-11.
Sandler RH, et al. Short-term benefit from oral vancomycin treatment of regressive onset autism. J Child
Neurol. 2000;15:429.
Schneider CK, Melmed RD, Barstow LE, Enriquez FJ, Ranger-Moore J, Ostrem JA. Oral Human
Immunoglobulin for Children with Autism and Gastrointestinal Dysfunction: A Prospective, Open-Label
Study. J Autism Dev Disord. 2006 Jul 15.
Song Y, Liu C, Finegold SM. Real-time PCR quantitation of clostridia in feces of autistic children. Appl
Environ Microbiol. 2004;70:6459-65.
3Taylor B, Miller E, Lingam R, Andrews N, Simmons A, Stowe J. Measles, mumps, and rubella
vaccination and bowel problems or developmental regression in children with autism: population study.
BMJ. 2002;324:393-6.
Valicenti-McDermott M, et al. Frequency of gastrointestinal symptoms in children with autistic spectrum
disorders and association with family history of autoimmune disease. J Dev Behav Pediatr.
2006;27:S128-36.
Valicenti-McDermott MD, McVicar K, Cohen HJ, Wershil BK, Shinnar S. Gastrointestinal symptoms in
children with an autism spectrum disorder and language regression. Pediatr Neurol. 2008;39:392-8.
Welch MG, Welch-Horan TB, Anwar M, Anwar N, Ludwig RJ, Ruggiero DA. Brain effects of chronic
IBD in areas abnormal in autism and treatment by single neuropeptides secretin and oxytocin. J Mol
Neurosci 2005;25:259-74.
White JF. Intestinal pathophysiology in autism. Exp Biol Med. 2003 Jun;228 (6):639-49.
Whiteley P, Shattock P. Biochemical aspects in autism spectrum disorders: updating the opioid-excess
theory and presenting new opportunities for biomedical intervention. Expert Opin There Targets. 2002
Apr;6(2):175-83.
Lucarelli S, Frediani T, Zingoni AM, et al Food allergy and infantile autism. Panminerva
Med. 1995;37:137-41.
Whitely P, Haracopos D, Knivsberg AM, Reichelt KL, Parlar S, Jacobsen J, Seim A, Pedersen
L, Schondel M, Shattock P. The ScanBrit randomised, controlled, single-blind study of a gluten- and
casein-free dietary intervention for children with autism spectrum disorders. Nutr
Neurosci. 2010;13:87-100.
H Jyonouchi, Geng L, Ruby A, Reddy C, et al. Dysregulated Innate Immune Responses in Young
Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders: Their Relationship to Gastrointestinal Symptoms and Dietary
Intervention. J Pediatr 2005;146:605-10
Jyonouchi H. Food Allergy and Autism Spectrum Disorders: Is There a Link? Curr Allergy Asthma
Rep. 2009;9:194-201
4
“Science Mom” swivel on it….
Click to access replication%20and%20support%20doc.pdf
Gastrointestinal disease in autism:
REPLICATION and SUPPORTIVE STUDIES
Key
Replication studies at the Royal Free**
Replication of case series showing bowel disease in autism by independent groups##
Invited articles*#
And how many of those studies genuinely (and INDEPENDENTLY) replicate Wakefield’s findings, hmm?
AWOL, included in that list is the paper I noted earlier:
Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Bowel Problems or Developmental Regression in Children with Autism: Population Study. It clearly states in the conclusion:
Please explain how that replicates Wakefield’s findings and shows harm from the MMR vaccine.
AWOL…all the studies you link to have been discussed and refuted. Some of them aren’t even decent studies. More than a few bear the name of one AJ Wakefield.
You are adding next to nothing to the debate right now and telling women to ‘swivel on it’ is fairly abusive. Watch your step.
You lost this argument long ago, ‘swivel on it’ puts you beneath contempt. You just keep repeating the same list but refuse to pick out a study and explain why it supports Wakefield. None of them do, even his own since replication isn’t valid unless done so by others, and the rest don’t have anything to do with his pet hypothesis of ‘autistic enterocolitis’. If it had such strength of replication and support, it would be a recognised diagnosis and it isn’t. Put up or shut up you bore.
