Russ Roberts hosts: Deer on Autism, Vaccination, and Scientific Fraud

2 Feb

I keep thinking I’ve blogged the last on this. But, I do think there is some interesting information here for some. In Deer on Autism, Vaccination, and Scientific Fraud, Brian Deer goes through the history of his investigation–how/why he got started, what tipped him off that something was amiss with Mr. Wakefield’s research, the mistakes Mr. Wakefield made in trying to handle and quash the story.

This post is long, but it covers a lot of material not about the investigation. It answers many questions that have been posed (such as what sort of job does Brian Deer have, how did he get access to information about the Lancet 12 children).

Investigative journalist Brian Deer talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about Deer’s seven years of reporting and legal issues surrounding the 1998 article in The Lancet claiming that the MMR vaccine causes autism and bowel problems. Deer’s dogged pursuit of the truth led to the discovery that the 1998 article was fraudulent and that the lead author had hidden payments he received from lawyers to finance the original study. In this podcast, Deer describes how he uncovered the truth and the legal consequences that followed. The conversation closes with a discussion of the elusiveness of truth in science and medicine.

Russ Roberts’ bio:

Russell Roberts, Associate Editor. Russell Roberts is Professor of Economics and the J. Fish and Lillian F. Smith Distinguished Scholar at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. Before coming to George Mason University, Roberts was at Washington University in St. Louis where he was the founding director of the Center for Experiential Learning at the John M. Olin School of Business and a Senior Fellow at the Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government, and Public Policy. Roberts has also taught at the University of Rochester, Stanford University, and UCLA. He holds a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Chicago.

Roberts is a regular commentator on business and economics for National Public Radio’s Morning Edition. In addition to numerous academic publications, he has written for the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. Professor Roberts is especially interested in communicating economics to non-economists. His first novel, The Choice: A Fable of Free Trade and Protectionism, a jargon-free book on international trade written for the non-economist, was named one of the top ten books of 1994 by Business Week and one of the best books of 1994 by the Financial Times. An updated and revised edition was published in the spring of 2000. His new book is The Invisible Heart: An Economic Romance (MIT Press, 2001).

Russ Roberts is the host of EconTalk, economics podcasts available here and through iTunes. He blogs at Cafe Hayek along with Don Boudreaux.

There is an audio podcast and a rough transcript on the site.

In 1998, when the Lancet paper came out with a big splash, Brian Deer was working on stories about the DPT vaccine. But he decided against working on the MMR story at that time. He knew that to do the story correctly meant a lot of work, not just publishing what Mr. Wakefield and the Royal Free put out in a news conference:

I happened to be looking at that purely by chance when Wakefield’s paper was published. I looked at his paper and thought there was something very odd about it, doesn’t sit right just reading it on the page. Said at the time I was absolutely not going to get involved in MMR. Journalistically at the time, allegations against vaccines, if you want to do them in a responsible way rather than simply go to government experts or parents or people with interests and write down what they say and present the clash of opinions–if you want to understand what the story is really about, they require an enormous amount of work.

Later, he got pulled into the story:

At the time people were already saying: MMR, Brian Deer, he’s our expert, based on what I’d done in DTP. But in 2003, one of the editors was changing jobs, taking over some feature pages; wanted some stories. Said to me: Can’t you do investigation? I said: Well, what? Three or four different ideas. One was MMR. Didn’t want to get involved because there was a lawsuit coming up. By serendipity the lawsuit was cancelled and we’ll just do a feature, spend 2-3 weeks on the outside on MMR. Three weeks turned into 7 years, though not the whole time. Did make a couple of TV shows about other things as well.

Brian Deer started on the story, and right away he got pushback from Andrew Wakefield:

When you started looking into that Wakefield study, how did you proceed and what did you discover? Did routine journalistic work. At the start, put a phone call in to Dr. Wakefield. He always works with professional publicists; this time his publicist, within about 3 hours of me calling, his publicist had made a complaint against me to the paper. A bit of a strategic mistake on their part. The essence of the mistake is I am self-employed. But I have worked for the Sunday Times since 1981–that is my home. I was a staff reporter, a specialist, they sent me to the United States, and so on. But they imagined that this meant I was some sort of outsider. When they got onto the paper and started making complaints, they were making complaints against somebody who actually sat at the next desk to the editor, who had worked with the head of the legal department since we were all young together. So, it didn’t work, the complaint. I was a known entity. Whilst I am regarded as being a difficult, mercurial person, I think it is true to say I am trusted. That was the first mistake they made.

Brian Deer made some phone calls. Talked to parents of the Lancet 12. He immediately found that there was a problem. The “case series” was heavily biased. The children were recruited. They were involved in litigation.

