Documents emerge proving Dr Andrew Wakefield innocent

Post Reply New Topic

LOL.

"At trial, under a heated cross-examination ... ["Dr." Stephen] Barrett conceded that he was not a Medical Board Certified psychiatrist because he had failed the certification exam. This was a major revelation since Barrett had provided supposed expert testimony as a psychiatrist and had testified in numerous court cases. Barrett also had said that he was a legal expert even though he had no formal legal training... During the course of his examination, Barrett also had to concede his ties to the AMA, Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Food & Drug Administration (FDA)." http://www.canlyme.com/quackwatch.html

How is this one man supposed to be the be-all-end-all expert on every "alternative" (natural, non-toxic, non-patentable) treatment known to man? Is it possible he's just an arrogant blowhard?

Skepticism goes both ways. It's not much good if you can't train that critical eye on your OWN cherished beliefs.

No one has managed to duplicate Wakefield's results. Wakefield's work was found to be inaccurate and he was found to have a monetary conflict of interest. What you are saying is that if we ignore all of the known facts and go with your version of events, Wakefield did not falsify data.

I didn't misrepresent any facts - I provided facts as I understood them to be true. You're actually advising parents of autistic children on this website to use a fraudulent product that does not actually do anything the manufacturer claims it does (Essiac tea) to treat autistic symptoms, by somehow "detoxifying" "heavy metals" from their system, when it is only quacks who claim that "heavy metal poisoning" cause autistic symptoms in the first place. You're peddling quackery.



The research you've linked did not corroborate anything, except by an extremely liberal reinterpretation of what that research says and what Wakefield was claiming.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJuf6G5P2_s[/youtube]

Much of what is published on Quackwatch is researched and documented elsewhere. None of that information is novel or unexpected. But, you again do what you accuse others of doing: Not addressing the arguments.

For example:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/c ... 3/674.full



And here are some other sources debunking "detoxification":

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/inde ... etox-scam/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7808348.stm

http://www.dietriffic.com/2007/06/04/de ... lete-scam/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... 835-2723r/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4576574.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/ ... ox-science

www.mayoclinic.com/health/detox-diets/AN01334

My choice to link quackwatch does not mean quackwatch is my primary or only source of information.

As expected, your video is full of misconceptions.

- Wakefield is not anti-vaccine. His recommendation was to use single measles, mumps, and rubella shots, not the trivalent vaccine, and to space out the vaccines more.

- Wakefield did not "start the modern anti-vaccination movement". Distrust of vaccines was widespread long before his 1998 study, and with good reason (not the least of which being the aforementioned Urabe scandal). The fact is that many children DO experience noticeable regression following the MMR vaccine, and this was why Wakefield was approached. He merely called attention to a problem that already existed.

- Wakefield's research focused on the MMR and had nothing to do with pertussis (a component of the DPT). Here is yet another example of the highly questionable necessity of vaccines:

"Since the 1980s, [pertussis infection] has been rising, albeit in cycles, despite the introduction of new vaccines with far fewer side effects and a C.D.C. recommendation for adolescents and adults to get a booster.

"In 2008, there were 13,000 cases, and health authorities said the actual figure might be far higher — 800,000 to 3.3 million a year — because reported cases reflect only those confirmed by testing, and many adult and adolescent cases go undiagnosed."

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/1 ... s-surging/

Oh, and I can see you took all of nine minutes to respond, clearly you did an exhaustive review of the research I presented. But then, why bother, when your mind is already made up?

I never stated that mercury poisoning and autism were identical. They simply have several key similarities (http://www.vaccinationnews.com/dailynew ... poison.htm). I've emphasized already that the causes of autism are multifactorial; mercury is likely a cofactor.

You provided a large number of links, and yet all of them seem to trace back to Sense About Science, an industry-funded front group that paints itself as a disinterested third party, but is actually on the puppet strings of pharmaceutical and biotechnology interests (see: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... ce#Funding)

Here is a paper documenting the vast amount of research indicating the effectiveness of chelation therapy:

http://legacy.autism.com/triggers/vacci ... metals.pdf

You only post quackery and your only refutations to data that points out that you are posting quackery is to find ways to discredit the people responsible for the data.

My mind is already made up because I've already been over this in the past.. I am open to new valid information that does not rely on falsified research or drawing dubious connections (say, between mercury poisoning and autism), but I am not particularly receptive to someone who thinks Essiac is a valid treatment for anything, or that "detoxification" has any kind of medical meaning.

I suspect that the "Randy" who stopped debating with you reached the same point I have: Arguing with you is a waste of time.

