MMR
investigated: site visitor's views on the
troubles of Andrew Wakefield (2)
This page is
research from an investigation by Brian Deer for The Sunday Times of London and
the UK's Channel 4 Television into a campaign
linking the MMR children's
vaccine with autism. | Go to part I:
The Lancet scandal | Go to part II:
The Wakefield factor
Following Brian
Deer's reports in The Sunday Times on February 22 2004,
visitors to this site had their say
Monday
23 February 2004
Congratulations.
It is about time that someone has finally spoken
some sense on this very difficult & emotive
subject.
As a father
of a profoundly autistic child and a member of
the National Autistic Society fund raising
committee I feel that I am entitled to speak with
some authority.
Whilst I am
sure Dr Wakefield is a well meaning soul I
believe he has become misguided and possibly
slightly obsessive. As the Times editorial
commented "a subjective motive does not
invalidate an objective study". His study
only included 12 children & numerous studies
since, as you know have invalidated his claims.
Recently I
had my youngest child immunised at a local centre
to the Royal Free, whereupon the nurse giving the
injection informed me that some of Dr Wakefield's
colleagues had had their children immunised.
I am
enormously grateful for your investigative piece
as I hope it will clarify the situation for many
parents. Most people ask for my opinion on the
MMR and are often astonished at my reaction to
definitely immunise. My mother worked for Mencap
and I saw many children left blind, deaf or brain
damaged. Unfortunately it will take a outbreak of
measles for many parents to realise that the
bigger danger is not having your child immunised
and not the threat of autism.
The Sunday
Times recently carried an article on the drama
documentary concerning Wakefield and parents of
an autistic child's struggle followed by a
debate. The article angered me so much I thought
it would be a objective investigation yet it
still cumulated in a emotive piece claiming
Wakefield was a fighting against the system and
was correct.
I would love
to be interviewed and have a piece written from
the angle of a parent of an autistic child. Yes
it can be difficult. Yes we had our child tested
for MMR in his bowel. Yes we have tried virtually
all other avenues of so called cures and false
hopes. I am actively involved with my child's
school and the NAS. It would be really fantastic
to see a positive story on autism for a change.
It is not going to go away. There is no panacea,
no quick fix, but there is help and there is
hope. Please help bring this to peoples
attention. I am sick of hearing from people who
claim to have seen the evidence on the web
regarding MMR and autism.
Once again
congratulations. A great piece of journalism.
Regards,
Alan
W.
Monday
23 February 2004
Dear Sir,
My son
Matthew aged 36 years old is measles vaccine
damaged, he has the mental age of about an 8 year
old, & needs 24 hour supervision. He was a
bright child of aged 20 months when I took him to
the clinic for his measles injection, he had the
injection at 2.00 pm and at 6.00 pm on the same
day he was convulsing on the floor and is still
convulsing 34 years later. Do you realise what
you have done by printing that article in the
Sunday Times, now many more parents will think
that the MMR is safe and many more children will
have their lives ruined and many more parents
will like me be left caring for their child for
the rest of their lives, unless you have a
handicapped child you will have no idea what it
is like.
Oddly enough
I am not against the vaccination programme, I
realise that we need our children to be
vaccinated, but doctors today do not take into
account the family medical history, if they did
then many of the children today who have suffered
brain damage as a result of vaccination would be
normal healthy children, indeed if I had been
aware of the dangers all those years ago, Matthew
would not have been vaccinated.
As for
Doctor Wakefield, did you expect him to work for
nothing, the research that he did was very
important, and irrespective of what you may think
by bringing the problems with the MMr to the fore
probably many children have been spared becoming
handicapped.
I feel so
angry, by what you have written and the damage
you have done.
Yours
Sincerely
Wendy
B.
Monday
23 February 2004
Rosie
Waterhouse in an article in the Sunday Times of
27 May 2001 expressed a concern that mercury in
vaccines could be the cause of a steep rise in
autism.
In the USA
the main controversy with vaccines is the
presence of a mercury based preservative called
"Thimerosal". It contains 49.6% mercury
by weight. It has been universally used in
vaccines since 1930, but is in at least another
100 products, such as nasal sprays, eye drops,
ear drops and other injectable products. Autism
started to be diagnosed in early 1940 and has
increased exponentially ever since.
As it
contains live vaccines MMR does not contain
Thimerosal, but it is argued that the cumulative
toxic effects of mercury from previous
vaccinations pre-dispose the child to a reaction
from MMR even though it contains no mercury. The
single vaccines do not contain Thimerosal either,
but might equally trigger a reaction if there has
been a history of mercury ingestion from food or
vaccines.
Children can
be subjected to up to 21 injections by the age of
5 and many of these will contain mercury. Every
new injection might build up the mercury in the
child until the damage is sufficient to trigger
autism. It may also be a factor in the so-called
"Gulf War Syndrome", where the presence
of mercury in the vaccinations the troops had is
seen as a possible cause of the syndrome and it
is linked to Altzeimer’s, dementure, memory
loss, &c.
