Too True

"It's hard to understand reporters who are so willing to risk their reputations by ardently defending the use of toxic mercury in vaccines when the science simply isn't there." -- Anne Dachel -0- As people attack RFK Jr.'s new book...

How Mercury Triggered The Age of Autism

Autism Public Service Announcement

Canary Party Vaccine Court Video

A Glimpse into Autism

Meet Our Advertisers


Olmsted's Original UPI Series

  • The Age of Autism Tag

« Dachel Media Update: Utah Scraps Autism Insurance | Main | Slow Down »

Weekly Wrap: Adam Lanza, Feeling No Pain

AofA Red Logo Ayumi YamadaBy Dan Olmsted

Talking about the Newtown mass murderer, Adam Lanza,  is fraught with peril for people in the autism advocacy community, especially that part of the community which believes -- as I certainly do -- that vaccines have caused the epidemic of autism diagnoses now so apparent in schools across the country. The fact that two of the 20 dead children had ASDs just goes to show how prevalent such children are in classrooms everywhere.

Whether Lanza himself had an ASD is still an open question, despite second-hand reports that he had Asperger's. I'm proud of the way AOA responded to that story, starting with a statement that reads in part:

"Regardless of whether or not the shooter truly is on the autism spectrum, we wish to make it clear that autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) are in no way associated with criminal violence. More often than not, people with ASDs are the victims of such violence, not the people committing them." 

So while hard information on his ASD status is unknown, and, in any event, irrelevant as a primary cause, there is one diagnosis that was plausible from the start: Sensory integration disorder. From the Associated Press, just a couple of days after the shooting:

--

SOUTHBURY, Conn. — At Newtown High School, Adam Lanza had trouble relating to fellow students and teachers, but that was only part of his problem. He seemed not to feel physical or emotional pain in the same way as classmates.

Richard Novia, the school district's head of security until 2008, who also served as adviser for the school technology club, said Lanza clearly "had some disabilities."

"If that boy would've burned himself, he would not have known it or felt it physically," Novia told The Associated Press in a phone interview. "It was my job to pay close attention to that."

--

I know a number of parents with children on the spectrum in our community who can describe similar non-reactions to pain and burns. Once again, this does not mean Lanza had autism, nor does it mean that autism had anything to do with what he did. But it's interesting to me how little this clue to severe physiological dysfunction has registered with the public and the mainstream media.

The Hartford Courant reported a couple of weeks ago that Lanza indeed had sensory processing disorder and couldn't stand the loud noises of the school environment and hated being touched. The report also said he didn't feel pain. It noted that the sensory integration disorder diagnosis  is controversial and had been rejected by the American Psychiatric Association for inclusion in the new DSM-V.

From our little slice of the world over here in the environmental-biomedical community, the fact that a child can't feel pain is a big freaking deal. Forget autism -- what has caused an epidemic of children who can burn themselves with no reaction? How damaged is a nervous system that short-circuits this most vital survival mechanism?

I certainly don't remember kids in my shop classes in the 1960s blythely running a Bunsen burner over their forearm. Once again, the reason for this disorder seems environmental, and the number of things that can cause this kind of mayhem is pretty short. Metals and mercury, of course, are one. Vaccines are one source of metals and mercury, especially in the age group represented by Adam Lanza, who was 20 when he committed his crimes. The environment at large, which contains plenty of  organic  mercury via fish and pollution, is another.

These kinds of problems with sensation were vividly described by Sigmund Freud in the late 1800s as symptoms of "hysteria" that he took to be caused by emotional conflicts and trauma. The book that Mark Blaxill and I wrote, "The Age of Autism -- Mercury, Medicine, and a Man-made Epidemic," makes a strong case that a lot of those so-called hysterics were actually mercury-poisoned. Check out Chapter 2: The Age of Hysteria.

Whatever the cause, an inability to feel plain old physical pain -- one of the first thing babies learn to shy away from -- is a startling symptom. So we don't need to say Adam Lanza had autism, or implicate it in his actions, to see him as emblematic of something very disturbing in his age group. And we don't need to excuse his actions in any way when we note, sadly, that the killer appears to have been among the injured.

--

Speaking of the environment and autism, we've got to start being able to chew gum and walk at the same time, or hold two ideas in our heads while maintaining the ability to function, or whatever the relevant image is for connecting dots that are just about flashing at us in red neon.

The latest case in point: Utah has the nation's highest autism rate, according to the CDC report of 1-in-88 children who were 8 in 2008 (easy to remember, at least!). The rate in Utah is 1 in 47 children, or 1 in 32 boys.

Separately, news reports a couple of weeks ago said pollution in Salt Lake City is so bad it can adversely affect fetal development. A group of physicians declared a health emergency. Parents are openly debating whether beautiful Salt Lake City is a safe place to have kids.

Separately, coal mining and burning is a significant part of that pollution, according to numerous sources.

Separately, coal contains arsenic, lead, and mercury.

Separately, some people -- like me -- believe mercury directly contributes to the autism epidemic.

And separately, about 80 percent of the state's population lives along the Wasatch Front, centered around Salt Lake City.

Separately, Utah has the highest autism rate in the nation.

Oh, wait, that's not separate at all. That's the first and last dot in a circle that surrounds the flashing-in-red-neon truth about autism as an environmental illness.

--

I like Dr. Jay Gordon. He's definitely one of the good guys in the medical world. But he really ought to rethink his criticism of Andy Wakefield's work.

On Facebook Feb. 22, he took note of the 15th anniversary of the Lancet publication of the famous paper pointing to a pattern of novel bowel disease in 12 children with regressive ASDs, most of whose parents linked the onset to the MMR shot (that is actually what the study reported, not that MMR causes autism, etc., etc.)

Gordon writes: "Dr. Wakefield, whether his intentions were good or ill, should have written a brief letter to the editor about his findings and the need for much more study." In the event, says Gordon, the Lancet was right to retract it, and he, Gordon, bases nothing he writes about autism on it.

Well, first of all, suggesting that Wakefield might have "ill" intentions is an unpleasant and too-casual way to cast doubt not just on his work but on his motives. Second, the vindication of John Walker-Smith -- and even more, the tragic replications of Wakefield's findings not just by other researchers but by the suffering of thousands more children with regressive autism and bowel disease these past 15 years -- makes Gordon's disavowal and rejection seem downright wrong-headed.

I just don't get it, frankly.

--

Dan Olmsted is Editor of Age of Autism.

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

John--

You know, I'll bet we don't disagree about very much and, as I mentioned, your command of the details of Andy's travails and prosecution is so much better than mine that I have to face the possibility that I'm 100% wrong. It would not be my first time . . .

My problem is so very personal: I have spent a lot of time, energy and credibility adhering to a point of view which is very unpopular in the medical community and the media about vaccines and their possible role in the increase in autism. Selfishly, I wish that this very vulnerable flank of attack were not open to those who adhere to the diametrically opposing point of view. Thanks for your indulgence and your efforts to further educate me.

Best,

Jay

Jay,

Just to say I was perhaps less than charitable yesterday but the point to me is this. I am sure there were a lot of people in late 19th century France who thought Dreyfus was much more trouble than he was worth. Now, actually I don't think Dreyfus was worth nearly as much as Andrew Wakefield, but it wasn't so much how much he was worth as the corruption which caused his persecution and imprisonment, and this is what we are up against. It is an illusion that AW has somehow made the problem. His accusers made the problem.

John

"Dr. Jay Gordon;
I think when a man sticks his neck out for right - that the ones he stuck his neck out for should not dismiss him."

Thank you, Angus. Perhaps that was an incredibly unintentional compliment, but thank you nonetheless.

Linda, forgive my insensitivity to your particular family. On many occasions I have sat with families seeking a second or third opinion after their children developed ASDs in very close temporal proximity to vaccines. I have attempted to help with their feelings by telling them that "They did what they did based on the advice of a doctor they trusted and as an effort to protect their children from diseases and that there really is no proof that the vaccination itself caused their child's regression and blah, blah, blah . . . " At least a couple times I've experienced great anger from a parent who said something like, "We KNOW what happened and WHY it happened and we're not here to discuss that." An apology is in order because the vast majority of my physician colleagues do not give enough information to families and ignore important details about family history and more.

Thank you for reminding me.

All My Best,

Jay

Dr. Gordon,

Please understand. The most painful thing in my life, what I will never be able to get over, has been what I allowed to be done to my child by your colleagues. The second most painful thing in my life was having your colleagues, all of them, through many years now, ignore my account. The third most painful thing and what rips open and adds salt to the original wound is having to watch this done to other children and not being able to stop it. So if I come on strong, if I have no patience, if I have zero tolerance for the Gorski's of the world, that's why. Understand that the word "anecdote" or "anecdotal", used in any context, makes me see red. It also makes it hard for me to see anything written around it.

I'm glad that you've been able to stay in practice and advocate for children all these years, but for Heaven's sake, think twice before you criticize Andrew Wakefield. What was done to him by the criminals in your midst ranks right up there with what has been done and continues to be done to the children. You struck a big nerve.

Dr. Jay Gordon;
I think when a man sticks his neck out for right - that the ones he stuck his neck out for should not dismiss him.

You said;
"I have no idea how large or small a part vaccines have played but I do know that there's incontrovertible proof that many chemicals adversely affect neurological development"

I so wish we could have a mind melt you and I.

Then you would have an idea of the part that vacccines played in my family's lives.

Three people reacted again and again to them -- with swollen left venticules of the heart, seizures, high temperatures, encephalopathy, Kawasakis--- I was once lead to believe we average joes were the exception. I don't think so -- I think we are average joes in this too.

how can you win an argument when all you do as Jay does is retract from the main point ...?Life would be so simple ..

Angus

But who knows Jay, you might be the distraction? After all, Andrew Wakefield was the research scientist governments wanted to destroy. Somehow, I don't think they are going start being reasonable unless the imposture is completely exposed.

I wrote a long post but lost it in the "captcha" step. Busy day here so I have to be brief in the second try.

John, I don't know the details of Dr. Wakefield's issues anywhere near as well as you do. I don't doubt your veracity, accuracy or sincerity for one minute. In discussing Wakefield, the UK and his problems with you, I'm bringing a knife to a gunfight and I'll quit.

My point is, I think that Dr. Wakefield's problems should a very small part of our efforts to prevent autism and gain respect and better treatment for children and families. The media focus on him is distracting and hasn't helped our cause one bit.

Linda, I've watched this for over thirty years. As you know, I agree with the experts (and you) who believe that genetics influenced by environmental toxins have caused a huge increase in ASD. I have no idea how large or small a part vaccines have played but I do know that there's incontrovertible proof that many chemicals adversely affect neurological development. Email me and I'll send you the vaccine chapter. In the meantime, if you have access to the Internet, you can find the decades of discussions I've engaged in with the medical community. Quite frankly, your comments and rudeness are way out of line.

Jay

I guess the reality of this is Dr Jay's clientele: super-wealthy, well-informed people who don't want their children to get the full schedule and certainly not on schedule, but whose careers might be compromised by associating in anyway with public enemy number one. So, instead we get all this touchy-feely hocus-pocus.

"I don't believe that there is adequate proof yet that vaccines increase the risk of autism but I have met with many families who are certain that's the case. I have spoken with hundreds more parents who believe their children were harmed by vaccines. These anecdotes prove nothing..."

Dr. Gordon,

If thousands of sick and autistic children after vaccines, numerous court cases in this and other countries won by autistic children, if thousands of identical parental reports from any country that administers vaccines, if laboratory isolation of the vaccine strain of measles virus from the gut of autistic children isn't proof, then please tell us, WHAT WOULD CONSTITUTE PROOF and what are YOU, with all your knowledge and clinical experience, one who has devoted his life to the wellness and care of children, what are YOU doing to find it? What are YOU doing to absolutely, unequivocally, once and for all, either rule out vaccines as a cause of autism or find proof of causation so that no more children will be harmed?

I'm not talking about warning parents about other environmental hazards, hazards released by corporations and practices that if stopped, would not embarrass the medical community or impact the medical industry's bottom line. I'm not talking about the exposures that do not come from the practice of medicine. I'm not talking about environmental hazard information that is easily found in many other places by scores of other authors, I'm talking about pinning down the answer to the thorny question, the one that as a pediatrician you are faced with every day, the one at the core of your practice, the one that until it is answered threatens every child in every "well child" visit around the world, the one that you should be laser focused on and tirelessly working to answer, the one that, because it has been ignored and denied for so long, threatens to expose your profession as criminals.

Reading the Amazon preview of your book, I was astonished to see you write in the beginning "this isn't book about vaccines". It really does seem that writing a book about how to prevent autism that isn't about vaccines is like writing a book about how to prevent infection that isn't about pathogens.

As for your comments about Gorski, nothing beneficial can be learned or gained from someone whose core attribute is malicious judgmentalism. He has a right to his opinion and to express his opinion freely. However, as a physician, he betrays the hippocratic oath with his conduct and should not have a license to practice medicine. Everyone can have a bad day and occasionally make the mistake of being nasty, but, as you admit, nasty is his modus operandi. His hurtful attacks, lack of empathy, compassion or concern toward those suffering, is blatantly and recklessly untherapeutic and in direct conflict with his professional responsibilities.

Your qualified endorsement of Gorski and his gang of big mouth bullies, while criticizing Dr. Wakefield, a physician who has earnestly set out to find the answer and to help those afflicted, as you launch your book, casts serious doubt on your motives and character.

Dear Dr Gordon,

Well, this is simply stonewalling. Nobody is confused (much) about what you said. Unfortunately, this does not address either the appalling consequences of orchestrated hostility to Andrew Wakefield for everyone's children, the historical facts, or the reality that Wakefield was a scapegoat for a vaccine programme in trouble.

In 1998 Wakefield recommended the use of single vaccines in place of MMR, having been drawn into public comment by the dean of the Royal Free Medical School, Arie Zuckerman. The crisis was then provoked by the British government in collaboration with the manufacturers, who over the next months withdrew the option of single vaccines then available on the National Health Service. In 1998 the industry already knew, though we may not have done, that its future lay in making infants have as many vaccines in one go as possible, and Wakefield had put an almighty spoke in the wheel (by actually quite modest comment).

You asserted below that in some sense the paper was incomplete, perhaps on the mistaken grounds that it was a defective attempt at a Legal Aid Board funded protocol, but this has already been rejected in the British High Court, and not contested by the General Medical Council (and was never true). The only other sense in which it was incomplete is in the sense that knowledge is always incomplete.

The battle has been going on long and the bodies (real and metaphorical) have been piling up. It seems gratuitous (not to say graceless) to try and seize victory by treading once again on Andrew Wakefield's reputation.

John Stone

UK Editor, Age of Autism

I do have a new book coming out at the end of the month and I sure do want to sell as many of them as I can!

I like the idea of looking at my post in its entirety so I'm tacking it to the bottom of this post, too.

My thoughts about Dr. Gorski/Orac and his colleagues are pretty clear. And, by the way, if you read his posts and the debate, there is a ton of excellent information exchanged. I don't agree with those people and I'm way too busy to read RI regularly. They are nasty scientists, but some of them are worth reading.


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

Here is Dr. Gordon's FB comment in it's entirety:

"Fifteen years ago, The Lancet published Andrew Wakefield's article about a connection between measles vaccination, intestinal disease and autism. The most prestigious medical journal in the world published a major paper which had--as the joke goes--more authors than subjects. Dr. Wakefield, whether his intentions were good or ill, should have written a brief letter to the editor about his findings and the need for much more study. The Lancet should have had good enough peer review to reject this long article. I base nothing I do or say or write on Dr. Wakefield's research. The article was very easy to attack and merited the retraction it received. (I do not agree with the degree of opprobrium heaped up Dr. Wakefield.)

"This is the only area of medicine where we deny side effects. If I prescribe amoxicillin for a UTI, I willingly prescribe it to you and discuss the need comfortably and honestly because of the risk of kidney complications from untreated urinary tract infections. I must also tell you about and apologize for the possible rash, cramps, diarrhea and yeast infection. But, when I give your six -week-old seven different vaccines with two dozen antigens, I am supposed to try to convince you that the adverse reactions you have heard about are just coincidences.

"Immunization is also the only area of medicine where your twelve pound baby and 180 pound man get the same dose; A polio vaccine, for example. If she and I received the same dose of amoxicillin, Tylenol or virtually any other medicine, your baby could be badly harmed.

"We do not schedule vaccines scientifically. We ignore size, weight and family history: You might come to my office for a prenatal discussion and tell me that two of your uncles and your father had heart disease in their forties and one of those uncles and your grandfather died in their fifties of heart attacks. You might then ask if I had any special nutritional advice for your baby . . . My response is "Yes! He's a vegan with a soccer ball at his feet as soon as he can walk. You might also tell me about your nephew with autism, an uncle with behavior so unusual that he has no social interaction at all and your strong family history of OCD. Again, I'm supposed to tell you that vaccines pose no increased risk to your child. The very official position is that even if your first child is on the autism spectrum and the risk of autism is therefore greatly increased for your second child, we don't alter the vaccine schedule in any way at all. The science is completely lacking for those recommendations.

"Vaccinations should be given--or not given--with parental input influencing all decision making. Yes, we all depend on herd immunity and on others following social conventions of other kinds, but exceptions must be made and the child's parents must be deeply involved in the process. An answer: "I understand and respect your giving your children vaccines because you feel it's the best and healthiest thing for him. Please respect my decision to do what I feel is best for my child and our family."

"Some years ago, The University of Michigan Law Review asked me to contribute the following article:

http://www.michiganlawreview.org/articles/parents-should-not-be-legally-liable-for-refusing-to-vaccinate-their-children

"I know some children are too young to be vaccinated and that immunocompromised people can't be vaccinated. Don't bring a three-week-old baby to a three-year birthday party in winter. The threat is not pertussis or polio; The real threat comes from routine winter viruses which are much harder on a baby and more dangerous, too. Chemotherapy patients receive strong advice from their doctors about avoiding exactly those same situations. Again, not because of great fear of rare illnesses but because viral illness is dangerous to them.

"Answering a few points above:

"DaveDandelion: America is not in the top thirty healthiest countries in most measurements. Not longevity, infant mortality and many many others.

"Vaccines and the ingredients in those shots are not always adequately tested and the Supreme Court in the 2011 "Brusewitz" decision eliminated manufacturers incentive to improve preservatives and vaccines in general by absolving them of all product liability.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/09-152.ZS.html

"Dave, many vaccines, including the flu shot, are studied for safety in children after they are released.

"Zamboni: Dozens upon dozens of "scientists" have claimed that being a vegan is unhealthy. "Science" is not a monolithic always-right entity. Scientists are wrong an awful lot.

"I don't believe that there is adequate proof yet that vaccines increase the risk of autism but I have met with many families who are certain that's the case. I have spoken with hundreds more parents who believe their children were harmed by vaccines. These anecdotes prove nothing, but the sheer number of anecdotes makes me pause before vaccinating according the CDC/AAP schedule.

"Read all opinions and gather facts about vaccines. Not just vaccines and autism but risks and benefits of vaccinating on a schedule that makes you more comfortable about your child's safety."

How much knowledge is there actually about violent behavior in autistic children? I am not talking about how it is in general. I am fearful that autistic adults might be more likely to be tagged as suspect. The changed behavior that others see, in case this person is accused of criminal behavior, might not give the person described above the benefit of a doubt as easily, as someone who is neurotypical.

Also, as for those idiot "scientists" at "Science"blogs, was it any of them who recently invented the cheaper, easier, more effective way to diagnose pancreatic and ovarian cancer?? NO, it was a 15 year old kid! Screw them and their "phscience."
Come to think of it, "Science"blogs would be a VERY inappropriate place for any kid to witness/visit- I will check that there are no mentions of it at any schools because it is full of inappropriate behaviour, even though, of course there may also be some interesting things actually being discussed at times.

Jake, are you kidding me? "Excellent information and entertaining posts." I think a lot of their comments are bordering on immature and sick. They (at RI) promote "poll crashing", hate campaigns, and are so disrespectful to many posters I have seen (one recent example would be a mother whose child was harmed by Gardasil being treated with contempt). I had actually thought it might be interesting to let some people with MS or "CCSVI" know about them in an appropriate post but then I thought better of it. For people already suffering with MS it would actually be cruel to subject them to this kind of behaviour. I have also recently seen "lilady" basically threaten and snoop on his (Dr. Jay's) staff and their goings-on in his practice. Come on, Dr. Jay, nothing is worth selling your soul in that way. Ha! Today I got the National Geographic catalogue. I have formerly bought gifts from it but since they are associated with "Science"blogs I will have nothing to do with them.

I meant to add....


The anonymity of nominee accounts does benefit individuals who wish to hold shares in controversial companies. This has proved useful in situations where investors on share registers have been threatened by animal rights protestors, such as Huntingdon Life Sciences and GlaxoSmithKline.[4] As a consequence, the protestors have been known to intimidate the employees of the stockbrokers instead in order to try to force the companies to stop handling the shares.[5]

Yes and we can only guess how many (if not all) hold nominee GSK share accounts /Street name securities..

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


They all have this we know ...time will tell

Angus

Things have really changed since Harold Evans and his type of journalism. I read both his autobiography and "Suffer the Children a book by him and a group of journalists from the Sunday Times. It exposes thalidomide and discusses its ramifications. Wished we could have the Harold Evanses still working.

Hi Birgit

What I really meant to imply (rather than dispute with you) is that if you look at the people lined up against Murdoch (I say nothing specifically about the two gentlemen who wrote the book you mentioned) you have to look at it all more as a trade war than a battle for journalistic standards, and absolutely none of them were going to help our children.

John

I didn't mean to imply that it was only Murdoch. It's just something I am reading up on right now. I was truly shocked about Anderson Cooper and how he treated Andrew Wakefield in his interview. He was rude and either completely uninformed or willfully in denial. There is money behind all the talk shows on TV. That's not new to me.

Unfortunately Birgit it is not only Murdoch - in fact the Murdoch role on this affair although significant is possibly less sinister that newspapers like the Guardian and the Independent - and of course the BBC. You could say it is Leveson too.

http://www.ageofautism.com/2012/12/leveson-inquiry-submission.html

http://www.ageofautism.com/2012/11/uk-leveson-inquiry-authorises-governmentpharmaceutical-power-grab-over-mmr.html

John

It would be a good idea to first read what Andrew Wakefield actually wrote. When I first heard about the Lancet article, I read the piece and found absolutely no reason to criticize it in the way it later was; this paper (a case study) is no different in form and make-up from things I have read in the New England Journal of Medicine, or the AMA Journal. There is, in my opinion, nothing in there that indicates poor science nor anything else that should cause that paper to be withdrawn from the Lancet. I am even wondering if Brian Deer actually read it before he wrote his, in my opinion, libellous articles. The fact that it was not litigated later on, only means that litigation is very expensive, and often unsuccessful because of undue influence by some of the more powerful agents. The media are of no help here because they, too, are being paid for by influencial forces, not to name names. There is a book "M is for Murdoch" that shows how much of the Leveson Inquiry did not find and expose.

Carol asks:-
"There were many, many more children treated than just the first few written about in the Lancet case series, right? Where can we read about them?"

My autistic grandson was part of a later group of children referred to the Royal Free in order to have their bowel problems investigated and treated. My grandson's medical notes cover the period from 1998-2002. During that period Professor Walker-Smith retired and Dr Wakefield was effectively forced out of the his research position at the Royal Free. My daughter and her husband were told their son had 'exactly the same condition as all the rest', this being the bowel syndrome as described in the 1998 Wakefield et al Lancet paper. There were at least another 40 children referred to the Royal Free clinic, in addition to the Lancet 12.

Professor Pepys, UCL Medical Director, lost no time in closing the special clinic after UCL took over the Royal Free. The remaining clinicians were utilised elsewhere, and all the children were effectively discharged with 'chronic constipation'. My poor grandson still suffers terribly with his guts and has received nothing but laxative bottles and powders. Recently he was prescribed stronger painkillers.

Prof Pepys lost no time in negotiating a new 'deal' with MMR vaccine manufacturers GlaxoSmithKline, to research dementia in old folks. Apparently the UK taxpayers fund the research and GSK can cherry pick anything that looks commercial!! It seems to me that every UK research establishment seems to be doing Alzheimers research to the exclusion of everything else.

Carol

Also, of course, Silenced Witnesses

http://www.slingshotpublications.com/Books

John

Carol

You need to do a Pubmed search on Andrew Wakefield. Here is one important study:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1187154/

John

Just to clarify something for myself, there were many, many more children treated than just the first few written about in the Lancet case series, right? Where can we read about them?

From the Independent newspaper 12 June 2006:

"The great danger now, however, is that the GMC's action may simply backfire. The charges levelled against the doctor are so grave that the GMC may have difficulty in proving them. Even if they succeed, there is a danger that Dr Wakefield may be cast in a martyr's role - medicine's equivalent of Jan Hus, the Czech heretic burnt at Constance in 1415 for having embarrassed and angered the Catholic Church by pointing out some home truths."

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/editorials/leading-article-a-risky-move-that-may-revive-parents-fears-482021.html

I am sure in the 15 century people would have said Jan Hus brought it on himself. Vaccines are the new indulgences.

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


Twyla

Many thanks for clarifying all that. It is obviously quite absurd in the light of history for Jay Gordon to scapegoat Andrew Wakefield in that way. I doubt whether there was anything that Wakefield could have done without being pilloried by the powers that be and their cronies and it isn't very clever to be that wise after the event. Obviously Gordon has many good things to say, but a case perhaps of trying to be all things to all men.

John

PS I am glad we are in agreement.

John Stone, I'm not clear on what you disagree with. I do believe that Dr. Wakefield's work was very important and laid a foundation for further research. I disagree with Dr. Gordon's recent comment about Dr. Wakefield and the Lancet paper. I agree with all that you have said in your comments.

But in relation to the quote posted by Angus Files from the article about Frontline a few years ago "I base nothing I do on Dr. Wakefield's research or on Jenny McCarthy's opinions. I respect what they both have done and respectfully disagree with them at times. I don't think that Dr. Wakefield's study proved anything except that we need to look harder at his hypothesis," as you said, this is different from his recent comment. It was in regard to this comment that I tried to provide a context.

@ "First do no harm" - I’m not “pushing and agenda”, I’m simply stating some opinions, not even firmly held opinions – just thoughts.

Re: “Stating that Dr. Wakefield did not do a ‘study’ and did not claim to ‘prove’ anything is very much the issue.”
Even John Stone says that the Lancet paper was not a “study”. I actually think it was a study – although a “case series” study –- not the kind of study that requires a control group. It was an in depth description of a series of patients. The Lancet paper said that, “We describe a pattern of colitis and ileal-lymphoid- nodular hyperplasia in children with developmental disorders,” and that, “We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described.” The final paragraph says, “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.” The paper called itself an “early report”.

Vaccine defenders often depict this paper as professing to prove that the MMR causes autism – this is not the case. This just sets the paper up to be knocked down.

Dr. Wakefield writes about this paper calling it a “case series paper” but goes on to discuss the “Study design” and “Case series studies…”
http://www.wesupportandywakefield.com/documents/AutismFile_US33-Wakefield.pdf

As far as David Gorski/Orac's site, I’ve never ever seen it contain “excellent information and entertaining posts”. I find him to be “persistently offensive and unreadable.” I agree he’s a cyber-bully, and I can’t see why Dr. Gordon would have anything good to say about him.

Here is Dr. Gordon's FB comment in it's entirety:

"Fifteen years ago, The Lancet published Andrew Wakefield's article about a connection between measles vaccination, intestinal disease and autism. The most prestigious medical journal in the world published a major paper which had--as the joke goes--more authors than subjects. Dr. Wakefield, whether his intentions were good or ill, should have written a brief letter to the editor about his findings and the need for much more study. The Lancet should have had good enough peer review to reject this long article. I base nothing I do or say or write on Dr. Wakefield's research. The article was very easy to attack and merited the retraction it received. (I do not agree with the degree of opprobrium heaped up Dr. Wakefield.)

"This is the only area of medicine where we deny side effects. If I prescribe amoxicillin for a UTI, I willingly prescribe it to you and discuss the need comfortably and honestly because of the risk of kidney complications from untreated urinary tract infections. I must also tell you about and apologize for the possible rash, cramps, diarrhea and yeast infection. But, when I give your six -week-old seven different vaccines with two dozen antigens, I am supposed to try to convince you that the adverse reactions you have heard about are just coincidences.

"Immunization is also the only area of medicine where your twelve pound baby and 180 pound man get the same dose; A polio vaccine, for example. If she and I received the same dose of amoxicillin, Tylenol or virtually any other medicine, your baby could be badly harmed.

"We do not schedule vaccines scientifically. We ignore size, weight and family history: You might come to my office for a prenatal discussion and tell me that two of your uncles and your father had heart disease in their forties and one of those uncles and your grandfather died in their fifties of heart attacks. You might then ask if I had any special nutritional advice for your baby . . . My response is "Yes! He's a vegan with a soccer ball at his feet as soon as he can walk. You might also tell me about your nephew with autism, an uncle with behavior so unusual that he has no social interaction at all and your strong family history of OCD. Again, I'm supposed to tell you that vaccines pose no increased risk to your child. The very official position is that even if your first child is on the autism spectrum and the risk of autism is therefore greatly increased for your second child, we don't alter the vaccine schedule in any way at all. The science is completely lacking for those recommendations.

"Vaccinations should be given--or not given--with parental input influencing all decision making. Yes, we all depend on herd immunity and on others following social conventions of other kinds, but exceptions must be made and the child's parents must be deeply involved in the process. An answer: "I understand and respect your giving your children vaccines because you feel it's the best and healthiest thing for him. Please respect my decision to do what I feel is best for my child and our family."

"Some years ago, The University of Michigan Law Review asked me to contribute the following article:

http://www.michiganlawreview.org/articles/parents-should-not-be-legally-liable-for-refusing-to-vaccinate-their-children

"I know some children are too young to be vaccinated and that immunocompromised people can't be vaccinated. Don't bring a three-week-old baby to a three-year birthday party in winter. The threat is not pertussis or polio; The real threat comes from routine winter viruses which are much harder on a baby and more dangerous, too. Chemotherapy patients receive strong advice from their doctors about avoiding exactly those same situations. Again, not because of great fear of rare illnesses but because viral illness is dangerous to them.

"Answering a few points above:

"DaveDandelion: America is not in the top thirty healthiest countries in most measurements. Not longevity, infant mortality and many many others.

"Vaccines and the ingredients in those shots are not always adequately tested and the Supreme Court in the 2011 "Brusewitz" decision eliminated manufacturers incentive to improve preservatives and vaccines in general by absolving them of all product liability.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/09-152.ZS.html

"Dave, many vaccines, including the flu shot, are studied for safety in children after they are released.

"Zamboni: Dozens upon dozens of "scientists" have claimed that being a vegan is unhealthy. "Science" is not a monolithic always-right entity. Scientists are wrong an awful lot.

"I don't believe that there is adequate proof yet that vaccines increase the risk of autism but I have met with many families who are certain that's the case. I have spoken with hundreds more parents who believe their children were harmed by vaccines. These anecdotes prove nothing, but the sheer number of anecdotes makes me pause before vaccinating according the CDC/AAP schedule.

"Read all opinions and gather facts about vaccines. Not just vaccines and autism but risks and benefits of vaccinating on a schedule that makes you more comfortable about your child's safety."

Twyla,

No amount of "context" will repair the errors and misrepresentations in many of Dr. Gordon's statements. You keep pushing your agenda of "we all must get along no matter what." I don't think that approach behooves us.

Case in point: Dr. Gordon has now pronounced Orac's vile column (that regularly rips vaccine safety advocates to shreds while lauding the likes of Paul Offit): "excellent information and entertaining posts." Really? I don't care what the "context" is - that is inexcusable.

And contrary to your comment, I am debating the issues. Stating that Dr. Wakefield did not do a "study" and did not claim to "prove" anything is very much the issue. Dr. Gordon should not be perpetuating misconceptions that confuse the public, damage Wakefield and delay efforts to protect vulnerable children from the MMR.

If you don't like seeing our community become fractured, then let's unite behind the truth.

Twyla

I fear I do not agree and the NIH paper I cited below makes it clear why, because even they acknowledge Wakefield's papers as the foundations of the subject. So, I wonder what science Jay Gordon is acknowledging which doesn't lead back to Wakefield's work.

John

PS I have also pointed out why this is directly harming children and young adults in the UK.

Yeah John, Dr. Jay is quite the charmer. He told Gorski he disregards anything you, I or anybody else write here on AoA while saying his blog contains "excellent information" and "entertaining posts." The irony here is that there is no one on Gorski's blog who that second sentence by Dr. Jay you quoted describes better than Gorski himself.

I guess that AoA post Dr. Jay had written five years ago responding to some of the abuse by Gorski and his toady followers would be included in posts Dr. Jay would dismiss simply because they ran on AoA.


The Guy is a shifting to whatever he can do to Pharma good....your comments are bad..
I also dis- agree with Cherry's comment that

"Dr. Gordon is entitled to face the world in his own way, with his own conscience." I think we need to debate the issues, rather than demonize anyone who does not agree
The great and the good Dr Gordon has had every chance ..and at every time downed everyone in the Autism community on here .So far as the names you try to link to one another this is just a typical troll attack to dis credit our argument...

@"First do no harm", in that quote you were taking his words out of context and acting like they were just criticisms of Wakefield and McCarthy. That was not the point. I'm not rationalizing nor interpreting, merely stating the context. Many people independently are speaking up regarding vaccine injuries, vaccine causation of autism, and biomedical treatments for autism - not because we are brainwashed by Dr. Wakefield and Jenny McCarthy - not because Dr. Wakefield has magical powers or because Jenny McCarthy has modeled for Playboy and starred in movies and written books. The reason is because these issues are real, and many have independently come to the conclusions that our vaccine program is having very poorly understood consequences, that vaccines are a major factor in the current autism epidemic, and that biomedical treatments for autism can have a big impact, sometimes resulting in recovery, sometimes resulting in greater happiness and functioning even if not fully recovered. I don't know to what extent Dr. Gordon believes all this, but he clearly is one of very few doctors with the courage to speak out about the problems with vaccines, the importance of personal choice, the stupidity of the general pro-vaccine spin - as shown in the HuffPo article from which this quote came. In this article he spoke out against Frontline's "Vaccine War" episode.
PBS Frontline on Autism Resorts to Pseudo-Documentary, Tabloid Journalism
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jay-gordon/pbs-frontline-show-about_b_554691.html

Dr. Gordon praised Jenny McCarthy for being "a successful author, actress and mother exploring every possible avenue to treating her own son and the children of tens of thousands of other families." He has praised her for being an important voice bringing issues of treatment and causation to the public.

When I read Dr. Gordon's FB comment quoted by Dan above, I was dismayed and wondered why he was saying that. Garbo may well be right that his dissing of Wakefield is a token paid for admission to mainstream media access. That is deplorable, and certainly a valid point to raise.

But I also agree with Cherry's comment that "Dr. Gordon is entitled to face the world in his own way, with his own conscience." I think we need to debate the issues, rather than demonize anyone who does not agree. I agree with Cia Parker's and John Stone's comments which debate the issues so knowledgeably.

Lately I feel like sometimes there is so much anger waiting to surface whenever people disagree. If we alienate everyone who disagrees with anything, we will end up with a very small, fractured community, or not much of a community at all.


Gorski is the head shape shifter , just as he/ they would like to shape the academic studies to shape into the pharma shape shifters world ..which just can’t happen when we have the likes of Dan et-al on here reminding them of the facts never mind shaping them into what they want and need to sell books or vaccines or sand to the Arab’s ..You will not get away with it…
The Vaccine Police are her on AOA… Shame on them all…

Hi Jake

Of course, Gordon does say in the next sentence about the Gorski blog:

"The problem is that is also fills up with obsessive perseverating people who have no desire for dialogue but are persistently offensive and unreadable."

although many of us might feel this applies pretty much to Gorski himself. In fact, in my experience Gorski's tone is consistently rebarbative and discourteous, which would certainly make it very hard to read for information purposes, or engage with in any civilised way.

It is obvious that Gorski himself does not desire dialogue, but I suppose Gordon was trying to be nice because he was responding to an attack Gorski had made on himself and Jenny McCarthy which had been cited by a correspondent. I guess Dr Jay does charm in a big way.

John

Vicki, I actually believe all mental disorders are physical and have a biological basis. The problem is we have a whole field and industry that is perpetuating subjective guesswork as science. I believe this prevents the general public from demanding real brain science and biological research. Yes, Tourette's is a physical illness but neurologists don't know what causes it, either. They are absolutely guessing when they treat it, with trial and error drugs. Yes, people might have multiple diagnoses from the magic book, but what does that really mean? Where does autism begin and OCD end? Because these diagnoses are not based on hard (aka real) science, the debate is moot and actually a waste of time. Kind of like worrying about whether you can merge Star Trek and Star Wars terminology. The real issue is something was terribly wrong with Adam Lanza's brain and central nervous and probably his gut, too. We need to figure it out, not label it and suppress it with psychotropic drugs.

On February 24th, in the thread of this blog, Dr. Jay wrote:

"The website you've linked to, Dr. David Gorski's Orac site, often contains excellent information and entertaining posts."
http://thekindlife.com/blog/post/dr-jay-gordon-vaccinations-safe-unsafe

Well there you have it, the vaccine lobby's mainstay blogger and cyber-bully, gets praised by Dr. Jay as providing "excellent information" and "entertaining posts."

I'm sorry Cherry. I have a lot of respect for you in what you've said at AOA, but in this case, I have to disagree. Yes, Dr. Gordon has the right to face the world as he sees fit, but, he does not have the right to step on Dr. Wakefield to promote himself, and then have the gaul to present himself as his friend. Dr. Gordon wrote here that "MMR is not a good vaccine", yet early in his new book about how to prevent autism, he states that "this is not a book about vaccines". The book is about environmental toxins. Lord knows we are immersed in them, but he seems not to want to tackle in this new book those that are injected directly into the bloodstream. The 7 or so pages in the back of the book devoted to vaccines are not in the Amazon preview pages, so I don't know exactly what he states there, but his deliberately distancing himself from Dr. Wakefield and publicly criticizing how Dr. Wakefield conducted himself after finding what he and his distinguished colleagues believed to be a novel illness that threatened public health, after all that Dr. Wakefield and his family have been through, is completely disgusting and unforgivable. He doesn't get a pass from me.

I wonder what Dr. Gordon thinks of the recent court cases acknowledging that MMR caused autism.

"Talking about the Newtown mass murderer, Adam Lanza"

When I was a kid this would have been stated "Talking about purported/suspected/accused Newtown mass murderer, Adam Lanza".

Adam has not been shown to me, at least, of having done ANYTHING except, perhaps, of being perhaps murdered and his body dumped somewhere suggestive. Why has so much of the evidence in this EXTREMELY strange case been sealed? Will we ever get to see this evidence? Will there be an honest informative trial resulting from this mass shooting or will there be as in almost all other gun grabbing shootings be a show trial with a drugged up accused "shooter"?

If you look hard at what we know about Newtown, just as if you look hard at what we know about autism, you will find MANY things that do not fit. IMO the story of Newtown as it is being presented to us is about as honest as the story of autism that has been presented to us over the decades. IOW not honest at all.

Many of of our problems with autism are problems of language. We are letting those who wish to cover up the causes of autism misuse our language as well as our children and ourselves.

Cia

Not a big deal but a "paper" or a "report".

John

Vicky,
I agree with you. The whole point of Harris Coulter's book about the link between vaccine damage and violent behavior was that post-vaccinal encephalitis can so damage the brain that it makes the person more prone to criminal violence. In December, several of us said here that we thought Adam Lanza had both Asperger's and schizophrenia, or something similar. I think it's a mistake to be so afraid that people will further shun our autistic children if they fear they may act violently, that we try to hide the truth, which would have the effect of making people not believe much of what we say about autism. Most autistic people are not violent, my daughter isn't, and neither are most others. But some are. Just as most typical people aren't violent, but some are. (Oscar Pistorius?)But, as we agreed in December, the important thing is to get behind increasing public awareness of the manifold dangers of vaccines, many of which are delayed by years in their manifestation.

Sorry, John, I had seen things that said that it was a small case study, giving a report on specific patients, which differentiated it from a research study. What should I call it (a short phrase, I hope)? I just posted a lot to Chris Haynes in an endless chain of back-and-forths on an Amazon review of Melanie's Marvelous Measles, I included a link to the BMJ Quick Response comments on an article you commented on in 2010, among many other excellent comments. And I used the term "case study," but of course would like to be technically correct.

Friends, I think that Dr. Gordon is entitled to face the world in his own way , with his own conscience. I appreciate that he has responded here with dignity, moderation. Remember, there is a long way to go on this river, before the story ends- too bad for that, but that is how it is. I like all the comments here, but at the same time, I would like to say that recently a baby boy was born to someone in India who has married late, and doesnt have much family of his own. I was much relieved that I could point him to Dr. Jay Gordon, because other views would have probably seemed too extreme to someone who never thought for two minutes about vaccines before. Dr. Gordon is an easy introduction to questioning vaccines.
And can you imagine what some of his colleagues say about Dr. Gordon ???!!!! He is one of the very few who have spoken out- and deserves some credit for that.
Let us bring all but the most evil close to us for dialogue.

The head and what is inside it are physical body parts. They have mass. They do not operate independently of the rest of the body. Why do people discuss problems of the brain as if they are esoteric and independent of the rest of the medical market? Autism AND other mental problems at the same time? It's just an admission that they haven't yet figured out the full extent of physical problem yet. That was okay 100 years ago but we know better now. Anything defined as mental just means they don't (yet) know what causes it. DSM? that's the inadvertant admission of ignorance put into writing. Acceptance of the DSM? That's the medical & insurance industry saying they are comfortable with ignorance.

