Wakefield Vaccination Flap: Running interference for Merck?

[Penguin]

Wiki on thiomersal / thimerosal is funny...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal

Use

Thiomersal's main use is as an antiseptic and antifungal agent. In multidose injectable drug delivery systems, it prevents serious adverse effects such as the Staphylococcus infection that, in one 1928 incident, killed 12 of 21 children inoculated with a diphtheria vaccine that lacked a preservative.[3] Unlike other vaccine preservatives used at the time, thiomersal does not reduce the potency of the vaccines that it protects.[4] Thiomersal is not needed in more-expensive single-dose injectables.

In the U.S., the European Union, and a few other affluent countries, thiomersal is no longer used as a preservative in routine childhood vaccination schedules.[1] In the U.S., the only exceptions among vaccines routinely recommended for children are some formulations of the inactivated influenza vaccine for children older than two years.[5] Several vaccines that are not routinely recommended for young children do contain thiomersal, including DT (diphtheria and tetanus), Td (tetanus and diphtheria), and TT (tetanus toxoid); other vaccines may contain a trace of thiomersal from steps in manufacture.[3] Also, four rarely used treatments for pit viper, coral snake, and black widow venom still contain thiomersal.[6] Outside North America and Europe, many vaccines contain thiomersal; the World Health Organization has concluded that there is no evidence of toxicity from thiomersal in vaccines and no reason on safety grounds to change to more-expensive single-dose administration.[7]

Toxicology

Thiomersal is very toxic by inhalation, ingestion, and in contact with skin (EC hazard symbol T+), with a danger of cumulative effects. It is also very toxic to aquatic organisms and may cause long-term adverse effects in aquatic environments (EC hazard symbol N).[8] In the body, it is metabolized or degraded to ethylmercury (C2H5Hg+) and thiosalicylate.[3]

Few studies of the toxicity of thiomersal in humans have been performed. Animal experiments suggest that thiomersal rapidly dissociates to release ethylmercury after injection; that the disposition patterns of mercury are similar to those after exposure to equivalent doses of ethylmercury chloride; and that the central nervous system and the kidneys are targets, with lack of motor coordination being a common sign. Similar signs and symptoms have been observed in accidental human poisonings. The mechanisms of toxic action are unknown. Fecal excretion accounts for most of the elimination from the body. Ethylmercury clears from blood with a half-time of about 18 days, and from the brain in about 14 days. Inorganic mercury metabolized from ethylmercury has a much longer clearance, at least 120 days; it appears to be much less toxic than the inorganic mercury produced from mercury vapor, for reasons not yet understood.[9]

Risk assessment for effects on the nervous system have been made by extrapolating from dose-response relationships for methylmercury.[9] Methylmercury and ethylmercury distributes to all body tissues, crossing the blood-brain barrier and the placental barrier, and ethylmercury also moves freely throughout the body.[10] Concerns based on extrapolations from methylmercury caused thiomersal to be removed from U.S. childhood vaccines, starting in 1999. Since then, it has been found that ethylmercury is cleared from the body and the brain significantly faster than methylmercury, so the late-1990s risk assessments turned out to be overly conservative.[9] A 2008 study found that the half-life of blood mercury after vaccination averages 3.7 days for newborns and infants, much shorter than the 44 days for methylmercury.[11]

And in an infant, with a highly plastic, developing neural network...
Noo, no risk!

[catbirdsteed]

And of course Deer jumps back in to the headlights...

Brian Deer responds to Keith Olbermann
Category: Antivaccination lunacy • Entertainment/culture • Medicine • Quackery • Skepticism/critical thinking • Television
Posted on: February 12, 2009 1:30 PM, by Orac

Last night, I lambasted Countdown host Keith Olbermann for having been played by the antivaccine movement and having unjustly slimed British journalist Brian Deer. Clearly, Olbermann was so blinded by his hatred of Rupert Murdoch that all chief apologist for the antivaccine movement, former freelance journalist David Kirby, had to do was mention that The Times of London, the newspaper that published Brian Deer's excellent investigative report nailing anti-MMR guru Andrew Wakefield to the wall for falsifying data, is owned by Rupert Murdoch, and it was like waving the proverbial red cape in front of the bull. Like a bull on crack, Olbermann didn't think too much before he charged ahead, parroting the misinformation and talking points spoon fed to him by David Kirby. Leaving aside the fact that this made Olbermann look like an even bigger fool--not to mention a huge hypocrite--for having nailed a FOX News reporter for reading word-for-word Republican talking points as analysis just the day before.

Well, unfortunately for Keith Olbermann, Brian Deer is actually in the states and has seen both the video and David Kirby's bragging about it. He also gave me permission to post his letter to the producers of Countdown. Showing what a fair-minded individual he is, even though he detests Andrew Wakefield as much as I do, Deer even complains about the inaccuracies in Olbermann's attack on Wakefield the night before:

The producers,
Countdown,
MSNBC
On Wednesday 11 February 2009 you placed into the mouth of your presenter Keith Olbermann a grievously defamatory item concerning me. You named me the third of the day's "world's worst persons" and, among other things, accused me of dishonesty and "malfeasance" in connection with my work as a journalist for The Sunday Times of London. The item has been widely seen in the UK.

On the previous day, you broadcast a similarly defamatory item concerning Dr Andrew Wakefield, whose false claims of having found a possible link between a childhood vaccine and autism have been the subject of my investigations. Wakefield can no doubt deal with his own reputation. However, it's clear to me that, although I share your apparent general opinion of Wakefield, the item concerning him contained inaccuracies, and appeared to have been crudely lifted from my work, without any effort whatsoever on your part to check your facts, or to properly describe my findings. I think that by subsequently attacking me you believed that you could somehow mitigate your previous errors.

These two instances evidence your inability to deliver three daily targets for your "world's worst person" item, and you now resort to baselessly picking on people about whom you know little. It's clear to me that you do so in order to deliver entertaining defamations, at little cost to the programme, and in circumstances where you believe your victims will have no redress.

It is untrue that, as you say, I am the complainant against Wakefield in UK disciplinary hearings. I have ample correspondence to prove this. As a journalist with public as well as professional duties, I was approached almost five years ago by the UK doctors' regulator, the General Medical Council, and asked if I would supply them with my journalistic findings, post-publication, at that time concerning Wakefield. This I did, in a manner familiar to journalists, both in the UK and the US, in dealings with statutory regulators. There can be no possible issue about this, or any justifiable allegation of misconduct on my part. Nor could there be any justification for your suggestion that this would somehow disbar me from continuing my investigations into Wakefield's activities, or that I had improperly concealed my previous actions, or that my prior supply of journalistic findings invalidated findings reported last weekend which are not yet charges faced by Wakefield. Your item implied that, in reporting my new findings, I was somehow merely reporting my own prior allegations. This is utterly false, and grossly damaging to my reputation. To assist your employer to commercially profit by recklessly attacking me appears to have been your intent.

You were apparently supplied with your baseless allegations by a New York-based freelance journalist, David Kirby, who has made substantial sums of money through attacking childhood vaccines, and who is an advisor to Wakefield. Extraordinarily, you even supplied Kirby with a copy of the script of your attack on me, prior to broadcast, and thus appear to have acted in cahoots with him. Kirby was sufficiently motivated, and stupid, to publish your script on a website before the item was aired.

Your defamation of me has been taken up by others, and you are plainly responsible for this. You have no possible defence, since your claims are simply false. They were fabricated and placed with you by antivaccine campaigners and cranks. You can argue no privilege or free speech right to make such false allegations, not least since you published them with complete disregard for their truth or falsity. NBC's lawyers will no doubt explain to you the particular difficulties of such conduct in the UK jurisdiction.

I am presently travelling, and have no access to office facilities. I write to you via a junk antispam email address.

I look forward to your prompt response, and ask that you supply a copy of this email to your legal department.

I can presently be contacted at xxx-xxx-xxxx.

With best wishes,


Brian Deer

[compared2what?]

compared2what? posted:

But...as far as I can tell, Wakefield did do what Deer says he did. He himself doesn't really argue otherwise; his response to the Times is such a classical example of the Non-Denial Denial that Karl Rove would probably give it an A+. Also, as far as I can tell, nothing Wakefield came up with put Merck within a million miles of exposure to any legal liability in any way, shape or form whatsoever.

[...LINK TO SPECTATOR)...]

I am not sure if this is the same or similar to what you saw in the Times, but he addresses the points directly. He denies pretty much everything point blank.

That's exactly the response I was talking about. And, no, he doesn't deny the allegations point-blank. He walks around them. I'll go point by point later, if necessary. Plus, Wakefield's career subsequent to leaving the Royal Free is somewhat less than totally impeccable wrt selfless devotion to research irrespective of profit-potential and/or similarly self-serving benefits. However, for the sake of not-time-having until this evening, for now, I'm just going to give one example (his response to the the charge that the results of the gastrointestinal research done at the Royal Free were altered or misrepresented in the published study) and hope that I can rely on the close-reading abilities of the board to locate the problems with the other parts of his rebuttal.

Okay. First of all, please note that he does not reply:

"No, they were not, Mr. Deer. I refer you to:

(a) The lab data;
(b) The analysis of them included in the Lancet;
(c) the scientists responsible for that analysis, including their names, which they are proud to have associated with the work in question;
(d) And the vast cohorts of their peers, any one of whom would happily verify the impeccability of the published findings."

Or something along those lines, except (of course) with the pertinent details filled in. Instead, he pretty much stays as far away from the perilous arena of specific pertinent detail as he can get, opting for the much more fungible terrain of general statements of the kind that are highly compatible with the preservation of a party's ability to give a "what-I-meant-was"-type explanation in response to any putative future questions he or she might be asked while under oath.

A full excerpt of that part of his reply is quoted at the end of this post. But in effect, what he says is:

"(a) I had nothing to do with that, it's not my department;
(b) two unnamed co-authors of the paper, who were histopathologists, using an undefined -- but agreed-upon! -- protocol -- came up with those findings, which were also reviewed by Professor Walker and his team; and
(c) (WEASEL-WORDS ALERT!) "The paper was then reviewed by the relevant authors prior to submission to the Lancet in order to confirm that the diagnoses were correct. The findings reported in the Lancet are, in the opinion of the relevant authors, correct. This is a matter of record at the GMC."

In this type of circumstance, it's not only customary but kind of an urgent matter of self-interest to refer your would-be accusers to whatever named colleagues upon whom you can call to support your case and/or at least refer to whatever third-party scientific research argues in favor of the validity of your work. So just on common-sense grounds, his near-complete failure to do either of those things is really kind of a red flag of all by itself. I'm not saying that if he had gotten down to brass tacks, it's totally possible that he might have vindicated himself, of course. Nor do I categorically reject the prospect that when he does get down to brass tacks, he will indeed completely vindicate himself. But until he (or someone else) does that, there are some pretty significant areas of windiness in this rebuttal, conveniently quoted in full right here:

"It is a matter of fact that I did not play any part whatsoever in making the microscopic diagnoses of inflammation on any biopsy from any child investigated at the Royal Free Hospital. Intestinal tissues were examined, and the children’s pathology documented, by two doctors (not me) employed in the Department of Histopathology who were experienced in bowel disease, using an agreed protocol to ensure rigor and consistency . These doctors were co-authors on the paper. The same tissues were reviewed by Professor Walker-Smith and his team. I merely entered the documented findings into the Lancet paper. I did not “change” any findings as alleged. The paper was then reviewed by the relevant authors prior to submission to the Lancet in order to confirm that the diagnoses were correct. The findings reported in the Lancet are, in the opinion of the relevant authors, correct. This is a matter of record at the GMC."

Among those areas of windiness, very briefly, because I am going to be so incredibly fucking late:

* It's not at all clear whether the relevant authors who reviewed the findings reported in the Lancet prior to publication and who still opine that they're correct are the same people, or to which exact aspect of the findings they're attesting.

* It's also unclear whether the protocol did in fact ensure rigor and consistency, or whether it was just agreed upon for that purpose -- in all innocence, quite possibly -- although sadly it was ultimately proved to be flawed, inadequate, or otherwise insubstantial enough to throw the results into question.

* "Professor Walker and his team" may or may not also still stand by their approving review of the paper, for all I know and whoever they are. But from what he writes, it's not at all clear that they do.

I'd also say that quite apart from the scientific merits of his rebuttal, it's really, really not an indication of good character or noble intentions or a devotion to pure and impartial scientific principles for Wakefield to start out by implying that even if there were some errors for which someone should be held to account, it sure isn't him. To say the least. For pity's sake. Indeed, once again, it's exactly that kind of tactic that helps keep former top officials from various Bush administrations out of court. I believe it's known as "plausible deniability" in some circles.

If Wyeth loses this one it will be much bigger than Vioxx. They may not lose, but thier MMR product is dangerous. Despite this court hearing there are numerous irrefutable studies where various vaccines have killed and injured children and infants.

(1) What does that have to do with Deer's reporting or Wakefield's research? I mean, how exactly is any pharmaceutical company legally liable for not having tested its product to ensure that it wouldn't cause a syndrome that was identified for the first time by Wakefield in 1999 prior to his identification of it? What is the evidence that they knew it was dangerous prior to that year?

(2) I don't know enough about the topic to know whether there are numerous irrefutable studies showing that various vaccines have killed or injured children. But I do know of one example, which you mentioned earlier and am willing to take your word for it that there are many similar instances. Because those companies are indeed evil motherfuckers.

That does not prove MMR, therimosal or MMR/therimosal caused these three cases of autistic regression, ruled on today, but to continue to say- over and over again- that "the case is closed, there is no link" is just not going to work unless they say it louder and more often.

(3) How do you square the unqualified assertion that "thier MMR product is dangerous" with "That does not prove MMR, therimosal or MMR/therimosal caused these three cases of autistic regression, ruled on today...(etcetera)"?

(4) I agree that saying "the case is closed, there is no link" won't work no matter how often it's repeated until the case is closed, one way or the other. I don't see that Wakefield's study of 12 children does this at all. One way or the other. Furthermore, questioning the validity of that study appears to me to be justified based on its merits, per the best currently available information. Which I fully concede may not be objectively the best information. However, in the absence of whatever putative better information may or may not yet have been discovered and/or revealed, it's all either you and I have to go by.

Many parents WANT vaccines and a lot of them want SINGLE vaccines. Paul Offit doesn't want that. Wyeth doesn't want that. It would seem that Brian Deer doesn't want that either. Wakefield IS NOT patently anti-vaccine by any stretch of the term.

(5) I still don't see any evidence for Deer having a pro-Big-Pharma agenda. I also don't see what Wakefield's position on vaccination has to do with the scientific validity of the study in the Lancet. Those are two entirely discrete issues. And I don't see how it benefits anyone....Actually, scratch that.** I don't see how it benefits at-risk infants and children, to conflate them.

** VERY EMPHATICALLY: Please believe, my dear catbirdsteed, that this is absolutely not intended to imply that you have a vested interest or bias, or that anyone here does. It just occurred to me as I was typing that there are always plenty of scamsters and quacks out there happily minting money and preying on emotionally and physically vulnerable people by exploiting the ambiguity attendant on both this kind of conflation generally. Not excluding the ambiguity surrounding this issue in particular. Some of the practitioners offering chelation therapy as a treatment for autism as well as for every ill under the sun are pretty suspect, for example.

In fact, in general, please believe that I am not writing out of any free-floating bias or other hostile, adversarial motivation. I'm merely seeking to address an important subject as thoroughly, thoughtfully and fully as possible. I mean: It's definitely an important subject to me. And I'm pretty sure that it's just an important subject, period. In short: While I might turn out be wrong about every single thing, if I am, please believe that I erred in good faith in the course of as sincere and serious a consideration of the material as I'm able or qualified to undertake.

As a matter of fact, you can take it as granted that I totally and fully pre-admit that I'm not so sure of myself that I could say with any certainty that I mightn't be wrong about everything. For one thing, I'm a layperson not an expert. So I'm more than willing to be persuaded that I am wrong -- the legitimacy of Wakefield's research is not something I have any personal stake in at all, and I don't subscribe to any abstract preexisting set of principles, beliefs, or other unrelated ideology that requires it to be either valid or invalid. It just looks to me like Deer has a strong case and Wakefield has a weak defense. And I'm not making or even trying to make any stronger claim or argument than that.

[catbirdsteed]

c2w?, Many good points and questions there. I will attempt to address many of them later. Thank you for expressing your views and concerns, especially when there are other pressing items on our personal to do lists, work, etc.

** VERY EMPHATICALLY: Please believe, my dear catbirdsteed, that this is absolutely not intended to imply that you have a vested interest or bias, or that anyone here does.

I do indeed have a bias in regards to making medicines as safe as possible, especially in regards to infants and children, and to -generally- use it only when necessary. Perhaps we are both there on that, but bias is a loaded word, and maybe I shouldn't be willing to claim it. The prophylactic use of vaccines is not at question here. What is at question is the use of "special courts" and legalistic immunity for the developers of these vaccines. What is at question here is the veracity of a smear campaign, even if a few of the "facts" are in line.

I am suspicious that Deer was set up to Dish a phony "slam" on Merck in regards to Vioxx (as I pointed out, it was post facto) for the purpose of "legitimizing" his criticism against Wakefield., who's work was threatening Merck's stranglehold on on the MMR market. I did not begin this thread thinking that Wakefield was legit, mainly that Wyeth and the MMR was not. In spite of my sketchy rational and reasoning on the page here, I have been developing a keener appreciation of his work. In other words the more I read, the less I am convinced that he was involved in any real or imagined malfeasance.
As for the purported conflict of interest on Wakefield's part, the processes he went through are very typical in the world on medical litigation.Deer's conflict of interest seem to be more outstanding in regards to his being a litigant on a court case that he is reporting on.
Thanks again c2w? More Later.

[compared2what?]

c2w?, Many good points and questions there. I will attempt to address many of them later. Thank you for expressing your views and concerns, especially when there are other pressing items on our personal to do lists, work, etc.

** VERY EMPHATICALLY: Please believe, my dear catbirdsteed, that this is absolutely not intended to imply that you have a vested interest or bias, or that anyone here does.

I do indeed have a bias in regards to making medicines as safe as possible, especially in regards to infants and children, and to -generally- use it only when necessary. Perhaps we are both there on that, but bias is a loaded word, and maybe I shouldn't be willing to claim it.

I don't know that I would call it a loaded word. I mean, technically, I think that it can have a value-neutral definition. But it's generally used actually to mean (rather than to connote, suggest or imply) something explicitly and negatively value-laden -- ie, "a prejudice or other self-serving need that prevents a true, clear and fair understanding." But: enough already with my fucking excessive English-majorness and irritating semantic preciosity. Especially given that I wasn't even a fucking English major. Because for one thing, it's getting in the way of the point I'm trying to make, which is:

You can claim the word if you want to. But I still want to make sure you know that I wasn't suggesting that you were biased in any negative or malign, I was just noting that the terrain is crawling with people who are. And the reason I want to do that is: (a) I wasn't; and (b) the last time we shared thread-space I inadvertently made you feel like I was roughing you up, which I hadn't at all intended, totally regretted, and very much wished to avoid doing a second time.

So...of course I'm with you in being opposed to medical protocols that are unsafe and/or unnecessary in general as well as to potentially toxic pediatric medical protocols in particular and always would be, whether we happened to be in agreement on the details or not. That's pretty much exactly what I was trying to convey. In my own little chronic and hopeless fuck-up way.

I do hope that at least this clarification was clear, though. Hope springing eternal, etc.

[alwyn]

thanks, catbirdsteed, for posting this. I've been watching the mercury/vaccine flap for quite some time, and I'm personally convinced that it is a dangerous additive, for which I've been pilloried in court for not subjecting my son to.

A few years ago, I was given a three month dose of Lupron, which, oddly enough, was bright silver. Gee, wonder what it was preserved with? The damn shot almost killed me, and it took me years to get MOST of the mercury out of me, and I still have problems.

Just want to say to any reading here, don't believe the lies about thimerosol, and keep it away from your kids. If you must vaccinate, choose a single dose vaccine, and space them out. Your childs life may depend upon it.

[catbirdsteed]

This is what I expected to see in the bio community, and I think it is spot on and will pan out to be more evident, and will die away. The Brian Deer factor, that is. Handy is a biggie in the vac-questioning camp and I know little about his organization- Generation Rescue- , and less about the man.
But I do think he is on to something here. In a paroxysm of journalistic recklessness, I will look into his profile more AFTER I hit submit!


Remember the title of the thread, "...Running Interference for Merck"?

http://www.ageofautism.com/

February 13, 2009
Did the Department Of Justice Tip-Off Brian Deer?
Divulge By J.B. Handley

OK, let me be honest, I only have the vaguest understanding of who this Brian Deer character is. I love Andy Wakefield as much as the other several hundred thousand parents who love him, and I knew Brain Deer was some sketchy reporter in the UK, but I really didn't (and still don't) know much about him or his motivations. If you are in the UK, please use the comments sections to educate me.

That said, I found it rather odd that Brian Deer torpedoed Andy over the weekend with a seemingly made-up outrage piece, only days before the judges ruled in the Vaccine Court. The timing struck me as odd. I ran this by a couple of people, and most figured it was probably just coincidence, until I read this post just made by Mr. Deer himself. You be the judge:

You have it about right there. I'm proud of my work investigating Wakefield. Unlike Kirby, I am not a campaigner, have never advocated any pharmaceutical product, and have never made statements on whether or not any vaccine may or may not cause any medical condition. If there are any editorial changes in any of my published work to that effect, I don't know of them. I'm a reporter, and have simply sought out the facts on Wakefield's research.

c2w? I don't know. i could have been an Author, Politician, a Lawyer or a Scientist, but ended up a mystic crank with a soft heart (and muddled thinking). But I do have a profound sensory intuition and some real grasp of the science of endocrine and metabolism, and nutrition. I do know a bit about how those Professionals talk, and -somewhat -how they think (or fear). It is funny in a way, siding with Wakefield, as he is way more interested in propagating vaccines than I could ever be now. There are many other MD's doing treatment work that corresponds to his findings. Many of them have a solid and straightforward way of presenting themselves, and they seem to get results. Dr Mary Megson is one of them.
http://www.whale.to/v/megson1.html In a perfect world, I would not need to care about Wakefield, and less so about Brian Deer, and not at all about Paul *ffit.

My main interest now is food/medicine. I don't ascribe to the science based approach to testing and treatment. Food/nutrition is primarily an intuitive process, and we are best served by science when it is used to understand the panalopy of emotional, intellectual and endocrine/metabolism factors that are at play in the human organism, and to learn to differentiate the vast array of variations of the perceived norms. This will help us vaccinate safely. They are not going to go away, not for a long time. I support the work of those working to make them safer. I also support work for the nutritional support of cellular and humorol immunity. Step 1) Parents as healthy as feasible. Step 2) Lots of breast feeding. There are a lot more steps! MMR vac is designed to EXCITE the cell mediated system, it consequently SUPPRESSES the humoral, or bone marrow based system. The two systems are not fully engaged at the same time, but take turns having their say. After an MMR vac the humoral is shut up for a while, allowing the furtherance of autoimmune disease processes. Certain cell mediated defenses can be strengthened , but chronic illness abounds.

Which leads me to, politically- and at least for now- put my lot with Wakefield. Not am I only a crank, but a dilettante to boot, but I need to toss a hat in a ring from time to time. I won't deny the importance of finding out if Wakefield lied, but for most of us the deck is stacked anything of that sort happening... but perhaps if a real court and a real jury were involved... well, we'll see. We know that Merck has lied. Dr. *ffit does it a lot. Deer's objectivity is shot, as the sole defendant in the (his) legal case against Wakefield. Where do we turn? Away from the whole issue? I guess I can't.

This is also excellent rhetorical and conceptual homework for interacting with "the public" in a professional manner on this and others more closely related to my vocation. besides the Nutritional Therapy cert., I work home-based client support for a child and an adult with disabilities. The mother of the nine yr old severe autistic wonders if the regression that happened a couple of weeks after his MMR shot was not coincidence. I her words she wondered. In the media's words, she's simply looking for a place to put the blame.

Thanks again c2w for the chance to have some duologue. I'm sure I will look at this later and wish I could have addressed more specific points, or perhaps wish I had hit one of them square on!

[catbirdsteed]

This is what I expected to see in the bio community, and I think it is spot on and will pan out to be more evident, and will die away. The Brian Deer factor, that is. Handy is a biggie in the vac-questioning camp and I know little about his organization- Generation Rescue- , and less about the man.
But I do think he is on to something here. In a paroxysm of journalistic recklessness, I will look into his profile more AFTER I hit submit!


Remember the title of the thread, "...Running Interference for Merck"?

http://www.ageofautism.com/

February 13, 2009
Did the Department Of Justice Tip-Off Brian Deer?
Divulge By J.B. Handley

OK, let me be honest, I only have the vaguest understanding of who this Brian Deer character is. I love Andy Wakefield as much as the other several hundred thousand parents who love him, and I knew Brain Deer was some sketchy reporter in the UK, but I really didn't (and still don't) know much about him or his motivations. If you are in the UK, please use the comments sections to educate me.

That said, I found it rather odd that Brian Deer torpedoed Andy over the weekend with a seemingly made-up outrage piece, only days before the judges ruled in the Vaccine Court. The timing struck me as odd. I ran this by a couple of people, and most figured it was probably just coincidence, until I read this post just made by Mr. Deer himself. You be the judge:

You have it about right there. I'm proud of my work investigating Wakefield. Unlike Kirby, I am not a campaigner, have never advocated any pharmaceutical product, and have never made statements on whether or not any vaccine may or may not cause any medical condition. If there are any editorial changes in any of my published work to that effect, I don't know of them. I'm a reporter, and have simply sought out the facts on Wakefield's research.


That said, I'm also very proud that, like the GMC, the US government sought my help in mounting its case in Cedillo, copiously borrowing pages of evidence from my website and displaying some in court. I was surprised by this. I assumed that they would have sophisticated contacts with other governments and with industry, and could pretty much get what they wanted. However, on a number of occasions I would come home, find an email from the department of justice asking me for a document, and see that the next day it was being run in court. Bit of a seat of the pants job by the DoJ (brought about by the plaintiffs changing their case at the last minute). Indeed, I recall supplying a key document on the O'Leary lab business, which the DoJ didn't seem to know about just weeks before the hearing. Hence the late surfacing of Bustin and Chadwick. It was me wot done that, and I'm glad.

c2w? I don't know. i could have been an Author, Politician, a Lawyer or a Scientist, but ended up a mystic crank with a soft heart (and muddled thinking). But I do have a profound sensory intuition and some real grasp of the science of endocrine and metabolism, and nutrition. I do know a bit about how those Professionals talk, and -somewhat -how they think (or fear). It is funny in a way, siding with Wakefield, as he is way more interested in propagating vaccines than I could ever be now. There are many other MD's doing treatment work that corresponds to his findings. Many of them have a solid and straightforward way of presenting themselves, and they seem to get results. Dr Mary Megson is one of them.
http://www.whale.to/v/megson1.html In a perfect world, I would not need to care about Wakefield, and less so about Brian Deer, and not at all about Paul *ffit.

My main interest now is food/medicine. I don't ascribe to the science based approach to testing and treatment. Food/nutrition is primarily an intuitive process, and we are best served by science when it is used to understand the panalopy of emotional, intellectual and endocrine/metabolism factors that are at play in the human organism, and to learn to differentiate the vast array of variations of the perceived norms. This will help us vaccinate safely. They are not going to go away, not for a long time. I support the work of those working to make them safer. I also support work for the nutritional support of cellular and humorol immunity. Step 1) Parents as healthy as feasible. Step 2) Lots of breast feeding. There are a lot more steps! MMR vac is designed to EXCITE the cell mediated system, it consequently SUPPRESSES the humoral, or bone marrow based system. The two systems are not fully engaged at the same time, but take turns having their say. After an MMR vac the humoral is shut up for a while, allowing the furtherance of autoimmune disease processes. Certain cell mediated defenses can be strengthened , but chronic illness abounds.

Which leads me to, politically- and at least for now- put my lot with Wakefield. Not am I only a crank, but a dilettante to boot, but I need to toss a hat in a ring from time to time. I won't deny the importance of finding out if Wakefield lied, but for most of us the deck is stacked anything of that sort happening... but perhaps if a real court and a real jury were involved... well, we'll see. We know that Merck has lied. Dr. *ffit does it a lot. Deer's objectivity is shot, as the sole defendant in the (his) legal case against Wakefield. Where do we turn? Away from the whole issue? I guess I can't.

This is also excellent rhetorical and conceptual homework for interacting with "the public" in a professional manner on this and others more closely related to my vocation. besides the Nutritional Therapy cert., I work home-based client support for a child and an adult with disabilities. The mother of the nine yr old severe autistic wonders if the regression that happened a couple of weeks after his MMR shot was not coincidence. I her words she wondered. In the media's words, she's simply looking for a place to put the blame.

Thanks again c2w for the chance to have some duologue. I'm sure I will look at this later and wish I could have addressed more specific points, or perhaps wish I had hit one of them square on!

[compared2what?]

You're welcome. And thank you.

Which leads me to, politically- and at least for now- put my lot with Wakefield.

Do what you gotta do. But it's both my opinion and my experience that no good ever comes of any ends-justify-the-means alliance, strategy or even state of mind. Speaking for myself, I'm a lot more likely to be compelled by an argument based on conviction than one that's based on political interests. Also, unless Wakefield actually shows Deer to have been in error -- and if Deer is as wrong as Wakefield vaguely weasel-walks his way around saying he is, an excellent question to ask would be: Why isn't he showing it by suing for defamation? -- his questionable standing can always be used as a club to beat you with. And more to the point: A club to beat at-risk children with. Deer may be the biggest and most corrupt asshole on the face of planet earth, but he isn't responsible for what Wakefield did or what he failed to do, no matter what his notional motivation for reporting it was. If the reporting's accurate, it's accurate, damage done, end of story.

So say I, one anonymous slob on the internet. But for reals and from the soul, when you take on a cause that brings you into opposition with Big Anything, you can't be too careful about keeping your own side of the street swept sparkly clean. Because that way, when people start to approach you while looking around for something to smear you with, they'll come up empty-handed.

Bestest,

c2w

[Avalon]

Also, unless Wakefield actually shows Deer to have been in error -- and if Deer is as wrong as Wakefield vaguely weasel-walks his way around saying he is, an excellent question to ask would be: Why isn't he showing it by suing for defamation?

As a general rule, I don't find suing for defamation (or not suing for defamation) to necessarily be an useful yardstick for truth. Suing for libel in the UK in particular seems to require deep pockets.

http://www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHom ... index.html

[tal]

.

Andrew Wakefield is simply the latest installment of Into The Buzzsaw

Drs Shiv Chopra, Margaret Haydon, and Gerard Lambert

Dr David Kelly

Dr Arpad Pusztai

Dr Norman Finklestein

Ignacio Chapela

Ward Churchill

Halton Arp

David Healy

Add yer own crucified here: ________


Wakefield had his paper withdrawn and is being prosecuted for failing to divulge, in his submission to The Lancet, that, subsequent to his study and prior to his submission, he had agreed to appear as a witness in court on behalf of the afflicted children from the study. Period.

Wakefield is being persecuted for revealing as sham the sacrament of modern medicine.

You can find a number of references to Brian Deer here

.

[Avalon]

Including Ward Churchill in your list of crucified martyrs is not going to strengthen your position.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Churc ... uct_issues

[compared2what?]

Forgive me, but including Wakefield in your list orucified martyrs is not going to strengthen your position until he rebuts the well-attested to allegations that he manipulated (and/or falsified) key data in order to justify concluding that MMR vaccines trigger autism in some way that's more persuasive than vaguely dismissing it as a general untruth.

For example, by pointing out in what way the documentation is erroneous. Or, alternatively, in what way Deer misrepresents it. Which he didn't do. Or even try to do. Because absent that, he's not ever going to be a credit to the cause.

I'd certainly prefer for that not to be the case. But my preferences don't have the power to make past events into something they weren't. So until he undiscredits himself, I'm sorry to say that it is the case, whether I like it or not.

Check out Brian Deer's website before leaping to the conclusion that he's a lackey of Big Pharma. If you have to pick just one of his subjects, I suggest the series that ended the shady corporate sleight-of-hand with which Burroughs-Wellcome was basically insuring that the winds of medical research kept blowing in the direction of its products, however inapplicable to the condition being studied those products might be. He still maintains a public-service page documenting the potentially lethal dangers of Bactrim, the use of which was restricted in the UK (where it has a diferent brand name) following his reporting, although as far as I know, it's not officially labeled as an antibiotic to watch out for in the U.S.

But pick whatever looks interesting to you. It doesn't take more than a glance at his home page to see that he's fundamentally against the hidden power of capital, not a servant to it.

Avalon, wrt suing, it kind of depends on the circumstances. It's not necessarily that expensive to bring a demamation suit. In the U.S. there are a lot of cases involving public figure/celebrity-types in which the defamed party doesn't want to go through the potential hell of legal discovery and the press knows that perfectly well. So unless the subject is known to be litigious, the standard isn't a lot more rigorous than staying close-ish to the boundary that divides defamation from protected speech, without much particular concern about on which side as long as it's not more than an inch or two either way.

In the UK, however, the initial charge of defamation triggers an automatic presumption of guilt, after which the burden of proof falls entirely on the defendant. So it's actually Brian Deer who'd face the high legal bills. (Or possibly the Times, depending on what he got them to concede in his contract. However, it's unusual for a newspaper to completely indemnify its reporters as part of the terms on which they're employed. Highly unusual, as a matter of fact.)

Aside from which, Wakefield isn't exactly unskilled when it comes to raising grips of cash when he needs it. As you may or may not know, he was paid almost $800,000 to do the research in question. And not by the Royal Free, either. Although he kind of forgot to mention it to his co-researchers or to the Lancet, the study that led to the discovery of the gastrointestinal-autism link was funded by a solicitor who was already working on a suit against MMR manufacturers and needed expert testimony when Wakefield, who had been working on Crohn's Disease research, got involved with him. As chance would also have it, he parents of ten of the twelve subjects in the published study had applied for cost-of-litigation aid in relation to the very same suit two years before Wakefield published his results. Which was roughly the same time that Wakefield got on-board, in fact.

He's just not a very good star to hitch a wagon to, and that's all there is to it. Would that it were otherwise. But it's not. He's not a very good poster boy, either, in literal terms, based on this:



He is friends with Jenny McCarthy, though, apparently. I don't mean that's her in the picture. Or at least I don't think it is. I believe it's his wife, Carmel. I just mean that he and Jen X have joined forces in the past.

[catbirdsteed]

c2w? His is a pretty impresive front page. It is good to have it here. I have looked at it before and was intrigued. Lots of this stuff here looks really compelling and his pet topic is portrayed as exposing medical malfeasence. I do need to look more closely into his work. Obvoiusly, not everyone on a Murdoch paper is going to be unethical.

Perhaps the info I garnered regarding Deer being a complaintant in a case against Wakefield is patently false, misguided, or that it happens a lot and is not a "conflict of interest" as I stated before? You are an astute readar, and seem to have delineating capacities. It is too late in the day for me to look into this now. So thought I'd ask if you have and what you think?

[catbirdsteed]

I wonder if there are any other journalists claiming- independent of Deer's work-that Wakefield's work is a sham. I have not seen it yet, and all the specific current talking points are coming from Deer, except perhaps a few from Dr. Offit. Certainly there are numerous specific references to verifiable studies supporting the work of Wakefield. The following quote is hard to read, but if a skim looks interesting, follow the link. This site has numerous postings by physicians, patent lawyers and news editors, and few wakefield-dissers and Deer supporters. I just found this site and will take some time with it. caio.

http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/ ... ournalism/

Sunday Times - Sinks To New Low With Yet More MMR Junk Journalism
Posted on February 8, 2009 by childhealthsafety

Another World Exclusive
[Stop Press 9/Feb/09 -Wakefield Responds to Sunday Times' False Allegations]
[Stop Press 11/Feb/09 - Sunday Times Journalist Made Up Wakefield MMR Data Fixing Allegation]

The reputation of The Sunday Times of London takes another nose dive in yet more junk journalism by an unethical unprofessional freelance journalist to revive a seemingly flagging career [more of which below].
The new accusations appear in The Sunday Times headlined:-
MMR doctor Andrew Wakefield fixed data on autism” - The Sunday Times, London - February 8, 2009

Sources say The Sunday Times’ freelancer approached Dr Wakefield only on the Friday just before the stories were being submitted for publication [Sunday 8th Feb] with false claims such as that:-
In the cases of some 8 children - two thirds of the total - you changed normal histopathology results to abnormal results, in a so-called “research review”, despite claiming that the series was merely a clinical report.”
But it was other doctors employed in the Department of Histopathology who were experienced in bowel disease dealt who with such matter and not Dr Wakefield. This is a matter of record at the GMC and sources say Dr Wakefield is mystified as to how The Sunday Times’ freelance journalist could not have known that when he wrote his stories and submitted them to The Sunday Times for publication. This “data fixing” allegation is another absurd allegation from the Sunday Times.
Not only are these more inaccurate stories with laughable claims, but seemingly illegally quoting out-of-context confidential information from Court disclosed medical records of injured children. In England such action is a potential contempt of Court, punishable by fines and imprisonment.
In contrast The Sunday Times has failed to report the outcome of the US Federal Court’s findings that children have been found to have developed autism as a result of vaccination [also reported by ChildHealthSafety: AUTISM - US Court Decisions and Other Recent Developments - It’s Not Just MMR]
The Sunday Times has not covered the news release issued on Friday by Dr Wakefield, Thoughtful House Medical Center and 20 Child Health Safety organisations as also reported here by ChildHealthSafety: Dr Andrew Wakefield Demolishes Ignorant US Vaccine Lobby Posted on February 6, 2009.
Instead the children’s confidential records appear to have been used and quoted out-of-context to create these latest “sensational exclusive revelations“.
To Page Top
Illegal Use of Children’s Confidential Court Medical Records
The Sunday Times’ freelance reporter did not return confidential Court documents, permitted to be used in confidence only for the proceedings for which they were provided. On his own admissions he has instead retained them and has been pouring over the confidentially Court disclosed children’s medical records in his South London home.
The information from the children’s medical records published in The Sunday Times is highly unlikely to have come from disclosures from the GMC’s lawyers or the GMC, save for extracts which may have been referred to in the proceedings. But The Sunday Times’ freelance journalist only has early medical records.
What The Sunday Times’ commissioned freelancer does not appear to have are the histories taken carefully during the investigations at The Royal Free Hospital in around 1996/7 and which are the more reliable account of the children’s conditions.
It is the myriad errors in the stories and the absence of the information from those documents which collapses these latest Sunday Times’ stories published Sunday.
It is extraordinary that The Sunday Times allowed a story of such a nature by a freelance journalist with no medical or scientific qualifications to go to print and with no evidence any independent professional opinion was sought prior to publication.
A parent of an autistic child comments:-
When this Sunday Times freelance journalist accused Dr Andrew Wakefield of altering the histopathology results the freelancer presumably simply did not understand the data. Then he goes and makes a public accusation which the Sunday Times publishes uncritically. It is amazing they did not get anyone competent to check the facts.”
This is not the first time The Sunday Times has done this. A previous story by the same freelancer purported to provide comment on a false story about patents, which was so flawed no-holds-barred comment appeared online in the British Medical Journal: Patent allegation patently false: what C4 and Sunday Times didn’t tell you BMJ - 26th November 2004To Page Top
Tawdry Journalism
The circumstances and history to this latest debacle look tawdry. The Strategic Health Authority [SHA] for The Royal Free Hospital having previously denied providing documents to The Sunday Times’ freelancer then had to admit having done so in 2004 “in a spirit of cooperation”. But these did not include the early or later more detailed medical histories.
It also appears from the freelancer’s own disclosures that an insider leaked documents from The Royal Free’s files to the journalist in 2003, before the SHA had provided any. The ethics of such action is questionable. This was also at a time in 2003 when the plans to publish stories in The Sunday Times and initiate proceedings in the GMC against Dr Wakefield were already progressing, as already reported by ChildHealthSafety: British Government & Establishment’s Efforts to Deny Compensation to MMR Vaccine Child Victims
A professional journalist’s impartiality is paramount. The job is reporting news made by others, and not creating it. This Sunday Times’ freelancer in contrast made the complaints to the UK General Medical Council against these doctors which have lead to unprecedented marathon hearings starting with investigations the freelance was responsible for lodging over 4 years ago in 2004.
The freelancer’s complaints included numerous allegations which The Sunday Times refused to publish in their original 2004 stories and since. One result of the complaints is that such allegations when made in formal GMC proceedings become reportable when they would otherwise be actionable defamation. The freelancer has fastidiously attended the hearings. Whilst Andrew Wakefield was forced by the pressure of dealing with the unprecedented lengthy marathon UK GMC proceedings to withdraw libel actions against The Sunday Times, it is notable the other allegations have not been published then or since.
Not one parent has complained. That would be odd if The Sunday Times’ allegations had a shred of truth. Wakefield’s supporters include parents of autistic children worldwide. To Page Top
Parents’ Worries Over Misuse of Records
Concerned parents worried about this seeming misuse of their children’s meant-to-be confidential medical records, have been complaining for some time. about it Concerns have been raised with the UK’s Information Commissioner regarding breaches of the UK’s Data Protection Act, intended to protect the private data of individuals, including children.To Page Top
The Sunday Times’ Lack of Objectivity
The Sunday Times’ freelancer who authored the stories, was once described by The Guardian newspaper, London, as “mercurial”, and appears to have plumbed a new low. As a professional this journalist appears obsessed.
With seemingly so little to occupy his time as a professional journalist, The Sunday Times’ commissioned freelance journalist’s own website evidences a cash shortage; recently carrying public appeals for donations. This is unsurprising. Countless hours other journalists would have been too busy to spend earning a living have been devoted on painstakingly creating a 500 plus page website.
The site alone evidences a lack of the detachment and objectivity a professional journalist needs to maintain credibility. It also shows an obsessive interest in dishing non-existent dirt on the eminent gastroenterologists Andrew Wakefield, Simon Murch and Professor Walker-Smith. These dedicated medical professionals have helped countless thousands of autistic children around the world with ground-breaking researches at The Royal Free Hospital, London.
So bizarre have matters become that the freelancer has attended practically every day of the marathon GMC proceedings against the eminent medical doctors only to see the case so carelessly constructed by him being demolished day-by-day by the lawyers representing these good doctors.