Wakefield says he’s innocent of fraud…in other news sky still blue

13 Jan

And so…

I want to make one thing crystal clear for the record – my research and the serious medical problems found in those children were not a hoax and there was no fraud whatsoever. Nor did I seek to profit from our findings.

Yeah there was. Yeah you did.

“I stand by the Lancet paper’s methodology and the results which call for more research into whether environmental triggers cause gastrointestinal disease and developmental regression in children. In fact, despite media reports to the contrary, the results of my research have been duplicated in five other countries.

Your paper was fatally flawed. Your research has never been replicated.

“It is not unexpected to see poor reporting and misinformation coming from Brian Deer, the lead reporter of the recent BMJ coverage.

Oooooh, biatchy!

But to see coverage in other media that cites Deer’s shoddy journalism in the BMJ as a final justification to claim there is no link between vaccines and autism is ludicrous.

Who did that? I think most journalists made the link between the MMR and autism, not ‘vaccines’ and autism.

The MMR is only one vaccine of the eleven vaccinations on the pediatric schedule that has been studied for causing developmental problems such as autism. That is fact, not opinion.

Studied and guess what – nothing found AJ!

Any medical professional, government official or journalist who states that the case is closed on whether vaccines cause autism is jumping to conclusions without the research to back it up.

Blah blah blah.

“I continue to fully support more independent research…

Quackery…

…to determine if environmental triggers, including vaccines, are causing autism and other developmental problems. The current rate of autism is 1 in 110 children in the United States and 1 in 64 children in the U.K. My goal has always been and will remain the health and safety of children.

No it hasn’t.

Since the Lancet paper, I have lost my job, my career and my country.

Oh stop being a primadonna. Lost your country?

To claim that my motivation was profit is patently untrue. I will not be deterred – this issue is far too important.

Yeah, you need to find a way to recoup all that lost dosh right?

51 Responses to “Wakefield says he’s innocent of fraud…in other news sky still blue”

  1. Stuart Duncan January 13, 2011 at 20:50 #

    Lost his job… yet he still calls himself a doctor though, despite not being licensed in the UK nor the US.

    • Sullivan January 13, 2011 at 21:01 #

      Reminds me of old southerners calling themselves “Colonel” long after leaving the military (and even if they hadn’t attained the rank)

  2. Sullivan January 13, 2011 at 21:12 #

    Kev,

    my response got to be so long I decided to make it a post of its own. Addressing the issue of whether Mr. Wakefield intended to make profit from his findings.

    This section of the GMC hearing discusses in greater detail than Mr. Deer had space in his article, the business plan that Mr. Wakefield had drawn up and submitted to his hospital.

    Few people draw up business plans who don’t intend to make a profit. It makes it difficult to attract investors. Given that he clearly lays out projected income, I find his assertion baseless.

    https://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2011/01/mr-wakefields-business-plan-as-discussed-at-the-gmc-hearing/

  3. Gina January 13, 2011 at 22:04 #

    “The MMR is only one vaccine of the eleven vaccinations on the pediatric schedule that has been studied for causing developmental problems such as autism. That is fact, not opinion.”

    Wakefield does understand what a scientific study is, right? He’s alluding that because MMR has been studied it must be the causation of autism. How does he not see how flawed that statement is?

  4. Gina January 13, 2011 at 22:06 #

    “Few people draw up business plans who don’t intend to make a profit.”

    I intend to make a profit in my business and I’ve yet to finish my business plan. Wakefield has one on me.

  5. Kev January 13, 2011 at 22:15 #

    Gina I expect he knows perfectly well, but his money now comes pretty much solely from that he can wring out of the antivaxxers. He has to pander to them and them alone now. That’s really who his piece was written for.

  6. Gina January 13, 2011 at 22:24 #

    I honestly had not thought of that, Kev, which is probably why I continue to look for logic in their (Wakefield & supporters) rhetoric. I expect hokey bullshit like this from others, but he was a doctor; this is science based. How can anyone ignore the science in this? Even the parents? They will cite the CDC as a source for autism rates but shun their info on vaccine safety and scheduling. I don’t flippin’ understand that. If you say the well is poisoned, then you shouldn’t drink ANY water from it, right? Why cherry-pick? It sullies their whole message.

  7. Stuart Duncan January 13, 2011 at 23:08 #

    Actually Kev, I found this article from 2009 that says he’s making quite a bit in the US still:
    “Dr Wakefield, a gastroenterologist, told The Times that he was not practising medicine in the United States, where he does not have a licence, but was working on research as executive director of the clinic. His salary is understood to be almost £200,000 a year. ”

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5728998.ece

    • Sullivan January 13, 2011 at 23:28 #

      Stuart Duncan,

      My recollection from the ThoughtfulHouse form 990 tax forms was that Mr. Wakefield had a base salary of $270,000. Thoughtfulhouse has since let him go. No word on how large his salary is for his new venture. He is now funded by a consortium of autism groups. His business is not a non-profit, so the cash flow will be hard (or impossible) to track.

      http://www.casewatch.org/990/thoughtful_house_2008.pdf

  8. Moderation January 13, 2011 at 23:46 #

    Stuart, just to clarify, whether you are a doctor is determined by your degree, whether you are a practicing doctor (and thankfully Dr. Wakefield is not), is determined by the status of your license.

  9. Squillo January 14, 2011 at 00:20 #

    Playing martyr on the autism-quackery speakers’ circuit has got to be easier than research. Plus it’s good for book sales. Probably more lucrative, too, given that his alternative measles vax didn’t pan out.

    BTW, anyone else notice that the contact on Wakefield’s “I am NOT a fraud!!” press release was his publisher?

  10. Prometheus January 14, 2011 at 08:42 #

    AJ Wakefield moans:

    “Since the Lancet paper, I have lost my job, my career and my country.”

    He lost his country? I just checked the latest weather satellite photos and it’s still there, just off the northern coast of France (that’s the large European country northeast of Spain and southwest of Germany). If he needs GPS coordinates, I’d be happy to provide them.

    I realise that England is often hard to find, especially this time of year, because of the fog and rain, but I can’t believe that Dr. Wakefield would actually lose it.

    Seriously, though, this sort of whinging is not only melodramatic, it’s silly. Wakefield hasn’t lost his country – he can go back there any time he wants. As for his job and his career, his own actions were the proximate cause of those losses.

    I am reminded of the story where a young man is facing sentencing after being convicted of the pre-meditated murder of his parents. When he is asked if he has anything to say, he begs the court to take pity on him because he is an orphan.

    Prometheus

    • Sullivan January 14, 2011 at 19:11 #

      Prometheus,

      to paraphrase the Beatles: turn right at Greenland.

      More directly, nothing forced him to leave the UK. I’m sure he could have made a place in the UK. It wouldn’t have been as well supported as Thoughtful House, but I think we can come up with examples of UK operations much like what Mr. Wakefield would have produced.

      As to the job, Brian Deer points out that his hospital not only was willing to keep him, but they were willing to support him to prove his hypothesis. A sort of in-house sabbatical with staff. He passed on the opportunity.

  11. brian January 14, 2011 at 21:56 #

    Sullivan, I thought that Deer’s statement that Wakefield had rejected the opportunity to definitively prove that his hypothesis was correct was among the most interesting aspects of Deer’s report.

    The hospital that employed Wakefield as a researcher offered Wakefield salary, staff, and research support to perform a study involving 150 children in an attempt to replicate his controversial preliminary results. To any researcher in an academic setting, where the struggle for funding is a daily reality, that should have been a godsend.

    Although Wakefield was content to accept direct payment from lawyers and legal aid money to support the litigation-driven preliminary work that (before he had enrolled any patients in his study) he assured the lawyers would show that MMR caused autism, after initially accepting the hospital’s offer and then doing nothing for months, Wakefield huffed that being asked to do a study impinged on his academic freedom, and he never attempted to replicate his preliminary study. It’s difficult to come up with more than one reason why he would have done that.

    • Sullivan January 14, 2011 at 23:07 #

      Brian,

      I found that amazing myself. I wish I could find the original document

      I am copying that section of the BMJ article here for anyone who may be interested:

      This marked the end of any commercial deals with Wakefield, and the beginning of his end at the Royal Free. When eventually ousted from his job, he said, “I have been asked to go because my research results are unpopular.”(31) And in response to my investigation, he would allege sinister conspiracies to stop him revealing what he claimed were vaccine secrets.(32) (33)
      But the paperwork does not show this. Despite all that had happened, UCL volunteered to support his work. It offered him continuation on the staff, or a year’s paid absence, to test his MMR theories. He was promised help for a study of 150 children (to try to replicate his Lancet claims from just 12) and, in return for withdrawing from the January London conference, he would be given the intellectual property free.
      “Good scientific practice,” the provost’s letter stressed, “now demands that you and others seek to confirm or refute robustly, reliably, and above all reproducibly, the possible causal relationships between MMR vaccination and autism/“autistic enterocolitis”/inflammatory bowel disease that you have postulated.”
      At the time, Wakefield agreed. Then his employer waited. It prompted, waited longer, and prompted again. “Three months have elapsed,” Llewellyn-Smith wrote to him in March 2000, asking for “a progress report on the study proposed” and “not to make any public statements” in the meantime.
      But the study did not happen. The 1998 Lancet research had been a sham.(10) Trying to replicate it with greater numbers would have been hopeless.
      Wakefield, however, shrugged off his non-compliance as arising from some fault of the school’s. “It is clear that academic freedom is essential, and cannot be traded,” he eventually responded in September 2000. “It is the unanimous decision of my collaborators and co-workers that it is only appropriate that we define our research objectives, we enact the studies as appropriately reviewed and approved, and we decide as and when we deem the work suitable for submission for peer review.”

  12. autism is caused by vaccines January 15, 2011 at 06:01 #

    Wow, this article must have taken a lot of time & effort on your part.
    You must be proud to produce an article of such integrity?
    Has this what’s it’s come to?
    I suppose year after year of telling the sea it cannot come in at high tide dulls & corrupts those souls paid to do it…
    Still, one good thing that I can see is that increasingly, science aside, the people supporting Dr Andrew Wakefield continue to seek the truth & point out the shocking corruption of medicine & science by these pharma-propagandists which have the blood of so many beautiful kids on their conscience.
    Clearly, those posing here in opposition beautifully portray themselves & petty, nasty, point-scoring, evasive thugs who have no interest in seeking the truth because clearly they know better than the parents, like us, that know the vaccine caused our son’s autism.
    I ask all those reading these comments to make their own decision about who is really running this site, & the likely agenda.
    It’s not difficult once you know the tactics used by such people.
    Listen to Andrew Wakefield speak. Listen to Deer too. The truth is screaming out to you.

    To all those asking questions because of the love for their children, thank you so much.

    To those who are paid to do this. Please search your soul & help us get treatment for our children.

    You are not being paid enough to sell this lie that fewer & fewer believe anymore.

    • Sullivan January 15, 2011 at 06:13 #

      Pharma propagandists with the blood of beautiful children on their hands?

      Is there a way to keep this to a reasoned discussion of facts? We’re parents here. Parents of autistic kids. Some contributors here are autistics themselves. We’ve carefully looked at the evidence and drawn reasoned conclusions for ourselves.

      I welcome discussion on this topic. We had a pretty good one here recently. As good as they come on this topic at least.

