Left Brain Right Brain

I recently had occasion to quote some of Mr Shattocks work. Namely, the case studies he diagnosed autism from in Victorian Britain. These were the papers that John Best Jr felt were lies. What I didn’t tell John until after he had a good rant and (if I recall) called the author ‘some nut’ was that Mr Shattock is a staunch believer in the MMR/Thiomersal/autism connection.

Some nut indeed.

Paul Shattock has extensive ties to Andrew Wakefield. Both feel that the MMR has some role to play in autism and Mr Shattock is a promoter of what he terms:

…some of the unorthodox forms of biomedical intervention currently being applied to autism.

Sunderland.

Dr Micheal Fitzpatrick comments:

Metabolic theories continued to attract a following in the shadowy area of alternative and fringe therapies, particularly in the USA. The cult of ‘orthomolecular psychiatry’ emerged out of these theories and popularised the treatment of a range of psychiatric problems with a high dose of vitamins, amino acids, minerals and other diets and dietary supplements. It is out of this tradition, which has little concern for the rigours of scientific research, that Mr Shattock’s studies have emerged.

Like the Geier’s, Paul Shattock publishes his research in some strange places (source as above):

It is impossible to evaluate Mr Shattock’s findings because they have not been published in any form. Indeed, virtually all his work has been published in the ‘grey literature’, in journals which have no formal process of evaluation or peer review.

It seems the paper he published and I quoted to John is a rare exception in a sea of vanity publishing. Indeed, Paul Shattocks Sunderland team website carries links to places like nomercury.org – hardly an informed or non-partisan choice.

Paul Shattock himself is an interesting figure. Father of an autistic child himself, he refuses to publish his work until he has studied 1,000 children. However that didn’t stop details of his work and preliminary findings mysteriously appearing (source as above):

Mr Shattock’s research entered the public realm, via journalists sympathetic to the anti-MMR campaign

But perhaps the greatest mystery about Paul Shattock is what the letters after his name mean. Sunday Times and Channel 4 Dispatches journalist Brian Deer asks the same question:

(I)….ran a Google search for DipAgVet, the latest qualification sported by Mr Paul Shattock, who specialises in urine tests.

For details of what came back and how you can help Mr Deer, go visit his site and take a guess.

The Daily Mail published another MMR piece earlier this week. As usual it had the predicted results in that it stirred up the usual frenzy of illogic and fallacy.

Why do I say that?

In order to explain we need to fast-forward a couple of days to where Melanie Phillips, Andrew Wakefield’s staunchest media supporter in the UK, published her own follow up to the Mail story. I urge you to go read both pieces now before you read the rest of this.

OK, done? Good.

So lets talk about what was said. Basically, the gist of both articles is now the medical community in the UK _have_ to take the MMR link seriously because Dr Peter Fletcher, ex-Chief Scientific Officer at the Department of Health has said a few things about it.

On the face of it thats pretty impressive – this isn’t some no-nothing from nowhere – this is an *ex CSO*. But once you get past the fact of who he _is_ and start to isolate what he’s actually _saying_ then, to borrow a phrase, the facade starts to crack.

First is the fact that this sort of argument – based on his good standing in the past – is a sort of reverse Argumentum Ad Hominem in that it is argued that it is equally or of more importance regarding who Dr Gordon _is_ as oppose to what he _says_. This is, of course, a fallacious position from which to start.

So what does he (and the original article) actually say?

[Dr Gordon]….has accused the Government of “utterly inexplicable complacency” over the MMR triple vaccine for children.

Thats simply an assumption based on his circular reasoning that the MMR has routine or above average negative effects: as an argument it relies on the reader agreeing that there is a case for the Gvmnt being complacent in the first place. Since the establishment of this case _is whats actually being debated_ its safe to ignore this as pre-conceived bias.

[Dr Fletcher]…..said if it is proven that the jab causes autism, _”the refusal by governments to evaluate the risks properly will make this one of the greatest scandals in medical history”_.

