Archive | News RSS feed for this section

Wakefield’s Lancet Paper – Lancet published vs NHS records

8 Jan

One of the key things that Brian Deer’s reporting has done is thrown doubt on the oft-repeated claims that

a) The papers subjects nearly all suffered from some form of colitis
b) The papers subjects nearly all suffered from regressive autism
c) The papers subjects nearly all regressed in the days following their MMR jab.

Nowhere is the more apparent than in the data tables supplied by Brian Deer in his report for the BMJ. They are replicated below:

In this first table above, the data shows that contrary to Wakefield’s Lancet data which shows 9 out of 12 having regressive autism, the kids NHS records are either inconclusive or negative, giving a _maximum possible_ amount of kids with regressive autism as 6 out of 12. Wakefield et al were ‘wrong’ about at least 3 kids.

In this second table above, the data shows that Wakefield et al Lancet data shows 11 out of 12 kids having non specific colitis. By comparison their NHS records show that 3 out of 12 have non specific colitis. Wakefield et al were ‘wrong’ about 9 out of 12 kids.

In this last table above, we can see that Wakefield reported in the Lancet that 8 out of 12 kids showed symptoms days after MMR. However, according to these same kids NHS records, a _maximum_ of 2 out of 12 showed symptoms days after receiving their MMR. Wakefield was ‘wrong’ about 6 children.

There is supplementary data on bmj.com

The BMJ claim fraud. It is very difficult to disagree with them.

Why does it matter what happens to Andrew Wakefield?

8 Jan

People have been questioning the necessity of these latest revelations about Andrew Wakefield and suggesting that enough is enough or maybe that all this latest round of publicity will do nothing except make him a heroic martyr. This is possible.

However, for a number of reasons I really feel it is vitally important that not only is there some response but that that response comes at least partly from the autism community.

Firstly, I believe it is necessary for there to be a response full stop. These might be the same set of _facts_ that were uncovered during the GMC hearing but the difference here is that for the first time it has been established that the facts against Andrew Wakefield came about through what the BMJ refer to as fraudulent. This is a huge difference. Up until now it could’ve been argued that Andrew Wakefield simply made a mistake. After the events of the last two days, that can never be honestly argued again.

Secondly, there are a set of people who have been at the rough end of Wakefield’s fraud for the last 13 years. A set of people who have struggled to make new parents understand that there is no risk of autism from the MMR vaccine. Doctors. Particularly paediatricians and GP’s. It is vital that by establishing what Wakefield has done as fraud, the media ensure that the message is spread far and wide. They (the media) have something to atone for in this respect, being the original spreaders of the message that the MMR caused or contributed to autism. They now need to recognise their role in the past and help the medical establishment by ensuring Wakefield can never again spread his fraudulent claims via their auspices.

Thirdly, there is another set of people who have been at an even rougher end of Wakefield’s fraud. The sufferers of the falling vaccination rates of MMR. Its been well documented in numerous places, including this blog how people – particularly children – have been injured and died in the UK and US. The concept of herd immunity, no matter what some might claim is a real concept and when it falls, the level of protection falls. When it falls to far then the people who suffer are the very young, the very old and those who for genuine medical reasons cannot be vaccinated. Wakefield’s fraud needs to be spread far and wide in order for people to realise what he is, what he tried to do and what the consequences were in order to have some confidence in the MMR jab.

Fourthly, there is another set of people who have suffered heavily. This set of people are the silent victims of Wakefield’s perfidy. Autistic people. Wakefield and his supporters, TACA, NAA, Generation Rescue, SafeMinds, Treating Autism et al have turned autism into a circus. The aim of the last decade amongst serious autism researchers and advocates has been to

a) Raise awareness
b) Find evidence-based therapies that will help the life course and independence of autistic people
c) Protect the educational rights of autistic people

and getting research monies to meet these aims is long, hard and slow. Andrew Wakefield and his hardcore of scientifically illiterate supporters have actively derailed that process, dragging research monies away from these principled activities and towards their core aim of degrading vaccines and ‘proving’ vaccines cause autism. Wakefield himself has taken over US$750,000 worth of money to pursue a legal battle against the UK Gvmt. Just think of how that money could have enriched the life of just one autistic person.

However, this same set of people claim to be representative of the autism community. They write nonsense books about autism. They hold celebrity studded fundraisers for autism. They participate in rant-filled rally’s for autism. But none of them are really about autism. What they’re about is anti-vaccinationism.

Every one of these activities denigrate autism and autistic people. They take attention away from where it is needed.

We, the true autism community, made up of parents, autistic people, professionals of autistic people need to do two things. Firstly, we need to wrest back control of the autism agenda from these one-note people. Secondly, we need to speak to society at large and say ‘yes, some members of the autism community believed the fraudulence of Andrew Wakefield but not all of us did. Please don’t tar us all with one brush.’

What Andrew Wakefield has done has impacted everyone. We need to make sure that he and people like him can never affect us all in this way again. To do that we need to speak out about him, loudly and as long as it takes.

Alison Singer from Autism Science Foundation on CNN

7 Jan

Here’s the video:

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/apps/cvp/3.0/swf/cnn_416x234_embed.swf?context=embed&videoId=bestoftv/2011/01/07/exp.am.intv.chetry.autism.cnn

If anyone finds the Transcript from this video please post the address in the comments 🙂

Andrew Wakefield: the last gasps of a desperate man?

7 Jan

In his interview on Anderson Cooper 360 last night, Andrew Wakefield made some amazing claims against Brian Deer, claiming Brian Deer is part of some vast conspiracy. He wants to distance himself from the word, but that’s what he’s claiming with phrases like “He’s a hit man, he’s been brought in to take me down”, “It’s a ruthless pragmatic attempt…” “Who’s paying this man, I don’t know” and a claim that Mr. Deer is paid by the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industries.