      Yes, I’ve concluded that Mr. Wakefield is guilty of misconduct. I took a long time to come to my conclusions and did a lot of reading to get there. What’s more. I can defend my position. I don’t see much in your comment that is substantive enough to defend. If I’m wrong please correct me and we can discuss this rather than throw around insults.

  13. T Herling January 15, 2011 at 22:12 #

    Just curious, are the amounts of money involved enough to classify his business venture as “Big Pharma?” You know, the folks who fund the ubiquitous “paid shills.”

  14. Dawn January 16, 2011 at 14:25 #

    Y’know, I want to put one good word in for Wakers. At least, knowing he WAS a fraud, he didn’t take the hospital up on its offer to replicate the initial study with 150 children. So, at least those 150 children weren’t made to suffer in the same way the original 12 did. (Of course, he probably knew he couldn’t doctor 150 records the same way he did 12, but that’s beside the point…he DID save those 150 children from being subjected to the testing.)

  15. Julian Frost January 16, 2011 at 20:58 #

    @ autismiscausedbyvaccines:

    You are not being paid enough to sell this lie that fewer & fewer believe anymore.

    Wrong on both counts, and you owe me a new Irony Meter. Over 40 studies have looked at the vaccination autism link. The only ones that “found” a link were those done by Wakefield or those associated with him. In addition, more and more people are starting to realise that the link is nonexistent, and that Wakefield is a fraud and liar.

  16. Gina January 17, 2011 at 14:22 #

    Wakefield was just on Good Morning America here in the states this morning. I’d check out the video when it goes up. He again insists that Deer lied, the austic entercolitis was replicated in other studies and that parents came to him not via attorneys. Also he claimed that they did not have access to the GP medical records at the time of the study. He also called it a study not a review. He said they used the parents records.

  17. Dawn January 17, 2011 at 14:53 #

    @Gina: I don’t watch GMA (usually at work), so forgot about it. How many times did he say “Buy My Book”? The TRUTH is in there, y’know.

  18. Gina January 17, 2011 at 15:03 #

    @Dawn: Ha! I can’t recall if he did say it at all actually. It’s my usual day off and I was still loopy from sleeping in. He did refer parents to the CDC website tho. Odd I thought.

  19. AWOL January 17, 2011 at 16:01 #

    Gina you find it odd that Dr Wakefield would direct parents to the CDC site ,that is the stamp of the man. He has never been ant- vaccine all he did was say we need to have more in depth look at the MMR Autism case. Since then Deer has got hold of it all and sensationalised it all and at the same time, is making a fortune just now ,and we are all the pawns. So far as the book is concerned Dr Wakefield never got involved in this for the money if he had he would never have questioned the un questionable 27 billion pound pharma baby of vaccines. The Autism vaccine community are just lucky that by chance Dr Wakefield was at the Royal Free anyone less and they would have walked away as many have done and gone down to Deer and Pharma . Wakefield will fight on, and on, and on, and on.

    thank you Dr Wakefield

  20. Gina January 18, 2011 at 01:25 #

    I found it odd on two fronts: first because the CDC supports the use of the mmr vaccine and does not support Wakefields contention that more testing is needed and second because Wakefield deliberately aligns himself with those that ARE anti-vaccine. Jenny McCarthy is one of the more vocal of this movement and she wrote the forward I believe to his book. Since the CDC is pro-vaccine and Wakefield has surrounded himself with vaccine doubters, I figured he would refernce a more middle of the road info source. What is that saying about the company you keep?

    Sorry about the crazy typos. Writting on my itouch and this thing sucks.

  21. AWOL January 18, 2011 at 12:58 #

    Gina

    Its not as black and white as all the hype. Dr Wakefield has had his children vaccinated .Wakefield has always been his own man and always just reported what he found.These days it’s a crime to tell the truth ,Wiki leaks etc .Jenny and many of the campaigners brought the most precious thing in the world to be accinated,and found a change in them after vaccination.They were never the way they are now or they wouldn’t have vaccinated the most precious thing in the world in the first place .

    To use the Pharma term anti- In any discussion involving science or medicine, citing Anti Vaccine ,Dr Wakefield to as a credible source loses you the argument immediately ….and gets you laughed out of the room.That is the psyche were up against

    This is Dr Wakefield in his own words.

    http://www.whale.to/vaccines/wakefield.html

  22. AWOL January 18, 2011 at 13:03 #

    Gina

    Ask them why the dishonesty ?why are they all trying to limit discussion? and suffocate Deers lies THIS TIME???

    Very likely “ la,la, I can’t hear you” shall have to withdraw his article wont you Mr Deer…coincidence or was Marcovitch the Patsy, and the Patsy is always last to know…

    http://www.ageofautism.com/201…..-else.html

  23. Gina January 18, 2011 at 16:53 #

    @AWOL:

    How that is a “stamp of a man” as you put is beyond me, I guess, because it leads me to the conclusion that he is sending mixed messages. Either you support the CDC as a source of accurate, trustworthy information on vaccine safety or you don’t. You can’t be a little bit pregnant on this one. Here’s his quote from the Good Morning America interview:

    “Do vaccines lead to autism, I don’t know,” said Wakefield. “I am for safety first. I am not for anti-vaccine. The vaccine strategy in this country is not safe.”

    http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Autism/autism-vaccine-link-research-dr-andrew-wakefield-fraud/story?id=12630566&page=3

    By ‘this country’ he’s referring to American, just to be clear. Hence, he does not trust the CDC’s support of the established vaccine schedule, yet he references them to parents wanting to learn more. What they’ll learn is what the CDC supports, which just so happens to contradict what he says in the very same interview. It’s confusing and odd. That’s why I said it was.

    But what really confuses me, for Wakefield as a man of science, is what you’ve said above:

    “He has never been ant- vaccine all he did was say we need to have more in depth look at the MMR Autism case.”

    But, AWOL, the “MMR Autism case” was non-existent in the scientific world until he made it a case. And he made that case, with, admittedly, no support. He has repeatedly, in this interview as well, stated adamantly that his study was not about and did not support a link between MMR and autism directly. The study was about MMR and bowel disease, so he doesn’t have to show data supporting MMR/autism link, right? But then he goes on in this same interview again to say as I put above, that our vaccine strategy is not safe. Why isn’t it safe? What supports that belief?

    I mean, honestly, we’re not debating religion, we’re talking about science. It cannot be brushed aside. Facts support supposition in science. There is no such thing as blind faith in science and medicine.

  24. Gina January 18, 2011 at 17:03 #

    I see you responded twice to me while I was writing my too long response myself. One at a time…

    “AWOL
    January 18th, 2011
    12:58:54”

    What? I mean, really, I don’t know what the heck you are saying in this one. Maybe it’s the typos, but please clarify. I don’t want to muddy the water more by attempting my own interpretation and potentially getting it wrong.

    “AWOL
    January 18th, 2011
    13:03:43”

    What’s dishonest? Me? Deer? Wakefield? Hurling the word dishonest or fraud or lie without backing it up hurts your argument, not mine. I referenced a link to an interview, one that did not come from a autism group. I suggest you do the same.

  25. AWOL January 18, 2011 at 19:30 #

    Gina

    I post most of the time from my mobile sorry for any mistakes ,

    You say you were confused to start with , as you say “You can’t be a little bit pregnant on this one”. So you were disingenuous to start with ,because you clearly state from the side of Pharma(shame on you) .

    Unlike you Dr Wakefield has always written with class and aplomb .At no time whatsoever has Dr Wakefield given out mixed meanings, you interpret what you want you have your reasons, what are they?

    quote “But, AWOL, the “MMR Autism case” was non-existent in the scientific world until he made it a case.” End of quote

    You honestly have researched that ..have you?

    The panorama of the increase in autism has been as follows:
    In the UK, the risk increased 4 fold from 1988 to 1993 in a subgroup of boys aged 2-5 years with MMR vaccination constant at ~ 95%, from 8 to 29 per 10,000!
    Kaye J et al. Mumps, measles and rubella vaccine and the incidence of autism recorded by general practitioners: A time trend analysis. British Medical Journal 2001; 322: 460-3
    Time trend analysis of data from the UK general practice research database (GPRD) has shown the incidence of newly diagnosed autism increased from 0.3 per 10,000 in 1988 when the MMR jab was introduced in the UK, to 2.1 per 10,000, in 1999, a sevenfold rise; the peak incidence was amongst 3 and 4 year olds and 254 out of the 305 cases (83%) were boys. A British study from Cambridge University by Dr. Fiona Scott of the Autism Research Centre, showed there 58 per 10,000 children with diagnosable autism (one in 175); only children with definite clinical diagnosis were counted. Previous studies had indicated a rate of 5 per 10,000, almost 12 times lower. Thus about 30,000 primary school (age 5-11) children now have autism.
    UK Sunday Telegraph 18/2/01

    As you know Deer is the fraud and the smothering of talk on the pharma sites is glaring.Most of your posting is gibberish and would take me a life time to, reply, to.

  26. Julian Frost January 18, 2011 at 20:08 #

    @ AWOL:

    Wakefield has always been his own man and always just reported what he found.These days it’s a crime to tell the truth ,Wiki leaks etc.

    False. The tests did not say what Wakefield wanted to say, so he cooked the data. Also, Wakefield lied about what the children’s medical records said.
    Finally, it’s amusing that you paraphrase Scopie’s Law and then link to Whale.to. Scopie’s Law says “In any discussion on science or medicine, citing Whale.to as a credible resource loses you the argument immediately, and gets you laughed off the forum.”
    So in the spirit of Scopie’s Law:
    BWA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

  27. Gina January 18, 2011 at 20:35 #

    First off, love the snark! I do love a good poo throwing, to be honest, but I seriously wasn’t trying to start with you. If you thought I was, I apologize.

    “So you were disingenuous to start with ,because you clearly state from the side of Pharma(shame on you) .”

    I wasn’t disingenuous at all, I think you misread or misunderstood. What I meant by not being a little pregnant was that either Wakefield believes the CDC is providing safe vaccine info or he doesn’t. To say that the vaccines strategy of the US is unsafe and then refer the CDC, who supports that very strategy as safe info, is what is disingenuous. As far as me being pro-Pharma, really, dude, you must be joking.

    “You honestly have researched that ..have you?”

    You’re arguing me with stats that are beside the point. The rise or fall of autism during a specific time period has nothing to do with any scientific community suppport of an MMR/autism link. Whether or not the stats support your theory, the scientific community has NEVER stood by that link, then, now or (as it seems) ever. You can throw more stats, but you’re not fighting fire with fire. It would make a lot more sense if you could cite major medical journals referencing MMR/autism as a threat BEFORE Wakefield’s Lancet paper. That would be on perfectly point. If you have, I would like to see it. It just might change my POV. I’m aware that there are parent groups in existence before the Lancet paper, but that’s not the scientific community, now is it?

    Parental concern is one thing, and not at all what I’m talking about. Show me legit evidence of MMR/Autism fears in the Sci-community prior to the Lancet paper and I will give you a proverbial cookie.

  28. AWOL January 18, 2011 at 21:10 #

    “Show me legit evidence of MMR/Autism fears in the Sci-community prior to the Lancet paper and I will give you a proverbial cookie.”

    You imply that vaccines and vaccinations are viewd as inherently safe within the Sci-community despite

    1. From 1979 onwards pertussis vaccine was excluded in Sweden due to fears for its safety and efficacy(5)

    2. From July 1990 thro’ April 1994, 5799 ADRs following MMR vaccination were reported to US Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS); including 3063 cases requiring emergency medical treatment, 616 hospitalisations, 309 who did not recover, 54 children left disabled and 30 deaths. Due to massive underreporting these are considered only 10-15% of the total number of ADRs (6)

    3. In 1973 one study described 80 cases of neurologic disorder starting within 30 days of live measles vaccination (JAMA 1973;233(13):1459-62)

    4. Convulsions after measles vaccine occurred in 1 in every 526 cases (Prod Roy Soc Med, 1974;67:24)

    5. Millions of children who received the Salk vaccine in the 1950s were infected with Simian Virus 40 (SV40); SV-40 and similar agents have since been recovered from human brain tumours and also precancerous conditions in the brain; SV-40 was shown to cause cancer in hamsters after the equivalent of 20 human years.(WDDTY vaccination handbook, p17)

    6. The Rubini vaccine, used in Europe for many years, was shown to be virtually useless by the mid-’90s and probably responsible for many outbreaks of mumps during the ’80s and ’90s with resultant morbidity. (7)

    7. Finland ‘eradicated’ mumps measles and rubella by mass vaccination from 1982 with two doses of live virus vaccines. “the 99% decrease in these diseases was accompanied by an increasing rate of ‘false positive clinical diagnoses'” – “In 655 vaccinated patients with clinically diagnosed disease, serologic studies confirmed presence of measles in only 0.8%, mumps in 2.0%, rubella in 1.2%.” (8)

    The question I would now ask is, Finland replaced measles, mumps and rubella with “approximately 655 cases” of WHAT?

    8. DTP vaccination resulted in convulsions within 3 days in 1 in 4200 children; measles of MMR resulted in convulsions within 6-11 days in 1 in 1000 children; Urabe mumps vaccine caused convulsions in 1 in 866 children in 15-35 days (and an outbreak of bacterial meningitis in 1992 resulting in it being withdrawn from use); MMR caused idiopathic thromocytopaenic purpura (ITP) within 15-35 days in 1 in 8000 children. (9)

    9. “Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome after a further attenuated measles vaccination” (10)

    10. Finland eradicated M,M and R by mass vaccinations starting from 1982; from 1987 Finland’s rate of Insulin Dependent Diabetes (IDDM) in under 15 year olds increased by 40%, its rate of IDDM is THE HIGHEST IN THE WORLD. (8)

    11. “In the past two decades (’70s and ’80s) Finland’s IDDM incidence rose by 57%” (11); the highest rise between 1987 and 1996 was in 1-4 year old children (1987-93 rate of 36/100,000 p.a. rose by 1996 to 45/100,000 p.a.) (12)

    12. “Autistic Syndrome (Kanner) and vaccination against smallpox” (13)

    13. “The reasons leading to discontinuance of smallpox routine vaccination in Italy – epidemiology and deaths from vaccination complications” (14) 1979

    14. Hepatitis B vaccine starting at 2 months of life associated with increased occurrence of IDDM in New Zealand; Finland study showed Hib vaccine associated with increased occurrence of IDDM; several studies link BCG vaccine after 1 month of life with development of diabetes.(15)

    15. Risk of Hib-induced diabetes outweighs vaccine benefits (16)

    16. MMR-triggered autoimmune response to myelin sheath may play pathogenic role in Autism (Jan. ’99 Journal of Clin. Immunology & Iimmunopathology; University of Michigan, Singh et al Oct ’98)

    17. “Preferential stimulation of Type 1 CD4+ T cells by inactivated virus vaccines is hypothesized to play a role in subsequent development of Atypical Measles” (17)

    18. Critical Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) suspected caused by Atypical Measles (18)

    19. Atypical Measles believed cause of delayed hepatobiliary disease & eosinophilia (19)

    20. Atypical Measles with hepatic involvement (20)

    “If the germ theory was founded on facts there would be no living being to read what’s written” Dr. George White.

    B. Vaccines almost always work/are efficacious – MYTH

    1. Only 5 of 25 children (5-19) had measles enzyme IgG and IgM antibodies present (21)

    2. 58% of 212 children (2-4yrs) who had been vacccinated or had measles disease were without detectable antibody (22)

    3. Despite mass vaccination campaign in 1985 epidemics hit Turkey in 1989 and 1993 in groups 5-9 and >15 yrs; most in previously immunised primary and secondary school children (23)

    4. 1992 measles epidemic in Cape Town in 91% vaccinated community – possible reasons “include both primary and secondary vaccine failure” (24)

    5. For whole cell pertussis vaccine there was “low antipertussis toxin response; hypotonic hyporesponsiveness occurred significantly more frequently than acellular vaccines; more frequent seizures and high fevers were seen than after any acellular vaccine” (25)

    6. “Because of fears of safety and efficacy no pertussis vaccine has been included in vaccination program in Sweden since 1979 (5)

    7. Immunology of whole cell vaccine studied was POOR after 1 month (and third dose) and no antibodies were detected in nearly all 1572 children 15 months after whole cell vaccination. 1998 (26)

    8. Post MMR vaccination results in 5-6 year olds “data indicated that a large proportion of children vaccinated under routine conditions do not have detectable measles or mumps antibody” (27) 1995

    Need more Gina just say..

  29. AWOL January 18, 2011 at 21:17 #

    Julian Frost,

    “False. The tests did not say what Wakefield wanted to say, so he cooked the data. Also, Wakefield lied about what the children’s medical records said.”

    “if you look at Deer’s report, in most cases he is comparing the Royal Free’s own records with the Lancet paper”

    Mr Deer has done it a tad shoddily it seems. How that got past the “peer reviewers” raises questions about what “peer review” means at the BMJ.

