Vaccination & epidemic

[Shawnee123]

Yikes!

[Lamplighter]

"We had a measles epidemic in Britain, a drop in immunization rates in [the United States].
B]I personally know of children who were brain-damaged as a consequence
of their parents deferring immunization as a result of this concern[/b]," Wiznitzer said.
At the same time, he said, "[autism] research monies were diverted
to disprove a hypothesis that was never proven [in the first place]
rather than invested in exploring issues that would be of benefit to
the public and to children with the condition."

I'm not a litigious sort, but I do wonder if these parents might have a suit to file...
if they can show they were dissuaded by Wakefield's fraud.

[HungLikeJesus]

I forgot to include this:

Godlee, the journal's editor-in-chief, said the study shows that of the 12 cases Wakefield examined in his paper, five showed developmental problems before receiving the MMR vaccine and three never had autism.

"It's always hard to explain fraud and where it affects people to lie in science," Godlee said. "But it does seem a financial motive was underlying this, both in terms of payments by lawyers and through legal aid grants that he received but also through financial schemes that he hoped would benefit him through diagnostic and other tests for autism and MMR-related issues."

[Undertoad]

The BMJ article they reference:

http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5347.full

The curious case of child 11 and his father Mr. 11, an engineer, and what happened when journalist Brian Deer asked Mr. 11 to review the data Wakefield had used for his son...

Running his finger across the paper’s tables, over coffee in London, Mr 11 seemed reassured by his anonymised son’s age and other details. But then he pointed at table 2—headed “neuropsychiatric diagnosis”—and for a second time objected.

“That’s not true.”

Can Dad 11 be mistaken? So they go to the child's actual medical records:

Records show his behavioural symptoms started too soon. “His developmental milestones were normal until 13 months of age,” notes the discharge summary. “In the period 13-18 months he developed slow speech patterns and repetitive hand movements. Over this period his parents remarked on his slow gradual deterioration.”

That put the first symptom two months earlier than reported in the Lancet, and a month before the boy received the MMR vaccination. And this was not the only anomaly to catch the father’s eye. What the paper reported as a “behavioural symptom” was noted in the records as a chest infection.

“Please let me know if Andrew W has his doctor’s license revoked,” wrote Mr 11, who is convinced that many vaccines and environmental pollutants may be responsible for childhood brain disorders. “His misrepresentation of my son in his research paper is inexcusable. His motives for this I may never know.”

[Happy Monkey]

This thread can now successfully loop back to post one.

[Clodfobble]

“Please let me know if Andrew W has his doctor’s license revoked,” wrote Mr 11, who is convinced that many vaccines and environmental pollutants may be responsible for childhood brain disorders.

Please clarify... do you consider Mr. 11 to be a credible source on this subject, or not a credible source? Because even while denouncing this particular study, he still believes the opposite of what you do.

[DanaC]

I personally consider him to be a very credible source on the timing of his son's symptoms, but no, as a source for information regarding the problem of vaccines and autism, his reliability would depend on his qualifications. His qualifications as a parent may be top notch, but that doesn't mean he can be viewed as a qualified immunologist, paediatrician, or even doctor.



What i did find interesting was this bit:

And besides harming those children who got sick after not receiving a vaccine, the alleged fraud may have even set back autism research, experts noted."We had a measles epidemic in Britain, a drop in immunization rates in [the United States]. I personally know of children who were brain-damaged as a consequence of their parents deferring immunization as a result of this concern," Wiznitzer said. At the same time, he said, "[autism] research monies were diverted to disprove a hypothesis that was never proven [in the first place] rather than invested in exploring issues that would be of benefit to the public and to children with the condition."

I find it interesting that the salient point you have taken from the study, is that the unqualified parent in question believes vaccines may be a factor.

[Undertoad]

I carefully excerpted the article to keep that bit in. I thought it was interesting, and full disclosure. Dana said it better'n I could. The gent in question is an engineer so he is familiar with how to manage data and find anomalies. Going over the rest of the studies is not his job and we don't know whether he has.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by DanaC

I find it interesting that the salient point you have taken from the study, is that the unqualified parent in question believes vaccines may be a factor.

"Autism research monies" have overwhelmingly been funneled into the arena of behavioral therapies, by a vast margin. And of the money that was allotted to vaccine studies, the majority of it was provided by the manufacturers of the vaccines themselves.

The points I have taken from the study--which I have read in detail, many times, including the facts of these new allegations, which are not in fact new at all, they are just being dredged up again because Brian Deer hasn't had an article published in awhile--have very little to do anymore with my beliefs on the subject from a medical standpoint. This was one study done 13 years ago, with questionable methods. The study, and the doctor himself, have been discredited time and again. I don't know anyone who cites this study as a basis for their beliefs anymore. Yet it continues to be vilified because the studies that have come after it are 1.) more scientifically sound, and 2.) more discreet.

The salient point that I am taking from the recent articles (as opposed to the old study itself) is that there are many people out there who are basing their beliefs on the antithesis of one bad study, rather than simply chucking the one bad study and looking at everything that has come since. I'm pointing out that even the father who angrily calls Wakefield a fraud and hopes for the revocation of his medical license (which already happened, almost a year ago) still fundamentally believes in a more up-to-date version of Wakefield's hypothesis, presumably because he has kept up with more recent research.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Going over the rest of the studies is not his job and we don't know whether he has.

It's true, we don't. Who has, I wonder? Certainly none of it was mentioned in this latest media flurry.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

"The points I have taken from the study--which I have read in detail, many times, including the facts of these new allegations, which are not in fact new at all, they are just being dredged up again because Brian Deer hasn't had an article published in awhile--have very little to do anymore with my beliefs on the subject from a medical standpoint.

Fair enough: though part of the reason for this being published is that the initial report into the case and which was referenced in earlier reports has now concluded. It was also in part prompted by the fact that Wakefield is now promoting a book about it all.

This was one study done 13 years ago, with questionable methods. The study, and the doctor himself, have been discredited time and again. I don't know anyone who cites this study as a basis for their beliefs anymore. Yet it continues to be vilified because the studies that have come after it are 1.) more scientifically sound, and 2.) more discreet.

I know very little about the other studies; and have said on numerous occasions that i think more research needs doing: as the other guy in the article said though; much of the recent research has been skewed to 'answering' and disproving this study: therefore Wakefield has managed to have a negative impact even in the area he apparently wanted to work. Also, these aren;t questionable methods. Thats the whole point of bringing this up again. This wasn;t questionable methods it was outright deliberate fraud.

The reason it is still so public, isn't just because it eclipses other studies, but because it essentially 'fathered' the whole area of investigation.

The salient point that I am taking from the recent articles (as opposed to the old study itself) is that there are many people out there who are basing their beliefs on the antithesis of one bad study, rather than simply chucking the one bad study and looking at everything that has come since. I'm pointing out that even the father who angrily calls Wakefield a fraud and hopes for the revocation of his medical license (which already happened, almost a year ago) still fundamentally believes in a more up-to-date version of Wakefield's hypothesis, presumably because he has kept up with more recent research.

I get you. That's a fair point. I wasnlt posting this to show that the whole theory of vaccines and autism is now debunked. I was posting specifically about Wakefield and the damage he has done.

As I've said before: though I personally am fairly skeptical about many of the claims made around this area, there is clearly enough concern to warrant more investigation. Until that investigation is done, then it is extremely difficult for any of the pro-vaccine doctors and scientists to claim that it is safe. Right now, nobody wins. Those who think vaccines are safe are facing the problem of massive downturn in the vaccine rates and the consequent problems that brings. Those who believe that the vaccines are potentially causing/exacerbating autism and other problems, have become villified because of studies like this. So, now all studies end up suspect, and both sides are entrenched and in conflict with each other.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Fair enough: though part of the reason for this being published is that the initial report into the case and which was referenced in earlier reports has now concluded. It was also in part prompted by the fact that Wakefield is now promoting a book about it all.

No, see, you've been had. The "initial report" is a voluntary investigation by journalist Brian Deer. The earlier concluded "reports" are all by Brian Deer. This is all the work of a single journalist who has continued to dig into the same single case for the last decade. The actual investigation by the actual UK medical board saw all this evidence as part of their hearings already. They drew their conclusions long ago. Brian Deer is now recompiling it yet again into a newly packaged set of "conclusions" because he has no other marketable skills. Wakefield's book came out almost a year ago--he was in fact specifically waiting for the medical board's ruling, so that he could bring his own side public. If you have recently noticed promotional information for the book, it is only because you have missed the first several rounds.

None of this is new. None of this furthers the worldwide discussion on the current state of the medical disease at hand. It's my personal opinion that the recent articles rehashing the same old scandals are currently doing more damage than Wakefield ever did.

[DanaC]

Well, you myay be right. But a lot of it was new to me :p

[Clodfobble]

That's because they never report on anything else.

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

There is a blood test available. Until the doctors finish getting their shit together, a parent could easily have their newborn/toddler tested, or a pregnant mother could test herself, to help them make their own decision whether to delay vaccinations.

[/quote]
Will you, as an NP, be able to suggest or order such testing?

I hope so, and I hope you end up working in a practice that respects your insights and experience in this area. Assuming you are not going to go into podiatry or cosmetic surgery...

[Undertoad]

The actual investigation by the actual UK medical board saw all this evidence as part of their hearings already. They drew their conclusions long ago.

What the BMJ bit adds, and the editorial accompanying the paper agrees, is that this wasn't just error but fraud.

Originally Posted by Clod in post#2 in this thread

There was not a "revelation" that Dr. Wakefield falsified his results--there was a single accusation that he had done so, and he is currently suing said accuser.

Now that the UK Medical Board AND the British Medical Journal have had their say, and agree with Deer, do you still stand behind Wakefield since post #2?