Did Andrew Wakefield Perpetrate an "Elaborate Fraud"?

[catbirdsteed]

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/m ... searchers/
".Be Part of the Process: Wired’s Editors Field Your Questions

* By Rachel Swaby Email Author
* October 20, 2009 |
* 6:43 pm |
* Wired Nov 2009
*

An Epidemic of Fear
An Epidemic of Fear
How Panicked Parents Skipping Shots Endangers Us All
All Related Stories »

We recognize that diving into the vaccine debate is a risky maneuver because of its heated nature. But rest assured, we put this story (and every other in the magazine) through a rigorous fact checking process that scrutinizes every word. As a research editor at Wired, I consulted experts, peer-reviewed journals, and the government agencies that regulate our vaccines. In fact, my research folder for this story approaches my biggest ever. And we don’t want all those facts to go to waste. So we’d like to open up our process. For the next couple of weeks, Amy Wallace, the article’s author, Erin Biba, correspondent, Joanna Pearlstein, Wired’s senior research editor, and I will be responding to your specific questions about sourcing. Please post them in the comments section. So ask away—but before you do, please consult our section on further reading. That’s a good place to start.

Our first issue: Thimerosal. Stay tuned."
...
"And then Wallace’s astounding, but in my view deliberate, colloquialism “Merck is doing no such thing” is carefully parsed. Wallace says Merck “is” doing no such thing, but does not address at any point during the article whether they “did” such a thing in the past. That Merck did exactly that is a matter of Congressional record from the very mouth of Paul Offit.
.
Note that Wallace did not say: “I took the liberty of contacting Merck and Mr. Jones, Director of Public Relations, categorically denied that Merck is or has ever compensated Paul Offit for public relations on behalf of the company.” As a journalist, that is her responsibility. But she chose to assert on behalf of Offit without citing why she believes the charges of conflict of interest against him are unfounded.
.
That’s shoddy at best.
.
From the Committee Report on Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, June 15, 2000:
.
>> b. Dr. Paul Offit (Exhibits 38-41)
.
>> Dr. Offit shares the patent on the Rotavirus vaccine in development by Merck and lists a $350,000 grant from Merck for Rotavirus vaccine development. Also, he lists that he is a consultant to Merck.
.
>> Dr. Offit began his tenure on ACIP (Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices) in October of 1998. Out of four votes pertaining to the ACIP’s rotavirus statement he voted “yes” three times, including, voting for the inclusion of the rotavirus vaccine in the VFC program.
.
>> Dr. Offit abstained from voting on the ACIP’s rescission of the recommendation of the rotavirus vaccine for routine use. He stated at the meeting, “I’m not conflicted with Wyeth, but because I consult with Merck on the development of rotavirus vaccine, I would still prefer to abstain because it creates a perception of conflict.”[lxvii]
.
In other words, Offit voted three times to approve the rotavirus vaccine, but only abstained on the fourth vote and admitted payment from Merck when directly confronted by Congressional inquiry.
.
This is all relevant, but Wallace dismisses it with a single sentence: “(Merck is doing no such thing).”
.
You will, of course, pardon my incredulity."

[catbirdsteed]

While Dr. Douglass might seem as cranky to the "good science" set, I don't think he is as compromised Mercola.