    Unfortunately Mr Deer appears to have gone to ground and is not even answering basic questions put to him on his new Guardian blog.

    Instead his “big sis” ploy is to get the BMJ Deputy Editor to post instead – she says “if you don’t like what we say sue us”. Which is a remarkable position for a supposedly peer reviewed journal to take.

    “In most cases” takes on a new meaning regarding Child 11 – remember these are allegations of fraud being made – see below.

    And we see you, like the usual suspects on a Kev Leitch blog. engage in the usual personal attacks on people who are not around to defend themselves. Nice. The usual bully tactics.

    Regrettably it is the answers from Mr Deer himself which are needed – the horse’s mouth so-to-speak and not the go-betweens on Kevin Leitch’s blog.

    Can we have answers from Mr Deer please or is he continuing to hide?

    __________________________

    Examples Mr Deer refuses to answer. Perhaps he might step out of the shadows now and deal with them?:-

    Child 1, 8, 11

    In order to “go behind” the 1998 Lancet paper, Mr Deer needed the original data and records provided to Mr Andrew Wakefield by his 12 other professional specialist colleagues at The Royal Free Hospital, London.

    Does Mr Deer have exactly that data and those records? Or has Mr Deer instead relied on such of the NHS records of children either disclosed to him under Court rules [CPR 31.22] in the Wakefield v Channel 4 & Deer libel litigation and/or information contained in the transcripts of the General Medical Council proceedings.

    Child 11’s medical records were not available for the GMC hearings. Very little mention was made of Child 11. Can Mr Deer explain upon what particular medical records for Child 11 he relies?

    DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORIES

    This is what the 1998 Royal Free Lancet paper said about all the Lancet 12 children:-

    they had “a history of normal development followed by loss of acquired skills”.

    That was a main issue the 1998 Royal Free Lancet paper was reporting on scientifically and medically. It also states clearly it was an “early report” and called for further investigation.

    CHILD 8

    Mr Deer says about Child 8:-

    “But although the paper specified that all 12 children were “previously normal,” [Child 8] had developmental delays, and also facial dysmorphisms, noted before MMR vaccination.

    For Child 8 specifically the Lancet paper stated:-

    “Prospective developmental records showed satisfactory achievement of early milestones in all children. The only girl (child number eight) was noted to be a slow developer compared to her older sister.”

    Let us now compare what The General Medical Council hearing transcripts show regarding Child 8’s specialist developmental pediatrician’s opinions. This specialist was not any part of the Royal Free team and was part of the normal UK NHS health service.

    May 1994 age 10.5 months:

    “There were no neurological abnormalities and I felt that her development was within normal limits”

    23 December 1994 (approx 18 months) – developmental pediatrician wrote:

    “I felt that her abilities, although delayed on the average age of attainment were not outside the range of normal. Her growth has been satisfactory.”

    17 February 1995: The developmental pediatrician writes three weeks after MMR:

    “When I reviewed her in clinic recently I confirmed that she is globally developmentally delayed, functioning at about a one year level on Denver Developmental Assessment. …… General examination is unremarkable. There were no neurological abnormalities other than the developmental delay.”

    As this is a scientific medical paper specifically focussed on developmental histories, can Mr Deer please explain where he believes the discrepancy is between what is reported in the Lancet paper and what the developmental pediatrician recorded in his clinical opinion.

    Can Mr Deer also please confirm that the appropriate opinion to rely on in such a case is that of the specialist developmental pediatrician and not the views of Child 8’s mother nor the view of the referring General Practitioner.

    Would Mr Deer like to confirm that in scientific terms in a scientific medical paper reporting on the history of development, Child 8’s clinical history was normal prior to MMR vaccination – or as the specialist developmental pediatrician stated within the “normal range”.

    CHILD 11

    Assuming Mr Deer did not have Child 11’s full medical records, on what basis can anyone make a serious allegation of fraud?

    CHILD 1

    Mr Deer implies [but does not say] that Child 1 may have had symptoms of an autistic condition aged 9 months – well before the MMR vaccination:

    “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.”

    The additional GP records disclosed in the GMC proceedings (but not available to the Royal Free team) contain an entry documenting in addition to his mother’s concerns about Child 1’s hearing, her additional concern was about a discharge from Child 1’s left ear. Is it not correct that this concern is not suggestive of an incipient developmental disorder but of an ear infection?

    BMJ FACT CHECKING

    In The Sunday Times last, 9th January, Mr Deer says he insisted the BMJ checked his facts. Did they do so? And if so, what did they do?

    INSPECTION OF DATA

    Perhaps Mr Deer would be kind enough to confirm where the data relied on in this article can be inspected please?

    Mr Deer claims to have gone behind the Royal Free’s 1998 Lancet paper to expose fundamental flaws.

    Would Mr Deer perhaps agree that it now seems from this BMJ paper by him that is not what he has done?

    It appears Mr Deer has compared the Lancet paper’s findings with the childrens’ GP records instead of with the data and results provided to Mr Andrew Wakefield’s other 12 authors on an interdisciplinary team of medical specialists.

    It would be helpful for Mr Deer to explain how on such a basis can an allegation of fraud be sustained?

    If Mr Deer wanted to “go behind” the paper then he needed to have the data and results provided for the preparation of the Lancet paper and compare it with the contents of that paper.

    The 1998 Lancet paper was written by Mr Andrew Wakefield based on the data and results provided to him by those other 12 specialists.

    If there was any falsification as is now being alleged in the British Medical Journal Mr Wakefield’s 12 other authors would have noticed immediately.

    Those other authors had the initial referral letter from the GP, the “Red Book” of developmental progress [held by the parents], fresh parental histories taken by Professor Walker-Smith [not Wakefield], test and clinical examination results and any further information in any ensuing correspondence with GPs.