Well, d’uh. How is that news? Its obviously true and equally obvious entirely irrelevant to establishing a case for believing MMR has a role in causing autism. Its a tactical appeal to emotion – nothing more.

He added that after agreeing to be an expert witness on drug-safety trials for parents’ lawyers, he had received and studied thousands of documents relating to the case which he believed the public had a right to see. He said he has seen a “steady accumulation of evidence” from scientists worldwide that the measles, mumps and rubella jab is causing brain damage in certain children.

This is at the heart of the two articles. Dr Fletcher however simply invokes the spirit of these ‘thousands of documents’ and doesn’t discuss them or what they contain at all. It may well be that he’s hampered by the legal constraints of the case(s) in question but thats really besides the point. What we need to know is – what can Dr Fletcher _add_ to the debate? Both the epidemiology and the hard science have refuted the MMR link on more than one occasion. If Dr Fletcher has peer reviewed journal based evidence that contradicts or invalidates the science done so far then he should state it. At the moment he is simply repeating a fallacy of intuition, magical thinking and an argument to the future. None of these lend any scientific credence to making a case that supports the idea that the MMR jab caused or contributed to anyones autism. If there’s evidence lets get it peer reviewed and published in a respected journal – anything else is simply hearsay.

But he added: “There are very powerful people in positions of great authority in Britain and elsewhere who have staked their reputations and careers on the safety of MMR and they are willing to do almost anything to protect themselves.”

This is a combination of Galileo gambit and a fallacy of the assumed but hidden truth. In other words its the invocation of a conspiracy theory. Its an easy thing to say because one doesn’t have to prove or even allege who these ‘powerful people’ actually are and thus there is no one available to defend the given proposition. I always think of this as the last refuge of the truly desperate. If someones case is strong enough then why resort to such a transparent and desperate tactic?

Clinical and scientific data is steadily accumulating that the live measles virus in MMR can cause brain, gut and immune system damage in a subset of vulnerable children,” he said.

It is? Where? In fact the vast weight of scientific evidence has very recently concluded that there is no link.

There was no credible evidence behind claims of harm from the MMR vaccination. This is the conclusion drawn by the Cochrane Review Authors, an international team of researchers, after carefully drawing together all of the evidence found in 31 high quality studies from around the world. They also highlight that the policy of encouraging mass use of MMR has eliminated the scourge of measles, mumps and rubella from many countries. _”In particular we conclude that all the major unintended events, such as triggering Crohn’s disease or autism, were suspected on the basis of unreliable evidence,”_ says lead author Dr Vittorio Demicheli who works at Servizo Sovrazonale di Epidemiologia, Alessandria, Italy.

By contrast, Dr Fletcher yet again fails to say _what_ this ‘vast weight’ of scientific evidence was, where it could be found and who produced it. He just says its there. And we should just trust him because he’s cleverer than us.

Yet there has been a tenfold increase in autism and related forms of brain damage over the past 15 years, roughly coinciding with MMR’s introduction

Really? Obviously Dr Fletcher (and the Daily Mail) don’t examine the actual science which states:

The new study, which involved 10,903 preschool children in the United Kingdom, confirmed the elevated autism rate, but clearly demonstrated that autism prevalence is not increasing.

Fletcher also makes the mistake of matching correlation with causation – a schoolboy error for any scientist.

He said there was “no way” the tenfold leap in autistic children could be the result of better recognition and definitional changes, as claimed by health authorities.

Another totally specious statement with nothing to back it up. Fletcher might well believe it but as he provides no evidence then its just an opinion. In fact, scientific studies in the US indicate the rise in rate _is_ down to better recognition and diagnosis.

“It is highly likely that at least part of this increase is a vaccine related problem.” he said.

Again, this may be Fletcher’s opinion but he provides nothing in the way of support for it. This isn’t science, this is just gossip.

And thats just about all of Dr Fletcher’s contribution to the debate. Fallacy, lazy reasoning, assertion and unverified claims. It comes as no surprise that other lazy thinkers hype such garbage when they have so little science to support their position.

There’s new legal paperwork up at Brian Deer’s personal site. It reveals some very interesting facts about two things: First that Andrew Wakefield is instructing his legal team to use his Libel action against Brain Deer as a ‘gagging order’ and secondly that Andrew Wakefield is obviously getting extremely nervous about the effect his GMC hearing will have on his Libel case.

There are three separate actions involving Andrew Wakefield and Brian Deer. One is between Wakefield and the Sunday Times, the other between Wakefield and Brain Deer personally (in respect of his website) and a third one (the one under discussion here) between Wakefield and Channel 4/Twenty twenty Productions.

The ruling judge in this case first said that it was certain that the outcome of just one of these actions would determine the outcome of the others as all three rest on the exact same subject matter. [edit – not sure I got that exactly right – if anyone reads it and comes to a different conclusion, please let me know]

Andrew Wakefield has applied for a ‘stay’ in this case (the C4/2020 one). This means he essentially wants to put this action ‘on hold’. He wants to do this because he claims that the GMC case has seniority over this one. Justice Eady remained distinctly unimpressed with this argument:

In the light of this timescale, it is impossible to envisage the trial of these libel proceedings taking place before the Michaelmas term of 2007. Much of the evidence relating to the issue of justification relates to the mid-90s and a delay of that kind would be plainly undesirable. It would, moreover, involve a gap of three years between the broadcast in question and the trial. That is beyond what is normally regarded as acceptable in the modern climate for the span of a libel action between publication and trial – even in a complicated case…

In British law it is part of the case to consider that a Libel action should be acted on as hastily as possible as the defendant may have good need to clear their name – people like Brian Deer for example who, as an investigative journalist, needs to be trusted to be employable.

So why would Wakefield wish to grant a stay to after the GMC hearing? Because he wants to ‘test the water’ with the GMC action which at most can strip him of his license – a minor inconvenience for one who’s already making a living in Texas – whereas a libel action can strip him of a hell of a lot more. I’m guessing that when things go bad for him and the GMC strip him of his license that all other actions will be quietly dropped.

However, even though he has asking for a stay of this particular action Andrew Wakefield is not above using it as a weapon to browbeat people:

These factors loom even larger in the present case in the light of certain conduct on the Claimant’s part which Miss Page has prayed in aid. It is her case that *the Claimant is seeking to take full advantage of the fact that he has issued libel proceedings while avoiding any detailed public scrutiny of the underlying merits*. In other words, she argues, he is seeking to adopt a strategy comparable to that generally characterised by the phrase “a gagging writ”. It is necessary to consider these allegations in a little further detail.

A few of you may remember that Wakefield took part in their original Power of Parents rally in the US during which he read an extract of a statement in which a small British paper (the Cambridge Evening News) backed down from a report it had made about Wakefield. Obviously the American parents lapped it up to riotous applause. However, what had _actually_ happened is that Wakefield had instructed his legal team to threaten the Cambridge Evening News with an action like that he had over the Sunday Times:

“You should be aware that proceedings in defamation have already been commenced against The Sunday Times in respect of the article published by Mr Brian Deer on 22nd February 2004. Your article has gone even further than the allegation in The Sunday Times which are currently being litigated and allege impropriety on the part of Mr Wakefield to receive money from lawyers to achieve a predetermined outcome.”

Justice Eady took exception to this:

In my view that paragraph was misleading. Mr Browne (Wakefield’s QC) argues that, even if the circumstances had been set out more fully and accurately, it would have made no difference to the outcome. The editor would still have acknowledged that he had got his facts wrong. That may be, but the important point at the moment is that the editor was given a misleading impression. Because of the stay, to which I have referred, the allegations in The Sunday Times were certainly not “currently being litigated”. They were stayed pending the outcome of serious allegations of professional misconduct against the Claimant, to which no reference was made. It thus appears that the Claimant wishes to use the existence of the libel proceedings for public relations purposes, and to deter other critics, while at the same time isolating himself from the “downside” of such litigation, in having to answer a substantial defence of justification.

And there’s more: Dr Evan Harris MP had criticised Wakefield on a radio programme. He also got a letter:

“[Mr Andrew Wakefield] has asked us to inform you that defamation proceedings have been instituted against Mr Brian Deer and The Sunday Times newspaper in relation to articles that have been appeared [sic] and statements that have been made by them which are defamatory of [him]………..Mr Wakefield has drawn our attention to a number of statements made by you in connection with Mr Wakefield and the question of MMR both in newspapers and in BBC broadcast programme……Given … the fact of litigation having been instituted in defamation and the existence of the General Medical Council inquiry we hope you will agree that further comment on Mr Wakefield’s conduct by you or anyone else should be limited until the outcome of those proceedings has been determined. This will avoid Mr Wakefield having to consider further legal proceedings at the present time”.

Justice Eady took a grave view of this too:

I regard that as a threat that libel proceedings will be issued against Dr Harris unless he “limits” any further comment – not in itself objectionable. On the other hand, the threat is backed up by reference to litigation against The Sunday Times and Mr Deer which, by the date of the letter, had already been stayed. The implication is that for rather vague “sub judice” reasons it would not be appropriate to comment until the proceedings have been determined. At that stage none of the libel actions was “active” within the meaning of the schedule to the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and there was accordingly no reason why Dr Harris should not comment further, if he wished to do so, subject always to the constraints of defamation. Again, one sees the same pattern. The Claimant wishes to use the proceedings for tactical or public relations advantage without revealing that they have been put on the back burner.

And, incredibly, Wakefield also instructed his team to go after the Dept. of Health:

“…In the circumstances Mr Wakefield is concerned and surprised to note that your official website on behalf of the Department of Health offers links not only to Mr Deer’s own website, but also the Channel 4 website on the programme. It seems extraordinary to us and wholly wrong that the Government’s official organ should direct website visitors to another site which not only records partisan and hotly disputed opinions on the subject but is also the subject of defamation proceedings. You will appreciate our grave concern that this fact appears to suggest that Government offers this subject matter official weight and authority.”

This letter is intended to provide formal written warning that the links provided to these two websites are allowing the dissemination of defamatory material. Since this is so you are now invited to withdraw the Department of Health link to these two websites forthwith given that this is an inappropriate use of Governmental weight and authority in such a controversial area”.

Just as a side note I find it incredible that anyone should try and go after a website which links to Brian Deer’s. For their further legal presumption I’d like to present a list of sites that link to Brian Deer’s. I await your issue of a writ against Wikipedia and Google with interest.

Anyway, back to Justice Eady:

I am quite satisfied, therefore, that the Claimant wished to extract whatever advantage he could from the existence of the proceedings while not wishing to progress them or to give the Defendants an opportunity of meeting the claims. It seems to me that these are inconsistent positions to adopt. This conduct is a powerful factor to be weighed in the exercise of the court’s discretion in circumstances which are clearly unique.

And indeed so powerful that Justice Eady ruled that:

I have come to the conclusion, bearing all these considerations in mind, that the interests of the administration of justice require that the Channel 4 proceedings should not be stayed pending the outcome of the GMC proceedings. I appreciate that there will be an increased workload for the Claimant’s advisers, but I do not have any reason to suppose that the firm is incapable of absorbing that extra burden. It is, after all, their client who chose to issue these proceedings and to use them, as I have described above, as a weapon in his attempts to close down discussion and debate over an important public issue. (I note that separate teams of counsel are instructed for the GMC proceedings and the defamation claims.)

