Was the Wakefield study on MMR really fake?

[Pam_and_Abigail]

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ba...-vaccine-link/

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/lif...cle5683643.ece

What do you think of this? Does this change the facts on the issue? It's been a long time since I've done a lot of reading on this, but I thought there have been other studies since this one that confirmed the link between MMR and autism. I vaguely recall reading something a couple years ago about the link that was more concrete.

[carriebft]

I am not surprised. His study has already been shown to have multiple ethical flaws. His bias has been revealed. Chadwick and Bustin tore him apart at the autism trial, demonstrating his further bias and selective reporting of evidence. Hopefully we will get more information on this soon and Wakefield's 'study' will be deader than it already was in a hurry.

one such study refuting wakefield's claims:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%...l.pone.0003140

[kate3]

The fact that Wakefield falsified data and has been completely discredited is really old news. The co-authors on the study recanted and he had been ostricised from the scientific community.

No one knows for sure what causes autism, and to my knowledge there are no "concrete" links between any one thing and autism.

[carriebft]

And considering he applied for a patent for a single measles vaccine (among his other biases- such as his jabs connections), he should probably be treated like Offit. link to the patent application:

http://briandeer.com/wakefield/vaccine-patent.htm

Yeah, it's on Deer's website and he has his own biases I suppose people would argue, but it's a document simply posted there.

If you don't want to read anything on Deer's website, you can see the omnibus trial and Manatoski's testimony for more information on the patent.

[Deborah]

So it doesn't disturb you highly ethical thinkers that Brian Deer is using illegally obtained confidential medical records here?

It also doesn't disturb you that the long GMC case doesn't seem to be demonstrating unethical behavior? How do I know? Well, I've been reading Martin Walker's accounts, but you could dismiss those as biased. But the best evidence is the silence in the U.K. press on the course of the trial. If there were lots of solid evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Andrew Wakefield it would be all over the press in the U.K. The silence indicates that the case stinks.

This is a last minute attempt to prejudice what is already a prejudiced process.

http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.c...nk-journalism/

Am I claiming that Wakefield never, ever made any errors in any of his work? No. He doesn't walk on water. But the majority of the accusations against him are nonsense.

For example, Horton knew about Wakefield's legal work before the paper was published in the Lancet. This has been shown, thoroughly, before the GMC with letters from the Lancet files. So Horton perjured himself.

There is a lot of misinformation floating around.

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by Deborah

So it doesn't disturb you highly ethical thinkers that Brian Deer is using illegally obtained confidential medical records here?

It also doesn't disturb you that the long GMC case doesn't seem to be demonstrating unethical behavior? How do I know? Well, I've been reading Martin Walker's accounts, but you could dismiss those as biased. But the best evidence is the silence in the U.K. press on the course of the trial. If there were lots of solid evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Andrew Wakefield it would be all over the press in the U.K. The silence indicates that the case stinks.

This is a last minute attempt to prejudice what is already a prejudiced process.

http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.c...nk-journalism/

Am I claiming that Wakefield never, ever made any errors in any of his work? No. He doesn't walk on water. But the majority of the accusations against him are nonsense.

For example, Horton knew about Wakefield's legal work before the paper was published in the Lancet. This has been shown, thoroughly, before the GMC with letters from the Lancet files. So Horton perjured himself.

There is a lot of misinformation floating around.

[tayndrewsmama]

:

[tmaue]

I was just reading an article about this and I noticed a few questionable things in the article right off. In the article I read, it was talking about boy number 11 who decided to go get tested repeated after this to see if he had measles in his gut (and the tests said no). My first thought was that if he did get tested repeatedly afterwards, it would have been years later, because I doubt a young child would decide to go do this on his own (like the article suggested) and then remember all the things that went on with it. So if it was years later, it makes perfect since that if their ever was measles in his gut, that it could be gone. It also sounds like the child is doing well and that his body had done some healing.

The article was also trying to pick apart the data on each individual child and when they started having problems after the MMR. In one case the study said 14 days and the article was claiming the records said months. It is highly likely that the months was actually the time of diagnosis not when the symptoms started.

It is like they are trying to pick apart these parents too, just like many doctors do to them.

The whole thing with Wakefield was just a case study anyway, not a real study. It was a hypothesis that he had, which was supposed to show whether there should be additional larger studies done to look into it. The fact that everyone went crazy over it shows how much they were out to get someone who would even suggest such a thing as the MMR causing autism.

There have been known manipulations in other autism studies that were being used to show not link, but I don't see those people being brought up on charges. Something is fishy.

[Jadzia]

From what I had read the prosecution against him has not been going very well. In fact, I remember reading that it may have been a mistake for them to prosecute him because it has allowed him to access government documents that have actually helped him in his defense.

[Super Glue Mommy]

Originally Posted by tmaue

I was just reading an article about this and I noticed a few questionable things in the article right off. In the article I read, it was talking about boy number 11 who decided to go get tested repeated after this to see if he had measles in his gut (and the tests said no). My first thought was that if he did get tested repeatedly afterwards, it would have been years later, because I doubt a young child would decide to go do this on his own (like the article suggested) and then remember all the things that went on with it. So if it was years later, it makes perfect since that if their ever was measles in his gut, that it could be gone. It also sounds like the child is doing well and that his body had done some healing.

The article was also trying to pick apart the data on each individual child and when they started having problems after the MMR. In one case the study said 14 days and the article was claiming the records said months. It is highly likely that the months was actually the time of diagnosis not when the symptoms started.

It is like they are trying to pick apart these parents too, just like many doctors do to them.

The whole thing with Wakefield was just a case study anyway, not a real study. It was a hypothesis that he had, which was supposed to show whether there should be additional larger studies done to look into it. The fact that everyone went crazy over it shows how much they were out to get someone who would even suggest such a thing as the MMR causing autism.

There have been known manipulations in other autism studies that were being used to show not link, but I don't see those people being brought up on charges. Something is fishy.

yep!
and ditto deborah too!

[carriebft]

maybe on some level he thought the dishonesty was for a good cause

yeah, like the money he would get from his measles vaccine patent. The autism trial here is a fascinating look at the duplicity involved in Wakefield's work. I highly recommend reading through the pertinent testimony.

[Super Glue Mommy]

it's not good when the CDC or vaccine companies do it either. So, are they only doing it for the money? or are they doing it because they believe its for a good cause as well? I don't think its right when EITHER side does it, but I don't think its fair that pro-vaxxers SUPPORT and DEFEND the CDC and vaccine manufactorers in skewing information because it supports their stance. It's not right in my eyes for anyone to do this, but in some people's eyes its okay if the provaxxers are the ones doing it.

[Lazy Gardens]

Originally Posted by Deborah

So it doesn't disturb you highly ethical thinkers that Brian Deer is using illegally obtained confidential medical records here?

There is no "illegal" about it. The records were presented in the hearing - with identifying patient information removed - just as they would be for any hearing about malpractice, malfeasance, or other unprofessional behavior.

[carriebft]

Originally Posted by Lazy Gardens

There is no "illegal" about it. The records were presented in the hearing - with identifying patient information removed - just as they would be for any hearing about malpractice, malfeasance, or other unprofessional behavior.

This was my understanding as well.

from the article:

confirmed by evidence presented to the General Medical Council (GMC)

[Deborah]

confirmed by...

a couple of points:

The transcripts and the material in the GMC case should be available only to the lawyers, the "judges" (not sure what the correct title is) and the defendents. The transcripts will not be released for a considerable time after the judgement is handed down. Brian Deer isn't a lawyer, he isn't a defendent and he isn't on the GMC panel. So, what the ______! is he doing with the confidential private medical data of these patients?

You can't see the problem?

[carriebft]

I do not see that this is illegal or unethical. can you show me the information that would prove to me that it is because I have no idea even where I am looking for illegality....

And I do wonder why Wakefield did not bring this up in his rebuttal through his lawyers?

(and I already read the child safety article and, while it says the same things you do, it gives no evidence for it's claims and seems to only 'hope' it is illegal rather than show that it is...or it 'questions the legality' or 'questions the ethics' but does nothing more...)

[Deborah]

In the U.K., as in the U.S., medical records are not public information. If Brian Deer has copies of the medical files of the children in that study, I think you'll agree that he didn't get them from the parents, right? The parents are all on Wakefield's team, which is why Brian D. is the complainant in the GMC case.

As I pointed out above, just because some cases are being discussed in a GMC case, does not mean that these cases are now in the public domain and doesn't mean that anyone should be handing out the medical files to journalists.

If this material had been spotted and discussed in the GMC case all the journalists following the case would have written about it, not just Brian Deer. Furthermore, the article doesn't say that this material was discussed in the GMC case does it? So he didn't get it because he was taking careful notes on the material discussed in the actual hearings, did he?

I still cannot see any legal way that Brian Deer could be reading through the medical files of these children. If you can, please explain. I think the assumption of illegality is quite reasonable.

Suppose there was some controversy about your child's medical history. If a journalist wrote an article, describing some of what happened, based on material available only in the medical files in your doctor's office or the copies available in your home, even if your kid's name was not mentioned, wouldn't you feel as though confidentiality was being violated? Big time? If there were laws against people trolling through medical files, wouldn't you invoke them against this journalist?

[carriebft]

That seems like all speculation and red herring to me....in the longer article, it is said that some doctors talked about this and are quoted in their descriptions of the childrens' conditions. I also do not think everyone involved is on Wakefield's side. from the article:

MR ELEVEN’S taxi dash was a small ride in his desperate quest to find an answer for his son’s condition. Today, Child Eleven is much improved: at 17, he is a terrific scholar, although too nervous to drive.

The extra tests on his biopsies produced striking results. His father asked the cancer institute to look for the measles virus, which lay at the heart of Wakefield’s concerns over the vaccine. According to a theory that underpinned the project, this virus in MMR was the cause of bowel disease, which then did damage to children’s brains.

“It took a big fight to get the information,” said Mr Eleven. “They told me there was no measles virus. I had the tests repeated three times at different labs in the US, and they all came back negative.”

Mr Eleven being child #11's father

[Deborah]

And why isn't this father a complainant at the GMC?

I'm not buying the Brian Deer version on this.

Look at this in a straightforward way.

The GMC has spent millions of pounds and years of hard work trying to get Dr. Wakefield. They have had unlimited access to all of the medical records of all of the cases. Every single case has been gone over in exhaustive detail by the prosecution and the defense three times, once for each doctor.

But Brian Deer has a look at the files (still don't understand how he got this look) and he finds a major red flag, demonstrating that Wakefield had faked some of the data. And the GMC overlooked this obvious fakery as they spent years building the case.

I'm sorry, Carrie, but this just doesn't compute. Seriously.

If this information were out there, the GMC would have it, would have hammered Dr. Wakefield with it, and it would have been all over the press years ago.

If it isn't out there, then B.D. has been trolling through the files, has found something which he thinks is a red flag, and has published it. And I still don't understand how he got hold of the files to troll through.

[carriebft]

And you know this was not brought up at the trial and made an issue, how? It seems perfectly plausible to me that it was part of the question :

* Performing colonoscopies, colon biopsies and lumbar punctures ("spinal taps") on his research subjects without proper approval and contrary to the children's clinical interests, when these diagnostic tests were not indicated by the children's symptoms or medical history.

So basically your argument is, "if this was true, we would have known about it already" when indeed there is information supporting such a claim, as it is being investigated by the GMC (and I assume that they would not bring such claims against Wakefield unless they had evidence).

So your argument is simply that we, the public, didn't get access to the information until today, which makes it untrue?

But Brian Deer has a look at the files (still don't understand how he got this look)

your own link explains it.