Fall of Andrew Wakefield, ‘dishonest’ doctor who started MMR scare

by Ben Sat Apr 11, 2015 23:24

Learning the Hard Way: My Journey from #AntiVaxx to Science

Written by Tara Hills

I’m writing this from quarantine, the irony of which isn’t lost on me. Emotionally I’m a bit raw. Mentally a bit taxed. Physically I’m fine. All seven of my unvaccinated children have whooping cough, and the kicker is that they may have given it to my five month old niece, too young to be fully vaccinated.

We’d had a games night at our house in March, my brother-in-law had a full-blown cold, so when the kids started with a dry cough a few days later I didn’t think much of it. But a week after the symptoms started the kids weren’t improving, in fact they were getting worse. And the cough. No one had a runny nose or sneezing but they all had the same unproductive cough. Between coughing fits they were fine.

Then a few days later at midnight I snapped. My youngest three children were coughing so hard they would gag or vomit. I’d never seen anything like this before. Watching our youngest struggle with this choking cough, bringing up clear, stringy mucus – I had heard of this before somewhere. My mom said I had it when I was a kid. I snapped into ‘something is WRONG’ mode.

I jumped on Google to type in “child cough.” My kids had all but one symptom of pertussis, none of them had the characteristic “whoop.” But they had everything else.

We had vaccinated our first three children on an alternative schedule and our youngest four weren’t vaccinated at all. We stopped because we were scared and didn’t know who to trust. Was the medical community just paid off puppets of a Big Pharma-Government-Media conspiracy? Were these vaccines even necessary in this day and age? Were we unwittingly doing greater harm than help to our beloved children? So much smoke must mean a fire so we defaulted to the ‘do nothing and hope nothing bad happens’ position. ...

http://thescientificparent.org/learning-the-hard-way-my...ence/

by Ben Mon Feb 23, 2015 12:45

No surprise that Waldorf schools have a low vaccination rate. There is a weird cult behind them, its not always obvious at a surface level.

"If we attract people who choose not to immunize, it's not because we recruit them," says McCarthy, dean of education at Maple Village Waldorf, a private elementary school in Long Beach.

Only 3 of Maple Village's 20 kindergartners, according to current data from the California Department of Public Health, are up to date on their measles, mumps, rubella shot—of which two doses are required. Just 21 kindergarten classes in the state have a lower vaccination rate for MMR. And those numbers are actually an improvement over 2013-2014, when Maple Village's kindergartners had the state's fourth-lowest rate. (See chart below.)

Stats like these put McCarthy and other educators who subscribe to the Waldorf teaching philosophy in a delicate position. Her policy mirrors the official Waldorf policy, which is that there is no policy. The schools neither encourage nor discourage immunization.

Maple Valley "truly and absolutely does not take a stand" on whether parents should vaccinate their kids, McCarthy says. For safety, and her own record-keeping, she solicits details on her students' medical histories and informs their families what health authorities say they should do if there's a measles outbreak. But she doesn't want to alienate families by pressuring them. "I feel like it's a really personal topic, and I'd almost put it in the category of religion or politics," she says. "I'm just giving them info. I'm not guiding them one way or the other."

The median rate of Waldorf kindergartners with personal belief exemptions—which allow the kids to forego state-required shots simply because their parents would prefer not to vaccinate them—is around 44 percent in California, according to Duke sociology professor Kieran Healy. That's a far higher opt-out rate than for any other category of school, public or private. ...

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/02/california-...ldorf

by Ben Thu Feb 19, 2015 19:44

California public health officials, grappling with a measles outbreak that has already sickened 113 people statewide, have urged residents to get vaccinations for themselves and their children before travelling internationally over spring school break.

More than 150 people have been diagnosed with measles across the United States, many of them linked to an outbreak that authorities believe began when an infected person from out of the country visited Disneyland in late December.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/world/us-officials-urge-me....html

by immuned Wed Feb 11, 2015 19:01

"Scientists may say that brakes save lives, but virtually every car-wreck co-occurs with panicked braking -- did you know that in the old days, cars didn't have brakes?"

http://boingboing.net/2015/02/08/having-the-brakes-remo....html

by Ben Wed Feb 11, 2015 15:25

Measles is exploding because parents are afraid to have their children vaccinated. That's the message emerging from the US and Germany this week. Anti-vaccination scaremongering is believed to be driving the outbreaks.

By Monday, 486 cases had been reported so far this year to the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin, which monitors the spread of infectious disease in Germany – up from 446 cases for the whole of 2014. In the US, the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia, had reported 121 cases in the same time frame.

In both countries, health professionals are blaming parents who reject the triple MMR vaccine for their children, which protects against measles, mumps and rubella.

According to Mobeen Rathore, a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics' committee on infectious diseases, the upsurge is a sign that myths about vaccines need to be dispelled globally, including any link with autism. "We need to increase rates by educating people and having stronger laws that require childhood immunisations, and removing loopholes allowing parents to seek exemptions," says Rathore. ...

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26946-unfounded-v...msWug

by Ben Sun Feb 08, 2015 13:43

While parts of North America are experiencing the worst measles outbreak in 15 years, a new report shows that Africa has increased immunisation rates significantly, making the continent a world leader in protecting children against the disease.

The widespread availability of safe and affordable vaccines in even the most volatile and poor regions of African countries has seen immunisation rates surpass those of in the US, according to the 2015 Africa Survey, an annual report by Good Governance Africa (GGA).

The US has a 91% vaccination rate, while in Canada, which is currently experiencing an outbreak in Toronto, it is 84%, according to a UN estimate. A 95% rate is required for so-called “herd immunity”.

A survey this week by Canadian researchers found that a fifth of the population still believed the long-debunked myth that the measles vaccine causes autism.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/feb/07/measles-...erica

by Ben Fri Feb 06, 2015 19:28

Now California is ending vaccination exemptions based on religion or personal beliefs, but still retains medical exemptions.

Gov. Jerry Brown, who preserved religious exemptions to state vaccination requirements in 2012, on Wednesday appeared open to legislation that would eliminate all but medical waivers.

The governor's new flexibility highlighted a growing momentum toward limiting vaccination exemptions partly blamed for the state's worst outbreak of measles since 2000 and flare-ups of whooping cough and other preventable illnesses.

....Earlier, five lawmakers had said they would introduce legislation that would abolish all religious and other personal-beliefs exemptions for parents who do not want their children vaccinated before starting school.

...The anti-vaxxers used to be an oddball nuisance, but in recent years they've turned deadly—and that means it's past time to start taking them seriously. No more exemptions for deadly communicable diseases.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/02/californi...tions

by Ben Mon Feb 02, 2015 00:54

Relevant to the debate which took place on this thread (I think). I'm a bit conflicted on this one.

A father in the US has petitioned his district’s superintendent to request that any unimmunised child is banned from attending his son’s school in order to protect his child, who is recovering from cancer.

Carl Krawitt’s son Rhett, now six, has survived leukemia after enduring three years of chemotherapy. Although he is now in remission, he remains at risk from contracting measles.

Rhett, from Marin County in California, lives in a postcode in which 6.45 per cent of children are unvaccinated against diseases such as measles, polio, or whooping cough.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-fat....html

by Miriam Cotton Fri Apr 13, 2012 15:30

Andrew Wakefield has NEVER been anti vaccination. All he ever said was that for some children it might be better to adminsiter them in single doses. There is no such thing as medication that has no side effects for everybody - even the humble aspirin can be dangerous in certain circumstances. The medical profession very sensibly advocates its first principle as being "first do no harm". Typically medication is only adminsitered when it is actually needed, any possible side-effects having been weighed up against the benefits to the patient.

The problem with vaccination is that it is adminstered to EVERYONE regardless of what may be their particular state of health. By definition, this violates the medical profession's own first principle. What is absolutely atrocious about the outcome of the Wakefield MMR 'scandal' is that we now have a situation where vaccinations are sacrosanct. They are, apparently, the first ever humanly developed form of medication (or humanly developed anything for that matter) that are 100% perfect, incapable of any harm and not ever to be questioned in any way.

Vaccine damaged people: 0 - Big Pharma: + billions.

The number of wildly untrue things said about Wakefield by his detractors here is depressing.

by Ossie Fri Apr 06, 2012 23:19

None of what you wrote above addresses the piece I posted.

by Damien M - PharmaWatch Fri Apr 06, 2012 20:22

The Centre for Disease Control are hardly a bastion of fair play and integrity. Dr Julie Gerberding, now holding the reigns at Merck, slapped with fines totalling $4BILLION in previous years, previously worked for this 'regulatory' agency. A major key to the viability of future vaccines in the pipeline is the tacit denial of any link of autism to the heavy metals, mercury, squalene or live viruses or vaccines in general, now or in the future. So when super fraudulent companies Merck, Glaxo SK (fines upto 2012-$3Billion), Pfizer (fines $2.3 Billion) say that their vaccines contain no thimerosal-well my sleeve ain't rolling up.

The revolving door between the regulatory agencies and the pharmaceutical/military industrial complex is legend – and it swings both ways!!!

Head of the FDA, Margaret Hamburg, served on the board of directors for Henry Schein, Inc., manufacturer of mercury dental amalgams, in between her stints with the Clinton and now Obama administrations. No doubt the FDA continually pushes mercury fillings-open wide and say 'awwww'!

By the way, this 'study' looked at detection rates.

"Included in that amount is a 2007 legal settlement under which “Merck & Co. agreed to pay $4.85 billion to end thousands of federal and state personal injury lawsuits claiming injuries and deaths caused by Merck’s prescription pain medication Vioxx. Merck pulled Vioxx from the market in September 2004 after its own [belated or admitted] research showed the drug increased the risk of heart attack and stroke.''

http://veritasvirtualvengeance.com/2012/01/09/cdc-direc...erck/

by Ossie Bastable Thu Apr 05, 2012 21:10

Interesting news at New Scientist.

Increased autism rates crush vaccine hypothesis

05 April 2012
Magazine issue 2859.

CLAIMS that autism is caused by vaccines containing thiomersal have been floored by increasing rates of autism in children not exposed to the chemical.

No link has been found between autism spectrum disorders (ASD) and a mercury-containing compound known as thiomersal that is used in some vaccines. Nevertheless, since 2000, thiomersal has been phased out of most paediatric vaccines in the US. Now a report published by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that, despite this, the prevalence of ASD has continued to grow.

The data, from 13 areas in the US, reveal that in 2008, 11.4 kids aged eight per 1000 had an ASD compared with 6.4 per 1000 in 2002 - a 78 per cent increase. "Since the [latest data] came from kids who had vaccines [largely] without thiomersal, this factor plays no apparent role in the increased rates of the disorder," says Emanuel DiCicco-Bloom of the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in Piscataway, New Jersey, who was not involved in the study.

"Increases are likely to reflect better awareness of the condition," says Simon Baron-Cohen, director of the Autism Research Centre in Cambridge, UK.

by Damien Mooney - PharmaWatch Sat Aug 06, 2011 12:57

And in any case, Pfizer did have a programme for donating AIDS drugs to countries that needed it.

