Re: Vaccine-Autism Study Was Fraud - NYTimes.com

January 5, 2011

You know, I honestly have not looked at Dr. Wakefield's research but I

have a strong instinctive belief that this is fabricated bullshit and

the almost biblical public flaying of this doctor, first in Britain and

now here, smells strongly of an attempt to control public opinion of

vaccines.

The same thing happened to the ish scientist who had the nerve to

tell the truth about GMO food in the 90's, publicly flayed by the Royal

Society in the exact same fashion.

The people will not be fooled.

Jim

On 1/5/2011 7:04 PM, nandtbearden@... wrote:

> http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2011/01/05/health/AP-EU-MED-Autism-Fraud.html

>

> Vaccine-Autism Study Was Fraud

>

> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

>

> Published: January 5, 2011

>

> Sign In to E-Mail

>

> Print

>

> Filed at 7:50 p.m. EST

>

> LONDON (AP) — The first study to link a childhood vaccine to autism was based

on doctored information about the children involved, according to a new report

on the widely discredited research.

>

> The conclusions of the 1998 paper by Wakefield and colleagues was

renounced by 10 of its 13 authors and later retracted by the medical journal

Lancet, where it was published. Still, the suggestion the MMR shot was connected

to autism spooked parents worldwide and immunization rates for measles, mumps

and rubella have never fully recovered.

>

> A new examination found, by comparing the reported diagnoses in the paper to

hospital records, that Wakefield and colleagues altered facts about patients in

their study.

>

> The analysis, by British journalist Deer, found that despite the claim

in Wakefield's paper that the 12 children studied were normal until they had the

MMR shot, five had previously documented developmental problems. Deer also found

that all the cases were somehow misrepresented when he compared data from

medical records and the children's parents.

>

> Wakefield could not be reached for comment despite repeated calls and requests

to the publisher of his recent book, which claims there is a connection between

vaccines and autism that has been ignored by the medical establishment.

Wakefield now lives in the U.S. where he enjoys a vocal following including

celebrity supporters like McCarthy.

>

> Deer's article was paid for by the Sunday Times of London and Britain's

Channel 4 television network. It was published online Thursday in the medical

journal, BMJ.

>

> In an accompanying editorial, BMJ editor Fiona Godlee and colleagues called

Wakefield's study " an elaborate fraud. " They said Wakefield's work in other

journals should be examined to see if it should be retracted.

>

> Last May, Wakefield was stripped of his right to practice medicine in Britain.

Many other published studies have shown no connection between the MMR

vaccination and autism.

>

> But measles has surged since Wakefield's paper was published and there are

sporadic outbreaks in Europe and the U.S. In 2008, measles was deemed endemic in

England and Wales.

> Sent via BlackBerry by AT & T

>

> ------------------------------------

>

January 6, 2011

Jim

as you said "I honestly have not looked at Dr. Wakefield's research " therefore one must ask what right have you to an opinion given that you occupy a position within the CCHR.

Surely it is incumbent upon you/your organisation to show where Wakefield's research was right & not to fall into Wakefields trap of playing the victim game.

You may well have instinctive beliefs but just as many people have counter fears because the anti vaccine lobby is run by fear mongerers.

So setting aside Dr Wakefields fate ..............his "science" remains published therefore can you & or your organisation show us where he was right?

Incidently Wakefield was not struck off by the GMC because of his science but because he showed invasive instruments into children without conscent !!

Does the CCHR approve of experimenting on children without consent ...........of course they don't

BTW .....other doctors were struck off in the same incident including - http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/may/24/mmr-doctor-andrew-wakefield-struck-off

Wakefield said he had never opposed vaccination or claimed to have proof that MMR was linked to autism.

"I never made the claim at the time, nor do I still make the claim that MMR is a cause of autism," he said.

"You are conflating the two things. You are conflating the link with autism with the overall review of the vaccine."

In a statement after the verdict, he claimed that efforts to "discredit and silence me through the GMC process" had provided a screen to shield the government from exposure over the the MMR vaccine "scandal".

Wakefield had been found guilty in January of acting dishonestly and irresponsibly for carrying out unnecessarily invasive tests on children. He was said to have abused his position of trust, although his dishonesty had not led to personal financial gain.

> > http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2011/01/05/health/AP-EU-MED-Autism-Fraud.html> >> > Vaccine-Autism Study Was Fraud> >> > By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS> >> > Published: January 5, 2011> >> > Sign In to E-Mail> >> > Print> >> > Filed at 7:50 p.m. EST> >> > LONDON (AP) — The first study to link a childhood vaccine to autism was based on doctored information about the children involved, according to a new report on the widely discredited research.> >> > The conclusions of the 1998 paper by Wakefield and colleagues was renounced by 10 of its 13 authors and later retracted by the medical journal Lancet, where it was published. Still, the suggestion the MMR shot was connected to autism spooked parents worldwide and immunization rates for measles, mumps and rubella have never fully recovered.> >> > A new examination found, by comparing the reported diagnoses in the paper to hospital records, that Wakefield and colleagues altered facts about patients in their study.> >> > The analysis, by British journalist Deer, found that despite the claim in Wakefield's paper that the 12 children studied were normal until they had the MMR shot, five had previously documented developmental problems. Deer also found that all the cases were somehow misrepresented when he compared data from medical records and the children's parents.> >> > Wakefield could not be reached for comment despite repeated calls and requests to the publisher of his recent book, which claims there is a connection between vaccines and autism that has been ignored by the medical establishment. Wakefield now lives in the U.S. where he enjoys a vocal following including celebrity supporters like McCarthy.> >> > Deer's article was paid for by the Sunday Times of London and Britain's Channel 4 television network. It was published online Thursday in the medical journal, BMJ.> >> > In an accompanying editorial, BMJ editor Fiona Godlee and colleagues called Wakefield's study "an elaborate fraud." They said Wakefield's work in other journals should be examined to see if it should be retracted.> >> > Last May, Wakefield was stripped of his right to practice medicine in Britain. Many other published studies have shown no connection between the MMR vaccination and autism.> >> > But measles has surged since Wakefield's paper was published and there are sporadic outbreaks in Europe and the U.S. In 2008, measles was deemed endemic in England and Wales.> > Sent via BlackBerry by AT & T> >> > ------------------------------------> >> >

January 6, 2011

shoved

Incidently Wakefield was not struck off by the GMC because of his science but

because he showed invasive instruments into children without conscent !!

> > >

> http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2011/01/05/health/AP-EU-MED-Autism-Fraud\

> .html

> > >

> > > Vaccine-Autism Study Was Fraud

> > >

> > > By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

> > >

> > > Published: January 5, 2011

> > >

> > > Sign In to E-Mail

> > >

> > > Print

> > >

> > > Filed at 7:50 p.m. EST

> > >

> > > LONDON (AP) — The first study to link a childhood vaccine to

> autism was based on doctored information about the children involved,

> according to a new report on the widely discredited research.

> > >

> > > The conclusions of the 1998 paper by Wakefield and colleagues

> was renounced by 10 of its 13 authors and later retracted by the medical

> journal Lancet, where it was published. Still, the suggestion the MMR

> shot was connected to autism spooked parents worldwide and immunization

> rates for measles, mumps and rubella have never fully recovered.

> > >

> > > A new examination found, by comparing the reported diagnoses in the

> paper to hospital records, that Wakefield and colleagues altered facts

> about patients in their study.

> > >

> > > The analysis, by British journalist Deer, found that despite

> the claim in Wakefield's paper that the 12 children studied were normal

> until they had the MMR shot, five had previously documented

> developmental problems. Deer also found that all the cases were somehow

> misrepresented when he compared data from medical records and the

> children's parents.

> > >

> > > Wakefield could not be reached for comment despite repeated calls

> and requests to the publisher of his recent book, which claims there is

> a connection between vaccines and autism that has been ignored by the

> medical establishment. Wakefield now lives in the U.S. where he enjoys a

> vocal following including celebrity supporters like McCarthy.

> > >

> > > Deer's article was paid for by the Sunday Times of London and

> Britain's Channel 4 television network. It was published online Thursday

> in the medical journal, BMJ.

> > >

> > > In an accompanying editorial, BMJ editor Fiona Godlee and colleagues

> called Wakefield's study " an elaborate fraud. " They said Wakefield's

> work in other journals should be examined to see if it should be

> retracted.

> > >

> > > Last May, Wakefield was stripped of his right to practice medicine

> in Britain. Many other published studies have shown no connection

> between the MMR vaccination and autism.

> > >

> > > But measles has surged since Wakefield's paper was published and

> there are sporadic outbreaks in Europe and the U.S. In 2008, measles was

> deemed endemic in England and Wales.

> > > Sent via BlackBerry by AT & T

> > >

> > > ------------------------------------

> > >

January 6, 2011

Ok Joke

Please take the personalities out of the equation & tell us how a study of 12 (unfortunate) children, at the foot of a legal aid application, can be converted into proof that MMR causes autism?

source -

"But you have to remember this paper didn't actually say MMR causes autism, it didn't even speculate on that. It was accompanied by an editorial that said by the way people should be very clear that it doesn't mean that MMR causes autism.

"Also, this was a 12 subject case series report - it was a description of only 12 children's clinical anecdotes, and while this is not good evidence to say MMR causes autism, it is a perfectly legitimate thing to publish."

This is at variance with the GMC finding that rather than being "a 12 case series report" it was an ill-conducted version of a protocol sponsored by the United Kingdom's Legal Aid Board (now Legal Services Commission), and a totally different kind of study. The lack of correspondence between the Lancet paper and the LAB protocol led in turn to the panel finding the three doctors were in detailed breach of the protocol despite their representations that they had never been doing it, and also to the single most distressing finding against Wakefield that he was dishonest because he had failed to account for the LAB's sponsorship.

The GMC panel stated (HERE):

"The Panel has heard that ethical approval had been sought and granted for other trials and it has been specifically suggested that Project 172-96 was never undertaken and that in fact, the Lancet 12 children's investigations were clinically indicated and the research parts of those clinically justified investigations were covered by Project 162- 95. In the light of all the available evidence, the Panel rejected this proposition."

However, the panel never explained what specific "available evidence" had led them to disregard the evidence presented by the defence on this matter, and their statement was additionally misleading because `162-95' was not "a Project" at all but simply the generic permission granted to Prof - to retain biopsies for further research, thus avoiding having to explain in front of the media why this permission did not pertain in the instance of the Lancet paper.

> >> http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2011/01/05/health/> AP-EU-MED-Autism-Fraud.html> >> > Vaccine-Autism Study Was Fraud> >> > By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS> >> > Published: January 5, 2011> >> > Sign In to E-Mail> >> > Print> >> > Filed at 7:50 p.m. EST> >> > LONDON (AP) - The first study to link a> childhood vaccine to autism was based on doctored> information about the children involved, according> to a new report on the widely discredited> research.> >> > The conclusions of the 1998 paper by > Wakefield and colleagues was renounced by 10 of> its 13 authors and later retracted by the medical> journal Lancet, where it was published. Still, the> suggestion the MMR shot was connected to autism> spooked parents worldwide and immunization rates> for measles, mumps and rubella have never fully> recovered.> >> > A new examination found, by comparing the> reported diagnoses in the paper to hospital> records, that Wakefield and colleagues altered> facts about patients in their study.> >> > The analysis, by British journalist Deer,> found that despite the claim in Wakefield's paper> that the 12 children studied were normal until> they had the MMR shot, five had previously> documented developmental problems. Deer also found> that all the cases were somehow misrepresented> when he compared data from medical records and the> children's parents.> >> > Wakefield could not be reached for comment> despite repeated calls and requests to the> publisher of his recent book, which claims there> is a connection between vaccines and autism that> has been ignored by the medical establishment.> Wakefield now lives in the U.S. where he enjoys a> vocal following including celebrity supporters> like McCarthy.> >> > Deer's article was paid for by the Sunday Times> of London and Britain's Channel 4 television> network. It was published online Thursday in the> medical journal, BMJ.> >> > In an accompanying editorial, BMJ editor Fiona> Godlee and colleagues called Wakefield's study "an> elaborate fraud." They said Wakefield's work in> other journals should be examined to see if it> should be retracted.> >> > Last May, Wakefield was stripped of his right to> practice medicine in Britain. Many other published> studies have shown no connection between the MMR> vaccination and autism.> >> > But measles has surged since Wakefield's paper> was published and there are sporadic outbreaks in> Europe and the U.S. In 2008, measles was deemed> endemic in England and Wales.> > Sent via BlackBerry by AT & T> >> > ------------------------------------> >> >

January 6, 2011

Doing what Joke?

All I am doing in my capacity of moderator is checking that the claims

made in posts stand up. I owe it to the members.

The whole world would love there to be an explanation for Autism

Now Dr Wakefield's " science " has been put under the microscope

.............so can you tell the list where he got it right.

> > >

> http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2011/01/05/health/

> AP-EU-MED-Autism-Fraud.html

> > >

> > > Vaccine-Autism Study Was Fraud

> > >

> > > By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

> > >

> > > Published: January 5, 2011

> > >

> > > Sign In to E-Mail

> > >

> > > Print

> > >

> > > Filed at 7:50 p.m. EST

> > >

> > > LONDON (AP) - The first study to link a

> childhood vaccine to autism was based on doctored

> information about the children involved, according

> to a new report on the widely discredited

> research.

> > >

> > > The conclusions of the 1998 paper by

> Wakefield and colleagues was renounced by 10 of

> its 13 authors and later retracted by the medical

> journal Lancet, where it was published. Still, the

> suggestion the MMR shot was connected to autism

> spooked parents worldwide and immunization rates

> for measles, mumps and rubella have never fully

> recovered.

> > >

> > > A new examination found, by comparing the

> reported diagnoses in the paper to hospital

> records, that Wakefield and colleagues altered

> facts about patients in their study.

> > >

> > > The analysis, by British journalist

> Deer, found that despite the claim in Wakefield's

> paper that the 12 children studied were normal

> until they had the MMR shot, five had previously

> documented developmental problems. Deer also found

> that all the cases were somehow misrepresented

> when he compared data from medical records and the

> children's parents.

> > >

> > > Wakefield could not be reached for comment

> despite repeated calls and requests to the

> publisher of his recent book, which claims there

> is a connection between vaccines and autism that

> has been ignored by the medical establishment.

> Wakefield now lives in the U.S. where he enjoys a

> vocal following including celebrity supporters

> like McCarthy.

> > >

> > > Deer's article was paid for by the Sunday

> Times of London and Britain's Channel 4 television

> network. It was published online Thursday in the

> medical journal, BMJ.

> > >

> > > In an accompanying editorial, BMJ editor Fiona

> Godlee and colleagues called Wakefield's study " an

> elaborate fraud. " They said Wakefield's work in

> other journals should be examined to see if it

> should be retracted.

> > >

> > > Last May, Wakefield was stripped of his right

> to practice medicine in Britain. Many other

> published studies have shown no connection between

> the MMR vaccination and autism.

> > >

> > > But measles has surged since Wakefield's paper

> was published and there are sporadic outbreaks in

> Europe and the U.S. In 2008, measles was deemed

> endemic in England and Wales.

> > > Sent via BlackBerry by AT & T

> > >

> > > ------------------------------------

> > >

January 6, 2011

Your post was OK Terry

It is important to the wider credibility of SSRIcrusaders that the

accuracy of claims made are established.

> > >

> http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2011/01/05/health/

> AP-EU-MED-Autism-Fraud.html

> > >

> > > Vaccine-Autism Study Was Fraud

> > >

> > > By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

> > >

> > > Published: January 5, 2011

> > >

> > > Sign In to E-Mail

> > >

> > > Print

> > >

> > > Filed at 7:50 p.m. EST

> > >

> > > LONDON (AP) - The first study to link a

> childhood vaccine to autism was based on doctored

> information about the children involved, according

> to a new report on the widely discredited

> research.

> > >

> > > The conclusions of the 1998 paper by

> Wakefield and colleagues was renounced by 10 of

> its 13 authors and later retracted by the medical

> journal Lancet, where it was published. Still, the

> suggestion the MMR shot was connected to autism

> spooked parents worldwide and immunization rates

> for measles, mumps and rubella have never fully

> recovered.

> > >

> > > A new examination found, by comparing the

> reported diagnoses in the paper to hospital

> records, that Wakefield and colleagues altered

> facts about patients in their study.

