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.

Hi Mam29.
I think people like me who did single vaccines round 2005 [no second mumps though] are left in limbo.
MMR for mumps when measles and rubella covered is irritating at the very least. I probably will [grring crossly] do that for my older child as worried about mumps and fertility.
Come 2009 and with my youngest child I have gone down MMR route.
Would have liked option of single vaccine for older child [mumps booster] though even if I had to pay for it.

No, I have plainly rebutted your argument and have been sticking to the point.

Magdalen

The paper was retracted after the GMC findings and this certainly ought to be reviewed in the light of Mr Justice Mittings findings.

Pluserix,
Where did you rebut the bit where Wakefield admitted misleading the Legal Aid Board, something which in itself the GMC considered amounted to serious professional misconduct? I quoted the relevant passages and gave links and everything.
Did I miss your rebuttal?
Could you possibly repost it?
Cheers.

I got involved in a Wakefield thread a couple of years ago, so tend to avoid them now, but seem to remember his supporters telling me at the time that he was about to appeal and I'd have to apologise for doubting him then. I haven't read the whole thread, but do I owe anyone an apology yet?

Pluserix,
Are you seriously suggesting the paper should not have been retracted?
Wowser!
You do realise the paper was initially partially retracted back in 2004 when it came to light that Wakefield was being paid as an expert by lawyers who were suing over alleged vaccine injury, and that some of the children in the study were the children of parents who were suing. This was a pretty massive undeclared conflict of interest (and please note this predates the GMC findings).
Then there was the misrepresentation of the method of referral of the children, then the lack of ethical approval.
Could you possibly give evidence of anyone with any scientific clout at all suggesting the retraction should be reviewed?
Cheers.

adeucalione,
Don't think any apology is needed now, or is likely to be necessary anytime soon. Or in fact ever. Wakefield has not appealed against the GMC, and is still struck off. Wakefield has attempted to sue Deer, and Channel 4, and the BMJ and others for calling him a fraud and a liar, but it always seems to end up with him dropping the cases and paying their legal costs.
The best his supporters seem to be able to come up with is that Walker-Smith appealed successfully so Wakefield is... Well, there it sort of all falls down as Wakefield (as previously noted) has not appealed, and his appeal hasn't been successful, so he is still struck off and is now in Texas touting to do a reality TV show about autism (or so the Guardian leads us to believe).
I know one of the mums whose child had blood taken at that infamous birthday party, by the way (my little, incredibly minor, Wakefield claim to fame) and he is apparently very charming. Lots of frauds are, I understand.
Cheeers.

Magdalen

Wakefield's letter acknowledging that he was a witness in the MMR litigation was published in the Lancet on 2 May 1998 but this was known to the Lancet through correspondence as early as April 1997, nearly a year before the paper was published, however at that time it was not the convention to disclose court work as a competing interest. Certainly, Wakefield was correct in stating the paper had nothing to do with the litigation.

The scene at the Lancet offices, described by Richard Horton in his book 'MMR Science & Fiction', in which he, Walker-Smith and Murch were taken aback in 2004 by the sudden revelation that Wakefield was involved in the litigation could not possibly have taken place as described: it had be known by all parties since early 1997.

There's a great problem over Horton - in 2004 he was maintaining in public that he had not known of Wakefield's involvement in the litigation until that point, but at the GMC he was just claiming he didn't know before months after the publication of the paper. Actually, the letter in which Wakefield acknowledged the matter was published just 9 weeks after the paper, and was response to a letter from Andrew Rouse sent to the Lancet just four days after the publication of the paper (the timing of the publication of Wakefiield's letter seems to have been largely in the hands of the Lancet). But anyhow the matter had crossed Horton's desk a year before.

Pluserix,
I asked you for some sort of scientific support for the idea that the paper shouldn't have been retracted? I do realise this is big ask, and since you have completely failed to actually back up any of your claims so far with evidence I won't be holding my breath. Instead, lets go back to a nice easy, well documented issue: Wakefield's misleading the Legal Aid Board, which he admitted and which the GMC felt was sufficient to amount to serious professional misconduct.
Cheers

Quelle surprise, magdalen. I've just been reading about the reality show, what a tawdry little man he is.

I don't know what he's done to deserve such unswerving support from some quarters, it's a sort of blind faith in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, but in answer to the OP - YANBU, and if he had a shred of dignity left he'd hold his hands up.

mam29,
You said (I am sorry not to have responded earlier) that you are confused by the "witch hunt" regarding Wakefield. I don't actually think witch hunt is a suitable word to use, since the first definition of it I came across when I just checked is:
"An investigation carried out ostensibly to uncover subversive activities but actually used to harass and undermine those with differing views."
This isn't what happened to Wakefield.
There's a fun little cartoon which does a nice job of outlining the case against Wakefield, see link here:
darryl-cunningham.blogspot.co.uk/2010/05/facts-in-case-of-dr-andrew-wakefield.html
Obviously it's not terribly detailed, but it gives the general thrust. Pluserix, I don't think you'll like it much, so probably best simply not to click.
Cheers.

The questions facing Mr Justice Mitting when he cleared Prof Walker-Smith were almost entirely to do with the Wakefield Lancet paper, of Walker-Smith was both senior author and senior clinician. So:

Was there misreporting of referral? No.
Was there misreporting of the onset of clinical symptoms? No.
Was there any reason to believe the children weren't ill? No.
Were there inappropriate or unauthorised investigations? No.
Was the paper funded by the LAB and based on the protocol for study 172-96. No.

So, virtually everything claimed about the paper in the Sunday Times and at the GMC was false.

This is a very complicated thread, I'm afraid I've run out of steam so I'll answer the original question as simply as I can.

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

No. Because we did as AW suggested and chose single vaccines for ds pending further research. Of course the government then discontinued the single vaccines...
There was no way AW knew they were going to do that, and that the result would be children having no vaccines at all.

Magdalen. you put yourself across as someone who knows quite a lot about this major medical controversy.

And so, might I ask you what your explanation is for the thousands of children who have similar medical histories following their MMR vaccination in which they present with intestinal issues and behaviour difficulties?

Please no shite about coincidence or parents looking for someone to blame. Old, tedious and insulting.

We have thousands of case stories all telling similar stories.

If you choose to ignore or dismiss them, please explain why. And also why you would believe people who have major vested interest rather than simple parents who are sticking their necks out in order to be heard.

If it weren't so tragic, it would be amusing this blind belief and following of government policy. Especially considering how little the public trust them in general. I guess it must be comforting. Or something.

So tell me, magdalen, what is happening to 1 in 50 children in the US? Hysterical parents or dishonest politicians?

Your call.

The question is no longer are vaccines involved in autism; rather, it is, what is the body count?

Pluserix,
If you put such great value on Mitting, why do think he goes out of his way to contrast the behaviour of the man he cleared with that of the man who failed to appeal and thus is still struck off? I mean, if we are to take what Mitting says as unchallengeable (which I for one, speaking as a scientist think would be a pretty untenable position to take), then what about his references to Wakefield?
You may have missed my earlier post regarding this, so here goes again:
First up the whole situation with the legal aid and the firm of solicitors. The judgment quotes from a letter from Walker-Smith to Wakefield:
"My position as with measles, MMR and Crohn's disease is that the link with MMR is so far unproven. It is clear that the legal involvement by nearly all the parents will have an effect on the study as they have a vested interest. I myself simply will not appear in court on this issue.
I would have been less concerned by legal involvement if our work were complete and we had a firm view. Never before in my career have I been confronted by litigant parents of research work in progress. I think this makes our work difficult, especially publication and presentation.
I am very excited by this work and it is very worthwhile. Simon Murch and I met today and have drawn up a draft for patient selection for your comment please."
I don't really need to comment, I think Walker-Smith is quite clear in his views.
The judge talks about Wakefield's press conference:
"At a press conference, which Professor Walker-Smith did not attend, convened to accompany publication, Dr. Wakefield stated publicly the view which he had previously expressed privately to Professor Walker-Smith that he could no longer support the giving of MMR vaccine. The joint view of Professor Walker-Smith and Dr. Murch, stated in a letter to Dr. Wakefield on 21st January 1998, was that it was inappropriate to emphasize the role of MMR vaccine in publicity about the paper and that they supported government policy concerning MMR until more firm evidence was available for them to see for themselves. They published a press release to coincide with publication stating their support for "present public health policy concerning MMR". Dr. Wakefield's statement and subsequent publicity had a predictable adverse effect upon the take up of MMR vaccine of great concern to those responsible for public health. There is now no respectable body of opinion which supports his hypothesis, that MMR vaccine and autism/enterocolitis are causally linked."
May be it's just my interpretation, but don't you think the judge is here drawing a definite distinction between the behaviour of Walker-Smith and Wakefield?
Then the ethical approval issue, that gets a mention too:
"Professor Walker-Smith gave unchallenged evidence that this was the last draft of the paper which he saw. Dr. Murch said, again in unchallenged evidence, that there was then a meeting attended by all of the researchers and clinicians involved to discuss the draft, which they approved. At the end of the meeting there was a discussion between Dr. Murch, Professor Walker-Smith, Dr. Thomson and Dr. Wakefield about the reference to Ethics Committee approval of "this clinical investigation", because it was a clinically driven investigation which did not require Ethics Committee approval. Dr. Murch said that Dr. Wakefield had assured them that he would liaise with the Lancet to ensure that appropriate wording was substituted. The wording in the published paper which neither Dr. Murch nor Professor Walker-Smith saw before publication was,
"Ethical approval and consent
Investigations were approved by the Ethical Practices Committee of the Royal Free Hospital NHS Trust, and parents gave informed consent."
This statement was untrue and should not have been included in the paper."
Oh, look, is it Mr Wakefield who is off putting untrue statements into the published papers, against the express wishes of Walker-Smith and the rest?
I like Respectful Insolence's take on this:
scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/03/08/andy-wakefield-exonerated-because-john-w/
I agree with the blogger that the judge doesn't seem to have the firmest grasp of medical research issues, but then he is a Judge not a scientist. I have linked to the blog, but will quote from its final paragraph:
"From my perspective, Judge Mitting?s decision strongly implies that, rather than being involved in Wakefield?s professional research misconduct, Walker-Smith was an unwitting dupe. Neither conclusion speaks particularly well of Walker-Smith, but I suppose it?s better to be an honest dupe than a dishonest research cheat. Personally, I?d rather be neither. No matter how hard the antivaccine movement tries to spin this as some sort of exoneration of its hero Andy Wakefield, it?s not."
Cheers.

Beachcomber,
I love this idea that anyone who is happy to discuss the whole Wakefield debacle who doesn't buy into the "Wakefield as victim" idea is somehow automatically ignoring and dismissing parents of children with "intestinal issues and behavioural difficulties" which they (the parents) associate with the MMR?
Where have I done anything of the sort?
Scientists saying there is no causative link aren't ignoring or dismissing them either, there has been lots of work done in this area. The fact is that this work does not support the idea that the MMR is a causative agent.
Lots of scientists are working hard to find the cause of ASDs, that the evidence so far comes down firmly against the idea that the MMR vaccination is a cause.
I am not believing politicians, I am not disbelieving your "simple parents', I am believing the scientific consensus.
Your post reminds me of something else I read today, it was actually spoofing Susan Greenfield, but it applies to antivax propaganda equally, regarding evidence:
"EVIDENCE
You don't really need evidence. Evidence is for bitter people who hate children."
Because that's right, isn't it, and because I believe the evidence I must automatically dismiss and ignore the parents?
I don't know what is causing the rise in ASD, if there is anything as simple as a "cause" which I frankly doubt. What I feel pretty damned confident about is that it is nothing to do with the MMR.
Cheers.

Beachcomber,
Regarding this:
"The question is no longer are vaccines involved in autism; rather, it is, what is the body count?"
Do you have a shred of evidence to support this?
Cheers.

Beachcomber- the simple fact remains that no properly conducted scientific study has ever shown a link between MMR and autism. None.

I am not insulting or dismissing parents by saying this. I am just stating fact.

'Beachcomber- the simple fact remains that no properly conducted scientific study has ever shown a link between MMR and autism. None.'

I doubt one will ever be conducted - who will fund it? The goverment? I doubt they will since it's not in their interests to find anything which would cause concern. In the past, parents who have tried to get compensation for severe reactions following the MMR (and vaccine damage is not limited to a regression to autism either) had their legal aid withdrawn.

And it is insulting and dismissive of parents to refuse to believe what they know to be true about their own children. It is dismissive to imply you will assume they're lying or looking for something to blame until you can see a study which supports what they say. Which is never going to happen for the reason I stated above.

littie- there have been many studies.

Are you saying that if a parent says that their child was damaged by the MMR, then the child definitely was? That it is rude and dismissive to question?

There also many parents of children with autism who are insulted by the whole mmr scandal. They feel too much money and time had been wasted looking at mmr which could have been directed into other autism research.

I think the main autism charities have publicly disassociated themselves from the MMR/autism connection, haven't they?

Why are you making this only about autism? Presumably you accept that no vaccine is 100% safe? I know this thread is about Andrew Wakefield but concerns about vaccine damage cover a wide range of adverse side effects and this is nothing new or indeed unique to MMR. As I said earlier in the thread, one person's child went deaf immediately following MMR. And as jimjams has said - autism is not one thing. Nobody is saying that MMR 'causes autism' generally but that it could trigger a regression in some children. Just the same as a disease could trigger a regression.

What I'm saying is that it's an insult to a parent's intelligence to choose not to believe what they say and know about their own child.

No medical treatment is 100% safe. I have a member of my extended family who was damaged by the whooping cough vaccine many years ago, and received compensation,

This thread is about Wakefield- and therefore has been about the MMR/autism link.

I am happy to extend it.

But I am not happy to be called names because I don't necessarily think that parents are automatically correct in their assessment of their children's medical conditions. If somebody tells me that there child went deaf immediately after they received their MMR, I would want more than their circumstantial evidence.