    The Royal Free Team did their own examinations, took fresh histories and made their own specialist diagnoses afresh. They did not rely on family doctor [ie. non specialist] GP records. This is standard practice in British NHS hospitals.

    GP records are made by non specialists [General Practitioners], taken over years, by more than one person, omit information provided by parents and contain other information unknown to parents.

    It is also clear from the transcripts at the GMC that the GP records are riven with fundamental errors like incorrect dates of vaccinations [eg. Child 8 – 7th January instead of 27th January – “I think” said the GP in evidence] and incorrect types of vaccinations being recorded [eg. Child 4 – was it measles vaccine or was it MMR – the records say MMR – the GP said in evidence it was measles].

    Additionally the 1998 Lancet paper stated prominently on the first page “Early Report” and it called for further investigation.

    Does Mr Deer not agree that an “early report” is an alert to other medical practitioners of a potential problem and not a claim to have found and proven one?

    A huge ammount of people want to speak to “La la la I can’t hear you.”

    We would like to hear from you Brian

    As in the spirit of Scopie`s law, the yolk is on you frostbite

    Larf,larf,larf,larf,larf

    • Sullivan January 18, 2011 at 21:57 #

      AWOL appears to believe that the size of the response, and repetition, can make up for lack of a quality argument.

  30. Gina January 18, 2011 at 22:29 #

    AWOL, I liked you better when you were snarky. All of your nonsense is meaningless because I can see from the start that you’ve again misread my post. I did not say that vaccines were safe or that there were no vaccine concerns (general or specific) within the scientific community. What I did say was pretty clear:

    “Show me legit evidence of MMR/Autism fears in the Sci-community prior to the Lancet paper”

    Which you still haven’t done. You’ve given more irrelevant stats on other vaccines and diabetes and measles strains and a whole bunch of other crap that has nothing to do with providing evidence of MMR/Autism fears illustrated prior to the 1998 paper within the medical/scientific community. I think you think you will overwhelm me with useless distractions. You get no cookie.

  31. Chris January 18, 2011 at 22:55 #

    AWOL:

    B. Vaccines almost always work/are efficacious – MYTH

    A myth perpetuated by the anti-vaccine crowd. Show us where in the actual science community that has proclaimed vaccines 100% safe and effective.

    The MMR vaccine was introduced in the USA in 1971 using the Jeryl Lynn mumps component, not Rubini. What does pertussis and polio vaccinations have to do with this request:
    “Show me legit evidence of MMR/Autism fears in the Sci-community prior to the Lancet paper and I will give you a proverbial cookie.”?

    AWOL, your cites are crap. First there is not information to find them, and second they have nothing to do with autism.

    Give us the full citation (journal, title, date) of the paper that shows a concern for autism for autism in the USA between 1971 and 1998. Period. Nothing else. No other disease, no condition other autism and no other vaccine (including the UK vaccine with Urabe mumps strain).

    And when you are done with that, tell us exactly which MMR vaccine that Wakefield based his series of case studies on. Obviously like any good scientist he made sure to reduce the number of variables and was certain that all the children had the same vaccine. The choices are the one used in the UK between 1988 and 1992, or the one used in the UK from 1992 to the present.

  32. AWOL January 19, 2011 at 12:13 #

    Sorry Gina ,Chris,and Sulliavan,

    These little diversion arguments by you all,are designed to shift the attention from Brian Deer who has scored the biggest own goal in Pharma history.

    So far as vaccine safety goes they aren’t .The big drug companies are successful in getting away with selling their “lemon” vaccines because of three main reasons: Big Pharma is in charge of testing their own vaccines; the pharmaceutical companies have invested millions in building “firewalls” of legal protection to hide information about a vaccines dangers or lack of effectiveness; and the bar for vaccine efficacy is set fairly low to make it easier for Big Pharma to get vaccines approved.

    By your own admission

    “Show us where in the actual science community that has proclaimed vaccines 100% safe and effective.”

    Let’s get this right, why do you need herd immunity? You can’t have herd immunity if the vaccine isn’t 100% safe. Its what I expect, self contradiction and confusion by Pharma bloggers.

    My previous post ,above might not be specific to MMR/Autism but the cumulative effect, of heavy metals in the vaccines has everything to do with Autism…yes, my quotes are very relevant.

    The above stats is something they don’t brain wash,you with in Pharma school is it Pharmlet`s ?So easy to understand , Pharma Cartel companies control the making of scientific knowledge and then control which findings will go to the FDA or be published.” Hardly a level playing field guys?? All very clever Hitler would have been proud of you all puts the Holocaust into insignificance with the death and damage your supporting through vaccines heres a link for you from one Bill Gates quite open about vaccines causing death ..or to be politically correct “population control”.

    Outside this sideshow Still,no comment from Deer ,as the song goes “I’ll Do My Crying in the Rain “

  33. Gina January 19, 2011 at 16:49 #

    @AWOL “These little diversion arguments by you all,are designed to shift the attention”

    So, I accuse you of trying to deliberately take the conversation off course and your response to that is to accuse me (us) of the same thing? What a projectionist. And worse yet, you’re terrible at it.

    “Let’s get this right, why do you need herd immunity? You can’t have herd immunity if the vaccine isn’t 100% safe.”

    What the heck kind of crazy logic is this? This makes no sense. Nothing or nobody suggests that herd immunity can exist only with 100% vaccine safety. You make up a crazy, illogical conclusion based on nothing and then expect us, or experts for that matter, to justify it for you? You sound like a jackass doctor I heard of once that tried to fool the world into thinking that the MMR vaccine caus—oops, stop me if you’ve heard this one?

    I seriously can’t follow your crazy. I have a feeling that you wear a tin foil hat to keep the government from reading your thoughts.

  34. Chris January 19, 2011 at 19:31 #

    AWOL:

    All very clever Hitler would have been proud of you all puts the Holocaust into insignificance

    Congratulations, you have Godwined this discussion. You automatically lose by being a blathering loon.

    You shall now be ignored.

  35. AWOL January 19, 2011 at 19:53 #

    Gina
    Why can’t you be an honest Joe, please just like Bill, he is, 100% up front and knows vaccines cause death (I don’t have a problem with that) What I have a problem with is trying to tell the populations world wide that they are for the good of the human species…big problem for me is I hate liars, Deer, BMJ,.

    100% herd immunity, easy you say the vaccine isn’t 100% safe, how is it possible to vaccinate 100% of the population as; the percentage it can’t be safe for can’t have it.

    Yeh I know what you’re going to reply with …wink!

  36. Gina January 19, 2011 at 20:14 #

    I don’t think you know what herd immunity is. In fact, I’ll go out on a limb and say that reality in general is probably not your cup of tea.

    And, funnily enough, you’re an anti-vaxxer and a Wakefield supporter even though Wakefield is not anti-vaccine. The mind reels at how you reconcile that under your tin foil hat.

    But I am curious, why does everything have to be 100% with you? You reference it 3 times in the 19:53:03 post alone. And you’re the only one making any 100% assertions here.

  37. AWOL January 19, 2011 at 20:28 #

    Wakefield is not a liar ,so I have no problem with him easy?

    22.29.38 You said ..”I did not say that vaccines were safe or that there were no vaccine concerns (general or specific) within the scientific community.”

    You ,are admitting they are not 100% safe in round terms..

    Anything else needing de-pharmed in your head since you dont wear a foil hat it must be scraaambbled..

    • Sullivan January 19, 2011 at 20:40 #

      AWOL,

      I don’t know your definition of “liar”. I know what I would call someone who willfully misrepresents the truth. Apparently we have different defintions.

  38. Gina January 19, 2011 at 20:50 #

    “You ,are admitting they are not 100% safe in round terms..”

    I also admit that I’m not a natural red head, so what the heck is your point? Your obsession with the “100%” is neither here nor there. Are you making the ridiculous assumption that if one admits to anything less than 100% vaccine safety that they are admitting to 0% vaccine safety?

  39. AWOL January 19, 2011 at 21:15 #

    That would be Deer your talking about,yes Bliar Deer, to be exact as he`s known..
    Define “Liar”

    Someone who tricks his way into a disabled mother’s house under the name of Brian Lawrence.

    Someone who says they are here to help obtain medical treatment for sick children and is ,in fact looking to see the children suffer with no treatment.

    Someone who goes to Ireland and repeats the same con above on another parent.

    Someone who mis represents the vulnerable members of society,disabled children.

    Someone who does not admit where and when disabled childrens medical files came from.

    Someone who cherry picks his dates and compares chalk with cheese.

    Someone who calls other people a fraud when they are the fraud

    Someone who acts as if he know`s about medical matters.

    Someone who is paid by pharma but denies it.

    Someone who says he has medical notes under supervision but also admits to having them in his flat.

    Someone who can diagnose I.B.D. bowl problems in children having not met them.

    Someone who can discard Autism as bad behaviour again having not met the kids.

    Someone who makes medical judgments when having no qualifications to do so.

    Someone who leads other to believe something that is not true.

    Someone who is a I could go on all night ..the above is Deer in a Nutshell not a tin hat Gina but a N-u-t- shell

    Sorry for being tiresome but no clear honest answers from Deer how he managed to obtain disabled kids medical files before he was meant to have had them…

    • Sullivan January 19, 2011 at 21:40 #

      AWOL,

      much of what you are are repeating is already debunked. For example, it doesn’t help your case at all to make claims about “pharma funding”, when the only evidence for this is from Mr. Wakefield and others who didn’t bother to check their facts. The reason they didn’t check their facts is obvious, the facts were against them.

      In other words–the people pushing that idea are in themselves perpetrating a hoax or a fraud.

      A liar is “someone who misrepresents the vulnerable members of society, disabled children”. Pretty much nails Andrew Wakefield’s actions precisely.
      Someone who leads others to believe something that is not true. Ditto.

  40. Gina January 20, 2011 at 16:48 #

    @Chris: “Congratulations, you have Godwined this discussion. You automatically lose by being a blathering loon.”

    Good call! I hadn’t realized that AWOL had ‘Godwined’ but I had a feeling it was inevitable.

  41. AWOL January 20, 2011 at 20:42 #

    Heres one Chris and Gina its called Deerwined (clever eh!!) it goes…

    as the old Deerwined saying says: The higher a Deer goes up the hill, the more you can see his ass…

    Its used when you are winning the argument and Deer refuses to say anything ,and tries to hide his biggest mistake he has made for Pharma ,by highlighting another article (digging the hole deeper)today with the Wakefield document,when everyone needs replies to ,such as the Lancet GMC medical records which he had in his flat.

    All you do is wait,and wait,and wait ,and wait for the day Deer goes up the hill so far that everything that he has ever written is exposed for what it is…LIES…

  42. Gina January 21, 2011 at 16:17 #

    Uh oh. The tin foil fell off.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Tweets that mention Autism Blog - Wakefield says he’s innocent of fraud…in other news sky still blue « Left Brain/Right Brain -- Topsy.com - January 14, 2011

    […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Kev, Brandon Blietz and Raphael Fraser. Raphael Fraser said: Haha excellent annotated sttement RT @kevleitch: Wakefield says he’s innocent of fraud…in other news sky still blue http://bit.ly/fMs0fU #fb […]

Leave a Reply to brian Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: