[sorry I do not know where to ask this question about Dean Zuckerman 's role ; and since his name appeared in this not too old article , I dared post here ]

"Count III alleges that then Dean Zuckerman falsely denied his knowledge that Dr. Wakefield would, if asked at the press conference accompanying publication, recommend the single (monovalent) measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines as a precautionary measure until the safety of MMR could be further examined. Dr. Zuckerman's claim that he was unaware that vaccines would be discussed at a press conference accompanying publication was false because he had specifically instructed Dr. Wakefield to urge continued use of the monovalent measles vaccine as a safer alternative to MMR. Attachment 2 is Dr. Zuckerman’s Jan. 22, 1998 letter instructing Dr. Wakefield to recommend the monovalent vaccines at the post-publication press conference (“It is vital, in your own interest and that of children, that you state clearly your support for monovalent vaccination.”)."

Since A. Wakefield did have such a letter from Mr Zuckerman , It should have been easy [ ???] for him to prove the lies of dean Zuckerman . I have not heard this happened [ or it did?] What happened ? That seems very important to me .

Quoting from _Deceit and Denial_ by Gerald Markowitz and David Rosner:

"In addition to withholding information, some industries, including lead and vinyl, have reassured the public that their products are benign by controlling research and manipulating science. Throughout much of the twentieth century, most scientific studies of the health effects of toxic substances have been done by researchers in the employ of industry or in universities with financial ties to members of that industry."

It's gratifying to receive compliments from a 'Quackwatch' delegate. Mark Bell's question is, "are there any studies, preferably refereed in journals, that show an attendant decline in autism? That is what I would expect to see, and I would expect it to be newsworthy."

Well, as Mark Bell appears to acknowledge, since he includes a separate link in his post, Tim Bolen is something of an expert when it comes to dissecting so called scientific and epidemiological studies purporting to 'debunk' any autism/ vaccine links. I commend the following for Mark's (any anyone else's) appraisal:-

Critique of the 6 epidemiological studies used to exonerate thimerosal containing vaccines
http://www.bolenreport.com/Mark%20Geier/critique_of_the_6_epidemiologica.htm

Mark Bell calls himself "a member of Orthodox Science" whatever that means; perhaps it's some kind of club. Some very notable scientists including Darwin, Einstein and Semmelweiss were all, at some time, widely vilified for their 'unorthodox' discoveries. Mr Bell will be well aware of the dangers of mercury; his school science laboratory will have a raft of health and safety regulations pertaining to the use of any chemicals containing this element. I wonder how he reconciles this in his own mind with injecting vaccines containing thiomersal, almost 50% Hg by molecular weight, into tiny babies with developing immune systems. This still happens with influenza vaccines and a whole raft of vaccines flogged off to third world countries.
As for the press and media reporting any 'newsworthy' adverse vaccine news, forget it!! Pharma advertising revenues and sponsorship ensures this does not happen. Poul Thorsen, very much involved with instigating and collating the Madson et al epidemiological autism/vaccine research, was indicted in the US on more than a dozen charges of fraud and money laundering, involving cash from US taxpayers and the charity 'Autism Speaks'. This attracted almost no news coverage; as yet the US prosecuting authories appear in no hurry to extradite Poul Thorsen from Denmark to face the charges.

Question, in my normal polite vein: I noticed a link (see below) from this site that said

"If you think about it, there are only two questions that need to be answered to solve the Autism problem: (1)What's really causing it? and (2) how do we fix it? Of course we know the answer to the first question (vaccines), and we are working on the second one."

He goes on to say this is due to thimerosal.

He goes on further to say that thimerosal has been removed from many vaccines worldwide.

My question is, are there any studies, preferably refereed in journals, that show an attendant decline in autism? That is what I would expect to see, and I would expect it to be newsworthy.

Thanks!

http://www.bolenreport.com/Mark%20Geier/mark-david-versus-goliath.htm

Mark Bell;
Good luck with it.
And after you have it all figured out--- what do you plan on doing with this knowledge?
Do you have someone that has autism?
Do you have someone you think might have been injuried by a vaccine?

I will take it as a compliment to John Stone, and Jenny Allen, and Angus because they are thoughtful and intelligent people that have had their children damaged.

As a matter of fact there is a wide range of people on this site, for vaccine injury knows no social class. We even have a senator called Dan Burton that witnessed a vaccine injury to his grandson. Senator Dan Burton had a lot to say about how people float out of government agencies (CDC, NIH, HHS, FDA) into big paying pharma jobs.

There is a lot going with vaccine that is crooked.
A true thinking humanbeing would have to wonder if they really are that slow, esp when we are telling them what we have seen and yet are being ignored, and Dr. Wakefield railroaded.

It does indeed look as if I owe Mark Bell an apology over confusing him with a namesake.

