Video of Dr Wakefield speaking at the annual meeting of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. This story IS going to come out.

[Beachcomber]

Video of Dr Wakefield speaking at the annual meeting of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. The story is coming out in the US.

Issues that come up of particular note;

The UK government's decision to use Urabe strain MMR despite information showing it to be unsafe.

Information showing Deer's BMJ articles to be defamation.

Info on how the single mumps Urabe vaccine did not cause meningitis in the way the Urabe MMR did - clear evidence of viral interference in combined live vaccines. Posing a serious question over the safety of the MMR vaccines.

How Professor Walker Smith alerted the government to the work at the Royal Free and the potential problem with the MMR in 1996.

How Dr Wakefield wrote a 250 page report on the inadequate safety data on the MMR, to highlight the problem and argue the case for single vaccines.

A copy of the ethics committe approval for the Lancet case report.

Beachcomber- honestly you do your cause no favours by posting emotive tragic stories. Of course awful things have happened. Nobody is denying that. Nobody is saying that children aren't ill and suffering, but this is not about individual anecdote. It's about examining the data in a proper cold dispassionate manner and drawing proper conclusions from it.

I am concerned, Beachcomber, but I don't know enough to actually debate it. I am in agreement with everything you have said, though.

It is a disgrace that the Urabe strain vaccine was shunted through. That parents were lied to. That we were forced to choose MMR or no vaccine at all and then accused of endangering our children if we didn't choose MMR. If there had been the alternative singles many, many children would have had those instead of no vaccine at all.

I refused MMR. From the little I knew of the development of the immune system, it seemed ridiculous to me to have it at the early age they called us in for it - 13 months then. The age was drastically reduced after, and reduced again and again until it was being given to babies.

When I was at Uni, we were told that MMR was given at 24-30 months and that was why it was linked to autism: language delay was not generally picked up until that age and so the correlation was only that, a correlation.

Instead of doing the sensible thing, giving the MMR at a later age, say 36m or later, the age was reduced. Was that in order to decrease the correlation with lang. delay? Make it less clear?

I was working with autistic children at the time. Some parents dated their child's regression from the time of MMR. Having had a child myself now I know that at 18m you know that your child is 'on track'. By 24m you will know for certain whether your child makes eye contact, plays, etc. You will know for certain whether your child spends a disproportionate part of his/her day rocking or otherwise 'stimming', or not. You will know whether your child habitually has diarrhea 12 times a day, is doubled up in pain and so on.

Administering the MMR at an earlier and earlier stage of development seems to me to be simply to ensure that any adverse behavioral effects cannot be attributed specifically to it.

I am not, sadly, remotely surprised by anything Wakefield has said.

Even more sadly, I have allowed dd to have the HPV vacc. I didn't know that it could contain recombinant DNA, and have no idea what effect that may have middle or long term. (I am panicking a bit because I have ms and so am already worried about her long term health prospects.)

erm, yes, seeker. people are saying the children are not ill.

Brian Deer says it. it is the crux of his argument.

it is taken as true, because a journalist has decided it is true.

when shown pictures of children with the same issues as Josh, Brian Deer stated 'that is not bowel disease. that child is not ill'

it is important to link to these stories, because I don't htink people realise what is being talked about when 'bowel disease' is mentioned.

after all, everyone has had a toddler with diarrhoea at some stage; everyone has had a ufssy eater; everyone has had to deal with shitty nappies.

but this is on a different scale - this is serious illness. and it is denied - by someone who is clearly not in any way qualified to say anything on the subject, and yet he is listened to and believed.

I was just trying to preempt the debate stifling comments like "if you don't support Wakefield you cal calling the parents of ill children liars".

how about entering into the debate instead, seeker? might be quite interesting.

do you have any comment at all about the points BEach has made? or are you going to continue to ignore those points (as you always do) and instead try to debate tangential subjects? (as you always do)

The Honda paper is one of the best epidemiological studies to show a relationship between ASD and vaccination. It is particularly persuavive because it demonstrates the effects of rechallenge.

MMR was introduced to Japan in 1988 - incidence of ASD for children born in 1990 quadrupled.

ASD rates fell as MMR use fell due to loss of public confidence in the Urabe strain and its link to meningitis.

MMR use was discontinued in 1993. As we see from the document I linked to earlier, in 1994 rubella was introduced to the schedule for both male and female infants. Measles was also given and mumps was highly recommended. ASD incidence rose again.

Re-challenge is considered strong evidence of causation.

It is very difficult to enter a debate where "so you're saying these parents are lying" is the response to any challenge.

To agree with the GMC and with Brian Deer is to support the notion that children like Josh do not suffer from GI disease. It is to support the notion that GI investiagtion in these children was not clinically indicated.

Own it.

See?

Oh Jux I know you care and silverfrog and others care. I didn't mean people like you - sorry for any misunderstanding!

But seeker those are the claims made by Deer and the GMC.

If you agree with the GMC that Wakefield and Walker Smith deserved to be struck off, you support the notion that these children did not warrant GI investigation.

I'm sorry if that simple fact is distasteful to you. Perhaps you should find out a bit more about what you are actually supporting if it bothers you that much.

You want me to say "Because I think that Wakefield's research was lamentably poor, he has deep and concerning conflicts of interest and he associates with very worrying people, and because i I think the press made a complete shambles of the reporting of the lamentably poor research, I think that all the parents involved who say that their children have bowel disease are lying"

Well, no, I'm not going to say that.

Did people miss the bit where Dr Wakefield mentions that these children's GI suffering has been neglected due to the 'politics' of this issue (ie a vaccine may be implicated).

This is backed up by parent stories of how hard it is to get treatment in the UK. Children have had to go to the US to get the treatment they need.

Supporting the smear campaign against Dr Wakefield et al is to support the above.

Of course most people do this unknowingly. The damage done is the same though.

Seeker I'm sorry if Josh's story is offensive to you - but as silverfrog says this whole controversy is not a debate. It is real harm being done to real people and that harm being denied, covered up and left untreated.

Not quite so much fun as debating Wakefield the mad doctor who experients on children, I know. How annoying of the truth of these sick children to get in the way of a good old ruck on MN, eh?

it would be helpful if you wuld say what you are saying, then seeker.

because I think Beach's position on this is very clearly set out here (and I agree with her)

it is all very well for you to say "I am not saying htose parents are lying; I am not saying those children are not ill'

but when you couple that with saying (or implying - I am not going to search your posts, but you are very defintiely in support, in general of what Deer and the GMC say) that Deer and the GMC are right - well, that is fence sitting I am afraid.

come out and state your position.

saying "I do not know" is fair enough. it is a position. but you cannot sit in the middle as you are doing.

I do not know that Wakefield is right. I do know that Deer has made up an awful lot of the tripe he prints as 'facts'. I do know that some of what Wakefiled says seems to make sense (from a GI point of view).

I also know that Deer, Godlee and the BMJ have openly stated they care not for the ethical code which binds them and their professions.

I know that regression inot autism is possible and that is does not 'coincide chronoligically speaking with the age that vaccines are given'

I know that children can react very badly to vaccines, and that it is denied most of the time.

I know what GI issues look like (and my daughter's are nowhere near as bad as they could be) and I know how they are ignored, even by the most well meaning of people (and I woudl not put Deer into that category if my life depended on it)

but once again, you are going to pop up periodically on the thread, making little jibes and asides, and not actually engage with the subject.

because to do so would mean you would have to come out and state your position.

if you do not know what your position is, then say so. and stop with the digs.

Digs? Where?

I believe that Wakefield was a bad researcher who carried out bad research which did not prove any link between MMR and autism. I also believe that his interpretation of medical ethics was- loose.

I believe that Wakefield had many conflicts of interest which he did not declare.

I believe that the people Wakefield now associates with a deeply problematic.

I believe that there are children with very serious and distressing and serious bowel disease.

I believe that there are children who suffer regressive autism.

I believe believe that some children react badly to vaccines.

I believe that there is no established link between either bowel disease or regressive autism and the MMR or any other vaccine.

I believe that there are parents who are deeply and sincerely convinced that their child was damaged by the MMR vaccine, but I also believe that anecdote is not evidence, and correlation and causation are very different things.

But seeker where did you get the information from about the poor research, the conflicts of interest?

They originate with Brian Deer.

Wakefield says they are not true. He has documented evidence of that. He has witnesses who attest to those facts.

His research is relieving suffering in children with autism and sometimes helping them regain lost skills.

What has Brian Deer done to help these children? Lied about them, sneered at them and destroyed the reputation of the medical team who were diagnosing and treating them. Good work Brian!

I'm afraid there are no two ways about this. The cognitive dissonace is astounding.

Either Deer and the GMC are right and the children are not sick with GI issues or Wakefield and Walker Smith are right and these are very sick children who need and have a right to treatment.

There are no other options I'm afraid.

To think Wakefield is wrong but the children have GI disease is to hold two conflciting opinions. It is to either be ignorant of or to ignore reality.

yes, seeker, digs. about tinfoil hats, and conspiracy theories (not on this thread - yet - but you come around to them eventually).

so, you belive that the parents who believe their children regressed post mmr are mistaken (to take one of your points to it's logical conclusion).

is that because the vaccine was given at 'the time autism presents' (as you have said before now) - whether the child that regressed was 12 months, 18 months, 24 motnhs, or 4 years old? same 'time of presentation' in all those cases?

oh, and thank you (sincerely meant) for stating your position. it is easier to see where someoen is coming from when they do so.

Don't think I have used the tinfoil hat line on MMR threads, have I? I think that was someone else- can't remember who. I reserve it for people who won't leave their children alone for a micro-second because "something" might happen.

And there are anti vaccination people ( present company I am sure excepted) who subscribe to a range of conspiracy theories- often the site that campaigners link to include some very strange beliefs. Sadly there are paole who jump on any passing bandwagon. Once again, spent company excepted.

"To think Wakefield is wrong but the children have GI disease is to hold two conflciting opinions. "

Is there a reason why I can't believe that Wakefield was fine to do his research, but that he should have done it in an ethical way?

Also, I can't believe I still keep following Beachcomber's links, every time I think, ooh, that sounds interesting, and am disappointed.

Beachcomber:"The Honda paper is one of the best epidemiological studies to show a relationship between ASD and vaccination"

Really?! that sounds interesting, I have never seen a paper to link the two before.

"No effect of MMR withdrawal on the incidence of autism: a total population study"

Oh. OK. But maybe....

"RESULTS: The MMR vaccination rate in the city of Yokohama declined significantly in the birth cohorts of years 1988 through 1992, and not a single vaccination was administered in 1993 or thereafter. In contrast, cumulative incidence of ASD up to age seven increased significantly in the birth cohorts of years 1988 through 1996 and most notably rose dramatically beginning with the birth cohort of 1993."

Oh.

"CONCLUSIONS: The significance of this finding is that MMR vaccination is most unlikely to be a main cause of ASD, that it cannot explain the rise over time in the incidence of ASD, and that withdrawal of MMR in countries where it is still being used cannot be expected to lead to a reduction in the incidence of ASD."

Oh well.

Boulevard the Honda paper is infamous in this controversy.

Don't fall into the common trap of only reading the abstract or the conclusion. Or accepting the authors' interpretation without checking out the data.

The data from the Honda paper does not support the conclusion. The Honda paper shows clear correlation in ASD incidence and vaccination rates in Japan. And is shows a rechallenge gradient which is one of the strongest types of evidence which exists in science.

The title of the paper is not incorrect - the data however shows that MMR is not the only vaccine associated with ASD. Single M, M and R vaccines given in close temporal association produce the same or similar effects to the combined vaccine given as one shot.

People who argue the case for epidemiological evidence of an ASD/vaccine link, use the Honda paper data as extremely strong evidence (even though it was not intended for that purpose - the data is the data).

Did you read all of what I posted earlier about the paper? If you can argue that that interpretation is flawed I'm willing to listen.

Beachcomber Mon 23-Jan-12 10:41:28
The Honda paper is one of the best epidemiological studies to show a relationship between ASD and vaccination. It is particularly persuavive because it demonstrates the effects of rechallenge.

MMR was introduced to Japan in 1988 - incidence of ASD for children born in 1990 quadrupled.

ASD rates fell as MMR use fell due to loss of public confidence in the Urabe strain and its link to meningitis.

MMR use was discontinued in 1993. But measles, mumps and rubella vaccination was not discontinued. As we see from the document I linked to earlier, in 1994 rubella was introduced to the schedule for both male and female infants. Measles was also given and mumps was highly recommended. ASD incidence rose again.

Re-challenge is considered strong evidence of causation.

Boulevard I don't think you are grasping the details of the 'unethical' accusation (which originates with Brian Deer).

If you think Wakefield et al's research is unethical, you must think the children were not sick. Because that is the basis upon which the 'unethical' accusation is made.

The Lancet children were referred to the Royal Free gastroenterology department because they had GI issues (bad ones). They were referred to Professor Walker Smith and his clinical team. Walker Smith is an eminent and respected expert in paediatirc gastroenterology (the best there is in the UK if not Europe).

Dr Wakefield was not part of this clinical team - he held a research position at the Royal Free.

Walker Smith prescribed investigative procedures - standard procedures used to diagnose and treat GI disease. The procedures were clinically indicated due to the symptoms and distress the children presented.

The Royal Free team applied for research approval (which they obtained) and parental permission (which they obtained) in order to take two extra biopsy samples from the clinically indicated biopsies, for research purposes.

Dr Wakefield shows a slide of these two documents in the talk I link to in the OP.

The GMC and Brian Deer now claim that the clinical investigative procedures where not indicated. They claim this renders the research unethical because the biopsies should never have deen done in the first place. They discount the documented evidence of the ethical approval given for the Lancet paper. They say it doesn't count because the procedures were not clinically indicated in their opinion. They say that Dr Wakefield caused children to have unnecesary procedures inflicted on them.

In other words they claim that the Lancet 12 did not present with GI symptoms which warranted investigation and treatment. Ergo the Lancet 12 were not sick. Children like Josh are not sick.

Now, that is sick.

So this is why the British public need to examine the facts and their consciences and decide beside whom they wish to stand. The GMC and Brian Deer who wish treatment to be withheld from these children. Or Professor Walker Smith and Dr Wakefield who wish to treat these children.

There is no middle ground as the facts stand today.

The Honda study looked at children born in Yokohama between 1988 and 1993.

MMR was withdrawn due to a concern about meningitis in 1993. Before wit drawl, there were 48-86 cases of diagnosed autism per 10,000 children. After withdrawal, 97-161 per 10,000 children.

So the rates continue to rise. Something is causing it- but in the children in this study it's not MMR.

"If you think Wakefield et al's research is unethical, you must think the children were not sick"

I just think maybe he shouldn't be taking blood samples at birthday parties? It took three people to hold DD down last time she had one done... I'm pretty sure she'd have preferred Pass The Parcel TBH.
And the vaccine patent COI has been done to death on here, I'm aware that you don't think it's a COI.

Was the 2002 research on Royal Free patients as well? (Or was it the same patients as the original 1998 research?)