Advanced search

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....

Hamwidgeandcheps Sun 04-Aug-13 20:33:43

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.

Join the discussion

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

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: