Was the Wakefield study on MMR really fake? - Page 2

[carriebft]

Also, with your logic I could easily say "If it was illegal, would Mr Deer not be in court and convicted already?"

[claddaghmom]

Originally Posted by carriebft

Also, with your logic I could easily say "If it was illegal, would Mr Deer not be in court and convicted already?"

Nah. Lots of people don't get convicted for doing illegal things.

[Deborah]

Carrie,
The GMC trial has been going on for a long time. During that time, there has been almost no publicity about what is going on in court. There was one big blast I remember, about one remark made by Dr. Wakefield, but other than that, no discussion.

Now, the U.K. press has been pretty consistent, with one or two maverick exceptions, in hitting at Dr. Wakefield with anything they could find, even if it wasn't relevant. For example, one child who was seriously damaged by a very bad colonoscopy was linked with Dr. Wakefield, even though it had absolutely nothing to do with him.

If the GMC case were coming along nicely, with lots of juicy revelations proving that Dr. Wakefield did terrible stuff, it would be in the news and all over the blogosphere. The silence is a very bad sign for your side. He may still have a judgement against him. It is a seriously prejudiced panel. But the evidence isn't holding up well from what I've seen of the case.

Again, if this material had been convincingly presented to the GMC it would have come out quite a while ago. The case is almost up. They have gone over all of these children's files three times, exhaustively, asking all three doctors the same questions. The doctors have gone over every case exhaustively. They have demonstrated that the children were actually physically ill, that they were properly directed to the Royal Free by their GPs due to actual symptoms, etc., etc.

I'd like to mention something very odd. You know that recent study that proved that Wakefield was wrong? The one where they did colonoscopys on autistic children and found that a number of them had inflamed bowels? Doesn't that cause a bit of a hitch in the claim that the children who came to the Royal Free had autism and nothing else?

See, the original study didn't say anything about MMR causing autism. What it said was that there seemed to be a connection between autism and bowel inflammation which should be investigated. The evidence is pretty solid that there is a connection between autism and bowel inflammation in some children.

So why should a child who has bowel problems and autism not be examined and treated for bowel problems? Kids with autism can be allowed to suffer agonizing pain without diagnosis or treatment and this is okay?

The first time I read about Wakefield was in Mothering Magazine. A mother described her autistic child who was terribly ill and spent a lot of time hanging over the edge of the couch on his stomach. He couldn't talk and tell his mother what was wrong. None of the doctors she talked to would investigate, they just dismissed his symptoms because he was autistic. She eventually took him all the way to England to the Royal Free. They discovered that he had a major bowel mess up and had spent at least a year and a half in constant, agonizing pain. Their treatment was effective and cleared up at least some of the problem.

This story doesn't compute to me. Obviously, it makes sense to you, which is fine.

I'm going to quit the discussion, gotta work tomorrow.

[carriebft]

If the GMC case were coming along nicely, with lots of juicy revelations proving that Dr. Wakefield did terrible stuff, it would be in the news and all over the blogosphere. The silence is a very bad sign for your side. He may still have a judgement against him. It is a seriously prejudiced panel. But the evidence isn't holding up well from what I've seen of the case.

Again, you assume this but I see no evidence. Red herring and false dilemmas and I dunno what other logical issues...but I assume many more.

I'd like to mention something very odd. You know that recent study that proved that Wakefield was wrong? The one where they did colonoscopys on autistic children and found that a number of them had inflamed bowels? Doesn't that cause a bit of a hitch in the claim that the children who came to the Royal Free had autism and nothing else?

I do not see where they found them to have "inflamed bowels". perhaps I am looking at the wrong study, can you show me the line in the study that says this?

Also, who is saying they had 'nothing else?' the arguments, as I see them, are that AE does not exist, measles does not persist in the gut and travel to the brain causing autism/regression, etc.

So why should a child who has bowel problems and autism not be examined and treated for bowel problems? Kids with autism can be allowed to suffer agonizing pain without diagnosis or treatment and this is okay?

? who is saying that? if they have bowel problems, treat them. The whole made up disease thing, bad science, unproven theory, unnecessary perforation to add to bad science to prove made up disease...those are the problems.

[carriebft]

Originally Posted by claddaghmom

Nah. Lots of people don't get convicted for doing illegal things.

Just as how not every blockbuster piece of information from a trial gets put in the press. There were some big revelations from the omnibus hearings which got little to no play, despite there being audio and transcripts available to everyone!

ETA: I will bow out of this one as well.

[Scattershoot]

Was the Wakefield study on MMR really fake?

The GMC hearing is not attempting to determine that. This hearing is why he is still in the news, more or less. It's ethical issues more than anything else.

What's always been interesting to me is that the study explicitly states that they did not prove an association between the MMR vaccine and the syndrome described. The study states specifically that it was the parents who brought up the link.

I've personally worked with a lot of children diagnosed with autism (I do the diagnosing) and all the severe ones have gastrointestinal issues. There is a strong physical component to autism in many children.

What's happening is the medical community and the pharmaceutical industry do not want to see the physical links to autism. That's why this diagnosis gets placed in the DSM-IV. It's emotional, psychological and behavioral but not physical in their opinion. The gastrointestinal link opens a floodgate of potential consequences.

I personally believe that the DSM-IV is a holding tank for a lot of real physical conditions that the medical community does not want to look at (mainly because of pharmaceutical ties.). That's why the prosecution had key witnesses, like Dr. Rutter, from the very beginning. That's why they are pushing the unethical usage of certain diagnostic procedures.

[Super Glue Mommy]

"It's emotional, psychological and behavioral but not physical in their opinion."

I honestly don't know how ANY medical professional could say this and truly believe it!!!

[Scattershoot]

Originally Posted by Super Glue Mommy

"It's emotional, psychological and behavioral but not physical in their opinion."

I honestly don't know how ANY medical professional could say this and truly believe it!!!

That's why I have a hard time with the fact that the diagnosis is found in a mental health manual. What that does is limit the search for answers, and I think that is the main reason Dr. Wakefield is getting hammered.

I forgot to add. I read an article this weekend talking about how one particular child diagnosed with autism is doing much better since behavioral specialists came to the home and did an intervention. There is definitely a coping component to all this and certain skills can be learned for all, but this sidetracks the expansion of learning. It makes it sound as if the behavioral intervention is the answer, when it is only one aspect. I believe these kinds of stories are related to what is going on with Dr. Wakefield and quite possibly run for reason.

[Super Glue Mommy]

behavioral therapy only teaches a child to "get around" it... its like treating the symptoms... its like taking tylenol for a broken arm instead of getting a cast. that really bothers me - the way they treat ASD children like a behavior problem. There is a CAUSE to these behaviors... when we started treating my son for physical problems is when we (And his teachers) began to see REAL improvements with him.

[Scattershoot]

There is a CAUSE to these behaviors... when we started treating my son for physical problems is when we (And his teachers) began to see REAL improvements with him.

Good for you. We live in a culture of symptom-treating. The bigger picture is missed more often than not. I worked with a child several years ago. He was diagnosed with autism. His parents didn't settle for just behavioral help. It turned out that the young man had been eating the lead paint from the really old house they were renting. Once they went the route of treating that, his behavior improved dramatically.

[runes]

The neurodiverse contend that the gastrointestinal issues commonly seen in children with autism is a comorbidity, not part and parcel of the autism.

[Super Glue Mommy]

well, my son, and many others, never had these problems until almost immediately (or immediately) after certain vaccines. even the CDC said vaccines can cause this in pre-dispositioned people. and really, people think their is a neurological cause for gastrointestinal issues? or just that autistic children coincidentally ALSO have these problems, and function better when these things are treated? It's not hard to figure out that these physical things are contributing to autism, not that autism is contributing to them.

[runes]

I am so very sorry about your son.

Originally Posted by Super Glue Mommy

or just that autistic children coincidentally ALSO have these problems, and function better when these things are treated?

I can't speak for the nd movement since much of what they believe does not make sense, but it appears that the above is what they think.

[Scattershoot]

Originally Posted by kidspiration

The neurodiverse contend that the gastrointestinal issues commonly seen in children with autism is a comorbidity, not part and parcel of the autism.

That's why it is interesting when physical health issues are addressed, symptoms of autism can gradually go away in some instances. There is a large contingent within the medical field who don't see and don't want to see a relationship.

It works this way with a lot of diagnoses within the DSM. Comorbidity creates a mindset taking a practitioner down a path of non-relation. I've heard Occam's razor preached over and over, but this is not how things work in the real world I've since discovered. The maxim "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily" does not always hold sway.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Scattershoot

What's happening is the medical community and the pharmaceutical industry do not want to see the physical links to autism. That's why this diagnosis gets placed in the DSM-IV. It's emotional, psychological and behavioral but not physical in their opinion. The gastrointestinal link opens a floodgate of potential consequences.

Is anybody important denying that Autism has a physical basis? Surely one reason for diagnosing it in terms of behaviour is that there is no physical or chemical test for autism. Or have I missed something?

Originally Posted by Kidspiration

The neurodiverse contend that the gastrointestinal issues commonly seen in children with autism is a comorbidity, not part and parcel of the autism.

I recall, though I have no idea from where, that neurological problems are often associated with digestive problems. I don't think autism is unique in this.

Originally Posted by Super Glue Mommy

well, my son, and many others, never had these problems until almost immediately (or immediately) after certain vaccines. even the CDC said vaccines can cause this in pre-dispositioned people

This is an important point, or rather two points, and apologies if I'm spouting stuff you've heard 100 times before.
1. The timing of the symptoms and the vaccination may be a coincidence. Vaccination with MMR and the first symptoms of autism tend to show at about the same time. As an individual you have no way of telling whether the one caused the other. Even people who believe in the MMR vaccination link blame only a percentage of autism on MMR. So you are in a position where most autism isn't caused by MMR, most people who have MMR don't get autism. How can you tell whether the link you believe you see is exists without relying on science/statistics?
2. When you mention 'pre-dispositioned people', do you mean people like Hannah Poling? Where a genetic condition that can be set off by an infection is set of by vaccination? This is known and presumably taken into account in the cost/benifit analysis of vaccination. It could be that MMR causes autism in this way, but all the evidence that I'm aware of shows that it doesn't. In any case, if it did work in this way, surely the children who are harmed could have developed autism from any illness?

[kiara7]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

1. How can you tell whether the link you believe you see is exists without relying on science/statistics?

Do you have science that clearly without a doubt shows that there is no link?

[Super Glue Mommy]

not eveyone gets MMR at 15 months, so I dont think its coincidental timing. I also don't see how a child can be ADVANCED 1 week, get a shot, then regress and turn into a completely different child. what else happens at the same time they get a shot that would cause this, and make it coincidental?

and thank you Kiara. I dont see why we have to prove these vaccines are dangerous when they have not yet proved they are safe. it is their responsibility to prove they are safe, and they are not being accountable to that fact.

[Sileree]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Vaccination with MMR and the first symptoms of autism tend to show at about the same time.

Regressive autism is a new phenomenon. In the '50s and '60s kids were born with it. To be developing normally and suddenly regress backwards is completely new.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by kiara7

Do you have science that clearly without a doubt shows that there is no link?

I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean:
1. Do I have any reports/studies that fail to show a link. In which case, I'd be happy to try and dig something out? If no such evidence exists it would clearly be educational for me to find that out.

2. Do you mean do I have anything proving conclusively that there is absolutely no link? I think the standard answer is that that isn't how science works and no such proof will ever be produced. At best science can say that if there is a link, it is too weak to be detected and then keep improving their measurements. At any stage it could turn out that there is a link too ephermeral to be detected previously. If you could suggest what such a proof might look like, I'll reconsider.

[Super Glue Mommy]

the fact that even the CDC admits that there is a possible link is enough for me. that and having lived it. I am sure Kiara meant number 2. and while we know it can not be proved conclusively, they can't even plausibly conclude there is no link. even they recognize this, though haven't made effort to do so. or they have, and haven't gotten the results they want yet.