Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

General health

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

Wakefield found guilty by the GMC

255 replies

manfrom · 28/01/2010 15:34

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]

OP posts:
Beachcomber · 24/02/2010 11:35

Also I have a child who following her DTP vaccination became allergic to everything under the sun. I don't feel worried that vaccination is related to her immune dysfunction, I know it is because I watched it happen.

Breast fed calm quiet baby goes to the doctor with uninformed complacent mother. Doctor jabs baby. Baby loses conciousness. Baby wakes up 6 hours later screaming. Baby develops sleep problems, feeding problems, all body eczema, swollen joints, swollen lymph nodes, allergies to everything her breastfeeding mother ate in the weeks following vaccination, baby loses much of her hair, her nails start to break off, she loses weight and is diagnosed failure to thrive. Baby develops bowel problems. Baby starts to wheeze and vomit after eating. Doctors start to prepare parents for baby's death.

Parents treat the baby for vaccine damage and implement the CFGF diet. Most of the baby's symptoms disappear.(long story).

She is now 6 years old and pretty healthy. She has beautiful hair.

Our doctor agrees that she won't be receiving the MMR and neither will her unvaccinated sister.

If anybody calls me antivaccine on this thread again I will have to make use of Pagwatch's [cunt] emoticon.

Beachcomber · 24/02/2010 11:39

BTW some of us do not 'believe' our children to have been damaged by a vaccine. We know they were damaged by a vaccine.

Our doctor would rather mainline mercury than vaccinate either of my children.

Beachcomber · 24/02/2010 12:46

Oh and mso you should be ashamed of yourself not only for coming across as a thoroughly unpleasant and up yourself individual on this thread but also for having made an arse of yourself for displaying your inability to grasp the complexities of a subject you were attempting to patronise the rest of us over.

Scuttling back to boast to your cronies makes you appear a bit unhinged.

Having 'fun' being rude and ignorant about very sick children, and the people who try to help them, is sinking to depths I wouldn't boast about if I were you.

I did wonder at one point if you were just a boring old troll when you couldn't come up with an original thought and used all the lame clichés that Gorski (AKA Orac, AKA the worldwide wanker of woo) et al trot out whilst massaging their egos.

pagwatch · 24/02/2010 12:57

personally I am not sure why a pro-MMR view needs to be articulated.

If I ran around telling people not to vaccinate then maybe it would need to be articulated.But I don't - and I don't know anyone who does.

So why does my recognising the role that some vaccines played in my childs issues impact upon anyone else? Why do people need to want to weightly argue with me? Will that make my son better?

My only objective is to help my son (which I have done pretty well having sorting many of gut gut probelms) and to figure how best to protect my DD.
A vaccine safe for her would be great - but with many people refusing to accept that current vaccines damaged my DS no one is onvested in findingthat. So i am doubly screwed really.
Being lectured, sneered at and shouted at about it doesn't really help.

donnie · 24/02/2010 13:01

PMSL @ catrinm's total faith in "studies by well educated intelligent people which prove that vaccines are safe"

Speechless!

ClaireOB · 24/02/2010 13:23

Beachcomber, the study referred to in the DT article was published March 2008 in JACI www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(07)02379-2/abstract. Those I linked to have later publication dates - the Tasmanian one was published online in December 2009 & Am J Epidem was Oct 2008. In March 2009, the jounal Paediatrics published a study on the pertussis vaccine (the element of DTP which is central to concerns about asthma) and asthma, comparing vaccinated, partially vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts and found "There was no evidence for an increased risk of wheeze or asthma in children vaccinated against pertussis compared with nonvaccinated children. Adjusted hazard ratios comparing fully and partially vaccinated with nonvaccinated children were close to one for both incident wheeze and asthma. " pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/123/3/944

One can always find single studies which appear to support one's views but the important thing is to look at the overall weight of the evidence, which, increasingly, appears to be against an association between childhood immunisations and rising rates of allergic conditions.

Beachcomber · 24/02/2010 13:29

Even just the concept of being 'proMMR' is ridiculous.

Are 'proMMR' folks pro all the MMRs? Are they supporters of the MMR brands that caused meningits?

Do they even know that there used to be three MMRs?

It often seems to me that people who don't have a problem with the MMR are actually arguing for measles vaccination. Which I'm pretty in favour of myself, I just think the logical way to protect against measles is with a measles vaccine.

saintlydamemrsturnip · 24/02/2010 13:35

Thanks franke- MD has always maintained a 'pro' MMR/anti-Wakefield stance in the Private Eye (although I have to admit I haven't read it much over the last few years). There was one journalist - female - whose name I can't remember who was responsible for writing the special edition etc. But she was one of the few (maybe she wrote the DM articles as well) which was reporting anything that could remotely be construed as a vaccine 'scare' story which was why my eyebrows got higher and higher every time someone mentioned the 'MMR scare'. It seemed to exist mainly in the form of denying it iyswim.

Heathcliffscathy · 24/02/2010 13:49

mso, just read your post on the badscience forum and shame on you. i don't know how you look yourself in the eyes in the mirror.

clearly, your peers on that site recognise you for what you really are, which is heartening.

Beachcomber · 24/02/2010 13:49

Apologies Claire I misread the date.

I agree with you with regards to overall evidence.

This is where science bumps into politics, funding sources, medical journal bias, the media, lobbying, etc. 'Science' itself is neutral and impartial but it operates within a wider framework which is far from being either of those things.

The scientific evidence which has been allowed to become available doesn't always tell the whole story.

Especially when money and belief systems are involved.

Beachcomber · 24/02/2010 19:07

There is also this study which found the odds of having asthma doubled in subjects who had received DTP and tetanus vaccines.

I don't think this issue has been investigated enough for us to draw definite conclusions.

We really do need that big vaccinated/unvaccinated study, it is long overdue. There is this very small study which is interesting but it is very limited by sample size and potential confounding factors.

Purely a personal anecdote which has no bearing on anything but I well remember the day I heard asthma referred to as 'chronic whooping cough'. It kind of struck a chord.

donnie · 25/02/2010 09:12

I have just seem mso's post on the badscience forum as well - the one where she states she/he is:

"having some fun with the resident anti-vaxxers ...if anyone wants to join me with some trolling" etc etc.

nice that you see belittling people trying to understand their children's severe health problems as 'fun'. Still, at least you freely admit to being a troll. I could get really angry but all I will say is if you have kids then I pity them - having a parent like you.

LindenAvery · 25/02/2010 11:12

Mrs T and Beachcomber - thanks for your posts, this thread has given me something to think about. I respect your views even if I don't agree with the majority of them.

Issues as vaccination do require questions to be asked and research to continue. I have no problems with your posts and the science should be able to stand up to such criticism.

Coming from a pharmacological point of view I understand that a small minority of vaccinated individuals will suffer adverse effects as with the nature of all medicines. Whether that has yet to include autism/aspergers remains to be seen - it appears that the bulk of published, creditable research suggests no link has been proven and this is the stance that the WHO and NHS rightly take.

My children have had all their jabs and I recognise that I also need to rely on 'herd immunity' as a further protection so this can lead to frustration when others choose not to vaccinate and increase the risks for all.There will always be an emotive response to such a news story and I believe some parents wrongly choose not to vaccinate, delay vaccination or choose singles. However for some parents this will be the right choice.Who amongst us says I going to do this as it's the wrong thing to do?

As a parent I can understand why vaccination is not suitable for all, even the manufacturers list contra-indications to usage. Every parent passionately wants their opinion to be heard and their children to be 'safe'. MSOs actions have shocked me, there seems to be little empathy there. If I was being kind I would wonder if there was a personal reason behind such posts but I find it difficult to believe the poster is a parent.

For this reason may be it's time this thread ended - no doubt will be others.I do believe Ben Goldacre is right to highlight how science is reported and I do remember how the press did handle this when AW first spoke. Consider how the news reported the sudden death of a girl last year who died. She had also received the Cervarix jab earlier that day. The two things were unrelated and yet all the headlines linked the two things together. Such a story even if it does end up as tomorrows chip paper leaves a lasting impression.

saintlydamemrsturnip · 25/02/2010 12:34

Linden - thanks for that post. TBH I don't disagree with you. I think that perhaps we are highlighting different parts of the discussion though. For you (and for me when ds1 was a newborn) the most important consideration in my mind was to protect him against diseases that could be protected against. So of course I vaccinated, of course you would. With his regression the balance changed though. I didn't have to just protect his brothers against disease I also had to guard them against losing their speech etc in the way their brother had. Or at least reduce their risk. For us the MMR question never really surfaced, I see giving jabs singly as more sensible (partly because I don't see the point of mumps vaccination at all, and partly because they appear to work slightly more effectively if given singly), so we made the choice to give ds1 single measles before autism even featured in our lives. In addition ds1 didn't have a Wakefield style regression and doesn't have the bowel issues of the Wakefield group (he had different gut issues but that probably came from antibiotic overuse).

However, in looking at the research (which we needed to do to make a decision) it's clear it's just not been done. It all treats autism as one thing, and it all examines MMR versus the rise in autism. Which isn't and never has been the question. So the MMR research out there isn't much use in making a decision for someone like me with two children who were at very high risk of autism. I think their risk factor at birth was something like 1 in 10. Think about the fuss people make about finding they have a pregnancy with a 1 in 100 risk of DS- ds1 is far less able than any person I have met with DS to date.

Treating autism as one thing seems to me to be a bit like saying 'no asbestos doesn't cause cancer' when all the cases you are looking at are breast, bone, leukemia etc with no cases of mesothelioma (don't pick me up if asbestos can cause breast cancer- you know what I mean!) You have to start with identification of different autism groups. Actually you don't have to start with it, but when you build models that describe autism you have to be aware that you are going to only be talking about a certain subgroup. There are lots of autism models out there. Many give the immune system a role, and quite a few give vaccinations a potential role (although you'll tend to find people talking about that at conferences rather than publishing it in paper, which is a shame perhaps). All we ever hear about is MMR, but tbh in making vaccination decisions for our kids it just didn't feature. Other models more relevant to our family history did - and continue to do so, the decision isn't static because risk factors aren't static, risk/benefit ratios change with age. And of course as ds1 has some more investigations then we will have a clearer idea of what happened in his case and what that means for his brothers.

So for us - our biggest risk was that ds2 and ds3 would be severely autistic and so we made decisions based on that. Some of them turned out to be definitely correct. So for example ds3 had loads of ear infections and burst ear drums, I had a lot of nagging from family because I wouldn't take him to the GP to have antibiotics (ds1 had something like 10 courses by the time he was 2 and gut problems that went with that). Eventually ds3 had a seizure from a high temp with a double ear infection, ended up in hospital overnight where the paediatricians gave a long explanation about why they would not be dishing out antibs (they didn't seem to notice I was saying -great, fantastic, don' t want them unless he needs them), and they almost never would for ear infections.

That's an aside, but perhaps why we focus on slightly different things.

I take your point about herd immunity. However, I am just not convinced that herd immunity is particularly at risk. Mainly because the only figures ever given are for MMR uptake. Yes it is low in places- particularly places like Battersea iirc- exactly the sort of place where nappy valley yummy mummies can afford to get single jabs if they choose. Without giving total MMR + single figures you just can't get the herd immunity picture.

Mumps has been a problem, but in part this seems to be because the vaccination given in early childhood is not lasting past late teens/early adulthood. This is of course a risk when there is no circulating disease to provide natural boosters. And I have been saying on here forever that the need for an adult MMR booster will need to be considered at some stage.

Beachcomber · 25/02/2010 14:33

LindenAvery I agree with you that the bulk of evidence suggests that there is no association between MMR and ASD at population level. (I would debate the methodology and impartiality of much of that evidence but that is probably a whole new thread.)

I also think the bulk of the evidence of the subgroup of children identified and examined by Wakefield (and others) shows clinical evidence of atypical persistent measles infection in children who developed bowel disorders and autistic regression following vaccination with a MCV.

I think that measles infection needs explained and I think the only way to do it is by examining the children concerned and not by playing lose hunt the needle in epidemiological haystacks.

As has already been said here by MrsT, the large scale studies neither address Wakefield's findings nor provide data which sheds any light on the soundness of his hypothesis. They also, unfortunately, do nothing to help the suffering of his patients.

And this is what I don't understand; why is data that is irrelevant to the clinical findings in a small subgroup being held up as evidence that that small subgroup doesn't exist, (something the authors of the studies admit themselves is beyond the scope of the data)?

Why is the man who identified the subgroup being lied about and misrepresented?

Why is his science (that has never been put to test let alone found to be flawed) being censored?

Why has the primate study been censored?

Why are the numerous other relevant papers by Dr Wakefield and others never mentioned?

Why are we constantly told that his findings have never been replicated when they have?

How can it be that whilst it has gradually become accepted that many autistic children have intestinal disorders, the man who made this discovery is being subjected to an extreme media smear campaign and is being accused by the GMC of misconduct because his team examined autistic children with bowel disorders the GMC is, by implication, denying exist in autistic children?

Why were the parents of the UK litigants censored by the withdrawal of their Legal Aid after 10 years of preparation and by a judge who had a blatant conflict of interest?

(I'm not asking anyone here to answer these questions, I'm just writing down some of the questions I have.)

probono · 25/02/2010 16:06

Thank you for your posts to all.

ajay1965 · 26/02/2010 13:09

I've read most of this thread (17 of the pages anyway) and feel fairly compelled to reply.
I know 'credentials' shouldn't be necessary but just so you know where I'm coming from, I'll throw them out here.
I've worked with children with disabilities for nigh on 25 years, 60-70% of whom have had ASD of some type or presentation. I have 3 children of my own, none with ASD.

I play more cards on the table before starting; I'm basically in agreement with MSO, while I think the way he/she has argued has been unhelpful, the basic points about evidence/research/Wakefield I would assert as correct.

My post is focused on 2 things however, firstly history and prevalence.
There has been mention, in this thread, sorry not time to go back and link though I think in connection with the Triad of Impairments, that there were no such conditions before vaccinations. That thinking is inherently flawed, sorry. Although Autism was first defined as an isolated condition in the 1940's that in no way means it didn't exist until then, or just before then. There's no way of measuring prevalence of a condition before its been defined, in addition Autistic as an adjective was used (erroneously we now know) in Schizophrenia in the late 1800's / early 1900. Indeed, adults with learning disabilities who I worked with in the early 1990's still had diagnosis as children of "childhood Schizophrenia". They are clearly now considered, and indeed diagnosed, as being on the Autistic Spectrum. In fact, and I'll now descend into the trap of using anecdote, my first placement when training in the late 1980's, was in a 'unit' where 14 adults lived. Out of those 14, 1 was diagnosed as having ASD. Now (as I still have contact with them or people who support them,) 12 have a diagnosis of Autism. They haven't developed Autism in their 30's, 40's and 50's, they always had it, it was just sooo poorly diagnosed even as, comparatively, recently as the 80's and 90's. In addition, however poor that lack of diagnosis was, learning disability services were actually better, if that can be believed, at recognising Autism than mainstream services.
Autism has always been around, but like people have already said, it manifests in a myriad of different ways "Autistics; they don't give eye contact!" which many of us will know is true of some, but a ridiculous generalisation.
Many 'lay' people and that's mostly everyone prior to having a child diagnosed with Autism or supporting people professionally, would be hard pushed to recognise Autism unless it was in Rainman. Parents I work with will tell me that many of the difficulties they face are because 'the public' doesn't recognise their child as having a difficulty/disability, they just see a child behaving 'weirdly' or being 'naughty' Even with this so called epidemic, lay people still have no awareness.

I am in just no way convinced that the prevalence is increasing, diagnosis is, criteria is, the spectrum is. As I've said, people who just 10-15 years ago wouldn't have been diagnosed as having ASD, now are. Adults with disabilities are now being re-diagnosed after years of inappropriate/poor support services (and not to prove against the childhood increase agrument, but to ensure those people are given the support/care they need.)
I'll finish with one word re: MMR/Vaccines and regression. I have close experience of a child with Autism. His mum was convinced that the MMR was responsible. I can, hand on heart, say I had spotted signs of ASD 12 months before the MMR. I don't say that to criticise his mum, or any parent convinced of the cause of their child's ASD, and, again its anecdote, not proof.
Regression is complicated. My view is that ppl with ASD regress post ASD diagnosis as well as before, meaning that, it is part of the condition as well as the start of the condition. Many of the features of someone's ASD can go in cycles of severity, sometimes triggered by external factors, sometimes not. My view, for what its worth and with no data at hand to back it up, is that for those with an initial drastic regression, is that they were born with ASD. That initial regression being part of a shutdown in relation to a number of factors; ill-health (before a vaccine shout, it could as well be measles as a cold, flu, a virus - I've no many children with ASD (post-diag) regress when unwell, sometimes recovering sometimes not) or as a response to the developmental stage they're at; the move from being a recipient of care and love and support to being encouraged but he world around them to be more empathic,participant in the world. That pressure causes a crash. (I've not explained that well, I could prattle on for pages about it, and more empirically too)
As for bowel problems and Autism... no time; work!

pagwatch · 26/02/2010 13:20

ooo kay

I will ignore your anecodote about your seeing signs in your friends child that she did not see as it is a dressed up version of "mum is dim" although I applaud your attempt to make it a little less rude

But I have to ask. If my developmenatlly normal son may have regressed because of

...." a number of factors; ill-health (before a vaccine shout, it could as well be measles as a cold, flu, a virus..."

why are you apparently selecting the MMR as one of the very few things which apparently could not have caused his regression.

Why could he have regressed because of a cold but absoloutely no way could he have regressed because of the MMR?

It seems a suspiciously odd yet convenient exclusion. Does the MMR have autsim regression negating effects. Should I have had him jabbed more as it seems able to be the only thing that won't cause regressions?

pagwatch · 26/02/2010 13:52

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Beachcomber · 26/02/2010 16:36

Ajay if the point being made about Dr Wakefield's science is so basic could you tell me what it is please?

I understand his science is unpopular in some quarters but perhaps you could clarify what is actually wrong with it?

Honest question. I would love someone to point out what is wrong with the science rather than repeating fairy tales from blogs about rival vaccines and false data (none of which you have done, I'm talking generally).

I'm also really interested in what you have to say about bowel problems if you are able to pop in later.

Beachcomber · 27/02/2010 17:08

And something I really have trouble understanding is how it can be that the Lancet is censoring Dr Wakefield, the GMC is calling his work unethical, and yet, the medical establishment in the US, is calling for research exactly like that of Dr Wakefield to be done.

The AAP actually reference his work for crying out loud.

More and more it is becoming accepted that in many cases ASD and intestinal problems present together. Even Mso admitted that.

Well let's just remember it was Dr Wakefield's work that brought this phenomenon to our attention. Thanks to this discovery the suffering of many many children is being alleviated.

What's not to like?

SunnyMonday · 28/02/2010 21:53

Hello, just to balance that statement slightly.
The AAP do reference his work (this is from the link you posted):
pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/125/Supplement_1/S1

And I quote:
"In 1998, Wakefield et al[26] reported an association between ileocolitis and developmental regression in 12 children and coined the term "autistic enterocolitis." From the same uncontrolled study they reported NLH of the ileum and colon as an abnormal finding in most children with ASDs. However, similar findings are known to be present in children with typical development, as well as children with food allergies and immunodeficiencies.[27,28] The significance of these findings, therefore, is unclear. Wakefield et al[29] also proposed a causal relation between measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccination and autism, a suggestion that was later retracted by many of the original authors.

Other study-design limitations in these reports included flawed control groups, lack of validated and standardized definitions, and speculative interpretation of results. In summary, published reports have not established the presence of a unique gastrointestinal pathophysiology specific to ASDs."

I don't think they liked it, so I don't really think anyone wants anyone to approach research like Andrew Wakefield did. I won't pass judgement on his motives, but I do note that he was apparently trying to develop/patent his own measles vaccine at the time: briandeer.com/wakefield/vaccine-patent.htm

The evidence, as judged by the AAP, is inconclusive on whether there is an increased incidence of intestinal disorders in individuals with ASDs and yes, you're right, they do suggest that further better designed studies should be performed not like the poorly designed and executed study published by Wakefield.

SunnyMonday · 28/02/2010 22:04

Sorry, I just noticed you said the vaccine patent application's a fairytale mentioned in blogs. It really doesn't seem to be:
briandeer.com/mmr/1998-vaccine-patent.pdf

You can also search for patent application number GB2325856 on the IP office website. www.ipo.gov.uk/types/patent/p-os/p-find/p-find-number.htm if you're not convinced that pdf is real.

Beachcomber · 28/02/2010 22:57

There was no measles vaccine. This is utter twaddle on the part of Deer, something he knows perfetly well. Wakefield developed a transfer factor for treating vaccine damage, something entirely different altogether.

The AAP states that the findings with regards to ASD and intestinal disorder are inconclusive and more research needs to be done. This is exactly what Wakefield said of the 1998 paper at the time. It was an early report, a case series with all the normal limitations of that type of study (ie no controls).

The AAP do not say that they 'didn't like' the study they say the significance of the findings is unclear. I don't know why they mention controls because that would be irrelevant to a case seires unless they are refering to the two other studies mentioned in this section. They do not say the study was 'poorly designed', they talk about study limitations which is standard language for scientific reviews.

One really needs to read the whole report in order to see that this is quite a shift on the part of the AAP.

In this link a helpful chap has made a tidy list of the science that has examined children who developed bowel disease and autism after MMR. There is much to be concerned about.

Beachcomber · 28/02/2010 23:06

Thank you I've seen the patent before.

I said the rival measles vaccine is a fairy tale, not the patent.

The patent is for a transfer factor, it was a product that was designed to try to treat patients who presented damage from a measles vaccine. It is not a measles vaccine. Mr Deer is perfectly aware of this but he continues to spread this untrue rumour.

This was made perfectly clear by the GMC who weren't the least bit interested in the transfer factor.

Swipe left for the next trending thread