MMR is safe - so why are many still scared of it?

May 10, 2006

This guy is in serious denial....

http://www.spiked-online.com/articles/0000000CB055.htm

The good news: a study found no persistent trace of measles in autistic

children after MMR. The bad news: it may not be enough to allay public

fears.

by Dr Fitzpatrick

An authoritative study has failed to confirm that children with autism carry

persistent traces of measles virus following MMR immunisation.

In 2002, a team led by Professor O'Leary in Dublin claimed to have

found measles virus genome sequences in more than 80 per cent of gut biopsy

specimens from autistic children (provided by the former Royal Free

researcher Wakefield). In 2004, Dr Wakefield's Florida colleague Jeff

Bradstreet claimed to have found similar levels of measles virus in

cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) specimens. Though these findings were considered

unconvincing by scientific authorities, they were widely believed by parents

of autistic children, and played an important role in sustaining the

campaign against MMR.

Now the notion that MMR causes lingering measles infection in children with

autism has been authoritatively refuted. In a study published in the current

Journal of Medical Virology, a team led by London-based virologist Muhammad

Afzal, and including the Edinburgh autism specialist Anne O'Hare, set out to

replicate the methods used by Professor O'Leary (QRT-PCR TaqMan) and also

used a more sensitive test (RT-PCR-nested PCR assay) (1). These methods have

the potential to detect measles virus RNA transcripts down to single figure

copy numbers. Considering it unethical to inflict colonoscopy or lumbar

puncture on autistic children for research purposes, the authors used blood

specimens taken for other clinical investigations from 15 children who

presented sequentially to an autism diagnostic service in the south east of

Scotland. The sample included 12 boys and 3 girls; 10 had shown signs of

regression in their second year. All had received MMR.

The authors could find no measles-virus specific genetic fragments by any

method in any case, using assays targeting multiple genomic regions under

various experimental formats to improve detection rates. However, they found

that all the patients had detectable levels of anti-measles antibodies. They

observed that 'it therefore seems reasonable to conclude that, after

provoking immunity in the vaccine recipients, measles virus was eliminated

from the blood by the host defence system, as expected with normal healthy

children'.

These results suggest that the high rates of measles virus traces found in

Professor O'Leary's laboratory were the results of cross-contamination of

samples and/or false positive scoring.

Dr Afzal's study is good news for parents who have come to fear that by

giving their children MMR they may have contributed to their development of

autism. It is particularly good news for parents who may have been misled by

results from Professor O'Leary's lab into believing the MMR-autism theory.

It is also good news for parents facing decisions about giving their

children MMR: within weeks of the first death from measles in the UK for 14

years, we have further strong evidence for the safety of MMR.

This study is, however, bad news for Dr Wakefield and Professor O'Leary. In

his now notorious (and partly retracted) 1998 Lancet paper, Dr Wakefield

invited further researches into his MMR-autism hypothesis in the spheres of

epidemiology and virology. When numerous epidemiological studies failed to

support his thesis, he decided that such methods were not suitable to detect

the small number of autism cases linked to MMR (though his supporters

continued to blame MMR for a supposed 'epidemic' of autism).

Professor O'Leary is reported to have received around £800,000 from the

anti-MMR litigation for carrying out tests for measles virus that have now

been discredited by a rigorous independent virological study (2). As Dr

Afzal and colleagues put it, 'in summary, the data presented in this study

failed to verify the finding of previous studies that predicted persistence

of measles virus in autistic children with developmental regression'.

For all its scientific rigour, the Afzal paper will have a limited effect in

allaying the anxieties provoked by the campaign against MMR. It is not clear

why it has taken so long for this relatively straightforward study to be

completed: it is now eight years since Dr Wakefield's notorious Lancet paper

and four years since O'Leary's research was published. It is also

unfortunate that it is based on such a small number of cases - scarcely more

than were included in Wakefield's original study. Given that the

Wakefield/O'Leary research was based on children with autism and bowel

complaints, it would have strengthened the Afzal study if it had limited its

subjects to similar children, even if they had to be recruited from a number

of centres.