Anderson Cooper has Brian Deer on tonight:

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/apps/cvp/3.0/swf/cnn_416x234_embed.swf?context=embed&videoId=health/2011/01/07/ac.autism.brian.deer.cnn

Brian Deer throws down the gauntlet and challenges Andrew Wakefield to sue him. Wakefield has already brought forth one case against Mr. Deer–and he forced to pay Brian Deer’s legal fees. Mr. Wakefield brought forth a lengthy complaint to the UK’s press complaints commission, only to abandon it without attempting to prosecute the complaint.

He also goes through a number of Mr. Wakefield’s attacks and shows that they are false.

Here’s the transcript from the Brian Deer interview:

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: Brian, overall, Wakefield is denying all of — all of the — the evidence that you have put forward in — in this — in this “British Medical Journal” report. What do you make of his — his — his defense?

BRIAN DEER, INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST, “THE SUNDAY TIMES OF LONDON”: Well, two things.

One, what else can he do, where else can he go but to deny it, and to make up even more tall stories about me, suggesting that somehow I’m in cahoots with the drug industry or governments or whoever else. He’s been at that one for years.

Secondly, these revelations are not just my revelations. They have been checked, exhaustively, by editors of “The British Medical Journal,” who have peer-reviewed it, who have gone back into the data individually and checked back and forth to have been sure that what I have said is accurate. So, it’s not just me.

So, I think it’s just the — the last gasps of a desperate man, really.

COOPER: I want to go over some specific things, because I think it’s important to be very specific with these allegations and with his response.

I asked Andrew Wakefield last night to respond to your report and the — the “British Medical Journal” report, which calls his study — quote — “an elaborate fraud.”

Here’s what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) WAKEFIELD: I have read his multiple allegations on many occasions.

He is a hit man. He’s been brought in to take me down because they are very, very concerned about the adverse reactions to vaccines that are occurring in children.

COOPER: Wait a minute, sir. Let me just stop you right there.

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: You say he’s a hit man and he’s been brought in by “they.” Who is “they”? Who is he a hit man for?

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: This is an independent journalist who’s won many awards.

(CROSSTALK)

WAKEFIELD: Yes, he’s…

(LAUGHTER)

WAKEFIELD: And he’s — you know, who brought this man in? Who is paying this man? I don’t know. But I do know for sure that he’s not a journalist like you are.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Wakefield went on to claim later in the interview that you’re being paid by the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industries.

Are you?

(LAUGHTER)

DEER: No, I’m not. I have been paid by “The Sunday Times of London.”

COOPER: Have you ever been paid by — by — by them?

(CROSSTALK)

DEER: Never, never once. I can’t even remember the last time I ever spoke to them.

I think I did have a — I did have an interview with some people who did some work for them several years ago. That’s about the closest I have ever got to the pharmaceutical industry.

In fact, one of the awards I received, the citation was that I was probably the only journalist in Britain who investigates the drug industry. So, I don’t think that one goes very far.

COOPER: What initially sparked your interest in investigating Wakefield?

DEER: Well, it was just an absolute routine assignment.

There was a television program that had been paid for by American interest to be broadcast in the U.K., and I was just assigned to do a — do a piece on it. And it started out like that.

And we asked Dr. Wakefield for an interview. And, almost immediately, within a matter of hours, complaints were being made against me to my editors by Dr. Wakefield’s personal publicist.

COOPER: When was that that you started doing these investigations?

DEER: Oh, this was in October, November 2003…

COOPER: OK, because…

DEER: … a long time ago now.

COOPER: … as you know, James Murdoch, the owner of — of your employer, “The London Times,” joined the board of GlaxoSmithKline, which is a manufacturer of MMR. He joined that board in 2009.

DEER: Yes.

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: Some people have brought that up as a — as a conflict of interest.

DEER: No, it’s absurd, absolutely absurd.

In fact, it’s interesting that, in the last 24 hours, the only American network to have shown no interest whatsoever in the “BMJ”‘s revelations has been the FOX network…

COOPER: I asked Wake…

DEER: The only — they’re the only people.

COOPER: I asked Wakefield to respond to your reporting that — that — that states that medical records of all of the 12 cases that he initially cited in his “Lancet” paper back in 1998, that — that none of them were accurate, fully accurate.

I want to you listen to what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WAKEFIELD: That is false. He has not interviewed the parents. That is absolutely not true.

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: So, you’re saying the parents — no parents say that what — that what you have said about their children’s medical histories is false?

WAKEFIELD: No, they don’t. What I have said and what has been reported in that paper by me and my colleagues is exactly what we saw.

(CROSSTALK)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Did you speak to any of the parents from the 12 cases?

DEER: I personally interviewed one, two, three families of the 12. Somebody else — two others were interviewed on my behalf by other journalists. So, that’s five of the 12.

Oh, no, actually, I interview — and I have had conversations with another, so quite a substantial number…

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: So, you’re basically saying he falsified or — or got wrong all of the medical history, one way or another?

DEER: I — I — I showed the “Lancet” paper that Wakefield published to a father of a child in California who is child number 11 of this series of 12, and he looked at the paper, and he just looked at what it said about his own child, and he said, “That’s not true.” And that was one of the parents of one of these children in the paper.

But I think Dr. Wakefield has a — has a solution here. These revelations have been published in the U.K. jurisdiction, which is the most onerous libel jurisdiction in the world. Dr. Wakefield should sue, because, if what Dr. Wakefield is saying is true, then he would have an easy case for libel against “The British Medical Journal,” against “The Sunday Times of London,” against me personally.

If what he is saying is true, then he must be the victim of the most sustained campaign of malicious libel that has ever been inflicted on any individual in history.

COOPER: And that’s what he’s saying he is.

(CROSSTALK)

DEER: Well, you know, he has a remedy, doesn’t he?

But the reason he doesn’t take this remedy — in fact, he tried to take this remedy once before, when the doctors’ Medical Protection Society was funding him to sue me, sue the television company, sue “The Sunday Times.” And what happened at the end? He discontinued his action, and he sent me a check. I actually received a check from his lawyers to pay my legal costs.

Dr. Wakefield has a remedy. The trouble is, he can’t take that remedy, because he’s a fraudster. And, after all these years, he’s finally been nailed. We have been able to, over the years, produce the evidence that he was being paid by lawyers. We were able to show that he received three-quarters-of-a-million U.S. dollars.

