Wakefield found guilty by the GMC

[manfrom]

Finally the GMC stands up and takes the right decision:

www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jan/28/mmr-doctor-fail-children-gmc

Apparently there was heckling in court.

"One woman shouted: "These doctors have not failed our children. You are outrageous." She called the panel of experts "bastards" and accused the GMC of being a "kangaroo court". Another shouted: "This is a set-up."

So obviously they believe it's the right thing to do to falsify data and pay parents for blood samples at a kiddies birthday party....

[dons hat and flak jacket]

The patent for the transer factor is in the name of the Royal Free Hospital. Dr Wakefield is mentioned as the inventor.

Scroll down to page 77 section 7 of this essay which was published in the Autism File for details.

Re, the Patent, "Claims", pg 28:
"2. A composition according to Claim 1 adapted for use as a vaccine for the prophylaxis of measles virus."

It's there in black and white.

Poorly designed (and I know, I peer review scientific papers for a living) is the professional way of saying "rubbish". Anyway, my point of posting was not to argue with you, just to point out that generally the Wakefield work is not well respected. I note that all your lists of references come from websites with specific agendas, and therefore are cherry-picked to support a specific viewpoint. Before anyone cries foul, I should point out that I linked to Brian Deer's website as it's the only place I could find a full copy of the patent application.

Anyhow, there are an equal number of papers that draw very different conclusions. For example, this study in Japan looking at individuals who appeared to regress into ASDs shows no difference between MMR and non-MMR cohorts (Japan's vaccination history No-MMR, MMR, No-MMR makes it perfect for conducting this sort of analysis):

www.springerlink.com/content/aq0470t874jwm686/

For every "possible evidence to suggest a link" paper, there are many "big study, no link" papers. Still, people often just see what they want to see. We all have to judge the evidence (not anecdotes) for ourselves - hopefully as impartially as possible (which is what scientists on the whole try to do). That's all I really wanted to say, I suspect any further replies will just end up going over old ground.

Just one more thing actually, as people might not know. In the UK the academic institution always, and automatically, owns the intellectual property of any "invention" made by an employee and hence make the patent application. They generally make it quite clear that the inventor will be remunerated appropriately and helped as CEO of any company spun out to take advantage of the patent. The inventor generally does very well out of anything that's profitable, the University taking a share of profit substantially lower than 50%.

SunnyMonday have you read the Japan paper and the controversy surrounding it?

The paper is actually hugely concerning because it points to a confirmation of Wakefield's theory at population level.

Wakefield's theory being that there is an association between close temporal exposure to the measles, mumps and rubella viruses and gastrointestinal disorder in children who regress developmentaly.

The Honda/Rutter study shows exactly that, a concerning association between close temporal exposure to M, M and R and ASD rates.

Psychiatrist Professor Rutter who coauthored the paper failed to disclose substantial conflicts of interest including acting as an expert witness in the MMR UK litigation and in Swedish litigation. He also acted as an expert witness in the GMC FTP hearing and has based much of his career and reputation on autism being a predominantly genetic condition.

It is perhaps for these reasons that he showed a singular lack of scientific curiousity in explaining the peaks and troughs in the Japanese ASD rates in the period he was examining.

As for the patent you seem determined to see that as motivation for Dr Wakefield's dirty plan. Even if the patent were for a rival vaccine (which it is not) how exactly did you think Wakefield was going to develop, market, bid for contracts, etc in competition with the already established, cheap, well tested, licensed singles measles vaccine which large pharmaceuticals could distribute and produce at the drop of a hat?

You say you linked to Deer's website because it was the only place you could find a copy of the patent, why do you think that is?

Don't you think the GMC would have thrown the book at him if this fairy tale held any truth?

Wakefield had been working in the field of intestinal disorder and viral exposure for years before he authored the Lancet paper. He was interested in links between Crohn's disease and measles. Do people really think that this was part of a long term cunning plan to make a fortune by reinventing a product that already existsed and was being distributed by large, well established, powerful companies?

Also when you say that I am linking to websites with 'agendas' I totally agree with you.

Of course they have an agenda and they tend to state completely transparently what it is. They want recognition and treatment for their children. They want the vaccine schedule as a whole tested for safety and screening procedures developed to protect children who are predisposed to adverse reactions. Seems reasonable.

If you look at the actual published peer reviewed science that these people are citing it is concerning. They haven't cherry picked the research they cite as cherry picking would imply that there is a choice. (And why on earth would people do such a thing anyway?)

There is very little clinical research into the biology of regressive autism in children with gastrointestinal disorder, but what there is points to (in some not all cases) a medical immunological condition with a viral element and a genetic predisposure.

If you disagree with the conclusions of the papers cited than I would be interested to hear your comments. I very much agree with you that it is important to examine the relevant science!

I'll repost the link which gathers together the main peer reviewed published papers which give cause for concern.

I have already linked to most of the actual studies cited themselves throughout the thread but I do think this page gathers them together in a handy way.

I don't see how it is possible to have a strong informed opinion on a potential vaccine/MMR link without having read the studies which clinically examine the children thought to be affected.

I'd like to make a few points here.

1. There is no good evidence to suggest a link between MMR vaccines and autism. If you have good evidence (as opposed to unsubstantiated anecdote - the likes of which AoA and JABS love) then please post it.

1. All good evidence points to there being no link. There is recent evidence that suggests (does not claim, or "prove") that children vaccinated with MMR are actually less likely to be autistic.

1. Chelation, hyperbaric chambers, chemical castration ("Lupron protocol"), DAN and other treatments touted by some (now) very wealthy "doctors" have no good scientific basis, nor evidence to suggest that they work. None at all.

1. The GMC found Andrew Wakefield guilty of serious medical misconduct and breach of ethics. Taking children's blood at a party, then joking about it at conferences afterwards? Colonoscopies and lumbar punctures administered to vulnerable children with no medical reason. In case anyone's not aware of what a colonoscopy involves, it's basically having a small camera on a pipe stuffed right up your arse. Imagine that as a terrified child less capable of understanding what's going on than you or I might be.

1. Andrew Wakefield has "left" (read "been fired from") Thoughtful House, the establishment that he set up in America to continue his research.

1. Andrew Wakefield was paid approx. half a million pounds to find a connection between MMR and autism.

1. The original Lancet paper was retracted by ten out of its thirteen original authors years ago, on the grounds that it was nonsense (I paraphrase).

1. Wakefield's "MMR in the gut" results were shown to be impossible to have found, as the tests were seriously flawed. Ie, it was not possible to find measles virus using the tests that were used.

1. Evidence (and testimony) strongly suggests that Wakefield knew his "findings" were rubbish, but that he falsified his results to come to the required conclusion.

Now, all those points are matters of fact and record. While I have huge amounts of sympathy with any parents and carers with children diagnosed as being on the autistic spectrum (and I have friends in that situation), there's no evidence at all to suggest that that autism was caused by vaccines. None. At. All. There are people with massive vested interests (ranging from their own vaccine patents, to simply a potential massive loss of face) who need to continue propagating this myth, but there is no evidence for it at all - and believe me, people have been looking.

Kind regards,

Becky

Well thanks Becky for popping over from the Bad Science forum to give us your opinion and personal version of events of one of the major medical controversies of all time.

There is so much misinformation in your post I don't think I have the energy at this time of the evening to know where to start.

Having come across your posts trying to 'educate' the parents of vaccine damaged children on their support forum Jabs, I suspect there wouldn't be much point anyway.

This idea that thousands of parents won't let this issue go because they have been duped by mad doctors experimenting on their kids is wearing rather thin after so many years don't you think?

Anyway I really came on to post a link to Mark Blaxill's concerning article about scientific censorship.

From those pesky folks at Age of Autism who will insist on writing insightful articles, paying attention to details, assessing science and refusing to give up on their children.

No matter what one's position on all this, the gagging of scientists shouldn't happen in a democracy.

How handy that the long drawn out GMC FTP hearing which was inexplicably delayed and dragged out managed to come to a decision just in time for the publication of the primate study.

I thought the primate study was withdrawn? Were its scientific merits not on the "dubious" side?

Okay, the science examining what is happening in autistic children with GI issues is complex and involved. I have posted some links to studies which are part of the puzzle but, unless a lot of reading is done to put the studies in a context, their true significance may not be clear for people.

The following is a video of a conference presentation given by Dr Wakefield at the Autism One conference. He presents the science in an extremely accessible way. It is very very interesting.

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

This next video is Dr Wakefield presenting documents about the much talked about conflict of interest/Legal Aid/Lancet tale. As a result of the GMC hearing Dr Wakefield's defence have been handed all manner of documents which show the testimony given br Dr Horton (the editor of the Lancet) to be false on some key points.

www.autismone.org/content/andrew-wakefield-md

Compelling viewing (and quite humorous at moments).

No wonder the BBC and all the others run a mile from interviewing this man and letting him have his say.

(When I have time later I'm going to start a thread about these videos as it is quite likely that they will go unnoticed here due to the length of the thread.)

Ah yes, the old "There are so many inaccuracies in what you say that I can't be bothered to refute them" argument.

What you actually mean, Beachcomber, is that all my points are facts that you'd rather people ignored (like you do), or simply forgot about.

While you don't have time to refute my points, you have plenty time to write ranty diatribes full of links through to Andrew Wakefield promotional videos.

Could you perhaps take a few moments to explain to the other mums round here, many of whom have been quite rightly frightened by Wakefield's lies, precisely which of my points are untrue?

Kind regards,

Becky

Just a quick point, according to Beachcomber's profile, she doesn't have children. I suggest that she's actually just an anti-vaccine activist who's come here to stir up trouble, fear, uncertainty and doubt.

Just a thought.

Kind regards,

Becky

And it is a bit creepy, this looking at profiles of people you are being really rude about for info with which to insult them further.

Um, BeckyFissuex when you fill out your details for the MN profile info there seems to be a weird bit where it is difficult to add details on one's children.

There are quite a few MNers with the 'no children' bit on their profile as they are obviously as technically challenged as I am.

Considering that you had only posted on MN once before entering this thread I think it is a bit of a cheek to accuse me of trolling.

There is a really useful tool on MN where you can do a search on the messages posted by a username. I'm not a prolific poster but I put my oar in on subjects including camping, fussy kids, breast feeding, denim mini skirts, stuff about living in France, allergies, washing machines, blah, blah, blah.

I don't think I ever mustered the energy to post on the Mouldies threads (and was on holiday when the shit hit the fan) but I can quote from the 'cube of poo' and the 'pirate sex thread'. You, me hearty, cannot.

You make some pretty big claims in your first post on this thread but I see that you do not post a single link to back up what you claim bluster assert.

You know what BeckyFissure your opinions are just based on the same old, same old, heard it on a blog, repeat it ad nauseam, boring old out of date uselessness that those of us bothered by the predicaments of some very ill children, and interested in the science that is helping them, are sick of hearing.

It is all just noise.

Until you back up your bizarre assertions with a single link I'm afraid I can't be bothered to take time out to correct you on your mistakes. Get back to me when you have something of your own to say.

BeckyFissure said; "I suggest that she's actually just an anti-vaccine activist who's come here to stir up trouble, fear, uncertainty and doubt."

How funny, I first encountered MN because I was interested in reusable nappies....

Tell you what though, how about you address the links, points, evidence, science, studies, conference presentations and videos that I have contributed to this thread before you expect much back from me?

If you bother to pass the time to look at what has been said here and on many other threads on MN you will see that your little list of misunderstandings of this very big issue have been discussed before.

Oh forgot to say that the passive aggressive is usually signified on MN by this rather than this [best regards].

HTH

(Sorry to lower the tone, have had a couple of glasses of wine with 'les voisins'.)

And taking a leaf out of probono's book as well as that of MrsT.

Oh forgot to say that the passive aggressive is usually signified on MN by this rather than this [best regards].

HTH

(Sorry to lower the tone, have had a couple of glasses of wine with 'les voisins'.)

And taking a leaf out of probono's book as well as that of MrsT.

Oops, told you I had had a glass of wine.

As you are aware, you can't prove a negative, so for several of my points, there is simply an abscence of evidence. If you can find the evidence, please post it. I've taken the trouble, why don't you?

1. There is no good evidence to support your view.

1. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_93706.html

www.autismconnect.org.uk/news.a sp?section=00010001&itemtype=news&id=6531 www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19522237

1. No good evidence

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonoscopy

www.gmc-uk.org/static/documents/content/Wakefield__ Smith_Murch.pdf (pages 12, 13, 16, 18, 19, 21, 24, 25, (do I need to go on?))

1. www.thoughtfulhouse.org/ - Wakefield has been removed from the whole site

1. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1265373.ece - reports on a Freedom of Information request

1. Lancet retracts paper: press.thelancet.com/wakefieldretraction.pdf

Partial retraction by authors: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15016483

1. Good explanation of the differences between RNA and DNA and why measles couldn't have been found: leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2010/02/wakefield-oleary-and-bustin/

1. ftp://autism.uscfc.uscourts.gov/autism/transcripts/day08.pdf (page 227)

Kind regards - not passive aggressive, that's just how I sign off emails,

Becky

Becky you need to put this on one side of your link, and this on the other.

Stuff by anonymous speculating bloggers; I can't promise I will comment on for obvious reasons.

Um, this is a forum, you don't have my email address.

Have you watched the highly interesting videos of the Autism One conferences? If not, why not?

I have already taken the trouble to post links to interesting science on this thread. The thread is long though so it is understandable if you have missed them.

Give me a shout if you need links reposting.

HTH

Actually BeckyFissure you can forget that. I'm not going to engage with you anymore due to you following me around MN and accusing me of being a troll (amongst other unsavoury things).

Also I just remembered that you are the person who set up a blog linking to a support site for the parents of vaccine damaged children. You link to the site and then mock and insult the people on it.

IIRC correctly you call them "loonies" in your blog title. Nice.

I know vaccination can be an emotive issue but what exactly is it about it that makes some people think that normal standards with regards to manners and decorum can be suspended?

Sunny- if you read the patent application al the way through it is quite clear that the patent is primarily for a treatment role. Of course if it might provide a safer vaccination then a patent application would mention that too. Why wouldn't it? I think it's clear from any vague reading though that the application is for treatment for autistic enterocolitis (which at 7%ish of the autistic population isn't going to bring in huge wads of cash).

I can't be bothered to reply to Becky. Rather too raving to engage with. Anyway there are so many errors it would take too long and I think they've all been covered on here anyway.

Just one thing though.

"Now, all those points are matters of fact and record. While I have huge amounts of sympathy with any parents and carers with children diagnosed as being on the autistic spectrum (and I have friends in that situation), there's no evidence at all to suggest that that autism was caused by vaccines. None. At. All."

You are actually wrong. Completely wrong. Totally. (see we can all use little short sentences to get our point across) That's far too sweeping. Go to IMFAR and sit in the lectures, you will hear a number of researchers placing 'the dreaded vaccinations' as one researcher put it in their models as potential agents. Given that there is plenty of evidence that the immune system plays a role in the development of autism I am staggered you can be so certain. Have a read through the current projects being funded by Autism Speaks (big autism research funder) they are funding research into vaccine/autism links. I suspect you are still treating autism as one thing. Which is a nonsense.

Not directly relevant to the thread, but I know there are some on here who will be interested in this -just spotted on the BBC news website.

Gosh that is interesting, thank you, I will look that up.

Also for probono, I don't know if you are still following this thread but I remember you brought up the subject of the rate of boys versus girls who develop ASD.

I have found the paper I read that reminded me of your question about testosterone; it came from Dr Boyd Haley. You have to scroll down to page 10 to find the bit where he explains that testosterone enhances the toxicity of mercury.

In case you're interested I also came across some videos where he talks candidly about mercury toxicity.

I had trouble finding all the parts so I'm going to post each link separately, sorry for multiple links but each part is short and worth watching. His scathing comments about the CDC and IOM are pretty good value alone!

part 1

part 2

part 3

He talks about the testosterone/mercury synergistic effect in part 3 briefly.

part 4

Also I remember now I came across a section in Kirby's book 'Evidence of Harm' where a biochemist called William J Walsh found the following;

The sulfur-based protein metallorthionein (MT) is depleted in children with autism, one of this protein's main functions is to bind with mercury as part of the excretory process. Walsh found that testosterone suppresses MT activity whilst estrogen enhances it.

He goes on to say that what is not known is if mercury exposure leads to MT dysfunction and that more study is needed.

I haven't had time to look this chap up but I imagine his work can be found on the net.

I think the best thing about that link I gave is it shows that the discussion about guts and autism and gut bacteria is going mainstream which is a big change. When ds1 was diagnosed 8 years ago the paediatrician rolled him eyes and guffawed a little when we said he was gluten free - I think his actual words were 'well if you must ho ho'. Whereas at the recent appointment we had with the neurologist and paediatrician various special diets were openly discussed - and suggested by them before we'd even mentioned them. Whatever comes out of this research it's on the right lines and looking at questions that many people living with autism in the family want answered. Which is great.

I knew researchers have been starting to look at this for a few years now, but it is good to see it becoming a mainstream topic. And will be an added advantage if it becomes so mainstream that medics stop rolling their eyes at you.