The low key presentation of this study - published in an obscure scientific

journal with little wider publicity - is also characteristic of the official

response to the campaign against MMR. All in all, it is a case of 'too

little, too late'. It is no wonder that, despite the scientific weakness of

his case, Wakefield has been so successful in the battle for public opinion.

Dr Fitzpatrick is a GP and author of MMR and Autism: What Parents

Need to Know (buy this book from Amazon (UK) or Amazon (USA)).

(1) M.A. Afzal, L.C. Ozoemena, A. O'Hare, K.A. Kidger, M.L. Bentley, P.D.

Minor. Absence of detectable measles virus genome sequence in blood of

autistic children who have had their MMR vaccination during the routine

childhood immunization schedule of UK, Journal of Medical Virology, 2006;

78: 623-630. (2) Deer, Fresh doubts cast on MMR study data, Sunday

Times, 25 April 2004

May 10, 2006

However, if nothing else, I would agree with the statement below.

>Considering it unethical to inflict colonoscopy or lumbar

puncture on autistic children for research purposes, the authors used blood

specimens taken for other clinical investigations from 15 children who

presented sequentially to an autism diagnostic service in the south east of

Scotland.

mum2mishka <mum2mishka@...> wrote:

This guy is in serious denial....

http://www.spiked-online.com/articles/0000000CB055.htm

MMR is safe - so why are many still scared of it?

---------------------------------

Get amazing travel prices for air and hotel in one click on FareChase

May 11, 2006

Maybe it's because Wakefield is cuter than Fitzpatrick. <redhead60707@...> wrote: Comments for the Mc's-loving doctor besides the fact that public opinion sides with integrity and real science (Wakefield/O'Leary)?http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CB055.htm MMR is safe - so why are many still scared of it?The good news: a study found no persistent trace of measles in autistic children after MMR. The bad news: it may not be enough to allay public fears. by Dr Fitzpatrick An authoritative study has failed to confirm that children with autism carry persistent traces of measles virus following MMR immunisation. In 2002, a team led by Professor O'Leary in Dublin claimed to have found measles virus genome sequences in more than 80 per cent of gut biopsy specimens from autistic children

(provided by the former Royal Free researcher Wakefield). In 2004, Dr Wakefield's Florida colleague Jeff Bradstreet claimed to have found similar levels of measles virus in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) specimens. Though these findings were considered unconvincing by scientific authorities, they were widely believed by parents of autistic children, and played an important role in sustaining the campaign against MMR. Now the notion that MMR causes lingering measles infection in children with autism has been authoritatively refuted. In a study published in the current Journal of Medical Virology, a team led by London-based virologist Muhammad Afzal, and including the Edinburgh autism specialist Anne O'Hare, set out to replicate the methods used by Professor O'Leary (QRT-PCR TaqMan) and also used a more sensitive test (RT-PCR-nested PCR assay) (1).

These methods have the potential to detect measles virus RNA transcripts down to single figure copy numbers. Considering it unethical to inflict colonoscopy or lumbar puncture on autistic children for research purposes, the authors used blood specimens taken for other clinical investigations from 15 children who presented sequentially to an autism diagnostic service in the south east of Scotland. The sample included 12 boys and 3 girls; 10 had shown signs of regression in their second year. All had received MMR. The authors could find no measles-virus specific genetic fragments by any method in any case, using assays targeting multiple genomic regions under various experimental formats to improve detection rates. However, they found that all the patients had detectable levels of anti-measles antibodies. They observed that 'it therefore seems reasonable to conclude that, after provoking

immunity in the vaccine recipients, measles virus was eliminated from the blood by the host defence system, as expected with normal healthy children'. These results suggest that the high rates of measles virus traces found in Professor O'Leary's laboratory were the results of cross-contamination of samples and/or false positive scoring. Dr Afzal's study is good news for parents who have come to fear that by giving their children MMR they may have contributed to their development of autism. It is particularly good news for parents who may have been misled by results from Professor O'Leary's lab into believing the MMR-autism theory. It is also good news for parents facing decisions about giving their children MMR: within weeks of the first death from measles in the UK for 14 years, we have further strong evidence

