Retracted autism study an 'elaborate fraud,' British journal finds

[Rosemary]

Statement From Dr. Andrew Wakefield: No Fraud. No Hoax. No Profit Motive.

BREAKING NEWS:
Statement From Dr. Andrew Wakefield: No Fraud. No Hoax. No Profit Motive.

AUSTIN, Texas, Jan. 13, 2011 /PRNewswire/ -- Dr. Andrew Wakefield issued the following statement today on the recent British Medical Journal articles:

"The British Medical Journal and reporter Brian Deer recently alleged that my 1998 research paper was 'a hoax' and 'an elaborate fraud' and that my motivation was profit.

"I want to make one thing crystal clear for the record my research and the serious medical problems found in those children were not a hoax and there was no fraud whatsoever. Nor did I seek to profit from our findings.

"I stand by the Lancet paper's methodology and the results which call for more research into whether environmental triggers cause gastrointestinal disease and developmental regression in children. In fact, despite media reports to the contrary, the results of my research have been duplicated in five other countries (to see citations to studies, visit http://tinyurl.com/4hrdt5y.)

"It is not unexpected to see poor reporting and misinformation coming from Brian Deer, the lead reporter of the recent BMJ coverage. But to see coverage in other media that cites Deer's shoddy journalism in the BMJ as a final justification to claim there is no link between vaccines and autism is ludicrous. The MMR is only one vaccine of the eleven vaccinations on the pediatric schedule that has been studied for causing developmental problems such as autism. That is fact, not opinion. Any medical professional, government official or journalist who states that the case is closed on whether vaccines cause autism is jumping to conclusions without the research to back it up.

"I continue to fully support more independent research to determine if environmental triggers, including vaccines, are causing autism and other developmental problems. The current rate of autism is 1 in 110 children in the United States and 1 in 64 children in the U.K. My goal has always been and will remain the health and safety of children. Since the Lancet paper, I have lost my job, my career and my country. To claim that my motivation was profit is patently untrue. I will not be deterred - this issue is far too important."

http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/01/...efield-no-fraud-no-hoax-no-profit-motive.html

 

[cigana]

Forgive me if this has already been posted, but there is a very enlightening interview with Andrew Wakefield:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIsFW5phHas&feature=&p=2E0C1A654BC67483&index=0&playnext=1

He comes across as a genuine guy, and has a damning indictment or two to make about the government's role in this affair.

Cig

 

[markmc20001]

Forgive me if this has already been posted, but there is a very enlightening interview with Andrew Wakefield:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIsFW5phHas&feature=&p=2E0C1A654BC67483&index=0&playnext=1

He comes across as a genuine guy, and has a damning indictment or two to make about the government's role in this affair.

Cig

Good interview. He seems very credible. He makes a number of interesting points on the interactions between government, vaccine manufacturers, and news reporters.

He also mentions a whistle blower who informed Wakefield of vaccine manufacturers continuing to market and sell vaccines to third world countries once the product was found defective(caused infectious outbreaks) in four separate western countries.

 

[Wayne]

British Researcher Wakefield Defends Link Between Vaccine and Autism British Research

Here's an interview between Andrew Wakefield and George Stephanopolous on 1-16-11. I thought George was uncharacteristically disrespectful; made for a very one-sided interview in my opinion. It's about 10 minutes long.

British Researcher Wakefield Defends Link Between Vaccine and Autism British Research

 

[Mark]

More anti-Wakefield articles today...the latest propaganda campaign continues, though the precise objectives remain unclear this stage...

http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/926374--a-medical-conspiracy-that-wasn-t

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/b...kefield-didnt-cause-the-mmr-panic-on-his-own/

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70K64120110121


Editor of Spiked (born from the ashes of Living Marxism and online epicentre of The Lobby) gets a blog in the Telegraph...from the RCP to the Daily Telegraph: what a journey!

I have to say that the writing of Spiked is incredibly intelligent and well-written...and lots of good points in there...which is what makes it all so powerfully misleading. Here, we are now suddenly getting the perfectly reasonable line that "it's not all just wakefield's fault" and sensibly querying the idea that "one man and a handful of his doctor friends managed to hoodwink the media and the masses with some warped theories".

Such a line is appropriate to the times, since Wakefield has already been gotten to and there's no need to pursue him further really, and now it's time for them to use the issue to move on to other targets...it would be interesting to see whether O'Neill was mounting the same defence of Wakefield at the more crucial time when he was under direct attack personally...because it has always been crazy the way he's been blamed for how the media reacted to his work...

"Witch-hunting Wakefield has taken the place of seriously analysing and explaining why his 1998 Lancet paper managed to exercise such a powerful grip on public consciousness."

Yes, and more than that...the whole furore has taken the place of any serious attempt to analyse and explain his findings...and the science of whatever his observations meant has become completely obscured in the process. I rather doubt that O'Neill has been vigorously opposed to that witch-hunt all along though...

Also interesting the way he goes back to the anti-GM debate in the 90s, which is when the green movement first learned of The Lobby that descended upon them (see "Brave New World of Zero Risk" by Martin J. Walker).

And here too we have the repetition of the themes we identified earlier in this thread, regarding the latest agenda that's being pushed:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70K64120110121

Reuters explains again why sometimes it's not a good idea to give fair airplay to both sides of an argument, because freedom of speech can apparently be dangerous when one side is right and the other side is wrong...in such cases, the media shouldn't give any quarter to the guy who's wrong...sounds like a slippery slope to me...

The new message that keeps being touted in this latest assault seems to have a few main themes:

- The whole scientific question around Wakefield's work and the MMR controversy has been definitively resolved and consigned to history. (dream on...the online comments suggest not...)

- Now we move on to the question of whether Dr Wakefield can be pursued for actual "fraud" - or at least, smeared with that allegation.

- We also want to suggest that "the medical establishment" "closed ranks" and defended Dr Wakefield, and have a real go at them for not attacking him severely enough (who are they coming for next, I wonder?...)

The consistency of these subtexts that I'm seeing in multiple media outlets is quite disturbing, but not at all suprising, having read Martin J. Walker and learned something of how The Lobby operates.

 

[Cort]

I have no idea about Wakefield but I think the mercury autism/vaccination theory is pretty much over. Several very large studies have been done - and have not shown any drop in autism after mercury was eliminated from them. Now there is just the question of vaccinations and its probably a good question...

Rich - Whenever there is a lot of money on one side of an issue, I think we should be aware that the media in the U.S. is supported by advertising money, and it is likely that they will be sympathetic to those who support them financially. If they weren't, they wouldn't be in business very long. Unfortunately, medical journals are also subject to this kind of influence.

Are you saying the New York Times is not going to report honestly on vaccine trials and autism? I think that's going too far.

As far as the vaccine--autism link is concerned, as far as I know there has not yet been a good study of the effect of giving children so many vaccines at the same doctor visit, as is frequently done. I suspect that that could be too large an impact on their undeveloped immune systems. I would like to see such a study done.

Sounds like a good idea.

It's true that there is a lot of money involved in the vaccine business, and it's true that representatives of vaccine makers sit on the CDC committee that recommends the vaccine schedule for children. This seems to me to have the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Granted that's a problem. I don't see the need for that. Plenty of other experts available, I'm sure.

I do agree that vaccines are very important from a public health standpoint, but I think that the number of vaccinations should be limited to the ones that are really needed from a health standpoint, apart from the business aspects.

That's really quite a statement. You're saying that the medical profession is recommending vaccinations in order that vaccine companies will profit - not for the health of the population?

I also think that it would be wise to spread them out in time, so that the impact on the immune system would not be as great.

Makes sense

Measles can be quite severe, however....

Complications with measles are relatively common, ranging from relatively mild and less serious diarrhea, to pneumonia and encephalitis (subacute sclerosing panencephalitis), corneal ulceration leading to corneal scarring.[5] Complications are usually more severe amongst adults who catch the virus.

This can be a real problem

The now-discredited paper panicked many parents and led to a sharp drop in the number of children getting the vaccine that prevents measles, mumps and rubella. Vaccination rates dropped sharply in Britain after its publication, falling as low as 80% by 2004. Measles cases have gone up sharply in the ensuing years.