If they were smart or wanted to regain some sort of legitimacy in my opinion, DSM would be converted to a deliberately temporary respository of coding information to be used as a transfer mechanism updated to periodically reflect the ongoing scientific connection of how the brain interacts with the rest of the organs, just another organ of the entire system. Not a separate entity that requires isolation. The breakdown of one part affects the whole. Only when they get to that point will allopathic medicine be able to compete with the more wholistic health approaches.
This is not in any way meant to take away from the spiritual aspect of our existance in this world.

Posted by: jenny |

mlinn, virtually all of the diagnoses in the DSM are physical. Some, such as Tourette Syndrome, are clearly neurological in nature and primarily treated by neurologists for decades. Yet the Tourette Syndrome Association has had zero success in getting it taken out of the DSM.

The reason for the DSM's existence is to help practitioners differentiate between diagnoses which may have overlapping symptoms.

Clearly autism is not 'psychiatric' - however you define that - and yet, there are people who have both autism and one or more psychiatric diagnoses.

First do no harm

The reality is represented in the NIH paper from 2011 (authors including Buie, Hornig, Lipkin, Baumann etc)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3174969/

that Wakefield and colleagues were there first. OK the NIH team would no doubt have prefered to ditch them and the unfortunate MMR business entirely, but at least for the academic record they haven't or can't.

Twyla,
I judge Dr. Gordon by his words, not by what you or anybody thinks "he was getting at." He's a medical doctor and as such, should be capable of expressing himself without the need for interpretation or rationalization by others.

Dr.Gordon has a history of putting down outspoken members of our community in order to curry favor with our critics. In this most recent example, he's attempting to distance himself from the controversy surrounding Wakefield and McCarthy in a transparent attempt to find friends among their enemies - friends who can help him promote his book.

To prop up these two courageous people so he can knock them down to make himself look "reasonable" is cowardly and opportunistic. Furthermore, if Gordon doesn't even know the Lancet paper did not describe a study and was not "proof" of anything, then how reliable is the information in his "revolutionary" new book?

re Utah: If there is a significant difference in the autism rate in those born on the Wasatch Front and elsewhere in the state there might be some indication how much the epidemic is due to "something in the water or air" and how much is may be due to medical and like practices if there is a significant difference (assuming all other things, like vaccine uptake, are equal).

There is also an oil refinery district in North Salt Lake:

http://maps.google.com/maps?oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=refineries+in+utah&fb=1&gl=us&hq=refineries&hnear=0x874c6bc78f13f9cd:0xbddf4aa56cd7463f,Utah&sa=X&ei=5f0yUd3CDMSciAKTjoGoDg&ved=0CMgBELYD&iwloc=cids:9355768805269008750

I remember the air quality driving through as a child was never good, though some pollution reducing efforts have somewhat improved the smell. Did any of that reduce heavy metal emissions?

Copper mining, south of Salt Lake:

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

"According to data from the Utah Division of Air Quality, Kennecott, owned by parent company Rio Tinto Corporation, is by far the largest single source of air pollution along the Wasatch Front, emitting 10 times more pollution overall than the next largest industrial source, the Chevron refinery. Kennecott self-reports 6,235 pounds of lead emissions a year from its smelter smokestack alone. A potpourri of toxic and deadly heavy metals — lead, cadmium, arsenic, mercury — from Kennecott's operations constantly descend upon Salt Lake County."

I'm not sure how much of the above has been on the increase in the state though since the 70s when I was a child. I personally didn't actually live along the Wasatch Front.

re: "I don't think that Dr. Wakefield's study proved anything except that we need to look harder at his hypothesis. I don't think that Jenny McCarthy has all the answers to treating or preventing autism"

@ First do no harm, I think what Dr. Gordon was getting at there is that many of the vaccine defenders act as if all concerns about vaccines arise from Dr. Wakefield and Jenny McCarthy, which is not the case - as if they have the power to brainwash everyone. And many vaccine defenders act as if the Lancet paper was presented as proof of an autism-vaccine link, which it wasn't and didn't claim to be.

The debate about whether or not Adam Lanza had autism or not drives me batty. News flash: there is no biological marker for autism. There is no way to determine if ANYONE really has it or not. It is diagnosed through the subjective quackery of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

Instead of complaining/fighting about the new DSM-5, we should have put all of our effort as a community into getting Autism out of the manual completely. It is a physical disability, we need to figure out what is actually going on in our kids bodies and get as far away from the field of psychiatry as possible.

Interesting about Utah. Minnesota's rate is also high. I am guessing it is a combination of the fact 3m is here (the area around Woodbury, mn is crazy polluted) and also the large Somali population we have here (these immigrants are pumped with vaccines when the come to the states).

For nd: To repost my below comment, Dr. Jay Gordon is bashing Dr. Wakefield because Dr. Jay Gordon has a "revolutionary" new book coming out in 3 weeks that he wants to shill on TV shows like Anderson Cooper 360 etc. The book is about "how to prevent autism" and it has the "V" word in it so Dr. Jay Gordon needs to bash Dr. Wakefield to prove to Anderson Cooper et al that Dr. Jay Gordon will be a safe guest lapdog and toe the party line on the "V" word. A hit piece on Dr. Wakefield is the token Dr. Jay Gordon must put in the turnstile to get on TV and sell his "revolutionary" book, which he no doubt has cobbled together using approaches he learned about from people like Dr. Wakefield and places like A1, where Dr. Jay Gordon apparently lauded Dr. Wakefield. Which makes Dr. Jay Gordon a craven whore, regardless of whether his upcoming "revolutionary" book has useful content.

Angus as Dan said BIG FREAKING DEAL!
Thanks for the example of why it is a big freaking deal!

Good one Garbo. So Dr. Jay has a book coming out this month and he wants to appear "legit" for the mainstream press.

Regarding the Dr. Jay quote that Angus posted, all I see is a couple of strawmen:

"I don't think that Dr. Wakefield's study proved anything except that we need to look harder at his hypothesis. I don't think that Jenny McCarthy has all the answers to treating or preventing autism"

No one is saying Wakefield's study (and it wasn't a study) "proved" anything.
And no one is saying Jenny McCarthy has all the answers to treating or preventing autism.

Dr. Jay has problems with basic logic. And he wants to sell books more than he wants to end the autism epidemic.

"Dr. Wakefield...should have written a brief letter to the editor about his findings and the need for much more study."

A "brief" letter, a letter that might not have been noticed, or published at all - that's what Dr. Wakefield should have done. He shouldn't have made so much noise. Seeing that children and their families were suffering, that parents were repeatedly reporting that their children became ill after the MMR, that these same families were being turned away and/or given the run around by other doctors, Dr. Wakefield shouldn't have sounded an alarm - that something was wrong and that a complete scientific investigation should be done immediately and that these combination vaccines should possibly be held in favor of older vaccines with proven safety records until more was known. Given Dr. Wakefield's credentials, it was his right and his responsibility to make known his sincerely held professional opinion. But no, according to Dr. Gordon, Dr. Wakefield maybe should have done what Dr. Gordon has done. Maybe Dr. Wakefield should have been content to help the few children that came into his care. Maybe Dr. Wakefield should have been content to quietly put out a not too controversial DVD on vaccination, maybe publish and sell a few books that wouldn't ruffle too many feathers, that wouldn't change anything, wouldn't advance the science, but would make a name for himself and a few bucks.

There is not a small number of people having problems "Processing" vaccines. 1 in 6 are now Developmentally Disabled, 1 in 5 are Neurologically Impaired, 1 in 10 have ADHD, plus dangerous peanut allergies since peanut by products were added to multiple vaccines, milk allergies, casein added to vaccines, latex allergies, particles of latex enter through vaccines...All of this became rampant after the US passed a law that stopped you from suing vaccine makers in regular courts thus the vaccine maker's suddenly developed new vaccines as they became "Immune" from any situation. Kids went from a few lifetime vaccines to more than 70 and THIS IS OUR RESULT. What does anyone expect to have happen when you pump babies with aluminum, thimerosal, embalming fluid, rat, dog, cow, pig, monkey and caterpillar parts, plus fetal cells, squalene, tar derived food coloring, polysorbate, ether, and a whole lot more?
Even young women and girls are now getting dangerous breast cancer which is outstripping the growth rate normally understood as an older women's problem. NO ONE is processing vaccines well!
Shell of Recovering Autism, ADHD, & Special Needs.

John,
Just highlighting the shiftiness of them all ….when they can jump from one quote to another and expect us all not to notice...for sure...we notice

People feel pain in different ways. Sensory integration disorder is a very painful condition, over time I have lost my ability to feel pain in normal ways.
"When Lanza was a teenager, his mother told a Newtown High School staff member that her son had Asperger's and had also been diagnosed with sensory integration disorder, which meant he had difficulty coping with loud noises, bright lights, confusion, and change."
How could a person like this handle a shooting?
http://www.news.com.au/world-news/police-explore-sandy-hook-massacre-gunman-adam-lanzas-possible-video-game-motive/story-fndir2ev-1226579928065

How on earth could "a brief letter to the editor about his findings and the need for much more study" have been enough to address the health conditions of these children?

Benedetta,

I know of a boy who are very old friends of ours..One day when his mother was hanging pictures up in the kitchen and got a smell of burning "bacon" and looked down and he had his hand on the Halogen electric cooker...looking up as if butter wouldn’t melt in his mouth…Same boy two years earlier broke his arm she took him to the hospital they said “he looks so happy if he had a broken arm he would be screaming”...two weeks later arm hanging down not moving , turning blue, swollen took him to A&E ... x rayed him broken in 3 places plaster for 5 months...
The kids don’t suffer…Brian Deer you need a whatever to get you thinking straight..

Angus

During the 2010 AutismOne, Jay Gordon wrote, "Any thoughts I ever had about wavering in my support of Andrew Wakefield have dissolved."

Less than three years later, apparently any thoughts "Dr. Jay" had about supporting Andrew Wakefield have dissolved.

I wonder why.

I know most of the comments are about Dr. Wakefield and Dr. Gordon.

However: Big freaking deal indeed about not feeling pain.

Which reminds me of the book I had to read twice in college.

"I Never Promised You a Rose Garden"
This girl was real, and she told the tale of her mental illness and the rising above it. She became better after self injury.

My daughter is a nurse in a psych hospital. She chose this field for she personally knew of the demons that lurk. She also paid by having more vaccines given to her.

There is an epidemic of girls cutting themselves.
In the book "I Never Promised You a Rose Garden" this girl was a rare rose, a real mystery as she tried to cut herself when she suffered hallucinations. The hallucinations in which she was in the presents of Inca Gods that demanded from her blood. Sounds like Schizophrenia or psychosis - to me in which she healed, married, had children.

In the U tube (Excellent) that Elizabeth A. Thiele, ME. PH.D -- Dietary Therapy: Role in Epilepsy and Beyond

She tells of the history of the fasting diet, ketogenic diet, Atkins diet, and Low Glycemic Diet.

She is passionate about it and she knows a lot. When She was being questioned on why the diet worked she rapidly went into the workings of mitochondria -- and the potassium channels that leads to the correct workings- mitochondria.

Potassium channels there are four.

I found it interesting that when the potassium channels are messed up it can cause the rhyme of the heart to become unstable. Some thing I have a great fear of after the effects of Kawasaki, inflamed left ventricular after a vaccine reaction. Potassium channels have a lot to do with hormones -- and there is none here that don't have some problems with hormones as in diabetes, thyroid, bipolar (enlarged pituitary) or stomach -- that is perhaps the biggest endocrine system of all and we know that vaccines open the cells up and allows large leakage of --- gluten. Hormones do they control cholesterol and lipid metabolism? Does anyone know?

Potassium channels also has a lot to do with the dilation of blood vessels - and again that would be my children that developed Kawasaki -- and every medium sized blood vessel becoming inflamed.

We have thought calcium channels all this time, but it is not where it all begins.

I looks like to me that they have vaccinated us to death -- so we can not eat carbohydrates - our main food source.

I suggest you all get yourselves a small farm and raise beef cattle -- maybe some chickens, and hopefully a pond for fish - because we all are going to have to forget the main crop that has given us civilization - wheat or barley, or rye, or oats even - or potatoes, or any grain crop.

And that Zombie thing the CDC had going on -a couple of years back -- might not be so far out.

Angus

It is an interesting quote and a perfectly good position, but actually it is subtly different from what he's saying now. I suppose it is misrepresentation to suggest that 1998 was the end when a great deal of published research followed, most of it not retracted by anyone.

John

Yep Jake ,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jay-gordon/pbs-frontline-show-about_b_554691.html


Irecall this blast from the past..


"INcased you were wondering, as I practice pediatrics every day of my career, I base nothing I do on Dr. Wakefield's research or on Jenny McCarthy's opinions. I respect what they both have done and respectfully disagree with them at times. I don't think that Dr. Wakefield's study proved anything except that we need to look harder at his hypothesis. I don't think that Jenny McCarthy has all the answers to treating or preventing autism but there are tens of thousands of parents who have long needed her strong high-profile voice to draw attention to their families' needs: Most families with autism get inadequate reimbursement for their huge annual expenses and very little respect from the insurance industry, the government or the medical community. Jenny has demanded that a brighter light be shone on their circumstances, their frustration and their needs."

In Brecht's "Life of Galileo", Galileo says to a former student who published a doctrinaire book renouncing Copernican theory in order to forward his own career:

"Listen to me: someone who doesn't know the truth is thick-headed. But someone who does know it and calls it a lie is a crook. Get out of my house."

Bashing Dr. Wakefield has become the "price of admission" for craven researchers whose own work gingerly skirts the edge of orthodoxy. Dr. Gordon is just the latest "crook" to jump on the bandwagon as a means of securing their own bona fides. Why now? Well golly gee, look at that, he has a new book coming out this month and he probably needs to secure media interviews during which he can shill it. It has the "V" word in it, so he needs to make nice by bashing Dr. Wakefield, so that Anderson Cooper won't be afraid to invite him as a guest, and he can talk about all the stuff DAN doctors and Rescue Angels have been doing for the last ten years and claim it as his own:

"Preventing Autism: What You Can Do to Protect Your Children Before And After Birth

Publication Date: March 25, 2013
A revolutionary approach to preventing autism—from one of the world's most respected pediatricians

In this revolutionary book, respected pediatrician Dr. Gordon breaks new ground by sharing his clinically tested program to prevent autism, which has been able to reduce the incidence of autism in the children of the patients he treats by more than thirty percent.

The book includes all-new information drawn from the author's clinical practice, stories of his work with patients, and a prescriptive program to prevent autism that is unlike anything else currently available. Essential reading for new and prospective parents, Preventing Autism cuts through the hysteria surrounding autism with clear, actionable information on the controversial topic of vaccines and autism, environmental toxins, what foods to eat and what not to eat, and more.

Gives you clear, up-to-date information and a practical plan of action to help decrease the risk of autism and protect your child for the first two years of life and beyond
Examines the role that genetic and environmental factors can play in the development of autism
Provides a specific game plan for avoiding toxic substances in food, clothing, personal care products, and your home
Written by Dr. Jay Gordon, a pediatrician who has taken care of hundreds of children with autism in his practice, taught at UCLA Medical Center and Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, and has appeared frequently in the national media, including the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Parenting magazine, Larry King Live, and Anderson Cooper"

I thought I couldn't get any more cynical, but I was wrong. I'll bet his "revolutionary" slot on 360 is already booked. Jerk.

Hi Mark,

Greenhalgh's article was removed from Deer's website at a date some time between 5 August 2011 and 19 January 2012. I would put my money on or around 9 November 2011 with Eugenie Samual Reich's report of the intervention of Dr David Lewis in the affair in Nature and connected events - note it was on 5 November that Dr Ben Goldacre's blog ceased publication in the Guardian. Or just possibly it was when the Wakefield Texas litigation was announced in early January. What took the lady so long?

John

After the retraction of the Lancet paper in 2010, Professor Trisha Greenhalgh, one of Britain's finest medical academics (cough), wrote an 'Observations' piece for the BMJ.

The professor of General Practice wrote,

"The retraction of the infamous MMR paper may be overdue, but it is a good thing for science. On 28 February 1998 the Lancet published a study with the inauspicious title “Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children.” The paper has been much criticised, and the Lancet finally retracted it this week. But why did it all take so long?"

http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c644

I wrote three responses to that article,

http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/11/02/good-bad-and-ugly-side-medical-science

http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/11/02/unfounded-and-unjust

http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/11/02/judgement-what%E2%80%99s-good-science

Why was the retraction of a 'case series' report a good thing for science? I never got an answer from the good professor. Perhaps Jay Gordon could give me one?

PS. The Greenhalgh 2004 analysis of the 'Wakefield MMR study' is no longer available on the briandeer.com website, having been withdrawn sometime after February 2010.

"More often than not, people with ASDs are the victims of such violence, not the people committing them."

While this statement is undoubtedly true, it avoids the issue: there are some people with ASD who have comorbid mental illness, and there may be a small number of those with the possibility of violence.

In a way, this is the same argument as one often hears in epidemiology regarding vaccines. Most people have no problem processing a multitude of vaccines - however, that statement doesn't undo the fact that it is possible for a small number of people to have significant complications from vaccines.

There was another recent case of violence in an adult with both autism and mental illness. Look up the case of Levi Staver, diagnosed with both ASD and schizophrenia. He killed his grandmother 12 days ago in response to the voices in his head. I've known Levi's mother for years; yes, he had a diagnosis of ASD and yes, he had a diagnosis of schizophrenia and yes, he suddenly committed an unspeakable act. It is rare...but it happens.

Cia

I am in total agreement with you but the word "study" itself is a misnomer. It is not testing something and it does not have a formal design: it is an early report - a review of patient data and history linked by a novel condition which needs further investigation, and says so.

I have probably slipped and used the word "study" once or twice as well but there is a very important distinction here.

John

Dr. Jay,

Dr. Andrew Wakefield readily acknowledged the Lancet paper for what it was: a good, descriptive case series of 12 children suffering from neurological and gastrointestinal disorder. It was never meant to prove whether MMR is unsafe and even included a disclaimer saying no link to MMR was proven. And now that the findings against Professor John Walker-Smith were overturned, so has the pretense for retracting it in the first place. Yet the Lancet keeps the paper retracted while refusing to give any justification for it. You, on the other hand, go further by putting your own spin on why the Lancet paper should not have been published.

This is not the first time you've done something like this. I remember two years ago when I busted vaccine lobby marionette Seth Mnookin's ties to Alison Singer's bogus autism charity/vaccine lobby front Autism "Science" Foundation through his uncle Robert Mnookin. Kev Leitch of LBRB responded that I "abused" Seth Mnookin for his "psychiatric disorder" when all I said was that Mnookin was a former drug dealer and burglar who bit a police officer; I didn't even bring up his drug addiction. You then showed up in the comments of both AoA and LBRB supporting Kev's deceptive blog post while linking to it. However, I did not hear a peep out of you when Seth Mnookin sent a tweet out to his thousands of followers making fun of Jenny McCarthy for her past experience with taking drugs. Yet her son was one of your patients.

It's quite amusing that you went on to "Penn & Teller: Bullsh*t!" only to get upset that your comment on camera, "I'm not saying children should not be vaccinated," was chopped at the beginning to make it look like you said "Children should not be vaccinated." Well, what do you expect when you agree to be interviewed by two pharma-tied pranksters who've tricked people into signing fake petitions for banning water? Exactly the kind of thing you can expect by going on their wretched show.

In fact, I remember reading a couple years ago a comment you left on "Science"Blogs telling the vaccine lobby's mainstay blogger David Gorski that you disregard everything that's written on AoA for our views on vaccines. So what are you even doing here? Why don't you go comment on "Science"Blogs instead, you fit in better over there anyway.

I am not an expert, but I have read the Lancet study. It was a small case study, and did not claim to be more than that. It reported on the children's developing alarming symtoms of autism and/or bowel disease within days or weeks of getting the MMR or measles vaccine. At the end, it said that it did not claim that the vaccine had caused the diseases, but that further study on the question was indicated. Is the most important thing not that these researchers were bringing to public notice an unusual and alarming close temporal association between the vaccine and the disorders? Is it not good that someone cared enough about children's health and wellbeing to point out that the vaccine might be having untoward and unexpected adverse consequences in some of those who received it? What should they have waited for before publishing it? The approval of the vaccine manufacturers?

Everyone now is terrified of measles, considering it a killer disease, because few young parents now had it themselves as children, so they just believe what they are told by Big Pharma about the dangers of the disease and the safety of the vaccine. I had measles when I was six, at a time when close to all children got it, all my cousins and classmates did, and no one was afraid of it. Dr. Halvorsen said in his book The Truth About Vaccines that the authorities had had a hard time convincing British parents in the '80s of the need for the vaccine, since nearly all parents at that time had had measles as children and knew it was not a disease to fear.

Why should we play their game? In this or any other respect? The Lancet study was approved by the hospital, the parents involved were happy and grateful for the medical attention given, the Lancet editorial board approved it, and there was no problem for years, until Brian Deer was set onto these researchers in order to falsely discredit them in order to save the reputation of the often devastatingly dangerous MMR. Do we have to always be diplomatic and give the devil his due?

Dear Dr Jay Gordon

You haven't explained your opposition the paper which was only an early report and was not many things that were later claimed. Can you say what it mis-reported? The judge who exonerated John Walker-Smith, Sir John Mitting, argued that there was a false statement about ethical approval, but there was surely only an ambiguity. The paper said there was ethical approval - there was indeed ethical approval for the investigations which needed it, there was no ethical approval for the paper which didn't. Overall, this is a very small point. The other things which were claimed against the paper were simply not true and Walker-Smith was its senior author: the two histopathologists wrote to the British Medical dismissing Brian Deer's interpretation of the histopathalogy results (and who was he to make one?). It remains an appalling slander that the data was manipulated. Nor was there was ever any claim in the paper that MMR was a cause of autism. It was not as the GMC/Deer claimed commissioned by the Legal Aid Board, and it was not as they claimed a flawed attempt at research protocol 172/96, which led to many separate erroneous findings against the three doctors.

You state that "Dr Wakefield himself acknowledges many of the flaws" but it is not clear what you are citing.

The nearest you get to making a specific claim is that Dr Wakefield failed to finish the study, but it wasn't ever a study, it was "an early report" and did not claim to be anything else. All this misreporting by other people than the authors of paper (including yourself) has had tragic consequences.

In particular we face a situation in the UK where people (children and adults) cannot get medical support for bowel disease associated with autism - we live in a phoney situation in which by repute (already dismissed in the High Court) the children in the paper did not have bowel disease, were not ill and did not need investigation. So please can we not perpetuate error.

John Stone, UK Editor, Age of Autism.

Most people who either praise or condemn Dr. Wakefield's Lancet paper have never read it. Dan, you and I have read it many times and discussed the study's methodology and conclusions with Andy face to face.

The MMR is not a good vaccine. The current vaccine schedule should be reevaluated and revised and research about vaccines and autism must continue.

But the paper published in the Lancet is badly flawed and cannot be the basis for my long-standing opposition to the way vaccines are manufactured, sold and administered. Dr. Wakefield, himself, readily acknowledges many of the flaws.

I don't believe the harsh criticism of Dr. Wakefield's motives. These critics are mean-spirited and unfair, but I believe that Dr. Wakefield and The Lancet erred in allowing his incomplete study to be published in the way it was.

Jay

Andrew Wakefield's crime wasn't the initial paper, it was his absolute unwillingness to back down when threatened by the medical mafia. They had to take him out, dissent will not be tolerated.

Doctor Gordon's statement says (in effect) that Dr Wakefield should have played the game. It's doubtful, but perhaps in some grand multi-level, three-steps-ahead strategy this might have made sense. However, Dr Wakefield isn't a gameplayer and God bless him for that.

In the meantime where do we stand? Parents no longer unquestionably accept a "required" 48 vaccines doses by age six, exemptions are increasing, the H1N1 vaccine bombed, Gardasil sales are disappointing, and new vaccines are met with skepticism. Parents are more reluctant to put their children on powerful psychotropics (euphemistically called "medication") for vague behavioral complaints. More and more parents are demanding that pediatricians allow parents their proper role in their children's healthcare decisions. Pharma's steady march to medicalize every aspect of our children's health may not have been rolled back, but it has been blunted.

This is a good thing for kids although it came at great personal cost for Dr Wakefield and his family.

I take back the first part of what I said. Jay Gordon isn't playing both sides of the fence. He's hopped the fence. Sharks on one side, dime a dozen cowards on the other.

My point being that vaccines can trigger those underlying pathogens - sorry it wasn't clear in my earlier comment. I am a firm believer that the real root cause will be vaccines

Dr. Gordon is playing both sides of the fence to save his own skin. In so doing, he betrays the truth, the public that he professes to serve and those with the guts and professional integrity to stand up for it. I have lost respect for Dr. Gordon. His name can be added to the long list of cowards who cave in to the pressure.

Be wary of such descriptions such as Sensory integration disorder or central sensitivity syndrome (CSS)they are just another Pscyh way of dismissing these real symptoms which have more to do with Neurology and less to do with Psych but more importantly what other assault other than Vaccine could be driving these symptoms in some of our children with Autism several Pathogens have been identified and some improvements have been made with appropriate antimicrobial treatments.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.