for the safety of MMR. This study is, however, bad news for Dr Wakefield and Professor O'Leary. In his now notorious (and partly retracted) 1998 Lancet paper, Dr Wakefield invited further researches into his MMR-autism hypothesis in the spheres of epidemiology and virology. When numerous epidemiological studies failed to support his thesis, he decided that such methods were not suitable to detect the small number of autism cases linked to MMR (though his supporters continued to blame MMR for a supposed 'epidemic' of autism). Professor O'Leary is reported to have received around £800,000 from the anti-MMR litigation for carrying out tests for measles virus that have now been discredited by a rigorous independent virological study (2). As Dr Afzal and colleagues put it, 'in

summary, the data presented in this study failed to verify the finding of previous studies that predicted persistence of measles virus in autistic children with developmental regression'. For all its scientific rigour, the Afzal paper will have a limited effect in allaying the anxieties provoked by the campaign against MMR. It is not clear why it has taken so long for this relatively straightforward study to be completed: it is now eight years since Dr Wakefield's notorious Lancet paper and four years since O'Leary's research was published. It is also unfortunate that it is based on such a small number of cases - scarcely more than were included in Wakefield's original study. Given that the Wakefield/O'Leary research was based on children with autism and bowel complaints, it would have strengthened the Afzal study if it had limited its subjects to

similar children, even if they had to be recruited from a number of centres. The low key presentation of this study - published in an obscure scientific journal with little wider publicity - is also characteristic of the official response to the campaign against MMR. All in all, it is a case of 'too little, too late'. It is no wonder that, despite the scientific weakness of his case, Wakefield has been so successful in the battle for public opinion. Dr Fitzpatrick is a GP and author of MMR and Autism: What Parents Need to Know (buy this book from Amazon (UK) or Amazon (USA)). (1) M.A. Afzal, L.C. Ozoemena, A. O'Hare, K.A. Kidger, M.L. Bentley, P.D. Minor. Absence of detectable measles virus genome sequence in blood of autistic children who have had their MMR vaccination during the routine childhood immunization schedule of UK, Journal of Medical Virology, 2006; 78: 623-630. (2) Deer, Fresh doubts cast on MMR study data, Sunday Times, 25 April 2004 Reprinted from : http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CB055.htm Get amazing travel prices for air and hotel in one click on FareChase

May 11, 2006

Several years ago, wrote an article about the MMR controversy, which mentioned Dr. Muhammed Afzal. At that time, he was apparently the leader of the MMR programme at the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control (or NIBSC). One of his colleagues, Dr. Phil Minor, was a paid advisor to GlaxoKline in an MMR lawsuit. Dr. Afzal himself, apparently gave free advice to law firms representing the companies involved in the case. More information about this can be found at the link I'll post below. Mention of Dr. Afzal occurs towards the end of Phillp's article. And now Fitzpatrick is touting an "authoritative study" led by this doctor.... Please, give us a break! When will we see any independent studies by researchers who aren't tied to the industry in some way or other? Aasa http://pws.prserv.net/mpjr/mp/dm110303.htm <redhead60707@...> wrote: Comments for the Mc's-loving doctor besides the fact that public opinion sides with integrity and real science (Wakefield/O'Leary)?http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CB055.htm MMR is safe - so why are many still scared of

it?The good news: a study found no persistent trace of measles in autistic children after MMR. The bad news: it may not be enough to allay public fears. by Dr Fitzpatrick An authoritative study has failed to confirm that children with autism carry persistent traces of measles virus following MMR immunisation. In 2002, a team led by Professor O'Leary in Dublin claimed to have found measles virus genome sequences in more than 80 per cent of gut

biopsy specimens from autistic children (provided by the former Royal Free researcher Wakefield). In 2004, Dr Wakefield's Florida colleague Jeff Bradstreet claimed to have found similar levels of measles virus in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) specimens. Though these findings were considered unconvincing by scientific authorities, they were widely believed by parents of autistic children, and played an important role in sustaining the campaign against MMR. Now the notion that MMR causes lingering measles infection in children with autism has been authoritatively refuted. In a study published in the current Journal of Medical Virology, a team led by London-based virologist Muhammad Afzal, and including the Edinburgh autism specialist Anne O'Hare, set out to replicate the methods used by Professor O'Leary (QRT-PCR TaqMan) and also used a more

