Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you have any medical concerns we suggest you consult your GP.

New Published Study Verifies Andrew Wakefield’s Research on Autism!

(218 Posts)
chocchild Sun 04-Aug-13 19:56:39

Has anybody come across this in the news? Maybe it's not newsworthy enough!

Boosiehs Sun 04-Aug-13 20:28:54

Hmmmm. I bet it doesn't. He was and is a fraud.

Forgetfulmog Sun 04-Aug-13 20:30:25

Oh god, here we go again....

Marking place out of morbid curiosity. I doubt I will believe it. And I say this as someone with an unvaccinated child.

tabitha8 Sun 04-Aug-13 20:35:40

In this context, what does "published" actually mean? Some on here want "peer reviewed". Guessing this isn't the same?

Boosiehs Sun 04-Aug-13 20:37:27

As I thought. No it doesn't.

Wine0clock Sun 04-Aug-13 20:40:25

always believed that a tiny percentage of children with leagky gut are more susceptible. If we don't yet know the extent of epigenetics on autism then how (seriously HOW) can they say with such certainty that the vaccination doesn't affect this group of children with leaky gut.

CatherinaJTV Sun 04-Aug-13 21:43:07

oh groan - no, neither this new paper, nor any other published by Wakefield, Wakefield's friends and people paid by Wakefield supports the MMR-autism connection.

This is the paper:

Crumbledwalnuts Tue 06-Aug-13 04:27:30

There has been quite a lot of research supporting the new disorder autistic enterocolitis which Wakefield was researching, including a new drug approved by the FDA to manage it. Perhaps there's a connection here.

It will certainly be a jigsaw of evidence that can be pieced together to support the thesis of a link, rather than one single study. And since most money has been poured into trying to prove the alternative, rather than research to try to find out what's wrong with suffering children, it's not likely that anyone will take seriously a small simple study not published int he mainstream press. And it couldn't be published in the mainstream press, nothing that backs the possibility Wakefield suggested will be published in the mainstream press, because health correspondents are too tied to their Departmental contacts.

Crumbledwalnuts Tue 06-Aug-13 04:30:33

For example note the attempts to smear the paper by talking about "Wakefield's friends"- and even "people paid by Wakefield" rather than talking about what the paper contains.

CatherinaJTV Tue 06-Aug-13 07:29:17

Crumbled - go ahead and explain: what does the paper contain?

As for Wakefield's friends and people paid by Wakefield - if you look at those 28 or so studies that are usually quoted as "supporting Wakefield" 13 were written by Wakefield and/or Lancet co-authors and/or Thoughful House colleagues (including two duplicates), 3 predate the Lancet paper by years or even decades and not one independently replicates Wakefield’s claims.

Crumbledwalnuts Tue 06-Aug-13 08:14:37

Why don't you explain your groan and your no? because it's easier to smear people, that's why.

CatherinaJTV Tue 06-Aug-13 09:34:24

in your own words, Crumbled, what does the article say and how, and how strongly, does it support Wakefield?

I have read the article and find a number of issues with it, more than just the fact that Arthur Krigsman (see was a colleague of Andrew Wakefield at Thoughtful House, and Lenny Gonzales was paid by Thoughtful House for previous studies (see I'll gladly share after you have given your assessment.

Crumbledwalnuts Tue 06-Aug-13 09:37:44

Caterina, I think it's another piece in the jigsaw. You need to say what's wrong with the science, since you're the one arguing with and denying it. I'm happy to go with what the authors find.

Of course if you want to talk about vested and financial interest we could do that forever with pharmaceutical companies. You do seem to enjoy the smear tactic.

Do you have a problem with the science here or not? Would you like to share it with the rest of us or not? Because I don't have a problem with it, and that's my assessment smile

Now, what is your problem with the science of this?

Crumbledwalnuts Tue 06-Aug-13 10:15:47


MrsHoarder Tue 06-Aug-13 10:26:15

I have read the abstract and skimmed the actual body of the accademic paper that links to ( It talks about genetic profiles and links to gastrointestinal symptoms, and having skimmed and done a search doesn't seem to mention anywhere vaccines, MMR etc.

If you would like to read the paper (not the health article) and can you tell me where it shows a link between the MMR and autism?

Madratlady Tue 06-Aug-13 10:31:15

I've also read the paper and the study is not in any way investigating MMR and ASD.

CatherinaJTV Tue 06-Aug-13 11:25:59

My main beef with this paper is that their ASD group has an average age of 5 and the children are 92% boys, whereas the other groups have an average age of 12 and the majority of them is female. I would expect to see gene expression differences if you compare gene expression in 5 year old boys with gene expression in 12 year old girls. I understand that they have to work with the material they can get access to, but still, this is a HUGE confounder. And then group sizes are vastly different, clinical presentation in the ASD group is really heterogenous, and so on.

Beer0Clock Tue 06-Aug-13 21:18:14

I agree with you crumbledwalnuts. As you say it's an important piece in the jigsaw which shouldn't be wilfully ignored.

CatherinaJTV Tue 06-Aug-13 21:23:22

err, did you read my post BeerOClock? I have read the article, I have very specific scientific criticism of it (AND it's Wakefield's former colleagues and employees).

Beer0Clock Tue 06-Aug-13 22:59:11

Yes I read your post. errrr.

CatherinaJTV Wed 07-Aug-13 08:43:42

and do you think that if you compare gene expression between 5 year old neurotypical boys and 12 year old neurotypical girls you would not find huge differences (hint, the 12 year old girls will have hit puberty...)?

Madratlady Wed 07-Aug-13 10:33:35

Would one of the supporters of this paper like to explain what his study actually has to do with the MMR rather than spouting nonsense about it being 'an important piece of the jigsaw'. What do you think is important about it? What exactly does it supposedly prove about the MMR vaccine? I can't find any mention of the vaccine in the paper at all.

Madratlady Wed 07-Aug-13 10:41:21

I also wonder how many of the people who claim this proves something about the MMR vaccine have read the actual paper rather than the very biased article linked in the OP, which is nothing more than a news site shouting about something.

Boosiehs Wed 07-Aug-13 19:22:49

It's v typical. Not interested in the actual science, just trying to insinuate that a jury award in the US proves something.

Gooseysgirl Wed 07-Aug-13 19:27:26


RegainingUnconsciousness Wed 07-Aug-13 20:40:59

Ok, I'm being lazy here, but here's my take on this:

- I'm going from the study linked in Catharina's post above, and I haven't read the article the OP seems to be talking about.

- I've only read the abstract, I'm not even going as far as sample size and makeup.

- I couldn't care less who these researchers are, who their friends are, and what other literature they cite. I'm going by what they've done and what they're reporting.

So, the thread title suggests that someone thinks that this study gives evidence that vaccination is implicated in the develop net of ASD.

By reading the abstract, the authors have clearly only been studying the genetic profiles of the mucosal cells in those with ASD, Chrones disease and Ulcerative Colitis.

They start by saying that there is often some gastrointestinal inflammation associated with ASD. I've heard this before.

They basically then do some gene analysis on people with these ASD associated gastrointestinal issues, and compare it to those with other, really unpleasant gastrointestinal inflammatory conditions, and to people who don't have either ASD or UC/Chrones.

The study finds, that there are genetic markers for gastrointestinal inflammation. In the people with the inflammation. (They actually say genetic markers in ASD are like what is found in the early stages of Chrones/UC, not when it gets really bad).

So they're saying: yeah, ASD conditions have some gut inflammation. The genetic markers might be CAUSED BY the inflammation itself (this is epigenetics), OR (and they don't even speculate in the abstract) it could be some kind of genetic co-morbidity, where the genetic changes associated with ASD (and we already know there's a genetic element to ASD) are also associated with gut inflammation.

The is NO mention of cause. And there is absolutely NO mention anywhere of vaccination, or leaky gut in children, or anything.

So, in conclusion: thread title (and associated article) is bollocks.

Madratlady Wed 07-Aug-13 21:00:11

Regaining You've pretty much spelled out what I was thinking about that article, but you've done a much better job of saying it than I could've.

The person who wrote the article is clearly not very clever or just in it for the money and not caring what bollocks they churn out.

RegainingUnconsciousness Wed 07-Aug-13 21:02:48

I haven't even read the article.

There's a lot of bollocks on the Internet. This appears to be a classic example of its type.

eccentrica Wed 07-Aug-13 21:11:00

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

RegainingUnconsciousness Wed 07-Aug-13 21:27:48

Ha! Look how much effort I dedicated to complete lunacy!

I wholeheartedly agree, eccentrica!

eccentrica Wed 07-Aug-13 21:57:55

Regaining your effort was well worth it - I knew it would be bollocks but good to have someone explain exactly why smile

sashh Sat 10-Aug-13 17:59:29

Not read the whole thing but it seems to say

Lots of ASD children have problems with their bowels.
Other children have Cronn's disease or ulcerative colitis.

When you compare samples from the three groups there may be a gene in common, there may not.

And the sample was of 53 children.

How does that back up Wakefield?

JoTheHot Sun 11-Aug-13 15:13:32

It doesn't, but never let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

Beachcomber Tue 03-Sep-13 09:52:27

How does that back up Wakefield?

Because what Wakefield and Professor Walker-Smith were working on was observation of gut issues in children with autism and how treating those gut issues could benefit the children, not only because to do so alleviated them of a lot of physical distress (that the children often had difficulty indicating to anyone, sometimes due to their non-verbal status), but because in case studies the children's autistic behaviours improved too.

Which was wonderful. And an important medical discovery with regards to treating and helping children in great distress.

The observation was also that the gut disease these children presented appeared to be unusual and show differences when compared to known conditions such as UC and Crohn's - which was interesting and merited further investigation and suggested that what was being observed was a distinct pathology which presented as autistic enterocolitis (i.e. with both autism and gut issues and with the two being related). It was a scientific breakthrough that as Crumbledwalnuts has said has led to the development of FDA approved medication to treat the combined issues. Crumbledwalnuts use of the word 'jigsaw' is very apt - like much of medical science concerning the complex human body, discoveries are often made by gathering pieces of a jigsaw over time before anybody gets to shout out 'eureka'.

Taken together, these results demonstrate that ASDGI children have a gastrointestinal mucosal molecular profile that overlaps significantly with known inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), yet has distinctive features that further supports the presence of an ASD-associated IBD variant

This is the bit that adds to Wakefield and Professor Walker-Smith's work.

CatherinaJTV Tue 03-Sep-13 09:58:52

Except that their controls are not appropriate and therefore the paper is not half as valuable as it is made out to be.

Beachcomber Tue 03-Sep-13 13:06:16

CatherinaJTV - I'm assuming that you have read the paper in its entirety.

As is standard the authors discuss the limitations of the study. I don't think we can accuse them of presenting the paper as more important than it is when they comprehensively detail its limitations. Of course many people probably don't read as far as that but that is hardly the authors' fault.

One of the study's limitations was the relatively small and unequal sample numbers, especially in the IBD groups, although the pattern of aberrant gene expression was consistent with that described previously for these disease groups. The original goal of this preliminary study was to describe the molecular phenotype(s) for the ASDGI group – the IBD cases were included for comparison. Despite the differences in group sizes, highly significant differences emerged, particularly between ASDGI cases and non-inflamed controls.

Additional factors known to influence human intestinal mucosal gene expression include, but are not limited to, age, gender, ethnicity, prescription medications, diet, and dietary supplements. Insofar as this is a retrospective study designed primarily to explore the relationship between the ASDGI phenotype and inflammatory bowel disease, these potential confounding factors could not be adequately controlled for. The variety of diets, medications, and nutritional supplements in the ASD-GI group is depicted in Table S1. For the most part ASD-GI children were on a diet that restricted ingestion of both gluten and casein, and in some instances also soy, whereas individuals in the control groups were not on restrictive diets. In addition, food auto-restriction, a common feature in autism, serves to further limit the variety of foods to which the bowel mucosa is exposed and could potentially impact mucosal gene expression. None of the ASDGI cases in this study were receiving medications known to impact inflammatory processes of the intestinal mucosa for at least four weeks prior to obtaining the biopsies. This includes NSAIDS, H2 blockers, proton pump inhibitors, corticosteroids, antibiotics, probiotics, and immune-suppressants. Well-designed prospective studies that would control for additional mitigating factors such as these are both important and necessary.

Because the cellular composition of biopsy material would be expected to influence gene expression, it is theoretically possible that greater levels of lymphoid tissue present in the younger ASDGI patients in the study group may have contributed to differences between them and the older patients in the other three groups. Although this may have been a factor in the terminal ileal gene expression (all of which demonstrated the histologic presence of LNH), this cannot be the case in the colonic analyses as only two of the colonic specimens contained histologic LNH. It therefore seems likely that LNH, by itself, does not contribute to DET variation in this study.

An important consideration when examining between-group differences in gene expression reported here is the disparity in mean age between the ASDGI group (5 years) and the non-ASD groups (12.5 years). Although this factor represents a limitation to this study, we are not aware of any gene expression studies that have reported a significant age-related pattern of expression in pediatric gastrointestinal tissue. In the absence of these data, we are making the assumption that, while there may be some differences in gastrointestinal tissue gene expression in children as they age from 5 to 13, these differences would not significantly skew the overall transcriptome profile. A second important limitation in the design of this study is the lack of gender-matched samples. Given the increased risk of ASD in boys, the ASD cases tend to be mostly male, whereas the non-ASD patients are more evenly distributed between male and female. Once again, although we are not aware of any report suggesting significant gender-related differences in gene expression in pediatric gastrointestinal tissue, we acknowledge that they may exist and if so, could confound the interpretation of these results. Importantly, the largest source of variation found via principal component analysis of gene expression in these 53 biopsy samples was disease state, i.e. the presence or absence of light microscopic histopathologic findings.

CatherinaJTV Tue 03-Sep-13 13:57:38

I have seen that - it's the discussion boards that over interpret their data, not (so much) the authors. The fact that there are a lot of pubertal girls in their control group is going to change gene expression for sure.

JoTheHot Tue 03-Sep-13 18:14:49

I appreciate that just because Wakefield is corrupt, that doesn't mean everything he has ever said is a lie. However, this is a vaccine board, and this research, even aside of its limitations, in no way supports Wakefield's fraudulent 'research' on vaccines.

Crumbledwalnuts Tue 03-Sep-13 18:51:21

Wakefield is not corrupt. HTH.

LaVolcan Tue 03-Sep-13 19:20:08

I thought Wakefield's research was into gut problems, not vaccines?
Nor did he say, "don't vaccinate". At the time he recommended the use of the single measles vaccine which was readily available.

Every time the MMR issue comes Wakefield is used as a scapegoat for the lack of take up of the vaccine and it's trotted out that Wakefield is corrupt, MMR doesn't cause autism, thus actually reminding people that they were worried about MMR and autism. Otherwise, I think the autism issue might we have been forgotten.

I think that some people would question the safety of the vaccine and some would question the need for the three in one element when two diseases being vaccinated against are extremely unlikely to cause problems in small children.

However, the witch hunt against Wakefield did make me read what he had to say for himself. My guess would be that in 20-30 years time, he will be partially vindicated, and that there will be found to be children whose genetic make up makes them unusually susceptible to the vaccine.

(It won't be the first time that medical science has sworn that they are right and have to backtrack when shown to be wrong).

Crumbledwalnuts Tue 03-Sep-13 19:38:39

Actually you're right so this comment by Catherina

oh groan - no, neither this new paper, nor any other published by Wakefield, Wakefield's friends and people paid by Wakefield supports the MMR-autism connection.

is totally irrelevant

CatherinaJTV Tue 03-Sep-13 20:09:59

LeVolcan - which one is it?

I thought Wakefield's research was into gut problems, not vaccines?


My guess would be that in 20-30 years time, he will be partially vindicated, and that there will be found to be children whose genetic make up makes them unusually susceptible to the vaccine.

My guess is that in 20-30 years, no one will remember his name, already newspapers get his wrong (I saw "Adam Wakefield" recently) and the Daily Mail will champion something else as the reason for the decline of whatever...

CatherinaJTV Tue 03-Sep-13 20:10:46

But my comment that comparing 12.5 year old girls to 4 year old boys because puberty changes gene expression is not irrelevant.

DreadLock Tue 03-Sep-13 20:17:09

Wakefield is not corrupt IMO. Just as you are entitled to yours people.

LaVolcan Tue 03-Sep-13 20:20:40

Sorry, which one is what?

My first statement was a question - I thought his main research was gut problems. I am happy to be corrected if it wasn't.

The last is a statement of opinion. Regardless of whether the main thrust of his research was vaccines or gut problems, more research, one hopes, will have been done, with more answers forthcoming.

TweenageAngst Tue 03-Sep-13 20:43:39

The research was funded by the Jane Johnson Foundation.

Jane Johnson was one of the people who set up the Thoughtful centre to further wakefields (now) totally discredited research, in fact he was the director of it.

Although they have now dissociated themselves from him following the retraction of the article by the Lancet.
Jane Johnson is a signatory to this statement below

Five years after the initiation of a campaign to discredit the work of Dr. Andrew Wakefield, the London Sunday Times carried additional allegations on Sunday, February 8, 2009. Three pages of coverage that presented no new evidence accused Dr. Wakefield of "fixing" research data. These allegations have no basis in fact and have been fully addressed in Dr. Wakefield's response to the General Medical Council (GMC) prosecution, now well into its second year.

We the undersigned, representing multitudes of citizens worldwide, demand an enquiry into the means by which the continuing episodes of misrepresentation concerning Dr. Wakefield came to pass.


We demand that the London Sunday Times review its coverage and the increasingly evident conflicts of interest of Brian Deer with regard to both the initial lodging of the GMC complaint and subsequent reporting.
We demand to see substantiation of allegations made in the London Sunday Times article of February 8, 2009, or to be informed should no such substantiation be available.
As Brian Deer has stated that his reporting was directed by editors managing his investigation for the London Sunday Times, we demand answers of the editors with regard to mismanagement of Deer's investigation and why unsubstantiated text was permitted to be published. We request that the editor-in-chief and ownership of the London Sunday Times review, amend, and apologize for this mismanagement and editorial failure.

Further, we support an independent investigation into potential influences from pharmaceutical companies, government agencies, and other special interest groups that may have played a part in efforts to censor the reporting of academic research that does not present the current mainstream medical position. We also support an enquiry into Brian Deer's activity that addresses his statements about influencing vaccine cases in the United States.

We declare that:
1. Dr. Wakefield is a man of honesty, integrity, courage, and proven commitment to children and the public health.

2. Dr. Wakefield’s research is rigorous, replicated, biologically valid, clinically evidenced, corroborated by published, peer-reviewed research in an abundance of scientific disciplines, and consistent with children’s medical problems.

3. We support clinicians who pursue treatments for bowel disorders based on Dr. Wakefield’s work and corroborating science, most specifically Arthur Krigsman, MD.

4. We support all scientists, including Dr. Andrew Wakefield, in the freedom to conduct medical research into the biological mechanisms for vaccine-related immune and brain dysfunction, including autism, without being attacked personally and professionally by industry, government, and organized medicine. We support scientific discovery, freedom to investigate, and freedom to speak in science.

5. We question the work of Brian Deer. Although journalists have a right to investigate and report, time after time Brian Deer has stepped over the line in terms of journalistic ethics. This has included his misrepresenting as new information that which he knows to be untrue; consistently misrepresenting himself and his role; and failing to meet minimum standards separating facts from opinion.

6. We renounce pharmaceutical lobby groups and the London Sunday Times supporting the complaint lodged with the GMC, the actions of which result in intimidating doctors thereby preventing objective medical assessment of autistic children with co-morbid bowel involvement.

7. We condemn the censorship of science. There are more than enough facts and evidence to support the case of vaccine injury, but the politicization of these issues has made it impossible to publish important and valid science. The debate is rigged in favor of the vaccine industry.

8. We condemn the conflicts of interest and abuse of power of the government, which has become the greatest proponent for vaccines and the greatest opponent to vaccine safety research.

9. We serve the children and families who daily suffer the consequences of the largest institutional failure in modern medicine. This is a moral crisis demanding urgent action.

10. We demand recognition of the global autism emergency. We call for investigation into the most likely environmental causes (including vaccines). We cry out for the application of proven treatment practices and for the investigation of other treatment options to help suffering children and families immediately.

Members of the public, parents, doctors and scientists worldwide are now calling for a formal enquiry:

Total Signed 4540 as of Saturday, August 31, 2013.

So I would suggest that the article is not quite as upfront as it would seem

Crumbledwalnuts Tue 03-Sep-13 20:55:48

I do think Andrew Wakefield is rather marvellous. He certainly is a man of honesty, integrity, courage and proven commitment to children and public health. Neither the man nor the research is totally discredited, unless you count "reputation destroyed on purpose" as discredited.

CatherinaJTV Tue 03-Sep-13 21:43:39

the only nice thing about Wakefield is his voice. Did you ever answer me why you think he tells untruths so much? Is he lying or incompetent?

Crumbledwalnuts Tue 03-Sep-13 21:48:27

The parents of the children he cared for disagree with you 100 pc smile

CatherinaJTV Tue 03-Sep-13 22:01:24

is he lying or incompetent? I gave an example, Wakefield claimed single mumps vaccine had never caused adverse effects. That is patently wrong. Lying or incompetent?

Crumbledwalnuts Tue 03-Sep-13 22:13:40

smile Paul Offit said a baby could handle 10,00 vaccines at once. Lying or incompetent?

Crumbledwalnuts Tue 03-Sep-13 22:14:36

I have such respect for Andrew Wakefield. Have you read Callous Disregard? I strongly recommend it.

Crumbledwalnuts Tue 03-Sep-13 22:16:22

He's lost so much - not like these profiteers associated with drug companies who make millions out of selling patient safety down the line. I'm so glad he's got funding and support in the US. It's a shame we've lost him to the UK.

Crumbledwalnuts Tue 03-Sep-13 22:26:36

To be honest I don't know what your beef is, or why you even think he's lying. You don't think mumps monovalent vaccines caused adverse effects either. So why do you think he's either lying or incompetent?

CatherinaJTV Wed 04-Sep-13 07:31:32

Vaccines have side effects. The side effects of mumps monovalent vaccines are well documented. Wakefield claimed there aren't any (to promote singles over MMR) - I think he is lying, but of course, there is always the possibility that he doesn't know his stuff.

Wakefield lives in a HUGE multimillion dollar house in Texas ( He has a 900 square foot bedroom, 6 bathrooms, a gym, a pool, 5 acres of land (which, granted, would probably cost less in Texas than in the UK). In any case, for a man who "has lost so much", he is doing very very well, I'd say.

Crumbledwalnuts Wed 04-Sep-13 07:39:24

So you don't think that all vaccine reactions would happen anyway?

Crumbledwalnuts Wed 04-Sep-13 07:42:06

And re; Wakefield. I'm glad he's doing well now. He was separated from his family for a long time, lost his job and his reputation, everything seemed in ruins for him. And at any time he could have said : "I withdraw my fears about MMR" and it would have been fine for him. But he's a man of such honesty - he knew what he'd seen and found, and he had a duty of trust to his patients and their parents. He still has their respect. Of course you know that they did not file the complaint against him - most unusual.

Crumbledwalnuts Wed 04-Sep-13 07:50:13

Can I just ask for your clarification Catherina: are you acknowledging that vaccine damage does happen - that is, vaccine damage which would not otherwise occur without the vaccine trigger?


CatherinaJTV Wed 04-Sep-13 08:07:37

of course I acknowledge that, Crumbled. That doesn't mean that intractable epilepsies are "vaccine damage" (even the cases that have been compensated as such), but aseptic meningitis after mumps vaccine for example is most often caused by the vaccine (also the single, Mr Wakefield ;) ).

Crumbledwalnuts Wed 04-Sep-13 09:32:05

Catherina: you seem previously to have difficulty acknowledging that. I think you have, however, bowed to the inevitable.

Crumbledwalnuts Wed 04-Sep-13 09:35:08

The problem is that not only did Labour ensure the need for all these school places, not only did they not plan new school places, they also ensured that the funds for new school places when they eventually left power were not there. There was no money left. The government is doing what it can: it was left a complete pig's ear of a mess with education and funding and is trying to do the right thing.

Crumbledwalnuts Wed 04-Sep-13 09:37:11

Oh dear.

Beachcomber Wed 04-Sep-13 10:34:41

CatherinaJTV - I would rather talk about the actual research in the OP as I think it is interesting but it seems this thread has now been reduced to mudslinging against Wakefield.

Could you please link to or quote (in context) where Wakefield said that "single mumps vaccine had never caused adverse effects".

CatherinaJTV Wed 04-Sep-13 10:45:17

Hogwash, Crumbled. I find it highly irritating that you keep spreading false allegations about things I may or may not have said in the "so when did you stop beating your wife" fashion.

CatherinaJTV Wed 04-Sep-13 10:58:54
Crumbledwalnuts Wed 04-Sep-13 11:00:09

Why do you keep saying hogwash when it's plainly not? I appreciate that it might be an enjoyable personal vent but I made a direct point about all vaccine reactions would happen without a vaccine trigger you deflected it.

Crumbledwalnuts Wed 04-Sep-13 11:01:57

But Beachcomber demolished your point on a previous thread - at length.

Beachcomber Wed 04-Sep-13 11:43:34

CatherinaJTV - could you quote what Wakefield actually said and perhaps be good enough to tell people at what point he said it during the video so people can listen for themselves with context.

Crumbledwalnuts Wed 04-Sep-13 11:59:40

About 3:20 Beach

Catherine this is from Journal of Clinical Infec Diseases]]

Jeryl Lynn.Jeryl Lynn, the only mumps vaccine strain used in the United States, is derived from a patient's throat isolate [29]. It contains 2 viral populations, which is probably an advantage. The strain is very safe, as shown in extensive reactogenicity studies using monovalent mumps [30] or combined MMR vaccine [31]. Aseptic meningitis, the Achilles' heel of mumps vaccines (vide infra), has never been documented to be caused by Jeryl Lynn [32] (albeit, in 1 case in Germany, it was claimed to have done so [33, 34]). Long-term follow-up studies with Jeryl Lynn–containing MMR vaccine [35,36–37] confirm the general safety of that vaccine.

Crumbledwalnuts Wed 04-Sep-13 12:00:14
Crumbledwalnuts Wed 04-Sep-13 12:04:12

He specifically says Jeryl Lynn strain, never associated in documented history with the onset of aseptic meningitis.

See the above link for CID study agreeing with him.

Beachcomber Wed 04-Sep-13 12:07:33

yes thanks Crumbledwalnuts. That's what I heard too. Unless Catherina is going to post a quote from further in which says otherwise.

Crumbledwalnuts Wed 04-Sep-13 12:13:16

"Wakefield claimed single mumps vaccine had never caused adverse effects. "

So unless you can provide another time contact and another quite, what you said is a lie.

He wasn't just talking about single mumps vaccine and he wasn't just talking about adverse effects.

So drop it or put up another quote where he says what you claim he says.

Beachcomber Wed 04-Sep-13 12:40:11

IIRC Wakefield does mention Urabe single mumps vaccines later on but I don't remember him saying anywhere that "single mumps vaccine had never caused adverse effects" .

I mean it would be a weird thing to say - I'm sure someone somewhere in the world has had a red leg or a sore arm or something worse as a result of a single mumps vaccine.

Crumbledwalnuts Wed 04-Sep-13 12:42:32

What time Beach? I like listening to Wakefield!

Crumbledwalnuts Wed 04-Sep-13 12:45:15

It would be extremely bizarre if he said that about Urabe as he spent time at the beginning talking about Urabe adverse events.

Beachcomber Wed 04-Sep-13 13:18:33

OK - he says at around 12.13 that;

"By 1985 the monovalent Urabe vaccine had been given to about about 5 million persons around the world, predominantly in Japan. There had been no reports of meningitis with the single vaccine."

Which is what CatherinaJTV and I discussed on the other thread.

I don't have time right now to listen to the rest of the talk again but I doubt Wakefield is going to say "single mumps vaccine had never caused adverse effects" at any point.

Crumbledwalnuts Wed 04-Sep-13 13:20:00

About 12:23 Beach! "Urabe AM 9 no reports of aseptic meningitis"

However earlier on he clearly says "Urabe strain causes meningitis."

So he's hardly trying to lie. He says right at the beginning "Urabe strain causes meningitis". It's a confusion - rather than a lie.

Considering what he reveals in that talk, the appalling implications for ministers and drug companies and the cover-up motivated entirely by money, you must be desperate to pick that out. Don't you have anything to say about the role of David Salisbury? Was Wakefield wrong about that? What about the reason for choosing a more dangerous vaccine - cost? There is so much there for you to take issue with. But you pick on that? When he's clearly said at the beginning Urabe causes meningitis?

Crumbledwalnuts Wed 04-Sep-13 13:21:18

X post. Not really worth listening for but thanks for prompting me to listen to that super talk again.

CatherinaJTV Wed 04-Sep-13 14:49:25

he is lovely to listen to, isn't he? So you think it was just an innocent mistake in the course of a longer talk?

CatherinaJTV Wed 04-Sep-13 14:51:53

oh, and I am sorry, can't listen to it again atm - DD has just been offered a university place abroad and I am drowning in paperwork (have found her birth certificate - next up, insurance card, book flights/trains, find flat...) I'll be back in mid October from the looks of it - so exciting smile

Crumbledwalnuts Wed 04-Sep-13 15:26:25

The most shocking thing is that somebody can watch that whole video, take notes, and not have any concern about the issues raised. The vaccine safety, the ministerial complicity, the failure to record adverse reactions, the involvement of people still in senior public health jobs - the list goes on and on. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt ie even if their wrong, to imagine their motives may be good. But when someone is well aware of exactly what's happened, and maintains a position of denial, then their enthusiasm for vaccines borders on obsession.

Crumbledwalnuts Wed 04-Sep-13 15:26:51

they're wrong smile

IceBeing Wed 04-Sep-13 15:36:51

Is the thing that actually got AW fired considered to be true by his supporters on here?

The breach of ethical guidelines?

IceBeing Wed 04-Sep-13 15:48:03

I ask because I am currently filling in the ethics part of a grant proposal and I am not really seeing anything skipable.

It seems odd to say "I do think Andrew Wakefield is rather marvellous. He certainly is a man of honesty, integrity, courage and proven commitment to children and public health." about someone that blew off procedures designed to keep people safe and treat them in an ethical way?

Crumbledwalnuts Wed 04-Sep-13 15:53:22

He's amazing. Huge integrity, huge courage and an enormous commitment to children's health.

IceBeing Wed 04-Sep-13 15:56:58

so it doesn't bother you that he didn't follow ethical guidelines?

IceBeing Wed 04-Sep-13 15:57:55

or I suppose rather than answering the question you could just keep stating your view point again and again and hope we don't notice...

are you a politician by any remote chance? grin

Crumbledwalnuts Wed 04-Sep-13 16:22:41

If you knew anything about it (which you plainly don't) you'd know that most of the evidence against Mr Wakefield is undermined by the reinstatement of Prof Walker Smith. But never mind - from your previous contributions I gather you aren't really that interested. Also from your previous contributions and avoidance tactics, I can safely say that you can think what you like about my opinion, because I don't have any respect for yours.

IceBeing Wed 04-Sep-13 16:42:13

still not answering the question then....what a surprise.

IceBeing Wed 04-Sep-13 16:44:25

I think I can safely say from our previous interaction that you haven't the faintest idea what my opinion on Wakefield is....what with me not having ever told anyone.

but don't let that stop you....

bloody hell. You guys are the motherload of defensive paranoia...

IceBeing Wed 04-Sep-13 16:47:50

also wtf about avoidance tactics? Are you mixing me up with someone else?

Crumbledwalnuts Wed 04-Sep-13 16:49:56

If you admire Mr Wakefield and approve of him, and think he did the right thing, surprise me now. Prove me wrong.

I can see you need things spelling out. No it doesn't bother me and no, he hasn't behaved unethically. Now I bet boots to Blackburn that your opinion is the polar opposite. You see I do have the very very faintest idea what your opinion of Mr Wakefield is.

Crumbledwalnuts Wed 04-Sep-13 16:55:14

You accused me and another poster of being conspiracy theorists who think all stated risks and reported results from medical trials are bull, because we found on the whole internet some other people it had happened to. When you were disabused of this misconception you ran away.

Crumbledwalnuts Wed 04-Sep-13 16:55:54

I am SO looking forward to my surprise by the way.

Crumbledwalnuts Wed 04-Sep-13 17:03:09

You're a male medical student aren't you!

IceBeing Wed 04-Sep-13 17:04:53

ahh I actually didn't return to that thread as I had learnt all I needed to on that topic regarding your opinions. I might go back if you think anyone actually made a valid point.....

On what basis do you find that the GMC was incorrect in saying that ethical guidelines and procedures had been breached?

My opinion of Wakefield is that if he did breach ethics procedure than he did something very wrong. If he didn't and the whole GMC thing is a stack of cards then he didn't do much wrong. At that point his heart being in the right place (which I do believe it was) becomes a relevant point in his favour.

But I can't admire someone who broke rules in place to protect children.

By the way reinstatement of someone else doesn't mean that either AW or the other person are innocent. People get released from jail when they served their time as well as in the extremely rare case that they are later found to be innocent.

Crumbledwalnuts Wed 04-Sep-13 17:06:37

Of course there was a valid point - one which proved you off the wall wrong. I wouldn't have returned either if I were you. That sort of thing isn't comfortable for people who think they know more than anyone else.

IceBeing Wed 04-Sep-13 17:08:28

Nope I can't see it? I said you were all certain the reported risks were being deliberately under stated and the only point that seems to even vaguely address that was saintly saying she went to research talks as well as reading MN.

I am not sure what that is supposed to prove.

What point do you think was made?

IceBeing Wed 04-Sep-13 17:09:00

Do please feel free to answer the questions in my post as well as slating me for things I suspect I never even commented on in another thread...

Crumbledwalnuts Wed 04-Sep-13 17:09:12

Wakefield is supposed to have ordered examinations on children for the purposes of research, without the appropriate ethical permissions. He didn't. He ordered them for the purposes of diagnosing the children's problems. But of course you'd know this if you followed the cases.

Crumbledwalnuts Wed 04-Sep-13 17:10:15

X post. You said exactly what I quoted you as saying and you were wrong, wrong, wrong.

IceBeing Wed 04-Sep-13 17:11:06

gotta get home now...but feel free to assume I am running off with my tail between my legs if it gives you pleasure...

I am not male and neither am I a medic and I am not a student either.

but er...accurate otherwise...

IceBeing Wed 04-Sep-13 17:12:35

Well you seem to believe there is a conspiracy to under report vaccine damage?

does that not make you a conspiracy theorist?

There wasn't any point carrying on the discussion because I was trying to work out why I held a different opinion to you and the answer is because I accept the stated risks and you don't.

Of course we won't come to the same conclusion.

Crumbledwalnuts Wed 04-Sep-13 17:14:30

"My opinion of Wakefield is that if he did breach ethics procedure than he did something very wrong." Like what? Just a feeling you've got? How ridiculous is that.

"If he didn't and the whole GMC thing is a stack of cards then he didn't do much wrong."
The whole GMC case is a stack of cards, stacked against Andrew Wakefield.

"But I can't admire someone who broke rules in place to protect children."
No problem there - he didn't. He was doing his damnedest to help the children and the parents respected and were grateful to him for it.

Read up. In fact why don't you watch the Youtube video posted by Catherina, by way of a link to another thread. You will learn a great dea.

IceBeing Wed 04-Sep-13 17:14:57

love, why are you so pissed off about me asking about this?

I don't know the answers...that's why I am asking....

I don't know the whole case history...that's why I asked if you believed the bit about the ethical breach was correct or not.

I already knew his paper didn't contain the vast majority of things his detractors slate him for I was asking if the other bit was also incorrectly reported...

but all I am getting from you is well you would know this if you cared enough.

If people were only allowed to ask questions about things they already knew then MN wouldn't exist....

SO why exactly are you so bloody paranoid?

Crumbledwalnuts Wed 04-Sep-13 17:16:03

I think vaccine damage is under-reported. Did I say it was because of a conspiracy? Why, I don't think I did.

Yes I do assume you're running off.

IceBeing Wed 04-Sep-13 17:16:19

yeah I am getting the impression that asking anyone but you would have been a whole lot more informative, less agro and less bitchy.


HAve it your way.

You could have have chosen not to.


Zideq Wed 04-Sep-13 17:16:40

I find it laughable that people could admire this man.

IceBeing Wed 04-Sep-13 17:17:26

wow you really are a piece of work...are you getting off on putting others down?

Some way to get your gratification eh?

Crumbledwalnuts Wed 04-Sep-13 17:17:32

If you don't know the answers you need an entirely different approach. An highly aggressive and patronising know-it-all approach is...inappropriate.

Crumbledwalnuts Wed 04-Sep-13 17:18:19

Look at yourself for putting others down. If you don't like it back in your direction (how often does one have to say this on vaccine threads?) don't go there yourself. It's quite simple.

Crumbledwalnuts Wed 04-Sep-13 17:19:17

Zideq: read a little more widely. Children's lifelong disabilities are not funny by the way.

LaVolcan Wed 04-Sep-13 17:27:25

I too think that vaccine damage/adverse reactions are under-reported.

One reason for this is that you are not told that there is a yellow card scheme for reporting adverse reactions to all medicines, including vaccines and complementary.

When did you last see a poster up about this, at the surgery say? I read about it on mumsnet.

Zideq Wed 04-Sep-13 17:31:39

lol where in my post did I say they were and you belive the GMC where wrong?

Crumbledwalnuts Wed 04-Sep-13 17:31:52

LaVolcan I seriously need to hide this topic. When I'm not at work it's completely addictive. I think I need an intervention confused

Crumbledwalnuts Wed 04-Sep-13 17:32:53

I don't understand your post Zideq. Certainly don't understand your "lol".

Zideq Wed 04-Sep-13 17:35:52

the lol was in response to the complete straw man of:

"Children's lifelong disabilities are not funny by the way"

Do you belive the GMC where wrong in their assesment of Andrew Wakefield.

Crumbledwalnuts Wed 04-Sep-13 17:36:36

Yes I do.

Zideq Wed 04-Sep-13 17:41:18

And Wakefields action in regard to the libel actions don't cause you concern?

Crumbledwalnuts Wed 04-Sep-13 17:42:57

You'll have to spell out which action are you talking about. If it's something that comes from Brian Deer it's dull.

Doesn't it concern you that Professor Walker Smith was re-instated, so undermining evidence against Andrew Wakefield?

Beachcomber Wed 04-Sep-13 18:17:49

Do people think that what has gone on around Dr Wakefield, Professor Walker-Smith, Professor Murch, Professor Dhillon, the Lancet children, their parents, Horton, the Lancet, the GMC, The DoH, etc for over a decade is simple ?

I mean as simple as saying "oh well duh he breached medical ethics he must be a bad 'un" ?

Cos that is the level of debate we are seeing on this thread.

So I ask posters here a) what specifically do you consider Wakefield to have done wrong and b) does the result of the appeal by Professor Walker-Smith affect how you answer question a. ?

(If you don't know who Walker-Smith is or anything much about his appeal then how on earth are you able to have much of an opinion on Dr Wakefield. By which I mean your own opinion. Not the opinion of someone else that you have read in the press or on a website.)

Beachcomber Wed 04-Sep-13 21:15:43

CatherinaJTV - are you going to admit that you cannot quote Wakefield saying ""single mumps vaccine had never caused adverse effects" ?

Are you going to admit that you were either wrong about that or that you made it up?

CatherinaJTV Wed 04-Sep-13 21:17:47

BC you yourself found the time he said it...

back to flat hunting...

Crumbledwalnuts Wed 04-Sep-13 21:18:47

He didn't say it Catherina. You know this. He never said what you claim he said. Admit it.

Beachcomber Wed 04-Sep-13 21:25:38

CatherinaJTV I quoted on this thread what he said and gave the time in the video. Around 12.13;

"By 1985 the monovalent Urabe vaccine had been given to about about 5 million persons around the world, predominantly in Japan. There had been no reports of meningitis with the single vaccine."

In what world does the quote above = "single mumps vaccine had never caused adverse effects" ?

So - did you get it wrong or did you make it up?

Zideq Wed 04-Sep-13 22:29:54

I was referring to this

Crumbledwalnuts Wed 04-Sep-13 22:58:34

Isn't it obvious. The judge thought he wouldn't win and that was one of the main reasons for his approval, along with length of time.

"the trial will turn upon fundamentally serious issues going to the heart of the Claimant's honesty and professional integrity."

The claimant and his honesty and professional integrity had been comprehensively smeared and deliberately discredited, so much so that he wouldn't win.

Can you answer my question now?

Crumbledwalnuts Wed 04-Sep-13 22:59:03

approval = refusal

Zideq Wed 04-Sep-13 23:05:41

For completeness I have also read this

and this:

Zideq Wed 04-Sep-13 23:06:42

Sorry, what question?

Crumbledwalnuts Wed 04-Sep-13 23:09:18

Doesn't it concern you that Professor Walker Smith was re-instated, so undermining evidence against Andrew Wakefield?

Zideq Wed 04-Sep-13 23:11:01

Sorry got it, not it doesn't the ruling doesn't vindicate Wakefield as it all hinged on the question of medical practice or research...

Crumbledwalnuts Wed 04-Sep-13 23:17:20

Yes hmm that's right.

Put simply, if Prof Walker Smith did not subject the children to invasive and unnecessary procedures then how can Andrew Wakefield have done so? He wasn't clinically involved with the children, carrying out the biopsies.

The judge was completely scathing about the inadequate GMC reasoning and the superficial way the GMC examined the evidence.

Zideq Wed 04-Sep-13 23:24:20

Where in the ruling does it say that he didn't subject the children to invasive and unnecessary procedures. It is all on benefit of doubt type thinking of what he thought he may be doing and the GMC not adequately exploring this

Zideq Wed 04-Sep-13 23:26:33

The court case exonerated Walker Smith because it could not be proved he knew he was doing research as opposed to clinical tests. He comes out of that rather badly, admitting he didn’t know what he was doing, but in the process he threw Wakefield under a bus, effectively divorcing himself from the research component of the Lancet 12 cases, and leaving Wakefield to take the blame all on his own.

Exoneration of the Wakefield paper it is most definitely not. In fact in court the Judge and Walker Smith’s lawyers both agreed that the idea that MMR causes autism has no merit.

Crumbledwalnuts Wed 04-Sep-13 23:33:33

The tests were ordered for clinical reasons. Therefore they were not "unnecessary procedures".

"Exoneration of the Wakefield paper it is most definitely not. In fact in court the Judge and Walker Smith’s lawyers both agreed that the idea that MMR causes autism has no merit."

It is not "the Wakefield paper", there was a team of 12. And it didn't say that MMR causes autism.

Zideq Wed 04-Sep-13 23:44:34

Even if you accept that test were ordered for clinical reasons (again the ruling is based on what he though he was doing) you have still got the massive conflict of interest issues falsified data.... Yawn must we go around this:

" And it didn't say that MMR causes autism."

Zideq Wed 04-Sep-13 23:49:01

In your opinion what clinical indications existed to subject these children to lumbar punctures?

Zideq Thu 05-Sep-13 00:01:04

Why did Wakefield falsely reported that a gruelling five-day battery of invasive and distressing procedures performed on the kids - including anaesthesia, ileocolonoscopies, lumbar punctures, MRI brain scans, EEGs, radioactive drinks and x-rays - proposed for the lawsuit, was approved by the Royal Free's ethics committee?

Crumbledwalnuts Thu 05-Sep-13 06:36:31

You do know that the children were ill Zideq? Can I just clarify that you're aware of that before we go on? And you do know the transfer factor patent wasn't in AW's name?

"Yawn must we go around this"
Yes I'm afraid we must, however much it bores you to have got it wrong.

I'm at work for the rest of the day. Let me know. See you later.

Beachcomber Thu 05-Sep-13 08:15:11

Zideg your posts are full of misinformation I'm afraid. Can you link to the Walker-Smith appeal document and quote the evidence for this statement?

The court case exonerated Walker Smith because it could not be proved he knew he was doing research as opposed to clinical tests. He comes out of that rather badly, admitting he didn’t know what he was doing

Because it is utter bollocks. As anyone who has read the appeal document would know. Have you actually read it yourself? Did you misinterpret it or have you in fact not read it and are parroting something or someone else?

Here is the appeal document for anyone interested in reality and truth.

Of particular interest is the section on child 12.

Beachcomber Thu 05-Sep-13 09:09:19

Why did Wakefield falsely reported that a gruelling five-day battery of invasive and distressing procedures performed on the kids - including anaesthesia, ileocolonoscopies, lumbar punctures, MRI brain scans, EEGs, radioactive drinks and x-rays - proposed for the lawsuit, was approved by the Royal Free's ethics committee?

This is utter bollocks too. And what is a 'radioactive drink' when it is at home? Do you mean barium sulphate as used in barium meals by any chance?

You appear to have confused project 172-96 with the Lancet paper - which is surprising if you have read the Walker-Smith appeal document. From the appeal document;

i) None of the five clinicians involved in the investigation of the Lancet children who gave evidence to the panel considered that they were following Project 172-96.

ii) None of the children fitted the hypothesis to be tested under Project 172-96, in that none of them had both received a single or double vaccine and had developed disintegrative disorder. The great majority had received MMR vaccine and been diagnosed with autism.

iii) No parent was required to sign either the consent form in the proposals submitted to the Ethics Committee or in the revised form approved by it. With one exception (child 2 – see paragraph 34 below) the only consent forms signed were for diagnostic colonoscopy and the additional research biopsies approved in September 1995.

iv) In every case investigations were followed by a discharge letter prepared by Dr. Casson which set out a diagnosis of the child's condition and by a recommendation for treatment. In some cases, the treatment produced an apparent marked improvement in gastrointestinal symptoms and behaviour.

v) Dr. Pegg was not the only responsible person to whom Professor Walker-Smith stated that the investigations were clinically indicated; he told Mr. Else, Chief Executive of the Royal Free NHS Trust that they were, as Mr. Else confirmed to Dr. Wakefield on 4th September 1996; he gave a lecture at the Wellcome Trust on 20th December 1996 in which he spoke of the investigations and gastrointestinal diagnoses of the first seven Lancet children; on 6th February 1997, he wrote to Dr. O'Connor, a Consultant in Public Health Medicine responsible for funding the referrals of children 6 and 7 to him, enclosing a five page explanation of the rationale, aims and potential therapeutic implications of the investigations, in which he and Dr. Wakefield set out the clinical justification for them. Although the latter document was described by the GMC as "defensive" it was never suggested to Professor Walker-Smith that he deliberately misled his interlocutors about his intention.

vi) Professor Walker-Smith had no rational motive to begin research before it was authorised, carry it out in breach of the requirements of the Ethics Committee after it was authorised or deliberately to mislead the Ethics Committee and others about his intention. Unlike Dr. Wakefield, he was agnostic or cautious about the claimed link between MMR and autism and gastrointestinal disorders. On 29th and 31st July 1997 he wrote privately to Dr. Wakefield to express his and Dr. Murch's concern that their professional reputation would be damaged by association with work prematurely leaked to the media.

vii) As Miss Glynn accepts, a clinical protocol can, in principle, prescribe multiple identical investigations into patients with complex and intractable problems in an attempt to diagnose their condition.

IceBeing Thu 05-Sep-13 10:36:57

zideg welcome to the parallel reality....the main thing it has going for it is that people can be happy in their little world away from the real one and live in a place where (certainly in BC's case) homeopathy works and writing research papers without ethics approval is a noble act self sacrifice.

Tbh I wouldn't worry about it...after all to paraphrase Tim Minchin isn't the real world enough?

Zideq Thu 05-Sep-13 10:58:13

As i have already linked to the full text yes I have read it and IMO a good summation can be found here:

Beachcomber Thu 05-Sep-13 11:56:45

Right. I thought you might be parroting Orac's blog.

I don't believe you have read the appeal document in full yourself - either that or you have intentionally misinterpreted it or you don't understand it.

IceBeing - why the need to get rude and personal (have you and I ever actually even had a discussion together)? Can't you argue the actual subject?

Beachcomber Thu 05-Sep-13 12:15:13

I have read that piece by Orac before - he quite clearly shows that he doesn't understand the appeal document either.

His blog piece is not a 'summation' BTW, good or not. And neither is it a summary of it.

It is a blog - an opinion piece.

LaVolcan Thu 05-Sep-13 12:31:48

His opening sentence immediately tells you that he is not an unbiased source.

I sense a disturbance in the antivaccine crankosphere. and then goes on to spout being polite, utter twaddle.

This is the problem - sensible unbiased advice is now virtually impossible to obtain.

Zideq Thu 05-Sep-13 12:42:48

Even, if we accept your reading of the verdict how does it exonorate Wakefiled:

"Was being paid to conduct the study by solicitors representing parents who believed their children had been harmed by MMR

Ordered investigations "without the requisite paediatric qualifications" including colonoscopies, colon biopsies and lumbar punctures ("spinal taps") on his research subjects without the approval of his department's ethics board and contrary to the children's clinical interests when these diagnostic tests were not indicated by the children's symptoms or medical history.

"Act[ed] 'dishonestly and irresponsibly' in failing to disclose ... how patients were recruited for the study".

"Conduct[ed] the study on a basis which was not approved by the hospital's ethics committee."

Purchased blood samples—for £5 each—from children present at his son's birthday party, which Wakefield joked about in a later presentation.

Beachcomber Thu 05-Sep-13 13:05:40

Zideq - you appear to be quoting in your above text. You need to link to what you are quoting so that it can be seen within a context.

As I said above, I think you are confusing different pieces of work and the ethical approval and requirements that are relevant to them.

What for you does ethics committee reference number 172-96 apply to? And what does reference number 162-95 apply to? (This should be perfectly clear to you if you have read the Walker-Smith appeal document.)

Zideq Thu 05-Sep-13 13:15:39

The title thread is "New Published Study Verifies Andrew Wakefield’s Research on Autism" you brought the Walker-Smith appeal into the argument as some sort of exoneration of Wakefield my response is even with the Walker-Smith rulling being taken as you have read you are left with a litany of evidences to beat Wakefield with.

Beachcomber Thu 05-Sep-13 13:24:52

Actually, my point is a little more subtle than that.

I asked;

So I ask posters here a) what specifically do you consider Wakefield to have done wrong and b) does the result of the appeal by Professor Walker-Smith affect how you answer question a. ?

Which nobody seems to have answered. Or at least not in their own words.

My above question about ethics committee references may shed some light on why I ask question b)

Zideq Thu 05-Sep-13 13:28:23

I have answered even if I accept your reading of the "verdict" Wakefield is guilty of a litany of other things including being paid to conduct the study by solicitors representing parents who believed their children had been harmed by MMR....

Beachcomber Thu 05-Sep-13 13:34:20

I don't think you know what my reading of the Walker-Smith appeal is. I haven't stated it.

Being paid to conduct a study as a medical expert for legal purposes is not a crime BTW, nor is it misconduct. So it is rather silly to accuse anyone of being 'guilty' of such a thing.

Beachcomber Thu 05-Sep-13 13:37:07

And which study do you mean? Which study are you referring to in your above accusation of Wakefield?

If you would be so good as to answer my question about ethical references it might help this discussion have better clarity. It feels rather fumbling around just now, I think we need specifics!

Zideq Thu 05-Sep-13 19:36:31

"Being paid to conduct a study as a medical expert for legal purposes is not a crime BTW, nor is it misconduct. So it is rather silly to accuse anyone of being 'guilty' of such a thing"

Pedantic much, you know full well the context of this as he was charged for professional misconduct.

Crumbledwalnuts Thu 05-Sep-13 20:46:59

Hello, I am here. There's no way I'm staying , I just got back from work and now I'm getting in a very long bath. Sorry I know I should respond. Going to say hello to my husband instead. Have more comments but will have to wait.

Beachcomber Thu 05-Sep-13 20:54:25

I'm afraid I don't know what you are getting at. You are really going to have to be more specific in your accusations.

At the moment your posts just look like things you have picked up from blogs and opinion pieces such as the one you posted by anonymous blogger Orac.

Pointing out that it is not a crime to act as a medical expert for a legal case or conduct a study to provide legal evidence is not pedantic. It is pointing out very basic facts. I know what I'm talking about and it appears to me that you don't and are just parroting things you have read.

Or at least that is the conclusion I come to due to your lack of response to my very straightforward question about the ethical clearance references which formed an integral and highly pertinent aspect of the GMC fitness to practice hearings concerning both Walker-Smith and Wakefield.

Beachcomber Thu 05-Sep-13 21:03:43

Hey Crumblewalnuts. Enjoy your bath and definitely say hello to husband rather than waste time on here! There is nothing terribly enlightening going on. Hope you are having wine in bath...

Zideq Thu 05-Sep-13 21:29:45

As I have already stated if we accept that medical clearances weren't required due to treatment and not research etc , Wakefield would still have been struck off by the GMC.

Beachcomber Thu 05-Sep-13 23:08:46

What for?

LaVolcan Thu 05-Sep-13 23:47:26

What for?

Because they needed a scapegoat to blame when their badly thought out vaccine policy didn't go according to plan?

No doubt some one will come on and tell me that Governments are as pure as the driven snow, but unfortunately, I have lived too long to believe that.

mamasinstinctknowsbest Fri 06-Sep-13 10:04:41

Andrew Wakefield is still working tirelessly on behalf of parents and children who have experienced vaccine damage. He was a great doctor who found live measles virus in the stomachs of autistic children who were referred to him. This gave the children sever gastro intestinal problems and autistic behaviours. His work has been replicated by Dr Arthur Krigsman. The mainstream media and medical establissmnet work together to protect all vaccinations. There is big money involved here and chidren are being harmed knowingly to protect the vaccinations at all costs. Do your resesarch before you vaccinate your child.

mamasinstinctknowsbest Fri 06-Sep-13 10:09:48

Andrew Wakefield was hounded and witch hunted as vaccines are protected at a very high level. Andrew Wakefield had these patients referred to him as he was a top gastro dr at the royal free. He found live measles virus in the stomachs of children with severe stomach disorders and autism. The vaccine strain. The children had ulcers and gastro disease. He made the connection scientifically. Hence the witch hint and ruination of him in the uk. He still works tirelessly supporting families and the cause. Watch him on you tube. Unfortunately he is too eloquent to be invited on mainstream media as his evidence and manner is just amazing. He wants to live debate but we live in a censored world. Research befor eyou vaccinate. I have learnt that all of them are dangerous and deadly.

LaVolcan Fri 06-Sep-13 10:43:29

mamainstinct - I most certainly do think that there has been a witchhunt against him. So much so, that I began to seek out what he said to form my own judgement. I absolutely refuse to believe that this one man can be responsible for MMR vaccinations falling off. I am quite sure that there must have been some underlying fear there already.

Zideq Fri 06-Sep-13 13:23:34

Beachcomber Fri 06-Sep-13 13:40:22

And your point is?

What has your link got to do with the GMC hearing?

You really are going to have to be a little less cryptic. Links to the opinions of other people aren't really cutting it.

Do you agree with Brian Deer? Do you agree that the Lancet children were not sick with GI disease? Do you think these children should have been denied medical care, as Brian Deer thinks?

Zideq Fri 06-Sep-13 13:43:27


LaVolcan Fri 06-Sep-13 14:01:10

Yes to what?

You think children should be denied medical care?

bruffin Fri 06-Sep-13 14:01:12

for those who want the proper version not Beachcombers and Crumbledwalnuts fantasy version , which they have got from other peoples blog and AOA. Its very hypocritical of them to have a go at Zideq for linking to a blog.

Wakefield gmc transcripts, all 197 days of them

Also OP and Zideq the Anderson Cooper interviews are very enlightening. Wakefield comes out very badly and and Cooper points out when he is trying to push his book.
"But, sir, if you're lying, then your book is also a lie. If your study is a lie, your book is a lie."


How can they have been have been referred as a top gastro fr ?
His contract with the Royal Free was for research purposes only, he was not allowed to treat patients.

Nor did he find live measles virus in the GI. He was told that the tests he used were returning false positives before the paper was published

nicholas chadwicks evidence. He refused to put his name to it

" I believe that Dr Wakefield was aware of my negative PCR test results at the time that he submitted his paper entitled "Ileal Lymphoid Nodular Hyperplasia, Non&#8208;Specific Colitis and Pervasive Developmental Disorder in Children," which was published in the Lancet in February 1998. Dr Wakefield relied on the positive results received from Dr Kawashima despite the fact that I had told him about Dr Kawashima's positive measles results, which turned out to be contamination from SSPE positive controls. I thought I had made it quite clear to Dr Wakefield that Kawashima's results were a result of contamination and were not true positives. I specifically asked Dr Wakefield not to include me on the list of authors of the Lancet paper because I was not comfortable with the fact that we had found
lots of negative results for measles virus in tissues from the autistic children."

Beachcomber Fri 06-Sep-13 14:36:44

Zideq are you saying that you do not believe the Lancet children to have GI disease and that they therefore should be denied medical treatment for GI distress?

Come on man. Spit it out. Speak and own your opinions.

(The above opinion is that of Brian Deer - clearly expressed by him in writing and in speech. I am assuming due to you linking to his opinion that you agree with it.)

Beachcomber Fri 06-Sep-13 15:15:32

Bruffin why don't you link to the primary source for Dr Chadwick's testimony? (I mean rather than a blog where only the first part of his testimony is cited.)

By which I mean the actual transcripts (which are from neither the GMC fitness to practice hearing, nor from the Walker-Smith appeal but from the Autism Omnibus Proceedings in the United States).

Chadwick gave testimony on day 10 of the proceedings. His presence (by telephone) was very bizarre as it was actually totally irrelevant to the proceedings - he hadn't worked with the technology in question, the patient in question, the lab in question, the samples in question and the results in question.

Chadwick's testimony begins at the bottom of page 5 and goes on until page 17. The quote below is what follows the part cited in bruffin's link, part of which she posted above.

The part I am quoting begins on page 14.

The transcript

MS. PATTON: Thank you, Dr. Chadwick. I have no further questions.

THE WITNESS: Thank you.

SPECIAL MASTER HASTINGS: Ms. Chin-Caplan, any questions?

MS. CHIN-CAPLAN: Just a few.


MS. CHIN-CAPLAN: Thank you.



Q Good morning, Dr. Chadwick. My name is Sylvia Chin-Caplan, and I represent the Petitioner, Michelle Cedillo, in this case.

A Hi.

Q Hi. You're aware that Dr. Wakefield is not a witness in this case, are you not?

A I'm not aware of that.

Q Are you aware that the Kawashima Lab is also not the lab in question here?

A Well, I don't know the details of the case, to be honest.

Q When you were approached to testify in this matter, what were you asked to do?

A I was asked to provide a statement regarding the work I did for Dr. Wakefield relating to the autistic patients.

Q And did you ask why?

A Sorry. I couldn't hear that last question.

Q Did you ask why?

A Did I ask why? Because it was a case regarding the safety of the vaccine.

Q Now, you testified that you worked with in-situ PCR. Is that it?

A Yes. This was used before any of the autistic work was being undertaken. I did a few months of working on this methodology.

Q In-situ PCR?

A Yes. I did a few months at the beginning of my project with Dr. Wakefield, and I did a few months at the very end as well on in-situ PCR.

Q So this was all on in-situ PCR? Is that correct?

A The work that was in my thesis relating to autistic patients was using normal PCR, not in-situ PCR. The in-situ PCR work I performed was never written up.

Q I see. So the in-situ PCR is more specific than the regular PCR, isn't it?

A No, that's not the case.

Q It's not?

A No, it's not specific. Because of the methodology it's actually less specific so there's less way of being certain about what is being detected.

Q Okay. Doctor, did you at any time use TaqMan PCR?

A No. TaqMan PCR wasn't really available while I was doing the Ph.D. It was something which came afterwards.

Q I see. Are you aware that the case that we're dealing with involves TaqMan PCR?

A I'm not aware, no. No.

Q Are you aware that the lab that we're dealing with involves the O'Leary Lab in Dublin, Ireland?

A Okay. I've heard of that lab, but I didn't know that that was the lab that you were using in this case.

Q And you've had no relationship with the

Dublin lab, have you?

A No.

Q You have no knowledge of their procedures or the testing that was done there, do you?

A No. I mean, I'm aware of TaqMan PCR, but that's all I know about the O'Leary Lab.

Q And as of the date that you left Dr. Wakefield's lab, you had not utilized TaqMan PCR in an experiment, had you?

A No.

Q Doctor, is there anybody with you?

A No.

Q No? You're by yourself?

A Yes.

MS. CHIN-CAPLAN: Okay. I have no further questions.

Zideq Fri 06-Sep-13 15:49:36

Yes to both

Beachcomber Fri 06-Sep-13 15:58:28

Thank you for your honesty.

So you think that children with autism should be denied medical treatment for GI disease.

Do you think all children should be denied appropriate medical care or just children who also happen to be autistic?

LaVolcan Fri 06-Sep-13 16:06:02

Yes to both

Sorry, could you just clarify this? You believe that some children should be denied medical treatment?

LaVolcan Fri 06-Sep-13 16:06:39

Cross post beachcomber.

Zideq Fri 06-Sep-13 16:13:04

So you think that children with autism should be denied medical treatment for GI disease.

The evidence of any connection between bowel disease and autism is slim at best.

LaVolcan Fri 06-Sep-13 16:22:09

Could you just answer the question, Zideq? You think some children should be denied medical treatment?

So even if the connection between autism and bowel disease is slim you think that they should just go hang?

Must tell that to my cousin's family with the autistic son - any bowel problems and you're on your own. (Not that there is a great deal of support for children with SN, anyway.)

Beachcomber Fri 06-Sep-13 16:54:53

It doesn't matter if evidence of a connection between autism and bowel disease is 'slim'. (Although I would dispute this fact.)

Many children with autism also present with GI disease. Period.

There is no earthly reason to deny such children appropriate medical care.

It is a political stance not a medical, scientific or ethical one to wish to deny autistic children care for any GI disease they may have. It is to prove a point. It is to prove that Dr Wakefield is wrong. On everything. It is to ignore the medical needs of children in distress and suffering in order to quash Wakefield and anything and everything that he says. Right? Dr wakefield must be wrong. About everything. he cannot be right about anything. Therefore no child with autism can be admitted to have GI disease - because that would make Dr Wakefield right about something. And we can't have that. Oh, no siree. Because that opens up a slippery slope of the possibility of Dr Wakefield having got other things right too.

I'm not a religious person but I believe the above stance to be a sin. And I don't say that lightly.

In order to protect the reputation of a drug, children must be denied medical care. That is what we are looking at. That is the shameful truth of the matter. That is the consequence of the political witch-hunt against Dr Wakefield Professor Walker-Smith.

And least Zideq owns it. At least he has the honesty to come out and say it.

Zideq Fri 06-Sep-13 17:08:36

"Zideq are you saying that you do not believe the Lancet children to have GI disease and that they therefore should be denied medical treatment for GI distress?"

Chidren should be treated as appropriate by their symptoms

LaVolcan Fri 06-Sep-13 17:26:51

But if there is the slightest suspicion it was caused by a vaccination, they shouldn't? That seemed to be what you were trying to say earlier. I am glad to see that you are not completely callous.

Beachcomber Fri 06-Sep-13 17:50:58

Ah. I see Zideq has now gone to a 'have cake and eat it' position.

It makes most people uncomfortable to be faced with the political stance of denying children medical care.

Not uncomfortable enough that they will actually come out and say that they think that the Lancet children's condition merited the clinical investigation carried out by the Royal Free Team however. Because if they say that they have to disagree with the GMC. And that can't be said because that would imply that Dr Wakefield wasn't Wrong About Everything. And we can't have that.

So people try to hold and express two conflicting ideas in order to avoid holding the opinion that children should be denied medical care.

Idea A - Wakefield was guilty of gross misconduct. The GMC is right. Deer is right.

Idea B - the children at the Royal Free were ill and had a right to clinical investigation.

Idea B is not compatible with idea A. Indeed the two utterly contradict each other.

It is an exercise in double-think to hold the two opinions at the same time. It is an act of hypocrisy.

And the only other alternative is to deny that the children showed symptoms of GI disease and to therefore deny their right to medical care.

It must be very uncomfortable.

JoTheHot Fri 06-Sep-13 18:21:49

I see, BC, that you are still trying to show that Wakefield is less dishonest than is widely believed.

It is revealing that you find this pursuit so much more worthwhile than discussing the incontrovertible fact, that neither you nor he, have produced a shred of reproducible evidence that autism is linked to vaccines. The OP's paper doesn't change this. You are rearranging the deckchairs on the titanic.

Beachcomber Fri 06-Sep-13 18:45:48

JoTheHot - do you think children should be denied medical treatment, in order to trash the reputation of a doctor who raised a potential safety issue with a pharmaceutical drug, by his listening to and reporting on the testimonies given by parents and doctors of children's medical history and by his reporting on the clinical findings of said children's state of health?

You seem to be accusing Dr Wakefield of dishonesty - how about you specify what you find him to have been dishonest over?

(I have posted plenty of scientific papers and evidence over time on various threads on MN. Please feel free to do an advanced search of my posts. This particular discussion is more of a political element - it is about ethics and morals.)

Beachcomber Fri 06-Sep-13 19:39:07

And in answer to Zideq who asked about the justification of lumbar punctures in the children involved in the Royal Free care, you might be interested in this quote from the GMC transcripts which bruffin kindly provided us with;

The justification for lumbar puncture, decided long in advance of this matter, was for the exclusion principally of a mitochondrial cytopathy plus a range of other clinical tests. That was decided in discussion with Dr Thomson, Dr Harvey and the rest of the clinical team. This was a clinical matter and not something in which I had any involvement.

Which is jolly interesting.

Although of course what is also interesting is the highlighting of said lumbar punctures as being a clinical decision and therefore not something that Dr Wakefield was involved with. It seems that the decision to use such an examination was that of Professor Walker-Smith and other members of the clinical team. i.e. NOT Dr Wakefield.

There really are many interesting details are in the primary sources, aren't there!

Orangeblossomtree Fri 06-Sep-13 19:42:48

No it doesn't

blueskiesandbutterflies Fri 06-Sep-13 19:49:03

Autism has also been linked to not breastfeeding, ie. Bottle feeding. Why is so much focus being put on this Wakefield dude's 'research' & not on other potential causes for ASD?

Zideq Fri 06-Sep-13 20:12:34

You are quoting Wakefield, of course he said that

LaVolcan Fri 06-Sep-13 20:12:56

Why is so much focus being put on this Wakefield dude's 'research' & not on other potential causes for ASD?

Because he's been made a scapegoat for the government's MMR policy not being as effective as they would like.

If they stopped dragging his name up every time, they might a) spend more time trying to find out what causes autistic spectrum disorders and how best to treat them and b) reappraise their vaccine policy.

But no, the mantra is "MMR doesn't cause autism, Wakefield has been struck off, la la la we are not listening to anyone else....."

IceBeing Fri 06-Sep-13 20:19:51

BC I think your belief in homeopathy as a functioning therapy beyond placebo is entirely relevant to this discussion. That you believe in something that isn't true, has never been true and continue to believe it to be true in the face of vast an overwhelming factual evidence is entirely to the point.

It gives us a pretty big clue about your behaviour on the topic of Wakefield.

IceBeing Fri 06-Sep-13 20:25:05

What strikes me as odd is that it should be entirely possible to be pro vaccines and not especially anti-Wakefield. He fucked up a bit but the vast bulk of the shit that went down wasn't actually his fault per se. Personally I think he was a well meaning guy who stood up and said the wrong thing in front of the press and never got his feet back under him. He shouldn't have published research without the required ethical clearance and consent but it isn't the worst thing you can do.

It should also be possible to be anti-vax and anti-Wakfield but you never see that...there seems to be a cult of personality about him and his work that fixates the anti-vaxers...presumably because they need to focus on something other than the overwhelming data that supports mass vaccination as a miracle of the modern world.

I wonder if Wakefield actually really hates being the poster boy for anti-vaxers...

Crumbledwalnuts Fri 06-Sep-13 21:47:50

Thank you Beach.
This thread has moved on a lot but may I say how shocked I am that a number of posters believe that seriously ill children should be refused medical care because at the same time they have autistic or related disorders. I don't think I've read anything quite so callous, from people I assume are other mothers. It doesn't make sense either. Why? There's no clinical reason to refuse them treatment for a bowel disorder. It's like eugenics.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned is the judge's criticism of the way the GMC panel came to its conclusions. I believe he actually called for reform of the whole process. He certain describes the GMC's line of reasons as superficial and inadequate.

Zideq Fri 06-Sep-13 21:53:10

"I am that a number of posters believe that seriously ill children should be refused medical care because at the same time they have autistic or related disorders."

Who said that?

Crumbledwalnuts Fri 06-Sep-13 22:01:45

You did.

Zideq Fri 06-Sep-13 22:09:03


"Children should be treated as appropriate by their symptoms"

Crumbledwalnuts Fri 06-Sep-13 22:12:24

So you withdraw your comments and claims about the unnecessary procedures?

Crumbledwalnuts Fri 06-Sep-13 22:18:18

Do you understand the question?

LaVolcan Fri 06-Sep-13 22:21:30

You ask When?

Beachcomber asked:
Do you agree with Brian Deer? Do you agree that the Lancet children were not sick with GI disease? Do you think these children should have been denied medical care, as Brian Deer thinks?

You gave a one word answer 'yes'.
You didn't say "yes to the Brian Deer question and no to the rest".

After repeated questioning about did this mean you would deny sick children medical treatment and much wriggling from you, you finally managed to come out with:

"Children should be treated as appropriate by their symptoms"

So forgive us if we believe that you would deny children medical treatment, because that is what your posts implied.

Crumbledwalnuts Fri 06-Sep-13 22:26:06

We are really back at Beachcomber's post earlier, where you are trying to marry two completely contradictory lines.

If you believe (like normal people, let's be frank) that children should be treated according to their symptoms - then given the exoneration of Walker-Smith, you can't maintain that the procedures were unnecessary (indeed I believe somewhere it the judgement there's the detail about children seeing some improvement and benefit from therapies derived from their examination)

If you believe that these procedures were unnecessary then you do not believe that children should be treated according to their symptoms.

Crumbledwalnuts Fri 06-Sep-13 22:39:12

Zideq, do you understand this central contradiction in your posts? You can't maintain both positions. You have to drop one of them. As you've said twice now that you think children should be treated according to their symptoms, I think it's safe to assume that you would want to drop the other position, about procedures being unnecessary. And it obviously follows from that, that the exoneration of Professor Walker-Smith goes a very long way to undermining and indeed vindicating Andrew Wakefield.

Crumbledwalnuts Fri 06-Sep-13 22:40:05

Do excuse me. It goes a long way towards undermining the evidence against and indeed vindicating Andrew Wakefield.

JoTheHot Sat 07-Sep-13 08:44:20

In reply to BC, I think Wakefield and you are dishonest for lies by omission. For not saying loud and clear: 'I have no verifiable evidence that autism is linked to MMR'. The only thing you ever produce is people who believe in a link and theories consistent with a link.

Beachcomber Sat 07-Sep-13 10:27:08

Gosh JoTheHot. So you are against Wakefield (and presumably the Royal Free team's groundbreaking work in both autism and gastroenterology) because he didn't phrase things the way you want?

Why on earth would he say 'I have no verifiable evidence that autism is linked to MMR'. ? He said what scientists generally say - that a link had not been established but that current available evidence suggested a link.

He said that much more work needed to be done, that the Lancet paper was an early report, that they had not scientifically established a link but that the current available evidence was making a link look both biologically plausible and extremely likely. He also said that whilst work was being done to verify what the Royal Free team had discovered, and what many parents were reporting, that it would be wise to suspend use of the MMR. Wakefield had looked very carefully at the safety history of the MMR and found it to be woefully inadequate. He advised caution. He advised that single vaccines be used in the meantime and a through re-examination of the safety testing of the MMR be done. (Of course at the time he was not aware that the Urabe MMRs had been introduced in the UK despite the DoH knowing that they had been withdrawn in other countries due to its being dangerous. He didn't know that he was opening that particular can of political worms.)

He and his team had examined many many more children than just the Lancet 12 by the time of the press conference. Wakefield had by this time written a comprehensive report on the flaws in the safety testing of MMR. He had contacted the DoH on several occasions to warn them of what the Royal Free were seeing in children and how the parents consistently testified that their child had reacted badly to their MMR. He and his team had seen over 100 children, all with remarkably similar stories and symptoms. The inflammation in their guts was consistent with that of a viral origin and their behavioural symptoms and bowel issues were consistent with those of disintegrative psychosis - a condition caused by measles virus. And the parents all said that the dramatic change in their child happened after exposure to measles virus.

The DoH had failed to act on any of Wakefield and Professor Walker-Smith's cautionary advice with regards to the safety of MMR. Indeed they were planning a large catch up programme with the vaccine in question. A vaccine with inadequate safety testing and which was to be the subject of parent litigation because it had caused brain damage in their children. And not just a few parents, over a thousand parents in the UK and 5000 in the US.

LaVolcan Sat 07-Sep-13 10:42:44

Beachcomber. That is a very good summary.

It does raise a question for me, in that if it was viral measles that had been found in the gut, why did Wakefield still feel confident to recommend the single measles vaccine? Was there something about the combination which was suspect?

As you say, more research is required. No one in the UK will now dare to do this, because they either won't get the funding, or they will have their reputation trashed and liveilihood destroyed if they don't come up with the 'correct' findings.

Crumbledwalnuts Sat 07-Sep-13 11:04:31

JotheHot: it's quite a struggle for you to deny what has so far been shown. In fact, it's impossible. Would you like to deny that the exoneration of Professor Walker-Smith goes a very long way to undermining the evidence against and vindicating Andrew Wakefield? You can't do it. That's why you're having to scratch around with insults again. I must admit I don't often see your posts to much else.

I think it's your posts which are are dishonest with lies by omission. They refuse to admit that what has been shown on this thread to be true, is true. Unless you want to do it right now.

Crumbledwalnuts Sat 07-Sep-13 11:06:32

LaVolcan: yes it is interesting, I think one original study proposal was for an M or MR study.

bruffin Sat 07-Sep-13 11:21:12

beachcombers version is just fantasy

the children did not have mmr and change overnight the gmc transcripts showed this.

wakefield was paid to find a connection and set to profit from it . His company was paid £350 000 + by the solicitors.

His patent was already saying that mmr wss dangerous long before the lancet paper. it was all singing and dancing. not only was it a vaccine to prevent measles
but was also supposed to somehow cure children of the damage mmr caused. a double reason to cast doubt about mmr.

Crumbledwalnuts Sat 07-Sep-13 11:27:00

Beachcomber's version? What do you mean? She's said nothing which isn't true, and nothing that's been made up. I think it's you fantasising that she's wrong. People say things like "fantasy" and "dishonest" because owhen it comes to the specifics they can't deny a single thing that's been posted. Wakefield's motive was certainly not money but child health: and if that's the kind of thing you're interested in Bruffin why have you never explored the profit interest on the other side? The mammoth, inconceivably enormous profit interest on the other side?
What, specifically, that has been posted here by Beachcomber and LaVolcan can you show to be untrue or a fantasy?

LaVolcan Sat 07-Sep-13 11:29:24

the children did not have mmr and change overnight
So bruffin: you know every single parent who claims that their child regressed after MMR? I doubt it.

Or are you going to go down the route of saying, well, they would have regressed anyway if they caught the disease?

This assumes that they will catch the disease, but they might never catch the disease, so if that disease does cause regression, it's one trigger they avoid.

JoTheHot Sat 07-Sep-13 11:36:15

BC You've trotted out the same set of theories and beliefs. Do you genuinely not understand what 'scientific evidence' means? Hundreds of thousands of people believe in religion, in homeopathy, in chiropractors, the list goes on, but none have a shred of scientific support.

crumble you're comment is circular. It adds nothing. In this respect, it is typical of your postings in general. I hereby correct what you call a lie by admission, by acknowledging that which is true is true.

Bad science, whether it be done with good intentions or bad intentions, is still bad science. Everything you say about Wakefield's intentions might be true. I just don't care if his motivations were pure or not. He hasn't found any scientific evidence to link autism and MMR. Nor has anyone else. Does anyone disagree?

Crumbledwalnuts Sat 07-Sep-13 11:38:39

Again with the rudeness JotheHot. It must be so difficult when you haven't really got an argument.

BC hasn't "trotted out" anything. I've just asked you a question. Do you deny that the exoneration of Walker Smith undermines the evidence of Andrew Wakefield? Do you understand the question and the issues around it?

Crumbledwalnuts Sat 07-Sep-13 11:40:33

And to both you and Bruffin: don't you think thousands of reports of correlation between MMR and regression need to be researched? Or do you think they should be ignored? Don't be ashamed to say you think they should be ignored. It is embarrassing to admit that, and of course you'd be wrong, but it would save a lot of time.

Beachcomber Sat 07-Sep-13 11:47:26

I don't know that what his state of mind was at the time but certainly a combination of factors would have been at play.

Firstly what I mentioned about the poor safety testing of the combined vaccine. Here is a summary of what Wakefield found

Secondly Dr Wakefield's own medical career and the work he had been doing on Crohn's disease. He was researching viral links with Crohn's disease and viral interference/atypical viral exposure and links with inflammatory bowel disease. Other researchers have done similar work in the same field - he was familiar with their work for his own research.

Which is why the Lancet children's medical history of atypical viral exposure temporally associated with gut inflammation spoke to him. It was his field of work. He wrote a paper on how close temporal infection with measles and other viruses such as mumps and chicken pox caused inflammatory bowel disease. I have a link to the paper but it doesn't seem to work anymore - I hope it hasn't been removed. I don't have time just now but I'll try to find it later - it is very interesting.

He had been looking into viral interference and GI disease in wild viruses. So when parents told him their child's story of exposure to the very viruses which were linked to GI disease in the wild and of their child's GI issues, he knew there was a pattern.

Also the single measles and rubella vaccines had been used for a long time and had a fairly solid safety record. He was careful to specify that the singles needed to be well spaced so I think considering all of the above we can be pretty sure that his concern was of viral interference/potentiation/synergy/atypical exposure of some nature.

Beachcomber Sat 07-Sep-13 11:48:18

That was in answer to LaVolcan's question.

Beachcomber Sat 07-Sep-13 15:29:40

Okay, I had a quick look and can't find the paper I want. However if you look at the "Through A Glass Darkly" document I link to above, Wakefield discusses his reasoning for suspecting viral interference and he mentions wild viral interference plus evidence from various studies with evidence of vaccine viral interference.

I can't select the text to copy it due to its format but the relevant section starts of page 7 of the pdf and ends on page 12. In short, yes there is evidence of viral interference in both wild infection and vaccination. The interference interestingly also appears to be both dose and strain dependent.

At the end of the section Wakefield quotes a Merck scientist commenting on disease interference in vaccines - so clearly this phenomenon is not unknown to them.

The section which follows is also interesting and touches on viral interference, the lack of safety information on re-vaccination with measles vaccines (the current UK schedule) and outlines the argument for well spaced single vaccines as an approach which works to prevent the serious health outcomes of viral interference be it as a result of vaccination or wild infection.

The document isn't very long and I thoroughly recommend reading the whole thing. LaVolcan it will no doubt be of interest to you WRT your earlier question.

Crumbledwalnuts Sat 07-Sep-13 16:42:07

Beachcomber: Wakefield also talks about it in the talk he gave to the AAFP. I will listen again.

Beachcomber Sun 08-Sep-13 23:24:14

He probably does Crumbledwalnuts, I haven't watched that video in a while.

I very much agree with what you say about the thousands of reports describing children developing GI disease and regressing developmentally after MMR needing proper clinical investigation.

Such as that in the study in the OP in fact. It is awful that this area has become highly political and that doctors in the UK are afraid to investigate relevant children because they are afraid of ending up before the GMC.

Especially when the phenomena of both viral interference and measles virus acting in a enteropathic and encephalopathic manner is known to exist.

If thousands of parents reported their children developing GI disease and brain damage after exposure to wild measles virus I very much doubt that they would be dismissed. It is inexcusable that the same reports are dismissed because the viral exposure is by route of vaccination. Especially considering that single vaccines exist and using them would be a sure fire way of eliminating the mechanism of viral interference.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now