Medical doctor and parent of autistic child offers to take up Wakefield's debate challenge. Wakefield declines - Page 2 - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#31 of 42 Old 04-21-2013, 11:17 AM
 
Katie8681's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Northern Cali
Posts: 676
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
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.

At home amongst the redwoods treehugger.gif with my husband and my son, born 7/5/11 familybed1.gif  Instant CNM, just add caffix.gif !

Katie8681 is offline  
#32 of 42 Old 04-21-2013, 11:24 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,154
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'm sure the uk general medical council just read the article and revoked wakefields license, no questions asked.
Imakcerka likes this.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#33 of 42 Old 04-21-2013, 11:57 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,101
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)

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.


 

Marnica likes this.
Taximom5 is online now  
#34 of 42 Old 04-21-2013, 12:02 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,154
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

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

Rrrrrachel is offline  
#35 of 42 Old 04-21-2013, 02:04 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,101
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
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.
Marnica and BeckyBird like this.
Taximom5 is online now  
#36 of 42 Old 04-21-2013, 02:31 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,154
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
When did I say it was a scientific study? That would be a weird scientific study.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
#37 of 42 Old 04-21-2013, 11:49 PM - Thread Starter
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,706
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Rrrrrachel - thanks for posting the Deer article. I hadn't read it before. Astonishing.

Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is offline  
#38 of 42 Old 04-22-2013, 03:12 AM
 
MamaMunchkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)

Taxi,

 

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

Taximom5 likes this.

Pro rights (vaxes).
MamaMunchkin is offline  
#39 of 42 Old 04-22-2013, 05:25 AM - Thread Starter
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,706
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Found this cartoon version of the story of Wakefield and MMR (referenced).

http://tallguywrites.livejournal.com/148012.html

Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is offline  
#40 of 42 Old 04-22-2013, 05:29 AM - Thread Starter
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,706
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
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/

Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is offline  
#41 of 42 Old 04-22-2013, 06:20 AM
 
serenbat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,103
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

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/

 

 

Frankly I don't see a debate mattering one little bit to most parents- this seems such a moot point I don't see anyone swayed either way 


 

 pro-transparency advocate

&

lurk.gif  PROUD member of the .3% club!

 

Want to join? Just ask me!

 

"You know, in my day we used to sit on our ass smoking Parliaments for nine months.

Today, you have one piece of Brie and everybody goes berserk."      ROTFLMAO.gif 

serenbat is offline  
#42 of 42 Old 04-22-2013, 10:32 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,101
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

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/

Prosciencemum, do you see how Dr. Fitzpatrick has packed his article with innuendo and, well, propaganda?

 

Examples: 


1) "It is true that Dr Wakefield’s claim of a link between MMR and autism triggered the panic which resulted in a 10 to 15 per cent fall in the uptake of the vaccine, with the result that localised outbreaks of measles are now occurring around Britain."

 

Please note that Dr. Fitzpatrick provides absolutely no proof of this, and does not mention that uptake rates of MMR are at an all-time record, and that more ADULTS have received boosters than ever before as well.

 

2) "Some authorities – including the distinguished US childhood immunisation specialist Paul Offit – are proposing that the government should introduce measures of compulsion to raise MMR uptake and prevent further measles outbreaks."

 


2 problems with this.  First of all, Paul Offit is described as "distinguished US childhood immunisation specialst, while Wakefield is later described as restricting his company to " sympathetic parents, anti-vaccination activists and promoters of quack autism therapies."  Never mind that what Dr. Fitzpatrick terms "quack autism therapies" in large part entails a gluten-free/casein-free diet and nutritional supplements which are entirely appropriate for children with Crohn's disease, inflammatory bowel disorder, or celiac disease--which most of the autistic children with bowel disorders have.  I guess Dr. Fitzpatrick is one of those doctors who insist that autistic children in severe intestinal pain act that way "because they are autistic."
 
Second of all, there is no mention of the fact that most of the parents who refuse the MMR have been asking for single-use measles vaccines--which is what Wakefield has been recommending all along, and these were available until 6 months after the Lancet paper was published.  The official reason given for yanking the single-dose measles vaccine?  "It would hamper the MMR program."
 
3)  "But these judgments [US Dept of Health and Human Services ADMITTING and compensating cases of MMR-induced autism] confirm only the preparedness of courts to make settlements in defiance of scientific evidence."
 
Prosciencemum, shouldn't Dr. Fitzpatrick offer some PROOF here that HHS defied scientific evidence here?  My understanding, based on previous court cases,  is that HHS goes to all possible lengths to disprove any and all vaccine-autism links. I have seen no evidence anywhere that HHS declared that they were defying scientific evidence in admitting and compensating these cases.  As a scientist, isn't Dr. Fitzpatrick overstepping his bounds with his statement?  Doesn't his statement actually constitute an assertion of facts not in evidence?
 
4) "Another new departure is Dr Wakefield’s offer to debate the MMR controversy ‘live, in public, and televised’ with ‘any serious challenger’. No doubt this reflects his concern to attract publicity for his new venture into reality TV with his British business partners from his new base in Texas."  
 
Again, we have Dr. Fitzpatrick presenting as fact something that not only is pure conjecture on his part (how can he speak to what Wakefield's concern are), but is phrased with the obvious intent of painting Wakefield in a bad light (demeaning the efforts of the families who share on video their autistic children's improvement from treatment of their medical issues as "reality TV").
 
5)  Any journalist who is suspected to be critical is either refused access by his PR representatives or referred to his lawyers.
 
Well, come on, we see exactly the same thing everywhere Paul Offit lectures.  People have been complaining for years now that they are not allowed to ask questions about vaccine safety in his lectures, or that their questions are snubbed, laughed at--and never really answered.  Jake Crosby (who has a diagnosis of Aspergers's) has been trying for years to get Offit to answer direct questions.  He has posted video footage of Offit sneering at his questions, refusing to directly answer them, lying in answer--and having him removed, calling him a stalker!  Offit recently spoke at University of Wisconsin--and local parents' request to hold a debate, to be able to give their side of things, or even to ask Offit questions, were all denied.
 
 
I do not see where Dr. Fitzpatrick has repeated his previous offer to debate Dr. Wakefield (which previous offer was in the middle of Wakefield's GMC trial; obviously, Wakefield's counsel would not have permitted such a debate, and I suspect the GMC would not have allowed it either).  All he says is "Are you ready for a debate now, Andrew Wakefield?"  Sure, that IMPLIES, a challenge--but when you come right down to it, he is not saying, "yes, I accept YOUR challenge and will debate you."  Remember, WAKEFIELD issued the challenge.  FItzpatrick is phrasing it in a way that suggests that he is trying to look like the challenger.  Why didn't he just say, "yes, Andy, I accept your challenge--let's go at it?"
 
And where ANYWHERE is there proof that Wakefield "declined" or even responded to Fitzpatrick's "are you ready for debate?" Has he even seen it?  Was a separate message in any way sent to Wakefield?

Come on, prosciencemum.  Be scientific here. Be objective.  Be fair.  You have to hold BOTH sides to the same standards.
 
If your child had reacted to vaccines with seizures and an obvious slide into bowel disorders and autism following vaccination, what would you do?  Would you listen to "experts" who insist that what you've seen with your own eyes is not true?  How would you feel about scientists--whose specialty had NOTHING whatsoever to do with the human body--insisting that they know more about your child's physical reactions than you do, simply because they have a PhD in "science?"
 
Would you obediently acquiesce to the obvious superiority of someone trained in "the scientific method?"  Would you join the witch hunt against the only doctor brave/stupid enough to take on the pharmaceutical industry?  

Or would you look at both sides, conclude there are problems on both sides, but base your assessment on your own experience--which happens to match that of thousands of other mothers, who were likewise reprimanded by "experts" who have either never treated/seen/had an autistic child with a history of vaccine reactions, seizures, and bowel disorders?
 
If you were told by a doctor that HIS autistic child never had a vaccine reaction, seizure, or bowel disorder, would you assume that your child's medically documented vaccine reactions, seizures, and celiac disease had absolutely nothing to do with his autism, even if treating them resulted in astounding reversals of autistic behaviors?  Or would you assume that maybe there is more than one kind of autism, and Doctor-My-Child-Had-No-Reaction-To-Vaccines has no right to speak for autistic children who DID have such reactions?
 
Is it really such a stretch for you, as a scientist, to say, "hey--the 'other side' actually has a point, and it's not helping matters for 'my side' to mock and denigrate them when we haven't walked in their shoes?"
 
applejuice and BeckyBird like this.
Taximom5 is online now  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off