sensitive test (RT-PCR-nested PCR assay) (1). These methods have the potential to detect measles virus RNA transcripts down to single figure copy numbers. Considering it unethical to inflict colonoscopy or lumbar puncture on autistic children for research purposes, the authors used blood specimens taken for other clinical investigations from 15 children who presented sequentially to an autism diagnostic service in the south east of Scotland. The sample included 12 boys and 3 girls; 10 had shown signs of regression in their second year. All had received MMR. The authors could find no measles-virus specific genetic fragments by any method in any case, using assays targeting multiple genomic regions under various experimental formats to improve detection rates. However, they found that all the patients had detectable levels of anti-measles antibodies. They observed that 'it therefore seems

reasonable to conclude that, after provoking immunity in the vaccine recipients, measles virus was eliminated from the blood by the host defence system, as expected with normal healthy children'. These results suggest that the high rates of measles virus traces found in Professor O'Leary's laboratory were the results of cross-contamination of samples and/or false positive scoring. Dr Afzal's study is good news for parents who have come to fear that by giving their children MMR they may have contributed to their development of autism. It is particularly good news for parents who may have been misled by results from Professor O'Leary's lab into believing the MMR-autism theory. It is also good news for parents facing decisions about giving their children MMR: within weeks of the first death from measles in the UK for

14 years, we have further strong evidence for the safety of MMR. This study is, however, bad news for Dr Wakefield and Professor O'Leary. In his now notorious (and partly retracted) 1998 Lancet paper, Dr Wakefield invited further researches into his MMR-autism hypothesis in the spheres of epidemiology and virology. When numerous epidemiological studies failed to support his thesis, he decided that such methods were not suitable to detect the small number of autism cases linked to MMR (though his supporters continued to blame MMR for a supposed 'epidemic' of autism). Professor O'Leary is reported to have received around £800,000 from the anti-MMR litigation for carrying out tests for measles virus that have now been discredited by a rigorous independent virological study

(2). As Dr Afzal and colleagues put it, 'in summary, the data presented in this study failed to verify the finding of previous studies that predicted persistence of measles virus in autistic children with developmental regression'. For all its scientific rigour, the Afzal paper will have a limited effect in allaying the anxieties provoked by the campaign against MMR. It is not clear why it has taken so long for this relatively straightforward study to be completed: it is now eight years since Dr Wakefield's notorious Lancet paper and four years since O'Leary's research was published. It is also unfortunate that it is based on such a small number of cases - scarcely more than were included in Wakefield's original study. Given that the Wakefield/O'Leary research was based on children with autism and bowel complaints, it would have strengthened the Afzal

study if it had limited its subjects to similar children, even if they had to be recruited from a number of centres. The low key presentation of this study - published in an obscure scientific journal with little wider publicity - is also characteristic of the official response to the campaign against MMR. All in all, it is a case of 'too little, too late'. It is no wonder that, despite the scientific weakness of his case, Wakefield has been so successful in the battle for public opinion. Dr Fitzpatrick is a GP and author of MMR and Autism: What Parents Need to Know (buy this book from Amazon (UK) or Amazon (USA)). (1) M.A. Afzal, L.C. Ozoemena, A. O'Hare, K.A. Kidger, M.L. Bentley, P.D. Minor. Absence of detectable measles virus genome sequence in blood of autistic children who have had their MMR vaccination during the routine childhood immunization schedule of UK, Journal of Medical Virology, 2006; 78: 623-630. (2) Deer, Fresh doubts cast on MMR study data, Sunday Times, 25 April 2004 Reprinted from : http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CB055.htm Get amazing travel prices for air and hotel in one click on FareChase

May 11, 2006

Thanks Aasa...that explains a lot!

> Comments for the Mc's-loving doctor besides the fact that

public opinion sides with integrity and real science (Wakefield/O'Leary)?

>

> http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CB055.htm

>

> MMR is safe - so why are

many still scared of it?

> The good news: a study found no persistent trace of measles in

autistic children after MMR. The bad news: it may not be enough to

allay public fears.

> by Dr Fitzpatrick

> An authoritative study has failed to confirm that children

with autism carry persistent traces of measles virus following MMR

immunisation.

