<<< Go to start of responses <<<
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)
<<< Go to start of responses <<<
RELATED:
Vexatious Wakefield lawsuits fail