The SkepDoc reviews Callous Disregard

I wish we could pointedly (not callously) disregard this entire book, but this is sure to be the rallying point of the anti-vax crazies in the coming days, and the book is going to be cited chapter and verse ad nauseam in the anti-vax screeds. Someone mentioned that it already has a high rating at Amazon.com books. I wonder if Harriet’s post could be tacked on to the book as a review at Amazon!

Even if, for the sake of argument, there had been TWO research projects, one funded by the London Royal Free, and the other, the imaginary one, funded by Barr&Barr,
Wakefield would still have been obligated to disclose that conflict of interest.

Brian, “autistic enterocolitis” is made up? Really? Nothing to it at all? I must have missed all that, surely these kids were all sick right?

There have been several reports of a link between autism and chronic gastrointestinal symptoms. Endoscopy trials have demonstrated a higher prevalence of nonspecific colitis, lymphoid hyperplasia and focally enhanced gastritis compared with controls. Postulated mechanisms include aberrant immune responses to some dietary proteins, abnormal intestinal permeability and unfavourable gut microflora.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19214283

Ileal lymphoid hyperplasia may be more prevalent in children with regressive autism but is also seen in children with food allergies and severe constipation, the latter being an extremely common finding in autistic children. CONCLUSION: The histopathological diagnosis of autistic enterocolitis should be treated with caution until a proper study with appropriate methodology and controls is undertaken.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17257133

@bensmyson

Aww, how cuuuute! Obfuscation and misdirection. Here’s what you left off from the first abstract:

Two autism spectrum disorder patients with chronic intestinal symptoms and abnormal endoscopic findings are described, followed by a review of this controversial topic.

And from the second one:

Our review of the published works, nearly all from a single centre, identifies major inconsistencies between studies, lack of appropriate controls and misinterpretation of normal findings as pathology.

You guys don’t even try, do you? You realize that the majority of people here are at least scientifically literate, don’t you?

To bring up papers like that with an obvious lack of understanding about what they actually say should give you pause, you might want to think about how well you really understand this topic.

Brian Deer

It’s notable that not one UK media organisation, or even columnist that I’m aware of, has spoken up for him.

Melanie Phillips at The Spectator still refuses to admit defeat.
“…risible kangaroo court…tragedy and a travesty… monstrous injustice… crucified… sinister travesty” etc etc.

“Essentially? So does it or doesn’t it? If you cant prove it then as I understand science, you cant prove it right?”

Basically, you used the paper as support, when the paper actually (even it the passage you quoted) more-or-less said “We looked at it, and don’t think there is anything to support it right now”.

That you are striving for a yes/no answer is why you misread and misunderstood the paper.

“If something is untrue then there must be proof right, otherwise how can you make such a claim?”

Yes there is proof, and it was presented to the highest relevant institutional authourity. An authourity which repeatedly noted the absolute lack of any relevant and accurate defence, to the point where this lack attracted repeated comment.

If something is untrue then there must be proof right, otherwise how can you make such a claim?

I have a post being held up but will provide you with your proof. And since Wakefield never found anything such as ‘autistic enterocolitis’ to begin with, not much to prove. Hint for the future: Don’t try to wave abstracts about like a weapon because a.) You can’t even parse those correctly and b.) chances are, there are many of us here that can get the full texts AND parse them correctly.

Essentially? So does it or doesn’t it?

It does. “Essentially” in this context means “fundamentally” or “basically”. Example: you are essentially dumb.

What do you think essentially means?

Brian, “autistic enterocolitis” is made up? Really? Nothing to it at all? I must have missed all that, surely these kids were all sick right?

I see that you have already had your ass properly handed to you Ben’s parents. I’ll add a little insult to injury. From your second abstract:

We can only speculate why severe constipation was not acknowledged as a significant gut symptom in the original paper1 and was revealed only in correspondence.8 Having accepted, however, that this was a major problem in these children, subsequent studies from this group should have explicitly included developmentally normal children with severe constipation as the appropriate control group. The conclusions of the 1998 and 2000 papers from the Royal Free must therefore be regarded as unreliable because of the use of inappropriate controls. By the time this group did include a control group with ILNH and constipation and indeed reported the lack of significant difference in mucosal pathology between autistic children and controls,3 media and public opinion were already entrenched.

Significant bias was introduced to the studies from the Royal Free by the interpretation of histological changes seen in normal lymphoid follicles as pathology, particularly as the investigators had an alternative reason for trying to biopsy lymphoid follicles, namely to try to detect measles virus.

You have undoubtedly ignored the results of these 2 recent studies as well:

http://adc.bmj.com/content/94/7/497.full
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/124/2/680

You see Ben’s parents, autistic children do not appear to have any GI pathology above the incidence of that in the general population. Not to mention, there is nothing unique about their GI complaints, they do experience co-morbidities you know. ASD children do have an increase in GI complaints that are a result of diarrhoea and/or constipation, most likely resulting from neurobehaviours, rather than an organic aetiology.

Lastly, don’t project your stupidity, scientific-illiteracy and limitations onto the rest of us.

I’m so damn sick of hearing people blather about how this or that isn’t “safe”. Nothing is ever 100.000% safe !
Not sleeping in bed, not vaccines and sure as hell not deep water oil drilling (as we’ve all seen to our sorrow).
But we don’t stop living because something isn’t 100.000% safe. Also, there is no such thing as 100.000% certainty.
We have amassed a preponderance of evidence that shows that vaccines work and that they do not cause autism. Not 100.000% certainty, but 99.97 %. It’s as sure as we can be of a thing that cannot actually be proven 100%.

“the highest relevant institutional authourity took a look a found that what Wakefield was saying wasn’t compatible with the evidence”

Boy am I thick for trying this again, I thought the GMC looked at the ethics and not the actual study. Werent they upset that Wakefield gave some children a look up their colon and rewarded some kids at a birthday party for participating in a blood draw? I dont recall talk of whether or not the bowel disease that Wakefield’s paper was all about.

If there is proof of Wakefield making it all up then I owe Deer an apology, if not then perhaps he owes Dr Wakefield one. Cold day in hell that though.

Wakefield gave some kids a look up their colon? Aww, how cute – surely that must be a lot of fun! Let’s see what Dave Barry has to say about the procedure – http://www.miamiherald.com/2009/02/11/427603/dave-barry-a-journey-into-my-colon.html Wow, that’s hilarious! This must have been so entertaining for those little kids!

IIRC, autistic people have rather extra sensitive feelings where it comes to touch. At least Temple Grandin and some other autistic people I know are hypersensitive to uncomfortable touches. Performing invasive medical procedures that are not indicated on hypersensitive children – gee, how could anyone object to that?

Cath,

IIRC, autistic people have rather extra sensitive feelings where it comes to touch. At least Temple Grandin and some other autistic people I know are hypersensitive to uncomfortable touches. Performing invasive medical procedures that are not indicated on hypersensitive children – gee, how could anyone object to that?

As a mother of an autistic child this is what disgusted me most about the whole issue. The condition is called Sensory Integration Dysfunction and is very common in ASD children. Gabriel can’t go out in the sun without a hat and glasses, he won’t touch sand, or gravel, or flour, or oatmeal or anything else that has a funny texture. He won’t eat anything that isn’t crunchy or chewy, and he constantly needs even pressure on his body (in one form or another). When his doctor looks in his ears or eyes it is an ordeal, and it takes him a few days to recover from a well-child visit.

And children like my son were subjected to anesthesia, uncomfortable colonoscapies (after being forced to drink the stuff that causes intense cramps to clean them out, no doubt), lumbar punctures (with the ensuing headaches, not to mention potential complications) and other very invasive tests. All for no medical reason.

This disgusts me and I can’t even think about Wakefield without getting sick to my stomach. That parents would willfully subject their precious (very sensitive) children to such torture is unconscionable. I have nothing but contempt for people who do such things to autistic children without cause.

Rant over, please keep in mind that I am sometimes an irrationally passionate mother. I am not trying to sound angry.

Kristen, the existence of sensitivity to food textures interests me. I have never heard anyone else bring up being texture sensitive to food other than my own complaints. I am very turned off by certain food textures, to the point where some textures make me feel like vomiting or gagging (tripe is an example, just the feeling of it makes me ill). And on the broader subject of sensitivity to touch, while I enjoy it, I find I am very, very sensitive to other people’s touch, it is really very intense for me. Sensitive to the point where people are surprised by how I react to it. A good friend of mine will have a field day if I mention this to her. She thinks I have Asperger syndrome.

@Travis: Tripe? How can anyone not love tripe? Some of my favorite Spanish, Chinese, and various other Asian recipes use tripe. Dang, now I’m hungry for a little rumen and reticulum. Oddly enough the Spanish recipe is “Callos” which fits in with the headline …

http://www.spain.info/saborea/recetas/callos_a_la_madrilena.html

Werent they upset that Wakefield gave some children a look up their colon and rewarded some kids at a birthday party for participating in a blood draw?

Is callousness contagious? Why is it that Wakefield’s defenders seem not to care one jot about the children in his study? Now, perhaps the IRB rules are different in the U.K., but here’s a quick primer on ethics review of studies:

1) Invasive medical procedures, particularly ones with significant risk (colonoscopies and LPs) should only be used when they are clinically indicated, provide benefit to the subject or answer a scientific question that is so incredibly, overwhelmingly important that the risk is justified (and even then, it’s iffy). In the Lancet study, this criterion was not met.
2) Medical procedures should be conducted in an appropriate medical environment (aka, not a birthday party).
3) Researchers should avoid coercion (forced participation) and undue influence (convincing someone to do something when they ordinarily would not) of the subjects. Telling a bunch of children (weren’t they like 5 years old?) that they will get 5 pounds if they let Wakefield draw some blood would, in my mind, fall under undue influence.
4) Researchers are required to get written informed consent from all subjects participating in the study. This is not just getting them to sign some paper, but actually making sure that the subjects understand what is going to happen, what the risks are, what the possible benefits to them will be, and so on. In the case of children, not only is the researcher required to obtain the child’s assent, unless the child is emancipated, the researcher must also get the parents’ consent (both parents, unless otherwise approved by the ethics review board). This consent/assent process must be completed before any procedures related to the study are performed on the individuals.

There is more, but those are the main points where Wakefield and company (though primarily Wakefield) failed in the ethics. The fact that Wakefield later went on to joke about the kids fainting, vomiting, etc. from the blood draw is just another scoop of disgusting on the pile.

So, my question to anyone who defends Wakefield…Why? (To the regulars, that’s mostly a rhetorical question.)

4) Researchers are required to get written informed consent from all subjects participating in the study. This is not just getting them to sign some paper, but actually making sure that the subjects understand what is going to happen, what the risks are, what the possible benefits to them will be, and so on. In the case of children, not only is the researcher required to obtain the child’s assent, unless the child is emancipated, the researcher must also get the parents’ consent (both parents, unless otherwise approved by the ethics review board). This consent/assent process must be completed before any procedures related to the study are performed on the individuals.

Ditto when it comes to administering vaccines.

And I believe that the children were “rewarded” for the blood taken at the birthday party, there was no promise of any sort of payment. Doubt that makes much of a difference to you but to me no child rolled up his sleeve for money and certainly no parent allowed it because of a Thomas the Train toy engine’s worth of money.

@bensmyson

I’m just going from what I recall, and I wasn’t there, so I can’t say for certain whether the inducement of 5 pounds was before or after the blood draw. And, unless he gave the money out after all the blood draws were done, the other children would have found out that they could get some money if they gave blood. Keep in mind, though, I am not saying that payment is always unethical, but when considering those vulnerable to coercion or undue influence, the appropriateness of the payment (or reward…a rose by any other name, etc.) must be considered. Further, if Wakefield “rewarded” rather than “paid”, perhaps he should have mentioned that at the GMC hearings, rather than changing the terminology after he was struck off.

Ditto when it comes to administering vaccines.

While patients should be informed of medical procedures before they are conducted, Federal regulations do not touch the practice of medicine. Written informed consent is only required, by regulation, in the context of human subject research.

In the doctor’s office, many things are assumed to be consented to because you are there (though state/institution regulations may require written consent for certain procedures). I agree that parents should be given information about the vaccines they or their child will be receiving. The doctor should make available to them the package inserts ahead of time so they can read them over, as well as take time to answer any questions they might have.

I have a suggestion for you, before you comment on the ethics of Wakefield (or any other pediatric study): go read the regulations (45 CFR 46), read the Belmont Report and other documents available for free on the Office for Human Research Protections web site. Then come back and tell us how Wakefield upheld his ethical responsibilities as a researcher. I’m really very curious to hear how you might justify him. (Oh, and when you do come back, please let us know if it is mom or dad that is posting.)

@bensmyson

Your “hypothetical” example above is a pathetically obvious attempt to smear Brian Deer with a the slime of pedophilia. As someone who has been the victim of this smear on more than one occasion, most notably by a bunch of Holocaust deniers, I don’t take kindly to any commenter on my blog doing this. As a result, while I’m not going to ban you, I am going to put you into the “automatic moderation” queue for as long as I see fit. Your posts will eventually appear, as I usually check the moderation queue several times a day, but only after I’ve taken a look to make sure you’re not making such smears again. It is a holiday weekend, though; so if I decide to go out and about, it may not be as often.

For those of you who respond to bensmyson, I apologize for any inconvenience if your comments get caught up in moderation as “collateral damage.”

Travis,

I am very turned off by certain food textures, to the point where some textures make me feel like vomiting or gagging (tripe is an example, just the feeling of it makes me ill). And on the broader subject of sensitivity to touch, while I enjoy it, I find I am very, very sensitive to other people’s touch, it is really very intense for me.

That is precisely the reaction Gabriel will get upon putting anything “squishy” or even soft in his mouth, he will vomit immediately (pasta has been the worst offender). He refuses to eat with utensils when trying something unfamiliar (he has to feel it first). He does love anything sweet and creamy, though. 🙂

Ben’s parent,

12 or whatever children Wakefield examined all complained of symptoms of serious bowel disease, so certainly there must have been a medical reason for the invasive procedure, both by Wakefield and by those others mentioned above.

It is obvious that you have not read the GMC ruling. The following is from the official sanction.

It was in the context of this research project that the Panel found that Dr Wakefield caused three of these young and vulnerable children, (nos. 3, 9 and 12) to undergo the invasive procedure of lumbar puncture when such investigation was for research purposes and was not clinically indicated. This action was contrary to his representation to the Ethics Committee that all the procedures were clinically indicated. In nine of the eleven children (2,1, 3, 4, 9, 5,12, 8 and 7) the Panel has found that Dr Wakefield acted contrary to the clinical interests of each child.(emphases my own)

For one second won’t you just consider that maybe, just maybe all the authorities aren’t trying to ruin poor St. Andy. That the simplest explanation is that he is an unethical sleazeball that will submit children to dangerous, unnecessary tests to discredit the MMR in order to sell his monovalent vaccine

That’s right, he invented a vaccine, which is a fact anit-vaxers ignore and gloss over.

If you can’t even get that through your head then you really are hopeless and unreachable in my mind.

BMS, Something else you need to understand is that Wakefield’s ‘autistic enterocolitis’ diagnosis was specific to finding measles vaccine virus in their gut biopsies. Also, a specific progression of events, i.e. MMR vaccine, gastrointestinal disease, regression into autism.

None of these turned out to be the case and has not been subsequently found by any other investigators.

Orac-
I used the perfectly horrid example of child rape because should Deer be publicly accused of such a thing in the press due to someone’s investigative reporting of some then 12 yr old boy’s relationship with Brian Deer while Deer was living in Atlanta, Deer would have a most difficult time disproving these accusations, particularly if a relationship (although non-sexual) did actually exist. No telling what $4,000 or $40,000 in cash might buy in memory from a desperately unemployed young man who perhaps has photographic evidence of or could be some other way proved that at one time he came into frequent contact with Deer. Im sure old neighbors, coworkers, people Deer never even met might come out of the woodwork to tell what “they know” to some Dateline or Inside Edition reporter. The accusations might even find their way to the local prosecutor’s desk who may or may not find any cause to arrest Deer on child sex charges but will more than likely state on camera that Deer is “under investigation” which of course would not add to Deer’s defense.

False accusations and the fire storm brought on my the media’s reports can and do ruin people’s lives from time to time. My example was not to smear Deer but to illustrate the possibility of how easy it is to create a hell for someone based on half truths and a pathological agenda. Anyone is vulnerable.

Science Mom- In Wakefield’s 2002 study, researchers found measles in 75 of 91 biopsies from autistic children with GI inflammation, and in only 5 of 70 samples from non-autistic children (Uhlmann, et al. Mol Pathol. 2002 Apr;55(2):84-90). The children with autism in the 2002 study developed gastrointestinal symptoms and autistic regression after the MMR vaccine., Only 5 of the 25 children in the Hornig study group developed these symptoms after the MMR vaccine—all of the others showed symptoms of autism before vaccination; so only those five are fair to compare to the 2002 study. (This is like testing whether cell phones cause cancer by comparing 20 people who had cancer before they ever touched a cell phone to five people who developed cancer after owning one.)

Notably, biopsies in Wakefield’s study were taken from the ileum, since this is the only site in the lower intestine where he had found evidence of measles virus protein in earlier studies. In contrast, Hornig’s biopsies came from the cecum (part of the colon) or the ileum, and we are given no indication of how many of the uniquely relevant ileal biopsies were actually used. (The discrepancy arises because some doctors find it difficult to get into the ileum and– as in this case– are left with having to settle for colonic biopsies.)

Both reflux symptoms and food allergy were other factors that emerged in the Hornig study group, but there was no mention of diarrhea or constipation, the two GI symptoms most common in the 2002 UK children. So the populations under consideration appear to be very different, a fact that the Hornig group apparently decided to ignore, or overlooked.

Paradoxically, Hornig’s study affirmed results from the laboratory of Professor John O’Leary (he’s one of the collaborators on the new study, and senior author of the 2002 study) as correct, and identical to results obtained by the other laboratories used in this new study (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [the CDC] and Dr. Ian Lipkin of Columbia University), inadvertently validating the results obtained from lab work done in the earlier, Wakefield study.

Kristen:

That’s right, he invented a vaccine, which is a fact anit-vaxers ignore and gloss over.

Well, as it turns out, that is not quite so accurate. The truth is that it is even worst form of quackery and completely wacky. It is being discussed here: Wakefield and the colostrum nostrum.

His recipe consisted of goat colostrum

jen will no doubt be along shortly with her “pig and monkey viruses

Go, Science Mom, Go!

“Wasn’t Brian Deer given access to all those files when Wakers filed to sue him? ”

As far as I know, yes. Anonymised versions I believe.

It’s amazing that BMS thinks the tests ‘must’ have been clinically indicated when the issue is whether they were or not.

You can’t say ‘they were performed, therefore they were clinically indicated’ if someone is challenging the claim that they were clinically indicated.

It’s simply circular illogic.

The truth is that it is even worst form of quackery and completely wacky. It is being discussed here:

Wakefield and the colostrum nostrum.

Very, very interesting read there.
A ludicrously crank vaccine as well. No doubt there have been a few people carefully keeping “mum” on that front.
are
I think the only reason Waker’s worshiping sycophants are clinging on to him is because him and his quackery have come to define their lives…their view of themselves as anti-vax warriors has engulfed their whole persona and seemingly become pervasive throughout their daily routine.

I can’t help but feel a little pity towards them really.

I am likely to read similar, but better selling books, such as The Da Vinci Code, before I read this – and I have no plans to read The Da Vinci Code. In spite of its notorious problems with accuracy, The Da Vinci Code probably is much more accurate than The Wakefield Whitewash. I could be wrong. These novels could be in the same egregious misinformation category.

science mom- It will take me some time to digest what you just linked up. If you havent noticed Im not that bright about all that science stuff but as you may soon find out after my review, I have been known to admit my error once or twice.

The Cedillo case is from 3 years ago and why you wouldn’t have read every page of it, is beyond me, given the relevance to your claims. I know you’re not scientifically-literate, so why are you arguing about science?

Please help me with this, to believe what I just read Id have to believe what I didnt believe and in an instant everything I once believed will be gone, which is quite impossible for me at this time, so my question is, is there no known evidence in which an MMR has caused measles? But wait, Hornig found it in 5 of 25 right?

There are reports of measles vaccine-associated encephalopathies and persistent measles infections in immunocompromised children. There is a single, documented case of MMR causing MIBE in an immunocompromised child. Hornig et al. did not find measles virus in ‘5 of 25’. Didn’t you even read the study? It’s free and online.

It isn’t impossible for you to re-examine your beliefs and come to a very different conclusion; that is simply what you have decided. You have chosen to surround yourselves with a base of support that has set up a falsely dichotomous choice between blaming yourselves or blaming vaccines. No one likes to be wrong but unfortunately for you, the world you have constructed for yourselves will completely disintegrate upon the slightest of scrutiny.

For three years now I have been told that my son’s brain injury was caused by a viral infection, more than likely the measles and most likely from the MMRV he received since the problems began after the vaccine. If an MMR is not causing measles in some why would doctors say the opposite? Does Wakefield honestly have that kind of influence?

No, for three years now you have convinced yourselves that your son has a brain injury from MMR-V. Why would some doctors say that? What doctors, specifically, are you referring to? Wakefield’s influence extends only to those that need to believe him or have a financial incentive to believe him. He has no credibility, let alone influence, in the medical and scientific communities.

Sauceress,

I just carefully read through the patent applications. I seems Wakefield has always been a quack. I thought he was just in ass-saving mode and that was why he attached himself to anti-vaxers, but no, he’s just a quack.

