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.

Correct seeker.

The Honda paper stops right there.

In a bizarre lack of intellectual curiousity, the Honda paper fails to note the correlating rises and falls in ASD rates with MMR use and the use of single vaccines (sometimes given on the same day, sometimes up to four weeks apart which is not enough to prevent viral interference).

We know that children who have measles infection and mumps infection within the same year have a significantly higher risk of inflammatory bowel disease.

The early MMR trials show clear evidence of viral interference - the immune system response to one virus is altered when another is added. They also showed evidence of GI disturbances in test participants.

The use of mumps, measles and rubella single vaccines in close temporal relationship has never been tested for safety. (I believe the rubella element as never actually been tested for safety in boys - it was orginally designed and tested for use in girls and women. It has been incorporated into the MMR and the vaccine schedule as a single for male infants without further clinical trials.)

"We know that children who have measles infection and mumps infection within the same year have a significantly higher risk of inflammatory bowel disease. "

Do we?

Thank you for posting this.

Did the Honda paper actually discuss whether single vaccines were given?

Boulevard, do you really think that Wakefield (and his henchmen) were holding children down at the birthday party, and forcing them to give blood?

I am sorry your dd finds it traumatic to give blood. my dd1 does too (mostly because she doesn't understand), but dd2 does not blink. I would not have blinked, as a child, if I was asked for a blood sample - it really means nothing to me. and dd2 seems similar - matter of fact and just 'one of those things'

don't imply hysteria where there was none - the childrn were asked if they would give a sample. they did so, of their own free will. I assume they would not volunteer for somehting which would leave them hysterical

Do you mean the Uhlmann paper when you refer to the 2002 research?

The ethical approval of the 2002 research has never been under question. The GMC dealt only with the Lancet paper AFAIK.

The paper is published citing the Royal Free as the research hospital. The lab work was outsourced to Dr O'Leary in Ireland.

But even if the children were consenting and quite happy to do it, do you really think that it was appropriate to collect blood samples at a birthday party? Really? it was a massive error of judgement- surely? Why not just admit thwt it was a screw up and we can move on?

seeker, why the 'even if the children were consenting...'

why not accept that thy were? why the continued need to shoehorn in the doubt?

Sorry. Bad drafting. I accept the children were consenting and happy to give blood. The rest of my post still stands.

ok.

to answer, no I don't think it was a 'massive error of judgement'

it was probably unwise.

but then, the charge relating to the blood samples was about the jokes he made at a conference afterwards (which no one took seriously), not about the taking of blood outside a clinical setting.

I have given blood, more than once, outside a clinical setting. it really is not a huge deal (especially when you add in that the children were relaxed and happy to do so, consent was obtained, yadda yadda)]

Wakefield has himself said it was unwise.

overall, it is another smokescreen - somehting for people to over (he did what? at a birthday party?! what a monster!) rather than actually debate the real issue - the dodgy mmr jab (talking urabe strain here), the ill children, the stuff he was trying to get, if not to the bottom of, at least a slightly clearer picture on.

Interested to see how people would react if Ben Goldacre had taken blood samples from children at a birthday party!

And the conflict of interest around the vaccine patent application?

....has been discussed.

what does Ben Goldacre have to do with it?

Has it? Only as far as I know by people saying "no that isn't a conflict of interest"!

I only mentioned Ben Goldacre in passing because everything he says about MMR is frequently discounted because of a supposed conflict of interest. While Wakefield is allowed to have as many CofI as he likes.....

Silvfrog, I don't know what you what me to say. I think that Wakefiled's research is flawed and has never been replicated. I have said this lots of timesYou think it is rock solid and has been replicated several times. You have said that lots of times.

Did the Honda paper actually discuss whether single vaccines were given?

nope, but I asked him and he said that very few children would have gotten all three shots, let alone in one day.

"We know that children who have measles infection and mumps infection within the same year have a significantly higher risk of inflammatory bowel disease."

Do we?

Yes we do. It was one of the areas that Dr Wakefield had been working in before he had even heard of any of the Lancet children. He was researching viral links with Crohn's disease and viral interference/atypical viral exposure and links with inflammatory bowel disease. Other researchers have done similar work in the same field - he was familiar with their work for his own research.

Which is why the Lancet children's medical history of atypical viral exposure temporaly associated with gut inflammation spoke to him. It was his field of work. He didn't just pop up out of nowhere. He was a highly respected academic gastroenterologist. He was awarded a Fellowship of the Royal College of Pathologists for his work in gastroenterology research. Previously he had been awarded a Fellowship to study intestinal transplatation in Canada. He had been persuing a pretty brilliant career up until he stumbled upon a potential problem with a vaccine.

www.ima.org.il/imaj/ar99nov11.pdf

Sorry I can't seem to copy and paste the relevent paragraphs from the paper, you will just have to read the whole thing. (The bit I refer to is at the bottom of page 4 and top of page 5 of the pdf. It is better to read the whole thing in order to get the context. It isn't very long.)

Seeker are you not able to find the papers replicating Dr Wakefield's findings?

Here you go.

[[http://www.google.fr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=krigsman+autism+inflammatory+pdf&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CEMQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.la-press.com%2Fredirect_file.php%3FfileId%3D2540%26filename%3D1816-AUI-Clinical-Presentation-and-Histologic-Findings-at-Ileocolonoscopy-in-Ch.pdf%26fileType%3Dpdf&ei=l3cdT9jLFYmbOoj5kZoL&usg=AFQjCNFQhRH8APVbUVNKajSFjzAU418sCQ&cad=rja Clinical Presentation and Histologic Findings
at Ileocolonoscopy in Children with Autistic Spectrum
Disorder and Chronic Gastrointestinal Symptoms]]

Gastrointestinal Pathology in Autism: Description and Treatment

GASTROINTESTINAL PATHOLOGY IN AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDERS:THE VENEZUELAN EXPERIENCE

And a bit of extra reading;

Dr Wakefield's comments on the Lancet paper controversy published in The Autism File - a magazine for the parents of children with autism

Comments from the editor of The Autism File over the threats she received if they published anything written by Dr Wakefield

An interesting snippet from Dr Wakefield's commentary on the Lancet paper;

Child *PH?s story, as originally told by his mother, did
not cite MMR as the culprit. Eighteen months of
normal development was followed by regression, giving rise
to what several doctors labeled ?secondary autism.? Loss
of developmental milestones was accompanied by loss of
coordination (he could no longer throw and catch a ball), his
gait became, ?awkward and stiff like an old man,? and he could
no longer go from sitting to standing unaided. He lost the
twenty words that he had gained and developed secondary
fecal incontinence. At eighteen months of age, severe
episodes of abdominal pain started that were associated with
screaming and drawing his knees to his chest. He developed
a pattern of chronic loose bowel motions with undigested
food from two years of age. He went from the 97th centile
for weight at 1 year of age to the 50th by age 2. His diet went
from being varied to very restricted, consisting of refined
carbohydrates and at least ten 200ml cartons of orangeflavored
drink per day.
What Child PH?s mother did not tell us in 1996 was that,
contemporaneously, she too had linked her son?s problems
to MMR vaccine. Our description of this child in The Lancet
faithfully reiterated the onset of symptoms following an
episode of otitis media as his mother had reported but made
no mention of the MMR. The reason for this discordance in the
narrative provides a valuable lesson: the reaction of successive
doctors to the suggestion that MMR might have been involved
ranged from patronizingly dismissive to outright hostile.
Mentioning the vaccine was beginning to negatively impact
their ability to get help for their son. By the time they came
to the Royal Free Hospital, the father had urged his wife not
to mention the MMR again in order to avoid discrimination by
doctors who considered her to be crazy.
So it was that a potentially important element of the clinical
history in this child had been corrupted by the arrogance of
those who ?knew better.?

Goldacre thinks Wakefield is essentially irrelevant in the MMR discussions - he says (at least when he spoke here) it is all a media-made controversy.

Clinical Presentation and Histologic Findings at Ileocolonoscopy in Children with Autistic Spectrum Disorder and Chronic Gastrointestinal Symptoms

That is not independent verification - among the authors are Stott and Krigsman.

Gastrointestinal Pathology in Autism: Description and Treatment

Same - Krigsman in "Medical Veritas", the non peer reviewed journal of the AAPS.

GASTROINTESTINAL PATHOLOGY IN AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDERS:THE VENEZUELAN EXPERIENCE

Lenny Gonzales, funded by the Thoughtful House.

Does not count.

Beachcomber- all your links are to articles connected with Thoughtful House. Which is connected (intimately) with Wakefield.

Got distracted by RL... was just googling to try and find the full length Honda paper. I assume you got your commentary on it from this page?

I see while criticising Honda et al for not addressing why ASD rates rose 1993-4, they've failed to address why ASD rates fell in the 1994-5 birth cohort when the vaccination rate stayed exactly the same (according to the graph with the blue line marked on it below)... To me, the ASD graph just looks like a general upward trend you often see on biology graphs, including wobbles.

Oh, I see the IoP/Ben Goldacre stuff there too. OK.

Look, you've clearly made up your mind about this, which is obviously your right to do so, and I'm not going to try and change your beliefs.

But could I just try to convince you that there are people out there, with no particular axe to grind, that have assessed the evidence and come to the opposite conclusion from you? Not trying to smear Wakefield, not trying to tell sick kids they aren't sick... just saying that every study done so far has failed to show any MMR/autism link. And it might even be that the link is there - it's just happening in such a tiny number of cases that it can't be picked up as a trend.

OK fine you ask for studies and papers and information and then say that it doesn't count. Have you read them - can you cite evidence which proves those papers to be wrong or fraudulent?

The papers I link to say that these children have bowel disease. They have been authored by people other than Dr Wakefield. It is of no big surprise that the authors have links with Thoughtful House - they are a group of scientists who have, so far, not been deterred by the example that has been made of Dr Wakefield. They are determined to continue to treat children with autism and GI disorders. (Rather than lie and sneer about them à la Brian Deer. Or ignore tham and pretend they don't exist as do their medical collegues)

Dr Wakefield has also replicated his findings but quite obviously there is no point in linking to that because you have all decided that Deer is right about him (despite claims to the contrary which frankly don't seem very plausible as you parrot Deer's stories).

Dr Wakefield's head is on a metaphorical stake in the medical world.

The circular thinking and cognitive dissonace on this thread is quite something.

It appears we are now back to denying that the children studied by Wakefield et al and in the papers I linked to, are sick, because those papers don't count. I guess the children described in those papers don't count either. Marvellous.

Actually no Boulevard I didn't get the information about the Honda study from the page you linked to. There have been quite a lot of people who have deconstructed the Honda paper. Like I say it is infamous. As is Dr Rutter (who yes works at the IoP) - this is common knowledge Boulevard.

The second part of Dr Wakefield's commentary as published in The Autism File.

(Not really linked to this post a I know many of the previous posters won't bother to read it because they have already made their minds up - they agree with Brian Deer and the GMC. Which takes us right back to the denial over the children's illness. Bravo.)

Oh and for your information Boulevard I was first alerted to the IoP/Goldacre stuff by an article in the BMJ and the subsequent Rapid Responses (ironically).

Please do not make assumptions.

Anyway for people who have a genuine interest in the Wakefield et al science which is helping children with autism, (rather than the Brian Deer smear story), here is a video of him explaining the findings at the Autism One conference.

Please can I ask you to refrain from comments about how the audience (parents of children with autism) somehow discredits the contents. Have a little respect (I say this due to comments routinely made on MN about links to organisations such as Autism One, Age of Autism, etc).

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

Here ya go Boulevard.

The BMJ used to be worth reading.

seeker, I do not 'want' you to say anything.

just address the points made on the thread, rather than dragging in irrelevant info from other threads (wtf has BG got to do with anyhting that Beach set out in her OP?)

but it seems you can't help yourself.

you ask for facts, and then dismiss them because of where they are linked to, not because of the facts themselves.

you ask for info on one thing, and when it is presented, you skip to somehting else entirely without, it seems taking on board (I do not mean agreeing, btw) what has been said.

you never enter into the debate, you just skirt around the edges, popping up every so often with what you clearly think are little gems of wisdom - most of which do not even begin to address questions asked of you.

as for your disingenuous take on why BG's position on mmr was dismissed on the other thread - breathtaking, tbh. but this is not the only thread where you are wilfully misrepresenting previous threads, is it? seems to be a habit.