The BIG Lie – Wakefield Lancet Paper Alleged Fraud – Was Not Possible For Anyone To Commit
Managing Editor's Note: The following is from ChildHealthSafety in the UK. You may comment on their site and comment here as well. Share this post (Here's a link) to your media contacts, family, friends. Scroll down to read more about vaccine injury, science, media and government attention, including US Vaccine Court awards for injury to American children. Thank you.
Central to the latest claims of journalist Brian Deer published in the British Medical Journal 6th January is the allegation that Dr Wakefield “altered numerous facts about the patients’ medical histories in order to support his claim to have identified a new syndrome.“
What Deer and the BMJ fail to point out is that not only did Wakefield not produce the results, which were the work of a team of 12 other specialists at the Royal Free Hospital, London, England but that:-
It was not possible for Wakefield or anyone else to falsify the prior clinical records of the children because no one at the Royal Free Hospital London had them nor is it normal practice for them to have had them. So there could be no fraud over “altering” those histories. It just was not possible.
Deer’s claims focus on what he claims to be discrepancies between:
- clinical medical histories taken at the Royal Free Hospital and
- the NHS/General Practitioner and other records of the child patients concerned taken over some years by various different family doctors and other child health professionals (eg. health visitors).
Deer and BMJ fail to make clear that
- as is common and normal practice those records were not provided to the Royal Free Team
- it is normal practice to take a medical history afresh – with only the referral letter from a patient’s family doctor setting out relevant prior clinical history.
- a child’s history is taken from accounts given by the parents
- where a history is taken from a parent it common for that parent to be unaware of what a GP may have entered [and probably more importantly, failed to enter] in prior NHS & in other child records and medical notes
- those records and notes [which can be created over years by numerous individuals] may not be reliable – hence the need to take a clinical history afresh
- the Royal Free diagnoses were made independently and afresh by specialists in their fields who would not rely on prior diagnoses of GPs or others – for obvious reasons
Over and above all this, as no parent was called by the GMC prosecutor in the GMC hearings [bar the one who thought the evidence was given for the Defendants' benefit], there has been no opportunity for the parents to answer Mr Deer’s allegations or to challenge what he says nor has there been any proper full examination of these cherry-picked allegations, nor any opportunity for any claims now being made to be subject to cross-examination and independent investigation.
Additionally, one of the witnesses in the GMC proceedings against Dr Wakefield writing to the British Medical Journal confirmed the validity of the histopathology on which the paper was based and illustrated how Sunday Times journalist Brian Deer had misrepresented her evidence. Dr Susan E Davies, Consultant Histopathologist, Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge stated in the British Medical Journal regarding a BMJ article by Brian Deer that:
There is some misrepresentation …. and lack of understanding of the process in studies involving histopathology.” and that there were significant findings “While a clinical gastroenterologist might consider caecal active inflammation with incipient crypt abscess formation to be normal in children (1), this is a significant finding to be recorded by pathologists“ “Caution in assessing histopathological opinions.” BMJ Rapid Responses 30 April 2010.
The other significant flaw in these lies is that if the paper were a fraud, how is it that the findings are now being accepted by the US Government and mainstream medicine.
Nowhere is this made clearer than in the US National Autism Association’s News Release 5th January exclusively to the UK media [full text & full references pasted below]:-
In summary what NAA state in their UK news release is that if the 1998 Lancet paper’s results were faked how is it that now Dr Wakefield’s work is being proven right:-
- US Government health officials have admitted vaccines [and not just the MMR vaccine] cause autistic conditions;
- the US Federal Court has ordered substantial compensation for children whose autistic conditions were caused by vaccines;
- papers published independently in mainstream leading medical journals confirm, just as Dr Wakefield found in 1998, that autistic children suffer serious bowel disease when their non autistic contemporaries do not.
See also [posted 7 Jan]:
CNN Interview – Andrew Wakefield Replies to Autism Fraud Allegations
NEWS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – REBUTTAL
January 5th 2011 – Nixa, Missouri USA/ British Medical Journal claims to be published Friday 6th January 2011 that the suggestion of a possible link between vaccines, bowel conditions and autistic conditions in children was “an elaborate fraud” are directly contradicted by:-
public statements by officials of US Federal Agencies made on US national news broadcast television that vaccines in general [ie not just the MMR vaccine] can cause autistic conditions;
- by a line of recent mainstream research papers showing that
- instead of being rare as claimed by government health officials autistic children are more likely to have mitochondrial dysfunctions which can lead to autistic conditions following vaccination
and by the latest medical research [including Jan 2010 Pediatrics] and by a substantial body of prior peer reviewed papers showing that autistic children have substantially higher rates of bowel disease than other children
this published medical evidence confirms the early report in The Lancet medical journal in 1998 by a 13 strong team of medical experts from the internationally renowned Royal Free Hospital London.
- by three US Federal court decisions Poling, Zeller and Banks that vaccines have been proven to have caused autistic conditions:-
- [NB These are in addition to 1322 cases of serious brain injuries and medical conditions caused by vaccines which the US HRSA admits compensating. It is troubling that children susceptible to serious vaccine injury are not being screened out of the vaccine programmes and nothing is being done to save such children.]
Wendy Fournier of the US National Autism Association said:
“Despite mounting scientific evidence worldwide confirming the presence of serious bowel disease in some children diagnosed with autism and evidence of a causal association with vaccines, health officials and medical professionals internationally continue to spin, deny and suppress the evidence,” said NAA president Wendy Fournier. ”This latest attack by the UK medical profession through a journalist, who apparently has no source of income besides stories about Andrew Wakefield, is a continuing denial and failure to investigate either the contrary evidence that exists or the clinical histories of millions of children currently diagnosed with autism worldwide.”
One in 64 British children and one in 110 children in the US are now diagnosed with autism. ”Increasing rates of autism in children are out of control,” commented Ms. Fournier. ”Despite this pandemic, health officials and medical professionals continue to bury their heads in the sand while children and families suffer. The link between vaccines and the development of autism in susceptible individuals is not going away, because the children are not going away.”
NOTES TO EDITORS
- Public Statements By US Agencies And Officials confirming autistic conditions are caused by vaccines
- Details of US Federal Court cases finding autistic conditions caused by vaccines
- research confirming the 1998 Lancet paper early study highlighting a link between autistic conditions and serious bowel conditions was correct
Public Statements By US Agencies & Officials:-
“Now, we all know that vaccines can occasionally cause fevers in kids. So if a child was immunized, got a fever, had other complications from the vaccines. And if you’re predisposed with the mitochondrial disorder, it can certainly set off some damage. Some of the symptoms can be symptoms that have characteristics of autism. “
HOUSE CALL WITH DR. SANJAY GUPTA – Unraveling the Mystery of Autism; Talking With the CDC Director; Stories of Children with Autism; Aging with Autism – Aired March 29, 2008 – 08:30
A new paper in Journal of American Medical Association confirms [contrary to US health officials claims] that mitochondrial dysfunction is not rare but common in children like 9 year old US girl Hannah Poling. The new paper confirms these children:
“were more likely to have mitochondrial dysfunction, mtDNA overreplication, and mtDNA deletions than typically developing children.“
Mitochondrial Dysfunction in Autism JAMA. 2010;304(21):2389-2396. doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.1706
That this can occur was also confirmed in a peer reviewed medical paper about Hannah Poling’s condition in the Journal of Child Neurology which states:-
Young children who have dysfunctional cellular energy metabolism therefore might be more prone to undergo autistic regression between 18 and 30 months of age if they also have infections or immunizations at the same time.
Developmental Regression and Mitochondrial Dysfunction in a Child With Autism (Journal of Journal of Child Neurology / Volume 21, Number 2, February 2006)
It was conceded by US officials that Hannah Poling had a mitochondrial dysfunction.
2) That Autistic conditions can result from vaccination was confirmed by the US Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) to Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News in relation to 1322 cases of vaccine injury compensation settled out of court by the US Government in unpublished settlements [see text of email exchanges between US HRSA and Attkisson - attached]:-
“We have compensated cases in which children exhibited an encephalopathy, or general brain disease. Encephalopathy may be accompanied by a medical progression of an array of symptoms including autistic behavior, autism, or seizures.”
Vaccine Case: An Exception Or A Precedent? – First Family To Have Autism-Related Case “Conceded” Is Just One Of Thousands – CBS News By Sharyl Attkisson WASHINGTON, March 6, 2008
It should be noted that the US Government admits to compensating 1322 children who developed very serious medical conditions following brain damage caused by vaccines.
3) Dr Bernadine Healy a former Director of the US National Institutes of Health, responsible for US$ 30.5 billion annual budget expenditure on health research stated to CBS news:-
“I think that the public health officials have been too quick to dismiss the hypothesis as irrational,” Healy said.
“But public health officials have been saying they know, they’ve been implying to the public there’s enough evidence and they know it’s not causal,” Attkisson said.
“I think you can’t say that,” Healy said. “You can’t say that.”
CBS News Exclusive: Leading Dr.: Vaccines-Autism Worth Study Former Head Of NIH Says Government Too Quick To Dismiss Possible Link – WASHINGTON, May 12, 2008
Dr Healy is is a Harvard and Johns Hopkins educated physician, cardiologist and former head of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). She has been a professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins, professor and dean of the College of Medicine and Public Health at the Ohio State University, and served as president of the American Red Cross.
4) And the large increases in autistic conditions cannot be being caused by genetics was confirmed by Dr Francis Collins the current 16th Director of the US$ 30.5 billion annual budget US National Institutes of Health and a leading medical doctor and geneticist who led the Human Genome Project.
When Director of the US National Human Genome Research Institute Collins confirmed in public to the US House of Representatives in May 2006 that recent increases in chronic diseases like diabetes, childhood asthma, obesity and autism must have an environmental [external] cause and cannot be purely genetically [internally] caused conditions:
“Recent increases in chronic diseases like diabetes, childhood asthma, obesity or autism cannot be due to major shifts in the human gene pool as those changes take much more time to occur. They must be due to changes in the environment, including diet and physical activity, which may produce disease in genetically predisposed persons. Therefore, GEI will also invest in innovative new technologies/sensors to measure environmental toxins, dietary intake and physical activity, and using new tools of genomics, proteomics, and understanding metabolism rates to determine an individual’s biological response to those influences.“
Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D.,
Evidence to US House of Representatives Committee May 2006
US Federal Court Cases
The US Federal Court has found in three cases made public that vaccines can cause autistic conditions in children. Brief summaries appear below and .pdfs of the court decisions are attached.
1) Hannah Poling – The US Department of Health and Human Services settled the US Federal Court claims of this 9 year old girl in a sealed [secret] settlement in 2008. The DHHS experts conceded the case without a hearing claiming her mitochondrial dysfunction was “rare”. Recent research shows that mitochondrial dysfunction is not rare but common in autistic children compared to non autistic children.
Hannah Poling developed an autistic condition after being administered 9 vaccines in one day. She has recently been awarded US$ 20 million over her lifetime. Her father Jon is a medical doctor at Johns Hopkins University USA and her mother is a former nurse:-
Court Awards Over $20 Million for Vaccine-Caused Autism – PR Newswire (press release) - Sep 15, 2010
Family to Receive $1.5M+ in First-Ever Vaccine-Autism Court Award – CBS News September 9, 2010
Settlement reached in autism-vaccine case – September 10, 2010 By Carrie Teegardin – The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
2) Bailey Banks:-
Autistic conditions can result from acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM) following MMR vaccination as held by the US Federal Court in the case of Bailey Banks. British Health Minister misled the English Parliament when she claimed in a written Parliamentary answer that Bailey Banks did not have an autistic condition.
Bailey Banks developed PDD-NOS – an autistic condition following from his MMR vaccination. Bailey Bank’s diagnosis follows US terminology under DSM IV for what is called in the rest of the world “Autistic Spectrum Disorder” under the International Classification of Disease. [Banks v. HHS (Case 02-0738V, 2007 U.S. Claims LEXIS 254, July 20, 2007)].
In his conclusion, US Federal Court Special Master Abell ruled that Petitioners had proven that the MMR had directly caused a brain inflammation illness called acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM) which, in turn, had caused the autism spectrum disorder PDD-NOS in the child:
The Court found that Bailey’s ADEM was both caused-in-fact and proximately caused by his vaccination. It is well-understood that the vaccination at issue can cause ADEM, and the Court found, based upon a full reading and hearing of the pertinent facts in this case, that it did actually cause the ADEM. Furthermore, Bailey’s ADEM was severe enough to cause lasting, residual damage, and retarded his developmental progress, which fits under the generalized heading of Pervasive Developmental Delay, or PDD [ED NOTE: an autism spectrum disorder]. The Court found that Bailey would not have suffered this delay but for the administration of the MMR vaccine, and that this chain of causation was… a proximate sequence of cause and effect leading inexorably from vaccination to Pervasive Developmental Delay.
[Banks v. HHS (Case 02-0738V, 2007 U.S. Claims LEXIS 254, July 20, 2007)].
But here is what British Health Minister Dawn Primarolo stated in the English Parliament:-
Ms Primarolo claimed Bailey Banks whose autistic condition was caused by vaccines and won his case in the US Federal Court on that basis was not diagnosed with autism. Minister Primarolo is also reported to have been sending out the same information in written replies to enquiries from British MPs made on behalf of constituents.
The written answer: MMR Vaccine appears in Hansard, the official record of proceedings in the English Parliament of 18 Mar 2009 : Column 1229W. The full text of the exchange from Hansard:
Mark Pritchard: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make an assessment of the implications of the decision in the US case of Bailey Banks v. The Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services for his Department’s policy on the MMR vaccine. 
Dawn Primarolo: In 2007 the United States Court of Federal Claims made a ruling in favour of compensation to the father of Bailey Banks for his non-autistic developmental delay as a result of Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis (ADEM) following receipt of measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine. ADEM is an extremely rare condition that has been reported after rabies, diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis, smallpox, MMR, Japanese B encephalitis, pertussis, influenza and hepatitis B vaccines. The Bailey Banks case has no implications for MMR vaccine policy.
3) Ben Zeller
In the US Federal Court case of Ben Zeller, this boy was proven to have suffered a developmental delay caused by vaccines the judgement records that the defendant US Department of Health and Human Services had no alternative explanation beyond:-
Unconfirmed speculation by a few treating doctors, as with Dr. Wiznitzer‘s hypothesization‘http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/ABELL.ZELLER073008.pdf
- that Hannah Poling’s mitochondrial dysfunction which can result in autistic conditions following vaccination is not rare but common in autistic children
- the 1998 Lancet paper early study highlighting a link between autistic conditions and serious bowel conditions was correct
1) Mitochondrial Dysfunction Not Rare
A – New Paper 1st December 2010 – Journal of American Medical Association:-
Mitochondrial Dysfunction in Autism JAMA. 2010;304(21):2389-2396. doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.1706
This confirms [contrary to US health officials claims] that mitochondrial dysfunction is not rare but common in children like 9 year old US girl Hannah Poling. The new paper confirms these children:
“were more likely to have mitochondrial dysfunction, mtDNA overreplication, and mtDNA deletions than typically developing children.“
This paper was reported by Reuters -
Cells’ ‘power plants’ damaged in some autistic kids – By Frederik Joelving NEW YORK | Tue Nov 30, 2010 5:15pm EST
B – Journal of Neuroinflammation. 2010 Nov 17;7:80. – Mitochondrial DNA and anti-mitochondrial antibodies in serum of autistic children.
Autism spectrum disorders (ASD) are neurodevelopmental disorders characterized by difficulties in communication, cognitive and learning deficits, as well as stereotypic behaviors. For the majority of cases there are no reliable biomarkers or distinct pathogenesis. However, increasing evidence indicates ASD may be associated with some immune dysregulation, and may have a neuroimmune component. We recently showed that the peptide neurotensin (NT) is increased in autistic children. We now show that NT induces release of extracellular mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) that could act as “autoimmune” trigger. We further show that serum from young autistic patients contains mtDNA (n = 20; cytochrome B, p = 0.0002 and 7S, p = 0.006), and anti-mitochondrial antibody Type 2 (n = 14; p = 0.001) as compared to normally developing, unrelated controls (n = 12). Extracellular blood mtDNA and other components may characterize an autistic endophenotype and may contribute to its pathogenesis by activating autoimmune responses.
2) Bowel Illness Far More Common In Autistic Children
PUBLISHED 4TH JANUARY 2010 – Pediatrics – Medical Consensus Report -
PEDIATRICS Vol. 125 Supplement January 2010, pp. S1-S18 (doi:10.1542/peds.2009-1878C)
Evaluation, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Gastrointestinal Disorders in Individuals With ASDs: A Consensus Report
“Autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) are common and clinically heterogeneous neurodevelopmental disorders. Gastrointestinal disorders and associated symptoms are commonly reported in individuals with ASDs, but key issues such as the prevalence and best treatment of these conditions are incompletely understood. A central difficulty in recognizing and characterizing gastrointestinal dysfunction with ASDs is the communication difficulties experienced by many affected individuals. A multidisciplinary panel reviewed the medical literature with the aim of generating evidence-based recommendations for diagnostic evaluation and management of gastrointestinal problems in this patient population. “
Pediatrics. 2009 Mar;123(3):1018-24. Distinct genetic risk based on association of MET in families with co-occurring autism and gastrointestinal conditions.
“In addition to the core behavioral symptoms of autism spectrum disorder, many patients present with complex medical conditions including gastrointestinal dysfunction. ….. On the basis of these functions, we hypothesized that association of the autism spectrum disorder-associated MET promoter variant may be enriched in a subset of individuals with co-occurring autism spectrum disorder and gastrointestinal conditions.”
“RESULTS: In the entire 214-family sample, the MET rs1858830 C allele was associated with both autism spectrum disorder and gastrointestinal conditions. “
FROM IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON:- J Proteome Res. 2010 Jun 4;9(6):2996-3004. Urinary metabolic phenotyping differentiates children with autism from their unaffected siblings and age-matched controls.
“These biochemical changes are consistent with some of the known abnormalities of gut microbiota found in autistic individuals and the associated gastrointestinal dysfunction and may be of value in monitoring the success of therapeutic interventions.”
i suffered a adverse incident back in 1970 after a rubella vac. developed a.d.e.m. and went completely blind ,no light perception ,had a ventriculagram where they drilled two holes in my head trepination as they call it any way i am now 49 years old have had a life of pain and misery am still legally blind tho i do have light perception ,have diagnosed with several dibillitating symptoms for a long time and yet my govt ,social security says i am not disabled go figure
Posted by: john w. heil | January 02, 2012 at 04:37 PM
Nick, Since you so sanguine about being vaccinated, please tell everybody about any and all vaccines you've had injected into yourself, your kids, etc.
Pertinent to your personal age (which nobody knows but you), what childhood vaccines did you get, and at what age?
Posted by: david burd | January 12, 2011 at 07:52 PM
I have worked on hospital systems for years. I can tell you that not only do doctors NEVER request medical history from another physician (maybe with the exception of an x-ray or radiology report), they don't review the medical history of a patient even when it is available in their system unless the it was created by that doctor his/her self. When we are working on conversions, there is simply very little intereest in the medical history other than what it required for compliance or legal defense. And even that is often stored offline. Yes, it is part of what is broken with the system, but I am here to tell you the typical hospital or doctor's office is not willing to spend one extra cent collecting or storing historical information unless the law requires it.
Posted by: Steve | January 12, 2011 at 02:26 PM
Nick, Dr. Wakefield has pointed out repeatedly, in articles and in his book, that he conducted a "case review" not a "Study"...a case review that simply recommended more "study".
By the way, his findings have been replicated. Do your research.
Adverse vaccine reactions are acknowledged by pharma and the federal government. Why else do you think the federal government created a federal vaccine court to compensate those injured. And yes, they have found that vaccines led to a child autism on numerous occasions.
The problem is that pharma and public health officials do not want to know or acknowledge just how wide spread adverse events might be. If they did they would engage in appropriated scientific inquiry to find out. For example, they would do a study evaluating health outcomes in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated people or a study evaluating the health outcomes associated with the administration of multiple vaccines in one day. Guess what...never been done.
As for your comment, "just get vaccinate." How dare you! My oldest daughter had an adverse reaction to a flu vaccine. We do not know, for sure, what component of the vaccine might have caused her injury or what mechanism might have led to that injury. Again, there has been no scientific inquiry, acknowledged in the mainstream, as to the mechanism of injury in the event of adverse reactionw. This very point was highlighted by HHS's panel of scientific advisers on vaccine safety in 2009. Given, this fact, how could I ever risk vaccinating her again? Also, it is possible that whatever caused her injury is some how related to a genetic susceptibility, so how could I ever risk vaccinating my younger child.
If you honestly think a parent should throw their child under a bus for the protection of society, you are out of your mind. What could be more natural for a mother than to protect her child? No decent mother would ever sacrifice her own child for the benefit of the greater good. That is something that is easy to say when you don't "believe" your child is the one at risk.
Nick, I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and call you ignorant and uneducated on this topic rather than an obnoxious ass.
By the way, Kim, thanks for giving us the opportunity to set Nick straight.
Posted by: Pamela | January 11, 2011 at 02:55 PM
People also confuse conspiracy with concerted behaviour. The latter requires no agreement, just behaviour acted out in common.
Where you have drug industry propaganda indoctrinated medical professions with a religious belief in the sanctity of vaccination at all costs, you are going to see concerted behaviour.
That is not to say there may be agreements being reached to act in common also but the concerted behaviour is likely more common.
When it comes to paying the mortgage and keeping a job it becomes much easier to justify following the medical herd.
And how many medical schools around the world might close if it were not for drug industry funding and sponsorship?
Posted by: ChildHealthSafety | January 10, 2011 at 12:06 PM
Zed, sometimes we let one in like a lone rat in a house full of cats.It's good exercise. ;)
Posted by: Kim Stag | January 10, 2011 at 11:26 AM
Nick, nobody's responding to you because you're a grossly under-informed troll. But I will, by saying this. The only thing that is required for a 'conspiracy' to exist is a number of vested interests to have the same mission. In other words, they 'conspire' (latin derivation, meaning to 'breathe together'). In this case, the phamaceutical industry, medical trade unions, elected officials and physicians are ALL simultaneously profiting from near-universal vaccine. This eliminates the need for midnight, secret meeting without documented 'minutes'. (These groups, however, HAVE even resorted to precisely that.)
Do your historical search and come back to apologize, please. And in the meantime, trust that an objective dissection of this issue demonstrates that not every conspiracy is a theory.
Posted by: Zed | January 10, 2011 at 11:04 AM
It is also important to note that you cannot always discount memory over records. Memory, of course, is fallible but records are incomplete and do not always tell the truth.I can look back to one of my first semi-naieve entries into this debate in 2003. I wrote in Archives of Diseases in Childhood (heavily re-written by the journal):
"As the paper itself points out this kind of data can be misleading, but not only in the way it suggests. For instance, bad local reactions to vaccination may go unreported while parents' accounts of their child's development may be diluted by the tendency of medics to repeat stereo- typical histories (comparing notes with other parents this seems to be a common experience although there is no doubt it is all done in good faith)."
Lots interesting factors here. My son would have been one of the cases but the records would not have yielded to Profs Brent Taylor or Elizabeth Miller any record of his adverse reaction to DPT since such matters were not considered to be significant. So you could probably go to the record 9 times out of 10 to not find any record of an adverse vaccine event which happened (of course they were looking for MMR reactions but the same thing applies). It is also quite interesting to note that although Harvey Marcovitch, signatory of the present BMJ editorial, was no longer editor of ADC he was the editor who passed the study for publication, and I was passed to him by the the new editor Howard Bauchner, and we had a discussion.
So, actually I made the point to Marcovitch more than seven years ago that there are dangers in using medical records in this kind of way. Is recall bias recall bias, or just bad recording? Anyone who answers definitively that it is recall bias is misusing the record and doesn't understand the limitation of documents. I have often of course made the point much more sharply in the light of experience. An example here:
The documents only record what someone wrote down. Of course, if you have history taken by a leading consultant/scientist like John Walker-Smith it is likely to be a lot more germane than random GP jottings as interpreted by Brian Deer (or to give him his full medical title, Brian Deer). But perhaps Harvey wouldn't agree?
Posted by: John Stone | January 10, 2011 at 05:13 AM
The point is - who is telling the truth.
One thing is certain - not the British Medical Journal and not Brian Deer.
The agenda of the British Medical Association in pursuing this in their journal BMJ is now highlighted by this in glorious technicolour and 3D.
Posted by: ChildHealthSafety` | January 10, 2011 at 04:17 AM
Drug Giant Merck – “Destroy” Critical Doctors “Where They Live”
Posted by: ChildHealthSafety` | January 10, 2011 at 03:28 AM
This is ridiculous. You people can not honestly believe that this is all a giant conspiracy. How many times do scientists have to disprove Wakefield? To begin with, it was a small study, only 12 children. Any results from that study would have merely resulted in a larger study, to see if the results were reproducible, which is exactly what happened. Time after time, scientists have done studies, all of which found no link between autism and vaccines. Autism is a terrible thing, but by not being vaccinated, you are putting yourself and those around you in danger. For everyone's sake, just get vaccinated.
Posted by: Nick | January 10, 2011 at 01:40 AM
STOP AUTISM NOW
Posted by: STOP AUTISM NOW | January 10, 2011 at 01:22 AM
Treegirl, you are absolutely right--this is all about marketing and propaganda. The pharmaceutical industry learned everything it needs to from studying the Nazis, whose propaganda nearly allowed them to take over the world. And basically, that is what Big Pharm has done, from 7 shelves of cold medicines that don't cure the common cold (but everyone thinks they need them), to ineffective flu vaccines (but everyone thinks they need them) to unnecessary vaccines for STDs (but everyone thinks they need them) to meds for sleeplessness, tingling feet, urinary incontinence, depression, etc (but everyone thinks they need them).
Big Pharm convinced everyone that they needed these meds through mainstream media propaganda, and they're using the same platform to attempt to destroy anyone who dares to point out the truth.
They obviously don't care that they've ruined lives of innocent children and their families, let alone one doctor who tried to help.
The question is, how far will they go before they are stopped?
Posted by: Taximom | January 09, 2011 at 10:58 PM
The problem is that the pharma companies are using Ed Bernay's book, Propaganda, as a template for how to rouse the crowd and make them look foolish. Wakefield and other doctors need a PR team to help them maneuver around people using the subconsious to manipulate the people as Ed Bernays did. Who is Ed Bernays..? Look him up. He is related to Sigmund Freud. He is related to Matthew Freud who is head of Freud Communications,,, Matthew Freud is also the husband of Elizabeth Murdoch, James Murdochs son and board member to Glaxosmith..... It is all in the PR. So far they are winning becuase the PR is not being handled to compete with their spin.... Ed Bernays is known as the father of spin. He helped to topple governments and was used well by all sorts of corperations and politicians. REad the book and you will understand.
Posted by: treegirl | January 09, 2011 at 09:17 PM
One of the most obvious things that happened from the beginning which tells us that this case was pre-determined in it's outcome, is the fact that the parents of the children involved in Dr. Wakefield's research were not allowed to testify to the GMC and submit their own evidence. How could it ever be possible to arrive at the truth without these parents' testimony? Obviously the parents testimony would have supported Wakefield and disproved Deer and the GMC's goal was to discredit and dismiss Wakefield and his team of researchers.
As I followed the story there was much other evidence that was presented by Wakefield to support his position, however that evidence was ignored in favor of the preconceived outcome. Fraudulent so called "evidence" by the prosecution was accepted as "fact" while legitimate evidence in favor of Wakefield et al was dismissed and ignored. This is also what is happening in American vaccine court. The BIG PLAN is to deny the autism vaccines causation and protect the vaccine industry at all costs.
It is so important for our cause and the hope for future change that Dr. Wakefield published the factual evidence in his book. THANK YOU DR. WAKEFIELD!!!
Posted by: AutismGrandma | January 09, 2011 at 08:26 PM
They are claiming the XMRV virus is all a contaimnation problem.
Oh yeah! That is what they said about the SV40 too, but Carbone and the rest of the world has gone on without them - them being the NIH officials that are going to go to work or are already working for big pharm companies.
Can't they come up with anything better or at least "NEW"
They also trash Dr. Wakefield.
"And yet it moves!"
Posted by: Benedetta | January 09, 2011 at 07:53 PM
I don't believe Wakefield should engage in a legal campaign ie litigation for defamation because I feel that is exactly what Deer and those behind him would wish him to do.
They have resources at their disposal far beyond what Wakefield and his supporters could ever muster and they are fighting against quite frankly a system that relies on an 'old boys'network.
They want Wakefield impoverished and broken...
Having said that if a legal case was to be launched it should be focussed very narrowly on one particular aspect of 'untruth' thus this would not allow a defence to bring in spurious information and either confuse or slow down any verdict to be made.
A similar tactic was used by Deer and accomplices in taking legal action at the same time as the GMC enquiry. The sole purpose was to drain Wakefield of time , energy and money.
Another course of action would be to have one of the parents launch proceeding against the release of medical data. This breech of privacy still has not been taken very seriously and I would suggest that the BML or Fiona Godlee should be the targetted rather than Deer as he would plead some sort of immunity from revealing sources as a 'journalist'.
The best anyone who supports Wakefield is to continue to uncover the lies and links to the giant pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline.
One should publicise the fact that GSK has engaged in commercial fraud and was fined
"It will pay a criminal fine of $US150 million and set aside another $US600 million for a civil settlement under the False Claims Act."
Posted by: John | January 09, 2011 at 07:05 PM
Is Andrew Wakefield suing Brian Deer? If not, why not?
Posted by: Jenna | January 09, 2011 at 06:19 PM
Can somebody tell me why Dr Wakefield is not suing Brian Deer or the BMJ for libel?
Posted by: Fiona Cargius | January 09, 2011 at 06:16 PM
Good point, Carol. I think what we have here is a classic case of selective sight. Deer sees what he wants to see, to prove his pre-selected conclusion: that Wakefield is a fraud because he had a vested interest in making a case for the lack of safety of the MMR because he wanted to push a monovalent vaccine that he was involved in. I can make the same sort of case against Deer: that he is a fraud because he has a vested interest in both taking down Wakefield and making a case for the safety of the MMR because his employer, the owner of the Sunday Times, is James Murdoch, who sits on the board of GSK, the company now responsible for the MMR vaccine in the UK; which company struck a deal with the government to make the drug company immune from liability for damage from its product. This is called a sweetheart deal; and Deer is the sweetheart that makes it stick in the public's mind.
So we have two conflicting stories. Which is the truth; or at least, the more true. Only a thorough investigation can uncover that answer. Deer challenges Wakefield to fight him in a UK court, with its strong libel laws; but he also knows, cynically, that such an avenue is terribly costly - and, since the government is involved in this matter, that it would pull all the strings it could to affect an 'appropriate' outcome. (Just as the MMR litigation families were denied justice when their legal aid was withdrawn - by a judge who also had a conflict of interest in this matter. What a murky web has been woven.) So there we are; the outcome being fought in the court of public opinion.
Not a fair deal. Not a scientific deal. Wakefield deserves a chance to clear his name. At least he has been able to find a publisher for his side of the story. Everybody interested in justice being served should buy his book. And write letters. And never give up. Too much is at stake here. In this matter of the case of the People versus the Establishment. For it is all of our's battle, against power.
Posted by: Stan | January 09, 2011 at 05:59 PM
Could it possibly be this simple? Was Brian Deer so stupid as to think that he could get away with accusing Wakefield of something that was impossible in the first place?
There's gotta be something missing here. This is too easy.
Posted by: Taximom | January 09, 2011 at 05:43 PM
it can happen to adults too. Just ask Marianne Madaris or Michell Kristine Staley.
Posted by: Lisa Smith | January 09, 2011 at 04:44 PM
Where are the other doctors that were involved? Why is the Royal Free letting Brian Deer, with his lies and twisting, make the hospital look bad? They need to stand up to this and protect the integrity of the medical profession!!! If they don't, who knows who their next victim will be.
Posted by: Jen | January 09, 2011 at 04:26 PM
My first reaction to this latest story was: "Why in heck would Wakefield have to invent stories about children who exhibited autistic symptoms after MMR and had significant bowel disease? They're a dime a dozen!"
Posted by: Theodore Van Oosbree | January 09, 2011 at 04:12 PM
I want to dwell a little on Child 1 as depicted by Brian Deer in "How the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed," published in BMJ on January 5, 2011. Why? Because if we find that Deer has been deceitful in portraying the nature and timing of one child's symptoms, then we don't need to puzzle out what 172-96 is or how the British Legal Aid Board works or how Deer might have fudged on the other children. We will have caught Deer lying to us and that's that.
And lying about no small matter. According to Deer's BMJ article, Wakefield manipulated the timing of the first appearance of the Lancet children's autistic symptoms to make them coincide with receipt of the MMR vaccine.
Here's what Deer says about Child 1 in BMJ, January 5, 2011:
"Child 1’s recorded story began when he was aged 9 months, with a 'new patient' note by general practitioner Andrea Barrow. One of the mother’s concerns was that he could not hear properly—which might sound like a hallmark presentation of classical autism, the emergence of which is often insidious. Indeed, a Royal Free history, by neurologist and coauthor Peter Harvey, noted 'normal milestones' until '18 months or so.'"
And here's Deer's earlier version in The Sunday Times of February 8, 2009:
"In the [Lancet] paper this claim [by the parents that MMR at 12 months was responsible for Child 1's autism] would be adopted, with Wakefield and his team reporting that Child One’s parents said 'behavioural symptoms' started 'one week' after he received the MMR.
The boy’s medical records reveal a subtly different story, one familiar to mothers and fathers of autistic children. At the age of 9½ months, 10 weeks before his jab, his mother had become worried that he did not hear properly: the classic first symptom presented by sufferers of autism."
So in his BMJ article, toned down from his peppier Sunday Times version, Deer seems to be suggesting that Child 1's hearing problem at 9 months was his first autistic symptom, permanent yet subtle enough to escape the notice of his mother and his doctors during the boy's time at the Royal Free. But what Deer fails to tell us in either article is that in the GP's entry documenting the mother's concerns about Child 1's hearing, the mother is also noted as concerned about a discharge from her son's left ear. (_Callous Disregard_, p. 191, hardcover) That sounds like a hallmark presentation of a childhood ear infection rather than the first sign of autism.
Why would Deer omit to tell us that Child 1's hearing problem at 9 months was accompanied by a discharge from his ear? Perhaps he didn't read that far along in the medical records? What we do know is that Deer knew about the discharge by the time the first installment of his BMJ article was published because Andrew Wakefield told him about it in a chapter entitled "Deer" in _Callous Disregard_, published in 2010.
Now it's possible that Brian Deer thinks that the discharge from the ear and the hearing problem were unrelated. But an ethical journalist would nevertheless tell us about it. He wouldn't conceal it just to make a case against Wakefield and his research. That would be manipulation of data. That would be unethical.
Posted by: Carol | January 09, 2011 at 01:23 PM