Prof. John Walker-Smith was a colleague of Andrew Wakefield, a co-author on the no-retracted 1998 Lancet paper and shared the same fate as Mr. Wakefield after the General Medical Council Hearings: he was struck off the medical register. Prof. Walker-Smith has appealed (Mr. Wakefield did not). A few news stories have come up about this appeal. In Doctor struck off over MMR controversy appeals against ruling, the Guardian notes:
Prof John Walker-Smith tells high court he was denied a fair hearing before he was struck off by the General Medical Council
Many are looking to this appeal for vindication of Mr. Wakefield and his theories on MMR being linked to and causal in autism. Prof. Walker-Smith’s attorney appears to have made a rather clear statement to the contrary:
Miller said it had been important that the disciplinary panel “separate out research from the clinical medicine – but that was a task that appeared to be beyond them”.
The judge asked Miller whether the alleged link between MMR and the vaccine “has now been utterly disproved” in the opinion of “respectable medical opinion”.
Miller said that was “exactly” the position.
edit to add:
I took the statement “The judge asked Miller whether the alleged link between MMR and the vaccine “has now been utterly disproved” ” to be a mistaken report by the Guardian because, as written, it does not make sense. My own interpretation was that the actual question was whether the MMR and *autism* was the point. However, I should have made that assumption very clear in the above piece and I apologize for that. I have written the paper as well as some other people who might be able to clarify the statement.
Left Brain Right Brain 
Having trouble not smiling.
I wonder if this will affect Wakefield’s attack on Deer and Godlee. Probably not but I thought that Wakers could hardly be put in a worse light when something like this comes along.
“Separate out research from the clinical medicine” – does that mean separate Wakefield from Walker-Smith? Is Professor Walker-Smith going to distance himself from Wakefield in this appeal? That’s what I’m wondering.
@Anne,
Sure does sound like it. If he can make the case that his research and records were not tainted and responsible for or connected with Wakefield’s fraud, he may gain ground.
Anne. You have missed the point. The vital distinction made quite clear in this High Court Appeal, is that the treatment of the very sick children by Prof Walker Smith and his team using colonoscopies and lumbar punctures was routine procedure with all the necessary ethical permissions being given, agreed to by the parents, it was not, as claimed by the prosecuting counsel at the GMC hearing, done for Research purposes, but was normal practice and out of very necessary clinical need. The panel at the GMC were made to understand, by the prosecuting counsel, that the treatment was done as a sinister procedure for unethical purposes i.e.utterly twisting the facts to suit their own political will.
Wakefield never said that the MMR vaccine directly caused autism. He said it appeared to cause gut problems that, possibly, could lead to autism, but that this hypothesis needed more research to find out what was happening. In other words there was a link, that was all he said. But that was enough to bring the wrath of God i.e. the UK government in the shape of the Public Health dept. down upon him.
Prof Walker Smith was the clinical practitioner and as such was already distanced from Dr Wakefield who was and is a researcher.
In the Lancet article of 1998, Mr. Wakefield refers to the MMR as one of the “the apparent precipitating events”
In his patent application he wrote:
About as clear and direct a statement as could be made.
In an article in The Telegraph from January 2001, Shame on officials who say MMR is safe, Mr Wakefield is quoted as saying
In a speech he gave in 2002, he states that not only does he think there is harm being caused by vaccines, but that the officials in charge know about it and are hiding it. (emphasis added)
In testifying before a congressional hearingin April 2000 he stated (emphasis added)
In the video for the press conference for his 1998 Lancet article, he stated:
How exactly is the monovalent vaccine “safer” if he isn’t claiming the MMR is somehow unsafe? And “in this context”? The context of the paper was GI disease and PDD. Not GI disease in those with PDD. Check the title.
Also from that press conference:
He was very clear to his coworkers about his feelings about the MMR. From Day 13 of the GMC hearings, we have Prof. Berelowitz (a co-author on the paper) stating:
Shall we put to rest the notion that Mr. Wakefield “Wakefield never said that the MMR vaccine directly caused autism.” No “appeared” and no “possibly could lead to”. He said the MMR is clearly causal and that it causes both GI problems and autism.
“In other words there was a link, that was all he said. ”
Just flatly not true.
Lumbar punctures are routine procedures?
Prof. Berelewitz (collaborator on the studies undertaken at the Royal Free) stated in his GMC testimony:
No one has ever even suggested a lumbar puncture to us for our child. I read a number of autism yahoo groups and I can’t recall ever seeing someone mention going in for a lumbar puncture.
Colonoscopies are not routine. They are invasive procedures which are warranted when clinically indicated.
The ethical permissions were not given. The research project was not in place at the time most of these procedures were performed.
No Patricia, YOU miss the point. Firstly, most of the children were not very sick and thus, in many cases, colonoscopies and lumbar punctures were NOT medically indicated. That is partly what got Walker-Smith in trouble. It was Wakefield’s research/lawsuit fodder objectives which drove these procedures so it’s going to be difficult to tease clinical indication out from research.
Oh would you stop it with this load of bollocks. He did make the claim in the Royal Free Press conference and in a Pediatrics commentary. He danced around it nicely but let’s cut the crap; we all know what he did and what his intention was.
Except that Wakefield acted as a clinician when he wasn’t supposed to. HELLO, GMC charges proved against him. He also isn’t much of a researcher any more unless somehow the Austin, TX Pack and Mail has research facilities now.
Patricia:
To pile on to what Science Mom said, he did not even show the “gut problems” were caused by the MMR vaccine in the Lancet paper.
And in addition:
He never specified which MMR vaccine was the culprit. His teeny tiny case series included kids with at least three MMR vaccines with different vaccine strains of both measles and mumps, and possibly at least four manufacturers. By the time his study was concluded the UK had already removed two of the MMR versions, and was on a completely different one than what was used in 1992.
He never gave any reasoning for telling parents to use only single jabs. A suggestion that led to illegal importing of a single mumps vaccine that contained the Urabe strain of mumps, which is the component that led the UK to remove two MMR versions in 1992.
Wakefield was also completely unaware that the USA has been using an MMR vaccine since 1971. If he had, he would have referenced “gut problems” and autism dating from 1971 to 1998. I have never seen any of those cites. Have you, Patricia? If you have, do please list them.
Hmmm…such a lot of aggression from you Anne, I can´t help wondering why….? And so much wrong information.
Let us wait to see what the High Court decides shall we?
That is a proper court of Law.
Please point to what Anne wrote that you consider “aggression”.
I’ll help you out, here’s what she wrote, in total:
I’ll help even more. It isn’t aggressive. Why did you chose such a strange debate tactic? Why not just have a discussion of facts?
@Patricia: please just tell WHICH of the 12 children were “very sick” and therefore had colonoscopies and lumbar punctures clinically indicated by their medical records? I’ll even give you a by and say some of the children DID have GI issues (many of which were documented prior to them getting the MMR, imagine that!), but for which child(ren) were lumbar punctures indicated? Those are VERY invasive procedures.
And before Patricia jumps on me: YES – children have GI issues. They have allergies, gluten intolerance, IBS, GERD, etc. This is NOT solely the realm of the autistic child and any child with GI issues that interfere with quality of life for the child need to have those issues addressed and treated appropriately. But you don’t start out with the big guns for treatment when you haven’t tried even the Nerf gun.
Sullivan I thankyou for putting up all those quotes and the links. To me they tell a story of a very brave doctor – notably a research scientist, with some grave concerns about the effect upon some children of being given the triple vaccine. A man who through this last period of 10 to 12 years has become ever more concerned and his comments reflect this growing conviction.
We really don´t need to nitpick over what Andrew Wakefield has or has not said over the course of this last decade. The fact that it caused a mass panic within the UK Public Health system at the outset is their concern, not ours, Joe Public. And please don´t expound that fatuous argument about the “thousands of children needlessly dying worldwide” because of the decline in uptake Wakefield´s words produced; that is plain statistical rubbish and alarmist propoganda from the profiteers and the politicians.
The main point which comes across to those who have followed the plight of these Doctors and to those most concerned i.e.the parents of these children, is that Vaccines may not be the God given answer to controlling disease, particularly when given to infants whose immune systems are not fully developed. It is purely for economic reasons and expediency that they are administered in this “one fits all” manner. And for Profit of course. Let us not forget the pharma “monkeys” in all this.
As Miller said yesterday in court…”there are doubters and believers”. I go along with that. And I don´t find it necessary to tear a man to shreds because of my own personal beliefs.