> > >

> > > The analysis, by British journalist

> Deer, found that despite the claim in Wakefield's

> paper that the 12 children studied were normal

> until they had the MMR shot, five had previously

> documented developmental problems. Deer also found

> that all the cases were somehow misrepresented

> when he compared data from medical records and the

> children's parents.

> > >

> > > Wakefield could not be reached for comment

> despite repeated calls and requests to the

> publisher of his recent book, which claims there

> is a connection between vaccines and autism that

> has been ignored by the medical establishment.

> Wakefield now lives in the U.S. where he enjoys a

> vocal following including celebrity supporters

> like McCarthy.

> > >

> > > Deer's article was paid for by the Sunday

> Times of London and Britain's Channel 4 television

> network. It was published online Thursday in the

> medical journal, BMJ.

> > >

> > > In an accompanying editorial, BMJ editor Fiona

> Godlee and colleagues called Wakefield's study " an

> elaborate fraud. " They said Wakefield's work in

> other journals should be examined to see if it

> should be retracted.

> > >

> > > Last May, Wakefield was stripped of his right

> to practice medicine in Britain. Many other

> published studies have shown no connection between

> the MMR vaccination and autism.

> > >

> > > But measles has surged since Wakefield's paper

> was published and there are sporadic outbreaks in

> Europe and the U.S. In 2008, measles was deemed

> endemic in England and Wales.

> > > Sent via BlackBerry by AT & T

> > >

> > > ------------------------------------

> > >

January 7, 2011

>

> Doing what Joke?

>

> All I am doing in my capacity of moderator is checking that the claims

> made in posts stand up. I owe it to the members.

>

> The whole world would love there to be an explanation for Autism

>

> Now Dr Wakefield's " science " has been put under the microscope

> ............so can you tell the list where he got it right.>>

** Hi ,

I read Jim's post. I immediately understood it to be his opinion, not

necessarily a fact.

The phrase was " You know, I honestly have not looked at Dr. Wakefield's

research but I have a strong instinctive belief... "

I don't see how that's off-base. Factual? Who knows? I tend to agree with

it. It's the first thought I had when it all first came out and I still believe

it today -- and I'm not a member of CCHR.

You know, the people who want to discredit people who speak out against psych

drugs do so by calling them Scientologists. It's a ploy to create knee jerk

reactions in others. Do we really have to sink to their level?

I don't think it's necessary to declare one's religion when giving an

opinion or making a statement. I also don't think that people can be defined by

their religion.

You and I have known each other for a long time, , and I deeply

respect and like you. But I don't think it is right to drag a person's religion

into a discussion. I think it may be appropriate to ask how much their religion

factors into their religion but that's not what was done. Imo, an opinion is

just that and as long as it is presented as an opinion I don't see the problem.

Please ask yourself what would have happened if I made the statement Jim did

prior to Jim making it. As I'm not involved in CCHR, you wouldn't have had that

reaction.

Where are you seeing that Wakefield " shoved " instruments into children? This

makes the entire thing seem even more like a set up.

Take care, .

Regards,

January 8, 2011

I did not mention religion.

Please also consider, that where I live we do not, as a rule, use ploys to extract knee jerk reactions. We tend to be direct and factual.

However if I may move into the instinctive for a moment, then I must properly consider Wakefields patents for alternative vaccines, & ask myself what was he doing placing endoscopes & taking spinal taps from 5 out of the 12 children, who it has been established, were developmentally delayed before they had MMR

If a pharma co carried out trials in this manner there would be an outcry round here & rightly so. Therefore the establishments reaction to Wakefield must also be seen within the context of Wakefield's actions & not solely as a kneejerck reaction to protect it's MMR product.

Please also remember that the 12 children were the offspring of the clients of a classaction lawyer

Returning to the rational then all that I am asking is that someone show me where Wakefield's science established MMR causes Autism

> >> > > > > > Doing what Joke?> > > > All I am doing in my capacity of moderator is checking that the claims> > made in posts stand up. I owe it to the members.> > > > The whole world would love there to be an explanation for Autism> > > > Now Dr Wakefield's "science" has been put under the microscope> > ............so can you tell the list where he got it right.>>> > > ** Hi ,> > > I read Jim's post. I immediately understood it to be his opinion, not necessarily a fact. > > The phrase was "You know, I honestly have not looked at Dr. Wakefield's research but I have a strong instinctive belief..."> > > I don't see how that's off-base. Factual? Who knows? I tend to agree with it. It's the first thought I had when it all first came out and I still believe it today -- and I'm not a member of CCHR. > > You know, the people who want to discredit people who speak out against psych drugs do so by calling them Scientologists. It's a ploy to create knee jerk reactions in others. Do we really have to sink to their level? > > I don't think it's necessary to declare one's religion when giving an opinion or making a statement. I also don't think that people can be defined by their religion. > > > You and I have known each other for a long time, , and I deeply respect and like you. But I don't think it is right to drag a person's religion into a discussion. I think it may be appropriate to ask how much their religion factors into their religion but that's not what was done. Imo, an opinion is just that and as long as it is presented as an opinion I don't see the problem.> > Please ask yourself what would have happened if I made the statement Jim did prior to Jim making it. As I'm not involved in CCHR, you wouldn't have had that reaction. > > > Where are you seeing that Wakefield "shoved" instruments into children? This makes the entire thing seem even more like a set up.> > Take care, . > > Regards,> >

January 8, 2011

I did not mention religion.

Please also consider, that where I live we do not, as a rule, use ploys to extract knee jerk reactions. We tend to be direct and factual.

However if I may move into the instinctive for a moment, then I must properly consider Wakefields patents for alternative vaccines, & ask myself what was he doing placing endoscopes & taking spinal taps from 5 out of the 12 children, who it has been established, were developmentally delayed before they had MMR

If a pharma co carried out trials in this manner there would be an outcry round here & rightly so. Therefore the establishments reaction to Wakefield must also be seen within the context of Wakefield's actions & not solely as a kneejerck reaction to protect it's MMR product.

Please also remember that the 12 children were the offspring of the clients of a classaction lawyer

Returning to the rational then all that I am asking is that someone show me where Wakefield's science established MMR causes Autism

> >> > > > > > Doing what Joke?> > > > All I am doing in my capacity of moderator is checking that the claims> > made in posts stand up. I owe it to the members.> > > > The whole world would love there to be an explanation for Autism> > > > Now Dr Wakefield's "science" has been put under the microscope> > ............so can you tell the list where he got it right.>>> > > ** Hi ,> > > I read Jim's post. I immediately understood it to be his opinion, not necessarily a fact. > > The phrase was "You know, I honestly have not looked at Dr. Wakefield's research but I have a strong instinctive belief..."> > > I don't see how that's off-base. Factual? Who knows? I tend to agree with it. It's the first thought I had when it all first came out and I still believe it today -- and I'm not a member of CCHR. > > You know, the people who want to discredit people who speak out against psych drugs do so by calling them Scientologists. It's a ploy to create knee jerk reactions in others. Do we really have to sink to their level? > > I don't think it's necessary to declare one's religion when giving an opinion or making a statement. I also don't think that people can be defined by their religion. > > > You and I have known each other for a long time, , and I deeply respect and like you. But I don't think it is right to drag a person's religion into a discussion. I think it may be appropriate to ask how much their religion factors into their religion but that's not what was done. Imo, an opinion is just that and as long as it is presented as an opinion I don't see the problem.> > Please ask yourself what would have happened if I made the statement Jim did prior to Jim making it. As I'm not involved in CCHR, you wouldn't have had that reaction. > > > Where are you seeing that Wakefield "shoved" instruments into children? This makes the entire thing seem even more like a set up.> > Take care, . > > Regards,> >

January 8, 2011

I did not mention religion.

Please also consider, that where I live we do not, as a rule, use ploys to extract knee jerk reactions. We tend to be direct and factual.

However if I may move into the instinctive for a moment, then I must properly consider Wakefields patents for alternative vaccines, & ask myself what was he doing placing endoscopes & taking spinal taps from 5 out of the 12 children, who it has been established, were developmentally delayed before they had MMR

If a pharma co carried out trials in this manner there would be an outcry round here & rightly so. Therefore the establishments reaction to Wakefield must also be seen within the context of Wakefield's actions & not solely as a kneejerck reaction to protect it's MMR product.

Please also remember that the 12 children were the offspring of the clients of a classaction lawyer

Returning to the rational then all that I am asking is that someone show me where Wakefield's science established MMR causes Autism

> >> > > > > > Doing what Joke?> > > > All I am doing in my capacity of moderator is checking that the claims> > made in posts stand up. I owe it to the members.> > > > The whole world would love there to be an explanation for Autism> > > > Now Dr Wakefield's "science" has been put under the microscope> > ............so can you tell the list where he got it right.>>> > > ** Hi ,> > > I read Jim's post. I immediately understood it to be his opinion, not necessarily a fact. > > The phrase was "You know, I honestly have not looked at Dr. Wakefield's research but I have a strong instinctive belief..."> > > I don't see how that's off-base. Factual? Who knows? I tend to agree with it. It's the first thought I had when it all first came out and I still believe it today -- and I'm not a member of CCHR. > > You know, the people who want to discredit people who speak out against psych drugs do so by calling them Scientologists. It's a ploy to create knee jerk reactions in others. Do we really have to sink to their level? > > I don't think it's necessary to declare one's religion when giving an opinion or making a statement. I also don't think that people can be defined by their religion. > > > You and I have known each other for a long time, , and I deeply respect and like you. But I don't think it is right to drag a person's religion into a discussion. I think it may be appropriate to ask how much their religion factors into their religion but that's not what was done. Imo, an opinion is just that and as long as it is presented as an opinion I don't see the problem.> > Please ask yourself what would have happened if I made the statement Jim did prior to Jim making it. As I'm not involved in CCHR, you wouldn't have had that reaction. > > > Where are you seeing that Wakefield "shoved" instruments into children? This makes the entire thing seem even more like a set up.> > Take care, . > > Regards,> >

January 8, 2011

I did not mention religion.

Please also consider, that where I live we do not, as a rule, use ploys to extract knee jerk reactions. We tend to be direct and factual.

However if I may move into the instinctive for a moment, then I must properly consider Wakefields patents for alternative vaccines, & ask myself what was he doing placing endoscopes & taking spinal taps from 5 out of the 12 children, who it has been established, were developmentally delayed before they had MMR

If a pharma co carried out trials in this manner there would be an outcry round here & rightly so. Therefore the establishments reaction to Wakefield must also be seen within the context of Wakefield's actions & not solely as a kneejerck reaction to protect it's MMR product.

Please also remember that the 12 children were the offspring of the clients of a classaction lawyer

Returning to the rational then all that I am asking is that someone show me where Wakefield's science established MMR causes Autism

> >> > > > > > Doing what Joke?> > > > All I am doing in my capacity of moderator is checking that the claims> > made in posts stand up. I owe it to the members.> > > > The whole world would love there to be an explanation for Autism> > > > Now Dr Wakefield's "science" has been put under the microscope> > ............so can you tell the list where he got it right.>>> > > ** Hi ,> > > I read Jim's post. I immediately understood it to be his opinion, not necessarily a fact. > > The phrase was "You know, I honestly have not looked at Dr. Wakefield's research but I have a strong instinctive belief..."> > > I don't see how that's off-base. Factual? Who knows? I tend to agree with it. It's the first thought I had when it all first came out and I still believe it today -- and I'm not a member of CCHR. > > You know, the people who want to discredit people who speak out against psych drugs do so by calling them Scientologists. It's a ploy to create knee jerk reactions in others. Do we really have to sink to their level? > > I don't think it's necessary to declare one's religion when giving an opinion or making a statement. I also don't think that people can be defined by their religion. > > > You and I have known each other for a long time, , and I deeply respect and like you. But I don't think it is right to drag a person's religion into a discussion. I think it may be appropriate to ask how much their religion factors into their religion but that's not what was done. Imo, an opinion is just that and as long as it is presented as an opinion I don't see the problem.> > Please ask yourself what would have happened if I made the statement Jim did prior to Jim making it. As I'm not involved in CCHR, you wouldn't have had that reaction. > > > Where are you seeing that Wakefield "shoved" instruments into children? This makes the entire thing seem even more like a set up.> > Take care, . > > Regards,> >

January 8, 2011

Wakefield's, relationship with potential class action lawyers existed before the clinical trial on the 12 children.

see below Dawbarnes Solicitors May 1997 page 2

Now I don't know how our readers in the USA view such things, given the sheer volume of class actions that there are in the US on legions of subjects. It seems to me that the class actions in the US are almost like part of the regulatory balancing act but in the UK & Ireland things are very much different.

Wakefield's actions would be viewed here with great distaste & I hope readers in general can put Wakefield's "biblical public flaying" (Jim's words not mine) into context in the country where the story had it's genesis.

I feel very sorry for the families who went along with this story because it now seems we know less about the causes of Autism than we could have had we not spent so many years in this contentious blind alley.

Other people who try to rig evidence for class actions take note

> > >> > >> > >> > > Doing what Joke?> > >> > > All I am doing in my capacity of moderator is checking that the> claims> > > made in posts stand up. I owe it to the members.> > >> > > The whole world would love there to be an explanation for Autism> > >> > > Now Dr Wakefield's "science" has been put under the microscope> > > ............so can you tell the list where he got it right.>>> >> >> > ** Hi ,> >> >> > I read Jim's post. I immediately understood it to be his opinion, not> necessarily a fact.> >> > The phrase was "You know, I honestly have not looked at Dr.> Wakefield's research but I have a strong instinctive belief..."> >> >> > I don't see how that's off-base. Factual? Who knows? I tend to agree> with it. It's the first thought I had when it all first came out and I> still believe it today -- and I'm not a member of CCHR.> >> > You know, the people who want to discredit people who speak out> against psych drugs do so by calling them Scientologists. It's a ploy to> create knee jerk reactions in others. Do we really have to sink to their> level?> >> > I don't think it's necessary to declare one's religion when giving an> opinion or making a statement. I also don't think that people can be> defined by their religion.> >> >> > You and I have known each other for a long time, , and I deeply> respect and like you. But I don't think it is right to drag a person's> religion into a discussion. I think it may be appropriate to ask how> much their religion factors into their religion but that's not what was> done. Imo, an opinion is just that and as long as it is presented as an> opinion I don't see the problem.> >> > Please ask yourself what would have happened if I made the statement> Jim did prior to Jim making it. As I'm not involved in CCHR, you> wouldn't have had that reaction.> >> >> > Where are you seeing that Wakefield "shoved" instruments into> children? This makes the entire thing seem even more like a set up.> >> > Take care, .> >> > Regards,> > > >>

January 8, 2011

Wakefield's, relationship with potential class action lawyers existed before the clinical trial on the 12 children.

see below Dawbarnes Solicitors May 1997 page 2

Now I don't know how our readers in the USA view such things, given the sheer volume of class actions that there are in the US on legions of subjects. It seems to me that the class actions in the US are almost like part of the regulatory balancing act but in the UK & Ireland things are very much different.

Wakefield's actions would be viewed here with great distaste & I hope readers in general can put Wakefield's "biblical public flaying" (Jim's words not mine) into context in the country where the story had it's genesis.

I feel very sorry for the families who went along with this story because it now seems we know less about the causes of Autism than we could have had we not spent so many years in this contentious blind alley.

Other people who try to rig evidence for class actions take note

> > >> > >> > >> > > Doing what Joke?> > >> > > All I am doing in my capacity of moderator is checking that the> claims> > > made in posts stand up. I owe it to the members.> > >> > > The whole world would love there to be an explanation for Autism> > >> > > Now Dr Wakefield's "science" has been put under the microscope> > > ............so can you tell the list where he got it right.>>> >> >> > ** Hi ,> >> >> > I read Jim's post. I immediately understood it to be his opinion, not> necessarily a fact.> >> > The phrase was "You know, I honestly have not looked at Dr.> Wakefield's research but I have a strong instinctive belief..."> >> >> > I don't see how that's off-base. Factual? Who knows? I tend to agree> with it. It's the first thought I had when it all first came out and I> still believe it today -- and I'm not a member of CCHR.> >> > You know, the people who want to discredit people who speak out> against psych drugs do so by calling them Scientologists. It's a ploy to> create knee jerk reactions in others. Do we really have to sink to their> level?> >> > I don't think it's necessary to declare one's religion when giving an> opinion or making a statement. I also don't think that people can be> defined by their religion.> >> >> > You and I have known each other for a long time, , and I deeply> respect and like you. But I don't think it is right to drag a person's> religion into a discussion. I think it may be appropriate to ask how> much their religion factors into their religion but that's not what was> done. Imo, an opinion is just that and as long as it is presented as an> opinion I don't see the problem.> >> > Please ask yourself what would have happened if I made the statement> Jim did prior to Jim making it. As I'm not involved in CCHR, you> wouldn't have had that reaction.> >> >> > Where are you seeing that Wakefield "shoved" instruments into> children? This makes the entire thing seem even more like a set up.> >> > Take care, .> >> > Regards,> > > >>

January 8, 2011

Wakefield's, relationship with potential class action lawyers existed before the clinical trial on the 12 children.

see below Dawbarnes Solicitors May 1997 page 2

Now I don't know how our readers in the USA view such things, given the sheer volume of class actions that there are in the US on legions of subjects. It seems to me that the class actions in the US are almost like part of the regulatory balancing act but in the UK & Ireland things are very much different.

Wakefield's actions would be viewed here with great distaste & I hope readers in general can put Wakefield's "biblical public flaying" (Jim's words not mine) into context in the country where the story had it's genesis.

I feel very sorry for the families who went along with this story because it now seems we know less about the causes of Autism than we could have had we not spent so many years in this contentious blind alley.

Other people who try to rig evidence for class actions take note

> > >> > >> > >> > > Doing what Joke?> > >> > > All I am doing in my capacity of moderator is checking that the> claims> > > made in posts stand up. I owe it to the members.> > >> > > The whole world would love there to be an explanation for Autism> > >> > > Now Dr Wakefield's "science" has been put under the microscope> > > ............so can you tell the list where he got it right.>>> >> >> > ** Hi ,> >> >> > I read Jim's post. I immediately understood it to be his opinion, not> necessarily a fact.> >> > The phrase was "You know, I honestly have not looked at Dr.> Wakefield's research but I have a strong instinctive belief..."> >> >> > I don't see how that's off-base. Factual? Who knows? I tend to agree> with it. It's the first thought I had when it all first came out and I> still believe it today -- and I'm not a member of CCHR.> >> > You know, the people who want to discredit people who speak out> against psych drugs do so by calling them Scientologists. It's a ploy to> create knee jerk reactions in others. Do we really have to sink to their> level?> >> > I don't think it's necessary to declare one's religion when giving an> opinion or making a statement. I also don't think that people can be> defined by their religion.> >> >> > You and I have known each other for a long time, , and I deeply> respect and like you. But I don't think it is right to drag a person's> religion into a discussion. I think it may be appropriate to ask how> much their religion factors into their religion but that's not what was> done. Imo, an opinion is just that and as long as it is presented as an> opinion I don't see the problem.> >> > Please ask yourself what would have happened if I made the statement> Jim did prior to Jim making it. As I'm not involved in CCHR, you> wouldn't have had that reaction.> >> >> > Where are you seeing that Wakefield "shoved" instruments into> children? This makes the entire thing seem even more like a set up.> >> > Take care, .> >> > Regards,> > > >>

January 8, 2011

Wakefield's, relationship with potential class action lawyers existed before the clinical trial on the 12 children.

see below Dawbarnes Solicitors May 1997 page 2

Now I don't know how our readers in the USA view such things, given the sheer volume of class actions that there are in the US on legions of subjects. It seems to me that the class actions in the US are almost like part of the regulatory balancing act but in the UK & Ireland things are very much different.

Wakefield's actions would be viewed here with great distaste & I hope readers in general can put Wakefield's "biblical public flaying" (Jim's words not mine) into context in the country where the story had it's genesis.

I feel very sorry for the families who went along with this story because it now seems we know less about the causes of Autism than we could have had we not spent so many years in this contentious blind alley.

Other people who try to rig evidence for class actions take note

> > >> > >> > >> > > Doing what Joke?> > >> > > All I am doing in my capacity of moderator is checking that the> claims> > > made in posts stand up. I owe it to the members.> > >> > > The whole world would love there to be an explanation for Autism> > >> > > Now Dr Wakefield's "science" has been put under the microscope> > > ............so can you tell the list where he got it right.>>> >> >> > ** Hi ,> >> >> > I read Jim's post. I immediately understood it to be his opinion, not> necessarily a fact.> >> > The phrase was "You know, I honestly have not looked at Dr.> Wakefield's research but I have a strong instinctive belief..."> >> >> > I don't see how that's off-base. Factual? Who knows? I tend to agree> with it. It's the first thought I had when it all first came out and I> still believe it today -- and I'm not a member of CCHR.> >> > You know, the people who want to discredit people who speak out> against psych drugs do so by calling them Scientologists. It's a ploy to> create knee jerk reactions in others. Do we really have to sink to their> level?> >> > I don't think it's necessary to declare one's religion when giving an> opinion or making a statement. I also don't think that people can be> defined by their religion.> >> >> > You and I have known each other for a long time, , and I deeply> respect and like you. But I don't think it is right to drag a person's> religion into a discussion. I think it may be appropriate to ask how> much their religion factors into their religion but that's not what was> done. Imo, an opinion is just that and as long as it is presented as an> opinion I don't see the problem.> >> > Please ask yourself what would have happened if I made the statement> Jim did prior to Jim making it. As I'm not involved in CCHR, you> wouldn't have had that reaction.> >> >> > Where are you seeing that Wakefield "shoved" instruments into> children? This makes the entire thing seem even more like a set up.> >> > Take care, .> >> > Regards,> > > >>

January 8, 2011

"

Wakefield was paid more than £435,000 by Legal Aid

------

research involved sedating them and subjecting them to ileocolonoscopy, an endoscopic examination of the large bowel and part of the small bowel, which included taking a biopsy from their small intestine

-----

involved lumbar puncture, commonly known as a spinal tap.

----

children whose parents already blamed their child's symptoms on the MMR vaccine, it appears Wakefield was guaranteed an outcome that would please the legal team

----

recruited through anti-MMR campaign groups, and most of the parents were clients and contacts of the very lawyer who commissioned Wakefield with an aim to "produce unassailable evidence

----

One parent was even the managing director of the company set up to sell Wakefield's alternative vaccine !

--- "

"Now you can criticise me for being judgemental if you like, but if you wish to stick a needle into a three-year-old's spine and then force something large and uncomfortable into their anus then you'd better have a very good reason for doing so."

BTW if a Pharma whore Psychiatrist tried this on he would be called Biederman or Nemeroff. So please if your going to nail your colours on some ships mast make sure it's skipper has some integrity. Otherwise this ship will hit the rocks and we will all be washed up in a sea of prescription drugs

source - from www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk

In total, Wakefield was paid more than £435,000 by Legal Aid to provide evidence to the court, according to the results of a Freedom of Information request.

Wakefield's team dealt with 12 children between the ages of three and 10.

His research involved sedating them and subjecting them to ileocolonoscopy, an endoscopic examination of the large bowel and part of the small bowel, which included taking a biopsy from their small intestine.

It also involved lumbar puncture, commonly known as a spinal tap.

To discover if the symptoms found were correlated with the MMR vaccine, Wakefield's team simply asked the parents and physicians if the onset of the symptoms occurred soon after the child was given the vaccine.

But the first stage was to find children to assess. This can be one of the trickiest bits of getting the science right, because the way that your sample group is selected can easily introduce bias in your results, even if you are extremely careful to avoid it.

By looking for children whose parents already blamed their child's symptoms on the MMR vaccine, it appears Wakefield was guaranteed an outcome that would please the legal team.

Wakefield's paper claimed that the children had been consecutively referred to the Department of Paediatric Gastroenterology with a history of a pervasive developmental disorder and intestinal symptoms.

We later found out that Wakefield had been actively involved in getting these children referred.

In fact, some of the children had been actively recruited through anti-MMR campaign groups, and most of the parents were clients and contacts of the very lawyer who commissioned Wakefield with an aim to "produce unassailable evidence in court so as to convince a court that these vaccines are dangerous".

One parent was even the managing director of the company set up to sell Wakefield's alternative vaccine.

The results were as predictable as an election poll that only polled members of, say, the Green Party, and equally inaccurate in describing reality.

Now you can criticise me for being judgemental if you like, but if you wish to stick a needle into a three-year-old's spine and then force something large and uncomfortable into their anus then you'd better have a very good reason for doing so.

Producing dodgy research for a lawsuit is not, in my opinion, reason enough.

While the risks involved in colonoscopy are small, they certainly exist.

In December, 2007, the Daily Mail reported that in a similar procedure that followed the initial "research", a 14-year-old boy had a similar unnecessary procedure and endured multiple organ failure after his bowel was perforated in 12 places.

Wakefield managed to get his paper published in The Lancet in February, 1998.

However, the paper had certain critical elements missing.

It didn't mention the conflicts of interest that would have caused his paper to be rejected. It didn't mention how the children had been selected. After suggestions that the process had been biased, Wakefield responded in a published letter that the children had been referred through the normal channels – a statement described by the GMC as "dishonest and irresponsible".

> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > Doing what Joke?> > > >> > > > All I am doing in my capacity of moderator is checking that the> > claims> > > > made in posts stand up. I owe it to the members.> > > >> > > > The whole world would love there to be an explanation for Autism> > > >> > > > Now Dr Wakefield's "science" has been put under the microscope> > > > ............so can you tell the list where he got it right.>>> > >> > >> > > ** Hi ,> > >> > >> > > I read Jim's post. I immediately understood it to be his opinion,> not> > necessarily a fact.> > >> > > The phrase was "You know, I honestly have not looked at Dr.> > Wakefield's research but I have a strong instinctive belief..."> > >> > >> > > I don't see how that's off-base. Factual? Who knows? I tend to agree> > with it. It's the first thought I had when it all first came out and I> > still believe it today -- and I'm not a member of CCHR.> > >> > > You know, the people who want to discredit people who speak out> > against psych drugs do so by calling them Scientologists. It's a ploy> to> > create knee jerk reactions in others. Do we really have to sink to> their> > level?> > >> > > I don't think it's necessary to declare one's religion when giving> an> > opinion or making a statement. I also don't think that people can be> > defined by their religion.> > >> > >> > > You and I have known each other for a long time, , and I> deeply> > respect and like you. But I don't think it is right to drag a person's> > religion into a discussion. I think it may be appropriate to ask how> > much their religion factors into their religion but that's not what> was> > done. Imo, an opinion is just that and as long as it is presented as> an> > opinion I don't see the problem.> > >> > > Please ask yourself what would have happened if I made the statement> > Jim did prior to Jim making it. As I'm not involved in CCHR, you> > wouldn't have had that reaction.> > >> > >> > > Where are you seeing that Wakefield "shoved" instruments into> > children? This makes the entire thing seem even more like a set up.> > >> > > Take care, .> > >> > > Regards,> > > > > >> >>

January 8, 2011