So far as the website proceedings are concerned, I see no advantage in those continuing in parallel. There is a significant overlap. I am persuaded that this overlap is so significant, in relation to the defamation proceedings (unlike the GMC disciplinary process), that the outcome of the Channel 4 proceedings is likely to be in practical terms determinative of the others. Mr Deer acts in person in the website proceedings, and a very considerable burden would be placed upon his shoulders if he had to progress that litigation in parallel to the other action, in which he has the advantage of legal representation. Indeed, it may well be that there is a whiff of tactics in the Claimant’s change of stance, whereby he wished to have the website proceedings continue – but only provided there was no stay of the Channel 4 litigation. This is borne out by the suggestion that, before the Claimant should serve his reply, Mr Deer should be obliged to serve a defence in the website proceedings. That proposal has all the hallmarks of a tactical ploy to put Mr Deer at a disadvantage. It would have the effect of isolating him. I am not prepared to go along with that.

Its not looking good for Andrew Wakefield. He’s now been exposed as a bully who likes to threaten with what he has no intention of pursuing. He’s also looking like he’s beginning to realise that he has no chance of escaping the GMC hearings unscathed. Hopefully all those who like to bandy around legal action as a threat will see that a hot head often gets regretted when the facts are examined.

I came across an article today by F. Edward Yazbak, MD, FAAP. He’s part of the loose coalition of people who support the MMR/Thiomersal/autism association. The article was mainly about how Thiomersal in Europe is displayed with a skull and crossbones. I may tackle that another time but for now I want to take issue with the following introduction:

In the United Kingdom, the issue of MMR remains in the forefront with a David and Goliath scenario unfolding for the last seven years: On one side, the mighty Government, the Prime-Minister personally, the Health authorities, the Press –some of it very ugly- and large useless epidemiological studies and on the other side, Andrew Wakefield with his study of 12 children and a small group of faithful devoted and informed parents.

There is enough scientific evidence to show that both the MMR vaccine and Thimerosal in other vaccines precipitate autistic regression in genetically-predisposed children, not withstanding the opinions of biased “experts,” a misleading IOM special committee report and obviously the CDC.

Red Flags Weekly.

He also links to a more indepth article apparently but I can’t access it from the link provided.

Lets just tackle these statements as someone who _is_ British and lives in the UK.

The MMR issue is not in the forefront of anything. It remains sporadically in the news due to the efforts of Times journalist Brian Deer. Andrew Wakefield by comparison has fled the country and refuses to be interviewed by Deer. There is indeed a ‘small group’ of press and parents but whilst they are faithful and devoted, they are far from informed.

The facts of the matter are that Andrew Wakefield says he has found an autism related bowel disease in some autistic kids. He may well have, gastric issues are a known comorbidity in some people. There is however, _no link to MMR causing this condition_. No science exists that shows a causative link.

And far from there being just ‘large useless epidemiological studies’ to refute Wakefields claims there are actual ‘hard science’ studies that refute his work.

Firstly is the evidence of his _own lab_.

Even as Andrew Wakefield launched his attack on MMR in 1998, at a press conference and in a video, coinciding with a Lancet paper, he knew that his own laboratory had tested his theory: that the ultimate culprit for the children’s autism was measles virus in the vaccine. Royal Free researcher Nick Chadwick, carrying out sophisticated molecular analysis of samples from the children, using methods agreed by Wakefield, found no trace of measles virus.

Brian Deer.

And lately a new study (which will feature in a BBC documentary) shows that:

Scientists at Guy’s Hospital, in London, have been studying a large group of 100 autistic children. They examined their blood samples, looking for traces of the measles virus in their blood and in that of another group of non-autistic children. The samples were analysed in some of Britain’s leading laboratories, using the most sensitive methods available. The scientists found that 99 per cent of the samples did not contain any trace of the measles virus. Crucially, there was no difference between the autistic and non-autistic children

Awares.

Its also worth noting that *all* of the co-authors of the original Lancet paper have rescinded their position leaving Wakefield standing alone. Next year he will face misconduct charges in the UK from the GMC.

Its further worth noting that at the time he began to criticise the MMR and implicate it in autism causation, Wakefield also claimed he had found another, safer way to vaccinate kids which he duly filed a Patent application for. He later denied this on a website and through his solicitors, however Brain Deer unearthed Wakefield’s Patent application for all to see.

F. Edward Yazbak talks of bias. We have a saying in the UK Sir – ‘people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones’.