or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Andrew Wakefield banned
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Andrew Wakefield banned - Page 4

post #61 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
Just wanted to add that I doubt very many parents decided against vaccines based on this case. Most of the people I know have done a fair amount of research from multiple angles before making up their minds.
post #62 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by heathergirl67 View Post
I have, indeed. It was about bowel disease and never claimed to prove a link between MMR and autism. It did, however, suggest a link and that it should be looked into further. It was only later in a press conference that Wakefield said that MMR causes autism and should be given in separate doses.
What he said at a press conference has no bearing on what was actually in the paper. He was asked a question about his opinion, so he gave it.

Quote:
He neglected to mention that he was being paid by an anti-vax lawyer or that he had patented a single-dose shot of measles two years earlier.
This is not true, he was working on a "transfer factor", which would have treated measles inflammation in the gut. It was not a vaccine and never designed to be. It did not work though so it was abandoned

Quote:
And it wasn't until later that the investigation into the study revealed that the raw data the study was based on was significantly different than the study's report. There were changes of symptoms, diagnoses, and other significant facts.
These were all unfounded allegations made by a journalist Brian Deer, who had his own conflicts. The GMC never found anything wrong with the actual science that was in the paper, although they spent years looking.

The only thing they could "get" him on was saying it was unethical to give colonoscopies to children (even though none of the parents of the children involved complained and they were not allowed to testify on Wakefield's behalf.) There was also an issue as to whether the cases in the study were "consecutively referred" which I never quite understood since a case study would only involve the cases that were referred to Wakefield because they were suffering from intestinal problems. He did not seek out these patients. They came to him because no other doctor would listen to them and help them.
post #63 of 95
Turquesa- Please see the above post for an example of my earlier point.
post #64 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by heathergirl67 View Post
Why would the autism question bother you? It was undoubtedly the loudest cry from anti-vaxxers for the longest amount of time. It stands to reason that it would stick in people's minds.
Correction. It was the loudest cry from news media claiming to represent non-vaxxers. Prior to reporting, nobody took a poll about why parents choose not to follow the CDC schedule.
post #65 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by heathergirl67 View Post
Turquesa- Please see the above post for an example of my earlier point.
Never mind. I get it.
post #66 of 95
*

Yes. This.
I am sick to pieces of hearing that non-vaccinating parents allow their children to spread disease. I have had people keep their vaccinated kids AWAY from mine because they were convinced my healthy child would give them whatever disease that their child is vaccinated against. Makes no sense.
I had what I thought was a FRIEND (she found out through a mutual friend) hold her child to her and CRY because my son ran up and mouthed her daughters arm when he was a few years old. She was convinced her child would be sick with-i kid you not-rabies or rubella or something. I told her she needn't worry, her kids was vaccinated, right?
post #67 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapientia View Post
Yes. This.
I am sick to pieces of hearing that non-vaccinating parents allow their children to spread disease. I have had people keep their vaccinated kids AWAY from mine because they were convinced my healthy child would give them whatever disease that their child is vaccinated against. Makes no sense.
I had what I thought was a FRIEND (she found out through a mutual friend) hold her child to her and CRY because my son ran up and mouthed her daughters arm when he was a few years old. She was convinced her child would be sick with-i kid you not-rabies or rubella or something. I told her she needn't worry, her kids was vaccinated, right?

propaganda sheeple crap.
Apparently this "friend" doesn't trust the vaxes she is giving her kid, otherwise what does she have to afraid of?
post #68 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
I've been following this case closely.

I think the judgement is a travesty.

What was done was to take a few minor paperwork problems and blow them up into a huge scandal.

Compare, for example, to the business as usual response to Merck actually publishing fake medical journals to promote Vioxx.

Can we say double standard?

The main point of the insane way this whole thing has been handled was to intimidate any other doctors who might speak up for children or anyone else with vaccine injuries in the U.K.

Just my opinion, of course.
I couldn't agree with you more

and yes heather...what started this entire scandel was messed up paperwork...the folks that have the most to say (and usually not the nicest things) are the ones that actually know very little about the case and are merely reguritating what they have been told via mainstream media. (not saying this is you)

This case is not unlike the entire vaccine subject. The truth is not in plain sight. One must dig for it.
post #69 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marnica View Post
I couldn't agree with you more

and yes heather...what started this entire scandel was messed up paperwork...the folks that have the most to say (and usually not the nicest things) are the ones that actually know very little about the case and are merely reguritating what they have been told via mainstream media. (not saying this is you)

This case is not unlike the entire vaccine subject. The truth is not in plain sight. One must dig for it.
Enlighten us.
post #70 of 95
I've read so much misinformation in this thread. If any of you want to know the real story, the easiest way will be to buy his book. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/161...pf_rd_i=507846

Even if you don't believe him, at least you'd be getting the other side of the story, which you probably haven't read, unless you have gone to great lengths to seek it out.

To anyone who says his study was too small, that's the nature of a case series. A case series is when a doctor writes about specific patients that he has treated. He found a new kind of bowel disease in those patients, and one small part of the report was that he mentioned that in the majority of those patients, the parents felt the bowel problems were somehow associated with the MMR. Should he have withheld that bit of information from his report?

Someone on this thread said he took blood samples without parent permission. That's absolutely false. He had the permission of parents and children. The issue was whether or not the ethical approval he had received for the study covered that specific blood draw. He said it did, the GMC said it didn't--not a big deal in reality.
post #71 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by heathergirl67 View Post
Enlighten us.
Nope.....you need to do that for yourself. Seek and ye shall find

Quote:
It is easier to perceive error than to find truth, for the former lies on the surface and is easily seen, while the latter lies in the depth, where few are willing to search for it.
Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe
post #72 of 95
*

I agree...many of the misunderstandings are quite complicated. This might be useful for some. It is well referenced, written by a third party who is an MDiv, PhD and a lawyer. This is what prompted me to start following the GMC case so closely. This was written before the verdict.
http://www.wesupportandywakefield.co..._Wakefield.pdf
post #73 of 95
That looks like a good article, Marnica. I haven't had a chance to read it thoroughly yet. I just wanted to make a correction, though. The author is not an MD. That MDiv is a Masters of Divinity. He also has a PhD in the area of religious history and a law degree.

So he's not a medical doctor or a scientist, but seems to be an intelligent, educated man, who actively sought out the truth and wanted to share what he learned.
post #74 of 95
Wakefield's response to the myths and misinformation regarding his Lancet paper.

http://www.generationrescue.org/pdf/...eld_100128.pdf
post #75 of 95
I didn't read all the posts... but I saw that lots of people said Dr Wakefield's study had nothing to do with their decision not to vaccinate and many had never heard of him.

This might be true of the very well researched community here... (although I am surprised that people have not heard of him). For myself, I feel his work was the first inkling I had that I ought to look into not vaxing, delayed vaxing, or selective vaxing. So even though in the end, I made my decision to not vax based mostly on the CDC's info, I feel sad that he has been very effectively discredited to the mainstream community or people who don't know much, but are kind of on the fence. I think it's a pretty big victory for the pro-vax side. It doesn't change my mind personally, but I think it will make parents who do not have the information I have, who have not done their homework yet, decide that not vaxing is for quacks without looking into it further.
post #76 of 95
I have removed several posts from this thread which were either in violation of our guidelines or were responding to such posts. If this thread is to remain open for discussion, please remember that the purpose of the thread is not to gossip or speculate about a specific individual.

In that light, please do not post in any manner which casts unfounded accusations or suspicion on anyone. Please feel free to share documented facts pertaining to this study or the surrounding situations & issues. Please also feel free to share more about how this situation has impacted or not impacted your family's vax decisions.
post #77 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by ma2two View Post
That looks like a good article, Marnica. I haven't had a chance to read it thoroughly yet. I just wanted to make a correction, though. The author is not an MD. That MDiv is a Masters of Divinity. He also has a PhD in the area of religious history and a law degree.

So he's not a medical doctor or a scientist, but seems to be an intelligent, educated man, who actively sought out the truth and wanted to share what he learned.
thanks for clarifying, didn't see the iv there!
post #78 of 95
I was reading something about this subject, and hoped that someone could help me out:

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

It's interesting and it would be telling if the claims in this article were true. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a way of knowing whether or not it's true without seeing each of the 12 children's individual medical records. I can't imagine that they're out there, though. That seems like it would be a pretty big breach of privacy. Do you know where I could find these? Without them it just seems like I'd have to believe someone's claims. Since both sides are making such difference claims, it just seems like there's no way for me to know what's true without seeing the data that they've seen. Ya know?
post #79 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by heathergirl67 View Post
Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a way of knowing whether or not it's true without seeing each of the 12 children's individual medical records. I can't imagine that they're out there, though. That seems like it would be a pretty big breach of privacy.
People were trying to understand how Brian Deer came to be in possession of those records. It is his evaluation of the data that skeptics, and many other people, claim that his study was outright fraud. (there are a couple of other people that cast doubt, but Deer is most definitely the central figure).

How, on gawd's green earth, did a journalist get a hold of those medical records?
post #80 of 95
Well, he was supposed to have the records because he was being sued by Wakefield. But then the suit was stopped and any records in his possession should have been destroyed.

There was a fascinating exchange in the rapid response at the BMJ.

Dr. Yazbak wrote in about his grandchild, who saw the team, including Wakefield, at the Royal Free. Yazbak was full of praise for the care his grandkid received. Due to the wording in Yazbak's letter, there was some confusion as to whether his grandkid was one of the "12" or not.

Brian Deer wrote in stating that he had access to the records and that Yazbak was lying. Yazbak responded and clarified.

Then Hilary Butler responded and pointed out that Brian Deer shouldn't have access to that info and a bunch of other people also commented, saying the same thing.

The climax was when the BMJ left Brian Deer's comment but pulled all the others responding and critiquing it.

Right.

There are no powerful people backing Brian Deer.

and if you believe that, I've got a lovely bridge for sale in Brooklyn.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Andrew Wakefield banned