Right at the start I rung up some parents who had been in the original paper and interviewed them. Interviewed them in a way they had not been interviewed before. Produced important information within hours of beginning the story. Which was? I phoned a lady who had started a campaign group against the MMR back in the 1990s and she told me in the conversation that members of her group were in the Wakefield study; said: they are all members of our group and still in the group. So these parents who had turned up at the hospital, she told me they were all members of her campaign group. Immediately alarm bells started to ring, because nothing about that had been mentioned in the paper. They all just appeared to be routine patients of a big London hospital; but she was saying they were part of a group. A group that had been created before the study. It was the result of her campaigning. She put advertisements in newspapers and made approaches to a firm of lawyers.

He discusses the start of the interviews. How he interviewed one parent using “Brian Lawrence” and how the information he heard didn’t mesh with the Lancet paper:

How did you interview them and what did you discover? The key one in the series of 12 was family 2. The mother, it came out over a period of time, had been a long-time collaborator of Dr. Wakefield’s. I went to interview her; in fact, I used my middle name which had been editorially approved from my managers rather than my full name so they wouldn’t google me and see I was an investigative reporter. I said I was Brian Lawrence, my middle name. How were you representing yourself? My friends say I’m a journalist you wouldn’t want to write about you. You would google me. I asked her all the questions people ask, isn’t it awful; who do you blame? I then went into exceptional detail as to what actually happened when she said her child was vaccinated and developed these problems. Went over her story in great detail. She’d already recently been involved in litigation; so the matter was very clear in her mind. She told me a very detailed story. You could say: People forget, matter of time; but this was the moment when she was saying her child’s life had forever been destroyed. Have to expect she would have that in her mind. It was quite clear that the story she was telling me did not correspond with any case in Wakefield’s paper. What it boiled down to in her case was that she had changed her story, told one story when she’d gone to the hospital and now telling another story; and the two stories couldn’t be reconciled. The difference was when did the problems of autism first reveal themselves. In her story that she told the hospital, it was 14 days; but in her actual story, far from the case. In fact it was months. She’d given one story which suited the paper. She may have done so in complete good faith. Might have misremembered. But when she had the opportunity to study her child’s records, it was a different story.

He tells of the first stories coming out in the Sunday Times, revealing that Mr. Wakefield was working as a paid expert, his patent, and the fact that data from his own laboratory (from Nicolas Chadwick) showed that there was no evidence of measles virus in the gut tissues of the children.

As a result of that, Wakefield made his second big mistake. His first was to have complaints made against me to my employers. Second was to begin litigation. He sued for libel.

Because of the lawsuit, Brian Deer was able to obtain more information. He was pretty much forced to in order to defend himself in the legal action. He used the freedom of information act. This exposed the connection to the Legal Aid Fund and the documents from the ethics approvals for Mr. Wakefield’s research (which showed that Mr. Wakefield started before he had ethical approval).

He couldn’t have expected–maybe this was his second mistake and suing me was his third mistake–in late 1996, early 1997, going back to when Princess Diana was still alive, that the incoming Labour government, the Tony Blair government, with a commitment to produce a Freedom of Information Act. America’s had a freedom of information act for so long no one can remember when it began. We had one introduced by the incoming Blair government. Enacted in 2000, started to take effect in 2004. Because the government had told government bodies to act as if the Act was in force, I was able to get from public bodies the fact that Wakefield had been paid. Funding Authority, in Britain called the Legal Aid Fund. Kind of like public defender system except the government doesn’t provide the defenders–it provides the money. So, it was a government fund to allow access to poorer people to litigation which had funded Wakefield’s lawyer. He could never have expected when he was doing this research that all of a sudden his funding would be exposed to scrutiny, and also the Ethics Committee. In America called Institutional Review Boards. Bodies of doctors, scientists, others associated with medical centers which give permission for research to take place. The paperwork of that body of the Royal Free Hospital also moved into the public domain by the Freedom of Information Act. I think I was the first person ever to get hold of these kinds of papers.

Mr. Wakefield tried to get the lawsuit put on hold, but Mr. Deer was able to force the case to proceed. Mr. Wakefield kept the pressure up:

There were occasions. He also sued me for my website, for which I have unlimited liability, would have lost my home had it been true. I would be sitting at my computer doing some work and there would be a ring on the doorbell and there would be a man dressed in black leather with a motorcycle helmet on and he would present me with an envelope. This happened to me twice. I opened the envelope and there’s an [?] for Wakefield’s legal costs for the hearing that was going to take place the next day in court. The figures were about $30,000 U.S. dollars, that kind of money just for one hearing. That was the kind of pressure they were trying to put on me.

