Undoing the Damage

By Christine Vara

Last night, I sat in a room filled with an eager audience.  Infectious-disease expert, Dr. Paul A. Offit, was launching his newest novel, Deadly Choices:  How the Anti-Vaccine Movement Threatens Us AllI would venture to guess that most people in the room were already familiar with much of the content of this new book.  Many in attendance were vaccine advocates.  Many have autistic children.  Some have sadly lost children as a result of vaccine preventable diseases.  Yet, there was still a sense of excitement -perhaps even a ray of hope – that publications like “Deadly Choices” could help to educate people and work to debunk the myths regarding vaccinations.

I couldn’t help but consider the irony of the night.  Just hours before, through my involvement with Every Child By Two, I was already aware that a big story was brewing.  A British investigative reporter by the name of Brian Deer, had written an article published in the British Medical Journal detailing how the now-retracted British study that had linked autism to childhood vaccines was an “elaborate fraud”.  The investigation concluded that Dr. Andrew Wakefield misrepresented, or altered, the medical histories of all 12 of the patients whose cases formed the basis of his 1998 study. 

Last night, as we listened intently to the perspective of a man who has devoted his life to public health, we were all eager for his suggestions on how we could collectively combat anti-vaccine misinformation.  Standing before us was a man who demonstrated genuine compassion for children and who generously donates the proceeds of his book to autism research.  Yet, outside of the room, journalists from most major news stations were busy putting Andrew Wakefield in the spotlight (once again), based on the immoral and fraudulent nature of his study that has had an overwhelming negative impact on the vaccination of children. 

So what will it take to undo the damage of Andrew Wakefield? 

Unfortunately, many of the parents I come in contact with haven’t really followed the story in detail.  Yet, they are somehow familiar with the frightening play-ground suggestions that vaccines cause autism.  Which is why I have been pleased with all the news coverage. 

Yesterday and today various reporters highlighted the recent developments in the Wakefield saga, (including CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360, ABC World News Tonight, Good Morning America, USA Today, Wall Street Journal and numerous others), and each illustrated that his study linking vaccines to autism was completely falsified.    My hope is that the continued coverage of this story will work to change the opinions of those who aren’t already well versed on the subject.  Even if the story is not necessarily “new” news, today’s reports are just another opportunity to reinforce the fact that the research was fraudulent.  Vaccines don’t cause autism.  They save lives. 

Perhaps, if you have refused or delayed vaccines for your child based on concerns about autism, the current news may give you reason to reconsider.  I would even encourage you to visit the Vaccinate Your Baby website today to view a list of studies that have disproven any link between vaccines and autism.  It’s important that your child be protected from potentially dangerous and life-threatening diseases, so be sure to get the information you need to make an informed decision. You may even want to read the official statement below that has been issued by Every Child By Two, an organization who supports this blog and who has worked hard for the past 20 years to promote children’s health through immunizations. 

Let us know what today’s news reports mean to you.  Have they reinforced your view of vaccines or have they forced you to reconsider?  Are you pleased with the coverage or are you fed up with the media?

 

Every Child By Two, the Carter/Bumpers Champions for Immunization, works to ensure that all children receive timely immunizations and continues to seek methods to institutionalize vaccine delivery and ensure access to vaccines for all children.  Their statement follows:  

Wakefield Study Claiming Vaccines and Autism Link Is a “Fraud” :  Misinformation Leaves a Deadly Legacy

 January 6, 2011 (Washington, D.C.):  An investigation by the British Medical Journal has confirmed not only that Andrew Wakefield’s 1998 study linking vaccines with autism and gastrointestinal disorders was patently incorrect, but that Wakefield altered or misrepresented data to come to his harmful conclusions. Unfortunately, parents across the world have been deceived by Wakefield, and as a result, the United States has seen the return of disease outbreaks such as measles and pertussis that have taken the lives of children. 

Word of Wakefield’s false research findings spread quickly and widely, and since then, thousands of parents have chosen to exempt their children from vaccines. As a direct result, in 2008 hundreds of unvaccinated children and children too young to be vaccinated in California were infected and hospitalized with measles, a disease on its way to eradication in the U.S.  Since 2010, almost 24,000 unvaccinated children across more than 18 states have become infected with pertussis and more than a dozen children lost their lives.

“Over the twenty years that Every Child By Two (ECBT) has been working to promote timely immunizations a number of allegations regarding the safety of vaccines have been purported.  The medical community took each of these allegations very seriously and each was thoroughly investigated.  In each instance vaccines have been declared safe. Getting our infants vaccinated on time is unequivocally the best decision a parent can make to ensure the health of their children. ECBT will continue to strive to provide the public with science-based information about vaccines,” says Amy Pisani, executive director of ECBT.

For comprehensive, scientific-based information on vaccines, visit www.vaccinateyourbaby.org.

  1. Questions
    January 6, 2011 at 6:45 pm

    What are your thoughts on Dr. Poul Thorenson? Also, what are your thoughts on the fact, at this time, no scientific study has been done to check the safety and efficacy regarding the combination of vaccines a child receives in the first few years of life? I also wonder, is there a study that compares the health of vaccinated children and non-vaccinated children? If not, are there any plans to conduct such a study?

    Like

  2. smibbo
    January 6, 2011 at 7:42 pm

    there are many studies done that have compared the health of unvaccinated children against vaccinated children. The best was a simply Finnish study since the Finnish keep detailed extensive health records on every single child born.

    The people who keep saying “there aren’t any studies done” or “why aren’t there any studies done” are either naive or lazy or just stubborn. Studies have been done many many many times even aside from the extensive studying the drug companies keep doing to make vaccines safer and more effective. Did you know that today’s vaccines contain 90% LESS antitgens than the vaccines of the 70s? Kids today are getting far less substances put into them than I did as a child. Because it is in their interest to keep vaccines safe and efficient. Autism doesn’t have a drug therapy; Pharma makes no profit from Autism at all. But Wakefield found a way to (try to) make a LOT of money off of Autism. Its sad to me. Parents looking for a big scary conspiracy demon to blame their fear of Autism. I have two kids on the spectrum (one wasn’t vaccinated until after he was diagnosed and yes he had “regressive autism”) and it really isn’t the end-all be-all of tragedies. Its hard, but its not like Autism is terminal and kids on the spectrum are just as beautiful and wonderous and loving as kids not on the spectrum.

    Like

  3. smibbo
    January 6, 2011 at 7:50 pm

    The Danish retrospective study was even more conclusive:

    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa021134

    Like

  4. Questions
    January 6, 2011 at 8:23 pm

    I think we should listen to Handley to see exactly what studies have and have not been done…
    http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/01/jb-handley-talks-to-cnns-ali-velshi-on-vaccine-safety.html

    Like

  5. Questions
    January 6, 2011 at 8:25 pm

    Do you have any studies that have looked at any other vaccines besides MMR? Or any studies that looked at the cumulative effect on health of all childhood shots together?

    Like

  6. Questions
    January 6, 2011 at 8:45 pm

    No one has answered my Question about Poul Thorsen, maybe because I spelled his name wrong you’re aren’t sure of who he is. Well, this is who he is, someone that stole 2million and no one is saying a word.
    http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid34619011001?bclid=0&bctid=71272069001
    http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/03/danish-scientist-absconds-with-2-million-poul-thorsen-proved-vaccines-dont-cause-autism-.html

    Like

  7. Questions
    January 6, 2011 at 8:48 pm

    And do you have any other studies which do not list the man, who stole 2mil from CDC, as one of the authors?

    Like

  8. Questions
    January 6, 2011 at 9:19 pm

    http://www.safeminds.org/news/pressroom/press_releases/20040518_AutismAuthorsNetwork.pdf

    And here’s some more information. I think it will be helpful in understanding that Danish study you provided, regardless if one of the author’s stole 2million.

    If vaccines were triggering Autism, wouldn’t it be a good idea for scientists to double-check all vaccines? Or how about checking what happens when we give a developing immune system all of them over a year or so? I’m curious why they don’t put their money to good use, like completely ruling out ALL vaccines for a potential Autism risk. Even if you don’t agree vaccines don’t play a role in Autism, would you all agree we should do everything possible to rule out vaccines?

    Like

  9. January 6, 2011 at 10:31 pm

    Please stop with the vaccine propaganda. Why don’t you ever mention the fact that vaccines were used in Africa, for example, to cause miscarriages and infertility to unwitting victims. Why don’t you ever discuss the Eugenics Movement; the deliberate culling of the population.

    Like

  10. Gary
    January 6, 2011 at 10:43 pm

    @questions:
    Let me give you some help. Any sort of study you want you can probably find at least 1 example on Google Scholar. Simply type the terms that your anti vaccination sites are telling you have never been done, and you will quickly find several. You don’t have to listen to Handley or anyone else.
    Let me give you an example: Google Scholar Search Terms “vaccination schedule US children”

    This is a cost effectiveness study. But it uses as its source many other studies which look at adverse events, effectiveness and other vaccine outcomes compared to non vaccinated children.
    http://www.317coalition.org/documents/moreresources16.pdf

    Regarding the Autism risk, please, again, see Google Scholar: “autism vaccine”
    I’ll just list the study titles. You can look them up using that or the search terms I provided above:
    No Thorenson and no link.
    “Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: no epidemiological evidence for a causal association”

    Again, No Thorenson and no link.
    Mumps, measles, and rubella vaccine and the incidence of autism recorded by general practitioners: a time trend analysis

    Here is your Thorenson study. It also did not find a link to any Thimerosal vaccine. MMR by the way never had thimerosal in it.
    “Thimerosal and the Occurrence of Autism: Negative Ecological Evidence From Danish Population-Based Data”

    Here is another Thimerosal study without Thorenson which does not show any link.
    “Association Between Thimerosal-Containing Vaccine and Autism”

    And, here is another:
    “Autism and thimerosal-containing vaccines: Lack of consistent evidence for an association”

    So, yes, lots of studies ONE of which has an author you object to (not necessarily because he committed any malfeasance in the study), and ALL of them showing no link between autism and ANY vaccines whatsoever.

    I sincerely hope that helps.

    Like

  11. Gary
    January 6, 2011 at 10:44 pm

    “Why don’t you ever mention the fact that vaccines were used in Africa, for example, to cause miscarriages and infertility to unwitting victims. Why don’t you ever discuss the Eugenics Movement; the deliberate culling of the population.”

    This is just a guess, but maybe because those are raving loonatic conspiracy theories with no basis in the actual reality that we all live in. Just a guess.

    Like

  12. Gary
    January 6, 2011 at 10:46 pm

    Questions – “If vaccines were triggering Autism, wouldn’t it be a good idea for scientists to double-check all vaccines? ”

    Actually, I think it would be a good idea to double check even if vaccines were not triggering autism just in case. Luckily for us, that is precisely what happened. Scientists all over the world have spent the last decade investigating the fraudulent claims made by wakefield. In epidemiological studies covering billions of vaccinations they have found no link whatsoever. Either the effect is so vanishingly small as to be non existent or it is actually non existent. Science never says the later. Science has already determined the former.

    Like

  13. January 7, 2011 at 12:17 am

    This one compared children who received their vaccines according to the CDC schedule to those who did not: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/peds.2009-2489v1

    They didn’t find any correlation between following the schedule and negative neurological outcomes.

    Like

  14. Nathan
    January 7, 2011 at 1:30 am

    There are numerous studies without Thorsen, and I can list them all if you like, but I suspect you have seen them all already and have read a “deconstruction” on Age of Autism or other such site devoted to proving an autism link. But the entire body of evidence, together, which looks at the issue from many different angles, and is funded and performed by government and independent agencies from around the world, point quite clearly to the conclusion that vaccines do not cause autism.

    Like

  15. Nathan
    January 7, 2011 at 1:38 am

    Why should we listen to Handley instead the overwhelming number of experts in immunology and autism who agree that there is no link? He has no background in science, and it is clear by what he says in that video. Here is my favorite quote (from memory – may not be exact):

    “If we wanted to find out if smoking causes cancer, would we compare people who smoke one pack a day against those who smoke two packs a day?”

    Well, guess what? If we did so, we would find more cancer in the group that smoked twice as much. Funny then, that if there is an autism/vaccines link, that MMR (the live, combination virus that most parents point to as the culprit) does not seem to cause even a little bit more autism in study, after study, after study, after study.

    Handley really needs a coach, and some new material. The studies he mentions are the worst pseduoscience, and one is even a Wakefield study, which is probably a pretty stupid thing to bring up when you are being asked about Wakefields fraud charges.

    Like

  16. Chris
    January 7, 2011 at 1:40 am

    Possibly because he was a minor author and not part of several other articles that showed there was no link between vaccines and autism.

    And he is relevant to the deliberate fraud perpetuate by Wakefield how?

    Like

  17. Nathan
    January 7, 2011 at 1:44 am

    No one is saying a word about Thorsen today, because there is no new news in that investigation, and it is as different from Wakefields fraud as night and day. No question, Thorsen should be dealt with appropriately. But his misappropriation of funds has little bearing on a study in which he was a minor author many years prior. Conversely, the evidence that Wakefield has committed this fraud for his own personal gain is another blow to what little evidence ever existed to link autism and vaccines, and is a very good reason to get angry. Millions of dollars have been wasted on MMR/autism research because of his stunt, when it should have gone to actually do something useful for autistic children.

    Trying to deflect Wakefields atrocities by pointing to Thorsen is like going up to a police force when they are arresting a mob boss and shouting “Look – down the street! A shoplifter!”

    Like

  18. Chris
    January 7, 2011 at 1:46 am

    Only because they didn’t.

    Mark, miscarriages happen in one out of five pregnancies. I know, I had one, with no vaccine included (it was in the 1970s). Your link did not compare the level of miscarriages between those who were vaccinated and those who were not.

    Speaking of eugenics, will you please stop telling us with children that have genetic heart conditions that it is okay that they die from vaccine preventable diseases. It is quite offensive.

    Like

  19. January 7, 2011 at 1:24 pm

    These are some of my favorite resources from the Academy of Pediatrics, Childrens Hospital of Philadelphia and Vaccinate Your Baby Campaign on the issue of whether vaccines are tested in combination with one another and are safe for young infants.
    http://www.aap.org/immunization/families/safety.html

    http://www.chop.edu/service/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-safety/

    http://www.vaccinateyourbaby.org/safe/index.cfm

    Like

  20. Steve Michaels
    January 7, 2011 at 10:12 pm

    Just have a look at this before you start demonising Wakefield and the rest from the Royal Free: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHrgYxqcU0w.

    Why did the GMC even start an investigation? Not one of the alleged ‘victims’ filed any complaint. In fact, out of the 14 involved in the study, 12 tried to support the doctors involved, one was not contactable and the one that was overseas and could not actually sign the letter of support did, in fact, support the claim that the doctors had done nothing untoward. So who commissioned the ‘witch-hunt’ ? If it wasn’t the purported victims then who? Most likely, the companies that stood to lose the most if the truth were actually sanctioned by a reputable source (like the GMC or BMJ)… in other words, the manufacturers of the vaccines….

    Like

  21. Steve Michaels
    January 7, 2011 at 10:18 pm

    And as a side note, not ONE of the alleged victims was allowed to testify in the GMC proceedings. Why? Because they all refuted the claims being made. Whitewash, plain and simple.

    Like

  22. Nathan
    January 7, 2011 at 11:09 pm

    Not allowed? Wakefield’s team could have called on whomever they chose as a witness. They called no witnesses whatsoever at the GMC hearings. Probably because if they were questioned his fraud would be discovered eariler than now.

    And fraud is fraud, regardless of whether the patients and families know about it nor not.

    Like

  23. Chris
    January 8, 2011 at 1:29 am

    Wakefield is also free to sue for libel, which would cost the BMJ plenty of money. But that has already backfired.

    Like

  24. Nathan
    January 8, 2011 at 2:28 am

    In fact, if you are committing medical fraud, the key is NOT to let the families (or anyone else) know about it.

    Like

  25. Steve Michaels
    January 8, 2011 at 7:10 pm

    Is it really a ‘raving lunatic conspiracy theory’ when the Philippine Medical Association conducted research at the behest of the Philippine Department of Health after 20% of tetanus vaccines were PROVEN to be contaminated with hCG?

    In anticipation of your rebuttal, the WHO claims that all of these positives were false. They state that all ‘independent’ studies showed that the initial results were, in fact, wrong. However, the WHO definition of ‘independent’ is that those laboratories were under WHO control or influence. The truly independent study, the original, was done to FDA standard and had a 20% positive rate. It is truly astounding how shills readily accept ANYTHING from the organisations that have already publicly endorsed Agenda 21 instead of seeing the obvious CYA when their methods are exposed.

    http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/new_world_order/HcG_Vaccine_for_Pop._Control.html

    Like

  26. Steve Michaels
    January 8, 2011 at 7:49 pm

    Your claim about why no defence was mounted is absurd. “Probably because if they were questioned his fraud would be discovered eariler than now.” At this point, the allegations of fraud were already discovered. If you actually READ the GMC Determination of Sanction, Wakefield was accused of many nebulous and undefined misconducts that essentially amount to whether every i was dotted or not. A few excerpts:

    “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”

    Thus you are assuming that no defence offered equals guilt. It does not. It means that the evaluators of the evidence would likely disregard it anyway and Dr. Wakefield did not want to bring more stress to families already suffering.

    “The Panel has already found proved that Dr Wakefield’s Honorary Consultant appointment was subject to a stipulation that he would not have any involvement in the clinical management of patients. On five occasions (child 2, 4, 5, 12 and 7) he ordered investigations on children, when he had no paediatric qualifications, and in contravention of the limitations on his
    appointment.”

    He did not ‘order’ anything. He could not answer concerned parents’ issues and referred them to relevant consultants.

    “In February 1996 Dr Wakefield agreed to act as an expert in respect of MMR litigation. In relation to the Legal Aid Board (LAB), the Panel found that Dr Wakefield accepted monies totalling £50,000 procured through Mr Barr, the Claimants’ solicitor to pursue research.”

    This was reported but treated by the GMC as a conflict of interest. Firstly, the amount is minimal given Wakefield’s position, secondly, members of the GMC have come from positions within laboratories funded by the very companies making the vaccines, thus have profited and been beholden to their beneficiaries in a way that is much more a conflict of interest than a fully reported research grant.

    “With regard to nine of the eleven children (2,1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 5,12 and 8)
    considered by the Panel, it determined that Dr Wakefield caused research to be undertaken on them without Ethics Committee approval.”

    This does not inherently mean that the research was unethical, merely that an administrative requirement was not met. It is about as absurd as paying your car tax but being fined for not putting the disc up in a timely fashion (a £1,000 fine AFTER paying the required tax).

    It goes on to crucify Wakefield for being less than forthright in referral processes and the like. Most telling is this bit:

    Wakefield submitted: “The form is set out expecting certain answers to specific questions and no such question exists. Therefore, since it was not asked, it was not answered.” This is with regard to funding.

    The GMC analysis: “…given the importance of an Ethics Committee’s reliance on the probity of an applicant, the Panel determined that this was a failure by Dr Wakefield and his actions amounted to serious professional misconduct.”

    This really says it all. Wakefield did not answer a question that was not asked and the GMC has determined this to be professional misconduct. Beggars belief really!

    Beyond all of the above, if the GMC had anything to gain by calling in the parents of these children as witnesses, DON’T YOU THINK THEY WOULD HAVE WANTED TO BOLSTER THEIR OBVIOUSLY CONTRIVED CASE?

    In fact, they specifically avoided speaking to ANY of the alleged victims. In fact, NONE of the alleged victims ever filed a complaint against Wakefield. In fact, ALL of the alleged victims CONTINUE to support Wakefield to this day! In fact, his findings have been duplicated on at least four different occasions and subsequently buried, as was Wakefield’ s original findings. In fact, Wakefield NEVER advised against vaccination, ONLY against multiple vaccines.

    Like

  27. Steve Michaels
    January 8, 2011 at 7:56 pm

    A withdrawal from a libel suit does not constitute proof that the libel did not occur, only that the cost of proving the libel could be cost prohibitive, particularly when the defendants have VERY deep pockets and can draw out proceedings for years on end. It’s kind of funny really Chris, you take assumption and innuendo as proof of something when it suits you but you ignore hard facts such as the proven low autism rate amongst non-vaccinated populations such as the Amish where autism rates are 1 in 20,000 compared to 1 in 140 or so in the vaccinated population. There is an awful lot of money at stake for companies that profit from vaccines and they will fight tooth and nail, including false research, to protect their profits.

    Like

  28. Nathan
    January 10, 2011 at 2:43 am

    Steve,

    You can quibble about bits of the GMC ruling and buy into Wakefield’s version of events from his book all you want – the issue at hand is the newfound evidence of his fraud. His unethical behavior and medical child abuse is old news. So, I’m going to try to limit my post to address your responses to things I actually said.

    Your claim about why no defence was mounted is absurd. “Probably because if they were questioned his fraud would be discovered eariler than now.” At this point, the allegations of fraud were already discovered.

    True, it was my personal opinion. And yes, there were some allegations of fraud, were made at the time of the GMC hearings. I am referring to the new evidence of fraud that has been discovered, particularly in the form of altered patient histories, etc.

    “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”

    Thus you are assuming that no defence offered equals guilt. It does not.

    I am assuming no such thing. You made the assertion that the families were not allowed to testify on behalf of Wakefield. They were. But Wakefield’s team didn’t invite them. And how do you feel about the part that says “no evidence was adduced?” Was Wakefield trying to spare the feelings of the evidence?

    “Beyond all of the above, if the GMC had anything to gain by calling in the parents of these children as witnesses, DON’T YOU THINK THEY WOULD HAVE WANTED TO BOLSTER THEIR OBVIOUSLY CONTRIVED CASE?

    Don’t you think Wakefield would have wanted to bolster his? I think he had much more need to call on them then the GMC, as the case was quite plain and the medical records were available. I don’t question that at the time, the parents supported Wakefield. But similar to what I said earlier, child abuse is child abuse, even if the parents don’t know that someone is abusing their child. Subjecting a child to unneccessary and risky procedures is not tolerable even if the parent signs consent.

    Think about it. There are doctors all over the world that commit malpractice, and have patient supporters. There are doctors that commit insurance fraud, and the patients support them. But that does not mean that they did not commit malpractice or fraud.

    I highly doubt your appraisal that Wakefield did not call on them because he was worried about their stress level. Many had voiced a desire to be examined. I expect his team knew there was little to be gained and a great possibility that cross-examination of them would reveal more than they bargained for.

    In fact, his findings have been duplicated on at least four different occasions

    Link to those, if you don’t mind.

    In fact, Wakefield NEVER advised against vaccination, ONLY against multiple vaccines.

    No real argument here. I don’t think he cares whether people vaccinate. I think he cares about making money, which is why he was in the process of developing a single measles vaccine.

    Like

  29. Nathan
    January 10, 2011 at 3:32 am

    I changed my mind. There are a few bizarre things in your responses that I want to address. Sorry about the previous html fail.

    This was reported but treated by the GMC as a conflict of interest. Firstly, the amount is minimal given Wakefield’s position, secondly, members of the GMC have come from positions within laboratories funded by the very companies making the vaccines, thus have profited and been beholden to their beneficiaries in a way that is much more a conflict of interest than a fully reported research grant.

    To whom do you believe it was reported? Not to the lancet, and not declared in the publication. And 75 grand US is “minimal given Wakefield’s position?” Do you know what his annual salary was at the time? At Thoughtful House in the US his salary was 250K per year. You don’t think a sum of about one third of your annual income is significant, especially with the instructions to “produce unassailable evidence in court so as to convince a court that these vaccines are dangerous?” Or in any way comparable to having a declared COI of working in a lab that receives money from a drug company?

    “With regard to nine of the eleven children, it determined that Dr Wakefield caused research to be undertaken on them without Ethics Committee approval.”

    This does not inherently mean that the research was unethical, merely that an administrative requirement was not met. It is about as absurd as paying your car tax but being fined for not putting the disc up in a timely fashion (a £1,000 fine AFTER paying the required tax).

    Now you’re into the absurd territory. First, the research was unethical regardless – four counts of dishonesty and twelve counts of abuse of developmentally challenged children were found. Second, I live in America, so I’m not familiar with tax discs, but if register my car but drive around without putting on my license plate, I can certainly be fined. Most importantly, getting medical ethics approval is a wee bit more important that registering your car. People take that kind of thing rather seriously. You should too.

    Like

  30. Steve Michaels
    January 11, 2011 at 12:51 pm

    Let’s get this right Nathan because you are so keen to find out the truth. I am American but live in the UK and understand the UK system. I suggest you read this article: http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/01/keeping-anderson-cooper-honest-is-brian-deer-the-fraud.html. It covers WHO filed the charges, the circumstances of those charges being filed and CONFLICTS OF INTEREST of the complainant, Brian Deer, and the GMC itself. Not to mention major breaches of privacy of records and evidence of Deer being given information from higher up to essentially act as the ‘face man’ for a persecution from much higher up.

    Your ‘new’ evidence of fraud is actually no such thing. UK consultants do not receive copies of any patients’ full records. The point of this being, once a GP refers to a consultant, the consultant is asked to make an independent diagnosis. It is not unusual for that diagnosis to differ from the GP. This is what Deer has tried to claim as fraud. It would have been absolutely impossible for Wakefield to doctor (pardon the pun) the patients’ records as he would never have had access to those records for review, more less for editing.

    You do seem to take MSM reports hook line and sinker yet question verifiable facts. The ‘Lancet 12’ have repeatedly complained both to Deer himself and the GMC because of ethical violations of Deer in revealing medical information about the children he should have never had access to and the GMC for allowing a journalist ‘covering a story’ to make public his own medical ‘findings’ from inappropriate sources and publicly try to undermine the parents’ credibility by claiming that his (Deer’s) knowledge somehow ‘proved’ that the children in question were not even sick when, in fact, they were. Stop listening to NYT, CNN and FOX and learn to think critically for yourself.

    Like

  31. Nathan
    January 11, 2011 at 6:48 pm

    Steve,

    I find it interesting that you tell me not to listen to those listed sources, and then point me to JB Handley’s rant on AoA which consits almost entirely of his uninformed conjecture. A “critical thinker” would notice that a whole lot of the things he says are backed by anonymous, unverified sources. I would have absolutely no reason to take Handley at his word and his assertion that Deer is funded by a pharmaceutical front group is a fantasy of his.

    I am keen to find the truth, but I am interested in evidence, not antivaccine blogs and autobiographies. As far as I can tell, looking at as many original sources as I can find, MMR does not cause autism and Wakefield is a charlatan and a threat to children’s health.

    It would have been absolutely impossible for Wakefield to doctor (pardon the pun) the patients’ records as he would never have had access to those records for review, more less for editing.

    I apologize if I was unclear. I did not mean to say that he went in to their medical records and changed anything. I meant, of course, that he falsified the histories of his patients to fit the story he wanted to present in his paper. He was, in fact, sent at least some information from at least some of the GPs and certainly took patient histories, yet produced a paper with histories that in almost no way resembled the cases. The “Lancet 12” parents have demonstrated this themselves in interviews.

    Let’s assume that this was coincidence. Then Wakefield is simply so grossly incompetent that he cannot take a medical history, which is as skill expected of third year medical students. But I think that the fact that those histories all pointed towards the conclusion he was being paid to find is awfully tough to believe.

    You do seem to take MSM reports hook line and sinker yet question verifiable facts.

    What facts are you referring to? The “duplicated findings?” I did not question them, but I want to verify those together. You have not produced them for me.

    It seems to me that you believe, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that MMR causes autism, and no amount of evidence will dissuade you from that belief. Andrew Wakefield fits with that world view. I know you would accuse me of having a similar attachment to an opposite world view, but I disagree.

    My (ideal) worldview is to believe what the actual science says. If it says MMR causes autism, then I will believe that. I am not perfect in this, but in my ten years of following this issue I have not found one piece of compelling information to indicate that is the case. I hope your openness to the evidence is similar.

    However, we probably have one fundamental difference between us. I am not inclined to believe in large conspiracies involving pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, and governments all over the world. The likelihood of such a consipracy existing, with no whistleblowers, would be unprecedented and extremely unlikely. Therefore when a study comes out, even if it is government funded, I tend to believe that rather than the biased, uninformed babble on Age of Autism or similar blog. One man can falsify a study (cough cough). Numerous studies, with a variety of funding sources, from around the globe, pointing to the same conclusion? Not as much.

    Similarly, I find little reason to believe in a large conspiracy to bring down this one man, and have further seen no verifiable compelling evidence to support this idea.

    It’s funny that you keep telling me to do more research, when I’ve already read everything you’ve referred me to, like the Handley rant. I even have a copy of Callous Disregard. The evidence for your position seems to come primarily from AoA and this book, which are essentially huge arguments from assertion. Talk about hook, line, and sinker. And the rod and tacklebox.

    Like

  32. Chris
    January 11, 2011 at 11:19 pm

    Nathan, you are doing well. I have been too busy to repeat the same replies to the same people that I did a few weeks ago. So thank you for your effort!

    Mr. Michaels will not provide real evidence and nor will he accept what we consider real science. He claims that all of the journals indexed on PubMed are run by Big Pharma and are therefore false. How can you discuss anything honestly when he rejects reality.

    I am basing the following on observation (like the claim Wakefield spoke in front of the European Parliament, when he only spoke to some fans in an auditorium in their building or that Paul Offit was involved in developing RotaShield): How can you tell if someone is lying? They posted an article on Age of Autism.

    Don’t even bother Mr. Michaels, I don’t even read your drivel anymore. Just like I don’t read the drooling rantings of Mark with his Globalwhatever website, Heather’s continuing rants about an ingredient that was removed ten years ago or Sara’s evil baiting (“Any takers? I’ve been having fun insulting her, but she & Emily need a good EOHarm kick in the ass.”). You are all one-trick ponies that have become very boring, even with the gyrations you all going through now that St. Andy has been revealed as a greedy fraud.

    Like

  33. Steve Michaels
    January 12, 2011 at 9:50 am

    Nathan you do tend to cast the ‘conspiracy theory’ label without any apparent concept of what it REALLY means except as a means of tarnishing an argument you disagree with and trying to stifle debate. At no point have I suggested a ‘conspiracy’ of the nature you imply. I have simply stated previously and in many different places that big Pharma fund the overwhelming majority of medical training and research (fact), that all medical advisory panels and accreditation boards are made up of 2 types of members, those who were trained by the biased system and those who work directly for big Pharma before and/or after their tenure on said panels (fact), and that medical journals are for profit magazines who’s primary funding comes from big Pharma advertising (fact). I have not said that I believe that they have all sat down together and formulated a strategy to foist vaccines on the population while knowing they are dangerous. What I am saying is that the industry has cast a wide net encompassing the educational, research and accreditation systems to protect the industry profits. The evidence of this is plain and easy to follow but you choose to hurl derogatory bigotry to attempt to avoid these facts.

    Let us go back to ethics for a minute. Where is your laboratory controlled double-blind placebo study proving the efficacy of vaccines??? You love to avoid that question because you KNOW it doesn’t exist. Yet you claim that it is ethically prohibited to prove the efficacy because it would put people at risk (assuming efficacy before proving it). This is nonsense and you know it. If people listen to shills like you, one could be forgiven for believing that mankind’s existence on this planet for thousands or millions of years, depending on your religious beliefs, by luck of the draw until Eli Lilley, Merck and the like came along and ensured our future. As if God’s (or nature’s) structure were really biased against the survival of mankind. Give me a break.

    And as far as the rubbish from Chris goes, I am not on here to ‘convert’ you, her or anyone else (particularly you shills), I only hope that non-dogmatic people will recognise that you are not dispensing fact about vaccines, but theory, and biased theory at that. You people don’t like it when your assertions are not taken at face value. I understand that I am in the ‘lion’s den’ by commenting on here. People need to see that your view is not the only one and that there is substantial evidence contrary to your views, whether you choose to admit it or not.

    Like

  34. Nathan
    January 12, 2011 at 3:14 pm

    Steve,

    Firstly, lets tone things down a bit. I’ve said nothing at all resembling “derogatory bigotry.” I have asked for evidence that you have not provided. You have now made a variety of statements also not backed by evidence.

    At no point have I suggested a ‘conspiracy’ of the nature you imply.

    I have not said that I believe that they have all sat down together and formulated a strategy to foist vaccines on the population while knowing they are dangerous.

    I did not imply as much. Though I have met plenty of antivaccinationists that believe essentially that, I’m glad you find that as farcical as I do.

    However, we have numerous large scale studies showing no MMR/autism link, from all around the world, funded by industry, government, and independent sources. And no reputable evidence to show that a link exists. For all of the research to be false, and MMR does cause autism, requires more than the simple influence of pharmaceutical companies. It requires control. It would require widespread control, for which there is no evdience. And it would require perfect control, because not one person has piped up and admitted that they falsified data, were paid to get a result, etc. If you do not like the term ‘conspiracy’ to describe this, then I will avoid the term. Whatever it is, it is unlikely.

    I have simply stated previously and in many different places that big Pharma fund the overwhelming majority of medical training and research (fact)

    This is not a fact, and you provided no source for your claim. Certainly, pharmaceutical companies fund some research that goes on in medical institutions. It in no way funds “the majority of medical training and research.”

    that all medical advisory panels and accreditation boards are made up of 2 types of members, those who were trained by the biased system and those who work directly for big Pharma before and/or after their tenure on said panels (fact)

    Again, not a fact, and not supported, and it is only your conjecture that the medical system is biased (based on your previous unsupported assertion that “big Pharma fund[s] the overwhelming majority of medical training”). And again, the fact that some members of once worked for something pharmaceutical-funded is insufficient to draw the conclusion that they will make medical decisions for the sole benefit of Big Pharma and against the best interests of children. Further, the majority of data that boards use to make recommendations, such as the MMR, is available for all to review. There would be widespread outrage by experts if they were making policy recommendations not supported by evidence.

    medical journals are for profit magazines who’s primary funding comes from big Pharma advertising (fact).

    Not all. And the ones that are for profit are also beholden to their subscribers to publish research that is ethical, legitimate, and peer reviewed. If they do not, they will lose subscribers and will lose advertising. For example, the publishing of the Wakefield article has caused The Lancet to take quite a critical beating. This is not good for the publication.

    In additon, journals frequently publish studies that are critical of pharmaceutical products all the time. The Wakefield paper is an example. Perhaps the best vaccine-related example is “Population-based study of rotavirus vaccination and intussusception” by Kramarz et al published in 2001 in the the Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal.” It showed an increase in intussusception associated with the old RotaShield vaccine. It led to the removal of the product from the market. From my perspective, if pharma is really trying to have significant influence over which studies get published, they’re not doing very well.

    Let us go back to ethics for a minute. Where is your laboratory controlled double-blind placebo study proving the efficacy of vaccines??? You love to avoid that question because you KNOW it doesn’t exist.

    Sure they do. Studies like “Safety and immunogenicity of trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine in infants: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study.” are all over the place. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19934787 Not every vaccine has a DBPC study behind it, particularly ones that have been around for many decades, but have plenty of supporting studies and evidence that demonstrate efficacy. If you believe that ONLY a DBPC study can prove efficacy, then you do not understand science very well.

    But yes, I do want to avoid the question abit because it diverts from the issue at hand, which is that MMR does not cause autism and Andrew Wakefield is accused of fraud. Even Wakefield believes that the MMR vaccine is effective.

    If people listen to shills like you, one could be forgiven for believing that mankind’s existence on this planet for thousands or millions of years, depending on your religious beliefs, by luck of the draw until Eli Lilley, Merck and the like came along and ensured our future. As if God’s (or nature’s) structure were really biased against the survival of mankind. Give me a break.

    How about you give me a break from the dramatic strawman arguments. No one who advocates the safety of vaccines thinks that humanity would be killed off from vaccine preventable diseases. However, there would be a lot more dead children. The goal of vaccination is not the survival of the human race. It is to prevent diseases that can, in some cases, be fatal or cause other permanent complications. This is a worthwhile goal.

    You people don’t like it when your assertions are not taken at face value. I understand that I am in the ‘lion’s den’ by commenting on here.

    People need to see that your view is not the only one and that there is substantial evidence contrary to your views, whether you choose to admit it or not.

    I love it when my assertions are not taken at face value. I want people to ask me to provide evidence of my claims. But I also insist that the other person provide evidence of their claims as well. I have asked for evidence, but you have not provided it, instead choosing to continue to divert the discussion from place to place. If there is “substantial evidence” contrary to my views, you have had ample time to produce it.

    However, the tone of this conversation has declined, and I would like to draw it to a close. Perhaps we can have another discussion on another thread in the future. I do hope that you continue to look for the truth, be sure you are critically evaluating your sources, and not accept statements as truth just because you agree with them. I will work hard to do the same.

    Peace,
    Nathan

    Like

  35. Nathan
    January 12, 2011 at 4:26 pm

    It would have been absolutely impossible for Wakefield to doctor (pardon the pun) the patients’ records as he would never have had access to those records for review , more less for editing.

    I forgot to mention this. According to Wakefield’s own paper abstract:

    “Children underwent gastroenterological, neurological, and developmental assessment and review of developmental records.

    And from the full text:

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

    http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(97)11096-0/fulltext#article_upsell

    Like

  36. christinevara
    January 12, 2011 at 4:46 pm

    Since the post refers to Brian Deer’s published articles in the British Medical Journal, they links for the articles released so far in the series are as follows:

    Part 1: http://bit.ly/gKUgXQ
    Part 2: http://bit.ly/igDM8f

    Stay tuned for Part 3, still to be released.

    Like

  37. January 12, 2011 at 5:11 pm

    The second article by Brian Deer on Andrew Wakefield has just come out. It is free and found at http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5258.full

    The word that comes to mind is British, gobsmacked. In a rational world, those who have wholeheartedly supported Wakefield would now be distancing themselves from him. You know, the “bad action, over zealous, but his ideas were useful.” That wouldn’t be true, but it would be more rational.

    But for the dyed-in-the-wool Wakefield apologists, that won’t happen. There are still over 3000 names on the Wakefield loyalty oath website.

    The article shows that just about every sin thrown by vaccination opponents against those they disagree with, actually happened with Wakefield. He was working with Big Pharma. He was working hard at the very time he was doing to the ‘science’, thinking and putting into action ways to make money, he wasn’t doing honest research, and he had huge conflicts of interests that he kept secret.

    Like

  38. Steve Michaels
    January 12, 2011 at 6:03 pm

    You people amaze me. Have you even read the Wakefield study? It does NOT link autism to the MMR vaccine and it never did. That is ALL media propaganda spin. All Wakefield’s findings stated was that he found a link between the MMR vaccine and the bowel syndrome that was linked to Autism. His findings stated that more research was necessary. And as far as the vaccine that Wakefield was working on, it was to treat the bowel syndrome already occurring in the victims (persistent measles virus infection), not a competitor for the myriad vaccines already available. That argument is yet another straw man. As far as studies linking MMR with autism:

    Goldman,GS and Yazbak,FE. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 2004;9(3):70-75
    Stott,C et al. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 2004;9(3):89-91

    Like

  39. Sara
    January 12, 2011 at 10:19 pm

    Just like I don’t read the drooling rantings of Mark with his Globalwhatever website, Heather’s continuing rants about an ingredient that was removed ten years ago or Sara’s evil baiting (“Any takers? I’ve been having fun insulting her, but she & Emily need a good EOHarm kick in the ass.”).

    ha ha. Well, you obviously pay enough attention to stalk me. I suppose you are trying to be intimidating? At least I don’t pretend to be someone I’m not. A REAL concerned mom doesn’t have time to lurk and take notes.

    Why don’t you spend more time caring for your non-exisistant disabled son – or over on Science Blogs where you belong?

    Actually, this made me reflect a bit. I might have been a little hard on Emily. I enjoyed her contribution to “Gravity Pulls You In”. I don’t agree with her on, well, most things – but I do on a few. However, Shannon is an annoying ass – and you are looney tunes.

    Like

  40. Sara
    January 13, 2011 at 12:32 am

    the gyrations you all going through now that St. Andy has been revealed as a greedy fraud.

    What gyrations? I haven’t even commented on this post, you delusional fool. Andy Wakefield is not my battle to fight. All I know – and what any sane parent would infer – is that he found bowel disease in the small number of children he treated – that also happened to have autism – that also happened to have received the MMR. And he concluded with “needs further research”. Big deal. Proves nothing other than NEEDS FURTHER RESEARCH.

    I have autism. And guess what Liz, oops, I mean Chris – it wasn’t caused by the MMR. But do I believe parents who say their children regressed after the MMR vaccine? Well, if it were one or two – I may be on the fence. Thousands… um, definitely. Just like I would believe a parent who told me that their child went into anaphylactic shock after consuming a peanut. Parents know their children. If you had any, you would know that too.

    Like

  41. Nathan
    January 13, 2011 at 2:57 pm

    Jeffy, you said.

    You people amaze me. Have you even read the Wakefield study? It does NOT link autism to the MMR vaccine and it never did.

    Sure it did. Right here:

    “We identified associated gastrointestinal disease and developmental regression in a group of previously normal children, which was generally associated in time with possible environmental triggers.” (emphasis mine)

    The only trigger the paper concerned itself with was the MMR.

    You don’t seem to realize that, and previously you did not know that the paper said specifically that they reviewed the children’s medical records. It’s ironic that you are asking if we have read it.

    Further, Wakefield subsequently made a promotional video about his work where he said:

    “And I have to say that there is sufficient anxiety in my own mind of the safety, the long term safety of the polyvalent, that is the MMR vaccination in combination, that I think that it should be suspended in favour of the single vaccines, that is continued use of the individual measles, mumps and rubella components.”

    Regarding your research, I’m really glad you have cited some evidence. Some observations about studies.

    1.) Neither of them replicate Wakefield’s findings, which is the question at hand.
    2.) Both are published in JPANDS, the journal of the official-sounding AAPS (Association of American Physicians and Surgeons) which is an extremely low-tier, non-indexed, non-peer reviewed publications with a massive political agenda. The AAPS site itself has a resolution against vaccination. If you are looking for bias-free science, this is the last place to go.
    3.) The Goldman study is a poor rehash by antivaccine activists of data that had already been analyzed. Further analysis of the hocus pocus of that study can be found here: http://justthevax.blogspot.com/2009/07/mmr-autism-claim-and-bad-science-part.html
    4.) The second reference is not a study but rather a commentary with Andrew Wakefield as one of the authors. I don’t think I need to say any more about that.

    Like

  42. Steve Michaels
    January 13, 2011 at 3:32 pm

    “We identified associated gastrointestinal disease and developmental regression in a group of previously normal children, which was generally associated in time with possible environmental triggers.” (emphasis mine)

    And the question at hand was the presence of cultivated measles viruses in the gastrointestinal tract, NOT the observed regression. The link, which is already clearly established, that you are crediting Wakefield with is that autistic children often suffer concurrent gastrointestinal problems. That was not what he was saying. What he was studying was the gastrointestinal issues, NOT autism except as these problems often occur in autistic children.

    “Both are published in JPANDS, the journal of the official-sounding AAPS (Association of American Physicians and Surgeons) which is an extremely low-tier, non-indexed, non-peer reviewed publications with a massive political agenda.”

    And Lancet and the BMJ and JAMA who all receive over 90% of their funding from pharmaceutical advertising DON’T have an agenda to protect? Please!

    “The Goldman study is a poor rehash by antivaccine activists”

    Again the broad brush of anyone who disagrees as an ‘activist’ or an ‘extremist’. Same old smear and misdirection commentary without substance.

    Like

  43. Nathan
    January 13, 2011 at 6:21 pm

    Jeffry,

    And the question at hand was the presence of cultivated measles viruses in the gastrointestinal tract, NOT the observed regression. The link, which is already clearly established, that you are crediting Wakefield with is that autistic children often suffer concurrent gastrointestinal problems. That was not what he was saying. What he was studying was the gastrointestinal issues, NOT autism except as these problems often occur in autistic children.

    Not at all, and it is again apparent that you have not read the study and are not familiar with Wakefield’s press events concerning his paper. I’m having some trouble understanding the middle of this paragraph, and I agreethat clearly the data in question was the presence of measles in the gut of children with regressive autism. But the hypothesis, which is apparent in the quote above and throughout the paper, is that it is part of a syndrome causing regressive autism in children given recent MMR. If that were not the case, then Wakefield would not have been advocating separating the MMR, as he did in his video.

    I don’t think there is much reason to argue about this. I agree that people can read the study themselves and make their own conclusions as to what Wakefield was trying to say.

    And Lancet and the BMJ and JAMA who all receive over 90% of their funding from pharmaceutical advertising DON’T have an agenda to protect? Please!

    Please, indeed. We just had this conversation. Mainstream journals publish articles concerning serious adverse events of vaccines all the time (go find me a study in JPANDS supporting the use of vaccines and we will have a more interesting conversation). I gave you examples. They receive advertising, just like newspapers, but that advertising money means nothing if they don’t have circulation. And their circulation depends upon providing their subscribers with quality, peer-reviewed, unbiased publications. There are definitely flaws with this (again, the wakefield paper) but your case that they have an exclusively pro-pharma publishing “agenda” is weak.

    If you cannot see the difference between publication between a major, peer-reviewed journal that publishes a wide variety of studies, and a small, non-peer reviewed journal with a dedicated anti-vaccine policy, I’m afraid you have a lot to learn. Further, the study is dwarfed by a dozen or so better designed studies showing no link, that are funded by a variety of sources that are not pharmaceutical companies.

    Again the broad brush of anyone who disagrees as an ‘activist’ or an ‘extremist’. Same old smear and misdirection commentary without substance.

    I never used the word “extremist” and I do not understand your issue with the word “activist.” I would consider us both activists – it means “an especially active, vigorous advocate of a cause” according to dictionary.com. And Yazbak and Goldman certainly fit in that category.

    But contrast that to the example above with rotavirus. Members of the same team that found adverse eventswith Rotashield comprised the majority of the team that went on to study thimerosal and autism in the paper “Safety of Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines: A Two-Phased Study of Computerized Health Maintenance Organization Databases” in 2003 and found no link. I would not consider them activists or extremists, but earnest scientist who report their findings honestly.

    Further, I linked you to a quite thorough scientific look at the problems with that study and could only respond by quibbling with my wording. Again, I have to chuckle about the fact that you demand evidence from everyone else without supplying much of your own.

    Like

  44. January 13, 2011 at 7:55 pm

    Wakefield’s theory was that children had persistent measles vaccine virus in their gut which damage their gut (not a lot as in Crohn’s or Ulcerative Colitis) so that the measles virus could reach the brain and cause autism.

    So as part of his study, he had his Ph.D. student, Nick Chadwick (with whom he had published papers with) test all the samples from not just the kids in the study by all those Wakefield continued to test. The gold standard for identifying the DNA of a sample is PCR sequencing. Chadwick sent out any samples that appeared positive for sequencing. All samples sent out came back negative. Chadwick told Wakefield. But Wakefield wrote the paper as if testing had not been done. Chadwick made sure his name was off the paper.

    Wakefield had Chadwick send samples to Japan. Chadwick sent them blinded along with test samples that should have either been positive or negative. The Japanese lab could not properly identify the test samples. Around 2000, Wakefield was an author with Japanese lab showing a lot of positive results. In the libel lawsuit against Brian Deer, Wakefield ended up stating that he was not relying on the paper from the Japanese lab.

    Chadwick testified to the facts above at the Omnibus Autism Proceedings. On Brian Deer’s website, you can find the document where Wakefield states he no longer relies on the Japanese study.
    A later, smaller and ethical study found a low percentage of kids did indeed have measles vaccine virus DNA in their guts, but the rate was the same for autistic and non-autistic kids.

    All the information above can be confirmed. It wasn’t raised as an issue at Wakefield’s disciplinary hearing. But it surely proves that Andrew Wakefield was not an intellectually honest researcher.

    Like

  45. Steve Michaels
    January 15, 2011 at 1:08 pm

    Primarily for Nathan, but also for anyone looking for a more moderate view: Check out Dr Richard Halvorsen, http://web.me.com/richardhalvorsen1/index.html

    Particularly his view on Wakefield’s ‘fraud’ as reported by Brian Deer: “We have to take a step back and wonder what is really going on here. To go to such extreme – and desperate – lengths to demonise Dr Wakefield (the person, note, not the science) some people must be very afraid. Afraid, presumably, that parents might actually believe something that is blatantly obvious: that is that all vaccines can cause serious adverse reactions, including autism.”

    Now remember, this is NOT an anti-vaccine ‘activist’. He runs a vaccine clinic. He just doesn’t buy the wholesale ‘vaccines are safe’ argument nor does he think vaccines lack efficacy. He thinks the schedules and timings are wrong. Yet he can see the witch hunt against Wakefield that people on here choose to ignore.

    Here are a few more studies that have duplicated Wakefield’s findings:

    Gonzalez, L. et al., Endoscopic and Histological Characteristics of the Digestive Mucosa in Autistic Children with gastro-Intestinal Symptoms. Arch Venez Pueric Pediatr, 2005;69:19-25.

    Balzola, F., et al., Panenteric IBD-like disease in a patient with regressive autism shown for the first time by wireless capsule enteroscopy: Another piece in the jig-saw of the gut-brain syndrome? American Journal of Gastroenterology, 2005. 100(4): p. 979- 981.

    Furlano R, Anthony A, Day R, Brown A, Mc Garvey L, Thomson M, et al. Colonic CD8 and T cell filtration with epithelial damage in children with autism. J Pediatr 2001;138:366-72.

    Torrente F, Anthony A, Heuschkel RB, Thomson MA, Ashwood P, Murch SH. Focal-enhanced gastritis in regressive autism with features distinct from Crohn’s and Helicobacter pylori gastritis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99:598-605

    Like

  46. Nathan
    January 17, 2011 at 3:20 am

    Steve,

    Firstly, I apologize for calling you “Jeffry” in the last post. I had my threads crossed.

    Secondly, just because a study is about the GI tract in autistic children does not mean that it replicates Wakefield’s findings. The studies you cited do not seem to duplicate his findings in any way, and it is very important to check the studies themselves before assuming such. And they pale quite badly in comparison to the actual research concerning MMR and autism.

    Gonzalez et al does not appear to be published in an indexed journal. In fact, I was unable to find so much as an abstract of this study online. If you have a link to the study, please post it. Again, the fact that this does not appear in a peer-reviewed, indexed journal does not speak well for its potential quality. From what I can gather on blogs, it does not duplicate Wakefields findings (see here: http://justthevax.blogspot.com/2010/02/independent-wakefield-way-really.html) simply finds a higher incidence of GI problems in autistic individuals, which is well recognized. However, I would like to read the translated study if you can find it.

    Balzola et all does not appear to have an available abstract, but from the brief excerpt here (http://www.nature.com/ajg/journal/v100/n4/full/ajg2005166a.html) looks like a letter to the editor that concerns a single adult case report. Since it is uses wireless capsule enteroscopy, it is unlikely to have anything to do with finding measles RNA.

    Furlano et al is coauthored by Wakefield. Fool me once…

    Torrente et al looks at gastritis in autistic children and is authored by several of Wakefields colleagues from the Lancet article.

    I explore your link to the GP Dr. Halvorsen. I didn’t find his quote about Wakefield (I think the blog link was broken), but I don’t see how his personal opinion is pertinent at all in light of the clear evidence that Wakefield is a fraud and a charlatan. Bringing Wakefield’s fraud to light is not a “desperate” act, but important in making sure that parents are not mislead by unethical, deceitful research.

    Further, Dr. Halvorsen may not consider himself “anti-vaccine,” but like virtually every one of the handful of medical “experts” that fall on the antivaccine side of the fence, he wants to sell you his version of the alternative, namely his books and his “vaccine consultation service.” Like Dr. Sears, he has probably found a nice niche in catering to not-entirely-anti-vaccine parents, but is still completely wrong when it comes to the science.

    The musings of such a doctor are not particularly powerful compared to the evidence of both Wakefield’s fraud and the lack of MMR/autism association.

    Like

  47. Gary
    January 17, 2011 at 5:18 am

    That’s unfortunate because I would not have rebutted that way at all.

    Judging by your source “it [the theory that vaccines have been used to sterilize people]” is indeed a loony conspiracy theory. That site is in its own words “e company has evolved into one of the premier educational publishers of “health science and government cover-up” literature.”

    So, yeah, loony conspiracy theories.

    Like

  48. Steve Michaels
    January 17, 2011 at 11:56 am

    So let me get this right… if a study is co-authored by colleagues of Wakefield’s who were not called into question, then the study must be flawed. Not logical. Classic straw man argument in fact. Guilt by association when no other type of guilt is evidenced. And “every one of the handful of medical “experts” that fall on the antivaccine side of the fence, he wants to sell you his version of the alternative.” If you are so convinced of doctor’s who disagree with you are only driven by a profit motive, why do so blindly accept the word of ‘experts’ who agree with you AND hold patents and get paid royalties AND move freely between regulator and corporate positions for great profit? The inconsistency of your approach is quite transparent. I really don’t think I need to press the point on this thread any further. I believe people of open mind will see your apologies for the pharmaceutical industry and realise that you are just a shill.

    Like

  49. Nathan
    January 18, 2011 at 11:50 am

    Steve,

    So let me get this right… if a study is co-authored by colleagues of Wakefield’s who were not called into question, then the study must be flawed.

    No, not necessarily. But we are talking about independently duplicating Wakefields findings. How on earth can you call it independently duplicating his findings when it’s his own team? Don’t pretend that if a vaccine efficacy study was found to be outright fraudulent, that you would accept a repeat study if even one author from the fraudulent study was involved. I would not accept that either. And mind you that one of the authors, Simon Murch, was indeed “called into question” and was under investigation, though he did not ultimately lose his license.

    But more importantly, the study did not replicate Wakefield’s findings, regardless of who the authors were. It found some gastritis in certain autistic children, not intestinal inflammation or measles RNA. And it has no mention of the MMR.

    Classic straw man argument in fact.

    Let’s get these terms straight. A strawman argument is, essentially, when someone puts an argument in another’s mouth and then defeats that argument instead of the actual argument. I did not do that, but a strawman argument is exactly what you constructed in the first quote above. The fallacy you might be looking for is “poisoning the well,” (stating that something -like an argument, or a study- is bad because the person involved did something else that was bad; attacking studies with Thorsen involved is a nice example) though as I explained, Wakefield’s results were not in fact duplicated. Period.

    If you are so convinced of doctor’s who disagree with you are only driven by a profit motive, why do so blindly accept the word of ‘experts’ who agree with you AND hold patents and get paid royalties AND move freely between regulator and corporate positions for great profit?

    I don’t, and that is another example of a fine strawman argument. I have not once asserted that you should take the word of any single person regardless of their credentials, particularly anyone who benefits directly from vaccine sales or pharmaceuticals, but rather the combined expert opinions of hundreds of experts and researchers who do not fall into that category. And even more than that, the studies themselves.

    I believe people of open mind will see your apologies for the pharmaceutical industry and realise that you are just a shill.

    And that is an “ad hominem.” It should not matter who I am for my arguments to have merit, but I’ll say a bit so you might see things from my perspective.

    I am not a person who trusts in pharmaceutical companies to look out for anything other than their bottom line, and I do not put blind faith in their studies. In fact, research shows that studies sponsored by pharmaceutical companies is more likely to have a favorable conclusion than other research.

    However, it seems that it would not be in a company’s best interest to produce dangerous products that run the risk of being pulled off the market. A company might try to cover up data discovered after the market, but that is what post-consumer surveillance is for. I also do not find compelling evidence that the CDC or medical journals/medical schools are “in the pocket” of pharmaceutical companies. I already explained how unlikely this is (and how little evidence exists) many times above.

    You might think that it is “ad hominem” for me to question Halvorsen’s motives because he is selling something. However, I was quite clear that he has a poor understanding of the science, and his opinion does not at all take away from Wakefield’s guilt, for which the evidence is convincing. My observation about how antivaccine “experts” always want to sell you their alternative was just that, an observation. However, is it not a valid precaution to be wary of people who profit directly from the issue at hand? There are certainly people who profit from vaccines as well, and I would not take their sole word for it. But the vast majority of people who advocate immunization do not benefit in this way, and the science concerning the issue is strong.

    A single person or small group can easily be wrong, or completely corrupt. A larger group can still be wrong, or corrupt, but it is less likely, especially if no one has ever comes out and said “Yeah, we lied there,” etc. The larger the group is, the less likely there is to have outright, full corruption and malice, without it becoming quite obvious to the mainstream via whistleblowers and verifiable evidence. Don’t get me wrong – there is certainly corruption within government, but what we are talking about here is a massively large-scale cover-up of scientific information that would be virtually impossible to keep a secret.

    As for my motives, I’ve known enough children who have died or been disabled from vaccine preventable disease, and am also frutstrated that money and resources must be diverted from research that can actually make a difference in the lives of autistic children, to repeatedly disprove a hypothesis that had a shoddy (and manufactured) scientific premise in the first place.

    That is enough reason for me to spend a little time on a couple of sites on the internet making sure that parents are presented with accurate information.

    Like

  50. January 29, 2011 at 12:27 am

    Breaking News that changes everything.

    Dr. Wakefield is, finally, vindicated­. This round table interview is the beginning of the end for all we have been up against in this vaccine war. Hear the 27th. It will be the best 4 hours you’ve ever spent;

    http://www­.progressi­veradionet­work.com/t­he-gary-nu­ll-show-wn­ye/

    Be sure to hear Brian Deer’s awesome interview on the 25th where he’s revealed clearly for all who care to see. He hangs himself with his own words, dodging questions & changing the subject, in his obvious ploy to try to pull off the “Elaborate Fraud” he represents­.

    “Documents emerge proving Dr Andrew Wakefield innocent; BMJ and Brian Deer caught misreprese­nting the facts”

    http://www­.vaccinesa­fetyfirst.­com/pdf/BR­IAN%20DEER%20­IS%20THE%2­0LIAR%20.p­df

    “Dr Wakefield demands retraction from BMJ after documents prove innocence from allegation­s of vaccine autism data fraud/
    Uncovered Documents Prove There Was No Fraud in Lancet Case Series”

    http://www­.vaccinesa­fetyfirst.­com/pdf/BM­J%20MUST%20­RETRACT.pd­f

    “Wakefield Gives Proof: No Fraud. Brian Deer Lied”

    http://gai­a-health.c­om/article­s351/00039­4-wakefiel­d-proof-no­-fraud.sht­ml

    There you have it. Vindicatio­n for the good doctor. Charges will be brought against Brian Deer. See for yourself. Brian’s short interview gives him away & the four hour round table gave the proof.

    Like

  51. Gary
    January 29, 2011 at 1:58 am

    Fascinating. NONE of those links work for me. But since Steve already pointed to a natural news article making essentally the same claims, I am going to respond to you spam with my own.

    There are so many problems with that natural news article that it almost sets a new record for natural news. And that’s saying a lot.

    1) The first sentence is a lie. “In light of new evidence that has emerged clearing Dr Wakefield of the allegations that he fabricated study data involving MMR vaccines and symptoms of autism,”
    This evidence is not new. The GMC which investigated the case saw almost all of it during their enquiry. Wakefiled presented this evidence to the court in Britain when he sued Brian Deer and his lawyer was forced to settle the case in Deer’s favor including paying Deer’s court costs. This evidence also does not clear Wakefiled of anything. It consists of notes discovered by his co author (the only one of his co authors to also be stripped of his license) purporting to show similar results to those reported by Wakefield in the now infamous report. These notes of his co author are described in the article as “another medical research team which included a senior pathologist independently documented evidence of a possible MMR vaccine – autism link 14 months before Dr Wakefield’s paper first appears in The Lancet”.

    2) The newly released documents cited in the article are little more than Mr Whitefield’s own book.

    3) Given that the GMC heard all of this evidence and still found Wakefield guilty of dishonesty, it seems very unlikely that any court would find that either Brian DEER nor the BMJ has acted unethically. Certainly not to an extent that would require a retraction.

    Here is the GMC decision: http://briandeer.com/solved/gmc-charge-sheet.pdf

    See especially the section labeled “Child 2″. It details this child’s participation in the study dating back to the time that the “new” information is supposed to indicate that this child was being seen by an independent researcher.

    NONE of that article is true. If anyone should retract anything, natural news should retract that post. They won’t, of course, and they can’t be expected to. It is a new low for them, indeed, but it is not really that far below their regular standards.

    Like

  52. January 29, 2011 at 8:06 pm

    Your points & link to the GMC decision are moot, Gary. Did you, even, listen to the real facts exposed in the four hour round table on the 27th at the first link? Did you listen to Lie/n Brian’s incriminating interview on the 25th, there? I don’t think that link was corrupted so did you listen & scrutinize all five hours & the many documents presented, too? Did you, Gary?

    Deer’s interview, very appropriately, began with the song, “Oh Happy Day” & he hung himself completely. Case closed.

    Did you hear of the charges being brought against the GMC & Brian Deer? The table has turned so there’s no sense in your trying to continue the cover up with that same old rhetoric & propaganda you’ve been taught to parrot your bogus talking points with.

    If the links I sent became corrupted just cut & paste or type the subjects in Google or any search engine you like;

    The interviews:

    http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-gary-null-show-wnye/

    If the above link won’t work, type or paste, progressiveradionetwork.com, into any search engine like Google you want.

    “Documents emerge proving Dr Andrew Wakefield innocent”
    Type or paste the above words for many sites & different sources carrying the story if the link’s broken.

    http://www.naturalnews.com/031116_Dr_Andrew_Wakefield_British_Medical_Journal.html

    “Dr Wakefield demands retraction from BMJ after documents prove innocence from allegation­s of vaccine autism data fraud”

    http://dailypaul.com/node/155324

    “Wakefield Gives Proof: No Fraud. Brian Deer Lied”

    http://gaia-health.com/articles351/000394-wakefield-proof-no-fraud.shtml

    For those who might not know how to fix links. The same goes for these last two as with any broken ones you find from here on out. Put a whole sentence or subject matter in Google or whatever search engine you choose. You can do this for any links as they, many times, become corrupted after we send them. You usually will find a gold mine of credible cites & sources on whatever you’re trying to research but there will, usually, be disinformation needed sorted out. That’s where we get to use our own logic & common sense instead of just beLIEving what we are fed.

    Like

  53. January 29, 2011 at 8:42 pm

    Oh & for what Chris said early on in the comment section of this bogus article of deception concerning Poul Thorsen;

    Chris | January 7, 2011 at 1:40 am | “Possibly because he was a minor author and not part of several other articles that showed there was no link between vaccines and autism”

    Minor author? Wrong. He was the top researcher/scientist over those involved with the Danish studies. Do you even know what, “primary scientific and administrative oversight”, means, Chris?

    And for his running off with all that money, calling it coincidence is stretching it just like you people try to convince the world so many children being damaged by vaccines is coincidence, when thinking people paying attention know very well it is not.

    “Central Figure in CDC Vaccine Cover-Up Absconds With $2M”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/central-figure-in-cdc-vac_b_494303.html

    “Statement regarding Dr. Poul Thorsen’s involvement in Aarhus University projects”

    http://tinyurl.com/34tp856

    “This statement confirms Thorsen’s “primary scientific and administrative oversight” of the CDC Denmark project, a collaboration involving studies which found against a mercury-autism connection. It also confirms the disappearance of funds and that “Aarhus University will not be able to collaborate with Poul Thorsen in the future.”

    End

    And as for those other articles Chris says Thorsen had nothing to do with, how about showing us some from those without vested interests. Let’s see some by unbiased entities pushing vaccines not associated with the same foxes who have been guarding the hen houses. Hmmmm, Chris?
    Can’t, huh? That’s because they don’t exist. Only truth does & it’s out.

    Like

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s