Search results for 'whistleblower'

Comment on: Expression of Concern: Measles-mumps-rubella vaccination timing and autism among young African American boys: a reanalysis of CDC data

31 Aug

It’s in a peer reviewed journal. We’ve heard that a lot about Mr. Hooker’s recent paper “Measles-mumps-rubella vaccination timing and autism among young African American boys: a reanalysis of CDC data”

What does “peer” review mean when the person who wrote the paper has shown himself to have a bit of a problem with the truth? Who is the peer for someone who acts as the “priest” to a man in order to record his statements and put edited versions of them on the web?

I ask this because the editor of the journal Translational Neurodegeneration has published an “Expression of Concern”. I’ve never seen an editorial “expression of concern” before and I’ve been publishing papers for 25 or so years.

Here is that “Expression of Concern

The Publisher of this article [1] has serious concerns about the validity of its conclusions because of possible undeclared competing interests of the author and peer reviewers. The matter is undergoing investigation. In the meantime, readers are advised to treat the reported conclusions of this study with caution. Further action will be taken, if appropriate, once our investigation is complete

Let’s start by exploring the “competing interests” statement on Mr. Hooker’s recent paper. Authors are supposed to list whether and what conflicts of interest they may have so the reader can weight that when reading the paper. Mr. Hooker’s article lists as “competing interests” that “Dr. Hooker has been involved in vaccine/biologic litigation.”

If memory serves, Brian Hooker has used this “competing interest” statement before. I remember that because I found it odd given that his case as a petitioner before the Court of Federal Claims (vaccine court) is still ongoing. The way the above is phrased does not capture the active nature of his case.

What about the question the editors raised about peer reviewers? Well, we can only speculate because we don’t know who those reviewers might be. An author can often suggest possible referees for his/her paper when it is first submitted. One should be intellectually honest and not just recommend one’s friends. The editor is not bound to use the suggested authors. If not, the editor may look for similar papers in his/her journal and ask authors of those papers to referee. There are only three papers involving vaccines at the journal Translational Neurodegeneration presently. Two of those involved Mark and David Geier, the father/son team that has been much discussed here and elsewhere. It would be reasonable for the editors to think about the Geiers as referees. One of the papers papers is “A two-phase study evaluating the relationship between Thimerosal-containing vaccine administration and the risk for an autism spectrum disorder diagnosis in the United States”. It appeared in Tanslational Neurodegeneration last year.

Let’s take a brief aside. Ever heard of that paper? That’s what happens to mediocre science published by biased authors. No one cares. That is, unless, one comes out with dramatic press releases about “CDC Whistleblowers”.

Take a look at the competing interests statement in the “two-phased study”. It is the same as in the new paper by Mr. Hooker. Besides the fact that this doesn’t capture the active nature of Mr. Hooker’s case, it doesn’t capture the fact that Mark Geier is an expert witness in a case. Given that the Which is again odd as Mark Geier is currently engaged as an expert witness to Mr. Hooker’s ongoing court case. Mr. Geier has been hired by Mr. Hooker.

Back to the first paper–let’s say that one or both Geiers were chosen as referees. Either by recommendation of Mr. Hooker or because the editor is mining his previous authors. The fact that Mark Geier is working on active litigation for Mr. Hooker would be a pretty serious competing interest. Had Mr. Hooker recommended Mr. Geier, Mr. Hooker should have declared this business relationship they had.

Again, we can only speculate at this point. But this is an example of what sort of problem might be ongoing that the editors wish to investigate.

Mr. Hooker’s current paper (his reanalysis) has been replaced on the journal website with this statement:

This article has been removed from the public domain because of serious concerns about the validity of its conclusions. The journal and publisher believe that its continued availability may not be in the public interest. Definitive editorial action will be pending further investigation

My guess is that the editors took a second look at this paper after the very strange and very bad public relations campaign Mr. Hooker engaged in. Finding discussions by researchers online discussing how bad this paper is, the editors questioned how the paper got through. And found a possible problem with the referees chosen, resulting in their expression of concern.

From a list of discussions about the Hooker paper put together by educator/writer Liz Ditz:

  • August 22, 2014,  Orac Knows at Respectful Insolence:  Brian Hooker proves Andrew Wakefield wrong about vaccines and autism

    Of course, the key finding in Brian Hooker’s paper is that Wakefield was wrong. Indeed, in this video, Wakefield even admits that he was mostly wrong about MMR and autism. Let that sink in again. He admits that he was mostly wrong about MMR and autism. OK, he says we were “partially right,” but the flip side of that is that he must have been mostly wrong.

  • August 22, 2014, Reuben Gaines at The Poxes Blog: Andrew Jeremy Wakefield plays video director while African-American Babies die, or something

    Hooker is wrong in his assertions because the DeStefano paper did not leave out African-American children on purpose. Children were excluded from the analysis because of very legitimate and scientific reasons. They either were not the right age, did not have autism but some other neurodevelopment disorder, or were born outside of Georgia. Even if they were tossed into the analysis, DeStefano et al used a statistical analysis that took into account things like birth weight and mother’s age when analysing the data. They wanted to make sure that what they were seeing was most likely because of the MMR vaccine and not because of some other factor associated with autism.

  • August 23, 2014,  Ren at Epidemiological: Directed Acyclic Graphs and the MMR vaccine doesn’t cause autism.

    I’m very skeptical that Dr. Hooker’s simplified statistical approach can be better than DeStefano et al’s approach of conditional logistic regression. Conditional logistic regression has the advantage of being able to control for a multitude of confounders and effect modifiers.

  • Another cause for concern in my view would be Mr. Hooker’s declaration submitted with the paper. Authors are required to state that they are submitting original research. An analysis performed 10 years ago by someone at another organization (CDC in this case) which you duplicated is not, in my opinion, original research.

    Also there is a very broad competing interests statement on the Journal’s website

    Non-financial competing interests
    Non-financial competing interests include (but are not limited to) political, personal, religious, ideological, academic, and intellectual competing interests. If, after reading these guidelines, you are unsure whether you have a competing interest, please contact the Editor

    Mr. Hooker certainly has some personal and ideological interests. Here’s a YouTube video of a presentation he gave last year, and discussed here at Left Brain/Right Brain. It’s a Skype-talk.

    Here’s a screenshot:

    hooker_autism_inside_job

    His talk is “CDC — Ground Zero for the decline of children in the United States”. His logo on every page is a mushroom cloud from an atomic bomb explosion. The title of Mr. Hooker’s talk in the program for that event was “Autism-an inside job”. I’m going with strong “ideological interests” here. Both in his views on vaccines and on his views on the CDC. But anyone seeing the recent videos he produced with Andrew Wakefield would know that.

    When I wrote about this talk before I noted that it was presented at a 9/11 Truther online conference. Mr. Hooker let me know that he took offence to the implication that he is a 9/11 truther. I wasn’t making that implication then and I’m not now. I do think Mr. Hooker makes very poor choices when he chooses to lend his name to a 9/11 truther event.

    In this case, it isn’t that Mr. Hooker’s decisions are poor (they are), it’s that his choices show that he has a rather strong ideological stance on vaccines and the CDC. One which the editors of his recent article likely wish Mr. Hooker had disclosed when he submitted his paper.

    Of course, with all this in the public domain, this also begs the question of why “CDC Whistleblower” William Thompson chose to work closely with Mr. Hooker. But that is a discussion for another time.


    By Matt Carey

    “Statement of William W. Thompson, Ph.D., Regarding the 2004 Article Examining the Possibility of a Relationship Between MMR Vaccine and Autism”

    28 Aug

    I will discuss this soon, but here is a press release from the attorney representing William Thompson, a CDC researcher involved who appears to have spoken with vaccine antagonistic activists Andrew Wakefield and Brian Hooker about work he had performed on autism.

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE-AUGUST 27,2014

    STATEMENT OF WILLIAM W. THOMPSON, Ph.D., REGARDING THE 2004 ARTICLE EXAMINING THE POSSIBILITY OF A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MMR VACCINE AND AUTISM

    My name is William Thompson. I am a Senior Scientist with the Centers for Disease Control and
    Prevention, where I have worked since 1998.

    I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed.

    I want to be absolutely clear that I believe vaccines have saved and continue to save countless lives. I would never suggest that any parent avoid vaccinating children of any race. Vaccines prevent serious diseases, and the risks associated with their administration are vastly outweighed by their individual and societal benefits.

    My concern has been the decision to omit relevant findings in a particular study for a particular sub­ group for a particular vaccine. There have always been recognized risks for vaccination and I believe it is the responsibility of the CDC to properly convey the risks associated with receipt of those vaccines.

    I have had many discussions with Dr. Brian Hooker over the last 10 months regarding studies the CDC has carried out regarding vaccines and neurodevelopmental outcomes including autism spectrum disorders. I share his beliefthat CDC decision-making and analyses should be transparent. I was not, however, aware that he was recording any of our conversations, nor was I given any choice regarding whether my name would be made public or my voice would be put on the Internet.

    I am grateful for the many supportive e-mails that I have received over the last several days.
    I will not be answering further questions at this time. I am providing information to Congressman William Posey, and of course will continue to cooperate with Congress. I have also offered to assist with reanalysis of the study data or development of further studies. For the time being, however, I am focused on my job and my family.

    Reasonable scientists can and do differ in their interpretation of information. I will do everything I can to assist any unbiased and objective scientists inside or outside the CDC to analyze data collected by the CDC or other public organizations for the purpose of understanding whether vaccines are associated with an increased risk of autism. There are still more questions than answers, and I appreciate that so many families are looking for answers from the scientific community.