The records
of candidate children for MMR should be studied
and if they have a history of mercury injected
then they should be tested for it and treatment
to remove it from the body engaged before the
triple vaccine is applied.
Since the
article it appears that in the United States
autism is blamed on mercury in child vaccines and
there is currently an action against the
manufacturers of Thimerosal in Washington. Since
1999, the use of ethyl mercury preservatives in
vaccines is being phased out; for instance, my
wife and I were able in the last two years to
find flu vaccines without it. The medical
profession hopes that the subject will fade away
before litigation takes over.
If you put
"autism mercury vaccination" in the
google input box you will find over 7000
references to the problem. You can also link
"autism" with "thimerosal"
and "washington" to find out more about
the action.
I have tried
for several years to get this discussed on TV and
radio: my pleas have been ignored. The Times
published an Email from me in the Register debate
on 11 November 2003, but that is my only success.
Wakefield’s
studies and your investigation of him have added
to the obfuscation on the wider issue of mercury
in vaccines and other medical products. Perhaps
you could redeem yourself by helping to define
the real cause of autism by widening your
investigations to look into ethyl mercury
preservative in vaccines.
Kind regards
John
B.
Tuesday
24 Feb 2004
I have
worked in the pharmaceutical industry for eight
years, I am medically trained and I believe that
Dr Wakefield is being unfairly treated!
I have many
friends in the UK with Autistic child all of
their children were clinically sound before their
MMR injections. In most other countries even
third world countries the Measles, mumps and
rubella is administered separately. Boys are not
given the rubella. I find it coincidental that it
is mainly boys who suffer from autism in the UK.
I am a
British subject who has lived and worked in the
medical industry and find the incidence of autism
in the UK alarming to say the least.
I am a firm
believer in vaccinating children but I also
believe that the British government supply the
give parents the choice of the MMR or separate
vaccines. One knows that of course the government
is nit picking Dr Wakefields research because if
is of course cheaper to administer the MMR
instead of separate vaccines.
I stand by
Tony Blair in most of his convictions but has he
vaccinated his son with the MMR?
In support
of Dr Wakefield
Audrey
B.
Tuesday
24 February 2004
Enjoyed the
article. You may have done a good service for
public health in the UK. I am sure a K is coming
your way as we speak.
My concern
is the Lancet and its Ed. The Lancet is the
second most prestigious general medical journal
in the world (after the New England Journal of
Medicine). This is based on its impact factor, a
measure of how often articles are cited. Most
material in the Lancet is world class but there
are regularly real howlers published: articles
that the most junior researcher would tell you
are rubbish. The Wakefield article is one such.
Speak to any senior academic in medicine and they
will be able to tell you of other such articles.
I am sure some would say that to get the most
controversial new material there has to be risk.
However publishing obviously flawed material is
never justifiable. The buck stops with the editor
and if he is a loose cannon the consequences are
clear for all to see.
JNP
Ps Potential
conflicts of interest!: I have reviewed many
manuscripts for the Lancet The Lancet once
rejected a major and important paper of mine
subsequently published in the BMJ. However based
on the previous confidential review and other
information they did publish what you would term
a spoiler.
Tuesday
24 February 2004
Dear Mr
Deer,
I was
extremely impressed by your reporting of the MMR
story in the Sunday Times. I think that this is
important for a reason that many other papers
have missed. The Wakefield paper was a perfectly
acceptable but rather boring and scientifically
unimportant clinical study of 12 children as an
exercise in pure description: a series of 12 case
studies. It had no control children. I am not
amazed that it was published in the Lancet in the
first place; much that is unimportant and a fair
amount that is wrong gets published there, as I
know as a former statistic panel member. I am
surprised that anybody could claim that it showed
a link between MMR and autism as it simply could
not do so, not having been designed to do so. I
could show that watching television caused lung
cancer on the same bassis. However, whenever
anybody pointed this out, their motives were
impugned. Indeed, many of them had done
consulting for various pharmaceutical companies
(as I have) at various times. Now, I hope, the
playing field having been leveled we can get away
from the ad hominem arguments and actually
concentrate on the science.
MMR has not
been proven safe, because it cannot be, but then
neither has Wakefield's preferred policy of three
separate jabs, yet the "MMR causes
autism" lobby demands unreasonable proof of
the one and none for the other. What we do have
is a large number of studies, far superior to
Wakefield's (which is in any case irrelevant to
the question), that call the association into
question.
The MMR
story forms the last chapter of my book, Dicing
with Death, and I would be very happy to send you
a copy, should you be interested.
Congratulations
on a fine piece of reporting.
With bests
wishes
Stephen
S.
Professor of
Statistics
Tuesday
24 February 2004
Dear Mr.
Deer:
Shame on you
for attacking Dr. Wakefield for his science when
you have no understanding what clinical science
and gut biopsies are all about. We have funded
Dr. Wakefield in the past and will fund him in
the future. If you have the science on why there
is an autism epidemic, come up with why it is
happening......show us with the clinical science
you can provide.
Ray G,
Founder and parent, The Autism Autoimmunity
Project
Tuesday
24 February 2004
I have to
laugh at you pharma muppets, you never can get
it--attacking someone of Wakefields integrity is
like feeding the flames of truth--at least two
excellent front page stories which is great.
And i had to
pinch myself to believe I wasn't dreaming when I
read your article. Conflict of interest--well
that just about covers all of the medical
journals, vaccine article folk, along with the
government people like Elliman who I notice
writes Lancet pieces slagging off Wakefiled etc
without declaring his conflict of being funded by
MMR.
Talk about
double standards and shooting yourself in the
foot big time! Thanks for that. The whole thing
stinks to high heaven and it needs a bit of light
shone in that direction http:/
/www.whale.to/m/quotes9.html
and the
whole covert genocide scam in Africa conducted by
the Illuminati is something else http:/
/www.whale.to/m/genocide.html
Truth will
out http:/ /www.whale.to/b/sp/springmeier_h.html
and I found
your DPT piece astounding, considering the gov
has paid out for 900 severe DPT brain damaged
kids.
History
isn't going to treat Taylor,
john
Wednesday
25 February 2004
Dear Brian,
I am a
hospital doctor currently working as a registrar
in Cardiology. The MMR debate has no bearing on
my personal practice. However, it is an issue
that makes me exceptionally cross particularly
given the amount of false information that
somehow seems to have been embedded in the public
s minds as fact. I was dismayed to hear about the
breach of confidentiality regarding your expose
of Wakefield by Andrew Horton and the Lancet. I
cancelled my subscription to this journal over a
year ago, based on what I considered to be its
trend towards cheap science. Your investigations
seem to have confirmed my suspicions.
I hope that
you will continue to provide your excellent
investigative journalism in the Sunday Times. You
may be pleased to hear that your story and your
website have become revered on doctors.net.uk.
This is a closed website and forum for doctors,
and most of us have disagreed with the public
misinformation for a long while.
With all
best wishes,
Rahul
D.
Friday 27
February 2004
Dear Mr
Deer,
I have just
read your article in the Times regarding
Wakefield's Lancet article and the conflict of
interest issue. It is an excellent piece of
investigative journalism and I only wish the
information had been available sooner. You are
absolutely right that their are serious
consequences to the declining rates of MMR
vaccination. I have seen more measles cases in
the past year than in my entire career. It is
only a matter of time before a child dies or is
seriously harmed by measles as a result of this
mess. When this happens will Barr and his
colleagues be rushing to sue Wakefield on behalf
of these children? I doubt it.
I had
serious doubts about the original Lancet article
as the paper contained no data on MMR, so why
were there comments made? I think you have
answered this to a large extent. As you know
these papers are reviewed by independent
assessors before publication. When you spoke with
Horton did he tell you about the reviewers
comments and did the reviewers suggest removing
the MMR reference? If I had been asked to review
this paper that is one thing I would definitely
have questioned and suggested it be removed as
there was no supporting data. As the editor
Horton would have seen their comments and would
have been in a position to overrule them. It
would be very interesting to know what the
reviewers had said before publication.
Thank you
for your efforts,
Yours
sincerely
Dr Mark A
Consultant
Virologist
Friday 27
February 2004
Dear Mr
Deer,
Thank you
for your MMR article in The Sunday Times, it was
a helpful summary of the events and the
apparently disgraceful behaviour of Dr Wakefield.
The article was however marred by two errors one
of which may simply be a typographical error but
the other, though peripheral to the main issue is
so fundamental as to raise doubts over the
reliability of the rest of the report.
You state
that the original Lancet article reported on 12
children, the parents of eight of whom associated
the immunisation with the onset of symptoms, 67%
(not 66%). You then report the Gut article as
containing data on a further 18 children, the
parents of only three of whom made the
association and state that this reduced the the
incidence of parental association to 12%. The
cumulative data suggested 11 sets of parents of a
possible 30 making the association, 37% and not
'just under 12%'.
You refer to
Dr Wakefield, as has every other commentator, as
a gastroenterologist, but go on to report that he
trained as a surgeon in Canada. A
gastroenterologist is a physician, a medical
doctor who treats patients with drugs and does
not perform surgical operations, the preserve of
the surgeon. The divide between physician and
surgeon is somewhat blurred in regards to
gastroenterologists and general surgeons as both
perform the endoscopic procedures you describe
and gastroenterologists will inject ulcers and
remove polyps during such. However only surgeons
will operate.
Yours
sincerely
David F.
Specialist
Registrar in Diabetes and Endocrinology
(physician)
|