Meaningless philanthropy. Plenty is wrong with this, in the view of several nonprofit humanitarian groups, including Doctors Without Borders, Oxfam International and Treatment Action Campaign, a South African advocacy group for people with HIV/AIDS. Rather than donate drugs, these groups argued, Pfizer should have instead lowered the price of needed medicines and allowed inexpensive generics into the market.  In South Africa drugs that are sold cheaply can be distributed widely in both public and private outlets, while giveaway programs involving the government choke on red tape, limiting the number of people who will get the drug, whilst not enforcing aid agencies to be beholden to Pfizer. For a quick look at Pfizer's track record in Africa, and how they view Africans as mere guinea pigs the following stories should give some clarity. It was pretty heinous testing them drugs on them Nigerian kids wasn't it. Anyway, I'm off to have a look at the Wakefield case transcripts.

Nigeria Pfizer Scandal http://www.worldpress.org/Africa/1190.cfm

by Damien Mooney Fri Aug 05, 2011 23:22

"If I used Wikipedia as a source I'd never hear the end of it."

Yeah, I was just feeling lazy, sorry. Not as succint but if you want a more primary source, here is the entire transcript for the case: http://www.casewatch.org/foreign/wakefield/transcripts.zip
It is damning to say the least; just a bit of a slog though.

As far as I can tell, fluconazole is not under patent anymore- ie is generic - anyone can make it, so why should pfizer have to donate loads of cheap pills? And in any case, Pfizer did have a programme for donating AIDS drugs to countries that needed it. Although it was probably a the behest of NGOs and only after they made a tidy profit.

"Hope that puts an end to any questions about Pharmaceutical companies being involved in what can only be described as racketeering of the most repulsive kind-pricing dying people out of the market."

Yeah it is an uneasy situation; but hey, you go pitch to some investors about how you want to develop a drug then give it away for next to nothing and see how much money you can get out of them :)

In the end, these drug companies are corporations designed to make money and are bound by law to act in the interests of its shareholders - ie if it did decide to give away free drugs and the shareholders saw this as diminuation of their investment then the corporation is open to lawsuit. It is a shame that peoples lives are affected by the realities of business, but without this imperfect model the drug would not have existed in the first place anyway.

And again, nothing stopping you from setting up a company and developing your own drugs and giving them away on an as needed basis, it would just be hard to find funding. Perhaps if the WHO and goverments got together to create such a company for the benefit of mankind then it would be possible.

by Damien Mooney - PharmaWatch Fri Aug 05, 2011 22:18

I just quickly cogged the following from wikipedia but I think it captures it quite succintly.

If I used Wikipedia as a source I'd never hear the end of it. I'd hedge my bets that Deer, a man with incontrovertible links to Glaxo and nefarious medical journals penned it himself.

Not wanting to get drawn into yizzer argument over the whole AIDS, TB, main impediment to governments issues etc etc, but here's a few from a better angle...

'Some of the "Most Wanted" Corporate Human Rights Violators, by Global Exchange'
Pfizer: Human Rights Abuse: Killer price-gouging
"Drug companies' refusal to put human beings' health ahead of their own greed and profits is especially deadly for people with HIV/AIDS. AIDS killed 3.1 million people in 2004, a shocking death rate that could be greatly reduced if treatment was made available to people who right now cannot afford it. Pfizer and other drug companies have refused to grant generic licenses for HIV/AIDS drugs to countries like Brazil, South Africa, and the Dominican Republic, where patients are forced to pay $20 per weekly pill for drugs like fluconazole, though the average national wage is only $120 per month.....To ensure its profits, Pfizer invests heavily in US campaign contributions. Though it can't seem to afford to offer life-saving drugs at affordable prices, it was able to scrounge up $544,900 for mostly Republican candidates in election cycle 2006 (still in progress) and $1,630,556 in the 2004 election cycle.."

Hope that puts an end to any questions about Pharmaceutical companies being involved in what can only be described as racketeering of the most repulsive kind-pricing dying people out of the market.

http://www.globalexchange.org/getInvolved/corporateHRvi...65279

by Damien Mooney Fri Aug 05, 2011 10:50

"she never said that. she said the word not. that sentence means the opposite to what you are insinuating. cheap straw man."

I am afraid you are mistaken, that is exactly what is implied by the syntax. "big pharma is the biggest health problem not because they cause AIDS, malaria or TB, but because the big pharma model of drug production is the main impediment to governments and the WHO finding relatively straightforward solutions to these problems." Implies that although they do cause AIDS, TB, Malaria, that's is not why they are the biggest health problem.

"You just proved her argument!!"

Yes, I never refuted it, if you actually read what I said. I'm just saying that they are perfectly entitled to research and patent a drug. If you don't like it, research and patent your own. Nothing in he world stopping you.

"more ass talk from Gerald here. big pharma provide a few grants and maybe some equipment but the state spends much more on keeping a university department open than that yet the pharma get to hijack the research facilities for pennies compared to the true costs of university research department upkeep which the taxpayer shoulders."

There is no need to be abusive. And I do think that you are mistaken. Can you provide an example of this?

"Now stop with the straw men and address the questions about big pharma. "

Try scrolling to the top of the page and look at the title to the thread. Sheesh talk about blinkers.

"Wakefield was only 'disgraced' because he upset the applecart and (his findings) threatened to derail the lucrative MMR vaccine."

Untrue. There are a number of trials that have found indications of a greater negative affect of vaccinations. Its just that they are greatly outnumbered by other trials that contra inidcate that. Those researchers that found results contrary to consensus weren't disgraced, so why wakefield?
1. Because he was furiously campaigning against MMR, despite a glut of evidence to the contrary.
2. Because it encouraged anti vaccinationists to not vaccinate their children, endangering their lives.
3. Because his motives weren't just - he had vested interests in discrediting MMR -
4. Because he tried to battle a war of public opinion rather than medical discourse.
5. Because he was dishonest
6. Because he didn't have ethical approval. And even then, he did things that a common person can see is unethical.

