The recent Wakefield controversy/Wakefields response

[Guest guest]

The witch hunt against Andy Wakefield has begun.....I think I can

guess why this is happening now....The government in both the USA and

the UK see the recent publicity regarding thimerosal (mercury) and

its link to autism and they're attempting to discredit it at the

source....Dr Wakefield...

He's selflessly given up so much for our kids and does not deserve

this....See the following articles, which I urge you to implement

the " comment on this article " option and email these publications and

help defend one of the heroes of the autism community.... Dr

Wakefield's reply is immediately after the list of articles:

MMR storm: Wakefield welcomes probe-http://www.sundayherald.com/40169

Revealed: MMR research scandal-

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1010858,00.html

Lead researcher defends MMR study-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3510721.stm

Ministers call for inquiry into 'flawed' MMR study-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0,11381,1153623,00.html

************

Received from Dr. Wakefield -

PERMISSION GIVEN & APPROVAL TO SEND AROUND THE PLANET BY DR. ANDREW

WAKEFIELD

OK to forward

Please read carefully

Sheri

Statement from Dr Wakefield

Serious allegations have been made against me and my colleagues in

relation

to the provision of clinical care for children with autism and bowel

disease, and the subsequent reporting of their disease.

These allegations have been made by journalist Deer who has

expressed, in front of witnesses, his aim of destroying me.

All but one of the allegations, which are grossly defamatory, have

been

shown to be baseless. One allegation remains against me personally.

That is, that I did not disclose to the Lancet that a minority of the

12

children in the 1998 Lancet report were also part of a quite separate

study

that was funded in part by the Legal Aid Board .

It is the Lancet's opinion but not mine that such a disclosure should

have

been made since it may have been perceived as a conflict of interest.

This

is despite that fact that the funding was provided for a separate

scientific study.

It needs to be made clear that the funds from the Legal Aid Board

were not

used for the 1998 Lancet study, and therefore I perceived that no

financial

conflict of interest existed.

The Lancet defines a conflict of interest as anything that might

embarrass

the author if it were to be revealed later. I am not embarrassed

since it

is a matter of fact that there was no conflict of interest. I am,

however,

dismayed at the way these facts have been misrepresented.

Whether or not the children's parents were pursuing, or intended to

pursue

litigation against the vaccine manufacturers, had no bearing on any

clinical decision in relation to these children, or their inclusion

in the

Lancet 1998 report.

It is a matter of fact that there was no conflict of interest at any

time

in relation to the medical referral of these children, their clinical

investigation and care, and the subsequent reporting of their disease

in

the Lancet.

As far as the 1998 Lancet report is concerned, it is a matter of fact

that

we found and reported inflammation in the intestines of these

children.

The grant of £55,000 was paid not me but to the Royal Free Hospital

Special

Trustees for my research group to conduct studies on behalf of the

Legal

Aid Board. These research funds were properly administered through the

Royal Free Hospital Special Trustees.

The Legal Aid research grant to my group was used exclusively for the

purpose of conducting an examination of any possible connection

between the

component viruses of the MMR - particularly measles virus - and the

bowel

disease in these children. This is entirely in line with other

studies that

have been funded by the Legal Aid Board (latterly the Legal Services

Commission) and reported in the BMJ . If and when this work is finally

published, due acknowledgement will be made of all sources of funding.

It is unfortunate that, following full disclosure of these facts to

the

editor of the Lancet, he stated that in retrospect he would not have

published facts pertinent to the parent's perceived association with

MMR

vaccine in the 1998 Lancet report. Such a position has major

implications

for the scientific investigation of injuries that might be caused by

drugs

or vaccines, such as Gulf War Syndrome and autism, where possible

victims

may be seeking medical help and also legal redress.

Health Secretary Reid has called for a public enquiry. I welcome

this

since I have already called for a public enquiry that addresses the

whole

issue in relation vaccines and autism.

It has been proposed that my role in this matter should be

investigated by

the General Medical Council (GMC). I not only welcome this, I insist

on it

and I will be making contact with the GMC personally, in the

forthcoming

week.

This whole unpleasant episode has been conflated to provide those

opposed

to addressing genuine concerns about vaccine safety with an

opportunity of

attacking me - an attack that is out of all proportion to the facts

of the

matter.

I stand by everything that I have done in relation to the care,

investigation and reporting of the disease that I and my colleagues

have

discovered in these desperately ill children.

My family and I have suffered many setbacks as a direct consequence

of this

work. As a family, we consider that our problems are nothing compared

with

the suffering of these children and their families. For the sake of

these

children, this work will continue.

[Guest guest]

The witch hunt against Andy Wakefield has begun.....I think I can

guess why this is happening now....The government in both the USA and

the UK see the recent publicity regarding thimerosal (mercury) and

its link to autism and they're attempting to discredit it at the

source....Dr Wakefield...

He's selflessly given up so much for our kids and does not deserve

this....See the following articles, which I urge you to implement

the " comment on this article " option and email these publications and

help defend one of the heroes of the autism community.... Dr

Wakefield's reply is immediately after the list of articles:

MMR storm: Wakefield welcomes probe-http://www.sundayherald.com/40169

Revealed: MMR research scandal-

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1010858,00.html

Lead researcher defends MMR study-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3510721.stm

Ministers call for inquiry into 'flawed' MMR study-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0,11381,1153623,00.html

************

Received from Dr. Wakefield -

PERMISSION GIVEN & APPROVAL TO SEND AROUND THE PLANET BY DR. ANDREW

WAKEFIELD

OK to forward

Please read carefully

Sheri

Statement from Dr Wakefield

Serious allegations have been made against me and my colleagues in

relation

to the provision of clinical care for children with autism and bowel

disease, and the subsequent reporting of their disease.

These allegations have been made by journalist Deer who has

expressed, in front of witnesses, his aim of destroying me.

All but one of the allegations, which are grossly defamatory, have

been

shown to be baseless. One allegation remains against me personally.

That is, that I did not disclose to the Lancet that a minority of the

12

children in the 1998 Lancet report were also part of a quite separate

study

that was funded in part by the Legal Aid Board .

It is the Lancet's opinion but not mine that such a disclosure should

have

been made since it may have been perceived as a conflict of interest.

This

is despite that fact that the funding was provided for a separate

scientific study.

It needs to be made clear that the funds from the Legal Aid Board

were not

used for the 1998 Lancet study, and therefore I perceived that no

financial

conflict of interest existed.

The Lancet defines a conflict of interest as anything that might

embarrass

the author if it were to be revealed later. I am not embarrassed

since it

is a matter of fact that there was no conflict of interest. I am,

however,

dismayed at the way these facts have been misrepresented.

Whether or not the children's parents were pursuing, or intended to

pursue

litigation against the vaccine manufacturers, had no bearing on any

clinical decision in relation to these children, or their inclusion

in the

Lancet 1998 report.

It is a matter of fact that there was no conflict of interest at any

time

in relation to the medical referral of these children, their clinical

investigation and care, and the subsequent reporting of their disease

in

the Lancet.

As far as the 1998 Lancet report is concerned, it is a matter of fact

that

we found and reported inflammation in the intestines of these

children.

The grant of £55,000 was paid not me but to the Royal Free Hospital

Special

Trustees for my research group to conduct studies on behalf of the

Legal

Aid Board. These research funds were properly administered through the

Royal Free Hospital Special Trustees.

The Legal Aid research grant to my group was used exclusively for the

purpose of conducting an examination of any possible connection

between the

component viruses of the MMR - particularly measles virus - and the

bowel

disease in these children. This is entirely in line with other

studies that

have been funded by the Legal Aid Board (latterly the Legal Services

Commission) and reported in the BMJ . If and when this work is finally

published, due acknowledgement will be made of all sources of funding.

It is unfortunate that, following full disclosure of these facts to

the

editor of the Lancet, he stated that in retrospect he would not have

published facts pertinent to the parent's perceived association with

MMR

vaccine in the 1998 Lancet report. Such a position has major

implications

for the scientific investigation of injuries that might be caused by

drugs

or vaccines, such as Gulf War Syndrome and autism, where possible

victims

may be seeking medical help and also legal redress.

Health Secretary Reid has called for a public enquiry. I welcome

this

since I have already called for a public enquiry that addresses the

whole

issue in relation vaccines and autism.

It has been proposed that my role in this matter should be

investigated by

the General Medical Council (GMC). I not only welcome this, I insist

on it

and I will be making contact with the GMC personally, in the

forthcoming

week.

This whole unpleasant episode has been conflated to provide those

opposed

to addressing genuine concerns about vaccine safety with an

opportunity of

attacking me - an attack that is out of all proportion to the facts

of the

matter.

I stand by everything that I have done in relation to the care,

investigation and reporting of the disease that I and my colleagues

have

discovered in these desperately ill children.

My family and I have suffered many setbacks as a direct consequence

of this

work. As a family, we consider that our problems are nothing compared

with

the suffering of these children and their families. For the sake of

these

children, this work will continue.

[Guest guest]

LOL Dr. Goldberg has an article supportive of discrediting Wakefield's

research posted in one of his exam rooms.

Guess we know where he stands......

The recent Wakefield controversy/Wakefields response

The witch hunt against Andy Wakefield has begun.....I think I can

guess why this is happening now....The government in both the USA and

the UK see the recent publicity regarding thimerosal (mercury) and

its link to autism and they're attempting to discredit it at the

source....Dr Wakefield...

He's selflessly given up so much for our kids and does not deserve

this....See the following articles, which I urge you to implement

the " comment on this article " option and email these publications and

help defend one of the heroes of the autism community.... Dr

Wakefield's reply is immediately after the list of articles:

MMR storm: Wakefield welcomes probe-http://www.sundayherald.com/40169

Revealed: MMR research scandal-

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1010858,00.html

Lead researcher defends MMR study-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3510721.stm

Ministers call for inquiry into 'flawed' MMR study-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0,11381,1153623,00.html

************

Received from Dr. Wakefield -

PERMISSION GIVEN & APPROVAL TO SEND AROUND THE PLANET BY DR. ANDREW

WAKEFIELD

OK to forward

Please read carefully

Sheri

Statement from Dr Wakefield

Serious allegations have been made against me and my colleagues in

relation

to the provision of clinical care for children with autism and bowel

disease, and the subsequent reporting of their disease.

These allegations have been made by journalist Deer who has

expressed, in front of witnesses, his aim of destroying me.

All but one of the allegations, which are grossly defamatory, have

been

shown to be baseless. One allegation remains against me personally.

That is, that I did not disclose to the Lancet that a minority of the

12

children in the 1998 Lancet report were also part of a quite separate

study

that was funded in part by the Legal Aid Board .

It is the Lancet's opinion but not mine that such a disclosure should

have

been made since it may have been perceived as a conflict of interest.

This

is despite that fact that the funding was provided for a separate

scientific study.

It needs to be made clear that the funds from the Legal Aid Board

were not

used for the 1998 Lancet study, and therefore I perceived that no

financial

conflict of interest existed.

The Lancet defines a conflict of interest as anything that might

embarrass

the author if it were to be revealed later. I am not embarrassed

since it

is a matter of fact that there was no conflict of interest. I am,

however,

dismayed at the way these facts have been misrepresented.

Whether or not the children's parents were pursuing, or intended to

pursue

litigation against the vaccine manufacturers, had no bearing on any

clinical decision in relation to these children, or their inclusion

in the

Lancet 1998 report.

It is a matter of fact that there was no conflict of interest at any

time

in relation to the medical referral of these children, their clinical

investigation and care, and the subsequent reporting of their disease

in

the Lancet.

As far as the 1998 Lancet report is concerned, it is a matter of fact

that

we found and reported inflammation in the intestines of these

children.

The grant of £55,000 was paid not me but to the Royal Free Hospital

Special

Trustees for my research group to conduct studies on behalf of the

Legal

Aid Board. These research funds were properly administered through the

Royal Free Hospital Special Trustees.

The Legal Aid research grant to my group was used exclusively for the

purpose of conducting an examination of any possible connection

between the

component viruses of the MMR - particularly measles virus - and the

bowel

disease in these children. This is entirely in line with other

studies that

have been funded by the Legal Aid Board (latterly the Legal Services

Commission) and reported in the BMJ . If and when this work is finally

published, due acknowledgement will be made of all sources of funding.

It is unfortunate that, following full disclosure of these facts to

the

editor of the Lancet, he stated that in retrospect he would not have

published facts pertinent to the parent's perceived association with

MMR

vaccine in the 1998 Lancet report. Such a position has major

implications

for the scientific investigation of injuries that might be caused by

drugs

or vaccines, such as Gulf War Syndrome and autism, where possible

victims

may be seeking medical help and also legal redress.

Health Secretary Reid has called for a public enquiry. I welcome

this

since I have already called for a public enquiry that addresses the

whole

issue in relation vaccines and autism.

It has been proposed that my role in this matter should be

investigated by

the General Medical Council (GMC). I not only welcome this, I insist

on it

and I will be making contact with the GMC personally, in the

forthcoming

week.

This whole unpleasant episode has been conflated to provide those

opposed

to addressing genuine concerns about vaccine safety with an

opportunity of

attacking me - an attack that is out of all proportion to the facts

of the

matter.

I stand by everything that I have done in relation to the care,

investigation and reporting of the disease that I and my colleagues

have

discovered in these desperately ill children.

My family and I have suffered many setbacks as a direct consequence

of this

work. As a family, we consider that our problems are nothing compared

with

the suffering of these children and their families. For the sake of

these

children, this work will continue.

Responsibility for the content of this message lies strictly with

the original author(s), and is not necessarily endorsed by or the

opinion of the Research Institute.

[Guest guest]

I'm having a hard time seeing him as a " victim " . How in the world would

anyone not realize what a conflict the two studies were. Heck, even I

would know there was a problem.

It also seems strange that the other doctors involved didn't even know he

had received money for the other study. Yet, I keep reading things where

he's saying " we " in response to the charges against " him " . They had nothing

to do with the $$. and none of them made the claims he did without the

science to back it up.

Everyone keeps discounting studies that say vaccines don't cause

autism.....usually because someone has disclosed connections that could be

considered a conflict. Yet...he didn't even disclose what he was doing.

There are others with disclosed conflicts publishing links between vaccines

and autism. The conflicts are on both sides of the fence.

It also seems like he's implying that other studies confirm his measles

theory. Everything published by U.S. researchers has no mention of measles.

The findings have been consistent with what is being seen in non-IgE food

allergies. Yet, time and again, people are saying that they've validated

the MMR connection.

When anyone says they stand by the findings of his original paper.....people

are taking that as meaning that measles is the problem. What they're

standing behind is the inflammatory bowel findings...

This type of publicity hurts everyone in the autism world... even when we

have nothing to do with it. Hopefully this will be a wake-up call that all

research needs to be top notch and unquestionable.

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

present MMR crisis.

This suggested a link between autism - a developmental disorder which often

arises in the first few years of life - and inflammatory bowel problems.

Importantly, what it did NOT do was suggest that there was any evidence MMR

was connected to either of these problems.

However, it said that studies were " underway " to pursue this theory.

In press statements following the publication of the paper, Dr

Wakefield, the lead author, said he felt there might be a link between MMR

and autism and said that single vaccines rather than the combined jab should

be offered to parents.

SNIP>>

Dr Horton said yesterday he stood by the part of the Wakefield paper that

hypothesised a link between a new kind of inflammatory bowel disease and

autism, saying he believed it remained credible and should have been

published. Its findings have been confirmed in other studies.

snip>

Wakefield was the lead author of the report. He wrote that the parents of

eight of the 12 children blamed MMR: they said symptoms of autism had set

in within days of vaccination.

The Sunday Times has now established that four, probably five, of these

children were covered by the legal aid study. And Wakefield himself had

been awarded up to £55,000 to assist their case by finding scientific

evidence of the link.

**Wakefield did not tell his colleagues or medical authorities of this

conflict of interest either during or after the research.**

The children were subjected to a battery of invasive procedures, including

colonoscopies and lumbar punctures.

In the months that followed the examination of the first children, many

more were channelled through the hospital. The parents of many were clients

of one solicitor, Barr, of King's Lynn, Norfolk, who was leading

the legal attack and had organised Wakefield's funding from the Legal Aid

Board (now the Legal Services Commission).

The research paper published in The Lancet

*** contained no scientific evidence of a link with MMR****,

only the " association " made by parents. But at the

unprecedented press conference to launch the report, attacked the

three-in-one jab as posing risks of causing autism and bowel problems.

_________________________________________________________________

Get fast, reliable access with MSN 9 Dial-up. Click here for Special Offer!

http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200361ave/direct/01/