Next week, we’re going to itemize in “The BMJ” his business interests and the extraordinary sums of money he intended to make from his own vaccine, from diagnostic kits, and from all kinds of other weird products he was going to sell off the back of his scare.

Dr. Wakefield did this for the money. And, finally, he’s been nailed as a cheat and a fraudster, and not just in a sort of academic vanity sense, but in an area of where children’s lives have been put at risk, and, even more importantly, in a funny way, where parents of children with autism have been left to blame themselves, thinking it was their own fault for vaccinating their child that their child has gone on to develop autism.

These are forgotten victims of Dr. Wakefield, and these are people ultimately that Dr. Wakefield preys upon.

COOPER: You know, it’s interesting, because I have gotten a lot of e-mails from parents who don’t — who still believe in Wakefield or believe the research, and are angry at — at, you know, our reporting on this, angry, certainly, at your reporting on this. I’m sure you have heard from them many times over the years.

DEER: Oh, yes.

COOPER: And it is heartbreaking, because there is no answer for what is causing autism. And, clearly, there have been problems with vaccines in the past.

What do you — what do you tell parents? What do you say to them?

DEER: Well, I say to — I say to parents when I talk to them — and, you know, you discuss these things with them, and I will tell you, the killer question to ask these parents, if you get an even conversation with them, is to say, do you blame yourself?

And they do. And I have had parents absolutely break down in tears, blaming themselves, thinking it was their fault for vaccinating their child.

Now, what Dr. Wakefield is able to do is to take that energy of guilt and self-blame, which is quite understandable, but is quite wrong, take that, exploit it, turn it into money, turn it into a business. And that’s what he’s done. And he’s having a wonderful time in Jamaica. I saw you interviewed him in Jamaica. Very nice.

COOPER: Wakefield claims that — that his findings have been independently replicated. Is that true?

DEER: That’s completely false.

COOPER: I mean, he said they have been replicated in five countries around the world. That was news to me.

DEER: Completely false. That’s absolutely, completely false. What he does is what he’s been doing in front of these parents over many years. He takes tangential pieces of research that don’t really relate to what he’s saying and represent them as somehow endorsing what he said.

One of the papers in fact which he cites absolutely, explicitly denies that anything like what he suggests has been found.

COOPER: He — he also…

DEER: He just makes it up.

COOPER: He also claims that — that he wasn’t making a connection between vaccines and — and — and autism, that — that it was parents who — who started making that, that the purpose of the study wasn’t to look at possible associations between MMR vaccinations and autism, but that association came from parents.

DEER: No, he just makes it up.

Those parents were selected by him and the lawyer and the campaign groups — actually, a campaign group organized by a mother who doesn’t have a child with autism, does have a grievously disabled child who I saw in a CNN bulletin just 10 minutes ago.

These people together selected a group of parents who blamed MMR and brought them to the hospital for them to make that allegation. That’s one of the key ways in which this research was rigged. He knew who these parents were. He would telephone them at their homes, invite them to the hospital, bring them in and get them to make the allegations to other doctors.

COOPER: What has angered you most or surprised you most in the years now since 2003 that you have been looking into and investigating this?

DEER: What has angered or surprised me most?

I think what has angered me most is the — is the distraction away from the real needs of children with developmental disorders and the real needs of families who are looking after them, because, very often, the families of children, particularly the ones that Wakefield preys on, are people who are just desperate for answers.

Some of them are financially quite challenged as well. Many of them are — are — are terrified about what’s going to happen to their children in the future. And it’s really shocked me that somebody would really prey upon the vulnerable.

It’s almost as though, if you’re vulnerable, you get picked on. It’s almost as — it’s almost an animal thing that — that people prey on these — these really unfortunate families who have got a — who have got issues.

And I — I just think it’s a shame that the energy that has gone into this anti-vaccine campaign hasn’t gone into a campaign for better services for people with disabilities, more research to get to the bottom of these kind of problems. I think it’s a great tragedy, great diversion of resources.

COOPER: Brian Deer, I appreciate your reporting and I appreciate you talking about it. Thank you.

DEER: Thank you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

COOPER: He said a great diversion of resources for a mysterious and terrifying threat and one that is growing.

I want to show you the numbers that explain the fear. According to the Centers for Disease Control, on average, an estimated one in 110 kids in the United States have an autism spectrum disorder. That’s just under 1 percent, according to the most recent data from 2006.

The number of cases has been growing since 2002. There’s no doubt about it. Now, the rate varies among states, and it’s important to point out that autism spectrum disorder includes a — a range of developmental disabilities,with the most severe being autism.

There have also been changes in how diagnoses are made. And that may explain some of the increase, but not all of it, according to experts. Something else you should know, boys are four to five times more likely than girls to develop an autism spectrum disorder.

And while there’s no known cause yet, clues are emerging. It’s estimated that about 10 percent of kids with autism spectrum disorders have a genetic and neurologic or metabolic disorder, such as fragile X or Down syndrome.

Autism spectrum disorder is obviously an incredibly heartbreaking diagnosis for parents. It’s also extremely costly for both the families and the health care system. According to a recent study, the estimated lifetime cost to care for someone with an autism spectrum disorder is $3.2 million.

Let us know what you think. Join the live chat right now at AC360.com.

We will continue to follow the controversy.

One problem I have seen with this media frenzy over the Wakefield fraud story is that they (the media) are falling into the old traps of false balance, faux controversy, and “he-said, she said” reporting. The question isn’t whether Mr. Wakefield is guilty of misconduct. The GMC has already ruled on that. Mr. Wakefield is not “the accused” but “the guilty”.

CNN has allowed people like Andrew Wakefield and JB Handley a platform to make mostly statements which, at the initial airing, are unchallenged, and unsupported accusations. These people have much experience with handling the media and have been able to avoid the topic of of Mr. Wakefield’s fraud and his proven ethical violations. I appreciate that Anderson Cooper has gone back to do some fact checking, but the damage is already done at that point.