As to the rest, he really must stop engaging in ad hominem and telling other people what they think in a way which suits him.

Sorry - I forgot to mention I'm not the same Mark Bell person cited in a February posting. I'm a different guy - so I hope that helps clear up that problem. At least it means I'm consistent.

If you don't like the Taylor paper, I got it from Quackwatch, so again, that may shed light on my worldview. That word again - but it does have predictive value for how one approaches data of the sort we're describing.

Responding to John Stone's links (thanks), the vaclib site offers graphs visually showing vaccine-ASD links. While these do not contain R values (statistical degree of correlation), they are visually persuasive. Yet following a link from there gets me to the statement "… rubella (congenital rubella syndrome) is one of the few proven causes of autism.“ How an anti-vaccine crusader derives support from that requires a measure of faith. Congenital. That means the mother had rubella. That then means vaccines for the child cannot be the cause of *that* case of ASD. But, so goes the logic, if rubella can cause ASD for the foetus, then a vaccine with that ingredient plausibly could cause it in toddlers. Yes, worth investigating. But studies don't seem to bear that out as a cause.

The anti-vaccine sites frequently present graphs and other persuasive evidence. But so far I haven't seen one that continues through to answering the kind of questions I'm mentioning here.

And to the ad hominem. My critics have been pretty good, but I'm now getting accused of "hot air." That might just be the confusion between me and the February posting. Yet here, my tone has been gentle and respectful, though with a measure of persistence. And when I spoke of Conspiracy Theorists, I capitalized just as I did for Orthodox Science People. Therefore that's not ad hominem either. The great majority of anti vaccine people I encounter hold that the actions against, say, Wakefield are a conspiracy, differing only on the size ascribed to it.

Remember, great and growing profits are also being earned by the Wakefield believers and others delivering alternative autism treatments. You cannot deny that there is money being made on that side too.

"but no one here is saying the Walker-Smith exoneration also exonerates Dr Andrew Wakefield." I respect that statement. Thanks. I've seen the Wakefield exoneration made a number of times on other sites that cite the Walker-Smith judgment. This site plays host to a more thoughtful level of discussion.

"Bell uses 'worldview' too much." It is a fair assessment of what I'm saying that one's conceptual framework has an important effect on how one interprets the evidence we're discussing. "Worldview" is a nice shorthand, for it is a short hop from there to Believing in Orthodox Science, or Battling the Pharma Conspiracy.

I did try to be helpful by mentioning what my worldview was. Showing my colors. Sometimes, that is sufficient for people to skip my comments entirely since I might be coming from an unwelcome quarter. Others work with the things I've said, and I appreciate that.

If you're looking for a reference from my conceptual framework (reproducible, and yes, orthodox, refereed research), here's a Lancet paper that held that there isn't any MMR-ASD connection, with a good large sample size and solid methodology: Taylor B and others. Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: No epidemiological evidence for a causal association. Lancet 353:2026-2029, 1999.

More about the Golden Calf from the BMJ (Clare Dyer 2 April 2012):-

'Collaboration with drug industry won’t affect clinical decisions, says new guide

'Doctors are being urged not to be “tempted to accept the negative myths about cooperating with industry” in a new guide to promote collaboration between healthcare organisations and the drug industry to improve care of patients in the United Kingdom.

'The guidance is supported by organisations representing the industry and by healthcare bodies including the BMA, the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, and the royal colleges of GPs, physicians, and psychiatrists. The Department of Health for England, the NHS Confederation, and the governments of Scotland and Wales also back the guide, which is aimed at … '

href="http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e2489">http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e2489

So, I am sure that it is gratifying, after expressing his reservations two months, Mr Bell is gleefully joining in the obscene dance.

There is btw an excellent response just published from a group of Australian academics.

href="http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e2489?tab=responses"> http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e2489?tab=responses

Mark Bell says:-
"It follows, emotionally, that if Walker-Smith is exonerated, that the Wakefield worldview should therefore be correct. But the judgment does not say that."

Mr Bell, I assume from this you are implying that those of us who dispute the statements and philosophies of 'quackwatch' are reasoning with our emotions; but no one here is saying the Walker-Smith exoneration also exonerates Dr Andrew Wakefield. I think it CAN be assumed rationally, that Justice Mitting's scathing assessment of the 'superficial' 'inadequate' and on occasions just plain 'wrong' GMC panel's examination of the so called 'evidence' and the conclusions drawn, could equally apply to the evidence against Dr Wakefield, but this would require another judge to deliberate over, what in many cases, were separate charges and evidence. Dr Wakefield was employed by the Royal Free as a researcher, NOT a clinician.

As John Stone pointed out in his earlier post:-
"A more important question that we could reasonably ask of all these events is why was it nececessary for the GMC to find a host of things against the three defendants which had no basis in the evidence, and could be dismissed out of hand by an experienced High Court judge?"

In one of my earlier posts I have called for a UK Government Inquiry into the issues surrounding this scandal. This has about as much chance of being implemented as that proverbial biblical camel going through the eye of the needle, but in a TRUE democracy the issues of WHY the GMC was prepared to waste an estimated £7million on this three year convoluted hearing, is very much in the public interest to know. Who picked up this huge tab? If this was paid for via registered doctors' annual subscriptions, then this was surely a wasteful misuse of the money? If the medical insurance companies paid for this then every doctor and surgeon in the land faces increased subscriptions...and it's NOT over yet. Professor Walker-Smith's insurance company will be looking for all their expenses back, and compensation for the distress caused to this distinguished elderly physician. No doubt Professor Murch's insurance company will be looking for similar expenses and compensation, since the charges were the same and Prof Murch was admonished by the GMC.

Why 'drag' these two excellent clinicians before the GMC at all? This was PURELY on the evidence and complaints of Brian Deer. No parent complained; most were profoundly grateful for the treatments and care received by their children. This is the 'crux' of the matter, since the GMC is SUPPOSED to be purely about maintaining patient safety, and Dr Wakefield, as a researcher with NO clinical access to the children, could not be 'struck off' by the GMC purely on the basis of his research methodology and findings.

Yes it's very significant that Dr Wakefield is the ONLY one of the three GMC 'defendants' to question the safety of the MMR. I think we are all entitled to 'unemotionally' draw our own conclusions!!

Let's see if I can help out a little. I can't help with the emotional concerns that surround theories about ASD. I cannot help a full-blown conspiracy theorist, for anything I say would be construed as Coming From One of Them. So for you I can only leave you in peace.

If you're still with me, I first of all thank the moderator for Age of Autism for letting me be here. I realize I offer a worldview that may be in a minority in this forum.

1. I am not getting paid for this. I do come from the conventional scientific world. While not a medical researcher, I have for the last five years been a middle school science teacher. Before that I was in high tech for a couple of decades. So this means I do not possess any sophisticated credentials! My words - and references - must therefore stand for themselves.

2. My point in my earlier posting was to warn against those in the alternative community using this judgment as an exoneration of Wakefield's point of view. It is not that, and the quotes I cited were to make that point. The judge stipulated that there isn't any conventional scientific support for Wakefield's MMR-ASD thesis.

3. So, as I'm admonished that "It is hard to cover up the truth ain't it," I want to summarize what truths have emerged from this judgment and our commentary:
A. Walker-Smith was exonerated, for reasons fairly summarized in other comments. His practice was ruled ethical and the proceeding against him overruled. Those who ruled against him were criticized.
B. No exoneration whatever for the MMR-ASD link has happened here. It follows, emotionally, that if Walker-Smith is exonerated, that the Wakefield worldview should therefore be correct. But the judgment does not say that.

4. Other postings were "And lets face it this is all about the MMR, which must on no account be criticised or perhaps more important questioned." and "I hope this legal decision paves the way for future research which will prove the vaccine/autism connection."

MMR has been questioned in depth, in many countries, and continues to be. Questioned? Of course, and criticized too! I'm sure that this research has been intensified because of Wakefield and the appeal that testimonials and videos hold on the popular mind. This certainly extends to politics, and hearings before legislators in the US and elsewhere.

What conventional science has found, alas, shows no demonstrable link. Speaking succinctly of MMR vaccine and ASD, no differences are found in ASD incidence before and after the introduction of widescale vaccination. Those who hold that ASD is on the rise cannot correlate it to the onset of these vaccines.

5. My focus is the difference between testimonials and epidemiology. Testimonials are direct. Should you witness one, they communicate purely and emotionally. Should you have personal experience, that is of course stronger still. But epidemiology is almost the antithesis of that - abstract, numerical, unemotional, uninvolving. What unfortunate combatants they make.

6. It is in the nature of the scientific enterprise, as a human enterprise, to act in error, sometimes in stupidity, and perhaps sometimes in outright evil. However, the essential thing about this enterprise, and why it has come to nearly define Western culture, is that it contains within it the means to correct these errors. Thus, after the fits and starts, it does make progress, although sometimes painfully.

7. Finally, let me leave a word for those who focus on conspiracies. Wakefield's wife said "My husband has been persecuted by extremely powerful forces for asking questions that his research findings made it morally and ethically essential for him to ask." The conspiracy worldview energizes that statement, animates it, and in turn draws strength from it. Yet I ask this: is it not true that many, many studies have asked the questions he's asking? Yet those that are reproducible, those that withstand intense scrutiny, haven't found what he said he found. So either the conspiracy is breathtakingly powerful and thorough, or she's describing the feelings that result from being on the losing end of an argument.

8. Again, I thank the kindness and courtesy of the moderators of Age of Autism. I will offer references for any statement here, but you should know they might come from Quackwatch and the like. (Just trying to save you time and help you assess my contribution.)

@Mark Bell

The following may be of interest,

Quotes by Carmel Wakefield from an article entitled, 'Vilified by the MMR zealots', published in the Mail on Sunday in October 2006,

"My husband has been persecuted by extremely powerful forces for asking questions that his research findings made it morally and ethically essential for him to ask" ... "I used to believe that this country was a bastion of academic integrity and intellectual freedom. So this whole sad process of attrition, isolation and vilification, on a very personal level, has sickened and disillusioned me" ...."The endless stream of lies told by powerful people in positions of great public trust is horrifying."

And the stream of lies, from those powerful people in positions of public trust ... went on ...

http://videocast.nih.gov/Summary.asp?File=16828

... and on ...

http://youtu.be/jxP5LEYg4LQ

Quote from Andrew Wakefield in the opening of this clip:

"The two of the three vaccine brands that were introduced in 1988 had to be withdrawn for safety reasons and yet Dr Salisbury in his statement to the GMC sums up by saying this is a vaccine with an exemplary safety record. Well, if that is his idea of an excellent safety record then we have a very different perception he and I of vaccine safety."

Mark Struthers

I think again the judge was giving a superficial narrative of matters that he did not need to make his mind up about. The reality is that AW was co-operating with head of the medical school, Ari Zuckerman, a staunch defender of the vaccine programme, in taking part in the conference. What Zuckerman wanted was for AW to endorse single vaccines which were at the time an option on the National Health, though the issue was politicised and the option withdrawn in the months which followed. But it was Zuckerman's press conference. I am not surprised that JW-S and SM stayed clear, and AW was just being helpful.

John

Mark Bell

Mr Justice Mitting was giving background information to the case. The literal point is that this was not a 'disputed fact' in the case. Mitting asked the Walker-Smith's attorney what the position was, and it is unlikely that he had any special knowlege, particularly given his following remarks on the autism gut hypothesis, which were not particularly well-informed or up to date. So, anyhow, Mitting was not being asked to make up his mind about that, and presumably if he had have been he would have had to look at the issue more deeply.

A more important question that we could reasonably ask of all these events is why was it nececessary for the GMC to find a host of things against the three defendants which had no basis in the evidence, and could be dismissed out of hand by an experienced High Court judge? And lets face it this is all about the MMR, which must on no account be criticised or perhaps more important questioned. What is it about this product which has elevated to its sacred quasi-theological doctrinal status (supported by a professional inquisiton)?

The hypothesis is puerile. Why should we all have to believe? Personally, I would be much more inclined to trust medical products where public discussion hasn't been brutally suppressed by professional persecution, pseudo scientific discourse, bad journalism and orchestrated public relations bullying.

@ Bell:

When exactly did Dr. Wakefield hypothesize that MMR/autism/entercolitis casually linked? Not Lancet 1998. Au contraire. So Mitting got that tiny sidebar wrong. Big deal.

What have you done today to mitigate vaccine injury, and/or determine etiology of ASD? Nothing, right?

Until you figure out where all this ASD is coming from, you are paving the way for pseudoscience. It's on you, SFB.

The judge did exonerate Dr. Walker-Smith, who had lost his license over the Wakefield MMR affair. But I think many of the autism-vaccine people are seriously misrepresenting what the judge did.

It is quite complex to describe why he was exonerated - you almost have to read the judgment to get that. However, Walker-Smith specifically advised Wakefield to not take the public stand he did against the vaccine since the evidence did not support it.

In a section of the judgment called "Undisputed Facts," the judge says "Dr. Wakefield’s statement and subsequent publicity had a predictable adverse effect upon the take up of MMR vaccine of great concern to those responsible for public health. There is now no respectable body of opinion which supports his hypothesis, that MMR vaccine and autism/enterocolitis are causally linked."

Jenny Allan,

After this (brilliant) decision, do you think that there is hope for a UK Government Inquiry?

From my perspective from "down-under" this has opened the flood gates for further inquires, so it makes you wonder, what is "BIG PHARMA" plotting for a come-back!

Elizabeth Gillespie

Wow. Thanks for posting the actual decision. It makes one wonder just how much bloody, loose, pale, and watery diarrhea containing undigested food particles a child (with or without autism) must experience in order for a gastroenterologist to be able to justify doing a colonoscopy procedure in England. Seven times per day with severe pain apparently isn't enough to ring any alarm bells in the UK. Shameful. All of it.

All the best to you, Professor Walker-Smith. You have been through more than I can imagine. May you have wonderful, gleefully happy days ahead.

I love this part of the judgment:

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

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