>

> In 2002, a team led by Professor O'Leary in Dublin claimed

to have found measles virus genome sequences in more than 80 per cent

of gut biopsy specimens from autistic children (provided by the former

Royal Free researcher Wakefield). In 2004, Dr Wakefield's

Florida colleague Jeff Bradstreet claimed to have found similar levels

of measles virus in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) specimens. Though these

findings were considered unconvincing by scientific authorities, they

were widely believed by parents of autistic children, and played an

important role in sustaining the campaign against MMR.

>

> Now the notion that MMR causes lingering measles infection in

children with autism has been authoritatively refuted. In a study

published in the current Journal of Medical Virology, a team led by

London-based virologist Muhammad Afzal, and including the Edinburgh

autism specialist Anne O'Hare, set out to replicate the methods used

by Professor O'Leary (QRT-PCR TaqMan) and also used a more sensitive

test (RT-PCR-nested PCR assay) (1). These methods have the potential

to detect measles virus RNA transcripts down to single figure copy

numbers. Considering it unethical to inflict colonoscopy or lumbar

puncture on autistic children for research purposes, the authors used

blood specimens taken for other clinical investigations from 15

children who presented sequentially to an autism diagnostic service in

the south east of Scotland. The sample included 12 boys and 3 girls;

10 had shown signs of regression in their second year. All had

received MMR.

>

> The authors could find no measles-virus specific genetic

fragments by any method in any case, using assays targeting multiple

genomic regions under various experimental formats to improve

detection rates. However, they found that all the patients had

detectable levels of anti-measles antibodies. They observed that 'it

therefore seems reasonable to conclude that, after provoking immunity

in the vaccine recipients, measles virus was eliminated from the blood

by the host defence system, as expected with normal healthy children'.

>

> These results suggest that the high rates of measles virus

traces found in Professor O'Leary's laboratory were the results of

cross-contamination of samples and/or false positive scoring.

>

> Dr Afzal's study is good news for parents who have come to fear

that by giving their children MMR they may have contributed to their

development of autism. It is particularly good news for parents who

may have been misled by results from Professor O'Leary's lab into

believing the MMR-autism theory. It is also good news for parents

facing decisions about giving their children MMR: within weeks of the

first death from measles in the UK for 14 years, we have further

strong evidence for the safety of MMR.

>

> This study is, however, bad news for Dr Wakefield and Professor

O'Leary. In his now notorious (and partly retracted) 1998 Lancet

paper, Dr Wakefield invited further researches into his MMR-autism

hypothesis in the spheres of epidemiology and virology. When numerous

epidemiological studies failed to support his thesis, he decided that

such methods were not suitable to detect the small number of autism

cases linked to MMR (though his supporters continued to blame MMR for

a supposed 'epidemic' of autism).

>

> Professor O'Leary is reported to have received around £800,000

from the anti-MMR litigation for carrying out tests for measles virus

that have now been discredited by a rigorous independent virological

study (2). As Dr Afzal and colleagues put it, 'in summary, the data

presented in this study failed to verify the finding of previous

studies that predicted persistence of measles virus in autistic

children with developmental regression'.

>

> For all its scientific rigour, the Afzal paper will have a

limited effect in allaying the anxieties provoked by the campaign

against MMR. It is not clear why it has taken so long for this

relatively straightforward study to be completed: it is now eight

years since Dr Wakefield's notorious Lancet paper and four years since

O'Leary's research was published. It is also unfortunate that it is

based on such a small number of cases - scarcely more than were

included in Wakefield's original study. Given that the

Wakefield/O'Leary research was based on children with autism and bowel

complaints, it would have strengthened the Afzal study if it had

limited its subjects to similar children, even if they had to be

recruited from a number of centres.

>

> The low key presentation of this study - published in an obscure

scientific journal with little wider publicity - is also

characteristic of the official response to the campaign against MMR.

All in all, it is a case of 'too little, too late'. It is no wonder

that, despite the scientific weakness of his case, Wakefield has been

so successful in the battle for public opinion.

>

> Dr Fitzpatrick is a GP and author of MMR and Autism:

What Parents Need to Know (buy this book from Amazon (UK) or Amazon

(USA)).

>

> (1) M.A. Afzal, L.C. Ozoemena, A. O'Hare, K.A. Kidger, M.L.

Bentley, P.D. Minor. Absence of detectable measles virus genome

sequence in blood of autistic children who have had their MMR

vaccination during the routine childhood immunization schedule of UK,

Journal of Medical Virology, 2006; 78: 623-630. (2) Deer, Fresh

doubts cast on MMR study data, Sunday Times, 25 April 2004

>

> Reprinted from :

http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CB055.htm

>

> ---------------------------------

> Get amazing travel prices for air and hotel in one click on

FareChase

>

May 11, 2006

There's more! I am tired tonight and was only able to dredge up a little about Anne O'Hare, Dr. Afzal's colleague involved with this latest study. She has her foot into coming up with a disconnection between the MMR and autism, although I have not figured out what that connection is, it would be interesting to see what her role is in all of this. Aasa http://www.clah.mvm.ed.ac.uk/Staff_output/Dr_O'Hare.htmredhead60707 <redhead60707@...> wrote: Thanks Aasa...that explains a lot!> Comments for the Mc's-loving doctor besides the fact thatpublic opinion sides with integrity and real science (Wakefield/O'Leary)?> > http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CB055.htm> > MMR is safe - so why aremany still scared of it?> The good news: a study found no persistent trace of measles inautistic children after MMR. The bad news: it may not be enough toallay public fears.> by Dr Fitzpatrick > An authoritative study has failed to confirm that

childrenwith autism carry persistent traces of measles virus following MMRimmunisation.> > In 2002, a team led by Professor O'Leary in Dublin claimedto have found measles virus genome sequences in more than 80 per centof gut biopsy specimens from autistic children (provided by the formerRoyal Free researcher Wakefield). In 2004, Dr Wakefield'sFlorida colleague Jeff Bradstreet claimed to have found similar levelsof measles virus in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) specimens. Though thesefindings were considered unconvincing by scientific authorities, theywere widely believed by parents of autistic children, and played animportant role in sustaining the campaign against MMR.> > Now the notion that MMR causes lingering measles infection inchildren with autism has been authoritatively refuted. In a studypublished in the current Journal of Medical

Virology, a team led byLondon-based virologist Muhammad Afzal, and including the Edinburghautism specialist Anne O'Hare, set out to replicate the methods usedby Professor O'Leary (QRT-PCR TaqMan) and also used a more sensitivetest (RT-PCR-nested PCR assay) (1). These methods have the potentialto detect measles virus RNA transcripts down to single figure copynumbers. Considering it unethical to inflict colonoscopy or lumbarpuncture on autistic children for research purposes, the authors usedblood specimens taken for other clinical investigations from 15children who presented sequentially to an autism diagnostic service inthe south east of Scotland. The sample included 12 boys and 3 girls;10 had shown signs of regression in their second year. All hadreceived MMR.> > The authors could find no measles-virus specific geneticfragments by any method in any case, using assays targeting

multiplegenomic regions under various experimental formats to improvedetection rates. However, they found that all the patients haddetectable levels of anti-measles antibodies. They observed that 'ittherefore seems reasonable to conclude that, after provoking immunityin the vaccine recipients, measles virus was eliminated from the bloodby the host defence system, as expected with normal healthy children'.> > These results suggest that the high rates of measles virustraces found in Professor O'Leary's laboratory were the results ofcross-contamination of samples and/or false positive scoring.> > Dr Afzal's study is good news for parents who have come to fearthat by giving their children MMR they may have contributed to theirdevelopment of autism. It is particularly good news for parents whomay have been misled by results from Professor O'Leary's lab

intobelieving the MMR-autism theory. It is also good news for parentsfacing decisions about giving their children MMR: within weeks of thefirst death from measles in the UK for 14 years, we have furtherstrong evidence for the safety of MMR.> > This study is, however, bad news for Dr Wakefield and ProfessorO'Leary. In his now notorious (and partly retracted) 1998 Lancetpaper, Dr Wakefield invited further researches into his MMR-autismhypothesis in the spheres of epidemiology and virology. When numerousepidemiological studies failed to support his thesis, he decided thatsuch methods were not suitable to detect the small number of autismcases linked to MMR (though his supporters continued to blame MMR fora supposed 'epidemic' of autism).> > Professor O'Leary is reported to have received around £800,000from the anti-MMR litigation for carrying out tests

