Archive | Vaccines RSS feed for this section

Fact checking the Age of Autism’s defense of Andrew Wakefield

11 Jan

The BMJ article, How the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed, has had a lot of media coverage in the United States. With that coverage has come the defense of Andrew Wakefield, by himself and a few others. As a part of the defense (arguably the bulk of the defense) has been an attack on Brian Deer, the investigative reporter who wrote the article. I say attack because the main accusation, as you will read below, is false. Easily verified as false.

Consider this, on CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360, Mr. Wakefield made the accusation:

WAKEFIELD: Well, that’s interesting you should say that, because he was supported in his investigation by the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industries, which is funded directly and exclusively by the pharmaceutical industry. So…

On CNN with Ali Valshi, Generation Rescue founder J.B. Handley made the following statement:

“The British Medical Journal is only publishing allegations from a single investigative journalist named Brian Deer, who was funded by a pharma front group for four years to investigate Andy Wakefield.”

He later states that Brian Deer was “…funded by pharmaceutical groups from the getgo”.

Where did this accusation come from?

In a blog post, Mr. Handley let’s us know how he came to this conclusion:

In fact, Deer was originally funded to investigate Andy by a front group for the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industries, just as Andy Wakefield said. From a confidential source:

“Deer was provided with free assistance by Medico-Legal Investigations a company owned and controlled by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry – I have documentation on this. MLI specialise in getting medical doctors prosecuted by the General Medical Council. And that was done before he published in The Sunday Times in Feb 2004.”

We also see the story shifting we also see the story shifting. Instead of “funded from the getgo” or “funded by a pharma front group for four years” we find that he was given “free assistance” We don’t even know how much free assistance.

An unsupported assertion is made that the company is “owned and controlled by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry”.

At least we have something we can verify. A claim like this should be verified, one way or the other. So I did. I contacted Medico-Legal Investigations. I posed a simple question:

You may be aware that Brian Deer has recently published the findings of his investigations showing that Andrew Wakefield committed research fraud in his investigations into MMR and autism. In retaliation, Mr. Wakefield and his supporters are claiming that Mr. Deer is conflicted himself. As part of this, they claim:

“When Brian Deer began his investigation of Andy Wakefield, he was supported by a pharmaceutical front group”

To support this, they claim:

“Deer was provided with free assistance by Medico-Legal Investigations a company owned and controlled by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry – I have documentation on this. MLI specialise in getting medical doctors prosecuted by the General Medical Council. And that was done before he published in The Sunday Times in Feb 2004.”

Can you confirm whether this statement is, in fact, true?

The response?

The statement in bold lettering is totally false. We had no idea he was undertaking this investigation until he was about halfway through. At that point, and knowing that we were the only people in Europe experienced in the investigation of research fraud and misconduct, he contacted us to seek advice on a general issue related to Ethics Committees. We had a one off meeting with him and were able to offer guidance without knowing the details of the confidential investigation. I would like to know how anyone can say we are a pharmaceutical front group – we have always retained our independence.

We have never been owned or controlled by the ABPI – that is complete and utter nonsense. We have been supported by the ABPI and, indeed, the medical Royal Colleges. In order to ease our cashflow crises (there is never enough work to cover the costs of running a business) a few pharma companies paid an annual subscription to us in return for reduced rates for training and investigations. That does not mean that we were controlled by them. I pay annual subscriptions to magazines and get cheaper copies but I do not have editorial control!

Finally we specialise in the investigation of possible fraud/misconduct in research. When we are 70% certain that we have enough evidence to prove serious professional misconduct we report the facts to the GMC who conduct an Inquiry into the allegations. We also investigate other health sector matters and if a criminal offence is disclosed we report to the police or embark upon a private prosecution through the lawyers of our clients (other statutory bodies). The protection of patients is primarily our concern.

I hope this helps

Shall we count the errors in Mr. Handley’s attack?

1) Medico-Legal Investigations had no part in the investigation. They only offered a one-off meeting on medical ethics. Medico-Legal Investigations was unaware of the specifics of Mr. Deer’s investigations.

2) Medico-Legal Investigations is not “owned and controlled by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry”. Thus it is not a “front group”.

3) On top of all that, Mr. Deer was not even funded by Medico-Legal Investigations.