No, I provide evidence that the studies you point to are compromised. AND I provide empirical evidence that refutes your BS. For example: ‘Oxidative stress, brain inflammation, and microgliosis have been much documented in association with toxic exposures including various heavy metals, pesticides, and air pollution (Kim and others 2002; Zurich and others 2002; Campbell 2004; Ling and others 2004; Shanker and others 2004; Filipov and others 2005).’ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16151044

Russell Blaylock links autism and other neurological disorders to chronic oxidative distress in several well-referenced papers (for example: http://www.ana-jana.org/reprints/JANAau ... le6no1.pdf)

There's really no reason to dismiss "detoxification" as a valid treatment for disease--unless you are an industry that profits from distributing these systemic poisons. Several substances are widely known to cause illness, for example, carcinogens.

Moreover, according to beyondpesticides.org, “At publication, the database lists 5 studies linking pesticides to autism. A study published in the October 2007 issue of Environmental Health Perspectives shows that children born to mothers living near agricultural fields, where organochlorine pesticides, specifically endosulfan and dicofol, are applied during their first trimester of pregnancy, are six times more likely to have children that develop autism.13”




Looks like we finally see eye-to-eye.

Last edited by bitterbonker on 26 Jan 2012, 7:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

By the way, I can't let you get away with posting Stephen Barrett's half-truths riddled with manipulative pablum. The fact is that a large minority of health care professionals DO practice chelation therapy with great success*. Hell, it is even FDA-approved for treatment of lead poisoning. Most of Barrett's criticisms are either completely unfounded, or exaggerations of contraindications that are well known to knowledgeable chelation therapists. All treatments have need to be applied properly, and most "mainstream" medicines are far more dangerous by comparison.

Here is a more complete rebuttal of Quackwatch's claims:

Critics of EDTA chelation rarely state that chelation "does not work" or that chelation is "proven not to work." Instead they state that it is "unproven" by large, FDA approved, double-blind placebo controlled clinical trials. That same statement can be made about most widely approved treatments in medicine. They deceptively apply a double standard. Bypass surgery, balloon angioplasty and close to 80% of all therapies routinely used in medical practice are "unproven" by the same criteria...
http://www.drcranton.com/chelation/rebuttal.htm

Most people, including physicians, are not aware of the medical politics, legal machinations and economic sanctions that covertly control the practice of medicine in the United States. A physician who introduces an innovative and nontraditional type of therapy often becomes the target of those forces. That is especially true if a new therapy, like EDTA chelation: (1) involves a major shift in the scientific paradigm; (2) if acceptance of the new therapy somehow implies that currently used medical practices are inappropriate; or (3) if the new therapy threatens the financial well being of a politically powerful and well established branch of the medical profession. Quite the opposite occurred with the immediate and widespread acceptance of bypass surgery and balloon angioplasty, which quickly brought wealth and fame to surgeons, cardiologists, large teams of health care professionals, and the hospital industry...
http://www.medical-library.net/edta_so_good.html

Coronary-bypass surgery is overused, frequently ineffective, and absurdly expensive. It is the epitome of modern medical technology, yet, as it is now practiced, its net effect on the nation's health is probably negative...
http://www.drcranton.com/chelation/cabg1.htm

Physicians are often unaware that only approximately 15 of the world's total biomedical literature in all languages is indexed in the MEDLINE computer database. Many highly favorable research studies have been published that support chelation therapy as a treatment for atherosclerosis and age-related diseases, but they are often difficult to find... Critics of EDTA chelation therapy for treatment of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease point to the following five studies as evidence that chelation is not effective. In actual fact, those studies all indicate benefit...
http://www.drcranton.com/chelation/chelationcritics.htm



* Similarly, many health professionals also believe that vaccines are linked to autism and intestinal bowel disorder, and have been successfully using diet and detoxification based treatments with sick children. Barrett is wrong to say that "the scientific community" opposes these things. The fact is it's controversial, and there's controversy in any field of knowledge. So you are free to disagree with me, but your approach thus far has been extremely narrow-minded and pseudo-scientific.

Of course chelation is approved for the treatment of metal poisoning, but that is the only use it is approved for, and there is no evidence that anyone with autism has metal poisoning.

If the label "FDA-approved" actually meant something was good for you, then we could offer ECT for autism, just to see what happens.

Some parents are bound to pay a good fee, which is what quackery is all about - and it is what Wakefield was all about.

I agree, FDA-approval does not necessarily mean something is good for you, and just because something is not FDA-approved doesn't mean it isn't good for you.



So, if we take this to its logical conclusion, we can only conclude that the pharmaceutical industry is the most "quackific" thing out there. According to Dr. Marcia Angell, former editor of the NEJM:

"But while the rhetoric is stirring, it has very little to do with reality. First, research and development (R&D) is a relatively small part of the budgets of the big drug companies—dwarfed by their vast expenditures on marketing and administration, and smaller even than profits. In fact, year after year, for over two decades, this industry has been far and away the most profitable in the United States. (In 2003, for the first time, the industry lost its first-place position, coming in third, behind “mining, crude oil production,” and “commercial banks.”) The prices drug companies charge have little relationship to the costs of making the drugs and could be cut dramatically without coming anywhere close to threatening R&D.

"Second, the pharmaceutical industry is not especially innovative. As hard as it is to believe, only a handful of truly important drugs have been brought to market in recent years, and they were mostly based on taxpayer-funded research at academic institutions, small biotechnology companies, or the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The great majority of “new” drugs are not new at all but merely variations of older drugs already on the market. These are called “me-too” drugs. The idea is to grab a share of an established, lucrative market by producing something very similar to a top-selling drug. For instance, we now have six statins (Mevacor, Lipitor, Zocor, Pravachol, Lescol, and the newest, Crestor) on the market to lower cholesterol, all variants of the first...

"Third, the industry is hardly a model of American free enterprise. To be sure, it is free to decide which drugs to develop (me-too drugs instead of innovative ones, for instance), and it is free to price them as high as the traffic will bear, but it is utterly dependent on government-granted monopolies—in the form of patents and Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved exclusive marketing rights. If it is not particularly innovative in discovering new drugs, it is highly innovative—and aggressive—in dreaming up ways to extend its monopoly rights."

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archive ... tion=false




This is not an accurate statement. It is based on summarily ignoring all evidence that does link autism to heavy metal poisoning, an inherently unscientific approach which has unfortunately become the standard position of our medical authorities. The most you can say is that there has been a conspicuous lack of research into the area.

Indeed, according to a 2001 IOM Immunization Safety Review, ‘TCVs and Neurodevelopmental Disorders’ [http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10208&page=76]: "The committee recommends research on how children, including those diagnosed with neurodevelopmental disorders, metabolize and excrete metals, particularly mercury… The committee recommends continued research on theoretical modeling of ethylmercury exposures, including the incremental burden of thimerosal on background mercury from other sources."

Why haven't these studies been done? Is it because we already 'know' that mercury (a well-established neurotoxin) is magically safe when it's in a vaccine?

Here is part of the Joint Statement of The American Academy of Pediatrics and the Public Health Service (FDA & CDC), July 7, 1999:

"The recognition that some children could be exposed to a cumulative level of mercury over the first six months of life that exceeds one of the federal guidelines on methyl mercury now requires a weighing of two different types of risks when vaccinating infants. On the one hand, there is the known serious risk of diseases and deaths caused by failure to immunize our infants against vaccine-preventable infectious diseases; on the other, there is the unknown and probably much smaller risk, if any, of neuro-developmental effects posed by exposure to thimerosal. The large risks of not vaccinating children far outweigh the unknown and probably much smaller risk, if any, of cumulative exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines over the first six months of life.”

Let me repeat that: “the unknown and probably much smaller risk, if any, of cumulative exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines”.

So, in contrast to your assertion, the link of thimerosal to autism is UNKNOWN but it is ASSUMED to be inconsequential. Whatever happened to the precautionary principle?



Here is a response to that very "study": http://www.vtce.org/mercury/thim/Blaxil ... ernard.pdf

"In a direct rebuttal to the autism–mercury hypothesis, Nelson and Bauman construct a table of six symptoms (reduced from 95 in Bernard et al.) that they use to compare the ‘‘typical and characteristic manifestations’’ of mercury poisoning and autism. The table suggests an absence of overlap in the clinical manifestations of the two conditions. Nelson and Bauman provide no definition or source for their inclusion of these ‘‘typical and characteristic manifestations’’. This omission is not surprising since no ‘‘typical’’ pattern of mercury poisoning can be or has been described. Rather, as expert toxicologists well know, ‘‘no other metal better illustrates the diversity of effects caused by different chemical species than does mercury’’ [12].

"Clinical manifestations of mercury toxicity vary greatly depending on numerous factors, including:

• amount of exposure (dose relative to body weight),
• dosing patterns (intermittent bolus, chronic, and acute),
• species type (ethyl, methyl, di-methyl, metallic, mercuric, and mercurous),
• route of administration (cross-placental, ingested, injected, inhaled, mucosal, and transdermal),
• excretion context (in utero, with antibiotics, immaturecommensal flora and/or bile production, and milk diets),
• age and developmental context at exposure (prenatal, postnatal, infant, toddler, child, and adult).

"Nelson and Bauman derive their list of mercurialism symptoms largely from relatively high dose, ingested, methyl mercury exposures in adults. These exposure patterns are not closely comparable to the relatively low dose, injected, ethyl mercury exposures hypothesized to provoke autism symptoms in infants. Their claim that ‘‘the typical clinical symptoms of mercurism (sic) are not similar to the typical clinical signs of autism’’ is therefore inaccurate, misleading and unsupported by evidence from any comparable childhood disorder of mercury exposure...

"All of their references to mercury neuropathology in humans [18–20] are based on ‘‘severe’’ exposure levels resulting in death....

"Nelson and Bauman cite the only instance in which a known, large-population mercury exposure occurred in close geographic and temporal proximity to a major autism epidemiology study [36]:

"Fukushima prefecture in Japan, a province that borders Niigata prefecture and lies only a few kilometers from the source of the mercury emissions that led to Japan’s second major outbreak of Minamata disease around 1965. This study is notable for two reasons: (1) the child populations covered in the survey were born between 1960 and 1977, thereby including pregnancies that preceded and followed the Niigata mercury exposures and (2) the autism prevalence rates reported in children born after 1965 showed a sharp increase over rates before 1965. The inference is clear: the time trends in autism prevalence in Fukushima prefecture are consistent with an etiological role for mercury...

"They rely on claims of methodological bias to dismiss a dramatic increase in autism rates from less than 1 per 10,000 in children born in or before 1965 (the year of the Niigata disaster), to over 4 per 10,000 just three years later. The evidence, we submit (and not methodological concerns), speaks for itself here."

Something else to consider:

Donald Miller, MD: “Another important factor with regard to mercury on the mind, which officials at the CDC, FDA and the professors in the IOM do not consider, is synergistic toxicity - mercury's enhanced effect when other poisons are present. A small dose of mercury that kills 1 in 100 rats and a dose of aluminum that will kill 1 in 100 rats, when combined have a striking effect: all the rats die. Doses of mercury that have a 1 percent mortality will have a 100 percent mortality rate if some aluminum is there. Vaccines contain aluminum.”

The jury is FAR from out on this.

A Vermonters for a Clean Environment blog posting? Is that a serious rebuttal of a scientific study? How come none of your extensive, over-referenced pseudoscience is actually published in real journals?

The conspiracy, of course, and the cause of your bitterness?

Right now the verbosity of bitterbonker makes it rather hard for me or anyone else to read and deal with the bombardment of words. I would like to point out (from the point of view of a professional scientist [circa 70 papers to my name]) that the art of writing a good paper is to avoid verbosity. One does not bring others to your point of view using page after page of verbosity.

I am now going to dismiss some of your comments one by one.

While some quacks use drugs from the pharmaceutical industry rather than some witch's brew cooked up in a garden shed, backstreet, kitchen or basement I would like to point out that the process by which a drug goes from discovery to having a license for normal clinical use and finally use in the world is very scientific. A drug company need to show in animals and humans that their drug is not unduely toxic and then they need to show in humans that it does work.

This is a whole world away from quackery



The development of "me too" drugs and the creation of whole familes of drugs is perfectly scientific. If one drug has a useful profile then a reasonable place to look is at for the next drug. For example many pain killers are based on the morphine molecule.



The precautionary principle is to lower exposure when we do not know what the substance will do, as no coorelation exists between the MMR or thimerosal and autism it is reasonable to assume that the MMR and thimerosal exposure (at typical levels in vaccines) are safe. As they have had a clean bill of health I think that a demand for their ban is as reasonable as a demand for a ban to be imposed on cuckoo clock. By the way for the record I do not think that cuckoo clocks cause autism.

Is there an "applause" emoticon available? .*checks to see* Nope. Guess this one will have to do then.

GROAN.

Let's just stick to the science, folks. Are you suggesting that there is a "conspiracy" of health professionals, lawyers, parents, and other citizens who just have an irrational bone to pick with vaccines? The fact is that medical journals are totally beholden to revenue from pharmaceutical companies, and there is a great deal of pressure to conform. People who honestly report controversial results often have their writing censored, publications blocked, appointments or promotions denied, research grants withdrawn, legal actions taken; they are harassed, even blacklisted, or have rumors spread about them, as in the case of Dr. Wakefield. So, as a result, these real scientists often have to publish their research in other places. I suppose I should take the website featuring the duck with the stethoscope seriously? Oh wait, I already rebutted that, too. Stop copping out.

Woodpecker- I'm glad you have many papers under your belt, but with all due respect, you sure don't seem to be able to interpret them. Yes, my posts are "verbose". It generally takes WORDS in order to build an effective argument. I have repeatedly shown that the studies used to undermine the correlation between MMR, thimerosal, and autism have serious flaws. So, despite your claim that there are high standards in medical research, this is clearly not the case. There are always a handful of people who are willing to fudge data, which is human nature. The problem is that these studies are then put on a pedestal by our highest medical institutions, parroted again and again, while research with different findings (however high-quality) gets buried.

Even the Office of Technology Assessment found: "only 10 to 20 percent of all procedures currently used in medical practice have been shown to be efficacious by controlled trial... many of the other procedures may not be efficacious." http://www.fas.org/ota/2010/05/12/how-s ... -medicine/

I suppose since you just keep trotting out the same old tired cliches that I debunked pages ago, I can't blame you for being mystified when I post something that actually requires you to think outside of your little box. Perhaps this would be closer to the intelligence level of the respondants on this thread:

VACCINES = GOOD

[standing ovation]

Last edited by bitterbonker on 28 Jan 2012, 6:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Vaccines=Evil!

While most drugs are insured, following testing and approval, no one would insure vaccines, so the government does.

So who comes out pro vaccine, everyone employed by the government.

So why do insurance companies refuse? Why does the Government maintain a payout for those damaged or killed by vaccines? Because it happens.

What else does Insurance refuse, Atomic Power Plants.

Perhaps here the potential can be seen, one plant melting down, which could never happen, causing near endless problems. All the people in Japan who had to move, who were exposed, which will show up over years, and areas that will not be resettled for fifty years.

So the usual stories, no one has ever died of Atomic Power, millions would of if we had burned natural gas. Still, no one has a return home date.

Having the Government as an insurer is like the Social Security Disability system, everyone is refused, only those with private doctors and lawyers win on appeal.

So what do insurance companies know? Vaccines are an attack on the body, which is supposed to fail, but all bodies are different, and sometimes the Vaccine wins.

Some die from being exposed to the dead or weakened forms, some still get the normal forms, and some bio responses cause a chain of events which alter normal processes.

We are exposed to metals, we eat a lot of dirt and seafood. We do have a way of passing that through, but those pathways can be changed, and we can lose the ability to excrete some things.

That some die, are sick their whole lives, is considered for the greater good, for more might have died without the vaccine.

So the few who would die naturally are kept alive, by killing some others who would likely survive the disease.

Yes, the diseases can kill, but have not been plagues, some weak die, the stronger gain resistance. Keeping the weak alive to reproduce gives a population that has to be vaccinated, forever.

The day vaccination stops, it does become plagues. Vaccination is an artificial resistance, replacing a natural resistance.

This is not like Small Pox, Polio, eradicated. This is a Flu Shot, and new Flus coming every year.

In 1918 it was the young and healthy that went from being full of life to being dead in twelve hours. Older people had been exposed to earlier flu, and had an immunity.

So do some have bodies that respond to the mystery disease, and defend in ways that damage the person? Yes, and resistance to the intended disease might not happen. The battle of health we know, the course of disease, stalls into trench warfare, and now it is a long term Gut Problem.

It can not kill you, you can not muster the forces to recover, so a week long disease becomes a lifetime condition. These now resistant strains can spread, to other vaccinated people.

So my Atomic Plant needs to extend it's license, because otherwise some pipe could break and it's China Syndrome, and after paying for that, the Government can decommission the plant, or you can extend my license.

Regulating and Insuring is a bad combination.

People got a disease, it ran it's course, a few died, most got lifetime resistance.. Now people still get the disease, it does not develop or go away, and they do not gain resistance. They can spread it to others, and some forms can affect vaccinated people.

All Vaccination has done is change the symptoms.

While I have a lot of respect for the inventor, I have to disagree with him on vaccines.

While vaccines are neither 100 % safe or effective, what they do is quite perfectly scientific. What they do is to teach the immune system so that it responds more quickly to an attack by a pathogenic organism. A person who has been immunised against a disease may well have a similar level of resistance (due to the fact their immune system has been "educated") as a person who has had the disease and has recovered.

In general I hold the view it is best to have been vaccinated against as many diseases as possible.

edited once to remove a typo