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

Andrew Wakefield banned - Page 5

post #81 of 95
When I read that rapid response on the BMJ, and I saw the video Cry Shame I saw another side of Brian Deer, one that is not openly discussed in the media.

When I first went to his website to find out more about the controversy, I was sure that the story was that Dr. Andrew Wakefield had executed poor science and would be found guilty. Brian Deer has an impressive resume and had many documents to support his claims.

I then found out that he was reporting on a case that he himself had brought to the GMC. No parent had complained. He himself had brought the complaint forward.

I am amazed at how damning people are of the ethics violations on the side of Andrew Wakefield, and so very complacent of the ethical issue of Brian Deer reporting on a case that he himself brought before the GMC, and the fact that he is keeping medical records of the children involved. I know I would be livid if my sons medical records were in the hands of a journalist.

It quickly became clear to me that Brian Deer was not a reliable source of information. He is too central to the conflict.

The media has also 'spun' the retraction as being evidence of fraud. The science itself was not fraudulent. Dr. Wakefield was found guilty of ethics violations. And the children studied are ignored. Against the recommendation in the retraction. It's a right mess.
post #82 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by ema-adama View Post
When I read that rapid response on the BMJ, and I saw the video Cry Shame I saw another side of Brian Deer, one that is not openly discussed in the media.

When I first went to his website to find out more about the controversy, I was sure that the story was that Dr. Andrew Wakefield had executed poor science and would be found guilty. Brian Deer has an impressive resume and had many documents to support his claims.

I then found out that he was reporting on a case that he himself had brought to the GMC. No parent had complained. He himself had brought the complaint forward.

I am amazed at how damning people are of the ethics violations on the side of Andrew Wakefield, and so very complacent of the ethical issue of Brian Deer reporting on a case that he himself brought before the GMC, and the fact that he is keeping medical records of the children involved. I know I would be livid if my sons medical records were in the hands of a journalist.

It quickly became clear to me that Brian Deer was not a reliable source of information. He is too central to the conflict.

The media has also 'spun' the retraction as being evidence of fraud. The science itself was not fraudulent. Dr. Wakefield was found guilty of ethics violations. And the children studied are ignored. Against the recommendation in the retraction. It's a right mess.
post #83 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
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.

He had very powerful people backing him. In fact I would go far as to say that he had very powerful people manipulating him. IMO he is just a pawn in a far bigger operation here. The editor from the Sunday Times that originally approached Deer asked him to "find something big about the MMR" Not hey investigate this story I have, but actually asked him to create a story. http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/340/feb02_4/c672

that editor was Paul Nuki, son of Prof George Nuki, who sat on the Committee on Safety in Medicines when it passed Pluserix MMR vaccine as safe for use in 1987 (which was later withdrawn 1992 after adverse side effects ). Pluserix was manufactured by SmithKlineFrench Laboratories, which was later incorporated into GlaxoSmithKline. In 2007 Paul Nuki left the Sunday Times to manage a UK National Heath Service website (‘NHS Choices’ ).

Why would an ediitor need "something big"??

Whenever there is negativeity about a precious pharmaceutical, it must be handled and how they choose to handle it is to use the press.
http://www.publications.parliament.u...alth/42/42.pdf

look at page 60 where they talk about using PR to basically manipulate
Quote:
Considerable resources are invested into building long-term, sustainable relationships with stakeholders and ‘key opinion leaders‘ and journalists. These relationships are used to promote the use of certain brands and counter concerns relating to safety. Efforts to undermine critical voices in particular were identified, under terms of “issues management”. In later evidence, in response to the ISM’s memorandum, Pfizer stated that PR is entirely legitimate and can “help to educate and inform”. According to the PMCPA, PR activities may include “placing articles in the lay press, TV documentaries, soap operas etc“.’
The next Sunday times editor James Murdoch left in 2009 as he was appointed to the board of MMR manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline with a brief to
Quote:
help to review "external issues that might have the potential for serious impact upon the group's business and reputation
"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009...mithcline-role

Right after this there was a flurry of attacks on Wakefield by Deer and other times journalists. Coincidental?? maybe. I don't believe in those kinds of coincidents
post #84 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suka View Post
I wonder whats going threw the mind of non-vax mammas on here? Do you feel betrayed? Do you still stand by your decisions?
Who the heck is Andrew Wakefield?