Here is a segment where Anderson Cooper does some fact checking on Mr. Wakefield’s claims and accusations:

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/apps/cvp/3.0/swf/cnn_416x234_embed.swf?context=embed&videoId=health/2011/01/06/ac.kth.autism.debate.cnn

Anderson Cooper made an attempt to verify the claims Andrew Wakefield made. Andrew Wakefield claimed that regression followed shortly after MMR vaccination. This has never been replicated. The studies that Mr. Wakefield attempts to use as support do not support that claim. The one attempt to actually replicate the claim, the Hornig study, found there was no association between gastrointestinal symptoms, regression and the MMR.

Anderson Cooper says that the studies Mr. Wakefield cites are “beside the point”. He says that the studies found an association between GI complaints and autism…which isn’t really the case.

Mr. Wakefield and his supporters try to claim, repeatedly, that Mr. Wakefield did not suggest that MMR and autism are linked. Interestingly, his own publisher in a statement to Anderson Cooper says the opposite.

“Yesterday, ‘The British Medical Journal’ published an article deeming the research printed over a decade ago by Dr. Andrew Wakefield suggesting a connection between autism and vaccines fraudulent. Wakefield stands strong in asserting that the allegations of ‘BMJ’ journalist Brian Deer are entirely false.”

Here’s the transcript of that section:

We begin, though, as always, “Keeping Them Honest.”

Tonight, the emotional and bitter debate over childhood vaccines and autism is louder than ever, if that’s even possible. Tonight, supporters of Andrew Wakefield, a discredited doctor who’s now accused of outright fraud by “The British Medical Journal,” “BMJ,” are standing by their man. To them, he remains a hero and a victim.

Wakefield is the lead author of the 1998 study that triggered a worldwide scare over childhood vaccines. It suggested vaccines given to kids may cause autism. His study, which looked at just 12 children, has been discredited. And last year, “The Lancet,” the journal that originally published it back in 1998, they retracted the study over concerns about its methods and ethics, as well as financial conflicts of the interests — on interests on the part of Wakefield.

Months later, Wakefield actually lost his license. It was taken away, his medical license, in the U.K. And now an award-winning investigative journalist, Brian Deer, has uncovered evidence he says proves Wakefield deliberately faked his study. Deer lays out his case in a series of articles that began running last in the “BMJ” last night. In a moment, you are going to hear directly from Mr. Deer. He will respond to attacks that Andrew Wakefield made last night in an exclusive right here on 360.

Things got pretty heated. He denied point-blank every accusation laid out by Mr. Deer. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANDREW WAKEFIELD, AUTHORED RETRACTED AUTISM STUDY: He is a hit man. He’s been brought in to take me down.

COOPER: Wait a minute, sir. Let me just stop you right there.

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: You say he’s a hit man and he’s been brought in by “they.” Who is “they”? Who is he a hit man for?

WAKEFIELD: Who brought this man in? Who is paying this man? I don’t know.

COOPER: You’re basically saying this is a — some sort of conspiracy against you. Is that — is that your argument?

WAKEFIELD: Conspiracy is your word.

What this is, is a ruthless, pragmatic attempt to crush any investigation…

COOPER: Well…

WAKEFIELD: Because the truth is in that book.

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: However, I have read Brian Deer’s report, which is incredibly extensive. Sir, I’m not here to let you pitch your book. I’m here to have you answer questions.

(CROSSTALK)

WAKEFIELD: If you read the record that I have set out in the book, you will see the truth. You will see a detailed…

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: But, sir, if you’re lying, then your book is also a lie. If your study is a lie, your book is a lie.

WAKEFIELD: The book is not a lie.

I suggest you do your investigation properly before making such allegations.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Well, we believe in facts here at 360, so, today, we followed up on some of the claims that Mr. Wakefield made last night. If we got something wrong, we would want to set the record straight, obviously.

One point Wakefield was adamant about was that other researchers have reproduced his study’s findings.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: You have been offered the chance to replicate your study, and you have never taken — taken anybody up on that. You have had plenty of opportunity to replicate your study.

(CROSSTALK)

WAKEFIELD: You just accused me of giving you a falsehood. I’m telling you that this work has been replicated in five countries around the world.

(CROSSTALK)

COOPER: Then why has it been completely discredited by — by — by public health officials around the world?

WAKEFIELD: I suggest you do your investigation properly before making such allegations.

OK, if you look up the name Gonzalez, if you look up the name Balzola and Krigsman, you will see that the work has been replicated independently by other doctors around the world. They fail to mention that in these allegations. And Deer has failed to mention that at any time. Is that honest?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Well, today, we tracked down three of those studies and spoke to experts about all five that Wakefield kept citing.

And what we found is, they’re basically beside the point. They looked at gastrointestinal problems in children with autism, and nothing else. Like Wakefield, they found an association between gastrointestinal problems and autism, but they say nothing at all about a connection between autism and vaccines. So his suggestion of any such link remains his alone.

Now, a lot of parents have stopped vaccinating their kids because of Mr. Wakefield’s study. There have been deadly outbreaks of infectious diseases like measles and whooping cough as a result.

I asked Wakefield about that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Sir, what’s also growing in number is the number of children who have died because they haven’t been vaccinated. Do you feel any sense of responsibility for that?

WAKEFIELD: I have never said not vaccinate. I have offered, I have suggested that children have the option of single vaccines.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COOPER: Now, what he means by that is giving kids separate vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella, rather than a three-in-one combination vaccine.

Parents in the U.S. can choose which type their kids get. We checked out the rest of his claim. And it’s true. We found no instance of him saying do not vaccinate, period.

In 2003, Wakefield told “The Sunday Herald” newspaper: “I think parents are well-informed. They are not inherently anti-vaccine, nor are we. We have advocated throughout that children continued to be protected, but, in the light of this evidence, there’s a question mark. And while that question mark exist, parents must have the choice over how they protect their children.”

That’s what he said. But, at the same time, Wakefield is the undisputed champion of the anti-vaccination movement. And the people in this movement commonly cite his research as the reason for not vaccinating their kids.

