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!!

George's identity has since been revealed but I don't know if that is because he willingly outed himself in order to be able to actually sleep at night.

The Crohn's connection is very interesting - that is some heavy medical history your family has.

Just wanted to correct something I said earlier which is wrong.
I said that the Royal Free Team applied for ethical approval for the Lancet paper when in fact the ethical approval was for the research work they had been commissioned to do for the law firm which was representing the children in the UK litigation (some of whom were the Lancet 12).

The Lancet paper was a straightforward case series in which they just presented a series of clinical and lab findings. The point of the paper was to document the findings in a group of children who presented similar symptoms and when examined were shown to have a novel type of previously unseen gut inflammation. No doubt they needed some sort of approval in order to publish what is effectively a section of a child's medical records.

I think this sort of detail is important to get right so sorry I mislead there.

Anyway the point is that the people who say that we can disregard Wakefield's work on the grounds that he flouted standard ethical practice cannot be talking about the Lancet paper. So which paper are they talking about? It would be helpful to me if one of you could link to the paper you are disregarding on ethical grounds because AFAIK the litigation study wasn't published. Are you talking about another paper of Wakefield's (he has published a lot)?

The Lancet paper has never been scientifically challenged and the ethical ruling of the GMC is irrelevant to it.

I suspect that no-one is going to link to the Lancet paper so here it is. I would be very interested in hearing on what basis this work can be considered invalid because I cannot for the life of me figure out what that might be. (The government and pharma not liking the paper's findings and the lead author seems a pretty shaky reason for turning our backs on important scientific discoveries).

Fact is the Lancet paper has not been faulted on any grounds - and yet it has been censored. Wakefield's ground breaking primate study has also been censored. For anyone who believes in scientific integrity and ethics (ironically) this should be ringing huge loud alarm bells.

I am sickened to think that I am a citizen of a country which censors and erases inconvenient science from public record. The science may have been hidden away but the children whose suffering it documents are still there. And that is why this issue just will not go away - and nor should it.

bubbleymummy the advice from my doctor was that even though my DD had had measles, she should still have the MMR so that's what we did. No ill effects.

Absolutely Beachcomber,, people say 'oh he falsified his results". What results? His initial paper said he could not prove a link. So what is supposed to have unethically falsified. He suggested a link for a small subset. Later, work done by Dr Simon Mirsh supported his theory. And then professor John O'Leary of tcd in dublin was the one who came up with the 'proof', (finding the measles virus in the gut of children with autism who'd had the mmr) so HOW COME Dr Andrew Wakefield has been struck off and the other doctors have been 'tarnished'.

there is something huge going on here beachcomber, you are so right "inconvenience science" is being erased and the scientists slapped. That sends out a clear message doesn't i. Who would dare corroborate Dr Wakefield's study? who would risk their career? NOBODY will now.

NOt tarnished i mean.

Thank you novicemama. I just find it a bit strange really. Why is it necessary to vaccinate against a disease that you have natural lifelong immunity to with a vaccine that wears off? Also, would that not be considered unethical in the context of unnecessary treatment?

bubbleymummy I was told that even though she had had measles, she should still have the combined vaccine and it would have no ill effects. As has been discussed at length here, singles are hard to come by and I have no problem with the MMR so saw no difficulty in giving it to her on the advice of my doctor. I did check, because I assumed she wouldn't need it and wondered if I would then have trouble getting singles. But tbh it was a relief to know she could still have the MMR and get the best coverage available.

I find the whole thing deeply ironic. I think the MMR-Wakefield-autism story is a convenient way of sidetracking broader MMR safety issues. For many people the discrediting of Andrew Wakefield somehow makes the MMR safe, but for me there remain all sorts of questionmarks over the processes and issues surrounding the MMR which have been conveniently swept to one side.

The comments that Wakefield acted 'dishonestly and irresponsibly' could so easily be applied to some of the dodgy conduct within the pharma industry (See House of Commons 2005 report on the Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry 2005 for criticisms of practices).

If I recall correctly, the Cochrane MMR review indicated that the quality of research on the MMR was shoddy. Competing interests aside, there were all sorts of failures and ommissions including logging basic data e.g. lots/strains used, failure to follow up patients..and that was amongst the 31 studies deemed suitable for inclusion out of 139 studies.

I think you are probably right fascicle there is more at stake here than what Wakefield has brought to notice.

Dr Wakefield wrote a 250 page report on the MMR safety information - this report was the basis for his recommendation to the return of single measles vaccine.

I have never been able to find an online copy of it so if anyone here knows anything about it I would be very interested.

I watched the Mercola interview and the Golding film last night - both very interesting.

Of course now that the hearing is finished Wakefield is free to speak out and speak out he will. Now he has most of the relevant documents too thanks to the hearing.

At teh styart of this there is a post about there being a proven no link with Wakefield's research

If someone could please link a paper disproving a link in the specific subset (not generic population stuff) he was attempting to study I would be most grateful.

TIA

We've all been asking for that, Sancti, all the way through the thread (and on theother one inIn The NEws...)

It would appear that nobody wants to share the link

Really? Quelle surprise.

I can't find it on my post grad Uni research database either- shall I email them to ask if they are part of a cover up?

Or could it be that the research just does not exist

And fwiw my older 3 had MMR and ds4 has had singles so I am not anti vaccine; I am however extremely pro correct information and proper research

The theory of a sub set though is just another invention though - added on as a despearate attempt to shore up the original part of the story line. I don't
t know any papers which disprove a link between a subset of children wearing polka dot socks when they were immunised. I don't know where I would even look for such a paper.

oh, ffs, cyber, don't talk nonsense.

It was NOT added onas an afterthought - are you seriously proposing that all ASD children are the same, with the same issues, having arrived at autism via the same route (and presumably affected to the same degree)

that is the most laughably pathetic attempt to "discredit" wakefield I've ever read - and I've read a few...

if you don't know where to look, start searching.

no-oneposted all the research to me, I had to readup andfollow links.

If you're now sayng you can't provide a link because you haven't read any papers, then why haven't you been reading any of the stuff that's been linked to? (and I don't mean by Beach and leonie, I mean all the links - go search the vax topic, there are whole threads of links apparently rubbishing the claims)

I phone went a bit funny - could be pro vaccine agents tapping the line, who knows. Sorry to be so blunt. Just my opinion but there is little point in raising the issue of the 'sub group' as though it were some sort of clincher when quite obviously it is not.

Who can 'prove' this sub group exists ? Adding nonsense to nonsense does not mean that sense comes out the other end. Saying ASD children are different or that the sky is blue does not change the fact that there is no sub group and reading an article by Mickey Mouse in the Ruritanian Times will not change that,

oh, and sancti - dh & I are blocked form sending emails to the bbc, as we kept asking why they weren't reporting on Hannah Poling case (couldn't find metion of it anywhere on BBC last year - haven't checked recently.), thena sked why they kept mis-reporting the wakefield stuff at the beginning of the year, etc

got irate at the news the other night too (it always seems to be smug Huw Edwards who reports it) and tried again, and emails were returned

That's not true cyber

a subset is any group of children that share a group of characteristics

and some kids with ASD do have bowel issues

so they exist as a subset

Autism only consists opf subsets; tehre is no one sutism, it is a set of syndromes presenting with a nspecifric batch of symptoms, usually now referred toa cadmemcially as austisms. We think (but it's stille early on) that there is a subset where genetics are the primary cause rather than just creating a tendency, some where acquired brain damage is the real root; there are children we know of already with mitochondrial damage and ASD as a secondary to downs syndrome, or retts.

Those who know the most about this (I specifically refer to my former prof of austim at Uni, although he is now retired) beleive that in teh next decade we will start to separate these into disoreders and ASD will become less and less used as a standalone dx, however I am not so certain as I think with the cuts in provision that are alsmot inevitable there will be a move toeards focus at the expense of aetiology (I can already see it happening- my accidental specialism of cares and aprenting support for ASD seems far more trendy atm- and of course cheaper).

I don't have strong opinions on Wakefield or the MMR tbh, I haven't studied it in depth as a case. But I have studied the research in depth and the gaps are glaring.

have you read the original paper, cyber?

because until you have, it really is notworth continuing this discussion with you.