And this proved to be a tactical mistake for Mr. Wakefield. This gave Brian Deer access to the medical records:

The next stage which was very unfortunate for him was that we got a court order against him requiring him to hand over to our lawyers the hospital medical records of the children. I never took possession of them. The judge balanced the issues of the confidentiality of the children as opposed to the fairness of the litigation in front of the court. Ordered that I be allowed to read the unredacted–with their names and all their details–of the 12 children. There were just 11 at the time–the American wasn’t involved in this. So under strict supervision of my lawyers, with a lawyer sitting at the end of the table throughout, I sat and read the medical records of the children.

It appears that Mr. Wakefield knew that giving Brian Deer access to this information was a problem, as he chose this time to cancel his lawsuit. Brian Deer couldn’t use the information, but at this point he knew enough details to realize that there was an even bigger story here. So he attended the GMC hearings:

I have never said anything about what I read in those medical records. The position is that they were disclosed to me in the course of litigation and I may make no use of anything I saw in those records or disclose anything. As I was sitting there reading them, Dr. Wakefield’s lawyers were in a taxi travelling across London to the High Court to disband the lawsuit against me. When I got home that night–and I hadn’t taken any notes with me or documents–I went home, phone rang, and it was my lawyers saying: It’s over. They’ve thrown in the towel. So I’m in the position where I have read the medical records of these children but can make no use of the content of them. However, I have to say–I’ve talked to my lawyers about this–it is a fact that it’s impossible to un-know something. Once you know something, you can’t stop knowing it. Unrealistic. So, what I did was to ensure that I presented myself at the next opportunity where these medical records would go on display. And they would go on display at a Disciplinary Hearing which arose from my original stories.

Asked a “what next?” question, Mr. Deer responds that it is time to move on:

Not sure I want to spend a lot more time on long investigations. Saying of the Buddha: The things we dwell on become the shape of our minds. I’m kind of tired of the hunt aspect of it and the adversarial quality to investigative journalism, the extraordinary hours that have to be put in to it to get anywhere. The complex legal issues that are always coming up. In an ideal world I’d find something that didn’t require me to do more than write a couple of hundred words in a piece and be cheap and cheerful. But I have a feeling that is just how I am feeling at the moment and it won’t be long before something else comes along that I get interested in and get drawn off into. I think what I need now is a holiday! I for one now am grateful. Striking a blog against fraud doesn’t make up for all the pain and losses people suffered as a result of the fraud, but it will open people’s eyes down the road to other things.

Mr. Deer goes into the results of the investigation, both his and the GMC investigation. He discusses how Mr. Wakefield was found guilty of multiple ethical violations, including subjecting disabled children to procedures which were for research purposes and not in their clinical interest, dishonesty, financial issues, etc.. He discusses the costs, both in Mr. Wakefield’s expert fees (about $750,000) and the costs of the GMC investigation. The costs to public health as MMR uptake dropped in the UK and measles came back.

Most people in this subject have seen it in terms of vaccines, measles, infectious disease, autism, or things like that. From the start, I’ve always seen it as being as being an issue of the integrity of science. Whether this paper was true or not and how he could get away with how he got away with. I think it is a depressing picture. It’s been in the region of $10 million dollars to crack a case series of 12 patients. The money involved with the General Counsel hearing, the litigation involved, journalistic fees, and all the staff gone around this to get to the bottom of this little case series of 12 patients. The great bulk of science is not that interesting to the general public and therefore would not create the cause for a newspaper reported to be funded by a newspaper or television station to go after this for such a long period of time and get all this investigative work done with government regulators and what have you. So, you really would have to wonder what else is going on in laboratories and medical centers. The fact that Wakefield thought he was going to get away with it, and the casual way he went about it leads me to think he was working within a culture within which that wasn’t far from unusual, wasn’t far from extraordinary–the kind of misrepresentations he made were far from remarkable by common standards, I suspect. Part of it the nature of human beings; part of it the elusive nature of truth. Part of it is the nature of the publication process.

Advertisements

37 Responses to “Russ Roberts hosts: Deer on Autism, Vaccination, and Scientific Fraud”

  1. tony bateson February 2, 2011 at 11:47 #

    If Deer is such a brilliant journalist it is odd that he seemingly only became aware of what Andrew Wakefield was doing when the Lancet report was published. Especially since the Mail on Sunday reported two years earlier what line of research was being followed by Wakefield.

    Then again Deer is quoted as a DTaP expert. Big deal that Deer found so little of interest in that field which is undeniably closer to the cause of autism than MMR. Now this man is setting himself up as an authority on autism. What’s the difference then between interest in MMR and interest in DTaP? It’s simple big bucks.

    Tony Bateson, Oxford, UK.

  2. Jen February 2, 2011 at 15:57 #

    Deer is being vindictive – he isnt acting for ‘the good of the children’ – he’s acting in his OWN interests, to ‘get back’ at Wakefield. Read between the lines, people.

  3. esattezza February 2, 2011 at 16:03 #

    @ Jen,

    Being vindictive doesn’t make him wrong and people can have multiple motives for their actions.

  4. Julie Weber February 2, 2011 at 18:13 #

    Below is confirmation of the Wakefield study.

    Scientists fear MMR link to autism
    By SALLY BECK, Mail on Sunday

    New American research shows that there could be a link between the controversial MMR triple vaccine and autism and bowel disease in children.

    The study appears to confirm the findings of British doctor Andrew Wakefield, who caused a storm in 1998 by suggesting a possible link.

    Now a team from the Wake Forest University School of Medicine in North Carolina are examining 275 children with regressive autism and bowel disease – and of the 82 tested so far, 70 prove positive for the measles virus.

    Last night the team’s leader, Dr Stephen Walker, said: ‘Of the handful of results we have in so far, all are vaccine strain and none are wild measles.

    ‘This research proves that in the gastrointestinal tract of a number of children who have been diagnosed with regressive autism, there is evidence of measles virus.

    ‘What it means is that the study done earlier by Dr Wakefield and published in 1998 is correct. That study didn’t draw any conclusions about specifically what it means to find measles virus in the gut, but the implication is it may be coming from the MMR vaccine. If that’s the case, and this live virus is residing in the gastrointestinal tract of some children, and then they have GI inflammation and other problems, it may be related to the MMR.’

    The 1998 study by Dr Wakefield, then a reader in gastroenterology at the Royal Free Hospital in North London, and 12 other doctors claimed to have found a new bowel disease, autism enterocolitis.

    At the time, Dr Wakefield said that although they had not proved a link between MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) and autism, there was cause for concern and the Government should offer the option single vaccines – instead of only MMRs – until more research had been done.

    The paper – and the confused interpretation of its findings – caused uproar and led to many parents withdrawing their co-operation for the triple jab. Ten of the paper’s authors also signed retractions on the interpretation but stood by the science.

    This is the second independent study to back up Dr Wakefield. In 2001 John O’Leary, Professor of Pathology at St James’s Hospital and Trinity College, Dublin, replicated his findings.

    Last night Dr Wakefield said: ‘This new study confirms what we found in British children and again with Professor O’Leary. The only exposure these children have had to measles is through the MMR vaccine.

    ‘They were developing normally until they regressed. They now suffer autism and bowel disease.

    ‘The Department of Health and some of the media wanted to dismiss our research as insignificant. The excuse was that no one else had the same findings as us. What they didn’t say is that no one else had looked.’

    A spokesman for the Department of Health said they had not read the American report, but added: ‘MMR remains the best form of protection against measles, mumps and rubella.’

    • Sullivan February 2, 2011 at 19:37 #

      Below is confirmation of the Wakefield study.
      Scientists fear MMR link to autism
      By SALLY BECK, Mail on Sunday

      The study was presented at an IMFAR conference something like 5 years ago. It was never published.

      It keeps popping up on the Mail’s website as a new story, but it is old. Old, unpublished, not a replication.

  5. Chris February 2, 2011 at 18:55 #

    Ms. Weber, that article is over four years old! It is also just a poster presentation, not a published study:
    http://lizditz.typepad.com/i_speak_of_dreams/2011/01/the-daily-mail-uk-continuing-sorry-contribution-to-fear-uncertainty-and-doubt-vaccine-fears.html

    Try again, only with real evidence and not old news paper stories from the Daily Fail.

  6. brian February 2, 2011 at 20:16 #

    It’s funny that antivaccine activists keep bringing up Walker’s unpublished preliminary work that was presented as a poster at a conference almost five years ago but ignore the significant, directly contradictory work presented not only at the same conference, but at the same poster session—based on their assigned numbers, the two posters were likely displayed within a few feet of each other!

    That must have been something of an oops! moment for Walker, and it explains why one study was published and the other was not. D’Souza et al. clearly showed that the test used by Walker (and Uhlman and Wakefield) produces false-positive reactions with human DNA (in almost all the samples) which can only be revealed as FALSE results by doing the sort of careful follow-up experiments that Walker and (Uhlmann and Wakefield) did not do. Big oops! It turns out control experiments are helpful—just ask Walker.

    Here’s the D’Souza paper:

    D’Souza Y, Fombonne E, Ward BJ. No evidence of persisting measles virus in peripheral blood mononuclear cells from children with autism spectrum disorder.
    Pediatrics. 2006 Oct;118(4):1664-75. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/118/4/1664

    Here’s a related paper which shows that the Uhlmann and Wakefield primers yielded false positive results in every case with gut biopsy samples, as used by Walker (and Uhlmann and Wakefield)—and it also contradicts Wakefield’s failed measles (and MMR) causes bowel disease hypothesis:

    D’Souza Y, Dionne S, Seidman EG, Bitton A, Ward BJ. No evidence of persisting measles virus in the intestinal tissues of patients with inflammatory bowel disease.
    Gut. 2007 Jun;56(6):886-8.

    It’s not surprising that Walker’s work remains unpublished, since it certainly appears to be wrong.

  7. Dedj February 2, 2011 at 20:22 #

    “If Deer is such a brilliant journalist it is odd that he seemingly only became aware of what Andrew Wakefield was doing when the Lancet report was published.”

    Yes, it is odd that Deer was not aware of what everyone was doing everywhere at all times.

    Shame on him.

  8. tony bateson February 2, 2011 at 20:36 #

    If Deer is such a brilliant journalist you would expect him to have known in September 1996 of the report that appeared in The Mail on Sunday referring to Wakefield’s work. Especially since he by his own admission was the ‘DTP expert’. My Hat. Deer’s account of how he became involved with Wakefield’s work reads exactly like someone who has gone back through the records and is rewriting history. I will debate with this so called expert at any time at any place at my expense on the validity of his work.

    Tony Bateson, Oxford, UK.

  9. Chris February 2, 2011 at 21:12 #

    Talk about moving goalposts! The man was trying to avoid vaccine stories, and you want him to time travel back in time.

  10. AWOL February 2, 2011 at 22:10 #

    One from last year ,whats the pharma hatchet job with this one ? under the acedemic cloak of peer review??

    Wakefield’s Science Proven Valid Again In New Study That Replicates Findings

    http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/01/wakefields-science-proven-valid-again-in-new-study-that-replicates-findings.html

    • Sullivan February 2, 2011 at 22:43 #

      “Wakefield’s Science Proven Valid Again In New Study That Replicates Findings”

      A paper by Arthur Krigsman–one of the crew at thoughtful house when Wakefield was there and also a paid expert to the UK MMR litigation with Mr. Wakefield. Published in a journal that had at the time Andrew Wakefield as an editor. The “journal” has published something like 10 papers total, all online.

      More to the point of the Krigsman paper–so what? Some subset of autistic kids have GI complaints. This was known before Andrew Wakefield’s 1998 Lancet article.

      Nothing about MMR, persistent measles infections or any of the key aspects of Mr. Wakefield’s work.

  11. AWOL February 2, 2011 at 23:18 #

    Sullivan

    Your eerily reminiscent of the days when tobacco companies produced a consensus of science showing no link between smoking and lung cancer.

  12. AWOL February 2, 2011 at 23:44 #

    “Here’s the D’Souza paper:

    D’Souza Y, Fombonne E, Ward BJ. No evidence of persisting measles virus in peripheral blood mononuclear cells from children with autism spectrum disorder.
    Pediatrics. 2006 Oct;118(4):1664-75. http://pediatrics.aappublicati…..118/4/1664″

    Of course no conflict…”E Fombonne has provided advice on the epidemiology and clinical aspects of autism to scientists advising parents, to vaccine manufacturers (for a fee), and to several government committees.

    Heres AW and CS reply….

    Title: MMR vaccination and autism
    Letter

    Authors: Dr Andrew J Wakefield MB,BS., FRCS., FRCPath and Dr Carol Stott PhD

    Response to: D’Souza et al. No evidence of persisting measles virus in peripheral blood mononuclear cells from children with autism spectrum disorder. Pediatrics. 2006;118:1664-75.

    D’Souza et al claim that, among other things, the ‘epidemiological burden of evidence against such an [causal] association between MMR and autism is overwhelming”. They fail to reference the authoritative Cochrane review of this epidemiology (3) which dismissed much of it as being of insufficient quality to merit consideration, including Fombonne’s own work (4) of which they said, “the number and possible impact of biases in this study was so high that interpretation of the results was difficult.” Even the Cochrane review failed to note that another of Fombonne’s studies using the UK General Practice database (GPRD)(5) tested the wrong hypothesis and lacked sufficient power to detect an association between MMR and regressive autism.

    To many conflicts of interest on …”E Fombonne to list..

  13. Dedj February 3, 2011 at 00:00 #

    “If Deer is such a brilliant journalist you would expect him to have known in September 1996 of the report that appeared in The Mail on Sunday referring to Wakefield’s work. ”

    Again, how dare Deer not have total and absolute knowledge of the workings and undertakings of a then obscure non-clinical Doctor. How dare Deer not read each and every story in each and every newpaper everyday. How dare he miss out on a story that only became important for anyone other than a tiny subset of people, and only became important two years later!

    Deer must do better, otherwise he’ll get no end of nitpicking, highly illogical, barrel-scraping, psuedo-criticisms thrown at him!

    Doesn’t Deer know he has to answer to his irrational and overly demanding critics as much as he has to to the ones that are actually relevant, current and who know what they’re talking about?

    Shame on Deer for not being perfect.

    • Sullivan February 3, 2011 at 00:53 #

      Dedj,

      It’s pretty telling, isn’t it? I think we get the message they have: Brian Deer=bad.

  14. AWOL February 3, 2011 at 00:08 #

    Dedj

    “Shame on Deer for not being perfect.”

    No one is perfect… that’s why Deer hid behind Peer Review in his most recent paper,.

  15. AWOL February 3, 2011 at 00:28 #

    Link

    http://legacy.autism.com/triggers/vaccine/wakefielddsouza.htm

    Heres AW and CS reply….

    Title: MMR vaccination and autism
    Letter

    Authors: Dr Andrew J Wakefield MB,BS., FRCS., FRCPath and Dr Carol Stott PhD

    Response to: D’Souza et al. No evidence of persisting measles virus in peripheral blood mononuclear cells from children with autism spectrum disorder. Pediatrics. 2006;118:1664-75.

  16. Chris February 3, 2011 at 00:43 #

    AWOL, papers by Krigsman and Wakefield are not independent. You were asked for studies that independently replicated Wakefield’s findings. That means not by either Wakefield nor anyone associated with him, and it must be on at least a dozen children (that means not one or two adult case studies), and include either the MMR approved in the UK before or after 1992.

  17. brian February 3, 2011 at 02:32 #

    @AWOL: Conflict of interest? Really?

    Look, one of the authors of the D’Souza paper (which showed conclusively why the preliminary work that you mentioned has not been published years after it appeared as a poster at the 2006 IMFAR) was in fact an autism expert who appeared in June 2007 as a witness at the Omnibus Autism Proceedings, but it’s not at all clear why you suggest that means that the paper can be rejected outright, since both the paper and the abstract appeared long BEFORE Fombonne testified. In fact, since meeting abstracts are submitted months before the meeting date, it’s likely that D’Souza’s research was conducted in 2005, perhaps two years before Fombonne testified. If you think that what you strangely claim might be a future conflict of interest somehow proves that the results reported years earlier in the paper which showed that Walker—and Uhlmann and Wakefield—were reporting FALSE positive reactions, explain.

    As far as citing Wakefield’s response to the clear evidence that he also found false positive reactions in gut biopsies in his measles-and MMR-cause-Crohn’s disease work, you might also remember that, in addition to the fact that the second paper I mentioned (um, that would be the one WITHOUT Fombonne as an author—so I suppose there’s no conflict of interest, is there?) showed that the reaction the PCR primers that Wakefield used to detect measles in fact produced false-positive results, Wakefield’s also relied on monoclonal antibodies that he thought were specific for measles virus, but which also turned out to give false-positive results because the antibody actually reacted to a HUMAN protein. Wakefield was repeatedly wrong, and repeatedly fooled by false-positive results that were shown by others to be undoubtedly false.

    While you’re thinking about that, you might wonder why Wakefield’s similar preliminary work, which he reported in a 2004 IMFAR abstract in which he claimed to find evidence of persistent measles virus infection in the cerebral spinal fluid of children with autism, hasn’t been published: Do you think Wakefield was just too busy to write it up, or could it just be that he was fooled then, too, by false-positive reactions? (In that study, too, Wakefield used the PCR primers which clearly produce false-positive reactions in other samples which contain human DNA—but perhaps Wakefield just lost interest or he was just too busy—what do you think? Oh, BTW, one of the authors of the Walker abstract that you mentioned testified for the petitioners in the Omnibus Autism Proceedings–did you also discount her work because of a potential conflict of interest, as you did dismissed Fombonne’s work for that reason?)

    If you don’t understand that, the best you can do will be to keep parroting “conflict of interest!” That’s what many antivaxxers who clearly cannot understand the evidence have chosen to do—and that’s really all they can do.

  18. brian February 3, 2011 at 02:45 #

    @AWOL: Conflict of interest? Really?

    One of the authors of the D’Souza paper, which showed conclusively why the preliminary Walker work that you mentioned has not been published years after it appeared as a poster at the 2006 IMFAR, was in fact an autism expert who appeared in June 2007 as a witness at the Omnibus Autism Proceedings, but it’s not at all clear why you suggest that means that the paper should be rejected outright, since both the paper and the abstract appeared long BEFORE Fombonne testified. In fact, since meeting abstracts are submitted months before the meeting date, it’s likely that D’Souza’s research was conducted in 2005, perhaps two years before Fombonne testified. If you think that what you claim might be a future conflict of interest somehow allows you to dismiss the evidence reported years earlier which showed that Walker—and Uhlmann and Wakefield—were reporting FALSE positive reactions, please explain.

    As far as citing Wakefield’s response to the clear evidence that he also found false positive reactions in gut biopsies in his measles-and MMR-cause-Crohn’s disease work, you might also remember that, in addition to the fact that the second paper I mentioned (um, that would be the one WITHOUT an expert witness as an author—so I suppose there’s no conflict of interest, is there?) showed that the reaction the PCR primers that Wakefield used to detect measles in fact produced false-positive results, Wakefield’s also relied on monoclonal antibodies that he thought were specific for measles virus, but which also turned out to give false-positive results because the antibody actually reacted to a HUMAN protein. Wakefield was repeatedly wrong, and he was repeatedly fooled by false-positive results in his measles-related ASD and IBD work that were shown by others to be undoubtedly false.

    While you’re thinking about that, you might wonder why Wakefield’s other preliminary work, reported in a 2004 IMFAR abstract in which he claimed to find evidence of persistent measles virus infection in the cerebral spinal fluid of children with autism, also hasn’t been published: Do you think Wakefield was just too busy to write it up, or could it just be that he was fooled then, too, by false-positive reactions? (Wakefield then, too, used the PCR primers which produce false-positive reactions in other samples which contain human DNA—but perhaps Wakefield just lost interest or he was just too busy—what do you think?) Also while you’re thinking: Walker’s unpublished work was presented at the Omnibus Autism Proceedings by his co-author, Dr. Hepner. Did you therefore dismiss Walker’s (and Hepner’s work because of exactly the same conflict of interest that caused you to reject D’Souza’s (and Fombonne’s) work—that providing expert testimony is an undoubted conflict of interest?)

    If you can’t understand this, the best you can do will be to keep parroting “conflict of interest!” That’s what many antivaxxers who clearly cannot understand the evidence have chosen to do—and that’s really all they can do.

  19. Chris February 3, 2011 at 05:34 #

    Hey, Mr. Bateson! You should really try to find the Jen that posted here recently (this is a link, click on it!). She says she has two autistic children and neither have been vaccinated.

  20. AWOL February 3, 2011 at 11:59 #

    “Chris, papers by Pharma and of shoots of pharma are not independent. You are asked for studies that independently replicate Pharma findings. That means not by either Pharma nor anyone associated with Pharma, and it must be on at least a dozen children (that means not one or two adult case studies), and include either the MMR approved in the UK before or after 1992.”

    @Sullivan
    Dedj,

    It’s pretty telling, isn’t it? I think we get the message they have: Brian Deer=bad.

    Brian Deer =Liar,fraud,imposter, and others I cant list and then the total= Very bad..

    Yawn!!!

  21. brian February 3, 2011 at 19:13 #

    AWOL, your posts are quite funny.

    You repeat Wakefield’s lame response to work that shows that his MMR-causes-IBD hypothesis has failed by noting that Wakefield cited the Cochrane review, but, curiously, you—like Wakefield—didn’t mention that the Cochrane review stated: “Exposure to MMR was unlikely to be associated with Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, autism or aseptic meningitis (mumps.)”

    Wakefield’s work might have been more persuasive if the monoclonal antibody work and PCR assays that he used to find “measles” in gut biopsy samples had not routinely given false positive reactions by, over and over again, reacting not with measles but with the normal constituents of human cells. Of course, if you want to ignore all the evidence, you can just squawk “conflict of interest, conflict of interest!”

    • Sullivan February 3, 2011 at 19:50 #

      brian,

      we know that part of Mr. Wakefield’s work was bad enough that it was rejected–his companion paper to the 1998 Lancet paper. The team didn’t publish it anywhere.

      Tom Jefferson of Cochrane refused an award by NVIC when he heard that he would have to share the stage with Andrew Wakefield. I don’t see Mr. Wakefield’s supporters bringing that up when they rely upon Cochrane as an authoritative source.

      People, sometimes on both sides of this discussion, seem to think that “conflict of interest” is some sort of trump card. Undeclared conflicts of interest–those are really bad. That’s what corrupted Andrew Wakefield’s work. A declared COI allows the reader to weigh the evidence. Mr. Wakefield denied the public the right to do that.

  22. Dedj February 3, 2011 at 19:46 #

    “No one is perfect… that’s why Deer hid behind Peer Review in his most recent paper,.”

    Yeah, Deer hid his work by showing it to other people.

    Up next in Bizarrawol world, Bin Laden goes deeper into hiding by taking out a full-page ad in the NYTimes.

  23. AWOL February 3, 2011 at 20:23 #

    Brian Sullivan Dedj

    Nothing to prove ,that response is cast in Stone and whatever way you wish to cherrypick it ,is your prerogative,amongst yourselves.

    One for you guys ,pity Deer wasnt with his soul mate(sole)

    Mubarak thugs gave him one from Wakefield and one from us, Mubarak thugs superb

    Poor man what age is he and he has never had a thump to the head??more coming mate..

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/02/anderson-cooper-attacked-egypt-huff-post_n_817612.html

  24. McD February 6, 2011 at 05:25 #

    @AWOL – As a mum to one very low functioning autistic child, and another with Asperger’s, I hope I never become as bitter and twisted as you appear to be.

    Your last comment is just disgusting.

    Yes, it can really sting to discover that you have been had by a scam artist. Big Pharma, with their shonky over-marketing tactics, and price gouging are nobody’s idea of a good guy (as amply exposed by Brian Deer – do read some of his pre-MMR work – he is most certainly not a Big Pharma shill). But even worse are shyster lawyers who, both in the UK and the US, get paid out of the public purse to litigate in medical/vaccine court, regardless of the outcome of their litigation.

    Those lawyers don’t give a toss about parents or children. They get paid either way. And Big Pharma presented a perfect easy-to-demonize target for litigation. This whole vaccines/autism scam was manufactured by lawyers and enabled by dodgy researchers like Wakers and the Geiers.

    There are likely multiple environmental triggers for autism interacting with strong genetic vulnerabilities. But vaccines are not a statistically detectable factor (I would not rule out isolated ideopathic vaccine reactions – but any child reacting to a vaccine is probably at far more risk from the actual disease.) All the known environmental risk factors are pre-natal (e.g. valproic acid and chlorpyrifos) and impact during neural tube closure – which makes post natal vaccines an even more theoretically remote risk factor.

    Please take a step back and take an objective look.

  25. Jen February 7, 2011 at 15:02 #

    feel free to email me – i do indeed have two autistic girls, both quite high functioning, both with semantic pragmatic disorder as well. Neither of which we have ever tried to ‘cure’ with biomedical anything. I also married a man who was diagnosed HFA shortly after the eldest was diagnosed. All dxes on the NHS, btw, no private flimflam. None of my children nor my husband have ever had any vaccines, not even vitamin K. *I* however, may be the weakest link, because not only was i as fully vaccinated as any american schoolchild was in the middle 80s-early 90s was, but I also had the anti-D (D-Gam, by BPL in the first, Rhophylac in the second) in my pregnancies. leoniedelt at googlemail dot com.

  26. Chris February 7, 2011 at 17:23 #

    Jen, Mr. Bateson will not email you. He insists that you contact him, preferably at his front door with all of your children’s medical records.

    • Sullivan February 7, 2011 at 19:24 #

      Jen, Mr. Bateson will not email you. He insists that you contact him, preferably at his front door with all of your children’s medical records.

      He has failed to contact people in the past, or even make an effort to do so.

  27. tony bateson February 7, 2011 at 20:39 #

    Hello Jen, You can ignore Sullivan who knows nothing. I will be in touch on Friday, I am travelling at present. In practice you are the first person to contact me directly and contrary to his assertions I have never ignored anyone who contacted me directly. I don’t need his suggestions as to whom I should contact, people can easily find me for themselves.

    Tony Bateson, Oxford, UK.

    • Sullivan February 7, 2011 at 21:00 #

      tony bateson,

      you have been referred to multiple people who have commented online. You have neglected to follow up with any of them.

  28. canadagooseexpeditionparkabuy.blogspot.com November 29, 2012 at 06:23 #

    Is that why you don’t want to go home?She is a composer for the harp.What’s your trouble? Why don’t I pick you up at your house? Did you enter the contest? Where is your office?Where is your office?Your life is your own affair.This wayWe are all in favor of this plan.

    • Lara Lohne November 29, 2012 at 07:27 #

      wow, spam bot much?

  29. Just want to say your current content can be as stunning. This quality on your post is merely awesome we can easily guess you’re an expert during this subject. Very well with your authorisation let me to grasp your Feed to keep up to date together with upcoming submit. Thanks a lot one million plus you need to proceed the gratifying operate.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Autism Blog – Russ Roberts hosts: Deer on Autism, Vaccination, and … | My Autism Site | All About Autism - February 3, 2011

    […] Here is the original post: Autism Blog – Russ Roberts hosts: Deer on Autism, Vaccination, and … […]

Leave a 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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: