To think Andrew Wakefield has blood on his hands for causing so much distrust over the MMR?

[chicaguapa]

That's it really. He's caused so much damage with his stupid little study. It was years ago, he was struck off, the study was discredited, but people still don't get the MMR because of it.

Sorry Magdalen - on the issue of the J W-S defence of being duped I conflated your comments with Bruffin's. My mistake.

Wadham Magdenlan said the same thing as i did
You seem to forget that cold hard facts and evidence get in the way of your spin on things. Have you even bothered to read any of the gmc transcripts linked above or have you relied on the Martin Walker fantasy story?

As for lack of money being the reason for lack of appeal., i very much doubt that was the reason. His original defence was paid for by his insurance company, they would be funding any appeal.

Some of the same things Bruffin - you reduced it to the "Dupe" defence. I actually attended some of the GMC hearings for my sins! What have you got against Martin Walker except that you disagree with him? What an odd thing to write. Is there some personal animus there?

Lack of funding WAS the reason, sadly. The inhuman and unfair length of the GMC hearings - which, to my mind would have been grounds enough for the European Court of Human Rights to overturn the verdicts - had the consequence of causing financial damage to the accused. Do you think that was the intent?

NO MORE FROM ME! Have to work!
Cheers.

The GMC transcripts are on line for all to read if they car
Martin Walkers version does not bareear comparison.
You seem to object to anyone supplying evidence to back up claims then don't provide any yourself.

Wadham, the fact that you sat in on the GMC hearings suggests that your interest in this matter is perhaps more than academic? Apologies if I'm mistaken. I do not doubt your sincerity, and I am not au fait with the minutiae of the case, or of the associated hearings, so am not able to query any of your points in the way that Magdalen or Bruffin have been able to do.

That said, the overwhelming consensus in the scientific community does appear to be that AW has been comprehensively discredited.

The most obvious explanation of this that appears to tally with your reading of events is a widespread conspiracy of some sort. Is this a fair understanding of your argument? Do you believe that the British scientific community has been party to a conspiracy to enforce the MMR at all costs, irrespective of concerns about patient safety?

A second explanation would be that Wakefield was mistaken but well-intentioned, perhaps in the manner of William McBride. Even if this were the case, however, his methodology (for example, relating to the failure to secure ethics committee approval) still leaves him open to censure.

Either way, it strikes me that AW's subsequent activities in the autism field (such as the reality tv show highlighted in the recent Guardian piece) do raise questions about his motivations.

Oh no...being dragged back in.....

I don't actually believe in giant government conspiracies - so no. This is my opinion and I offer it based on an overview - without trying to demonise or glorify the doctors involved.

I think the allegations and the GMC's conclusions were motivated by two massive disconnects: Did J W-S have a blanket ethical approval for the clinical work he did? After reviewing the evidence Justice Mitting and the High Court seemed to accept that the children were seen for clinical reasons and not for research - although the spectre of NAZI research that Brian Deer and any number of others raised sounded much sexier and gruesome. Secondly, the MMR was damaged by the Urabe affair and a second safety accusation against it might have been catastrophic. You'll notice that this latter issue avoids any concern for the children or parents but is exclusively motivated by saving a vaccination programme which was considered for the greater good. The problem was that the parental complaints had to be diminished in order to make sure that the safety of the wider community was preserved. The Royal Free's paper on autistic entrocolitis - which has proved to have been correct in many of its observations - had been tainted by the erroroneous connection to MMR causing Autism. Because the paper included, I think correctly, the parents temporal conection to the vaccination - it was easy to reduce it to the catchy: "The MMR causes Autism" headline. HOWEVER - can you tell I'm about to qualify by the big letters? - many parents - hundreds perhaps thousands in this country and abroad had reached the conclusion that there was a connection - so the simplistic headline was easy to sustain popularly. One of the reasons that is never considered when vaccination rates fall is that SO MANY parents believe they have seen a temporal connection between the vaccination and the onset of autism. They know how their children were - what milestones they had passed - and they saw what they became. To be told by journalists, doctors, bloggers that their perception was wrong or that they were money grubbing frauds turned them into warriors. The reason, in my opinion, that the uptake still struggles to achieve the percentages the government would like to see is not because of one man - or one paper - or one group of doctors. It is because we all now know or are aware of by small degrees of separation a family who has an austic child - and many of them believe their children were vaccine damaged.

The Guardian, of course, have led the demonising of Wakefield so it is not odd for them to either trivialise or demean his present activities. Would it be a bad thing for people to see what the reality of living with Autism is like? Particularly for a broadcaster/publisher who caters for the ever growing autism community? Why does this appear unseemly to you? Because the Guardian dripped scorn over it?

I believe the entire Lancet/Royal Free/MMR causes Autism furore was a tragic cul-de-sac which intended to damn people whose intentions were only good. There primary observation in the paper was right - Autism my be associated with gut problems and this might be a new syndrome.

There was no conspiracy - only competing interests and unfortunately the one group of people that needed support and answers were badly hurt in the ensuing seismic activity.

Finally, (please let it be finally), the overly emotional declarations by the government - which even Brian Deer accepted might be scare-mongering - that people will "die" in South Wales - does make one wonder. I was with a group of University lecturers and doctors a few years back and asked if anyone knew how many people had actuall died of measles since the attacks the MMR and Wakefield began. One doctor, I swear he was a doctor(actually I think he was a consultant Psychiatrist!) said 10,000!!!! The scaremongering and demonising has to stop so that a rational discussion can occur.

Cheers.

Hello everyone,
Waves at currentbuns and bruffin .
Wadham,
Cross posted, but I am interested in your response to the below .
It seems that the accusations against Wakefield are multiple, so perhaps we might take them one at a time. Do you mind if I quote from the GMC ?Determination on Serious Professional Misconduct (SPM) and sanction?, link:
www.gmc-uk.org/Wakefield_SPM_and_SANCTION.pdf_32595267.pdf
So first up:
?The Panel has already found proved that Dr Wakefield?s Honorary Consultant appointment was subject to a stipulation that he would not have any involvement in the clinical management of patients. On five occasions (child 2, 4, 5, 12 and 7) he ordered investigations on children, when he had no paediatric qualifications, and in contravention of the limitations on his appointment. The Panel considered this alone constituted a breach of trust of patients and employers alike.?

Do you disagree with this? Do you think this is factually untrue in any manner? Do you think that there was no stipulation that Wakefield shouldn?t have any involvement in the clinical management of patients? Or do you think he didn?t act against this stipulation?

?In February 1996 Dr Wakefield agreed to act as an expert in respect of MMR litigation. In relation to the Legal Aid Board (LAB), the Panel found that Dr Wakefield accepted monies totalling £50,000 procured through Mr Barr, the Claimants? solicitor to pursue research. A costing proposal had been submitted by Mr Barr to the LAB containing detailed information provided by Dr Wakefield, and Dr Wakefield ought to have realised that Mr Barr would submit it to the LAB.
The costing proposal set out costs in respect of the investigation of five children. It covered each child?s four-night stay in hospital with colonoscopy, MRI and evoked potential studies. Dr Wakefield admitted that the funding subsequently provided by the Legal Aid Board had not been needed for these items because these costs were borne by the National Health Service as the patients were being admitted as NHS patients.
The Panel found that Dr Wakefield had a duty to disclose this information to the Legal Aid Board via Mr Barr. It was dishonest and misleading of him not to have done so. The Panel concluded that his intention to mislead the Legal Aid Board was sufficient on its own to amount to serious professional misconduct.?

Again, what is your take on this? They?re saying Wakefield accepted £50,000, and that his costings included the children?s stay in hospital, colonoscopy and MRI. These costs, Wakefield admitted, were covered by the NHS. Are you suggesting this was an honest mistake on Wakefield?s part. It?s a bit of an oversight, isn?t it?

I?ll leave it at those two issues for now, because this post is probably a bit long already.
The ?too long didn?t read? version:
Wakefield was specifically accused of ordering investigations on children which he was unqualified to do and which went against the stipulations in his appointment. He also lied to Mr Barr, and thereby deceived the legal aid board, with regard to the costs involved (he claimed the costs needed to cover stuff the NHS was actually providing for free). That?s it a bit simplified, but the actual text is above (in case I get accused of willful misinterpretation).
Since Wadham believes Wakefield to be an innocent, I would very much like to hear how they interpret the above.
Cheers.

Wadham
Thank you for your thoughtful response. A few things strike me.

While you say you don't believe in 'giant government conspiracies', the pattern of events you describe does appear to amount to a loose conspiracy of sorts. For example:

The problem was that the parental complaints had to be diminished in order to make sure that the safety of the wider community was preserved. The Royal Free's paper on autistic entrocolitis - which has proved to have been correct in many of its observations - had been tainted by the erroroneous connection to MMR causing Autism.

The phrase "had to be diminished" suggests to me a conspiracy to discredit the research for the greater good?

Regarding the autistic entrocolitis, I've been been unable to find the research which has "proved" the link with MMR "to be correct", but I've been reading an interview with a Dr Timothy Buie in the States, who appears to have done quite a lot of work in this area, and who has attempted to replicate AW's experiments.

He says: I think that, that research has been pretty well pursued. And our group has looked for measles virus in the gut as a way of trying to replicate the work that he had done. Epidemiological studies have looked pretty clearly at the possibility of vaccine and response post-vaccine, and haven?t been able to support that pathway. I think that pathway has been pretty well mined.

He also says: There have been studies that have tried to look at the various mechanisms that vaccines might be a factor in causing autism. There are several studies that looked at the MMR vaccines and look specifically at the measles virus, in particular, that has been raised as a hypothesis and haven?t been able to support that premise.

Is Buie among those you refer to when you say:
To be told by journalists, doctors, bloggers that their perception was wrong or that they were money grubbing frauds turned them into warriors. The reason, in my opinion, that the uptake still struggles to achieve the percentages the government would like to see is not because of one man - or one paper - or one group of doctors. ?

If we are going to hang Wakefield, we need to hang Blair too - his refusal to say whether his young son had had the MMR was hugely damaging to public confidence.

I am treated on the NHS by someone who merely holds an honorary post in a teaching hospital, btw (and a senior lecturer rather than a consultant, to boot). Theoretically under a consultant team. So I wouldn't be surprised if the Royal Free's contention that Wakefield was a rogue doctor was spin rather than substance. The Royal Free have been very keen to backtrack ever since the furore but they allowed the press conference announcing his research to go ahead on their premises using their press team. They are just trying to blacken Wakefield in order to preserve their own reputation.

The medical establishment and specifically the Dept of Health used dirty tactics to attack Wakefield rather than deal with the issue - tactics I've seen them use in other cases where the concerns raised by the targets of their vicious attacks have been entirely legitimate. I don't know whether Wakefield is a rogue or a decent guy, but it's certainly not as simple was 'Wakefield evil, his critics pure and unblemished'. Medical politics and NHS politics can be extremely dirty.

I disagree, Blair didn't want to establish a precedent about his children's private lives being anyone's public interest, he shouldn't have been hounded about it. No more than Brown wanted everyone to know about his son having CF.

I'm not out to hang anyone.

It's certainly not as simple was 'Wakefield evil, his critics pure and unblemished'.

I don't think anyone here is really saying that.

The medical establishment and specifically the Dept of Health used dirty tactics to attack Wakefield rather than deal with the issue

What sort of "dirty tricks" were used? This is a genuine question, BTW, I'm just trying to understand how AW has been mistreated.

I do tend to agree re Tony Blair - his refusal to disclose whether his dc had been given MMR didn't exactly help to engender confidence in the vaccine. I suppose he was concerned that if the claims were subsequently proven to be correct, he may have felt personally responsible for those influenced by his own decision.

Buns - don't confuse the acceptance of the cross system involvement of brain injury and gastroenterological problems/disease with the acceptance of "the MMR causes Autism". The former is widely accepted and there are too many papers to cite (a recent one came from Imperial College). There is not much controversy here. The latter of course is not proven though many parents subscribe to the theory because of their personal experience.

Magdalen - the money went to the Royal Free not Wakefield. The GMC's findings are, based on the judgement of the high court are no longer safe in my view. You can cite the GMC findings over and over but fundamentally they are the same findings that found J W-S guilty and the High Court dismissed their judgement as being unsustainable.

Where do we go from here Magdalen and Bruffin? It will become a waste of time - my only admonishment is to not blindly make false accusations about any of the Doctors on such an important issue. It is not constructive and at a certain point - when you've been advised - it becomes malice.

I wasn't disputing the link between brain injury and gastroenterological issues, I do understand that this has been well established.
What I was querying, hence the quote I cited from Dr.Buie above, was the link between the MMR vaccine and these gastroenteroligal symptoms, a link which was apparently suggested by AW, but not replicated in further research by others? Or am I missing something here?

I think Wadham covered that a few pages ago.

Wadham,
I am finding it difficult to know whether to find you comical or tragic. You say the GMC findings as relate to Wakefield are essentially the same as those relating to Walker-Smith as many times as you like, but it doesn't make it true. Please note that the two accusations I outline above do, in no way shape or form, relate to Walker-Smith. They are Wakefield specific. In the former case you haven't answered my question, do you think Wakefield did or did not become involved in the clinical management of patients, and do you think this did, or did not, go against the stipulations of his appointment. This seems quite important to me.
In the latter case I don't care where the money went, it's the fraudulent behaviour of Wakefield which is in question. The GMC felt this action alone was sufficient on its own to amount to serious professional misconduct.
I don't actually appreciate any attempt on your behalf to "admonish" me. I am making no false accusations, I am (mostly) quoting directly from the GMC and the judgement of a high court judge. I am not inclined to take any advice from you, in any case, my opinion of your judgement isn't extremely high (going by your contribution to this thread).
I expect you intended it, but just in case you don't realise it: your last sentence could be construed as a very crappy attempt at threatening language. This is something I would personally advise you against, simply because it makes you look a bit silly.
Cheers.

Hey Magdalen, Go with comical.
I've tried to be pretty constructive with you - sorry you felt threatened - but I'm less concerned with your feelings than those of the people that have been damaged by the promulgation of false or misleading commentary on this issue whether that be the venal intention of Wakefield and the parents/children in the study or lawsuit - or the diminishing of their intent, which I believe, AND SO DOES THE COURT, was to clinically help the children involved and research what may have been causing them so much gut pain.

So - to the substance of your point - let me try to be really clear (without the use of capital letters). Because the court found the GMC's judgement against John Walker-Smith to be so faulty, across the board - throwing every charge out, I find it difficult to find any of the GMC's judgement against any of the accused to be free of suspicion. The judge felt the panel made extremely faulty judgements on the charges they reviewed. For me, that puts all of their judgements in doubt. For me - and I hope for anyone who is at all concerned about the way the GMC conducted themselves through this affair. No parent or patient complained. They were reviewing events which had happend ten years before - some of the evidence relied upon memory of things that no one ever expected to have any import. A corruption/fraud narrative was invented by a journalist and published. That narrative seems to have gained traction and is repeated by people who have little knowledge of the actual events. Magdalen - you don't fall into that last category because you seem to have knowledge (or you are brilliantly quick at google!!!). The repetition of the fraud/corruption narrative has not altered even in the face of the High Court judgement and the court judgements in the US, Italy and the vaccine damage award in the UK. That new information is ignored. The new information should make you more thoughtful on the subject not less. That's it. In a rather large nutshell. That's my opinion without need for links.

Magdalen, however much I've enjoyed this repartee I can see that you have now resorted to being snide and name calling so...
I think we're done.

Rejoice. You'll get the last word. But I hope it will now be a lot less potent to uninformed readers on the subject than your first words.

I not taking anything you say seriously now that you are making threats.
There are a lot of insinuations but i suspect very little substance in what you say especially are now going down the conspiracy theory route.

Wadham,
I have not been snide, nor have I resorted to name calling. Yes, I know a reasonable amount about the case. It appears you have decided, due to the result of Walker-Smith's successful appeal that Wakefield is likewise exonerated. This is faulty reasoning, as I have shown there are accusations against Wakefield unrelated to Walker-Smith. I have also shown that the high court judgement in which you put so much stock defends the behaviour of Walker-Smith by damning that of Wakefield:
the press conference, the litigant parents, the ethical approval, all these are from the high court judgement I quote extensively from on the previous page.
You seem unwilling to answer my questions, and instead wish to believe that there is an invented "corruption/fraud narrative". This is the narrative documented by the GMC and the high court judgement as regards several specifics?
Saying the potency of my words has been diminished doesn't make it so, any more than saying Wakefield is innocent makes him so.
Cheers.

Magdalen

Wakefield was not ordering clinical investigations, he was just filling in paper work on sessions he sitting in on. Making himself useful. If this accusation had been true then John Walker-Smith, the clinician in charge would have been culpable - but Walker-Smith was not culpable: he was completely exonerated. In one case JW-S countermanded a request from a junior for a lumbar puncture and the test went ahead by accident, and once again Wakefield was supposed to be to blame.

Also the Walker-Smith High Court hearing shed light on the LAB's £50,000 because Judge Mitting established that the so called Wakefield Lancet paper was not the paper that the LAB commissioned, but an early report based on clinical records (as it stated). There was no question of the £50,000 being for that piece of work and the hearing findings were once again erroneous.

So, two important points here. Firstly, many of the findings against Wakefield were directly disproved by Mitting's ruling on Walker-Smith, but it also indicates the extreme prejudice of the GMC hearing. There is a term 'regulatory capture' and perhaps we should remember that first panel chairman Prof McDevitt was forced to recuse himself because he was on one of the committees in 1988 that okayed MMR & Pluserix particularly for use in the UK, and the replacement only revealed after the hearing began that he on the Committee on Safety in Medicines from 1996-8, was presently on two licensing authority committees and owned shares of one the manufacturers, GSK.

Interesting stuff, pluterix. The GMC is sometimes - often - an extremely flawed organisation. I've known them join in the persecution of good doctors - a common tactic to threaten whisleblowers is to make a specious complaint to the GMC, which the GMC will take ages pursuing, even when it is clear the organisation in the spotlight has trawled for allegations and even when the allegations are entirely outside anything the GMC should be involved in. The quality of their decision making can be abysmal.

Dear reader,
If you have survived this thread to this point you will have seen Magdalen mangle the view she asked me to give. You will have spotted that I did not say, "if John Walker-Smith is innocent then Wakefield must be innocent. I said: "If the J W-S charges were so flawed that the High Court dismissed them all then the GMC's judgement cannot be free of suspicion." It cannot be trusted. It is rendered dubious - the panel's judgement is questionable. Their decisions cannot and should not be trusted. Shouldn't we wonder if the GMC panel failed us all - particularly in the way it handled the process?

I am amazed that asking someone not to lie or to modify their comments to reflect known facts is percieved as a threat. In most places this isn't the case - save perhaps North Korea. I don't believe Bruffin is from North Korea. See Bruffin! Don't take my comment seriously! It wasn't meant to be a threat Bruffin - it was an admonishment not to be malicious. It was a hope. Apparently made in vain.

I am delighted that PluserixtheGaul has provided an answer to Magdalen's other questions. Pluserix seems to know the subject well - Magdalen? Knock yourself out.
Cheers.

Now 2 AOA/whale fascists.

Bloody keyboard
Fantacists not facists
Although there is a bit facism in the attempts to silence.

Jeez Bruffin relax...what is AOA/Whale?

Wadham,
I thought you were off?

Pluserix,
Hello, nice to have a new voice in the discussion. You say:
"Wakefield was not ordering clinical investigations, he was just filling in paperwork..."
Since I keep providing links to to provide evidence for my assertions I would really appreciate it if you could provide some evidence for this.
It's very difficult to respond to you just saying something like this, so I hope you don't mind my asking.
Regarding the money, so are you saying that the NHS wouldn't have covered the cost of the children's stay in hospital, the MRIs etc. Is this correct? Or did Wakefield not actually include these costs? Again, I would like some sort of evidence that the costings provided by Wakefield were correct.
Can we start on these two issues first?
Cheers.