MMR
doctor defends his research
The doctor who first linked the MMR vaccine to autism has defended the way he carried out his research and his motivation for doing so.

Dr Andrew Wakefield said he adhered to official guidelines in his research, which led to the publication of the 1998 Lancet paper.

He said he had wanted to help treat and prevent autism after being approached by worried parents.

Dr Wakefield, and two colleagues, deny charges of professional misconduct.


There has been a witch-hunt
Nina Lteif, supporter of Dr Wakefield


The 51-year-old, who is now working in the US, is accused of violating ethical guidelines, and of acting against the clinical interests of the children who took part in his trial.

He is also accused of acting dishonestly in failing to disclose to the Lancet that he was advising solicitors acting for parents who had alleged their children had been damaged by MMR.

But the GMC case is not examining the safety of MMR, designed to protect against measles, mumps and rubella.

Dr Wakefield said he was approached by a mother in 1995 who believed her child had regressed into autism after having the MMR jab and felt it was his duty as a "human being" to help her.

The mother said her child also had terrible bowel problems, which she believed was linked to the autism.

At the time Dr Wakefield had been looking at links between measles and bowel disorders, but thought the woman's concerns were worth exploring as it was well-known that there was a link between gut and brain problems.

This woman then put him in touch with other parents in a similar position, he said.

'Wanted to help'

Describing what parents told him about their children, Dr Wakefield said: "They were telling me what turned out to be remarkably consistent stories of a normal child who they had lost."



CONFIRMED CASES OF MEASLES, MUMPS AND RUBELLA 1996-2007
2002 - Health experts blamed rise of measles cases on poor uptake of MMR vaccine


2005 - Mumps epidemic mainly affected 13-24 year-olds who were too old to have had MMR vaccine as children

He said, in a research capacity, he was fascinated that something might be done for the children.

The GMC hearing was told that Dr Wakefield, along with colleagues, developed a hypothesis linking MMR and autism and decided to conduct clinical studies to establish the "validity" of it.

Dr Wakefield said he wanted to do this "so we could help in treatment and prevention".

He said at this time he was unaware that some parents were seeking to take legal action over the issue.

"The parents contacting me was nothing to do with litigation, and litigation was not my primary concern."

And when asked by his own QC, Kieran Coonan, whether he had followed Royal College of Physicians guidance on research practices, he replied: "We complied entirely consistently with this document."

He added that decisions to carry out procedures such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans and invasive tests such as lumbar punctures and colonoscopies - which form a central part of GMC case - were made by one of his colleagues.

Crisis in confidence

If found guilty of serious professional misconduct, Dr Wakefield faces being struck off the medical register in the UK.


Litigation was not my primary concern
Dr Andrew Wakefield

Also facing professional misconduct charges are Professor John Walker-Smith, and Professor Simon Murch.

But the impact of the MMR research has already extended beyond this.

Despite the scientific community repeatedly stressing that the vaccine is safe, there has still been a crisis in public confidence.

The uptake of the triple jab slumped in the immediate aftermath of the study being published.

And while it has shown signs of improving in recent years, it is still under the 95% needed in some places, particularly London.

This has come at a time when the number of confirmed cases of measles has risen from 56 in 1998 in England and Wales to about 1,000 last year.



Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/h...th/7314144.stm

Published: 2008/03/27 17:08:41 GMT

© BBC MMVIII

it is the Amgens of this world and dirty monetary gain leaches-
that makes them wish to use the good doctor -as a "SCAPEGOAT"

if you have ethics and practice medicine -to do no harm -
like Dr. Wakefield and others doctors I have known...


watch your back...

the Lancet regrets?


Journal regrets running MMR study
The medical journal that published a controversial study linking MMR to autism says, with hindsight, it would not have published the paper.
Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet told the BBC the researchers had a "fatal conflict of interest".

But Andrew Wakefield, the researcher at the centre of the study, rejected the journal's claims.

The paper prompted many parents to reject the three-in-one jab, even though most experts say it is safe.

The Lancet launched an investigation into the way the study was carried out after receiving "an allegation of research misconduct".

It would not reveal who had made the allegations - which do not cover the actual findings of the study.

But in a statement, the Lancet said Dr Wakefield had not said he was carrying out a second study into whether there were grounds for legal action on behalf of parents of allegedly vaccine-damaged children.

Some children were involved in both studies.

The Lancet says it should have been told about this overlap, although Dr Wakefield says he was not involved in the selection process for the second study.

Personal detail

Dr Horton said: "There were fatal conflicts of interest in this paper.

"In my view, if we had known the conflict of interest Dr Wakefield had in this work I think that would have strongly affected the peer reviewers about the credibility of this work and in my judgement it would have been rejected."

He said: "As the father of a three-year-old who has had MMR, I regret hugely the adverse impact this paper has had.

But he said: "Professionally, I don't regret it. The Lancet must raise new ideas."

However, Dr Wakefield said the Lancet study and his other work were completely separate.

He said he believed his findings were still valid.

"They have now been confirmed independently by reputable physicians and pathologists."

He added: "My colleagues and I have acted at all times in the best medical interests of these children and will continue to do so."

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/h...th/3508167.stm

Published: 2004/02/20 19:58:09 GMT

© BBC MMVIII

truly loved the "fatal conflicts of interest" statement of the above article. a little conflict of interest noted in the following"
http://ahrp.blogspot.com/
(blog of Dr. Jeffrey Dach)
"Innoculated Against Facts (Secret Science)
"There is no greater rancor in medicine than the autism-vaccine debate, and this debate has reached the federal vaccine court where 5000 autistic kids and their families are requesting compensation for vaccine injury," said Jeffrey Dach MD...
...Before age 6, a child gets well over 30 inoculations, often those shots dispense multiple vaccines. The safety of those shots has been the center of a contentious battle in the US and the UK. The association between autism and mitochondrial mutations--which Hannah Poling is said to have--was confirmed by Ricardo Segurado Am J Psychiatry 162:2182-2184, November 2005.

Furthermore, mitochondrial disorders are thought to be the most common disease associated with autism. Some journal articles and other analyses have estimated that 10% to 20% of all autism cases may involve mitochondrial disorders, which would make them one thousand times more common among people with ASD (autism than the general population. [Link]

"...Dr. Paul Offit, chief of the infectious diseases division of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, regularly writes Op Ed pieces of propaganda promoting vaccines and inveighing against lawsuits. In his New York Times OpEd piece (below), he calls the government concession in favor of Hannah Poling's parents, "shocking." He claims “There is no evidence that children with mitochondrial enzyme deficiencies are worsened by vaccines... Indeed, children like Hannah Poling who are especially susceptible to infections are most likely to benefit from vaccines."

Dr. Offit then accuses vaccine court judges of "turning their back on science" when they issue rulings favorable to plaintiffs. Dr. Offit then misstates the facts in the Poling settlement: "Without holding a hearing on the matter, the court conceded that the claim was biologically plausible."

Surely Dr. Offit knows that it was NOT a judge but the Justice Department, on behalf of the Department of Health and Human Services, who conceded the evidence of neurological damage linking the vaccines Hannah Poling received to her autistic condition. Indeed, Assistant Attorney General Peter Keisler wrote that medical personnel at the HHS Division of Vaccine Injury Compensation (DVIC) had reviewed the Poling case and "concluded that compensation is appropriate."

The Times, not only publishes such disinformation when the writer is deemed an “authority” within the medical establishment-but the Times fails to disclose to readers the significant financial ties of such medical "authorities."

To whit, Dr. Offit states that the oral polio vaccine "could in rare cases cause paralysis" and "an early version of the rotavirus vaccine might cause intestinal blockage." He then integrates a promotional pitch: "I am the do-inventor and co-patent holder of a newer rotavirus vaccine" within a statement that he calls "in the interest of full disclosure." Dr. Offit fails to disclose that the vaccine of which he is a co-patent holder is Merck's Rotateq.

On June 4, 2007, Ed Silverman (PHarmalot) noted Dr. Offit similarly failed to specifically disclose his financial ties to Merck in an OpEd article in The Boston Globe (owned by The New York Times) or that he has served as a consultant to Merck for many years.

"In other words, Offit may be directly affected by any litigation that questions the worth of vaccines and, by extension, makes life more difficult for these companies. This is what he told UPI in 2003, before Rotateq was approved by the FDA: “I am a co-holder of a patent for a (rotavirus) vaccine. If this vaccine were to become a routinely recommended vaccine, I would make money off of that.” See: [Link]

The vaccine in which Dr. Offit holds a co-patent has become a routinely recommended --shouldn't readers of the Times be informed about the financial conflict of interest?

References:
1. Guiomar Oliveira* MD PhD, et al. Epidemiology of autism spectrum disorder in Portugal: prevalence, clinical characterization, and medical conditions, Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology 2007, 49: 726-733 [Link]