for measles virusthat have now been discredited by a rigorous independent virologicalstudy (2). As Dr Afzal and colleagues put it, 'in summary, the datapresented in this study failed to verify the finding of previousstudies that predicted persistence of measles virus in autisticchildren with developmental regression'.> > For all its scientific rigour, the Afzal paper will have alimited effect in allaying the anxieties provoked by the campaignagainst MMR. It is not clear why it has taken so long for thisrelatively straightforward study to be completed: it is now eightyears since Dr Wakefield's notorious Lancet paper and four years sinceO'Leary's research was published. It is also unfortunate that it isbased on such a small number of cases - scarcely more than wereincluded in Wakefield's original study. Given that theWakefield/O'Leary research was based on children with autism and

bowelcomplaints, it would have strengthened the Afzal study if it hadlimited its subjects to similar children, even if they had to berecruited from a number of centres.> > The low key presentation of this study - published in an obscurescientific journal with little wider publicity - is alsocharacteristic of the official response to the campaign against MMR.All in all, it is a case of 'too little, too late'. It is no wonderthat, despite the scientific weakness of his case, Wakefield has beenso successful in the battle for public opinion.> > Dr Fitzpatrick is a GP and author of MMR and Autism:What Parents Need to Know (buy this book from Amazon (UK) or Amazon(USA)).> > (1) M.A. Afzal, L.C. Ozoemena, A. O'Hare, K.A. Kidger, M.L.Bentley, P.D. Minor. Absence of detectable measles virus genomesequence in blood

of autistic children who have had their MMRvaccination during the routine childhood immunization schedule of UK,Journal of Medical Virology, 2006; 78: 623-630. (2) Deer, Freshdoubts cast on MMR study data, Sunday Times, 25 April 2004 > > > > Reprinted from :http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CB055.htm > > > ---------------------------------> Get amazing travel prices for air and hotel in one click on FareChase > >

May 11, 2006

This is a surprise- that the guy questening Wakefield/O'Leary's techniques may very well be dirty.

I hope he bought a really nice car with the leather seat option.

Re: MMR is safe - so why are many still scared of it?

Several years ago, wrote an article about the MMR controversy, which mentioned Dr. Muhammed Afzal. At that time, he was apparently the leader of the MMR programme at the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control (or NIBSC). One of his colleagues, Dr. Phil Minor, was a paid advisor to GlaxoKline in an MMR lawsuit. Dr. Afzal himself, apparently gave free advice to law firms representing the companies involved in the case. More information about this can be found at the link I'll post below. Mention of Dr. Afzal occurs towards the end of Phillp's article.

And now Fitzpatrick is touting an "authoritative study" led by this doctor....

Please, give us a break! When will we see any independent studies by researchers who aren't tied to the industry in some way or other?

Aasa

http://pws.prserv.net/mpjr/mp/dm110303.htm <redhead60707@...> wrote:

Comments for the Mc's-loving doctor besides the fact that public opinion sides with integrity and real science (Wakefield/O'Leary)?http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CB055.htm

MMR is safe - so why are many still scared of it?The good news: a study found no persistent trace of measles in autistic children after MMR. The bad news: it may not be enough to allay public fears.

by Dr Fitzpatrick

An authoritative study has failed to confirm that children with autism carry persistent traces of measles virus following MMR immunisation.

In 2002, a team led by Professor O'Leary in Dublin claimed to have found measles virus genome sequences in more than 80 per cent of gut biopsy specimens from autistic children (provided by the former Royal Free researcher Wakefield). In 2004, Dr Wakefield's Florida colleague Jeff Bradstreet claimed to have found similar levels of measles virus in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) specimens. Though these findings were considered unconvincing by scientific authorities, they were widely believed by parents of autistic children, and played an important role in sustaining the campaign against MMR.