Patricia,
So, you are clearly shown multiple instances where the story that
Mr. Wakefield had strong convictions about the MMR before the Lancet. He felt strongly enough to write the Chief Medical Officer to stop a program to give MMR boosters. The UK should thank the man who didn’t accept Mr. Wakefield’s advice. It would have led to a great deal of suffering.
I see you are abandoning discussion for slogans. “Pharma monkeys” “For Profit”, “One size fits all”. But when other people present you with facts, they are using “alarmist propoganda”. Sure, this type of argument style clearly worked on you. But I have to say that it is exactly the sort of thing which made me question supporters of Andrew Wakefield. Why can’t they work from facts? Why retreat to slogans and attacks?
I don’t find it necessary to “tear a man to shreds” at all. I do think that Mr. Wakefield should have been man enough to own his mistakes. They were big and they were numerous. He wasn’t “torn to shreds”. He lost a license which even he admitted he no longer needed. Hardly a punishment which fit the transgressions.
PS My apologies to Anne. It was ScienceMom´s “load of bollocks” I found rather alarming. No further comment on her.
Ah, “load of bollocks” is “aggressive”???
To a rare dame like me Sullivan, yes.
I won’t share with you my inbox from major Wakefield supporters then.
And what of it? This is Dr. Walker-Smith’s appeal, not Wakefield’s so even if the former does prevail, it has no impact on Wakefield’s guilt and unethical actions.
It’s so obvious what you are doing here. First you say, “he never claimed MMR caused GI pathology and autism” now when presented with irrefutable proof of his statements to that effect, “we don’t need to nitpick…” I have no problems stating that you are delusional if all you can glean from the transcripts is that, “To me they tell a story of a very brave doctor – notably a research scientist, with some grave concerns about the effect upon some children of being given the triple vaccine.”
Good grief, the man is an embarrassment to researchers everywhere and has become the poster boy for what not to do in medical/scientific research. And you think he’s a very brave doctor? He lied to the very people who looked to him for help and still is to keep his pathetic livelihood going. He should be thrown under the bus, not revered and in the meantime, very good, honest and ethical researchers are toiling to find answers for people and you don’t even know their names. Gah, the Wakefield worship is sickening.
Nice dismissive attitude for what your ‘very brave doctor’ caused and it isn’t limited to the UK, it’s quite apparent in the U.S. too and it IS everyone’s problem as it’s a matter of public health you selfish woman.
Pathetic strawman. Thousands of children in the EU and U.S. have been needlessly infected with measles and some have died or is that a stat that inconveniences your echo chamber?
Oh poor speshul snowflake you; you don’t know what alarming is you ‘rare dame’.
Someone has to call it: moving goalposts.
From “Wakefield never said…” to “We really don´t need to nitpick over what Andrew Wakefield has or has not said…” in a single conversation.
By some definitions, Mr. Wakefield could be considered quite brave. Anyone who could stand up in public with all his conflicts of interest, money making schemes, poor science, hidden negative results, unethical behavior (we could go on and on) and not only flatly deny his transgressions but also put needless fear into millions of people. There are people who would call that “brave”.
He doesn’t rise to the level of “brave” in my books. Bravery would be to accept his mistakes and try to fix the problems he created. It would take a rare man to own up to that much. Mr. Wakefield is not up to the task.
Patricia, could you please tell me which MMR vaccine was being studied by Wakefield? Also, please point me to the the literature dated between 1971 and 1998 that shows there was a concern with the MMR vaccine introduced in the USA in 1971.
Also, where is the concern on the outbreak of measles in Europe that has hospitalized over 7000, and caused at six deaths in France?
While we are at it:
BBC in 2002:
emphasis added.
and
@Chris – don’t you know? Diseases are natural, children getting sick, hospitalized and dying is perfectly natural.
Its the vaccines that are un-natural. I mean, imagine the savings in education costs along if these diseases were allowed to run rampant, the natural way, and thin the population as they’ve done in the past.
That’s a perfectly logical argument based on what the anti-vaccine crowd is shooting for. Totally insane, but totally logical.
If I was McCoy, I’d call them all Green-Blooded Bastards.
Having been trained by and worked with Professor J.A. Walker-Smith (aka affectionately as JAWS on the blood request forms) at St Bartholomew`s Hospital, London I can inform the site that he actually a human being and not a monster.
He seemed to have gained the Professorship by research into celiac disease. I don`t know for sure but he may have been one of the early doctors to biopsy the small intestine to confirm the inflammatory changes related to gluten intake.
This led onto the discovery that other conditions caused similar inflammatory changes.
That is the measure of the man.
Professor Murch or Dr Murch his junior doctor at the time was collecting blood for TNF measurements in inflammatory bowel disease in affected children.
They both seem to have moved to the Royal Free Hospital when Barts joined up with the less fashionable London Hospital.
It seems that the Prof engaged in research into the possibility that MMR caused g-i symptoms and autistic-like behavior in children.
I would like to argue that the two Professors are meticulous in their work and will biopsy/sample if need be in order to validate or refute a scientific theory.
The MMR autism causation was excluded but one must remember at the time that the initial MMR was causing unacceptable meningo-encephalitis and the mumps component had to be changed.
In the context of the concern of MMR at the time I would forgive these scientists after they thought they were doing their best.
I believe that the media to some extent hijacked the flawed studies from the Lancet which led onto the drop in the immunisation rates of the populace.
Personally I believe that within the next few years that many psychiatric diseases will have lumbar punctures to assess lymphocyte/cytokine/various protein e.g. amyloid levels.
Perhaps in several years time the preserved lumbar puncture fluid of the children in the study will yield some new findings related to their autistic behavior.
Only an opinion, but to err is human.
However, sometimes scientists cannot swallow their pride.
No one has called Prof. Walker-Smith “a monster”.
“I believe that the media to some extent hijacked the flawed studies from the Lancet which led onto the drop in the immunisation rates of the populace.”
The media certainly has a lot of blame in this mess.
“The MMR autism causation was excluded but one must remember at the time that the initial MMR was causing unacceptable meningo-encephalitis and the mumps component had to be changed.”
The heavy irony being that Mr. Wakefield and Mr. Barr did not pursue this angle, even after being informed of some of the details of approval by their “whistleblower”. To further add irony, Mr. Wakefield’s call for single vaccines resulted in people importing the Urabe strain mumps vaccine. It was the UK government, not Mr. Wakefield, who stepped in to stop that practice.
Dr. Treg:
And the two MMR vaccines with Urabe mumps were removed in 1992. Why would that be an issue in 1998? Did Wakefield actually spend more than six years on his research?
“And the two MMR vaccines with Urabe mumps were removed in 1992. Why would that be an issue in 1998? Did Wakefield actually spend more than six years on his research?”
“A late-1980s trial in Britain of a form of the MMR vaccine containing the Urabe mumps strain produced three cases of probably associated febrile convulsions per 1,000 vaccinations.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy#Concerns_about_the_Urabe_strain
It seems as though in the past there was usually a lag period of years between initial suspicions and eventual withdrawal of a drug?
Sometimes in medicine what is obvious takes years to sort out i.e. now using beta-blockers in heart failure which we were taught were never to be used in our training in the 1970s.
On a final note my trainer told me “hard cases make bad law”.
I feel Prof Walker-Smith should be reinstated to the GMC Register for honour`s sake. He is very highly regarded for his work on celiac disease and is primarily a scientist. His challenge at such a high level suggests he is hurting very much and I feel for the chap. It would be awful if he went to his death with such dishonor to his name. Once again I argue that to err is human.
Only a personal view.
Believe me, there are several who would like to have these samples (none of them being Wakefield or a sympathiser), along with the colon biopsies to test. However they don’t seem to be anywhere to be found oddly enough.
Believe it or not, I feel sorry for him too. He was a highly-regarded physician who made a considerable contribution to his profession. He had the misfortune of either trusting Wakefield and/or hoping for that “big thing” to retire in glory with. But at this juncture, it is up to the appellate to decide whether he was unjustly stripped of his license and if he is truly guilty of the charges proved against him, then his laurels shouldn’t determine this but his actions involving the Lancet children.
Dr. Treg, from your Wiki link:
The lag was the four years for Wakefield to made aware of the issue. And for some reason he ignored the mumps bit and went after measles.
Now, that you have finally caught up to speed on what we told you about the Urabe mumps timeline, could you please tell us which MMR vaccine Wakefield based is research on? If it was only on those with the Urabe mumps strain, why was their an American kid in the case series?
Ugh, I am weary… “Now, that you have finally caught up to speed on what we told you about the Urabe mumps timeline, could you please tell us which MMR vaccine Wakefield based his research on? If it was only on those with the Urabe mumps strain, why was there an American kid in the case series?”
Patricia, I don’t know if I missed the point or not. I’d have to look at the Professor’s briefs.
Dr. Treg, why is it a bit deal that Wakefield finally decided to deal with the Urabe mumps issue at least three years after is was resolved? Isn’t that a bit late?
I believe the reasons why each child supposedly underwent colonoscopy procedures have been well-documented here. These procedures which require bowel cleansing prior to the procedure and anesthesia during the procedure for biopsies, were unwarranted, according to evidence offered during the GMC hearing. If Walker-Smith and Wakefield had “other” information from the children’s charts, the actual biopsy reports and the actual specimens fixed and preserved in paraffin blogs, why didn’t they submit them to the GMC? These reports and specimens (all of them), mysteriously went “missing” and have remained “missing”.
We know from the record of the GMC hearing that:
Wakefield was hired as an “expert witness by the plaintiffs’ attorney and had already received substantial sums to set up the plaintiffs’ case against the vaccine manufacturers.
Parents of autistic children were referred to Richard Barr by an active member of the JABS group (a notorious anti-vax website)…who herself had already signed up two of her children to be named plaintiffs.
Wakefield set up two corporations; one company was to develop and market a single antigen vaccine that Wakefield had the patent on. The other company was an-off shore (in Ireland) corporation named after his wife Carmel; set up for the sole purposes of developing and marketing lab test kits for the new disease (regressive autistic enterocolitis) that Wakefield had “discovered” and for developing and marketing treatments for his “new” disease.
Excuse me, has someone offered any justification for performing invasive and painful lumbar punctures on these children? What is the medical justification for these LPs on kids whose sole diagnosis is autism and who may or most likely did not have have gastic problems?
I am a recently retired public health nurse who worked in the Division of Communicable Disease Control in a large County Health Department. Kids and adults who have meningeal signs indicating bacterial or viral meningitis/encephalitis typically do undergo LPs to obtain spinal fluid for culture/sensitivity to antibiotics tests, for virology studies, to measure “opening pressure” at the time of the LP and to measure WBCs (pleocytosis) in the spinal fluid.
Other medical indications for LPs might be to test for Multiple Dystrophies, for brain cancers, or due to a dramatic change in seizure patterns…which none of the children in the study ever experienced.
Whether or not Walker-Smith is able to retrieve his license, will be decided by the court. It does not, in any manner, have an effect on the findings of the GMC in the matter of Andrew Wakefield and the decision of the GMC to strike him from the register.
I’m a newbie here. Why do some of my comments have lines drawn through them?
“I’m a newbie here. Why do some of my comments have lines drawn through them?”
I don’t know why WordPress did that. Your stentences stated with “-“. When I removed them, the strike through lines were gone.
“The judge asked Miller whether the alleged link between MMR and the vaccine..”
Either crap reporting or crap question by the judge – both quite worrying!
Century
Crap reporting or crap question…you have my sympathies. But it is a relevent question in this case. The judge wanted a clear answer from Walker´s counsel. Is this link between the vaccine and autism now completely dispproved by “the respectable medical profession”. (I like the irony of the use of the word “respectable”). Miller´s reply was succinct. “Correct”.
In other words the Judge is playing it by the letter as in – let us make a clear distinction between Wakefield´s beliefs and the Establishment.
And why not? If it gets Prof Walker Smith off the hook I am all for it. Wakefield will understand, probably expected it. Sad, but inevitable. He will have his own day in court I hope.
“There are doubters and there are believers your Honour…..” I like this quote the best.
“(I like the irony of the use of the word “respectable”)”
So do I. It separates 99.99+% of the profession from people like Andrew Wakefield.
Dr Treg
Thankyou. The voice of reason and humanity.
And yes indeed some blogs and some posters on some sites (this one???) do regard Prof Walker Smith as a monster. A depraved monster who performed sinister and uneccesary invasive procedures on healthy children purely for ….what?
God give me grace and patience. I have read the most appalling and scurrilous statements on these blogs about both Wakefield and Walker Smith. Statements that leave one faintly disgusted and yet intrigued. Why do some posters deem it so necessary to carry on slandering these Doctors, what could possibly be their motives? If they regard these men as such monstrous and worthless human beings why then do they insist on scurrying to every blog which supports an opposite opinion, or jump on any supporters who may dare to invade their own playground?
Beats me.
Patricia,
please point to specific instances of what you consider “slander”.
It’s an easy attack to claim “slander” without backing up such statements.
Let’s think of the blog that most supports Andrew Wakefield. Show me where I or any of the commenters here have commented there? Either by “scurrying” or otherwise? (nice rat imagery with the “scurrying” comment. But you are supposedly the polite one in this conversation?!?).
I guess accuracy and staying on point isn’t to be expected from you.
No, the monster would be Wakefield.
It isn’t slander when statements are derived from investigations into Wakefield’s misdeeds. As for motives, to make sure that everyone knows that is willing to rely upon actual evidence that is, that MMR doesn’t cause autism and the claim was completely fabricated for monetary and professional gain. What are your motives for vehemently defending him by lying? You seem perfectly happy spamming the very blogs you are criticising with rubbish.
FWIW I have examined hundreds, or possibly thousands, of CSF samples in UK biochemistry laboratories over more than 20 years. I don’t remember ever receiving one that had been taken to investigate autism or any other PDD. The vast majority were from children with suspected meningitis, with a few from children and adults with suspected brain bleeds and rarely from people with suspected MS (we would sometimes do electrophoresis of CSF looking for oligoclonal bands) or rarer conditions. Lumbar puncture certainly isn’t part of a routine investigation of PDDs in the UK.
Patricia:
How are my questions and clarification of the Urabe mumps timelime slandering any doctors? Please, if you have some information on what Wakefield used to make his suggestion for parents to use single jabs, share them. A suggestion that had parents giving their children a single mumps jab using the Urabe strain that the UK had removed six years before:
Show us the scientific papers dated from 1971 he used to determine the MMR vaccine was dangerous. Show the papers that identified an increase in autism starting in the USA in 1971.
@ Sullivan:
I hate to be picky- because you’re doing a great job here- but I will be anyway. It’s about the issue of titles- Oh, what shall we call Wakefield? I realise that you use *Mister*-( which is OK for any male person, I suppose)- some use *Doctor*- which may be correct in that he may be Struck-off but he did complete his requirements *prior* to his infamy. *BUT* Mister could also refer to a surgeon ( from old usage )so it could be mis-interpretted as could *Doctor* which may be used to de-emphasise his Struck-off status: his followers lovingly refer to him this way exclusively. I would try to avoid anything remotely respectful or that implies he is entitled to certain priviledges to which he isn’t.
So what do we call him?
Denice Walter,
Here’s my thoughts on the use of honorifics. I reserve “Doctor” for a treating physician. Mr. and Ms. for adult non treating physicians.
For the record, I have never asked anyone to call me “Doctor” even though I hold a Ph.D..
FWIW I actually feel sorry for Murch and Walker-Smith too. How such a well regarded and experienced gastroenterologist could be bamboozled by Wakefield and effectively coerced into carrying out his wishes is inexplicable – it speaks volumes of Wakefield’s convictions, single mindedness and persuasive abilities, or W-Smith’s pliability, inoffensiveness and wish to comply.
Most of the Lancet 12 had no clinical indication for invasive colonoscopy/biopsy or lumbar punctures, yet W-S went along with the flow, it seems. Was there some irresistable momentum to the investigation of these kids? Did the doctors all get caught up in the excitement of the moment, the novelty of doing what they thought was cutting edge research, and look no further than the end of their endoscopes?
PS I recall one child underwent MRI and LP even when W-S stated unequivocally “Not for MRI/LP” in the notes.
@Denise
I always chuckle when I think of that film [Dragnet] where the heroine was referred to throughout as “The Virgin Connie Swale”.
Perhaps we should just call him: “The Fraud Andrew Wakefield”?
There is the matter of Wakefield’s Consent Form that parents of autistic children signed prior to their child undergoing colonoscopy/biopsies. Wakefield even “admits” that he is using the children as guinea pigs to prove his newly discovered disorder…that was based solely on anecdotal reports linking the onset of regressive autism following MMR immunization.
The Colonoscopy/Biopsy Consent Form also minimizes the risks inherent in this invasive procedure. Does Wakefield, and now his supporters, consider Jack Piper’s injuries (12 bowel perforations, septic shock which led to major organ failure which now requires intensive around-the-clock care) as just “collateral damages”?
@ dt:
I would be careful about using *that* particular word- people have been sued for it.
@ Sullivan:
I was being ( partially) facetious.
Denice Walter,
I figured as much, but I couldn’t find a good way to word my response.
Brian, are you thinking of this (Day 82)
and
Thanks Sullivan…for the fix.
Adding to my comments and to Krebiozen’s comments regarding diagnostic lumbar punctures…
My *profoundly and multiply disabled immune suppressed child* who died seven years ago, did undergo dozens of LPs for suspected meningitis. Several times ceftriaxone IV was started until cultures of his spinal fluid were negative for bacterial meningitis.
If you have ever been at the bedside of your disabled child who underwent these painful and invasive procedures, you would have compassion for children who were used as guinea pigs by Wakefield.
* My son had a rare genetic disorder with profound mental retardation, spastic quadriparesis, partially controlled grand mal seizure disorder, pancytopenia which caused his immune suppression and frequent internal bleeds. He also had autistic-like behaviors.
It’s difficult to separate Walker-Smith’s contributions to the Lancet paper from Wakefield’s proven dishonest and probably fraudulent manipulation of the data in that recently-retracted paper. However, Walker-Smith clearly indicated in the case of one child in the Lancet series that that child should “not to have MRI or LP [lumbar puncture, an invasive procedure]; nonetheless, Wakefield, who had no pediatric qualifications and who did not, in fact, have a clinical appointment and thus the right and ability to order tests on children, signed orders above his signature in the chart of that child, who ended up having both the MRI and the lumbar puncture that were allowed by Wakefield’s research protocol only if clinically appropriate and which were, according to the expert in the field, explicitly countermanded. Walker-Smith’s reputations suffers because he did not at that point tear Wakefield a new one.
I myself found the questioning of Walker-Smith’s attorney by the judge, somewhat “odd”. I am not a lawyer, but have followed some cases here in the United States, where since-retired physicians who lost their licenses years ago due to gross negligence or prescribing dangerous treatments, have been reinstated by medical licensing boards…with the stipulation that they would never again practice. Might this be the case here?
Walker-Smith did have a long career-untainted by any misconduct-until he got involved with Wakefield. Walker-Smith would have retired with his license and reputation intact were it not for Wakefield’s schemes and misdeeds.
No matter how the court rules regarding Walker-Smith’s medical license…the notorious anti-vax websites will spin the ruling thusly:
-Walker-Smith’s license has been re-instated, ergo Wakefield must be innocent and his licensed should be re-instated.
-Walker-Smith did not prevail which only proves that brave maverick doctors such as our hero Andy, cannot get a fair hearing anywhere in the U.K.
lilady, are you using hyphens? If you want to bullet your points, you can do that with asterisks (*) or list item html code:
List item 1
List item 2
List item 3
which may or may not work, we’ll see when I post.
But to the point, yes the Wakers disciples will see it as an exoneration by proxy but Wakers will never ever get his license re-instated, particularly as he has let the appeal deadline lapse. Very telling in itself.
And what will all these U.S.-centric anti-vaxxers do who have been crowing about Wakers only getting a fair trial in the U.S. when he gets SLAPPed? I know I shouldn’t speculate so, particularly since I’m nothing even resembling a lawyer but even I can recognise a frivolous suit when I see it.
@ Science Mom: Thanks for your advice. I did use hyphens to bullet my remarks. However when I posted above “brian” about my son I used asterisks…and I got unintended boldface print. I’m just a techie-deficient poster, who has only learned recently to link an article.
Getting back to Wakefield’s latest stunt in Texas. We are all awaiting the “discovery” phase of the lawsuit, the EBTs (examinations before trial), the subpoenas being served on “reluctant witnesses” and the actual trial…if it gets that far. My guess is that Wakefield will discontinue the action, but I believe he will still be SLAPPed and will have to pay the costs incurred by each of the three defendants.
i have a 7 year old son that has autism ., he never showed any sighs until he got the mmr shot.
You must not enter anything like that on this site as the causation theory has been “utterly” disproved.
Utterly def: “completely and without qualification; used informally as intensifiers”
However, it is interesting that in Children`s Medicine we are told to listen to the mother in particular, but in this scenario it seems that that advice is not upheld.
My view is that autism as with most brain conditions is in part neuro-inflammatory/genetic and in some children an environmental immunogen can provoke the onset of symptoms.
Time will tell if a small percentage of children with autism have reacted in an idiosyncratic manner to MMR although the numbers are so small that they will never show up in a double blind controlled clinical trial.
Ms. Earles, the MMR is given at about the time the first signs of autism show up. If any version of the MMR was a cause of autism, there would be data from the time it was first introduced. What evidence is there that there was an increase of autism in the USA in 1971?
Sullivan, I also found these points interesting on Day 28 and Day 36.
Day 28:
Day 36:
“
Dr. Rutter also said this on Day 36:
Accordingly, the GMC found:
I really can’t believe we are still arguing about this stuff.As an adult autistic,with a lifelong history of small bowel disease,so severe it has caused my bones to be underdeveloped,For me to have rickets,and muscle wasting all of my life,CoQ10 malabsorption that mimics mitochondrial disease,folate and B12 malabsorption so bad it mimics metabolic disease of B12,you name it.You don’t need to tell me that autism and GI disease are connected.And that’s just the start of my medical issues.
It is present at birth,and very often it is autoimmune,and often happens in families where there are histories of autoimmune or GI disease.It’s in the genes.My nonautistic mother has had bowel disease,though not as bad as mine,since she was a small child.
There are a lot of very sick autistics out there,and just as many adults as children,with complex medical issues.It didn’t start with the MMR,or even with Kanner.There are books like this from the 1800s
http://www.freefictionbooks.org/books/t/17810-a-treatise-on-anatomy-physiology-and-hygiene-re?start=191
that are probably talking about autism.
We are living in an exciting time,when science is doing amazing things in finding new genetic syndromes,like Dravet Syndrome,to explain the different types of autism,or finding autism associated with dozens of pre existing syndromes,from 22q11.2 deletion,to fatty acid oxidation disorders.If your child is sick,your time would be better spent learning about these syndromes,and pushing your doctor for tests.This is complicated stuff,and your child may have genetic features of many syndromes,like I do,but no clear diagnosis.I am now going to go to Massachusetts General soon,but I suspect I may have a very new,yet unnamed syndrome,that is part metabolic,part autoimmune.
Rather than engaging these people,the autism community’s time would be better spent encouraging that adults with autism,be screened,and treated,for some of these diseases.Obviously we are out there.
Utterly def: “completely and without qualification; used informally as intensifiers”
Of course, take the ambiguous word of a completely random stranger on the internet just because “she said so”. I know how much you loathe sceptics not-a-doctor treg although there is something to be said about weighing all evidence which would include thorough examination of medical records. Or does that inconvenience your “narrative”?
Who said? Parental observations can be helpful in determining factors for diagnosing uncomplicated cases or factor in for pursuing specialists for complicated cases. If parents can just march in with their child’s diagnosis, then why even bother stopping at a doctor’s office? You have a very strange notion for the actual value of parental reporting, which is often highly flawed and easily manipulated.
That’s nice and a good thing you aren’t actually a physician nor a neurology researcher.
How convenient, that way you get to keep pulling your pompous speculations from your nether-regions.
It is good that we all have our own opinions about psychiatric disease. Open-mindedness and lack of prejudice is the way forward. Perhaps in view of our ignorance, manners should be upheld and other people`s views respected.
“Parental observations can be helpful in determining factors for diagnosing uncomplicated cases or factor in for pursuing specialists for complicated cases.”
“You have a very strange notion for the actual value of parental reporting, which is often highly flawed and easily manipulated.”
– I do not comprehend what you are inferring.
As a scientist I don`t believe anything unless I have evaluated it myself.
Perhaps autism arouses more visceral responses than depression, anxiety , schizophrenia or dependency. I dont know.
I feel that your entry seems to be very angry.
I did not wish to seem pompous. I read about neuro-inflammation in autism from the Johns Hopkins Neuroimmunopathological Laboratory site.
http://www.neuro.jhmi.edu/neuroimmunopath/autism_faqs.htm
Science Mom
Ad Hominem ad Nauseam.