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)
|