MMR scare pair acted ‘dishonestly and irresponsibly’ GMC reveals charges against Wakefield and colleagues THREE DOCTORS who carried out the research which sparked controversy over the safety of the MMR vaccine will face a catalogue of allegations of serious professional misconduct this month.
Watchdog body the General Medical Council (GMC) has confirmed that Dr Andrew Wakefield will be summoned for a disciplinary hearing on July 16. Two former colleagues, Professor John Walker-Smith and Professor Simon Murch, will face a number of charges at the same time.
The inquiry - which takes place in London and is expected to last three months - will centre on a study published in The Lancet medical journal in 1998, which found a connection between the jab for mumps, measles and rubella with autism and bowel disease. Wakefield subsequently recommended the use of single vaccines.
Last week, a detailed list of charges against the three was published for the first time by the GMC. The allegations include that they undertook research between 1996-8 without proper ethical approval. They are also accused of allowing investigations such as colonoscopies and lumbar punctures to be carried out on children, against the patients' interests.
Wakefield and Walker-Smith are said to have acted "dishonestly and irresponsibly" by failing to disclose in the Lancet study the method by which they recruited patients for the research, which it is claimed resulted in misleading information in the paper. They also face charges relating to giving a treatment - which is not identified by the GMC - to a child for experimental reasons, without checking its safety first. Murch faces no such charges.
Wakefield alone faces several other charges. It is alleged he was involved in advising solicitors acting for people alleged to have been harmed by the MMR vaccine and failed to disclose to the hospital ethics committee that he had received funding from the Legal Aid Board for the study. It is alleged that he ordered investigations on some children without having relevant paediatric qualifications.
He is also charged with failing to disclose his involvement in MMR litigation to the editor of The Lancet. And he is accused of acting unethically and abusing his position of trust by taking blood from children at a birthday party to use for research purposes.
The statement from the GMC says that it will investigate the allegation to establish the doctors' fitness to practice, but adds: "The GMC does not regard its remit as extending to arbitrating between competing scientific theories generated in the course of medical research."
Wakefield, Walker-Smith and Murch were employed at the Royal Free Hospital in London at the time of the research, but all have since left. Although Murch was involved in the original study, he has consistently stated there is no proven link between the MMR vaccine and autism.
In the health scare that followed the publication of the study, the number of two-year-olds vaccinated with the MMR jab in Scotland dropped from 94% in 1995 to 86% in 2003. Latest figures show that it has now risen to just over 92%, although that is still short of the coverage target of 95%.
Parents of autistic children have pledged to demonstrate outside the hearing to show their support of the doctors.
An on-line petition which demands the government and health organisations "stop investigating the doctors and start investigating the patients" has now collected more than 7000 signatures.
|
|
Posted by: Victoria J West, USA on 12:21am Sun 8 Jul 07
Since Dr Wakefield's results have been replicated by other researchers, one has to shake one's head at the pompous fools who would pursue this case. As for the physicians who have abandoned Dr Wakefield and denounced the work...don't make research or medical practice your day job. It is the children, their care and healing that matter here. Not your careers.
How many children are suffering needlessly for those careers? How does it feel to victimize those who have already suffered so?
If Scotland is so concerned about vaccination, why not adopt a safer standard and/or product? That's all the parents want. With that the rates will improve...unless of course they have dropped because so many, many children have been adversely affected such that the parents will never vaccinate them. If that is the case, that certainly isn't Dr Wakefield's fault!
Since Dr Wakefield's results have been replicated by other researchers, one has to shake one's head at the pompous fools who would pursue this case. As for the physicians who have abandoned Dr Wakefield and denounced the work...don't make research or medical practice your day job. It is the children, their care and healing that matter here. Not your careers.
How many children are suffering needlessly for those careers? How does it feel to victimize those who have already suffered so?
If Scotland is so concerned about vaccination, why not adopt a safer standard and/or product? That's all the parents want. With that the rates will improve...unless of course they have dropped because so many, many children have been adversely affected such that the parents will never vaccinate them. If that is the case, that certainly isn't Dr Wakefield's fault!
Posted by: JamesM, Glasgow on 12:52am Sun 8 Jul 07
[quote][bold]Victoria J West[/bold] wrote:
Since Dr Wakefield's results have been replicated by other researchers, one has to shake one's head at the pompous fools who would pursue this case. As for the physicians who have abandoned Dr Wakefield and denounced the work...don't make research or medical practice your day job. It is the children, their care and healing that matter here. Not your careers. How many children are suffering needlessly for those careers? How does it feel to victimize those who have already suffered so? If Scotland is so concerned about vaccination, why not adopt a safer standard and/or product? That's all the parents want. With that the rates will improve...unless of course they have dropped because so many, many children have been adversely affected such that the parents will never vaccinate them. If that is the case, that certainly isn't Dr Wakefield's fault![/quote] Interesting. I thought Wakefield's results results had [italic]not[/italic] been replicated. Can you quote the references for the papers you're talking about? I'd like to take a look.
Victoria J West wrote:
Since Dr Wakefield's results have been replicated by other researchers, one has to shake one's head at the pompous fools who would pursue this case. As for the physicians who have abandoned Dr Wakefield and denounced the work...don't make research or medical practice your day job. It is the children, their care and healing that matter here. Not your careers. How many children are suffering needlessly for those careers? How does it feel to victimize those who have already suffered so? If Scotland is so concerned about vaccination, why not adopt a safer standard and/or product? That's all the parents want. With that the rates will improve...unless of course they have dropped because so many, many children have been adversely affected such that the parents will never vaccinate them. If that is the case, that certainly isn't Dr Wakefield's fault!
Interesting. I thought Wakefield's results results had
not been replicated. Can you quote the references for the papers you're talking about? I'd like to take a look.
Posted by: Helen Lovejoy, Springfield on 1:26am Sun 8 Jul 07
[bold]The children! The children! Will someone please think of the children!!!
[/bold]
Looks like the GMC actually are, with their concentration on allegations of acting unethically, abusing positions of trust and carrying out invasive tests on children, against the patients' interests.
None of that will stop the conspiracy theorists and obsessives from springing to these bozos' defence.
The children! The children! Will someone please think of the children!!!
Looks like the GMC actually are, with their concentration on allegations of acting unethically, abusing positions of trust and carrying out invasive tests on children, against the patients' interests.
None of that will stop the conspiracy theorists and obsessives from springing to these bozos' defence.
Posted by: Meagan McGovern, Austin, Texas on 6:14am Sun 8 Jul 07
[quote][bold]Helen Lovejoy[/bold] wrote:
[bold]The children! The children! Will someone please think of the children!!!
[/bold]
Looks like the GMC actually are, with their concentration on allegations of acting unethically, abusing positions of trust and carrying out invasive tests on children, against the patients' interests.
None of that will stop the conspiracy theorists and obsessives from springing to these bozos' defence.[/quote] Dr. Wakefield may be many things, but he's not a bozo and I'm not a conspiracy theorist. If you do the research and see what the charges are, Dr. Wakefield never said the MMR caused autism -- only that there might be a connection and that it's worth looking into.
For what it's worth, I live in Texas and my son, who's two, almost three, is being treated at Thoughtful House, Dr. Wakefield's new clinic. My son is now completely free of all autistic symptoms after following Dr. Wakefield's protocol.
I'll accept listening to a bozo if it saves my son from a lifetime of autism.
The results speak for themselves.
I am thinking of the children, and nothing else.
Helen Lovejoy wrote:
The children! The children! Will someone please think of the children!!!
Looks like the GMC actually are, with their concentration on allegations of acting unethically, abusing positions of trust and carrying out invasive tests on children, against the patients' interests.
None of that will stop the conspiracy theorists and obsessives from springing to these bozos' defence.
Dr. Wakefield may be many things, but he's not a bozo and I'm not a conspiracy theorist. If you do the research and see what the charges are, Dr. Wakefield never said the MMR caused autism -- only that there might be a connection and that it's worth looking into.
For what it's worth, I live in Texas and my son, who's two, almost three, is being treated at Thoughtful House, Dr. Wakefield's new clinic. My son is now completely free of all autistic symptoms after following Dr. Wakefield's protocol.
I'll accept listening to a bozo if it saves my son from a lifetime of autism.
The results speak for themselves.
I am thinking of the children, and nothing else.
Posted by: JamesM, Glasgow on 7:21am Sun 8 Jul 07
Is it the case that Wakefield failed to get ethics committee approval before he carried out his study? If so, that's a fatal error in medical practice in the UK.
I believe it is disigenuous to suggest Wakefield claimed only yhat there might be a connection between MMR and autism. Is it true that he was being paid to the do the research by lawyers representing people who alleged their children had been affected by MMR, and didn't disclose this before publication? This is a serious offence in research practice. If that is true, Wakefield is in large part the author of his own misfortunes.
I still can't find any published research that supports the claim that MMR causes autism. I would be happy to have a child immunised with MMR.
Is it the case that Wakefield failed to get ethics committee approval before he carried out his study? If so, that's a fatal error in medical practice in the UK.
I believe it is disigenuous to suggest Wakefield claimed only yhat there might be a connection between MMR and autism. Is it true that he was being paid to the do the research by lawyers representing people who alleged their children had been affected by MMR, and didn't disclose this before publication? This is a serious offence in research practice. If that is true, Wakefield is in large part the author of his own misfortunes.
I still can't find any published research that supports the claim that MMR causes autism. I would be happy to have a child immunised with MMR.
Posted by: JamesM, Glasgow on 7:22am Sun 8 Jul 07
Sorry - I should say [bold]peer-reviewed[/bold] published research that supports the claim that MMR causes autism.
Sorry - I should say
peer-reviewed published research that supports the claim that MMR causes autism.
Posted by: Helen Lovejoy, Springfield, Fife on 7:30am Sun 8 Jul 07
Mrs McGovern from far over the seas - you aren't defending these bozos against the GMC's specific indictments, but against other complaints not made by the GMC. I'm glad your child is doing well, but I don't think you actually read what I wrote.
Mrs McGovern from far over the seas - you aren't defending these bozos against the GMC's specific indictments, but against other complaints not made by the GMC. I'm glad your child is doing well, but I don't think you actually read what I wrote.
Posted by: michael, Sydney Australia on 7:52am Sun 8 Jul 07
Dr Wakefield’s theory was that the MMR vaccine might lead to gut inflammation, which decreases the amount of vitamins and nutrients that children can absorb. As a result, he suggested, this might cause developmental disorders such as autism. This theory was based on two studies involving 25 children.
Dr Wakefield’s study was of poor quality because it included only vaccinated children and was based primarily on what parents could remember. Parents understandably are more likely to link changes in behaviour with memorable events like vaccination.
A number of much better designed studies, involving large numbers of both vaccinated and unvaccinated children, have tested this theory. These studies have concluded that there is no link between MMR vaccine and autism. The best study looked at autism and MMR vaccination in all children born in Denmark over a number of years. No link was found.
In March 2004, 10 of the 12 researchers who worked with Dr Wakefield published a retraction in the Lancet stating that "no causal link was established between MMR vaccine and autism as the data were insufficient"
Dr Wakefield’s theory was that the MMR vaccine might lead to gut inflammation, which decreases the amount of vitamins and nutrients that children can absorb. As a result, he suggested, this might cause developmental disorders such as autism. This theory was based on two studies involving 25 children.
Dr Wakefield’s study was of poor quality because it included only vaccinated children and was based primarily on what parents could remember. Parents understandably are more likely to link changes in behaviour with memorable events like vaccination.
A number of much better designed studies, involving large numbers of both vaccinated and unvaccinated children, have tested this theory. These studies have concluded that there is no link between MMR vaccine and autism. The best study looked at autism and MMR vaccination in all children born in Denmark over a number of years. No link was found.
In March 2004, 10 of the 12 researchers who worked with Dr Wakefield published a retraction in the Lancet stating that "no causal link was established between MMR vaccine and autism as the data were insufficient"
Posted by: Kev, Staffordshire, UK on 8:03am Sun 8 Jul 07
It should also be noted that in the recent MMR/Thiomersal/autis
m Omnibus hearings in the US, it was revealed that:
a) The lab Wakefield used was contaminated. The contamination type made it impossible that measles virus was ever actually detected in the test subjects.
b) In the original test subjects, Wakefield knowingly rejected the findings of Nick Chadwick which indicated Wakefield had made mistakes. Chadwick took his name off the paper as a result.
Please see here for court transcriptions:
http://www.kevinleit
ch.co.uk/wp/?p=569
It should also be noted that in the recent MMR/Thiomersal/autis
m Omnibus hearings in the US, it was revealed that:
a) The lab Wakefield used was contaminated. The contamination type made it impossible that measles virus was ever actually detected in the test subjects.
b) In the original test subjects, Wakefield knowingly rejected the findings of Nick Chadwick which indicated Wakefield had made mistakes. Chadwick took his name off the paper as a result.
Please see here for court transcriptions:
http://www.kevinleit
ch.co.uk/wp/?p=569
Posted by: John Stone, London N22 on 9:04am Sun 8 Jul 07
The case that Andrew Wakefield had failed to get ethical consent was rejected the Lancet in 2004. It will be interest to examine the technical grounds for reviving these accusations, but it looks tenuous and technical.
A review of peer review studies supporting the Wakefield hypothesis can be found here:
http://www.vaproject
.org/thrower/mmr-bri
efing-20070430.htm
However, the fact is that research has been slowed by the fact that the health officials/pharma reps who have an interest in suppreessing research are very heavily represented in peer journal review committees.
People ought to be very concerned that their officials remain silent or evasive about the autism epidemic.
http://observer.guar
dian.co.uk/uk_news/s
tory/0,,2121521,00.h
tml
Do they give a ****? And if you child suffered an adverse reaction to one of their jabs would they be keen to investigate?
The case that Andrew Wakefield had failed to get ethical consent was rejected the Lancet in 2004. It will be interest to examine the technical grounds for reviving these accusations, but it looks tenuous and technical.
A review of peer review studies supporting the Wakefield hypothesis can be found here:
http://www.vaproject
.org/thrower/mmr-bri
efing-20070430.htm
However, the fact is that research has been slowed by the fact that the health officials/pharma reps who have an interest in suppreessing research are very heavily represented in peer journal review committees.
People ought to be very concerned that their officials remain silent or evasive about the autism epidemic.
http://observer.guar
dian.co.uk/uk_news/s
tory/0,,2121521,00.h
tml
Do they give a ****? And if you child suffered an adverse reaction to one of their jabs would they be keen to investigate?
Posted by: Trish Niblock, Edinburgh on 9:14am Sun 8 Jul 07
We need people like Dr Wakefield who do not follow the herd and who instead are 100% focused on the well being of the child/patient.
We have to have people who put their own careers at risk because of their genuine awareness of something being wrong with the current ethos.
To stand against the wave for what might be an important truth is commendable.
We need more open minds - and should not be prosecuting them.
It is also common sense to consider that babies have delicate immune systems - why overload them?
We need people like Dr Wakefield who do not follow the herd and who instead are 100% focused on the well being of the child/patient.
We have to have people who put their own careers at risk because of their genuine awareness of something being wrong with the current ethos.
To stand against the wave for what might be an important truth is commendable.
We need more open minds - and should not be prosecuting them.
It is also common sense to consider that babies have delicate immune systems - why overload them?
Posted by: Cynicus, Fife on 9:15am Sun 8 Jul 07
Big Pharma's long running passion for mercury as a preservative adjuvant in vaccines is a continuing crime against humanity.
The medical establishment eagerly prop up its supposed safety to sustain its inappropriate use in dental amalgams, pharmaceuticals and agrichemicals.
No amount of mercury should be deliberately introduced into any living thing, let alone a child.
Affected parents at least begin to understand this -
http://www.jabs.org.
uk/
Dr D Ayoub's video offers an explanation -
http://video.google.
com:80/videoplay?doc
id=68901066634128406
46
Big Pharma's long running passion for mercury as a preservative adjuvant in vaccines is a continuing crime against humanity.
The medical establishment eagerly prop up its supposed safety to sustain its inappropriate use in dental amalgams, pharmaceuticals and agrichemicals.
No amount of mercury should be deliberately introduced into any living thing, let alone a child.
Affected parents at least begin to understand this -
http://www.jabs.org.
uk/
Dr D Ayoub's video offers an explanation -
http://video.google.
com:80/videoplay?doc
id=68901066634128406
46
Posted by: John Stone, London N22 on 9:15am Sun 8 Jul 07
I would like to make it clear that the deleted word in my above posting was not one that would normally be considered offensive. Like Captain Corcoran in HMS Pinafore I stand condemned for using a "Big, big D". 125 years of political correctness.
I would like to make it clear that the deleted word in my above posting was not one that would normally be considered offensive. Like Captain Corcoran in HMS Pinafore I stand condemned for using a "Big, big D". 125 years of political correctness.
Posted by: John Stone, London N22 on 9:43am Sun 8 Jul 07
It is also fair to point out how timid the press have been in reporting the families' and Dr Wakefield's side. This report from Private Eye gives some idea:
Private Eye
8 June - 21 June 2007
MMR
Conflict of Interest Zone
Red faces at the General Medical Council (GMC), which next month will decide whether Dr Andrew Wakefield is to be struck off for allegedly failing to declare a conflict of interest between his research and his role as an expert in the MMR litigation.
The man chosen to chair the GMC's disciplinary panel deciding Dr Wakefield's fate and that of two of his former colleagues at London's Royal Free Hospital, has an unfortunate clash of interest of his own.
Prof Denis McDevitt, a clinical pharmacologist, once sat on the government advisory committee that looked at adverse reactions to vaccinations and immunisations and considered issues of MMR safety. He attended meetings that discussed warnings from other countries about an early form of the triple jab, using the Urabe strain of mumps virus, which caused encephalitis and meningitis.
Despite warnings and the fact that this vaccine had already been withdrawn in Canada, the Urabe-containing jab was introduced in the UK in 1988. After it caused meningitis and encephalitis in children, it was finally withdrawn in 1992 and replaced with the safer - and more expensive - MMR II. (Eye readers may recall how the drug manufacturers off-loaded their dodgy vaccine to Brazil where a hospital in Salvador was said to have been "saturated" with encephalitis cases.)
Some of the 12 children whose medical history featured in the controversial 1998 Lancet paper, drawn up by Dr Wakefield and his colleagues and which suggested a possible link between the jab and bowel disease and regressive autism, had received the Urabe-strain vaccine - as indeed had some of those children in the high court litigation with manufacturers.
In fact another embarrassing clash of interest has arisen in the law courts too. Parents who claimed their children were damaged by the vaccine have complained that Mr Justice Davis, the judge who in 2004 sanctioned the withdrawal of legal aid, should never have sat on the case. His brother, Sir Crispin Davis, is a non-executive director and shareholder of Glaxo SmithKline, one of the defendant drug companies in the litigation. The loss of legal aid effectively scuppered the claims of most of the 1,000-plus families who were suing.
A spokesman for Mr Justice Davis said that "the possibility of any conflict of interest arising from his brother's position was not raised with him and did not occur to him. If he was wrong, any possible remedy must be sought from the court of appeal."
Meanwhile, back at the GMC the Eye asked if Prof McDevitt was being removed from the disciplinary panel. A spokeswoman said the composition of panels was never discussed ahead of hearings, but that "as with any case we will have satisfied ourselves that there is no conflict of interest for any of the panellists". We assume that means he will not now be sitting. Watch this space.
It is also fair to point out how timid the press have been in reporting the families' and Dr Wakefield's side. This report from Private Eye gives some idea:
Private Eye
8 June - 21 June 2007
MMR
Conflict of Interest Zone
Red faces at the General Medical Council (GMC), which next month will decide whether Dr Andrew Wakefield is to be struck off for allegedly failing to declare a conflict of interest between his research and his role as an expert in the MMR litigation.
The man chosen to chair the GMC's disciplinary panel deciding Dr Wakefield's fate and that of two of his former colleagues at London's Royal Free Hospital, has an unfortunate clash of interest of his own.
Prof Denis McDevitt, a clinical pharmacologist, once sat on the government advisory committee that looked at adverse reactions to vaccinations and immunisations and considered issues of MMR safety. He attended meetings that discussed warnings from other countries about an early form of the triple jab, using the Urabe strain of mumps virus, which caused encephalitis and meningitis.
Despite warnings and the fact that this vaccine had already been withdrawn in Canada, the Urabe-containing jab was introduced in the UK in 1988. After it caused meningitis and encephalitis in children, it was finally withdrawn in 1992 and replaced with the safer - and more expensive - MMR II. (Eye readers may recall how the drug manufacturers off-loaded their dodgy vaccine to Brazil where a hospital in Salvador was said to have been "saturated" with encephalitis cases.)
Some of the 12 children whose medical history featured in the controversial 1998 Lancet paper, drawn up by Dr Wakefield and his colleagues and which suggested a possible link between the jab and bowel disease and regressive autism, had received the Urabe-strain vaccine - as indeed had some of those children in the high court litigation with manufacturers.
In fact another embarrassing clash of interest has arisen in the law courts too. Parents who claimed their children were damaged by the vaccine have complained that Mr Justice Davis, the judge who in 2004 sanctioned the withdrawal of legal aid, should never have sat on the case. His brother, Sir Crispin Davis, is a non-executive director and shareholder of Glaxo SmithKline, one of the defendant drug companies in the litigation. The loss of legal aid effectively scuppered the claims of most of the 1,000-plus families who were suing.
A spokesman for Mr Justice Davis said that "the possibility of any conflict of interest arising from his brother's position was not raised with him and did not occur to him. If he was wrong, any possible remedy must be sought from the court of appeal."
Meanwhile, back at the GMC the Eye asked if Prof McDevitt was being removed from the disciplinary panel. A spokeswoman said the composition of panels was never discussed ahead of hearings, but that "as with any case we will have satisfied ourselves that there is no conflict of interest for any of the panellists". We assume that means he will not now be sitting. Watch this space.
Posted by: Shinga, London on 12:00pm Sun 8 Jul 07
There are not 7000 identifiable signatories. Roughly 50% are anonymous or multiple duplicates of the same people (some of whom have 'signed' between 2-5 times). Given that anyone, from any country can sign-up for the petition, perhaps we should take heart that it has collected so few signatures.
The people who are focused on accurate, good science are the ones who have the best interest of all children at heart. As both Brian Deer and the testimony at the recent Autism Omnibus hearings demonstrated, there is no scientific basis to support those Wakefield claims, nor those of the people who claimed to have replicated them but have oddly, years later, still to publish.
There are not 7000 identifiable signatories. Roughly 50% are anonymous or multiple duplicates of the same people (some of whom have 'signed' between 2-5 times). Given that anyone, from any country can sign-up for the petition, perhaps we should take heart that it has collected so few signatures.
The people who are focused on accurate, good science are the ones who have the best interest of all children at heart. As both Brian Deer and the testimony at the recent Autism Omnibus hearings demonstrated, there is no scientific basis to support those Wakefield claims, nor those of the people who claimed to have replicated them but have oddly, years later, still to publish.
Posted by: John Stone, London N22 on 12:44pm Sun 8 Jul 07
I would like to make it clear that I have no responsibility for the petition. However, it looks as if people may have signed more than once because of technical glitches or not realising the have already succeeded in doing it. The fact that it is so visible suggests that there is no intention to deceive.
I am sure this is not the only petition where this has happened, or the only petition which has its share of anonymous signatories. I have seen anonymous signatories on Downing Street petitions, and there may be good reasons in some cases. In many cases MMR parents, for example, have been visited with Munchausen type accusations.
I agree, the organisers ought to check and see how many signatures should be deducted, but actually they have preponderantly bona fide signatures, and a lot of them given no media publicity.
I would like to make it clear that I have no responsibility for the petition. However, it looks as if people may have signed more than once because of technical glitches or not realising the have already succeeded in doing it. The fact that it is so visible suggests that there is no intention to deceive.
I am sure this is not the only petition where this has happened, or the only petition which has its share of anonymous signatories. I have seen anonymous signatories on Downing Street petitions, and there may be good reasons in some cases. In many cases MMR parents, for example, have been visited with Munchausen type accusations.
I agree, the organisers ought to check and see how many signatures should be deducted, but actually they have preponderantly bona fide signatures, and a lot of them given no media publicity.
Posted by: Joe, Chicago, USA on 12:45pm Sun 8 Jul 07
US scientists back autism link to MMR
By Beezy Marsh and Sally Beck
The measles virus has been found in the guts of children with a form of autism, renewing fears over the safety of the MMR jab.
American researchers have revealed that 85 per cent of samples taken from autistic children with bowel disorders contain the virus. The strain is the same as the one used in the measles, mumps and rubella triple vaccine.
The findings will spark fresh concern about MMR, because they back theories of a causal link between the jab, autism and painful gut disorders suffered by a number of autistic children.
The study replicates findings made by the gastroenterologist Dr Andrew Wakefield in 1998 and Prof John O'Leary, a pathologist, in 2002.
Parents say their children were developing normally until they had the MMR jab, given when a child is between 12- and 18-months-old. The children now suffer from regressive autism.
One theory is that the virus passes through the gut, causing damage, and into the bloodstream, from where it is able to attack the brain.
More than 2,000 families claim that their children have suffered damage but the Department of Health reiterated last night that MMR is safe, a stance supported by the British Medical Association and all the Royal Colleges. Last year Government scientists failed to reproduce research results by Dr Wakefield.
Research to be presented this week in Montreal, Canada, provides fresh evidence that the measles virus is present in the guts of autistic children. Dr Stephen Walker, of the Wake Forest University School of Medicine, North Carolina, studied children with regressive autism and bowel disease. "Of the handful of results we have in so far, all are vaccine strain," he said.
US scientists back autism link to MMR
By Beezy Marsh and Sally Beck
The measles virus has been found in the guts of children with a form of autism, renewing fears over the safety of the MMR jab.
American researchers have revealed that 85 per cent of samples taken from autistic children with bowel disorders contain the virus. The strain is the same as the one used in the measles, mumps and rubella triple vaccine.
The findings will spark fresh concern about MMR, because they back theories of a causal link between the jab, autism and painful gut disorders suffered by a number of autistic children.
The study replicates findings made by the gastroenterologist Dr Andrew Wakefield in 1998 and Prof John O'Leary, a pathologist, in 2002.
Parents say their children were developing normally until they had the MMR jab, given when a child is between 12- and 18-months-old. The children now suffer from regressive autism.
One theory is that the virus passes through the gut, causing damage, and into the bloodstream, from where it is able to attack the brain.
More than 2,000 families claim that their children have suffered damage but the Department of Health reiterated last night that MMR is safe, a stance supported by the British Medical Association and all the Royal Colleges. Last year Government scientists failed to reproduce research results by Dr Wakefield.
Research to be presented this week in Montreal, Canada, provides fresh evidence that the measles virus is present in the guts of autistic children. Dr Stephen Walker, of the Wake Forest University School of Medicine, North Carolina, studied children with regressive autism and bowel disease. "Of the handful of results we have in so far, all are vaccine strain," he said.
Posted by: Isabella Thomas, Somerset on 1:45pm Sun 8 Jul 07
The Nigel Thomas Petition
http://www.ipetition
s.com/petition/GMC/i
ndex.html
[bold]bold[/bold]
Fortunately the facilities offered by the petition site are a little more sophisticated than to allow this to be a problem. Duplications occasionally occur as people enter their names and comments but these are checked and deleted regularly. A final, and very thorough, check will be made before the petition is presented. ALL of the anonymous entries are identifiable by those of us monitoring the petition as ALL petitioners (whether anonymous or not) are required to provide their email address, which is visible to us but is not visible publicly. These will be made available and visible to the GMC panel (under the guidelines of the site providers) when the petition is presented to them. At this stage ALL entries will be identifiable as unique. Also note that many people have signed on behalf of entire families and in some instances entire companies.
Many thanks for raising this as others may also have failed to grasp this rather obvious point.
The Nigel Thomas Petition
http://www.ipetition
s.com/petition/GMC/i
ndex.html
Fortunately the facilities offered by the petition site are a little more sophisticated than to allow this to be a problem. Duplications occasionally occur as people enter their names and comments but these are checked and deleted regularly. A final, and very thorough, check will be made before the petition is presented. ALL of the anonymous entries are identifiable by those of us monitoring the petition as ALL petitioners (whether anonymous or not) are required to provide their email address, which is visible to us but is not visible publicly. These will be made available and visible to the GMC panel (under the guidelines of the site providers) when the petition is presented to them. At this stage ALL entries will be identifiable as unique. Also note that many people have signed on behalf of entire families and in some instances entire companies.
Many thanks for raising this as others may also have failed to grasp this rather obvious point.
Posted by: isles, USA on 2:36pm Sun 8 Jul 07
The authors of the above comments defending Wakefield may not have had the stomach to read all that has been revealed about him and his business practices in the last year. He accepted money to shore up a lawsuit, used unethical practices in carrying out a study which was almost comically unscientific, shut his eyes to evidence that the results were unreliable, and fled the country when the heat got too much for him.
And people still treat him like Elvis.
The authors of the above comments defending Wakefield may not have had the stomach to read all that has been revealed about him and his business practices in the last year. He accepted money to shore up a lawsuit, used unethical practices in carrying out a study which was almost comically unscientific, shut his eyes to evidence that the results were unreliable, and fled the country when the heat got too much for him.
And people still treat him like Elvis.
Posted by: Anthony Cox, West Midlands on 2:46pm Sun 8 Jul 07
It was of course inevitable that the GMC case against Wakefield would re-ignite the conspiracy theories about MMR vaccine and bring out the true believers to defend Saint Wakefield. Wakefield may [italic]"listens to parent"[/italic], but he does seem impervious to peer-reviewed research and comments from former co-workers.
Wakefield's work has been refuted, but on virological grounds [1,2] and epidemiological grounds[3]. There is no proven link between MMR vaccine and autism.
Any parent reading this article, and attached comments, should bear in mind that many of those commenting have a lot of emotional energy invested in this issue and are not amenable to any scientific evidence. Backtracking or revising their opinion is just too difficult. That MMR causes autism is an [bold]act of faith[/bold] for these people, not based on any rational assessment of the evidence.
[1] D’Souza Y, Fombonne E, Ward BJ, No evidence of persisting Measles virus in peripheral blood mononuclear cells from children with autistic spectrum disorder. [italic]Pediatrics[/italic] 2006;[bold]118(4)[/bold] :1164-1675
[2] Afzal MA, Ozoemena LC, O'Hare A, Kidger KA, Bentley ML, Minor PD. Absence of detectable measles virus genome sequence in blood of autistic children who have had their MMR vaccination during the routine childhood immunization schedule of UK. [italic]Journal of Medical Virology[/italic] . 2006;[bold]78(5)[/bold] :623-30
[3] Honda H, Shimizu Y, Rutter M. No effect of MMR withdrawal on the incidence of autism: a total population study. [italic]Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry[/italic] 2005;[bold]46(6)[/bold] :572-9
It was of course inevitable that the GMC case against Wakefield would re-ignite the conspiracy theories about MMR vaccine and bring out the true believers to defend Saint Wakefield. Wakefield may
"listens to parent", but he does seem impervious to peer-reviewed research and comments from former co-workers.
Wakefield's work has been refuted, but on virological grounds and epidemiological grounds. There is no proven link between MMR vaccine and autism.
Any parent reading this article, and attached comments, should bear in mind that many of those commenting have a lot of emotional energy invested in this issue and are not amenable to any scientific evidence. Backtracking or revising their opinion is just too difficult. That MMR causes autism is an
act of faith for these people, not based on any rational assessment of the evidence.
D’Souza Y, Fombonne E, Ward BJ, No evidence of persisting Measles virus in peripheral blood mononuclear cells from children with autistic spectrum disorder.
Pediatrics 2006;
118(4) :1164-1675
Afzal MA, Ozoemena LC, O'Hare A, Kidger KA, Bentley ML, Minor PD. Absence of detectable measles virus genome sequence in blood of autistic children who have had their MMR vaccination during the routine childhood immunization schedule of UK.
Journal of Medical Virology . 2006;
78(5) :623-30
Honda H, Shimizu Y, Rutter M. No effect of MMR withdrawal on the incidence of autism: a total population study.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 2005;
46(6) :572-9
Posted by: Adam, Atlanta,USA on 3:12pm Sun 8 Jul 07
Anthony, I could have saved these researchers time and money. Blood is not a suitable matrix for this work. If you don't want to find something look where it is not. Pediatrics only publishes article that refute the link between vaccines and autism, no matter how poorly designed the studies are. The American Academy of Pediatrics is the main perpetrator in this nightmare. They own the journal Pediatrics. As far as epidemiological studies go like the one cited from Japan, follow the money
Anthony, I could have saved these researchers time and money. Blood is not a suitable matrix for this work. If you don't want to find something look where it is not. Pediatrics only publishes article that refute the link between vaccines and autism, no matter how poorly designed the studies are. The American Academy of Pediatrics is the main perpetrator in this nightmare. They own the journal Pediatrics. As far as epidemiological studies go like the one cited from Japan, follow the money
Posted by: Helen Lovejoy, Springfield on 3:23pm Sun 8 Jul 07
Anyway, the GMC investigation will pin down whather Wakefield is guilty as charged of acting unethically, abusing positions of trust and carrying out invasive tests on children against the patients' interests.
None of the petitions by his fans will have any effect.
Anyway, the GMC investigation will pin down whather Wakefield is guilty as charged of acting unethically, abusing positions of trust and carrying out invasive tests on children against the patients' interests.
None of the petitions by his fans will have any effect.
Posted by: Joe, Chicago,USA on 3:25pm Sun 8 Jul 07
Anthony, I see one of the researchers you list is Eric Fombonne a Canadian psychiatrist. He also has published epidemiological and toxicological papers in Pediatrics. Now he also is listed as an author in a virology study. Wow, not bad for a psychiatrist. It must be hard to find time between all his fields of expetise plus appearing in court as an expert witness testifing on the safety of injecting babies with mercury.
Anthony, I see one of the researchers you list is Eric Fombonne a Canadian psychiatrist. He also has published epidemiological and toxicological papers in Pediatrics. Now he also is listed as an author in a virology study. Wow, not bad for a psychiatrist. It must be hard to find time between all his fields of expetise plus appearing in court as an expert witness testifing on the safety of injecting babies with mercury.
Posted by: Anthony Cox, West Midlands on 3:38pm Sun 8 Jul 07
Joe,
Interesting line of argument. Now explain why a [bold]gastroenterologist[/bold] is qualified to give opinions on epidemiology and vaccine safety.
Joe,
Interesting line of argument. Now explain why a
gastroenterologist is qualified to give opinions on epidemiology and vaccine safety.
Posted by: Catharine, Winnipeg on 3:43pm Sun 8 Jul 07
Yo Joe, Psychiatrists are medical doctors - his degree will read that he specialized in psychiatry, but in what way does that limit his talents? Not everyone stagnates in the same quagmire for their entire career - some people actually learn new skills. Perhaps as a psychiatrist, he became interested in the number of young patients he was seeing and their medical history. Who knows? As for Wakefield, I've seen "science" on both sides, and still would refuse the MMR when single vaccines are available. Trusting the big drug companies seems as ludicrous as trusting the parents' recollections - both are obviously tainted, but I'd put more faith in the parents than the conglomerants.
Yo Joe, Psychiatrists are medical doctors - his degree will read that he specialized in psychiatry, but in what way does that limit his talents? Not everyone stagnates in the same quagmire for their entire career - some people actually learn new skills. Perhaps as a psychiatrist, he became interested in the number of young patients he was seeing and their medical history. Who knows? As for Wakefield, I've seen "science" on both sides, and still would refuse the MMR when single vaccines are available. Trusting the big drug companies seems as ludicrous as trusting the parents' recollections - both are obviously tainted, but I'd put more faith in the parents than the conglomerants.
Posted by: John Stone, London N22 on 4:11pm Sun 8 Jul 07
I congratulate "isles" on having the courage of his convictions, making an anonymous denunciation. I also note the personal animus.
Anthony Cox, being a professional, should know better. What is the point of citing to virological studies which make no attempt to replicate Wakefield's tests. How can the negative results of these blood tests disprove results obtained from the ileum, cerebral spinal fluid of patients. Of course, if you want to ban such investigations ignoring symptomology on the basis of the a priori view that autism is never related bowel disease, and neither are ever caused by MMR (despite histories of adverse reactions from the patients) that would be a circular and unscientific argument.
The Honda study failed to address the Wakefield hypothesis, and arguably corroborated it. What happened was that the autism rate dropped off with failure of MMR uptake, following concerns about meningitis. As in the UK the Urabe strain of mumps virus had caused the vaccine to be withdrawn: in the UK it was replaced with a different MMR vaccine, in Japan with single jabs (usually just measles and rubella). However, the single jabs were administered concurrently and not spaced a year apart, as recommended by Wakefield. The surge in autism cases which followed the introduction of single jabs therefore supported the Wakefield thesis rather than otherwise. The problems with this study were much discussed (though with little media attention at the time of publication). Some of it here:
http://www.bmj.com/c
gi/eletters/330/7491
/558-a
Unfortunately, Wakefield's own article is no longer obtainable on the web.
I congratulate "isles" on having the courage of his convictions, making an anonymous denunciation. I also note the personal animus.
Anthony Cox, being a professional, should know better. What is the point of citing to virological studies which make no attempt to replicate Wakefield's tests. How can the negative results of these blood tests disprove results obtained from the ileum, cerebral spinal fluid of patients. Of course, if you want to ban such investigations ignoring symptomology on the basis of the a priori view that autism is never related bowel disease, and neither are ever caused by MMR (despite histories of adverse reactions from the patients) that would be a circular and unscientific argument.
The Honda study failed to address the Wakefield hypothesis, and arguably corroborated it. What happened was that the autism rate dropped off with failure of MMR uptake, following concerns about meningitis. As in the UK the Urabe strain of mumps virus had caused the vaccine to be withdrawn: in the UK it was replaced with a different MMR vaccine, in Japan with single jabs (usually just measles and rubella). However, the single jabs were administered concurrently and not spaced a year apart, as recommended by Wakefield. The surge in autism cases which followed the introduction of single jabs therefore supported the Wakefield thesis rather than otherwise. The problems with this study were much discussed (though with little media attention at the time of publication). Some of it here:
http://www.bmj.com/c
gi/eletters/330/7491
/558-a
Unfortunately, Wakefield's own article is no longer obtainable on the web.
Posted by: Joan Campbell, Glasgow Scotland on 4:26pm Sun 8 Jul 07
Read this abd weep. No vaccine is 100 percent safe. So why am I not being believed when I say my son was damaged by the MMR. Fact.
Although Wakefield will be on trial at the GMC, the hearing could prove uncomfortable for those that make decisions about health. An editorial in the New Scientist magazine has expressed alarm over the implications of the GMC's action for health professionals' freedom to raise questions about possible safety flaws. 'The notion that he should have kept quiet is ludicrous: there are too many cases where doctors' concerns have proved correct, such as their fears over the impact of antidepressant drugs on children.'
MMR's defenders do not pretend it is always 100 per cent safe. JCVI member Vivienne Parry admits: 'There's a risk with all vaccines. It's a very small risk. No one has ever said that the MMR vaccine, or any vaccine, is completely without side-effects. But as a society we have to decide whether the benefits outweight the risks. If we had measles, it would kill lots of children. If you have a vaccine, it will damage some children, but a very small number.' Parry believes the near-disappearance of measles, mumps and rubella in recent times means they no longer hold any horror for most people, and that helps explain the questioning attitude to MMR.
Read this abd weep. No vaccine is 100 percent safe. So why am I not being believed when I say my son was damaged by the MMR. Fact.
Although Wakefield will be on trial at the GMC, the hearing could prove uncomfortable for those that make decisions about health. An editorial in the New Scientist magazine has expressed alarm over the implications of the GMC's action for health professionals' freedom to raise questions about possible safety flaws. 'The notion that he should have kept quiet is ludicrous: there are too many cases where doctors' concerns have proved correct, such as their fears over the impact of antidepressant drugs on children.'
MMR's defenders do not pretend it is always 100 per cent safe. JCVI member Vivienne Parry admits: 'There's a risk with all vaccines. It's a very small risk. No one has ever said that the MMR vaccine, or any vaccine, is completely without side-effects. But as a society we have to decide whether the benefits outweight the risks. If we had measles, it would kill lots of children. If you have a vaccine, it will damage some children, but a very small number.' Parry believes the near-disappearance of measles, mumps and rubella in recent times means they no longer hold any horror for most people, and that helps explain the questioning attitude to MMR.
Posted by: Anthony Cox, West Midlands on 4:40pm Sun 8 Jul 07
John, You somewhat gloss over the fact that Wakefield's results were [bold]false positives[/bold].
Joan, the fact is that vaccines are not 100% safe. That does not however mean that MMR vaccine has been linked to any risk of autism.
John, You somewhat gloss over the fact that Wakefield's results were
false positives.
Joan, the fact is that vaccines are not 100% safe. That does not however mean that MMR vaccine has been linked to any risk of autism.
Posted by: Jackie Fletcher, Warrington, Cheshire on 4:59pm Sun 8 Jul 07
With regard to the GMC hearing: what is really going on here?
Ten years after the publication of the February 1998 Lancet report the GMC has decided to bring charges. In the event where no parent has complained, no child been injured and where parents are overwhelmingly pleased with the treatment their child received charges are proposed that although serious should not be public hanging offences especially when you compare the behaviour of these doctors with that of the Department of Health (DoH) vaccine chiefs.
The vaccine chiefs have been responsible for relying on inadequate pre-licence trials, introducing MMR into the national programme when known serious side effects had been discussed at their own meetings and failed to act urgently when children started to suffer serious reactions right from the beginning of the campaign.
Please note Doctor Wakefield's team, when faced with a child following GP referral, listened to the parent, examined the child, organised appropriate clinical investigations, explained in detail the results to the parent, followed up on treatment prescribed and reported their findings through medical journals to encourage further research by other doctors.
What did the DoH Chief Medical Officer (CMO) and the Principal Medical Officer (PMO) do when faced with a similar situation? In October 1997 before Doctor Wakefield's published Lancet report they were informed in a one hour meeting between the then Health Minister Tessa Jowell, Sir Kenneth Calman (CMO), Dr David Salisbury (PMO), Dr Andrew Wakefield, Llew Smith MP, Richard Barr, solicitor, Jackie Fletcher from JABS and others that 1200 children should be investigated clinically because it was feared the children were severely vaccine damaged or had died as a result of the vaccine.
The vaccine chiefs cited epidemiological studies (studies of data) as proof of no evidence of vaccine damage. Told by JABS that their surveillance system (the 'yellow card' monitoring system designed to pick up on drug adverse reactions), which the DoH knows only collects about ten to fifteen percent of reports of adverse reactions (this is acceptable by the DoH?), was wholly inadequate and unreliable and the children they had not previously heard of because of the failure of this system should be examined clinically. The vaccine chiefs told JABS members to fill in newly created blue forms so the [italic]data[/italic] could be examined. Following on from the meeting the Chief Medical Officer immediately gave a press statement fully endorsing the continued use of MMR vaccine stating that minor side effects were well documented.
Based on this, which group of doctors should be examined by the GMC for fitness to practice and considered under the charge of serious professional misconduct?
With regard to the GMC hearing: what is really going on here?
Ten years after the publication of the February 1998 Lancet report the GMC has decided to bring charges. In the event where no parent has complained, no child been injured and where parents are overwhelmingly pleased with the treatment their child received charges are proposed that although serious should not be public hanging offences especially when you compare the behaviour of these doctors with that of the Department of Health (DoH) vaccine chiefs.
The vaccine chiefs have been responsible for relying on inadequate pre-licence trials, introducing MMR into the national programme when known serious side effects had been discussed at their own meetings and failed to act urgently when children started to suffer serious reactions right from the beginning of the campaign.
Please note Doctor Wakefield's team, when faced with a child following GP referral, listened to the parent, examined the child, organised appropriate clinical investigations, explained in detail the results to the parent, followed up on treatment prescribed and reported their findings through medical journals to encourage further research by other doctors.
What did the DoH Chief Medical Officer (CMO) and the Principal Medical Officer (PMO) do when faced with a similar situation? In October 1997 before Doctor Wakefield's published Lancet report they were informed in a one hour meeting between the then Health Minister Tessa Jowell, Sir Kenneth Calman (CMO), Dr David Salisbury (PMO), Dr Andrew Wakefield, Llew Smith MP, Richard Barr, solicitor, Jackie Fletcher from JABS and others that 1200 children should be investigated clinically because it was feared the children were severely vaccine damaged or had died as a result of the vaccine.
The vaccine chiefs cited epidemiological studies (studies of data) as proof of no evidence of vaccine damage. Told by JABS that their surveillance system (the 'yellow card' monitoring system designed to pick up on drug adverse reactions), which the DoH knows only collects about ten to fifteen percent of reports of adverse reactions (this is acceptable by the DoH?), was wholly inadequate and unreliable and the children they had not previously heard of because of the failure of this system should be examined clinically. The vaccine chiefs told JABS members to fill in newly created blue forms so the
data could be examined. Following on from the meeting the Chief Medical Officer immediately gave a press statement fully endorsing the continued use of MMR vaccine stating that minor side effects were well documented.
Based on this, which group of doctors should be examined by the GMC for fitness to practice and considered under the charge of serious professional misconduct?
Posted by: Joan Campbell, Glasgow on 5:11pm Sun 8 Jul 07
To Anthony
My son reacted that day and night badly to the MMR. Two says later he started screaming again and one week after the jab I brought him to see his doctor as he was feverish, floppy and an extremely chesty cough and his doctor prescribed him antibiocits and never put in his medical notes what I had told him about my son the day and night of him getting the jab.The boy was never the same after his reaction.
You can look up Merck's own MMR vaccine information sheet and it will give you all the adverse effects and one of them is neurogical damage which is what my son has.
To Anthony
My son reacted that day and night badly to the MMR. Two says later he started screaming again and one week after the jab I brought him to see his doctor as he was feverish, floppy and an extremely chesty cough and his doctor prescribed him antibiocits and never put in his medical notes what I had told him about my son the day and night of him getting the jab.The boy was never the same after his reaction.
You can look up Merck's own MMR vaccine information sheet and it will give you all the adverse effects and one of them is neurogical damage which is what my son has.
Posted by: Joe, Chicago, USA on 5:27pm Sun 8 Jul 07
Hey Helen, You accuse Wakefield of "carrying out invasive tests on children against the patients' interests". What do you think of the fact that not one parent will file a complaint against him? Certainly they would be rewarded nicely.
Hey Helen, You accuse Wakefield of "carrying out invasive tests on children against the patients' interests". What do you think of the fact that not one parent will file a complaint against him? Certainly they would be rewarded nicely.
Posted by: John Stone, London N22 on 5:43pm Sun 8 Jul 07
Anthony Cox
There is an argument about the validation of Wakefield and O'Leary's results. I would be a lot happier if we were discussing this without the frenzied hostility to the possibility that he might be right, with some adequate concern about patients who have suffered adverse reactions to vaccine, and some adequate concern about patients who are cognitively impaired and otherwise sick. Adequate concern also about the autism epidemic which is engulfing society while health officials just shrug and pretend it is all normal.
I do not think the issue of Wakefield's results can be dismissed if no conscientious attempt has been made to replicate them. This certainly does not happen in the studies which you cite. On the other hand, apart from dismissing Wakefield's results out of hand you have not responded to any of my other points.
I would mention also that epidemiology of vaccine and autism is at best hugely problematic. I posted a short article about this yesterday:
http://www.jabs.org.
uk/forum/topic.asp?T
OPIC_ID=732
I have posted other links above. Here are some more:
http://www.vaproject
.org/yazbak/tale-of-
two-cities-20070307.
htm
http://www.jpands.or
g/vol9no3/goldman.pd
f
http://www.jpands.or
g/vol9no3/stott.pdf
Meanwhile, I ask what you make of this advice from MMR the Facts. Whatever happened to yellow cards and 'first do no harm'?
Q"My son had a sever reaction to the first MMR jab. Does this mean that he is well protected from these diseases, or is a second dose still necessary?"
A"If a child has responded to all the components of the vaccine the first time, he will not have a problem being exposed to the viruses again. It's like any one of us who is already immune meeting someone with the disease - the infection can't get established.
"If he hasn't made protection to all three diseases after the first time, then he would still be susceptible to those natural infections, and still needs the 2nd dose.
"Reactions after the 2nd dose are essentially the same as after the 1st dose, but if they do occur they are even rarer. There are no new side effects after the 2nd dose that do not occur after the 1st dose. The advice is therefore that it is safe for your child to have the 2nd dose in order that he is properly protected."
http://www.mmrthefac
ts.nhs.uk/questions/
question.php?id=79
All normal safety procedures suspended to protect the vaccine programme.
Anthony Cox
There is an argument about the validation of Wakefield and O'Leary's results. I would be a lot happier if we were discussing this without the frenzied hostility to the possibility that he might be right, with some adequate concern about patients who have suffered adverse reactions to vaccine, and some adequate concern about patients who are cognitively impaired and otherwise sick. Adequate concern also about the autism epidemic which is engulfing society while health officials just shrug and pretend it is all normal.
I do not think the issue of Wakefield's results can be dismissed if no conscientious attempt has been made to replicate them. This certainly does not happen in the studies which you cite. On the other hand, apart from dismissing Wakefield's results out of hand you have not responded to any of my other points.
I would mention also that epidemiology of vaccine and autism is at best hugely problematic. I posted a short article about this yesterday:
http://www.jabs.org.
uk/forum/topic.asp?T
OPIC_ID=732
I have posted other links above. Here are some more:
http://www.vaproject
.org/yazbak/tale-of-
two-cities-20070307.
htm
http://www.jpands.or
g/vol9no3/goldman.pd
f
http://www.jpands.or
g/vol9no3/stott.pdf
Meanwhile, I ask what you make of this advice from MMR the Facts. Whatever happened to yellow cards and 'first do no harm'?
Q"My son had a sever reaction to the first MMR jab. Does this mean that he is well protected from these diseases, or is a second dose still necessary?"
A"If a child has responded to all the components of the vaccine the first time, he will not have a problem being exposed to the viruses again. It's like any one of us who is already immune meeting someone with the disease - the infection can't get established.
"If he hasn't made protection to all three diseases after the first time, then he would still be susceptible to those natural infections, and still needs the 2nd dose.
"Reactions after the 2nd dose are essentially the same as after the 1st dose, but if they do occur they are even rarer. There are no new side effects after the 2nd dose that do not occur after the 1st dose. The advice is therefore that it is safe for your child to have the 2nd dose in order that he is properly protected."
http://www.mmrthefac
ts.nhs.uk/questions/
question.php?id=79
All normal safety procedures suspended to protect the vaccine programme.
Posted by: Kev, http://www.kevinleit
ch.co.uk/wp on 5:49pm Sun 8 Jul 07
Joe - at least one parent must've filed a complaint against him. That's how the GMC hearing got started.
John and Adam - your points about the studies done in blood not 'replicating' Wakefield are strawmen. There is no reason why these studies should not target blood. I'll quote Stephen Bustin, the main who established O'Leary's lab was contaminated and producing false positives:
"[italic]this is not an assay that is at its limits so this should be easily detectible, and it also means that if you’ve got that much measles virus in a gut sample it probably is in other cells as well and you should be able to detect it, for example, [bold]in blood[/bold].[/italic]"
I hope this is clear to you but inc ase its not you and afew others need to grasp what are a few very simple facts:
1) O'Leary's lab never found MV. Given what they did that would be impossible.
2) Chadwick told Wakefield his results were wrong and why. Wakefield ignored this and went ahead anyway.
3) There is no good reason [bold]not[/bold] to look for MV in blood.
Joe - at least one parent must've filed a complaint against him. That's how the GMC hearing got started.
John and Adam - your points about the studies done in blood not 'replicating' Wakefield are strawmen. There is no reason why these studies should not target blood. I'll quote Stephen Bustin, the main who established O'Leary's lab was contaminated and producing false positives:
"
this is not an assay that is at its limits so this should be easily detectible, and it also means that if you’ve got that much measles virus in a gut sample it probably is in other cells as well and you should be able to detect it, for example, in blood."
I hope this is clear to you but inc ase its not you and afew others need to grasp what are a few very simple facts:
1) O'Leary's lab never found MV. Given what they did that would be impossible.
2) Chadwick told Wakefield his results were wrong and why. Wakefield ignored this and went ahead anyway.
3) There is no good reason
not to look for MV in blood.
Posted by: Steve in Florida, South Florida on 5:59pm Sun 8 Jul 07
Regarding overall vaccine safety, here is a link to a somewhat reputable source that documents vaccine safety in the US. Please note while reviewing that the actual numbers are probably much higher due to non-reporting, mis diagnosis, etc.
http://www.hrsa.gov/
vaccinecompensation/
statistics_report.ht
m
Steve in Florida
Regarding overall vaccine safety, here is a link to a somewhat reputable source that documents vaccine safety in the US. Please note while reviewing that the actual numbers are probably much higher due to non-reporting, mis diagnosis, etc.
http://www.hrsa.gov/
vaccinecompensation/
statistics_report.ht
m
Steve in Florida
Posted by: Jackie Fletcher, Warrington, Cheshre on 7:50pm Sun 8 Jul 07
The GMC has brought the case itself claiming that it is in the public interest.
How the charges were first thought of are described in Richard Horton's, book MMR Science and Fiction (p.7). Mr Horton is the editor of the Lancet.
"...In truth, they [the people bringing the charges] had not a clue where to begin. At a dinner I attended on 23 February, one medical regulator and I discussed the Wakefield case. He seemed unsure of how the Council could play a useful part in resolving any confusion. As we talked over coffee while the other dinner guests were departing, he scribbled down some possible lines of investigation and passed me his card, suggesting that I contact him directly if anything else sprang to mind. He seemed keen to pursue Wakefield, especially given the ministerial interest."
Richard Horton continues (p.13):
'....During the preceding few weeks, one protagonist in the affair had said openly and publicly that his intention was to 'rub out' Wakefield. A senior doctor who had played a part in shaping the debate around MMR sat in a North London bar with a glass of red wine in front of him boasting that he was 'drinking the blood of Andrew Wakefield'.
The intensity of feeling that Wakefield provoked in some opponents was unbelievably extreme. And, in the aftermath of the David Kelly affair, in which a British scientist and respected civil servant committed suicide after being caught up in a media blitz following a few incautious remarks to a BBC journalist, only those of a very robust constitution would have been able to stand up to the continued pressure of critics who wished to destroy his reputation. Wakefield's tribulations seemed insufficient for some. Whatever one's views about his wisdom as a doctor and scientist, this kind of malicious reaction somehow seemed equally bad - perhaps even worse.....'
I believe that if MMR vaccines had not been mentioned within the 1998 Lancet report there would have been no criticism of the report and no GMC hearing would be pending for these three doctors.
The GMC has brought the case itself claiming that it is in the public interest.
How the charges were first thought of are described in Richard Horton's, book MMR Science and Fiction (p.7). Mr Horton is the editor of the Lancet.
"...In truth, they had not a clue where to begin. At a dinner I attended on 23 February, one medical regulator and I discussed the Wakefield case. He seemed unsure of how the Council could play a useful part in resolving any confusion. As we talked over coffee while the other dinner guests were departing, he scribbled down some possible lines of investigation and passed me his card, suggesting that I contact him directly if anything else sprang to mind. He seemed keen to pursue Wakefield, especially given the ministerial interest."
Richard Horton continues (p.13):
'....During the preceding few weeks, one protagonist in the affair had said openly and publicly that his intention was to 'rub out' Wakefield. A senior doctor who had played a part in shaping the debate around MMR sat in a North London bar with a glass of red wine in front of him boasting that he was 'drinking the blood of Andrew Wakefield'.
The intensity of feeling that Wakefield provoked in some opponents was unbelievably extreme. And, in the aftermath of the David Kelly affair, in which a British scientist and respected civil servant committed suicide after being caught up in a media blitz following a few incautious remarks to a BBC journalist, only those of a very robust constitution would have been able to stand up to the continued pressure of critics who wished to destroy his reputation. Wakefield's tribulations seemed insufficient for some. Whatever one's views about his wisdom as a doctor and scientist, this kind of malicious reaction somehow seemed equally bad - perhaps even worse.....'
I believe that if MMR vaccines had not been mentioned within the 1998 Lancet report there would have been no criticism of the report and no GMC hearing would be pending for these three doctors.
Posted by: Jackie Fletcher, Warrington, Cheshre on 7:50pm Sun 8 Jul 07
The GMC has brought the case itself claiming that it is in the public interest.
How the charges were first thought of are described in Richard Horton's, book MMR Science and Fiction (p.7). Mr Horton is the editor of the Lancet.
"...In truth, they [the people bringing the charges] had not a clue where to begin. At a dinner I attended on 23 February, one medical regulator and I discussed the Wakefield case. He seemed unsure of how the Council could play a useful part in resolving any confusion. As we talked over coffee while the other dinner guests were departing, he scribbled down some possible lines of investigation and passed me his card, suggesting that I contact him directly if anything else sprang to mind. He seemed keen to pursue Wakefield, especially given the ministerial interest."
Richard Horton continues (p.13):
'....During the preceding few weeks, one protagonist in the affair had said openly and publicly that his intention was to 'rub out' Wakefield. A senior doctor who had played a part in shaping the debate around MMR sat in a North London bar with a glass of red wine in front of him boasting that he was 'drinking the blood of Andrew Wakefield'.
The intensity of feeling that Wakefield provoked in some opponents was unbelievably extreme. And, in the aftermath of the David Kelly affair, in which a British scientist and respected civil servant committed suicide after being caught up in a media blitz following a few incautious remarks to a BBC journalist, only those of a very robust constitution would have been able to stand up to the continued pressure of critics who wished to destroy his reputation. Wakefield's tribulations seemed insufficient for some. Whatever one's views about his wisdom as a doctor and scientist, this kind of malicious reaction somehow seemed equally bad - perhaps even worse.....'
I believe that if MMR vaccines had not been mentioned within the 1998 Lancet report there would have been no criticism of the report and no GMC hearing would be pending for these three doctors.
The GMC has brought the case itself claiming that it is in the public interest.
How the charges were first thought of are described in Richard Horton's, book MMR Science and Fiction (p.7). Mr Horton is the editor of the Lancet.
"...In truth, they had not a clue where to begin. At a dinner I attended on 23 February, one medical regulator and I discussed the Wakefield case. He seemed unsure of how the Council could play a useful part in resolving any confusion. As we talked over coffee while the other dinner guests were departing, he scribbled down some possible lines of investigation and passed me his card, suggesting that I contact him directly if anything else sprang to mind. He seemed keen to pursue Wakefield, especially given the ministerial interest."
Richard Horton continues (p.13):
'....During the preceding few weeks, one protagonist in the affair had said openly and publicly that his intention was to 'rub out' Wakefield. A senior doctor who had played a part in shaping the debate around MMR sat in a North London bar with a glass of red wine in front of him boasting that he was 'drinking the blood of Andrew Wakefield'.
The intensity of feeling that Wakefield provoked in some opponents was unbelievably extreme. And, in the aftermath of the David Kelly affair, in which a British scientist and respected civil servant committed suicide after being caught up in a media blitz following a few incautious remarks to a BBC journalist, only those of a very robust constitution would have been able to stand up to the continued pressure of critics who wished to destroy his reputation. Wakefield's tribulations seemed insufficient for some. Whatever one's views about his wisdom as a doctor and scientist, this kind of malicious reaction somehow seemed equally bad - perhaps even worse.....'
I believe that if MMR vaccines had not been mentioned within the 1998 Lancet report there would have been no criticism of the report and no GMC hearing would be pending for these three doctors.
Posted by: Jackie Fletcher, Warrington, Cheshre on 7:50pm Sun 8 Jul 07
The GMC has brought the case itself claiming that it is in the public interest.
How the charges were first thought of are described in Richard Horton's, book MMR Science and Fiction (p.7). Mr Horton is the editor of the Lancet.
"...In truth, they [the people bringing the charges] had not a clue where to begin. At a dinner I attended on 23 February, one medical regulator and I discussed the Wakefield case. He seemed unsure of how the Council could play a useful part in resolving any confusion. As we talked over coffee while the other dinner guests were departing, he scribbled down some possible lines of investigation and passed me his card, suggesting that I contact him directly if anything else sprang to mind. He seemed keen to pursue Wakefield, especially given the ministerial interest."
Richard Horton continues (p.13):
'....During the preceding few weeks, one protagonist in the affair had said openly and publicly that his intention was to 'rub out' Wakefield. A senior doctor who had played a part in shaping the debate around MMR sat in a North London bar with a glass of red wine in front of him boasting that he was 'drinking the blood of Andrew Wakefield'.
The intensity of feeling that Wakefield provoked in some opponents was unbelievably extreme. And, in the aftermath of the David Kelly affair, in which a British scientist and respected civil servant committed suicide after being caught up in a media blitz following a few incautious remarks to a BBC journalist, only those of a very robust constitution would have been able to stand up to the continued pressure of critics who wished to destroy his reputation. Wakefield's tribulations seemed insufficient for some. Whatever one's views about his wisdom as a doctor and scientist, this kind of malicious reaction somehow seemed equally bad - perhaps even worse.....'
I believe that if MMR vaccines had not been mentioned within the 1998 Lancet report there would have been no criticism of the report and no GMC hearing would be pending for these three doctors.
The GMC has brought the case itself claiming that it is in the public interest.
How the charges were first thought of are described in Richard Horton's, book MMR Science and Fiction (p.7). Mr Horton is the editor of the Lancet.
"...In truth, they had not a clue where to begin. At a dinner I attended on 23 February, one medical regulator and I discussed the Wakefield case. He seemed unsure of how the Council could play a useful part in resolving any confusion. As we talked over coffee while the other dinner guests were departing, he scribbled down some possible lines of investigation and passed me his card, suggesting that I contact him directly if anything else sprang to mind. He seemed keen to pursue Wakefield, especially given the ministerial interest."
Richard Horton continues (p.13):
'....During the preceding few weeks, one protagonist in the affair had said openly and publicly that his intention was to 'rub out' Wakefield. A senior doctor who had played a part in shaping the debate around MMR sat in a North London bar with a glass of red wine in front of him boasting that he was 'drinking the blood of Andrew Wakefield'.
The intensity of feeling that Wakefield provoked in some opponents was unbelievably extreme. And, in the aftermath of the David Kelly affair, in which a British scientist and respected civil servant committed suicide after being caught up in a media blitz following a few incautious remarks to a BBC journalist, only those of a very robust constitution would have been able to stand up to the continued pressure of critics who wished to destroy his reputation. Wakefield's tribulations seemed insufficient for some. Whatever one's views about his wisdom as a doctor and scientist, this kind of malicious reaction somehow seemed equally bad - perhaps even worse.....'
I believe that if MMR vaccines had not been mentioned within the 1998 Lancet report there would have been no criticism of the report and no GMC hearing would be pending for these three doctors.
Posted by: John Stone, London N22 on 9:28pm Sun 8 Jul 07
Kevin
As Jackie Fletcher has pointed out the ball was set rolling by Health Secretary John Reid piling in even before Brian Deer had published his allegations, and the GMC starting to scratch around for a pretext: this is history. No parent is cited as a complainant in the charge sheet. If you know something else it must have been leaked to you.
I do not think much of Stephen Bustin's line over blood samples. If you knew the result of tests before you began then there would be little point in testing, but I am also now told you can predict the results from the official epidemiology (which, however, is completely wrong). But let's face it there is lots about the human body that we do not know or safely predict - which is why medical science is not a dead letter.
Evidently, Wakefield had a hypothesis of how the infection worked in these cases. As for Chadwick, I really cannot see what he is on about. He obtained a negative result which Wakefield published, and then Wakefield went on looking - nothing wrong either scientifically or ethically with that. I cannot prove to anyone that the results were not false positives, but I profoundly believe is that Wakefield was doing this because a subgroup of autistic patients were seriously ill. One of the original cases lives round the corner - I have never seen a sicker child and his gut pathology needs researching and treating. What is worse is that his parents were recently visited with Munchausen type allegations.
Kevin
As Jackie Fletcher has pointed out the ball was set rolling by Health Secretary John Reid piling in even before Brian Deer had published his allegations, and the GMC starting to scratch around for a pretext: this is history. No parent is cited as a complainant in the charge sheet. If you know something else it must have been leaked to you.
I do not think much of Stephen Bustin's line over blood samples. If you knew the result of tests before you began then there would be little point in testing, but I am also now told you can predict the results from the official epidemiology (which, however, is completely wrong). But let's face it there is lots about the human body that we do not know or safely predict - which is why medical science is not a dead letter.
Evidently, Wakefield had a hypothesis of how the infection worked in these cases. As for Chadwick, I really cannot see what he is on about. He obtained a negative result which Wakefield published, and then Wakefield went on looking - nothing wrong either scientifically or ethically with that. I cannot prove to anyone that the results were not false positives, but I profoundly believe is that Wakefield was doing this because a subgroup of autistic patients were seriously ill. One of the original cases lives round the corner - I have never seen a sicker child and his gut pathology needs researching and treating. What is worse is that his parents were recently visited with Munchausen type allegations.
Posted by: Ernie, Brighton on 10:18pm Sun 8 Jul 07
It's nearly 10 years since the Lancet paper. IF there really is a causal connection between MMR and autism as outlined by AW, someone working in one of the dozens of reputable PCR labs would have been able to duplicate his results. No one has, and they 've looked, believe me. And those few who claimed to have found measles RNA have not stood the true test of time (and spotlight). No, unfortunately, AW has secondary gains, not the least among them is his own skewed sense of self-worth. Let's also not forget about his patent on a monovalent measles vaccine prior to the 98 Lancet paper, something he also forgot to mention to Lancet. I just feel sorry for the children whose parents put faith in him in their neverending search for hope.
It's nearly 10 years since the Lancet paper. IF there really is a causal connection between MMR and autism as outlined by AW, someone working in one of the dozens of reputable PCR labs would have been able to duplicate his results. No one has, and they 've looked, believe me. And those few who claimed to have found measles RNA have not stood the true test of time (and spotlight). No, unfortunately, AW has secondary gains, not the least among them is his own skewed sense of self-worth. Let's also not forget about his patent on a monovalent measles vaccine prior to the 98 Lancet paper, something he also forgot to mention to Lancet. I just feel sorry for the children whose parents put faith in him in their neverending search for hope.
Posted by: John Stone, London N22 on 10:26pm Sun 8 Jul 07
Ernie from Brighton sounds remarkably like Brian Deer.
Ernie from Brighton sounds remarkably like Brian Deer.
Posted by: Anthony Cox, West Midlands on 11:23pm Sun 8 Jul 07
Jackie and John,
I'd be interested in what evidence you would actually accept that MMR is not linked to autism.
I know what the answer is for course. None.
On the other hand if the epidemiological evidence and virological had gone the other way, and supported Wakefield's position, everyone I know would be willing to revise their opinion.
Jackie and John,
I'd be interested in what evidence you would actually accept that MMR is not linked to autism.
I know what the answer is for course. None.
On the other hand if the epidemiological evidence and virological had gone the other way, and supported Wakefield's position, everyone I know would be willing to revise their opinion.
Posted by: John Stone, London N22 on 1:01am Mon 9 Jul 07
Anthony Cox
You are ducking the issue. I have presented an immense amount of evidence above that the official epidemiology is flawed. No one from your side is prepared discuss it, and neither are you. It began with the Peltola letter in May 1998: 3m shots of MMR and not a single case of autism detected! How was this possible? Because autism had not been included in the study's follow up criteria. This piece of utter nonsense was presented to the world as evidence that Wakefield was wrong. As I pointed out only yesterday it was cited in an award winning article by Ben Goldacre. How can people like yourself and Goldacre, who are supposed to be expert in this territory, defend this?
What is going on is little better than a game of hit and run - the studies are published as if God's word - with a peer review stamp - and then no one is allowed to discuss them. I have covered virtually all the key epidemiological studies in the links above, but you come back without a single word of defence: they are simply apparently true. If we suppose an autism rate of only one in ten thousand the Finnish study should have yielded at least 150 autistic children. But there were none. Please will you explain.
You also ignored my challenge about MMR the Facts advice. I know little about you and would not wish to say anything about your character, but I would say about this phenomenon is that there is an immense amount of institutional arrogance. I was talking to someone just three days ago whose child died within hours of receiving the MMR, and her doctor categorically denied there was any connection without there ever being an investigation. Not a yellow card or a coroner's report, not even a bl--dy statistic.
Anthony Cox
You are ducking the issue. I have presented an immense amount of evidence above that the official epidemiology is flawed. No one from your side is prepared discuss it, and neither are you. It began with the Peltola letter in May 1998: 3m shots of MMR and not a single case of autism detected! How was this possible? Because autism had not been included in the study's follow up criteria. This piece of utter nonsense was presented to the world as evidence that Wakefield was wrong. As I pointed out only yesterday it was cited in an award winning article by Ben Goldacre. How can people like yourself and Goldacre, who are supposed to be expert in this territory, defend this?
What is going on is little better than a game of hit and run - the studies are published as if God's word - with a peer review stamp - and then no one is allowed to discuss them. I have covered virtually all the key epidemiological studies in the links above, but you come back without a single word of defence: they are simply apparently true. If we suppose an autism rate of only one in ten thousand the Finnish study should have yielded at least 150 autistic children. But there were none. Please will you explain.
You also ignored my challenge about MMR the Facts advice. I know little about you and would not wish to say anything about your character, but I would say about this phenomenon is that there is an immense amount of institutional arrogance. I was talking to someone just three days ago whose child died within hours of receiving the MMR, and her doctor categorically denied there was any connection without there ever being an investigation. Not a yellow card or a coroner's report, not even a bl--dy statistic.
Posted by: TheProbe, USA on 3:12am Mon 9 Jul 07
[quote][bold]Meagan McGovern[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Helen Lovejoy[/bold] wrote: [bold]The children! The children! Will someone please think of the children!!! [/bold] Looks like the GMC actually are, with their concentration on allegations of acting unethically, abusing positions of trust and carrying out invasive tests on children, against the patients' interests. None of that will stop the conspiracy theorists and obsessives from springing to these bozos' defence.[/quote] Dr. Wakefield may be many things, but he's not a bozo and I'm not a conspiracy theorist. If you do the research and see what the charges are, Dr. Wakefield never said the MMR caused autism -- only that there might be a connection and that it's worth looking into. For what it's worth, I live in Texas and my son, who's two, almost three, is being treated at Thoughtful House, Dr. Wakefield's new clinic. My son is now completely free of all autistic symptoms after following Dr. Wakefield's protocol. I'll accept listening to a bozo if it saves my son from a lifetime of autism. The results speak for themselves. I am thinking of the children, and nothing else.[/quote] Hmmm...doesn't it concern you that Dr. Wakefield has not bothered to secure a license to practice medicine in Texas?
Furthermore, the testimony at the Omnibus hearing clearly proved to anyone with a reading compresension above first grade that Wakefield had absolutely no evidence to support his claims. He was told that the "findings" were FALSE positives, but, he went ahead and published. READ the official transcripts.
How many childfren were made sterile by mumps as a result of this?
Meagan McGovern wrote:
Helen Lovejoy wrote: The children! The children! Will someone please think of the children!!! Looks like the GMC actually are, with their concentration on allegations of acting unethically, abusing positions of trust and carrying out invasive tests on children, against the patients' interests. None of that will stop the conspiracy theorists and obsessives from springing to these bozos' defence.
Dr. Wakefield may be many things, but he's not a bozo and I'm not a conspiracy theorist. If you do the research and see what the charges are, Dr. Wakefield never said the MMR caused autism -- only that there might be a connection and that it's worth looking into. For what it's worth, I live in Texas and my son, who's two, almost three, is being treated at Thoughtful House, Dr. Wakefield's new clinic. My son is now completely free of all autistic symptoms after following Dr. Wakefield's protocol. I'll accept listening to a bozo if it saves my son from a lifetime of autism. The results speak for themselves. I am thinking of the children, and nothing else.
Hmmm...doesn't it concern you that Dr. Wakefield has not bothered to secure a license to practice medicine in Texas?
Furthermore, the testimony at the Omnibus hearing clearly proved to anyone with a reading compresension above first grade that Wakefield had absolutely no evidence to support his claims. He was told that the "findings" were FALSE positives, but, he went ahead and published. READ the official transcripts.
How many childfren were made sterile by mumps as a result of this?
Posted by: Kev, http://www.kevinleit
ch.co.uk/wp on 7:08am Mon 9 Jul 07
[italic]I do not think much of Stephen Bustin's line over blood samples. If you knew the result of tests before you began then there would be little point in testing,[/italic]
Oh John. Seriously? The mighty John Stone doesn't think much of Stephen Bustin's line? Hell, he's only the guy who literally wrote the book on PCR. You, on the other hand are...?
You seem to have a basic misunderstanding of what Bustin said.He didn't say you could know the results of tests, he said that there was no reason not to test in places that MV would be, aside from the gut.
I understand that you have a massive issue with Bustin's testimony. It basically kills the MMR/autism belief system stone dead after all. However, if you want to dispute any part of it then you're going to have to do better than you 'don't think much' of what he says.
As for Chadwick, its quite simple. Chadwick determined what Bustin later did. Wakefields results were false positives. He told Wakefield. Wakefield ignored it. You have no problem with that?
I'm sorry John, I know that you and Ms Fletcher et al have invested an awful lot of time and energy in the MMR/autism belief system but you cannot carry on living in denial. As a working hypothesis, its dead as a dodo.
Oh, and if you want to talk about epidemiology then lets look at a very simple sort:
Between 97/97 and 04/05 MMR uptake dropped by 10%. According to you guys, autism rates are rising. How can that be? Less MMR, more autism. Hmmmm. Tricky.
I do not think much of Stephen Bustin's line over blood samples. If you knew the result of tests before you began then there would be little point in testing,
Oh John. Seriously? The mighty John Stone doesn't think much of Stephen Bustin's line? Hell, he's only the guy who literally wrote the book on PCR. You, on the other hand are...?
You seem to have a basic misunderstanding of what Bustin said.He didn't say you could know the results of tests, he said that there was no reason not to test in places that MV would be, aside from the gut.
I understand that you have a massive issue with Bustin's testimony. It basically kills the MMR/autism belief system stone dead after all. However, if you want to dispute any part of it then you're going to have to do better than you 'don't think much' of what he says.
As for Chadwick, its quite simple. Chadwick determined what Bustin later did. Wakefields results were false positives. He told Wakefield. Wakefield ignored it. You have no problem with that?
I'm sorry John, I know that you and Ms Fletcher et al have invested an awful lot of time and energy in the MMR/autism belief system but you cannot carry on living in denial. As a working hypothesis, its dead as a dodo.
Oh, and if you want to talk about epidemiology then lets look at a very simple sort:
Between 97/97 and 04/05 MMR uptake dropped by 10%. According to you guys, autism rates are rising. How can that be? Less MMR, more autism. Hmmmm. Tricky.
Posted by: John Stone, London N22 on 8:42am Mon 9 Jul 07
Kevin
I do not think there is much to be gained by arguing about the contents of a test tube with one side crying "Yes, it is" and the other "No, it isn't" as in a pantomime. I can point to the evidence of Dr Kennedy at the Cedillo hearing, which reads very well. Time will tell perhaps, but all the animosity and intolerance will serve only to obscure the truth.
I have not seen the latest study and am not sure what age population is being identified in it. No one claimed that the rise was being solely driven by MMR: that is certainly a straw argument (and one reason why several UK studies are ill-designed). What will happen, if there is a connection with the vaccine programme as it was introduced primarily between 1988 and 1992 - as some of us believe -is that the total numbers will accumulate. But no one has claimed that it is solely driven by vaccine either, and other environmental changes may well be involved. What I doubt is that it is to do with changed mating habits or diagnostic culture which no one has been able to document.
What did the medical profession make of the explosion as it began to manifest itself in the early mid 90s? It is not recorded. I remember one professional asking me rather coyly "Are we doing anything different?" What I do recall from that time was the failure to deal with the issue of regression, which led us even to doubt the diagnosis.
But so far, I note, everyone seems to be walking away from defending the flawed epidemiology which was released originally amidst so much publicity.
Kevin
I do not think there is much to be gained by arguing about the contents of a test tube with one side crying "Yes, it is" and the other "No, it isn't" as in a pantomime. I can point to the evidence of Dr Kennedy at the Cedillo hearing, which reads very well. Time will tell perhaps, but all the animosity and intolerance will serve only to obscure the truth.
I have not seen the latest study and am not sure what age population is being identified in it. No one claimed that the rise was being solely driven by MMR: that is certainly a straw argument (and one reason why several UK studies are ill-designed). What will happen, if there is a connection with the vaccine programme as it was introduced primarily between 1988 and 1992 - as some of us believe -is that the total numbers will accumulate. But no one has claimed that it is solely driven by vaccine either, and other environmental changes may well be involved. What I doubt is that it is to do with changed mating habits or diagnostic culture which no one has been able to document.
What did the medical profession make of the explosion as it began to manifest itself in the early mid 90s? It is not recorded. I remember one professional asking me rather coyly "Are we doing anything different?" What I do recall from that time was the failure to deal with the issue of regression, which led us even to doubt the diagnosis.
But so far, I note, everyone seems to be walking away from defending the flawed epidemiology which was released originally amidst so much publicity.
Posted by: John Stone, London N22 on 9:09am Mon 9 Jul 07
Kevin
I do not think there is much to be gained by arguing about the contents of a test tube with one side crying "Yes, it is" and the other "No, it isn't" as in a pantomime. I can point to the evidence of Dr Kennedy at the Cedillo hearing, which reads very well. Time will tell perhaps, but all the animosity and intolerance will serve only to obscure the truth.
I have not seen the latest study and am not sure what age population is being identified in it. No one claimed that the rise was being solely driven by MMR: that is certainly a straw argument (and one reason why several UK studies are ill-designed). What will happen, if there is a connection with the vaccine programme as it was introduced primarily between 1988 and 1992 - as some of us believe -is that the total numbers will accumulate. But no one has claimed that it is solely driven by vaccine either, and other environmental changes may well be involved. What I doubt is that it is to do with changed mating habits or diagnostic culture which no one has been able to document.
What did the medical profession make of the explosion as it began to manifest itself in the early mid 90s? It is not recorded. I remember one professional asking me rather coyly "Are we doing anything different?" What I do recall from that time was the failure to deal with the issue of regression, which led us even to doubt the diagnosis.
But so far, I note,
Comment | Read Comments (61)
