Hereis one of the responses to the BMJ article:
Editorial: Wakefield’s article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent* Fiona Godlee, * Jane Smith, * Harvey Marcovitch BMJ 342:doi:10.1136/bmj.c7452 (Published 5 January 2011)
Many of the responses are supportive of AW, and others are merely critical of BD. A few, of course are anti AW, but surprisingly few.
http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c745 ... _el_247358"Unrealistic Assumption underlying fabrication charge
* Martin Hewitt, retired academic
Dr Wakefield is charged with fabricating findings on the 'ideal world ' but unrealistic assumptions that medical records are always accurate and that medical practitioners and researchers always consistent in their record-keeping. It follows that for Brian Deer in medical research there could be few questions of interpreting facts and few grounds for disagreement over differing interpretations.
Deer's attack on Wakefield in this week's BMJ focuses on one set of data from the multitude provided on the 12 children in the 1998 Lancet 'early report': namely the record of when eight of the twelve children received their MMR in relation to the onset of behavioural signs that retrospectively were diagnosed as autistic spectrum disorders. Deer challenges the record that these children first displayed autistic signs following MMR and, ipso facto, questions the claim that they had a regressive form of autism. This is the main concern he raises from the rich array of data.
The timing of the symptoms in relation to the date the MMR was given refers to one of five hypotheses reviewed. Deer has less concern about the other hypotheses concerning inflamed or dysfunctional intestines (although in passing he points to disagreements over the diagnosis of bowel disease), the correlation between rising incidence of autism and MMR since its introduction in 1988 (which the paper rejects for lack of reliable data in the mid-1990s), the genetic predisposition to autistic-spectrum disorders, and vitamin B12 malabsorption.
Deer's focus on the timing of MMR, and his questioning of regressive autism and bowel disease, supports the claims of the manufacturers, government and medical profession that the MMR is safe.
Wakefield is charged with fabrication against an unrealistic standards of accuracy and consistency where no such standards exists. Notwithstanding the GMC's findings of fact, the reality is that medical records are not always consistent and that differences in interpretation do occur. For these charges to stand, they would need to be assessed against the uncertainties and contingencies that characterise real science, not against unreal and non-existent standards. Were the GMC and Deer to be the sole tribunal of truth in applying their standards of consistency to all medical research, then it would be questionable if research could progress in the way it has and if scientific debate were possible in the form so far conducted.
Wakefield provides an initial rebuttal to Deer's charges of falsifying evidence, first given in the Sunday Times, in his book 'Callous Disregard: autism and vaccines' (2010). Would the editors not agree that Wakefield has the right of replying to Deer's charges on grounds of fairness and even-handness?
Competing interests: father of autistic son"
Not surprisingly, after my last post, I was able to adjust my scope and find numerous specific non Wakefield references to studies and data analysis that do support the inflamed colon issues in regressive autism. Next, I will look into some of them to see if they are DAN affiliated. One may sneak into a post before I check for that .Thanks to barracuda and Plutonia for their important reminders regarding the serious reality of Scientology infiltration into the autism treatment community.
This behaviorist does not appear to have any DAN affiliations, so here goes:
Brain Damage caused by Vaccination
Alan Challoner MA (Phil) MChS
That vaccinations are helpful to society is without question; however,
that some individuals suffer permanent and damaging sequelae to
vaccinations is also well documented. The purpose of this paper is to
offer a mechanism by which vaccination-induced neuronal damage in
some individuals can be understood.
...
p 3 of 17
In the late 1970s, a number of reports appeared in the Press from different
parts of the UK about children who were previously well but had become
mentally retarded or paralysed soon after receiving triple vaccine. The
Government, on the advice of its advisory committees, responded to these
reports by re-affirming the efficacy and safety of pertussis vaccine and by
insisting that the pertussis component be retained in triple vaccine. They
insisted also that a high level of vaccination among children of all ages must be
maintained if epidemics were to be averted.
Looking at events at the time of the earlier trials of pertussis vaccine when
given alone (i.e. not as part of triple vaccine) in the USA and UK, it becomes
clear that the inclusion of pertussis vaccine makes triple vaccine much more
likely to be followed by adverse reactions involving the heart and nervous
system. Such reactions include shock, collapse, convulsions and screaming fits,
all of which had been recorded in some of the children who received pertussis
vaccine alone in the earlier trials. Such signs were extremely infrequent or
altogether absent in the earlier usage of the other two components of triple
vaccine.5"
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19408267/Brai ... accinationI am trying to stay on topic here, in spite of that last source.
stickdog99 wrote:
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.
Just for the sake of clarity, stickdog, what AW did was not an
experiment, but a series of exploratory procedures (and data collection) up to and including colonoscopies. It is the CDC the AMA and the APA -and the pharma/biotech cartesl -that are experimenting on infants, children the general population when they propagate medicines and drugs that are not properly tested for long term efficacy and safety. but you know that.