Wakefield has never stood up to put a stop to this movement. In fact, the forward of his book, the book he kept trying to promote last night, is written by Jenny McCarthy, a vocal autism activist who believes her son’s autism was caused by vaccines.

She writes: “Unfortunately, it appears that a product intended for good, vaccines, also has a dark side, which is the ability to do harm in certain children. This ability to do harm has unfortunately increased quite a bit in the last few decades because children today receive so many more shots than when — than when most parents were kids.”

McCarthy also writes that Andrew Wakefield — quote — “listened to parents who reported two things: Their children with autism were suffering from severe bowel pain, and the children regressed into autism after vaccination. He listened. He studied. And they published what he learned.”

So, even if Wakefield hasn’t said do not vaccinate in so many words, he has certainly fueled the fear and distrust of vaccines. Wakefield’s publisher released a statement today on his behalf, and its headline reads — quote — “Vaccines Continue to Ruin Some Children’s Lives While Mainstream Medical Community and Big Drug Companies Refuse to Respond to the Series Medical Concerns of Worried Parents.”

The release goes on to say: “Yesterday, ‘The British Medical Journal’ published an article deeming the research printed over a decade ago by Dr. Andrew Wakefield suggesting a connection between autism and vaccines fraudulent. Wakefield stands strong in asserting that the allegations of ‘BMJ’ journalist Brian Deer are entirely false.”

So, the release itself describes Wakefield’s research as — quote — “suggesting a connection between autism and vaccines.”

And that’s exactly why his study, which the “BMJ” now says is flat-out fraudulent, has become such a powerful piece of the autism- vaccine controversy.

Want to show you something else. This is from the study itself, the one that’s been debunked. It’s a table listing autism diagnoses in one column and then the vaccines the kids in the study received. The table also shows when the kids got the vaccines.

To an average parent, with no scientific background, that would look pretty scary, if it were true. You can see how many parents desperate for an answer might latch on to that data.

But, after seven years of investigating, Brian Deer says he’s proved the data was faked. Here’s what told me about when we talked earlier.

In the end, this is probably the last major spike of news attention for Andrew Wakefield. Sure, in his new role as spokesperson for a consortium of vaccines-cause-autism organizations, he will get in the news again. And there will be at least one more BMJ article. But, what else is there? His research efforts even before he was let go by Thoughtful House were unimpressive to say the least (remember the Monkey study that used 2 controls and claimed that unvaccinated infant monkey brians shouldn’t grow, but the vaccinated ones should?). Perhaps he will be a study author on the Generation Rescue “vaccinated/unvaccinated” study. Even that won’t gain him the notoriety of his Lancet paper. With the paper debunked, his ethical violations in pursuing that paper and others proven by the GMC hearing and, now, the entire effort described as fraudulent, what’s left? Not much.

JB Handley of Generation Rescue on CNN

6 Jan

First of all, here’s the transcript of Handley on CNN, courtesy of Liz Ditz:

Parker: Now joining us from Portland, Oregon I J.B. Handley. JB is the father of an eight-year old with autism, and he is a founder of Generation Rescue, a group that believes that there is a connection between autism and vaccination. Welcome JB

JB Handley (JBH): Thanks for having me.

Parker: Thank you Did today’s report cause you to reconsider your position on vaccines at all?

JBH: No, not one bit.

Parker: So, explain that. Why doesn’t this affect the way you think?

JBH: You know the original Wakefield study looked at 12 children. All 12 had autism. The only conclusion of the study was that the 12 were suffering from a new form of bowel disease. Andy Wakefield also reported that 8 of the parents said that their children regressed after the MMR vaccine. So the notion that his study ever incriminated MMR as causing autism is false. and the vaccine industry continues to beat this dead horse.

Parker: so you think that um when you talk about regression you are saying not so much that uhm the vaccine causes autism but that it causes a regression? And what does that mean to you?

JBH: No. What you hear from many parents, and my son is one of these, is that the children are developing typically, and my son’s case up to 14 months he was normal, and then then they gave a regression, they start to lose skills, they start to lose milestones. I have personally talked to about a thousand parents who all report that their children where that regression took place immediately following a vaccine appointment.

It’s important for parents to understand that children are given 36 vaccines in the US by the time they are the age five. The MMR only accounts for two of those 36 vaccines. Typically the shots are given simultaneously so the average child will get six vaccines in a single appointment, yet we don’t have a single piece of research to understand the potential risk of all those vaccines at once. So when someone tries to tell me that MMR alone doesn’t cause autism, but I take my child in for a vaccine appointment, and they are getting six shots in 10 minutes, how am I supposed to feel reassured?

Spitzer: I say this with overwhelming sympathy for you and for your son, but just listening to you I’ve got to ask the question: there isn’t a single study, and we’ve looked at all the science, that says there’s any causal link between these vaccines and autism. And I know you are saying there is

JBH: But that’s not true

Spitzer: there isn’t a study that disproves it, but there’s no affirmative causal link there. And so don’t don’t you think it would make more sense to look at other potential potential causative factors?

JBH: What you are saying is simply false. There is a study out of SUNY Stonybrook within the last six months that compared a group of children who got the entire round of HepB vaccine, and a group of children who didn’t, and found autism was three times more likely in one group. There’s a new study out of the University of Pittsburgh that took primates and vaccinated a group of them and didn’t vaccinate the another and found dramatic differences between the two sides. So to represent that somehow the science has been done is simply false. More importantly the science that has been done is what we like to call “tobacco science”. You take a group of kids who all got vaccines but got a little less mercury and compare them to a group of kids who all got vaccines but a little more mercury and find there’s no difference in autism and then claim that vaccines don’t cause autism. The only appropriate study to do would be to look at a group of children who never got vaccines and a group of children who got all of them, and see if there’s a difference in autism rates and that study has never been done despite many people trying to call for it.

So to represent that the science has been done on this is simply untrue. The vaccine makers are highly effective at PR and which is why I am here talking to you.

Parker: Well JB you obviously feel passionately about this and we can certainly understand that. How do you feel specifically about, when you find out that this particular doctor was when Wakefield was actually deliberately fraudulent in advancing the claim that there was a connection?