4) The association with Medico-Legal Investigations was a simple meeting, as Mr. Deer was over half way through his investigation. The association was not “from the get go” and was not “four years” (funded or not).

In essence, we see what Mr. Wakefield and his supporters are reduced to: a publicity campaign. Get their message out, accurate or not. Attack the source rather than address the allegations.

Fact checking Brian Deer on Andrew Wakefield

11 Jan

As Kev recently wrote here on LeftBrainRightBrain, the main defense of Andrew Wakefield is not a defense at all, but an attack on Brian Deer. Rather than look at the facts laid out in the BMJ article, people are claiming that Andrew Wakefield couldn’t possibly have “fixed” the data (lead authors can and have do this, see our recent post). Also, that Andrew Wakefield didn’t have access to the full records of the children, so that he couldn’t have known that there were contradictory data in those records.

It is an odd argument in that it concedes that yes, indeed, the “facts” in the Lancet article do not match the children’s medical records.

It is also an odd argument because it ignores the citations that Brian Deer makes in his article. Mr. Deer cites where he gets the information that contradicts Andrew Wakefield’s reports. Many of which are not hidden in the child’s records but were available to Mr. Wakefield at the time he wrote his article for the Lancet.

Mr. Wakefield has reported in his Lancet article (now retracted) that “We identified associated gastrointestinal disease and developmental regression in a group of previously normal children, which was generally associated in time with possible environmental triggers. ”

Emphasis added.

As Brian Deer has noted in his article in the BMJ, this is not the case. Many of the children reported upon were not “previously normal”. We here at LeftBrainRightBrain have the luxury of more space than did Mr. Deer, so let’s check a few of Mr. Deer’s statements, shall we? Let’s look at the children that Mr. Deer commented upon in his article.

Early on in his article, Mr. Deer refers to Child 8. Child 8 was noted as having facial dysmorphisms. Further, the doctors treating Child 8 “…had significant concerns about her development some months before she had her MMR Vaccination”.

Here is a letter sent to Andrew Wakefield on 3 October, 1996. The Lancet article wasn’t published until 1998:

“ Dear Dr Wakefield

[Child 8’s] mother has been into see me and said that you need a referral letter from me in order to accept Child 8 into your investigation programme. I gather this is a specific area of expertise relating to the possible effects of vaccine damage and her ongoing GI Tract symptoms. As far as I am concerned, if [Mrs 8] is happy to proceed with this and it gives her any further information and peace of mind, I am sure it would be beneficial for both her and for [Child 8]. I enclose photocopies of some recent correspondence which gives a fair idea of [Child 8’s] current state. I would simply reiterate Dr Houlsby’s recent comment that both the hospital and members of the Primary Care Team involved with [Child 8] had significant concerns about her development some months before she had her MMR Vaccination. I take Mum’s point that she has video evidence of [Child 8] saying a few words prior to this vaccination being given and her vocal abilities are now nil but I do not think we can be entirely convinced as yet that the vaccine is the central cause of her current difficulties. However, I am quite prepared to support [Mrs 8] in her quest for further information and I hope some useful results come from these tests.

Best wishes.”

emphasis added.

This was presented to the GMC on Day 29 of the hearing. Mr. Wakefield knew Child 8’s physicians questioned whether child 8 was “previously normal” when he wrote the article in the Lancet. It is unclear if Mr. Wakefield sought out those physicians, or if the “recent correspondence” also noted those early signs. But we do know that Andrew Wakefield had more than just the parent’s report on the child’s history and that the physicians disagreed with the parent’s impression. Given the contradiction between the two sources, at the very least, Mr. Wakefield should have sought out the child’s records.

As an aside here, Child 8 was already funded by legal aid at the time of referral. Mr. Wakefield has claimed that children were not already a part of litigation when they were seen by him at the Royal Free. This is also noted in an doctor’s note in the transcripts:

“Mum taking her to Dr Wakefield, Royal Free hospital for CT scan and gut biopsies.
? Crohn’s – will need a letter.
Dr Wakefield to phone me.
Funded through legal aid.”

Again, the child was “funded through legal aide” before referral to Mr. Wakefield.

Here is how Child 4 is reported in The Lancet paper:

One child (child four) had received monovalent measles vaccine at 15 months, after which his development slowed (confirmed by professional assessors). No association was made with the vaccine at this time. He received a dose of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine at age 4·5 years, the day after which his mother described a striking deterioration in his behaviour that she did link with the immunisation.

