Advanced search

"How the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed"

(42 Posts)
TrillianAstra Thu 06-Jan-11 09:09:58

An article in the BMJ that you might find interesting.

That's the actual title of the article, in the British Medical Journal. I'm not trying to up the controversy at all.

How the link was fixed

The Lancet paper was a case series of 12 child patients; it reported a proposed “new syndrome” of enterocolitis and regressive autism and associated this with MMR as an “apparent precipitating event.” But in fact:

-Three of nine children reported with regressive autism did not have autism diagnosed at all. Only one child clearly had regressive autism

-Despite the paper claiming that all 12 children were “previously normal,” five had documented pre-existing developmental concerns

-Some children were reported to have experienced first behavioural symptoms within days of MMR, but the records documented these as starting some months after vaccination

-In nine cases, unremarkable colonic histopathology results—noting no or minimal fluctuations in inflammatory cell populations—were changed after a medical school “research review” to “non-specific colitis”

-The parents of eight children were reported as blaming MMR, but 11 families made this allegation at the hospital. The exclusion of three allegations—all giving times to onset of problems in months—helped to create the appearance of a 14 day temporal link

-Patients were recruited through anti-MMR campaigners, and the study was commissioned and funded for planned litigation

Shorter summary here.

In multiple ways, the story of the Lancet article was crafted to support the conclusion Mr. Wakefield had—a conclusion he came to before starting on the research project.

Another useful BMJ article.

Clear evidence of falsification of data should now close the door on this damaging vaccine scare

DarrellRivers Sat 08-Jan-11 15:27:44

I have also just read this and was about to start a post and saw that TA had posted.

Am interested that no-one has an opinion grin

I had always thought AW's research was poor and with some incredible conflicting interestfrom his point of view, but this article made my jaw drop even further

He misreported the findings, he was fraudulent.

And why?

I have my personal opinions but I shall leave these out now

DarrellRivers Sat 08-Jan-11 15:46:01

No-one interested?

activate Sat 08-Jan-11 15:49:40

I think maybe finally people are fed up, bored, and placed in a state of ennui by furhter conversations about MMR

it has gone on too long

it is no news

it is dull

DarrellRivers Sat 08-Jan-11 15:55:48

But people still worry about the MMR
And having it
And all other vaccines
He has left this inheritance and he was a fraudster

CharlotteBronteSaurus Sat 08-Jan-11 15:57:49

ooh go on, darrell

silverfrog Sat 08-Jan-11 15:58:30

ok, I'll bite.

he was not a fraudster.

he did not falsify data, nor misrepresent anything.

there have been some very interesting rebuttals of that article - but I guess you're not interested in those.

mmr remains safe for the majority. but his work was, and is, very interesting.

there are osme very ill children out there, not getting the help they need because of the blanket denial that mmr is anything but 100% safe fo reveryone, all of the time.

CharlotteBronteSaurus Sat 08-Jan-11 15:58:46

sorry, hit post.
i mean go on, let us know your thoughts on why

chillichill Sat 08-Jan-11 16:32:40

tbh, I would have agreed with the op until I started reading posts on this forum from mothers who said their lo stopped walking or talking for a few days after, had extreme reactions, leg pain for weeks, etc. even though the majority of these stories have a happy ending, these are accounts from women we "know" who have no reason to lie.
after reading these stories I have changed my mind about the mmr and decided to go for the singles.

silverfrog Sat 08-Jan-11 17:57:02

The main problem, is that most people are not interested in the actual facts, only the "facts" as presented by the media.

Eg, in the years after his initial finding, linking the MMR vaccine to bowel disease and autism, Wakefield published another 19 papers on the vaccine-induced disorder.

All were peer reviewed. However, strangely enough, none of these 19 papers are ever discussed in the media. The only study that keeps seeing the light of day is the original study from 1998, along with the original questions about conflicts of interest, (which have been explained, in great detail, several times)

This is very interesting indeed, because not only has he continued his own studies, but since then, a large number of replication studies have been performed around the world, by other researchers, that confirm his initial findings.

… it’s been replicated in Canada, in the US., in Venezuela, in Italy… but they never get mentioned. All you ever hear is that no one else has ever been able to replicate the findings.

jabberwocky Sat 08-Jan-11 18:27:44

Well, this is from the Autism Speaks Official Blog, a very scientifically-oriented organization:

"Any link between vaccines and autism? Put this issue to rest once and for all, one way or the other?
December 21, 2010
Autism Speaks

We really wish it were that simple. Several epidemiological studies have explored whether either the MMR vaccine or thimerosol, a preservative previously used in vaccines, are linked to autism, and these studies have not supported a link. However, these studies were not designed to identify effects in a small population of potentially vulnerable children due to rare genetic and/or medical conditions. We are seeking to understand if vulnerable populations exist, and if so, how we identify them early so they can be protected from public health threats in the safest manner possible. For more information please see our vaccine statement and an interview with Dr. Geraldine Dawson, Autism Speaks’ Chief Science Officer, about vaccines and autism."

ArthurPewty Sat 08-Jan-11 20:20:37

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

lady007pink Mon 10-Jan-11 16:34:02

Darrell, read this thread from 56141013

Plenty of opinions here.

lady007pink Mon 10-Jan-11 16:34:44

Sorry, you'll have to join the gaps....

silverfrog Thu 13-Jan-11 19:12:30

straight from the horse's mouth

AppleMark Mon 24-Jan-11 13:18:33

Just to add to this fine thread my favourite Brian Deer quote and of course the Film he was refering to ..
"At all times outside the GMC I have been videotaped . none of that video tape has ever been shown . Because it reveals me discussing and debating issues with people who raise them with me to my undoubted credit."

Tabitha8 Mon 24-Jan-11 16:45:28

How did a journalist come to be so involved in all of this?
I first watched that video a few weeks ago and I assumed he was a medical man. I was struck dumb a little surprised to find out he was a journalist.

AppleMark Tue 25-Jan-11 09:31:30

"How did a journalist come to be so involved in all of this?"

The person who commissioned Deer was Paul Nuki, Sunday Times' sometime Head of Newsroom investigations and "Focus" editor. Paul Nuki is son of Professor George Nuki. Professor George Nuki in 1987 sat on the Committee on Safety of Medicines when the CSM was considering Glaxo company Smith Kline & French Laboratories' Pluserix MMR vaccine for safety approval.
Pluserix was withdrawn in the UK in 1992(overnight) as it was cause Mumps Meningitus
Paul Nuki now runs NHS Choices ...

Deer actually a philosophy Graduate and has no medical qualifications. what astounds me is how the persion who raised the initial complaint with the GMC can atttend the hearing in the public gallery, not be called as a witness and them report on it in the Times and BMJ and get paid.

Tabitha8 Wed 26-Jan-11 15:05:51

Aha. Now I've Googled Nuki and Deer, all is becoming clear. To find a story rather than to investigate an existing one? Hmm.

silverfrog Wed 26-Jan-11 15:18:41

I think this is quite interesting..

one day the world will wake up, actually check the "facts" that Deer spouts all the time, and realise he is just full of lies...

silverfrog Wed 26-Jan-11 18:23:29

....and on the back of that documnt release, Wakefield is now publicly asking for a full retraction of the BMJ/Deer article.

this could all get very interesting indeed...

silverfrog Wed 26-Jan-11 19:01:44

do you now, it's funny - have just searched for a "proper" news link to that, and no reports hmm

now, isn't that odd? hmm hmm

ArthurPewty Wed 26-Jan-11 20:01:31

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ArthurPewty Fri 28-Jan-11 14:41:38

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Tabitha8 Fri 28-Jan-11 15:11:39

How do you find this stuff?
Perhaps it could be printed in The Sunday Times?

Join the discussion

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

Get started »