JBH: What is interesting is that there are 12 children in the original study in the Lancet, OK? The parents of the 12 children have all written letters, time and again, in support of Andy Wakefield. The study’s conclusion was that the children were all suffering from bowel disease, and Andy went on to mention eight of the parents claimed that the regression took place after the MMR. So the notion that the data is somehow new, what’s new? They didn’t suffer from bowel disease, even though all the parents have represented that they did? People need to look at the details not at the headlines. This an attempt to whitewash, once and for all, the notion that vaccines cause autism. They are not just beating a dead horse, they are beating a horse that never existed in the first place. That’s not what Wakefield’s study said. It’s a seven page page study, it is on the Generation Rescue website. Anybody can read it for themselves and verify what I am saying is true.

Spitzer: JB, again with all sympathy, and as somebody who has been a harsh critic of

JBH: I don’t need any sympathy!

Spitzer: Well, OK but what I am trying to say is

JBH: [talking over] I don’t need any sympathy! I don’t need your sympathy What I need is the facts and for someone to look at the details.

Spitzer: Well what you yourself have said is that what you glean from your anecdotal conversations is hugely compelling to you but unfortunately in terms of the scientific data and the analysis that sort of anecdotal database simply doesn’t establish the causal link what we are looking for in terms of really understanding this and I think that what validates today

JBH: [talking over] Look at the Suny Stonybrook study, look at the university of Pittsburg study

Spitzer: [continuing over JB] this study that we examined today was fraudulent. And I think that’s really where we are.

JBH: [talking over] Look at the Suny Stonybrook study, look at the university of Pittsburg study. You haven’t done all your research. You are reaching false conclusions. Parents do your own work.

[pleasantries to close]

Now lets isolate Handley’s main talking points and decide if they are true or false:

1) You know the original Wakefield study looked at 12 children. All 12 had autism.
Not accurate. According to material from the British Medical Journal three of nine children reported with regressive autism did not have autism diagnosed at all. Only one child clearly had regressive autism.

2) Andy Wakefield also reported that 8 of the parents said that their children regressed after the MMR vaccine.
Not accurate. According to the same source five had documented pre-existing developmental concerns.

3) So the notion that his study ever incriminated MMR as causing autism is false.
Semi-accurate. Although the paper itself may not have mentioned it, the video conference Wakefield gave _about_ the study certainly did:

…you would not get consensus from all members of the group on this, but that is my feeling, that the, the risk of this particular syndrome developing is related to the combined vaccine, the MMR…

4) …we don’t have a single piece of research to understand the potential risk of all those vaccines at once.
Not accurate. Any vaccine in the US has to undergo something called a ‘concomitant use study’. These are to establish that vaccines work OK together. Searching Pubmed for the phrase ‘concomitant vaccine’ returns over 700 results.

5) There is a study out of SUNY Stonybrook within the last six months that compared a group of children who got the entire round of HepB vaccine, and a group of children who didn’t, and found autism was three times more likely in one group
Not accurate. This study is flawed on an number of levels. Firstly, they are comparing kids born as early as 1980 to kids born during “the epidemic”. Anything that happened past 1991 would be an autism risk. Secondly and very worryingly, they pick datasets that have children born before the introduction of the Hep B vaccine. Thirdly, this whole thing is essentially a survey. It’s based on parental recall.

6) There’s a new study out of the University of Pittsburgh that took primates and vaccinated a group of them and didn’t vaccinate the another and found dramatic differences between the two sides.
Not accurate. Again, lots of issues with this study. So many so in fact that Sullivan wrote a devastating takedown of the paper in July last year.

I think that’s all the statements of attempted fact from Handley. All in all it shows that Generation Rescue cannot be trusted to present the most pertinent or up to date information.

Brian Deer on CNN, responds to Andrew Wakefield’s wild charges

6 Jan

Brian Deer is the investigative reporter who broke the story of the research fraud that Andrew Wakefield conducted in his autism/MMR studies. Andrew Wakefield made some serious charges against Mr. Deer yesterday, claiming ” He is a hit man. He’s been brought in to take me down because they are very, very concerned about the adverse reactions to vaccines that are occurring to children. Who brought this man in, who is paying this man, I don’t know.”

Mr. Deer was interviewed on CNN today. Here is that segment:

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/apps/cvp/3.0/swf/cnn_416x234_embed.swf?context=embed&videoId=bestoftv/2011/01/06/am.chetry.deer.autism.cnn

here is the transcript

CHETRY: Yes. And so, this is certainly a bombshell of a story this morning. The study that linked the MMR vaccine to autism caused shock waves when he it was published back in 1988 in the medical journal “Lancet.” But by 2004, most of the paper’s co-authors had withdrawn their support. Then last February, “Lancet” retracted that report saying the research was, quote, “unethical.” Last summer, Dr. Wakefield was then barred from practicing medicine in Britain.

And Brian Deer is the investigative journalist who really blew the lid off of this story. And he joins us live from London this morning.

Brian, good morning.

BRIAN DEER, INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST, SUNDAY TIMES OF LONDON: Good morning.

CHETRY: One of the things I want to ask is: what is the — what was the most motivation then for Dr. Wakefield to falsely link autism to the MMR vaccine in that initial study?

DEER: Well, I believe that his motivation was essentially to make money. Initially to make money from litigation, he was retained as an expert in a lawsuit for which we know he was paid three quarters of a million U.S. dollars. But he also had all kinds of business interests which he thought would make considerably more money through promoting the scare and promoting public anxiety through over the MMR vaccine.

CHETRY: And then the question seems to be: why would there be all of these other co-authors? And why would it make its way into a prestigious journal like “Lancet” and really shape the discussion and the fears about autism linked to vaccine?

DEER: Well, that’s one of the great weaknesses of medicine and medical publishing, is that people can publish things that are false. People talk about peer review and such like. And they imagine they’re some kind of safety system. But, in fact, the whole system works on trust. His co-authors didn’t know which child was which in the study that he published.

And so, it is actually possible for determined cheat to get away with the kind of behavior that Dr. Wakefield has been involved in.

CHETRY: Well, Dr. Wakefield is still continuing to stand by his study and his findings. Anderson Cooper actually talked to him last night. He went after you. He accused you of being part of a conspiracy to discredit him.

Let’s just listen to a bit of what he said. Also, he claimed that you were getting paid to do this — to do this investigation. Let’s listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, CNN’S ANDERSON COOPER 360) DR. ANDREW WAKEFIELD, ACCUSED OF FAKING AUTISM RESEARCH: I have read his multiple allegations on many occasions. He is a hit man. He’s been brought in to take me down because they are very, very concerned about the adverse reactions to vaccines that are occurring to children. Who brought this man in, who is paying this man, I don’t know.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHETRY: Did you have a financial interest in doing this investigation, Brian?

DEER: I’ve been an investigative journalist working for “The Sunday Times of London” since the early 1980s.

The point you have to remember about this whole issue is, firstly, that it’s not me saying this. It’s the editors of the “BMJ,” a very prestigious medical journal who peer reviewed and checked of the facts which we put forward in our investigation this week. So, it’s not me saying it. It’s the editors of that journal who are behind this.

But secondly, this material has been published in the United Kingdom in extraordinary detail. If it is true that Andrew Wakefield is not guilty as charged, he has the remedy of bringing a liable action against myself, against “The Sunday Times of London,” against the “British Medical Journal,” against television networks here — and he would be the richest man in America.

(CROSSTALK)

CHETRY: But he’s alleging that you were being paid to do this article. I mean, you were paid, right, because you were a journalist?

DEER: I was commissioned by the “British Medical Journal” to write the piece, yes. That’s what the journalists do.

CHETRY: What about “The Sunday Times of London” and Channel 4 in Britain?

DEER: I work for them. Right. Yes, of course, they pay, I’m a journalist. I was hired to do a job, like you are.

CHETRY: Right.

DEER: You are being paid to your job and I’m being paid to do my job.

CHETRY: Thank goodness.

The bottom line, though, is he’s questioning your motivations for going after him? Clearly, what are your motivations for going after Dr. Wakefield and his study?

DEER: It was simply a journalist assignment given to me late in 2003. A simple journalistic assignment which I expected would last a week or two weeks. And it just completely opened up when Dr. Wakefield began what we know has established a campaign of lies. When you’re a journalist and you see somebody you’re dealing is lying to you, then you pursue it. He then sued me. He was then required to may my costs. So, I received a check on his behalf, the previous false lawsuit that he began.

And now, what he’s trying to do, cloud the picture by — in the same way as he used to cloud the picture by saying some doctors say the vaccine is safe. Some doctors say it isn’t safe.

Now, what he’s trying to do is to say, well, some people say that he’s a liar and he says that I’m a liar.

CHETRY: Right.

DEER: So, what he’s trying to basically do is to split the difference. On that basis, he can work a nice living which he’s got going. You should see him in Jamaica this weekend, which he’s having a marvelous sometime on the expense of parents of autistic children.

CHETRY: Well, I want to ask you about that. What has been the impact of this safety on calling into question the safety worldwide of certain vaccines?

DEER: Oh, it’s been absolutely devastating because he and a little clique of lawyers and activists around, anti-vaccine activists around him, have been able to spread anxiety, to export it from the United Kingdom, bring it across the Atlantic, the United States, with the result, we’re now seeing parents anxious about vaccination. We’ve seen just the worst outbreak of whooping cough in California since the 1950s.

CHETRY: Are we going to understand autism and what causes it, though? Because we have seen this rise, 50 percent from 2002 to 2006 in children identified with autism spectrum disorder? I mean, why is it increasing like this?

DEER: Well, I’m a journalist, I’m not a doctor. And I don’t give medical advice. I can say from what I understand talking to doctors and scientists is that the (INAUDIBLE) conditions which cause autism, autisms, neurological problems in children, are very complex issues. And science just doesn’t have the answer.

So when someone like Dr. Wakefield comes along that gives a simple answer that blames other people, blames drug companies, now blames me, it’s all my fault, a very small number of parents become misled by that and cling to this. Because their choice is basically blame somebody else or suffer the possibility that they’re left with the guilt of thinking it was their fault that they vaccinated their child. So, it’s a very vulnerable group that Dr. Wakefield preys on.

CHETRY: Well, your reporting certainly is getting attention this morning. All of it is going to be out there along with the editorial as well. We look forward to seeing all of this.

Brian Deer, thanks for joining us this morning.

DEER: Thank you.

Andrew Wakefield on CNN

6 Jan

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/apps/cvp/3.0/swf/cnn_416x234_embed.swf?context=embed&videoId=health/2011/01/05/ac.autism.wakefield.intv.cnn

Best bit? The journalist telling Wakefield to shut up about his book.

BMJ editorial: Wakefield’s article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent

6 Jan

In a recent post here on LeftBrainRightBrain we discussed the first in a series of articles by investigative journalist Brian Deer in the BMJ. There is also an editorial by the BMJ, “Wakefield’s article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent“. The Lancet’s retraction of the Wakefield paper was fairly mild, citing only that the patients were not consecutively referred and the study did not have ethical approval. The BMJ’s statement is much more clear, and with a reason. From the editorial:

The Lancet paper has of course been retracted, but for far narrower misconduct than is now apparent. The retraction statement cites the GMC’s findings that the patients were not consecutively referred and the study did not have ethical approval, leaving the door open for those who want to continue to believe that the science, flawed though it always was, still stands. We hope that declaring the paper a fraud will close that door for good.

Perhaps wishful thinking on their part, as there will always be people who believe Mr. Wakefield.

The BMJ goes further. They are calling for a review of other papers by Mr. Wakefield with the question of whether more retractions are warranted.

What of Wakefield’s other publications? In light of this new information their veracity must be questioned. Past experience tells us that research misconduct is rarely isolated behaviour. Over the years, the BMJ and its sister journals Gut and Archives of Disease in Childhood have published a number of articles, including letters and abstracts, by Wakefield and colleagues. We have written to the vice provost of UCL, John Tooke, who now has responsibility for Wakefield’s former institution, to ask for an investigation into all of his work to decide whether any more papers should be retracted.