Apparently Transfer Factor treats ASD, is an effective immunization against measles, treats Chrone’s Disease and Ulcerative Colitis (safe to administer subcutaneously, intramuscularly, intravenously, orally and by suppository) but the patent also states:

severe pain can be induced at the site of primary or metastatic lesions caused by tumor necrosis when used in cancer therapy

So this implies that Transfer Factor kills cancer too!! All with “remarkably few side effects”.

I find anytime the description of a ‘remedy’ sounds like an infomercial, it is quackery. Plus Transfer Factor meets all quack-cure requirements; Cures whatever ails ya, check. Safe to administer any way you like, check. No side-effects, check. Cures cancer, check.

Kristen- Immunological dysfunctions have been associated with neuropsychiatric disorders, but the causative relationships are unclear. A new study recently released yesterday in Cell shows improvement (actually a cure) in mice given bone marrow to treat a form of OCD.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2010/05/mental-illness-immune-system-rodent.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BoosterShots+%28Booster+Shots%29

So much for some of the woo in the “Transfer Factor”

Mom- I said Im trying, give me a break.

“No, for three years now you have convinced yourselves that your son has a brain injury from MMR-V. Why would some doctors say that? What doctors, specifically, are you referring to?”

My son’s brain injury is a real and well documented fact, how it came about when it did is something that even a board member of the AAP has said is most likely a vaccine injury. ProQuad, the MMRV, is the most obvious culprit due to the number of injuries left in its wake. However it could be the 2 other shots he got that day or the combination. I dont for a minute believe I will ever be able to prove anything, for all I know it is a gypsy’s curse. What I do know is he stopped speaking immediately, within 24 hours of his vaccines. I know that within days he became extremely sick, and came to be distant and combative. Fortunately everything has been well documented on video.

“There are reports of measles vaccine-associated encephalopathies and persistent measles infections in immunocompromised children.”

Links please?

A couple of months prior to my son’s vaccines he was rushed to the emergency room with a high fever (we tested it at 107 at home, at the hospital it was 106.5 that within an hour was down to 105) he recovered completely but blood work just prior to his immunization for 8 diseases showed some abnormalities, over the next few months Ben stayed sick but the odd thing was that his white cell count was extremely low, in the 2- 3,000 range. We were told by Ben’s pediatrician that he was fine, just take some anti-biotics to see if it will help. The same doctor that diagnosed his rash and fever (over the phone), days after his vaccines, as roseola.

Our next pediatrician said we needed to boost Ben’s immune system so we did the best we could and over six months, or year he improved greatly. Chronic high fevers that hit him every week or so are now extremely rare and may be (knock wood) totally gone.

So… if “There are reports of measles vaccine-associated encephalopathies and persistent measles infections in immunocompromised children.” Id like to read them, not that I will be able to understand them of course but I can at least try.

Thanks

Rogue – No I wouldnt defend you because you admit to your deception. My defense of Wakefield had to do with his denial, what seemed to be a stacked deck against him and how desperate I am to find help for my son.

People are accused of all sorts of things, Orac knows what Im talking about, and just because you are accused does not make you guilty, and likewise just because no one can pin anything on you does not make you innocent. It is the public accusation, the scandal, the media frenzy that more times than not convicts the accused.

But if Wakefield did exactly what you said then of course he would not have my support.

bensmyson,

Kristen- Immunological dysfunctions have been associated with neuropsychiatric disorders, but the causative relationships are unclear. A new study recently released yesterday in Cell shows improvement (actually a cure) in mice given bone marrow to treat a form of OCD.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2010/05/mental-illness-immune-system-rodent.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BoosterShots+%28Booster+Shots%29

So much for some of the woo in the “Transfer Factor”

The study you referenced doesn’t defend Wakefield’s patent at all. The study used bone marrow transplants (not a minor procedure at all!), while Wakefield’s “transfer factor” is supposedly effective even when administered orally or in a suppository! So here, as always, you’ve failed in your defense of Wakefield and demonstrated your pig-ignorance of biology.

Mice with OCD treated effectively with bone marrow seems as far fetched an idea as Wakefield’s idea of transfer factor, that’s all I was saying. Since no one knows for certain what causes autism Im sure eye of newt isnt out of the question to some researchers or should be.

Actually Prometheus since I didnt have your phone number I wasnt able to call and get your brilliant insight as to how best to raise my son’s compromised immune system. I can assure you that no one injected snake oil up his bum or drilled holes into his brain and poured in Valtrax, we were offered some aggressive therapies and chose to be extremely conservative in our approach, to some great success I might add. Of course those of you with experience with children of your own seizing, throwing high fevers, regressing, failing to thrive may have done differently than a couple of desperate parents like us who traveled with child in tow from one university hospital or clinic to the next seeking “expert” opinions. Many of you Im sure know what the right thing to do is because you’ve been there, we were new to this, we wanted our son to be well so desperately we gave him supplements and sunlight and fish oil, we threw away more than a couple of prescriptions that were written to “try it” and “see how it does.” But then again with your first hand experience and education Prometheus Im sure you would have done differently. Be specific why dont you and clue me in where we went wrong in boosting Ben’s immune system, what exactly should we have done? Id hate to think that we made things worse for him when all we had to do was what… what should we have done? Seriously, tell me.

Mom- “Since when is video diagnostic for encephalitis?”

Not sure that it is unless it is from a CAT scan and an MRI. Also if someone were to examine a child for a brain injury would observation be part of that diagnostic criteria? Would those observations and comments possibly be recorded by some doctor to study and compare on future exams? You really are much more obnoxious than you give me credit for.

” Again, I remind you that there is nothing in his medical record that you have provided that anything at all happened after his April, 2007 vaccines. In fact, you gave him a DTaP in October, 2007 and still nothing. “

And if there is nothing else I wish to provide regarding Ben’s medical record why is that so unusual? To prove to you what? As if….

Yes and in October he was given a DTaP, and why is that odd, the doctor said he needed it. Millions of parents every year do this with out question, why should I have been any different? Dont tell me there might be some health risk associated with vaccines, but if so, I hear it is so extremely rare and that the risks outweigh the harm.

FYI – http://www.aap.org/visit/bod.htm

“Tell you what, give it a go yourself, Google Scholar, PubMed, Web of Science, whatever you like. If you can’t find them, then I will help you out.”

I just thought since you knew there is evidence that the MMR can cause an outbreak of a measles infection then perhaps you’d provide evidence to that by giving me a link. If you dont have it fine. Does a HepB vaccine cause HepB? Flu cause the flu? Anything else I dont know?

“I should probably be embarrassed for going after such low-hanging fruitcakes.”

I wouldnt say you should be embarrassed, ashamed would me more fitting, you really should be ashamed.

Holy crap, Wakefield’s patent claims his “vaccine” can be used as a cancer treatment as well?!?!

Mom- “Since when is video diagnostic for encephalitis?”

Not sure that it is unless it is from a CAT scan and an MRI. Also if someone were to examine a child for a brain injury would observation be part of that diagnostic criteria? Would those observations and comments possibly be recorded by some doctor to study and compare on future exams? You really are much more obnoxious than you give me credit for.

Yup, just as I thought, not a single diagnostic for encephalitis. Unless your physician (and I think I use that term loosely in this case) has scanning vision and a preternatural ability to detect pathogens without assays, an ‘observation’ is not diagnostic. Just more hand-waving on your part to avoid the actual answer.

” Again, I remind you that there is nothing in his medical record that you have provided that anything at all happened after his April, 2007 vaccines. In fact, you gave him a DTaP in October, 2007 and still nothing. ”

And if there is nothing else I wish to provide regarding Ben’s medical record why is that so unusual? To prove to you what? As if….

We’ve been through this before. You have his medical history posted, have brought him in for a non-specific viral rash and split lip months after his vaccinations that you claim gave him encephalitis…but not a single mention of that concern or visit or anything. Yea, that’s unusual, if not at all likely.

Yes and in October he was given a DTaP, and why is that odd, the doctor said he needed it. Millions of parents every year do this with out question, why should I have been any different? Dont tell me there might be some health risk associated with vaccines, but if so, I hear it is so extremely rare and that the risks outweigh the harm.

Why is that odd? Well let’s see, you claim your son had encephalitis from vaccines, a rather profound contraindication for future vaccines and you and your physician go ahead and vaccinate him again. Your stories have more inconsistencies than I can count.

FYI – http://www.aap.org/visit/bod.htm

Oh, oh that is bloody rich. Are you implying that the entire BoD of the AAP have concurred that your son is ‘vaccine injured’. Oh this would be getting better and better if you weren’t so pathological.

“Tell you what, give it a go yourself, Google Scholar, PubMed, Web of Science, whatever you like. If you can’t find them, then I will help you out.”

I just thought since you knew there is evidence that the MMR can cause an outbreak of a measles infection then perhaps you’d provide evidence to that by giving me a link. If you dont have it fine. Does a HepB vaccine cause HepB? Flu cause the flu? Anything else I dont know?

Now where or when did I ever say that? Reading comprehension is a basic skill that you should have grasped by now. There has not been a documented case of measles vaccine virus transmission, let alone an outbreak. Where on Earth do you get these ideas?

Anything else you don’t know? Well, a lot, it would appear.

Vaccine strain measles appears not to transmit.
It has been used as a candidate for oncolytic virus generation to be used in cancer therapy.
It has never been documented to revert to wild-type pathogenic phenotype either, which is why is is used for this research.

Measles vaccine use is not restricted to preventing measles, there is a large body of work on it in other fields like oncology.

@ 68 bensmyson

Rogue – No I wouldnt defend you because you admit to your deception. My defense of Wakefield had to do with his denial, what seemed to be a stacked deck against him and how desperate I am to find help for my son.

what seemed to be a stacked deck against him

The evidence is against him. Trying to fight against reality is having the deck stacked against him.

Trying to fight against reality is not a sign of nobility, but an inability to admit his biases.

and how desperate I am to find help for my son.

Any parent would be expected to be desperate in this situation.

Considering that desperation, the last person I would trust with the health of my child would be someone with a history of unethical treatment of similar children.

A little over a year ago, Dr. Scott S. Reuben was found to have engaged in fraudulent research. The research affected a lot of people taking medicine for fibromyalgia, but the fibromyalgia community did not claim that Dr. Reuben was being persecuted.

People are accused of all sorts of things, Orac knows what Im talking about, and just because you are accused does not make you guilty, and likewise just because no one can pin anything on you does not make you innocent. It is the public accusation, the scandal, the media frenzy that more times than not convicts the accused.

The media frenzy is the work of Ex-Dr. Wakefield. He went to the press and created a scare.

This scare was not even supported by what Ex-Dr. Wakefield’s retracted paper claimed. This scare was due to claims that went well beyond what was written in that discredited paper.

But if Wakefield did exactly what you said then of course he would not have my support.

I do not see any reason to believe that Ex-Dr. Wakefield behaved ethically at any time. Ethics is important in medicine and science. There is need for improvement, but Ex-Dr. Wakefield is a part of the problem, not a part of the solution.

Ethics becomes even more important when the research subjects are vulnerable children. I do not see any evidence of any compassion or empathy on the part of Ex-Dr. Wakefield in dealing with autistic children.

I do not see any reason to suspect any conspiracy. Large scale studies have been carried out in several different countries with different sources of funding. In spite of this diversity, all of this research has come to the same conclusion. That conclusion does not support any of the claims made by Ex-Dr. Wakefield.

If this were such a huge a conspiracy, across different companies, across different universities, even across different countries with different styles of government (including socialist governments) the claims of conspiracy would be laughable.

People do not keep secrets well. Conspiracies require that people be silenced. If they are causing countless deaths, and they are capable of manipulating all of these companies, universities, and governments, why wouldn’t they just kill Wakefield? Surely that would be easier than the conspiracy he claims.

All of these companies, universities, and countries are able to be controlled, but Ex-Dr. Wakefield cannot be silenced? That is a sign of incompetence. Which is it? An extremely well organized perfectly run conspiracy, or one that is so incompetent that they cannot even shut up one doctor?

Much more likely that any conspiracy is orchestrated by Ex-Dr. Wakefield and the other anti-vaccinationists. The simple and reasonable solution or the unbelievably complex and unreasonable solution?

Conspiracy theories work wonderfully – in the movies. Has Ex-Dr. Wakefield even had a good car chase? A shootout? A big explosion, especially the explosion of some well known building already scheduled for demolition?

Conspiracy theories require a willing suspension of disbelief. So does belief in Ex-Dr. Wakefield. Look at the history of cover-ups. The Pentagon Papers, Enron/WorldCom/Tyco/Adelphia, Bernie Madoff, My Lai, Chappaquidick, et cetera. Does Ex-Dr. Wakefield resemble those doing trying to cover-up misdeeds, or does Ex-Dr. Wakefield resemble the people who exposed these cover-ups?

I do not see any similarity between Ex-Dr. Wakefield and those who pointed out the cover-ups. These were exposed by evidence. These were not exposed by someone claiming, without any evidence, they are trying to silence me!

Once all of the evidence was out there, the facts were clear. Where is Ex-Dr. Wakefield’s evidence of some sort of cover-up?

There is constant reference to Galileo, but we live in a very different world from the one Galileo lived in. The much more current cover-ups are the types of conspiracies we should expect to see.

Is Ex-Dr. Wakefield under house arrest by order of the Pope? No.

In each of the cases I mentioned, the cover-up started to fall apart once the information about the cover-up was published. In the case of Ex-Dr. Wakefield, the opposite has happened. The more people investigate, the worse Ex-Dr. Wakefield looks.

Does MMR cause autism? A bunch of large studies, in a bunch of countries, with a bunch of different funding sources, all show that there is no reason to believe that MMR causes autism.

Too many, too soon? The paper from last week shows that there is no reason to believe that combining vaccines and/or giving more vaccines do anything to cause autism.

Autistic enterocolitis? There is still no research to support this theory. Any increase in GI illness/symptoms is probably just due to autistic communication problems. Nobody denies that autism causes problems with communication. If the earliest sign that there is a GI problem comes from an expression of abdominal pain, then a delay in communicating about abdominal pain is not surprising among autistic children.

If I have abdominal pain, I can communicate clearly about what is bothering me. If I have autism, the pain may be expressed by acting out, or keeping to myself even more, or something else. What kind of behavior means, My belly hurts? A longer period of time before the abdominal pain is recognized as abdominal pain means more time for the underlying condition to get worse, rather than time to get better with treatment.

This is a connection, but this has nothing to do with causing autism. This is an unfortunate complication of something that does not seem to occur any less frequently among non-autistic children.

The solution is to treat the children and identify the cause of autism. The solution is not to defend the discredited originator of a discredited hypothesis.

The children with autism deserve to have the attention and money directed toward better treatment and prevention, not directed toward protecting someone who has continually interfered with progress on treatment and prevention.

Mom-

“I don’t fault Dr. Chadwick (phd in philosophy) ) for not pursuing it; he was, after all, ‘just’ a grad student with a ‘very important person’ as his dissertation advisor.”

So as I understand it the sins of omission are excusable? OK because the young grad student wants something from someone and in getting what that person wants basically allows this gigantic “fraud” take place without a word of criticism or the tiniest suspicion regarding motive? Interesting. Wouldn’t you say this miserable lab tech has blood on its hands?

Regarding the specifics of my son’s diagnosis or treating physician I could care less whether or not you or anyone else believes me, I have the evidence, I have presented that evidence where I needed to and that’s all that matters.

“Attenuated viral replication is limited. Attenuation doesn’t allow the virus to infect the number and cell types that wild-type does.”

Just curious, is it possible for the MMR to cause the measles virus to appear and replicate in the body of the person receiving the jab? And if the answer is yes, which I believe you said it is, then is it possible for the virus to alter, effect, change, damage, harm in any way the brain, nerves, speech, hearing, gut, immune system, cells, DNA, urine, teeth, anything inside the body of the person receiving the vaccine? Yes or no is all I want, no need to get into what a stupid question it is or how stupid I am, Ill give you all of that, just answer it yes or no please.

Kristen-

I dont know why you have to get so mean, I hope Ive been pleasant and havent said or done anything insulting to you personally. Life is too short to get your lady drawers twisted up in a knot this early in the morning.

You said, “I understand the challenges of caring for a special needs child” Sorry to hear that. Your child been diagnosed with autism?

I have mentioned many, many times here before that the reason I am interested in this subject is because I have a son with autism. My husband also has Asperger’s syndrome.

The anti-vax crowd seems to think they are the only ones who have to work hard to raise autistic children.

I hope Ive been pleasant and havent said or done anything insulting to you personally.

Yes, referring to autistic children as brain damaged and implying that autism is a psychiatric condition.

You are so closed minded, it is infuriating. I don’t think you are looking for information, at least not honestly. You are trying to prove those nasty skeptics wrong because you perceive them as not caring. I think that if you are not seeking information with a mind open to the possibility you might be wrong, then you are wasting our time by being here.

“I don’t fault Dr. Chadwick (phd in philosophy) for not pursuing it; he was, after all, ‘just’ a grad student with a ‘very important person’ as his dissertation advisor.”

So as I understand it the sins of omission are excusable? OK because the young grad student wants something from someone and in getting what that person wants basically allows this gigantic “fraud” take place without a word of criticism or the tiniest suspicion regarding motive? Interesting. Wouldn’t you say this miserable lab tech has blood on its hands?

Don’t change my quotes without proper indication thereof. Emphasis mine (the part you added). Duh! PhD stands for ‘Doctor of Philosophy’ and they are awarded to those in the sciences as well as other disciplines you ass. Miserable lab tech? You stupid bint, how dare you denigrate an innocent person while defending a sleazy, lying, megalomanical, unethical, callous, wannabe autism quack.

As for the rest, typical of you to try and foist this off on some lowly grad student that did step up and say something and who did testify in the OAP. Where was your precious Wakers all that time? If you are going to assign blame for this whole debacle and ‘blood on their hands’, then look no further than Wakefield and the rest of your lot that won’t let it go.

Regarding the specifics of my son’s diagnosis or treating physician I could care less whether or not you or anyone else believes me, I have the evidence, I have presented that evidence where I needed to and that’s all that matters.

Bollocks! You have been wailing away about how MMR-V has given your son encephalitis, have his medical history and quackoriffic DAN! ‘test’ results posted on the internet and suddenly this alleged encephalitis diagnosis is supah dupah secret? Don’t mention it again then unless you provide proof of it.

“Attenuated viral replication is limited. Attenuation doesn’t allow the virus to infect the number and cell types that wild-type does.”

Just curious, is it possible for the MMR to cause the measles virus to appear and replicate in the body of the person receiving the jab? And if the answer is yes, which I believe you said it is, then is it possible for the virus to alter, effect, change, damage, harm in any way the brain, nerves, speech, hearing, gut, immune system, cells, DNA, urine, teeth, anything inside the body of the person receiving the vaccine? Yes or no is all I want, no need to get into what a stupid question it is or how stupid I am, Ill give you all of that, just answer it yes or no please.

In the interest of the fact that you are too stupid and dishonest to receive an answer that you won’t torture for your own warped purposes, you can simply read this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10589903

Callie-

You’ve said so yourself, earlier in this thread. You said that you wouldn’t defend Rogue Medic if he’d done what Wakefield did, and you said you wouldn’t because he admitted it. In other words, you are willing to defend Wakefield because he hasn’t owned up. That makes you the perfect mark, because you put more importance on his word than on facts.

“Drink this. It will make you feel better.”
“How do I know you’re telling the truth?”
“Because, sir, I maintain that I am. And I am a man of my word.”
“A perfect example of recursion.”
— Doctor Who, “Castrovalva”

First of all my point of defending Wakefield is because I have not seen enough evidence to convict him, Rouge on the other hand has admitted his guilt. Accusations are, in themselves, not evidence to guilt when something so important is at stake. ala my earlier analogy to child molestation. The GMC is not a court of law, and there are several aspects of that hearing and all that surround it that smack of dishonesty. But Im learning, nothing is final or set in my mind at this point.

And the bit from Doctor Who could be said for the conversation we had with the pediatrician just prior to Ben’s vaccinations. “Trust me”

Mom-Chadwick has a phd and not an MD, big distinction for me. And how was it that Chadwick came to open up and reveal his long kept secret? After all the headlines, all the children not being vaccinated, contracting potentially deadly diseases, passing them on to the innocent, causing fevers and rashes and lost wages, what was it that finally brought Chadwick to the confessional? His sense of right and wrong? A religious/spiritual conversion? I mean isnt that a legitimate question?

First let me state that your reference to me as ‘Mom’ is not lost on me. In the interest of people trying to follow along with this then if you can’t give us the courtesy of using my username, go play your petty games with your sandbox mates.

Next, Dr. Chadwick is a biochemist, which makes him far more qualified as an expert in molecular testing than Wakefield, a gut surgeon. You are beyond the pale for trying to lay this at Dr. Chadwick’s feet. There is obviously no depth you won’t plumb to feed your delusions. So no, it’s not a legitimate question you stupid, contemptible cows.

Encephalitis… I believe the dates on my blog were a year and a half ago, a lot of time has transpired since then, medical records received since then sometimes have doctors notes and diagnosis codes that expand on what one hears and remembers as you hold a screaming child in a 8×12 exam room that youve been sitting in for at least an hour. Sometimes the terms brain inflamation and encephology do not always translate to the specifics. And by the way, as I understand it encephalitis usually presents itself with a fever and flu like symptoms.

You have to believe me (not about the encephalitis, I could care less about that) when I tell you about Ben’s initial pediatricians (plural, same practice), at first Ben’s fevers and discomfort were guessed to be an ear infection, I swear to you, without so much as a peek into his ears the doctor handed us a prescription for antibiotics. This is where we were coming from, we were clueless and it seems so were the attending physicians.

Just more hand-waving. I really don’t have any problems exposing you for the liars that you are, if for nothing else than hold you out as an example of the cognitive dissonance and memory re-framing that is so rife amongst you and your peers. Again, put up or shut up.

I may not be the smartest kid on the block, but Im not the dumbest either. We eventually found the right help.

Oh you’re the bottom of the barrel when it comes to dumb, but even worse, the extent of your dishonesty is truly depraved.

First of all my point of defending Wakefield is because I have not seen enough evidence to convict him

No doubt you believe that OJ is still looking for the “real killers”.

Kristen-

Your Wiki link information came from American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 4th, text revision (DSM-IV-TR) ed. 2000. ISBN 0890420254. Diagnostic criteria for 299.00 Autistic Disorder right?

I know the difference, I just wonder if you do. Aren’t neural-developmental disorders injuries?

Bruce-

Actually OJ had a real trial and was was not found guilty of murder in criminal court, he also had a trial in civil court and lost. OJ killed Nicole Simpson and Mr. Goldman. Wakefield’s hearing was anything but a trial and only one side was presented. I should convict a man, ride him out of town on a rail, ruin him because Brian Deer wrote some news articles about him? September 7, 2002, Judith Miller and fellow New York Times reporter Michael R. Gordon reported the interception of metal tubes bound for Iraq. Her front-page story quoted unnamed “American officials” and “American intelligence experts” who said the tubes were intended to be used to enrich nuclear material, and cited unnamed “Bush administration officials” who claimed that in recent months, Iraq “stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and has embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb”.

Miller added that “Mr. Hussein’s dogged insistence on pursuing his nuclear ambitions, along with what defectors described in interviews as Iraq’s push to improve and expand Baghdad’s chemical and biological arsenals, have brought Iraq and the United States to the brink of war.”

Shortly after Miller’s article was published, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld all appeared on television and pointed to Miller’s story as a contributory motive for going to war. Miller would later claim, based only on second-hand statements from the military unit she was embedded with, that WMDs had been found in Iraq.

BTW, Miller was the only major U.S. media reporter, and the New York Times the only major U.S. media organization, to be victimized by a fake anthrax letter in the fall of 2001.

Rouge, dude, chill, the man is still a doctor.

bensmyson — Kristen is correct; neurodevelopmental disorders are not considered brain injuries. It is a failure of the brain to develop according to what is deemed normal, not an injury to an already-developed brain.

Non-neurological example: I went to school with a boy who was born without feet or most of his lower legs. He grew up wearing prosthetics. Would you describe that as a leg injury? Of course not; the legs simply failed to develop properly in utero.

This is not entirely analogous; for one thing, limb development is vastly simpler than neural organization. But hopefully it is illustrative of the difference between an injury and a developmental disorder.

Now, developmentally delayed children *can* have brain injuries as well. I know of a couple of cases. It can be extremely difficult (or even impossible) to tease out which aspects are due to their neurodevelopmental disorder and which are due to the injury. Often, the neurodevelopmental disorder will complicate recovery from the brain injury, and so it can result in a more profound presentation than would otherwise have happened — but it’s really all guesswork, because every child is unique, and you often cannot tell which bit is because of what. And in many cases, they are because of several things; neural development is all heavily interrelated.

Regarding my Dr Who quote, I think you missed the point. You did pick up on the fact that it was a physician talking to the Doctor, asking him to trust him unquestioningly, but applied that only to doctors promoting vaccines. You missed my point that this is precisely how Andrew Wakefield operates, and apparently how you think he should operate. You trust him because he hasn’t confessed to any wrongdoing, and you seem to have little interest in testing his claims. You take his word for them. Thus, Wakefield is rewarded for his dishonesty, while the honest are pilloried.

Wakefield asks you to trust him. He maintains that he is telling the truth, and that he is a man of his word. And you take him at that word, despite all the evidence presented that should at the very least raise red flags.

Why are you not the least bit curious? Your default assumption is that Wakefield is innocent. That’s all well and good in a court of law, but you aren’t even interested in putting him on trial. It would be like the police dragging in a suspect and the prosecutors declining to press charges because the suspect doesn’t admit guilt and they do not feel particularly inclined to investigate. It would be a fine world for con artists and gangsters, but not a very pleasant one for the rest of us.

I have another Doctor Who bit for you:

“You mean he was lying?”
“Of course. Didn’t you know?”
“But he had such an open, honest face!”
“Romana, you can hardly be a decent crook with a dishonest face, can you?”

You, of all people, should know better than to trust people’s appearances. You rightly understand that doctors need not be taken at their word — yet you seem strangely incurious when it comes to Wakefield, and downright hostile to the evidence presented to you. Why is that, do you suppose? Do you have an allergy to evidence which opposes your preconceived notions?

calli – ” neurodevelopmental disorders are not considered brain injuries”

That’s not the way I understand it, As I understand it most neurodevelopmental disorders are caused by injury. Even those “genetic” causes may have some epigenetic causation due to environmental stresses and physiological influences on prior generations.

Regarding Wakefield

“Why are you not the least bit curious?

I am extremely curious. At this point in my life, I am suspicious of most everything.

In 2003, gastroenterologist Arthur Krigsman, then at New York University School of Medicine, reported finding what Wakefield had: that the guts of 40 autistic children were severely inflamed, lending support to the idea that leaks allowed pernicious compounds to make a beeline for the brain.

One thing that seriously puzzles me about this is that an inflamed gut is not typically leaky. Quite the opposite; a common complication of GI problems is malnutrition, due to the gut failing to absorb vital nutrients no matter how much the patient eats. (This is particularly true of real gluten intolerance.) In extreme cases, the gut can indeed leak — in the literal sense. It can rupture, causing peritonitis. But this is considerably more severe than what Wakefield and others have suggested, and would not go unnoticed (mainly because it’s a surgical emergency, the sort of thing that gets you bumped to the head of the queue at the ER).

“Wakefield’s hearing was anything but a trial and only one side was presented.”

It should be noted that ‘only one side’ was presented for a very simple reason: Wakefield failed to present anything.

This failure was so pronounced, it obtained repeated comment for both the GMC and outside observers.

You would know this is you were competantly informed.

“I should convict a man, ride him out of town on a rail, ruin him because Brian Deer wrote some news articles about him?”

No, it’s not up to you to convict him, because the highest relevant institutional authourity has convicted him using the highest standards of proof. You simply do not have the power or relevance.

Unless you have some earth shattering evidence that the GMC got it totally wrong (and not the second study clap-trap which a: doesn’t address Wakefield recruiting and treating the children outside the remit of the study) then the fact that you ‘don’t accept’ is utterly irrelevant.

You are not in a position of authourity in this matter. The GMC are.

Are you really so arrogant as to believe yourselves superior to the GMC, just because you say so? Judging by your continued ego-centric posting, I’d say you would even disagree with Wakefield himself if he were to turn around and admit it tommorrow.

JohnV
Yeah unfortunately you’re right.

@Bensparent/s:

You are a dumb troll.

That says it in words of one syllable.
Can your extremely limited comprehension of the English language cope with that, or shall I simplify it further?

dt- “You are a dumb troll.”

Does “dt” stand for dumb troll? Sorry my comprehension is a bit off kilter.

re: Dr. Chadwick

As a graduate student, Chadwick actually stood up to Wakefield and refused to let him use his name or results in the 1998 Lancet ex-paper. Which is why the Lancet ex-paper does not have any data regarding PCR or the presence of measles virus – Wakefield couldn’t use the data without Chadwick’s consent.

Chadwick’s doctoral thesis (published February 1998) had the following conclusion:

The results do not support previous data implicating persistent measles virus infection with the aetiology of IBD or autistic enteropathy

12 of the 22 patients with negative results for presence of measles RNA were the 12 patients in the Lancet ex-paper.

Wakefield wasn’t able to publish PCR results until 2000, using results from another lab (the proverbial second opinion). Chadwick refused to let his name or results be used in that paper, as well, and expressed reservations that the other lab was contaminated.

Chadwick also made a statement detailing the probable contamination in a lawsuit, prompting Wakefield to submit a report to the court dated July 2003 that expressly withdrew reliance on the 2000 paper.

Perhaps he could have raised a bigger stink. But he certainly didn’t go into hiding.

Sorry to be so late in responding, but I took advantage of the lovely long weekend and didn’t turn on the computer until today.

BMS retort in reference to “boosting” their son’s immune system:

“…we were new to this, we wanted our son to be well so desperately we gave him supplements and sunlight and fish oil, we threw away more than a couple of prescriptions that were written to “try it” and “see how it does.” But then again with your first hand experience and education Prometheus Im sure you would have done differently. Be specific why dont you and clue me in where we went wrong in boosting Ben’s immune system, what exactly should we have done?”

Well, since they asked…..

As I read their response, they gave their son Ben “supplements” (a vague description), “fish oil” (was that vitamin A or omega-3 fatty acids?) and “sunlight” in an attempt to “boost” his immune system. Let’s take them one by one:

[1] Supplements – this is too vague a term to be of use. However, if by “supplements” they mean vitamins and micronutrients (e.g. zinc or selenium), then none of them would be of any use to “boost” the immune system unless there already existed a significant deficiency. Not the sort of “deficiency” that the “alternative” practitioners talk about, but a true nutritional deficiency of the type typically only seen in famine-wracked regions of the globe or in end-stage drug and alcohol addicts.

[2] Fish oil – whether for vitamin A or omega-3 fatty acids, the impact of fish oil on the immune system is likely to be subtle (and not necessarily in the direction of “boosting”) unless the patient had a pre-existing severe deficiency. Again, this would have to be a genuine deficiency as opposed to an “alternative medicine” deficiency.

[3] Sunlight – here, at last, we have something that truly can affect the immune system. Ultraviolet radiation – even at sub-sunburn levels – causes a predictable and repeatable decrease in immune function. For the average person in search of a suntan, the effect is minimal, but cumulative doses can lead to clinically significant immune dysfunction, especially in the type of cellular immunity needed to eliminate early melanoma.

I imagine that BMS are feeling pretty “beat-up” from the constant hammering of scientific data against their received wisdom about autism, its cause and cures. I feel for them, having been in their position at one time.

What they’re feeling – and what a lot of Andy Wakefield supporters are feeling – is cognitive dissonance. It’s what happens when things you’ve taken on faith are shown to be wrong, but you’re not ready to give them up.

The solution is to either ignore the facts or reject the faith. So far, BMS seem to have chosen to ignore the facts; this is – sadly – a common reaction. My only hope is that other people in a similar situation will read these posts (and these comments) and decide to reject the false faith of Andy Wakefield and move into the light of reality. Maybe – someday – BMS will be able to do that as well.

Best wishes,

Prometheus

Bens parent,

I don’t mean to be so mean to you, I am frustrated because I don’t feel like you are listening. You say you want help and are just asking questions, but you waste our time looking for answers because you are unwilling to change your mind. One minute you sound like you might be reasoning through things and say it will just take time to process what you are learning. The next you are arguing again about the definition of terms you don’t understand, and citing studies that contradict your point.

I am so glad you haven’t used any dangerous treatments on your son. It does sound like you are trying to do the best for him, just like we are trying for our son (albeit with different methods). But you are still very frustrating.

The people at AoA don’t know more then the scientific community. And no one has said the the CDC doesn’t do stupid things. Vaccines, though are very important to public health. While not 100% safe, they save hundreds of thousands of lives every year (world wide). The CDC doing crappy things doesn’t negate that.

I am going to try not to argue with you anymore. I don’t think you are really here to learn but rather trying to justify your beliefs.

@ 100 bensmyson,

Rouge, dude, chill, the man is still a doctor.

He still has his degree from school, but that does not permit him to work as a doctor. He was stripped of his medical license in order to protect the public.

If anyone catches Ex-Dr. Andrew Wakefield practicing medicine, call the police, because Ex-Dr. Andrew Wakefield is practicing medicine without a license.

Unless the medical school finds that he obtained that fraudulently and decides to retract that degree. Considering that this is somebody with a history of fraud, I wouldn’t rule that out.

On the other hand, I don’t think that the school wants anyone to know where he graduated from. He isn’t exactly something to brag about.

I believe that the GMC stated that this would not take effect for 30 days, so he would have the opportunity to appeal, when they announced that they were stripping him of the ability to do anything with his degree other than use the title when bragging, I’m a doctor.

All Ex-Dr. Andrew Wakefield seems to care about is the title anyway.

The Pet Shoppe

A customer enters a pet shop.

Customer: Hello, I wish to register a complaint.

(The owner does not respond.)

Customer: Hello, Miss?

Owner: What do you mean “miss”?

Customer: I’m sorry, I have a cold. I wish to make a complaint!

Owner: Sorry. We’re closing for lunch.

Customer: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to complain about this medical license what I purchased not half an hour ago from this very boutique.

Owner: Oh yes, the, uh, the doctor of medicine. What’s wrong with it?

Customer: I’ll tell you what’s wrong with it. It’s dead, that’s what’s wrong with it!

Owner: No, no, it’s resting. Look.

Customer: Look, my lad, I know a dead medical license when I see one, and I’m looking at one right now.

Owner: No, no, it’s not dead. It’s resting!

Customer: Resting?

Owner: Remarkable degree, the medical license. Beautiful plumage, isn’t it?

Customer: The plumage don’t enter into it. It’s stone dead.

Owner: No, no, no, no, no! It’s resting!

Customer: All right then, if it’s resting, I’ll wake it up! (shouting at the cage) Hello, Polly! I’ve got a nice cuttle fish for you, when you wake up, Polly Medical License!

(owner hits the cage)

Owner: There, it moved!

Customer: No, he didn’t, that was you pushing the cage!

Owner: I did not!!

Customer: Yes, you did! Hello Polly! Polly!!! Polly Medical License! Wake up! Polly!!!

(Takes parrot out of the cage and thumps its head on the counter. Throws it up
in the air and watches it plummet to the floor.)

Customer: Now that’s what I call a dead medical license.

Owner: No, no. It’s stunned!

Customer: Look, my lad, I’ve had just about enough of this. That medical license is definitely deceased, and when I bought it not half an hour ago, you assured me that its lack of movement was due to it being tired and shagged out after an uneventful rally in Chicago.

Owner: It’s probably pining for the fjords.

Customer: PINING for the FJORDS? What kind of talk is that? Look, why did it fall flat on it’s back the moment I got it home?

Owner: The medical license prefers keeping on it’s back! It’s a beautiful degree. Lovely plumage!

Customer: Look, I took the liberty of examining that medical license, and I discovered the only reason that it had been sitting on its perch in the first place, was that it had been nailed there with needles for Ex-Dr. Wakefield’s measles-only vaccine.

(pause)

Owner: Well, of course it was nailed there! Otherwise, it would have muscled up to those bars, and VOOM!

Customer: Look, matie, this medical license wouldn’t “voom” if I put four thousand volts through it! It’s bleeding demised!

Owner: It’s not! It’s pining!

Customer: It’s not pining! It’s passed on! This license to practice medicine is no more! It has ceased to be! It’s expired and gone to meet its maker! This is a late medical license! It’s a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! If you hadn’t nailed it to the perch it would be pushing up the daisies! It’s run down the curtain and joined the choir invisibile!!
THIS IS AN EX-DOCTOR!!

Owner: Well, I’d better replace it, then.

Customer: If you want to get anything done in this country, you’ve got to complain ’til you’re blue in the mouth.

(looks behind the counter)

Owner: Sorry guv, we’re right out of medical licenses.

Customer: I see. I see, I get the picture.

Owner: I’ve got a slug quack.

(pause)

Customer: Does it work?

Owner: Not really. No.

If anyone catches Ex-Dr. Andrew Wakefield practicing medicine, call the police, because Ex-Dr. Andrew Wakefield is practicing medicine without a license.

Ex-Dr. Andrew Wakefield decided to leave us with a comic novel. If only the effects of his actions were not more tragic than a Shakespeare tragedy.

And so descends the curtain, slowly, on the fraudulent career of Ex-Dr. Andrew Wakefield.

“Dedj-

Based on what self limiting knowledge I have of the GMC and of Wakefield’s case I understand that nothing about the legitimacy of the paper was heard.”

I, and others, have already pointed out that there are several charges which have a direct implication for the legitimacy of the paper, despite that not even being the purpose of the hearing.

The recruitment of the children was not as described.
The nature of the client base was not as described.
Some of the clients were not reffered with any GI symptoms described by their GP’s on the refferal letters.
Some of the children were reffered for no other reason than explicit request of the parents.
The nature of the testing was not as described.
Massive multiple conflicts of interest were not declared, for the rather weak excuse of ‘there was no explicit question on the submission form’
The nature of the permission for the study was misdescribed.

Others have independantly confirmed that the results of the tests were not as described.

So, basically, the hearing didn’t intentionally address the paper, yet found enough to severely question it anyway.

“What was heard was that Wakefield took money from an attorney representing a group of kids that were suing because of a vaccine injury,”

Not in itself unethical, but Wakefields coverage and misrepresentation of it certainly was.

“that Wakefield had some sort of vaccine/not a vaccine, gut treating patent”

It is expressly and primarily described as a vaccine component throughout the patent. There is no question it was intended as a vaccine.

“I understood it to be about how blood came to be collected from a control,”

And how Wakefield dismissed the concerns straight after, and even turned it into some kind of joke.

“I understood it to be about how Wakefield ordered invasive tests to be performed on sick kids,”

That he wasn’t clinically authourised to request, that his own defence expert agrees were not clinically indicated, and which were sometimes expressly requested for research purposes on the clinical reasoning form.

“I heard something about how most of the fellow authors of this paper withdrew their names because they didnt agree with the impression that the paper was about linking the MMR to autism.”

Well, press conferences are supposed to be about presenting and interpreting the paper for non-clinical/academic persons in order to help them understand it. Wakefield heavily implied that there was a reason to suspect MMR in autism, when there wasn’t.

“And based on all that I am not impressed with all the hoopla going on about all of this when there is so much else out there no one seems to give a damn about. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/19/AR2010051902599.html”

You cannot render an arguement illegitimate because you feel there is a greater concern elsewhere. Good for you for being concerned (as you should be), but it is utterly irrelevant to the defence of Wakefield.

Ben’s Parent,

And I agree with that but it’s like saying that nuclear weapons are a valuable peaceful tool that save lives and look at all the various camps along those beliefs.

No, no it’s not. Vaccination a means of preventing disease, not a weapon.

Before this point I thought you were just being stupid, but this has to be the most asinine (look it up) thing you have said. You are purposely trying to rile people up. This statement shows your true motives; convince others that vaccines are a poison conjured up by the CDC with the secret intention of harming children.

You are hopeless and I regret extending an olive branch to you.

Wakefield is as much a doctor as my brother is. (My brother has a PhD in physics. Since he works for a medical research facility, sometimes people draw a mistaken impression about his title, but he seldom refers to himself as “Doctor”; instead, if absolutely necessary, he puts “PhD” after his name.)

bensmyson @ 104:

calli – ” neurodevelopmental disorders are not considered brain injuries”

That’s not the way I understand it, As I understand it most neurodevelopmental disorders are caused by injury. Even those “genetic” causes may have some epigenetic causation due to environmental stresses and physiological influences on prior generations.

If you’re going to consider genetics an injury, then you might as well call every single thing that ever happens to a person an “injury”, but that would dilute the term into meaninglessness. No, neurodevelopmental disorders are not considered to be brain injuries. They can be comorbid with brain injuries, or complicated by brain injuries, or complicate the recovery from brain injuries, but that is not the same thing.

The distinction is actually important.

Regarding Wakefield

“Why are you not the least bit curious?

I am extremely curious. At this point in my life, I am suspicious of most everything.

You could have fooled me. You seem to have no real desire to question those who validate your beliefs. You want others to prove to you that Wakefield is a fraud, and you want them to go beyond all the evidence they’ve already presented. You are not curious enough to actually look at any of it. That does not seem like someone who is really “extremely curious”.

I have to disagree about Neurodevelopmental Disorders Calli, Perhaps I am misunderstanding though. As I understand it, Neurodevelopmental Disorders are on the most part, the result of injuries. The misunderstanding may be in my interpretation of the term “acquired” as in a neurodevelopmental disorder may have been acquired from a bout with the measles, to me the measles is not an injury but the measles caused an injury which caused a neurodevelopmental disorder.

http://www.aadmd.org/sites/default/files/Neurodevelopmental_Disorders1.pdf

Yea! My post at @ #129 finally showed after being moderated. Aside from using the names of ben’s parent(s), I wonder what could have put into moderation?

He still has his degree from school, but that does not permit him to work as a doctor. He was stripped of his medical license in order to protect the public.

I’ve been consistently forgetting to ask here: Is the award of a medical degree contingent on swearing the/a Hippocratic Oath, either during medical school or perhaps at the award ceremony? I guess what I’m asking is – would Andrew Wakefield have sworn such an oath and when? Very quick look around suggests the timing of swearing an oath, if in fact one is even sworn, varies between institutions.

@ MI Dawn, I skimmed the full text last night and they don’t even describe their cohorts. So no medical histories. Also, these children are 3-9 years old so not at all comparable to urinary excretion of a 6-month old. That would require a large study to establish. Many of their analyses weren’t statistically significant, while finding significance in others. This is preliminary work and no way to make those statements present in the press release. I also wonder how BMS feels about a funding conflict of interest; I would wager none, since it comes from a curbie organisation.

I’ve been consistently forgetting to ask here: Is the award of a medical degree contingent on swearing the/a Hippocratic Oath, either during medical school or perhaps at the award ceremony?

The Hippocratic Oath is not required to obtain an MD or licensure as a doctor. My graduating class never took it. I’m not sure about using the title “Doctor”. MDs who retire are no longer licensed, but customarily still use the title. If an MD degree was revoked, then I expect that the title could no longer be used. However, I have never heard of this happening. My medical alma mater had a graduate a few years behind me who was convicted of first-degree murder. He lost his license of course, but he still has his degree.

Calli-

I think we are kind of saying the same thing. Sort of. My point is that autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder that can be caused by a brain injury. But of course since no one actually has undeniable proof as to what causes autism I was just asserting, in my uneducated way of doing such things, that neurodevelopmental disorders can be the result of injury, in some studies the majority are in fact injuries. And yes, many are also genetic in nature.

I do have a question regarding epigenetics, isnt it possible that an injury (enviromental element) injure the DNA? http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1951968,00.html

It has been discovered that detailed diaries written during the famine in Ireland, 1845 to 1849, have shown that the effects of starvation and malnutrition upon the grandparents affected the grandchildren – genetically. So then isnt there then a possibility that there has been an injury to the genome?

I do have a question regarding epigenetics, isnt it possible that an injury (enviromental element) injure the DNA? http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1951968,00.html

It has been discovered that detailed diaries written during the famine in Ireland, 1845 to 1849, have shown that the effects of starvation and malnutrition upon the grandparents affected the grandchildren – genetically. So then isnt there then a possibility that there has been an injury to the genome?

Why are you so obsessed with injury and damage? What you linked to and stated are a result of epigenetic expression, not injury to the genome. The genome remains intact but the expression of certain genes produces a particular phenotype under particular environmental influences.

bensparents:

But of course since no one actually has undeniable proof as to what causes autism I was just asserting, in my uneducated way of doing such things, that neurodevelopmental disorders can be the result of injury, in some studies the majority are in fact injuries.

“Uneducated” my foot. You know exactly what you’re doing, and it was quite clear that you didn’t meant to point out the minority of cases which are due to injury (the source you linked had less than 50% of cases known to be due to injury), but rather to indicate that you consider all of them to be injury. You’ve said time and time again that autism is a brain injury. Not that Ben’s autism is a brain injury, but that autism itself is a brain injury. You are being disingenous, and trying to distract us with your “I’m too uneducated to understand” schtick. You’re as well educated as I am. (I have a mere BA.)

You ask about epigenetics…. I don’t know about that, but I do know that learning disorders can be acquired by means which are neither genetic nor brain injury nor some sort of weird environmental exposure. Profoundly neglected children nearly always have some learning disorders, and often a range of other social and behavioral issues. One of the sadder examples is “Genie” (a code-name given to her by the scientists who studied her, to protect her identity). She was confined to a single room for the first 14 years of her life, and did not hear any human speech or socialize with anyone — even her parents. It was a pretty horrific childhood. She was profoundly disabled as a result of it, but apart from malnutrition, her main problem was simply lack of exposure to other people — she was a true “wild child”. Something to think about.

(BTW, my brother had an anoxic brain injury as an infant. But we do not know whether that had anything to do with it; autism runs in the family as well, and indeed, my totally un-brain-damaged daughter has been diagnosed on the spectrum. In fact, she seems so much like him in many ways that I suspect it wasn’t so much a case of the brain damage causing his condition as it was a case of his brain rebuilding according to its original plan. But it’s impossible to know.)

Calli- “She was confined to a single room for the first 14 years of her life”

See, to me the confinement was the assault that caused the problem/injury. If another human being is responsible for the confinement then surely someone was charged with a crime for causing the “injury.” If civil charges are filed then the plaintiff’s attorney will have to prove an injury, etc.

And yes, the way I interpret the term “injury” I believe (not saying it’s a fact but it is a belief) that all autism is the result of an injury. At 27 I had an aneurysm, it did not rupture. Nearly all the deceased elders in my family died of strokes, I suppose I have a genetic cause for what ever causes strokes, what ever caused my aneurysm, the aneurysm was an injury, the weak wall, the spike in blood pressure, whatever is something else. To me autism is like an aneurysm or I might add, lung cancer caused by smoking.

BTW, it occurs to me I wasn’t very clear in my last post. Genie was a very extreme case; other feral children have not been as profoundly disabled, and her case was shocking in its extremity. I do not subscribe to the “refrigerator mothers” theory of autism causation; it just doesn’t hold to scrutiny, or the overwhelming numbers of extremely involved mothers of autistic children. (Ben’s mom, for all I disagree with her and Ben’s dad, is definitely *not* a refrigerator mom. She cares deeply about him, that is obvious.) But Genie’s case does teach us one thing, and that’s that the circumstances in which the brain finds itself can have significant and life-long effects on its structure, organization, and capabilities. This, of course, is why it’s imperative to have early intervention for learning disorders — the sooner they are addressed, the less harm is done by them.

ben’s parents:

See, to me the confinement was the assault that caused the problem/injury. If another human being is responsible for the confinement then surely someone was charged with a crime for causing the “injury.”

The father was charged with child neglect and child abuse; I don’t recall the outcome, but I recall it being a difficult case because he had skipped town (which was what allowed the mother to finally escape with Genie and her younger son).

But what happened to her brain was not a brain injury. You are again deliberately using words incorrectly. I’m not sure why; the whole point of language to be understood. I suppose it’s possible you have an ulterior motive, but I fail to see what good would be served by misleading people about teh causes of autism.

Words matter. You can use them however you like, but if after you have the correct meanings explained to you, you continue to persist in nonstandard usage, you are going to find yourself alienating your audience. They will grow tired of trying to work out what you actually mean, since you’re not using the words the way other people do.

Genie’s brain suffered no injury. It simply was not given the input necessary for it to develop properly. This is extremely important stuff for understanding the brain — to know that even with no damage and no known genetic developmental disorders, a brain can still wind up profoundly affected by a very bad social environment. This should not be surprising; there is research showing that children who use computers from an early age have differences in their brains from children who don’t. There is also research showing differences between children raised as polyglots (speaking multiple languages) and people who were raised with a single language and then learned other languages later. None of that implies brain damage; just that the brain’s development is affected by the input it gets. It’s enormously adaptive.

To me autism is like an aneurysm or I might add, lung cancer caused by smoking.

For goodness sakes! Autism is nothing like an aneurysm, and having had experience with both, you really should know that. An aneurysm is a mechanical failure of a blood vessel; the result can be benign, or it can be massive brain damage, as cells die due to excessive pressure or lack of oxygen or both. In an autistic brain, the cells are all there, alive and well. The difference is that they are not organized the same way.

But then, if you actually cared about words and details and any side of the Wakefield story besides his own (which he has finally decided to give in the form of a bit of self-promotion, though curiously he had no interest of defending himself against the GMC), you would know these things. You would know that the details *matter*.

Language certainly is an ineffective tool when attempting to get points across this grande divide between us. I see nothing wrong with what I stated, to me autism is a brain injury. If a plant is denied water it will fail to thrive, if the water is denied the lack of water injures the plant, its dehydration is an injury. If a person smokes 2 packs of Camel non-filters for 30 years and develops lung cancer and smoking is said to be the cause of lung cancer then smoking cigarettes caused injury/cancer. Dropping a rock on my toe caused my toe to swell and blood vessels to rupture, the resulting limp is from an injury from a rock not the swelling, had I been wearing steel toed shoes I would most likely not have had an injury, I would have still had a rock dropped on my toe however, but no limp. I have no idea why some children’s brains have shoes and some dont, but the rock hits all of them. Swelling, limps, etc dont come from not wearing shoes, it comes from the rock hitting the naked toe. The toe injury caused the limp.

Todd – haven’t we learned enough to know that these morons don’t understand the concept of analogies?

Todd – “Now for autism. This plant has a genetic variation that causes it to grow differently …”

You’re making an enormous assumption aren’t you?

@ 156 bensmyson,

Todd – “Now for autism. This plant has a genetic variation that causes it to grow differently …”

You’re making an enormous assumption aren’t you?

What you should written is –

You’re making an enormous assumption just to try to explain the errors of only one of my/our enormous assumptions, aren’t you?

A wonderful irony.

@bensmyson

I freely admit, that I am making somewhat of an assumption, the basis of which is, as Orange Lantern pointed out, the prevailing scientific evidence to date.

Todd – The prevailing scientific evidence to date is inconclusive, if 7 out of ten children with autism have a particular gene similarity that does noto show up in others then it may show a likelihood of a relationship but the way I see it either it’s there or it’s not. BTW most of these close likelihoods are not that different than the “normal” population.

Calli – Do me a favor and show me ONE person with autism, NOT an autism related disorder, but AUTISM, show me one person whose autism is purely genetic.

And as for – “The only autism you care to cure is your son’s; thus, if research cures your son, it could benefit any other child who is exactly like your son, but will do bugger all for other children.”

Cure? There is a “cure” for autism?

I am supposing that you are just saying that I am selfish and greedy, that I am only interested in my son and not that of the lives of other children.

My son versus that of any other child(ren) on the face of the planet every time. If the choice is so black and white then yes, my son wins every time. Unfortunately though my son has already been wrecked which has caused me to have concern for my neighbors unvaccinated children. Now is my own prejudice regarding cause, harmful to my neighbors children? Well first of all I believe Ben’s brain injury has a possible genetic predisposition, the only identified abnormal gene Ben has is the MTHFR gene which affects the narrow small arteries, children diagnosed with autism have been found to show significant hypoperfusion which INJURES the brain. But I also have an abnormal MTHFR gene, so do many people. So what does that prove? Nothing. There is no proof of anything. So what do I tell my neighbors? How to protect their child? I tell them what happened to Ben, his story, they can make their own decisions. What will the pediatrician tell them? The CDC? The FDA? What will you tell them? I am certain that my son’s history will never be mentioned much less that of Hannah Poling. Vaccines are too important to the global health to discuss the serious risks involved.

@Calli: something to give BMS1&2: I can’t access her blog from work (nor am I even sure it is still active), but Autistic Bitch from Hell (Whose Planet is it Anyway) is a woman with Rett’s Syndrome which is known to cause autism. So there is ONE specific, genetic cause of autism and one specific person who can be referenced.

OT to Calli: BTW: great job on the comments on raw milk at the newspaper. I read them but didn’t bother to register to comment since I knew I could compliment you here!

Calli save your time and energy regarding the links to genetics. Ive been down that road and as you point out it is very complex, stars have to be in perfect alignment kind of thing. I am interested in the study that explains why more males have autism than females.

Hannah Poling’s case is extremely relevant on so many different levels. Im sorry you cant see that.

One question I got for you, is there such a thing called regressive autism? I got a feeling you dont believe it exist, that is if it is genetic then you must be born with it.

The Poling case is of particular interest to me because mitochondrial disorders have to do with oxygen depravation. I believe Ben’s brain swelling combined with his mutated MTFHR gene may have prevented oxygen from reaching some critical areas of the brain.

Although mitochondrial disorders are rarely diagnosed in children it is of interest in that some, clearly not all, also clearly not investigated enough, but some children diagnosed with autism have some form or mitochondrial disease.

Poling regressed after the vaccines. I believe the ruling was that the vaccines triggered the mitochondrial injury which may have presented with autism.

Ben’s situation is similar.

@bms

Poling regressed after the vaccines. I believe the ruling was that the vaccines triggered the mitochondrial injury which may have presented with autism.

The court ruled that it was more likely than not that the vaccine resulted in a worsening of Hannah’s mitochondrial disorder and that that led to symptoms similar to autism. What remains unanswered, in this case, is what would have happened had Hannah been infected with wild type disease. Since the immune response triggered by the vaccine was what was responsible for the aggravation of Hannah’s mitochondrial disorder, I wonder what the result would be of an even more vigorous immune response to natural infection?

There are several theories as to why more males than females are diagnosed with autism. One is that it’s a selection bias; autism in males is usually more easily spotted in females, partly due to our society retaining the old stereotype that a quiet, introverted female is perfectly ordinary and perhaps even preferable — on some level, our society may be less inclined to see a problem in a mildly autistic girl. So maybe the skew isn’t real, but merely an artifact of how we diagnose autism.

Another theory is that the skew is due to defects residing on the X chromosome that are unmatched by the Y, which would afflict males more commonly than females. Fragile X is symptomless in most females, much like colorblindness, and while it’s not strictly speaking autism, if this neurological disorder is sex-specific, it is plausible that there could be more.

A third theory is that females and males are fundamentally different, and this fundamental difference leaves males more vulnerable to autism, totally apart from any gender-specific gene defects or later injury or developmental mishap or anything like that. This would go along well with Baron-Cohen’s notion of autism as the “extreme male brain”, and indeed, the gender skew of autism is probably why he came up with that idea in the first place. I’m skeptical of the idea, but it’s one of the more prominent ideas. (It has a nasty side too; the Geiers used it as the launching point for their Lupron therapy.) There are plenty of known gender skews in other psychological phenomenon. Clinical depression is more common in females than in males, for instance, and this may be down to fundamental differences between the two — though of course the “nature vs nurture” debate is far from settled on that question.

Jen in TX — that’s interesting, but a lot more work would need to be done to show a link to autism. There are a great many things that are different between males and females. Just about any of them could be involved.

I remember reading how horrified Baron-Cohen was when he heard the Geiers had cited his work as supportive of theirs, when it’s actually one of the crueler things a person could do to an autistic child.

Now this is getting interesting. Calli thank you for your various theories, I tend to go with the “extreme male brain” with a side of testosterone (hold the Lupron). Many of the young women injured by the HPV are high achievers, athletes. Many boys doing well in therapy will suddenly regress deeper at onset of puberty.

Todd – “What remains unanswered, in this case, is what would have happened had Hannah been infected with wild type disease.”

I hope this isnt going down the vaccines might have saved her life road. I doubt any parent would take autism over the slight chance of an infection of measles or chicken pox. But supposing your question is real I would suspect that could be something someone could research since 40 years ago every child became infected with measles and chicken pox, maybe those were the ones with serious complications.

Jen in TX – Ive always been a little suspicious of Tylenol, we were advised to give Ben Tylenol prior to and after his vaccines. But my suspicions are not backed up by any journals Ive read, they are just from other people’s posts.

orange – “I’ve seen polls to indicate that most parents of autistic children do not believe it was caused by vaccines.”

Of course you have, and what percentage of those parents have children who regressed immediately after vaccines?

Which brings me to this: “It is expected, indeed understandable, that a person who’s child develops regressive autism (or notices the first signs of non-regressive autism) within a certain time after vaccination would believe that the shots caused it, even though it is unavoidable that this would happen by chance to a significant percentage of cases. It is also expected that since these parents can get together and form an echo chamber concerning their experiences, that they will believe even more fervently that they must be right.”

And?

Regarding Hannah Poling, didn’t they say her condition was triggered by the fever that resulted from her vaccination? In which case, a wild-type infection would likely not be any different. Possibly worse, but from my layperson’s perspective, I’m thinking she’d have turned out roughly the same. The one advantage to a vaccine is that you know when the fever might occur and can take measures to control it (not limited to the classic acetominophen); with wild infection, you aren’t so lucky. Or, they could have avoided all live vaccines, crossed their fingers, and lived off herd immunity — but then, it could still have been triggered by other infections. How often does a child reach age 5 without ever getting a fever, after all? And most fevers aren’t vaccine-preventable. (The common cold, strep throat, ear infections, etc. The bread and butter of pediatric practice, really, and most kids will get them at least once, and they’re largely not vaccine-preventable.)

bens parents:

Now this is getting interesting. Calli thank you for your various theories, I tend to go with the “extreme male brain” with a side of testosterone (hold the Lupron). Many of the young women injured by the HPV are high achievers, athletes. Many boys doing well in therapy will suddenly regress deeper at onset of puberty.

Out of curiosity, are you implying that female high achievers and athletes are likely to have higher levels of testosterone? I realize that would tend to fit a lot of social preconceptions, but I do not think that is true. The recent case of runner Caster Semenya is illustrative — found to be genetically male, Semenya had always believed herself to be female. She has the most extreme form of androgen insensitivity syndrome. (She’s not the only famous woman who does.) The “default” body plan is female; testosterone in sufficient quantities signals a developing embryo to become male. But XY embryos with androgen insensitivity syndrome do not respond at all to testosterone, and consequently, they develop with a basically female appearance, though they lack a female reproductive tract and will never be able to have children (even with assistive technology, as they also cannot produce sperm). One interesting thing is that if they are injected with anabolic steroids (i.e. testosterone and its relatives), they do not respond. They do not bulk up like men or even normal women on steroids. Yet as Semenya demonstrates, even these people entirely insensitive to testosterone can be elite athletes.

There is an old idea that testosterone is fundamental to both aggression and athletic performance, but while it can increase both, it is not essential to either. Other factors are more significant — in particular, motivation. The biggest difference between an elite athlete and a mediocre one is not their body but the fact that the elite spends at least half their waking time in intensive training, and has done so from a young age.

I think calling autism “extreme male brain” is both overly simplistic and potentially misleading. So I disagree with Baron-Cohen. But then, he is vastly better versed in the subject; it is his expertise, and he has done a tremendous amount of work with autistic children. I can offer no meaningful criticism, really; just my own gut feelings.

That said, you might want to check out a DVD his institute produced, called “The Transporters”. My mom bought a copy and gave it to me for my daughter to watch. She loves it. It was designed to help autistic children learn to read facial expressions, in a format reminiscent of Thomas the Tank Engine. Your son may be beyond its level, I don’t know, but it’s interesting all the same.

Jen in TX – Ive always been a little suspicious of Tylenol, we were advised to give Ben Tylenol prior to and after his vaccines. But my suspicions are not backed up by any journals Ive read, they are just from other people’s posts.

My doctors suggested Tylenol before vaccines if desired when my daughter was little; we didn’t do it, on the basis that we’d treat only if a fever appeared. But they haven’t been making that same suggestion in recent years. I’m not sure what information has shifted to affect their advice.

There’s a very interesting post over at sciencebasedmedicine.com about OTC drugs and pharmacies and suchlike. It touches briefly on acetominophen.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=5062 It doesn’t get into specific risks for children, nor make any clear indications one way or the other; the post is about the seemingly haphazard way some drugs are deemed safe for OTC, others need to be behind the counter, and still others require a prescription. There was a fascinating discussion about the interaction between Tylenol and alcohol in the comments, though, which I found very educational.

BMS:
“I didnt see anything that said “PhD in biochemistry” I was merely repeating what Brian Deer had on his webpage, I am that stupid.”

Evidently, indeed you are.

BMS:
“From: Molecular Strategies for the Detection of Measles Virus in Inflammatory Bowel Disease, a thesis submitted for the degree of doctor of philosophy, by Nicholas Charles Chadwick, Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of London.”

So what do you think Chadwick was doing in Wakefield’s lab? Research into the application of friggin’ Machiavelian politics in the investigation of children’s arse-holes???

How can you not know what Ph. D. is if your relative had one?!

Against the way I feel about you for being one of the shittiest humans I’ve ever had the misfortune to encounter in the blogosphere, I’ll explain what the bloody degree of Doctor of Philosophy is.

The degree of Doctor of Philosophy is (in the UK; at any rate) a primary research degree, awarded in any academic field in which the university concerned engages in research. It is awarded upon successful defence of a thesis, which is written after the candidate has pursued a line of research germane to his/her academic interests. Being a primary research degree, it can be completed on the basis of a thesis; a higher doctorate (e. g., a Doctor of Science degree, or that of Doctor of Medicine) comes after a number of years of work in one’s field, and usually has to be applied for on the basis of much scholarly work conducted since gaining one’s bachelor degree. Occasionally, a Ph. D. can be awarded on the basis of published papers, but this still requires the writing of a synthesis of these papers, and the development of a conclusion to be derived from the work undertaken by the candidate.

When someone working as a researcher in a laboratory is undertaking Ph. D. research, it is usually in a science or engineering discipline. Regarding Dr. Chadwick’s work… he was working in a laboratory dealing with intestinal issues. So how could you possibly even get to the idea that he was researching philosophy? Eh??

Just so you don’t make the same sort of prick of yourself next time, here’s an idea of how to go about figuring this stuff out:

Intestines – definitely biological sciences.

What are the biological sciences? They include the following-

anatomy
physiology
cell biology
biochemistry/molecular biology/genetics*
immunology
pharmacology
toxicology
histology
oncology
osteology
neurology
myology
cardiology
renology
enterology
virology
bacteriology
mycology

and a good few others.

* These tend to overlap to a very significant degree… my ex-wife was employed in genetic engineering; her M. Sc. is in plant physiology but she took this major because they had the best genetics training and investigation methods available at the University of Helsinki. Her B. Sc. was in plant physiology and biochemistry with genetics. She was researching her Ph. D. at the time.

If the lab is researching intestines, then you’ve a shortlist-

enterology
biochemistry/molecular biology/genetics
histology
immunology
cell biology
(possibly oncology, if the lab is specifically researching cancers/tumours)

Someone who is researching molecular strategies for detection of a virus is likely to be researching a molecular biology or biochemistry topic.

In short-
intestines —> biological sciences
intestines -/-> philosophy

You come on here thinking you’re so bloody clever… how can you not know this?

Now a question for Orac, a surgeon:

How much cortical tissue loss would I have to undergo to end up as clever as BMS is?

(I wish I could say this was a rhetorical question, but given the shit that this person has slung at me, I’m really interested to know)

Simple equation here: BMS=CSF!

Thanks for playing. By the way, “peer review” on the internet means people making fun of you for not being able to follow the last set of valid criticisms levied in the attempt to refute them.