What do you think of this article: MMR Dr. Wakefield fixed data on autism?

[RoseDuperre]

Excerpts: "Confidential medical documents and interviews with witnesses have established that Andrew Wakefield manipulated patients’ data, which triggered fears that the MMR triple vaccine to protect against measles, mumps and rubella was linked to the condition."

"Although the research paper claimed that problems came on within days of the jab, in only one case did medical records suggest this was true, and in many of the cases medical concerns had been raised before the children were vaccinated."

Related article:

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


I'm still skeptical, but hmm.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/lif...cle5683671.ece

[Scattershoot]

They are saying he "faked" data so they can try to ridicule all the case studies and smear his name completely. This is what happens when you challenge the Holy Grail of medicine. That's why 10 of the 13 jumped ship. They took the threats seriously.

Wakefield was going on what the parents of most of the children had told him. This is what doctors are supposed to do. Several parents told him that their children were doing fine and on schedule, then after the shot the children regressed and started having gastrointestinal problems.

The medical community HAS to debunk this. They are trying to make it sound like the problems were pre-existing (not related to the MMR) or don't exist at all. This is a huge part of the debunking.

Isn't it interesting that this came out 12 years ago and none of his info from the CASE STUDIES (they make it sound like he was doing this massive research project when all he was doing was presenting info to follow up on) was debunked, and now he is in a hearing to see if he is fit to practice brought on, not by the parents or the medical community, but by a journalist?

What they are really doing is dragging him and his family through the mud as a warning to all the others who might get an itch to challenge vaccination.

[Bluegoat]

Well I wouldn't assume that there wasn't some questionable stuff going on. It happens regularly both in conventional and alternative medicine that people do bad research, either accidentally or on purpose. It can be hard if a researcher has a strong intuition to try to ignore that when doing a study. One thing I would say is that I would never accept anecdotal stories themselves as evidence with vaccines, there are just too many variables. I see them more as a starting point for further research.

[Jwebbal]

I had to take out the reference because it was from the Lancet, but I cannot just post a link as it's only available to those with access. Oh well. It was the original article back in 2004 with the retraction from 10 of the 12 researchers who peer reviewed Wakefield's original research.

[In Exile]

Wow, looks like "organized" smearing to me. Most likely toooooootal conincidence because I have seen the "faking Dr.Wakefield" mentioned a bit too often lately. I guess somebody in "high ranks" finally picked up onto his name being mentioned by the "anti-vaccine movement?" So it's time to hammer that name as "faker" into people's mind. THe more often you repeat it the more people will reject him right away without ever even having looked into any of his work.

Should we go down the popular "anti-vaccine" list on amazon and make a prediction who's next?

[Proverbs31]

I'm a bit new to the Wakefield controversy, so I am confused about the point of the retraction... his 1998 study didn't implicate the MMR, so what was there to retract?

[Scattershoot]

Originally Posted by Proverbs31

I'm a bit new to the Wakefield controversy, so I am confused about the point of the retraction... his 1998 study didn't implicate the MMR, so what was there to retract?

The paper stated there was no link found, but they put out this retraction anyhow.

"We wish to make it clear that in this paper no causal link was established between (the) vaccine and autism, as the data were insufficient. However the possibility of such a link was raised, and consequent events have had major implications for public health. In view of this, we consider now is the appropriate time that we should together formally retract the interpretation placed upon these findings in the paper, according to precedent."

In the paper, it is stated that several parents told the doctors that their children were healthy and normal until the shots and regressed after that. This was mentioned as was the idea that more research should follow.

I guess that was way too much for the medical/pharmaceutical establishment to swallow, so it was all out professional war on the authors. Ten backed off, hence the retraction, because they knew what would happen to them professionally and financially. Wakefield won't back off. This is what happens when you dare to question the establishment.

If autism and the host of health issues that go with it, including all the gastrointestinal issues, is ever found to be associated with vaccination we're talking trillions and trillions of dollars in losses. This would be akin to what the cigarette companies went through. There are so many powerful mechanisms in place, that I personally don't see how this would ever happen even if the thousands of parents who are convinced that the shots were a trigger for the autism turned into millions. Just like how for decades the cigarette companies held off, with creative research, the angry hordes.

Like I wrote before, what is happening to Wakefield and his two colleagues is a warning to those doctors who may wish to question the role of vaccination in all the serious health issues popping up in children.

[Ensemble]

This new information coming out really doesn't change anything in terms of the science. An observation of eight cases means very little unless it can be replicated. Numerous large studies were carried out, and none found any link.

[shuttlt]

Are fathers allowed to post here? I hope I'm not breaking protocol...

At the risk of derailing things, the following document from the deafblind charity Sense had a better argument for why single jabs are a bad idea than I've seen anywhere else:
http://www.sense.org.uk/media_centre...statements.htm

In so far as Wakefield goes, IF you believe he's right, then perhaps it is a conspiracy. It's a big IF though.

My son has got to have his MMR in not so very many months, so if you've got some good evidence that he is right, I'd be very interested to hear it.

[Emmeline II]

The last I read the trial was going very much in Wakefield's favor.

[Drummer's Wife]

Originally Posted by Emmeline II

The last I read the trial was going very much in Wakefield's favor.

where are you reading this?

TIA

[Deborah]

This is the only ongoing coverage I know about:
http://www.cryshame.co.uk//index.php...d=44&Itemid=46

Look at the articles by Martin Walker.

[carriebft]

You read back through age of autism's coverage of the omnibus trial and how well they thought they were doing. and we see how that turned out. I expect the GMC to be much of the same.

[Deborah]

Okay Carrie, let me get this perfectly clear.

You think that the children that were examined at the Royal Free had autism only and no bowel problems. That all of the stuff about bowel problems was made up. That they were not referred by their GPs according to the normal protocol. And so on.

Because that is what the GMC is claiming.

[carriebft]

charges include the lack of ethics, informed consent, being paid and not disclosing, the blood sample purchase debacle, lack of ethics approvals, and on and on including horrible protocol in other areas. the case is not simply about "does autistic entercolitis exist?"

But, if you want my opinions on that, I think I have talked about it extensively in the three or so threads currently running on this.

[Deborah]

Okay, let's take the being paid and not disclosing part.

Horton, it turns out, had a letter in his files, well before the Lancet article was published, detailing that money had come from the lawsuit to the Royal Free.

[carriebft]

Makes you wonder why Horton claimed that he would not have published the MMR portion of the article had the litigation payments been disclosed to him. they went over that tediously when all this came to light re: the file, as you can read in the link you provided (of course, to get the real story you would have to try and get past all the bias)

We could go on and on like this. Of course those on Wakefield's side are going to paint a rosy picture of the proceedings, as we plainly see in the link you provided. IMO, it's just like we saw in the many articles on AOA during this trial. I believe Wakefield will be found guilty on many counts, perhaps not all of them- as there are, what, 20? I forget.

the same can be said of reading Deer's opinion pieces concerning the trial. But at least his website does give you some links to actual pieces of evidence and court documents to peruse.

that said, I am done discussing the wakefield, mmr, gut, gmc thing for a while. i need a few days away from this topic!

[Deborah]

Me too!