Now the notion that MMR causes lingering measles infection in children with autism has been authoritatively refuted. In a study published in the current Journal of Medical Virology, a team led by London-based virologist Muhammad Afzal, and including the Edinburgh autism specialist Anne O'Hare, set out to replicate the methods used by Professor O'Leary (QRT-PCR TaqMan) and also used a more sensitive test (RT-PCR-nested PCR assay) (1). These methods have the potential to detect measles virus RNA transcripts down to single figure copy numbers. Considering it unethical to inflict colonoscopy or lumbar puncture on autistic children for research purposes, the authors used blood specimens taken for other clinical investigations from 15 children who presented sequentially to an autism diagnostic service in the south east of Scotland. The sample included 12 boys and 3 girls; 10 had shown signs of regression in their second year. All had received MMR.

The authors could find no measles-virus specific genetic fragments by any method in any case, using assays targeting multiple genomic regions under various experimental formats to improve detection rates. However, they found that all the patients had detectable levels of anti-measles antibodies. They observed that 'it therefore seems reasonable to conclude that, after provoking immunity in the vaccine recipients, measles virus was eliminated from the blood by the host defence system, as expected with normal healthy children'.

These results suggest that the high rates of measles virus traces found in Professor O'Leary's laboratory were the results of cross-contamination of samples and/or false positive scoring.

Dr Afzal's study is good news for parents who have come to fear that by giving their children MMR they may have contributed to their development of autism. It is particularly good news for parents who may have been misled by results from Professor O'Leary's lab into believing the MMR-autism theory. It is also good news for parents facing decisions about giving their children MMR: within weeks of the first death from measles in the UK for 14 years, we have further strong evidence for the safety of MMR.

This study is, however, bad news for Dr Wakefield and Professor O'Leary. In his now notorious (and partly retracted) 1998 Lancet paper, Dr Wakefield invited further researches into his MMR-autism hypothesis in the spheres of epidemiology and virology. When numerous epidemiological studies failed to support his thesis, he decided that such methods were not suitable to detect the small number of autism cases linked to MMR (though his supporters continued to blame MMR for a supposed 'epidemic' of autism).

Professor O'Leary is reported to have received around £800,000 from the anti-MMR litigation for carrying out tests for measles virus that have now been discredited by a rigorous independent virological study (2). As Dr Afzal and colleagues put it, 'in summary, the data presented in this study failed to verify the finding of previous studies that predicted persistence of measles virus in autistic children with developmental regression'.

For all its scientific rigour, the Afzal paper will have a limited effect in allaying the anxieties provoked by the campaign against MMR. It is not clear why it has taken so long for this relatively straightforward study to be completed: it is now eight years since Dr Wakefield's notorious Lancet paper and four years since O'Leary's research was published. It is also unfortunate that it is based on such a small number of cases - scarcely more than were included in Wakefield's original study. Given that the Wakefield/O'Leary research was based on children with autism and bowel complaints, it would have strengthened the Afzal study if it had limited its subjects to similar children, even if they had to be recruited from a number of centres.

The low key presentation of this study - published in an obscure scientific journal with little wider publicity - is also characteristic of the official response to the campaign against MMR. All in all, it is a case of 'too little, too late'. It is no wonder that, despite the scientific weakness of his case, Wakefield has been so successful in the battle for public opinion.

Dr Fitzpatrick is a GP and author of MMR and Autism: What Parents Need to Know (buy this book from Amazon (UK) or Amazon (USA)).

(1) M.A. Afzal, L.C. Ozoemena, A. O'Hare, K.A. Kidger, M.L. Bentley, P.D. Minor. Absence of detectable measles virus genome sequence in blood of autistic children who have had their MMR vaccination during the routine childhood immunization schedule of UK, Journal of Medical Virology, 2006; 78: 623-630. (2) Deer, Fresh doubts cast on MMR study data, Sunday Times, 25 April 2004

Reprinted from : http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CB055.htm

Get amazing travel prices for air and hotel in one click on FareChase

May 11, 2006

for H. Colemam

They looked at the wrong cells; they should be looking at the dendritgic cells in

regional lymph nodes of patients with infantile regional

enteritis.-.--

H. H. FUDENBERG, M.D., DDG, IOM

-- Original Message -----

From: H

EOHarm

Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 8:17 AM

Subject: Re: MMR is safe - so why are many still scared of it?