Documents emerge proving Dr Andrew Wakefield innocent

Post Reply New Topic

Wakefield is a fraud. I agree with whoever said he has a lot of blood on his hands. Children have died of vaccine-preventable illnesses because of his junk science.

~Kate

How is it junk science? Have you even read any of Wakefield's papers? Have you talked to any of the growing number of medical professionals who do believe that MMR and other vaccines are a causative factor in regression of perfectly healthy children to severe neurological impairment and chronic gastrointestinal disorders?

Perhaps you are reacting to how the "objective" media is always trying to scare us into thinking there will be pandemics of diseases like measles if people don’t get the MMR? The reality is, infectious disease mortality plummeted in the late-19th/early 20th century in the industrialized world due to improvements in sanitation, nutrition and general living standards. All infectious diseases declined, although inoculations were only devised for a handful.

Furthermore, in the late '80s we were subjected to massive stepped up "immunization" campaigns, but infectious mortality was already quite low by this point, and did not decline further. There *has* been a correlation between increased vaccination and rises of chronic disorders such as neurological, intestinal, autoimmune, juvenile-onset diabetes, cancer, and any number of diseases that were unheard of 70 years ago before vaccination was imposed on a large scale. It's not "because people are living longer", because rates have risen in all age groups, particularly children.

Heck, even take a look at this fascinating case study, ‘Apparent Paradox of Measles Infections in Immunized Persons’ (http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/conten ... 54/16/1815):

“Results
We found 18 reports of measles outbreaks in very highly immunized school populations where 71% to 99.8% of students were immunized against measles. Despite these high rates of immunization, 30% to 100% (mean, 77%) of all measles cases in these outbreaks occurred in previously immunized students. In our hypothetical school model, after more than 95% of schoolchildren are immunized against measles, the majority of measles cases occur in appropriately immunized children.

“Conclusions
The apparent paradox is that as measles immunization rates rise to high levels in a population, measles becomes a disease of immunized persons. Because of the failure rate of the vaccine and the unique transmissibility of the measles virus, the currently available measles vaccine, used in a single-dose strategy, is unlikely to completely eliminate measles. The longterm success of a two-dose strategy to eliminate measles remains to be determined.”

Why haven’t we been beaten over the head with this information? Why is reporting always so skewed towards scare tactics that one-sidedly tout the purported necessity of vaccination? Why do the authors conclude that the solution might be a ‘two-dose strategy’, and fail to consider that the children would be better off not getting vaccinated at all, as their data suggest?

Please do some research, before taking the claims of vaccine promoters on faith.

I have read all of Wakefield's papers, all of O'Leary's papers and every peer-reviewed commentary on Wakefield's papers. I am glad that he is no longer permitted to practice medicine. It is just one quack down out of many peddling unproven and harmful therapies.

That site is written by and for people who are ignorant, stupid, deluded liars, and it's an insult to our collective intelligence to attempt to pass it as worthy of comment; furthermore, the prevalence of people pushing such moronic conspiracy theories is probably a positive boon to the pharmaceutical companies they think they dislike, because genuine opposition to their far more mundane unsavoury practices is tainted by association with this laughable and patent rubbish.

Would you care to share some of the peer-reviewed commentary you're speaking of? So far, the criticisms of Wakefield's papers I've read are pretty unsubstantial. Or, in the case of your analysis, nonexistent. I have carefully rebutted some of the fraudulent claims made by the medical authorities; does anyone care to respond to me? Or to actually say something of substance, instead of just making unsupported character attacks on Dr. Wakefield?

By the way, here is a list of SOME of the independent peer-reviewed reseach that supports Dr. Wakefield. There's plenty more where that comes from:

http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/05/peer ... dings.html

The GMC report is hardly "an unsupported character attack":



There are plenty more quacks on the "treatment" section of the autism age website, most of whom can not be pursued for malpractice because they are not registered medical practitioners in the first place.

Sadly, the GMC report is precisely that- an unsupported character attack. All of the allegations were based on the presstitute Brian Deer's charges (no parents complained, but who cares about them anyway. This man seems to have no occupation but to discredit Wakefield et al. There was no dishonesty in his results, and like I said, they have been replicated by many others anyway. Furthermore, the paper explicitly stated that a connection between MMR and GI disorder/autism was not proven. The study was conducted in response to a pre-existing need that existed amongst a relatively small percentage of children who suffered autistic regression following MMR. That is a fact, and it hasn't gone anywhere.

Do I need to remind you that a previous version of MMR, with the Urabe mumps strain, was withdrawn due to causing meningitis, an inflammation of the brain lining that has clinical similarities to encephalitis and autism? Or that this vaccine had been withdrawn in other areas before it was even introduced in the UK, and thus it was KNOWN to be dangerous?

As far as lab funding, the GMC report ignores the very simple fact that the funding was for TWO studies, not one. This is clear to anyone who knows anything about this case. Furthermore, we have cases where Dr. Poul Thorsen, was found to have falsified documents, and was indicted on fraud, money laundering and tax evasion after stealing $1-2 million in research grant money from the CDC. Yet his fraudulent research on Danish autism-thimerosal is still featured on the CDC website (http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/articles.html) - presumably because it purports to vindicate the vaccine program. These double standards make me sick.

As for taking blood samples at a birthday party as a control, as Wakefield points out, "I had fully informed parent and child consent." End of story. If that's the worst thing the GMC can come up with to villify Wakefield, it's pretty embarassing.

Furthermore, autism treatments such as gluten and casein free diets HAVE been widely reported to have beneficial effects. But I wouldn't expect you to get tripped up over the facts...

Hmm, Bitterbonker - on another thread you suggest heavy metal detoxification (also known as chelation) to treat a child's autism. You also suggest the use of Essiac (which is actually sold as a cancer treatment (link)) for the purposes of this "detoxification."

Since you are here to peddle quackery, I find it fairly difficult to hold your claims up against peer-reviewed research or view them as remotely valid.

It is also very odd to go digging around in year old threads trying to start a new argument...

Yes, yes, let's just dismiss it as "quackery", it absolves us of having to do any real investigation.

Speaking of quackery and peer-reviewed research, let's take a look at one of the 'studies' being touted as disproving the autism-vaccine hypothesis.

‘Thimerosal and the Occurrence of Autism: Negative Ecological Evidence From Danish Population-Based Data’ (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/112/3/604) reported a 20-fold increase in autism in Denmark after that country banned thimerosal in its vaccines. Yet, it even admits: "since 1995 outpatient activities were registered as well...the proportion of outpatient to inpatient activities was about 4 to 6 times as many outpatients as inpatients...this may exaggerate the incidence rates."

They try to cover this up by saying: “In additional analyses we examined data using inpatients only … to elucidate the contribution of the outpatient registration to the change in incidence. The same trend with an increase in the incidence rates from 1990 until the end of the study period was seen.” Are we just supposed to take their word on this? Where is the data? It’s an awful stretch to say there’s a 4-6 fold difference in the data sets, but that the outcome was the same.

And in an earlier study, ‘A population-based study of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and autism’ (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa021134) based on the same data, they report: “In our cohort, 93.1 percent of the children were treated only as outpatients, and 6.9 percent were at some point treated as inpatients in a psychiatric department.” Sooooo… is there a 13-fold difference, a 4-6 fold difference, or no effective difference?

Ironically, in this case changes in diagnostic criteria seem to have been deliberately used in order to achieve a negative association.

Anyways, this bickering is pointless, I was hoping to find someone who I could actually have a meaningful discussion or debate with. But clearly that's not in the cards.

You people are so condescending, and yet you have absolutely no reason to be. Your paradigm is a deck of cards, I guess that's why you have to ACT like you know more than everyone. Whatever, it's obvious no one here can refute my points. And yet you have the nerve to call ME a quack! What a joke.

Why don't you request it from them? Surely they have cited the data in their full paper?

There has been negative correlation between vaccination and the relevant infectious diseases, quite sharply in fact. In the mid 90s there was a health scare with flu shots (I believe) that made many people choose not to get vaccinated and said disease magically became much more prevalent the next year. Just because hygiene also prevents the spread of many diseases doesn't mean that vaccines can't as well.

It's fairly simple biology, to be honest.

First of all, I apologize for my last remark. Not because I think it is untrue, just because it is not constructive. But you're cool Walrus (I like walruses- who doesn't?- and nice John Lennon reference too)

I could not find the data anywhere. Perhaps someone else can? The fact remains that this is a very unusual (and suspicious) thing to have occurred.



It is a common trick by the media, and vaccine-promoting "regulatory" agencies, to inflate cases where infectious diseases occurred in the unvaccinated, and ignore instances where it occurred in vaccinated populations. I refer you to the ‘Apparent Paradox of Measles Infections in Immunized Persons’ study I referenced earlier (http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/conten ... 54/16/1815).

With regards to seasonal flu, here's another interesting study:

"In this issue of PLoS Medicine, Danuta Skowronski and colleagues report the unexpected results of a series of Canadian epidemiological studies suggesting a counterproductive effect of the vaccine [4]. The findings are based on Canada's unique near-real-time sentinel system for monitoring influenza vaccine effectiveness... The Canadian sentinel study showed that receipt of TIV in the previous season (autumn 2008) appeared to increase the risk of pH1N1 illness by 1.03- to 2.74-fold, even after adjustment for comorbidities, age, and geography [4]. The investigators were prudent and conducted multiple sensitivity analyses to attempt to explain their perplexing findings."

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/inf ... ed.1000259

Why might this be? Another study gives some answers:

"Our results indicate that annual influenza vaccination is effective against seasonal influenza, but hampers the development of virus-specific CD8+ T cell responses."

http://pubget.com/paper/21880755

What this refers to is how vaccines stimulate humoral immunity (antibody or b-cell protection) but suppress cell-mediated (t-cell) immunity. The latter is associated with the mucous membranes, etc., which vaccination completely bypasses by injecting viral entities directly into the bloodstream.



What's simple biology is that we are constantly being exposed to pathogens in our environment. These organisms constantly adapt, and our body constantly adapts to them. Trying to outsmart nature by injecting killed pathogens, or microbes that have been mutated into weaker form by passaging through animal tissues (often carrying foreign genetic material, pathogens, etc. into the vaccine) does not replace this process. Diseases and health are dynamic phenomena.

Our living standards, diet, exposure to toxins, and stress level influence our disease susceptibility. Herbal medicines, such as Essiac, Hoxsey, and hundreds of indigenous or folk remedies (many of which have been pilfered and synthesized by Big Pharma) have shown great results in treating a wide range of illnesses. They do so by improving nutrient uptake, circulation, immunity, and disposal of wastes and pathogens. By contrast, vaccines do nothing to improve the body's overall health, and cannot benefit those who cannot mount an immune response to them due to malnutrition or multiple infections.

Indeed, according to Archie Kalokerinos MD, PhD: “If the Vitamin C status of an infant is borderline, the administration of a vaccine, particularly (but not only) pertussis vaccine, can result in endotoxaemia. This results in a severe reaction to the vaccine, a tremendous increase in the need for Vitamin C, and the precipitation of some of the signs and/or symptoms of acute scurvy. The onset of this may be so rapid that the classical signs of scurvy may be absent. Sudden death, sudden unconsciousness, sudden shock or sudden spontaneous bruising and haemorrhage (including brain and retinal haemorrhages) may occur. Haemorrhage and bruising in such cases can be wrongly attributed to the ‘battered baby syndrome'.”

Medical historian Harris Coulter elaborates:

“But no biological phenomenon is either all or nothing. Vaccination cannot be considered to either leave a child perfectly normal or have a very severe impact on a child. There’s got to be a range of effects—how about the children in the middle? How about those who are slightly affected by the vaccine?

“Anybody who knows anything about the biology of medicine knows that this has to be because it would be impossible to stress a large group of people, like two million babies a year in the United States and not have the reactions go along a whole range of effects....Some of the side effects or long term affects make themselves felt not the next week or two weeks later but five or ten years later when the parent realizes that their child is not acting or behaving like other children act and tries to figure out what the reason for that is....”

This quote from Dr Rashid Buttar provides further insight: “The underlying common denominator in chronic neurodegenerative disease seems to be either decreasing vascular supply (less blood to the brain) or accumulation of heavy metals, specifically mercury.”

Please note, in this regard, that autism shares many common features with acute mercury poisoning (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11339848). But it's more complex than that. “According to Dr. Ellen Grant, nearly all the Autistic children tested at Biolab had zinc, copper, SODase and magnesium deficiencies. We know that mercury displaces essential elements like magnesium, zinc and copper from cells causing disruptions of enzyme systems in the process. Serious vitamin and mineral deficiencies weaken the immune system and lead to developmental problems independently of other factors. Knowing that mercury leads to such deficiencies further worsening any dietary deficiencies fits our multiple causes model.” (http://www.thenhf.com/article.php?id=367)

The MMR is strongly implicated in autistic regression, and it has never contained thimerosal. The causes of autism are ambiguous, and likely manifold, but there is a very strong case to be made that vaccination is related.

No, many of us here have done real investigation. Why do it again because you resurrected a year-old thread to beat your drum? How does our history disappear because you disagree with it?



Let us consider Occam's Razor:

* One researcher falsifies data due to conflict of interest

* Numerous researchers falsify data to discredit that one researcher. No one breaks ranks to say "this was a set up." No one else blows the whistle. Everyone's quiet about it for years.

I find the first the most plausible without unnecessary complication or multiplication of entities. The second seems far more unlikely.

I said you were peddling quackery because you were:

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRel ... rview.html

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRel ... rview.html

http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRel ... tml#Essiac

http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRel ... ation.html

http://www.skepdic.com/detox.html

The choice to not engage with you on your terms does not indicate a lack of ability to do so.

Let us consider the Straw Man argument. What you have done is misrepresented the facts, thus making your case appear stronger. First of all, Wakefield did not falsify data. A new clinical history was taken, as is common practice. This was a joint effort involving several researchers. And Wakefield had no conflict of interest, certainly not for representing damaged children as an expert witness and being paid a modest fee for his services. As for the charges that he stood to profit from a patent--this product was pursued as a means to fund a treatment center, and it was not competitive with MMR. It was intended to treat damage that evidence indicates occurred AFTER administration of MMR.

And I remind you, yet again, that these are not the results of one researcher, but they have been corroborated around the world (see, for example: http://www.14studies.org/ourstudies.html). It's only a handful of individuals who are engaging in unscrupulous research (such as Dr. Thorsen), whose results are given a grossly disproportionate amount of airtime.

Anyways, I've said what needed to be said, anyone else may judge what's right.

Last edited by bitterbonker on 25 Jan 2012, 2:32 am, edited 1 time in total.