Vaccine/autism CT discussion

[Matthew Cline]

Deer's distorted pharma--imaginings became the basis of over 80 charges leveled against Dr Wakefield and three other doctors to be 'tried' by the General Medical Council (GMC).

It might be that Brian Deer is the cause of the GMC becoming aware of what Wakefield was doing, but the GMC had access to the primary sources: medical records, paperwork, and such. That's what they used to make their decision.

the GMC listened to journalist Brian Deer and excluded the views of hundreds of parents of vaccine damaged children.

GMC hearings are adversarial: that is, have the equivalent of a defense and a prosecution. Witnesses are called up either by the defense or by the prosecution. If Wakefield wanted any of those parents to testify on his behalf, it was his job to on them to be witnesses, so the fact that none of them did is entirely his fault.

Further, the GMC hearings were about his conduct as a medical doctor, not about any hypothesis he has about vaccines or autism. That is, the question before the GMC was (mainly) did he have the legal authorization to perform the medical procedures he did? Unless those parents were legal experts on medical law their testimony would have had no bearing on the hearings.

All lies. I'll believe the parents.

Okay, you believe that the parents observed the first signs of autism in their children after the MMR shot. That has nothing to do with what Wakefield did or didn't do. Believing the parents doesn't necessarily mean that Wakefield actually did find measles in the guts of the children.

 

[Clayton Moore]

You'd think this alone would compel someone who keeps professing concern for the children to discount Wakefield's methods and results. I guess it's the ends justify the means for some people.

Never happened.

 

[Clayton Moore]

It might be that Brian Deer is the cause of the GMC becoming aware of what Wakefield was doing, but the GMC had access to the primary sources: medical records, paperwork, and such. That's what they used to make their decision.



GMC hearings are adversarial: that is, have the equivalent of a defense and a prosecution. Witnesses are called up either by the defense or by the prosecution. If Wakefield wanted any of those parents to testify on his behalf, it was his job to on them to be witnesses, so the fact that none of them did is entirely his fault.

Further, the GMC hearings were about his conduct as a medical doctor, not about any hypothesis he has about vaccines or autism. That is, the question before the GMC was (mainly) did he have the legal authorization to perform the medical procedures he did? Unless those parents were legal experts on medical law their testimony would have had no bearing on the hearings.



Okay, you believe that the parents observed the first signs of autism in their children after the MMR shot. That has nothing to do with what Wakefield did or didn't do. Believing the parents doesn't necessarily mean that Wakefield actually did find measles in the guts of the children.

Of course it does. Anyone can be lied about. Besides, 10 other doctors signed off on the research and when they saw the storm headed their way they bailed. Wakefield's patients never complained about their children being "tortured." I'm sure if you actually torture children in jolly old England you get arrested after the parents or guardians file a criminal complaint report. Then, no matter what the result of the criminal charge, civil suits loom very very large.

But no. No criminal charges, no malpractice charges, no freaking nothing.

 

[Matthew Cline]

Besides, 10 other doctors signed off on the research

Because when they signed they'd had no idea that Wakefield had manipulated/fabricated the data.

Wakefield's patients never complained about their children being "tortured."

Just because the parents never complained doesn't mean that any of the tests were medically indicated: look at those parents who have their children chelated after a bogus provoked heavy metal.

But no. No criminal charges, no malpractice charges, no freaking nothing.

I'm not familiar with British medical law, but wouldn't the parents have to get involved for that to happen? I reject the idea that a doctor can be considered bad only if his patients (or parents of his patients) complain.

(A side note: when you quote someone in a response, could you please delete all of the quoted material except for what you're responding to? It makes following the conversation a bit easier)

 

[Stamuel]

Of course it does. Anyone can be lied about. Besides, 10 other doctors signed off on the research and when they saw the storm headed their way they bailed. Wakefield's patients never complained about their children being "tortured." I'm sure if you actually torture children in jolly old England you get arrested after the parents or guardians file a criminal complaint report. Then, no matter what the result of the criminal charge, civil suits loom very very large.

But no. No criminal charges, no malpractice charges, no freaking nothing.

Nothing except being stricken from the medical register, forbidden from practicing medicine in the UK, and the paper retracted in its entirety, with all researchers but Wakefield disowning it long before that happened.

