or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Medical doctor and parent of autistic child offers to take up Wakefield's debate challenge. Wakefield declines
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Medical doctor and parent of autistic child offers to take up Wakefield's debate challenge.... - Page 2

post #21 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie8681 View Post

The book is available on his website for $15. I don't think I have that to give to someone who gave disabled children colonoscopies with biopsy and spinal taps so he could push his measles vaccine.

You don't have a library? headscratch.gif

Where there's a will to learn, there's a way.
post #22 of 42
*learn* lol!
post #23 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie8681 View Post

*learn* lol!

eyesroll.gif

post #24 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie8681 View Post

*learn* lol!

duh.gif Sigh.
post #25 of 42
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post

duh.gif Sigh.

I totally agree (except I think in sighing about something different).
post #26 of 42
Prosciencemum, you started this thread by expressing a very narrow-minded viewpoint that just happened to be based on misinformation.

I'm not blaming you for that, because that misinformation was published in the press as though it were hard fact.

You apparently believed that Wakefield had done unnecessary colonoscopies on children and dishonestly reported the time of onset of autism in his patients, as that was what had been reported in the press.

You concluded that he was dishonest and did not have the children's welfare at heart.

The parents of Wakefield's autistic patients had been BEGGING for appropriate treatment for their intestinal symptoms. This appropriate treatment included colonoscopies. The press reporting these colonoscopies as "unnecessary" was assuming that the kids did not in fact have severe intestinal problems.

But they did. That was the whole reason they were referred to Wakefield's group in the first place. Just read what the parents--ALL the parents, the parents of the children in question--have written in their statements supporting Wakefield.

The press, led by Pharma-funded Brian Deer, asserted that Wakefield lied about the onset of the children's autism, and produced illegally-obtained copies of hospital records that did not mention developmental problems (or in the case of one, mentioned them as being linked to cardiac defects not yet repaired by surgery).

The parents had other, conflicting records from other specialists, in many cases, pre-dating the hospital records, that DID mention concerns of developmental problems). The child with the heart defect underwent surgery, made a big catch-up in development--and was then given the MMR, and subsequently regressed. All documented BEFORE Wakefield ever saw them.

Are you aware how often doctors and nurses make errors in medical records? I've gone in with a ver sick child who had NO fever, and was asked by the nurse, the physician assistant, the physician, and then the specialist: "how long has your child had this fever? How high was the fever?" Somehow, it got into my child's record that there was a fever.

I've gotten copies of my children's medical records, and I stopped counting the number of errors. "not sleeping through the night." (Yes, he was, was sleeping with me.) "not getting enough breastmilk, nursing too often, formula recommended." (Because I let my newborn nurse every half hour on the first day) "Child developing normally" (except he'd gone from conversations to only a few words, couldn't point, flapped, spun, banged his head, and had echolalia, intestinal problems, and wasn't responding to verbal cues.).

There was at least one error--usually minor, but not always--for every visit.

I'm wondering if you are realizing that at least some of what you believe is incorrect?

And if some of what you believe is incorrect, don't you wonder if anything else might be?

Wouldn't it be worth your time to read Wakefield's side of things, and then sit down and add up ALL the facts, rather than just the ones that were presented by a media system known to be corrupt?

And while we're at it, shouldn't you remember that our society has a tendency to latch onto one viewpoint and champion it without fully knowing ALL the facts? How many centuries did it take before the Catholic Church acknowledged their error in declaring Galileo a heretic? How long did it take physicians to stop sneering at Semmelweis' observations about hand-washing and childbed fever?

How scientific is YOUR understanding of the facts? Doesn't science--pure science--allow for reanalysis when new data is presented?

You haven't HAD access to all the data if you're only basing your beliefs on leftbrainrightbrain and the mainstream media. Shouldn't you read what Wakefield--the accused--has to say? As Marnica's and Beckybird have said, most of us on this side of the fence have read Offit's book, and Mnookin's book, and others. Are we the only ones looking at both sides?

You don't have to buy the book. Ask your library for one. Ask a local anti-vaxxer if you can borrow their copy. They probably feel strongly enough that they'd buy you a copy.

Read it. You don't have to change your mind about anything.

Just read it.

And then we'll talk.
post #27 of 42
He DID lie about when at least some of the children's autism symptoms started. The parents have come forward and said so. And he DID have, at best, mixed motivations. He was being paid to achieve a particular outcome.
post #28 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

He DID lie about when at least some of the children's autism symptoms started. The parents have come forward and said so. And he DID have, at best, mixed motivations. He was being paid to achieve a particular outcome.

Show proof, please. Show proof that the parents have come forward and said that Wakefield lied.  Let's have names and dates, please.

 

I have seen statements from the parents of every child.  All but one COMPLETELY supported Wakefield (one was silent), and ALL of them eventually COMPLEtelY refuted Brian Deer's version of events (which became the de facto media version). The one father that had been silent did not want to get involved, because he felt that to do so might jeopardize his child's chance of being treated elsewhere.  (Go against Big Pharma and Big Med, get blacklisted from treatment.)  But eventually, he too came forward--and absolutely blasted Brian Deer, for lying to him, and for misrepresenting the facts.

 

In Wakefield's book, he explains all this in great detail--with plenty of documentation.

 

The parents themselves have gotten together to write two books:  Silenced Witnesses I and Silenced Witnesses II:  The Denial of Vaccine Damage by the Government, Corporations, and the Media.  They are available on Amazon.  Perhaps you should read the parents' own words before your rely on reports by a corrupt news agency.

 

And how distasteful--you just completely derailed the thread with a wild accusation, with no proof whatsoever, just to derail the thread.

 

Looks like you don't want prosciencemum to respond to my post directed at her. 

post #29 of 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

He DID lie about when at least some of the children's autism symptoms started. The parents have come forward and said so. And he DID have, at best, mixed motivations. He was being paid to achieve a particular outcome.

I'd like to see the proof that "he was being paid to achieve a particular outcome".
post #30 of 42
Have you actually read the Brian deer article? Either of you?
post #31 of 42
You all are acting as if he was brutally silenced and this book was the only way for him to tell his side of the story. He had his day(s) in court! He also tried to sue Deer for libel and DROPPED THE CASE. Doesn't sound to me like his side of the story has much substance to it.
post #32 of 42
I'm sure the uk general medical council just read the article and revoked wakefields license, no questions asked.
post #33 of 42

I've read Deer's article, Mnookin's book, what transcripts of the court proceedings that were published, the parents' statements, the parents' books, Wakefield's book, and others as well.

 

There were absolutely horrendous holes in both Deer's article and the case against Wakefield.

 

You need to remember that the case against Wakefield was based on the idea that the autistic children he saw had no intestinal disorders at all, let alone intestinal disorders that coincided with MMR jabs and autistic symptoms.  And his partner, Dr. Walker-Smith, was able to reverse those findings against himself, because HIS insurance paid the costs of his appeal. Wakefield's insurance did not.  Walker-Smith was able to prove that the proof against him--and all the doctors involved in the 1998 paper--was a pile of crap.  Justice Mitting basically said so:

 

"For the reasons given above, both on general issues and the Lancet paper and in relation to individual children, the panel’s overall conclusion that Professor Walker-Smith was guilty of serious professional misconduct was flawed, in two respects: inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion....The panel’s determination cannot stand. I therefore quash it."

http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2012/03/07/english-court-exonerates-mmrautism-doctor-uk-general-medical-given-sound-thrashing/

 

 

The judge criticised the disciplinary panel's "inadequate and superficial reasoning and, in a number of instances, a wrong conclusion".

The judge said: "It would be a misfortune if this were to happen again."

He urged that in future such cases should be "chaired by someone with judicial experience".

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/mmr-doctor-john-walkersmith-wins-high-court-appeal-7543114.html

 

I'll add that, because of the initial findings against Walker-Smith and Wakefield, thousands and thousands of parents (including myself) were told that their autistic children had absolutely noting medical wrong with, certainly no severe bowel disorders, and that they just acted like they were in severe pain "because they were autistic, and that's how autistic children act."  We were told this because the crux of the case against Wakefield and Walker-Smith was that there was no such thing as a "novel bowel disorder" affecting autistic kids.

 

We now know, of course, that a sizable subgroup of autistic kids DO have severe intestinal issues,whose onset  in most cases coincided with vaccines.  We also know that these kids respond so favorably to dietary interventions and other treatments of their supposedly imaginary bowel disorders, that their symptoms drastically improve.

 

You might want to read Karyin Seroussi's excellent book, Unraveling the Mysteries of Autism and Pervasive Developmental Disorder:  A Mother's Story or Research and Recovery.


 

post #34 of 42

Then why are you acting so confused about parents who've said their experiences didn't match the account in the research study?

 

http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5347

post #35 of 42
Rrrrrachel, you're the one who is confused. That isn't a scientific study you've linked, it's just a Pharma-funded article by Brian Deer--and the parents quoted have gone on record saying he misrepresented everything.

It's also worth noting that Deer got ahold of private medical records illegally, without the parents' consent--and doesn't mention the fact that conflicting records existed.
post #36 of 42
When did I say it was a scientific study? That would be a weird scientific study.
post #37 of 42
Thread Starter 
Rrrrrachel - thanks for posting the Deer article. I hadn't read it before. Astonishing.
post #38 of 42

Taxi,

 

Thanks for the posts about the parents in Wakefield study - I had always wondered.

post #39 of 42
Thread Starter 
Found this cartoon version of the story of Wakefield and MMR (referenced).

http://tallguywrites.livejournal.com/148012.html
post #40 of 42
Thread Starter 
And a comment about some fact checks on the the start of this thread. Dr Fitzpatrick has indeed previously offered to debate Mr Wakefield, and has repeated this offer following Mr Wakefields challenge to debate "any serious challenger". Mr Wakefield has declined.

In Dr Fitzpatricks words:

http://www.spiked-online.com/site/article/13532/
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Medical doctor and parent of autistic child offers to take up Wakefield's debate challenge. Wakefield declines