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.

Just marking my place. This is the most interesting thread I have ever read onMN. Thank you for educating me!

Hey Boulevard, thanks for answering my question WRT sulphation/genetics.

Because when a whole metabolic pathway goes wrong like that, it usually means there's something fundamentally wrong with the enzyme(s) that are supposed to be running that pathway.

There is another explanation. Dr Rosemary Waring cites it;

We now know that inflammatory cytokines such as TNF-?, which are at relatively high levels in many autistic children and in auto-immune diseases, can reduce expression of CDO and SOX and therefore reduce the supply of sulphate for conjugation with drugs and biocomponents.

CDO = enzyme cysteine dioxygenase
SOX = enzyme sulphite oxidase

Dr Waring's position makes sense to me WRT what Dr Wakefield explains in his science lecture.

Jux

Beachcomber - I clearly said that the COI was a minor issue.

Now - would you care to explain what "semi-random" is? Is that akin to "semi-pregnant"? The assignment to groups was not properly randomized.

Group sizes were vastly different. 13 treated vs 4 saline treated and 3 non-treated animals. That is poor study design. It also appears that 4 animals were added later (1 saline treated and 3 untreated) compared to the earlier IMFAR abstracts (which had 13 TCV vs 3 saline). That would mean at that experimental time those were clearly distinguishable from the TCV group.

They housed the treated animals next to each other (i.e. TCV injected next to TCV injected), another potential for bias/unconcious unblinding and not random, especially since due to the unequal assignment to groups, there were more than three times (maybe four) as many TCV injected monkey as vehicle injected.

They had ONE assessor, where such studies are usually conducted with multiple assessors - remember, we have a primate assessing a primate - that has a huge potential for observer bias and observer assessments differ up to 20% (which is why it is important to properly randomize and blind). Dettmer et al. (2007) describe their approach:

"Neonatal assessment and social data were collected by multiple observers. Interrater reliability for social behavior was achieved by computerized calculation of a kappa score (k) of .80 or above for each of five consecutive randomized focal animal sessions. Reliability for nursery assessments was achieved when observers obtained an 89% agreement on three consecutive randomized assessments."

Sackett et al. (2006) write:

"Reliability was assessed from the simultaneous observations of pairs of testers for each response that could be scored simultaneously and by immediately repeated observations by the second tester for items requiring handling the neonate by the tester. The latter values combine reliability with response repeatability. Periodic retesting maintained reliability at 80% or better on each type of scoring."

I don't doubt the assessor's expertise, but data collection by a single assessor does not seem to be state of the art and is inherently prone to bias.

A couple of interesting points were indeed spotted by one of the commentators, himself a scientist and father of an autistic boy, on Orac's blog:

"[1] These "survival" reflexes (called "primitive reflexes" in humans) are present at birth in human infants - their absence would be noted by any competent pediatrician.

[2] Absence or delayed appearance of "primitive reflexes" is not a feature of autism."

Not a good paper. In my opinion a scandalous waste of sentient animals.

I don't want to derail this thread by making it become about the primate study so I'll try to keep this brief.

1. As I have already stated, any potential or perceived CoIs were declared. Your made up CoI does not exist for the reasons I already stated. You may think it is a minor issue to invent a CoI and misrepresent what a study is about - I don't.

1. I already quoted the relevant section of the paper which explained why and how semi-randomisation was used, the relevant protocol is cited. Do you understand what a peer group is? They needed each peer group to contain a mix of exposed and unexposed animals. If the allocation had been completely random this might not have been achieved. This is standard in behavioural studies. It is good science. I'm sorry if neither you nor Orac are able to grasp this concept, but your inability to understand the paper is not the authors' responsibility.

1. Group sizes are often different in primate studies. Monkeys are expensive, control groups are therefore usually small.

1. The primates were housed in peer groups. This is clearly stated in the study - the reason for this being it is a behavioural study.

1. On the subject of testers -

"Training of L.A.H. was completed on non-study infants prior to the acquisition of data for this study and consisted of comparison of assessments of similarly aged infants collected by multiple trained testers. Reliability for nursery assessments by the trainee was achieved when they obtained an 89% agreement with the trained testers on three consecutive randomized assessments. As part of standard protocol (Ruppenthal and Sackett, 1992), nursery testers who worked in the facility were routinely retested against each other at 3?6 months intervals."

Please note there was more than one tester.

As for the rest I suggest you stop reading and quoting the nonsense that is posted on Orac's blog.

The study was not about autism. It is about the safety of the 1990s US vaccine schedule.

Having said that, atypical newborn reflexes are being researched with regards to being potential early warning signs for autism.

No matter what you think of the study - the results are that there were delays in reflex acquisition in exposed animals. I think this is concerning - let's hope it is down to the thimerosol which is now only trace in Hep B vaccines. The vaccine schedule as a whole has never been tested for safety. The authors think this situation is scientifically irresponsible and should be rectified. This paper is intended to be one of many, each one testing a stage in the schedule. The study as a whole, has been designed to perform important safety testing that has been neglected up until now.

I find it reprehensible and morally extremely dubious that you and Orac wish to create mischief and tell lies about a scientific project of this nature.

Now might I request that you stop wasting my time with your misunderstanding/misreading/nonreading of the paper. I have provided a link to the paper - I suggest you read it.

Just to be clear when I say housed in groups, I do not mean that the animals were together in cages. Each animal was housed individually and they could see and hear each other. No physical contact occurred.

Beachcomber - how disingenuous of you to suggest that I have only read Orac's take down. I have read the paper and my critique stands. LAH was the only assessor - it says so in the author statement and your snippet does not contradict that.

The authors used 13 TCV injected monkeys vs 4 vehicle injected controls. That is unacceptably skewed and there is no reason why they did not do 10 vs 7 for example.

The monkeys were NOT kept in groups. They were singly housed "Infants could see and hear each other but had no physical contact, both within and between peer groups for the duration of this study as per standard nursery procedures." (have you read the paper?)

Group assignment was planned for a "later" stage, which is not further described in the paper, but they clearly state: "such that each peer group contained animals from either the unexposed or exposed study groups." Either/or, not either - and they were not group housed anyway.

Thanks for pointing me back at that paper, I have just discovered something even more outrageous (in terms of author behaviour) which I think I am going to blog about.

Sorry for multiple posting have spotted a missing word that creates confusion.

They needed each peer group to not contain a mix of exposed and unexposed animals.

Animals were allocated to either the vaccinated (exposed) or saline/no injection (unexposed) groups on a semi-random basis in order to complete peer groups for later social testing (Ruppenthal and Sackett, 1992) such that each peer group contained animals from either the unexposed or exposed study groups. Once a new peer group was started, new animals were assigned to this group until it consisted of 3 or 4 infants, the ages of which were less than 4 weeks apart from their peers.

I didn't say LAH was not the only assessor I quoted how she was trained and noted that she herself was tested against a variety of trainers who were in turn tested against each other.

I clarified the group housing thing in a second post when I read back and realised that it looked as though I meant they were not in individual cages.

Again I clarified the either or.

I apologise again for multiple postings. You think you have previewed carefully but when you read yourself back you spot typos/lack of precision/lack of clarity.

I have not allowed any of my children to have the MMR and nor will I. My daughters will have the rubella immunisation when they are older. I know of two anecdotal stories where (really quite sensible people) have had significant problems with their children almost immediately after the immunisation - they are are a long way apart geographically and in years but very similar things happened. I care not really about the research as such but I do believe Wakefield is right and I do believe that it is still cheaper for the majority of people to have immunisations and that is why it goes on - the odd adverse reaction is hard to prove, harder to get compensation for than people dying of preventable diseases - it has always been and will always be like this. The fact they have moved the MMR to younger and younger children makes me think there may be something to hide.

But honestly, all conspiracies aside I just cannot go there and let them have it done - I really feel it is the wrong thing to do and overloading their system. Obviously it is cheaper than doing them all individually and that is the only reason they are offered together - there is no clinical reason to do it this way.

Can i just say, as someone who was too old for MMR, but caught mumps as an adult from an unvaccinated child and was so ill I was hospitalised for a fortnight. Thanks.

Me and all my friends were too old for the MMR. Some of us caught mumps as children (myself included) but most of them say that they've never had it.
Presumably adults could be given the MMR if they want it?

However, as regards children, I agree with Brandy and am not giving it to DS.

Sorry to hear about your mumps experience slug. Sounds nasty.

Hello brandy, I agree with you, I think 3 vaccines given at once is too much.

I wanted to post something about this, were the children ill/not ill, as reported in the Lancet paper, thing.

I mentioned Dr Dhillon (the expert pathologist) earlier on - in his Rapid Response to the BMJ he explained how difficult it is to rate child GI biopsies and how, diagnosis should not and would not be made on this information alone.

Anyway, I found the letter plus some other stuff on this subject in the BMJ Rapid Responses.

Re: Pathology reports solve ?new bowel disease? riddle

Re: Pathology reports solve ?new bowel disease? riddle

GMC Transcripts solve Riddle of new bowel disease

CatherinaJTV and Beachcomber - you are two of the best informed people on this issue I have ever read on a blog and although you violently disagree you do so civilly which makes a huge change from the sneering of Brian Deer and the often ludicrous ad hominem attack handgrenades hurled by ill informed doctors who appear to know little on the subject. Earlier in the thread there was a dismissive comment about Martin Walker's reporting of the GMC hearings. His reports of the hearing on the days that I attended was accurate although admittedly informed by his agenda. The paper may have been wrong but was it a fraud? The lack of context in discussing this issue becomes a problem as time passes. These were doctors trying to help a group of desperate parents. Their children had gut problems - some were in great pain. Many doctors dismissed their concerns as the product of their children's eating habits - one senior paediatrician famously suggested a child was in pain because he was eating "sawdust". The doctors were trying to ascertain if they were seeing colitis in these children. (Today it is generally accepted that there is an association between autism and bowel disease - many papers describe it and it is hard to imagine a doctor today suggesting an autistic child's gut hurt because he had eaten sawdust. Progress!!) The Lancet paper was a case series. Did the paper ever say there was link between the MMR and autism? No! In fact it said no link was found. The noise around the paper raised this issue because of the already known and discussed safety issues were raised and Dr. Wakefield suggested the vaccines should be given separately until more research was done. (Jackie Fletcher's letter in the BMJ this week reminds us about the known safety fears over the MMR at that time.) Seems perfectly reasonable. So why has he become the subject of what may be the longest character assassination in medical history? Let's say the paper was wrong. Let's say it was bad science (although I have never heard a lucid argument of why it was bad science because usually the critic assigns to it conclusions it never reached under protocols it never followed) - but let's say it was. Was it fraud? This is an accusation too far. It is impossible to believe that Dr. Wakefield or indeed Drs. Wakefield, Walker-Smith, Murch, Dhillon and all of the other doctor-authors who eventually condemned their own paper would conspire to defraud the public, the medical community and the government for money. These were leading doctors in their field who dealt with desperate parents and very ill children. UCL would conspire as an institution to participate in this fraud? Come on. Fiona Godlee and the BMJ must be embarrassed by this allegation - even Brian Deer must wonder how he will make this sound plausible. But back to my intial point - I am impressed by your knowledge on this issue Catherina and Beachcomber. I've learned alot from your posts - so thank you.

Yeah, Waring mentions the possibility of either a problem with the gene coding for CDO (pargraph 2, lines 10-11 of your link), or a problem with the gene not being properly converted to enzymes (the quote you gave). Or of course a bit of both, I suppose.

I mean, if autism does turn out to start with a genetic problem, it doesn't mean it's unavoidable or untreatable. The example that popped into my head before, phenylketonuria, is definitely totally genetic, but is successfully treated by an exclusion diet.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16740758
Sorry if this is a very basic question..but reading this article it continues to surprise me that Researchers still say, 'while there is no cure, Education and behavioural programmes can help'
Is it not 'officially' recognised that diet has a crucial role to play? And is that because if this is recognised, it implicates gut issues and ultimately leads back to mmr/vaccine damage?

Http:www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16740758

Hello Thereitis. Thank you for your nice comment!

I agree with a lot of what you say, especially regarding the BMJ, Deer and Godlee - I think they have made themselves look utterly ridiculous. OK so that is par for the course with Deer. I am under no illusions about the impartiality of the BMJ and its editor, however, I was amazed that they risked their credibility like that.

They have made themselves look most foolish and actually rather corrupt. I know I shouldn't be so naive but I was disappointed in the BMJ.

Talking of which, I thought of you Boulevard when reading something about the BMJ fraud accusation - apparently Dr Anthony sent them a power point presentation outlining why the clinical team gave the diagnoses they did. The BMJ have refused to publish it. The have also refused to respond adequately to one of the Lancet children's parents who has asked how they got hold of her children's medical information and why they published it without her permission.

This parent has posted her correspondence with Godlee on Age of Autism because the BMJ have refused to print her submitted Rapid Responses.

The whole thing is just a shambles and the parents have been treated abominably, the children ill used and the doctors smeared. Again par for the course for Deer. But what was the BMJ thinking of?

First Wakefield was accused of fraud. Then when evidence came to light that the clinical team made the diagnoses together, the BMJ changed its story and accused them all of fraud (Godlee demanded a parliamentary inquiry into the UCL and the doctors!), now they don't seem to quite know who they are accusing of what.

And how embarrassing that the BMJ's CoI with Merck had to be dragged out of Godlee.

Then Godlee and Deer went off gallivanting in the US spreading their story over there!

This is when Dr Wakefield decided enough was enough and started the defamation case (which is happening in Texas because of Godlee and Deer's actions in the US - ha!).

Here is the defamation petition - interesting reading.

Boulevard on the genetic thing - I suppose time will tell. I just think thousands of parents reporting their children reacting to MMR and never being the same again should not be ignored. In these children, the evidence points to vaccine injury. Of course, that doesn't mean that is what has happened to all children with autism though.

A lot of money has been spent on genetic research to no avail. Almost no money is being spent, on examining the children who are actually sick, and trying to find out what is wrong with them.

Minceorotherwise, no I don't think it is official at all.

Having said that, as silverfrog often says, autism is not one thing and it does not have only one cause.

Not all children with autism have GI issues. However it does seem clear that for the children who do have GI issues, their autism improves upon treating the gut. So the two conditions are linked (and indeed are possibly not two linked conditions, but two manifestations of the same condition). Which is what the Royal Free team have been trying to tell everybody since 1998. But they keep getting told to STFU.

Just remembered somebody asked earlier (maybe Boulevard?) if the GMC had actually stated that the Lancet children did not suffer from GI distress which warranted investigation and treatment. The poster asked if someone could cite the part of the transcripts where they say so.

I can't cite the transcripts because I don't have a copy - I have read various sections that have been posted on the internet but I don't own a full copy. I think you have to pay for them but I'm not 100% on that.

Lots of people claim to have read them but I doubt many have.

Anyway, I thought it was clear from the verdict that the GMC had done the following;

Decided that the Lancet case series research elements (Project 162-95) were in fact another project, entitled Project 172-96 (they were clearly was not - the two were entirely different things with different ethical approval applied for on different dates, different numbers of children etc). Decided that any procedures done on the Lancet children were for research purposes only (they were not, they were for standard clinical diagnoses purposes. The research element was the approval to take extra biopsies and publish the results of the clinically indicated procedures).

Decided that the research approval for project Project 172-96 did not apply to the investigative procedures done in the Lancet case series (which of course it didn't! They had nothing to do with each other) and therefore the work in the Lancet case series was covered neither under ethical approval NOR clinical indication.

They don't say 'the children were not ill' they say 'Dr Wakefield caused the children to have procedures carried out for which there was no clinical indication nor ethical approval'.

They also found that the Lancet children did not meet the criteria for project 172-96. Which of course they didn't.

Which of course would be an outrageous breach of ethics if it were true.

The Panel has heard that ethical approval had been sought and granted for other trials and it has been specifically suggested that Project 172-96 was never undertaken and that in fact, the Lancet 12 children's investigations were clinically indicated and the research parts of those clinically justified investigations were covered by Project 162-95. In the light of all the available evidence, the Panel rejected this proposition.

The verdict

Are vaccinations a good thing or a bad thing? Do more people suffer as a consequence of vaccination, or not? Any organisation has political in-fighting. In the broader picture, would anyone like to take a step back in time where these now vaccinated-against diseases were common, destroyed lives and killed? Hands up for anyone who knows a person under the age of 50 who is crippled by polio in UK.

Hands up for anyone who knows a person with a child who has been adversely affected by the MMR.
Do they not have a voice in your numbers game ?
Or are they irrelevant because it's for the 'greater good'?

???? mince? I'm sure there are lots of statistics. A person suffering from a disease or side effect is a person suffering. I guess it rather depends on how many people you like to see suffering.

I'm not sure I get your point then,easy?
I thought you were implying that we should ignore the fact that the MMR vaccine can harm a minority, because it helps the majority.
Or were you just making a generalised statement about all vaccines?

Any vaccination has the potential to cause harm in a small minority of cases. We have a choice. Either we do not vaccinate, and live (and die) with the consequences, or we vaccinate and live with a risk of adverse reaction and possibly death. Humans are not good at weighing up risk. That's why so many of us play the lottery.