This parent of an autistic child welcomes this move by the BMJ. I am grateful to the editors for their action.

BMJ press release: there is “no doubt” that it was Wakefield who perpetrated this fraud

6 Jan

Here is the press release for the series in the BMJ on Andrew Wakefield.

Today, the BMJ declares the 1998 Lancet paper that implied a link between the MMR vaccine and autism “an elaborate fraud.”

Dr Fiona Godlee, BMJ Editor in Chief says “the MMR scare was based not on bad science but on a deliberate fraud” and that such “clear evidence of falsification of data should now close the door on this damaging vaccine scare.”

She is struck by a comparison between researcher Andrew Wakefield’s fraud and Piltdown man, that great paleontological hoax that led people to believe for 40 years that the missing link between man and ape had been found.

She also questions the veracity of Wakefield’s other publications and calls for an investigation “to decide whether any others should be retracted.”

A series of three articles starting this week reveal the true extent of the scam behind the scare. The series is based on interviews, documents and data, collected during seven years of inquiries by award-winning investigative journalist Brian Deer.

Thanks to the recent publication of the General Medical Council’s six million word transcript, the BMJ was able to peer-review and check Deer’s findings and confirm extensive falsification in the Lancet paper.

In an editorial, Dr Godlee, together with deputy BMJ editor Jane Smith, and leading paediatrician and associate BMJ editor Harvey Marcovitch, conclude that there is “no doubt” that it was Wakefield who perpetrated this fraud. They say: “A great deal of thought and effort must have gone into drafting the paper to achieve the results he wanted: the discrepancies all led in one direction; misreporting was gross.”

Yet he has repeatedly denied doing anything wrong at all, they add. “Instead, although now disgraced and stripped of his clinical and academic credentials, he continues to push his views. Meanwhile the damage to public health continues.”

“Science is based on trust,” concludes Dr Godlee. “Such a breach of trust is deeply shocking. And even though almost certainly rare on this scale, it raises important questions about how this could happen, what could have been done to uncover it earlier, what further inquiry is now needed, and what can be done to prevent something like this happening again.”

The BMJ will explore these and other questions over the next two weeks.

Brian Deer in the BMJ: How the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed

6 Jan

Brian Deer, the investigative journalist who broke the story of the misdeeds of Andrew Wakefield, has a new article in the BMJ, How the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed. The article is prefaced:

In the first part of a special BMJ series, Brian Deer exposes the bogus data behind claims that launched a worldwide scare over the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine, and reveals how the appearance of a link with autism was manufactured at a London medical school

This article is damning enough, but as a series this may lay out clearly, in one place, the cases behind the multiple ethical breaches which cost Andrew Wakefield his license to practice medicine in the UK.

Some may ask “why?” There is so much information out there about Mr. Wakefield and his misdeeds. Do we really need it again? I would say yes. In this BMJ series we have the research (and other) ethical lapses laid out in a medical journal. No lengthy GMC transcripts. No news stories with false balance. No “Callous Disregard” book.

The full article is worth the read. Here is the summary from today’s article.

How the link was fixed

The Lancet paper was a case series of 12 child patients; it reported a proposed “new syndrome” of enterocolitis and regressive autism and associated this with MMR as an “apparent precipitating event.” But in fact:

• Three of nine children reported with regressive autism did not have autism diagnosed at all. Only one child clearly had regressive autism

• Despite the paper claiming that all 12 children were “previously normal,” five had documented pre-existing developmental concerns

• Some children were reported to have experienced first behavioural symptoms within days of MMR, but the records documented these as starting some months after vaccination

• In nine cases, unremarkable colonic histopathology results—noting no or minimal fluctuations in inflammatory cell populations—were changed after a medical school “research review” to “non-specific colitis”

• The parents of eight children were reported as blaming MMR, but 11 families made this allegation at the hospital. The exclusion of three allegations—all giving times to onset of problems in months—helped to create the appearance of a 14 day temporal link

• Patients were recruited through anti-MMR campaigners, and the study was commissioned and funded for planned litigation

In multiple ways, the story of the Lancet article was crafted to support the conclusion Mr. Wakefield had–a conclusion he came to before starting on the research project.

Yes, before.

In his research proposal to the legal aid board, Mr. Wakefield made the following statement (quoted in Mr. Deer’s article):

““In contrast with the IBD cases [those set out in paragraph 2] which have a prima facie gastrointestinal pathology, children with enteritis/disintegrative disorder form part of a new syndrome. Nonetheless, the evidence is undeniably in favour of a specific vaccine induced pathology. ”

Mr. Deer presents a table comparing how the Lancet article reported the 12 children and how the records really show their cases. He compares regressive autism (only 1 patient’s records clearly show it), non-specific colitis (only 3 children showed it) and whether symptoms occured in the days following MMR (10 clearly did not, 2 are unclear). In all, none of the Lancet 12 children had all three features.

So that is the Lancet 12: the foundation of the vaccine scare. No case was free of misreporting or alteration. Taken together, NHS records cannot be reconciled with what was published, to such devastating effect, in the journal.

Mr. Deer opens his piece with a discussion he had with the father of child 11. Mr. 11 did not agree with the way his son was represented in the Lancet article. Mr. 11 states:

“Please let me know if Andrew W has his doctor’s license revoked,” wrote Mr 11, who is convinced that many vaccines and environmental pollutants may be responsible for childhood brain disorders. “His misrepresentation of my son in his research paper is inexcusable. His motives for this I may never know.”

We may never know the motives. In the end, I don’t care. It is the damage that this fraudulent research has caused to the autism communities and to public health that matter. Countless families have believed Mr. Wakefield, with parents blaming themselves for causing their child’s disability. As to public health, Mr. Wakefield is responsible for a drop in vaccine uptake in the UK, which led to disease and death.

Further reading on the subject can be found at Action For Autism with Wakefield and the MMR Autism Hoax

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →