Bill Gates on the anti-vaccine movement and its connection to autism

4 Feb

Gates: Well, Dr. Wakefield has been shown to have used absolutely fraudulent data. He had a financial interest in some lawsuits, he created a fake paper, the journal allowed it to run. All the other studies were done, showed no connection whatsoever again and again and again. So it’s an absolute lie that has killed thousands of kids. Because the mothers who heard that lie, many of them didn’t have their kids take either pertussis or measles vaccine, and their children are dead today. And so the people who go and engage in those anti-vaccine efforts — you know, they, they kill children. It’s a very sad thing, because these vaccines are important.

Bill Gates, telling it exactly like it is.

Advertisements

60 Responses to “Bill Gates on the anti-vaccine movement and its connection to autism”

  1. AWOL February 4, 2011 at 23:34 #

    changed his tune ..Bill Gates on vaccines and population control

    • Sullivan February 5, 2011 at 00:43 #

      AWOL,

      Bill Gates in his own words:

      A surprising but critical fact we learned was that reducing the number of deaths actually reduces population growth. Chart 3 shows the strong connection between infant mortality rates and fertility rates. Contrary to the Malthusian view that population will grow to the limit of however many kids can be fed, in fact parents choose to have enough kids to give them a high chance that several will survive to support them as they grow old. As the number of kids who survive to adulthood goes up, parents can achieve this goal without having as many children.

      So, population control by saving children’s lives. Saving children’s lives.

      What vaccine did he single out as possibly the one that could save the most children?

      We were surprised when we saw a newspaper article in 1998 showing that only a few diseases cause most childhood deaths and showing how little money was being invested in creating and providing vaccines for these diseases. A chart in the article showed that a particular type of diarrheal disease—rotavirus—was killing over 400,000 children per year. How could a disease we had never heard of get so little attention and kill this many children? We sent the article to my father and asked him to look into how we could help.

  2. sharon February 5, 2011 at 00:45 #

    Nothing ambiguous about that message. Good for you Bill Gates.

    Can’t wait for the conspiracy theories.

  3. Chris February 5, 2011 at 01:10 #

    When parents are sure their children will actually grow into adults, they have more children. Two things help reduce population growth: education of women, and health policies (like vaccines) the prevent children from dying.

    That is illustrated graphically in this video. Pay close attention at the graph starting at about the 11th minute. It is Child Mortality versus Number of Children per Woman.

    AWOL, do you think reducing child mortality is a good thing or a bad thing?

    There was a recent National Geographic Series on population. Here is a quote from that article:

    And because, for a time, women kept giving birth at a high rate. In 18th-century Europe or early 20th-century Asia, when the average woman had six children, she was doing what it took to replace herself and her mate, because most of those children never reached adulthood. When child mortality declines, couples eventually have fewer children—but that transition usually takes a generation at the very least. Today in developed countries, an average of 2.1 births per woman would maintain a steady population; in the developing world, “replacement fertility” is somewhat higher. In the time it takes for the birthrate to settle into that new balance with the death rate, population explodes.

  4. Chris February 5, 2011 at 01:41 #

    Ooops, proofread fail. The first sentence should be “When parents are sure their children will actually grow into adults, they have fewer children.”

  5. Blackheart February 5, 2011 at 06:09 #

    Gates – Well, Dr. Wakefield has been shown to have used absolutely fraudulent data.

    Well not by any independent medical or scientific body.

    Gates – He had a financial interest in some lawsuits,

    Another clear thinker not understanding what medical litigation is.

    Perhaps Bill also forgot his own conflict of interest in the vaccine debate….and its not always about money for the naysayers.

    Gates – he created a fake paper apparently with the connivance of 12 other researchers.

    Fake paper is that like counterfeit money ?

    Gates – the journal allowed it to run

    …and you can read the very reasons why in the Lancet edition at publication or the next issue after.

    Gates – All the other studies were done, showed no connection whatsoever again and again and again

    Obviously Bill hasn’t read any sort of evidence from University of California , Johns Hopkins Medical or some other 26 medical institutions.

    Gates So it’s an absolute lie that has killed thousands of kids.

    Perhaps some clear evidence of that assertion could be provided.

    Gates – And so the people who go and engage in those anti-vaccine efforts—you know, they, they kill children.

    Which would be true if the only concerns came from so called ‘anti vaccination’ lobby groups. See above for more enlightened medical opinions from around the globe.

    Gates – It’s a very sad thing, because these vaccines are important.

    Perhaps before launching a massive malaria vaccination programme Bill might try to alleviate the conditions in which malaria and thus mosquito borne disease thrive.

    … and that was only the first paragraph.

  6. Blackheart February 5, 2011 at 06:15 #

    …oh and Bill your education revolution is just as bad.
    Too much time spent with the Huxley’s of this world.

  7. Fung February 5, 2011 at 11:19 #

    “Well not by any independent medical or scientific body.” You mean beside the British medical journal, and those who retracted his papers?

  8. Blackheart February 5, 2011 at 11:57 #

    Not quite Fung …

    1. Apparently when the BMJ failed to duly notify its readers that one of its aims was to attack a commercial rival ie The Lancet it forgoes any sense of ‘objectivity or independence in the matter.

    2. I should remind you though that the BMJ is a journal not a medical / scientific body.

  9. Neil February 5, 2011 at 12:56 #

    @Blackheart Not vaccinating children leads to child deaths, brain damage and other long-term health consequences. That’s a fact, as before we had vaccinations that’s exactly what happened. There’s is no evidence vaccinations cause autism and the minimal-amount of evidence that has appeared has been discredited.

    Also your point “Bill might try to alleviate the conditions in which malaria and thus mosquito borne disease thrive.” They did, it was called DDT, the mosquitoes become resistance to it the humans didn’t.

    Please stop spreading ideas that kill children.

  10. Chris February 5, 2011 at 16:23 #

    Blackheart, so exactly which studies independently replicated Wakefield’s findings. Please tell us how many children (no adults, and at least twelve), and which MMR vaccine they received. And no more posting the over four year old Sally Beck article from the Daily Fail. Please tell us the actual published paper, no poster presentations.

  11. Kev February 5, 2011 at 19:05 #

    And so I come to _this_ thread and find Blackheart doing some more empty opinion stirring. Lets look at this:

    1. Apparently when the BMJ failed to duly notify its readers that one of its aims was to attack a commercial rival ie The Lancet it forgoes any sense of ‘objectivity or independence in the matter.

    2. I should remind you though that the BMJ is a journal not a medical / scientific body.

    This comment is devoid of:

    a) Point, in that it adds nothing to the debate.
    b) Evidence, in that it is supposition without supporting evidence in the claim the BMJ were attacking the Lancet.
    c) Intelligence, in that the second point contradicts the first. If the BMJ is not a scientific publication such as the Lancet, how can it be a direct commercial rival?

    Your ‘refutations’ of Bill Gates are equally empty. You need to do very much better before people will even engage you properly.

  12. AWOL February 5, 2011 at 20:42 #

    She does big time Kev..

    b) Evidence, in that it is supposition without supporting evidence in the claim the BMJ were attacking the Lancet.

    “The retraction of the infamous MMR paper may be overdue, but it is a good thing for science”

    http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c644.extract

  13. AWOL February 5, 2011 at 20:45 #

    Sullivan

    “So, population control by saving children’s lives. Saving children’s lives.

    What vaccine did he single out as possibly the one that could save the most children?”

    another video for you with the maths and the detail rather than me spouting it…

  14. Blackheart February 6, 2011 at 00:12 #

    @Kev

    a) Point, in that it adds nothing to the debate.

    It was a direct response to Fung

    b) b) Evidence, in that it is supposition without supporting evidence in the claim the BMJ were attacking the Lancet.

    I think your knowledge of the BMJ / Lancet stoush is a bit deeper than that. But here’s the link

    Brian Deer article

    http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7001.full

    Fiona Godlee Editorial

    http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d378.full

    Harvey Markovitch Associate Editor BMJ Observations

    http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d284.full

    C) This is what I said

    “I should remind you though that the BMJ is a journal not a medical / scientific body.”

    ——————–

    As to Bill Gates I’m happy to add to my commentary as I did previously in response to Neil.

  15. Chris February 6, 2011 at 01:44 #

    Blackheart:

    “I should remind you though that the BMJ is a journal not a medical / scientific body.”

    So what? The GMC is a medical body, and found that Wakefield had several ethical lapses.

    Also, even if Wakefield did follow all the ethical rules, his results were flawed and wrong. He has not been replicated, and there have been several studies refuting his opinion of the MMR (the one used in the UK since 1992 is the same one used in the USA since 1971, so it already had an established safety record for two whole decades).

    Those who tried to replicate his findings on the Lancet paper found that their results were negative. The first being Brent Taylor of the Royal Free Hospital in 1999 with Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: no epidemiological evidence for a causal association, followed in 2002 with Measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and bowel problems or developmental regression in children with autism: population study. Then later with Mady Hornig, who tried to directly replicate his procedures (with the exemption of making sure the colonoscopies were medically indicated) in 2008 with Lack of Association between Measles Virus Vaccine and Autism with Enteropathy: A Case-Control Study

    If you have evidence of Wakefield’s findings being independently replicated (that means Wakefield, Krigsman or any of their colleagues not being involved) please present the journal, title, authors and date of the full paper (no poster presentations, nor any newspaper articles). They should clearly note how many children (no adult case studies, and there should be more than twelve), and which MMR vaccine the children received.

  16. Blackheart February 6, 2011 at 02:39 #

    @Chris

    So what? The GMC is a medical body, and found that Wakefield had several ethical lapses.

    Well it’s very important the BMJ is a journal. They report give opinion etc. The GMC is a legal body.They adjudicate oversee etc

    Neither are directly involved in medical or scientific research.

    ———————–
    I’ll be happy to answer your other concerns at another time.

  17. Blackheart February 6, 2011 at 03:02 #

    Bill Gates

    Everyone loves hyperbole and I’m certainly not immune myself. But let me flesh out some of the things I have posted previously.

    1. Obviously I disagree with …well just about everything Gates says in regards to Wakefield , Walker-Smith et al.

    It is probably pointless addressing those issues in this narrowly focussed thread and I apologise for doing so.

    2. Obviously Bill Gates does not agree with Wakefield , Walker-Smith et al

    That’s fine but is he giving an objective opinion … well I say no.

    a) The Bill Gates foundation is seeking to push forward a number of world wide vaccinations programmes including malaria vaccinations.

    In fact a simple visit to http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Pages/home.aspx

    Reveals a very robust pro-vaccination stance.

    My argument – clearly that shows a biased stance towards vaccination and a possible conflict of interest.

    ————————————————

    So an attack on a ‘anti vaccination” opponent is made by a “pro vaccination” opponent.

    Once again the general public should be aware of these issues in addressing objectively the discussion taking place in regards to vaccination.

  18. Chris February 6, 2011 at 03:36 #

    Or you won’t answer the question.

    While you are searching for answers to my question (don’t bother with Wakefield’s list, none of them actually qualify) also look for any real evidence showing that the MMR vaccine that has been used in the USA since 1971 and the UK since 1992 has risks greater than measles, mumps and rubella. Remember the criteria for evidence is quite strict, mainly it is limited to published papers that can be found in any medical school library.

    This is the type of information one requires to determine if they prefer the vaccine or the disease.

  19. Blackheart February 6, 2011 at 04:19 #

    @Chris

    An interesting response Chris …

    Unfortunately I’m not going to engage in your “skeptical construct”. When you read me in print saying “MMR causes Autism” then you can go right ahead …

    Respond to what I say not what you think I believe …

  20. Chris February 6, 2011 at 04:28 #

    No, I did not say anything about you claiming MMR causes autism. I see you defending Wakefield. I want to know what basis you are using to say that Wakefield’s papers have any merit, and why they should have been published in the first place.

    It was just a small case series that should not have caused the subsequent ruckus. It didn’t even say what Wakefield declared in his video press release, and has never been replicated. So, even if he was not a fraud, it should have faded into the background, measles would not now be endemic in the UK and Deer would never even had a story.

    And that is not a “skeptical construct.” It is what the data show: first that measles virus DNA is not found in the guts of children who have received the MMR, and that autism is not related to the MMR vaccine. If you have real evidence to the contrary, then you have an argument against Bill Gates’ stance on vaccine. Until then, you are just posting limited opinions without evidence.

    So defend your opinion on Bill Gates’ views without bringing up Brian Deer with actual scientific evidence.

  21. stanley seigler February 6, 2011 at 04:36 #

    re vax v anti vax…isnt it time to move on…there are critical programs being cut in USA…perhaps in rest of world those on the spectrum have excellent support…advise: maybe we should move to countries where they exist.

    stanley seigler

    • Sullivan February 6, 2011 at 15:34 #

      re vax v anti vax…isnt it time to move on…there are critical programs being cut in USA…perhaps in rest of world those on the spectrum have excellent support…advise: maybe we should move to countries where they exist.

      stanley seigler

      What if we could gather some of the vaccine-causation groups’ energy into other forms of advocacy? You may recall that during the introduction of Gardasil, people like Lenny Schaffer and Rick Rollens pulled together lots of autism parents to show up for hearings in Sacramento. I haven’t heard from these gentlemen on the hearings last week and this week.

  22. sharon February 6, 2011 at 05:00 #

    stanley seigler, I think most of us would like to move on. I know I would. However there are some who seek to engage in profiteering via the spread of misinformation and outright lies about vaccinations. Some who have no children with ASD or any depth of knowledge about it, and yet appear to happily make financial gain from capitalising on public ignorance and fear. Until these people stop their bullshit, some of us will be feel it necessary to persist in countering their dangerous claims.

  23. Blackheart February 6, 2011 at 06:06 #

    @Chris

    1. I see you defending Wakefield.

    I’m defending bad science and bad science reporting ala BMJ.

    This is an important public concern that needs a fair and balanced commentary. If I choose to play Devil’s Advocate then that is my choice.

    2. I want to know what basis you are using to say that Wakefield’s papers have any merit, and why they should have been published in the first place.

    “Mistakes are, after all, the foundations of truth, and if a man does not know what a thing is, it is at least an increase in knowledge if he knows what it is not.” Carl Jung

    3. It was just a small case series that should not have caused the subsequent ruckus.

    “There is already evidence that current speculation has undermined confidence in the vaccine since coverage of MMR vaccine fell by 1% between the second and third quarters of 1997 across the UK. MMR coverage in Scotland has fallen to 93·7%.” Sarah J O’Brien , Ian G Jones , Peter Christie.

    Scottish Centre for Infection and Environmental Health
    Letter to Lancet published 21st March 1998

    * Note the implausability of that statement against the date it was published.

    4. And that is not a “skeptical construct.”

    There are numerous hypotheses that can be drawn from Wakefield , Walker-Smith et al paper and the accompanying literature that surrounds it. The general public are constantly bombarded with “MMR does not Cause Autism” perhaps not that’s still awaiting further investigation by objective independent research using a variety of scienctific ‘tools’ including animal model experiments, biological assays and a variety of high tech diagnostic equipment ala MRI NMRI and MRT.

    5. So defend your opinion on Bill Gates’ views …

    Perhaps then I could ask you to defend Bill Gate’s views without bringing up Andrew Wakefield, John Walker-Smith, Simon Murch et al.

    There is a very strong public interest in this story and it needs to be examined thoroughly.

    • Sullivan February 6, 2011 at 15:29 #

      “There is already evidence that current speculation has undermined confidence in the vaccine since coverage of MMR vaccine fell by 1% between the second and third quarters of 1997 across the UK. MMR coverage in Scotland has fallen to 93·7%.” Sarah J O’Brien , Ian G Jones , Peter Christie.

      Scottish Centre for Infection and Environmental Health
      Letter to Lancet published 21st March 1998

      * Note the implausability of that statement against the date it was published.

      I assume you mean to suggest that it is implausible to link the drop to Mr. Wakefield’s group because the 1998 Lancet paper was not out in 1997. Public statements about the work were appearing in the media, and Mr. Wakefield was giving talks prior to the 1998 paper.

      Also, the “current speculation”–would that possibly include Mr. Wakefield’s failed attempt to connect measles vaccination to Crohn’s?

      Looks plausible:

      The Inflammatory Bowel Disease Study Group (IBDSG) has previously suggested links between exposure to wild measles virus and/or vaccine-related strains and an increased risk of developing Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis

  24. stanley seigler February 6, 2011 at 07:30 #

    [sharon say] some of us will be feel it necessary to persist…

    persist ad nauseam…OK but it does seems less importation than advocating for the civil rights for our children and neighbors…whatever turns you on.

    stanley seigler

  25. Blackheart February 6, 2011 at 08:50 #

    Stanley there is some good stuff going on at University of California Davis. http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/mindinstitute/

    Not only in Medical research but education and relevant information to carers.

    I think the rights of ASD parents and their children like myself and my son would be better served if the UK medical establishment set aside the “Vaccine Wars” and started working in a co-operative and collaborative manner.

    Any information that enables my son to have a better future and quality of life is important.

    Cheers

  26. lilandtedsmum February 6, 2011 at 11:43 #

    Stanley,
    By persisting in counter-acting misinformation from Anti-vaccination quarters lives could be saved – surely that is very important.

    Stanley say:

    persist ad nauseam…OK but it does seems less importation than advocating for the civil rights for our children and neighbors…whatever turns you on.

    Why does there have to be a choice? Why can’t we do both?

    I also don’t think this turns anybody on. I certainly wish that there was no need to have to refute the claims that vaccines cause autism but whilst there are still those out there that do make these claims and put children at risk then we owe it to all children to continue to point out this dangerous mis-information.

    • Sullivan February 6, 2011 at 15:17 #

      “John Stone Age Of Autism”

      I wonder if a real discussion could happen there on this subject. OK, I don’t wonder at all. AoA has the clear policy of only allowing the rare dissenting comment. Kim Stagliano stated this recently.

  27. Chris February 6, 2011 at 20:47 #

    Blackheart:

    I’m defending bad science and bad science reporting ala BMJ.

    And what does that have to do with Bill Gates funding vaccines and distrusting Wakefield? If you want to defend Wakefield and prove once and for all that Deer was wrong, then you would answer my questions on the viability of Wakefield’s paper. With real journal papers, not vague hand waving.

    Until then, you have nothing.

  28. Prometheus February 7, 2011 at 02:14 #

    Blackheart,

    I already mentioned this in another comment string, but it bears repeating:

    Wakefield’s 1998 study was fraudulent because he had lawyers referring subjects whose parents thought had developed autism and a bowel disorder as the result of the MMR vaccine. He knew this and he knew what it would do to his study.

    This isn’t about “conflict of interest”, this is about concealing information that would have revealed that his study was meaningless. By pre-selecting subjects who were thought to have a temporal relationship between the MMR vaccine and autism/bowel disorder, it would have been nearly impossible to not find a connection. It’s like going to an Easter egg hunt and claiming that the chocolate eggs and jelly beans are proof of the Easter Bunny.

    Pre-selecting subjects that way isn’t just bad science, it’s fraud.

    What Brian Deer brings to the table is significant because it looks like fraud to the average person. The pre-selection of subjects is harder for the average person to see as anything more than a “technical violation”, but altering the patient details…that gets people stirred up.

    To me, all that Brian Deer did (and I don’t mean to minimise the effect he’s had on the general public) was convince me that Wakefield was deliberately fraudulent, not simply a completely incompetent researcher.

    Prometheus

  29. Blackheart February 7, 2011 at 07:17 #

    Prometheus

    I have covered this question at that other post and am happy to revisit here.. it is important that when dealing with matters of public interest that the public is actually informed of differing views and interpretations.

    Some of these may well carry more weight as they are given by independent ,objective, legal opinion for instance.

    “As a solicitor practising in the field of clinical negligence, acting for claimants ….

    … I do not know how Brian Deer thinks that solicitors who are acting for more than one client with a common complaint should obtain medical evidence. The parents had not gone to the Royal Free ‘precisely to blame MMR, wanting (an expert) to help their children and their claims’.

    Like most clients, they had a theory about how their child’s condition had been adversely affected and so they went to an independent expert in an appropriate field seeking an objective assessment to see if there was a link, because they all felt that the changes in their children’s behavioural changes were associated in time with the MMR vaccination.”

    Sometimes it is best to visit a number of perspectives on an issue. Including legal opinion and the parents and caregivers of children.

    regards

    • Sullivan February 7, 2011 at 20:47 #

      Like most clients, they had a theory about how their child’s condition had been adversely affected and so they went to an independent expert in an appropriate field seeking an objective assessment to see if there was a link, because they all felt that the changes in their children’s behavioural changes were associated in time with the MMR vaccination.”

      There are multiple problems with this.

      1) Some of the parents did not have this theory until they were recruited. Mrs. 12’s story (day 28 of the GMC hearings as I recall) describes this quite clearly.
      2) They did not go to an “independent” expert. They went to a person who had taken on the active role of supporting the claims of the families pursuing litigation. The families were recruited and sent to the RFH by the attorney, by others involved in the litigation (e.g. JABS) and by Andrew Wakefield himself, who took an active role in the recruitment.
      3) We do not know if or how many parents were delayed in gaining access to the Royal Free by this active role that Mr. Wakefield partook in. Parents with stories which did not support the causation claim may have been put off until after the pilot study was completed. Speculation, sure, but possible.
      4) They did not “all felt that the changes in their children’s behavioural changes were associated in time with the MMR vaccination” This is not supported by the Lancet paper. As I recall, Mr. Wakefield reported that 8 families held to that belief. In an earlier draft, the number was higher.

      Sometimes it is best to visit a number of perspectives on an issue. Including legal opinion and the parents and caregivers of children.

      What makes you believe that those who disagree with Mr. Wakefield have not visited alternative perspectives? It would seem that perhaps you could visit the perspectives of those who disagree with Mr. Wakefield, both his “science” and his failed ethics, rather than assume you understand a position which clearly you do not.

  30. Blackheart February 7, 2011 at 07:30 #

    Sullivan

    “I assume you mean to suggest that it is implausible to link the drop to Mr. Wakefield’s group because the 1998 Lancet paper was not out in 1997.”

    Quite right … must have been an uneasy moment when they realised the letter they had drafted. Seems a rather hysterical response to a matter that should have been covered rationally, objectively and calmly.

    It should be noted that this is a Primary Source document rather than opinion and so in terms of historical importance is extremely important.

    “Public statements about the work were appearing in the media, and Mr. Wakefield was giving talks prior to the 1998 paper.”

    I was unable to locate the public statements you allude to though I do believe there was a single small article on a study. Which appears to have gone unnoticed.

    Having said that and returning to O’Brien et al this was a letter published in the Lancet immediately following the Wakefield , Walker-Smith et al Case Review. One would obviously assume quite logically that it was that Case review and Press Release they were referring to. Thus the words “current speculation”

    regards

    • Sullivan February 7, 2011 at 20:36 #

      I was unable to locate the public statements you allude to though I do believe there was a single small article on a study. Which appears to have gone unnoticed.

      Check the transcripts for the GMC hearings. Mr. Wakefield was giving talks previous to the publication of the Lancet. He also wrote a description of the effort for Richard Barr to send out to prospective clients in the MMR litigation.

  31. AWOL February 7, 2011 at 13:15 #

    Prometheus and progates

    In summary what NAA state in their UK news release is that if the 1998 Lancet paper’s results were faked how is it that now Dr Wakefield’s work is being proven right:-

    •US Government health officials have admitted vaccines [and not just the MMR vaccine] cause autistic conditions;
    •the US Federal Court has ordered substantial compensation for children whose autistic conditions were caused by vaccines;

    •papers published independently in mainstream leading medical journals confirm, just as Dr Wakefield found in 1998, that autistic children suffer serious bowel disease when their non autistic contemporaries do not.

    • Sullivan February 7, 2011 at 20:34 #

      In summary what NAA state in their UK news release is that if the 1998 Lancet paper’s results were faked how is it that now Dr Wakefield’s work is being proven right:-

      •US Government health officials have admitted vaccines [and not just the MMR vaccine] cause autistic conditions;

      Aside from the fact that this isn’t really true, so the Lancet *is* a paper about a link between MMR and autism?

  32. Chris February 7, 2011 at 17:09 #

    AWOL: Um, no. The US Government only conceded what were table injuries, encephalopathy. That is not autism.

    •papers published independently in mainstream leading medical journals confirm, just as Dr Wakefield found in 1998, that autistic children suffer serious bowel disease when their non autistic contemporaries do not.

    Actually, again: no. The case studies are never compared to controls of no-autistic children. Neurotypical children also have bowel diseases (ever hear of the Rhys Morgan?). You are also missing the “MMR connection” which was clearly stated in both the paper and totally mis-stated in the video press release. Again, if you have papers that are independent, have at least a dozen children and indicate which MMR vaccine, please present them.

    It doesn’t matter how fast you wave your hands, AWOL and Blackheart: Wakefield was still wrong.

    Even if he was the most incompetent researcher on the planet, and genuinely did not hear Chadwick tell him the PCR results were false positives or that he mis-read the children’s medical reports: he is still wrong.

    He never proved that the MMR vaccine is associated with gastrointestinal issues, nor that it had anything with autism.

    So his science was wrong from the beginning, and both of you clinging to him is just pathetic.

    • Sullivan February 7, 2011 at 19:32 #

      You are also missing the “MMR connection” which was clearly stated in both the paper and totally mis-stated in the video press release. Again, if you have papers that are independent, have at least a dozen children and indicate which MMR vaccine, please present them.

      One also needs to describe what Mr. Wakefield thinks is being replicated. He gives a general statement to the effect that it is bowel disease in children with autism. That was known before Andrew Wakefield went to college. Autistics, as with the rest of mankind, have a certain fraction who have bowel disease. May be more. May be the same fraction. I’ve seen papers and abstracts that say both.

      Hornig, et al. replicates the expected result–that if you monitor a GI clinic, you will get some fraction of patients who have bowel disease severe enough to warrant endoscopy. Hornig et al. also show that if you take a true case series of these patients, that regression is not present in all, that in those with regression, the regression often occurs before GI complaints and before MMR vaccination. Many key points of Wakefield et al. can not be replicated.

      We now know that this is due to many reasons. First, Mr. Wakefield’s “case series” was not a true case series in that the children were recruited and the parents primed ahead of time with a description of what the study was trying to prove. The data were so contaminated by this to make even an honest report of the findings nearly worthless. Unfortunately, we don’t have an honest report.

  33. AWOL February 7, 2011 at 20:09 #

    Chris
    Provide your counter with links remeber
    “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

    http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/05/peer-reviewed-papers-support-findings.html

    The following peer-reviewed papers support Dr. Wakefield’s original findings:listed some the science still stands despite the goverment stance..

    Furlano R, Anthony A, Day R, Brown A, Mc Garvey L, Thomson M, et al. “Colonic CD8 and T cell filtration with epithelial damage in children with autism.” J Pediatr 2001;138:366-72.

    Sabra S, Bellanti JA, Colon AR. “Ileal lymphoid hyperplasia, non-specific colitis and pervasive developmental disorder in children”. The Lancet 1998;352:234-5.

    Torrente F., Machado N., Perez-Machado M., Furlano R., Thomson M., Davies S., Wakefield AJ, Walker-Smith JA, Murch SH. “Enteropathy with T cell infiltration and epithelial IgG deposition in autism.” Molecular Psychiatry. 2002;7:375-382.

    Wakefield AJ, Anthony A, Murch SH, Thomson M, Montgomery SM, Davies S, Walker-Smith JA. “Enterocolitis in children with developmental disorder.” American Journal of Gastroenterology 2000;95:2285-2295.

    Ashwood P, Anthony A, Pellicer AA, Torrente F, Wakefield AJ. “Intestinal lymphocyte populations in children with regressive autism: evidence for extensive mucosal immunopathology.” Journal of Clinical Immunology, 2003;23:504-517.

    The following peer-reviewed papers replicate Dr. Wakefield’s original findings:

    Gonzalez, L. et al., “Endoscopic and Histological Characteristics of the Digestive Mucosa in Autistic Children with gastro-Intestinal Symptoms”. Arch Venez Pueric Pediatr, 2005;69:19-25.

    Balzola, F., et al., “Panenteric IBD-like disease in a patient with regressive autism shown for the first time by wireless capsule enteroscopy: Another piece in the jig-saw of the gut-brain syndrome?” American Journal of Gastroenterology, 2005. 100(4): p. 979- 981.

    Balzola F et al . “Autistic enterocolitis: confirmation of a new inflammatory bowel disease in an Italian cohort of patients.” Gastroenterology 2005;128(Suppl. 2);A-303.

    These are the articles on treatment of gastrointestinal symptoms in autistic children:

    Buie T, et al. Pediatrics. 2010 Jan;125 Suppl 1:S19-29. Recommendations for evaluation and treatment of common gastrointestinal problems in children with ASDs.

    Buie T, et al. Pediatrics. 2010 Jan;125 Suppl 1:S1-18. Evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of gastrointestinal disorders in individuals with ASDs: a consensus report.

    • Sullivan February 7, 2011 at 20:31 #

      AWOL,

      that is the last time I will approve this list of supposed “replications” of Andrew Wakefield’s work. They aren’t. Repeating the same comment over and over again is not discussion.

      Andrew Wakefield claims to have found a “novel disease”. The papers cited do not support this idea. When this is pointed out to you, with substantiation, you merely repeat the list in response.

  34. Chris February 7, 2011 at 20:37 #

    AWOL, do you have some kind of reading comprehension problem? You were to show me how they are independent, how many children and which MMR vaccine they showed. And to use full papers, not poster presentation, and I should have added no commentaries!

    But here goes:

    J Pediatr 2001;138:366-72: No mention of measles, failed

    Lancet 1998;352:234-5: It is only a comment on Wakefield’s retracted paper and not a full paper, failed

    Molecular Psychiatry. 2002;7:375-382: Wakefield is an author, therefore not independent: failed

    American Journal of Gastroenterology 2000;95:2285-2295: Wakefield is an author, therefore not independent: failed

    Journal of Clinical Immunology, 2003;23:504-517: Wakefield is an author, therefore not independent, failed

    Arch Venez Pueric Pediatr, 2005;69:19-25: No items found, From here:

    Gonzales et al, number 2, has been published in “Arch Venez Pueric Pediatr” which stands for Archivos Venezolanos de Puericultura y Pediatría. It was a bit tricky to get my hands on the paper, especially since the citation was not quite right, but I did manage and was not surprised to find that indeed the authors cannot replicate Wakefield’s 1998 “findings” of a distinct autistic enterocolitis, although they do report a higher incidence of gastrointestinal problems in their autistic group.

    failed

    American Journal of Gastroenterology, 2005. 100(4): p. 979- 981.: One adult, no children failed

    Gastroenterology 2005;128(Suppl. 2);A-303.: A poster presentation, not a full paper failed

    Pediatrics. 2010 Jan;125 Suppl 1:S19-29: treatment of children, no mention of MMR, not a replication, failed

    Pediatrics. 2010 Jan;125 Suppl 1:S1-18: treatment of children, makes no claim on MMR except with this statement:

    The significance of these findings, therefore, is unclear. Wakefield et al29 also proposed a causal relation between measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccination and autism, a suggestion that was later retracted by many of the original authors.

    He also says:

    Other study-design limitations in these reports included flawed control groups, lack of validated and standardized definitions, and speculative interpretation of results. In summary, published reports have not established the presence of a unique gastrointestinal pathophysiology specific to ASDs.

    The last one even refutes Wakefield! In other words: total fail.

  35. AWOL February 7, 2011 at 20:49 #

    Very good lads so you are fronted with hard peer reviewed science ,and were not talking about eating ice-cream causes sunburn but replicated science and you still wont believe it…pointless

    and Chris you never responded ..or did i miss summit?

    Provide your counter with links remember
    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.

    I`m waiting??

  36. Chris February 7, 2011 at 21:05 #

    Um, look up.

    Most of the studies I have posted were not “pharma funded.” I have listed them often. There is nice bit list at the Autism Science Foundation that you are welcome to go through. Many from the National Institute for Health, which is tax funded not “pharma funded.”

  37. AWOL February 7, 2011 at 21:11 #

    This is the same GMC that missed Harold Shipman, the Bristol babies and Alder Hey. I believe it has made another blunder.

    no parent or patient was a complainant

    •the 1995 ethics committee letter granting approval for the Lancet research was produced
    •the research followed the terms of the approval given
    •the Lancet editor knew that Wakefield was doing a separate legal aided study
    •all the children were on the autistic spectrum
    •the children were recruited as described in the Lancet paper
    •the use of invasive interventions – colonoscopies, etc – was clinically justified
    •no child was harmed; no parent refused consent; no parent complained
    However, the GMC chose to ignore the 1995 ethical approval and substitute a 1996 approval, allowing them to reach the findings they did – a blatant disregard for justice. They also insisted that ‘pervasive developmental disorder’ was not the same as autism spectrum disorders which of course it is; and that only children who had had the measles or measles/rubella vaccine should have been admitted onto the project, not those who had had the MMR. The hearing moved the goalposts so that the doctors had no chance of overturning the serious charges against them.

    I do not need to visit anyone for a alternative perspective,I had my perspective long before Dr Wakefield came on the scene…your the newboy Sullivan.

    • Sullivan February 8, 2011 at 01:15 #

      AWOL,

      you are presenting the Wakefield/AoA/ChildHealthSafety talking points. Points which were largely presented in detail to the GMC and which were resoundly rejected.

      You comment is far more succinct and far more clear than is your standard. Reading this without attribution, I would have said it was written by ChildHealthSafety, not you.

      no parent or patient was a complainant

      Andrew Wakefield called for a hearing. Besides, the GMC doesn’t need a complainant.

      •the 1995 ethics committee letter granting approval for the Lancet research was produced

      The GMC didn’t accept this defense and for good reason. The 1995 ethics approval was for 2 extra mucosal samples to be taken during a clinically indicated endoscopy. MRI, lumbar punctures and other investigations were (a) not always clinically indicated and (b) set forth in a 1996 ethics committee approval.

      •the research followed the terms of the approval given

      Except that the research began before the approval was given and much was based on procedures which were not clinically indicated.

      •the Lancet editor knew that Wakefield was doing a separate legal aided study

      First, the Lancet study was Legal Aid funded. Even Richard Barr commented that he expected there to be LAB acknowledgment in the Lancet paper. Further, the public was not made aware of Mr. Wakefield’s work for the LAB. It was Andrew Wakefield’s responsibility in the Lancet paper and in his public statements to make this clear.

      •all the children were on the autistic spectrum

      Incorrect. From the 1998 Lancet paper: “Behavioural disorders included autism (nine), disintegrative psychosis (one), and possible postviral or vaccinal encephalitis (two).”

      •the children were recruited as described in the Lancet paper

      The Lancet paper does not describe the active participation of Andrew Wakefield in recruiting the children. It does not present the fact that Andrew Wakefield was aware of the fact that many were actively pursuing litigation at the time. It does not present the fact that Andrew Wakefield had agreed to help them build their case.

      the use of invasive interventions – colonoscopies, etc – was clinically justified

      Not in all cases. This was discussed at length at the GMC.

      •no child was harmed; no parent refused consent; no parent complained

      There was a child harmed at the Royal Free in the later series of investigations. That child received a substantial settlement. Besides, getting lucky is not a defense. Invasive procedures are not to be applied for research purposes on humans.

      However, the GMC chose to ignore the 1995 ethical approval and substitute a 1996 approval, allowing them to reach the findings they did – a blatant disregard for justice. They also insisted that ‘pervasive developmental disorder’ was not the same as autism spectrum disorders which of course it is; and that only children who had had the measles or measles/rubella vaccine should have been admitted onto the project, not those who had had the MMR. The hearing moved the goalposts so that the doctors had no chance of overturning the serious charges against them.

      Straight out of the ChildHealthSafety playbook. It is excellent for muddying the waters and confusing people who don’t have the time to research the events. It is, however, completely false.

      I do not need to visit anyone for a alternative perspective,I had my perspective long before Dr Wakefield came on the scene…your the newboy Sullivan.

      Now you are starting to sound more like yourself. I guess an “open mind” is only something that people who doubt Andrew Wakefield are supposed to have.

  38. Chris February 7, 2011 at 21:22 #

    AWOL, in three papers I listed earlier, show me how they were “funded by Pharma or someone associated with Pharma.”

  39. AWOL February 7, 2011 at 21:23 #

    Chris

    By not listing your studies you are admitting that none are independent and wont stand and at the same time meaningless.Failure to supply will mean you cant supply.

    “tax funded not “pharma funded.”

    Tax funded we know the role of Pharma and the institutions they serve in financing Britain’s colonial and capitalist system is well documented.
    Let’s not forget that Pharma are the next-door neighbours of the politicians. Most people can see the picture: Pharma grease the politicians’ palms, the politicians bail out Pharma with indemnity on vaccine claims at the same time buys more death and destruction vaccines with TAX PAYERS money and so it goes on.It’s essentially a crime spree that benefits a social elite at the expense of many millions of victims.”

    Chris I`m waiting..

  40. Chris February 7, 2011 at 22:43 #

    I did. I cannot help that you cannot read. I see you think all public departments of health are in the pocket of “Big Pharma”, your lack in reading comprehension must have hampered your secondary civics and history lessons. Sorry about that. End of discussion.

  41. AWOL February 7, 2011 at 22:52 #

    Dear Chris

    When you read the authors, Elizabeth Miller et-al thats inept,you cant supply so your counter arguements as stated “listed earlier,” have failed you and at the same time worthless…all your big man agressive posts worthless..

    I never admire anyone who quits, as you have done..”End of discussion”

    • Sullivan February 8, 2011 at 00:17 #

      AWOL,

      I admire a person who knows when he/she is wrong and does quit. I have no respect for people who refuse to quit even when the evidence is totally against them. Andrew Wakefield, for example.

  42. Chris February 7, 2011 at 23:43 #

    By the way, AWOL… each and everytime you claim that Wakefield has been replicated in five countries, I will just post the link to the post above that shows how they all failed. Plus, for fun to the one where the attempted replications failed, including the one from Hornig. She at one time bought into the idea, hence her infamous autistic mouse study. She even used the same lab as Wakefield, but this time they fixed their faulty procedures.

  43. Chris February 8, 2011 at 00:26 #

    Who is Elizabeth Miller? Other than the second author of the Taylor paper? Why should that matter?

  44. Chris February 8, 2011 at 01:03 #

    I mean really? I click on her affiliations and get:
    b Immunisation Division, Public Health Laboratory Service, Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, London NW9 5EQ

    What division of Big Pharma is that?

  45. Kev February 8, 2011 at 08:16 #

    I have .. and I can’t seem to make the connection between an extremely small comment and the start of a supposedly ‘major health scare’.

    Thats your prerogative. Sadly history disagrees with you.

    I realise you’re bought into the Wakefield perspective but at some point I’m afraid you’re either going to have to realise that the facts – as oppose to your opinion on facts – are against you.

    I’ve read elsewhere that your happy to play devils advocate. I’m afraid you’ve totally overplayed your hand on that score. You stated in your first comment here that you were a simple parent. You also commented using an email address that included your real name. I used that to find you all over autism/anti-vax posts at Huffington Post like a rash. I’m not going to out you but you’re misrepresenting yourself on this blog totally.

    No more ‘playing devils advocate’ ‘blackheart’. You had your fun. Now its over. Bye bye.

  46. Prometheus February 8, 2011 at 17:50 #

    Blackheart (7 Feb 2011) replies:

    “Like most clients, they had a theory about how their child’s condition had been adversely affected and so they went to an independent expert in an appropriate field seeking an objective assessment to see if there was a link, because they all felt that the changes in their children’s behavioural changes were associated in time with the MMR vaccination.”

    OK. Nice expansion on my original comment. However, how does any of this change the fact that the solicitors referred patients whose parents felt there was a temporal connection between the MMR and their child’s autism and bowel disorders?

    Did you understand the issue? There’s no shame in not understanding how this would dramatically skew the results, since the majority of the general public (and a disturbing portion of physicians) didn’t understand it, either.

    Let me reiterate: the referrals were pre-selected by the solicitors to have:

    [a] autism
    [b] bowel complaints
    [c] a (real or perceived) temporal relationship between the MMR vaccine and [a] and/or [b]

    It is [c] that invalidates anything the Wakefield et al (1998) paper has to say about the MMR vaccine, but the combination of [a] and [b] means that anything the paper says about autism and bowel disorders is also invalid. Again, by pre-selecting subjects that were already known to have both autism and bowel problems and a (real or perceived) temporal relationship with the MMR, it should come as no surprise that the study showed an association between autism and bowel disorders and the MMR vaccine.

    “Sometimes it is best to visit a number of perspectives on an issue. Including legal opinion and the parents and caregivers of children.”

    Huh? How does “legal opinion and the parents…” have anything to do with whether or not Wakefield knowingly committed scientific fraud? He knew that he was getting referrals from the solicitors, he knew (or should have known) what that would do to his study results and he knew that if he admitted this in his paper, it would have been immediately recognised as worthless.

    The first two might be excused by severe incompetence, but Wakefield’s failure to disclose the referrals raises the probability of deliberate deception. As I’ve admitted before, I’m guilty of wanting to believe that Wakefield was hopelessly incompetent rather than deliberately fraudulent, but the revelations of the past weeks make that position completely untenable.

    AWOL,

    I’ve read the papers that Dr. Wakefield (and his loyal followers) claim “idependently replicate” his findings. As (repeatedly) mentioned above, all of them have one or more of the following problems:

    [a] they didn’t study autism
    [b] they didn’t study measles or MMR
    [c] they didn’t study children
    [d] they weren’t actually published
    [e] the cited reference is a comment or letter to the editor
    [f] the authors include Dr. Wakefield and/or his co-researchers

    In fact, nobody has independently replicated Dr. Wakefield’s findings, although a number of researchers have tried and failed. I suspect we now know why they failed.

    Prometheus

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Tweets that mention Autism Blog - Bill Gates on the anti-vaccine movement and its connection to autism « Left Brain/Right Brain -- Topsy.com - February 4, 2011

    […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Kev, Mekei. Mekei said: Bill Gates on the anti-vaccine movement and its connection to autism http://bit.ly/gx5iGe […]

  2. Bill Gates: Anti-vaccine myths ‘kill children’ | Vaccines Today - March 21, 2011

    […] health officials for whom Wakefield’s paper has been a source of major frustration. A number of autism advocates also hailed Gates’ for showing leadership on the […]

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 )

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

%d bloggers like this: