Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
TIME FOR POLITICIANS TO ACT RESPONSIBLY AND ADDRESS THE ISSUES
- Clifford G. Miller (26 March 2004)
-
The Doctor Over There.
- F. Edward Yazbak (1 April 2004)
-
Parliamentary Protection and Open Science
- Martin V. Hewitt, Ann and Martin Hewitt; Christine Collins and David Thrower; Sheila and Ian Kyle; Julie Loch; Sarah and Richard Miles; Isabella Thomas (8 April 2004)
-
Dr Stephen Ladyman, the Edwina Currie of our time?
- John D Stone (12 April 2004)
-
Re: Parliamentary Protection and Open Science
- John P Heptonstall (13 April 2004)
-
Re: Re: Parliamentary Protection and Open Science
- Brian G McCloskey (14 April 2004)
-
Re: Re: Re: Parliamentary Protection and Open Science
- John D Stone (15 April 2004)
-
Re: Parliamentary Protection and Open Science
- Clifford G. Miller (15 April 2004)
-
Re: Parliamentary Protection and Open Science
- F. Edward Yazbak (16 April 2004)
-
Re: Re: Parliamentary Protection and Open Science
- John P Heptonstall (16 April 2004)
-
Re: Re: Re: Parliamentary Protection and Open Science
- Saadedine Tebbal (17 April 2004)
|
|
|||
|
Clifford G. Miller, Solicitor and graduate physicist Beckenham, Kent, BR3
Send response to journal:
|
Devotees of 'Yes, Minister' know Sir Humphrey's advice. If you cannot attack the opponent's case, attack him personally. Dr Andrew Wakefield was and remains eminent in his field. He was eminent the day before the Lancet paper and he remains so after, with numerous other papers to his credit. He is a man of great courage; to be admired. The most responsible and statesmanlike approach to this matter is to address the real issues affecting the nation. Some are summarised below. It would help if Evan Harris' approach were tempered with those points and that he addressed the real issues. The present call is to a dance with shadow and illusions. There are those who claim there is no 'scientific evidence' or 'scientific proof' to establish or disprove a causal connection between MMR and autism. That is grossly misleading as I demonstrated in "The Unreliability of Scientific Papers as Evidence" http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/328/7440/602-c . Here is a summary of the current position:- *there is ample challenge-dechallenge-rechallenge evidence of a causal connection between MMR and autism; there is ample science on challenge-dechallenge-rechallenge to support that conclusion; *government chooses to ignore the evidence, citing science as justification for doing so; the science is unreliable because, in going on its very limited but specific enquiry, science ignores the primary evidence (in an arrogant and dismissive way - eg. 'unless I saw in controlled scientific conditions which I dictate, I will not accept it') even though that evidence is convincing or compelling; *science is a slow process because science ignores all of the stable hands and people at the racecourse saying 'it went that way' and spends its time, with its instruments and other paraphernalia going over the scene. Science will try to ascertain whether a racehorse had been in the stable and if not what kind of animal it was. Science's likely second answer being 'a hamster' and the first 'there is no scientific evidence, at the time claimed, any animal was in the stable'; *the very nature of scientific investigation means it cannot prove there is no causal connection. It can only (in time) find out what the causes are of the problems (but only if someone bothers to look, and right now the tap for funds for that kind of research is tightly held shut by the hands of the establishment); *most of those engaged in science are in denial and are not just not looking, but looking in the other direction; in cases like this, science can only be relied on to confirm what the existing evidence is already telling us (but not if no one looks of course). Science also goes on to tell us why and how it is happening and with great certainty and precision. But it does so long, long after the event and after the damage that gives us the original evidence has already been done; *science can go and track down precisely what the exact cause of the problem is, but in the meantime, parents must be given full information and physicians are warned the decision is the parents' and they must be fully informed when they make it; *government does not appear to be acting responsibly because
*government and money has abused the science to poison and thereby maim its own citizens (the youngest and most helpless ones at that); *the full extent of the problem and its individual cost and cost to the nation is unknown because all of these phenomena/maladies have not been surveyed. The scandal of all of this is that, to the question 'how many deaths and injuries in the UK are caused by vaccinations' the answer is 'who's counting?'. In other words, no one in the UK is routinely compiling the data from which any correlation can be made between medication administered and death or injury arising. So who, Mr Harris, is acting responsibly? My money is on Wakefield. Competing interests: Close relative with life threatening food allergy. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
F. Edward Yazbak, Pediatrician, Director TL Autism Research, Falmouth, Massachusetts, 02540 USA
Send response to journal:
|
Dave Weldon, MD, the US Representative to Congress from District 15 in Florida, is a member of the influential House Committee on Government Reform. Like Dr. Evan Harris, he has not been personally touched by autism. The following are portions of what Dr. Weldon told the Institute of Medicine Special Committee on Vaccines and Autism on February 9, 2004 [1]: “…I continue to be guided by a strong desire to get at the truth in these matters and I believe passionately that we need to protect the integrity of our national vaccine programs… I am very disturbed by the continued number of reports I receive from researchers regarding their experiences in pursuing these answers. It is past time that individuals are persecuted for asking questions about vaccine safety… Many have described encountering apathy from government officials charged with investigating these matters, difficulty in getting their papers published, and the loss of other research grants. Others report overt discouragement, intimidation and threats, and have abandoned this field of research. Some have had their clinical privileges revoked and others have been hounded out of their institutions. An example of the latter is Dr. Andy Wakefield who has described to me how the intellectual climate at the Royal Free in London became intolerable for him and he was forced to depart…Mind you, half of Dr. Wakefield’s theory has been proven correct and accepted in the medical community... Hundreds of children with regressive autism and GI dysfunction have been scoped and clinicians are seeing the inflammatory bowel disease he first described. The NIH (National Institutes of Health) is finally funding an attempt to repeat Dr. O’Leary’s findings of measles RNA in Wakefield’s biopsy specimens, though I am disappointed it has taken this long. A clinician in New York was poised to repeat Wakefield’s work two years ago, but he ultimately was refused by his IRB (Internal Review Board) and then subsequently had his clinical privileges withdrawn. This atmosphere of intimidation even surrounds today’s hearing. I received numerous complaints that this event is not a further attempt to get at the facts but rather a desire to sweep these issues under the rug… With regard to MMR and Autism, I urge the Committee to build upon its 2001 conclusions and recommendations. A strong signal from you could lessen the intimidation obstructing this research. You concluded that since the MMR was mandatory it was the responsibility of the government to ensure its safety, even if hypothesized adverse outcomes are rare. I concur. As with thimerosal, my concerns about MMR have not subsided: The NIH is presently funding an effort to duplicate Wakefield. Vaccine strain measles virus has been identified in the inflamed GI tract of children with regressive autism. Measles virus antibodies have been found in the CSF of children with regressive autism… The medical community has largely accepted a new form of bowel disease in children with regressive Autism. Federal research funding has not been directed to investigating many of your MMR research recommendations. Also, a significant shortcoming of today’s meeting is that Dr.Wakefield was not invited. In 2001 you found that cases of MMR ”rechallenge” would provide evidence in favor of causality. It is my understanding that Dr. Wakefield has developed such a case series. The lack of an invitation is puzzling… I am concerned about the ability of the CDC’s National Immunization Program to objectively investigate this matter. The CDC has a built-in conflict of interest that is likely to bias any reviews. CDC is tasked with promoting vaccination, ensuring high vaccination rates, and monitoring the safety of vaccines. They serve as their own watchdog - neither common nor desirable when seeking unbiased research... Unfavorable safety reports lead to lower vaccination rates. An association between vaccines and autism would also force CDC officials to admit that their policies irreparably damaged thousands of children. Who among us would easily accept such a conclusion about ourselves? Yet, this is what the CDC is asked to do. Also, the relationship between the CDC and vaccine manufactures has become extremely close. Given these facts, studies conducted for or by the CDC should be evaluated with in this context. Evaluating how best to eliminate this conflict of interest would be a worthwhile endeavor for the IOM. I urge the IOM to take this matter under review…” (End of quote) It is unfortunate that Drs. Harris and Weldon are so far apart! 1 http://www.aapsonline.org/iom/weldon.pdf Competing interests: Grandfather of a boy with regressive autism, enterocolitis and evidence of measles genomic RNA in the gut wall. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Martin V. Hewitt, parent London N22 7XF, Ann and Martin Hewitt; Christine Collins and David Thrower; Sheila and Ian Kyle; Julie Loch; Sarah and Richard Miles; Isabella Thomas
Send response to journal:
|
Sir - Dr Evan Harris' claims against Dr Andrew Wakefield, his colleges and the Royal Free ethical practices committee, for their part in the research that produced the 1998 Lancet paper, were made under the protection of parliamentary privilege (Annabel Ferriman, 28 March). The BMJ might remind its readers of this. After all, Harris has chosen not to make them without this protection. It is important that parents, without this privilege, with children with autism and bowel disease should also be heard in this ongoing debate. Some of our children were the subjects of the research Harris refers to and some subjects of later research. We are also claimants in the MMR vaccination litigation against its pharmaceutical producers. Far from our children being subject to invasive investigations that were of no diagnostic or therapeutic value, as Harris alleges, the use of endoscopy and ileocolonoscopy revealed that our children have inflammatory bowel disease with repeated cycles of diarrhoea and constipation, frequent bouts of intense pain and limited motility. We cannot be certain of their prognosis as some are developing new and worsening conditions. These children have autism and disintegrative disorder - a complex of symptoms Harris' allegations also ignore. They were subsequently treated with anti-inflammatory drugs and restricted diet that brought about some improvement in their condition. In addition, the investigations revealed the presence of persistent measles virus in their gut and blood, which has been certified by Professor John O'Leary, Professor of Molecular Biology, Trinity College Dublin. These findings have been peer-reviewed and published in medical journals, (1) corroborated by other independent researchers, (2) and suggest underlying autoimmune disease. (3) The process of corroboration and further research continues. Anecdotally we know that none of our children suffered from wild measles or was likely to be exposed during years of few recorded outbreaks. The importance of Wakefield et al's 1998 Lancet paper is clear. It led to the identification of a new condition and offered several hypotheses that others could validate or refute according to established scientific protocols. Harris' repeated claim that Wakefield failed to disclose in the 1998 peer-reviewed paper a conflict of interest and payment received whilst undertaking work for the Legal Aid Board is one that raises standards of disclosure that apply to expert witnesses working for the pharmaceutical producers of MMR as well as the claimants. In a revealing exchange between 'Private Eye' (19 March 2004) and Professor Elizabeth Miller, Head of the Immunisation Division at the Health Protection Agency and expert witness for the producers, she defends her non-disclosure in 2003 publications about MMR, by saying "there can be no conflict of interest when acting as an expert witness for the courts, because the duty to the courts overrides any other obligation, including to the person from whom the expert receives instruction or by whom they are paid". Yet Dr Harris and other parties - such as the Chief Medical Officer and the Health Secretary who insisted that the GMC investigate the allegations against Wakefield - have responded to what remains a matter of scientific dispute about MMR safety, by publicly questioning Wakefield's moral integrity as a scientists, whilst evading the scientific issues themselves. Yet Harris breaks rank in one respect, his demand for a wider public inquiry of Wakefield and the Royal Free's conduct. There is every reason to welcome a public inquiry, for it would raise the wider questions of MMR safety. But it is highly unlikely that the government and medical mandarins would welcome this, despite the strong public interest shown. It is a shame that, as a member of a medical profession that adheres to the protocol of investigating scientific disputes in the full light of public scrutiny, Dr Harris should choose to pursue his concerns under the veil of parliamentary privilege, and that others use their executive authority to resist all calls for a public inquiry. It would be a tragedy if medical scientists, understandably mindful of their research funding and career prospects, saw the condemnations waged on Wakefield as a sign that research critical of vaccination policy must be avoided at all costs. Such a development would further undermine public trust in vaccination policy. 1) Uhlmann, V. et al (2002) 'Potential viral mechanism for new variant inflammatory bowel disease', Molecular Pathology, No. 55, pp 0-6). 2) Buie T. (2001) 'Initial autism research findings at Harvard, Massachusetts'. Presented at Oasis Conference for Autism. Portland, Oregon, USA: November, 2001. http://www.autismnwaf.com/harvard project2.htm. Krigsman, A (2002) Testimony by Dr Arthur Krigsman MD before the Committee on Government Reform. Presented to US Congressional Committee on Government Reform's hearing, The Status of Research into Vaccine Safety and Autism. Washington DC: Congressional Committee on Government Reform, 2002. (3) Torrente, F (2002) 'Enteropathy with T cell infiltration and epithelial IgG deposition in autism', Molecular Psychiatry, vol.7, pp375- 82. Competing interests: parents of children with autism and bowel disease and claimants in MMR litigation |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John D Stone, None London N22
Send response to journal:
|
It may come as a shock to Evan Harris and Brian Deer but the Government has already admitted that Andrew Wakefield's patients have measles antigen in their gut. In an interview some months ago Dr Stephen Ladyman, Minister of Health and autism expert, talking about autism turned spontaneously to the question of the MMR: "But what I am as certain of as I can be is that it has nothing to do with MMR and there is no reliable piece of science that links MMR and autism." "The work that Andrew Wakefield did, if you discuss it with Andrew as I have, even he does not make a direct link." "All he has done is he's identified portions of measles antigen in gut tissue of people with autism." "Well he doesn't have any reason to believe that that measles came from MMR, it could just as easily have come from single vaccinations, from native, from wild measles, and if it did come from a vaccination programme, he's got no reason to link it to the autism itself, he simply makes an intuitive leap without evidence as part of his process of hypothesising." "And he would be the first to say that he has no scientific evidence to make that link." [1] Quite why Dr Ladyman feels able to scientically exclude the commonsense possibility that the measles antigen came from the MMR rather than single vaccine or wild measles, which the children are historically unlikely to have had, is a mystery. An equal mystery is how he feels competent to exclude the possibility that the condition of the children is linked to the presence of the measles antigen (particularly without all the tests which Harris and Deer are so eager to prevent happening). But he does admit that the children have measles antigen in their gut. AND HE SHOULD KNOW! [1] Epolitix, 14 October 2003 Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John P Heptonstall, Director of The Morley Acupuncture Clinic and Complementary Therapy Centre LS27 8EG
Send response to journal:
|
Sir I agree with the suggestion that the BMJ should advise its readers that Dr Evan Harris, Lib Dem Spokesman on Health who has a close interest in vaccines and suppliers attending meetings sponsored by them (1), made his allegations about Wakefield and others under Parliamentary privilege. I would add that, as is customary with the BMJ, it only right that Dr Evan Harris's 'Competing Interests' are also not excluded. He is a Fellow Elect of Glaxo Wellcome (2) - a major supplier of vaccines. Reference 1. http://www.acmedsci.ac.uk/20020522prog.htm 2. http://www.parliament.the-stationery- office.co.uk/pa/cm199899/cmstand/deleg9/st99 Regards John H. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Brian G McCloskey, Deputy Director, Local and Regional Services Health Protection Agency
Send response to journal:
|
For the sake of clarity readers might want to know more about the references in John Heptonstall's Rapid Response. The reference to Evan Harris being a "Fellow Elect" of Glaxo Wellcome relate to Dr Harris' participation in the "Industry and Parliament Trust". This is a body set up to promote links bewteen parliamentarians and industry (see www.ipt.org.uk). The Speaker of the House of Commons is joint President and it states its aims as: • The Trust is dedicated to enabling a better mutual understanding and better informed policy judgements in business, government and Parliament. • We operate as an independent, non-partisan, non-lobbying, non- profit-making organisation, in which we encourage the concept of 'practitioner learning from practitioner'. • We place MPs, Peers, Officers of both Houses of Parliament and MEPs in educational exchange Fellowships and topic-based programmes within a range of participating companies of all sectors and sizes. We give business personnel, at all levels within our participating companies, the opportunity to understand Parliament and the EU institutions better, through a series of study programmes, workshops and seminars. Evan Harris is "Fellow" of the Trust - as are some 345 other MPs. The Company "Fellowship" attaches a Parliamentarian to a participating company for 18 days over 12-18 months. It provides the Parliamentarian with a unique understanding of the principles underlying the running of a major organisation. The "elect" means that at the time of the quote referenced (1999) the fellowship had not yet commenced. It should also be noted that: "The Trust meets all expenses incurred during Fellowships and topic-based programmes; no money passes between companies and Parliamentarians for any of our activities". Hardly an earth shattering competing interest.... Competing interests: Public Health Doctor who supports vaccination |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John D Stone, None London N22
Send response to journal:
|
Visitors to the BMJ Rapid Responses will be grateful to Brian McCloskey for clarifying the relationship of Evan Harris with Glaxo Wellcome. As he remarks "hardly an earth shattering competing interest" so it would be nice if he and Dr Harris also acknowledged that Andrew Wakefield's "competing interest" was also not "earth shattering", even though it held the news headlines for four days (February 20-23) and he was not only condemned by Dr Harris, but by the editor of The Lancet Dr Richard Horton, by senior medical officers Sir Liam Donaldson and Dr David Salisbury, as well as by the Prime Minister. But Dr Wakefield had no "interest" as Professor Elizabeth Miller pointed out in her parallel case "there can be no conflict of interest when acting as an expert for the courts" [1] and his involvement so far from being "earth shattering" news had been known about for six years [2]. The columns of the BMJ are now one of the few places left which gives space to a continuing and open discussion of the complex and multi-faceted subject of vaccination safety. Contributers are nevertheless aware that if they made false claims or unfounded criticisms that their letters would not be posted. So it is perfectly proper that when an incorrect claim is inadvertently made about Dr Harris a public servant should appear to set matters straight. But would it not be more impressive if there was some open attempt to address all those more difficult questions as well? What about the flawed claims about Dr Wakefield's integrity? What about the sick children that a minister admits have measles antigen in their gut? [3] What about the many flaws and failure in Government epidemiology which have been explored by contributors to the site? [4] Is it not time we had some open answers about these things? [1] Private Eye N.1102,19 March-1April 2004 [2] Disclosed in a letter to The Lancet 2 May 1998, and latterly reported in The Independent 27 February 2004. His participation must also have been known to the defence. [3] Interview with Dr Stephen Ladyman, Epolitix, 14 October 2003. [4] Passim. Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child who supports vaccination but has concerns about the safety of the current programme |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Clifford G. Miller, Solicitor and graduate physicist Beckenham Kent BR3
Send response to journal:
|
I agree entirely with Brian G McCloskey, Deputy Director, Local and Regional Services Health Protection Agency in his response on this topic. However, he assumes Mr Harris still has the Glaxo Wellcome Fellowship, which it is not clear he still does, as the information concerned dates back to 1999. For the avoidance of doubt, it appears perfectly proper for an MP to be involved in the IPT as can be seen from http://www.ipt.org.uk/about/about.html. Even travel expenses on IPT business can be reimbursable under a parliamentary scheme as can be seen from http://www.parliament.the- stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld/ldpeers/peers04b.htm "4.3 Industry and Parliament Trust (IPT). 4.3.1 Journeys made on business connected with the Industry and Parliament Trust may be claimed from the House of Lords as part of the UK travel scheme, so long as they meet the terms of the scheme set out above. All other claims should be addressed to the IPT." There seems to be nothing improper in not disclosing the holding of the Glaxo Wellcome Fellowship in the MMR/Royal Free debate he initiated on 15th March and particularly not if the Fellowship is no longer held. However, if Mr Harris still is a Glaxo Wellcome Fellow, it might have been better for democratic transparency if it had been disclosed. Some might argue it should still have been disclosed even if the Fellowship had been relinquished since 1999 as it indicates a close contact with Glaxo Wellcome in a debate on such a serious topic. After all, Mr Harris did feel it appropriate to disclose the holding of the Fellowship in 1999, in a previous debate on a far less controversial matter and even though he himself admitted then it did not seem to be a disclosable interest. I set out the quote below from Hansard. The debate related to the delegated legislation on the Medicines (Advertising and Monitoring of Advertising) Amendment Regulations 1999. What, perhaps is far more important for the public to have known, is what prompted Mr Harris to make his intervention in the MMR/Royal Free Hospital matter at that particular time and whether it was of his own volition as a matter of conscience or for some other reason? He does not say what prompted his intervention and it would have been helpful for Parliament and the public to know. That is not mentioned at all in the debate he initiated and as recorded in Hansard of 15th March. It is worth comparing first what Mr Evan Harris disclosed in the debate regarding the MMR/Royal Free, under which Mr Harris had Parliamentary privilege and in which extremely serious allegations were made, as if they were already established fact, including allegations of a criminal nature and notwithstanding the matter appears to have been under GMC scrutiny at the time and in circumstances in which it was highly likely the press would leap with joy on the allegations as eminently publishable and newsworthy (ie. sells more papers and advertising). In the MMR/Royal Free Debate, Mr Harris made the following disclosures but did not mention the Glaxo Wellcome Fellowship, (perhaps because he no longer has it and it would be helpful to know definitely):- "Dr. Evan Harris (Oxford, West and Abingdon) (LD): I wish to discuss issues around clinical ethics and research ethics in the work done at the Royal Free hospital by the inflammatory bowel disease group since 1995. Before I start, I would like to declare my interests. I was a member of an all-party group that recently visited the American society of clinical oncology conference for four days in Chicago, which was organised and funded by the pharmaceutical company Aventis. I am a member of the British Medical Association medical ethics committee, although I am not speaking for that body. I also spent a number of years as a member of the central Oxford research ethics committee, which gave me direct experience of many of the issues that I will deal with tonight. I am a member of the all- party group on autism, and my father is a recently retired professor of paediatrics. In comparison, in the 1999 debate on the Medicines (Advertising and Monitoring of Advertising) Amendment Regulations 1999, the disclosure did include the Glaxo Wellcome Fellowship:- "Dr. Evan Harris (Oxford, West and Abingdon): I should also like to start by making a declaration, although I understand that it is not registrable. Under the industry and Parliament trust scheme, I am a fellow elect of Glaxo Wellcome. That is not a paid position, but it gives me useful insight into the workings of the pharmaceutical industry. I benefit, as have many others, through that scheme. Interestingly, that company is one of the few that have not corresponded with me on this issue, although many other companies and individuals have." I am confused as to why a non disclosable interest is disclosed in a comparatively minor debate, but why such non disclosable interests are not disclosed in a major debate, unless the only answer can be that the interests did not exist at that time, so were 'double non disclosable'? Some clarity please? Competing interests: Close relative with life threatening food allergy. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
F. Edward Yazbak, Pediatrician, Director TL Autism Research, Falmouth, Massachusetts, 02540 USA
Send response to journal:
|
Medical Facts, Not Politics While the debate goes on concerning what Dr. Evan Harris did not mention about the Glaxo Wellcome Fellowship, it is important to comment on what he did say about the investigations by the Wakefield group at the Royal Free (1). Without talking to parents, Dr. Harris suggested that facts had been misrepresented and that the procedures performed on children were not safe, beneficial or even indicated. He also endorsed the statement that research, where there was no likely clinical benefit to children, should not involve anything worse than a blood test. As a pediatrician with 34 years of practice and the grandfather of a boy who was investigated at the Royal Free Unit in June of 1999, I can assure Dr. Harris and everyone, that the benefits were well worth the small risk we took and of which we were fully informed. We begged to have our boy included in the Wakefield study and patiently waited for nine months for our turn. When his diagnosis was confirmed, we placed him on a liquid formula for 2 months, progressed him to a gluten-free/casein-free diet and started him on the appropriate medications with prompt and sustained improvement of his gastro-intestinal findings, his speech, his social competence and his immune system. Our targeted therapy was selected and proved successful only because we knew the specific pathology he had. We never felt the investigations were aggressive and we are grateful to this day, for having been included. We believe that the only aggression inflicted on our boy was from the virus that ruined his life, and ours, forever. My grandson has evidence of measles genomic RNA in his gut wall. Hundreds of endoscopies and colonoscopies are performed on children in order to pinpoint the diagnosis and to formulate the right therapies. A spinal tap in experienced hands is an easy and safe procedure. Much more aggressive investigations are actually performed on infants and children every day and it is safe to state that if the Royal Free program is reinstated, families will be lining up until Hampstead Park. Dr. Harris is evidently dedicated to the health and welfare of his constituents and of the population at large. There is no doubt that he would be thoroughly distressed if 1 in 100 children died or developed obscure illnesses. Unfortunately, he has not appreciated that a whole generation is being lost and that regressive autism may actually be worse than death, for the children, their families, the communities and the Country. Dr. Harris should realize that sometime, somewhere, he must find the huge funds that are needed for the care that these poor individuals will require for the rest of their lives. Our children are not simply “autistic” and they do not suffer from a hopeless psychiatric genetic illness that is effectively an Act of God. They have Regressive Autism, a multi-system disease with intestinal, neurological, endocrine and immune manifestations that is precipitated, in all probability, by environmental causes. It is only when that distinction is finally made, that the real causes of this epidemic will be adequately investigated; it is only then that the therapies and educational modalities necessary to limit the damage and improve the prognosis, will be supported. “Vaccinology” has existed for two centuries; Immunology is a very recent science. Now that more is known about immune disorders and vaccine damage, we should candidly find out where we went wrong. Maybe indeed, 1+1+1 does not equal 3, when it comes to live viruses and small children? Maybe in fact, Andrew. Wakefield is right? Maybe we should look for the truth instead of shooting the messenger? Reference 1. Ferriman, A. MP raises new allegations against Andrew Wakefield. BMJ 2004; 329:726 Competing interests: Grandfather of a boy with regressive autism |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John P Heptonstall, Director of The Morley Acupuncture Clinic and Complementary Therapy Centre Leeds LS27 8EG
Send response to journal:
|
Sir I seem to be responsible for a sudden dramatic exchange on the disclosure of 'competing interests' that one hardly expected - apparently prompted by my unfortunate typo 'IS' for 'IS/WAS' (referring to the 1999 reference I used) that I mis-transcribed from my original unsubmitted prose...and that I informed the eBMJ convenor about but that seems hardly worth amending now that Clifford Miller, Brian McClusky and John Stone have done such a marvellous job clarifying the issues on behalf of Dr. Harris. I do not consider that 'competing interests' soil ones integrity - as one may think from the way they are often handled - indeed most disclosures are an indication of a spokesperson's experience in the subject and may be admired. I know the findings of Sara Schroter et al (1) suggest that public perception is influenced by 'competing interest' disclosures as well as subject content, but suspect that the latter achieves greatest significance with a wise public. As to Dr Harris's "hardly earth shattering competing interest", to quote Brian McClosky, whether or not Dr Harris was required by Parliament to disclose that 'interest' I would hope that, for the eBMJ discussion of his parliamentary action, the public is deemed worthy of disclosures, past or present and earth shattering or not, because - unlike parliamentary debates - our public have direct access to the eBMJ discussion and their perception can only be enhanced by open disclosures in our liberal and democratic society. Were Dr Harris to join the discussion I am sure the public, parents and families of autistic persons, who are inevitably affected by all parliamentary actions and debates on the subject, would welcome the opportunity to interact with a politician who is also a physician with experience in autism and vaccines whose action could be said to have founded the discussion. Regards John H. Reference 1. Sara Schroter et al BMJ 2004;328:742-743 Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Saadedine Tebbal, None Texas, 77477
Send response to journal:
|
Mr. McCloskey, You signed your Rapid Response to BMJ as vaccine supporter. As a parent of an autistic kid, I just wanted to remind you that I and all the other parents of autistic kids were also supporters of vaccines since we unfortunately vaccinated our kids. We were dumb enough (something that we will regret our whole life) to believe that there were MD's in Governmental Health Protection Agencies with enough integrity and knowledge to check the safety of the vaccines and protect our kids. We held our kids tightly in our arms when the nurses were injecting them with poisons, 2 in each tiny leg. No wonder why we dont believe in vaccines anymore, they are just poisons. It is the same thing as saying to somebody who was hit by lighting that lighting does not exist. Better be happy that nothing has hit your family yet because at the rate that autism is increasing (1 in 166 kids in US per CDC web site) we will never know who is next. Competing interests: Kid with Autism |
|||