Try 3 months for $3
Dismissed vaccine study

Andrew Wakefield and Brian Deer.

Brian Deer wishes he uncovered a link between vaccines and autism. He wishes years of investigations for newspapers and medical journals showed the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine was to blame for the disorder.

He wishes it were true.

But what the British freelance reporter found was tainted research by the key author of a now-dismissed study responsible for feeding public distress, he said.

“Nothing would have made me prouder and more fulfilled in my life than to have discovered that vaccines cause autism,” Deer said. “Because if that was true, then there would be something really remarkable that could be done for children.”

Instead, the report’s author, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, received payoffs from lawyers who were suing vaccine companies and tweaked the results of the 1998 Lancet study that has since been retracted.

Deer and Wakefield visited La Crosse on Thursday for separate presentations.

Deer spoke at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse. Away from the university, at Myrick Park, Wakefield addressed a crowd of supporters.

It was Deer’s reporting, beginning with a 2004 story in the Sunday Times of London, that eventually uncovered serious problems with Wakefield’s work.

What started with a routine assignment became an investigation that continued, on and off, for seven years.

“I thought it would last three weeks, and that was in 2004,” Deer said Thursday in an appearance on Wisconsin Public Radio’s Newsmakers.

Instead, he stumbled onto a story that would expose conflicts of interest and questionable research of a study fueling misplaced concern over the MMR vaccine and autism.

“(Wakefield) got himself media coverage saying this and triggered widespread public concern among parents,” Deer said.

Deer’s investigations show Wakefield received the equivalent of about $750,000 from lawyers who were representing families suing vaccine companies. Instead of using random samples, Wakefield used those same families in the Lancet report.

Deer’s reporting also showed that the study was altered and tweaked when it didn’t mesh with Wakefield’s hypothesis.

Wakefield was accused of fraud, lost his license to practice medicine in the United Kingdom and moved to Texas. He knows the effect Deer’s stories have had on his reputation — earlier this year he filed a failed defamation lawsuit against the journalist.

“It’s been trashed, I suppose,” Wakefield said. “I’ve got to live with that. That doesn’t matter.”

He came to La Crosse at the request of concerned parents, upset about Deer’s presentation at the university, Wakefield said.

“There needs to be the counter argument,” he said.

Wakefield continues to find support from parents.

Tori Weissenberger isn’t sure what caused her 7-year-old son’s autism, but she’s still afraid what she calls an “obvious correlation” between vaccines and harmful effects.

Now, the 35-year-old La Crosse resident won’t allow vaccinations for her children unless they’re necessary — and she would prefer to spread them out.

“They’ve become so healthy, we don’t feel the need to expose them further,” Weissenberger said.

Presenting a stoic figure in the windy autumn afternoon at Myrick, Wakefield called Deer a “Murdoch” journalist.

“We are now on the offense,” Wakefield said.

He accused Deer of deception and incompetence, and wondered at the public acceptance of Deer’s reporting.

“This is a man who the medical profession, public health, the pharmaceutical industry, the world health organization and, indeed, this university across the road appear to have invested their trust and belief,” Wakefield said.

The Centers for Disease Control and the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies reject any relationship between the MMR vaccine and autism.

“I wish to make it clear now that there is no debate,” said Bernadette Taylor, associate professor of microbiology at UW-L. “This university did not invite a debate on that issue.”

Wakefield still insists on a link between MMR and autism. He still defends the 1998 Lancet report. He still denies the hefty sums he received from lawyers presented a conflict of interest, saying the legal work was separate from his study.

Measles was eliminated from the United States in 2000, and about 60 cases are reported each year — except for 2011, according to the CDC. Last year, the number of reported measles cases jumped to 222.

Still, Wakefield cautions against over vaccination.

“The vaccine schedule in this country is far too onerous, far too aggressive,” Wakefield said. “And I do believe that it is associated with the cause of autism, yes.”

Subscribe to Daily Headlines

* I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its user agreement and privacy policy.
0
0
0
0
0

(419) comments

Twyla

An excellent letter:

OPEN LETTER to the Sponsors of Brian Deer’s Lectures at The University of Wisconsin, La Crosse, October 2012
Written by Jennifer VanDerHorst Larson
Friday, 26 October 2012 09:07

http://canaryparty.net/index.php/the-news/118-open-letter-to-the-sponsors-of-brian-deers-lectures-at-the-university-of-wisconsin-la-crosse-october-2012

ASD Researcher

SFARI - Three days - Three studies.

Mouse model links autism risk gene to mitochondria

http://sfari.org/news-and-opinion/news/2012/mouse-model-links-autism-risk-gene-to-mitochondria

A new mouse model provides the first molecular link between a known autism risk gene and the mitochondrial dysfunction sometimes seen in the disorder.

Mice with half the normal amount of PTEN protein in their brains show social deficits reminiscent of autism, according to a study published 10 August in PLoS One1. They also have faulty mitochondria, the structures that generate energy in cells.

'Spiny mice' model risk of autism from maternal infection

http://sfari.org/news-and-opinion/toolbox/2012/spiny-mice-model-risk-of-autism-from-maternal-infection


Most mice give birth to 10 to 12 pups after about 20 days of gestation and at a developmental stage that is roughly equivalent to the human early third trimester. By contrast, Acomys cahirinus, a species of spiny mouse, are born in litters of three to four pups after about 40 days of gestation. Unlike other mice, spiny mouse newborns have fur, their eyes are open and they have mature kidneys, lungs, livers and brains.

The new study takes advantage of this longer gestation to show that mild immune activity — such as that caused by a common cold — during the third trimester can lead to brain and behavior changes in the offspring.

Several studies in animal models have shown that activating a mother’s immune system during pregnancy affects her offspring. Researchers study this effect in animal models by injecting pregnant mothers or newborn mice with a compound that simulates viral infection.

In the new study, researchers injected pregnant spiny mice with a tenth of the typical dose at day 20, their gestational halfway point. Epidemiological studies suggest that in people, the embryo is particularly vulnerable to immune activity midway through pregnancy.

Genetics: RNA improvisations altered in autism

RNA editing, which can create multiple forms of a protein, is common among proteins involved in neuronal signaling, and may be abnormal in people with autism, according to a study published 7 August in Molecular Psychiatry1.

Messenger RNA is the template from which proteins are made. RNA editing is a process that alters the RNA sequence so that it varies from its DNA template. Unlike DNA, the RNA sequence is not hardwired and can mediate gene expression changes in response to the environment.

ASD Researcher

Cognition and behavior: Sensory sensitivity tied to autism

An atypical response to sensory stimuli, such as smells and sounds, may be a core feature of autism, suggest two studies published in the past few months.

The first, published 1 August in the Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, shows that heightened sensitivity to these stimuli usually accompanies two common symptoms of autism: gastrointestinal (GI) problems and anxiety1.

Another study, published 26 July in the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, found a strong correlation between traits of autism and atypical — either higher or lower than average — sensory sensitivity among adults in the general population2.

Sensory sensitivity is not listed as a core symptom of autism in the diagnostic criteria, but may affect up to 90 percent of children with the disorder. It may also be closely linked to the core features of autism, such as social deficits, researchers say. For example, children who are overwhelmed by loud noises are likely to avoid hectic social situations.

Studies have independently linked anxiety with sensory responses and with GI symptoms in autism, but the first new study looks at all three together. The study includes 2,973 children and teenagers registered in the Autism Treatment Network, a group of 17 medical centers that specialize in autism.

More evidence of the links between gastroenterology and autism. Parent observations once again supported by science.

https://sfari.org/news-and-opinion/in-brief/2012/cognition-and-behavior-sensory-sensitivity-tied-to-autism

Science Mom

"You manage to recognise this but fail to acknowledge how they found Andy in the first place."

Gee let me take a guess ... they either heard him speak or they saw relevant information posted from solicitors, acting under contract from the Legal Aid Office.

Well blimey John you do understand although I don't think your apologies for such actions are particularly ethical. Yes, the children were indeed recruited via Richard Barr, Jackie Fletcher's JABS and Rosemary Kessick's now-defunct Allergy-Induced Autism. They were not consecutively referred as Wakefield claimed. Good on you John.

Now it isn't at all uncommon for investigators to recruit a cohort exhibiting features of interest although they don't go about it the way Wakefield did and they describe the ascertainment of their patient groups in their publications. Can you really state that Wakefield honestly and accurately described the ascertainment of his patient group?

"A physician not known for any ASD research or paediatric neurological and GI disorders managing to attract patients from hundreds and even thousands of miles away."

ummm ... you might want to check Wakefield's status at the Royal Free hospital and then get back to me on that one. Here's a hint Associate Professor (UK Reader) in Gatroenterology . Area of expertise and research viral associations in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases

No John, you need to check that again. Wakefield has no training in ASD research nor any paediatric gastroenterology qualifications. Furthermore, he continues to use accreditations he has no membership for. I guess making up qualifications one doesn't have is perfectly reasonable for you isn't it "ASD researcher"?

"Patients who saw him first and then acquired a GP referral."

ummm ... that's not one of life's great light bulb moments Science Mom.

You're right but I wonder if Wakefield would even take it all back knowing how pear-shaped things went.

But please take your time , look at Justice Mitting findings and show me that Andy Wakefield did what any other professional officer would do in assisitng parents of severely disabled children access the correct medical specialist in the UK that had the experience and knowledge to address such a profound medical condition.

I have but it seems to be you with the reading comprehension problem John. Wakefield isn't Walker-Smith and yes, he did do things no other professional (who doesn't want to tank their careers) would do the unethical and downright scurrilous things Wakefield did. He should have told the truth about his patients origination; he lied.

Dyson

Science Mom, I doubt you'll get far persuading JRS (NOT an ASD researcher) that he cannot even comprehend simple english. The true facts of how these kids were referred don't really matter, but the cases serve as fantastic examples of JRS's ability to ignore them.

If JRS decided it was daytime, and a meteorologist said to him "So why does the clock say it is 2am and why is it dark?" he'd reply: You don't understand do you? Circadian variability is too complex for someone like you"

Science Mom

Dyson, I harbour no delusions that I can convince "ASD researcher" of anything that counter his dearly-held fantasies. However, it's important to rebut such nonsense to demonstrate what a house-of-cards anti-vaxx/pro-Wakefield propaganda is. Besides, they're throwing softballs and I have the time right now.

Dyson

Good on you SciMom.
In case anyone else is still dipping into this thread, at least they can see us point out his lack of logic and fact fails in all their glory.

Dyson

(Oh, by the way, you may want to check Huffpo sometime, where JRS (NOT an "ASD researcher") spent several days arguing that Wakefield is not a gastroenterologist, even when Wakefield himself said he was. That was a surreal period.)

Science Mom

Ummm what? How did he possibly argue that? I guess the players can be anything JRS wants them to be whenever it's convenient.

Dyson

Mnookin called Wakefield a gastroenterologist in his book the Panic Virus.
JRS objected, saying all Mnookin's ideas about Wakefield were wrong - why? ...Because Mnookin had said Wakefield was a a gastroenterologist, when he was really a "surgeon".

JRS went on for dozens of posts in utter denial. Even links to Wakefield saying he was a gastroenterologist, and links to the foreword of Wakefield's new book where he describes himself as a gastroenterologist could not sway the JRSbot and snap him out of his dissonant brainfart. In fact JRS seemed to think that it was more acceptable to label Wakefield as a liar than to admit he (JRS) was wrong.
(I have never seen JRS say he was wrong, ever, in thousands of Huffpo posts, many of which were demonstrably wrong).

Cable (another poster on Huffpo) and I were in stitches for days.

ASD Researcher

Seth got it wrong, as well as a number of other observations. If your going to write a book about scientific accuracy it kind of helps that errors , faults and other inconsistencies do not pepper your account.

That seems to be a rather common theme running through the skeptic narrative ...why is that ?

Dyson

See, SciMom?
Wakefield is a liar.
John (NOT an "ASD researcher") Richard Smith says so.

Science Mom

I know Dyson. After reading those last responses I decided to let the craxxy speak for itself.

Dyson

John Richard Smith, I am entertaining the notion that you are actually a provaccine/pharma shill, posting here to make Wakefield look like a complete dodo.

ASD Researcher

Yes I can see why that would be surreal for you Dyson. Fancy being unable , as Mnookin, the difference between the two positions. Perhaps some unfamiliarity with tertiary education as well as tertiary medicine ?

ASD Researcher

Science Mom

Well blimey John you do understand although I don't think your apologies for such actions are particularly ethical.

There is a particularly strong set of ethical values that puts the welfare of sick and disabled children above other considerations I agree. It is a more sophisticated stance driven by compassion. Congratulations to all the teams of doctors that assisted those children I say.

Yes, the children were indeed recruited via Richard Barr ...

Yes a solicitor appointed / contracted by the Legal Aid Service an arm of the UK government no less. That's how medical litigation sometimes has to work. There is nor either anything controversial or conspirational about it.

...Jackie Fletcher's JABS and Rosemary Kessick's now-defunct Allergy-Induced Autism ...

Just as Thalidomide victims were represented by advocacy groups in accessing legal justice and compensation.

Unfortunately the makers of thalidomide did not just roll over , even in the face of horrific malformations and disability.

As well as other Autism advocacy groups ... this was and remains a matter of concern to the autism community.

They were not consecutively referred as Wakefield claimed.

You do not seem to understand even the most basic concepts of referral as they apply to tertiary hospitals. Nor do you seem to understand the quite clear statements in the Justice Mitting rulings. Or alternatively one might assume you don't want to.


Now it isn't at all uncommon for investigators to recruit a cohort exhibiting features of interest although they don't go about it the way Wakefield did ...

They weren't research lab rats that is made clear by the UK High Court. They were being provided clinical care and treatment

Can you really state that Wakefield honestly and accurately described the ascertainment of his patient group?

The UK High Court is clear ... you are confused. I'm glad Justice Mitting is able to shone a strong beam of clarity on this matter.


No John, you need to check that again. Wakefield has no training in ASD research nor any paediatric gastroenterology qualifications.

What an awfully strange argument ... kids have severe gastrointestinal disease / disorder of course any competent medical doctor with a comprehensive and deep knowledge of GI is going to suggest to parents GO and SEE a Gastroenterologist Both parents and Andrew Wakefield made an obvious caring decision about their children.
Further evidenced by the fact that GI symptomatology and ASD behaviours were treatable.

Obviously you didn't get the hint - Associate Professor (UK Reader) in Gatroenterology .

He should have told the truth about his patients origination; he lied.

What lie ? Be specific. The children were not part of official legal procedures at the UK High Court until they notified that they had by legal writ decided to take a clear legal stance .

You and accusations in this matter are seriously imbalanced until you can provide clear documentary evidence. Which so far you can not.

I appreciate the way critics overreact and hyperventilate at the most innocuous run of the mill activities, but it leads one to suspect a less than balanced and objective portrayal of events.

This seems to be driven mainly by being an ignorance and confusion on many basic issues of law and medicine and ethics.

Dyson

SciMom, the narrative expounded by Wakefield, and parroted by John Richard Smith (who persists in the pretense he has something to do with ASD research) was that the Lancet 12 were just a series of autistic kids routinely referred by their GPs for an outpatient assessment by a pediatric gastroenterology unit because of bowel problems, and hey presto! ...It coincidentally, miraculously and astoundingly "emerged" that most of them had MMR just prior to developing behavioral symptoms of autism!

Reality is that most parents were alerted to the "pilot" study being set up at the Royal Free, deliberately designed to find a link between MMR, bowel disease and autism and looking at about 10 kids who had legal aid funding for the project. Newsletters from the solicitors in question (Dawbarns) published articles encouraging parents who thought vaccines were responsible for the autism to contact Dr Wakefield and arrange for referral to the Royal Free. Letters from Richard Barr, solicitor at Dawbarns, specifically states how the idea was to prove the link and the study would provide the proof which would then be used in the litigation.

Several of the kids were recruited in this way, rather than being "routine, consecutive referrals" from independent GPs. Wakefield in several cases wrote to Walker Smith to suggest he invited patients onto the study - some were never even assessed at a pre-admission clinic, but admitted directly on Wakefield's say so. The letters even indicate how one child was recruited in this way from the US (as though there were no pediatric gastroenterologists available anywhere closer to home!)

And through it all, Wakefield and his groupies maintain the cases were merely routine, consecutive referrals to a hospital clinic.

You really could not make this stuff up, but it is all true, and the evidence lies in the evidence submitted under oath at the GMC hearings and the Mitting appeal, and letters from those involved submitted as evidence by the attorneys involved in the hearings.

ASD Researcher

The only thing wrong is - well the UK High Court decisions.

Nice storyline though ..

ASD Researcher

... and the documents don't match.

Dyson

The documents do match, John "not an ASD researcher" Smith, and you know it.

ASD Researcher

see below

" The documents do match, John "not an ASD researcher" Smith, and you know it."

Provide the links to these documents then.

lilady

Still spamming Blackheart/ASD Researcher?

Why not give it a rest...no one is even reading your comments anymore.

Dyson

Even I am getting a bit bored with him... I can only read so much predictable, repetitive, self aggrandising spam.

ASD Researcher

Yes I could we ll believe so.

"Boredom is just the reverse side of fascination: both depend on being outside rather than inside a situation, and one leads to the other."
Arthur Schopenhauer

lookinglass

Nice one ASD. Pity he won't get it.

Science Mom

Pity he won't get it.

Why because you don't?

Dyson

Been Googling again, this time for pithy quotes John? Geez, you really did earn that GoogleUni degree in ASD research, didn't you? Jenny McBubblehead would be proud.

ASD Researcher

I rather suspect you had to google Schopenhauer ... the quote is quiet well known Dyson.

Dyson

I haven't bothered googling your quote John.
I merely commented that you probably had to.

ASD Researcher

That's understandable.

Dyson

You do appreciate that people here think you are an idiot, John (not an ASD researcher)??

ASD Researcher

I don't think I'll ever be worried about what the skeptics think about me.

Twyla

If you're bored, why are you still reading? Go outside and play, or get some work done.

Are you proud of your mean stupid snippy comments, lilady, Dyson, and Science Mom? Do you think you're really witty?

ASD Researcher has posted a lot of good info, but your role is just to mock, not to engage in any constructive dialogue.

Science Mom

Twyla, lecturing others on the very things you should be doing is really stupid. Yes, I like the snippy comments, don't you? Your comrades are engaging in them as well. And no, JRS has not posted a lot of good info; he is lying, obfuscating and distracting, all of the qualities you do so love in your luminaries. He cherry-picks, quote-mines, and misrepresents studies, again, all of the things you admire. You deserve mockery and marked as the trolls you are; it's nice to see the wider audience recognise what your groups really are. Cheers to UW-L.

Tell your lying friend Jenny Allen that Brian Deer has spoken at numerous UK universities and his BMJ series is being reported on by UK media and The Times did not "throw him under the bus". Wishful thinking perhaps but all pure BS as usual from AoA sycophants.

lilady

Well Twyla: You may think my comments are witty...but I am posting the truth about all the lies, fabrications and contorted explanations you, ASD Researcher/Blackheart and your pals from Age of Autism are posting.

Wakefield, his attorney-friend, JABS, and many of the parents in his "study" were all part of a scheme to game the system. Either the parents lied or Wakefield lied about the onset of symptoms of autism. (I suspect the parents were in cahoots with Wakefield and the attorney about the onset of symptoms to make it *seem* that the MMR vaccine was responsible for the childrens' onset of symptoms).

Just where are all those bowel tissue specimens and the original pathology reports Twyla? Why did Wakefield order not-medically-indicated LPs, Twyla?

Why did Wakefield lie about "conflicts of interest" and why did Wakefield lie to the IRB, Twyla?

Why did he sue Mr. Deer in the U.K....then begged the court to allow him to discontinue the lawsuit? Why did the court issue a scathing order to allow Andy to to discontinue the lawsuit and order Andy to pay Mr. Deer's legal costs?

Time to fold your tent now...run back to AoA and tell them how mean lilady, Dyson and Science Mom have been to you, because we've busted you and ASD Researcher/Blackheart as the trolls you are.

Dyson

Twyla, I don't bother reading the long cut n' paste spamming posted by the person who claims he is an "ASD researcher" but is not.

His other posts I read for humor.

lookinglass

Oh LOL Twyla. Those two, Dyson and AMum just as I forecast are nattering away to themselves, nobody is listening, they are a real comedy duo! I just look at those names, have a laugh and don't ever bother to read their rubbish. When is this blog going to be brought to a close I wonder, tomorrow I hope. I think the Ed has long left the office.

lilady

The blog will be brought to a close when lookinglass, Twyla, (Not an) ASD Researcher/Blackheart stop posting.

Go on back to your AoA pals now. Make certain to post how mean Science Mom, Dyson and lilady, have been to you.


Dyson

Hey, looking, found that citation where vaccines make someone infectious for 2 weeks yet?
Can we see it please?

ASD Researcher

This is not entirely unexpected. People build up a scaffold of the world they live in and posters like Dyson that have invested a considerable time and energy in this matter have found that a simple 5 day appeal bought that construct fallong down around them.

Is their a bitter after taste ? ...well the postings suggest so.

ASD Researcher

Tempting ... the intellectual counters long since dried on the vine.

ASD Researcher

In reply to Dyson

Just off the top of my head, let's see how many things Wakefield/the Lancet paper got wrong:


1. Patients were not consecutively referred as described.

Read UK High Court decision - http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/503.html

2. Some patients were cherrypicked because they were part of antivaccine litigation (ie quite unrepresentative)

Read UK High Court decision

3. No valid ethical approval for the study.


Read UK High Court decision

4. No valid consent (because of 3 above as well as lack of documentation).

Read UK High Court decision

5. Some children were described as having regressive autism but did not.

Incorrect use of terminology - children were diagnosed within ASD as either autism or Asperger's.

5. Some children had unnecessary invasive and potentially harmful investigations performed for research purposes.

Read UK High Court decision

6. Wakefield breached his honorary contract because he directed clinical investigations when he was not supposed to direct clinical work.

Not tested at judicial level.

7. He failed to declare massive financial conflicts of interest to both his study colleagues and to the Lancet.

Unfortunate confusion of timeline. Lack of documentation.

8. He altered the timeline of some case histories to make it appear damage had occurred shortly after MMR vaccination.

No other clinician has questioned the validity of the data. Most clinical histories taken by John Walker-Smith (Read UK High Court decision - Professor Walker-Smith saw child 3 at an outpatient's clinic on 3rd April 1996. As usual, a careful clinical history was taken.)


9. He excluded some other cases to further improve the timeline claims.

Read Judge Mitting for all case histories.

10. Histopathology reports were reviewed and diagnoses upgraded from non-specific colitis to suggest there were more significant pathology than there was.

Poor understanding of tertiary pathology procedures and clinical investigations refer Professor Amar Dhillon Royal Free Pathologist. Incomplete documentation and clinical pathology presented.

11. Inappropriate controls selected for bowel histopathology comparison.

Not documented. Nor part of any allegations from fellow pathologists.

12. He experimented on children attending his son’s birthday party, failing to seek appropriate consent and offering financial inducements for blood tests.

Found - confusion on parents ethical approval v Ethics Board approval not tested at a judicial level.

13. £25,000 of the research money for the study mysteriously vanished without a trace.

Not documented by Legal Aid Office , the auditors or the Courts. No forensic accountant confirmation.

------------------------------------

Thank you once again for your input.

Cheers

Science Mom

Blackheart, Anyone can read the GMC transcripts and decision for themselves and see what a delusion you are operating from. Just an example, sections 33 and 34 of this: http://briandeer.com/solved/gmc-charge-sheet.pdf completely contradicts your fantasy.

Not that facts will get in the way of your unhealthy obsession.

ASD Researcher

In what way do they contradict ?

You need to explain yourself more fully and intellectually, just as you should do with any science you present.

Science Mom

You lecturing me about explaining myself more fully is a howler JRS. You don't even provide the relevant sections for your links. I did and they are clearly contradictory to what you claim about how the children were "referred" to RF. Wakefield arranged their appearances there and tried to cover that fact by telling the parents to go through their GPs. It is clear that Wakefield had prior contact with most if not all of the children before their arrival to RF. That's just on that point.

Dyson

Science Mom, here is just one example (from High Court case of Justice Miting) where is shows how a child came to be "referred" to Walker Smith.

On 3rd October 1996, Dr. Jelley, child 8′s general practitioner, wrote to Dr. Wakefield stating that her mother had told him that a referral letter was required from him to accept child 8 “into your investigation programme”, which he understood to be into the possible effects of vaccine damage and her gastrointestinal symptoms. On 9th October 1996 Dr. Wakefield wrote to Professor Walker-Smith enclosing details of child 8 “who was referred to me with secondary autism and bowel problems”. On 3rd December 1996, Professor Walker-Smith wrote to child 8′s mother telling her that he had arranged for her admission for investigations, beginning with a colonoscopy, on 19th January 1996 (sic).

Such are the facts.
JRS can try and pretend these were random cases, spontaneously and consecutively referred but the truth is rather different.

PS Similar story with Children 3, 6, 5, and 12.

ASD Researcher

(see below)

JRS can try and pretend these were random cases, spontaneously and consecutively referred but the truth is rather different.

ummm ... so Andy Wakefield suggests a sick disabled child with severe gastrointestinal disorders and symtomatology is referred to a ...

Paediatric Gastroenterologist

well .... duh.

Science Mom

ummm ... so Andy Wakefield suggests a sick disabled child with severe gastrointestinal disorders and symtomatology is referred to a ...

Paediatric Gastroenterologist

well .... duh.

You manage to recognise this but fail to acknowledge how they found Andy in the first place. A physician not known for any ASD research or paediatric neurological and GI disorders managing to attract patients from hundreds and even thousands of miles away. Patients who saw him first and then acquired a GP referral. And you see nothing wrong with this.

ASD Researcher

Science Mom (see below)

"You manage to recognise this but fail to acknowledge how they found Andy in the first place."

Gee let me take a guess ... they either heard him speak or they saw relevant information posted from solicitors, acting under contract from the Legal Aid Office.

A physician not known for any ASD research or paediatric neurological and GI disorders managing to attract patients from hundreds and even thousands of miles away.

ummm ... you might want to check Wakefield's status at the Royal Free hospital and then get back to me on that one. Here's a hint Associate Professor (UK Reader) in Gatroenterology . Area of expertise and research viral associations in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases

Patients who saw him first and then acquired a GP referral.

ummm ... that's not one of life's great light bulb moments Science Mom.

But please take your time , look at Justice Mitting findings and show me that Andy Wakefield did what any other professional officer would do in assisitng parents of severely disabled children access the correct medical specialist in the UK that had the experience and knowledge to address such a profound medical condition.

Dyson

Remember, for Child 3, the mother had been told of the antivaccine litigation case and specifically solicited an appointment, using Wakefield as the intermediary.

JRSmith (NOT an "ASD researcher") thinks this pattern typically reflects consultant referrals in the NHS. Blowing smoke as usual.

On 3rd October 1996, Dr. Jelley, child 8′s general practitioner, wrote to Dr. Wakefield stating that her mother had told him that a referral letter was required from him to accept child 8 “into your investigation programme”, which he understood to be into the possible effects of vaccine damage and her gastrointestinal symptoms. On 9th October 1996 Dr. Wakefield wrote to Professor Walker-Smith enclosing details of child 8 “who was referred to me with secondary autism and bowel problems”. On 3rd December 1996, Professor Walker-Smith wrote to child 8′s mother telling her that he had arranged for her admission for investigations, beginning with a colonoscopy, on 19th January 1996 (sic).

Dyson

Well you have taken quite a wall-eyed view of the evidence, haven't you John "I am not and never have been an ASD researcher" Richard Smith.

I suggest you read Mitting's decision again, and ask some medical colleagues what a "referral" to hospital actually is. Also compare the Lancet paper with the earlier drafts.
And because something is "not tested at judicial review", that hardly invalidates criticism of it, does it. In fact I could say that all Brian Deer's claims are true, because they have never been subject to judicial review.
That should please you.

So glad to help as always with those who struggle to comprehend simple facts.
Dyson.

Dyson

Actually, many of Deer's claims have been subjected to judicial review.
I forgot Wakefield tried to sue him for libel, and lost.

ASD Researcher

Obviously you don't know what judicial review means.

Dyson

JRS, that's an odd comment from someone who admits he doesn't even know what "research" is, or what a "gastroenterologist" is.

Are you trying to become the new Heidegger?

ASD Researcher

So now you came across the name Heidegger ... any reason to suspect what are the understandings explored by his philosophical themes ?

ASD Researcher

You should google , a skill you seem to have honed, judicial review.

Dyson

Thank you, not an "ASD researcher", I know what judicial review is without responding to your only source of "knowledge", namely Google Uni.

Could you maybe google the word "researcher" next?

ASD Researcher

(below)

"I know what judicial review..."

Obviously not ...even with google.

ASD Researcher

I see you've also googled how to do simple HTML code ... you really are getting quite sophisticated. Unfortunately the intellectual quality of your responses remains as always simplistic.

Dyson

I am keeping my responses simple in the hope that those who are simple can understand them. However I have evidently even overestimated your abilities.

Comment deleted.
ndavis

Since you aren't able to critically evaluate those papers, Twyla, here, again, is a brief discussion:

http://justthevax.blogspot.com/2010/02/independent-wakefield-way-really.html

"So what do we have here? Three (3) genuinely published cases of autistic adults who had consulted a doctor for gastrointestinal problems and were found to have gastrointestinal problems. One conference report from April 2005 that has not gone through peer review and has not appeared in a real journal in the 5 years since the conference. One real study looking at over 50 autistic children which does not confirm Wakefield’s findings. And finally, one study by Wakefield’s buddies in a freshly founded journal run by Andrew Wakefield and his buddies, to say that their buddy Andy was really right all along – how is that for "independent" confirmation?"

Science Mom

Twyla states in regards to Krigsman:

Apparently he was overzealous in wanting to research his patients' bowel problems, and ran into barriers put up by the hospital, as any research that might connect vaccines and autism or bowel disease is forbidden.

"Barriers put up by the hospital"? Really Twyla? So you have never heard of the Helsinki Accords and Internal Review Boards emanating from those? You wish to bring back the days of the Tuskegee and Guatemala Syphilis experiments and Willowbrook? IRBs are there for the protection of human patients and test subjects and for you to suggest that they are "barriers" that get in the way of your pet hypothesis is positively repugnant. Then again you do support unethical physicians and pretend researchers like Wakefield, Krigsman, and the Geiers who don't seem to have any problem with unethical testing on special needs children, just like your fellow "mummy warriors". Somehow I don't think you would support unapproved testing if it was anyone else.

ASD Researcher

The role of immune dysfunction in the pathophysiology of autism

Abstract

Autism spectrum disorders (ASD) are a complex group of neurodevelopmental disorders encompassing impairments in communication, social interactions and restricted stereotypical behaviors. Although a link between altered immune responses and ASD was first recognized nearly 40 years ago , only recently has new evidence started to shed light on the complex multifaceted relationship between immune dysfunction and behavior in ASD.

Neurobiological research in ASD has highlighted pathways involved in neural development, synapse plasticity, structural brain abnormalities, cognition and behavior.

At the same time, several lines of evidence point to altered immune dysfunction in ASD that directly impacts some or all these neurological processes.

Extensive alterations in immune function have now been described in both children and adults with ASD, including ongoing inflammation in brain specimens, elevated pro-inflammatory cytokine profiles in the CSF and blood, increased presence of brain-specific auto-antibodies and altered immune cell function.

Furthermore, these dysfunctional immune responses are associated with increased impairments in behaviors characteristic of core features of ASD, in particular, deficits in social interactions and communication.

This accumulating evidence suggests that immune processes play a key role in the pathophysiology of ASD.

This review will discuss the current state of our knowledge of immune dysfunction in ASD, how these findings may impact on underlying neuro-immune mechanisms and implicate potential areas where the manipulation of the immune response could have an impact on behavior and immunity in ASD.

---------------------------------------------------------

Sometimes its about whether you should look - particularly at a precise cohort of children to which environmental factors such as viruses , bacteria and other environmental triggers intersect at particularly important windows of development, along a biological journey that commences from the fetus in the placenta until the full development of a child's nervous system and immune system and perhaps even beyond.

There might be no interaction with vaccines, there might be some interaction that can be planned for and ameliorated , there may be other environmental triggers such as bacteria and viruses that future vaccines may be developed for.

Science brings a torch to the darkness and what some fear ... science has to move forward.
It's what science does

ASD Researcher

Autism: Where Genetics Meets the Immune System

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3440848/

Individuals with autism often display immune abnormalities in the form of altered cytokine profiles, autoantibodies, and changes in immune cell function. Are they mere “smoke” or real “fire”? Given what we now know about the cross-talk between the immune and nervous systems, one must ask: are these immune abnormalities simply bystander effects of genetic/genomic variants directly responsible for abnormal neurodevelopment, or is there a sizable subgroup of patients with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), in which a dysfunctional immune system plays a critical mediator role in the pathogenic chain of events leading to the disorder? Is autism one of many genetic/genomic conditions, Down syndrome representing the best-known example, accompanied by immune abnormalities not primarily responsible for changing the trajectory of neurodevelopment? Or could conceivably an unfortunate combination of genetic/genomic susceptibility and environmental factors converging onto the same individual affect neurodevelopment through immune-mediated mechanisms, such as fetomaternal incompatibility, autoimmunity, abnormal neuroinflammation, and so on?

This special issue contains six contributions aimed at addressing different aspects of this question.

The paper by N. Momeni et al. documents significantly elevated plasma levels of factor I among ASD children compared to controls. Factor I is a plasma enzyme responsible for degrading complement factor 3b, which in turn is the major opsonin in the complement system enabling phagocytosis of microbial agents. Higher factor I levels can be interpreted as either primary (i.e., conferring vulnerability toward microbial infections) or as a secondary event part of a broader immunomodulatory response aiming to blunt an inflammatory process. F1 plasma levels suggest that this process could play a more relevant role in males and in small ASD children.

The contribution by S. Rose et al. describes reduced glutathione-mediated redox/antioxidant capacity both inside primary leukocytes and in the plasma of ASD children. Consistently with this intracellular and extracellular imbalance of the glutathione redox status, intracellular production of free radicals is also enhanced, especially in 30% of ASD cases. This and several previous studies provide converging evidence of excessive oxidative stress likely leading to abnormal mitochondrial function in a similar percentage of autistic individuals.

Along similar lines, M. I. Waly et al. direct their attention on the complex array of pathophysiological consequences produced by enhanced oxidative stress. In addition to imbalanced glutathione redox status, reduced methionine synthase activity is particularly interesting, as it results in lower availability of S-adenosyl-methionine and consequently blunted DNA methylation. Curiously, a similar abnormality underlies autistic features also in two entirely different contexts, namely, children exposed prenatally to valproic acid and in Rett syndrome girls, carrying MECP2 mutations.

The review by S. D. Bilbo et al. presents a stimulating hypothesis, linking ASD to inflammatory, allergic, and autoimmune diseases. These “hyperimmune” disorders are known to share steeply increasing incidence rates over the last decades, as well as significant loading in many families with children with autism. In the authors' view, they also share an inappropriate activation of the immune system due to biome depletion in postindustrial societies, possibly suggesting preventive strategies based on biome reconstitution.

The paper by C. Onore et al. reports an impressive threefold decrease in EGF plasma levels among small ASD children compared to controls. EGF is involved in wound healing in the skin, in the gastrointestinal, and respiratory systems, as well as in the central nervous system where this neurotrophic factor supports both adult subventricular zone and midbrain dopaminergic neurons, in addition to stem cell proliferation.

A. R. Torres et al. review immune abnormalities in autism, focusing on HLA gene roles as potential contributors to autism pathogenesis through several distinct mechanisms. HLA genes or haplotypes have been found associated with several autoimmune diseases, but strong associations with autism have also been reported.

These contributions, while not providing the ultimate answers, do add some new pieces to the autism puzzle, providing further support to the idea that immune abnormalities may play a pathophysiologically relevant role in a subgroup of families with autistic children. Future studies of the interaction of the immune and central nervous system are needed to clarify in more detail how neuroimmune mechanisms influence the enhancement of the neurodevelopmental disarray and disturbances of neurobehavioral trajectories determined by genetic and environmental factors. The heuristic potential of this line of investigation, both in terms of prevention and clinical therapeutics, ensures continued efforts until a more definitive answer can be given to our initial question, so crucial in today's autism field.

Antonio M. Persico
Judy Van de Water
Carlos A. Pardo

Dyson

John, why do you call yourself an "ASD researcher" when this is not the case?

Does it not point to a rather devious mindset? Why should we believe sopay attention to posts by someone with delusions of grandeur and an overinflated sense of self importance?

ASD Researcher

"John, why do you call yourself an "ASD researcher" when this is not the case?"

Cheers to you to Dyson ... I'm sure everyone is convinced of the reality of your diatribe. But hey ...

"Does it not point ..."

No ... you carry a lot of angst. Why is that ?

"Why should we believe ..."

Probably because time and again I'm proven correct ...and you ..well.

Never mind when you can talk science , medicine even law and procedure in reasonable way I'll be happy to point you in the right direction.

Dyson

Again, why do you label yourself an "ASD researcher" when you are not?

Your extreme reluctance to explain your duplicity speaks volumes.

lilady

Twyla: Is Arthur Krigsman one of your heroes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Krigsman

Arthur Krigsman, MD, is a pediatrician and gastroenterologist best known for his controversial and widely-criticized research in which he attempted to prove that the MMR vaccine caused diseases, especially autism. He specializes in the evaluation and treatment of gastrointestinal pathology in children with autism spectrum disorders, and has written in support of the controversial entity of autistic enterocolitis. The original study that tied the MMR vaccine to autism and GI complaints conducted by one of Krigsman's colleagues has been found to be fraudulent, and the diagnosis of "autistic enterocolitis" has never been widely accepted in the medical community.

Education and career

In 1989, Krigsman earned his MD at the State University of New York at Brooklyn and later completed his pediatric residency at SUNY Brooklyn's Kings County Medical Center. After completing pediatric gatroenterology fellowship in 1995, he joined the Department of Pediatric Gastroenterology of Beth Israel Medical Center in New York as Director through 2000, and later joined Lenox Hill Hospital from 2000 through 2004 in the same position. He subsequently left to work as director of the gastroenterology clinic at Thoughtful House, where he was colleagues with Andrew Wakefield. Krigsman holds board certification in general pediatrics and in pediatric gastroenterology, though no longer practices general pediatrics.[1] In April 2010, Krigsman left Thoughtful House to open a private practice in Austin and New York.[2]

Ethics

In 2004, Krigsman left Lenox Hill under "questionable circumstances," after his hospital privileges were restricted from conducting endoscopies due to allegations that he was performing medically unwarranted endoscopies on autistic children for research purposes.[3] The Department of Health and Human Services Office for Human Research Protections later reviewed the situation, noting reports from the hospital that Krigsman applied for permission to conduct research but was not approved by the institution's Institutional Review Board, which was concerned about risk to patients from unwarranted procedures. The report also noted Krigsman nevertheless testified before a Congressional hearing about research he had done on 43 patients, and later refused to provide medical charts as requested by a committee set up by the hospital to investigate the situation, before resigning from the hospital in 2004.[4]

In 2005, Krigsman was fined by the Texas State Board of Medical Examiners for multiple violations, including representing he was available to see patients prior to obtaining his medical license in Texas, for failing to report previous regulatory sanctions by the Florida medical board, and for the disciplinary action by the Lenox Hill Hospital.[3

Controversial autism research

The concept of autistic enterocolitis was coined by Andrew Wakefield in 1998 after the now-retracted publication of his study in The Lancet, where he purported an association between autistic regression, intestinal inflammation and the MMR vaccine.[5] In 2003, Krigsman, who was at Lenox Hill, reported similar findings as those of Wakefield, saying he found the intestines of 40 autistic children showed signs of inflammation, thus lending support to Wakefield's ideas that MMR was related to autism and also to gastrointestinal disease.[6] This information was not formally published until seven years later in 2010, in the non-MEDLINE indexed journal Autism Insights.[7]

However, the concept of "autistic enterocolitis" has not been accepted in the medical community due to lack of rigorous studies confirming the condition, as many studies purportedly showing this diagnosis have been marred by numerous methodological faults.[8] Even a position statement by a panel of physicians sponsored by Autism Speaks that included Krigsman[9] concluded that the clinical significance of the findings of inflammation in the intestines is unknown as it is also found in children without autism.[10]

Andrew Wakefield, who later joined and worked with Krigsman at Thoughtful House, was found to have falsified the 1998 Lancet study, which was described as "an elaborate fraud."[11][12]

Expert witness testimony

Krigsman has testified as an expert witness in a number of test claims to the Office of Special Masters of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (commonly known as the "Vaccine Court") by parents seeking compensation for damages purportedly caused by vaccination. The "Special Masters" rendering decisions about these cases have questioned his credibility due to previous regulatory sanctions by the Texas Medical Board and Lenox Hill Hospital, as well as concerns regarding the curriculum vitae provided by Krigsman. They noted concerns regarding a title he said he held at New York University Medical School which may not have matched his duties as well as possible misrepresentations of publications he has published.[1][3] In one case, the judge noted that he thinks Krigsman was not a "credible witness" and that the parents who brought the case were "misled by physicians who are guilty, in my view, of gross medical misjudgment."[3] In another case, the judge noted of Krigsman's qualification for identifying a new disease like "autistic enterocolitis" which is "unrecognized by other authorities in the field, were, even when inflated, sadly lacking" and that his testimony about the existence of "autistic enterocolitis" was "speculative and unsupported by the weight of the evidence."[1]

Twyla you have a very warped sense of values.

Twyla

I don't know enough about Dr. Krigsman to call him my hero, but he does seem to know how to treat bowel disease in people with autism, based on many accounts I have heard from parents.

Here is the case you are referring to
http://www.casewatch.org/board/med/krigsman/complaint.shtml
Some of the agreed upon facts:
7. Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, disciplined Respondent by requiring certain procedures to be pre-approved. The disciplinary action was due to concern that Respondent was using the hospital's facilities to conduct research on pediatric patients without the approval of the hospital's Institutional Review Board (IRB). Respondent presented a research proposal involving the evaluation of gastrointestinal symptoms in autistic children to the JRB on three separate occasions: 1. January 2001 proposal was rejected due to safety concerns; 2. June 2002 proposal was deferred until he could submit certain revisions; 3. September 2002 proposal was deferred pending investigation by Lenox Hill's IRB. Respondent appealed the disciplinary action by Lenox Hill Hospital, but Respondent's privileges expired while the appeal was pending, making the appeal moot.

8. Respondent failed to disclose non-disciplinary action by the Florida Medical Board on February 4, 2004, in which Respondent was assessed an administrative monitory penalty of $1,000, plus $89 in costs, for failure to document continuing medical education required for initial licensure.

9. Prior to being licensed in Texas, Respondent published information on a website, misrepresenting himself as being available to make appointments to see patients in Texas.

10. Respondent has cooperated with Board staff in the investigation of the allegations related to this Agreed Order. Respondent's cooperation, through consent to this Agreed Order, pursuant to the provisions of Section 164.002 the Act, will save money and resources for the State of Texas. To avoid further investigation, hearings, and the expense and inconvenience of litigation, Respondent agrees to the entry of this Agreed Order and to comply with its terms and conditions.
----------------------

Apparently he was overzealous in wanting to research his patients' bowel problems, and ran into barriers put up by the hospital, as any research that might connect vaccines and autism or bowel disease is forbidden.

He was assessed a $1,000 penalty for failure to document continuing medical education requirements. Not a huge deal. He started booking appointments in Texas before his license was finalized. He settled these complaints and is still practicing, and praised by many for achieving good results with these difficult-to-treat patients.

There is nothing warped about my sense of values, and I don't appreciate your ad feminam attacks.

lilady

"Apparently he was overzealous in wanting to research his patients' bowel problems, and ran into barriers put up by the hospital, as any research that might connect vaccines and autism or bowel disease is forbidden."

"He was assessed a $1,000 penalty for failure to document continuing medical education requirements. Not a huge deal. He started booking appointments in Texas before his license was finalized. He settled these complaints and is still practicing, and praised by many for achieving good results with these difficult-to-treat patients."

It's that old pre-approval argument from hospitals "Institutional Review Boards, yet again Twyla...and yet again you are making lame excuses for one of the same things that got Wakefield into trouble.

Here's Dr. Krigman's website:

http://www.autismgi.com/

How odd that Dr. Krigsman has two offices, one in New York and one in Austin Texas, where his co-researcher and his co-business partner Wakefield resides, and runs some lucrative businesses (Autism Media Channel..an anti-vaccine multimedia company) and the "Strategic Autism Initiative" which is a very secretive operation and which received funded from Jenny McCarthy's Generation Rescue organization.

Two Locations

Dr. Krigsman's primary office is located in Far Rockaway, NY with a satellite office located in Austin, Texas. Patients can be seen in either location for office visits and associated diagnostic procedures when necessary.

Dr. Krigsman also conducts appointments by phone to accommodate this geographically varied patient population.

I think I have far more experience in judging doctors by their reputation, their involvement in "studies" and their medical practices and I would never go to a physician that does long distance "telephone consultations":

"There is nothing warped about my sense of values, and I don't appreciate your ad feminam attacks."

You're known by the "company you keep" and those that you elevate to "hero status" Twyla. BTW Twyla, I don't appreciate your attempts to derail this post with spamming Gish Gallops.

Twyla

There is nothing odd about having two offices in different cities. There are not enough gastroenterologists who effectively treat the GI issues of people with autism, so he is making his services available in two geographic areas.

My posts contain carefully thought out information and opinions - no Gish Gallup from me. I'm not elevating anyone to "hero status". And lookinglass is quite right that I should not respond to your barbs.

Dyson

Twyla, there is a problem when you are soliciting referrals in a state when you are unlicensed.

From your own quote:
"9. Prior to being licensed in Texas, Respondent [Krigsman] published information on a website, misrepresenting himself as being available to make appointments to see patients in Texas."

lookinglass

Twyla there is absolutely nothing warped about your sense of values. Lilady is about the most warped blogger I have ever encountered and I know there are many out there in blogger's ether who heartily agree with me. It is a fact that people have a tendency to accuse others of the unpleasant attributes they themselves possess. Waste none of your more valuable energy and time with engaging in discussion with this lilady, there is no point to it, is my advice.
What does have a point however is to address the good people of LaCrosse, those readers who may have been drawn to this comments page in the first place and who may Heaven reward them, still be with us. And this is what I would like to do now.
It must be glaringly obvious to them that last weekend something rather important was taking place in their town, in a local park and behind the closed doors of their University, that attracted a great deal of attention. Contrary to how some of the local media reported this event it was not however a debate between the two protagonists in their midst. As readers will by now have realised, such a debate is not possible. Theirs is a personal agenda. Who is telling the truth and who is the fraud and the liar. And that is a separate issue to vaccine safety. That is point number one to remember. And that can only be resolved with any degree of satisfaction in a proper court of law, one that is capapble of dissecting the lies from the facts and that is what Andy Wakefield has not, until now, been allowed to do, through lack of funding. It is encouraging to hear this man at long last, say that he is going "on the offensive". That can only be a good thing. Let's bring it on America, in Texas.!

The issues at the heart of this great divide however - of vaccine injured children and vaccine safety and freedom of choice for the individual, is one of the most crucial of our times. And it involves every parent and every member of a family of infants and children living in the US and in Europe today. You folks have heard what both sides have to say on this comments page. And you have also read how facts can be twisted, warped and manipuated to suit one's own beliefs. But point number two is this. There is an argument raging between those that say the jury is in on links beteen autism spectrum and the MMR vaccine and they say the science has been done. There are no links. The vaccine is safe. All vaccines are safe. The mothers, the parents are lying they are wrong. Their children did not get autism from the MMR vaccine.
I would suggest to the good folk of LaCrosse, those that are still with us, that they read both sides, all sides, of this argument, from bloggers, from researchers, from medics from scientists, from your family practioner from other websites of information, many of which have been put up on here, and then watch the recent Youtube video of the parents in your Park this weekend. They spoke with such honesty, such quiet dignity, with a controlled grief and a desperation that broke my heart. Something is very very wrong folks. We need to find out what it is. We need to learn to say hangon a minute, lets sort this thing out first., before I agree to vaccine schedules. You do still have those rights. The right to say No. Don't lose them, they are infinitely precious..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5vpZSLW4ds

Dyson

lookinglass, have you found that citation yet for us where vaccinated kids are "infectious" for the bug for the following 2 weeks?
Thanks. This is such a major problem, if it occurs, that I am sure you will want to help by providing the detailsfor your extraordinary claim.
Cheers.

Twyla

Yes, the parents' stories are so compelling, and typical of reports heard from around the world. And Dr. Wakefield speaks quite eloquently. I think that even if I didn't know much about this I would find Dr. Wakefield more credible than Brian Deer.

Jenny Allan

Hear Hear Lookinglass. Those who have read even a fraction of the comments on this thread will realise that certain persons, all anonymous personna, have an overwhelming agenda to discredit Dr Andrew Wakefield, one of 13 co-authors of an early report paper published in the Lancet 1998. You might well question what all the fuss is about? After all, this paper was published 14 years ago, and in the UK at least MMR vaccination rates have long recovered. (These were at low levels years before the Wakefield et al paper was published, due to widespread concerns following the first dangerous Urabe mumps containing MMR vaccine which was banned 4 years after its implementation into the UK vaccine schedule). Without Brian Deer's articles in Rupert Murdoch's Sunday Times, and more recently in the BMJ, most persons in both UK and US would have by now forgotten all about this episode, and a new generation of young parents would not have even heard of Dr Wakefield.
Brian Deer was the SOLE complainant who instigated the £8million three year GMC hearing which de registered Dr Wakefield and his clinician colleague Professor Walker-Smith. The third doctor, clinician Professor Murch was admonished.

The exoneration in the High Court of Professor Walker-Smith from all GMC charges and verdicts by Judge Sir John Mitting is unassailable. His scathing comments about the GMC's 'superficial and inadequate' and often just 'wrong' examining of the evidence, much of which was supplied by Deer brings this entire GMC trial into question. Judge Mitting found the GMC panel simply ignored any defence evidence which did not suit their obviously pre determined verdicts.

So what is fuelling these arguments? Dr Wakefield, who was hounded out of his job and his profession, has refused to 'lie down and play dead'. Instead he is fighting back against all this character and professional assassination. Not content with his UK campaigns Brian Deer has even pursued Dr Wakefield to the US where he now resides with his family. The Deer campaign, now in it's eighth year, must have cost a great deal of money. Deer is a freelance who is NOT permanently employed by either the BMJ or the Sunday Times. So who or what is PAYING him? Deer himself says 'follow the money'. Decide for yourselves.

One fact which cannot be denied or 'swept under the carpet' is the exponential rise in autism, since the implementation of MMR and a large number of other child vaccines. By now most families will know at least one affected person and our schools and health systems are stuggling to cope. Many of these young persons are approaching adulthood. This is a very expensive ticking time bomb.
YOU decide readers. I have no doubt this post will attact the usual unpleasant response from, what after all is a very small number of persons posting a very large number of comments.

lookinglass

Twyla one should not even begin to compare these two men. One is a predatorial fraud, one is a man of compassion and integrity. I know that good honest people watching both of them will be sure in their hearts, which one is which.

Dyson

looking:
"one should not even begin to compare these two men. One is a predatorial fraud, one is a man of compassion and integrity."

Yes, people know about Wakefield's proven dishonesty and unprofessional conduct, and experimentation on kids who came to his son's party.
"Predatory" is an understatement.

lilady

ASD Researcher

Why should we believe anything you post here from your vast repository of Spam?

You are NOT an "ASD Researcher" and your hero Wakefield is still a disgraced former doctor now incarnate as a carney barker running his pathetic side show.

lilady

Two opinion pieces from biased sources Twyla?

The Canary Party is the political arm of Age of Autism. The Founder and Chairman of the Canary Party is Mark Blaxill, who is also the "Editor-at-Large at Age of Autism.

Try again Twyla.

Twyla

lilady, you frequently make the argument that anything coming from a source you don't agree with is wrong. By that logic, anyone could win any argument. You don't even have to form an opposing argument, you just say, "Well so-and-so said that therefore it is not true."

lilady

So true Twyla...I don't agree with anything that comes from the Age of Autism. Their sole purpose is to promulgate pseudoscience, promote their anti-vaccine agenda and to write scurrilous defamatory articles about respected journalists such as Mr. Deer, physicians such as Paul Offit and researchers, who have disproved the specious vaccine-autism link.

Their "heroes" are Wakefield and Mark Geier (whose licenses to practice medicine in multiple states have been suspended for chemically castrating autistic kids then chelating them).

Age of Autism also promotes such dreadful treatment as bleaching autistic kids (to de-worm them or to remove non-existent *toxins*) by shoving industrial grade bleach down their throats or through enema solutions. Another *favorite* treatment that AoA promotes is taking an autistic child to an offshore clinic (out of the reach of U.S. regulatory agencies) to have that child undergo painful, invasive intrathecal IV treatments with (G-d knows what substances) that supposedly are harvested donor stem cells.

You yourself have blogged at Age of Autism...even though you denied it recently:

http://www.whale.to/vaccine/ramos.html

Twyla, any *science blogger* such as yourself, who has an entire page on whale.to filled with garbage theories about the autism-vaccine link is not anything I would want to be proud of.

The Canary Party is the political arm of Age of Autism, founded by Mark Blaxill and filled to the brim with anti-vaccine, anti-science, anti-medicine, garbage.

ASD Researcher

Glass half full ... well Full : Why the Lancet paper is so important to Autism.

"Yes, it's clear that Wakefield was wrong, and he knew it. "

Let's first see what the Lancet paper got right (You have read it ?)

1. There is a relationship between behaviour and gut - Tick

2. There is a relationship between neurology and gut - Tick

3. Treating GI symptoms in ASD kids can bring positive changes not only in gut symptomatology but also direct aspects of autism - Tick.

4. Inflammatory Bowel Disorders are an important co-morbod feature in autism - Tick
(As are other "immune system" disorders and diseases and disorders with inflammation as a key feature)

5. Gastrointestinal symptomatology are important and need direct clinical care, because they may relate to functional behaviours - Tick.

6. Investigations evidenced inflammatory markers are an important part of the underlying physiology and are led to exploration of inflammatory markers in neurology - tick

7. Genetic research has evidenced the importance of immune system signalling pathways in the pathology and probable etiology of autism - Tick

8. A leading and well evidenced theory of autism etiology and pathology in some ASD children leads to autoimmune disease or autoinflammatory condition - tick.

9. Lancet paper leads us to an understanding that there are differing phenotypes of autism - 'the autisms' Thomas Insel. National Institute of Mental Health - tick

10. Intestinal permiability and other important gastroenterological discoveries are made - ASD guts aren't normal guts - Tick

11. The importance of the major-histocompatibility complex MHC - tick

12 - The importance of Vitamin B12 deficiency in autism - for example optic neuropathy.

Just off the top of my head.


Cheers

Dyson

John (NOT an "ASD researcher") Richard Smith, the problem is that none of those issues you mention from the Lancet paper are particularly controversial or disputed. The fact that Wakefield mentioned them in his paper is therefore neither here nor there, since they did not form part of his primary hypothesis, namely that MMR caused bowel damage with leaky gut, and thereby autism.

[To put it another way, would someone extol Joseph Mengele’s experiments on pain receptors in the genitals, heaping praise on him for his sterling efforts to explore the ramifications of connections in the nervous system?]*

Just off the top of my head, let's see how many things Wakefield/the Lancet paper got wrong:

1. Patients were not consecutively referred as described.
2. Some patients were cherrypicked because they were part of antivaccine litigation (ie quite unrepresentative)
3. No valid ethical approval for the study.
4. No valid consent (because of 3 above as well as lack of documentation).
5. Some children were described as having regressive autism but did not.
5. Some children had unnecessary invasive and potentially harmful investigations performed for research purposes.
6. Wakefield breached his honorary contract because he directed clinical investigations when he was not supposed to direct clinical work.
7. He failed to declare massive financial conflicts of interest to both his study colleagues and to the Lancet.
8. He altered the timeline of some case histories to make it appear damage had occurred shortly after MMR vaccination.
9. He excluded some other cases to further improve the timeline claims.
10. Histopathology reports were reviewed and diagnoses upgraded from non-specific colitis to suggest there were more significant pathology than there was.
11. Inappropriate controls selected for bowel histopathology comparison.
12. He experimented on children attending his son’s birthday party, failing to seek appropriate consent and offering financial inducements for blood tests.
13. £25,000 of the research money for the study mysteriously vanished without a trace.

Those will do for starters – there’s more where they came from.

*Hyperbole, as per your usual posting style, for the usual reasons.

Cheers.

ASD Researcher

Closely followed by the rather intellectually 'lame' statements and questions....

The fact that Wakefield mentioned them in his paper is therefore neither here nor there

Actually a lot were in the discussion section of the article , this is the forum where professionals formulate the ideas and knowledge that drives their science / medical research and how it relates to other knowledge.

It's not hard to understand.

"[To put it another way, would someone extol Joseph Mengele’s experiments on pain receptors in the genitals, heaping praise on him for his sterling efforts to explore the ramifications of connections in the nervous system?]*"

Obviously you don't understand the relationships. Some of us do.(Lancet not Mengele)

-----------------------------------

The rest top posted.

Dyson

Yes, I noted your lame response, and your narcissistic tendency to reply by "top posting".

I can always tell when people are out of their depth - they tend to spam random scientific citations they don't comprehend in a futile, "Gish gallop" attempt to promote themselves and their agenda.

Thankyou for not disappointing us.

ASD Researcher

closely followed by the requisite 'lame' reply ...

Dyson

Waiting for the smartass comment....

ASD Researcher

See above ... lol

Twyla

EBCALA's news release on the Walker-Smith decision:
Co-Author of Lancet MMR-Autism Study Exonerated on All Charges of Professional Misconduct
http://www.ebcala.org/areas-of-law/vaccine-law/co-author-of-lancet-mmr-autism-study-exonerated-on-all-charges-of-professional-misconduct?utm_source=Elizabeth+Birt+Center+for+Autism+Law+&+Advocacy+List&utm_campaign=9f11ed7488-Wakefield_Colleague_WalkerSmith_Exonerated3_7_2012&utm_medium=email

The Canary Party's news release on the Walker-Smith decision:
http://canaryparty.net/index.php/the-news/82-senior-author-of-mmr-paper-john-walker-smith-wins-appeal
“It’s time that we started treating responsible parents as reliable witnesses to serious adverse reactions to medical procedures such as vaccination,” said Jennifer Larson, president of the Canary Party. “The work that Walker-Smith and his colleagues at the Royal Free Hospital did with the Lancet 12 was medically necessary and above reproach. No patient complained, and the charges against the Royal Free team came only from a freelance journalist writing for a Rupert Murdoch newspaper. Meanwhile, the findings reported in the Lancet paper have been replicated in numerous scientific publications and reported by thousands of parents all over the world.”

Twyla

Here is a brief video showing how a life can be changed with proper treatment of GI issues. This English boy with autism and bowel disease could not get treatment in England due to the suppression of this medical science. English pediatricians had continually declared that there was nothing wrong with this boy. He was flown to New York where he was treated by Dr. Arthur Krigsman.
 This is what we are fighting for: proper diagnosis and treatment. We are not trying to end vaccines.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wa4wDqyfIqY

ASD Researcher

Reply top ndavis

"“You used to hear Wakefield’s people talking about how they would win the Nobel Prize for this,” remembers Brent Taylor, the Royal Free’s head of community child health . . . “The atmosphere here was extraordinary.”

Certainly was ... the pioneering understanding of a neurodevelopmental disorder autism as a disease state driven not by psychology but by physiology. Leading to greater understanding of other conditions such as schizophrenia ...and linking to other co-morbid conditions.

The pioneering understanding of the gut , the immune system and systemic inflammation it's interplay on genetic expression. Elegant and beautiful.

No wonder that "Nature" , "Scientific American " and "Science" magazine have all recently carried full special features.

http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/humanmicrobiota/index.html

http://www.scientificamerican.com/sciammag/?contents=2012-06

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6086/1209.summary?sid=011b8ba6-e995-458e-80cb-0ef8650dc1b1

Wow ..that is worth a Noble Prize. Got to love those that think outside the borders of institutional medicine.

ndavis

Ah, well, it turns out that the "extraordinary" atmosphere noted in the quoted material was related to Wakefield's failed hypothesis that Crohn's disease was caused by Measles virus (and MMR) rather than to his failed MMR-ASD hypothesis. In a strange parallel with Wakefield's ASD work, it turned out that his apparently positive test results for Measles virus were caused by an artifact; in this case that the monoclonal antibody that Wakefield used reacted with a human protein. [Lancet. 1995 Jan 21;345(8943):199. Lancet. 2000 Jul 8;356(9224):160.

Nevertheless, if you actually believe that Wakefield's work, if confirmed, would have been "worth a Nobel Prize," how do you explain that he rejected the opportunity to confirm it and instead walked away?

Carry on.

ASD Researcher

"Ah, well, it turns out that the "extraordinary" atmosphere noted in the quoted material was related to Wakefield's failed hypothesis..."

That's not the opinion of the researchers in documentary evidence. The first successful treatment regime of autism through the addressing of physiology.

"Nevertheless, if you actually believe that Wakefield's work ..."

Professor John Walker-Smith's work with Andy Wakefield on GI ...

You do know the linkage between IBD and autism do you not ?

Dyson

Just more evasion from the "NOT an ASD researcher".

ndavis

It's strange to see such concentration on the Walker-Smith GMC appeal, since the GMC was a side show. Not to take anything away from Deer, but the important thing is that Wakefield was wrong.

Yes, it's clear that Wakefield was wrong, and he knew it. Thanks to Deer, it is clear WHY Wakefield knew that he was wrong: It turns out that if you have to manipulate your data to support your conclusion (e.g., leaving out three of the eleven children whose parents claimed an association of MMR and the onset of autism from your calculation of the average time between vaccination and the "first behavioural symptom," including deciding that a child whose discharge summary noted that "parents have no doubt about the relationship [of the onset of autism] with MMR" who Wakefield INCLUDED in that calculation in the August 1996 draft of his paper somehow should be dropped from that calculation in the Lancet--that alone decreased the calculated maximum time to onset of symptoms from 56 days to 14 days) then you have no hope of being right.

Wakefield was offered the opportunity (staff support, salary, and all the other funding necessary to use the team already in place) by the hospital that employed him full-time as a researcher to replicate the exciting and potentially important findings claimed in his initial small study, A researcher in academic medicine should have jumped at the chance.

Wakefield declined. He has mumbled something to the effect that his 'academic freedom' would have been compromised if he had had to continue to work on what then seemed to be an important and extremely interesting question and thus provide an answer and a perhaps a potential treatment that could have positively affected the lives of many children--and would have, by the way, guaranteed Wakefield handsome compensation, not only as an expert witness (150 pounds per hour, wasn't it?) but in what according to the prospectus for one of the businesses that he founded was millions of pounds per year.

No one else has shown that receipt of MMR vaccine is associated with the onset of both bowel disease and autism, because it isn't true. In fact, Wakefield’s former business partner and collaborator co-authored a paper based on an attempt to carefully examine this question; the authors concluded: “The work reported here eliminates the remaining support for the hypothesis that autism with GI complaints is related to MMR vaccine exposure. We found no relationship between the timing of MMR vaccine and the onset of either GI complaints or autism.” [PLoS One. 2008 Sep 4;3(9):e3140]

Dyson

"£150 per hour, wasn't it?"

Yes it was. Yet somehow Wakefield was able to submit a claim for around £450,000 for a couple of years work,

That is around 3000 hours, or the equivalent of 250 hours for each one of the 12 kids on the Lancet study. Quite implausible. Put another way, if he "worked" for 1500 hours per year, he must have put in around 30 hours per week, every week, all "in his own time" and outside of his normal contracted hours.

Methinks a bit of creative accounting was going on, but then we know he has form on this regarding the research funding where £25,000 vanished into thin air without him being able to give any explanation whatsoever.

ASD Researcher

Did you do all this critical thinking all yourself Dyson ?

What document/s did you use ?

ASD Researcher

How's that documentation going ?

Dyson

No documents needed, just a reading of invoices and listening to Wakefield's own protestations.
Oh, and a calculator to double check the math.

How's that denial going?

ndavis

Sorry for the typos above; in particular, of course, the Wakefield's draft of the Lancet paper (the draft the included 9 children of 11, rather than 8 of 11 children among those whose parents blamed MMR for developmental problems) was of course in August 1997 rather than in 1996, as I wrote.

However, when you think about Wakefield's inexplicable choice to refuse a fully-funded opportunity to confirm his preliminary work and thus, possibly, positively impact the lives of millions of people, consider this:

"“You used to hear Wakefield’s people talking about how they would win the Nobel Prize for this,” remembers Brent Taylor, the Royal Free’s head of community child health . . . “The atmosphere here was extraordinary.”

Of course, I suppose, Wakefield may have been no more interested in professional glory such as the Nobel prize than he was in raking in millions of pounds in litigation-driven testing promoted by his work. Perhaps saint-like, he instead looked forward to a quiet time when he could hold press conferences attended by thirty people in a Wisconsin shed.

ASD Researcher

"Sorry for the typos above"

Yes a high standard was set.

"(the draft the included 9 children of 11, rather than 8 of 11 children"

That's what a draft is.

"However, when you think about Wakefield's inexplicable choice..."

Being expert witness in the biggest medical event since Mad Cow disease ...hundreds of children to assess. Yes I could see he was probably a bit busy.

"confirm his preliminary work and thus, possibly, positively impact the lives of millions of people, consider this:"

Isn't it great it does in such a profound and positive way (See top post)

ndavis

"That's what a draft is."

You seriously misunderstand the situation, perhaps because you do not understand how scientific papers are written..

Honest scientists start with the data and then write the paper. Wakefield wrote the paper and then changed the data..

Simple, isn't it?

For example, Wakefield reported in the August 1997 draft that the parents of one of the Lancet children associated MMR with the onset of ASD. (The child's chart included this: "Parents have no doubt about the relationship with MMR.") Wakefield used that child's data in his calculation of the average and maximum duration between exposure and onset of the "first behavioural signs" of autism in his draft.

However, Wakefield did not report in the Lancet that the parents of that child had associated MMR with the onset of autism. Wakefield did not include the data for that child in his calculations of the average onset and the range of onset of the "first behavioural signs" of autism.

Magically, the altered results seemed to more strongly support Wakefield's litigation-driven hypothesis.

ASD Researcher

"You seriously misunderstand the situation, perhaps because you do not understand how scientific papers are written."

Nice posturing. Only the insecure make that sort of conjecture.

"Honest scientists start with the data and then write the paper. Wakefield wrote the paper and then changed the data.. "

No documentary evidence of any data , alteration or manipulation. No other allegation by those that took the data.

Step up and prove any of the data was manipulated , altered , fabricated ...

"Simple, isn't it? "

No ... not really show me the documented , independent data that supports your point of view.

-------------------------------------------

That'll be interesting.

ASD Researcher

"(e.g., leaving out three of the eleven children whose parents claimed an association of MMR and the onset of autism from your calculation of the average time between vaccination and the "first behavioural symptom,"

Well this will be interesting ? I'd like to believe ... but.

In the relevant documentation show us the applicable points.

1. Which three children ?

2. Which parent/parents ?

3. Tell me what the Lancet paper authors defined as a "first behavioural symptom" and what they were ?

4. Who took the clinical histories ?

Twyla


re: the study "Lack of association between measles virus vaccine and autism with enteropathy: a case-control study."
"The sample was an age-matched group of US children undergoing clinically-indicated ileocolonoscopy. Ileal and cecal tissues from 25 children with autism and GI disturbances and 13 children with GI disturbances alone (controls) were evaluated by real-time reverse transcription (RT)-PCR for presence of MV RNA in three laboratories blinded to diagnosis, including one wherein the original findings suggesting a link between MV and ASD were reported."
In this very small group of children, persistent measles virus was found in the intestines of one child with autism and bowel disease, and in one child with bowel disease but not autism. This actually confirms that persistent measles infection may be a factor in bowel disease and autism in a subset of people.

In addition, of the three labs used, one of them was the one that Dr. Wakefield et al. had used in checking for measles virus in the intestines. This lab's results were consistent with the results from the other labs, confirming its reliability.

See this link for further analysis:
http://www.14studies.org/MMR_1_details.html

ndavis

Twyla, I'm surprised that an English major would feel qualified to discuss PCR results; however, could you please explain, without invoking incompetence or contamination, how Unigenetics was able to produce positive results from assays for Measles virus RNA in reactions that did not include a reverse transcription step?

Thanks for clearing that up.

Attendee

A number of folk have mentioned the case of John Walker-Smith. Mr Deer explained what happened in this case at his lecture on Thursday. I made some brief checks and it appears that what he indicated is correct.

Dr Walker-Smith, Wakefield and a Dr Murch all claimed in formal statements that the investigation of the children was part of an IRB-approved research study. This was in 2004, and this was also stated by the Lancet.

The General Medical Council then presented their case against the three in 2007. But because of medical legislation in 1983, the doctors had not been required (as they would be in any court case) to reveal their defence, or supply any evidence to the prosecutors. In fact, one, Dr Murch, had done this, again stating that they had IRB approval for the investigations.

After the Medical Council finished presenting its case, proving that there was no IRB approval, Dr Walker-Smith, Wakefield and also Dr Murch, then announced that they did not even submit the study to the IRB and performed all of the investigation on 'clinical need' grounds. They changed their story, in other words.

I would say that changing your story on such a fundamental point is incriminating, but Lord Mitting never considered this, and could never have considered the 217 days of transcript which the hearing generated.

Dr Walker-Smith then spent weeks at the GMC hearing retrospectively diagnosing a clinical indication for the investigations for each child.

When it came to the GMC panel's verdict, they did not take account of how Dr Walker-Smith's case had been framed, since they were working on a prosecution case responding to the original statements claiming IRB approval. So, for example, they did not say why they preferred the evidence of one expert as opposed to another.

I have read Lord Mitting's judgment, and he makes it clear that the panel was entitled to make its core findings of guilt in Dr Walker-Smith's case, but it had failed to set out in its judgment the reasoning by which it reached that conclusion. This is an error in law and not an error in fact, and the GMC was fully entitled to reconvene the panel, or convene a new one, and set out the reasoning by which they concluded that Dr Walker-Smith was guilty of serious professional misconduct.

By this time, Dr Walker-Smith was 75, did not practise medicine and his case had no bearing on that of Wakefield, who was a researcher, not a clinician, and who, on advice from his own legal team to his insurers, was not funded to appeal the verdict against him. So the GMC said they would not seek to correct the procedural error.

Dr Walker-Smith was not exonerated. The GMC ruling was quashed in procedural grounds. This has no effect on the findings against Wakefield.

lilady

That's what we have been stating all along "Attendee".

Here's a science blog that dissects that specious argument that Walker-Smith's successful appeal "somehow" exonerates Wakefield:

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/03/08/andy-wakefield-exonerated-because-john-w/

ASD Researcher

Ripple Effect- A ripple effect is a situation where, like the ever expanding ripples across water when an object is dropped into it, an effect from an initial state can be followed outwards incrementally.

Examples can be found in law , medicine , journalism and public opinion.

Jenny Allan

We don't have and have NEVER had an Institutional Review Board in the UK. Judge (not Lord) Mitting found the correct UK ethical approvals were obtained for the Wakefield et al research early study. Go make up another fairy story!!


.

ndavis

"We don't have and have NEVER had an Institutional Review Board in the UK"

Well, when we in the US eat what are called "chips" in the UK, we call them "French fries." I suppose that Attendee was referring to Wakefield's statement in his Lancet paper that "Investigations were approved by the Ethical Practices Committee of the Royal Free Hospital NHS Trust." (That's what we call an IRB here.)

If Wakefield felt that he didn't need prior approval from the Ethical Practices Committe (er, IRB) then why did he include that statement?

Again, I suggest that you need to get beyond the question of whether or not Wakefield is a lying weasel and just understand that it's been clear for years that he is wrong.

ASD Researcher

I humbly suggest that the words "lying weasel" shows that you may suffer from 'confirmation bias' .

Therefore I suggest we could not reasonably hold your remarks are objectice and balanced.

I could be wrong though ....

Jenny Allan

Playing Semantics? RUBBISH!! The Institutional Review Board was a purely US institurion and according to Wikipedia it was closed down for corruptly colluding to promote the interests of pharmaceutical companies. This seems to be a common practice, re the $billion dollar fines recently imposed on MMR manufacturers Merck and GSK for falsely promoting their dangerous drugs!! This has NOTHING to do with ethics.

In the UK Ethical approvals are granted by ethics committees. The 1998 Lancet paper had FULL proper ethical approval, as proven by the ethical consent forms present in the hospital case records of all twelve Lancet children.

ndavis

Jenny Allan wrote: "The Institutional Review Board was a purely US institurion and according to Wikipedia it was closed down for corruptly colluding to promote the interests of pharmaceutical companies."

Although it's been explained several times already, let me try to help you with something that you seem unwilling to understand. Here in the US we use the term "Institutional Review Board" to encompass what was termed the Ethical Practices Committee in Wakefield's Lancet paper. In my work I've dealt with similar committees on four continents under various names. Regardless of how they are named, they are intended to safeguard vulnerable people and, for example, to protect patients from potentially dangerous procedures that are not clinically warranted. Here we use IRB. Simple, isn't it?

Here's an example: The Institutional Review Board for the Faculty of Arts & Sciences and the Cambridge/Allston campuses at Harvard University.

Here's an explanation from Stanford University:

"What is an Institutional Review Board (IRB)? An Institutional Review Board (IRB) is a federally mandated panel that is charged with overseeing the protection of human participants in research. Stanford has eight IRBs, seven that review medical research and one that reviews non-medical research."

lilady

Really Jenny? Playing semantics with the IRB equivalent at the Royal Free Hospital?

http://www.uab.edu/ethicscenter/educational-materials/rcr-materials/misconduct/misconduct-case-studies


Andrew Wakefield Case
Andrew Wakefield was found guilty of serious research misconduct by the United Kingdom's General Medical Council. Wakefield was exploring a possible link between the measles-mumps, rubella vaccine and autism. Wakefield had already attempted and failed to establish a link between the measles's virus, the measles's vaccine and Crohn's disease (Siva 2010). The General Medical Council's investigation into Wakefield's misconduct span two and a half years; the longest in their history. They found that Wakefield failed to acquire informed consent from the parents of some test subjects and failed to acquire assent from the subjects themselves. The children were paid £5 each. Those subjects were attendees at his son's fifth birthday party at Wakefield's private residence. Wakefield failed to acquire UK's equivalent to IRB approval for conducting the study. Wakefield was also found guilty of data falsification/fabrication. The General Medical Council revoked Wakefield's professional license to practice as a physician. At the time, Wakefield was working as a gastroenterologist at London's Royal Free Hospital. Wakefield was found guilty of 30 charges (Triggle 2010).

Dyson

It's called an ethics committee in the UK, rather than an IRB.
Same thing, but on such semantics people like you Jenny will seek to deny facts.

"It's not black I tell you, it's just a very, very, very dark shade of gray!"

ASD Researcher

Isn't it on the record that Dean Zuckerman UCL investigated this matter in regards to a letter by Sir Professor David Hull ?

Twyla

Attendee, John Walker-Smith was indeed exonerated. The GMC ruling was quashed on much more than procedural grounds. The judge went through the information on each child, and the GMC’s findings, and made statements such as:

“The panel's conclusion that Professor Walker-Smith's conduct was contrary to the clinical interests of child 2 depends upon the conclusions analysed above. Because they are inadequate or wrong, this conclusion falls with them.”

“Both sides rightly focussed on the early admissions – children 1, 2, and 3. Careful analysis of their history does not support the panel's finding. Child 1, the first to be admitted, was only admitted after Professor Walker-Smith had changed his provisional diagnosis as a result of an abnormal blood test result. Child 2 was only subjected to neurological tests after Dr. Thomson had checked with Dr. Surtees, at Great Ormond Street, that the tests were appropriate – and what they were intended to reveal or exclude, which included metabolic disorder.”

“The fact that there are four anomalous cases out of ten (or eleven if the case of child 4 is included) should have given the panel pause for thought and did require an explanation for their conclusion that all of the children were admitted for the purpose of research. The detailed findings of the panel in the cases of the individual children did not fill the obvious gaps in its general conclusions. In no case did it address the indications in the medical notes which supported the oral evidence of the clinicians that they were undertaking a programme of diagnostic and therapeutic investigations, not research; or give adequate reasons for rejecting that account in the case of each individual child.”

“It is in its findings on the clinical issues in the individual cases of the Lancet children that the most numerous and significant inadequacies and errors in the determination of the panel occur. In no individual case in which the panel made a finding adverse to Professor Walker-Smith did it address the expert evidence led for him, except to misstate it. The issues to which this evidence went were of fundamental importance to the case against him. Universal inadequacies and some errors in the panel's determination accordingly go to the heart of the case. They are not curable.”

“The panel could not reasonably have found Professor Walker-Smith to have been guilty of professional misconduct for failing to remember the terms of a letter which he had written 7 ½ years before, but which was omitted from the records which he was able to check. This finding was unjustified.”

“The panel's findings adverse to Professor Walker-Smith are inconsistent and unjustified. Its finding at paragraph 26a, that he did not start child 10 on Transfer Factor in December 1997 should have been an end of these charges… The panel's findings adverse to Professor Walker-Smith on the Transfer Factor issue were perverse. Miss Glynn [the GMC’s attorney], wisely recognising the lack of any proper foundation for those findings in the panel's reasoning, submitted, correctly, that these charges were subsidiary and should not form the real focus of this appeal. I agree, but the panel's findings do require analysis, because it went on to find that, in this respect, as in others, Professor Walker-Smith's conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct. There was no basis for that conclusion.”

“The GMC's case was that Professor Walker-Smith subjected child JS to a colonoscopy in reaction to parental pressure and for the purpose of his and Dr. Wakefield's research into a purported association between gastrointestinal and autistic symptoms and the MMR vaccine. Professor Walker-Smith's answer was that parental pressure did play a part in him seeing the child but not in the decision to perform a colonoscopy. That was taken to investigate child JS's gastrointestinal condition, with a view to diagnosing whether he had an inflammatory bowel disease and, if so, begin a therapeutic regime... Dr. Miller supported his decision, in the light of child JS's symptoms and of the experience which Professor Walker-Smith had gained (by the time of the publication of the Lancet paper, in forty cases)”

“The GMC's case on the Heads of Charge set out in paragraph 36a(i) and (iii) was internally inconsistent: it is unlikely that child JS would have been admitted for the purpose of a joint research project in reaction to parental pressure unless, perhaps, as no one suggested, the parents' principal interest was in obtaining damages from the manufacturers of the MMR vaccine. As child JS's mother's letter to Dr. Wakefield dated 5th July 1997 made clear, although she felt that he had been damaged by MMR vaccine, her purpose in seeking Dr. Wakefield's help was to ‘explore every possibility to help our son’ who, otherwise, ‘has no future at all – other than being sedated and confined to an institution’. The panel sensibly resolved this contradiction by finding this aspect of the charge not proved. Its finding that the colonoscopy was ‘for the purpose of yours and Dr. Wakefield's research’ is odd and the reasons given for it unsustainable…

“For the reasons explained above, child JS's case did not fit into the pattern for which the GMC contended. At worst, it was an individual example of a procedure undertaken for genuine but ill-founded clinical reasons. Even that finding required the rejection of Dr. Miller's evidence; and by itself, it could amount to no more than an error of clinical judgment, insufficient to support a finding of serious professional misconduct. It is puzzling that any charge was brought – against Professor Walker-Smith alone – in respect of child JS. In the event, the charge gave rise to an inadequately reasoned conclusion of serious professional misconduct which, on the evidence available to the panel, was wrong.”

Finally, the judge concluded that: “For the reasons given above, both on general issues and the Lancet paper and in relation to individual children, the panel's overall conclusion that Professor Walker-Smith was guilty of serious professional misconduct was flawed, in two respects: inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion…

“The panel's determination cannot stand. I therefore quash it. Miss Glynn, on the basis of sensible instructions, does not invite me to remit it to a fresh Fitness to Practice panel for redetermination. The end result is that the finding of serious professional misconduct and the sanction of erasure are both quashed.”

The judge instructed Ms. Glynn that it would be unwise to appeal. Ms. Glynn did not simply take pity on Walker-Smith because of his age; she was advised that it would be pointless to seek a redetermination.

It is totally inaccurate for Attendee to say that the judge, “makes it clear that the panel was entitled to make its core findings of guilt in Dr Walker-Smith's case, but it had failed to set out in its judgment the reasoning by which it reached that conclusion.” The judge said that the GMC's findings were wrong.

ASD Researcher

Oh well time will tell . Errors in law are actually more damaging than errors of fact. Particularly when the three were 'judged' together.

216 days and £5 million pounds - 5 days to dismiss - that's an indicator of impact.

Dyson

innacurate as always, John "NOT an ASD researcher" Richard Smith.

216 days was the whole GMC kaboodle, not the Walker Smith part.
Anyhow, I think it was money well spent.

ASD Researcher

Fancy being confused by semi-judicial proceedings. Read the Header / Title of each days proceedings.

Twyla

The story of an American mother Liz Birt and her son Matthew is told David Kirby's book "Evidence of Harm". (They are not part of the Lancet 12.)

"Matt met all his infant milestones. He was crawling, sitting up, walking, and talking right on schedule. He learned to say momma and dada early, and just after his first birthday, he could count to ten.

"Liz would walk him up and down the stairs, and they would count together as they went. Everyone was impressed with the bright little boy. He was extremely playful and social and engaged in the world around him. Matthew loved doing peek-a-boo with his mom... His vocabulary grew as fast as he did, quickly expanding to thirty words or more... His favorite game was to shout 'Ready-set-go!' and tear around the house, with his mother close behind...

"Then, at fourteen months, he was brought in for another round of shots, including his first... MMR. Almost immediately afterward, Matthew began to fall apart.

"The first night after his shots, Matthew developed a fever that spiked to over 101 degrees... The fever broke a few days later. Before Matthew could fully recover, he erupted in a rash of little red spots all over his torso.

"Then came the ceaseless and violent d i a r r h e a ...

"One day Liz came home from work to find Matthew staring up at the light fixtures, spinning like a top on the floor. In the next few days, she realized that Matthew did not always recognize her right away when she entered the room. A few months before, he couldn't bear to be apart from his mother. Now he often regarded her as an object of curiosity, at best.

"Liz also noticed that Matthew had stopped learning new words. Not long after that, he stopped talking altogether."

There are too many stories like this to be just a coincidence. This is real. And these stories are backed up by studies showing immunological abnormalities in people with autism, including inflammation in the brain, autoantibodies to the myelin basic protein coating nerve cells, imbalance between Th-1 and Th-2 cells, and inflammatory cytokines.

Later in this book Liz tells the story of taking her son all the way to England to the Royal Free Hospital, where he was seen by Dr. Walker-Smith and Dr. Wakefield, where she finally received some diagnosis and help with his "endless, horrible d i a r r h e a". He had inflammation of his esophagus, intestines, colon, and lymph nodes, and cysts in his intestine.

It is so callous of Brian Deer to dismiss the stories of the Lancet 12 parents, to say that their children did not even have GI issues when it is clear that they have suffered from severe issues. He even insults and says mean things about these parents.

ndavis

The simplistic notion that autistic regression is caused by temporally-associated vaccinations has been utterly eviscerated by two independent lines of evidence: (1) both retrospective and prospective studies clearly demonstrate that parents cannot accurately date the onset of regression—they simply miss subtle early signs of ASD; (2) children who regress into autism have followed an abnormal trajectory of brain growth for many months before their regression is noted; their brain growth trajectory already differs significantly from that of their typically-developing peers by about four and a half months of age, and the available evidence suggests that the abnormal brain development that is easily seen in regressive autism (long before regression is noticed by parents) is traceable to errors in development that began months before birth.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3250128/

Dyson

Indeed, that is just one of many such papers demonstrating this phenomenon, and effectively exonerating vaccination given in the first 2 years of life of any causative role in autism..

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15935993
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17641255
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20934821
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12865374
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16330725

Cheers,
Dyson.

Twyla

From the studies you linked to, Dyson:
1st: "A fitted curve of HC and MRI %Diff values from 15 studies revealed a largely consistent pattern of brain size changes. Specifically, brain size in autism was slightly reduced at birth, dramatically increased within the first year of life, but then plateaued so that by adulthood the majority of cases were within normal range. Analysis of variance of MRI and post-mortem %Diff values by age group (young child, older child, adult) and measurement type (MRI, BW) revealed a significant main effect of both age and measurement type, with the youngest ages (2-5) showing the greatest deviation from normal. Random effects heterogeneity analysis revealed a significant effect of age on HC and MRI SMD."
Nothing there rules out vaccines.

2nd: "These findings support previous findings of accelerated brain growth during the first year of life in autism spectrum disorder and question whether growth factors might contribute to both accelerated brain growth and overall body growth.

3rd: "In the ASD-male group, increases were observed in head circumference from 3 to 12months, in height from 3 to 9months, and in body weight from 3 to 6 and 12months. On the other hand, in the ASD-female group increases in head circumference, in body height, and in body weight were only observed at 3months. After adjusting for height, weight, and age, only the head circumference in the male ASD group was significantly increased from 6 to 9months after birth, reaching a peak at 6months after birth."

4th: "Within the ASD group, every child with autistic disorder had a greater increase in HC between birth and 6 to 14 months (mean [SD], 2.19 [0.98]) than infants with pervasive developmental disorder-not otherwise specified (0.58 [0.35]). Only 6% of the individual healthy infants in the longitudinal data showed accelerated HC growth trajectories (>2.0 SDs) from birth to 6 to 14 months; 59% of infants with autistic disorder showed these accelerated growth trajectories."

5th: "Significant enlargement was detected in cerebral cortical volumes but not cerebellar volumes in individuals with autism. Enlargement was present in both white and gray matter, and it was generalized throughout the cerebral cortex. Head circumference appears normal at birth, with a significantly increased rate of HC growth appearing to begin around 12 months of age."

None of this rules out vaccines. It is quiet possible that either vaccines affect brain growth, or that the babies with accelerated brain growth are for yet unknown reasons more susceptible to vaccine injury.

ASD Researcher

Pervasive Synaptic Branch Removal in the Mammalian Neuromuscular System at Birth. Neuron, 2012; 74 (5): 816 DOI: 10.1016/j.neuron.2012.04.017

makes interesting reading ...

Dyson

Twyla, you might argue that those studies don't rule out vaccines as a cause. I might disagree.
One thing is clear though, they certainly rule out vaccines given beyond the 12 month age, which rules out MMR (which is what we are taliking about here, despite your attempts to siderail the issue onto other topics)

Twyla

From the article which ndavis linked to, "Retrospective head circumference measurements indicate that head circumference in boys with regressive autism is normal at birth but diverges from the other groups around 4–6 mo of age." Since vaccines begin either at birth or at 2 months of age, this does not rule out vaccines. It is quite possible that a process (such as neuroinflammation) begins in infancy and then culminates when a toddler received several vaccines. A study of macaque monkeys showed faster brain growth in vaccinated monkeys than unvaccinated.

ndavis

Honestly, Twyla, if you can't understand the evidence you should refrain from commenting on the subject. Really.

It turns out that in normal children and in normal monkeys the "brains" (here the amygdala) are SUPPOSED to grow. You, like the authors, failed to note that the absurdly small control group (complete data from only two animals) developed abnormally--either there was some technical glitch or there was something strange about one of the animals. (Note that that is one reason why scientists do not use such small control groups.) Data from previously-published articles show that the vaccinated monkeys developed just like normal, unvaccinated monkeys, and just like human infants.

Why do you continually post material that you don't understand?

ASD Researcher

"utterly eviserated"

That's weird then .... http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0041802

1. both retrospective and prospective studies clearly demonstrate that scientists can accurately date the onset of regression

2. WOW - autism has genetic and physiological foundations from fetus. I suppose that explains the 'developmental' part in neurodevelopmental disorder

Did you work that out all by yourself ?

3. "their brain growth trajectory already differs significantly from that of their typically-developing peers by about four and a half months of age"

It does ? In all ASD phenotypes ?

4. "and the available evidence suggests that the abnormal brain development that is easily seen in regressive autism (long before regression is noticed by parents) is traceable to errors in development that began months before birth."

So let's summarise parents are wrong because it's taken science some 50 years to recognise the varying elemnets in this some at a neurological and genetic level. To which is not firmly established as to all phenotypes.

Hmmm ... some sound reasoning there.

Twyla

The parents of the Lancet 12 children have spoken out describing their children's regression and GI issues following vaccines, and praising the Royal Free doctors for the treatment their children received.

Parents read excerpts from the book Silenced Witnesses
http://www.cryshame.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=123&Itemid=228

Lancet 12 Parents Respond to Brian Deer BMJ GMC Allegations (video)
http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/01/lancet-12-parents-respond-to-brian-deer-bmj-gmc-allegations.html?cid=6a00d8357f3f2969e20148c7684031970c
No Parent Ever Complained to GMC: Public Statement from Lancet Families Supports The MMR3 (letter)
http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/02/no-parent-ever-complained-to-gmc-public-statement-from-lancet-families-supports-the-mmr3.html

Brian Deer and The GMC, Selective Hearing. BMJ Journalist
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id_AxZ3zHAc

Dyson

Pretty hard for the parents of the Lancet 12 to complain formally - they were all implicit and complicit in the shenanigans Wakefield was up to wrt this study, and heavily emotionally committed to seeing an outcome in his favor (and thereby in their favor because of the litigation many of them were involved in against vaccine manufacturers).
The term "cognitive dissonance" is quite apt here, as parents express their faith in Wakefield because to admit that he led them alll up the garden path would be too emotionally traumatic for them to entertain psychologically.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

ASD Researcher

You needed wikipedia to help you define cognitive dissonance ...

"Pretty hard for the parents of the Lancet 12 to complain formally..."

Did you forget ? That would be cognitive lapse.

Dyson

I know what cognitive dissonance is and how to define it - I see it every day in posts from antivaxers.

However, I included a link so that the more cognitively challenged might be able to look up the concept for themselves, rather than just take my word for it.

Perhaps you could do so?

Twyla

"DR. ANDREW WAKEFIELD WAS RIGHT. BRIAN DEER IS THE LIAR. THERE WAS NO FRAUD. NO HOAX. HERE’S PROOF."
Parent from THE LANCET case series also complains to BMJ about Deer lies
http://www.vaccinesafetyfirst.com/pdf/BRIAN%20DEER%20IS%20THE%20LIAR%20.pdf

Dramatic Development Further Exonerates Andrew Wakefield and Puts Pressure on British Medical Journal
"In the latest dramatic twist in the Wakefield affair the senior histopathologist co-author of the controversial Lancet paper, Dr Amar Dhillon, has defended his contribution to the study. His intervention further knocks on the head allegations from journalist Brian Deer and the editor of the British Medical Journal, Fiona Godlee, that Wakefield had manipulated the data. In a statement to the journal has Dr Dhillon has explained his contribution to the study and set it in the context of regular clinical practice."
http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/11/dramatic-development-further-exonerates-andrew-wakefield-and-puts-pressure-on-british-medical-journa.html?cid=6a00d8357f3f2969e201539339663f970b

Dr Dhillon's Statement - BMJ Allegations Not As Cut & Dried As Editor Suggests
http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/11/dr-dhillons-statement-bmj-allegations-not-as-cut-dried-as-editor-suggests.html

Dyson

So why didn't Wakefield appeal?

We all know the answer - he was wrong, a fraud, and stood no chance of success.

lilady

"So why didn't Wakefield appeal?"

And, here I was pondering if Andy had some earth-shattering facts to reveal during his "press conference". Same old tired posturing and indignation about how he was wronged by teh ebil GMC, teh ebil *Big Pharma*...etc., etc., etc.

Dyson

He and his tag team of groupies have been claiming for years they "HAVE THE PROOF!!!" of his innocence.

But for some reason, they never seem to have been able to present the evidence that will magically exonerate him. The GMC would loved to have seen it - they never did. An appeal at the GMC would have been good, but Wakefield decided not to risk appealing.

ASD Researcher

Gee if you can't work that one out Dyson then you certainly won't be entering law school anytime soon.

Dyson

I won't need to.
I can just make specious and pompous comments on the internet, and call myself "Attorney specializing in vaccine law", or some other imaginary qualification.

You would approve, since you make these up yourself, don't you, Mr "ASD researcher"...... NOT.

Twyla

Vaccine defenders create a compelling but fictional narrative where children are not really sick, research is fabricated for the purpose of money, and MMR does not cause autism. All of this is false. There is so much to say that it is hard to know where to begin.

Here is a detailed paper which addresses some of the allegations against dr. Wakefield, including the issues of medical treatment and research authorization:

ON SECOND LOOKING INTO THE CASE OF DR. ANDREW J. WAKEFIELD
BY William R. long , mDiv, PhD, JD
http://www.wesupportandywakefield.com/documents/AutismFile_US31_Wakefield.pdf

We keep hearing that the Lancet study findings have not been replicated. Actually they have. The main findings are gastrointestinal inflammation in people with autism. Here are some papers about that:

This article contains a number of references to published studies on GI inflammation and autism.
"In our published study of 45 ASD children and 57 developmentally normal controls presenting for GI assessment, chronic inflammation and LNH in the colon and ileum was present in 100% of the autistic cases compared with 66.66% of the controls, reflecting a high background rate of infectious enterocolitis in Venezuelan children (see below.)13 Since then, other studies carried out in the United States, Brazil, Italy, and Venezuela have confirmed the finding of inflammation and LNH in ASD.10-14, 29"
http://www.wesupportandywakefield.com/documents/AutismFile_US32_Gonzalez.pdf

Clinical presentation and Histologic Findings at Ileocolonoscopy in children with Autistic spectrum Disorder and chronic Gastrointestinal symptoms
Arthur Krigsman1, Marvin Boris2, Alan Goldblatt3 and Carol Stoat
Abstract
Background: Children with developmental disorders experience chronic gastrointestinal symptoms.
Aims: To examine the nature of these gastrointestinal symptoms and histologic findings in children with autism spectrum/developmental disorders and ileocolonic disease.
Methods: Chart review. 143 autism spectrum/developmental disorder patients, with chronic gastrointestinal symptoms, undergoing diagnostic ileocolonoscopy.
Results: Diarrhea was present in 78%, abdominal pain in 59% and constipation in 36%. Ileal and/or colonic lymphonodular hyperplasia (LNH), defined as the presence of an increased number of enlarged lymphoid follicles, often with hyperactive germinal centers, was present in 73.2%. Terminal ileum LNH presented visually in 67% and histologically in 73%. Colonic LNH was multifocal and presented histologically in 32%. Ileal and/or colonic inflammation presented in 74%, consisting primarily of active or chronic colitis (69%). Ileal inflammation presented in 35%. Presence of LNH significantly predicted mucosal inflammation. Patients with ileal and/or colonic LNH had lower mean/median age than those without; patients with ileal and/or colonic inflammation had lower mean/median age than those without. There was a significant association between ileo and/or colonic inflammation or LNH, and onset of developmental disorder; plateaued or regressive onset conferred greater risk than early onset.
Conclusions: Patients with autism or related disorders exhibiting chronic gastrointestinal symptoms demonstrate ileal or colonic inflam- mation upon light microscopic examination of biopsy tissue. Further work is needed to determine whether resolution of histopathology with appropriate therapy is accompanied by GI symptomatic and cognitive/behavioral improvement.

Children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) who exhibit chronic gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms and marked fluctuation of behavioral symptoms exhibit distinct innate immune abnormalities and transcriptional profiles of peripheral blood (PB) monocytes
http://www.jni-journal.com/article/S0165-5728(11)00191-3/abstract

Dr. Tim Buie is a leading gastroenterologist who has an in depth knowledge of GI issues in people with autism. This article is about 6 years old, but still of interest:
Gastrointestinal Illness in Autism: An Interview with Tim Buie, M.D.
By KuLani MaHikoa
http://support.autism-society.org/site/DocServer/Pages_32-34EH.pdf?docID=10446

Evaluation, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Gastrointestinal Disorders in Individuals With ASDs: A Consensus Report
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/125/Supplement_1/S1.full

Dyson

Vaccine "defenders", as you call us, have never disputed whether autistic kids get bowel disease. The findings from the Lancet study indicate kids had bowel problems, primarily non-specific colitis, or no significant histopathological abnormality. What they did not have was a new, unique form of bowel disease caused by vaccination, and which in turn was the cause of the autism, which was Wakefield's idea.
Conclusively refuted, and even Justice Mitting said so in the High Court case where Walker Smith appealed against the GMC ruling to remove his license.

ASD Researcher

"Vaccine "defenders" ..."

www.officialsuperherocostumes.com

"have never disputed whether autistic kids get bowel disease."

but in an amazing coincidence their bowels are biologically and functionally different ... and they get inflammatory bowel disease 3x more. Wait ... don't tell me ...they have something wrong with their immune systems.

"The findings from the Lancet study indicate kids had bowel problems, primarily non-specific colitis, or no significant histopathological abnormality"

ummm ... that doesn't make sense. But hey ...

"What they did not have was a new, unique form of bowel disease caused by vaccination, and which in turn was the cause of the autism, which was Wakefield's idea."

This is where you have to show 'evidence'.

"Conclusively refuted..."

ummm ...except by researchers at Harvard etc

"even Justice Mitting said so in the High Court case"

No that was Walker-Smith's QC I believe.

"Walker Smith appealed against the GMC ruling to remove his license."

Walker-Smith

ASD Researcher

wow - Dyson was correct on Justice Mitting ...my bad. But I don't think that was very significant.

ndavis

Twyla wrote: "We keep hearing that the Lancet study findings have not been replicated. Actually they have. The main findings are gastrointestinal inflammation in people with autism."

Actually, Twyla, the only reason that you are posting here is because of the putative link between MMR and the onset of autism; without that finding, you would never have heard of Wakefield, and you'd just be the parent of a child with a ca. 26-gene deletion on chromosome 6 that causes developmental abnormalities which can include profound mental impairment and autistic features--and which has nothing to do with MMR.

Since you are former English major who works in the HR department of a bank, you apparently have no training in science or medicine. Accordingly, I suppose that you were easily fooled by Wakefield's ridiculous claims that his work had been replicated--but that Wakefield is dishonest has been "found proved." Even Drs Murch and Walker-Smith agree that there is no support for Wakefield's litigation-driven hypothesis.

This should interest you:

http://justthevax.blogspot.com/2010/02/independent-wakefield-way-really.html

ASD Researcher

What's the percentage of ASD children that have " ca. 26-gene deletion on chromosome 6 that causes developmental abnormalities which can include profound mental impairment and autistic features" ?

ASD Researcher

ps How do you explain the Harvard co-morbidity study that was only a "screen" of electronic records for IBD ?

19.44% of ASD patients had epilepsy as compared to 2.19% in the overall hospital population (95% confidence interval for difference in percentages 13.58–14.69%), 2.43% of ASD with schizophrenia vs. 0.24% in the hospital population (95% CI 1.89–2.39%), inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) 0.83% vs. 0.54% (95% CI 0.13–0.43%), bowel disorders (without IBD) 11.74% vs. 4.5% (95% CI 5.72–6.68%), CNS/cranial anomalies 12.45% vs. 1.19% (95% CI 9.41–10.38%), diabetes mellitus type I (DM1) 0.79% vs. 0.34% (95% CI 0.3–0.6%), muscular dystrophy 0.47% vs 0.05% (95% CI 0.26–0.49%), sleep disorders 1.12% vs. 0.14% (95% CI 0.79–1.14%). Autoimmune disorders (excluding DM1 and IBD) were not significantly different at 0.67% vs. 0.68% (95% CI −0.14-0.13%). Three of the studied comorbidities increased significantly when comparing ages 0–17 vs 18–34 with p<0.001: Schizophrenia (1.43% vs. 8.76%), diabetes mellitus type I (0.67% vs. 2.08%), <b> IBD (0.68% vs. 1.99%)

"Given the increased attention that the care of children with ASD has obtained, we hope to stimulate further formal assessment of the symptom and disease association of ASD to allow policy makers and payors to take a full measure of the burden of this common disorder beyond the methods afforded by these EMR-based informatics techniques."

ASD Researcher

So that would be a ... No.

ASD Researcher

So that would be a ... No.

lilady

"Dr. Tim Buie is a leading gastroenterologist who has an in depth knowledge of GI issues in people with autism. This article is about 6 years old, but still of interest:
Gastrointestinal Illness in Autism: An Interview with Tim Buie, M.D.
By KuLani MaHikoa
http://support.autism-society.org/site/DocServer/Pages_32-34EH.pdf?docID=10446"

This is the case control study, published in 2008, conducted by Dr. Timothy Buie, a pediatric gastroenterologist, that refutes all your claims about MMR vaccines causing "autistic enterocolitis", Twyla.

Lack of Association between Measles Virus Vaccine and Autism with Enteropathy: A Case-Control Study

Abstract Top
Background

The presence of measles virus (MV) RNA in bowel tissue from children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) and gastrointestinal (GI) disturbances was reported in 1998. Subsequent investigations found no associations between MV exposure and ASD but did not test for the presence of MV RNA in bowel or focus on children with ASD and GI disturbances. Failure to replicate the original study design may contribute to continued public concern with respect to the safety of the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine.

Methodology/Principal Findings

The objective of this case-control study was to determine whether children with GI disturbances and autism are more likely than children with GI disturbances alone to have MV RNA and/or inflammation in bowel tissues and if autism and/or GI episode onset relate temporally to receipt of MMR. The sample was an age-matched group of US children undergoing clinically-indicated ileocolonoscopy. Ileal and cecal tissues from 25 children with autism and GI disturbances and 13 children with GI disturbances alone (controls) were evaluated by real-time reverse transcription (RT)-PCR for presence of MV RNA in three laboratories blinded to diagnosis, including one wherein the original findings suggesting a link between MV and ASD were reported. The temporal order of onset of GI episodes and autism relative to timing of MMR administration was examined. We found no differences between case and control groups in the presence of MV RNA in ileum and cecum. Results were consistent across the three laboratory sites. GI symptom and autism onset were unrelated to MMR timing. Eighty-eight percent of ASD cases had behavioral regression.

Conclusions/Significance

This study provides strong evidence against association of autism with persistent MV RNA in the GI tract or MMR exposure. Autism with GI disturbances is associated with elevated rates of regression in language or other skills and may represent an endophenotype distinct from other ASD.

Twyla...I think your pal at AoA, Alison MacNeil's has brought her son to Dr. Buie, for his GI problems...that are NOT associated with the MMR vaccine.

ASD Researcher

88% of Autistic regressed ... so the parents were absolutely correct.

So the cause of this regression ? Just a stab in the dark will do ? Bacteria , virus ...?

Now there's a lightbulb moment.

ASD Researcher

The Lancet 12 Children

We now know that Justice Mitting ruled that the children were seen on 'clinical ' need , they were extremely sick disabled children. No ethics approval is necessary for sick children to get treated

This is what Justice Mitting stated

It is in its findings on the clinical issues in the individual cases of the Lancet children that the most numerous and significant inadequacies and errors in the determination of the panel occur.

In no individual case in which the panel made a finding adverse to Professor Walker-Smith did it address the expert evidence led for him, except to misstate it.

The issues to which this evidence went were of fundamental importance to the case against him.

Universal inadequacies and some errors in the panel's determination accordingly go to the heart of the case.

They are not curable. Unless the remainder of the panel's findings justify its conclusion that Professor Walker-Smith was guilty of serious professional misconduct, its determination cannot stand.

-----------------------------------------------

Therefore logically all charges relating to Professor Simon Murch and Andrew Wakefield cannot stand.

In Andrew Wakefield's case

"With regard to nine of the eleven children (2,1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 5,12 and 8) considered by the Panel, it determined that Dr Wakefield caused research to be undertaken on them without Ethics Committee approval and thus without the ethical constraints that safeguard research."

(*Simple ethics approval is not necessary for treatment.)

and

"It was in the context of this research project that the Panel found that Dr Wakefield caused three of these young and vulnerable children, (nos. 3, 9 and 12) to undergo the invasive procedure of lumbar puncture when such investigation was for research purposes and was not clinically indicated.

This action was contrary to his representation to the Ethics Committee that all the procedures were clinically indicated. In nine of the eleven children (2,1, 3, 4, 9, 5,12, 8 and 7) the Panel has found that Dr Wakefield acted contrary to the clinical interests of each child.

-----------------------------------------------------

You may not agree with Andrew Wakefield and his hypothesis of MMR and that is quite OK by me but the findings of the GMC cannot stand.

Dyson

""It was in the context of this research project that the Panel found that Dr Wakefield caused three of these young and vulnerable children, (nos. 3, 9 and 12) to undergo the invasive procedure of lumbar puncture when such investigation was for research purposes and was not clinically indicated.

This action was contrary to his representation to the Ethics Committee that all the procedures were clinically indicated. In nine of the eleven children (2,1, 3, 4, 9, 5,12, 8 and 7) the Panel has found that Dr Wakefield acted contrary to the clinical interests of each child"

Quite clear then.

ASD Researcher

Not really ...

"It was in the context of this research project ..."

Is in error.

Quite clear then.

ASD Researcher

Dyson

Sorry no conspiracy theory here ... Justice Mitting is clear.

Child 2 was admitted to hospital and clinical admission entries taken by Dr Casson a paediatric gastroenterologist colonoscopy was undertaken by Professor Simon Murch also a paediatric gastroenterologist held in very high regard.

Apparently a major tertiary hospital comes to a grinding halt because Professor Walker-Smith likes to take a holiday once in a while.

---------------------------------

Simple misunderstanding of how a tertiary hospital operate makes for interesting reading though of course it needs to be corrected.

Dyson

But the investigations were done as part of Wakefield's unethical research study. That is the point, and there was no clinical need for them.

ASD Researcher

What unethical reserach study - Justice Mitting was quite clear the children were seen for clinical reasons.

Cheers

ASD Researcher

That's not what Justice Mitting found. I'm not sure why your so confused on this matter.

Here I'll highlight the Justice's words for you.

"The finding that Professor Walker-Smith had caused child 2 to undergo a colonoscopy and barium meal and follow through which was not clinically indicated was founded on a single sentence of reasoning: the panel accepted his evidence that child 2's condition was improving. That finding was an inadequate and distorted summary of Professor Walker-Smith's evidence; and it was factually unsound.

There was evidence of improvement in child 2's condition as Dr. Beattie and Dr. Hunter reported. Professor Walker-Smith noted in his clinical notes of 21st June 1996 that on examination he was "much calmer than seen last time", but also, that since then he had had diarrhoea, weight loss and had been very ill; but, his evidence was that even if Dr. Hunter was providing symptomatic relief, he was not advancing the diagnosis. Further, Professor Walker-Smith's limited admission – justified by the facts – had to be set in its proper context.

That included the fact that the medical notes contained references to recent significant episodes of illness, diarrhoea and weight loss in January and April 1996 and its acceptance that Professor Walker-Smith had written to child 2's mother on 16th May 1996 "in response to her telephone call saying that her child's symptoms had worsened". In those circumstances, the panel was wrong to place decisive reliance on Professor Walker-Smith's limited admission.

Further, it did not begin to address the serious debate between Professor Booth and Dr. Miller about this issue. Unless it was able, rationally, to dismiss Dr. Miller's firm view as outwith the spectrum of reasonable medical opinion, it could not sustainably have reached the conclusion that colonoscopy and barium meal and follow through were not clinically indicated.

The panel's conclusion that Professor Walker-Smith's conduct was contrary to the clinical interests of child 2 depends upon the conclusions analysed above. Because they are inadequate or wrong, this conclusion falls with them.

I have dwelt at length upon the case of child 2, because it was the case upon which both sides placed greatest reliance. I will be able to deal more shortly with the cases of the other Lancet children; but my analysis of their cases is informed by the conclusions which I have reached about the case of child 2.

Cheers

Dyson

John Richard Smith (AKA "ASD researcher"), does not research into autism or ASD.
Why would one post under such a moniker, unless one had delusions of grandeur, and jealousy of real scientific researchers?

Care to tell us your research area, John, and point us to some publications?
Because I can't find any.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22John%20Richard%20Smith%22%20Autism

lilady

@ Dyson: John Richard Smith spams all over the Huffington Post. ASD Researcher also spammed at the Respectful Insolence website...under the "Blackheart" 'nym. Best to just ignore him.

whiteandnerdy

I disagree about ignoring him.

Posters like JRS are very helpful.

Not only does he grossly and systematically misrepresent the science--I think this is because he simply doesn't have even the most basic understanding of the science--but there is a recent example at HP were posting the free full-text demonstrated that he literally made up entire passages from his reference.

Most parents find examples like this very help in understanding the true nature of the anti-vaccs.

W&N

ASD Researcher

No ... I am not interested in your assumptions about what my professional and personal life are.

I understand that advocating for the parents of severely disabled children and therefore the children themselves sometimes is difficult and confronting.

I also understand that advocating for Professor John Walker-Smith and his team of fellow gastroenterologists was and remains an emotive issue for some. Particularly as the ;assumptions' some 'opponents' held were in serious error as outlined by the UK High Court.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/503.html

I also believe that this then makes it critical to reflect on whether some of the "assumptions' now made about Andrew Wakefield may be in serious error.

That's all, as I said before there are exciting times coming up in autism research and treatment particularly in GI issues and the immune system. Getting those under control through science based medical treatments will bring enormous benefits to children's quality of life.

Surely we all agree with that simple premise ?

Dyson

So, a clear admission you have nothing to do with autism research.

You are a liar like so many others here.

Dyson

Why do you call yourself "ASD researcher", may I ask?

Would you mind if I submitted posts here under the nym of "Andrew Wakefield", or maybe even "Professor of Gastroenterology"?

lilady

From the GMC Fitness Ruling that revoked Wakefield's license:

http://www.gmc-uk.org/Wakefield_SPM_and_SANCTION.pdf_32595267.pdf

"With regard to nine of the eleven children (2,1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 5,12 and 8) considered by the Panel, it determined that Dr Wakefield caused research to be undertaken on them without Ethics Committee approval and thus without the ethical constraints that safeguard research. Ethical constraints are there for the protection both of research subjects and for the reassurance of the public and are crucial to public trust in research medicine. It was in the context of this research project that the Panel found that Dr Wakefield caused three of these young and vulnerable children, (nos. 3, 9 and 12) to undergo the invasive procedure of lumbar puncture when such investigation was for research purposes and was not clinically indicated. This action was contrary to his representation to the Ethics Committee that all the procedures were clinically indicated. In nine of the eleven children (2,1, 3, 4, 9, 5,12, 8 and 7) the Panel has found that Dr Wakefield acted contrary to the clinical interests of each child. The Panel is profoundly concerned that Dr Wakefield repeatedly breached fundamental principles of research medicine. It concluded that his actions in this area alone were sufficient to amount to serious professional misconduct"

lilady

Here are clinical indications for ordering and performing a lumbar puncture.

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/80773-overview#aw2aab6b2b2

Lumbar puncture is a procedure that is often performed in the emergency department to obtain information about the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF).[1, 2, 3, 4] Although usually used for diagnostic purposes to rule out potential life-threatening conditions (eg, bacterial meningitis or subarachnoid hemorrhage), it is also sometimes used for therapeutic purposes (eg, treatment of pseudotumor cerebri). CSF fluid analysis can also aid in the diagnosis of various other conditions (eg, demyelinating diseases and carcinomatous meningitis).

Lumbar puncture should be performed only after a neurologic examination but should never delay potentially life-saving interventions, such as the administration of antibiotics and steroids to patients with suspected bacterial meningitis.[5]

Lumbar puncture should be performed for the following indications:

Suspicion of meningitis
Suspicion of subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH)
Suspicion of central nervous system (CNS) diseases such as Guillain-Barré syndrome[6] and carcinomatous meningitis
Therapeutic relief of pseudotumor cerebri[7]

Which of the twelve children was admitted to the Royal Free Hospital through the Emergency Room?

Which of the twelve children presented with a suspicion of meningitis?

Which of the twelve children presented with a suspicion of subarachnoid hemorrhage?

Which of the twelve children presents with a suspicion of central nervous system (CNS) diseases such as Guillain-Barré syndrome and carcinomatous meningitis?

Which of the twelve children required therapeutic relief of pseudotumor cerebri?

Have any of you ever cared for a child who was about to undergo a lumbar puncture...assisted the physician to perform a lumbar puncture or cared for a child post lumbar puncture? I have...many times.

Dyson

According to Wakefield and John Richard Smith, LP should also be done on every child with ASD.

Madness.

lilady

Sheer unadulterated madness and abuse of developmentally disabled children.

lilady

From ASD's link above...

"The Septic Work-up

Unlike older children, it can be difficult to tell when a newborn or young infant is seriously ill. In fact, an infant under two or three months of age may have a serious bacterial infection, such as meningitis (an infection of the fluid surrounding the brain and spinal cord), bacteremia (a blood infection), or a urinary tract infection and still appear totally fine. That is why doctors routinely do a septic work-up on infants who are under two or three months old when they have a rectal temperature that is at or above 100.4 degrees Fahrenheit.

This septic work-up typically includes a:

complete blood count
blood culture
urinalysis and urine culture
spinal tap so that doctors can order an examination of the spinal fluid, including a spinal fluid culture
chest x-ray (although this is often left out if the child lacks respiratory symptoms)
stool studies if the baby has diarrhea
viral test or culture, such as an RSV prep or flu test"

Which of the children in Wakefield's study were newborns or infants who presented with Fever of Unknown Origin?

Thanks for confirming why a lumbar puncture is done as part of a septic workup to rule out bacterial meningitis, ASD.

AutismNewsBeat

When I was in college, I worked part-time as a hospital orderly. Part of my job was holding patients while they underwent lumbar punctures. The doctor's always told the subjects to "arch your back like a mad cat." It was really serious business, and one of my least favorite parts of the job.

ASD Researcher

How did you go with the elderly , infants and pregnant women ?

Vincent Iannelli, M.D.,

http://pediatrics.about.com/od/fever/a/0707_baby_fever.htm

Twyla

Dyson, that is false. LP was only done on some of the children. They were trying to figure out what was affecting these kids with severe impairments in cognition, behavior, communication, and digestion. I recall reading that after doing LP on several children without definitive results, they stopped doing them. They never said that LPs should be done on everyone with ASD.

Dyson

No, they were doing the LPs to check for measles antigens/antibody in the CSF. It was purely a research tool. If a child needed an LP on clinical grounds, then that might be acceptable to take CSF for the research study, assuming consent was given and ethical approval provided (I've done this myself).

However, Wakefield has problems here - firstly the research did not have ethical approval, and secondly, in at least one child by direct admission* and in several of them according to the GMC, there was absolutely no clinical need for LP.

* The child who Walker Smith decreed was "NOT for MRI or Lumbar puncture", only for Wakefield to contradict his instructions and arrange for them to be done.

lilady

Twyla: You should read my post about clinical indications for performing lumbar punctures.

BTW...

Which vaccine do you *claim* caused your son's autism?

How old was your son when he was diagnosed with an ASD?

Did your son have a preexisting genetic syndrome?

lilady

Is this you, Twyla?

http://www.foothillautism.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=32

"Secretary Twyla Ramos' son, Malcolm, was diagnosed with Williams Syndrome at the age of 19 months and with autism at the age of 9 years. Malcolm always displayed a lot of self-stimming behavior but was so affectionate that his parents did not believe he was autistic. After he was diagnosed with autism, Twyla and her husband Manuel were surprised to learn that autism and Williams Syndrome share a lot of gastro-intestinal and food-related issues. Since beginning the gluten & casein free diet, digestive enzymes and probiotics, Malcolm's chronic diarrhea and enuresis have been cured, enabling him to be toilet trained (at last!). Twyla and Manuel also have two daughters. Twyla works in the Human Resources department of a bank. She has a B.A. in English from Pomona College. Twyla grew up near Boston, MA, but has lived in the L.A. area for many years."


Jenny Allan

http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2012/03/07/english-court-exonerates-mmrautism-doctor-uk-general-medical-given-sound-thrashing/
The above is a complete transcript of Justice Mittings' High Court judgement following Professor Walker-Smith's successful appeal against the revoking by the GMC of his medical licence to practise. Judge Mitting was VERY thorough and assiduous, examining the clinical evidence for each of the Lancet childrens' cases in turn, before deciding that these children were diagnosed and treated properly in accordance with clinical indications. Judge Mitting paid particular attention to the reasons why four or these children were given lumbar punctures. In the case of Child 2, the GMC did not dispute the necessity for this, since the recommendation came from two senior clinicians based at another hospital. The other three Lancet children, given lumbar punctures, had clinical indications which were similar to those of Child 2. LBs are a VERY important diagnostic tool which can diagnose meningitis and other infections or neurological abnormalities.
Through his Counsel, Mr Millar QC, Professor Walker-Smith took full responsibility, as lead clinician, for authorising all of the diagnostic scopes and other procedures carried out on the Lancet children. There was NOTHING in the High Court dispositions, which accused Dr Wakefield of usurping the authority of senior clinicians, by ordering any procedures in contravention of the clinicians' directives. In any case, this could not and did not happen at the Royal Free Hospital, where the childrens' cases and any decisions made were discussed by a multidisciplinary team, which included Dr Wakefield along with 12 of his colleagues. Professor Walker-Smith, as Head of the Department and lead clinician had the final 'say so' regarding any treatments and investigations carried out on these children.

The UK High Court has total power and authority to overturn decisions made by quasi judicial organisations like the GMC. The Court is also empowered to order reforms in the way these organisations conduct their collective business. Judge Mitting found the GMC's examinining of the evidence against the three doctors to be 'superficial and inadequate' and in many cases simply 'wrong'. He therefore 'quoshed' the verdicts and completely exonerated Professor Walker-Smith of all the GMC charges against him. The GMC are presently engaged in totally reforming their disciplinary procedures in line with the scathing criticisms made by Justice Mitting.

This thread contains a considerable number of posted excerpts from the 3 year GMC hearing involving Dr Wakefield and his 2 clinician colleagues. In view of the fact that this often flawed and fabricated evidence, and the GMC's inadequate investigation and perusal of this evidence, has now been exposed and criticised by the High Court, and that the GMC has been forced to reform their procedures in consequence, then it is time for us all to 'move on' and accept that this disreputable episode, instigated by a complaint from Brian Deer, who also obligingly supplied the GMC with much of their 'evidence' , was a monumental 'miscarriage of justice'.

In his recently published memoir Professor Walker-Smith described the stainless steel dominated surroundings in the GMC's London Headquarters as a 'torture chamber'. This distinguished clinician had been retired for 7 years before being dragged before the GMC and forced to endure three years of character assassination, along with his colleagues. He is now over eighty and frail. I am pleased that he can now enjoy his remaining years with his reputation restored, but extremely angry about the inhuman way this witchhunt was conducted.

Cybertiger

Hear, hear, Jenny Allan. I'm angry too, very angry about what happened to John Walker-Smith and the Royal Free Three ... at the hands of a malign and incompetent GMC. If other GMC registered doctors are not angry, it's because they've simply not been paying attention ... or they're part of that malignant process.

Dyson

John Richard Smith has told us Walker Smith was in Scotland the entire week that Child 2 was admitted and underwent the tests requested by "I cannot request tests" Wakefield.

How is that for a person who according to you "as Head of the Department and lead clinician had the final 'say so' regarding any treatments and investigations carried out on these children"?

How would you feel if your child was discharged from followup by a clinician, only to have a researcher bring pressure to bear to admit your child to hospital, where the researcher (in the absence of the clinician, who was on holiday abroad) dictated several potentially harmful and probably needless invasive investigations on him? Can you honestly say this state of affairs would please you?

Jenny Allan

Check the facts again Dyson re my link to the High Court judgement. The GMC DID NOT include Child 2's lumbar puncture in their charges against the three doctors. Why? Because Child 2's lumbar puncture was requested and recommended by two serior clinicians based at a different hospital.

I repeat. lumbar punctures and colonoscopies are routine diagnostic procedures in hospitals. They are NEVER carried out for research purposes in the UK and the High Court confirmed that in the case of the Lancet 12 children, all child procedures were carried out in accordance with proper clinical need and ethical protocols.
As I stated before, the 'inadequate and superficial' way the GMC examined the so called evidence, much of which was supplied by sole complainant Brian Deer, means the whole 3 year £8million GMC hearing is effectively null and void.

ndavis

"[T]the High Court confirmed that in the case of the Lancet 12 children, all child procedures were carried out in accordance with proper clinical need and ethical protocols."

Really?

Given that Professor Walker-Smith, the clinician with direct responsibility for the case, clearly indicated that Child 12 was "not to have" lumbar puncture or MRI, that none of the witnesses--and no one else--provided any clinical justification for overriding Walker-Smith's explicit orders, how can you suggest that that child endured MMR and lumbar puncture "in accordance with proper clinical need"? What clinical need was that, such that the child's physicians--and especially Walker-Smith--did not see it?

Justice Mitting wrote: "At his ward round on 6th January 1997, Professor Walker-Smith noted the colonoscopy results and directed that child 12 should not have the planned MRI scan or lumbar puncture, but was to have the barium meal and follow through. The histology report dated 8th January 1997, on four or five biopsies, noted lymphoid follicles with germinal centres in the large bowel, but no other symptoms. Despite Professor Walker-Smith’s direction that no MRI scan or lumbar puncture should be performed, both were performed on 9th January 1997. The clinical notes contain no explanation for this change and none of the clinicians who gave evidence were able to remember or explain the reason."

"Proper clinical need," indeed.

lilady

@ Jenny Allan:

"I repeat. lumbar punctures and colonoscopies are routine diagnostic procedures in hospitals. They are NEVER carried out for research purposes in the UK and the High Court confirmed that in the case of the Lancet 12 children, all child procedures were carried out in accordance with proper clinical need and ethical protocols.


That's a crock Jenny Allan...The GMC FTP Hearing found that your hero Wakefield did order non-medically-indicated lumbar punctures and colonoscopies which were NOT "routine procedures diagnostic procedures in hospitals".

Your hero Andy Wakefield a disgraced former doctor, is still a disgraced former doctor...and a charlatan.

AutismNewsBeat

The judge asked Walker-Smith's attorney if the alleged link between MMR and autism "has now been utterly disproved" in the opinion of "respectable medical opinion".

Attorney Miller said that was "exactly" the position.

It appears that Walker-Smith, speaking through his attorney, told the judge that Mr. Wakefield's medical opinion is not respectable.

ASD Researcher

That's all .

I look forward to the research breakthroughs in the coming months ... it is an exciting time for us all in the autism community and those of us that are parents as well.

Science and medicine will once again quietly try to go about the business they do and provide real treatment options.

Cheers

lookinglass

It's hearts and minds ASD. And the law courts where it all belongs right now. I wish him and his team well and I thankyou for all your stirling work in attempting to open minds and for not losing your own at times with those that sounded as if they either should have been sent to bed with no supper or sent to a therapy clinic. Hey ho.

lilady

Yawn, yawn. ASD Researcher/Blackheart is back spamming.

liquidambar

ASD Researcher brought some very important points in this whole mess.
I must admit that I do not understand what Blackheart is back spamming ---means?

But I bet it is not nice?

ASD Researcher

Thanks Liquidambar.

Lots of exciting research coming out at the moment. Especially in terms of treatment most revolving around GI , inflammation and the immune system dysfunction in ASD.

Stay tuned to University of California Medical , CalTech and Harvard over the next 6 months as the research makes publication.

liquidambar

Thankyou for the hope.
I have so many family members that have the inflammation - not just blood kin but through marriage too ---it feels like the whole world is ending and for us it is.

Dyson

Could you just crystallize those "important" points for us, as I seem to have missed them, and explain how they relate to the topic of Deer's exposure of Wakefield's fraud?

Mofmars333

You don't even know what spamming is.Go yawn where it counts lilady. You fool no one!

lilady

Moffie Your pal AM Dachel a.k.a. the Dachel bot had all her spam removed by the San Francisco Chronicle. ASD Researcher spams at the Huffington Post...where he is ignored and he is ignored here as well.

Dyson

"ASD researcher", who is NOT an ASD researcher, btw, continually posts long and boring posts of cherrypicked citations from scientific papers, without the expertise to understand them.
He does so in multiple forums, such as here, or at Huffington post, on any and every discussion about vaccinations, whatever the actual topic of the discussion.

That is spamming.
He is a spamming, one-man, Dunning Kruger effect army.

Seriously Now

Must be sold out of tinfoil for hats at the local stores.

logical thinker

Somebody told me that's vaccines' fault.

liquidambar

Just little snips, logical thinker?

logical thinker

Actually, I posted long, thoughtful comments below, but they are being ignored. Here, let me repost one for you here. Perhaps you will actually read it.

(Repost)
Interestingly, none of these anti-vaccine people responded to my comments from this morning so I will repost part of them, just in case they were missed.

"And let's pretend for a moment that Mr. Deer made everything up. The next step in science is to reproduce the work that Wakefield did. When this alleged link first came out, scientists were excited. This was it! As a result, MANY studies have been done to try to confirm the link he found with his original 12 children, and not a thing was found. Nothing. Crickets chirped. Do you seriously want us to believe that thousands of researchers from all over the world are "in on the conspiracy"? Meanwhile, scientists are spending their time, efforts, and money trying to find the REAL cause rather than chase shadows so they can help the children of the very parents who villify the messenger. So far, there are a couple of genes that might be linked to autism, among a few other things, but nothing vaccine related. (And that is not for lack of trying to find that alleged link!) More work needs to be done. When we finally know what is responsible for this horrible disease, there will still be some who staunchly believe that it is still vaccines, even in the face of the logic and the data. Unfortunately, for some people, if you say it enough times, it must be true."

Even if Wakefield is cleared and Deer is a liar, THERE IS NO LINK THERE IS NO LINK THERE IS NO LINK and no amount of anecdotal evidence can prove that there is. Stories, feelings, and emotions are not science. It seems some are losing sight of the true goal here: to find the cause of autism so we can try to prevent it. There is a mouse model for autism, for goodness sake, and the mice didn't "get" autism from vaccines, they just developed it. (A report was just published this week in Science that they may have reversed autism in these mice. Think how exciting that might be if someone can reproduce these findings!) While we're all bickering about Wakefield and Deer, some real work is being done by smart people to figure out the real answer.

liquidambar

SAT scores the lowest they have been in 40 years.
The reason they gave????
Their guess????
Was more bilinguals taking the test. They know two languages and suck at both of them.

AutismNewsBeat

Do you have any evidence that "SAT scores are the lowest they have been in 40 years?"

In 1972, the average verbal score was 530, and the average math was 509 (527 males, 489 female). (source: College Entrance Exam Board).

In 2012 (College Board data), the average critical reading score was 496; math 514; and writing 488.

liquidambar

Serioulsy Now;
You know what a prion is????? Wow.
Merton: As a typical dumb American in the center of the country I am able to read and decide for myself who is a gas bag and who has something important to say. That is all you had to say - just a evil jib??? Nothing really thoughtful?

ASD Researcher told us in detail about Child number 2.
Dyson; Tired of people throwing stuff up - and lying. Is that what spin is??? Being a dumb mid American I am finally catching on.

Silvermaven

Anyone who could EVEN SUGGEST that a vaccine prevents disease has not done ANY research in the last 5yrs.
We know that stealth prion protein infections are the cause of all SYNDROMES. Including Autism and Diabetes.
The only difference between any of the so called syndromes or 90% of all psych disease is how many infections they have, what kinds, and the immune system they are in.
That is why 1/3 of the Pop.s have a "latent" form of TB that does not prefer the lungs. Using mycoplasma's in vaccines won us TB and like infections and spirochetal prion proteins used in vaccines for 30yrs. has won us the immune suppression to now tolerize any and all infections.
In fact our genes are not even our own anymore. They share with everything in the prion synergy they have gave us all.
And the evidence is profound in the masses suffering lies of syndromes that are really infections that cannot be detected once they share their genes in that prion synergy they blessed us with. Treating the truth is not easy, but it works.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yOno_2m_8LY

And for those that have no immune systems anymore there is stem cells that can help.
http://www.morgellons-research.org/morgellons/morgellons-microscop3.htm

The gene shareing stealth can be stopped but it will not be as long as idiots are allowed to continue infecting the masses with more genetically altered organisms or dumping millions of retrovirus baits, that will also share their genes.
The fact is Man and Beast have no more time left to think about it.
Because we know the people are tolerizing even Rabies, Anthrax, and Dengue...
When the 1 in 29 who suffer the lies of Autism becomes 1 in 1 it will be game over.

lilady

You must be kidding Silvermaven!

Prions cause autism, diabetes and TB and other spirochete diseases? You do realize that TB is cause by a bacillus bacterium and Lyme disease is a zoonotic disease caused by a spirochete bacterium, don't you?

You Tube Videos offered up as your sources?

Mofmars333

Get real lilady. Like utube content can't be credible? Who do you think you're fooling? The sites, cites & sources we use & you try to discredit is not working. People paying attention can tell if the content is factual or not & all the denying you people do only lends to the truth. Thank you for unwittingly helping truth out. You all pushing vaccines are a complete fail!

lilady

I'm willing to bet that you don't know what a prion is, what a bacterium is and what a virus is, Moffie.

Dyson

Moffie, Youtube can be credible. Youtube saying prions cause autism and diabetes is not.

lilady

Moffie: Perhaps you would like to explain to us which diseases are caused by prions?

I'm beginning to think that Silvermaven has a spongiform encephalopathy.

AutismNewsBeat

I thought Prion was a hybrid car.

ChrisP

Silvermaven, do you know what a prion is? And the difference between a prion, a virus, and a bacterium?

ASD Researcher

Were the Kids Lab Rats ?

Allegations were made against a team of eminent paediatric gastroenterologists. pathologists and neurologists. Particularly three doctors - Professor John Walker-Smith, Professor Simon Murch and Doctor Andrew Wakefield

These allegations were published and presented as the bedrock evidence on which all further allegations have rested. Including allegations of data manipulation.

The allegation can be summed up as that these children were research lab rats ... it simply wasn't so. It also inferred that parents and carers of severely disabled children were being negligent in the medical care of their children.

If this serious allegation falls when examined by the UK High Court ... then the general public must make a clear decision on the veracity of the rest of the allegations.

This is what the UK High court stated firmly and strongly ...

"At the heart of the GMC's case against Professor Walker-Smith were two simple propositions: the investigations undertaken under his authority on eleven of the twelve Lancet children were done as part of a research project – Project 172-96 –
which required, but did not have, Ethics Committee approval; and they were clinically inappropriate."

This is what Justice Mitting concluded ...

"For the reasons given above, both on general issues and the Lancet paper and in relation to individual children, the panel's overall conclusion that Professor Walker-Smith was guilty of serious professional misconduct was flawed , in two respects: inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion."

As I have explained, the medical records provide an equivocal answer to most of the questions which the panel had to decide. The panel had no alternative but to decide whether Professor Walker-Smith had told the truth to it and to his colleagues, contemporaneously.

"The GMC's approach to the fundamental issues in the case led it to believe that that was not necessary – an error from which many of the subsequent weaknesses in the panel's determination flowed.

It had to decide what Professor Walker-Smith thought he was doing: if he believed he was undertaking research in the guise of clinical investigation and treatment, he deserved the finding that he had been guilty of serious professional misconduct and the sanction of erasure; if not, he did not, unless, perhaps, his actions fell outside the spectrum of that which would have been considered reasonable medical practice by an academic clinician. Its failure to address and decide that question is an error which goes to the root of its determination.

The panel's determination cannot stand. I therefore quash it. Miss Glynn, on the basis of sensible instructions, does not invite me to remit it to a fresh Fitness to Practice panel for redetermination.

The end result is that the finding of serious professional misconduct and the sanction of erasure are both quashed.

There can be little doubt of the strength of this decision and how it now ripples throughout this issue. It was frank in it's language and findings.

Can someone could now sustain an argument against any of the team of gastroenterologists, pathologists and neurologists ... ?

That's a question the general public have a right to answer. This is an important public health issue

Merton

I hate to break this to you, Mr. Smith, but "pontificating gasbag" doesn't play all that well in the heartland.

ASD Researcher


Most of us share a common bond for children with disabilities.

ASD Researcher

I'll ask this question of you Mr Merton ? Obviously you share a common bond for the care and treatment of children with disabilities do you think this debate can ever be moved forward without the adversarial nature ?

..and by whom ?

Twyla

"Pontificating gasbag" does not in the least describe ASD Researcher.

lilady

Twyla...Which vaccine caused autism in your son?

At what age was your son diagnosed with autism?

Did your son have a pre-existing genetic disorder?

lilady

Okay, ASD Researcher/Blackheart bot...start posting all your spam now, so the grown-ups can have an intelligent conversation.

ASD Researcher

Change is difficult.

ChrisP

ASD Researcher, you do realise the key issue in the GMC case against Walker-Smith was that he along with Wakefield authorised invasive treatments that were not clinically warranted on the children for the purposes of research?

Walker-Smith got off because he was able to argue that he had not authorised these treatments. Wakefield had.

ASD Researcher

Thanks Chris for your post below.

"Walker-Smith got off because he was able to argue that he had not authorised these treatments. Wakefield had."

Walker-Smith didn't get off - the very charges alleged were found to be "inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion.

A clinician does what a clinician does investigates and treats. The UK High court found that ALL the children were properly referred and looked after.

Cheers

ChrisP

In reality, Walker-Smith got off because the judge accepted his version that the treatments he ordered he believed were for a a clinical investigation and not research. He jettisoned Wakefield by demonstrating that a number of the treatments the GMC considered unwarranted were in fact ordered by Wakefield and not himself.

ASD Researcher

Chris (statement below)

Can you tell the general public how a paediatric children's ward runs ?

Dyson

Change is difficult, John R Smith.
But keep an open mind, keep learning and you will find it comes naturally.

Twyla

Thank you, ASD Researcher, for patiently finding the applicable text from the decision, and answering others' comments line by line.

Dyson

Brian Deer can sustain an argument, and much better than you John Richard Smith (NOT an "ASD researcher")

Dyson

Just to flesh out the detail on the influence Wakefield had, and how kids who did not need tests were admitted for these to be done, look at the GMC findings:

b. On 1 August 1995 Child 2 attended an outpatient consultation
with Professor Walker-Smith at St Bartholomew’s Hospital following
which Professor Walker-Smith concluded that there was no evidence of
Crohn’s disease or chronic inflammatory bowel disease and he did not
arrange to see Child 2 again,
Admitted and found proved

c. On 16 May 1996 Professor Walker-Smith wrote to Child 2’s
mother asking to see Child 2 again and stating that he had had
discussions about Child 2 with you and that you and
Professor Walker-Smith had a plan for investigations,
Admitted and found proved

http://briandeer.com/solved/gmc-charge-sheet.pdf

AutismNewsBeat

On the other hand, Wakefield and his supporters say that none of that language is actually found in the GMC report, and some small market news media interpret those denials as another "take", ergo there are "two takes."

See how that works?

Yellowriver

So you believe the likes of Brian Deer, worse fool you. Listen to Andrew Wakefield instead AAPS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l67fWVrw8xU&feature=related

lilady

Yellowriver: we already listened to Andrew Wakefield and have his testimony at the GMC hearing where his license to practice medicine was revoked.

You are employed by the Autism Media Channel where Wakefield is listed as a "principal" and his wife Carmel is also employed.

Talk about "conflicts of interest".

Dyson

Read the link.
It is to the GMC findings, and not something Deer said.
It just happens to be hosted by his website, and a very good one it is too.

liquidambar

They found a new area of the GI track that had not been previously been observed to have inflammation.

This new discovery has other medical research discovering the same thing.

lilady

linky, linky please to any citations about the this "new undiscovered area".

liquidambar

linky-linky; I bet you don't bother to read them and I am wasting my time but:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3108639/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2796865/
http://infectiousbehavior.wordpress.com/2012/09/19/gastrointestinal-and-microbiome-changes-in-autism/

http://www.neurotransmitter.net/autismclostridia.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19623831
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19917211

ChrisP

So you have dredged through PubMed and found 4 papers unrelated except in that they report possible biochemical differences in guts of sub-sets of children with autism. This is not evidence of "a new area of the GI track [sic] that had not been previously observed to have inflamation".

As an aside I note that two of the papers have as co-author a struck-off doctor who had a paper retracted by Lancet on the basis that it was fraudulent. Under this circumstance, I would really want to see some independent replication before accepting these papers.

ASD Researcher

Justice Mitting - UK High Court -Child 2

"Child 2 was admitted to the Royal Free Hospital for investigations on 1st September 1996. Professor Walker-Smith was in Scotland for the whole of that week and played no part in the investigations.

A lengthy and detailed clinical history is then set out.

Towards the end, Dr. Casson noted that child 2 had "started going down hill again" and had been to the B12 Unit at Chelsea and Westminster. He described his current condition as follows:

"Presently ? has "episodes" about every 18 months. Last in April. Last up to 3/52.

? Association jaundice and pale ****.

Poor sleep, increased ****** (bowel disorder), screaming."

He then noted that he had been prescribed an exclusion diet and bacteria by Dr. Hunter at Addenbrooke's which seemed to have eased abdominal pain.

Colonoscopy was performed on the 2nd September 1996 by Dr. Murch.

His report of the same date noted that colonoscopy was "performed in the further investigation of disintegrative disorder" and was abnormal in the following respects: minor abnormalities of the vascular pattern in the *****; one definite aphthoid ulcer near the hepatic flexure; multiple prominent colonic lymphoid follicles, each with an erythematous rim and a central pale swollen core in the caecum; and lymphoid nodular hyperplasia in the terminal ileum.

The histology report of 5th September 1996 confirmed a mild patchy generalised increase in inflammatory cells with lymphoid aggregates and follicles, in keeping with low grade quiescent inflammatory bowel disease.

--------------------------------------

1. Parent concerns about the severe and disabling bowel conditions is confirmed.

2. The parents in referring their children to further investigation by expert paediatric gastroenterologists was confirmed

3. Professor Simon Murch was able to instigate care and treatment regimes to relive such symptoms of chronic ***** (bowel disorder) and screaming

4. Inflammatory bowel disease was only uncovered by expert clinical practice.

This was the case that Justice Mitting referred to as " have dwelt at length upon the case of child 2, because it was the case upon which both sides placed greatest reliance." ie in my words the "Test Case "

*Filters do not allow me to use the correct medical term

Dyson

So you have confirmed Child 2's admission and investigations were determined by Wakefield, like I said.
You know, the guy who was meant to have nothing to do with the kids' clinical investigations.

ASD Researcher

I can't quiet see how you came to that conclusion, but there you go.

liquidambar

Logical Thinker;
I too was at one time a logical thinker. I even majored in microbiology.
Ancedotal evidence is easily dismissed if it is not your child.

Dyson

Odd response for a scientist.
Anecdotal evidence is regarded as anecdotal precisely because it is your child.

liquidambar

Dyson;
I watched my son react to a vaccine with 105 temperature and continued to be ill for a week. I took him to the doctor and he had a heart murmur - there had not been one before -- five different doctors said so from his birth through all of his well baby checkups. The X ray showed an inflamed heart - left venticule - so it was the shape of a boot.

I took my son in again for his shots; again he ran a temp of a 105, he passed out, rapid breathing gasping for air. Again I went to the doctor - who said no problem but he does have an ear infection.

I took my son in again; questione the ped on what I had observed (scientist you know) The ped said it is all fine - and he is a little behind get it done today. This time his temp shot to 105, he became non responsive, he went catatonic, his pupils swelled up till there was no color iris to be seen, he drooled, he turned white, his chin shook, he went to sleep no one could arouse him.

8 weeks later he wakes up, shots up a temperature an has a seizure.
8 weeks later he did it again.
From there on out till his teens he had periodical fevers, unexplained causes an always the same MO.

You called me a scientist --- because I majored in microbiology????
You assume too much, just like you assume that vaccine are safe because the government, all the medical people tells you so; but parents should be out of this ancedotal type stuff. .

lilady

It's all anecdotal...including your allegation that your son was diagnosed "with a heart murmur"...which was most probably an ASD (atrial septal defect) and a boot-shaped heart, which most commonly is not found at birth. Did your sons ASD close spontaneously? My son's huge ASD closed spontaneously, after six months.

Have you made a claim in the Vaccine Court? Was your son compensated for what you claim to be vaccine injuries?

lilady

BTW, I doubt you majored in microbiology or any other science. Tell us about your baby's intact foramen ovale and how it didn't close at birth. Tell us why you are claiming this is a "vaccine injury".

Twyla

As usual, the coldhearted lilady has absolutely no sympathy, and also claims to know more about your child than you do.

So sorry for what you and your child have been through, liquidamber.

liquidambar

Dyson;
If that had been your baby, if you had observed this - How angry do you think you would be if some one said to you - that is ancedotal?

Dyson

Coincidences occur.

logical thinker

And this is exactly why anecdotal evidence cannot be used to prove anything. You should know that as a scientist. It does, however, cause one to go look more closely. And it HAS been. Again, this has been studied into the ground and no one can reproduce what Wakefield claims to have seen. To assume that every single autism researcher who has examined this alleged link is working for big pharma is silly. Why not assume that there is no causation and then use your passionate efforts to help find the real cause? It seems that many bloggers on here are far more interested in proving Brian Deer is a liar than they are getting at the cause of autism. Not one of these self-named anti-vaccine people have commented on the new science that I mentioned in my posts (X-linked genes, mouse models of autism in the absence of vaccines, possible reversion of the disease in these mice). They should be thrilled! And nothing. Not a peep. Do they really not care that there are other unexplored avenues? They are so he!!-bent on proving their case that cannot see anything else? It makes no sense. None at all. The whole situation is tragic, as I said before.

Yellowriver

@ logical thinker
A person goes to a doctor when one feels sick, the doctor asks "Whats the matter, how can I help" so one tells the doctor the symptoms they are feeling. The doctor checks and asks more questions so what the person tells the doctor is anecdotal and the doctor accepts it.
A person goes into a sandwich shop and the shop keeper asks them what they would like and the person says I'm hungry can I have a chicken sandwich and the shopkeeper gives over the sandwich no problem because he believes the customer is hungry. In these two cases the doctor or the shop keeper have not asked for scientific evidence of the person being ill or the person being hungry.

logical thinker

And? What does this have to do with how research is supposed to be done? Someone publishes observations in a peer-reviewed journal, others try to replicate that work and add more details to the observations to support or refute them. Over much time, the original ideas are either shown incorrect, or at best, modified to fit all data at the moment. If we used research to respond to our hunger pangs, we would starve to death before we got our sandwich.

lilady

Say hello to your boss Andrew Wakefield at the Autism Media Channel and to your co-worker Carmel Wakefield, as well.

Talk about "conflicts of interest".

logical thinker

And when people go to the doctor, telling the story is the only way to handle this situation. Physicians also do tests on patients (i.e., research) to SHOW that the anecdotes that the patients are relaying are accurate or embellished. (And rest assured, patients embellish),

lilady

That doesn't even make sense.

Why should we believe anything you post, when you are employed by Andrew Wakefield at the Autism Media Channel?

Twyla

When you want to know how the weather is, do you look out the window? Or do you wait until the expert weatherperson on TV tells you whether it is raining or sunny?

Are any of our history books valid? They tell of history based on anecdotes - what people have said and written - accounts which were not published in peer reviewed journals and subjected to statistical methodology. So should we disregard all history?

In a court of law, is testimony a form of evidence? Sure it can be questioned and challenges, but it is often the main basis for conviction. Or can criminals only be convicted based on published peer reviewed articles in scientific journals?

Do published peer reviewed articles spring fully formed out of thin air? Or do they often start with anecdotal information which is the basis for forming theories and hypotheses and result in discoveries?

How did the small pox vaccine originate? With stories about milk maids getting cowpox and becoming immune to smallpox. These were anecdotes, which were not summarily dismissed as coincidence.

When Sir Isaac Newton saw an apple fall out of a tree, did he say, "Well, I don't really know if that happened or if it's just my subjective unreliable misguided perceptions"? Or did he start with this observation of gravity and build upon it?

This utter and complete dismissal of everything that parents witness is very extreme, nonsensical, and basically a propaganda technique. Since when do we give scientists total control over all perceptions of the world around us?

liquidambar

Has it!
Let me see - the 14 Danish studies in which Thorsen embazzled money supplied to him by the CDC.

So far I have not heard much about the charges - maybe it is because members of the CDC are off helping Thorsen spend it on big homes, fast cars and women????

lilady

And, liquidambar...how does that change the fact that your hero is a disgraced former doctor who is still disgraced, still a former doctor and still a charlatan?

lilady

@ lookinglass: You are still defending the spamming tactics of Anne Dachel and her blitzing of blogs with her off topic subjects. I have not been removed for spamming and Ms. Dachel has:

http://www.sfgate.com/health/article/Parents-can-t-sue-vaccine-manufacturers-3894230.php

BTW, your pals at Age of Autism have now defamed me, because I have been posting on the LaCrosse Tribune blogs, in defense of science and in defense of kids who have been systematically abused by being forced into bleach treatments (doses of an industrial chemical given orally and rectally), kids who have undergone chemical castration and oral and IV chelation, and kids who have been taken to off-shore clinics for intrathecal infusions of stem cells...all for the sake of *treating, curing, recovering them* from autism.

I consider it a badge of honor to be including on Age of Autism's Enemies List. I am in the company of Mr. Deer, Dr. Offit, Dr. Gorski, esteemed science bloggers, TV journalists such as Anderson Cooper and others who are not in lockstep with the "journalists" at Age of Autism and your fallen hero, the disgrace former doctor Andrew Wakefield.

Mofmars333

I'm so glad to see our people here using truth to beat up the deception. The facts come shining through very well now that many on our team challenge the deception. So many good people here & I picked a comment among the many I so agree with from my experience>>>

From lookinglass - 1 hour ago

"Lilady is herself a scurrilous and defaming poster from a notorious blog, several in fact, who hold opposing views to AoA . No problem with opposing views. The problem here is that this particular commentator has been reported for defamation and propgating lies here there and everywhere. It is widely known that Andrew Wakefield was never involved in clinical treatment. He is a researcher, pure and simple. For anyone to publicly declare that Andy Wakefield has ever subjected children to "invasive, painful and dangerous lumbar punctures and bowel biopsies" is dangerous defamation and libellous. I am getting awfully bored with reporting this lilady but I shall cotinue to do so whenever and wherever I am able to do so."

Dyson

It was the GMC which concluded Wakefield conducted unnecessary invasive, dangerous investigations, not any of us.

Wakefield did not challenge their findings, and did not appeal.

Mofmars333

The GMC is also complicit & the truth is coming out in the wash no matter the denial Dyson!
Vaxtruth.org says it all.

AutismNewsBeat

Moffie, you've been telling us for years that "the truth is coming out." We haven't seen any yet. How long will this take?

Twyla

Ahah! ANB says that we haven't seen any truth yet! I guess he means that from the official sources we're still only seeing lies.

Yes, ANB, we are all wondering how long it will take for the CDC, FDA, AAP, GMC etc. to admit the truth: sometimes vaccines do cause autism.

ASD Researcher

It should be distinctly remembered that the allegations were made against all three doctors and not only at the GMC.

When they were first tested by the lead clinician Professor John Walker-Smith they were 'equivocally" quashed.

How much did the GMC spend trying to convict Walker-Smith several million pounds sterling ... 200 plus days of hearings.

It is unlikely that the general public can take the GMC findings seriously now.

lilady

The "general public" does accept the findings of the GMC. It is only you and your pals at Age of Autism who don't accept the findings.

Cybertiger

Walker-Smith challenged the GMC's findings and was still struck off. Walker-Smith appealed to the High Court and was then completely exonerated. The GMC got it all wrong. The High Court judge criticized the GMC, stating its judgment had been "based on inadequate and superficial reasoning."

ndavis

"For anyone to publicly declare that Andy Wakefield has ever subjected children to "invasive, painful and dangerous lumbar punctures and bowel biopsies" is dangerous defamation and libellous . . . It is widely known that Andrew Wakefield was never involved in clinical treatment."

Wakefield certainly DID have clinical contact with some of the Lancet children: He ordered test for them above his signature in their charts.

On Day 30 of the GMC hearings, Andrew Wakefield’s job description was described: "He will not be involved in the outpatient or inpatient management of patients in the Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust. He will not practise as a Consultant Surgeon, Physician or Gastroenterologist as part of this appointment."

However, according to the 28 September 2007 transcript of Wakefield's GMC "Fitness to Practise Panel (Misconduct)" hearing, Wakefield (who has no pediatric qualifications, had no clinical appointment, and who trained as a surgeon specializing in bowel and liver transplants rather than in gastroenterology) ordered tests above his signature in the chart of Lancet Child 12, who, to Walker-Smith's obvious surprise, received both MRI and a lumbar puncture after Professor Walker-Smith, had specifically indicated during formal ward rounds that the child was “Not to have MRI or LP” because neither procedure was clinically indicated. Wakefield certainly did have clinical contact with that vulnerable patient: According the transcript for Day 36: "Again, that [test] is apparently requested by Dr Wakefield, it is his signature at the bottom."

For Child 5: "This is again a request [for a test] which is signed by Dr Wakefield. Again, can I ask you if this was a clinical investigation would you expect Dr Wakefield to be requesting?
[Answer] No."

ASD Researcher

Just a couple of quick questions on your narrative.

Which witness gives the testimony you were referring to ?

Who was the treating neurologist ?

lilady

The fact remains that Wakefield ordered a lumbar puncture when he was not supposed to order tests.

What are the medical indications for ordering a lumbar puncture on a child?

ASD Researcher

lilady below.

"What are the medical indications for ordering a lumbar puncture on a child?"

A neurodevelopmental disorder of unknown etiology or origin. They check the CSF fluid for a range of abnormalities , for instance meningitis.

Glad I could help.

Dyson

So every child with autistic spectrum disorder NEEDS an LP then, according to you?
Glad to clear that one up.
What did your son's LP reveal?

Jenny Allan

ndavis alleges:-
"Wakefield......ordered tests above his signature in the chart of Lancet Child 12, who, to Walker-Smith's obvious surprise, received both MRI and a lumbar puncture after Professor Walker-Smith, had specifically indicated during formal ward rounds that the child was “Not to have MRI or LP” because neither procedure was clinically indicated."

FALSE ...Just to clear this up once and for all, the four Lancet children who had lumbar punctures at the Royal Free were children 2, 3, 9 and 10. Child 12 DID NOT undergo a lumbar puncture. Child 2 was recommended to have this test done by two senior clinicians from a different hospital. The other children who had LPs had clinical indications which were similar to those of Child 2. The decision to administer these tests was taken by the Lead Clinician, Professor Walker-Smith, whom Judge Mitting exonerated from all the GMC charges and whose licence to practice medicine was restored, February 2012.

ndavis

"Child 12 DID NOT undergo lumbar puncture."

Perhaps you should take that up with Professor Walker-Smith, who testified on Day 93 that to his astonishment Child 12 did undergo lumbar puncture and MRI despite Walker-Smith's explicit instructions to the contrary.

Q Then we have the ward round by you, going back to the notes at page 21, where a decision is made that [Child 12] is not to have an MRI or lumbar puncture. I will come back to
that, if I may.
A [Walker-Smith] Yes.

Q The very same day, that is 6 January, there is a request signed by Dr Wakefield for neurophysiology tests. We see that at page 131.
A [Walker-Smith] Yes

. . . Q But it would appear, would it not, that a request is being made for neurophysiology on the same day that you are saying that you did not think it was appropriate to do the lumbar puncture and the MRI – just as a matter of fact?
A [Walker-Smith] Yes.

. . . Q Then [Child 12] has the lumbar puncture on the 9th, and I will return to the implications of that. There is an ultimate diagnosis by Dr Berelowitz and we can see that that took place on 10 January, and it is page 18.
A [Walker-Smith] Yes.

Q In fact, as we have seen, [Child 12] did indeed end up having an MRI and lumbar puncture despite your express instruction that he should not?
A [Walker-Smith] Yes, astonishingly he did.

Q Do you have any explanation how that came about, given your instruction?
A [Walker-Smith] None at all.


lilady

lookinglass...Where are all the bowel specimens removed from Wakefield's study subjects that "went missing"? Where are all the histopathology reports on those "missing" bowel specimens, that all "went missing"?

Show us what the medical indications are for "ordering" lumbar punctures. I keep asking you and your pals from AoA for links to citations that would disprove the findings of Wakefield's GMC decision that Wakefield ordered/countermanded the orders of other doctors, and subjected his study subjects to painful, invasive, sometimes dangerous and definitely not-medically-indicated procedures.

logical thinker

Interestingly, none of these anti-vaccine people responded to my comments from this morning so I will repost part of them, just in case they were missed.

"And let's pretend for a moment that Mr. Deer made everything up. The next step in science is to reproduce the work that Wakefield did. When this alleged link first came out, scientists were excited. This was it! As a result, MANY studies have been done to try to confirm the link he found with his original 12 children, and not a thing was found. Nothing. Crickets chirped. Do you seriously want us to believe that thousands of researchers from all over the world are "in on the conspiracy"? Meanwhile, scientists are spending their time, efforts, and money trying to find the REAL cause rather than chase shadows so they can help the children of the very parents who villify the messenger. So far, there are a couple of genes that might be linked to autism, among a few other things, but nothing vaccine related. (And that is not for lack of trying to find that alleged link!) More work needs to be done. When we finally know what is responsible for this horrible disease, there will still be some who staunchly believe that it is still vaccines, even in the face of the logic and the data. Unfortunately, for some people, if you say it enough times, it must be true."

Even if Wakefield is cleared and Deer is a liar, THERE IS NO LINK THERE IS NO LINK THERE IS NO LINK and no amount of anecdotal evidence can prove that there is. Stories, feelings, and emotions are not science. It seems some are losing sight of the true goal here: to find the cause of autism so we can try to prevent it. There is a mouse model for autism, for goodness sake, and the mice didn't "get" autism from vaccines, they just developed it. (A report was just published this week in Science that they may have reversed autism in these mice. Think how exciting that might be if someone can reproduce these findings!) While we're all bickering about Wakefield and Deer, some real work is being done by smart people to figure out the real answer.

superman

12 Children? That's a very small sample... Can you even make statistical conclusions off of 12 Children?

Do you think that maybe Autism is just more over diagnosed than it used to be?

Maybe parents are looking for an out to deal with their children's bad behavior?

Maybe some of the more mild cases are nothing more than children unwilling to adjust?

AutismNewsBeat

The diagnostic criteria for "autism" has changed over the last 30 years. Prior to 1988, there was no autism spectrum - just autistic disorder. There are several other reasons for the increase in autism diagnoses, including diagnostic substitution, improved ascertainment, and increased services.

Twyla

That's a bunch of bull, ANB. Autism as increased dramatically over the past 30 years. It's obvious from school records, govt agency statistics, and the memories of anyone over 40.

UC Davis M.I.N.D. Institute study shows California's autism increase not due to better counting, diagnosis
http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/welcome/features/20090218_autism_environment/index.html

Changes in the California Caseload An Update: June 1987 – June 2007
http://www.feat.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=s6dgLeHiXM4%3D&tabid=78&mid=583

California's Preparation for Treating Adults With Autism in Question
"About 60,000 residents currently receive state-funded services for developmental disabilities, a significant increase from the fewer than 5,000 residents who received such services in the mid-1990s."
http://www.californiahealthline.org/articles/2012/9/24/californias-preparation-for-treating-adults-with-autism-in-question.aspx#ixzz27RddpSm6

Autism Not Really on the Rise? 96.7% Impossible.
http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/09/autism-not-really-on-the-rise-967-impossible.html

Dr. Insel on Rising ASD Numbers: “No Question” About Environmental Factors
http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/12/david-kirby-dr-insel-on-rising-asd-numbers-no-question-about-environmental-factors-.html
See link to full interview at end of article "For a complete transcript of the interview with Dr. Insel, click HERE."

ASD Researcher

Quite correct Autism News Beat

but there is also other environmental factors that have to be taken into account.

1. These could either go to cause.

2. Or how ASD presents. Has it got worse ?

I think it is probably both , but I take your point doctors and medicos are giving it a lot more scrutiny and so they should.

ASD Researcher

Yes that was a small case study and as such was opening up questions , rather than saying "this is so" ...

There was further depth to the investigations some 60 - 100 other child patients were clinically worked up by Professor John Walker-Smith and his team.

Twyla

@superman -
No statistical conclusions can be made based on 12 children. This was not an epidemiological study. This was a case series - an in depth study of these children's medical conditions.

Some quotes from the study:

"Background
"We investigated a consecutive series of children with chronic
enterocolitis and regressive developmental disorder. 
Methods 12 children (mean age 6 years [range 3-10], 11 boys) were referred
to a paediatric gastroenterology unit with a history of normal development
followed by loss of acquired skills, including language, together with
diarrhoea and abdominal pain. Children underwent gastroenterological,
neurological, and developmental assessment and review of developmental
records. Ileocolonoscopy and biopsy sampling, magnetic-resonance imaging
(MRI), electroencephalography (EEG), and lumbar puncture were done under
sedation. Barium follow-through radiography was done where possible.
Biochemical, haematological, and immunological profiles were examined. 



"Findings Onset of behavioural symptoms was associated, by the parents, with 
measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination in eight of the 12 children, with
measles infection in one child, and otitis media in another. All 12 
children had intestinal abnormalities, ranging from lymphoid nodular
hyperplasia to aphthoid ulceration. Histology showed patchy chronic
inflammation in the colon in 11 children and reactive ileal lymphoid
hyperplasia in seven, but no granulomas. Behavioural disorders included
autism (nine), disintegrative psychosis (one), and possible postviral or
vaccinal encephalitis (two). There were no focal neurological abnormalities
and MRI and EEG tests were normal. Abnormal laboratory results were
significantly raised urinary methylmalonic acid compared with age-matched
controls (p=0·003), low haemoglobin in four children, and a low serum IgA
in four children. 



"Interpretation We identified associated gastrointestinal disease and
developmental regression in a group of previously normal children, which
was generally associated in time with possible environmental triggers." 




"We describe a pattern of colitis and ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia in
children with developmental disorders. Intestinal and behavioural
pathologies may have occurred together by chance, reflecting a selection
bias in a self-referred group; however, the uniformity of the intestinal
pathological changes and the fact that previous studies have found
intestinal dysfunction in children with autistic-spectrum disorders,
suggests that the connection is real and reflects a unique disease process..."


"We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine
 and the syndrome described."

The study concluded:
"We have identified a chronic enterocolitis in children that may be related
to neuropsychiatric dysfunction. In most cases, onset of symptoms was after
measles, mumps, and rubella immunisation. Further investigations are needed
to examine this syndrome and its possible relation to this vaccine. 



"Addendum: 


"Up to Jan 28, a further 40 patients have been assessed; 39 with the syndrome. 
Contributors 





"A J Wakefield was the senior scientific investigator. S H Murch and M A
Thomson did the colonoscopies. A Anthony, A P Dhillon, and S E Davies
carried out the histopathology. J Linnell did the B12 studies. D M Casson
and M Malik did the clinical assessment. M Berelowitz did the psychiatric
assessment. P Harvey did the neurological assessment. A Valentine did the
radiological assessment. JW-S was the senior clinical investigator. "


ASD Researcher

I agree there is a back log of research that needs to be investigated and it was that team that pointed the way.

Even if there is no relationship with vaccines , there are quite clear associations to inflammation , immune system dysfunction , gastrointestinal dysfunction that needs to be investigated ... those issues were the focus of Professor John Walker-Smith and his team.

The long campaign of false allegations against Professor Walker-Smith and his team have stymied this invaluable research for 14 years.

Twyla

There have not been any genetic findings that totally explain autism. There have been some genetic anomalies which tend to be more common in people with autism than without. Still, there are lots of people who have these genetic anomalies but do not have autism, and many people with autism who do not have these genetic anomalies. And even these findings have sometimes been shown to be the result of random chance and not replicated by further studies.

Some of the genetic findings are related to the immune system, nervous system, and GI system, and could very well represent susceptibility factors to environmental insults including mercury in our air and water, and including the effects of vaccines.

This is not a simple picture. More and more people believe an interaction between genetic susceptibility and environmental exposures (including vaccines) are at work in causing autism.

liquidambar

I see that the poll is that most people are not worried about vaccine saftey.
Perhaps that is because they were not bent over the crib and noticed thier child for a brief few minutes having difficulty - with pupils of thier eyes fully covering all of the iris, not responding, being white as a sheet, bottom of the chin shaking and drooling -- only to fall asleep and looking like a normal heatlhy child -- that if you really tried you could not wake up.

Fast forward 30 years and after thinking on things that long -- and finally getting hold of medical records that they peds lied, sneaked - not tell the full truth about

It suddenly dawns on you that your daughter' Kawaskais was - 8 long weeks after the DPT shot but she had not been well during that whole 8 weeks.

Or that the tetanus shot that you received in your 20s -- did not seem to be a bother to you but there were signs (that you did not understand ) but know it now -- was a thyroid condition that had just started to act up .

Amercian people there is a news black out about what the vaccines are doing to the endocrine system. It is not all about autism. It is about obseity, thyroid conditions, biopolar (research says young adutls with this condition has enlarged pituitary glands) , diabeties.

If we don't wake up -- well South American, Central American and maybe Canada can repopulate the country again.

Unless they trust the pharma about vaccines -- in that case - it will be a big empty world.

Dyson

Allegations that vaccines are responsible for all manner of diseases.....Allegations there is a cover-up.... Insinuations the entire population will die from vaccines.....

Only thing I don't see in your post is a suggestion vaccines are causing crop circles.

lookinglass

Sneering again Dyson....oh dear.

Dyson

Better than lying.

lilady

Dyson: Also missing is the suggestion that vaccines are responsible for global warming or male-pattern baldness.

Merton

"I see that the poll is that most people are not worried about vaccine saftey.
Perhaps that is because they were not bent over the crib and noticed thier child for a brief few minutes having difficulty...."

No, I think it's because the poll question is poorly phrased. Nobody who has thought about vaccinations is unconcerned about safety issues. The actual difference is that the tinfoil-hat brigade has come to the conclusion in advance that vaccinations are evil incarnate and thus is in the perennial position of having to fumble around to gin up post hoc "demonstrations" of the belief, whereas decade upon decade of serious work has been put into minimizing the risk-to-benefit ratio of vaccines by those who do not labor under the impression that asserting something makes it so.

superman

By 700 you mean the majority were students that were given credit to attend, and half way through they made a break for the exit.

But Don't worry LT, I still love you even if you still drive a Vibe or not!

From what I understand though, at the heart of this discussion is Thimerosal. What I've heard is that the CDC doesn't consider water with thimerosal concentrations of 4 ppm or greater to be safe, but flu vaccinations contain up to 25 ppm and greater. Link or no link, I will always request the thimerosal free vaccine for me and my kids.

I would honestly appreciate your take on that?

lilady

superman: You really haven't followed what the "heart of this discussion" is...It is not about thimerisol...that preservative was NEVER in the MMR vaccine. Please read Mr. Deer's investigative reports about Mr. Wakefield's fraudulent research into the triple jab MMR which he claimed caused "autistic enterocolitis". You might also read the decision of the General Medical Council which revoked Mr. Wakefield's medical license, based on the falsification of data, the undeclared "conflicts of interests", the ordering of painful, invasive and sometimes dangerous lumbar punctures and bowel biopsies that were not-medically-indicated and the egregious harm done to defenseless developmentally disabled kids.

Dyson

Well, if superman thinks thimerosal is in MMR he clearly doesn't understand much.

superman

What's even stranger... I never said MMR.


WOW - Some people's kids.

Dyson

This discussion concerns Wakefield, Deer and the allegations that MMR caused autism.

Here is what you said:
"From what I understand though, at the heart of this discussion is Thimerosal"

I rest my case.

superman

MMR - Did not mention it once. Way to fly off the handle.

AutismNewsBeat

Superman, the EPA standards for drinking water refer to concentration. Concentration is not the same as "dose" or "quantity." Also, people drink about one liter of water every day. Children do not get a one-liter vaccines every day.

Talk about off the handle.

lilady

Superman...here's your comment:

"From what I understand though, at the heart of this discussion is Thimerosal. What I've heard is that the CDC doesn't consider water with thimerosal concentrations of 4 ppm or greater to be safe, but flu vaccinations contain up to 25 ppm and greater. Link or no link, I will always request the thimerosal free vaccine for me and my kids."

The heart of this discussion, as I explained above is the MMR vaccine, which NEVER EVER contained Thimerisol.

Which vaccines on the Recommended Vaccine Schedule contain thimerisol and which seasonal flu vaccines are available that do not contain thimerisol? Be prepared to list them, for us.

Merton

"By 700 you mean the majority were students that were given credit to attend"

This is an extremely peculiar assertion, to the point of suggesting that you don't know what "college credits" are in the first place. Was someone "taking attendance" at the door with a grade book in hand?

lilady

Go and read the scurrilous blogs and posts just in the last 10 days written by the "journalists" and their readership at Age of Autism, about Mr. Deer.

I invite you to read the hundreds of defamatory blogs written by Anne Dachel and each of the other editors and "guest journalists" at Age of Autism about Mr. Deer both before and after Mr. Wakefield had his medical license removed.

Age of Autism has a history of defaming doctors, researchers, science bloggers, media journalists, media journalists and TV reporters, who have revealed Mr. Wakefield's fraudulent research, his falsification of charts, his pre-existing many undisclosed Conflicts of Interests and his medical misconduct that resulted in the children in his study being subjected to invasive, painful, potentially dangerous lumbar punctures and bowel biopsies.

Mr. Deer was invited to the University to present seminars and Wakefield and his groupies at Age of Autism tried to turn those seminars into a debate.

The handful of parents who showed up to hear Mr. Wakefield talk at the gun shelter showed up because Age of Autism wrote articles pleading for parents to show...in support of their fallen hero.

Was there a purpose for Andrew Wakefield's press conference? Was there an agenda? No. It was just another cheap and tawdry publicity stunt set up by the folks at Age of Autism, because they are trying to remain relevant within the autism and science communities.

lookinglass

Lilady is herself a scurrilous and defaming poster from a notorious blog, several in fact, who hold opposing views to AoA . No problem with opposing views. The problem here is that this particular commentator has been reported for defamation and propgating lies here there and everywhere. It is widely known that Andrew Wakefield was never involved in clinical treatment. He is a researcher, pure and simple. For anyone to publicly declare that Andy Wakefield has ever subjected children to "invasive, painful and dangerous lumbar punctures and bowel biopsies" is dangerous defamation and libellous. I am getting awfully bored with reporting this lilady but I shall cotinue to do so whenever and wherever I am able to do so.

lilady

Just show us the proof that the bowel biopsies and lumbar punctures that Mr. Wakefield ordered were medically-indicated, lookinglass.

Jenny Allan

Yes - It seems the mods are not interested in 'libellous defamation'. Perhaps Lilady might like to reflect on the damage she is causing to the medical profession, with her insistence on calling routine medical diagnostic procedures 'painful, invasive and dangerous'. Colonoscopies are a necessary part of diagnosing bowel disease. At the Royal Free Hospital, young children were anaesthetised before this procedure and knew nothing about it. Parental consent was always obtained beforehand. Bowel biopsies are examined microscopically for evidence of cancer and other conditions. GMC expert witness Professor Booth, a paediatric gastroenterologist, admitted carrying out this procedure on a young child, days before giving evidence to the 3 year hearing which struck off Dr Wakefield and Professor Walker-Smith, and admonished Professor Murch, although you WON'T find this fact in Deer's journalistic spin.(It IS in the GMC transcripts).

It was claimed the Lancet children were subjected to unnecessary invasive procedures for purely research purposes, but in February 2012, High Court Judge, Justice Sir John Mitting completely exonerated Professor Walker-Smith and restored his medical licence. Eleven of the twelve cases were thoroughly examined by the judge, who concluded the children were all diagnosed and treated in accordance with clinical need. Lumbar punctures, were carried out on only some of the Lancet 12 children, but again this is a routine procedure, necessary for diagnosing meningitis and other neurological conditions. The Royal Free, in common with other UK hospitals had a multidisciplinary team, which included neurologists, involved with determining the best clinical decisions for each child. Dr Wakefield was employed as a research scientist and had NO clinical contact with the Lancet 12 children.

lilady

Still no proof that invasive, painful, not-medically indicated, bowel biopsies and lumbar punctures were justified, eh?

I've read the transcripts from Wakefield's GMC FTP hearing and he ordered those tests...in a direct countermanding of another doctor's orders.

Nice try. Try again to defend this disgraced former doctor.

Dyson

Jenny, colonoscopy is indeed a valid and appropriate investigation for children with certain types of bowel disease. Looking at the Wakefield GMC transcripts and his paper in the Lancet reveals that many of the Lancet 12 did not have significant bowel disease. In fact one child had been discharged by Walker Smith from the clinic because there was nothing else he wished to do, but after Wakefield intervened, the child was admitted for investigations.

It is clear that the only focus of Wakefield was to do colonoscopies to get biopsy material for his study. He tried to argue that the colonoscopies would have been done anyway, but this was rightly rejected by the GMC panel in several of the children's cases.

Put it another way - bowel symptoms are quite common in autism, usually constipation (which several of the kids had). Do you think it is clinically appropriate for ALL autistic kids to undergo lumbar puncture, MRI scans under anesthesia (which entails risk) or colonoscopies and bowel biopsies (which entails considerable risk, as Jack Piper discovered when his bowel was perforated in multiple places)?

Would you insist your autistic spectrum kid had these tests, just because they were constipated?

Merton

"It seems the mods are not interested in 'libellous defamation'."

So, what, you've been enthusiastically pressing the "report abuse" button and not succeeded in remote censorship of the form to which you've become accustomed?

Dyson

In fact testimony at the GMC illustrates that Wakefield was meant to confine himself to research, but didn't, and became involved in determining clinical investigations for the children, in direct contravention of his honorary contract.
Wakefield accepted this charge and let it go unchallenged.

Dyson

What is more, when Walker Smith indicated, as chief clinician, that one child should NOT have a lumbar puncture and an MRI scan (done under general anesthesia), Wakefield gave countermanding instructions and the tests were carried out.

ndavis

Jenny Allen wrote something that is clearly untrue: "Dr Wakefield . . . had NO clinical contact with the Lancet 12 children."

As Dyson pointed out, when Dr. Walker-Smith clearly indicated during formal ward rounds that one of the Lancet children was "Not to have LP or MRI" because those tests were not clinically indicated, his direct orders were countermanded. Wakefield, contrary to Allen's statement, certainly DID have clinical contact with that vulnerable patient; although it is true that Wakefield, who had trained as a transplant surgeon and had no pediatric qualifications as well as no clinical appointment, ordered tests in that child's chart above his [Wakefield's] signature.

Walker-Smith was found on appeal to have not ordered invasive tests that were not clinically indicated and thus were for research purposes. Wakefield, though, is certainly not helped by the finding that the blame for that fiasco is not Walker-Smith's.

Jenny Allan

Dr Wakefield's contract at the Royal Free Hospital specifically PRECLUDED any clinical contact with the child patients. In any case, Professor Walker-Smith was the senior clinician IN CHARGE of the clinic at that time. Dr Wakefield, quite simply, HAD NO AUTHORITY to order ANY clinical tests on ANY patient, far less countermand an instruction issued by a lead clinician. This would have been instantly sackable misconduct in the UK.

I do not recognise the veracity or authority of the GMC allegations or verdicts, which includes the transcripted allegations or conclusions. The GMC is NOT a real court of law, but is quasi judicial. In other words they are a 'law unto themselves'. Justice Mitting had some harsh words to say about the GMC's 'superficial and inadequate' examining of the evidence much of which was just plain 'wrong'. The High Court Judge quashed all the verdicts and completely exonerated Professor Walker-Smith, stating that the Lancet Childrens' diagnostic scopes and scans and treatments were ALL clinically indicated. The High Court has also ordered the GMC to reform their procedures.

ndavis

Jenny Allen wrote: "Dr Wakefield's contract at the Royal Free Hospital specifically PRECLUDED any clinical contact with the child patients."

Unfortunately, it is quite clear from the records made public during Wakefield's Fitness to Practise (Misconduct) hearings that, nonetheless, Wakefield abused his authority, disregarded his contract, and ordered tests above his signature in the medical charts of some of the vulnerable Lancet children.

ndavis

Jenny Allen wrote: "The High Court Judge quashed all the verdicts and completely exonerated Professor Walker-Smith, stating that the Lancet Childrens' diagnostic scopes and scans and treatments were ALL clinically indicated."

Since it is clear that (1) Professor Walker-Smith ordered during formal ward rounds that Lancet Child 12 was "Not to have MRI or [lumbar puncture]" because those tests were not clinically indicated, but that (2) Child 12 (for whom Wakefield ordered tests above his signature in the child's chart) did in fact undergo both MRI and lumbar puncture, despite the senior clinician's emphatic statement that those tests should not be performed, please indicate if you believe that

(a) although Professor Walker-Smith clearly indicated that those procedures were NOT clinically indicated for Child 12, in fact those procedures WERE clinically indicated

(b) why on earth you believe that.

Thanks.

Twyla

lilady, you are so extremely hostile. You can't even argue facts and information, just ad hominem attacks.

By all means, everyone, go and read the excellent articles at Age of Autism. Dan Olmsted wrote an in depth series on Andrew Wakefield and Brian Deer:

An Elaborate Fraud Series: Brian Deer, BMJ, Murdoch, Dr. Andrew Wakefield
http://www.ageofautism.com/exclusives.html

LLynN

It is worth noting that amdachel is probably Anne Dachel, listed as a contributor to "Age of Autism," a website publication devoted to perpetrating the autism-vaccine connection and to Dr. Wakefield's cause. Mr. Deer's appearance at UW-L has been scheduled for some time. Dr. Wakefield's appearance at Myrick Park was subsequently scheduled recently. Mr. Deer's appearance has provided an opportunity for them and as comments indicate, they are taking full advantage of it to attack Mr. Deer as well as to air their positions on this topic.

lilady

AMDachel is Anne Dachel the Media Editor of Age of Autism a.k.a. the "Dachel.bot" who spams every article with her vast repository of canned inane off-topic comments.

Everything else you state in your comments, is spot on.

mapleleafy

The Colour Purple

Here is the deposition of Jane Smith ("fact" checker for Deer's "articles") from the BMJ: http://www.rescuepost.com/files/ex-c-bmj-smith-depo-1.pdf

Lovely insight into what constitutes fact checking and peer review of Deer's articles in the eyes of the BMJ.

Merton

Lest anyone be confused, rescuepost-dot-com is in fact Age of Autism, where the odd "fact checker" remark originates in editorial commentary from Dan Olmsted, who is just maybe still a bit cheesed off that nobody's been giving him any journalism awards.

mapleleafy

You didn't read the deposition did you Merton? Page 29 and 30

Q. Look, if you would, please, Ma'am, at page 8, paragraph 22. In this paragraph Dr Godlee says:
"I also assigned one of my deputy editors, Jane Smith, to do a fact check of the first three articles, specifically reviewing the GMC transcripts on which so much of the article's content was based." Is that accurate, did she assign you to do a fact check of the first three articles.

A. She asked me to do a fact check of the first.
Q. Of the first article?
A. Yes.

Oh dear! Fiz says 3 Jane says 1. Who to trust?

Cybertiger

GSK is a monster British company. GlaxoSmithKline makes the MMR vaccine. This year GSK pleaded guilty to multiple dodgy drug deals and other counts of criminal dealing misbehaviour and accepted a fine of $3 billion. What was James Murdoch doing on the board of this monstrous corporation? Directing what Andrew Wakefield rightly refers to as a "Murdoch" journalist? Too right!

Dyson

Worse still, Deer has a first name (Brian) that contains the letter "R", which is also found in "Murdoch"

lilady

Worse still, Deer's name contains the letter "D"...which is also found in our nyms, Dyson.

Cybertiger

What a desperate little lady!. What a laugh! Pathetic little creature!

AutismNewsBeat

The Croatian word for "deer" is "jelen." That rhymes with melon. The Mellon Bank funds some pharmaceutical companies. Coincidence? I think not.

Merton

"Directing what Andrew Wakefield rightly refers to as a "Murdoch" journalist? Too right!"

By which logic, Dan Olmsted's original UPI attempts to whomp up some vaccine-autism action can be ascribed to the ownership of Sun Myung Moon.

ASD Researcher

"By which logic..."

Rather sound logic one presumes.

By financial employment contract (Freelance) with the Sunday Times, News Corporation, company is controlled by Rupert Murdoch and his family members.

Dyson

Oh Dear.
The "Dachelbot" has arrived, ready to spray irrelevant cut and paste spam on the discussion board, all of which is plain wrong, all of which has been refuted countless times for her before, and then she disappears into the sunset, having earned her antivaccine brownie points for the day.
Shame.

lookinglass

Dyson, Anne Dachel is a fighter for her beliefs. She speaks her peace and she doesn't intentionally abuse, or offend anyone whilst doing so.. She is adult enough not to indulge in silly sneering sarcasm which is known to be the lowest form of wit, resorted to by those who are morally and intellectually bankrupt, and she happens to have an opposing viewpoint to yours. She is entitled to her view.

Dyson

She has a duty to ensure her view is evidence based, not ideological.

lilady

Anne Dachel operates the Dachel bot which spams each and every news blog with her nonsensical, inane, repository of canned spam...all in an attempt to derail blogs and discourage other posts.

AutismNewsBeat

It was only a matter of time.

amdachel

I submitted a question to Mr. Deer which was read during the Q and A. “Dr. Peter Fletcher, former Chief Scientific Officer in the UK, supports the position of Dr. Wakefield. What is your opinion on this?”
In response Deer announced that Dr. Fletcher was NEVER CHIEF SCIENTIFIC OFFICER IN THE UK. He claimed that Fletcher was someone who worked for the government but who left his position after a disagreement with his employer.
In truth, I’ve been in contact with Dr. Fletcher for years and even a cursory search online will show that he truly is the former Chief Scientific Officer in Britain. This is a clear indication of the validity and honesty of Deer’s claims.
Anne Dachel, Media editor: Age of Autism http://www.ageofautism.com/ Chippewa Falls, WI

Dyson

So you have a recording of what Mr Deer said, or is this just hearsay?
Please post the link to a video or recording of Mr Deer's words, along with proof that Fletcher was CSO.

Yellowriver

Brian Deer and the GMC Selective Hearing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id_AxZ3zHAc

Dyson

Referring me to a one-hour long YouTube propaganda piece is distinctly unhelpful.

How many minutes in does Deer make the claim Fletcher was not a CSO?

Tim Kasemodel

Dyson,

I was there in La Crosse listening to Deer. He stated quite affirmatively that Dr Fletcher was never a CSO. It was during the Q& A period in response to Anne's question. As for a recording it is University policy not to allow recordings during their presentations. Convenient that was...... Good thing we all just took very good notes.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-376203/Former-science-chief-MMR-fears-coming-true.html

Former science chief: 'MMR fears coming true'
By SUE CORRIGAN, Mail on Sunday
Last updated at 16:08 22 March 2006

A former Government medical officer responsible for deciding whether medicines are safe has accused the Government of "utterly inexplicable complacency" over the MMR triple vaccine for children.
Dr Peter Fletcher, who was Chief Scientific Officer at the Department of Health, said if it is proven that the jab causes autism, "the refusal by governments to evaluate the risks properly will make this one of the greatest scandals in medical history".

A former Government medical officer responsible for deciding whether medicines are safe has accused the Government of "utterly inexplicable complacency" over the MMR triple vaccine for children.
Dr Peter Fletcher, who was Chief Scientific Officer at the Department of Health, said if it is proven that the jab causes autism, "the refusal by governments to evaluate the risks properly will make this one of the greatest scandals in medical history".

Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Midgley/Peter_Fletcher

Again it speaks to the dishonesty of Brian Deer as He knows very well that he was lying, hoping those in attendance would not follow up.


amdachel


Read the open letter from Dr Andrew J Wakefield, Dr Peter Fletcher, Dr Peter Harvey, Dr Richard Halvorsen GP, F. Edward Yazbak, MD, FAAP, Jane Maroney El-Dahr M.D. concerning the safety of the MMR vaccine. http://whale.to/vaccines/wakefield71.html
Read this exchange between Dr. Fletcher and myself over the autism/vaccine controversy. http://whale.to/vaccine/fletcher.html
Anne Dachel, Media editor: Age of Autism http://www.ageofautism.com/ Chippewa Falls, WI

Dyson

What a startling list of luminaries, each and every one a vaccine expert!
I am convinced!

lilady

And I am underwhelmed with the Dachel bot's sources for reliable information.

AutismNewsBeat

What, no Boyd Haley?

amdachel

In 2006, UK Chief Scientific Officer, Dr. Peter Fletcher was interviewed for the Daily Mail, a leading newspaper in Britain. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-376203/Former-science-chief-MMR-fears-coming-true.html
“Dr Peter Fletcher, who was Chief Scientific Officer at the Department of Health, said if it is proven that the jab causes autism, ‘the refusal by governments to evaluate the risks properly will make this one of the greatest scandals in medical history.’
“[Fletcher] said he has seen a ‘steady accumulation of evidence’ from scientists worldwide that the measles, mumps and rubella jab is causing brain damage in certain children.
“But he added: ‘There are very powerful people in positions of great authority in Britain and elsewhere who have staked their reputations and careers on the safety of MMR and they are willing to do almost anything to protect themselves.’”
Anne Dachel, Media editor: Age of Autism http://www.ageofautism.com/ Chippewa Falls, WI

Dyson

We are aware of isolated, crank views by individuals who support Wakefield. But because they support Wakefield, that doesn't make them valid.

amdachel

UW-L wouldn’t allow student to hear both sides of the issue last night. To hear Wakefield’s position, view the discussion between Dr. Wakefield and well-known medical expert, Dr. Joseph Mercola from June, 2012. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVUJ7mQmM0Q
And talk show host, Alex Jones, interviewed Wakefield in Sept, 2011
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUpahcqC2OM

Anne Dachel, Media editor: Age of Autism http://www.ageofautism.com/ Chippewa Falls, WI

Dyson

I think you have no understanding what Deer was there for. It wasn't to have a nice cosy debate with Wakefield.

Every time that St Andy stands up to speak at one of his little round the country tours of smoke filled sheds in some backyard in some backwater town, will we insist that Deer or some provaccine speaker is also there to present the "other side"? I assume you think this must happen, Anne.

PS Mercola is a media doctor, and not an expert in anything except how to make money from a gullible audience.

lookinglass

You're sneering again Dyson. It isn't attractive, funny or helping your viewoint, trust me.

Dyson

That's from your perspective.
If something is ridiculous enough to merit being sneered at, I will oblige.

lilady

Trust me, Mercola is not an expert on autism on any other topic. His marketing of products and his newsletter are sneerable.

Twyla

Good point about Dyson's sneering, lookinglass.

lilady

Joe Mercola an "expert" on autism? Why no he isn't Anne. He's just an internet purveyor of vitamins and supplements, gadgets, groceries and other nostrums.

amdachel

Listen to the parents of the children who were Wakefield’s patients.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id_AxZ3zHAc
Anne Dachel, Media editor: Age of Autism http://www.ageofautism.com/ Chippewa Falls, WI

Dyson

Only some of them.
Others were not so forgiving.
Some even had to sue the Royal Free for damages after bowel damage to their son, performed during the research project initiated by Wakefield.

Twyla

That case had nothing to do with Wakefield.

amdachel

UW-L pretended that the controversy over vaccines and autism is over, but nothing could be further from the truth. Listen to Dr. Wakefield’s interview with CBS reporter, Sharyl Attkisson, from Oct, 2009.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTh97pANTxc
Anne Dachel, Media editor: Age of Autism http://www.ageofautism.com/ Chippewa Falls, WI

AutismNewsBeat

That was three years ago. And Attkisson has since moved on to investigating the elusive homologous recombinaltion tiniker.

http://homologousrecombinaltiontiniker.blogspot.com/

amdachel

Students at UW-L were not allowed to hear Dr. Wakefield’s response to the charges made by Brian Deer. Deer never mention that the British government indemnified the manufacturer of the MMR. The government will be liable for the damages if it’s recognized that this vaccine triggers autism. Lots of people have everything at stake in this issue.
To listen to Wakefield’s side in this debate, see, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pizs-RcrZJU.
Anne Dachel, Media editor: Age of Autism http://www.ageofautism.com/ Chippewa Falls, WI

AutismNewsBeat

What's more, UW-L students are deprived of hearing from germ theory denialists and white supremacists. Stupid liberal professors.

amdachel

If anyone is interested in INDEPENDENT RESEARCH on vaccines and their side effects they have only to look at the website for the new film, “The Greater Good,” (See trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulmEGbwQsOU) which explores the question of vaccine safety from both sides. There are over 200 studies that raise serious concerns about vaccine side effects.
http://www.greatergoodmovie.org/learn-more/research/
Anne Dachel, Media editor: Age of Autism http://www.ageofautism.com/ Chippewa Falls, WI

Dyson

Except this film was not "independent", was it?
And doctors in it were deliberately misquoted.

Anne, no-one says vaccine can't have side effects, even serious ones.
But that isn't the point.

mapleleafy

How were they mis-quoted when it is a film? You know where you watch and hear someone speak.

Dyson

Example quote: "Vaccine damage is something that can occur, but it is incredibly rare"

Example misquote: "Vaccine damage is something that can occur"

See the difference in meaning, and what people might infer from it?

mapleleafy

Dyson,

Are you purposely being vague? Who said that and who are you accusing of deliberately mis-quoting them? Any chance you have proof? And have you or the alleged misquoted person confronted the filmmakers? And how does including or omitting "it is incredibly rare" change the fact that vaccine damage can occur?

And how do you qualify "incredibly rare" when: reporting of adverse effects is voluntary, and doctors routinely tell parents that any symptom their child has after a vaccine (other than fever, slight swelling) is just a coincidence and say they won't report it?

mapleleafy

Evidently Dyson chooses to be vague as he has not answered who was misquoted or answered any other question. ( I'm not going digging for it, the discussion is here.)
Oh well. Readers can view "The Greater Good" for free online today and possibly tomorrow to see for themselves. Both sides are represented in the film even every vaccine apologist's favourite millionaire vaccine industrialist is featured.

Dyson

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/the-greater-good-pure-unadulterated-anti-vaccine-propagand/