Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Incidence of measles, mumps and rubella all increase due to anti-vaccine campaign
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
MilanPan!c wrote: »I'm not sure if you're intentionally lying or just ignorant.
Funny that. I was just about to say the same thing about yourself.Wakefield repeatedly changed the data.
And as proof of that, you link me to an article by Brian Deer??
The same guy who has been caught lying so many times now it is laughable? The same guy that the GMC based their entire case on? A case so paper thin one judge labelled a farce, quashed the charges of professional misconduct, saying they were based on "inadequate and superficial reasoning". And you are holding up anything that clown had to say?
Did you know that he went around some the Lancet 12's family homes, lying about who he was. Gaining access under the guise of being a sympathetic journalist?He also rounded up anti-MMR parents for the trial, claimed he'd discovered the link BEFORE doing any tests and was part of a lawsuit against MMR - which earned him 50k in fees - before and during the research.
And you have the cheek to say I am lying?
Wakefield was a doctor for 14 years before he dealt with autism. The parents were ALL referred to the Royal Free and he took an interest in their cases as he was a a senior lecturer and surgeon at the Royal Free at the time. The fees came from the Legal Aid Board and went into the Royal Free's accounts, NOT into his pocket. Studies have to be funded, and autism research is a grossly underfunded area of medicine. He declared his conflict of interest to his colleagues at the time and this has been acknowledged and indeed, is on record at the Lancet, so much so that during evidence at the BMJ hearings the argument then became about the dates this was revealed (pre-'98 or not).On the other hand Smith was later re-instated as a doctor.
Yes, which is my point and why I brought him up. The case against Prof Walker-Smith was based on the same shoddy nonsense that the case against Wakefield was based on and had Wakefield's being able to afford to cover the legal costs of the appeal (or more to the point: being able to afford losing the appeal) then he too would have been reinstated, perhaps with a slap on the wrist for some of the more minor offences.Wakefield is CLEARLY the person behind the entire scam. He was clearly the person falsifying the histories. He clearly cherry picked some of the subjects based on their anti-MMR beliefs. And he clearly was making money from a law firm, while preparing a lawsuit he was also part of, which no one else involved knew about.
More lies.
He didn't make money and yes, you can go pop off and come back with media quotes from Deer and the like saying he did, but he didn't and if you trawl through the evidence which was giving during the hearings you too will see that he didn't. In fact, one of the accounts of the Royal Free gave evidence saying they signed a check which had been endorsed to the Royal Free by Wakefield that had come from the Legal Aid Board.Wakefield:
"The grant of £55,000 was paid not me but to the Royal Free Hospital Special Trustees for my research group to conduct studies on behalf of the Legal Aid Board. These research funds were properly administered through the Royal Free Hospital Special Trustees.
"The Legal Aid research grant to my group was used exclusively for the purpose of conducting an examination of any possible connection between the component viruses of the MMR - particularly measles virus - and the bowel disease in these children. This is entirely in line with other studies that have been funded by the Legal Aid Board (latterly the Legal Services Commission) and reported in the BMJ. "
Dr Mac Armstrong, the BMA ethics committee chairman of the time,backed that up when he stated that it was quite logical and above board for Wakefield to be funded to do the research and that there was nothing unusual in it whatsever.
As for Wakefield fabricating test results. That is such BS. John O'Leary here in Dublin did the PCR tests for Measles (which have been challenged themselves for an error the lab made - sure blame Wakefield on that also) and the biopsy tests showing bowel inflammation was carried out by Dr.Paul Dhillon at the Royal Free. NEITHER of these two doctors have stated that the Wakefield exaggerated or in any way altered their findings. On the contrary, they have gave evidence which endorsed the results were represented in Wakefield's paper.
A research paper which stated:"We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome (autistic enterocolitis) described. We have identified a chronic enterocolitis in children that may be related to neuropsychiatric dysfunction. In most cases, onset of symptoms was after measles, mumps, and rubella immunisation. Further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome and its possible relation to this vaccine.
Nothing whatsoever saying the MMR is the cause of Autism of course, but sure why let the truth get in the way of a witch hunt. Indeed, the whole case was conducted on the back of a smear campaign by Brian Deer who was commissioned to investigate Wakefield (wonder why) and when he couldn't find evidence of misconduct, he manufactured it, with the clever use of smoke and omission mirrors, which is why the judge in Prof Walker-Smith's had such harsh words for the BMC.
Some testimony from that appeal which is quite telling:Q. In relation to the 12 children in the Lancet paper, … on what basis did your department investigate these children?
A. We investigated them exactly on that basis of clinical need. These children had symptoms and signs. We did not know what they were due to. We undertook a series of investigations to find out what was the problem with the child and there were outcomes from these investigations and they came in the traditional way. We made a diagnosis and eventually, where it was appropriate we gave treatment. …
What is quite astonishing about this review of children is the high evidence of abnormality. In suspected Crohn's disease [another GI disease]… we had a lower incidence of abnormality. Here we have mucosal abnormality in 47 of 50 children investigated with the autistic spectrum [the first 12 comprised the Lancet series], which almost suggests that this could be a feature of autism per se, although these are children all with bowel problems.
The children were all investigated specifically and exclusively by clinical means to determine whether bowel inflammation was present that could then be appropriately treated. …
Q. As time went on, and you were not encountering Crohn’s disease, what did you understand to be the condition or the problem that you were encountering? If it was not Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis, what did you believe that you were finding?
A. Just like many times in my career before, we were finding a new disorder. … We were beginning to see a new syndrome, fairly clear features of children presenting with diarrhoea, very often abdominal pain which often was not diagnosed by other doctors. Sometimes [that] was because of the children not speaking and the fact that screaming and other manifestations were not obvious. [Those] were the chief symptoms. Then, as we found, constipation or, more appropriately in some ways, faecal loading or certainly something interfering with gut transit was a feature as well. There is a characteristic symptom pattern.
Then, rather more remarkably in a way, there was a remarkable homogeneity in the histopathology [microscopic examinations]. It is a subtle pathology, the cardinal features being particularly ileal lymphoid nodular hyperplasia [swollen lymph nodes], very often colonic lymphoid nodular hyperplasia, and a general increase in inflammatory cells in the lamina propria, and there was evidence of acute events with cryptitis and abscess formation from time to time. It was an entity not so different from an adult practice called microscopic colitis, but clearly in the context of autism we felt something new was coming, and that is the motivation, of course, for us clinicians to feel that it was appropriate for Andy Wakefield to take the lead, and write these features for publication.
Q. Having gone through the histology reports, the synthesis of those reports in the histology meetings, it is clear that there are abnormalities there ---?
A. Yes.
Q. They are not, as you accept, either Crohn’s or ulcerative colitis?
A. That is true.
Q. But can one say, really they are not terribly serious? They do not really matter very much because they are not more florid than what has been described in the histology reports?
A. No. They clearly matter. I can say they really matter because of the subsequent work led by Simon Murch. Ralph Furlano’s memorable paper published, I think, in the Journal of Paediatrics, which established significant immuno-pathology of a great[er] severity than is apparent with the light microscope. …
In fact, I think Simon Murch had called this “a subtle enteropathy”. We did have to educate Sue Davies at the Royal Free in the interpretation of small bowel biopsies as well U]her reports finding no problems was the basis for Deer’s claim that Wakefield altered the pathology reports to falsely show bowel disease[/U. On that occasion, Alan Phillips played a major part, because he was an expert on the small intestinal morphology. So it was not a surprise to me in any way that these were new findings, new findings emerging, as we saw a group of children we had not studied before.
Q. Is the size – perhaps that is the wrong word. Is the extent of the inflammation found proportional to the symptoms that the child suffers? In other words, is there a relationship, that if you get big lesions, if you happen to have cryptitis, crypt abscesses, it is going to be more painful and more uncomfortable than something more minor?
A. No, no. There is never that simplistic agreement between pathology and clinical findings. But furthermore, what are you doing with biopsies? It is like taking a post stamp out of a tennis court, and the endoscopist is taking little pieces of tissue, and giving them to a histologist to look down the microscope. The great importance of endoscopy is that you can see the whole of the colon, for example, and we saw in one circumstance, when Simon Murch saw a number of lymphoid follicles in the colon but by chance none of them were present on histology. That was because, by chance, he had not biopsied from an area where there were these findings. So we cannot expect a simplistic correlation between little pieces of tissue and the global picture. The more biopsies you take, of course the better chance there will be.
Q. What about the suggestion that in fact all you are seeing is a normal variant of the gut pathology that children would have in any event? So this is not really indicative of inflammation at all, that this, particularly lymphoid nodular hyperplasia is simply a variant of normal, with no clinical significance. I stress clinical significance.
A. I rely in terms of pathology on Professor Paul Dhillon, a very distinguished histopathologist, co-author of the Lancet paper. I had nothing whatever to do or knowledge of the histology that he and his team did but his opinion is that there is significant histopathology there. My role as a clinician is the taking account of those significant, in his judgment, histopathological findings. I regard them as serious and worthy of treatment.
The difficult area in relation to lymphoid nodular hyperplasia relates to the ileum, not the colon. In Professor Dhillon’s view, in my view, it is clearly an abnormal finding, even though the mucosa is otherwise histologically normal. On the issue of the severity of ileal lymphoid nodular hyperplasia, I have to bow to my endoscopy colleagues, because I relied upon them. When the diagnosis of lymphoid nodular hyperplasia was made, I relied on the judgment of Simon Murch and Mike Thomson, apart from those cases in which I relied on the radiologist when the lymphoid nodular hyperplasia was diagnosed on barium study.
Q Can we just look at what you wrote. … “A statement by Professor John Walker-Smith: I deny the allegation that there was systematic bias in the pattern of referral for the children in the 1998 Lancet paper. No children were invited to participate in this study. Upon review of the Centre for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Royal Free Hospital, work book entitled ‘Biopsies Vi 4/9/95 to 21/7/97’, we confirm that the children who were reported in The Lancet paper of 1998 were the first 12 children consecutively referred to the university department of paediatric gastroenterology with autism and related disorders, who had gastrointestinal symptoms requiring ileo-colonoscopy to exclude chronic bowel inflammation.” …
[Quoting from another letter by Walker-Smith] “In relation to this department, we are all in agreement with the description of a new syndrome of ileal lymphoid nodular hyperplasia and non-specific colitis in a cohort of self-selected (ie parent selected) patients. We have sent a paper to the Lancet and I enclose a copy for you. In some there is a clear historic link to MMR.
“In another paper Andy is preparing, he is describing the evidence for measles virus. This is far, far stronger than for Crohn’s disease in histochemical studies etc. I believe in this small number of patients who may be at risk in any event of autoimmune disease, measles may have played a role. [This paper was not published.]
“Like you I am very concerned at any weakening of MMR uptake in the community. However, I have personally seen all these ‘autistic’ children and in some at least there seems to be a strong presumptive evidence of an MMR link.”
And so, as you can see. Prof Walker-Smith was very much hands on and has never once uttered a bad word about Wakefield, let alone suggest he believes the data was "fabricated" by him. Why would he? When he had personal dealing with the doctors involved and was discussing their findings with them on a daily basis.
Dr Stephen Walker has also done similar studies on autistic children and made the following statements on the back of his research back in 2006:"Of the handful of results we have in so far, all are vaccine strain and none are wild measles. This research proves that in the gastrointestinal tract of a number of children who have been diagnosed with regressive autism, there is evidence of measles virus.
"What it means is that the study done earlier by Dr Wakefield and published in 1998 is correct. That study didn’t draw any conclusions about specifically what it means to find measles virus in the gut, but the implication is it may be coming from the MMR vaccine.
"If that’s the case, and this live virus is residing in the gastrointestinal tract of some children, and then they have GI inflammation and other problems, it may be related to the MMR."
So, further research in this area would be most welcome now. Seems to be sadly lacking.
In the meantime, single vaccines should be reintroduced, just to be on the safe side. Might not make a difference, as they could still potentially cause a similar about of vaccine damage as they currently are doing, but best to play safe with the public's health.
The demand for the single vaccine rose dramatically in '98 on the back of the concerns for multiple vaccinations made by Wakefield and it's a shame the UK government didn't capitalize on that to relay the fears of the parents. That way uptake of he measles vaccine may never have dropped. Instead, they choose to with the import licences, despite the manufacturer of the single vaccine (who also manufacturer the MMR) making it public that they could not keep up with demand.
Course, when you have Wakefield in the wings, who you can pretty much blame anything on, why bother facing uncomfortable truths. Last year Government officials even blamed him for the cases of measles in Wales:
What a difference a decade makes, as in 2003, they actually saw fit to make a movie about the guy back in 2003:
I'm not trying to suggest that Wakefield was some great medical pioneer and actually think the movie was inappropriate, as it gave too much unsubstantiated hope to parents. Although there was a lot of good in it also in that many familes first heard about ABA thought and also how the GF/CF diet could potentially help control many common autism behavioral symptoms but in the main, the way this guy is seen is laughable.
Although, I much preferred the docu which showed Brian Deer to be the liar he undoubtedly is:
The truth will out eventually I guess (good, bad and indifferent) and when it does, I really hope that those that have smugly pontificated about how safe vaccines are down the years, and particularly with regard to how strenuously they debated how vaccines couldn't possibly play a role in the development of ASDs.. one day choke on their words, as each and every one of them will have without doubt played their part in delaying society's willingness to take a thorough look at the role that are playing in autism regression (be that a large one or very small one).
Even if it be a case where it is the latter, that is still a shockingly large number of children who will have either been denied a proper diagnosis or caused to suffer from it.. just because some science bloggers had nothing better to do than to align themselves with big pharma and current scientific consensus, as it made them feel good and powerful about themselves and gave their otherwise sad smug lives, meaning.
Simply put: false claims on either side are extremely unhelpful.
Evidence suggests, at the very least, that autistic children need further testing in this area, and beyond, and it's about time it was done and not in the half assed way in which it has been so far.
Prof Walker-Smith put it nicely when he said:“Am I too naïve to ask all people of goodwill on both sides of this debate to speedily agree on an independent research agenda that will finally resolve this matter? Such an agenda must involve non-epidemiological research focusing on the bowels of these children. It is self evident that this whole question is going on far too long and is causing so much heart-ache in parents.”0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7kbWfsygG4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkYGSGKI16Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id_AxZ3zHAc
Advertisement