    My colleagues and supervisors at the CDC have been entirely professional since this matter became public. In fact, I received a performance-based award after this story came out. I have experienced no pressure or retaliation and certainly was not escorted from the building, as some have stated.

    Dr. Thompson is represented by Frederick M. Morgan,Jr., Morgan Verkamp, LLC, Cincinnati, Ohio, http://www.morganverkamp.com.

    Mr. Thompson has been called the “CDC Whistleblower” by the groups promoting the idea that vaccines cause autism.


    By Matt Carey

    Discussions of the recent MMR/autism paper (and why the study isn’t what the author wants you to believe it is)

    27 Aug

    Below are a selected list of discussions about Brian Hooker’s recent paper and the highly irresponsible way he and his team are promoting it. Let me know if you spot one I should add to the list.

    Here on Left Brain/Right Brain, I have discussed this as:

    Autism, Atlanta, MMR: serious questions and also how Brian Hooker and Andrew Wakefield are causing damage to the autism communities

    and

    The Brian Hooker article “…has been removed from the public domain because of serious concerns about the validity of its conclusions”

    Here’s the press release for the recent reanalysis study

    as put out by the group that funded it.

    Here is a video by Andrew Wakefield where he relies upon ugly race-baiting slander to promote himself and the study.

    Here’s a discussion of that study by an epidemiology grad student showing some ways in which this is a very poorly done study:
    Directed Acyclic Graphs and the MMR vaccine doesn’t cause autism

    And another discussion of that study and it’s low quality can be found on The Poxes Blog:
    Andrew Jeremy Wakefield plays video director while African-American Babies die, or something

    Educator and Advocate Liz Ditz discusses the PR approach that has been taken by those promoting the study here:
    L’affaire CDC-MMR: Hooker, Wakefield, and Focus Autism Accuse African-American Senior CDC Researcher of Being A Race Traitor

    also she has

    The CDC, the MMR Vaccine, and Allegations of Whistleblowing and Malfeasance: The Backstory (which includes nearly 50 links about this dicussion, from all viewpoints).

    The Surgeon Scientist who writes under the name ORAC has done the most discussion of this study and the way it is being overplayed and misused:

    The CDC “whistleblower” manufactroversy: Twitter parties and another “bombshell” e-mail

    Hey, where is everybody? The “CDC whistleblower” manufactroversy continues apace

    The central conspiracy theory of the antivaccine movement

    Brian Hooker proves Andrew Wakefield wrong about vaccines and autism

    The Skeptical Raptor has
    Great CDC Coverup–suppressing evidence that MMR vaccines cause autism?

    Phil Plait at Slate.com and Bad Astronomy
    No, There Still Is No Connection Between Vaccines and Autism

    Todd W. at Harpocrates Speaks
    Andrew Wakefield Tortures History

    and

    Anti-vaccine Activists Throw Twitter Tantrum

    The CDC have a simple statement here about the original study:
    CDC Statement Regarding 2004 Pediatrics Article, “Age at First Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccination in Children With Autism and School-matched Control Subjects: A Population-Based Study in Metropolitan Atlanta”

    One will certainly find more articles, especially searching for the names of the people involved and terms like “CDC Whistleblower”

    So far none of the groups who promote autism as a vaccine-induced epidemic have stepped forward to distance themselves from Andrew Wakefield and Brian Hooker’s disgusting race-baiting attack. I hope that will change.


    By Matt Carey

    Autism, Atlanta, MMR: serious questions and also how Brian Hooker and Andrew Wakefield are causing damage to the autism communities

    26 Aug

    The groups promoting vaccines causing autism have been handed probably their biggest story in a decade. They are claiming, and it seams likely, that a senior CDC epidemiologist came to them with information that a statistically significant result of possible increased autism risk from the MMR in a specific subpopulation was not reported.

    I’ll go into a lot of background below, but if you wish to read up about these events:

    Here’s the press release for the recent reanalysis study

    Here’s a discussion of that study by an epidemiology grad student:
    Directed Acyclic Graphs and the MMR vaccine doesn’t cause autism

    And another discussion of that study from The Poxes Blog:
    Andrew Jeremy Wakefield plays video director while African-American Babies die, or something

    And Surgeon/Scientist Orac takes on the study and more here:
    Brian Hooker proves Andrew Wakefield wrong about vaccines and autism

    Educator and Advocate Liz Ditz discusses the PR approach that has been taken by those promoting the study here:
    L’affaire CDC-MMR: Hooker, Wakefield, and Focus Autism Accuse African-American Senior CDC Researcher of Being A Race Traitor

    And the CDC have a simple statement here:
    CDC Statement Regarding 2004 Pediatrics Article, “Age at First Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccination in Children With Autism and School-matched Control Subjects: A Population-Based Study in Metropolitan Atlanta”

    Even with multiple press releases and no doubt other efforts to gain media attention, this story has yet to break out into a mainstream news story. Some alternative news sources and many parent supporters of the vaccine/autism idea have discussed this lack of media attention. And there’s a YouTube video by Andrew Wakefield that I’ll embed below. That video deserves and probably will get it’s own article here on Left Brain/Right Brain. It is remarkably bad.

    It has often been said that the parents promoting the idea that autism is a vaccine-induced epidemic are their own worst enemies. As the parent of a multiply disabled autistic child I can say without reservation that these groups are no friends to the majority of the autism parent community either. Nor are they friends to the real majority of our community: autistics. The vaccines-caused-an-autism-epidemic parents have refused to support any research which goes against their idea that autism is a vaccine-induced epidemic. They don’t support research into the prevalence of autism in adults. Likely because they worry that this will show that their epidemic idea is false. In the process we lose the chance to learn from the previous generations of autistics about what has worked and what has not. Information which is critical to this autism parent. These groups have failed to accept that the lower prevalence of identified autism in racial and ethnic minorities indicates that the prevalence numbers we so often hear are not the a true count of the fraction of our population that is autistic. Because to admit that is to admit that they are misusing the numbers they rely upon to claim an epidemic. Their lack of support has hindered attempts to improve identification and get appropriate services for autistics in racial and ethnic minorities. This is a point that is incredibly ironic given the way these groups are framing their recent news as you will see (or have seen if you read Ms. Ditz’ article linked above). On top of this they have produced a way over-the-top PR campaign about their news, demonstrating their deep hatred for the CDC. If I were to tell you that Andrew Wakefield is claiming that the CDC are worse than Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin and Pol Pot (because, you see, in Mr. Wakefield’s eyes at least those dictators were sincere), would you believe me? Would you think I was making this up? If I said that Mr. Wakefield has played the race card in a disgusting way, claiming that the U.S. vaccine program is a new Tuskegee experiment, would you believe me? You can skip down to the bottom if you want to see that discussion and video. I’ll start with the science.

    About 10 years ago a team from the CDC published a study: Age at First Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccination in Children With Autism and School-Matched Control Subjects: A Population-Based Study in Metropolitan Atlanta (full paper here). They took data from the CDC’s Metropolitan Atlanta Developmental Disabilities Surveillance Program (MADDSP). In order to control for potential confounding variables–like mother’s age, birth weight and more, the authors of the MMR follow-up study pulled birth certificate records. They only pulled them for kids born in Georgia. Could be there was a logistics issue (trying to track down records across the country) or if birth records were not consistent across the US. Also, they would have had to find control kids for those born outside Georgia, and that would have been a big logistics issue. In the end there were two analyses presented–one on the raw data with all the kids, and one with a more detailed analysis done with this smaller “birth certificate” cohort.

    Here’s an example of one of those analyses (click to enlarge):

    DeStefano table 3

    This is a good table to review this study. What did they find? The general result is that time of MMR vaccine receipt was similar between autistic kids and non autistic kids, but was statistically more common among autistic kids. In the table above we see that for the most part, the sub groups reported had generally no increased risk of autism with MMR. I.e. in most examples the 95% confidence intervals encompass 1. The unadjusted sample “all cases” and “boys” do not encompass 1. If those were all the data we had, we’d say “let’s look more closely at these”. We’d start with exactly what the authors do–check for confounding variables and see if the effect gets bigger or smaller. In the adjusted data, all the odds ratios encompass one. Some are high enough to warrant a closer look: kids aged 3-5 and boys. Combining these two I’d probably ask, “what about boys aged 3-5”, but the authors take on the age 3-5 question in general in the discussion citing that the 3-5 age group autistics were mostly in special ed preschool and were thus required to have MMR.

    If you look at Table 5 (click to enlarge) you see an interesting and very strange trend. It was in the other data but it’s really clear here. The odds ratio is much larger for kids who got MMR before 36 months than for kids who got it before 24 months. The odds ratios still encompass 1, but there is something going on in the data for the kids who got vaccines between 24 and 36 months. And by “something going on” we always have to consider social factors. But take a look:

    DeStefano table 5

    Take, for example, maternal education. Kids with mothers who had more than 15 years of education had an odds ratio of only 0.61 if their kids got the MMR before 24 months, but that odds ratio jumps up to 2.76 if their kids got the vaccine before 36 months. In both the confidence intervals encompass 1, so we can’t say “MMR before 24 months is protective but MMR before 36 months increases risk”. But that difference is striking. Even if these results were statistically significant, it doesn’t make sense to say, “the MMR vaccine causes autism in kids when it is given between 24 and 26 months if their mothers are well educated. And, by the way, it’s protective if given before 36 months.”

    While not as striking, the differences between the unadjusted and adjusted analyses in table 3 are notable. Odds ratios change when you take into account other factors. I’m no epidemiologist, but if this isn’t covered in epidemiology 101 I’ll be stunned. In physics (the field of my Ph.D.) we talk about “hidden variables”. You see one thing correlated with another but in reality a third, “hidden”, variable is actually causing the association.

    That said, the CDC MMR paper is not a study without limitations (no study is). One major limitation was the need discussed above–to argue why the 3-5 age group kids had a higher prevalence.

    At this point researchers (both the study authors and those reading this paper) and advocates can take a number of approaches. Here are 4:

    1) They can say, “yep, that’s plausible enough. We’ve worked this dataset enough. This tells us that MMR doesn’t cause autism. Let’s move on from MMR.”

    That didn’t happen and rightfully so. This isn’t a particularly strong study. It’s not the final word and I don’t think it was intended to be. It was a relatively quick study using an existing population. In the end there were more studies on autism and MMR.

    2) Advocates and researchers could take the approach: “There’s an association there, but these data are too limited to really answer the question of causation. Can we do a study to nail down if there’s something about those kids born in those specific years (the 3-5 year olds) who got the MMR between 24 and 36 months? Maybe look at further subsets?” And, while it’s easy to say with hindsight, this is the approach that should have been taken in my opinion. I am unaware of work by this team of researchers or external researchers which addressed this question. I am also unaware of calls by the autism community to do such a follow up, by the way.

    3) Advocates and/or researchers could say, “I think we can tease more out of these data. Hey, CDC, can I have that dataset to review myself?” Because the CDC did make these data available for serious researchers to review. CDC researchers moved on to other topics in autism and vaccines, but other researchers or qualified advocates could have taken this up.

    4) Advocates (not so much researchers I suspect) could say, “I don’t trust the CDC to add 1 and 1. Give me those data and I’ll do the analysis myself. Even those areas where you show a lack of association are probably wrong.” And, yes, there are advocates like that. Well, except that no one asked for the data back then. More recently, though someone did. Which leads us to:

    An autism parent and strong proponent of the failed mercury hypothesis, Brian Hooker, recently published a study re-analyzing that old CDC dataset on MMR and autism. His financial backers put out a press release claiming that not only does this study show that vaccines cause autism in a specific subgroup, but that this study was prompted by a CDC “whistleblower”. I.e. someone who was inside CDC and knew about the details of the CDC study was in contact with Mr. Hooker.

    That’s a pretty dramatic press release. Let’s take some time on it.

    Focus Autism Releases Findings on 2003 CDC Autism Study – Higher Autism Rate Among African-American Boys Receiving MMR Shot Earlier than 36 Months
    Focus Autism releases their findings of a possible reduction in the sample size of a major 2003 study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This sample size reduction negates statistically significant findings from the study.

    This title is why I jumped to the press release before talking about Mr. Hooker’s paper. With this title we know (a) that Mr. Hooker is claiming an association among a specific subgroup only (African American boys) and (b) he’s claiming that there was some sort of sleight of hand by the CDC where they reduced the sample size.

    Well we already know from the CDC study that autism rates were higher in kids who got the MMR before 36 months. It’s right there in the conclusion statement of the abstract. But not so much before 24 months. And we know autism rates were higher in boys. We didn’t see the analysis narrowed down to African American boys.

    The press release states:

    “However, CDC researchers did not include any children that did not have a valid State of Georgia birth certificate – reducing the study’s sample size by 41% . Dr. Hooker explains that by introducing this discretionary criteria into the analysis, the cohort size was sharply reduced, eliminating what would have been a higher statistical finding. ”

    This is a rather odd statement. And by odd, I mean so obviously false that I wonder why it was written. See for yourself above, the study includes *both* the group with the birth certificate data and the raw data. Mr. Hooker’s explanation is, well, lacking. Sure, it is “discretionary” to try to account for confounding variables. It’s the sort of discretion I expect from epidemiologists. It’s like saying, “the engineers designing the Tacoma Narrows bridge decided against including the discretionary criteria of wind”. Also, consider that a result can be both statistically significant and wrong as is often the case when one finds something “statistically significant” without looking for or correcting for hidden variables.

    In another press release Mr. Hooker calls the birth certificate data “irrelevant and unnecessary”. Again, why put out statements that anyone familiar with epidemiology would know to be false?

    Elsewhere Mr. Hooker has even challenged the fact that one can obtain the stated data from birth certificates. He is in effect stating that not only is there no point in controlling for such factors, but that the CDC just lied and didn’t even have those data from the birth certificates.

    Despite your assertions and the assertions of Destefano, Birth Certificates do not contain the information on the covariates you cite: birth weight, maternal age, maternal education, parity, etc. If you had read my paper, you would see that I repeated the analyses of the CDC and obtained the same results that they obtained in both what was published originally and what was withheld. Also, the birth certificate restriction was NOT applied to other race categories outside of African Americans.

    Readers interested in whether Mr. Hooker is correct can take a look at the U.S. Standard Certificate of Live Birth. While this is the revised version, states standardized on birth certificates back in the 1990’s.

    Epidemiologists are aware that the piece of paper a parent takes home isn’t necessarily the same birth certificate data that is in the full record.

    And “Also, the birth certificate restriction was NOT applied to other race categories outside of African Americans”. Here we see the race card being played. A card that we will soon see was played with a very heavy hand. But to address the assertion made by Mr. Hooker, I wonder how he explains that there are 333 white autistic kids in the “total sample” and 199 in the “birth certificate sample”. Which is to say, his statement is false.

    In one of the press releases, Mr. Hooker states

    When asked if there could be any scientific basis for excluding children born outside of Georgia, Hooker responded, “I know of none, and none has been provided by the authors of the DeStefano study.”

    Again, children born outside of Georgia were not excluded as Mr. Hooker asserts. Analyses were presented on both those born within Georgia (including adjustments for vital statistics found on the birth certificates) and a total sample including those born outside Georgia (the unadjusted analysis). If Mr. Hooker is “unaware” why people would do such an elementary epimiological task as adjusting data with covariates, I suggest he was a poor choice to perform Focus Autism’s study. Another thought would be that Mr. Hooker could read his own paper where he states:

    It should be noted that a recent publication has shown that the prevalence of autism in African Americans is nearly 25% higher than that of whites. This value was obtained when CDC data were appropriately analyzed based on socioeconomic status

    Mr. Hooker notes that when one does an analysis “appropriately” one includes socioeconomic status (such as with data found in the full birth certificates).

    If Mr. Hooker would like to ask why the CDC team didn’t look for birth certificate data on kids born outside of Georgia, that’s would be a better place to start. Then we can discuss whether the CDC would then need 3 controls for each non-Georgia born kid, controls from the same place of birth as the study team did with Georgia born kids. And we could discuss how difficult that would be. And whether that would introduce more problems than it might solve. That’s a reasonable discussion. Claiming there’s no reason to gather important data is not.

    Enough of the inconsistencies in Mr. Hooker’s recent statements. What was Mr. Hooker’s method and what did Mr. Hooker find in his analysis? The Poxes Blog and
    epidemiologcal.net discuss this with more expertise than I can. Mr. Hooker does not recreate the CDC’s case-control study. That would require that match autistic kids and non autistic kids on the parameters he says aren’t available, and adjust for those same parameters. Instead he does a cohort study without adjustments. As discussed elsewhere, this is a much weaker approach. His main result is as the press release states “Higher Autism Rate Among African-American Boys Receiving MMR Shot Earlier than 36 Months”. He does not note in his press release “no risk for MMR and autism in everyone else”. Here is table 2 from his paper showing that.

    hooker table 2

    He states a relative risk that is statistically significant for African American boys who get the vaccine before 24 months (RR=1.73) and before 36 months (RR=3.36). No increased risk for African American girls. And, as Table 3 shows, no increased risk for non African Americans.

    Mr. Hooker says his results are statistically significant. Others have questioned whether his analysis is really appropriate to say this, but for now let’s just benchmark this by checking how large his sample group for that large relative risk is anyway. Just so we know. The high risk group are kids vaccinated before 36 months. Here’s a figure from Table 2 of DeStefano et al.:

    DeStefano table 2

    There are 45 autistic kids vaccinated between 24 and 36 months. African Americans account for 40% of the total population, but let’s say about 1/2 of this 24-36 age group are African American. Or about 22 kids. 22 kids and Mr. Hooker is doing no adjustments for factors such as those found on birth certificates. The sort of socioeconomic parameters that he notes are important to get an accurate prevalence in the African American population.

    Which is to say: this is not a strong finding by any stretch of the imagination.

    Mr. Hooker took a subgroup–African American males–and found that there was in the unadjusted data a statistically significant relative risk. An increased relative risk is not the same thing as showing causation, especially when you are working with unadjusted data and many other limitations in this. This is enough to raise the question of whether we should do more studies to show if this increased risk holds up to further scrutiny. This is how Mr. Hooker concludes his paper:

    Routine childhood vaccination is considered an important public health tool in reducing the morbidity and mortality associated with infectious diseases. However, consideration should be made in the current United States vaccination schedule for genetic subpopulations that may be associated with vaccine adverse events. Additional research is required to better understand the relationship between MMR exposure and autism in African American males.

    A study relying largely on a small group of subjects (about 20) with the conclusion that more work is needed. Sounds vaguely familiar. And, as we will see, Mr. Hooker has teamed up with Andrew Wakefield to put out a video where they jump past the whole this indicates more research is needed through this is absolute evidence of MMR causing autism directly to the CDC are engaging in a racist experiment sacrificing children to autism. It’s like the events around Mr. Wakefield’s 1997 Lancet paper cranked up to 11.

    Even though Mr. Hooker’s analysis is quite limited, as in it would be (and you will see is) incredibly irresponsible to jump from this to say “MMR Causes Autism in African American Males”, I’d like to see either more data or a good explanation why someone shouldn’t do it. If for nothing else, precisely to head off the sort of irresponsible and damaging PR campaign that Mr. Hooker and Mr. Wakefield have engaged in. There are a lot of data on MMR and autism since DeStefano first published (especially Hornig et al.) showing that MMR doesn’t increase autism risk. And Mr. Hooker himself has shown that autism risk is not raised in everyone other than African American boys. One can easily argue (and should) that the MMR/Autism/African American Boys result is spurious. But I’d like to see more evidence to support that. I don’t see evidence so far that this is fraud, but I don’t agree with the scientific decisions made.

    All this said, can reasonable people really raise a concern about autism risk given how inflammatory that discussion can be? Yes. Here’s an example of how a study found a possible risk factor and follow up studies answered the question. The Price study was one of the largest studies on thimerosal exposure and autism risk. As part of that study they considered folic acid intake in mothers as one confounding variable for thimerosal exposure. They reported that there could be an increased autism risk from taking folic acid. The calculated risk for mothers who reported taking folic acid was about double that of those who didn’t. Keep in mind that folic acid supplementation for pregnant women is a major public health program as it reduces the risk of some developmental disabilities, so the possibility that it was increasing autism risk has major public health implications. This is a good parallel to the question of vaccines (public health program) and autism.

    After the Price study, multiple studies were performed looking folic acid intake and autism risk (I can’t say that these were prompted by Price et al., but it seems reasonable to think they might):

    Maternal periconceptional folic acid intake and risk of autism spectrum disorders and developmental delay in the CHARGE (CHildhood Autism Risks from Genetics and Environment) case-control study.

    Association between maternal use of folic acid supplements and risk of autism spectrum disorders in children.

    How can we summarize the folic acid history? A possible risk factor was found. It wasn’t plausible since folic acid seems to be protective for birth defects. But people did a second check (and even a third) and found that not only is folic acid not a risk factor, it may even reduce autism risk. Which even though this is what people would have said was biologically the most probable outcome at the start, this was a needed exercise.

    Can we draw a parallel? Well, DeStefano et al. and later Hooker found a possible risk for MMR and boys (with Hooker citing African American Boys) getting the MMR vaccine late but before 36 months. It doesn’t seem plausible or even self consistent with the other results of the study dataset as has already been discussed. Reasonable people could move forward on this and see if existing data could answer this or if a new study is warranted.

    Reasonable people could. As I’ve alluded to, we aren’t really dealing with a “and reasonable people” scenario. And here’s where we get into the “these people are their own worst enemies” part of the discussion. We’ve already seen how Mr. Hooker has made incorrect statements about the birth certificates of the DeStefano study. Let’s look another of Mr. Hooker’s statements and ask, “is this the statement of a reasonable person”?

    He added, “The exclusion is reminiscent of tactics historically used to deprive African-Americans of the vote by requiring valid birth certificates.”

    And here we see Mr. Hooker and Focus Autism playing the race card for sensational effect. One can’t even say this is a stretch. It’s just ridiculous. There was no exclusion and certainly people didn’t say, “let’s exclude African Americans and deny them their rights.” Maybe some will say this still within the realm of what a reasonable person might say. I would then ask you to watch this video produced to promote this study and the events surrounding it. The really inflammatory statements are made by Andrew Wakefield, but this looks to be a joint effort between Mr. Wakefield and Mr. Hooker. If Mr. Hooker would like to explain that he disagrees with the approach Mr. Wakefield took, I’ll be quick to rewrite this. But for now, here’s what team Wakefield/Hooker has prepared for you:

    As promised above here are Andrew Wakefield and Brian Hooker claiming that the CDC are running a Tuskegee like experiment, where in Mr. Wakefield’s view African American boys are allowed become autistic by MMR for some nefarious and unexplained reason (because there are so few autistics that we need to create some for study?). I suspect Mr. Hooker will take offense at me stating that he is claiming this as it’s Mr. Wakefield who says the words. OK. Go ahead and put out a statement distancing yourself from this irresponsible attack Mr. Hooker. And, yes, I wasn’t exaggerating when I said that Mr. Wakefield thinks that the CDC are even worse than Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. The dictators, you see, were sincere. (8:40 into the video).

    No one has yet responded in the mainstream media to the press releases and the Hooker study. And many of Mr. Wakefield’s supporters online are noticing this and asking why. Here are some possibilities:

    1) The press has been burned by 17 years of bad science and unethical behavior by those promoting the vaccine/autism link.

    2) perhaps the most famous person in that bad science and unethical behavior is your spokesperson on this new media campaign: Andrew Wakefield.

    3) members of the press are not generally attracted to stories where people who have devoted their lives to preventing infectious diseases and to understanding developmental disability are called worse than Hitler.

    4) after years of a campaign to instill fear about vaccines, we are in the midst of outbreaks of multiple vaccine preventable diseases. The founder of the blog where Mr. Hooker chose to release and discuss his new results famously once bragged that his groups was going to bring the “U.S. vaccine program to its knees

    Mr. Wakefield and Mr. Hooker probably (and some of their followers certainly) have been wondering why their news of a CDC “informant” hasn’t garnered media attention. If you read the press releases and have followed the online discussions, you know that the idea for this reanalysis of the DeStefano data came from documents obtained by Congressman Issa and from phone conversations Mr. Hooker had with a CDC epidemiologist.

    In their first press release, Mr. Hooker’s team noted that

    According to Dr. Hooker, the CDC whistleblower informant — who wishes to remain anonymous — guided him to evidence that a statistically significant relationship between the age the MMR vaccine was first given and autism incidence in African-American boys was hidden by CDC researchers.

    That was released on a Tuesday. The video came out the Monday previous, but was censored and the voice of the “informant” was obscured. On that same Monday, Mr. Wakefield noted on his Facebook page “He will be identified very soon” (referring to the “informant”). In other words, they had no intention of keeping this man’s identity secret. And a few days late, on Thursday night, the video was changed so that the censoring was gone and the voice was not obscured.

    So, we have an informant who was obviously working with the Hooker/Wakefield team for months who wanted to remain anonymous. The Wakefield/Hooker team left clues about who this person was: they noted that he works for the CDC and has for some number of years and Mr. Hooker spoke of the informant as “him”. There are only two males who worked on that paper: W.W. Anderson Thompson (who has been named as the informant) and a statistician in the acknowledgments. Which of those two are on record within CDC as having voiced a strong opinion about the African American boy data? Heck, I nearly called Mr. Thompson myself to ask if he was working with Mr. Hooker. I wouldn’t be surprised if people at the CDC figured it out and that’s why his name was so quickly divulged by Mr. Wakefield. Why keep his name secret if you’ve already given out enough information to his superiors for them to break his cover?

    And with that let’s get back to the “these guys are their own worst enemies” discussion. When you have someone you consider a whistleblower, it is your duty to protect that person. Not out him/her. Mr. Wakefield doesn’t seem to understand that. Years after having ignored the information given to him by a whistleblower in the UK, Mr. Wakefield not only outed that whistleblower, he first threatened the man with disclosure:

    If Mr. Thompson intended to stay anonymous, and I have no reason to suspect otherwise, he chose poorly in his confidants.

    Mr. Thompson had many options of to whom he could reveal his information. Many people would have taken him seriously and not taken the highly irresponsible approach that Brian Hooker has with the race-baiting video and more. I’ve read a number of people speculate that Mr. Thompson didn’t know what he was getting himself in to. If he really chose to work closely with Mr. Hooker, I can’t see how he didn’t see the extremes this information would be put to.

    Mr. Hooker has had much communication with the CDC over the past decade and more. Here is some of that communication (about 3MB worth), selected by Mr. Hooker himself as an exhibit in his FOIA case with the CDC.
    People at the CDC, likely Mr. Thompson included, would know of Mr. Hooker’s very strong opinions of them. A letter sent to then CDC Director Julie Gerberding is entitled “War Crimes in Your Fight Against Infectious Disease and recommends: “I would personally urge you to review the Book of Matthew 18:6 and consider your own responsibility to all children of the U.S. including my own son.” Italics in the original. Here is one version of Matthew 18:6:

    But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

    Former CDC director Gerberding almost certainly did not share this with Mr. Thompson. But Mr. Thompson may have had similar exchanges with Mr. hooker in the past. As I’ve noted above, Mr. Hooker had at least some contact with Mr. Thompson previously. Also, one need only google Mr. Hooker’s name to see that he tends to exaggerate the importance of his CDC FOIA findings, his critiques of vaccine safety science are heavily biased, he is a board member of Focus Autism (Focus Autism was born out of Barry and Dolly’s desire to put an end to the needless harm of children by vaccination and other environmental factors.) and more.

    Brian Hooker and Andrew Wakefield present at parent conventions such as AutismOne, where other presenters are selling their goods and services with faux autism treatments. Treatments such as bleach enemas and drinks (MMS), Lupron (a drug which shuts down sex hormone production. Essentially chemical castration), chelation, megadoses of “supplements” and more. They are sold largely on the promise of healing “vaccine injury”. By handing the Hooker/Wakefield team this PR win, Mr. Thompson will be feeding that industry.

    This all said, we only have a few sentences on a video purporting to be Mr. Thompson. I have no reason yet to doubt that his his voice. I also don’t have the full conversations in context. Nor do I have evidence that Mr. Thompson agreed to be outed. Nor do I have evidence that Mr. Thompson agreed to have his phone conversations recorded. Nor do I have evidence that Mr. Thompson continues to communicate with Mr. Hooker. In fact he’s been silent since this story broke and no new quotes from him have been passed by Mr. Hooker or Mr. Wakefield.

    What’s more, and rather odd, is that MMR is not really either Mr. Thompson nor Mr. Hooker’s primary interest. Mr. Thompson was author on a number of major thimerosal papers. First author on one. Mr. Hooker’s primary focus on the vaccine/autism discussion has been on thimerosal. I have been reading people online claiming that these events are what they’ve expected and hoped for: someone from CDC exposing that all the vaccine/autism work is fraudulent. But this isn’t the case at all. Nothing so far on thimerosal. One re-analysis of some MMR work that, while important to discuss, is not very strong at all. And while I have written what is possibly my longest article yet (out of something like 2000), there isn’t, as they say, much there there when it comes to anything substantial about vaccines and autism. What we do have is a public relations mess. A story that will be exploited by unethical people to frighten parents and try to revamp their own image and take some revenge.

    More recently, at least one (non reliable) site is reporting that Mr. Thompson has spoken through his attorney. The message (and I paraphrase): in getting the preliminary result on African American boys out, he did what he set out to do.

    In the end, it is once again public health and autism families that will pay the price. People will use this in their attempt to “bring the U.S. vaccine program to it’s knees”. More autism parents will be dragged into the self blame and guilt that comes with the vaccines-cause-autism beliefs. And disabled children will be subjected to abusive faux therapies in attempts to heal their “vaccine injury”.


    By Matt Carey

    Andrew Wakefield and Vaccine Safety

    30 Apr

    All about Andy

    Even if everything Andrew Wakefield says about the safety of MMR were true it would still not advance the claim that it causes autism.

    Having failed, over the past 15 years, to come up with evidence for his theory of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism (or even for his original claim of a link between measles virus and inflammatory bowel disease), Andrew Wakefield has resorted to making wider (and wilder) claims about the safety of MMR. Moving away from his former field of academic gastroenterology, Wakefield has embarked upon studies in paediatrics, vaccinology and public health. These are spheres in which he has neither expertise nor experience – and it shows. He has alleged that surveys associated with the introduction of MMR in Britain 25 years ago were methodologically inadequate, too small in scale, too short in duration or otherwise unsatisfactory. He claims that evidence of adverse reactions was suppressed, conflicts of interests among public health authorities were undisclosed and whistleblowers were silenced. Critics of the programme are alleged to have had their phones tapped, their homes burgled and to have been persecuted by the medical/political/pharmaceutical establishment. Most recently Wakefield has claimed that procedures for dealing with potential anaphylactic reactions within the MMR programme were inadequate.

    I do not intend to revisit here the case against Wakefield’s claims about the safety of MMR which is presented in my book MMR and Autism: What Parents Need To Know. (1)On the red-herring of anaphylaxis, including a report of a curiously high incidence in association with separate measles vaccine in a private clinic, see these studies. (2,3,4) Here I would like to pose three questions that arise for anybody who accepts his allegations about the introduction of MMR in Britain after 1988.

    1. What about the other countries in which MMR has been introduced?

    Surely, if there are significant dangers associated with MMR – which were supposedly ignored in Britain – these would have been noticed in the 60 countries in which the vaccine has been introduced (both before and after 1988)? In fact, the excellent safety record of MMR – 500 million doses and counting – is a major reason for its successful worldwide use. Several countries in Europe and the Americas have been able to declare measles eradicated, apparently without experiencing the sort of adverse effects Wakefield and anti-vaccine campaigners have attributed to MMR in Britain. Indeed, even if public health authorities had succeeded in suppressing reports of adverse reactions to MMR 20 or 25 years ago, these must surely have become apparent by now?

    2. Did MMR not dramatically reduce the incidence of mumps meningitis (even if one strain of the vaccine caused a small number of cases)?\

    One of the recurring complaints of Wakefield and his supporters is that in the early years of the programme, British vaccine authorities used a brand of MMR including a strain of the mumps virus (Urabe), which was associated with a small number of cases of meningitis, a recognised complication of mumps. In 1992 this was replaced by another strain (Jeryl Lynn) which does not cause this problem. However, if the Jeryl Lynn strain had not been available, it would still have been preferable to carry on with the MMR including Urabe because the benefit of dramatically reducing the incidence of mumps (in the 1980s the commonest cause of viral meningitis) far exceeded the risk of vaccine-related meningitis. A judgement of this sort was made for many years in relation to the use of the oral polio vaccine which caused a handful of cases of polio every year (until it was finally replaced by the currently used injected polio vaccine, which does not carry this risk).

    3. Even if MMR is shown to be unsafe in general, how does this support the specific claim that it causes autism?

    Wakefield’s strategy appears to be that, if the safety of MMR in general can be put in doubt, the credibility of any particular risk attributed to the vaccine is raised. In reality, this strategy merely draws attention to his failure – over 15 years – to produce any evidence in support of the MMR-autism theory.

    Given his failure to substantiate the MMR-autism hypothesis, Wakefield’s persistence in his campaign against MMR has acquired an increasingly irrational character, confirmed by his bizarre video diatribes against leading figures associated with the MMR programme. He is still bitterly aggrieved that British authorities did not accede to his preposterous demand (issued at the notorious 1998 press conference to launch his now retracted Lancet paper) for the replacement of MMR with separate vaccines given 12 months apart. Not a single member of his own team supported this proposal, which was not included in the paper and was in no way supported by it. Such a scheme has never been implemented in any country. Wakefield is further incensed that vaccine authorities insisted on upholding the integrity of the MMR programme in face of his proposal.

    If Wakefield had any experience of child health he might have a better understanding of the importance of the organisation of a vaccine programme. Before the introduction of MMR, a measles vaccine had been available in Britain for 20 years, but its administration was unsystematic, uptake remained unsatisfactory and outbreaks continued to occur. In a similar way, rubella vaccine had been given to schoolgirls with considerable success, but occasional cases of congenital rubella were still reported. Mumps vaccine had never been made widely available and cases were seen commonly in surgeries and hospitals. The introduction of the new combined MMR vaccine – within a comprehensive administrative framework, inviting parents into clinics when their children’s jabs were due, properly recording them – brought within a few years a dramatic improvement in children’s health.

    If Wakefield had seen, as I have, children suffering from measles, or if he had admitted children to hospital, as I have, with mumps meningitis, or if he had cared for adults with the multiple handicaps of the congenital rubella syndrome, as I have, he might not be so casually disparaging of the MMR programme. But, unfortunately, for Wakefield it is all about Andy and his petty personal grudges against the vaccine authorities who have quite properly put children’s health before his combination of bad science and egotism.

    Now, what about that debate?

    REFERENCES
    1. Michael Fitzpatrick, MMR and Autism: What Parents Need To Know, Routledge 2004; p 128-133.
    2. Lakshman R, Finn A (2000). MMR vaccine and allergy, Arch Dis Child 2000;82:93-95 doi:10.1136/adc.82.2.93.
    3. Erlewyn-Lajeunesse M, Manek R, Lingam R, Finn A, Emond A (2008). Anaphylaxis following single component measles and rubella immunization, Arch Dis Child 2008; 93:974-975. doi:10.1136/adc.2008.138289;
    4. Erlewyn-Lajeunesse M, Hunt LP, Heath PT, FinnA (2011). Anaphylaxis as an adverse event following immunisation in the UK and Ireland, Arch Dis Child 2011; doi:10.1136/archdischild-2011-301163.


    By Michael Fitzpatrick

    Transcripts from the GMC hearings

    2 Feb

    With the defamation suit by Mr. Wakefield filed in Texas there is the strong possibility that the discussions will ensue again about what actually happened during Mr. Wakefield’s research at the Royal Free hospital. The one record of this is in the transcripts for the GMC hearings. These can be found online in a few places (casewatch and Sheldon 101’s blog Vaccines Work, for example). These are useful resources but somewhat cumbersome. Most people are not going to download a file to check a quote in context. And context can be very important, as we’ve seen here on Left Brain/ Right Brain where previous discussions by Mr. Wakefield’s supporters often involved pulling quotes out of context.

    I don’t want to clutter this site with the transcripts, but I do want them in a place where internet search engines can find them and people can easily link and check quotes. So I am now uploading them to a new blog. It should take a few days to get the transcripts online in this format. About 30 days worth are up now.

    In doing so I re-read some of the pages. One of the best examples of what happened is covered on Day 28. This is the day when the mother of Child 12 (last of the 12 children in the Lancet study) testified.

    This one day’s testimony addresses many of the discussion topics which come up repeatedly in online discussions:

    1) Parents of the Lancet Children were not prevented from testifying at the GMC.

    2) She was the only one who did testify. She was the only one called by the GMC. The defense appears to have not called any of the parents.

    3) Mr. Wakefield’s attorney declined the opportunity to even cross examine this parent.

    4) The idea that Mr. Wakefield only reported what parents told him isn’t well supported by the evidence. Rather, there is a very circular route for the idea that the MMR causes autism. Mr. Wakefield and Mr. Barr (the attorney working on the litigation) were in contact with this parent multiple times before the child was seen at the Royal Free.

    5) Some of the children in the Lancet study were registered with Legal Aid at the time of the study, and well before the Lancet paper was published.

    6) The idea that the children were referred through normal channels is not accurate. While this child was referred through general practitioners, there was much contact between the mother, Mr. Wakefield and the attorney before that. One letter from the attorney makes it clear that they expressly told the parents to be sure to get the GP referral.

    7) The idea that this work was not a research study isn’t really accurate. Mrs. 12 repeatedly gives her impression that they were involved in a research study.

    Yes, this has all been covered before. Unfortunately, I fear this will all be covered repeatedly as this new case works its way through the court.

    With that, here are some excerpts from the Day 28 testimony. Which you can check in context.

    Q I think it is right that at around the same time, as well as that contact with Dr Wakefield, did you also have some contact with a firm of solicitors called Dawbarns?
    A Yes, that is right.

    Q Can you tell us how that came about. Why did you get in touch with them?
    A The same mother told me about them as well.

    Q What was your understanding of what they were doing?
    A They were trying to really put a stop to the MMR vaccine being used and obviously to stop any damage that was being done to children.

    Emphasis added. Mrs. 12 thought that Dawbarns “were trying to really put a stop to the MMR vaccine being used”.

    After contacting the lawyers, she received a letter. This is dated 18 July 1996. Her son wasn’t seen at the Royal Free until 18 October, 1996, three months later:

    “Dear [Mrs 12],

    Thank you for contacting us regarding the MMR vaccination. We are investigating a number of vaccine damage cases and are also (with Messrs Freeth Cartwright Hunt Dickens of Nottingham) co-ordinating and managing the Mumps Measles and Rubella cases on behalf of the Legal Aid Board for the whole country. Recently the Legal Aid Board has also extended our contract to investigate claims following the Government’s measles/rubella vaccination campaign in the autumn of 1994.

    To give you an idea of our work I enclose an information pack which consists of a copy of a fact sheet which we have produced on the MMR vaccine and a fact sheet on ourselves.

    We have built up a considerable volume of evidence that vaccines can cause injury to children, and we are hoping to take compensation claims to court. See the fact sheets for more information. Legal Aid is now being granted in vaccine damage cases where we can show a close link up in time between the vaccine being administered and the onset of recognised side effects. In claims being brought on behalf of children the Legal Aid Office does not take into account the finances of the parents, but there are sometimes difficulties in obtaining legal aid …”

    She was supplied with a “fact sheet” written by Mr. Wakefield. No contamination of the study there, right? In the Lancet he’s just reporting what the parents told him. No mention of the issue of the parents being supplied with a “fact sheet” to guide them.

    Richard Barr (the attorney managing the litigation effort and teamed with Andrew Wakefield) wrote her on 14 August 1996

    “We are also in touch with other experts and together they are hoping to establish a link between the vaccine, inflammatory bowel disease and autism. There is a clear cut biological mechanism for linking the two conditions. I suggest it might be worth your while to contact Dr Wakefield. If you would like me to do so I will be happy to make the introduction for you. May I have permission to send him a copy of the statement that I have prepared for [Child 12]?”

    They are hoping to establish a link and “there is a clear cut biological mechanism for linking the two conditions [bowel disease and autism]”. Two months before being seen at the Royal Free she is informed about the effort to link MMR with autism and bowel disease and the idea that autism and bowel disease are linked.

    Clearly any study reporting “what the parents told us” is contaminated at this point.

    If you think the study could be salvaged, even with this level of contamination, here is a discussion of the fact sheet supplied to the parents as mentioned above:

    Q The next document was a fact sheet, and that apparently comes from the Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine, as you will see at the top of the page. If I can just run through what some of that says, it is headed,

    “Inflammatory Bowel Disease, measles virus and measles vaccination.

    What is inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD)?

    IBD comprises 2 conditions that have many similarities. Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. Crohn’s disease may affect any part of the bowel, from mouth to anus, whereas ulcerative colitis affects the large bowel only. Many people now believe that these two conditions are part of a single spectrum of intestinal disease. IBD is often difficult to diagnose in children, especially Crohn’s disease, and this may lead to a delay in diagnosis with frustration for parents, doctors and, in particular, the affected children.

    What is the link with measles and measles vaccine?

    Measles virus was put forward as a possible cause of Crohn’s disease in 1989. The dramatic rise in the incidence of inflammatory bowel disease in developed countries over the last 30 years, in the face of live measles vaccination, also suggested a link between the vaccine and the disease.

    Several groups from around the world have now identified measles virus in tissues affected by Crohn’s disease and an immune response to measles virus in the blood of patients with Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. Early exposure to measles virus appears to be a major risk factor for developing Crohn’s disease later in life, and one study recently linked live measles vaccine to both Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. Several new studies are currently underway that are designed to clarify the association between measles vaccination and inflammatory bowel disease. Although no studies have formally examined the issue, we have been aware of a large number of new cases of childhood IBD following the MR revaccination campaign in November 1994”.

    Then the fact sheet sets out what you would look for (and what you should do: contact Andrew Wakefield):

    Q The next document was a fact sheet, and that apparently comes from the Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine, as you will see at the top of the page. If I can just run through what some of that says, it is headed,

    “Crohn’s disease. The symptoms and signs of Crohn’s disease in childhood are often insidious and non-specific and may lead to a delay in diagnosis. Intestinal symptoms include mouth ulcers, cramping abdominal pains, loss of appetite, diarrhoea with or without blood and problems in the anal region, including skin tags, tears or abscess formation. However, children commonly present with weight loss and failure to thrive as the only indications that they may have Crohn’s disease. But be aware, unexplained joint paints, sore eyes and skin rashes can also be the presenting symptoms of Crohn’s disease.

    Ulcerative colitis is often more clear-cut, with diarrhoea, urgency and blood and mucus mixed in with the stools. Again, growth failure and symptoms such as joint pain may precede the intestinal problems.

    What should we do?

    If you suspect that your child has inflammatory bowel disease, prompt referral to a specialist centre is essential. Either the diagnosis will be excluded and your mind put at rest, or it will be confirmed and the appropriate treatment instituted. As a first step you should contact Dr Andrew Wakefield at the Royal Free Hospital”,

    A document by Wakefield, possibly from the Royal Free says that there is a link between Crohn’s disease and the measles vaccine. This given to prospective study subjects before being seen at the Royal Free. But no contamination of the study subjects again, right?

    Child 12 was registered with Legal Aid before in August, two months before being seen by the Royal Free:

    Q Also enclosed with that letter of 14 August 1996 were the legal aid forms. I think that is right. Did you fill in the legal aid forms in order for an application to be made for your child to be legally aided?
    A Yes.

    One issue that Mr. Wakefield has brought up in recent years is the concern over vaccines containing the Urabe strain of mumps. Mr. Wakefield has gone into detail about how he was informed by a “whistleblower” about how the government handled the licensure of those vaccines. Mr. Wakefield had those discussions with the whistleblower in 1999 but appears to have done little with the information until the past few years. Why? Perhaps this comment by his colleague Richard Barr will shed some light onto this: “Although Immravax and Pluservix were withdrawn on safety grounds, the particular problem they caused was fairly limited. ” It was the opinion of Mr. Barr at the time that the Urabe strain mumps concerns with some of the MMR vaccines was “fairly limited”. Mr. Barr and Mr. Wakefield, of course, had a different avenue to pursue: the measles/gut disease/autism hypothesis.

    In Sept. 1996, Barr sent Mrs. 12 a newsletter:

    Under the heading, “Pilot study”,

    “If we can prove a clear link between the vaccines and autism/inflammatory bowel disease this will be exceedingly useful, not only for cases involving those conditions, but also for other types of damage such as epilepsy.

    To obtain the evidence to do this, we will be running a pilot study. Around 10 children with symptoms which are closely linked to the vaccine will be extensively tested by a team of doctors headed by Dr Wakefield at the Royal Free Hospital in London. We will be selecting children to take part in the study from details and medical notes we already have. The investigations will involve a whole battery of tests to be carried out by a number of leading experts in their fields. We will of course be liaising closely with the families concerned and the doctors will be giving very full details of what will be involved”.

    Need I point it out again? Before even arriving at the Royal Free, Mrs. 12 was informed about the need to provide a clear link between vaccines and autism/bowel disease.

    Q We have heard from the Dawbarns newsletter that I read to you previously that as far as the solicitors were concerned there was a pilot study being arranged. Did you have any understanding or awareness whether your little boy was a part of that pilot study at all?
    A He was referred to Dr Wakefield by my GP for investigations, which I understood to be research investigations, but that was the route he was referred.

    She felt that her child was being referred for “research investigations”

    Mr. Wakefield is keen to tell everyone that the referrals came through the GP’s. He doesn’t mention that he and Mr. Barr made sure ahead of time that they went through the GP’s:

    “Dear Mrs [12]

    Many thanks for your letter of 10 September 1996. I will contact some other parents in your area and if they agree then you can all swap names and addresses. It is interesting how isolated people feel (and sometimes are!).

    I would like to see the records. These may well be helpful if we have any difficulties over legal aid. At the moment I am still waiting to hear from them.”

    So that was the end of the correspondence, and I now want to ask you about the actual referral, which you have explained to us was through your GP to the Royal Free Hospital in respect of your boy. We have been through this already, but just to remind you, if you go back to the GP records, please, page 126, this is a letter that I asked you about when I first began to question you, Mrs 12, the letter from Dr Wakefield, and we see in that the suggestion that you in fact you should go to your GP for a referral. Did you do that?

    Emphasis added.

    On admission to the Royal Free:

    Q “Soils – not had diarrhoea. Has variable abdominal pain”, and then I cannot read the rest of that sentence. Mr Miller is trying to assist me – “occurring every week”. Thank you. “Mother had not associated vaccination with his problems until met a parents support group”. Does that set out the problem as far as his gastrointestinal symptoms were concerned, I mean obviously in brief terms?
    A Yes.

    “Mother had not associated vaccination with his problems until met a parents support group”. Earlier in the transcript it is noted that this parent group included the mother of Child 6 and 7 and this is where Mrs. 12 was put in touch with Mr. Barr and Mr. Wakefield.

    After her son was seen at the Royal Free, here’s the letter Mrs. 12 wrote. Note that she read the proposed “clinical and scientific study notes”. But this was just a routine referral, right?

    “Dear Professor Walker-Smith,

    I am writing following [Child 12’s] visit to the Royal Free Hospital last Friday 18 October 1996. My husband and I have thought long and hard about this situation since the appointment. We have also re-read Dr Wakefield’s proposed clinical and scientific study notes.

    We do feel that [Child 12] does have a problem in that most children of his age do not soil themselves a number of times a day. As well as being pale in colour and foul smelling (as are his motions in general), this soiling is always very loose, which might explain why he is not always aware that he has done anything. Although I would not say it was diarrhoea exactly.

    Obviously I do not wish to put my son through any procedures unnecessarily but there must be a reason why he has these problems. Also, as I mentioned to you at our meeting, [Child 12] is not growing or putting on weight like my other two children.

    I keenly await the results of the blood tests and if you feel they warrant further investigations my husband and I are happy for him to be referred on to Dr Wakefield’s study project. As you pointed out, it might not help [Child 12] but if not hopefully it will be of benefit to others. There is also the chance that [Child 12] has a problem that can be detected and helped.

    I do hope to hear from you in due course.”

    In a letter to Mr. Wakefield she notes:

    “Finally, I would like to say how nice it was to meet you at the JABS open meeting on 4 October in London. I found your short discourse both informative and interesting. I wish you all the best with your research.”

    Yes, Wakefield was lecturing at JABS (an organization focused on vaccine injury) meetings. Mrs. 12 attended. This is Oct. 4, two weeks before her child was seen at the Royal Free.

    Once again, we are in the merry-go-round. Mr. Wakefield only reported what the parents told him, except that here we have a clear example of a parent hearing from Mr. Wakefield on more than one occasion about what he was investigating.

    The first visit to the Royal Free was not with Mr. Wakefield (Mr. Wakefield did not have clinical duties). Child 12 wasn’t even going to be referred to Mr. Wakefield at first:

    Q So that was from your point of view, but you say in your letter to Dr Wakefield, Professor Walker-Smith’s main reasons for not referring [Child 12] on to Dr Wakefield was the absence of blood in the faeces and the lack of diarrhoea, you were saying that is what Professor Walker-Smith’s view was, is that correct?
    A Yes.

    But a blood test was “slightly abnormal” so they did make the referral.

    “Dear [Mrs 12],

    I do apologise for the delay in replying to your letter of 28 November. The slight abnormality that you referred to in your letter was that one of the markers of inflammation was just slightly above the normal range, it just means that we should go ahead. I understand that [Child 12] is coming in in the New Year to have a colonoscopy.”

    A “slight abnormality” was enough to warrant a colonoscopy. Oddly enough, a later letter states that the blood tests were not abnormal.

    The psychiatrist was not very clear on autism diagnosis:

    Q If you to go page 18 in the medical records, we have a note dated 10 January, and in fact we have heard some evidence from Dr Berelowitz and he has given evidence in relation to all the children, including your son, and it was his evidence that this was his note, and we see at the bottom a diagnosis of “language delay ? [attention deficit disorder]” and then “? Asperger’s”: do you have any recollection of that?

    The Royal Free didn’t think child 12 should have an MRI or a lumbar puncture.

    Q If we go back to the Royal Free records – you can put FTP7 away, you will not need it again – at page 21 – it is on 6 January, so the day after the admission – at the bottom of the page it says, “[Ward round] Professor Walker-Smith” and it is a note signed by presumably a junior doctor, “colonoscopy” and then it gives, “prominent lymphoid follicles …” and “? some minor inflammatory changes” and then it says, “not to have MRI or L.P.” In other words, not to have an MRI scan and not to have a lumbar puncture. Then, Wednesday to have a barium meal. Were you aware at all of that note, Mrs 12? Were you aware at the time that that instruction had been given?
    A No.

    Emphasis added. But a colonoscopy and lumbar puncture were performed:

    Q You say that you recall your son having a lumbar puncture and an MR scan; were you there for those?
    A Yes.

    Q You have obviously given consent for the MR but were you actually there when they were carried out?
    A Yes.

    Q Both of them?
    A Yes.

    Again, Mrs. 12 felt this was a research project:

    Q You have told us that you thought that your son was part of a research investigation. Did you have any understanding as to which of those investigations, all of them or any of them, were part of the research investigations?
    A As far as I understood, it was all part of the research into this possible link between the problems that [Child 12] had and the vaccine.

    The tests apparently showed some immune activation

    “Dear [Mr and Mrs 12],

    I am writing to confirm the results from [Child 12]’s visit in the New Year. All were normal, including test for Fragile X, except the immune test. This shows evidence of persistent viral infection; i.e. [Child 12]’s immune system is activated in such a way that indicates it is trying to deal with some sort of ongoing viral infection. If you need to discuss these further please contact Dr Wakefield. I have passed on your query about gluten free diets to Dr Wakefield. I hope that [Child 12] is well and that his aching knees are settling”.

    Then she gives some results at the bottom of the page. It shows,

    “Full blood count and inflammatory markers – normal (i.e. no evidence of anaemia or inflammation”,

    and various other negative tests.

    Emphasis added. But above we read that the reason why Child 12 was referred for a colonoscopy was because a blood test indicated possible inflammation.

    In June 1997, after the work at the Royal Free was finished, the attorney, Richard Barr, wrote to Mrs. 12:

    “Thank you for your letters of 3 and 10 May 1997. I am sorry about the delay in coming back to you. I inevitably seem to be behind with my correspondence.

    I haven’t heard anything more from the Vaccine damage Tribunal”.

    Then he says,

    “I haven’t had a copy of the Meridian TV item”,

    so obviously you had made some reference to it, because he says,

    “I would be very interested to see a copy if you can organise it some time.

    We are all waiting for Andy Wakefield to deliver the goods and I really think that if he can provide the proof he thinks he can it is going to be much easier to win the cases.

    I am interested in your comments about the rise in the incidence of mumps. What you say, of course, is absolutely correct.

    I don’t think you have been updated on our fact sheet recently and in case it is of interest I enclose a further updated version. You will see that once again the section on autism has been extended. Don’t be deceived by the fact that it may not look quite as long as before. We have reduced the print size”.

    Emphasis added.

    After an extensive examination by the GMC’s attorneys, the defense was given an opportunity to cross exam:

    THE CHAIRMAN: Mrs 12, as I indicated earlier, this is now the opportunity for representative counsel of the three doctors to cross-question you if they feel it appropriate. Are you happy to continue?
    A Yes, that is fine.

    THE CHAIRMAN: At any stage if you think that you need a little break, just give me a little hint and I am sure that the Panel will be quite sympathetic. Mr Coonan.

    MR COONAN: Sir, I have no questions, thank you.

    Mr. Coonan would be Mr. Wakefield’s attorney. He declined the opportunity to examine the one parent from the Lancet 12 who appeared at the GMC.

    Mrs 12 was cross examined by Mr. Miller, attorney for Professor Walker-Smith.

    Even as a summary this is long. But at least now people can easily check quotes in context.

    The lack of substance in Andrew Wakefield’s supporters’ arguments

    11 Nov

    Andrew Wakefield, the man who brought us the MMR scare, is back in the news. In a relatively small way. Earlier this year, Mr. Wakefield was in the news in a big way when the BMJ called him out for research fraud. At the time, Mr. Wakefield was enjoying the hospitality of wealthy patrons in a Jamaican resort, under the auspices of a “vaccine safety conference“. Also attending the conference were a team from the National Whistleblowers Center (aside, I am getting more and more leery of groups that put “national” into their name). Why is this important? Because instead of responding to the BMJ article directly, Mr. Wakefield provided material to one of members of the Whistleblowers Center so he could reply. The letter, by David Lewis, attempts to address one of the many issues involved with Mr. Wakefield’s research. It does not do this well, to be frank.

    One problem with discussing Andrew Wakefield’s work is that there is just so much wrong that one can easily lose the forest for the trees. The big picture gets lost going over count after count of dishonesty and unethical behavior.

    When analyzing Mr. Lewis’ argument, there are again many problems to discuss. Once again, it is easy to lose the story for the details. Allow me to address a few.

    First, the argument is a classic strawman. Mr. Lewis posits that it is reasonable for Mr. Wakefield to have reported nonspecific colitis in his 1998 Lancet article, therefore no intentional misinterpretation was committed. To bolster this argument, he provided the BMJ with the original scoring sheets used by the pathologist who reported on the samples. Writes Mr. Lewis:

    As a research microbiologist involved with the collection and examination of colonic biopsy samples, I do not believe that Dr. Wakefield intentionally misinterpreted the grading sheets as evidence of “non-specific colitis.” Dhillon indicated “non-specific” in a box associated, in some cases, with other forms of colitis. In addition, if Anthony’s grading sheets are similar to ones he completed for the Lancet article, they suggest that he diagnosed “colitis” in a number of the children.

    As though, even if accurate, this would exonerate Mr. Wakefield. As the BMJ point out, in not one, but two pieces by specialists (gastroenterologist and pathologist), these grading sheets do not support the claims made in the 1998 Lancet article.

    If you don’t have time to read those short articles, here’s the title of one: “We came to an overwhelming and uniform opinion that these reports do not show colitis”. Pretty clear.

    And, yet, one can already see the battle lines being drawn and the talking points distributed. Before, people ignored the facts and instead tried to frame this as a personal battle: “Brian Deer, journalist, vs. Andrew Wakefield, Doctor.” Just a quick tweak and we have “David Lewis, expert who knows colonic biopsy analysis vs. Brian Deer, mere journalist.” This is, of course, more convincing that “Opinion of soil scientist vs. a pathologist and a gastroenterologist.” And, of course, easier than tackling the facts.

    Let’s consider some facts, then. The first sentence of the (now retracted) 1998 Lancet paper: “We investigated a consecutive series of children with chronic enterocolitis and regressive developmental disorder. ”

    “Consecutive series” was, at best, misleading given the facts of how the children were referred to the Royal Free. A fact not addressed in any way by Mr. Lewis.

    “Chronic enterocolitis”. Note, “enterocolitis”. Not “non-specific colitis”. Let’s break this down. “-itis” means inflammation. Colitis “refers to an inflammation of the colon and is often used to describe an inflammation of the large intestine (colon, caecum and rectum).”

    All fine so far. But, “enterocolitis“? The word actually used in the first sentence of the Lancet? The word used in the condition Mr. Wakefield coined for the condition he proposed, “autistic enterocolitis“? Enterocolitis is “an inflammation of the colon and small intestine.” And small intestine.

    You can check the scores on grading sheets in the table Mr. Deer provided on his website. These include links to the scanned sheets themselves. For example, the sheets for Child 1.

    The sheets and the table are arranged in a specific order: top down. From the highest point reached in the colonoscopy on down to the rectum (the exit of the large intestine).

    Why point this out? Because you will notice from the table that for two of the eleven children reported (child one and twelve), there are no data for the duodenum (start of the small intestine) or the ileum (as noted in the Lancet article). Those reports start at the Caecum (the start of the large intestine) or lower. For some of the other children (child four, seven and nine), there are data, and they are listed as “normal”. The Lancet reports them as having lymphoid nodular hyperplasia. Child two has some notation, but again is checked “normal” by Dr. Dhillon. Likewise child 5 and child 6.

    Which begs the question: how can you diagnose “enterocolitis”, inflammation of the large and small intestine, without data from the small intestine, or when the data you do have is normal? For 8 out of the 11 children, by my count.

    Answer: you can’t. Hence the switch from “enterocolitis” to “non-specific colitis” in Mr. Lewis’ letter to the BMJ. In that letter, the term “enterocolitis” only appears in his citation of a Brian Deer article.

    So, back to the first sentence of the Lancet article and ask, what is accurate? Let’s include the points made by Mr. Deer that not all these children demonstrated regression, and there wasn’t a single developmental disorder. So, with thanks to a reader who pointed this out: “We investigated a consecutive series of children with chronic enterocolitis and regressive developmental disorder(s).

    or,

    “We investigated children with developmental disorder(s)”

    Not really very exciting.

    While I have fallen into the trap I described at the outset, losing the forest for the trees, allow me to discuss one last piece of the way people are attempting to frame the way Mr. Wakefield wrote his paper. Instead of being an active researcher, it seems he is considered to be merely the man who collected the data and typed the manuscript. Mr. Lewis wrote, “I do not believe that Dr. Wakefield intentionally misinterpreted the grading sheets as evidence of “non-specific colitis.” ”

    As though the entire process of diagnosing children with enterocolitis involved looking at Mr. Dhillon’s grading sheets. Once again, what did the Lancet article say? Under “Histology”:

    Formalin-fixed biopsy samples of ileum and colon were assessed and reported by a pathologist (SED). Five ileocolonic biopsy series from age-matched and site-matched controls whose reports showed histologically normal mucosa were obtained for comparison. All tissues were assessed by three other clinical and experimental pathologists (APD, AA, AJW).

    AJW refers to Andrew J. Wakefield. So, did he just accept the diagnoses from others, as we are being asked to believe now, or did he assess tissues, as he wrote in the Lancet in 1998? Seems an important point to downplay, as Mr. Lewis is not attempting.

    To bring this to a close, a press release has been issued in support of Andrew Wakefield. Mr. Lewis is quoted:

    “There was no fraud committed by Dr. Wakefield. The crux of the matter in Wakefield’s case, so far as research fraud is concerned, is whether Wakefield fabricated the diagnosis of non-specific colitis for 11 of the 12 Lancet children as claimed in Table 1. Drs. Paul Dhillon’s and Andrew Anthony’s grading sheets clearly show that Wakefield did not fabricate the diagnoses of non-specific colitis reported in the Lancet article.”

    Well, no. Nonspecific colitis is not the “crux of the matter” at all. Mr. Lewis is referred to Mr. Deer’s article, and the discussion of regressive autism and when symptoms appeared. Facts which were not reported accurately in the Lancet.

    And there’s that whole first sentence not being accurate at all thing…let’s not even get started on the concluding sentence:

    We have identified a chronic enterocolitis in children that may be related to neuropsychiatric dysfunction. In most cases, onset of symptoms was after measles, mumps, and rubella immunisation. Further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome and its possible relation to this vaccine.

    Law Firm Faces Legal Action Over Handling Of MMR Vaccine Case

    21 Sep

    This story is in the U.K. version of the Huffington Post. The article, Law Firm Faces Legal Action Over Handling Of MMR Vaccine Case, brings the question of MMR litigation back up, but in a different way. First, the families are claiming that encephalitis, not autism, was the claimed injury. Second, they are suing the law firm that handled the case, not the vaccine manufacturers.

    Three families who claim their children suffered a potentially fatal illness from the mumps, measles and rubella (MMR) vaccine are suing a law firm they say grouped them with a now discredited case over a link between the jab and autism.

    A case was brought against the manufacturers of the MMR jab – Smithkline Beecham, Smith Kline & French Laboratories and Sanofi Pasteur MDF – in 2007, over claims that the jab caused autism in children. However three families who say the vaccine caused encephalitis in their children, not autism, believe they were unable to claim compensation because of the way the case was dealt with.

    Note that the Huffington Post has the dates wrong in the section quoted above. The case was brought in the late 1990’s and abandoned in 2003 when lack of evidence resulted in a loss of public funds to support the investigation further.

    The BMJ also covers the story, noting that in 2002 the then chairman of the UK’s Committee on Safety of Medicines, Alasdair Breckenridge, said: “There is sound evidence that mumps vaccine containing the Urabe stran of virus is associated with a risk of meningitis and [has} no proven additional benefits. The risk to children of a potentially serious neurological complication makes its use unacceptable.”

    Since the focus here at Left Brain/Right Brain is primarily autism, and the Wakefield case has been discussed (and discussed, and discussed), I expect that most readers know the basic story. But, indulge me for a moment while I give a short history.

    Back in the mid-1990’s, some families believed that MMR caused their child’s autism. They sought both legal and medical expertise to pursue their case. The legal end was led by Richard Barr of the firm Alexander Harris. For medical expertise, they (parents and leagal team) approached Andrew Wakefield, a research gastroenterologist who had just recently implicated the measles vaccine in Crohn’s disease.

    After Mr. Wakefield and his team published their first paper in The Lancet in 1998 (a paper since retracted), he became even better known for his views on MMR. Sometime after this, attorney Richard Barr was contacted by a public health insider with concerns about the MMR. Mr. Barr and Mr. Wakefield met with this “whistleblower” in secret.

    The thing is, the concern was about encephalitis from the mumps component. Not autism from the measles component, as was Mr. Wakefield’s hypothesis.

    The meeting between Mr. Wakefield and this gentleman became known only recently, 1998, while Mr. Wakefield faced charges before the General Medical Council. Mr. Wakefield released details of his story and threatened to disclose the name of the “whistleblower”. Mr. Wakefield later followed through on this threat.

    This raises very important questions. Most notably, why didn’t the legal and scientific team working on MMR litigation follow up on the mumps/encephalitis question? The idea was known to Mr. Wakefield and Mr. Barr. The MMR litigation went forward with the theory that the measles component was causing autism, and failed.

    And now some parents consider these events to be a strong enough case to sue a law firm handling their case: Alexander Harris.

    The families claim the MMR vaccine brought neurological injury and are suing the law firm that brought the original litigation against the vaccine’s manufacturer.

    As part of the group autism case, the families claim they were deprived of the compensation likely to come from bringing individual actions.

    Mr. Wakefield’s discussion of his meeting with the “whistleblower”, together with commentary from Brian Deer, is in the video below:

    While Mr. Deer focuses on how Mr. Wakefield is treating the “whistleblower”, another big question is left open by this discussion: did Mr. Wakefield act on the information he was given? Did the attorneys? The secret meeting in the train station makes a rather dramatic story, but it doesn’t really reflect well on Mr. Wakefield.