Ok, so "torture" is an exaggeration. They were invasive procedures without proper approval. That is one of the reasons he was stricken from the register.

Maybe the parents could sue him, I do not know. But those parents were trying to sue vaccine manufacturers and Andy was going to help by fixing the results for the case (not that parents knew he was going to lie).

Further, none of the shows anything at all about whether vaccines cause autism, or whether they cause anything else for that matter. All you have are some parents who first noticed their children's autism within a few months of vaccination, and one small case series that has been retracted. So against all medical research that shows no link, you bring the weakest non-evidence imaginable.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Because when they signed they'd had no idea that Wakefield had manipulated/fabricated the data.

That's a riot. 10 doctors had no idea that Wakefield manipulated/fabricated the data for what was it 12 children/patients? None of those doctors verified the paper for 4 years before Deer? No doctors not involved in with the paper went over the paper with a fine toothed comb. No parents questioned the reports details? Believe it or not when your child has a serious life time illness it's unlikely that anyone, even doctors, knows more than a concerned parent.

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

Andrew Jeremy Wakefield (born 1957) is a British former surgeon and medical researcher, known for his fraudulent 1998 research paper in support of the now-discredited claim that there is a link between the administration of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine and the appearance of autism and bowel disease.[1][2][3]

Four years after the publication of the paper, other researchers' results had still failed to reproduce Wakefield's findings or confirm his hypothesis of a relation between childhood gastrointestinal disorders and autism.[4] A 2004 investigation by Sunday Times reporter Brian Deer identified undisclosed financial conflicts of interest on Wakefield's part,[5] and most of his coauthors then withdrew their support for the study's interpretations.[6] The British General Medical Council (GMC) conducted an inquiry into allegations of misconduct against Wakefield and two former colleagues.[7] The investigation centred on Deer's numerous findings, including one that autistic children were subjected to unnecessary invasive medical procedures,[8] such as colonoscopy and lumbar puncture, and that Wakefield acted without the required ethical approval from an institutional review board.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
claim that there is a link between the administration of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine and the appearance of autism and bowel disease.[1][2][3]

Four years after the publication of the paper, other researchers' results had still failed to reproduce Wakefield's findings or confirm his hypothesis of a relation between childhood gastrointestinal disorders and autism.[4]

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
The above is why lies are lies. He never claimed there was a link between MMR and Autism.

Although the paper said that no causal connection had been proven, and before it was published, Wakefield made statements at a press conference and in a video news release issued by the hospital, calling for suspension of the triple MMR vaccine until more research could be done.[46] The press conference was later criticized as 'science by press conference'.[47] According to BBC News, it was this press conference, rather than the paper in The Lancet, that fueled the MMR vaccination scare.[48] According to the BBC, "He told journalists it was a 'moral issue' and he could no longer support the continued use of the three-in-one jab for measles, mumps and rubella. 'Urgent further research is needed to determine whether MMR may give rise to this complication in a small number of people,' Dr Wakefield said at the time."[48] He said, "If you give three viruses together, three live viruses, then you potentially increase the risk of an adverse event occurring, particularly when one of those viruses influences the immune system in the way that measles does."[46] He suggested parents should opt for single jabs against measles, mumps and rubella, separated by gaps of one year.

Again
paper said that no causal connection had been proven, and before it was published

And what could be more centered than saying that something could be going wrong with the three live virus jab?"If you give three viruses together, three live viruses, then you potentially increase the risk of an adverse event occurring, particularly when one of those viruses influences the immune system in the way that measles does."

He suggested parents should opt for single jabs against measles, mumps and rubella, separated by gaps of one year.
Sounds like a reasonable solution. Six months may have been reasonable also.


What does the UK government do? It removes the single jab options. Does that seem reasonable?

 

[Clayton Moore]

Nothing except being stricken from the medical register, forbidden from practicing medicine in the UK, and the paper retracted in its entirety, with all researchers but Wakefield disowning it long before that happened.

Ok, so "torture" is an exaggeration. They were invasive procedures without proper approval. That is one of the reasons he was stricken from the register.

Maybe the parents could sue him, I do not know. But those parents were trying to sue vaccine manufacturers and Andy was going to help by fixing the results for the case (not that parents knew he was going to lie).

Further, none of the shows anything at all about whether vaccines cause autism, or whether they cause anything else for that matter. All you have are some parents who first noticed their children's autism within a few months of vaccination, and one small case series that has been retracted. So against all medical research that shows no link, you bring the weakest non-evidence imaginable.

If you listen to the parents the negative reaction their child experienced was swift and devastating.

 

[LSSBB]

Never happened.

He never performed his experiment, for which he was "found guilty of serious professional misconduct on four counts of dishonesty and 12 involving the abuse of developmentally challenged children"?

 

[Giordano]

Clayton,
It is very clear that you ignored the vast majority of the Wikipedia artcle you quote mined. The 400,000 British pounds paid to Wakefield by lawyers suing the MMR vaccine companies. The patent Wakefield quietly took out for a single measles vaccine as he was publically attempting to discredit the trivalent measles, mumps, rubella vaccine. His clear attempts to tie MMR vaccination to autism. His misdiagnosing of children. His violation of elementary human subjects rules. I've got news for you: he appears to be exactly what you believe to be the evil in big pharm!

But I don't need to tell you this- you must have read it in the Wikipedia article you cited. So why do you ignore this mass of evidence? Do you have to believe in vaccines=autism so much as to deify someone who, IMHO, is a discredited fraud?

 

[Clayton Moore]

Clayton,
It is very clear that you ignored the vast majority of the Wikipedia artcle you quote mined. The 400,000 British pounds paid to Wakefield by lawyers suing the MMR vaccine companies. The patent Wakefield quietly took out for a single measles vaccine as he was publically attempting to discredit the trivalent measles, mumps, rubella vaccine. His clear attempts to tie MMR vaccination to autism. His misdiagnosing of children. His violation of elementary human subjects rules. I've got news for you: he appears to be exactly what you believe to be the evil in big pharm!

But I don't need to tell you this- you must have read it in the Wikipedia article you cited. So why do you ignore this mass of evidence? Do you have to believe in vaccines=autism so much as to deify someone who, IMHO, is a discredited fraud?

No explanation for the blatantly obvious and purposeful Wiki lie that Wakefield claimed that there is a link between the administration of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine and the appearance of autism and bowel disease?

 

[jaydeehess]

No explanation for the blatantly obvious and purposeful Wiki lie that Wakefield claimed that there is a link between the administration of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine and the appearance of autism and bowel disease?

Wakefield doesn't claim or believe that there is a link between MMR vaccine and, autism and bowel diseases?

Correct me if I am wrong Clayton, but you do claim and believe that, right?

 

[Giordano]

Wakefield doesn't claim or believe that there is a link between MMR vaccine and, autism and bowel diseases?

Correct me if I am wrong Clayton, but you do claim and believe that, right?

Clayton,
You might wish to read the actual Wakefield paper before you answer that question. Just a suggestion.
http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-paper.htm

 

[Matthew Cline]

That's a riot. 10 doctors had no idea that Wakefield manipulated/fabricated the data for what was it 12 children/patients?

Correct, because scientists and research doctors tend to believe that other scientists/researchers aren't going to manipulate/fabricate, and so don't put in effort to check for such. And manipulation/fabrication isn't something that's obvious on the face of it, you have to explicitly check for it.

None of those doctors verified the paper for 4 years before Deer?

Again, the people involved aren't going to suspect fraud and dig through the raw data to find it.

No doctors not involved in with the paper went over the paper with a fine toothed comb.

Other doctors/scientists going over a paper with a fine toothed comb involves looking over the methods section and statistical analysis section to see if they're good enough to support the conclusions of the paper. This doesn't involve analyzing the raw data to try to find fraud, since usually raw data isn't provided.

No parents questioned the reports details? Believe it or not when your child has a serious life time illness it's unlikely that anyone, even doctors, knows more than a concerned parent.

He told the parents that the measles virus was found in the guts of their children. What in the world would make them suspect that there wasn't measles in their guts? It's not like parents have some weird psychic power which lets them just know these things.

 

[Clayton Moore]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1808826.stm
Research clears MMR

Yet.

But Judith Barnard, director of policy and public affairs for the National Autistic Society said: "The experts themselves came to the conclusion that there couldn't exclude the possibility of a susceptible sub-group that could be affected by the MMR.

"The real question is how to identify that."

Ms Barnard said some children developed serious bowel conditions and severe regressive autism, when they had previously been healthy.

"I think its high time we stopped playing this ping-pong game and actually committed to doing this research around this group to find out what they have in common, what has caused this condition in these children."

 

[Dcdrac]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/3513365.stm

Profile: Dr Andrew Wakefield

Dr Andrew Wakefield
Dr Wakefield stands by his findings

The suggestion that there is a link between MMR and autism has been one of the biggest health controversies of recent years. But just who is the doctor behind the headlines?

Dr Andrew Wakefield was the lead author of the controversial study, which suggested there may be a link between MMR and autism and bowel disease.

 

[Dcdrac]

The relationship between the MMR vaccine and autism

Discusses the critical flaws in Wakefileds papers

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/phy...ric-vaccination/relationship-between-mmr.page

 

[Clayton Moore]

The relationship between the MMR vaccine and autism

Discusses the critical flaws in Wakefileds papers

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/phy...ric-vaccination/relationship-between-mmr.page

Timing of development of autism

Autism symptoms are present before one year of age
Perhaps the best data examining when symptoms of autism are first evident are the "home-movie studies". These studies took advantage of the fact that many parents take movies of their children during their first birthday (before they have received the MMR vaccine). Home movies from children who were eventually diagnosed with autism and those who were not diagnosed with autism were shown to blinded eurodevelopmental specialists. Investigators were, with a very high degree of accuracy, able to separate autistic from non-autistic children at one year of age.

These studies found that subtle symptoms of autism are present earlier than some parents had suspected, and that receipt of the MMR vaccine did not precede the first symptoms of autism.

Insanity.

 

[Border Reiver]

Timing of development of autism


Insanity.

Yes, attributing the development of autism to vaccines in the face of multiple studies worldwide that show the opposite would be insane.

 

[Giordano]

Clayton,

Did you get a chance to read Wakefiels's paper? Check out the first paragraph of the discussion, for example. Is it a lie that he tried to link MMR vaccination to bowel inflammation and autism? Was the Wikipedia article lying about that as you claimed, or were you wrong?

 

[Chris Haynes]

A bit ignorant, Clayton Moore.
The importation license for the single measles vaccine was withdrawn in 1988 by the UK government, not the GMC or vaccine companies.

So why did the UK government make the single vaccines unavailable?

In addition, there has never been any mumps vaccine approved for use in the UK until the adoption of the first set of MMR vaccines in 1988, which was seventeen years after the American MMR had been in use. Unfortunately two of the three MMR vaccines used in the UK had the Urabe mumps strain, which caused more than acceptable levels of meningitis (but much less than wild mumps), so they removed those MMR vaccines in 1992.

One thing that happened is when Wakefield told parents to use single vaccines, some enterprising clinics started to illegally import single Urabe mumps vaccines:

The Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) has advised that Urabe mumps vaccine is associated with an unacceptable risk of aseptic meningitis and that the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) should object to importation of unlicensed mumps vaccine containing the Urabe strain of mumps virus. On the basis of that advice, the MCA has today contacted importers notifying them that the vaccine should not be imported.

This is not a new safety issue but has been considered at this point due to notifications received by MCA to import these vaccines. The risk of Urabe mumps vaccine meningitis has been recognised for over 10 years. Indeed, MMR vaccines containing the Urabe mumps strain has not been used in the UK since 1992 due to this risk. Since then, the only MMR vaccines used in the UK have contained Jeryl Lynn mumps strain.

Now some questions to Mr. Moore:

What evidence did Wakefield have to suggest parents only get single vaccines in the press conference announcing the Lancet paper, which did not have any evidence that was required?

The MMR vaccine has been in use in the USA and elsewhere since 1971, where is the evidence from the 1970s and 1980s that that MMR caused autism? This would show that Wakefield had valid concerns.

The UK introduced three different MMR vaccines in 1988, removed two in 1992, and then introduced a different Jeryl Lynn containing MMR vaccine in 1998. Which MMR vaccine was Wakefield studying in his Lancet paper?