CryShame Response to BMJ Report
From UK's CryShame:
PARENTS OF AUTISTIC CHILDREN SPEAK OUT AGAINST BMJ CLAIMS THAT WAKEFIELD 'S RESEARCH WAS FRAUDULENT HERE WE GO AGAIN.
Once again, the BMJ gives a platform for Brian Deer's investigation of the research behind Dr Andrew Wakefield at el's 1998 Lancet paper. This time the BMJ editors criticise all 13 co-authors for failing to check the data, warn all medical researchers and ethics committees to check carefully before they publish, and urge scrutiny of all Wakefield published papers (presumably all 100 plus papers). The BMJ allies itself with Deer's potentially defamatory attack on Wakefield.
As in past publications, Deer's 'expose' rehashes material gleaned from confidential medical casenotes he obtained on 12 seriously disabled children, whose parents did not consent to their release. He refuses to disclose his sources, claiming confidentiality for his informants.
Now Deer uses revelations taken from the GMC hearing to elaborate his initial findings, which he submitted to the GMC, so starting the hearing which led to Dr Wakefield and Professor Walker-Smith being found guilty of serious professional misconduct and delicensed (subject to appeal to the High Court).
However, nothing in the latest revelations nor in the GMC findings changes the irreversible decline thousands of parents witnessed as they saw their children fall to autism after the MMR.
The BMJ editors' attack on Wakefield raises questions about their own ethical stance. As editors of one of the world's most respected medical scientific journals, they are duty bound to scientific ethics that demand full disclosure of research findings and protection of the identity of patients used in research. Yet the editors publish the findings of an investigative journalist who refuses to disclose the sources of the children's confidential notes and is content to publish confidential medical and legal details of disabled child patients.
Though Deer and the BMJ editors hope the GMC findings are the final word on the MMR-autism saga, they should remember that
- the children's GPs and consultants who appeared for the GMC prosecution were recounting events that took place 15 or more years ago
- discrepancies in medical notes are not unusual and would probably be found in any randomly accessed medical records were they subject to the intense and prolonged scrutiny the Lancet children's notes underwent since 2004 when GMC began its investigations
- medical science is not an exact science and often relies on expert interpretations of data where no clear cut interpretation exists. The discrepancies and anomalies Deer reveals are not unusual, especially in the field of gastroenterology. This is why Walker-Smith, the senior author, set up rigorous cross checks and controls for the pathology findings, and why he sought independent high level expertise to reach final judgments on differences in interpreting pathology findings
- variations in what doctors wrote and in what they said under cross-examination at the GMC may explain the discrepancies Deer – who has no medical expertise whatsoever ‒ makes so much of
- likewise diagnoses of autism are subject to interpretations which frequently differ between clinicians
- given these uncertainties, the BMJ should offer Wakefield the right of reply on grounds of fairness and even-handedness
- to refuse this is to seek to foreclose a medical debate which will continue until an alternative and more rigorous explanation for regression following MMR is given.
- To date there is no agreed scientific explanation for the regression many parents of autistic children have witnessed.
The BMJ editors and Deer fail to point out that the 5-page paper was a small case series of findings of 12 children with autism and bowel disease which the Lancet placed in its 'early report' section. It was no more than a record of clinical findings of sick children treated at the Royal Free Hospital in the mid-1990s. These studies have a legitimate place in medical science in bringing to public attention new conditions (eg autism associated with bowel disease), reviewing the clinical evidence and commenting on hypotheses. Their role is to pave the way for further more rigorous research.
The link between MMR and autism/bowel disease was carefully couched as one of a number of hypotheses the paper reviewed. The MMR hypothesis had appeared in medical journals before. As the paper's aim was to review possible environmental triggers for the association between autism and bowel disease, the authors were duty bound to record the accounts of the parents of eight children that the onset of autism followed MMR. However, the paper expressly stated We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described (p.164), and recommended further research into this possibility ‒ a responsible and legitimate conclusion to reach.
Deer and the BMJ coin the term 'Piltdown medicine' to dismiss the paper and its authors. Not once do the editors refer to the testimony of parents who witnessed their children's regression following MMR. Such testimony is dismissed as parental 'beliefs'. Many thousands of parents have shared the same story via social networks, email groups, Facebook, etc. The temporal association between MMR and autism clearly does not in itself demonstrate a causal relationship. But neither is it an association to be dismissed. There has been no substantial scientific study of autistic regression following MMR based on parental interviews. Instead parental accounts are dismissed as anecdote. Yet the frequency of these accounts represents a pattern deserving of serious research.
Deer, the GMC, Lancet and BMJ are hell bent on erasing Wakefield's work from the historical record.
The GMC hearing declined the offers of parents to testify before it and staff refused to submit a letter from the parents of eight Lancet children supporting Drs Wakefield, Walker-Smith and Murch's work and ethical care.
The phenomenal growth in autistic children ‒ from one in 2000 in 1987 to one in 64 today ‒ is of epidemic proportions and cannot all be explained away as improvements in diagnosis. No one, least of all Deer and the BMJ editors, can explain why the tragedy of autistic regression is happening to children and families.
A state of denial continues to silence the medical profession and government, whilst our children suffer in silence. Parents who speak out are dismissed by the BMJ and GMC and ridiculed as attention-seekers by Deer on his website and the many blogs he inhabits. Yet both parties are neglectful of the role played by parents of autistic children and the responsibilities they shoulder.
Thanks, AoA, for sharing this very important information, and thanks, CryShame, for writing it!
Posted by: Twyla | January 09, 2011 at 03:00 PM
You know, deeply held beliefs are difficult to change. It's human nature. There is even new research out that suggests the belief that one is right stimulates the brain in much the same way as does ingesting addictive substances. Maybe some people are addicted to their deeply help beliefs. Beating addiction is difficult.
Posted by: Kent | January 09, 2011 at 01:50 PM
Who paid for Brian Deer’s BMJ Articles?
Quote from above article-read the rest!!
"The British Medical Journal is in it for the money, what other reasons would they have to promote vaccines as safe and discredit a medical doctor?"
Posted by: Jenny Allan | January 07, 2011 at 05:54 PM
I've read the patent applications. One puts anything possible into the claims to protect future developments, and there was no actual development of a measles vaccine given in the patent applications. And, as pointed out earlier, the Royal Free held the rights - i.e. the leadership of the Royal Free most likely knew of, and paid for, the application. Obviously, they scurried like cowards and ignored involvement when Big Pharma noticed...it is "Wakefield's patent".
By the way, I am inventor of a patent that I do not own the rights to, and have been a consultant on patent issues (not in the medical field, thank God).
Regarding Mr. Deer: the man doth protest too much, me thinks...
Posted by: George | January 07, 2011 at 02:14 PM
Jeana, what's with the snark? It doesn't help your cause any. No body asked you to come here. We all have to deal with autism, be we on the spectrum or have children who are. Insulting one another is not going to help anything! Can you not agree to disagree and come together with us to figh tfor the things we DO agree on?
Why is this such a hard concept to grasp?! There is no reason to get ugly with the parents here! They just want what is best for their kids, the same as everyone else! How awful?!! Oh the horror!! *rolls eyes*
Posted by: Theodora Trudorn | January 07, 2011 at 10:23 AM
About Dr. Poul Thorsen. What happened there? I've been trying to verify the claim that he was under investigation, of some sort, for fraud with money? Is that true? Links and references?
I know about the deliberate mixup of data.
Posted by: Paul Bergstrom | January 07, 2011 at 06:42 AM
"If you were a doctor counseling nervous parents about using the MMR with their infant, would'nt you like to be able to offer that there was an antidote in the case of such an adverse reaction."
Yes I would. I guess it was a natural idea coming from the research he was involved in. I also guess this is evolvement is very common in science.
Posted by: Paul Bergstrom | January 07, 2011 at 06:37 AM
"77 percent of those affected in the recent New York and New Jersey outbreak were immunized"
Interesting. When was this?
Posted by: Paul Bergstrom | January 07, 2011 at 06:16 AM
Thank you very much. That was a good article. I've been fighting this thing with a few journalists back in Sweden. When I heard of this patent it was disturbing. It was completely new to me. But his answer is good.
I wonder if you could help me get in contact with him? When I suggested to journalist that they should contact him directly they said it was either difficult or that they tried but didn't succeed. If I can just send him a short 'hello' mail back and forth then I can prove it's fully possible. And perhaps ask him if any journalist from Sweden did try.
Posted by: Paul Bergstrom | January 07, 2011 at 06:15 AM
Janea Fartnag, you don't know what you're talking about.
Posted by: Twyla | January 07, 2011 at 03:12 AM
Your comment is so unoriginal with the typical and uncreative "playboy model", "hypocritical"....poor attempts at sarcasm....etc etc.
We are all here as parents, grandparents, caregivers, researchers, doctors, teachers and concerned people. Your comment does nothing but use the same, old typical tactics to try and stop the truth. It reeks of desperation and shows an unconcern for the focus here - sick children. Your defense of Brian Deer makes that very obvious.
Posted by: Teresa Conrick | January 06, 2011 at 11:59 PM
In addition to Laney's Mom's comment, from reading the "vaccine" patent application, one can clearly see that it would serve foremost as a treatment for a persistent measles infection whether vaccine strain or wild strain. Some children/adults being immunocompromised for whatever reason cannot effectively clear either form of viral exposure and this particular invention addressed that susceptability. It appeared to be able to transfer one person's effective cell-mediated immune response to these viruses to another person.
The patent rights up until 2001 were owned by the Royal Free Hospital. The political fallout from any implication that measles- containing vaccines causing persistent infection and intestinal pathology in need of a remedy forced the Royal Free to abandon the invention.
From reading the patent application, it is not difficult to imagine that it could have co-existed with the MMR vaccine and even served as an antidote to inadvertant persistent infections that developed into a pathological condition--a pathological condition that has been identified in replicated, published studies.
If you were a doctor counseling nervous parents about using the MMR with their infant, would'nt you like to be able to offer that there was an antidote in the case of such an adverse reaction.
Posted by: Donna K | January 06, 2011 at 11:12 PM
"Deer – who has no medical expertise whatsoever ‒ makes so much of..."
Yet. AoA bases its non-case on the word of playboy models and mothers without medical or scientific education.
Wow, not only is AoA the land of conspiracy theorists, it's the land of hypocrites too.
Posted by: jc | January 06, 2011 at 10:52 PM
You know, creating a new vaccine is quite a complicated process these days. You don't whip them up on a dirty lab bench anymore. It requires millions, at least, of dollars, lots of resources. Wakefield wasn't cooking up a new vaccine in a beaker and Brian Deer knows this.
Posted by: Carol | January 06, 2011 at 10:52 PM
I agree that the implication of a vaccine patent leaves a bad taste in the mouth but Dr. Wakefiled's patent was for a mmr transfer factor, not a vaccine. The transfer factor would have allowed susceptible kids to be vaccinated with at least a little less risk (it would allow their bodies to process the vaccine more efficiently.)
Posted by: Laney's Mom | January 06, 2011 at 09:49 PM
I get so frustrated that people think the only reason one would be wary of vaccines is because of what Andrew Wakefield published. I knew nothing of this guy and came to my own conclusions about vaccine safety based on reading the ingredients and noting the numerous studies that *have not* been done yet around vaccines...like a comparison study of vax'd to unvax'd kids...or a study of the safety of giving 9 shots in one sitting.... No thanks...
Andrew Wakefield could be the biggest fraud that ever was born, but it would not matter to me one bit with regards to vaccines and my perceived safety of them. (As it is, I am sure he is just a convenient target for the pro-vaccine agenda.)
Posted by: Ingrid Johanns | January 06, 2011 at 09:43 PM
@Paul Bergstrom: The alleged "alternative vaccine" was actually a transfer factor, meant to treat persistent measles infection in the gut. The Royal Free Hospital was the patent owner, not Wakefield. The transfer factor did not work as hoped, and it was not pursued further.
Posted by: Kristina | January 06, 2011 at 09:34 PM
Wakefields book tells much of it:
Wakefield's Book - Callous Disregard: Autism and Vaccines: The Truth Behind a Tragedy
Callous Disregard: Autism and Vaccines: The Truth Behind a Tragedy
Andrew J. Wakefield (Author)
IN UK order here http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1616081694/wellwithin-21/202-2017433-621340
AND this website
EXCELLENT site the re-creates the whole story
It is complicated and hard to get across to people in sound bites
So many lies
And this video with Wakefield
Video transcripts: Dr Andrew Wakefield - In His own words
Posted by: Sheri Nakken, former RN, MA | January 06, 2011 at 09:33 PM
Wakefield developing a vaccine? the wording does say vaccine but it is NOT a vaccine to prevent an illness like the MMR is supposed to do.
It is to treat and eliminate remaining MMR & measles virus.
As you can see from the below, what was being done with this transfer factor, treating MMR or measles that was already there, does not fit the definition of vaccine
Wakefield is accused of dissing the MMR so he could sell his own single measles vaccine which 'they' say this is. This is created as a treatment not as a prevention as a vaccine usually is (although nowadays they are creating cancer treating vaccines).
But you are right that it says vaccine in there but it is not what is implied about him
And also the patent is in the name of the Royal Free, not Wakefield
Usual definition of vaccine is:
Vaccination: Injection of a killed microbe in order to stimulate the immune system against the microbe, thereby preventing disease. Vaccinations, or immunizations, work by stimulating the immune system, the natural disease-fighting system of the body. The healthy immune system is able to recognize invading bacteria and viruses and produce substances (antibodies) to destroy or disable them. Immunizations prepare the immune system to ward off a disease. To immunize against viral diseases, the virus used in the vaccine has been weakened or killed. To only immunize against bacterial diseases, it is generally possible to use a small portion of the dead bacteria to stimulate the formation of antibodies against the whole bacteria. In addition to the initial immunization process, it has been found that the effectiveness of immunizations can be improved by periodic repeat injections or "boosters." Also see Vaccines (in the plural) and Vaccine of a specific type (such Vaccine, Polio).
Posted by: Sheri Nakken, RN, MA | January 06, 2011 at 09:28 PM
@Paul, here is a news article regarding the reported alternative vaccine that was nothing of the sort.
Posted by: Curtis | January 06, 2011 at 09:22 PM
Could Age of Autism please clarify the issue about the alleged patent and development (back in 1997?) of a new vaccine by Dr Wakefield? It's a bit disturbing information that I didn't knew about.
Posted by: Paul Bergstrom | January 06, 2011 at 08:19 PM
@Janea Farntaag -- "disgusted at the money, time, and resources wasted on this bullshit study that could have been used to investigate the REAL causes of autism" -- the waste is more likely the media resources and judicial review process devoted to gross mis-characeterization of the case series (not a study) (also not heavily funded, as is the attack media and the bmj) -- to discard any piece of the puzzle that might potentially lead to preventing autism is unconscionable.
Posted by: Rob | January 06, 2011 at 08:02 PM
It's obvious that "someone" is purposely trying to repeatedly say that Andrew Wakefield is fraudulent in hopes that others believe it. I am so sick of seeing the same thing over and over. I am not stupid. It doesn't take a genius to notice that the media isn't publicizing all the news, just what "someone" wants them to. "We" now talk to each other by word-of-mouth to learn the truth, and no longer rely on the unreliable newspapers and TV news. My children are recovered from autism, which can only be done by knowing much of what is truth and what is a farce to make money. "We" stand by Andrew Wakefield because he has the guts to be honest and the morality to be truthful rather than greedy.
Posted by: Heidi N | January 06, 2011 at 07:27 PM
They keep trying to make this about Dr. Wakefield. Can they be that obtuse that they think this entire uproar, the decreased uptake rates, and the legions of angry parents are all driven by that single, little old paper? No matter how much they pummel Andy Wakefield, to quote Dr. Verstraeten, “it just won’t go away”. Get a clue einsteins, Wakefield is just the tip of the iceberg.
Posted by: Jeff C. | January 06, 2011 at 05:56 PM
Confused - I loved your post, especially this part:
"In the land of Big Pharma - it seems life is grand, you never do no wrong or harm, nothing serious is ever linked to your products, anyone who disagrees with what your studies show is automatically reprimanded, disciplined, or blasted. And even if someone is able to prove your product harmed them they don't have to pay a dime, that's for the taxpayers. Wow. What a nice world they live in. I'm confused how we've all allowed this to go on for so very long."
I'm confused too.
Posted by: Parent | January 06, 2011 at 05:07 PM
Reading Deer's report, I feel like I'm reading one of those one word movie reviews: "Astonishing!"
Take Child 11. According to Deer, Wakefield and company tried to misrepresent a chest infection as a behavioral symptom in Table 2. However this chest infection is listed under "Features associated with exposure" and is characterized as "recurrent 'viral pneumonia' for 8 weeks following MMR." Wakefield et al. are singularly lousy at disguising things.
Deer goes on to make a case that according to Child 11's discharge summary (done by David Casson), his behavioral problems actually occurred in the 13-18 month period, too early, at 13 months, to be caused by his MMR at 15 months.
However in _Callous Disregard_, Wakefield says that Child 11 came with a history of developmental regression (including loss of speech, repetitive hand movements and reduced eye contact) starting at 18 months of age. (p. 39, hardcover) If Wakefield really wanted to misrepresent this child's symptoms, why didn't he move them closer to the 15-month MMR?
Poor Child 11 had completely lost speech by 30 months of age and at 3 had the cognitive functioning of a 6-month-old. But I'm sure that was going to happen anyway. Bad genes probably.
Deer doesn't provide us with a link to the full Lancet paper (only the abstract) so here's the paper in its entirety:
Posted by: Carol | January 06, 2011 at 04:17 PM
Jeana F., I "work" with austistic children, too. All day. Every day. The difference between you and me? I'm watching them recover from vaccine damage with non-pharmaceutical interventions. And the only ones I "speak for" are the ones who are not sufficiently recovered to speak for themselves yet.
As Jen already stated, if you're offended by the AoA presumption that recovery is possible, perhaps you'd be more comfortable at the rightbrain/leftbrain web pages. I'm just glad the kids I know aren't under your care.
Posted by: Zed | January 06, 2011 at 04:16 PM
I would invite you over our home to meet our son, who was a very healthy child prior to four vaccinations (seven counting the three from the MMR) in one day, and suffered for the following three days. We then lost him to autism and were told our only option was to institutionalize our son.
At the NAA conference in Nov. my wife and I spoke with Dr. Wakefield, thanked him for his work and told him that our son was now attending college. After almost seventeen years of trying to medically treat his illnesses, obtain the suppports and services he needed, we wanted to express our appreciation to one of the men who made our son's progress from severe autism to a young man who enjoys life and inspires others a possibility.
He then wrote a short personal note in one of his books and asked us to give it to our son. He did not want us to buy the book though we insisted, that is the kind of man he is. He's been portrayed as something he is not, has provided a path for families like ours, often spending countless hours answering questions, working away from his family, and trying to just help. Why can't that be what is believed? Especially by those that don't even take the time to read his book?
For this to be happening, after all of the unjustices in the world that are not address daily, is horrific for our family to witness. We cannot imagine what Dr. Wakefield and his family must be experiencing daily. It's actually painful because in our minds a man like Dr. Wakefield should be walking across a stage and accepting a Noble Prize in Medicine.
Please also don't continue to insult us that have seen this happen before our eyes and can show you before and after videos and medical documentation.
With much respect to Age of Autism for addressing this.
Posted by: Andrew Gammicchia | January 06, 2011 at 04:06 PM
Re: comment by Janea Farntaag
“We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described. Virological studies are underway that may help to resolve this issue…Further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome and its possible relation to this vaccine.” Wakefield et al 1998.
Sounds like science, looks like science, smells like science---it is science!!
Posted by: Jim Thompson | January 06, 2011 at 03:38 PM
Janea, as someone who does work with children with autism I am completely disgusted by the bullshit that passes for research when it comes to vaccines and autism. I weep for the lack of a simple vaccinated VS un-vaccinated study. I do agree that we need more resources, as getting these kids as independent as possible is important.
I wouldn't be so smug about your assertions on causality where autism is concerned. The genetic crap doesn't look promising at all ( seriously, now THAT is a waste of money). Why look at how the etiology for MS has changed in just the last year. A simple vein un-blocking surgery has turned the original views on MS cause on it's head. If you're so worried
that age of autism doesn't speak for you then just don't visit!
Posted by: Jen | January 06, 2011 at 03:10 PM
Quote from Brian Deer regarding the removal of legal aid from a large number of autistic children with bowel disease who attempted to obtain compensation for alleged MMR vaccine damage:-
"legal aid was mysteriously taken away"..... It followed the exchange of reports. In fact, having read them, I defy anyone with an IQ greater than their waist measurement to study those documents and not come to the conclusion that the Wakefield case was a bust."
I have come across a few 'studies' which attempt to link IQ to bust measurement,(the larger the bust the smaller the IQ); but a link between IQ and waist measurement is a new one on me.
How about another article in the BMJ about this Mr Deer, or even a whole series?? Maybe I am being facetious, but then, I always believed that the BMJ was supposed to be a platform for properly QUALIFIED medical and scientific opinions and research.
Posted by: Jenny Allan | January 06, 2011 at 01:42 PM
Enough said right? Apparently not...apparently independent people doing like science doesn't mean much...or could the real movitation be low uptake of flu vaccines, and hearing of gardasil deaths, a little too close to comfort? I mean, if you escape the "autism in child" card, you may not be able to escape the, omg, my teenage daughter is dead now because of Gardasil, or geez, alzheimers by flu vaccine? I mean, when it hits YOUR doorstep, it's not so distant anymore is it?
Panenteric IBD-like disease in a patient with regressive autism shown for the first time by wireless capsulenteroscopy: Another piece in the jig-saw of the gut-brain syndrome?
Balzola F, et al.
American Journal of Gastroenterology. 2005. 100(4):979-981.
Endoscopic and Histological Characteristics of the Digestive Mucosa in Autistic Children with gastro-Intestinal Symptoms.
Gonzalez L, et al.
ArchVenez Pueric Pediatr, 2005;69:19-25.
Posted by: kathy blanco | January 06, 2011 at 01:24 PM
As someone who has worked with autistic children, I'm absolutely disgusted at the money, time, and resources wasted on this bullshit study that could have been used to investigate the REAL causes of autism. I weep for the parents of autistic children that these anti-vaccine people are diverting much-needed resources from research and care provision.
DO NOT purport to speak for all the parents and caregivers of autistic children, because YOU DO NOT. It offends me that you suggest you do.
Posted by: Janea Farntaag | January 06, 2011 at 01:01 PM
@ Fred - according to Dictionary.com the definition of lunatic is:
1. an insane person.
2. a person whose actions and manner are marked by extreme eccentricity or recklessness.
3. a person legally declared to be of unsound mind and who therefore is not held capable or responsible before the law.
I'm sorry but people who are trying to make whats wrong right don't seem to fit the definition of a lunatic. You seem to have gotten the two confused, its the Big Pharma drug cartels who are lunatics, or in my opinion, homicidal maniacs.
Posted by: EyesWideOpen | January 06, 2011 at 11:56 AM
I'm curious about two things:
First, why yesterday to come out with 'breaking news', regarding Wakefield? This seems to be old news, something that broke a long time ago. I'm wondering, could it be some sort of tactic to get the masses focusing on something else other than dead animals appearing all over the world?
Second, if we're playing the blame game then why just focus on Wakefield? Dr. Poul Thorsen isn't mentioned, I mean, after-all, if we want to discuss fraudulent studies or behavior then it would only be natural to blast him. Scratching my head wondering why CNN isn't reporting this too? In reality, Dr. Wakefield never stated there was a link between vaccines and Autism, only a common thread between MMR and gut issues in Autistic children. However, Dr. Poul Thorsen on the other hand, actually played a hand in falsifying a study that said there was no link between vaccines and Autism.
So, if I understand correctly, we have one doctor who has been repeatedly blasted for finding a link between gut issues and MMR and we have another doctor who was proved to be fraudulent in his findings that vaccines don't cause Autism and no one is reporting via mainstream?? No reason, right, to sweep one under the rug and blast the other?
In the land of Big Pharma - it seems life is grand, you never do no wrong or harm, nothing serious is ever linked to your products, anyone who disagrees with what your studies show is automatically reprimanded, disciplined, or blasted. And even if someone is able to prove your product harmed them they don't have to pay a dime, that's for the taxpayers. Wow. What a nice world they live in. I'm confused how we've all allowed this to go on for so very long.
Posted by: Confused | January 06, 2011 at 11:48 AM
Thanks to Cryshame for this lucid account of what has been happening - or NOT happening better said. It is shocking that parents were denied the chance to give their account at the GMC of what they saw happen to their children. The description of symptoms from parents should be the basis of diagnosis.
This move by the BMJ is a continuation of the attempt to discredit the findings of Andrew Wakefield and his colleagues. He asked for further research into the combined MMR vaccine. He was right to do so. It still hasn't been done and children continue to be damaged.
I agree with ZED - "Could it be that the pharmaceutical bottom-line is being harmed by too many parents who are finally waking up?"
They are terrified that at last the harmful synergistic effect of mixing vaccines might be uncovered.
Posted by: Seonaid | January 06, 2011 at 11:43 AM
John, it is way over the top . I'm surprised they haven't tried to be-head him at the tower. I think it will make them look bad and cause some of the other researchers to speak out.
Posted by: Jen | January 06, 2011 at 11:11 AM
"PARENTS OF AUTISTIC CHILDREN SPEAK OUT AGAINST BMJ CLAIMS THAT WAKEFIELD 'S RESEARCH WAS FRAUDULENT HERE WE GO AGAIN."
I could say the exact same thing of Brian Deer! The man is obsessed with Wakefield!! It's getting creepy! Didn't he get what he wanted?! What else does he want with him?! Unless I'm right, of course. In which case is beyond the creepy-o-meter! Seriously, does the man have no hobbies?! Doesn't he do anything else other than write about Wakefield?!
Talk about beating a dead horse to the point of no recongnition!!
Posted by: Theodora Trudorn | January 06, 2011 at 11:07 AM
The more they bring it up the more vaccines is linked to autism becomes, the better it is for the truth to come out, even for those not all that interested and just half listening.
the lunatics as Fred calls them is what all liars do when caught, they think if they repeat the lie enough it will get people to believe them. That is just Human nature, and since we are all human we pretty much are atuned to that part of human nature and how liars act..
Posted by: Benedetta | January 06, 2011 at 10:50 AM
I am sure the reason for the BMJ's theoretical independence from the BMA is supposedly to guard it from undue political influence - just as the courts are supposed to be seperate from executive government.
There are, I think, other big issues: advertising as usual, the fact that the journal does view its role as political and polemical as well as scientific. One particularly absurd feature of the present debacle is the corny, sub-Chandleresque reporting style of of the journalist, and the fact that he not only gets to write the report, he also get a knock-about editorial in support of himself.
I think it is way over-the-top and I wonder whether many regular readers, not particularly sympathetic to AW will not feel that journal has debased itself, and looks rather absurd.
Posted by: John Stone | January 06, 2011 at 09:59 AM
Fred, who are the lunatics who brought this matter up YET AGAIN? Will they ever give up?
Could it be that the pharmaceutical bottom-line is being harmed by too many parents who are finally waking up? Nah, guess not. Just "bad science" on the part of a man who NEVER EVEN SAID the things he's being accused of.
Posted by: Zed | January 06, 2011 at 09:53 AM
From the "About"page at BMJ:
"The BMA grants editorial freedom to the editor of the BMJ. The views expressed in the journal are those of the authors and may not necessarily comply with BMA policy."
In other words, if the editor so chooses, authors of articles can make it up as they go along whether it is valid or fictitious and it will still be published.
The truly sad state of affairs is that major media has taken hold of this article as if it were written by someone with ethics, expertise or integrity. Guess they don't read the fine print any more than vaccine pushers do.
Posted by: GrammaKnows | January 06, 2011 at 09:21 AM
Give up? Give up what exactly Freddy boy? Giving up is not an option when you have to wake up everyday and care for a child with severe autism and bowell disease. Since my daughter was treated for her bowell disease by doctors who took time to listen to us and investigate the problem, my daughter has improved significantly and I will tell every parent that I meet whose child is devasted by this man made disorder to do the same. What I have given up is giving idiots like youself the time of day.
Posted by: Mike | January 06, 2011 at 08:49 AM
It seems that "Mr 11," described by Mr. Deer as the father of case 11 and an Amercian egineer, uses UK syntax in sentences to a letter to Mr. Deer--as quoted in the BMJ feature of 1-5-2011(i.e. "His motives for this I may never know.")
There seems to be no peer review by the BMJ regarding Mr. 11 (i.e. the Fiona Godlee report of 1-7-2011).
And how much financial gain does the Sunday times get from Pharma from this reporting by Mr. Deer?
Posted by: Jim Thompson | January 06, 2011 at 08:38 AM
Fred, are you talking to us??? Sadly, it is the medical professionals, Brian Deer, the BMJ and apparently YOU who are the lunatics. Why do you think that the controversy continues... Here's a hint. It isn't because Wakefield is a fraud. As much as "they" (the professionals) want to make this about Wakefield... it isn't about him. The reason the controversy continues is because thousands of parents know that he is right and you are very wrong.
Posted by: A Friend | January 06, 2011 at 08:38 AM
when are you lunatics going to give up ?
Posted by: Fred Morgensson | January 06, 2011 at 07:54 AM