Home > In the News, Vaccine Myths > When Will Wakefield Get the Justice He Deserves?

When Will Wakefield Get the Justice He Deserves?

January 11, 2012

If you follow immunization news at all, than you probably know the name Andrew Wakefield pretty well.  In fact, you’re probably tired of hearing it.

Personally, I try to avoid hearing it, reading it or even mentioning it, because when I do I get a big knot in the pit of my stomach.

I’m not trying to be dramatic.  It’s just that I believe this one man has done more to interfere with immunization advancements all across the world than anyone else in recent history.  And to be honest, that really upsets me…as a mother, as an American and as a global health advocate.

What surprises me most about Andrew Wakefield is how many people continue to idolize him as a direct result of one poorly executed study of just a handful of individuals conducted so many years ago.  He has miraculously managed to garner so much support among people that they often act as if they are brain-washed cult followers.  In their eyes, everything Wakefield says is truth and he can do no wrong.  In fact, every time I hear someone credit Wakefield, or even defend him, I can’t help but wonder if they’re just desperate to root for the underdog and convince themselves that the “establishment” is working against them.  How does he work his magic and convince people that he speaks “the truth” when the courts, and the science, continue to defy him?

It doesn’t seem to matter that the co-authors of Wakefield’s discredited study retracted their claims long ago.  It doesn’t matter that The Lancet, which initially published the study, retracted it in its entirety back in February, 2010.  It doesn’t even matter that the British General Medical Council determined that Wakefield was guilty of serious professional misconduct and as a result, stripped him of his medical license.  Despite all this, he somehow continues to persuade countless parents to forego MMR vaccinations, leaving children vulnerable to dangerous and sometimes life-threatening diseases.

When will his followers recognize that critical research funds have been spent disproving the hypothesis that Wakefield was never able to adequately prove?  And why won’t they accept the various allegations that Brian Deer so elaborately exposed in detail over a year ago?

It’s as if the gig is up, but none of his loyal followers are willing to admit it.

As far as I can tell, Andrew Wakefield still manages to make a living here in the United States.  Until about a year ago, he was the director of The Thoughtful House, and according to his own representation, he is currently self-employed as the founder of the Strategic Autism Initiative (SAI), “a medical research organization dedicated to identifying the environmental causes for the current autism epidemic”.  (Should I question how his research is conducted at his current address within a Texas Pak Mail establishment?)

While it may be difficult to verify just what he has been up to lately, there is one thing for certain.  Andrew Wakefield is asking for your financial support (yes, that means your hard-earned money) to pursue a defamation lawsuit against The British Medical Journal (BMJ), Fiona Godlee, the journal’s editor, and Brian Deer, the writer who works for the BJM.

Now you may ask, “Is this for real?”

Oh, sadly it is.

Just check out this elaborate website designed to garner support for the Dr. Wakefield Justice Fund.  (By the way, you’ll notice this slick photo of him admiring an American flag.   While I’m uncertain if, or when, he may have become an American citizen, I imagine that he truly appreciates the liberty and support he enjoys here in America.  Why, that alone would make anyone a patriot, right?)

My hope is that one day justice will truly be done.  Perhaps that day will come when a parent, whose child has suffered from measles, mumps or rubella, takes it upon themselves to make a legal case against Andrew Wakefield.  Since he has repeatedly advised parents not to administer the MMR vaccine to their children, I would imagine that there must be some individual who took this advice and later regretted it.  Perhaps there is a child somewhere who, as a result, has suffered long-term health complications. Or even worse, there may be a parent grieving over the un-timely loss of their child.  Wouldn’t these good citizens be entitled to some kind of compensation?  Don’t you think they might want honor, truth and liberty to be upheld, just like Wakefield is calling for?

If there is ever a justice fund created to support that kind of litigation, please let me know.  I would gladly contribute! 

How about you?

  1. Cindy
    January 11, 2012 at 12:21 pm

    For or against him please cite ONE instance in which he personally told people not to immunize their children, or not to get the MMR. Second question: Have you read this so-called study yourself?

  2. Nina C
    January 11, 2012 at 12:51 pm

    Why would they do that? It’s easier to read the paper and get your “facts” that way.

  3. Cindy
    January 11, 2012 at 12:57 pm

    As far as Brian Deer goes, were you aware that he broke most of the Society for Professional Journalists Code of Ethics rules to get his so-called tell-all scoop? And why, if he’s such an outstanding journalist, is his only claim to fame in 20 years of work just this particular story?

  4. Venna
    January 11, 2012 at 1:43 pm

    I think it’s safe to say you will never read any interview in which Wakefield actually comes out and says not to get your children vaccinated. He has said, at the very least not to get the combined MMR vaccine, but to get vaccines for the viruses individually and spread out over time. Which of course is highly difficult as most doctors don’t, and haven’t since the release of the MMR vaccine, keep in stock for regular use. Which the end result is people not getting immunized at all since what was ‘recommended by this doctor’s evidence’ was next to impossible. That is a simple matter of adding two and two.

    Let’s also not forget that Wakefield had his own vested interest in making this particular recommendation, as he held a patent on an orally administered measles vaccine, anticipating a financial windfall to come his way once his ‘theories’ were widely accepted. Wakefield covered his tracks fairly well. Not well enough to cover up the fraud he committed in his so called study which led to these claims to begin with. And eventually ending his ability to practice medicine in the UK.

    Of course being stripped of his medical license didn’t stop him. He has still been doing research on children even though there were allegations of child abuse and mistreatment of children at his hands when the investigation was completed. One thing I can tell you, my son will NEVER get anywhere near this guy. My son has autism, but I know he didn’t get it from any vaccine. He had already regressed and his autism symptoms began to manifest before he got them. There isn’t anything, anyone can say that will convince me vaccines did this to my son. I believe genetics play a greater role then more people are willing, or able to admit since it’s easier to blame ‘big, bad pharma giants’ then accept perhaps it has something to do with you, even something like genetics which we have no control over. To me, the vaccine debate is dead, along with Wakefield’s career. But unlike many others, the vaccine debate was never something I took very seriously to begin with. Vaccines will always be something I recommend to anyone who asks my opinion. I grew up without vaccines and I personally feel, it’s much better to get a simple, quick jab in the arm, or leg, then suffer through a disease for weeks, and in some cases months. I just am not willing to take the risk of serious injury or death from a preventable disease, when it comes to my children. That’s much more likely to happen with the disease then it ever was with the vaccine.

  5. michaeloff No spam please.
    January 11, 2012 at 1:47 pm

    And who funds your “Shot of Prevention” ???
    Any Links to Pharma or Big Med ???

  6. Venna
    January 11, 2012 at 1:54 pm

    Do you really think funding is needed to run a web site or a blog? When was the last time you paid money to use Facebook or post a blog somewhere else? Anyone can get a domain name and it isn’t that expensive to do. Your insinuation is ridiculous at best and down right ignorant as worst. Evidence of anyone being able to blog or have a website without funding can be found all over the net, just go to YouTube and see how many nonsensical videos and crazy sounding theories and ideas you come across there, and that’s only one web site. No funding involved though, you just need a Google account and a video camera.

  7. Steve Michaels
    January 11, 2012 at 2:33 pm

    How disingenuous of you. This site indeed receives support from the industry. ECBT is the sister and supporting site to this one and CBS exposed the fact that ECBT is at least partially industry funded, as is Pediatrics (the journal) and as is Paul Offitt. ECBT refused to disclose how much funding they receive from the industry but they confirmed that they did receive this funding.

  8. Steve Michaels
    January 11, 2012 at 2:41 pm

    By the way, I have personally heard Andy’s recommendations for vaccines from that time period. He NEVER said that children should not be vaccinated. He specifically said that the trivavlen MMR used a different type of measles virus, recombinant. His belief, based on the research, was that this type of vaccine was the dangerous bit, but children should still have received ALL of the vaccines, just one at a time. The UK NHS response to this research was to discontinue the use of individual vaccines completely, thus forcing parents to choose either the questionable vaccine or none. As a side note, it was big news in the UK when Tony Blair refused to have his children vaccinated with MMR and instead went to France (where the single vaccines are still available).

    Unfortuately, Christine has always been one of those ‘repeaters’ who parrot the industry lines. The amount of disinformation and slander towards anyone who disagrees with her is plain for all to see. Not much more comment is necessary.

  9. Nathan
    January 11, 2012 at 2:44 pm

    At the press event for his paper, Wakefield stated, “I can’t support the continued use of these three vaccines, given in combination,” he said, “until this issue has been resolved.” This was the first of many public oppositions to the MMR.

    And yes, I’ve read the full text of his study in its entirety, many times. I have a pdf of it on my computer. And I’ve got a (borrowed) copy of Callous Disregard too. When you compare what is written in the study with the evidence that has emerged since its publication, Wakefield’s dishonesty is made plain.

  10. Steve Michaels
    January 11, 2012 at 3:10 pm

    Oh, forgot to mention the American Academy of Pediatrics also receives substantial industry funding. But according to Christine, none of this funding creates any bias. Only people with whom she disagrees can have conflicts of interests in her little rose colored world. Our ‘esteemed’ experts who profess to be unbiased can be completely dependent on industry without it coloring their views. At best naive, at worst purposely deceitful.

  11. Nathan
    January 11, 2012 at 3:10 pm

    Hi, Steve

    He specifically said that the trivavlen MMR used a different type of measles virus, recombinant.

    I’m having a little trouble reading this sentence but I believe that this is exactly what the blogpost said. The author never said that Wakefield told people not to get vaccinations, but that he “has repeatedly advised parents not to administer the MMR vaccine to their children.” This is the case.

    It is important to note that he advocated for the single vaccine separated by a number of years based on his weak and faulty paper, which at that time was not known to be unethical and fraudulent, just poor, and not of any sufficent quality to make such a recommendation, which would leave children vulnerable to disease for years. It is also important to note that he was in the process of patenting his own single measles vaccine and was in a position to profit financially from his own fearmongering.

    he UK NHS response to this research was to discontinue the use of individual vaccines completely, thus forcing parents to choose either the questionable vaccine or none

    It’s your country of residence, so please provide evidence that the NHS manufactures vaccines, or that they told the manufacturers to stop making vaccines. I find no evidence that the NHS discontinued anything – my reading indicates the single vaccine for rubella was discontinued first, in 2002, by GSK. At that point there were numerous studies that conclusively disproved Wakefield’s hypothesis of an MMR/autism link.

    Unfortuately, Christine Steve has always been one of those ‘repeaters’ who parrot the alt-med industry lines.

    Fixed that for you.

  12. Chris
    January 11, 2012 at 3:28 pm

    Can you please clarify which type of measles virus in which MMR vaccine he was discussing? Which one out of the three used in the UK between 1988 and 1992? Or the one introduced in the UK in 1998? And why was there an American child who had yet another MMR vaccine, one that had been used in the USA since 1971 (over twenty years before his 1998 paper)? Can you tell us which measles vaccine strain that Wakefield thought was suspicious? Was it Edmonston, Sugiyama, Enders Edmonston B, Leningrad-4 (or -5), Edmonston-Schwartz-Chmakov, Schwarz, Edmonston-Zagreb, TD97, or some other one? Please post the title, journal and dates of those papers on which measles vaccine strain was discussed (and there are lots of papers on vaccine strain studies, surely Wakefield has the particular one he was concerned with documented).

    Could you point out specifically what data he was using to make that recommendation? Since the UK started using an MMR vaccine very similar to the American one that was introduced in 1971, is there data from the USA starting in 1971? If there is, can you point that out to us?

    And why did Wakefield leave the Royal Free? What about the autism/vaccine research done at the Royal Free between 1999 and 2003, why is that being ignored? Here are some:

    Lancet. 1999 Jun 12;353(9169):2026-9.
    Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: no epidemiological evidence for a causal association.

    BMJ. 2002 Feb 16;324(7334):393-6.
    Measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and bowel problems or developmental regression in children with autism: population study.

    Arch Dis Child. 2003 Aug;88(8):666-70.
    Prevalence of autism and parentally reported triggers in a north east London population.

  13. January 11, 2012 at 3:58 pm

    And of course that makes Wakefield right. Oh, wait, no it doesn’t. He remains a discredited struck-off doctor who conducted unethical research and published a fraudulent paper.

  14. January 11, 2012 at 4:02 pm

    I have it on good authority that most doctors are trained and funded by the Medical Hegemony, as was Wakefield until he managed to break out of its straitjacket of ethics and honesty and provide the evidence necessary to his backers… wait, wait, this is coming out all wrong…

  15. Chris
    January 11, 2012 at 4:29 pm

    And this has some historical notes:

    Currently, although in the UK there are four licences for measles vaccine and one for mumps vaccine, there are no longer any products produced which meet the specifications of these licences. Therefore, by definition, all single measles and mumps vaccines are unlicensed in the UK.

    Since the separate vaccines are not licensed in this country, there is less control over what children are getting.

    An example of less control lead to this warning:

    The Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) has advised that Urabe mumps vaccine is associated with an unacceptable risk of aseptic meningitis and that the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) should object to importation of unlicensed mumps vaccine containing the Urabe strain of mumps virus. On the basis of that advice, the MCA has today contacted importers notifying them that the vaccine should not be imported.

  16. Venna
    January 11, 2012 at 4:33 pm

    Steve Michaels :
    How disingenuous of you. This site indeed receives support from the industry. ECBT is the sister and supporting site to this one and CBS exposed the fact that ECBT is at least partially industry funded, as is Pediatrics (the journal) and as is Paul Offitt. ECBT refused to disclose how much funding they receive from the industry but they confirmed that they did receive this funding.

    It was a bit presumptuous of you to assume anyone posting a blog and running a web site is funded, somehow, in an unscrupulous manner. Support is not a bad thing, I certainly appreciate it when I have support. At least any funding and support that might be received is above board, rather then suspicious in nature, as was the source of funding for Wakefield’s study, which, as I’m sure you are aware, was a law firm or individual lawyer hoping to proceed with a legal case against vaccine manufacturers on behalf of the parents’ of the children in the study, once they were able to find a doctor that would corroborate their belief, regardless of how unethically that corroboration ended up being. It’s a sad commentary that a doctor could be bought for so little an amount of money (or at all for that matter) as he received. Let’s not mince words here and blur the issue. Wakefield was wrong and his announcement was harmful to countless children who have suffered through, or died of the diseases the MMR vaccine prevents. He alone can hold credit for that. But anyone who supports him is essentially saying they approve of these children’s suffering and deaths.

  17. Cindy
    January 11, 2012 at 4:37 pm

    For those of us who like to look at sources, please cite the source that exposes Wakefield’s “study” as a collaboration with a law firm or individual wanting to form a legal case against vaccine makers.

  18. January 11, 2012 at 4:46 pm

    Unfortunately CBS’ report was completely biased in itself. ECBT staff spent hours collecting requested information for the reporter (not to mention that all funding information is easily available online to the public due to IRS regulations on not-for-profits) and took part in a 45 minute taped telephone interview prior to the airing of the report. However, the reporter (who has a history of presenting outrageously biased stories about the safety of vaccines) had the nerve to say that we did not have a comment on the issue and did not supply the requested information. This is the last time that I will make this comment as it infuriates me to recall this slanderous report.

  19. Venna
    January 11, 2012 at 5:02 pm

    It was all revealed during the investigation. Since Wakefield made himself into such a public figure, obviously the results of the investigation are also public. It just takes a Google search to find it. Most likely, you aren’t really interested in sources though, or you wouldn’t be asking for citations you can easily find yourself. This bit of information was probably one of the biggest reported conflicts of interest in this whole messy business, if second to any other, it would be Wakefield hoping to profit from his statements and mass hysteria created by them with the patent he took out for a separate measles vaccine. This is all evidence that was brought to light when it was discovered he had conducted his study fraudulently and unethically. What this comes down to is splitting hairs. Wakefield was a fraud who showed callous disregard for the children he was supposed to be caring for. His time in the limelight needs to end, as does his assertions that MMR vaccine causes autism, because it doesn’t. As I’m sure this won’t be sufficient for you, try Googling Richard Barr solicitor.

  20. James
    January 11, 2012 at 8:51 pm

    Cindy, not only are you attacking the messenger (and not the message) but you’ve picked a peculiar target.

    Before the Wakefield fiasco Brian Deer had a history of investigating drug companies and won press awards for doing so. He won Specialist Reporter of the Year in 1999 and the judges for that award said he’s probably “the only journalist in Britain that polices the drug companies.”

    The way that Wakefield’s supporters paint him as a Big Pharma shill would be funny if said supporters actually meant it as a joke.

  21. January 11, 2012 at 8:53 pm

    “For or against him please cite ONE instance in which he personally told people not to immunize their children, or not to get the MMR. ”

    What about this instance: http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2011/01/andrew-wakefields-do-not-re-vaccinate-letter/

    Mr. Wakefield told the Chief Medical Officer of the UK “Do not re-vaccinate”. He was telling him to not implement the second dose of MMR which was contemplated in 1996 after measles outbreaks occurred (this is shortly after the US implemented a second dose for just this reason).

    He was telling an entire country to not vaccinate.

    Is that sufficient?

  22. January 11, 2012 at 8:55 pm

    Cindy,

    I am aware of no such thing. Mr. Deer used a pseudonym, with permission of his editor, when he interviewed one of the parents of the Lancet 12.

    Such methods were allowed in the UK at the time. They are allowed in the US. For example, Dan Olmsted (the guy who runs the Age of Autism website and helped fuel fear of vaccines and autism) worked with a partner when he was still a journalist. His partner stayed a journalist and went on to do a highly acclaimed article…by using a psuedonym.

  23. January 11, 2012 at 8:56 pm

    “I think it’s safe to say you will never read any interview in which Wakefield actually comes out and says not to get your children vaccinated.”

    But you can find one where his wife tells of their decision to avoid the MMR vaccine themselves.

  24. January 11, 2012 at 8:59 pm

    Funny how the “pharma shill” gambit always comes up. It’s such a crutch to those without facts.

    It’s even more strange how people who support Andrew Wakefield, a man who was doing his research as part of litigation (and handsomely paid, I might add) is such a hero to these same people.

  25. January 11, 2012 at 9:05 pm

    Cindy,

    The GMC hearings, Day 31 transcripts (they are online in at least one place). This letter was read into the record

    “This is a letter addressed “Dear Andrew” to Dr Wakefield at his home address from Mr Barr,”

    “Re: MMR/MR Vaccines/Disintegrative Disorder & Inflammatory Bowel Disease

    Further to our discussions on Thursday, I enclose a cheque for £25,000 made out to the [Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine] in respect of the setting up costs and first year’s costs of the MMR investigation. I shall be grateful if you could arrange to let me have an official receipt and also for the enclosed receipt to be signed.

    This funding has been provided directly by the Legal Aid Board and the payment should go exclusively for the furtherance of investigation into the side effects to the MMR/MR vaccine.

    It is also subject to the conditions set out in my letter to you of 14 October 1996.

    The findings you and your colleagues are making sound extremely impressive and I certainly have to say from our point of view that we are delighted with the help that you and the rest of your team at the Royal Free are giving us in investigating these tragic cases. I believe it is a unique exercise that we are carrying out and I for one am certain that the MMR vaccine has a lot to answer for.

    One thing I think we do need to do fairly soon is to have a meeting (Kirsten and myself) with all of the team that you have put together to investigate the cases. We must not, of course, lose sight of the fact that in addition to the inflammatory bowel problems and disintegrative disorder we need to cover as far as possible the whole spectrum of vaccine damage.

    I look forward to hearing from you.

    Best wishes,

    Yours sincerely

    Richard Barr.”

    Mr. Barr, of course, was the attorney working on mounting the MMR case in the UK.

    Is that sufficient?

  26. January 11, 2012 at 9:07 pm

    To put that letter in perspective, the Lancet article came out in February of 1998. The above letter was dated Dec. 6, 1996, over one year prior.

  27. Twyla
    January 12, 2012 at 3:21 am

    Thanks so much, Christine Vara, for posting the link to the Dr. Wakefield Justice Fund.

  28. Twyla
    January 12, 2012 at 4:58 am

    re: “I can’t help but wonder if they’re just desperate to root for the underdog and convince themselves that the ‘establishment’ is working against them.”

    No, but some parents are desperate to find effective treatments, and for their children’s disabilities and medical issues to be recognized, studied, understood. This video includes extensive interviews of some of the parents of these children. Contrary to what you may have heard elsewhere, these parents say that they brought their children to the Royal Free Hospital because they were seeking treatment for severe medical issues, that they approved of all the tests and procedures that were performed, that the treatments brought their children much needed relief.

    The above video also includes footage of reporter Brian Deer telling a woman holding a picture of her son’s abdomen with colostomy bag hanging out, “That’s not bowel disease, that’s diarrhea!” and telling a woman with and x-ray of her son’s giant ball of impacted hard poop, “That’s not bowel disease! That’s constipation!”

  29. Twyla
    January 12, 2012 at 5:04 am

    Dr. Wakefield did not advise people to stop vaccinating. He suggested getting the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines separately, at least while further research was conducted. At the time of the infamous press conference at which he made that suggestion, individual vaccines were still available in England. But soon after that the individual vaccines became unavailable, inexplicably removed from the market.

  30. Venna
    January 12, 2012 at 6:37 am

    He is the only one left still supporting the claims made in the paper. All the others backed out once it became clear to them the data was forged. Anything that you cite that is coming from AOA is going to be fraught with biased information and not scientifically sound. Find a source that is reputable and in which Wakefield didn’t participate in on some level and it might be worth looking at. As for the individual vaccines issue, it has been covered already in a previous post/reply. You seem to forget that Wakefield found what he wanted to find because he was being paid by a lawyer to find it. Nobody else to date has ever been able to duplicate his findings and he was never up front with how he got those results to begin with, which made it hard for them to even know where to start. Perhaps you have spent too much time at AOA and your ability to think outside the box has been stunted a bit because you always rehash the same, old, tired and disproven arguments again and again. That my friend, is programming, or more commonly known as brain washing.

  31. Steve Michaels
    January 12, 2012 at 7:09 am

    If it was so slanderous, why did you not sue them? Sounds like you have an airtight case. The obvious conclusion is that your comment is nothing more than justification after the fact. Of course you could always dispel any doubts right here and right now by stating how much money you receive from pharma companies and foundations and other sources who’s funding also comes from pharma. Now is your chance to put it all in perspective…

  32. Cindy
    January 12, 2012 at 9:31 am

    Thank you for posting the attorney’s letter, which says nothing more than affirming an agreement to look into a health issue. I don’t see any conspiracy anywhere in it that would indicate Wakefield was profiting personally from it, or was in collusion with the parents represented by the attorney. In the world of medicine and matters of law, no matter what the topic is, plaintiffs and defendants both will contact physicians for medical evaluations. Sometimes the evaluators will say, sorry, I don’t see any support for your cause. Sometimes they’ll say they do see something that can help (or hinder) a case. And sometimes they just say forget it because they don’t want to get involved because, well, for the very example that’s shown here — take a side & you’re crucified.

    In the meantime I took a little very UN-scientific poll of 10 people I know personally (not fb friends, etc. that I’ve never met in person). And guess what? Nobody knows who Andrew Wakefield is. Only 2 had heard of “some doctor in Englan”d who said the “MMR shot caused autism. But that’s been disproven, right?” was what both of these young mothers added.

    So as far as Wakefield causing the world to turn away from vaccines, I don’t believe it for a minute. What I do believe is that too many parents are taking their healthy kids to be vaccinated, bringing them home and suddenly the kids are sick, very very sick. The parents put 2 and 2 together and blame the vaccine.

    And no amount of Wakefield-bashing is going to stop these parents’ personal observations, now or in the future, because it’s the vaccine itself that’s causing consternation with these parents, not Wakefield. I think the problem with Wakefield and those who hate him is that he confirmed that some children with autism had live measles virus in their guts, and since they hadn’t had measles-the-disease, he could only presume the vaccine put that virus there. And not wanting to just assume it, he made the unholy mistake of suggesting that this issue be studied further. And all hell broke loose. My oh my, what’s so wrong about studying it further, is all I’d like to know? I’ll quit questioning the MINUTE somebody does an actual study of totally unvaccinated kids vs. vaccinated. And I don’t mean partially unvaccinated; I mean TOTALLY.

    As far as Brian Deer goes, my opinion remains the same — it’s pretty much apparent that this particular story is how he makes his living.

  33. Chris
    January 12, 2012 at 12:04 pm

    Unlike the UK, there is a cost to the plaintiff. And if you read Ms. Pisani’s report, they only said that ECBT would not comment. While they lied, it was not blatant libel.

    And a certain CBS reporter is getting a reputation. Such people are to be avoided.

  34. Nathan
    January 12, 2012 at 2:42 pm

    By the time that the individual vaccines were taken off of the market, a large amount of “further research” had already been conducted, some of which Chris linked to, above. I’m curious as to why Wakefield did not retract his recommendations when the evidence poured in that his hypothesis was wrong. He called for research; it was done in spades. You’d think a real scientist would move on to another hypothesis. But I suppose when a man has invested so much of his personal time and effort trying to rig a result, then he isn’t inclined to act scientifically.

  35. January 12, 2012 at 3:18 pm

    “Dr. Wakefield did not advise people to stop vaccinating. ”
    What Mr. Wakefield did was

    1) Tell people that there was a risk for the combined vaccine
    2) tell people that the single vaccines were safer

    and, most importantly,

    He did not give any evidence to support (2). Parents were left with “He says the combined vaccine is dangerous, but he can’t tell me why or how the single vaccines are safer”.

    Mr. Wakefield’s actions were irresponsible. There is absolutely no surprise that his statements were followed by a reduction in vaccination. This was a predicted possibility discussed at his press conference.

  36. January 12, 2012 at 3:31 pm

    “Thank you for posting the attorney’s letter, which says nothing more than affirming an agreement to look into a health issue”

    Did you miss the part where Mr. Wakefield agreed to accept money?

    Mr. Wakefield agreed to work with the attorney, Mr. Barr, for 150 pounds/hour. This was again in 1996, well before the Lancet article was submitted.

    Mr. Wakefield co-authored documents with Mr. Barr trying to get funding for their project from the Legal Aid Boad. In those documents they claimed that the evidence was clear for vaccine injury. One problem with that logic was that Mr. Wakefield hadn’t seen any of the children at that time.

    “And no amount of Wakefield-bashing…”

    Pointing out Mr. Wakefields proven ethical lapses is not “bashing”. It’s accurate. He lost his medical license due to proven misconduct on multiple counts.

    “As far as Brian Deer goes, my opinion remains the same — it’s pretty much apparent that this particular story is how he makes his living.”

    Based on what research? I ask this because it is very clear to anyone who has looked over his website that he has had multiple major projects, including taking on pharmaceutical manufacturers.

    The BMJ must pay a lot by the word if Mr. Deer is able to support himself for the past few years on only this effort. (that is, yes, sarcasm)

  37. January 12, 2012 at 3:34 pm

    In my opinion, this “justice fund” is an insult. Mr. Wakefield, a man who was earning $270,000 a year from Thoughtful House for years, plus speaking engagements and possibly other sources of income, expects those of us with disabled children to raid our savings to help him in a legal battle?

  38. January 12, 2012 at 3:35 pm

    Looks to me like ECBT has limited resources. I for one am glad that they chose to focus their attention on doing good for others, rather than trying to undo a harm done unto them.

  39. January 12, 2012 at 3:36 pm

    A blogger (Sheldon101) has placed the transcripts online. Anyone can download and read them.

  40. Chris
    January 12, 2012 at 4:39 pm

    I don’t think she bothered to read that a single mumps vaccine was never really available in the UK. The first time mumps was on the vaccine schedule was when at least three MMR vaccines were licensed in the UK in 1988. That is fully explained in the link I posted at January 11, 2012 at 4:29 pm.

    It seems that those who are try to tell us how it was then keep forgetting there were multiple versions of MMR vaccines. Many, even possibly Wakefield, seem to think there was only one MMR vaccine used in the UK between 1988 and 1992. You an see this in Brian Deer’s comments on Wakefield’s “researcher” Dr. David Lewis:

    “From the beginning, attacks on Dr. Wakefield were a means to protect Government officials in the UK from being held accountable for their lack of proper oversight. In 1988, they approved an MMR vaccine containing live Urabe AM-9 mumps virus (Pluserix), which was withdrawn in 1992 after causing outbreaks of meningitis.”

    DEER: Two brands, Pluserix and Immravax, were withdrawn in 1992. My first report was in 2004. I’m not really aware of any significant media coverage critical of Wakefield before that. The withdrawals had nothing to do with Wakefield, and there is presently contemplated litigation in the UK to the effect that his activities and causation theories denied alleged victims of Pluserix and Immravax side effects their chance of justice. I’m aware, however, that Lewis is rehashing a Wakefield script here which he evidently hasn’t checked.

  41. January 12, 2012 at 6:58 pm

    Tell you what. Get someone to offer them a lot more money to support the other side. My guess is that they will turn you down instantly.

  42. Alternative Mom
    January 13, 2012 at 9:25 am

    Cindy, you make awesome points in your statement. What I never understand is why the provax community misses this one point:

    Cindy :
    ..he confirmed that some children with autism had live measles virus in their guts, and since they hadn’t had measles-the-disease, he could only presume the vaccine put that virus there…

    AND the fact that it was confirmed in a subsequent study or two, that it was indeed the vaccine strain of the measles virus (not a wild virus strain)…

    When the provax community addresses these FACTS without the mention of Wakefield or any other nonsense, then perhaps I will begin to listen to their misguided rhetoric…

  43. Chris
    January 13, 2012 at 1:14 pm

    AND the fact that it was confirmed in a subsequent study or two, that it was indeed the vaccine strain of the measles virus (not a wild virus strain)…

    Oh, do share! Make sure that none of the confirmations were from friends of Wakefield or had worked with him. That leaves out Krigsman, Singh and a Japanese group. To make it easier, just make sure it is none of the papers listed here.

  44. Venna
    January 13, 2012 at 1:15 pm

    You hit on the point exactly, there hasn’t actually been a single study, that Wakefield didn’t participate in on some level, that was able to reproduce what he claims he found. The claims were only claims and he was always vague about how he got the results that he did. Obviously, if research results are fake, it would be hard for anyone with ethics to duplicate it. He faked his results, therefore without someone else also faking them, nobody would ever be able to reproduce what he says he got. I could claim to be a blond, and use hair dye to die my hair blond, but that wouldn’t really make me a blond, that would be me faking it.

  45. Nathan
    January 13, 2012 at 2:01 pm

    Yes, It is difficult to not mention, um, He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Mentioned when he is the sole source of these “FACTS” and these “FACTS” are in quite a bit of dispute. There are no independent replication of You-Know-Who’s findings. And at least one major study that has actually tried to verify it found that in fact, “This study provides strong evidence against association of autism with persistent MV RNA in the GI tract or MMR exposure.”

    http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0003140

  46. January 13, 2012 at 2:43 pm

    AND the fact that it was confirmed in a subsequent study or two, that it was indeed the vaccine strain of the measles virus (not a wild virus strain)…

    Your memory is quite faulty. There was a followup study to look for measles virus in intstinal tissues of autistic children. The result you can gather from the title

    Lack of Association between Measles Virus Vaccine and Autism with Enteropathy: A Case-Control Study

    Mr. Wakefield’s team at the Royal Free hospital actually found that there wasn’t measles virus in the tissues of autistic children. This was work done by his student/colleague at the time Nicholas Chadwick. Mr. Chadwick discussed this at length at the Omnibus Autism Proceeding. Chadwick’s result’s were set aside by Mr. Wakefield and, instead, he published results from an outside private laboratory (one in which he owned a partial financial interest). That laboratory and its methods were investigated in detal by Stephen Bustin, the world’s authority on the methods used. Mr. Bustin found that the laboratory where Mr. Wakefield supposed found measles virus had numerous problems. One key issue what that they left out a step in the procedure. This was a step to convert RNA to DNA for the PCR amplification. Measles is an RNA virus so without this step it is impossible to detect the virus.

    So what do we have?
    1) A study by Wakefield claiming to find measles virus
    2) data from Wakefield’s own PH.D. student showing that the virus wasn’t there. (data which was hidden by Wakefield)
    3) Mr. Wakefields’ laboratory was reporting results which they physically weren’t able to collect due to a missing key step.
    4) the one attempt to replicate his work–a major effort involving multiple laboratories–found no association between measles virus and regressive autism.

    You will notice that (4) fulfills your strange requirement that this be done without mention of Wakefield.

    You can’t provide the study or two which you claim replicates his work. They don’t exist.

    1) Wakefield’s misteps are key

  47. January 13, 2012 at 2:52 pm

    “What I never understand is why the provax community misses this one point:”

    Any irony in the fact that you got 4 responses directly on that point immediately after you made this claim?

  48. January 13, 2012 at 2:55 pm

    “Contrary to what you may have heard elsewhere, these parents say that they brought their children to the Royal Free Hospital because they were seeking treatment for severe medical issues…”

    I was just reading parts of the transcripts again. They read into the record the referral letter for one of the children. At the end the attorney asked a witness something to the effect of “does anything stand out to you in this letter?”

    The response was basically, “yes. The lack of any mention of GI complaints.”

  49. January 13, 2012 at 7:38 pm

    The single vaccines had not been “removed from the market”. The NHS routinely gave the triple jab and no longer offered single vaccines. Private docs and clinics bought as much single vaccines as they could after Wakefield’s press conference and inflated their prices. Single vaccinations were available at about £200 a pop. Children whose parents were terrified by Wakefield’s lies but couldn’t afford to go private went unvaccinated.

  50. January 13, 2012 at 8:08 pm

    “As a side note, it was big news in the UK when Tony Blair refused to have his children vaccinated with MMR and instead went to France (where the single vaccines are still available).”
    The Blairs refused to either confirm or deny whether their youngest child, Leo, had received the MMR. Despite Cherie detailing the child’s conception in her memoir, they contended it was none of the public’s business. As it transpired the child ultimately received three single vaccines but not before being taken to a healer who swung a magic pendulum over him! I don’t trust the critical faculties of anyone who goes in for such nonsense or has friends and financial dealings with convicted fraudsters such as Peter Foster.

  51. Chris
    January 13, 2012 at 8:29 pm

    See my comment at January 11, 2012 at 4:29 pm … This is a quote I used:

    The Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) has advised that Urabe mumps vaccine is associated with an unacceptable risk of aseptic meningitis and that the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) should object to importation of unlicensed mumps vaccine containing the Urabe strain of mumps virus. On the basis of that advice, the MCA has today contacted importers notifying them that the vaccine should not be imported.

  52. Steve Michaels
    January 13, 2012 at 8:39 pm

    All you really have to do is watch this video and to see that Brian Deer is a heartless and unqualified ‘defender’ of the MMR and that the GMC blatantly ignored real evidence to come to a pre-determined conclusion and that all the way up to 2006 the Lancet defended the overall clinical research that was published. The video has been cited before on this thread, but those of a fixed mind seem to have completely ignored it so I am posting the link again. Why did the others retract their support? Probably because they did not wish to receive the ‘Wakefield’ treatment. His work has been duplicated on several occasions in preliminary reports that came out in the media, but for some strange reason, the final results were never published. I have referenced them on previous occasions.

    And to Venna, I wish to submit this little tidbit for your consideration:

    Quote from you, “Nobody else to date has ever been able to duplicate his findings.”

    Another quote from you, “You hit on the point exactly, there hasn’t actually been a single study, that Wakefield didn’t participate in on some level, that was able to reproduce what he claims he found. ”

    So which is it? Has Wakefield’s work not been duplicated or, after all the controversy, has he been able to sway conclusions on other studies as well? Your arguments don’t really work because they tend to contradict themselves.

  53. Venna
    January 13, 2012 at 9:30 pm

    Personal attacks aside, my point is a single one, not dual. The fact is, there has not been a single study, in which Wakefield did not have his hand, that was able to replicate the results. ANY studies done which did, Wakefield was either directly, or indirectly involved with. Therefore, nobody but Wakefield has ever come up with these results, leaving the point at nobody has been able to replicate his results. There was a post above about his own protege finding opposite finding in an independent study and those results were suppressed by Wakefield. I don’t know much about Brian Deer, and I don’t care about the aspersions you cast on his character. The important thing to me is Wakefield was proved to be a fraud, his paper was retracted and his license stripped. The evidence against him is overwhelming to anyone able to use logic to put the pieces together. If you can’t see it, you are overlooking something and just determined to believe in him and there isn’t anything anyone can say that would convince you. You are, in essence, a religious fanatic with absolute and complete faith in your god, Andrew Wakefield.

  54. Nathan
    January 13, 2012 at 9:36 pm

    Give us a break, Steve. Certainly if there is actual evidence that Wakefield is not a fraud and a charlatan, you can link us directly to it rather than making us suffer through a one hour youtube video. Besides, if you want you can post a video proving that Mr. Deer turns into a Martian at night; this does not change the physical evidence that Wakefield is a fraud. And it is yet another example of your inability to cite original or reliable sources.

    His work has been duplicated on several occasions in preliminary reports that came out in the media, but for some strange reason, the final results were never published. I have referenced them on previous occasions.

    Sure they did. And you mysteriously aren’t linking to them now. Because they are either not independent of Wakefield, don’t replicate his findings, or don’t exist.

    And the meaning of Venna’s quotes is quite plain, if you are not being deliberately pedantic. There has never been a replication of Wakefield’s alleged findings that has been independent of Wakefield. I’ve demonstrated this to you before.

    http://shotofprevention.com/2011/01/06/undoing-the-damage/#comment-1709

  55. January 13, 2012 at 9:53 pm

    Nathan,

    I believe he is referring to a study performed by Wake Forrest University. This resulted in a talk at IMFAR some years back. It never got beyond that stage.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-388051/Scientists-fear-MMR-link-autism.html

    Who knows why the final results were never published. The lead author (Stephen Walker) is an editor of the online-only journal “Autism Insights”.

    http://www.la-press.com/journal.php?pa=editorial_board&journal_id=155

    This journal had previously Mr. Wakefield as another editor, as well as his colleague at Thoughtful House, Arthur Krigsman. The journal has a very low standard and published one of Dr. Krigsman’s papers as a defense of Mr. Wakefield.

    Which is all a preamble to stating–Prof. Walker could get his work published there if he wished. The “strange reason” that they weren’t published likely has to do with the fact that the results are not worth publishing.

  56. Nathan
    January 13, 2012 at 10:29 pm

    Oh, yes, but I try to not do Steve’s homework for him if I can help it. In fact we had crossed lightsabers over the Wake Forest study nearly a year ago.

    http://shotofprevention.com/2011/01/21/not-so-fast-its-not-that-easy/#comment-1763

    Also, Steve mentions multiple unpublished studies, so I’m dying to know what other smoking guns he thinks are being thrown in the river.

    I had not, however realized that all three of those individuals had been Autism Insights editors. Such daunting peer review Walker must have faced. ;) Strange, indeed.

    Thanks, Sullivan!

  57. tinkerbell
    January 13, 2012 at 10:50 pm

    Cindy :

    So as far as Wakefield causing the world to turn away from vaccines, I don’t believe it for a minute. What I do believe is that too many parents are taking their healthy kids to be vaccinated, bringing them home and suddenly the kids are sick, very very sick. The parents put 2 and 2 together and blame the vaccine.

    Cindy, I have 3 adult children. They and all their friends were vaccinated with the available vaccines growing up. I’d like to know where these sick children are because, in the extensive network of friends my children have I didn’t see one adverse vaccine reaction or any “sick, very very sick” children.

  58. Nathan
    January 14, 2012 at 2:42 am

    Looking into it, I see that Pasteur stopped making the single measles vaccine in 1998. I’m still not finding evidence that “the UK NHS response to this research was to discontinue the use of individual vaccines completely.”

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/measles-jab-withdrawn-due-to-high-demand-1195247.html

    Nor do I see how this makes Wakefield not a fraud.

  59. Steve Michaels
    January 14, 2012 at 8:07 am

    Venna :
    Do you really think funding is needed to run a web site or a blog? When was the last time you paid money to use Facebook or post a blog somewhere else? Anyone can get a domain name and it isn’t that expensive to do. Your insinuation is ridiculous at best and down right ignorant as worst. Evidence of anyone being able to blog or have a website without funding can be found all over the net, just go to YouTube and see how many nonsensical videos and crazy sounding theories and ideas you come across there, and that’s only one web site. No funding involved though, you just need a Google account and a video camera.

    Venna :

    It was a bit presumptuous of you to assume anyone posting a blog and running a web site is funded, somehow, in an unscrupulous manner. Support is not a bad thing, I certainly appreciate it when I have support. At least any funding and support that might be received is above board, rather then suspicious in nature, as was the source of funding for Wakefield’s study, which, as I’m sure you are aware, was a law firm or individual lawyer hoping to proceed with a legal case against vaccine manufacturers on behalf of the parents’ of the children in the study, once they were able to find a doctor that would corroborate their belief, regardless of how unethically that corroboration ended up being. It’s a sad commentary that a doctor could be bought for so little an amount of money (or at all for that matter) as he received. Let’s not mince words here and blur the issue. Wakefield was wrong and his announcement was harmful to countless children who have suffered through, or died of the diseases the MMR vaccine prevents. He alone can hold credit for that. But anyone who supports him is essentially saying they approve of these children’s suffering and deaths.

    Which is it? Funded or not? You have on several occasions argued both sides…. And how is it that funding to ECBT cannot possibly cause a conflict but, as shown above, funding directly to an institution to investigate a claim is automatically unethical? Frankly, in my opinion BOTH are not ethical. That is called consistency as opposed to your demonstrated hypocrisy. Thank you for making it so easy to highlight your confused and contradictory views.

  60. Venna
    January 14, 2012 at 8:40 am

    Either way it doesn’t matter, and I have said nothing contradictory. You have twisted my words to fit your own game, and it’s something that I find happens all too frequently in certain circles. There is a big difference between financial support for a mutually accepted cause from one organization to another and money being paid for a doctor to find a reason for a lawyer to sue because of something parents claimed which couldn’t ever (to date) be proved, or linked in rigorous scientific studies. The first is like two people becoming allies in a shared cause, the second is bribery.

    The fact that you brought funding up at all over a website blog is what I found ridiculous. I have a blog, but nobody pays me to write it. Millions, probably hundreds of millions of other people world wide also have blogs that they don’t get paid to write. Assuming funding is happening, just because they are saying something you disagree with is just laughable. And if you already knew about the funding, why bring it up in the first place? The difference here is probably more along the lines of when the funding changed hands… Before, or after the meat of the issue was decided?

  61. Steve Michaels
    January 14, 2012 at 1:38 pm

    Whilst there are a couple of comments of support for ECBT accepting pharma money and not disclosing it, Amy has still not bothered to use this forum to set the record straight. Why not?

  62. Nathan
    January 14, 2012 at 4:24 pm

    It’s not undisclosed, Steve. It is publicly available information. But you use it from time to time as a distractionary technique, and that certainly does not merit a response. Look it up, Steve. Show some initiative. Demonstrate for the world the horrible seedy underbelly of Every Chid By Two, accepting donations to help stop childhood disease. End sarcasm.

  63. January 16, 2012 at 2:35 pm

    There are always going to be charletons among the medical profession, but this is simply the worst of the worst.

  64. Steve Michaels
    January 16, 2012 at 3:40 pm

    I didn’t ‘twist’ your words. I provided two quotations from you about the same subject in which you completely contradict yourself. Your definition of ‘mutually accepted cause’ is one of those meaningless expressions that make you feel good about something. I do not condone nor support ECBT (if you hadn’t gathered) and ECBT acts as a cheerleader for the very companies and products that give it support. If you cannot see that this is the VERY definition of conflict of interest then there is no point talking to you as you are ignoring the very definitions of the subjects of conversation. And as provided above, Wakefield did not receive that money. It was paid to the Royal Free. Maybe there was another transaction I am not aware of, but if the lawyers gave it to the institution then your entire argument falls flat.

  65. Venna
    January 16, 2012 at 6:50 pm

    Steve Michaels :
    there is no point talking to you .

    I couldn’t agree with you more on this. You only seem to be able to bring up meaningless, trite and off topic points which could only be viewed as an attempt to distract from the main essence of the topic: Andrew Wakefield is a fraud, it was proved and yet he still is trying to prove he’s innocent. Your slight of hand (or word in this situation) is blatant and obvious because you haven’t really brought up any viable arguments that have anything to do with the topic of the article to begin with. I personally don’t care who you support and who you don’t support. What matters to me is truth, and you and your hero Wakefield, don’t have truth on your side. That being the case, it must hurt to be the fool, but by now you are only hurting yourself by continuing to support him, and that is just sad to me.

  66. LBRBSullivan
    January 16, 2012 at 8:00 pm

    She did. Why pretend otherwise?

  67. Steve Michaels
    January 17, 2012 at 9:29 am

    Trite and meaningless points? Like how you contradict yourself? Remember, the evidence in total is far from conclusive as the GMC summarily dismissed all evidence in support of Wakefield. It was a classic railroad job. And remember, the GMC is a Quango NOT a court of law or justice or commerce. If you don’t understand the difference between these different types of forums you should do some serious research because that kind of knowledge affects EVERYTHING in life. Not just vaccine issues. It is time for you to wake up from the matrix like reality that you think is real. The GMC ruled by decree without any rules of evidence or objective standards.

  68. Nathan
    January 17, 2012 at 12:08 pm

    GMC summarily dismissed all evidence in support of Wakefield

    Wakefield presented no evidence to dismiss. LIterally.

    From the GMC fitness to practice decision:

    On behalf of Dr Wakefield, no evidence has been adduced and no arguments or pleas in mitigation have been addressed to the Panel at this stage of the proceedings. In fact Mr Coonan specifically submitted:
    “……we call no evidence and we make no substantive submissions on behalf of Dr Wakefield at this stage.” “…I am instructed to make no further observations in this case”.

    http://www.gmc-uk.org/Wakefield_SPM_and_SANCTION.pdf_32595267.pdf

    It is time for you to wake up from the matrix like reality that you think is real.

    Just wondering, in this real world, did your Dr. Wakefield present evidence to the GMC?

  69. Chris
    January 17, 2012 at 12:17 pm

    GMC summarily dismissed all evidence in support of Wakefield. It was a classic railroad job.

    So how much evidence did Wakefield provide? How many times did he give testimony defending himself?

    And really, which vaccine measles virus was found by his team? And which of the three MMR vaccines used in the UK between 1988 and 1992 was the study on? And why was there a child who was given a completely different MMR vaccine from the USA? Oh, really, what evidence from the introduction of the first MMR vaccine in 1971 to 1997 did Wakefield use to postulate there was an issue? Why did he choose to study measles virus when in 1992 the UK figured out there was an issue with the mumps component of two of the vaccine, hence the change to one (and later another in 1998)?

    Oh, and what were the results of the studies Wakefield was offered to do but declined done at the Royal Free between 1999 and 2003 (conveniently listed by me to you on Jan 11)? Why did he decline to do those studies, but leave instead?

    I know I am repeating myself, but I can’t seem to get answers even after a week, surely you would have answered by now.

  70. cia parker
    January 17, 2012 at 12:40 pm

    Thank you, Venna and Cindy, for trying to bring the truth to this forum. The most important thing is that the Lancet 12 did not suffer from bowel disease and/or autism before the MMR, but all of them became very ill shortly thereafter. The same thing has happened to hundreds of thousands of children in the U.S. , and, of course, in every country in which the MMR is given. The medical records on the Lancet 12 were made not only by Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues, but by health visitors who put their observations in the families’ Red Book, by independent physicians and specialists, and by those who biopsied the gut tissues in the lab. Dr. Wakefield had twelve fellow researchers who joined him in producing the Lancet article, but when threatened with professional death for their temerity in bringing up a big problem with a lucrative vaccine, the others all recanted and so were able to avoid excommunication. Dr. Wakefield is the only one willing to go down in flames to defend the truth, which, of course, makes him a hero for those of us with vaccine-damaged children. I believe that enough of the jurors in his lawsuit will have seen vaccine damage in their own families or those of their friends that they will listen to the evidence against Big Pharma’s minions with an open mind, and it will be very exciting to see what will happen next. Of course said minions are running scared, their livelihoods depend on perpetuating lies about vaccines. And any minions who have not read Callous Disregard really have no right to say anything.

  71. Venna
    January 17, 2012 at 3:07 pm

    Steve, I thought you said there was no point talking to me anymore? Please don’t stop now. Wakefield is a fraud, it has been proven, multiple studies since his lancet retracted study have been done and NONE were ever able to verify his claims. The MMR vaccine doesn’t cause autism, regressive or otherwise, or many more children would have autism then do since many more children then 1 in 100 have received the MMR vaccine over the years. Do I know what causes autism? No, I don’t but more and more evidence is pointing at genetics with a unique environmental influence (there are a lot of things in the environment other then vaccines so this doesn’t automatically mean vaccines so don’t even go there.) There are still children who are not vaccinated and getting autism, my son is one out of thousands, if not millions who fall into this category. You know what? My son has regressive autism too, started out perfectly normally developmentally, and was even ahead of the curve for a lot of things. Then when he reached the age of 14 months, he began developing symptoms, toe walking, repetitive behavior, spinning obsession, etc (looking back to his infancy, I can see other signs prior to that, sensory issues and sleep issues, but didn’t recognize them as autism at the time and had no other symptoms to go by). It gradually developed, but when the realization of his situation hit me, that is what was sudden. His change wasn’t sudden and these parents who believe the MMR stole their child’s sole, need to get over it. Their child is still in there, they just need to work a little harder to get them out is all. Too many of their stories have changed over the years until the all fit nicely into the same pattern story years later. It’s really easy for ‘facts’ to become blurred over the years. The facts remain in place though for Wakefield, he falsified the results that he published, he mistreated the children he was supposed to be caring for, he saw the letter (posted above) and his eyes turned to dollar signs, and that’s all there is to it. Now, since this post isn’t about me, but Wakefield and the nerve he is showing trying to prove his innocence now, asking for donations from people he victimized, perhaps you will want to focus your attention elsewhere, because you’re making a fool of yourself now.

  72. January 17, 2012 at 5:02 pm

    “Remember, the evidence in total is far from conclusive as the GMC summarily dismissed all evidence in support of Wakefield.”

    Interesting use of the word “remember”. Implies it is an accepted truth.

    Could you give 5 to 10 examples of evidence that was “summarily dismissed” for us? While you are at it would you cite the source of this?

    I ask this because I remember no such thing. If you are basing your opinion on the GMC on such falsehoods, it is no wonder that you are coming to incorrect conclusions.

  73. January 17, 2012 at 5:07 pm

    “The most important thing is that the Lancet 12 did not suffer from bowel disease and/or autism before the MMR, but all of them became very ill shortly thereafter.”

    Is that so? They were “previously normal” as the paper wrote? Why did the doctors’ letters include statements indicating that there was evidence of problems before the MMR vaccine?

    Also, you imply that all the Lancet 12 families claimed the MMR was the “precipitating factor”. I’d suggest you re-read the paper as this is not the case.

    “Big Pharma’s minions”

    Do you have any idea how most people read such catch phrases?

    I guess I am not a minion nor am I running scared since none of my livelihood is derived on “perpetuating lies about vaccines”.

    I do however find Mr. Wakefield a man worthy of contempt for his actions.

  74. January 17, 2012 at 5:31 pm

    “And as provided above, Wakefield did not receive that money. It was paid to the Royal Free. ”

    It was paid to the Royal Free to fund Mr. Wakefield’s research.

    Funny thing about that. He didn’t use the money as he was supposed to. He charged the UK Taxpayers double for the clinical work done on those kids. He charged them through the Legal Aid fund and he charged the NHS directly.

    One of the charges found proved against Mr. Wakefield was in failing to return the unused part of the research funds. Instead he just used it for some other project he was doing.

    This also doesn’t touch on the fact that as of 1996 Mr. Wakefield was charging £150/hour as a “medico-legal” expert working for the litigants in the MMR case:

    http://briandeer.com/solved/bmj-enterocolitis.htm

    The total Mr. Wakefield charged the UK taxpayers for his expertise was about US$750,000 (£435,000)

    http://briandeer.com/wakefield/legal-aid.htm

    I am sure you are well aware of these facts, yet you act as though Mr. Wakefield received no money directly.

    Why?

  75. Chris
    January 17, 2012 at 8:19 pm

    The same thing has happened to hundreds of thousands of children in the U.S. , and, of course, in every country in which the MMR is given.

    For that statement: citation needed.

    Also, for the third time on this thread: Which MMR vaccine?

    Which one was Wakefield studying? One of the three used in the UK between 1988 and 1992? Since he had an American child in the group, the MMR vaccine used in the USA since 1971? Though I don’t think it was the MMR vaccine that the UK started to use in 1998.

    bringing up a big problem with a lucrative vaccine,

    So do you have the data that shows that giving a two doses of one of the many MMR vaccines that exist provides more profit to pharmaceutical companies than treating the one out of at least a thousand who get measles in the hospital?

    I just a list of charges from my son’s two day hospital stay (and it was mostly observation), the cost for pharmaceuticals was $700. So really, tell how giving vaccines is so much more profitable than treating for the vaccine preventable diseases. Use some real citations.

  76. Lawrence
    January 18, 2012 at 3:50 pm

    Wow – Steve doesn’t like answering direct questions, does he?

  77. Parent
    January 19, 2012 at 12:00 am

    Steve Michaels :
    How disingenuous of you. This site indeed receives support from the industry. ECBT is the sister and supporting site to this one and CBS exposed the fact that ECBT is at least partially industry funded, as is Pediatrics (the journal) and as is Paul Offitt. ECBT refused to disclose how much funding they receive from the industry but they confirmed that they did receive this funding.

    Isn’t it weird that the websites you claim are funded by Big Pharma freely allow antivaccine advocates to post whatever claims they like, but the antivax blogs boast of censoring anything positive about vaccines? Why do you think that is? Is it that antivaxxers are afraid that they’ll lose any open discussion, or are they just too blind to realize that their hypocrisy tells it all? Do tell us your guess about why your posts are allowed here – do you think that Big Pharma is evil, but still just too darn honest to delete opposing views? I look forward to reading your humorous answer.

  78. ami
    February 15, 2012 at 4:34 am

    AMI The and their quick delivery technologies should be the top treatments for FSD

  79. cia parker
    March 9, 2012 at 10:47 pm

    No charge of fraud was made against Dr. Wakefield in the proceeding brought against him, that charge was only made by Brian Deer and gleefully picked up on by you guys, and now Brian Deer has said he no longer believes Wakefield committed fraud. And now that Sir John Mitting has completely exonerated John Walker-Smith and reinstated his license, saying the GMC’s reasoning was flawed and its conclusions wrong, that there was no wrongdoing involved in the Lancet study, I think you guys are going to have to completely rethink a lot of your dogma, you might have to get a new job. Now everyone is going to support the claims made in the paper, because the bottom line is that the MMR really does cause autism and bowel disease (and seizures, thrombocytopenia, and death) in a lot of those who get it.

  80. March 9, 2012 at 11:52 pm

    cia parker :
    … and now Brian Deer has said he no longer believes Wakefield committed fraud.

    Citation? You’ve been repeating this on comment boards around the internet, but I can’t seem to find a legitimate source.

  81. March 10, 2012 at 12:32 am

    That statement, like many in the above comment, is false.

    The commenter clearly hasn’t read the decision (or is knowingly falsifying statements)

    The decision includes a statement about Mr. Wakefield’s hypothesis, which is also reported in news reports:

    “There is now no respectable body of opinion which supports (Dr Wakefield’s) hypothesis, that MMR vaccine and autism/enterocolitis are causally linked’.”

    The judge asked Prof. Walker-Smith’s attorney about this and the attorney confirmed it.

    There were false statements in the Lancet (the claim that they had ethical approval). Prof Walker-Smith was found not at fault because he was never shown the final draft.

    So, Mr. Wakefield put a false statement in the paper without his co-authors’ knowledge.

    Just two examples of where the commenter above is misrepresenting facts.

  82. Chris
    March 10, 2012 at 2:38 am

    Is the Lancet paper still retracted? What part of the ruling pertained to Wakefield. Please be specific.

  83. Chris
    March 10, 2012 at 2:45 am

    Brian Deer has said he no longer believes Wakefield committed fraud.

    Show a link to this statement.

    If you don’t, then we will definitely know you post stuff you just make up out of thin air. Something that is often used by a someone that the rest of us refer to as a “liar.”

    Ms. Parker, are you a liar? Or are you just cutting and pasting from websites without actually reading and checking what the words mean?

  84. Chris
  85. Mike Krajnc
    June 18, 2012 at 11:38 am

    You reference Mr. Brian Deer in your rant I hope to realize that his findings were proven to be incorrect and that he himself is a liar. That there were two studies before Wakefield’s that came to the same conclusions. So the allegations that he fabricated his findings has been proven wrong. Vaccines cause a lot more harm then good and the general public is finally realizing that. I hope you will do more research into the subject and not take the word of the medical corporations who are more interested in their bottom line then people’s health.

  86. Lara Lohne
    June 18, 2012 at 11:43 am

    I hope you have the ability to reference the data you claim was found prior to Mr. Wakefield’s ‘study’. I hope you can also reference credible sources that state Mr. Deer lied and that they are now going to be overturning their previous decision to retract Mr. Wakefield’s ‘study’ and reinstate his medical license. Remember, credible means not from a blog or web site that is known to spread misinformation and fear mongering, and data means not a news report, blog or website making this claim, but real, verifiable, peer reviewed data. We look forward to reading your new information.

  87. novalox
    June 18, 2012 at 11:44 am

    @mike kranjnc

    Evidence please, preferable from some peer-reviewed scientific journals, or we all must assume that you are making it up.

    And just why are you necroing an old thread?

  1. January 18, 2012 at 1:00 pm
Comments are closed.
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 426 other followers