http://douglassreport.com/2011/01/10/va ... itch-hunt/
Autism hoax… or vaccine witch hunt?
Immunization researcher hit with fraud allegations
Start pounding those stakes into the ground and gather up some firewood — we’ve got a witch to burn.
Today’s witch: Dr. Andrew Wakefield, now accused of fabricating the research in his landmark 1998 study that linked vaccinations to autism. And if he really did fake his work, then burn, baby, burn.
But before you set that fire, ask yourself why so many people are so hellbent on destroying this man — and what they’re so afraid of. After all, Dr. Wakefield never told anyone not to vaccinate a child. He’s not even against vaccinations. All he did was suggest that the ludicrous combo vaccinations that overwhelm young immune systems be split up into a series of individual shots — or at least allow parents the option to choose between the two.
That doesn’t sound very radical to me — but you should have seen Anderson Cooper go after Dr. Wakefield on his CNN show the other night. You would’ve thought he found a Nazi war criminal instead of a relatively minor threat to one of the world’s biggest, most powerful and most crooked industries. If you want some witches, I’ve got a much better place for you to bring your torches: to the offices of drug company bosses and their public health lackeys who push needless vaccine after needless vaccine on children around the world. I don’t know if these things really cause autism, but it doesn’t matter — because I do know this: Many of these shots are dangerous, unnecessary and ineffective. You heard me right. Despite the mainstream’s mantra that “vaccines have saved millions of lives,” let’s take the scientific point of view on this: Prove it. That’s how science works, right?
But you can’t prove it, because it’s just not true — the very diseases that launched the vaccination movement in the early 20th century were already on the decline before a single arm was ever poked!
These vaccines didn’t end disease — better living conditions, improved sanitation and the greater overall health of advancing society did that. But while scientists can’t prove that vaccines have worked, I can prove they’ve harmed millions — and exposed millions more to serious and unacceptable risk while undermining our natural immunity. In one case, 11 million British kids were given polio shots contaminated with mad cow disease. In a separate case of contaminated polio vaccinations, millions of Americans were “accidentally” injected with a virus known to cause brain tumors. You want more? I’ve got plenty. Remember the Lyme disease vaccine? If you don’t, that’s because it was quickly pulled off the market after being linked to a severe and crippling form of arthritis. Then there’s that dangerous HPV vaccine I’ve been warning you about, still on the market despite dozens of deaths and thousands of adverse events among little girls across the country. And don’t even get me started on flu shots… or the millions sickened or hurt through the known and expected side effects of “perfectly good” vaccines. You want to burn a witch, then c’mon baby light that fire — just make sure you burn the right one."

edit; elimination of double spaces

[norton ash]

Sigh. Sic semper vacc-pharmaceutical discussions. Scientology vs. pharma leviathan, where the enemy of my enemy is my enemy.

It's a mug's game.

[barracuda]

These vaccines didn’t end disease — better living conditions, improved sanitation and the greater overall health of advancing society did that.

What complete nonsense.

New information:

Shorter Gap Between Pregnancies Linked to Increased Autism Risk

The rising prevalence of autism in the United States suggests that environmental risk factors growing in prominence are at play. New research adds to a growing body of evidence that the risk is conferred well before affected children show symptoms, such as impairments in communication and social interaction -- during pregnancy.

According to the study published in Pediatrics, children conceived within one year of a sibling were three times more likely to be diagnosed with autism than those conceived after three years or more. The association held true even when the study authors controlled for variables such as parental age, preterm birth and low birth weight – all factors known to increase autism risk.

"We've identified a really robust association," said Peter Bearman, director of the Lazarsfeld Center for the Social Sciences at Columbia University and senior author of the study. "When you see something so robust and so stable, it provides an important clue as to what we should be looking at next."

The risk of autism among children conceived 1-2 years after an older sibling was almost double, the researchers reported.

The study focused on over 660,000 second-born sibling children born in California between 1992 and 2002. During that period, the proportion of births occurring within 24 months of a previous birth increased from 11 percent to 18 percent, according to the researchers.

"Closely spaced births occur in some part because of unintended pregnancies but also by choice, particularly among women who delay childbearing," they wrote.

[Simulist]

These vaccines didn’t end disease — better living conditions, improved sanitation and the greater overall health of advancing society did that.

What complete nonsense.

Yes, that is nonsense. And even twelve full pages of discussion, some of it contentious, still can't call forth something from nothing regarding the alleged link between autism and vaccines.

[catbirdsteed]

Simulist posted: "...And even twelve full pages of discussion, some of it contentious, still can't call forth something from nothing regarding the alleged link between autism and vaccines."
Did we expect anything different to appear to have happen here? I sure didn't. RI in general has little or nothing over the metaculture on this issue. On many other issues, sure, but not this one.

There are many political issues that I find disagreement with Dr Tenpenny on, but very few nutritional, immunological or infectious disease issues.

Smallpox Myths, Revisited
By Dr. Sherri Tenpenny http://www.nmaseminars.com
Smallpox vaccination is here.
Over the last seven months, much effort has gone towards preventing the reintroduction of the smallpox vaccine to the world, but to no avail. Despite the extensive information in the popular press dissuading its use and warning of its complications, we are going to vaccinate. Despite President Bush's admission that "our government has no information that a smallpox attack is imminent," we are going to vaccinate. Despite the fact that the CDC's own historical documents show that mass vaccination doesn't work, we are going to vaccinate. And we are starting with the military and first responders.
These initial vaccinees will be the "trial balloons" for vaccinating the rest of us. Side effects and complications reported by these "volunteers" will be monitored closely and reported nationwide. We can only hope that these reports will contain full disclosure of the serious side effects and the actual numbers of occurrences. Determining the level accuracy reported to the press may be difficult. We will need to be vigilant and skeptical: suppression of vaccine side effect data has been well documented. Case in point: the anthrax vaccine, another vaccine trialed on our military.
Side effect records are critically important documents. It is easy to postulate that mass vaccination will commence, sooner rather than later, if fewer-than-anticipated side effects are reported. But regardless of the seriousness or the number of the side effects, if a suspected "outbreak" occurs---anywhere in the world---all bets are off as to what our Government will force upon us. And if the smallpox virus has been weaponized (genetically combined with any number of other biological weapons)…all bets are off as to the protective value of the vaccine.
Since Bush's announcement on December 13, I have had the opportunity to share these points nationwide through many newspaper and radio interviews. The myths surrounding the smallpox vaccine cannot be over stated. Don't believe what the media is telling you about smallpox or about the smallpox vaccine.
Here is a review of what the CDC says about how contagious smallpox really is and how likely it is to be spread by casual contact.
Smallpox "Facts" Exposed As Myths:
1. Smallpox is highly contagious."The infection is spread by droplet contamination. Coughing and sneezing are not generally part of the infection. Smallpox will not spread like wildfire."
Walter A. Orenstein, M.D., Director of the CDC's National Immunization Program (NIP), CDC meeting June 20, 2002

2. Smallpox is spread by casual contact
"Transmission of smallpox occurs only after intense personal contact, defined by the CDC as constant exposure, occurring within 6-7 feet, for a minimum of 6-7 days."
Joel Kuritsky, MD, Director of the National Immunization Program and Early Smallpox Response and Planning at the CDC. Info from Am. J. Epid. 1971; 91:316-326
3. The death rate from smallpox is 30%
Case fatality rate in adults was "much lower than generally advertised" and closer to 10-15% in adults. "Even without mass vaccination, smallpox would have died out anyway. It just would have taken longer."
Dr. Tom Mack, of USC, reported at the CDC meeting June 20, 2002 -The verbatim transcript of the Meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) June 19 and 20, 2002
4. Since the 1900s, the death rate from smallpox in the US was consistently less than 5%
In 1900, 21,064 smallpox cases were reported, and 894 patients died [that’s 4.2%--ST]. During 1900-1904, an average of 48,164 cases and 1528 deaths caused by both the severe (variola major) and milder (variola minor) forms of smallpox were reported each year in the United States. [that’s 3.2% --S. Tenpenny]
The pattern in the decline of smallpox was sporadic. Outbreaks of variola major occurred periodically in the first quarter of the 1900s and then ceased abruptly in 1929. [what caused that? Not vaccination since that would have been a constant. --S. Tenpenny]. Outbreaks of variola minor declined in the 1940s, and the last case in the United States was reported in Texas in 1949.
MMWR. Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999 Impact of Vaccines Universally
Recommended for Children -- United States, 1990-1998 MMWR April 2, 1999 /48
(12);5. The US has spent nearly $800M over the last 14 months to develop the smallpox vaccine. Why would a terrorist choose this virus?
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) lists 65 known biological warfare agents and an infinite number of organisms that can be created through genetic engineering. If we vaccinate against smallpox [and anthrax], an enemy could easily pick a different microorganism for use.
More information on smallpox is at: http://www.vaclib.org/basic/smallpoxindex.htm
6. Dr. Kuritsky, from the CDC, outlined other smallpox misconceptions
a. "When people develop the smallpox prodrome, they are sick; they will be in bedand not out walking around."
b. "Transmission through bed clothing contamination is extremely rare. The virus is NOT spread in food or water."
c. "Contagiousness can be ‘interrupted’ by the use of a properly fitted, filtered respiratory mask with an NIOSH rating of N95 or better." Therefore: A properly fitted mask will provide a very high level of protection.
If this is true, why vaccinate the military? Why vaccinate first responders? Why not just insure that they all have properly fitted masks??"

I'll stop again, as I find it hard to stay on topic. Attempting to examine Wakefield in a vacuum is sure way to continue to propagate ignorance. Removing the issue from the vacuum is not much help either considering the blindsided political climate re: vaccines as the backbone of the proof of medical-pharmaco's philosophical and practical validity and long term infallibility. Reductionism is of no value in developing a true and lasting understanding of of the human organism, and little of value regarding the same of human culture.

[barracuda]

catbirdsteed, are you honestly down to the point where you're posting crap by William Campbell Douglass in support of your point of view? And your selling point is that he's less compromised than Mercola, huh?

Listen, in that case, I have some tips on how you can avoid ever getting cancer. PM me your credit card number for further details.

Whoa, and now Tenpenny? Awesome stuff.

[stickdog99]

What results of what experiments? If you are discussing Wakefield's original MMR experiment that has caused all this fuss, it never proved anything, regardless of the truth of Deer's allegations against Wakefield, other than the desperate need for further research on the issue vaccine safety.

OK fair enough with that.

Remeber I mentioned the swine flu vaccine thing.

I thought it was stupid to stop giving it to kids based on the numbers I saw. That was obviously a political decision based on an emotional reaction to the vaccine causing reactions in kids. One aspect of vaccinations is that reactions occur, its a normal immunological response and shows the vaccine has "downloaded" its info into the immune systems data bank. Thats a metaphor but its closer than it seems to accurate.

No one died. Now this was all based on public media hysteria.

The swine flu panic was too, so I'm staying within the logic of that. I might disagree that swine flu vaccination was necessary but thats not the point I'm making.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. With vaccination, as with any medical recommendation, risks and costs need to be weighed against gains. While we don't know the risks of swine flu vaccination, mulitvial doses contain a needless dose of thimerosal. The cost is about $20 a shot around here. The gains were basically nil since hardly anybody got swine flu and almost everybody who got it recovered quite nicely (at least in the US).

If there are risks with vaccine:

a/ are they 1) poor practice (mercury, infection, etc) or 2) something thats inherent in the vaccine?

Good question. Alum adjuvants may carry risks and many currently vaccine formulations would not be nearly as efficacious against the viruses without these adjuvants

b/ but in either case what are the numbers?

How many people get really sick as a reaction to vaccines and what is the overall ratio compared to no vaccines? Whats the rick benefit analysis for the average individual on average? And the potential worst outcomes of both actions (vaccine & no vaccine) and their likelihoods.

Again, good question. The trouble is that these numbers have never been quantified in any reasonably rigorous way. The limited information that does exist can be spun either way.

That is what the vaccine debate should be about. Point a/ above isn't an issue about vaccines per se. Its about poor medical practice. Cos if the risks are inherent in the vaccine and so point b deals with that.

Exactly. Vaccination is not all good or all bad, just as prescription drugs are not all good or all bad. It is not a monolith. You can be for more studies on vaccines without believing that vaccination itself is an evil plot.

I don't see Wakefields actions as adding to that.

His original MMR study was basically a joke. The controversy it caused was unjustified. However, the new primate study that he was final author on represented desperately needed research that should have been done long ago, and the fact that Rob Deer's personal feud with Wakefield killed this research is tragic.

[stickdog99]

Look, I'm no fan of Scientology (or any other fundamentalist religion for that matter).

Ha! That's a classic. Just Google "I'm not a Scientologist but" and see for yourself.

But I fail to see what could be Scientologists' motivation to infiltrate or set up associations to question vaccination. And even if Scientologolists had some sort of secret motivation to do so, why shouldn't the content of any such sites still stand on its own merits, considering that this content has nothing whatsoever to do with Scientology?

I see what you did there.

WTF on you on about? I never said ", but". Where the fuck did I say ", but"?

Please explain to me about the supposed Scientology plot to get people to question vaccination. Why? Why do Scientologists want to get people to question vaccination? Why can't people question certain vaccines and vaccine ingredients just as they question certain medicines and medicine ingredients or certain foodstuffs and food ingredients without being part of vast Scientological plot? This is a new one for me. Please explain to me in your words this supposed link between Scientology and every organization that questions vaccination safety

[stickdog99]

Plutonia, barracuda, anyone... Why is it that Paul Offit's conflict of interests never seem to be under the microscope of the Wakefield critics? Could one or both of you address this. please?

Wait a minute didn't he vote against the use of the smallpox vaccine in response to a terror scare cos the benefits were outweighed by the risks to the public of taking the vaccine?

That certainly suggests to me that whatever his conflict of interests may be he is also capable of thinking about the public interest first and putting his own preference for vaccination to the side.

Isn't this the dude who said infants could easily handle 1,000 vaccinations in one sitting or some such rot?

[catbirdsteed]

Yes, this is one facet of the Dr Douglass that I am referring to. The reviews are from the Amazon site you linked to, b. bold type, my addition. He also espoused bacon and eggs for breakfast, over Cheerios. Cheers!
"Dr. Douglass is known for his anti-establishment hyperbole, and it serves him well in creating his saleable persona. While there are very good benefits of limited use of the natural tobacco leaf, this should not cause us to ignore the very real dangers of cigarettes and their additives. Not to mention the stench. That said, my guess is that the previous one-star reviewer has not read this book. Dr. Douglass does a good job of presenting some of the fallacies of the anti-tobacco lobby and benefits of tobacco. Read the fine print and you'll find that he also does not approve of cigarettes and their additives or over-use of tobacco. He is quite harsh on the tobacco companies.
Benefits of smoking include the well-known protective effect from Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases. However, sometimes Dr. Douglass can gild the lily, such as pointing to the combination of higher smoking and lower specific disease rates in Asia compared to the U.S. Even though he ignores the fact to gild his hyperbolic lily, I am sure Dr. Douglass must be aware of the reason: green tea. Even the staid NCI (National Cancer Institute) has reported on the protection that green tea catechins offer from cancer. Investigations have borne out the fact that here in Asia green-tea-drinkers who smoke have lower cancer rates than American smokers, but Asian non-green-tea-drinkers who smoke do not have lower cancer rates.
All in all a good book, and it is good to have a doctor willing to stand up to the fascists, but you will have to overlook the hyperbole."

"I was skeptical at first. But after reading this book, and all associated sources, Dr, Campbell Douglass makes his case for the health benefits of tobacco. The book is easy to read. I read it in two days. It was so interesting, I could not put it down. He does not advocate heavy smoking, but moderate smoking of pure tobacco, without additives. He is also not inviting non-smokers to become smokers. He is merely citing flaws in numerous studies and proving the benefits of pure tobacco when used properly. Great read for open-minded people. If you are closed-minded or swayed by media/government, don't bother with this book. You won't be able to see the truth. You've already been too brainwashed. "

Are we supposed to be opposed to the use of tobacco as a "recreational" substance or a medicine on any and all levels, or only it's mis and over use, which would include the aggressive, deceptive marketing and denaturing that is inherent in commercial tobacco? Conflict of interest: I am an occasional smoker of hand rolled tobacco-only (no additives) cigarettes.
it is patently obvious that I am not party line or orthodox about these issues, and am obviously not beyond making fun of myself or the "cranks" that I sometimes listen to. (I dare you or any AW basher to make jokes about the buffoonery of Brian Deer or Paul Offit, or as a much easier target, try it with ORAC)) You can make fun of my references, and me too. Interesting to note: somewhat similar unorthodox influences are welcome and encouraged here on other topics. Given the nature of this board, it would have to be so.

[barracuda]

Of course "unorthodox influences" are welcome to the discussion. Just don't expect snake oil salesmen to get some kind of a "pass" because we seriously consider UFO's here. Even though we're both aware of the nature of some of these cartoon characters you've referred us to, it never hurts to mention it out loud.

[catbirdsteed]

problem is anyone who, supports AW or any of the associated theories is- if not already thought of as a quack- automatically put there when they lay those cards down. I am checking out for the afternoon to get my ass to work. The vaccine brain-damaged, epileptic, autistic adults of the world do not take care of very many of their own needs, unlike most of us here. I trust I won't be missed (except perhaps as an effective foil).

[alwyn]

http://www.laleva.org/eng/2006/03/new_s ... cines.html

[barracuda]

I'm not sure I'd flap those little arms so hard, alwyn. That study by Dr. Marc Geier was published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.

The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is not listed in the major literature databases of MEDLINE/PubMed[36] nor the Web of Science.[37] Articles and commentaries published in the journal have argued:

that abortion causes preterm birth later in life, and thus birth defects such as cerebral palsy to future children born to women with a history of abortion,[38]

that the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are unconstitutional,[39]

that "humanists" have conspired to replace the "creation religion of Jehovah" with evolution,[40]

that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has not caused global warming,[41]

that HIV does not cause AIDS,[42][43]

that the "gay male lifestyle" shortens life expectancy by 20 years.[44]

Contrast with:

Thimerosal Down but Autism Rising

Research links soaring incidence of the mysterious neurological disorder to fetal and infant exposure to pesticides, viruses, household chemicals

Sevenfold Increase in Autism Rates

...etc.