“Gastrointestinal disease in autism”
And? There is no story in the fact that some autistics have gastrointestinal disease. Being autistic does not make one immune to GI disease, any more than it makes one immune to any other disease.
From the 1998 Lancet article:
Emphasis added.
First, even Mr. Wakefield acknowledges that GI dysfunction in autistics was known before his work. So, replications of “Gastrointestinal disease in autism” is not a replication of his work, but of previous work.
Second, he is suggesting that there is a connection between the two. Not just that autistics have GI diseases. Beyond that, he suggests in his paper that not only is there a connection, but that the GI disease is somehow causal to the autism.
Third, he claims a uniformity of ” intestinal pathological changes”. This isn’t even borne out in his own patient set, as Brian Deer has shown.
The point I am making about Richard Smith’s (Editor BMJ) comments is that those who sat in judgement of Andrew Wakefield were not scientists they just thought they were because they had watched the Discovery Channel, so to speak.
I happened to see an article in the Daily Mail a couple of days ago about the young woman who was paralysed from the waist down after the swine flu jab. Apparently neurologists confirmed the paralysis was due to a rare reaction to the vaccination. Sad though. I suppose if she had been genetically assessed as to her genetic predisposition before hand, the paralysis could have been avoided.
Prime Minister?
Those who sit on the GMC and who presided over Wakefield’s case were patently qualified to render judgement on his unethical treatment of research subjects and his phony IRB and not because they watched the Discovery Channel but because they have the backgrounds to do so. If there were procedural errors with Waker’s hearing, then he could have appealed on those grounds. Why didn’t he?
Your evidence for this accusation?
That has nothing to do with Wakefield. At all. Don’t change the subject.
Are you still making threats? After being given a sharp warning?
As Gray Falcon notes, this is a diversion, but can you provide a link to the Daily Mail article you refer to?
I found these stories (and more) on the Daily Mail website with a search for “vaccine”.
Swine flu, hard questions and a father’s agony (father talking about his daughter dying from swine flu and asking why under 5 year old kids were excluded from the vaccine)
IVF toddler twins struck down with meningitis… but only one survives after hospital blunder (parents lose a child and support research into a vaccine for this form of meningitis)
Flu death toll doubles: As virus claims 254 lives, GPs face being stripped of their power to order jabs
My baby nearly died when the hospital that failed Lana Ameen sent him home with swine flu
Grandmother dies from swine flu AFTER she has the jab (vaccine failure)
My darling daughter died for the lack of a £6 jab: Grief and anger of swine flu victim’s doctor father
Flu deaths double to 112 as parents of victim, 3, call for all children to get vaccine
It was a week and then she was gone: Fit and healthy mother-of-three dies from swine flu
S&M ,Sullivan ,Kev et-al
Brian Deer has contributed wholly to the media misrepresentation of Andrew Wakefields study. The paper was a five page case study, not a double-blind test drawing conclusive results. It studied 12 children and made no claims, it merely posited hypotheses. The paper concludes…
“We have identified a chronic enterocolitis in children that may be related to neuropsychiatric dysfunction. In most cases, onset of symptoms was after measles, mumps, and rubella immunisation. Further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome and its possible relation to this vaccine.”
These sorts of studies are done all the time in science and are generally ignored because they don’t prove anything. They merely function as springboards for further scientific research.
Wakefield’s paper however generated enormous controversy because he dared to even hypostasise that vaccines and autism might be link ,threatening the Pharma`s sacred golden calf, of vaccines. Another point you all miss is that the GMC alleged conflicts of interest and unethical treatment of test subjects, it had nothing to do with the quality of his scientific research. The GMC panel that found him guilty of “callous disregard” focused on alleged conflicts of interest and unethical treatment of test subjects.
Lets get it straight …focus trolls..
The Lancet, the journal the paper was published in, is owned by global publishing giant Reed-Elsevier. Reed-Elsevier own 2,460 scientific journals, aswell as the magazine New Scientist.