The Answer! - They should be able to solve the autism vaccine question by identifying children who did not receive vaccinations and assess their levels of autism and other childhood illness. That shouldn't be that hard -given that 20% of the population in Britain appears not to be getting their vaccinations. I wonder if that study is in progress?

 

[jenbooks]

Hi Cort, there are a few groups in the U.S. who don't vaccinate and have almost no autism. That includes the Amish, and if I recall, there's a group in Chicago at one HMO, where generally parents who don't want to vaccinate join. So it's pretty obvious that not vaccinating dramatically reduces the risk of autism.

I think a "slow" schedule is advised, with vaccines only mandatory for serious childhood illnesses. The MMR is a problem because that's three in one. Mumps is not usually a big deal, nor rubella except if you're pregnant, and usually as a kid you're not pregnant, eh? In fact, the immune system has evolved to "expect" infections, it's a way of training it to robustness, so all these vaccines may have adverse effects. And altering a vaccine in order to attenuate the response, doesn't mean there won't be another deleterious response we don't understand...

As for vaccines for profit--well, think about it. Why vaccinate most newborns for hepatitis B? Are most newborns at risk? Shouldn't that be optional and advised only for newborns of high risk moms? The babies themselves aren't doing drugs or having unsafe sex. And a vaccine the day you're born is not advisable, you don't even have an immune system up and running efficiently yet, you're still relying on mom's, and hopefully what you'll be getting from breastmilk. And what about Gardisil? Shouldn't safe sex be a reasonable choice for a young woman, since there have been some horrific effects, including paralysis etc, from Gardisil? Do you think that's a necessary vaccine? Even though it's not mandatory at this point, it's being urged on young women.

It's a for-profit business in many ways.

 

[Mark]

Surely the point about vaccinating children is that this is a more effective age at which to apply the vaccine? I don't know exactly how that works and what the data supporting it is, but I think the argument that these are diseases that affect adults isn't really the point. Guaranteeing 'herd immunity' as a way towards eradicating viruses seems like a legitimate strategy to me. So I don't quite see a smoking gun in jenbooks' point about hepatitis B vaccines.

That said, I think the issue here is that there is this profit motive which inevitably skews policy. That situation is getting worse and worse all the time and I think, surely, pretty much everybody knows it. This is not to say that there has to be conscious bias, or a deliberate conspiracy, a sinister plot to make money out of people's suffering. The profit motives, and the fears over the implications of certain scientific possibilities, are enough to introduce massive subconscious bias, though, at the very least. Nobody's immune to that...

So Cort, I don't think it's at all too far-fetched to point out that the NYT - or anyone else - has financial interests which tend to colour their reporting. I think that's quite obviously the case. I once knew an ex-Guardian journalist who quit in disillusionment because (so he told me) the agenda for everything he wrote was based on the advertising: they would get a bid for a big double spread advert from some african country's tourist board, for instance, and therefore do a special on that country which seemed to be a social responsibility piece about aid and development...which it kind of was I guess, in itself, but the reporting agenda was driven by the money. It's a win-win model I've described in that example, so in a sense there's not much wrong with it in itself (the way it works in other papers is far worse I'm sure), but it isn't unbiased reportage...might a different country have been chosen for the feature if the money weren't driving things? And so that's a subtle systematic influence over people's thinking and focus, which they're mostly unaware of.

And having said all that, this is also not to say that conscious cover-ups of this nature aren't endemic as well, because I think it's clear that they are and there's plenty of recent evidence. Just look at things like the Glaxo-Smith-Kline $750m settlement over concealing serious problems at a drug-manufacturing plant, and note that all but one of the directors responsible for that issue are still in place...and that this is just one issue where a whistle has been blown...there are sure to be many more skeletons in big pharma's closet...there's a recent wikileak regarding a secret report into infiltration of EU regulatory bodies by industry lobbyists, for example, which I haven't got round to reading - all of this covert industry influence over policy and over science is a very, very real issue, and massively dangerous for humanity.

So I don't think one can afford to make any assumptions here - but fearing vaccines altogether and not getting one's children vaccinated based on these fears is certainly a very dangerous strategy indeed, both for the individual and for wider society. What we need is a radical reform of the system to restore it to a state where it can be trusted again.

In that sense, I would personally put the blame for the collapse of public confidence in vaccines at the door of people like Brian Deer, and other lobbyists who over-zealously pursue targets who break the industry's taboos and threaten the interests of the rich and powerful. That hysterical pursuit continues to be conducted in such a dishonest, illogical and suspicious way that it's the real driver for the well-founded public fear that the relevant authorities cannot be trusted. People can sense that the wool is being pulled over their eyes - ironically, it's the secrecy, spin, and underhand tactics themselves that, in the long run, fatally undermine the case that the spinners are trying to make. It's just not possible to carry on behaving like that without it affecting public trust in the very authorities the spinners are trying to protect. Finding themselves in a hole, my advice to them would be to stop digging...

 

[jenbooks]

Surely the point about vaccinating children is that this is a more effective age at which to apply the vaccine? I don't know exactly how that works and what the data supporting it is, but I think the argument that these are diseases that affect adults isn't really the point. Guaranteeing 'herd immunity' as a way towards eradicating viruses seems like a legitimate strategy to me. So I don't quite see a smoking gun in jenbooks' point about hepatitis B vaccines.

Babies are vaccinated supposedly because infected mothers can pass on Hepatitis B to their newborns. It would be better to either test at-risk mothers (those who are drug users or have unprotected and risky sex frequently), or to vaccinate the mothers, than to vaccinate newborns. Autism rates track pretty well with the introduction of hepatitis B vaccine to newborns.

Perhaps you did not understand the details.

 

[jenbooks]

So I don't think one can afford to make any assumptions here - but fearing vaccines altogether and not getting one's children vaccinated based on these fears is certainly a very dangerous strategy indeed, both for the individual and for wider society. What we need is a radical reform of the system to restore it to a state where it can be trusted again.
...

Is there any good reason to vaccinate for minor childhood illnesses? There is a reasonable hypothesis that the immune system expects to encounter infections, and trains itself on them, establishing a robust immune response that serves it well. How do we even know what 32 vaccines by age 6 actually does to an immune system?

There's a case to be made for serious, possibly fatal childhood illnesses (such as measles) but not for mumps, rubella, and a host of other stuff. How many people step on rusty nails? How many flu shots do kids need?

In addition, triple vaccines are just by nature inviting trouble, triple trouble. And mothers should have the option of receiving mercury-free vaccines for their children if they suspect they may be in the 15-20% of the population that does not detox mercury well, or even if they simply want the least toxic vaccine for their child. Unfortunately, mercury, aluminum and other metals keep bacterial counts down, allowing multi-use vials...it's a profit motive.

You shouldn't mess with the immune system and the natural order of things unless you're dealing with something dread (polio) or possibly serious (measles--which is often experienced as just another childhood disease, but not always). Playing God often invites the Devil in.

 

[Cloud]

Babies are vaccinated supposedly because infected mothers can pass on Hepatitis B to their newborns. It would be better to either test at-risk mothers (those who are drug users or have unprotected and risky sex frequently), or to vaccinate the mothers, than to vaccinate newborns. Autism rates track pretty well with the introduction of hepatitis B vaccine to newborns.

Perhaps you did not understand the details.

I agree Jen....Mandatory Hep B vaccines for newborns and school age children should create concern in anyone's mind as to the motivation behind these mass vaccination laws. The numbers of moms with Hep B don't come close to justifying these actions. It makes a lot more sense to screen the moms for Hep B than to give millions of undeveloped immune systems a vaccine known to have significant and sometimes permanent side effects. And obviously, these newborns and kids have zero risk factors for other modes of Hep B transmission. So why require all children to have the Hep B vaccine to attend school when they have next to zero risk factors for contracting the disease? Even the coordinator for the State of California Immunization department couldn't answer this question for me, and yet she passively follows and rigorously enforces these laws.

Because of the whooping cough concern in Ca, the TDaP (Tetanus, Diphtheria, and Pertussis) is now required for grades 7-12. Since the Pertussis does not come as a single vaccine, these kids are having to take the Tetanus and Diphtheria unnecessarily....and all in one shot. This is one major thing that needs to change if they want trust and compliance...they need to stop giving kids so many vaccines so close together, and stop giving them multi-dose shots. They also need to eliminate the non essential vaccines. But, I'm not holding my breath for transparency and change for safer vaccination programs.

To the best of my knowledge, Dr Wakefield only stated that he had found a "possible" connection between vaccines and autism. He never made any statements claiming causation. He also stated that he is not against vaccines, but would prefer to see them used more prudently (one at a time, etc). Why fry someone for this? Seems to me those out to destroy him, are on the defensive. If they (gov health, big pharma) truly cared about the people, they would be researching rather than castrating Dr Wakefield's work.

 

[SilverbladeTE]

New York Times and many others hide a lot of the crap going on in Iraq/Afghanistan
so "trusting" the media...ha!

the simple link in the Wakefield case between the Ruling Elite and Pharma Corp manipulation makes this clear

Judge on Wakefield's case = brother of
the guy who owns the Lancet
Who is also an exec of GlaxoSmithKline
not suprisingly, the judgge put the kibosh on Wakefield AND didn't recuse himself from the case

proof of the vast conspiracy of grubbiness that goes on

it's NOT a New World Order
it's:
"I went to uni/elite military unit with you, lets work to gether and screw the system!"
so you'll see in UK, many powerful people having relatives and friends on many committees, "QUANGOS" etc, so they rake in the cash, avoid being caught out and will NOT talk about this because it would set off a massive chain reaction like Tunisia just had as they'd ALL come tumbling down in an avalanche of corruption.

take a look at the UK MPs "cash for questions" and other stuff, as well.

Way back in the 1980s, a senior government minister ORDERED in a new rule to make farmers use sheep dip, by regulation rather than need
lo and behold...sheep dip syndrome bloomed, many farmers killed themsleves and it was all hushed up exactly like ME has been
and that Minister walked into a job with the chemical company who made the sheep dip
you can go look it up if wish

that is how the "Real World Works".

 

[cigana]

I am surprised we're still talking about mercury as the problem. Hasn't a new, more likely candidate emerged in the form of XMRV?

We already know anecdotally that many PWC's have autistic children, and that has now been confirmed by the (admittedly small) study Mikovits spoke about recently at the GMA. We also already know that vaccines in adults can trigger MECFS. So isn't it plausible that autism can be the result of activating XMRV in the yound child with the vaccine acting as the trigger? Presumably then, the more vaccines you combine in one, the greater the chance of triggering XMRV.

Perhaps this has already been discussed elsewhere. I hope Andrew Wakefield and parents of autistic children are aware of the possibility.

Mark

 

[Mark]

I am surprised we're still talking about mercury as the problem. Hasn't a new, more likely candidate emerged in the form of XMRV?

However. this new research on XMRV's Long Terminal Repeat (LTR) finds that, due to a binding site there, just about anything that provokes the NF-kB immune response will encourage XMRV to replicate in B-cells and prostate cancer cells. NF-kB has been termed "the central mediator of the immune response" - so...just about everyone could be right...

http://forums.aboutmecfs.org/showthread.php?9805

 

[SilverbladeTE]

ME reacts to stress, ANY stress as most of us know

so, that makes sense, be it triggered by:
thimerosal (still in FLu shots, fyi, poison)
aluminium (now in most vaccine shots, poison)
reaction TO vaccine shots
adjunctivants in vaccines (send immuen system response skyrocketting oh how damn smart that is to use eh?)
infections
emotional upsets
complex cognitive tasks
physical exertion
injury

*STRESSORS* to be exact

whether XMRV is also a contimanant in some vaccines...that is something to ponder, but it woudl anyway, cause havoc when you do mass vacinations if 7% of the populaiton have XMRV and say 1 in 20?? of them sets off an "ME reaction"..and others it causes autism, cancer or who knows, depending on THEIR particular bodily responses.

it's a "shotgun" effect, so spotting the pattern is hard, especially when the Powers that Be do not want to admit vaccines cause harm and routinely cover that up

 

[Carrigon]

Alex Jones did a few videos about this. http://www.youtube.com/user/TheAlexJonesChannel