“Confirmed by professional assessors”. I find this interesting. One of the defenses of Mr. Wakefield is that “he was just reporting what parents told him”. But, there it is, “confirmed by professional assessors”. Andrew Wakfield had “professional assessors” check the validity of the claims. Have Andrew Wakefield’s supporters actually read the paper?

Was there anything in this child’s records that a “professional assessor” might flag as possibly showing signs of delay before vaccination? Here is the letter from Child 4’s doctor to Mr. Wakefield dated 1 July 1996.

“Following our recent telephone conversation I would be grateful if you could arrange an appropriate ECR appointment for [4] to undergo assessment regarding his possible autism and his bowel problems.

[Child 4] has had long standing difficulties and shows severe learning difficulties and also bowel disturbance and his mother has always found it difficult to accept that there was no known cause for [Child 4]’s disorder. A few years ago she was chasing the idea that he might have a metabolic disorder and I enclose a copy of a letter I wrote to Dr Wraith in Manchester at that time although his reply was he did not see any value in further tests along these lines. I’m aware that you are looking at the possible links between measles vaccine and various difficulties and [Child 4] certainly had MMR in 1988. In general [Child 4]’s mother thinks that he developed normally initially and then subsequently his problems worsened and he lost some of the milestones he had achieved but that he has subsequently improved on something of a restrictive exclusion diet. The professionals who have known [Child 4] since birth do not entirely agree with this however and there is a suggestion that some of [Child 4]’s problems may have started before vaccination.

Since 1994 4 has continued to have intermittent problems with his bowels and diarrhoea that [Mrs 4] relates to food intake; he has had a negative test for celiac disease and has on at least 2 occasions had giardia but he has had no further investigations regarding the cause of these symptoms.

As I say, [Mrs 4] is convinced that both [Child 4]’s behaviour and his diarrhoea are triggered by his diet and she has him on something of a restrictive exclusion diet. He has not gained weight and we have been very concerned about this and [Mrs 4] feels that this is despite him being on a more normal diet. We have therefore not made any assessment as to whether his failure to gain weight might be due to an inadequate diet or to possible malabsorption.

I would be grateful if you could arrange an appropriate appointment and would be very interested if you feel [Child 4] fits into the sort of category of patient that you are interested in looking at further”.

From Day 6 of the GMC hearing. Note that the “…had MMR in 1988” is likely incorrect and that it was the monovalent measles vaccine in 1988.

Again, Mr. Wakefield was alerted to a child having possible problems before MMR administration, but reported the child as “previously normal”. We are left with a question, did Mr. Wakefield just fail to follow up on this possibility or did he know the details and misreport them?

Here is a statement in the child’s records. Whether this was available to Mr. Wakefield at the time of writing the article in The Lancet is unclear:

A delayed development was acknowledged by the health visitor at 1 year of age but at this stage [Mrs 4] did not accept that [Child 4] was slow.

Here is a letter written to Child 4’s physician after his time with the Royal Free team:

“I will write to Dr Wakefield to see if I have any better luck at getting a summary of their investigations and conclusions. [Child 4] had a course of (I think) sulphasalazine after his investigation at the Royal Free Hospital. He became acutely distressed, apparently with abdominal pain and his autism and behaviour did not improve. It was therefore discontinued after a fortnight”.

Apparently, the therapies Mr. Wakefield’s team supplied were not always beneficial.

Let’s move on to Child 1. Mr. Deer reports in the BMJ:

The remaining five children served Wakefield’s claims no better. There was still no convincing MMR syndrome. Child 1, aged 3 years when he was referred to London, lived 100 miles from the Royal Free, and had an older brother who was diagnosed as autistic.76 Child 1’s recorded story began when he was aged 9 months, with a “new patient” note by general practitioner Andrea Barrow. One of the mother’s concerns was that he could not hear properly—which might sound like a hallmark presentation of classical autism, the emergence of which is often insidious. Indeed, a Royal Free history, by neurologist and coauthor Peter Harvey, noted “normal milestones” until “18 months or so.”

Child 1 was vaccinated at 12 months of age, however. Thus neither 9 nor 18 months helped Wakefield’s case. But in the Lancet, the “first behavioural symptom” was reported “1 week” after the injection, holding the evidence for the lawsuit on track.

Here’s the “new patient” note:

“New patient – recently posted from XXXX. Mum worried re hearing/wax in ears/? Discharge left ear … Reassured.” Then “(NB – older brother … ? behaviour probs and ? family dynamics ?)”.

Here’s the statement by Dr. Harvey (of the Royal Free): “after normal milestones a deterioration from 18 months or so”. The referral letter for this child, sent to the Royal Free, states that the child was normal until age 15 months.

Here is a statement from the records at the Royal Free (day 24 of the transcripts):

“Child 1 was admitted for further investigation of his autism and specifically to look into a possible association between his neurological condition and any gastrointestinal disorders. The main problems are a “classical” autism diagnosed a year ago and of diarrhoea.”

On page 50:

“His diarrhoea started approximately 18 months ago. He passes five watery stools a day which contain no blood or mucous. They do contain some undigested food. He appears to have no control over his bowel movements and frequency is increasing. His appetite has always been poor and there has been no obvious change in this. He has only very occasional episodes of vomiting.

He is up-to-date with his immunisations, including his MMR at 12 months of age. There is obvious parental concern that this has some bearing on his subsequent condition.”

Perhaps not consistent, but Andrew Wakefield knew that the child’s records did not place concern until much time had passed since the MMR vaccination.

The “onset of behavioral symptoms” reported in The Lancet does derive from parental report. But not a very strong report. A letter to Andrew Wakefield about child 1 put it like this:

“I saw this interesting child with autism which began some weeks following MMR although there was 7-10 days after the MMR at the age of 1 a brief illness during which he was pale, possibly had fever and his mother said he may have been delirious. [Mrs 1] was keen that you would have a look at a document that she got concerning homeopathic remedies and I am passing this on to you.”

So, Mr. Wakefield reported Child 1 as having first symptom 1 week after MMR. If you include “fever/delirium”. Not exactly an autism symptom. But developmentally the child was noted as being normal until 15 or 18 months? Is that “fixing” data or just something less than accurate?

The Wakefield 1998 Lancet article did not give an accurate picture of these children, based on the records available to Mr. Wakefield at the time. And that is the important fact: Mr. Wakefield had access to information that put his reported findings into question.

The Big Lie – what Andrew Wakefield did was possible and fraudulent

10 Jan

Earlier this week, the blog Child Health Safety published a piece claiming it was impossible for Andrew Wakefield to have acted fraudulently. Earlier today, JB Handley of Age of Autism published a similar piece:

“It was not possible for Wakefield or anyone else to falsify the prior clinical records of the children because no one at the Royal Free Hospital London had them nor is it normal practice for them to have had them. So there could be no fraud over ‘altering’ those histories. It just was not possible.”

Plain English: In Britain, when you are referred from a local doctor to a major hospital, like the one where Andy worked, your previous doctor’s records DO NOT travel with you.

Hmmm. Lets look at the definition of the claim of fraud from the editorial in the BMJ.

The Office of Research Integrity in the United States defines fraud as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism. Deer unearthed clear evidence of falsification. He found that not one of the 12 cases reported in the 1998 Lancet paper was free of misrepresentation or undisclosed alteration, and that in no single case could the medical records be fully reconciled with the descriptions, diagnoses, or histories published in the journal.

This quite clear – but don’t CHS blog and JB Handley have a point? If Andrew Wakefield couldn’t see the NHS records, how could he have falsified data? He might have been wrong, but fraud? No. If Wakefield couldn’t have seen those NHS records he could not have altered data from them to enhance his Lancet piece.

Except he _did_ see these children’s NHS records. From the very paper itself, we can glean the following:

12 children (mean age 6 years [range 3–10], 11 boys) were referred to a paediatric gastroenterology unit
with a history of normal development followed by loss of acquired skills, including language, together with diarrhoea and abdominal pain. Children underwent gastroenterological, neurological, and developmental assessment and review of developmental records.
Ileocolonoscopy and biopsy sampling, magnetic-resonance imaging (MRI), electroencephalography (EEG), and lumbar puncture were done under sedation. Barium follow-through radiography was done where possible. Biochemical, haematological, and immunological profiles were examined.

…

Developmental histories included a review of prospective developmental records from parents, health visitors, and general practitioners.

This is quite clear. Wakefield saw the NHS records of the Lancet 12. The claim that he didn’t is incorrect at best.

Scientific fraud allegations: Wakefield is not unique

9 Jan

Most readers have likely already heard about the BMJ pieces calling out Andrew Wakefield’s research as fraudulent. Mr. Wakefield has tried to deflect these criticisms by claiming that Brian Deer, the investigative reporter who initially broke the Wakefield story years ago and who wrote the main article for the BMJ, is part of a consipiracy funded by pharmaceutical interests with the goal of discrediting Andrew Wakefield and his work. Besides these wild claims, Mr. Wakefield and his supporters have offered the defense that it would be impossible for one man to perpetrate scientific fraud of this sort.

Unfortunately, scientific fraud does happen. A quick google search of scientific fraud gathers many hits. One prominent hit is this piece by Politics Daily, U.S. Scientists Top Research-Fraud List — How Concerned Should We Be?

You won’t be surprised to hear that the blog Retraction Watch has a goal of “tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process” and has reported on the recent BMJ article on Andrew Wakefield.

Most retractions are far more mundane than Mr. Wakefield’s. Consider this article in Retraction Watch: Authors of Journal of Immunology paper retract it after realizing they had ordered the wrong mice.

Some retractions are as complex, if not as damaging, as Mr. Wakefield’s paper. Consider the case of Jan Hendrik Schön, a researcher for the prestigious Bell Labs in the United States. Schön reported amazing breakthroughs on single-molecule semiconductors. Others were unable to replicate his results and, as time went on, people started to notice anomalies in his papers–like identical data being reported for very different experimental conditions, in multiple papers. When investigated he was unable to produce the data to support his work.

In the end, at least 21 of his papers were retracted. These were in highly respectable journals: Science, Nature and Physical Review B. His university went so far as to revoke his Ph.D..

Research fraud happens. Rarely, but it happens. Even with co-authors and peer review.

Another part of the defense Mr. Wakefield and his supporters offer is an attempt to focus all attention on the retracted paper in The Lancet. They state that the Lancet Paper did claim proof of a link between MMR vaccination and autism. Mr. Wakefield’s research improprieties did not start nor end with the 1998 Lancet paper. Even though the Lancet study did not prove a link between MMR and autism (even if it were not a case of research fraud), Mr. Wakefield made public statements about his beliefs that the MMR vaccine was linked to his new (and still unproven) “syndrome” of autism and gastrointestinal disease.

The BMJ has called for a review of more of Mr. Wakefield’s papers. They are quite right to make this call. Many of Mr. Wakefield’s studies are likely contaminated by biased case selection, if nothing else.

One paper that absolutely deserves review is the paper by Uhlman, Wakefield and others which claimed to find evidence of measles virus RNA in the intestinal tissues of autistic children:


Potential viral pathogenic mechanism for new variant inflammatory bowel disease.

Uhlmann V, Martin CM, Sheils O, Pilkington L, Silva I, Killalea A, Murch SB, Walker-Smith J, Thomson M, Wakefield AJ, O’Leary JJ.

Department of Pathology, Coombe Women’s Hospital, Dublin 8, Ireland.

Abstract

AIMS: A new form of inflammatory bowel disease (ileocolonic lymphonodular hyperplasia) has been described in a cohort of children with developmental disorder. This study investigates the presence of persistent measles virus in the intestinal tissue of these patients (new variant inflammatory bowel disease) and a series of controls by molecular analysis.

METHODS: Formalin fixed, paraffin wax embedded and fresh frozen biopsies from the terminal ileum were examined from affected children and histological normal controls. The measles virus Fusion (F) and Haemagglutinin (H) genes were detected by TaqMan reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and the Nucleocapsid (N) gene by RT in situ PCR. Localisation of the mRNA signal was performed using a specific follicular dendritic cell antibody.

RESULTS: Seventy five of 91 patients with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of ileal lymphonodular hyperplasia and enterocolitis were positive for measles virus in their intestinal tissue compared with five of 70 control patients. Measles virus was identified within the follicular dendritic cells and some lymphocytes in foci of reactive follicular hyperplasia. The copy number of measles virus ranged from one to 300,00 copies/ng total RNA.

CONCLUSIONS: The data confirm an association between the presence of measles virus and gut pathology in children with developmental disorder.