-a non vaxxing mama
post #85 of 95
Two words come to mind:

Ignaz Semmelweis
post #86 of 95
You know what's funny is that my local online paper just ran an article about whooping cough cases being on the rise, with the usual admonishments about making sure you vaccinate . The comments on the article were filled with people making fun of non-vaxers and bringing up how Wakefield was "discredited".

So the fact that a doctor who studied MMR was rebuked somehow proves the safety and efficacy of the pertussis vaccine?

Probably my number one complaint about pro-vaxers is how they lump all vaccines together. Somehow to them, if a pharma product is called a "vaccine" it automatically becomes essential for everyone to receive it, regardless if it works, is safe, or is even for a dangerous disease!
post #87 of 95
Well, the vaccines are all good position is "scientific" and the let's consider vaccines individually position is unscientific.

Even worse is looking at each human being as an individual! What could be more fringe?
post #88 of 95
So Brian Deer had circumstances that might call his bias and ethics into question. And Wakefield had circumstances that might call his bias and ethics into question. Brian Deer can back up his claims with the case files. Wakefield can back up his claims with the case files. But we can't see those, so there's no way of really knowing who is telling the truth. Right? We might get a feeling that one is "better" than the other, but we can't know because the medical files are sealed. Is that a correct assessment?
post #89 of 95
Only if you leave out the parents, the reputation and standing of Dr. Walker-Smith, the various interlocking interests in the UK government, the Times and the drug companies.

1) The parents have spoken out, strongly, in favor of Dr. Wakefield. There is a film, available online that interviews several of the parents and also shows Brian Deer interacting with the parents...I can't think of the name but I'm sure someone will chime in.

2) Dr. Walker-Smith more or less created the modern field of pediatric gastroenterology. On top of that he is pro-vaccine and pro-MMR. And yet he examined these twelve children and recommended that they have the various invasive procedures which are at the core of this case. So why did he do it? The most straightforward explanation is that the kids really are sick, he saw this, and wanted to relieve their pain and suffering.

3) I have yet to see any explanation from the anti-Wakefield side that addresses the interlocking interests who had good cause to defend MMR and the overall vaccine program.

A final point: I've been following the Wakefield story since 1999. The amount of misinformation which has been spread around, most of it purposefully created to attack Wakefield is truly amazing. One example, which you brought up, is the bizarre claim that Dr. Wakefield was creating his own measles vaccine (transfer factor) and therefore was trying to destroy MMR to establish a market and make the big bucks.

If Wakefield was wrong, he was wrong. No problem, frankly. But then, why the crazy stories, why the misinformation?
post #90 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
Only if you leave out the parents, the reputation and standing of Dr. Walker-Smith, the various interlocking interests in the UK government, the Times and the drug companies.

1) The parents have spoken out, strongly, in favor of Dr. Wakefield. There is a film, available online that interviews several of the parents and also shows Brian Deer interacting with the parents...I can't think of the name but I'm sure someone will chime in.

2) Dr. Walker-Smith more or less created the modern field of pediatric gastroenterology. On top of that he is pro-vaccine and pro-MMR. And yet he examined these twelve children and recommended that they have the various invasive procedures which are at the core of this case. So why did he do it? The most straightforward explanation is that the kids really are sick, he saw this, and wanted to relieve their pain and suffering.

3) I have yet to see any explanation from the anti-Wakefield side that addresses the interlocking interests who had good cause to defend MMR and the overall vaccine program.

A final point: I've been following the Wakefield story since 1999. The amount of misinformation which has been spread around, most of it purposefully created to attack Wakefield is truly amazing. One example, which you brought up, is the bizarre claim that Dr. Wakefield was creating his own measles vaccine (transfer factor) and therefore was trying to destroy MMR to establish a market and make the big bucks.

If Wakefield was wrong, he was wrong. No problem, frankly. But then, why the crazy stories, why the misinformation?
Right. Lots of claims and deductions about possible this or suspicious that. From both sides. But the actual evidence- the very truth of the core of the study and accusations- are in the children's medical files. Files that we don't have access to, right?
post #91 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suka View Post
I wonder whats going threw the mind of non-vax mammas on here? Do you feel betrayed? Do you still stand by your decisions?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37311056/ns/health/
do you feel like you decisions are more validated now? why would anything diff be going through our minds?

no i dont feel betrayed because he is not the reason i would not vax my kids.

do i still stand by my choice to not vax my kids when i have them? yes! there is sooo much more to it then what this one dr has to say.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Melaya View Post
This is not the first time an anti-vax doctor has been in trouble. Seems a lot of them end up losing their licenses, or being ridiculed, or disproven, etc. It appears to be very hard/impossible for doctors in this country to have an anti-vax stance and be taken seriously. Personally, this doctor and his study had nothing to do with my reasons for not vaccinating. Autism was probably the least of my worries when it comes to vaccines and my kids. Nothing in my life is changing over this and my kid will remain vaccine free.

If this is all it takes to get an "anti-vax" person vaxing, then they did not do enough research one way or the other to begin with.
very well said!
post #92 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by heathergirl67 View Post
Right. Lots of claims and deductions about possible this or suspicious that. From both sides. But the actual evidence- the very truth of the core of the study and accusations- are in the children's medical files. Files that we don't have access to, right?
True, we don't have access to the medical files.

We do have access to the parents who have spoken out about the medical condition of their children.

If you were changing the diapers on a 12 or 13 year old with chronic diarrhea and the GMC claimed that this child did not have bowel disease, would you think the GMC knew what they were talking about? Parents do know a lot about their children's medical history.
post #93 of 95
My decisions regarding vaccinating had nothing to do with Andrew Wakefield. In fact, I had to think about who he was when I saw this thread!
post #94 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah View Post
True, we don't have access to the medical files.

We do have access to the parents who have spoken out about the medical condition of their children.

If you were changing the diapers on a 12 or 13 year old with chronic diarrhea and the GMC claimed that this child did not have bowel disease, would you think the GMC knew what they were talking about? Parents do know a lot about their children's medical history.
Parents do know a lot about their children's medical history. But I'm not going to believe that (fill in the blank) is wrong with the child because the child's parent says it's true. There have been countless parents throughout history who have just *known* that the problem with their child was that s/he was possessed, or needed a lobotomy, or needed a blood-letting, etc. That's why we have tests that rule out certain conditions. Because parents aren't always the best place to go when looking for a logical, unbiased opinion about their child. It's sort of your job as a parent NOT to be! Kind of the same reason that surgeons aren't allowed to operate on their own kids. No matter how much knowledge and training you have, sometimes it can be hard to see the forest for the trees.

Still, the issues can't be answered by the parents, their opinions, or the realities of their daily lives. For example: Did Andrew Wakefield and his team change the way a diagnosis was presented from the patient's original file to the report? The answer to that has nothing to do with what anyone says or thinks or feels. It has nothing to do with anyone's character or cohorts or financial ties. The answer can only come from seeing the original patients files, so that one can compare them to the study. Everything else can certainly shape your opinion of the people or methodology involved, but cannot answer the basic question in any way.
post #95 of 95
So you really think that Dr. Walker Smith ended a distinguished career messing around with patient files to prove Dr. Wakefield's theory about MMR?

Sorry, makes no sense.

Makes no sense, either, that Wakefield was able to mess with the patient files when he was part of a large team of researchers.

This whole case consists of impossibilities piled high.

IMO the only thing that makes sense is the government trying to cover up a large screw-up.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Andrew Wakefield banned