to think that there is a witch hunt against Andrew Wakefield?

[MagalyZz]

I just can't believe that they're still gunning for this guy!?

Whatever you make of his research, it WAS his research and he found what he found and he should be allowed to "suggest a link"

I have a child on the spectrum who had the MMR and I do not think the MMR had anything to do with it, but I do believe Dr Wakefield that a tiny percentage of people do react very badly to this vaccine.

Leave the guy alone ffs!!

Beachcomber - hello - I am watching the links you posted and will get back on this thread when I have - it just makes me want to ask more questions and I know you (and others) have been patient with me before - especially with your research knowledge.

I do still think AW went about this in the wrong way - which means we are probably stuck with MMR being routinely used (whether you agree or not) for the forseable future and all other work will be in danger of never taken seriously on both sides - and I do wonder if he could go back would he change what he said and when/how he said it(I know you probably disagree with me on this)

I have posted before about the way it was reported not only within the medical community but in the mainstream media and how fickle the press can be knowing full well at which point to influence the events as they unfold. I know Ben Goldacre is not someone you hold in high regard but I do believe he is right in questioning how science is reported in newspapers especially anything medical or from a health perspective)

Anyway back to my viewing!

You know what novicemama - attitudes like yours make me sick.

Whilst you make nasty comments, there are children with bowel problems who are not getting treatment for extremely distressing and painful conditions. Doctors are afraid to treat these children because they don't want to end up like Dr Wakefield et al. Quite frankly the British public is not entirely without responsibility for what has happened due to their nasty penchant for a good old fashioned smear campaign and their inability to tell their arse from their elbow unless someone in authority draws them a picture.

Glad you find this whole sorry tale of corruption and damaged children amusing though.

I am waiting for the public to show that they are not ignorant and easily manipulated - won't hold by breath though.

LindenAvery there was no right way for Dr Wakefield to go about this. He knew when he started to help these damaged children that he was going to be crucified. He has said in a couple of interviews that he knew he had a moral choice to make and that he would be taking on the government (who would be liable for the damage due to doing liability deals with the manufacturers) in order to do the right thing. He actually wrote to his colleagues at the Royal Free explaining his decision.

I don't really see what else he could do (other than ignore the science and try reconcile himself with his decision for the rest of his life).

He is a noble man with impeccable scientific integrity - it would appear that is a rare thing these days.

I have never EVER said that I don't have sympathy for children who are ill and in distress. Just to diabuse you, 'thinking that Wakefield is a nasty fraud' does not equal 'horrible bitch who laughs at children who are suffering' I don't eat babies for breakfast you know Beachcomber

well, whatever, I just don't think these MMR threads are worth it. The GMC have ruled, the science is discredited, it's done. I only hope he stays in the US and bothers them rather than us.

Anecdotally (and in a small number of posts I've seen on here) I have heard opinions something along the lines of: 'I am very angry with the media for misleading the public for so long. I didn't vaccinate my child at the time due to the furore, but now the truth is out, I will be making sure they get the MMR'. If even 100 parents share that view, it's been a success.

Smallones I see you asked a little further up why some people think there is a link between MMR and autism. Big question!

First let's look at the question itself - Wakefield says that there is a small number of susceptible children who are adversely affected by the MMR. He does not claim that MMR poses a risk for the majority. What he does say is that we need to protect those who could be susceptible to future damage and treat (and compensate) those are already damaged.

As to why he thinks this (and people like me agree with him) well I would urge you to watch this conference presentation where he presents the scientific findings which place MMR firmly as the environmental insult which has damaged these children's immune systems, guts and brains.

www.autismone.org/content/resolving-chaotic-paradox-autism-disease-developing-immune-system

Then there is the fact that we now have thousands of eye witness accounts from parents around the world telling the same story. Often of a child with a tendency to ear infections with a history of repeated antibiotic use, food intolerances, family history of autoimmune disease and mitochondrial dysfunction etc reacting badly to the MMR at the time of injection (often with bowel problems) and then regressing in the weeks which followed.

There are far far too many of these remarkably similar tales for them to be unscientifically dismissed as 'coincidence'.

Also many of these children improve when they are treated for vaccine damage - that can hardly be coincidence either methinks.

Novicemama the science has not been discredited though has it?

The GMC ruling did not even attempt to examine the soundness of the science. In fact it was testified by Horton himself during the hearing that the science was perfectly sound.

Why do people like you continue to repeat this misinformation?

The first step to caring about these sick, damaged and suffering children is to admit that they exist. Persecuting and mocking Wakefield is to persecute, deny and mock these children and their families.

They are used to it though. Unfortunately they know that their children are just one big boring inconvenience in the eyes of most people who just want to believe authorities never get it wrong and that vaccines are a free lunch.

I thought pretty much the same thing until my family joined the ranks of the swept under the carpet collateral damage of vaccinating for the greater good (no - not MMR and not autism).

Self Service Science cannot be discredited - that's why it's not Science.

'the science has not been discredited though has it?'

Ummm. Yes it has. It has it has it has. Honestly.

And anyway, what he did (as cyber points out) was not actually 'science' given that he did not go through the required processes to make his research valid. I know boards of ethics might be just inconveniences to poor maverick Wakefield, but to real scientists they are really really important.

Let's campaign for more research into his findings, if that's what you want. This has been done already but never mind, let's do some more. And what if it comes up with different findings? To you that will not be 'evidence'. I don't think you want scientific proof, I think you want to believe what you want to believe. Science sets out to prove if anecdotes are actually true. In this case they're not. You can amass tons of anecdotes but it's not science.

Why not just campaign for better services and therapies for autistic children. I think the education my son gets is terrible and it makes me sick to think of the time and money Wakefield has wasted - forcing genuine scientists to do research just to disprove what he had made up.

Oh for goodness sake, claiming but the science has been discredited over and over again does not make that particular fairy tale true through relentless repetition. Neither does sarcastically putting research/study/doctor/scientist/science in inverted commas. Neither does calling Wakefield names.

He did go through the required ethical clearance. Do you know what is being used by the GMC to make the big scary statement of gross misconduct? They are nitpicking over details of diagnostic terms used to describe different ranges on the spectrum. They are nitpicking because the research team did not always refer to the vaccines received by the children with exactly the same terminology every time. In other words they got him on minor technicalities - the sort of irrelevant technical detail inconsistency that is inevitable when one is dealing with complex medical records of children with an unknown disorder and which have been written and added to by large numbers of people from different medical domains over a number of years.

The GMC knew before the evidence was even presented that they had to find Wakefield guilty of misconduct and have him struck off. To do otherwise would have been political suicide.

The actual medical findings of what is wrong with these children's guts has never even been challenged let alone discredited.

Link to the paper which shows Wakefield is wrong please. By that I mean the paper that invalidates his actual findings - not a paper which tests a made up hypothesis he never held (hint - there aren't any, epidemiology is irrelevant here).

Link please to the paper which explains what is wrong with these children's guts if it isn't what Wakefield has discovered (hint - there aren't any).

Stamping your feet and saying but vaccine damage doesn't happen because the government told me so is an irresponsible and frankly quite chilling stand to take.

Those of you here criticising Wakefield's work - have you read any of it? Do you know which area he was working in before rocking the vaccine status quo boat? Do you understand why it is likely that these children are suffering from an atypical viral insult? Oh I forgot you deny that these children even exist.

I posted a video with a scientific presentation by Wakefield of his findings. He is presenting it to parents in the main so the language is not too technical. How about one of the posters who just knows that Wakefield is wrong, mad, bad and dangerous actually watches it and then tells me what is incorrect in its content?

Alternatively you could bluster that you will not watch anything by the Bad Bad Doctor because he is just wrong and bad and everybody knows that is so. (Which is exactly what those responsible want you do).

www.autismone.org/content/resolving-chaotic-paradox-autism-disease-developing-immune-system

I think we agree at least on one thing novicemama - these threads are a waste of time. People just don't want to know about that pesky vaccine damage - it doesn't happen to many people anyway so it is easy enough to turn our backs on (as long as people like Wakefield can be silenced). By repeating misinformation the public is obediently playing their role in making sure he is censored.

Except the children are there and they are not going to go away - this will have to be dealt with at some point. The prolongation is just adding to the numbers and denying those already damaged the treatment and help they so deserve.

No one can discredit a belief that the earth is flat if the person who believes it only wants to look at the evidence in their back garden. "I've got a flat patio, therefore the earth is flat.' QED at least for the person concerned. Wakefield explaining his own ideas with his own personal logic is in the same category.

Genuine science is a work in progress and is always self challenging and being challenged. The MMR theory seems impervious to any challenge- which tends to suggest it?s not science in the first place.

Beachcomber, this is the link novicemama likes to rely on to disprove wakefield's hypothesis.

cyber - the problem is, wakefield's hypothesis hasnotbeen challenged. ever. at all.

there have been numerous studies looking at what was never claimed (that mmr causes autism). funily enough ,they have found htis to be untrue.

but there has never been a proper trial of what wakefield suggested.

and htis is not because I am selectively looking at studies, or cherrypicking research to suit my argument. it si becasue it does not exist.

yes, what wakefield presented cannot be held up as abso0lute fact. that is why he presented it as a hypothesis. he always intended further research to test and explore.

this should have been carried out, but anyone even reotely connected the original paper has been hounded beyond belief, reputations smeared, judgements both professional and personal questioned.

wakefield HAS continued his work, but no one else has even come close to challenging what he said.

you can carry on calling everyone who thinks wakefield has a point small minded, but tbh, I'm with Beach on this - we read BOTH sides and make up ourminds.

you with your "of course wakefield would say that, he is applying his own logic" argument sound very childish and head-in-sand. (btw, wakefield's logic in a scientific sense has never been questioned. even his detractors have admi9tted his science work on the 1998 paper is good science, which still stands. I htink they might know what they are talkingabout....)

"I don't think you want scientific proof, I think you want to believe what you want to believe."

OK so watch the video and read Wakefield's (many, not just the Lancet) papers and then explain where he is going wrong.

I don't want to believe anything - what a bizarre idea. I sincerely wish with all my heart that these children have not been hurt by a routine medical procedure which was meant to be safe and meant to protect them. Unfortunately when I read the science it is the only logical conclusion one can come to.

I find it very disturbing that it is getting harder to access the science as it is being removed, buried, censored and taken from publishing waiting lists.

What is the point in calling for more science into this when it will never get published? Wakefield et al have conducted a comprehensive long term study on monkeys given the equivalent of the US vaccine schedule. The findings have been censored. Are folk comfortable with that? I guess you are if you have swallowed the idea that a respected research team with an impeccable and admired record would torture and experiment on children whilst the stupid parents not only failed to notice how their children were being treated but were also deluded in thinking that their children were actually sick in the first place. I notice those who call Wakefield names never seem to do so of Professor Walker Smith - is that because you don't know who he is or because you think that trying to make out that the most respected paediatric gastroenterologist in the country is a maverick charlatan snake oil salesman is pushing things just a teeny bit too far?

Ah the Hornig study.

Which despite trying very hard to exclude children with the pathologies Wakefield was describing did actually find exactly what he describes in one child.

We never hear about this child though - I guess he doesn't matter just like the rest of them don't.

quite.

I did try pointing out to novicemamma on the other thread that ASD + GI issues does not automatically equal wakefield's sub group (with those criteria, dd1 would have been included, and she is nowhere near being part of the group Wakefield is interested in), but I don't think she grasped the concept, tbh.

Instead she popped over here to say the same thing again.

Oh well.

I don't understand. Everyone on this thread who supports Wakefield has condemned the GMC and scientific researchers around the world for daring to challenge Wakefield's theories. Now it is the said the challenges to his theories never actually happened. So the challenge to his work never happened, but at the same time everyone who did challenge him is wicked and corrupt ?

Well silverfrog it would appear that it is a bit much for people to grasp the idea that gut disease is rather complicated and diverse - odd really considering that there is a whole field of medicine dedicated to it.

I'm off to cook my children's dinner so if anyone comes on to explain to me why the science Wakefield presents in the video I have linked to is off the mark, I'm not ignoring you.

cyber, it is quite simple.

everyone on htis thread who htinks wakefield's hypothesis holds water (I don't like the term "wakefield supporter" because it suggests blind faith. that, i do not have) has denounced the gmc trial as a farce because it was.

it wasn't even held to challenge his work, and during the proceedings his work (the actual paper, and hypothesis) when discussed was described as "good science" by the very people accusing him of being a charlatan.

wakefield ahs been repeatedly challenged. as a man, as a professional, as a doctor.

he has been hounded and smeared, in a (sadlly successful) attempt to discredit him and his career.

his work, the original 1998 paper, has never been challenged.

there is NO study at all in existence, despite all the hundreds claiming to do so, which disproves his theory.

they do not even test it, and then conclude that his theory is wrong.

that is like you telling me apples can not be red, and when I disagree, examining a shed load of oranges, concluding they are not red, and therefor saying apples can not be red also.

it is illogical, and that is where we staand wrt wakefiled's hypothesis.

I don't agree. In fact Andrew Wakefield received a positive and largely uncritical response from the media who gave undue weight to his ideas - until science caught up with him. There is nothing more science can to disprove Wakefield's work because his work is not science. I certainly would not want to see more time and money wasted. I don't believe in conspiracy theories but if there was one to divert vast amounts of money away from autistic children to undeserving people and causes, then this one has been a runaway success.

well, go on then, cyber, find me a study/case review/anythign you like AT ALL that even tests his hypothesis.

BEcause it can be tested. You identify the subgroup, and carry out his work. and then look at the results.

doesn't sound too difficult.

on what are you basing your assertion that his paper was "not science"?! it has been described as such (and a good examply of it too) by people more qualified than you or I to comment.

wakefield has certainly not received a positive press, either. the press ran immediately with assertions that mmr caused autism, that is was a dangerous jab, that he said people should not immunise etc etc.

he said nne of the above.

novicemama, further down the thread you were expressing your anger at those who didn't vaccinate thus causing your child to catch measles. And now you're saying you didn't vaccinate because of the hysteria in the press.

So on the one hand you are angry at non vaccinators, to the point you were talking about campaigning for non inclusion into schools for non vaccinators, and yet you are one of them.

As it happens you don't need to vaccinate as your child has already had measles.

Cyberseraphim I beg you - link to the paper of Wakefield's which you are saying is 'not science' (sorry, I'm a bit confused by what you mean by that - I understand that it is not popular science but it was peer reviewed and published in a respected medical journal and described as impeccable research by the editor of said medical journal).

I wholeheartedly agree that a lot of money has been wasted - much of it spent on the GMC trial. Many of the studies claiming to have tested Wakefield's hypothesis were funded by pharmaceutical companies so at least we can be cheered by the thought that it wasn't public money going to waste!

"He did go through the required ethical clearance. Do you know what is being used by the GMC to make the big scary statement of gross misconduct? They are nitpicking over details of diagnostic terms used to describe different ranges on the spectrum."

If you look at the protocol, he carried out the research procedures on children before it was approved by the Ethics Committee. That's pretty clear from reading the procedures that were carried out on these children and from the correspondence relating to them.

That is unethical.

But what would the point be ? Some mentioned the autism omnibus hearings in the us. Wakefield supporters claimed these extensive and exhaustive studies would vindicate Wakefield then when they did not they were dismissed as anti Wakefield propaganda ? There is nothing anyone can say.

Noblegiraffe my understanding is that the GMC wished to muddy the waters between the two different works which were being carried out. I also understand that Professor Walker Smith, as the country's leading paediatric gastroenterologist, had been granted blanket ethical approval anyway.

You may be talking about a different part of the GMC ruling to me but I understand the following;

The Royal Free was conducting two types of work at the same time - one was clinical, the other was for research purposes. For the clinical work they didn't need special ethical approval - the procedures were for diagnostic and treatment purposes not research purposes. The GMC is claiming that as the children did not have diseased bowels, the clinical work was not indicated and therefore must have been research. Wakefield, Murch, Walker Smith and the parents say that the children were sick and examination of their diseased guts was indicated for diagnostic and treatment purposes. Some of the children were examined before the ethical approval was gained because at that point there was no research taking place and no approval was required. The doctors were examining these very ill children in a standard way in order to find out what was wrong with them. When they discovered that a group of them had gut pathologies that had never been seen before, they applied to research those pathologies - the result of which was the Lancet paper. (Which at the time of peer review and publishing was considered to be a standard case series which met the usual and relevant ethical criteria).

The GMC ruling is based on the premise that the children were not ill and there were no clinically indicated examinations. The parents were denied the chance to have their say in court on the state of their children's health (unsurprisingly).

This is partly why a lot of people are angry about the GMC ruling - the claim that these children do not have diseased bowels is utterly fanciful and unscientific. It denies the very existence of these children. Shame on all those who participated in what basically amounted to telling the parents and children to kindly fuck off and stop being an inconvenience.