I’ll say that again, 2,460 scientific journals! – It’s no wonder scientists who dissent from any ‘consensus’ are so easily shut out of the ‘credible’ peer-reviewed literature when a significant amount of that literature is owned by a single publishing conglomerate. They’re like the science and medicine equivalent of News Corp!
It gets worse. Reed-Elsevier’s CEO, Sir Crispin Davis, is a non-executive director of GlaxoSmithKline! And his brother, Sir Nigel Davis, was a judge who withdrew legal aid from families who claimed their children were damaged by GlaxoSmithKline’s MMR vaccine.
Worse still, in 2009 the pharmaceutical giant Merck was sued for paying Elsevier to create a fake journal to promote their products.
Reed-Elsevier’s former chairman, Jan Hommen, attended Bilderberg in 2007 and 2010.
Interestingly, Reed-Elsevier was also the company Peter Power of visor consultants was running mock terror drills for on the morning of 7/7.
Brian Deer, the journalist making all these allegations about Dr. Wakefield, has been supported in his efforts by Channel 4, Murdoch’s Sunday Times and MedicoLegal Investigations, a private company owned by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry!
The network of corruption is so in your face but trust in Deer is wholesale and the denial amongst you all is alarming. And forgot to add that the GMC ,and the BMJ are far from pharma funding Mars is closer ..for a level playing field….
“The paper was a five page case study, not a double-blind test drawing conclusive results.”
According to JB Handley, Andrew Wakefield supporter and founder of Generation Rescue, “Without a real control group, the conclusions of a study on the potential harm of a drug are 100% useless.” That didn’t stop JB Handley from claiming that the Wakefield’s 1998 Lancet study is evidence that the MMR causes intestinal inflammation and the “resultant behaviors”.
I realize that you are not JB Handley, but the community supporting Andrew Wakefield is trying to have it both ways. It is proof, except when it works against Andrew Wakefield.
That said, you do realize that you are repeating a known falsehood here, don’t you: “Brian Deer, the journalist making all these allegations about Dr. Wakefield, has been supported in his efforts by Channel 4, Murdoch’s Sunday Times and MedicoLegal Investigations, a private company owned by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry!”
MedicoLegal Investigations spoke with Brian Deer for one meeting, discussing medical ethics questions. They did not support Brian Deer and they are not owned by the ABPI. That sort of information comes to those who actually ask questions, rather than rely upon the ChildHealthSafety blog.
Elselvier also owns “Medical Hypotheses”, a pseudo journal which has published many junk science papers on autism, including the seminal paper claiming autism is caused by thimerosal.
Sort of works against your notion, doesn’t it?
Last chance.
The woman has transverse myelitis. The story is a year old. What evidence is that is linkied with the 2009H1N1 vaccination, except that it happened a day after vaccination?
@AWOL: Except for the claim of having discovered a new syndrome: autistic enterocolitis. No biggie, I guess.
Fraud can’t be excused simply on the basis that the study was small or inconclusive. What matters is the damage to the public interest.
That and the fraud stuff. If scientific fraud weren’t so frowned upon, I guess Wakefield would be fine.
If it’s so in your face, why aren’t you able to demonstrate convincingly that it exists?
There was corruption, alright: that which Wakefield perpetrated.
Sullivan
“MedicoLegal Investigations spoke with Brian Deer for one meeting, discussing medical ethics questions.
Was the one meeting with Deer for his bank account details?
They did not support Brian Deer and they are not owned by the ABPI.(Deer Deer) That sort of information comes to those who actually ask questions, rather than rely upon the ChildHealthSafety blog.”Qui!
Sullivan what`s printed on the web site is..mmm? I wont exchange
ad-hom as Kev thinks you all need to be mothered..
http://www.medicolegal-investigations.com/index.html
“The only UK company specialising in research fraud/misconduct investigations now supported by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry.”
“I realize that you are not JB Handley, but the community supporting Andrew Wakefield is trying to have it both ways. It is proof, except when it works against Andrew Wakefield.”
JB Handly can write what he wants if he wants to believe that so be it he has his reasons .It is proof except when it works against Pharma..la la
1. “Elselvier also owns “Medical Hypotheses”, … Sort of works against your notion, doesn’t it? ”
Well by maths , 2,459 scientific journals! Still doing the Pharma Gap band dance of ..say oops upside your head say oops upside your head..la la… point is Sullivan?
?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N19NmO3NP4
Joseph
You just need to go and read a lot more before putting pen to paper…mmm
Did Brian Deer say the following?
“Dr Wakefield was, as you know, a senior author of the Lancet paper, and publication of the paper, together with the commentary and the observations that he made at the press briefing, has led on the evidence that you have received to a downturn, or at least did turn to a downturn, in vaccination rates for the MMR vaccine. That is a fact. And it is a fact, even though Dr Wakefield may have been justified in publishing the paper; even though he held honest views about the safety of the MMR vaccine, and even though he advocated the use of a single vaccine. The fact of the linkage between the paper and the press briefing and the downturn is a fact, and it is not difficult to imagine that in some quarters he would be heavily criticised for that fact. The Panel is bound to be aware that such criticism has been made.”
Sheldon as I said comment21:24:21
“Brian Deer has contributed wholly to the media misrepresentation of Andrew Wakefields study.”
AND
” The paper was a five page case study, not a double-blind test drawing conclusive results. It studied 12 children and made no claims, it merely posited hypotheses. The paper concludes”
I also state ..
” These sorts of studies are done all the time in science and are generally ignored because they don’t prove anything. They merely function as springboards for further scientific research.”
My point is, why ?come crying to me if Brian Deer has hyped the whole matter up.Hoodwinking ,you all into a state of complete darkness?
Mind you he has led more than you on here into the dark such as the paper at the BMJ ..whats that all about???more hype and spin from Deer keeping himself in work…nothing more..
Sullivan
“MedicoLegal Investigations spoke with Brian Deer for one meeting, discussing medical ethics questions.”
Was the one meeting with Deer for his bank account details?
“They did not support Brian Deer and they are not owned by the ABPI. That sort of information comes to those who actually ask questions, rather than rely upon the ChildHealthSafety blog.”
Well Sullivan, its not what`s printed on the web site..mmm? I wont exchange ad-hom as Kev thinks you all need to be mothered..
http://www.medicolegal-investigations.com/index.html
“The only UK company specialising in research fraud/misconduct investigations now supported by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry.”
Sullivan so far as you say“I realize that you are not JB Handley, but the community supporting Andrew Wakefield is trying to have it both ways. It is proof, except when it works against Andrew Wakefield.”
JB Handly can write what he wants he has his reasons .It is proof except when it works against Pharma..la la you should have said..
1. “Elselvier also owns “Medical Hypotheses”, … Sort of works against your notion, doesn’t it? ”
Well by maths , 2,459 scientific journals! Still doing the Pharma Gap band dance of ..say oops upside your head say oops upside your head..la la… point is Sulliavan??
Joseph
You just need to go and read a lot more before putting pen to paper…mmm If I comment I`ll be evicted from the big Kev brother house…
AWOL,
Owned is not the same thing as supported. From the link you provided:
“The only UK company specialising in research fraud/misconduct investigations now supported by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry”
From a statement by MLI:
The statement in bold referred to above is: “When Brian Deer began his investigation of Andy Wakefield, he was supported by a pharmaceutical front group”
So, Mr. Deer (a) only received a one-off meeting with MLI to discuss issues of fraud and misconduct and (b) MLI is not and has not been owned by ABPI.
You see misconduct everywhere but where it is most obvious: in Andrew Wakefield.
I see my reply to Sullivan is not coming up??Probably come up buried behind 10 postings, nothing like burying bad news quickly all at the one time even
Or…it could be in the 1,800 spam messages in the spam queue.
You have yet to produce anything like “bad news”. Just unsupported assertions, character smears and threats. I just found about 4 messages in the queue and popped them loose.