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!

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.

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 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.

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

That was in answer to LaVolcan's question.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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?

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 11:06:32

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 22:26:06

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.

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 22:18:18

Do you understand the question?

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

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

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


"Children should be treated as appropriate by their symptoms"

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

You did.

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?

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