I just quickly cogged the following from wikipedia but I think it captures it quite succinctly.
-In pleadings submitted to the court, Channel 4's lawyers spelled out what they said Deer's program had alleged. It said that Wakefield:
(i) Had dishonestly and irresponsibly spread fear that the MMR vaccine might cause autism in some children, "even though he knew that his own laboratory's tests dramatically contradicted his claims and he knew or ought to have known that there was absolutely no scientific basis at all for his belief that MMR should be broken up into single vaccines."
(ii) In spreading such fear, also acted dishonestly and irresponsibly, by repeatedly failing to disclose conflicts of interest and/or material information, including his association with contemplated litigation against the manufacturers of MMR and his application for a patent for a vaccine for measles which, if effective, and if the MMR vaccine had been undermined and/or withdrawn on safety grounds, would have been commercially very valuable
(iii) Caused medical colleagues serious unease by carrying out research tests on vulnerable children outside the terms or in breach of the permission given by an ethics committee, in particular by subjecting those children to highly invasive and sometimes distressing clinical procedures and thereby abusing them.(iv) Has been unremittingly evasive and dishonest in an effort to cover up his wrong-doing.

Proceedings continued for two years, but in December 2006, Deer reported figures obtained from the Legal Services Commission showing that it had paid £435,643 in undisclosed fees to Wakefield for him to build a case against the MMR vaccine,payments which The Sunday Times reported had begun two years before the Lancet paper.
Within days of Deer's report, Wakefield dropped all his libel actions and was required to pay all the defendants' legal costs.

"If you happen to read James Murdoch's family paper, and take the verdict of kangaroo courts, then, sure. If you accept the decisions of compromised medical journals then it must be a no brainer"
What level of evidence would satisfy you?

by Damien Mooney - PharmaWatch Thu Aug 04, 2011 23:41

Andrew wakefield is a disgraced researcher who went outside his remit, likely for personal gain. Just like the pharma companies do all the time. Agreed.

Not agreed. If you happen to read James Murdoch's family paper, and take the verdict of kangaroo courts, then, sure. If you accept the decisions of compromised medical journals then it must be a no-brainer, however as is available for all to see on this site, medical journals are about as bona fide as a gold watch from Lanzarote. Wakefield was only 'disgraced' because he upset the applecart and (his findings) threathened to derail the lucrative MMR vaccine.

Now stop with the straw men and address the questions about big pharma.

This thread, actually IS about Dr Andrew Wakefield, so we should keep this thread about him. There ARE other threads about 'Big Pharma', and certain pharmaceutical corporations however, Dr Doom has been very reticient to air his views there as has Gerald.

by AntiPharma Thu Aug 04, 2011 17:08

" big pharma is the biggest health problem not because they cause AIDS, malaria or TB"

G:-Ohhhhhhhhh Kayyy? Big pharma cause AIDS, malaria and TB?

she never said that. she said the word not. that sentence means the opposite to what you are insinuating. cheap straw man.

" big pharma model of drug production is the main impediment to governments and the WHO finding relatively straightforward solutions to these problems."

G:-Nothing stopping you going and researching and developing your own drugs, or a committee of concerned researchers doing this. Why should I develop and market a product if someone is just going to copy it and undercut me?

You just proved her argument!!

"Lastly I want to point out that the truly novel drugs that are produced tend to be developed with a disproportionate amount of publicly-funded research in universities and hospitals..."

G:-Can you give me an example? I might be wrong, but I was under the impression that pharma companies (& others) paid for research to be done in universities, thus the reason why the science blocks of Universities are the most profitable.

more ass talk from gerald here. big pharma provide a few grants and maybe some equipment but the state spends much more on keeping a university department open than that yet the pharma get to hijack the research facilities for pennies compared to the true costs of university research department upkeep which the taxpayer shoulders. Its called "externalities"
"Andrew Wakefield was accused of carrying out invasive tests on these children without ethical approval. This was horseshit. For starters, Andrew Wakefield was working as a researcher at the time - not a clinician.."

G:-Ehhh... Still need ethical approval for that yeah.

Andrew wakefield is a disgraced researcher who went outside his remit, likely for personal gain. Just like the pharma companies do all the time. Agreed. Now stop with the straw men and address the questions about big pharma.

by AntiPharma Thu Aug 04, 2011 15:33

You extol the virtues of primary sources then link to a video? How is that a primary source?

If you want primary sources, just go to PUBMED and type in "vaccine safety" or whatever and take your pick from thousands of trials and analyses.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed

by AntiPharma Wed Aug 03, 2011 20:42

I like to go to primary sources and form my own opinions. Often "independent" information and opinion is anything but.

So why not listen to the Great Satan himself?
Here's Wakefield speaking and taking questions for an hour and a half at the Boulder Colorado Public Library. For the most part, he's talking about the research of others:
http://www.vaccinesafetycoalition.com/event-video.html

by AntiPharma Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:24

" big pharma is the biggest health problem not because they cause AIDS, malaria or TB"

-Ohhhhhhhhh Kayyy? Big pharma cause AIDS, malaria and TB?

" big pharma model of drug production is the main impediment to governments and the WHO finding relatively straightforward solutions to these problems."

-Nothing stopping you going and researching and developing your own drugs, or a committee of concerned researchers doing this. Why should I develop and market a product if someone is just going to copy it and undercut me?

"Lastly I want to point out that the truly novel drugs that are produced tend to be developed with a disproportionate amount of publicly-funded research in universities and hospitals..."

-Can you give me an example? I might be wrong, but I was under the impression that pharma companies (& others) paid for research to be done in universities, thus the reason why the science blocks of Universities are the most profitable.

"Andrew Wakefield was accused of carrying out invasive tests on these children without ethical approval. This was horseshit. For starters, Andrew Wakefield was working as a researcher at the time - not a clinician.."

-Ehhh... Still need ethical approval for that yeah.

"They DID have ethical approval, although technically it was not necessary as the tests were "clinically indicated". "

-Nope, didn't have ethical approval. He wasn't qualified in paediatrics and the tests were not clinically indicated. Don't see how bribing kids with 5 pounds for blood samples at a kids birthday party is ethical either - something he joked about.

"Not working as a clinician it was not he who collated data and test results - it was the clinical team."

-I dont't think you understand how these things work. So he wasn't working as a clinician - that just means he wasnt doing the ward rounds and treating general patients. When you are a medical researcher you still have access to patients and are able to conduct tests.

"Ever since Andrew Wakefield first raised a red flag and suggested single vaccines be used rather than a combined one"

-The same vaccine that he applied for a patent on a single-jab measles vaccine BEFORE his campaign against the MMR vaccine? MMM convenient.

by AntiPharma - PharmaWatch Wed Aug 03, 2011 00:30

Right from the outset, this has been a carefully orchestrated campaign in UK to protect the reputation of MMR vaccine - and the vaccine schedule in UK, not to mention the fraudulent vaccine makers (see my shocking expose of Baxter International for proof). Problems with MMR started long before the team at the Royal Free Hospital became involved. Two early types of MMR vaccine were recalled because of damage done. In fact, right from when this vaccine was introduced, compensation has been quietly paid in USA for brain damage including autism. This started in the late eighties and early nineties. Andrew Wakefield is a respected gastroenterologist with dozens of peer reviewed studies to his name, and had little knowledge of autism when children started being referred to the gastro dept in the Royal Free Hospital. Many of these children were extremely ill with intestinal problems. They had been referred to the Royal Free by their local GPs or consultants because I believe, these professionals didn't know what to do. The majority of these children had diagnoses of regressive autism.

Andrew Wakefield was accused of carrying out invasive tests on these children without ethical approval. This was horseshit. For starters, Andrew Wakefield was working as a researcher at the time - not a clinician.. It was another team member who carried out the tests. They DID have ethical approval, although technically it was not necessary as the tests were "clinically indicated". A novel type of intestinal inflammation was uncovered. When this was treated with anti-inflammatories, and a change of diet introduced - gluten free/ casein free - it was noted that many autistic symptoms and behavioural problems improved. Tests were carried out and measles virus was found in the gut of these children.

He was also accused of falsifying data - another huge lie. Not working as a clinician it was not he who collated data and test results - it was the clinical team. The journalist employed to perpetrate these lies actually had the evidence to hand, but still continued in his campaign to destroy the credibility of Andrew Wakefield - and so protect the vaccine schedule.

This is a huge and tortuous tale and there were many other false accusations made. However, on presentation of evidence showing their innocence during the GMC case in London, all was ignored and two doctors were struck off the medical register. It was a fix - pure and simple.

Ever since Andrew Wakefield first raised a red flag and suggested single vaccines be used rather than a combined one, the government have gone to great lengths to silence him. He has been personally targeted and vilified round the world, with little opportunity to set the record straight. Certainly not in mainstream media. Of course, mainstream media will be afraid of losing sponsorship from the drug companies and so will toe the establishment line. Rupert Murdoch's son James, who holds some office or another at Daddy's News International, also sits on the board of GlaxoSK, one of the world's biggest drug companies and one of the most fraudulent (US Medicare, sued by 35 states for fraud). Much like we seen NI vilify leftwing and anti-capitalist protestors with gutter headlines of "Back our Cops, Not Yob Mobs" after the murder of Ian Tomlinson due to their cosy relationship with The Old Bill the Murdoch empire also orchestrated a smear campaign against Dr Andrew Wakefield, as did the BMJ, whose lies I shall go into at another stage.

-Damien.

by AC (somewhat of a pharma insider) Wed Feb 16, 2011 02:03

Jerry asks 'Why turn this thread into yet another theatre of war against pharmaceutical companies?' I can almost hear the violins, and the sickly sound of a heart bleeding for Big Pharma.

Why indeed? Perhaps because
(a) the problems caused by big pharma are arguably the single biggest health issue facing the planet now and in the future;
(b) these problems are a microcosm of the most important issue of our times - the subversion of the public good by enormous concentrations of private wealth.

To elaborate on (a) - big pharma is the biggest health problem not because they cause AIDS, malaria or TB, but because the big pharma model of drug production is the main impediment to governments and the WHO finding relatively straightforward solutions to these problems. SOme of the life-saving drugs cost pennies to manufacture, but many dollars to buy, keeping them out of reach of the people who need them most... and the Pfizers of this world have taken poor countries to task successfully to stop them producing and distributing small quantities of low-cost alternatives to their hugely overpriced patented drugs.

Before anyone starts with the usual line 'Oh but they need that money to fund all the great research they do into curing disease,' reflect on this: The 2000% profit made on many drugs is supposed to be essential so that Big Pharma can research new drugs, but (i) most 'new' drugs are minor variants on existing drugs, designed to beat copyright law and grab a piece of market share on a 'first world' disease that's already too well serviced with drugs. (ii) surveys have shown again and again that the research budget of the pharmaceutical giants is typically about 3% of their marketing budget... very little of the money we all spend on essential drugs finds its way to researching the big diseases of poverty like malaria. In addition, much of the research that is done, goes into fomenting a 'need' for 'new' drugs by throwing money at research which aims to 'medicalise' difficult aspects of normal human behaviour or persuade parents that their children are suffering from a treatable sickness rather than natural frustration at not having their needs met by the thin fare capitalist society feeds their souls on... Oh, don't get me started on Big Pharma!

Lastly I want to point out that the truly novel drugs that are produced tend to be developed with a disproportionate amount of publicly-funded research in universities and hospitals... in other words, you paid for the research but they own the drugs... and if you really need them, you or your loved ones will die unless you can pay.

And to elaborate on (b)... obesity, diabetes, water-borne illness, hunger, poor housing, smoking are all demonstrably promoted by the big-corporation model for the production and distribution of food and other commodities vital for life. Where this model has been modified or abandoned, health indexes have in general risen steeply.

Wakefield's downfall was not that he was a fraud, which he was, but that he was a small fraud who punched above his weight. Some day people will look back and wonder how we put up with the corporations and their fraudster politicians for so long.

And you have turned out your intellectual resources to defend Big Pharma Jerry?! There must be a condition to explain that...

by ferret Sun Feb 13, 2011 23:56

"You and the rest of the Wakefield fanclub misled and scared parents."

sorry? I never once said anything positive about wakefield or his MMR research before now so I have nothing to apologise for. My interest is in lucrative dodgy flu vaccines and that's the only thing I ever advocated people not take. And I only did that with pretty strict reservations and after looking at the data.

Vaccines on the whole have greatly helped humanity but we need to take the processes out of the hands of for profit corporations or sooner or later there may be a lucrative new "market" created by one of their unfortunate "accidents". And in the case of a flu "market" this could very well be catastrophic. It very nearly was in the case of Baxters "oops...we accidentally put live birdflu in with the seasonal flu jab" mishap

open source pharma is the only way to go. Corporations only care about profit. Keeping people ill and dependent on your product is far more lucrative than curing them. Look at the whole helicobactor pylori antacid patent scandal for example.

wakefield put his own success ahead of his science and as a person of science I view him with disdain.

by Terence Wed Feb 09, 2011 22:09

The issue of vaccines seems to be quite divisive and evokes strong emotions on both sides and probably for good reason.

To me, it is quite clear over the last century that vaccines have saved countless lives and prevented many diseases and deaths that would have been common in earlier times. Indeed those with a pro-science leaning (which includes me) would see this as one of the benefits of medical science and would be representative of "progress" in recent history. Naturally the success of this has given rise to a band of loyal supporters of vaccines themselves and the wider concepts of the idea of progress and common good and during the hayday of vaccine development the standing of those scientists and companies involved would have been elevated.

However there are many aspects to a vaccine and lots of room for things to go wrong and of course for continual improvement. It is quite clear in the past there have been problems with batches of vaccines whether that be some kind of contaimination, or incorrect manufacture. Also certain chemicals have been used such as mercury which in its basic form is highly toxic but apparently are okay in their particular bio-chemical form. Nevertheless there are many pathways to the breakdown of these compounds in the body. So over the long term there has been some effort to avoid these types of chemicals.

Then we have the people who claim vaccines are harmful and this goes right back to the 1960s. There are a few aspects to consider if we consider for a moment that harm was done and the questions would be:

a) Was any harm done by contamination or components of the vaccine. We could consider this batch related.

b) Is the vaccine inherently safe?

c) Are there side reactions to the components of the vaccines whether they are complex molecules or fragments of proteins or DNA taken from for example cell lines or killed (usually via radiation) virus particles.

The pro-vaccine group tend to get very sensitive about any questioning of vaccines and over the years because of pressure would tend to favour a) if any apparent harm has come.

They would naturally argue (b) that vaccines are inherently safe. In fact (b) is related (c) above, in that b) is really posing the question 'are they inherently safe for everyone'?

It is not impossible that a small fraction of people do have adverse reactions. This is because we know that there is quite a wide range in the expression of genes within the body and there is considerable biochemical diversity. Even the drug industry admits that most common drugs only work properly on around 50% of patients. Often one will need to prescibe another type of medicine because the common one will not work.

The pro-vaccine (and pharam) get very nervous and defensive when reports of research or otherwise do arise about claims of problems with vaccine because for vaccines to work where they are stopping contagious diseases you need at least 90% of the population to take them. With the MMR vaccine this dropped much lower than this. Hence the adverse reaction for the pro-side.

Unfortunately the pro-side in the eagerness tend to be of the opinion that all vaccines are automatically safe and inherently so. There is no theoretical reason for this. Life, biology, biochemistry is far more complex and subtle than that. This does not mean that all vaccines are unsafe either. As pointed out in point (c) above, the vaccine could well be fine for most people but deterimental to a small few. Using statistical analysis to tease out the effect can be very difficult when the signal is so small. From some quick checks that I did, it seems that has been research going on for a number of years where primates were split into two groups with one group vaccinated according to the typical program applied to a child in the USA and the other not and the first set of results of this are due to be published soon.

In some regards I can see why the pro-vaccine side backed by the manufacturing pharam companies would be so tough on the anti-side, because the fear might be totally out of proportion to the amount of damage and they would naturally allege that they are concerned for the greater good.

I would say it is true also that certain fringes of the anti-side go to some extremes such as claiming all vaccines are automatically bad.

In the Wakefield case above, I do not see it as a clear cut victory. I am still open on the issue and I think one should continue with research and keep the pressure on all the time to maintain safety and standards. Unfortunately multi-national corporations of all types have a long history of manipulating things and very keenly looking after their own interests and covering up any harm that they do. Tobaaco, Oil, Nuclear, Coal, chemical, mining and many other industries spring to mind.

So when I listened to the show (see link in my comment above) and read a few other articles around this subject, I find that there are a lot of uncomfortable elements to the story typical of the way large corporations operate to promote their agenda.

Lastly, the pro-side in some respects point out that these scare stories do more harm because of massive fall-offs in vaccine levels and consequent outbreak of whatever it is being vaccinated against, but it should be clear that the public does not like ham-fisted stamps of authority about anything anymore and people and companies ought to be more open and forthcoming. Companies tend not to be open with their internal findings because there is always the threat of costly ligation so they prefer to conceal these facts and carry on. There are countless examples of this sort of behaviour throughout industry of all kinds.

by JC Wed Feb 09, 2011 15:38

What part of why not apologise do you not understand? You and the rest of the Wakefield fanclub misled and scared parents. Now you are using an article which exposes Wakefield to continue your obsession.

Why not leave it over and apologise?

by ferret Wed Feb 09, 2011 15:32

jerry

what part of "Questions may need to be asked about the MMR study" did you not understand?

This guy was not bona fide but his case unearthed some interesting corporate machinations. It's not unreasonable to want to highlight these.

for every dodgy researcher like wakefield (not all that many you'll agree) , the pharmaceutical giants commit a whole bunch of for profit cynical crimes

by Jerry Cornelius Tue Feb 08, 2011 19:06

Now there is no link between the vaccine and Autism. The research carried out by Wakefield was corrupt. Its easy to toss around attacks on Pharmaceutical companies. Its also easy to pick out names and draw links between them. That will satisfy the conspiralonns. It won't convince ordinary people. None of that changes the fact that Wakefield is a crook who misled parents.

Why not just accept the truth about Wakefield? Why turn this thread into yet another theatre of war against pharmaceutical companies?

Wouldn't it be better for those who supported Wakefield to show some humility for once? Why not apologise to all of those parent who you scared and misled ?

by ferret Tue Feb 08, 2011 15:08

there are huge amounts of money at stake

they make "oops we're so sorry" "boo boos" such as this one which might very well have caused a very lucrative pandemic worldwide with potentially millions of deaths, yet a very muted media coverage.
https://www.indymedia.ie/article/94065

sometimes they dump shitty cheap live vaccines on poor nigerian kids and cause actual outbreaks of polio. They campaign tirelesly for the eradication of cheap generic aids drugs in africa (often produced in india) using the US government as their ambassadors so they can profit from dubiously obtained patents. How moral is that?
http://allafrica.com/stories/201012201026.html etc etc..

Mary harney, the woman whose sole job was to crack open our public health system and let in private business was positively gagging to spend 1 BILLION euro on anti virals for swine flu which was the most media hyped and least harmful flu in terms of fatalities ever

Big pharma are arm deep into the asses of the media and the government. how could they not be given the amounts of money at stake.

Questions may need to be asked about the MMR study, but serious questions also still need to be asked about the "business as usual" approach of big pharma to use their huge budgets and media influence to squash any questioning of their products and side effects.

we need open source pharma initiatives not "for profit" corrupt big pharma which just focusses on "me too" drugs to renew patents and more viagra variants to keep western dicks hard whilst ignoring the third world needs for research into simple cheap life saving treatments, supress side effect data that does not favour their products, and who knows, perhaps (logically) even plot to create lucrative new "markets" of sick people whose treatment is covered by their lucrative patents

by Terence Mon Feb 07, 2011 21:29

On the Gary Null show for Feb 2nd 2011, this case is discussed and a lot of it is held in dispute. For anyone who is interested in this story then you should listen to the show.

What comes out is that the journalist Brian Deer who claims to be with the Sunday Times -in order to raise his credibility, as an inquiry from someone on the show, elicted a strong rebuttal that he was connected or employed by the Times from their legal Dept. Later we hear of a long history of associations with key people in the pharma industry and a MEP from the British parliament and also with former CEO of The Lancet medical journal who later joined the board of the giant UK pharma company -GlaxoSmithKline

http://thegarynullshow.podbean.com/mf/web/wt8w85/GaryNullShow020211.mp3

Gary Null show for Feb 2nd 2011.

by CN Mon Feb 07, 2011 18:44

The story of a parent and the upset caused by Wakefields fraudulent report. Full story at URL.

In 1998 our boy with Asperger's Syndrome was 11 years old. A report came out in a prestigious British medical journal called The Lancet, linking the triple MMR vaccine with a significant raised risk of developing autism. For those of you who do not know, Asperger's Syndrome is a disorder within the autism spectrum..

I was a medical writer in 1998 and read the Lancet article about a study carried out by Dr. Wakefield in horror. I immediately recalled the exact dates our son had his shots (jabs) and racked my brain to try to remember whether any symptoms started appearing afterwards or before.

My wife and I talked incessantly about when the first signs and symptoms appeared and we both agreed that they started more or less when he was about 9 months old. "So, it could not have been the MMR jab...right? Surely, not. No, he already had it when he was born..."

This year the BMJ (British Medical Journal) published a series of articles that followed an investigation by Brian Deer, a well respected investigative journalist. Dr. Wakeman's studies were found to be fraudulent and probably motivated by money. The initial investigation had been incompetent - the journal wrote that the wolves were asked to check out the wolves.

Today, at last, I am sure it would not have made the slightest bit of difference if we had refused to vaccinate when our son was small. I am still a medical journalist and know that any conspiracy theories (I receive dozens of emails on this each day) are not based on any compelling data.

by Damien Sun Feb 07, 2010 16:29

The retraction from The Lancet was a response to a ruling from England's General Medical Council, a kangaroo court where public health officials in the pocket of vaccine makers served as judge and jury. Dr. Wakefield strenuously denies all the findings of the GMC and plans a vigorous appeal. He is being discredited to prevent an historic study from being published that for the first time looks at vaccinated versus unvaccinated primates and compares health outcomes, with potentially devastating consequences for vaccine makers and public health officials. He is one of the world's most respected and well-published gastroenterologists. He has published dozens of papers since 1998 in well-regarded peer-reviewed journals all over the world.
Dr. Wakefield is the co-author, along with eight other distinguished scientists from institutions like the University of Pittsburgh, the University of Kentucky, and the University of Washington, of a set of studies that explore the topic of vaccinated versus unvaccinated neurological outcomes using monkeys. Dr. Wakefield and his scientific colleagues are on the brink of publishing their entire study, which followed the monkeys through the U.S. childhood vaccine schedule over a multi-year period. The study shows that the difference in outcome for the vaccinated monkeys versus the unvaccinated controls is both stark and devastating.

http://www.thoughtfulhouse.org/publications.php

by soubresauts Fri Feb 05, 2010 23:11

Questions like...

Are these all coincidences?

1) 1998: The Lancet publishes the famous paper (which they don't want you to see) by Wakefield et al. The medical establishment and Big Pharma vow to "get Wakefield".

2) 2001: Tony Blair refuses to say whether his infant son has been given the MMR vaccine. The popularity of MMR continues to drop.

3) July 2003: Lancet proprietor Crispin Davis becomes a non-executive director of MMR manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline.

4) February 20, 2004: The Lancet throws Dr Andrew Wakefield to the wolves for tenuous reasons. He is dragged through the mud by the BBC, Sunday Times and the UK Government (including Tony Blair) for four days.

5) February 27, 2004: In the High Court, Mr Justice Davis (Crispin’s brother, aka Sir Nigel Davis) dismisses the MMR litigants' appeal for restitution of legal aid, rescuing the UK Government and Big Pharma from potentially enormous liabilities.

6) June 2004: Crispin Davis is knighted by the Blair government.

7) January 2010: GMC finds Wakefield "guilty". The Lancet retracts the paper from the public record.

The campaign to vilify Wakefield was led by News Corporation journalist Brian Deer. News Corp chief James Murdoch is also a director of GlaxoSmithKline...

by soubresauts Fri Feb 05, 2010 22:41

It's surprising to see the above posts going unchallenged on this website. Dr Doom can follow Big Pharma's agenda if s/he wishes, but there's another story to be told here.

The other story is perhaps expressed best by the American organization, the National Vaccine Information Center:

"The General Medical Council inquisition was never about the three doctors they put on the rack and found guilty on most counts. It was always about declaring vaccine science and policy innocent on all counts. And creating a horrible warning to any young doctor, who even thinks about investigating or talking about better defining vaccine risks, to think again, shut up and salute smartly."

The nonsense we hear from bone-headed whitecoats and arrogant, ignorant yuppies ("vaccines are safe", "measles is a deadly disease", "vaccination is your civic duty", "anti-vax parents are endangering our kids", etc.) is insufferable.

At least we have the right to reject vaccination. For the moment.

by SionnachtheHeyoka Thu Feb 04, 2010 12:13

Maybe Dr Wakefield did breach medical protocol , was he motivated by good intentions or did he have another agenda? I don't know the answer to this. The bottom line is that no one can conclusively say that the MMR vaccine or it's components are not at least a contributing cause of autism in a certain proportion of cases. Theres always going to be the extremists on both sides jousting with each other and there's a lot of ego involved too. This debate stirs up very strong emotions in people , myself included. I witnessed my brother going from playing on the floor to having a seizure two days after receiving his vaccines as a child. He wasn't diagnosed as being autistic until years later and I've seen first hand the typical list of symptoms emerge especially in relation to the gut and digestion and in regards to my own health also. For example any doctor can tell me straight to my face that there is absolutely no problem with eating fish that contains mercury or food with pesticdes but if I am feeling the ill effects of these actions my common sense tells me to stop consuming these substances!!. Why would I deny what my own body is telling me? , should I just cast it aside and take solace in the fact that the established bodies have deemed it okay to eat x amount of fish without getting sick?. Most regular people do not have an indepth understanding of immunology but this does not mean that what they witness happening to their own children can be so easily dismissed.

The research into the autism\vaccine connection is far from over and the fat lady is just doing her vocal warm ups at the moment. It's fascinating to see people who champion the logical tenets of science turn into zealots foaming at the mouth on web forums when anybody DARE suggest that the evidence presented is not yet conclusive. How many theories have been ridiculed and put down only to be vindicated at a later date?. Millions of children may not be adversely affected by the MMR vaccine or it's ingredients. But is it wrong to deny parents who think that their child is one of the extra sensitive kids who will be made chronically ill or worse the respect of their decision? There are charlatans and quacks out there , but there also open minded people investigating the MMR\vacine link whose only agenda is to safeguard children and their families against the unnecessary suffering of autism. Maybe vaccines are only the straw that breaks the camel's back in a matrix of factors in a small proportion of children with a certain physiological\genetic makeup. I just don't think that tabloid like headings like 'Fall of Andrew Wakefield , 'dishonest' doctor who started MMR scare' helps either side of the debate.

"The greatest threat of childhood diseases lies in the dangerous and ineffective efforts made to prevent them."
Robert Mendelsohn, MD

by Dr Doom Tue Feb 02, 2010 18:52

Yet more confirmation that "Dr" Wakefield is a quack. More news of his misdeeds at the url.

Lancet formally retracts 1998 paper linking vaccine and autism
February 2, 2010 by Richard Ingham

Medical journal The Lancet Tuesday withdrew a 1998 study linking autism with inoculation against three childhood illnesses, a paper that caused an uproar and an enduring backlash against vaccination. The British journal said it was acting in the light of an ethics judgement last week by Britain's General Medical Council against Andrew Wakefield, the study's lead researcher.

"We fully retract this paper from the published record," The Lancet's editors said in a statement published online.

The 1998 paper suggested there might be a connection between autism and a triple vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella (MMR). Other experts insisted the claim was spurious, but many parents in Britain were deeply alarmed and refused to have their children vaccinated. The slump has yet to fully recover today and as a result there has been a rise in measles, placing unprotected young lives at risk, say doctors. The scare over the vaccine also occurred in the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

In 2004, 10 of the paper's 13 authors distanced themselves from part of the study, publishing what they called a "retraction of an interpretation."

In last Thursday's ruling, the General Medical Council attacked Wakefield for "unethical" research methods and for showing a "callous disregard" for the youngsters as he carried out tests.