"There is little proof that MMR is related to autism or Bowel disease" can you point me to any research in this direction please
"fwiw, the original research by Wakefield et al has been wholly discredited" can you list me some papers please. please don't list ones which prove that MMR is safe for the majority of children we all know that. I need to see papers that prove that MMR is safe- even for the 8% of children with autism who are believed to have regressed following MMR.
The original Lancet paper was meant to have been accompanied by a second paper (this has come out during the GMC hearings). For reasons as to whart happened to it you'll need to plough through the hearing diaries- but this piece below-
From the cry shame website which has reported daily on the GMC hearings:
'A Second Lancet Paper
The unlikely named Professor Candy is a consultant paediatric gastroenterologist and a highly qualified peer reviewer of 20 years standing for the Lancet. Whilst Richard Horton had already alluded to it in passing, it was only when the professor gave his evidence that a ?partner paper? came into focus. This paper, explaining the science behind claims of a link between Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD), persistent measles virus and regressive autism/CDD, had been handed to the Lancet at the same time as the now infamous 12 child ?case-series? paper.
For the uninitiated, a frightening picture now emerged of the prosecution presenting for the first time robust evidence that Dr Wakefield?s science left a lot to be desired. Professor Candy, however, turned out to be a real sweetie and yet again a great patron of the defence.
Apparently, Dr Wakefield and other signatories had expected both papers to be published in the same issue of the Lancet. In the event, the scientific model underpinning the ?case series? paper was turned down by two peer reviewers but supported by Professor Candy; not just supported, we heard, but supported in glowing terms.
Candy?s evidence was an eye opener for those who had often wondered about how peer reviewers work. He told an interesting story of a field which had become gradually more open over the last twenty years.
Professor Candy?s first comment about the ?partner? paper was that it was well written. This was stated as a throw-away line, and he followed with a barely surprised comment that this was only to be expected. ?Professor Walker-Smith? Candy said, ?has written text books which are very lucid?. This was not the first, not would it be the last praise for Professor Walker-Smith?s reputation and his considerable body of work, which included a number of text books.
On Professor Walker-Smith, when I see him at the hearing, my thoughts are thrown back to the pompous, angry and defensive Professor Zuckerman, who insisted on saying that giving evidence against his colleagues was painful. Although I have no reason to assume Professor Walker-Smith, now retired for 5 years, is not holding up as stoically as the other defendants, his general demeanour exudes a world weariness which is sad to observe.
Although the emphasis throughout this whole affair has been on the injustice done to Dr Wakefield, we should always be mindful of what Brian Deer?s complaints to the GMC are doing to Professor Walker Smith. To end an entirely meritorious career in medicine with this smear of a trial is a calamity almost unbearable for a person of such obvious integrity.
The position of Professor Walker-Smith is testimony to the lengths that politicians and the medical establishment will go to keep faith with the pharmaceutical industry; to break an exceptional physician on the rack of cynicism and profitability. In all such matters I am guided almost entirely by the parents with whom I have spoken. To witness the warmth and respect that they show to Professor Walker-Smith gladdens the heart. I hope that he is aware of the affection in which he is held and that in turn this provides strength and solace.
Professor Candy?s remarks about Professor Walker-Smith were immediately followed by very flattering statements about Professor Simon Murch and Dr Thompson, whom Professor Candy informed the Panel were the two best endoscopists in the country.
Professor Candy, a learned looking man with white hair and glasses had begun giving his evidence at 12.15 and by 12.40 any fears that the prosecution had called a good witness for their case had evaporated. In fact Professor Candy got quite carried away, falling into the vernacular, with his enthusiasm for the second unpublished paper.
The second paper demonstrated measles virus protein in the gut of some of the children whose cases were reviewed in the published paper. ?It was like a double-whammy?, he said ?clinical observation backed up by good science.?
Professor Candy said that he was upset and surprised when the Lancet published the first paper without the second, and even more surprised when the publication of the first paper was accompanied by an editorial which suggested that there was no evidence presented for the strength of the measles virus in the gut of the children cited. This information was in the second paper, he said, and it was his opinion that both papers should have been published together; that the first paper was supported by the second. In Candy?s opinion the two papers were ?indivisible?.
When Mr Koonan began his cross examination of Professor Candy he had little difficulty in consolidating the points which had already been brought out in his evidence-in-chief. Both papers, he said, ?were well written and needed no significant criticism from him.? He said that ?the findings of measles antigen in the bowel of the treated children, some years after exposure, seemed to me to be revolutionary?.
The whole peculiar incident of this paediatrician?s evidence reminded me of the rule, doggedly adhered to by quackbusters and sceptics across the globe. While such people moan and keen over the subject of junk science, when faced with the genuine article they simply refuse to discuss it. While claiming that only science matters, in the majority these people show themselves to be ignorant of human motivation, honest purpose and most of all science in the public interest.
In fact both Mr Koonan and Mr Miller were able to make major consolidation over the work of the team who authored both Lancet papers. Almost at the end of his cross examination at 2.25, Professor Candy made the statement which all three defendants will be able to look back upon with pride.
?The findings of the papers? he said, in his opinion ?were watertight?.