Testimony presented at the Omnibus Autism Proceeding by PCR expert Stephen Bustin demonstrated clearly that the PCR experiments in this study were performed in such a way as to make accurate analysis impossible. A crucial step was missing in the process.

Further, and more damning, was the testimony of Dr. Chadwick, a former researcher with Andrew Wakefield at the Royal Free Hospital. Dr. Chadwick discussed how PCR results from his laboratory showed no presence of measles virus–in many of the same children used in Mr. Wakefield’s reported research. Yes, Mr. Wakefield knowingly ignored data, from his own research group, which went against his conclusion.

Clearly this paper should be subjected to review and, I believe, should be retracted.

In terms of perpetrating research fraud, Mr. Wakefield is not unique. There are other examples of gross fraud. However, there is a major difference between the Jan Schon’s of the world who waste a lot of other researchers time and money and the Andrew Wakefield’s of the world who put public health at risk, and cause great harm to autistics and their families. While it is tiring to hear the Andrew Wakefield saga come to the fore again and again, the story is not over. His misconduct neither started with nor ended with the Lancet paper. The retractions will not end there either.

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.

Al Jazeera on the Wakefield fraud, less false-balance

8 Jan

One of the really bad parts of the past few days has been watching the media fall into the same old traps. Instead of taking this opportunity to sideline Andrew Wakefield and his supporters, they have given them a lot of airtime to make unsubstantiated, and sometimes just wild, accusations and claims. It is the false balance idea–give both sides of the story.

I ran across this video of Al Jazeera which gave a brief quote of a response by Mr. Wakefield but otherwise discussed the fraud and the fallout.

As time goes on I hope that even less time will be given to Mr. Wakefield and his supporters. If they won’t address the very real and very serious questions of fraud, what’s the point in hearing about the vast conspiracy that they claim is ongoing?

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.

You can’t question vaccines without being destroyed….or can you

7 Jan

As part of the “balance” in the Wakefield fraud story, CNN brought in Wendy Fournier of the National Autism Association. It’s a bit of an odd choice as she hadn’t researched the claims in the BMJ article (“honestly, I don’t know the specifics Brain Deer is referring to in the article for BMJ”). That said, the interview is interesting to watch. She starts right out with a personal attack on Mr. Deer: “Brian Deer has proven himself to be quite the one-trick pony. Wondering if has anything else to do than write about Andy Wakefield”.

The defense doesn’t talk at all about the actual paper, the actual demonstrated instances of fraud. Instead, the interview focuses on the conspiracy defense that Mr. Wakefield and his supporters have chosen. It isn’t that the data were manipulated to produce a given result that’s the reason why the editors at the BMJ produced this article, it is because the vaccine program is so important that vaccine safety advocates are attacked.

Here are two quotes from this interview:

“Careers are destroyed whenever anyone dares to question the almighty vaccine program” and “you can’t question vaccines without being destroyed, there’s too much money at stake here”

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/apps/cvp/3.0/swf/cnn_416x234_embed.swf?context=embed&videoId=health/2011/01/06/intv.austism.study.defended.cnn

Consider the case of John Salamone. Have you ever heard of him? I hadn’t until I read Dr. Offit’s book, Deadly Choices. Mr. Salamone has a vaccine injured child. His son contracted polio from the oral polio vaccine. Mr. Salomone found out that there was a safer vaccine, the Salk vaccine, which was already in use in other countries. Mr. Salamone formed a group, informed parents against vaccine associated polio, and took his case to the government. It wasn’t an easy battle, by far. But he did eventually get heard and he made the change happen. The U.S. abandoned the oral vaccine.

He wasn’t ruined. There was no campaign to destroy him.

He was the right man, with the right skills to get the job done. He also had the truth on his side and he didn’t resort to fear and pseudo science.

Here is a quote from a parent “autism advocate” in one of the groups associated with the NAA, Generation Rescue. This statement was written on the blog these groups share, the Age of Autism. I don’t recall anyone from the NAA voicing an objection to this comment when it was made:

With less than a half-dozen full time activists, annual budgets of six figures or less, and umpteen thousand courageous, undaunted, and selfless volunteer parents, our community, held together with duct tape and bailing wire, is in the early to middle stages of bringing the U.S. vaccine program to its knees

When people assert that the vaccine program is untouchable, that anyone who questions it will be “destroyed”, think about the changes that have already occurred. Think about John Salamone. Thank him for bringing about the change he did.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →