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.

Pluserix,
Regarding what you said:
"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."
I am sorry, but I can't quite make out what you are saying here. You say the Lancet work wasn't the work the LAB commissioned. Then are you saying the work the LAB commissioned was a report based on clinical records?
So when Wakefield accepted the monies (which surely you must accept he did), what was he accepting the money for? If it was for work based on clinical records then any costings involving hospital stays MRIs etc would have been even more erroneous. I can only assume I am misunderstanding you here. Could you clarify? Thanks.
Cheers.

Magdalen

No, I am say that the Lancet paper was a report based on routine clinical notes and wasn't the research paper commissioned by the LAB (an erroneous accusation made by Brian Deer and subsequently a finding of the GMC), and the LAB research monies had nothing to do with Lancet paper (a further erroneous finding of GMC). That LAB research paper (protocol 172-96)was never done because the concept had become unsuitable in the light of further experience. My understanding is that the money was then used in other research projects to do with the litigation. Certainly, the GMC finding was false and was shown to be in the High Court.

Only skimmed the thread but my tuppence worth:

yanbu op

Andrew Wakefield is a crook, a fraud and immoral IMO, exploiting some of the most vulnerable children (and their parents) in our society.

Pluserix,
Now you're doing the same thing as Wadham. You're saying the GMC verdict against Wakefield was false, when actually he abandoned his appeal. So you can't say that, the GMC verdict against Wakefield stands, which is why he is currently struck off the medical register (unlike Walker-Smith). So the whole issue with the costings, that he included the NHS stay, the MRIs etc. despite these being covered by the NHS, this doesn't worry you? I note you're not saying he didn't include these costings, as outlined in the GMC verdict (which I linked to and quitted the appropriate part from).
I would also like to go back to your "he was just filling in paperwork" claim again, and ask for some actual evidence to back up this claim.
Since you (like Wadham) are so keen on the high court verdict on Walker-Smith's appeal (Walker-Smith's appeal, note, Wakefield abandoned his appeal), could you perhaps you would be willing to address the fact that that very high court judgement defends Walker-Smith by damning Wakefield: the press conference, the litigant parents, the ethical approval? These all are laid at Wakefield's door by Mitting (I linked to the judgement a couple of pages back if you need to refresh your memory).
Thanks in advance,
Cheers.

No, it is fairly obvious that he could not financially underwrite his appeal (unlike Walker-Smith who was funded). Like a lot of people these days he's been priced out of justice.

If Walker-Smith had been allowing Wakefield - a research scientist - to make clinical decisions in his department (Paediatric Gastroenterology) he could not have been cleared in the High Court.

Anyway.

All this bickering at the margins distracts from the fact that Wakefield's results have never been reproduced.
And, despite loads of studies, nobody has ever been able to find a link between MMR and autism of any sort.

So, while there are good reasons why a few children should not be vaccinated, concerns about autism are not one of those reasons. And those children are often those with compromised immune systems who need to be protected by herd immunity.

Pluserix,
I'm afraid it isn't fairly obvious to me that Wakefield couldn't financially underwrite his appeal, could you make it obvious to me? I mean, Wakefield isn't exactly backwards in coming forwards when it comes to libel actions (though he does seem to keep coming a cropper and having people like Justice Eady say that he "..wished to use the existence of libel proceedings for public relation purposes and to deter critics, while at the same time isolating himself from the 'downside' of such litigation in having to answer a substantial defence of justification"). That was when he sought a stay of his three libel cases against the Sunday Times, Deer and Channel 4. Justice Eady denied the stay, Wakefield (can't think why) dismissed all three libel cases and had to pay the defendants' legal fees.
So, could you provide some sort of substantiation to your claim that it's "fairly obvious" he couldn't afford to appeal.
Frankly, the whole Walker-Smith succeeded on appeal ergo Wakefield is vindicated argument was wearing a little thin when Wadham was making it. You conveniently ignore everything the judge said about Wakefield. This would have been included in his judgement for a reason. What reason to you think he had for including it, if not to distance Walker-Smith's behaviour from that of Wakefield (who he clearly believed had deceived Walker-Smith, specifically in the case of the ethical approval for example)?
Have you read the judgement? I linked to it earlier, but it's probably worth linking to again:
www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/503.html

Cheers,
Rosewind
PS And seeker is quite right, let's not forget the really important bit, which is that there is no causative link between autism and the MMR and that this has been shown time and time again by scientific studies.

Magdalen

I gave above two clear examples of how High Court findings regarding Walker-Smith bore on the truthfulness of the findings against Wakefield (issues which you had raised) and now you are dodging.

Pluserix,
No, you are just harping on the old "Walker-Smith succeeded at appeal ergo the GMC judgement as it stands regarding Wakefield can be disregarded". Well, that simply is not true, Mitting was responding to the GMC case against Walker-Smith, not Wakefield. If you could link to a high court judgement regarding Wakefiled's appeal that would be valid, but you can't because such a thing does not exist. Because (for some reason, and we have no evidence it was financial) Wakefield did not peruse his appeal (despite his love of court proceedings which I allude to above). Mitting refers to Wakefield several times in his judgement, and it is not to absolve him of wrong, rather it is to specifically contrast his behaviour with that of Walker-Smith. I note your argument has changed from "he was just filling in paperwork" to well if he had ordered clinical tests then Walker-Smith wouldn't have won his appeal (I believe that's the new argument? What happened to the "he was only filling in paperwork" one I liked that one).
You still haven't responded to Mitting's comments about Wakefield, I am still interested.
Cheers.

Pluserix- as is very common in discussion on this topic, the essentials seem to get lost in the fog.

Would you mind repeating the "two clear examples of how High Court findings regarding Walker-Smith bore on the truthfulness of the findings against Wakefield" - because I, for one, have lost my place rather. Thank you.

It's more about the faith that can one put in any of the judgements made by the GMC in relation to this, as so many were over ruled in court.

Reading the judgement will help with that, rdspottydress.

redspotty,
seeker has a point here. I linked to the judgement in my last but one posts.
Cheers

Seeker

My original comment is below. I would also make the point that the three doctors (including Prof Murch) were put on trial together, so it isn't far fetched that the accusations were interlocking, indeed in many cases identical - indeed to target Wakefield in the first place it was necessary to drag Walker-Smith and Murch into the picture because many of things it was said Wakefield did could not have been done without their complicity (as they were the clinicians), and Mr Justice Mitting when reviewing only the Walker-Smith case concluded that a great many of these thing didn't happen at all.

"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 [Surendra Kumar] only revealed after the hearing began that he[was] 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."

Hello All,
Sorry to harp back to an old topic, but the whole thing about Wakefield lying to the Legal Aid Board about the costs of the children?s stay in hospital and their MRI scans. Now this is surely a pretty low thing to do? I mean Wakefield must have known these costs were going to be met by the NHS, so including them in his costs has to be seen as deceitful doesn?t it? I have just been looking through another GMS document, FITNESS TO PRACTISE PANEL HEARING 28 JANUARY 2010 link here:
briandeer.com/solved/gmc-charge-sheet.pdf
Regarding the costs the following bits are of interest:
?h. The Legal Aid Board provided funding in two instalments of £25,000, in late 1996 and in 1999 respectively, which was paid into an account which was held by the Special Trustees of the Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust for the purposes of your research generally,
Admitted and found proved
The money provided by the Legal Aid Board was not needed for the items listed at paragraphs 3.d.i. and ii. above, which were funded by the NHS;
Admitted and found proved?

The items referred to as 3.d.i. and ii above are:
i. £1,750 for four nights stay for the child and their parent (plus colonoscopy) in the Paediatric Gastroenterology Ward under the care of Professor Walker-Smith, Found proved
ii. £1,000 for MRI and evoked potential studies,

It?s the ?Admitted and found proved? bit: So Wakefield actually admitted this bit, it?s not the GMC claiming something, Wakefield admitted it.
The GMC 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.?

Just wanted to share.
Cheers

Oh! Cross posted with Pluserix, seems I may have answered the bit about the LAB money?

Cheers

Regarding Walker-Smith (who this discussion isn't about, no matter how hard some may be trying to make it all about his appeal), Brian Deer does an interesting little compare and contrast with Walker-Smith's memoirs, editions from 2003 and 2012, link here:
briandeer.com/solved/john-walker-smith.htm
Slight difference in emphasis between "research" and "clinical care" may be possibly detected?
Cheers.

Another point I?d like to clarify is regarding how the judgement in the Walker-Smith appeal applies to Wakefield. Now I am willing to be corrected, but wasn?t Walker-Smith?s appeal based on the fact that he was conducting clinically appropriate practice separate from project 172-96 which therefore did not require Ethics Committee approval. Now, Wakefield wasn?t qualified to conduct clinical procedures see that charge sheet again briandeer.com/solved/gmc-charge-sheet.pdf:
?1. At all material times you were,
a. A UK registered medical practitioner,
Admitted and found proved
b. Employed by the Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine, initially as a Senior Lecturer in the Departments of Medicine and Histopathology and from 1 May 1997 as a Reader in Experimental Gastroenterology,
Admitted and found proved
c. An Honorary Consultant in Experimental Gastroenterology at the Royal Free Hospital; Admitted and found proved
Your Honorary Consultant appointment was subject to a stipulation that you would not have any involvement in the clinical management of patients; Found proved The Panel has accepted the wording of the job description and the letter of employment (contract) sent to you, which show clearly that you would not be involved in a clinical management role with patients.?

This would have made it pretty difficult for Wakefield to make an appeal on the same basis.
Cheers.

Magdalen

No, Walker-Smith's appeal was based on the fact that he wasn't doing the project 172-96 at all (the defence of all three doctors at the GMC hearing), and the error of Brian Deer and subsequently the GMC. The Wakefield Lancet paper is an early report (as stated) reviewing records of patient seen on the basis of clinical need, and crucially Mr Justice Mitting accepted this.

I don't know how you can have such strong opinions about Wakefield's infamy when you have such little grasp of detail.

Pluserix,
Try reading what I wrote?
I wrote that Walker Smith's appeal was based on the fact that he was conducting clinically appropriate practice separate from project 172-96. Look at my post above, it still says exactly that.

The judge chose to believe that the work he did was clinically indicated, and not part of a research project and he was therefore successful in his appeal.
Wakefield was incapable of making the same appeal, since he was unqualified to conduct clinical work.
You haven't responded to the bit about the Legal Aid Board money, I note. Cheers.

Oh and PS,
You haven't responded about why Wakefield didn't appeal, except your unsubstantiated claim that it he couldn't fund it.
I love your suggestion I fail to grasp "detail", all I seem to be getting from you is your opinion on the subject, you seem loathe to actually link to any documents which might usefully back up your claims.
Cheers.

Im very confused by wakefeild witchhunt he did a trial and published results.

Other people did trials. including japan

compensation been paid out in some countries worries me as its like an admission.

The 2 other huge people to blame in all this is

The media they hyped it up and scared people.

The nhs for

• not commicating well enough and reasuring people when tried to discuss they shut the conversation down it was like word for word .

• why the heck did they get so stubborn and not offer single vacines alongside?

wakefeild supported single vaccines.why is that ignored he dident say do not vaccinate.

To me i guess it was a cost thing

Our eldest was born 2006 and we agonised for ages read up loads.

I had a freind whos child was autistic and said she always wonders in back of her mind if vaccine did it.

We chose to go private single route nearly £300 at clinic in bath luckily near us in bristol.

There was also one company going round hotels giving vaccines.

The 2private hospitals bupa now spire and nuffeild did not offer the private jabs.

correct me if im wrong but in case of swansea bath may have been nearest place to have it done.

It involved 3 separate trips to bath 6weeks apart.

The company we used clairon were great really put us at ease, fantastic service on time, choc buttons and toys. I felt we had proper discussion unlike my hv who is very pro mmr and think quite cross we not relented we still get cards saying be wise immunise..

After careful reading that the 1st jab covered 95% we dident get the 2nd booster. At the time mumps was unavailable and think still is.

I guess some may consider me irresponsible but shes had 1st lot singles quite late was gone 2 when had that.

Shes had all other jabs mengititas and preschool booster.
She had all her baby jabs and screamed .

By time had no 2 in 2009 the immunisation schedule booklet included even more jabs.

shes 3.5 now and not had her singles plan to do it this year.
will be booking her preschool booster soon shes does not start school until next september when shes 5.
shes had all her baby jabs.

I cant get the mumps one though so unsure how risky that is or how common it is.

Child no 3 hes just turned 2 and not speaking yet.
I dont feel comfy having him done this year and wondering if should delay singles for next year for him.

I read that autism presents at age 2 and guess leaving it later then if he was then would have presented itself by then thats what my hv says.shes very pro mmr.

Youngest was invited on vaccine trial by local uni and it was to have less vacines but involved bloodtests which seemed invasive so after discussion with hv decided against it not sure I made the right decision as they would have come to house and done all the vaccines would have been lot easier but i would have said no to mmr.

I remember at 13 getting rubella do they not still do that? if yiu have it as baby i assume it wears off before childbearing age.

I think vaccination of female teens makes sense..

Another reason to be distrusting for me is nhs attititude

anyone remember the hcn1 flue few years back.
It really worried me as their were quite a few childrens deaths with some having no underlying health conditions.

I wanted to get kids protected.

The previous year when expecting I was offered it and so were young kids.

I looked into getting private but stocks were low both places in bath were out and nearest was windsor cost was £20.

An adult can just pop into chemist and have jab but to find somewhere other than nhs willing to vacinate children is nightmare but surly children area vunerable group and to be honest when do visit gps dot do much i guess probably a lot of kids with underlying health conditions not picked up on.

2nd much more recent for last year I contemplated chicken pox jab given routine in usa.

unfortunatly eldest 7came down with chicken pox last week.

I asked if worth having younger 2 vaccinated and he told me 3times the chicken px vaccine did not exist.

Either hes lying or incompetant.
I guess im going against what nhs thinks and i have read up and no stuff scared him.

But this kind of thing makes me weary as with flu jab their was different advice from one year to next mostly based on cost.

If they had offered mmr and singles then they wouldent be facing epedemic now.

Most would take up mmr that already have done and ones who dident and couldent afford or locate private would be covered too.

The doubts in my mind now and as much as I try reason with myself about mmr im still very unsure and wanted to play it safe and not have any regrets.

magdalen

Sorry for misreading you before, however this point is also spurious, even absurd. The paper of which Wakefield, Walker-Smith and 11 others were co-authors was a review of data from clinical records, not a research paper, and there was no reason why Wakefield should not have been involved in that.

Pluserix,
Thank you for the apology.
However you seem to be now going off on a bit of a tangent. Can we get back to topic, which is Wakefield (that chap who got struck off by the GMC and didn't appeal). Wakefield who has consistently failed to succeed in all his attempts to sue people for libel when they describe him as a fraud etc. Wakefield who admitted misleading the Legal Aid Board. Wakefield who had undisclosed conflicts of interest....
The paper I think we are discussing is this one:
briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-paper.pdf
Its that one in the Lancet "Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children".
Which paper are you talking about? A link would be much appreciated.
Cheers.

link again:
briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-paper.pdf
It's quite legible, despite the big red letters spelling "RETRACTED" that are printed across each page.