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!!

No probs TheJollyPirate.

Can you expand on the 'dodgy claims' you mention, I 'm interested but I don't understand what you are refering to. Cheers.

BTW the idea that Wakefield's finding have not been replicated in utterly false.

His findings have been replicated in several countries including Italy, USA, Venezuela and Japan.

Here is a link to the most recent study which replicates the findings on the Lancet paper.

The Krigsman study

Also what you say about the retraction by some of the authors of the paper is not quite right. None of them retracted the clinical findings. What was retracted (oddly) was the possibility that the Lancet report could be interpreted as implicating the MMR - an entirely different thing.

I will find a link to the comments AW made in the Telegraph (was in June 2002).

Krigsman is well known for making all kinds of claims and yet has never published any research in a proper academic peer reviewed journal.

Thoughtful House is also the centre which currently employs AW and pushes lots of dodgy so called cures for autism and some odd ideas with regard to nutrition, so forgive me for being dubious about any "research" coming out of there.

There was a similar study published in the Journal of Medical Virology in 2006 by Arfez et al. It looked for measles RNA in children with regressive autism after the MMR vaccination much like the previously unpublished Krigsman study. The study used tools so powerful they could detect measles RNA down to single figure copy numbers. It found NO evidence of the magic vaccine-strain measles RNA to implicate MMR. Perhaps because of that unfrightening result it was roundly ignored by the media.

I could go on - there are loads of proper academic and peer reviewed studies out there and not one single well conducted piece of research has replicated AW results. Sorry - am still not convinced. Krigsman is roundly regarded as a joke on the Bad Science forums which I also visit from time to time. He has made all kinds of claims without ever actually publishing anything properly. Good to see there is some published stuff and I'll go off and read it now. I am biased though because of the publishing route he has taken - perhaps he knows or suspects it wiould be ripped to shreds in a serious academic journal (or more likely declined).

Vaccination is a personal choice. I used MMR for my son - other parents (including one or two families I work with as a HV) have gone down the singles route as is their right. Hell I will even help them find the websites which will point them in the direction of various clinics. Doesn't mean I have to agree with them or the dodgy research that many people (drug companies included) are making good money from.

Sorry - that was a bit full on in my last post. I mean no disrespect to anyone here as you are all well read and argue your points well. Am just trying to say inarticulately that I am still not convinced.....

And a quick glance at the Krigsman link looks interesting but needs deeper reading.

.... and my comments on Krigsman relate to his claims regarding MMR rather than any other research.

Right - off soapbox and back to normal life...as you all were - will leave the thread now but good discussion - just what I like about MN.

AW made his claims in the Sunday Telegraph Magazine on 8th June 2002.

This from the Bad Science website.

"During 2002, things get really strange. In May, Wakefield ?exclusively reveals? that ?more than 95% of those who had the virus in their gut had MMR as their only documented exposure to measles.? But he doesn?t seem to reveal it in a peer-reviewed academic journal. It?s a tricky thing, to prove a negative, which is, after all, the key problem in the MMR disaster: but as far as I can tell he reveals this fact in a weekend colour supplement. Then in June he claims that O?Leary?s work showing some evidence of measles virus in another small sample of autistic children confirms his theory: O?Leary instantly released a statement saying it confirms nothing of the sort. People start popping up all over the place, claiming to have made some great finding, but never publish their research in proper, peer-reviewed, academic journals.

A pharmacist in Sunderland called Dr Paul Shattock was reported on the Today programme and in several national newspapers to have identified a distinct subgroup of children with autism resulting from MMR. He is very active on anti-immunisation websites. But he still doesn?t seem to have got round to publishing this important work, 18 months later, even after the Medical Research Council suggested he should ?publish his research and come forward to the MRC with positive proposals?.

Dr Arthur Krigsman, paediatric gastrointestinal consultant at New York school of medicine, who you will see on the Channel Five debate after the drama, has been telling hearings in Washington for years that he has made all kinds of interesting findings in the bowels of autistic children. I am told you will also see Evan Harris MP, a scientist by training, rightly interrupt to stop him presenting this unpublished research".

Just some of the reasons AW makes me a tad concerned. Not negating the other work he has done.

However, the British media scare me more.......

That's from an article by Goldacre - and it is full of factual errors like this for example;

"This much is true: Andrew Wakefield was a research scientist at the Royal Free who had previously published about 100 scientific papers when, in 1998, he published a paper showing that he had found traces of the measles virus in the guts of 12 children with autism."

That is utter twaddle and means either Goldacre hasn't actually read the Lancet paper or he is purposely grossly misrepresenting it. Goldacre often seems to get his facts wrong when it comes to Dr Wakefield. But then of course Goldacre as a psychiatrist and crony of Rutter has plenty of reasons for wanting to spread misinformation about Wakefield.

Evan Harris has links to the pharmaceutical lobby Sense About Science and was on the committee which awarded Goldacre a prize for writing an article about MMR which was full of factual errors. Harris's father was on the committee which recommended introducing Urabe strain MMR to the UK even though it was known to be unsafe and to have caused meningitis in children in Canada and Japan. The vaccine was later withdrawn in the UK but not before it damaged some children who then became part of the litigation that Dr Wakefield had been asked to work as an expert witness. (All very cosy)

Thoughtful House helps a lot of children with autism. For example they have been treating children with digestive enzymes in order to correct an impaired ability digest some proteins that many autistic children present. (Wakefield has been saying this for years - indeed he mentions it in the 1998 Lancet report).

The FDA is currently fast tracking a drug to do exactly the same thing - this is being hailed as a major discovery even though this treatment has been used for years. Oddly the people who have been using this sort of treatment for years have been mocked and ridiculed for doing so (a bit like you just did about Thoughtful House). This recently published study also confirms what Thoughtful House has been saying for years

The Afzal study you refer to does not replicate either the Wakefield/O'Leary work or Krigsman's work.

The Afzal study looked for the virus in red blood cells in 15 children. The children did not fit the profile of the subgroup identified by Wakefield et al in terms of gastroenterological symptoms. Even if they had examined children with the correct profile it was extremely unlikely that they were going to find measles RNA in the blood of these children years after their exposure. This study did not test Wakefield's hypothesis and therefore is irrelevant in terms of either confirming it or challenging it. (Although that doesn't seem to stop Goldacre from pretending that it does).

"This much is true: Andrew Wakefield was a research scientist at the Royal Free who had previously published about 100 scientific papers when, in 1998, he published a paper showing that he had found traces of the measles virus in the guts of 12 children with autism."

That is utter twaddle"

This is not twaddle, Beachcomber - it is true. Here is a link to the original paper. It was a study of 12 children, all of whom had "a pervasive developmental disorder".

briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-paper.htm

gosh how odd, a link showing that Brian Deer also misrepresents Wakefield. I am duly

I thought the first part of this column is interesting.

What is twaddle is that the 1998 Lancet paper either looked for, found or mentioned looking for and finding measles virus anywhere in any child.

That is just totally and utterly incorrect. It is very tedious that neither Goldacre not Deer seems to grasp the rather straightforward and relatively basic aim of the Lancet report. The report is not very long and isn't that difficult to read yet neither of them seem to have a clue what it was really about (despite seeming to have very strong opinions on it )

The Lancet paper was a case series which documented a certain type of bowel inflammation that was detected in a series of 12 children with pervasive development disorder. There is nowt, nada, sweet FA in it about detecting measles virus.

That some of the most vocal critics of the paper can't seem to understand what is was about is most concerning - unfortunately their errors are continually repeated by the public and a media which can't seem to tell its arse from its elbow.

"repeated bullshit media lies and deliberate misinformation"

There certainly were a lot of lies and bullshit when the media was bigging up Wakefield and ignoring the plethora of evidence that MMR is safe. Finally the media has by and large accepted that MMR is safe and effective.

It was a case series based upon a small number of children and AW should never have made the comments he did following such a small study. Hell we are going round in circles here aren't we........

Can we agree to differ?

...and I am pissed off that the media who lauded AW are now roundly condemning him given that it was their erroneous bullshit which largely caused problems.

Hang on, TJP, this is important.

Yes, the case study was based on a small number (12)

By the time the press conference was held/the paper was published/etc, Wakefield et al has seen similar issues in hundreds of other children.

Where do you draw the line then?

Personally, I think that even if the numbers had stayed tiny, if the result of the case study was that more info was needed to see whether it was possible to exclude future children form harm, then I think that research shouldhave been undertaken, even if the end result was then "mmr is safe for the majority (as Wakefield has always said) and you only need ot worry/investigate further if XYZ criteria are met"

You, however seem to believe that damage ot a small number of children is acceptable - that he should not have spoken out as there were "only" a few involved (although that is not actually the case, there were just a few presented in the case series).

Wakefield took the view (as do I) that any level of damage is unacceptable, if you are a) aware it is happening (as he was) and b) no one is doing anyhting to find out if it is preventable.

On that basis, he was right to speak as he did - after all, he recommended that everyone keep vaccinating, he said that mmr was safe for the majority, hell, he did everyhting he could bar ignore the problem he had found - which is what everyone wuld have preferred he did.

oh, and agree with Beachcomber re: your comments on THoughtful HOuse, and views on diets/nutrition and autism.

It is simply disgusting that anyone can attack him on this front.

Wakefield's work over the years (and that if his colleagues) has led to an increased understanding of the role of the gut in autism. His early work led to Leaky Gut theories, and that in turn led to GF/CF thoughts, and digestive enzymes etc.

I am a parent who has been ridiculed (in person, not just by somepone on the internet who clearly knows nothing about what they are talking about) for using dietary interventions with my dd.

I did notthink they were the Holy Grail when I embarked - I read a bit, thought it interesting and worth a go. I was not "peddled" any crap, or dodgy thinking, was ot asked to buy into a belief system, or anyother nonsense.

I tried it, and have never looked back.

dd1 has been helped so much it is untrue. yet I have had docotrs (who have themselves seen the change in dd1) telling me I am doing more harm in restricting her diet (which I take care to ensure is still well balanced) than I would be by letting her carry on damaging her gut.

I have been told I imagined the benefits (and they were pretty bloody easy to spot - when eating a "normal diet", dd1 stimmed constantly, was non-verbal, had disgusting rancid nappies, had no pain recognition, and was isolated inher own world. Post gluten and dairy free, (andI am talking within a fortnight) she had appropriate pain recognition, started talking, nappies cleared up, and most of all, wanted to interact with us. No doubt you will say it was a coincidence. I do not believe in that level of cooncidence.).

Now the dietary effects, and the digestive enzymes etc are all being hailed as new discoveries. They are not. THese theories (and the results) have been around for years, but have been ridiculed and tossed aside.

It is truly sickening, tbh.

silverfrog, Leonie.., Beachcomber et al, just wanted to say thank you for your well reasoned and passionate arguments.
It has made an interesting and informative read despite all the ignorant and venomous posts.
Good luck with your campaign, Leonie...

Nope - don't at all believe that any child is unimportant - least of all children who may have been damaged as the result of a vaccine. My point is that AW had not done enough research to make the claims he did or to say any vaccine was unsafe. You cannot (or at least should not) make any claims about medicine without the research there to support it. He didn't have that research. It needed much more study but sadly due to the way the whole thing has been handled this may not be done. If he had seen all these children then a bigger study with the right ethical approval was needed. Trouble is he saw these children and then made claims without the research to back it up. The media took it - ran with it and now nobody will touch it. Sad.

He made claims based on this case series and other children he saw - fine - so why not carry out that bigger piece of research? Why didn't he do that? Why make claims that a large percentage of these children have traces of vaccine related measles in their guts when nobody has ever been able to show or prove this? Why make the claim that these children need single vaccines while not declaring that he was involved with the production of such a vaccine himself? Why not disclose that he was being retained by lawyers in vaccine damge litigation.

I am up for being converted if the research is there. But I cannot see it is. As I said way back I don't at all negate the work and research AW did prior to all of this - I think it's sad we have lost an experienced gut specialist who could have contributed so much more.

Right, that's it.

I give up.

I am no longer willing to engagewith people who keep spouting the same old crap

TJP - have you actually read the LAncet paper, or only the headlines associated with it, and the spin form Goldacre, Deer et al?

HAve you read any of this thread, and the link provided which exlain why the majority of your last post is untriue?

FOR THE LAST TIME:

The LAncet paper made no claims re: measles traces anywhere.

The study was not unethical.

He was not invlved in developing a rival vaccine

He did not (under the rules at the time) need ot disclose anyhting

God, this could go on forever, especially as people actually seem to enjoy spreadign the lies.

Wakefield, having found a potentially very troubling issue with the mmr (and he wrote a huge report on the overall safety issues, not just the 1998 paper) said that he thought it should be investigated further.

That is it. That is all he said.

He also, in the interests of not having a vaccination blip, advised that people keep vaccinating.

He was in the process of carrying out further research himself - thatis how he had results form hundreds of children - whenhe was hounded out of his job.

The governements own review into the mmr concluded that there was not enough evidence of it's safety. That the safety trials done had not been exhaustive enough. That too was spun, though (hardly surprising)

There is noo "sadly due to the way this whole thing has been handled..." - what else should he have done? ignored his findings, and ignored the very real pain and distress those children were in (as most other doctors did)?

kept his findings quiet, and let more children be damaged?

there wasno other course for him but to report what he found. and call for further research.

It is NOT his fault that people were wound up to an hysterical level over things HE DID NOT EVER SAY IN THE FIRT PLACE.

He is notresponsible for what other people try to claim about him.

I'm inclined to think the GMC know what they're talking about.
Now go and have a lie down.

I'm inclined ot think they're spouting a load of bollocks, tbh.

And please don't patronise me, I get enough of that from professionals involved in dd1's care, who would rather ignore her interesting presentation, and leave it at the "oh yes, gut issues are usual in autism" stage, without actually ever tryign to help her at all.

oh, and aprt form hiding behind a dubious judgement form the GMC, do you actually have anyhting ot add to the discussion, or did you just pop in to patronise?

Yes silverfrog - I HAVE read the paper and a fair few others too.

As I said - going round and round in circles.......

TheJollyPirate (and no doubt others).

This is a complex subject about which much misinformation has been spread - I think it would be more conducive to a useful discussion if we can all try to back up and check out our 'facts'.

For instance, I see the supposed 'rival vaccine' thing has come up again. This is utterly completely totally untrue. There was no rival vaccine. Wakefield placed a patent in the name of the Royal Free for a 'transfer factor'. Transfer factors are sometimes referred to as vaccines even though they do not work in a preventative fashion. Wakefield's transfer factor was intended as a potential treatment for clearing persistent measles virus replication in children who failed to clear the virus of their own accord after vaccination. In no way shape or form could it have been used as a rival vaccine to MMR. Brain Deer is again responsible for spreading this nonsense - he knows perfectly well that this is untrue.

Anyway even if a lone doctor did come up with a potential 'rival' vaccine it is the stuff of (not very good) films to think that he would be able to compete with large pharmaceutical companies which have long term and solid contracts with governments. Use a bit of common sense folks.

Wakefield did do a bigger study looking at larger numbers of children. Things got a bit difficult for him though because his funding was pulled and he was asked to leave the Royal Free because his work was 'not compatible'.

As for the litigation - first it was clearly known to the Lancet that wakefield was involved in it. The money paid in Legal Aid was destined for a completely different study to the Lancet study (a study that has not been published as the litigation came to an end when its funding was pulled). I don't understand why people even bring it up when talking about the Lancet paper. It is entirely usual and proper for doctors to act as experts for legal teams. If Wakefield had used Legal Aid Board money to fund the Lancet study and then not declared it that would have been a problem - but that is not what happened.

The children in the Lancet study were treated by the NHS. They were treated by the NHS because the presented clinical cases that needed standard gastroenterological examination. The GMC wishes to present the Lancet study as research and not as clinical. You do not need ethical approval to do clinical work. The GMC by claiming this is research and not clinical is by and large claiming that the children were not ill in the first place.

There's more on this but I don't have time now - I can post an article writing by a journalist who sat in on the trial and interviewed the parents later when I have time.

well, TJP, since oyu HAVE read the paper, why do you persist in spreading lies about it?

you clearly quote form Goldacre, who said that Wakefield said he found measles in the guts of the LAncet 12.

The LAncet paper did not ever look for that.

again, I ask, why spread this misinformation?

Despite funding difficulties, other studies were done.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11950955

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10759242

Also Dr Singh did some very interesting work looking at abnormal measles antibodies in children with autism.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12849883

measles-mumps-rubella antibodies and CNS autoimmunity in children with autism

No - we are going round in circles. Bye. Am not spreading lies - spreading my opinion that's all which I am just as entitled to as you. AW made claims based upon that study and his observations of other children - some of his claims were maverick like tbh.

He wasn't struck off for his opinion but because of the way the study was carried out which went against all ethical guidelines for research. Simples. A shame but there it is.

Bye - am really off to hide this thread now.