Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
What they didn't tell you
- John Stone (26 November 2004)
-
Programme will have no effect on the convinced
- Neville W Goodman (26 November 2004)
-
Vaccinations, Autism and Brain Damage
- Alan Challoner MA (Phil) MChS (26 November 2004)
-
Patent allegation patently false: what C4 and Sunday Times didn't tell you
- Clifford G. Miller (27 November 2004)
-
Re: Programme will have no effect on the convinced
- Jenny L Robertson (27 November 2004)
-
Re: What They Didn't Tell You
- Raymond Gallup (28 November 2004)
-
What it didn't tell you
- John P. Heptonstall (1 December 2004)
-
The Sunday Times and Brian Deer's story
- John Stone (1 December 2004)
-
Re: The Sunday Times and Brian Deer's story
- John Stone (3 December 2004)
-
An extraordinary allegation
- John Stone (3 December 2004)
-
Re: Re: The Sunday Times and Brian Deer's story
- John Stone (11 December 2004)
-
Kafka dreamt it
- John Stone (12 December 2004)
-
Abi Berger's sensationalistic tabloidesque MMR review not worthy of BMJ or other medical journal
- Teri Small (12 December 2004)
-
Unforgiveable
- Lisa C Blakemore-Brown (13 December 2004)
-
Re: Abi Berger's sensationalistic tabloidesque MMR review not worthy of BMJ or other medical journal
- Alan Challoner MA (Phil) MChS (13 December 2004)
-
Kafka dreamt it II
- John Stone (14 December 2004)
-
Re: Re: Abi Berger's sensationalistic tabloidesque MMR review not worthy of BMJ or other medical journal
- Teri Small (14 December 2004)
-
MMR and Autism debate is far from closed
- Arnaud Descamps (15 December 2004)
-
Re: Re: Re: Abi Berger's sensationalistic tabloidesque MMR review not worthy of BMJ or other medical journal
- John Stone (15 December 2004)
-
Re: Re: Re: Re: Abi Berger's sensationalistic tabloidesque MMR review not worthy of BMJ or other medical journal
- John Stone (16 December 2004)
-
MMR: What they dont tell you
- John Lucas (16 December 2004)
-
Another deceptive point
- John Stone (16 December 2004)
-
Does No One Care??
- Christina England (17 December 2004)
-
The BMJ has a responsibility not to endorse unsubstantiated claims
- John Stone (18 December 2004)
-
A Black Spot ...on a Good Journal
- F. Edward Yazbak (1 January 2005)
-
Re: A Black Spot ...on a Good Journal
- Joan Campbell (2 January 2005)
-
Re: A Black Spot ...on a Good Journal
- Raymond Gallup (2 January 2005)
-
The Autism Epidemic
- Bill Welsh (4 January 2005)
-
Re: The Autism Epidemic
- Lenny Schafer (5 January 2005)
-
If facts are ignored.
- Christina England (5 January 2005)
-
Kafka dreamt it III
- John Stone (7 January 2005)
-
Re: Kafka dreamt it III
- Lisa C Blakemore-Brown (10 January 2005)
-
Sarcasm and bullying have replaced science and human respect
- John Stone (10 January 2005)
-
Genetics or MMR ?
- Christina England (11 January 2005)
-
Re: Genetics or MMR ?
- John Stone (11 January 2005)
-
The MMR and Single Measles, Mumps and Rubella Vaccines: The REAL Facts
- F. Edward Yazbak (11 January 2005)
-
Re: Kafka dreamt it II & III - Evan Harris, a political question for the Liberal-Democrats
- John Stone (12 January 2005)
|
|
|||
|
John Stone, none London N22
Send response to journal:
|
What Abi Berger thought she learnt in Brian Deer's 'Dispatches' documentary and what she was actually told were almost certainly two different things. The first point to make that so far from suppressing Nick Chadwick's early failure to discover the measles virus in Dr Wakefield's patients the study was in fact published [1]. That Deer failed to mention that Wakefield among others had subsequently successfully detected measles virus RNA in a recent study may perhaps casts doubt on the journalist's motives[2]. I think that Dr Berger will find that Brian Deer was careful not to allege that the 1997 patent application was for a measles vaccine: he certainly did not in the Sunday Times article (14 November 2004), when surely he would have done if he had been able to. A measles vaccine is mentioned in a patent application of June 1998 three month after the famous news conference, but this is a hurriedly sketched document with over two dozen typographic errors - and also shows Wakefield deeply preoccupied with welfare of his patients [3]. If lots of money was the motive then the document would surely have been drawn up with vastly greater care. It is a very interesting issue why Brian Deer has not been keen to publish or quote the text of these documents whether in the Sunday Times, the Dispatches documentary, or on his own website. Frankly, Dr Berger is a little too keen to jump to conclusions. Andrew Wakefield has after all to face a GMC hearing in the latter part of next year. It is obvious that this factor constrains him from defending himself in the way that he would like in the interim. Can we please restore some basic level of fairness to the discussion. [1] Chadwick, N, Bruce I, Schepelmann S, Pounder RE, Wakefield AJ, 'Measles virus RNA is not detected in inflammatory bowel disease using hybrid capture and reverse transcriptions followed by polymerase chain reaction', Journal of Medical Virology, 55 305-11. 1998 [2] Bradstreet, JJ, El Dahr, J, Anthony A, Kartzinel JJ, Wakefield AJ, 'Detection of measles virus genomic RNA in cerebrosinal fluid of three children with regressive autism: a report of three cases', Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, 9 no 2, 38-45. 2004 [3] Description 'Pharmaceutical composition for treatment of IBD and RBD' GB2325856 Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Neville W Goodman, Consultant Anaesthetist Southmead Hospital, Bristol, BS10 5NB
Send response to journal:
|
As I write this, no responses have yet been published, but I predict that this review of Brian Deer's excellent 'Dispatches' will provoke the usual responses from those who are not to be moved from their position that MMR causes autism. To quote the title of a recent review (1) of the books on the subject by Fitzpatrick and by Horton (the review of which in the BMJ provoked the usual responses): "Immune to the facts". This, sadly, is the situation we now have. We just have to hope that those who have become immune to the facts do not transmit their immunity to others. Reference: 1. Oldstone MBA. Immune to the facts. Nature 2004;432:275-6. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Alan Challoner MA (Phil) MChS, Retired LL18 5UR
Send response to journal:
|
MMR: ‘What They Didn't Tell You’, may well have shown a new perspective on the Wakefield research, but it didn’t resolve the doubts about vaccinations and brain damage. On 4 January 2004, Rapid Responses posted my understanding of the sort of events that might lead from vaccination to brain damage. {1} The cytokine theory has more recently been brought to attention again by Vargas et al. {2} It is time that the government encouraged the medical researchers to make a full investigation of these issues, ignoring the cries of ‘foul play’ from the epidemiologists. We all know the benefits of vaccination, but there is clearly an ethical issue if the dangers are ignored. What is more, until these matters are fully understood, some children will continue to be brain-damaged and will benefit only from a single payment of £100,000 to help them with their disability throughout what remains of their lives. [1] Rapid Responses to: REVIEWS: David Elliman and Helen Bedford Hear the Silence BMJ 2003; 327: 1411-a. [2] Diana L. Vargas, Caterina Nascimbene, Chitra Krishnan, Andrew W. Zimmerman, and Carlos A. Pardo. Neuroglial Activation and Neuroinflammation in the Brain of Patients with Autism. Annals of Neurology; Published Online: November 15, 2004 (DOI: 10.1002/ana.20315). Competing interests: Father of vaccine/brain-damaged daughter |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Clifford G. Miller, Patent lawyer, graduate physicist Beckenham, Kent, England, BR3 3LA
Send response to journal:
|
Dear Sir, MORE TOSH IN WAKEFIELD WITCHHUNT Who checked the facts at the Sunday Times and Channel 4 before these allegations (1) were made? If Wakefield was in it for the money, he needed to keep his mouth shut about MMR instead of speaking out as he did in 1998 on behalf of seriously damage children. Read on here to find out why. There is also more detailed information from Wakefield himself at MMR: The Questions website. What is worse is that there is even more science published in the past two months showing Wakefield is right and the government and medical establishment is wrong. This includes papers from Johns Hopkins and The Royal Free and the trashing of the weak epidemiology the government has bet the ranch on. C4 and the Sunday Times also need to explain making these allegations in the week before the government's MMR 'catch up' campaign in London to vaccinate 90,000 children who have had no immunisation. The last time there was something like this was done was when the decision was being made to withdraw legal aid from these 2000 and more seriously vaccine damaged children earlier this year. That time also the Sunday Times led the charge. Further, the catch-up campaign is mounted because the government refuses to make single vaccines available. It is official opposition policy to provide single vaccines. If the government feels it can safely leave children 'unprotected' but claim they will die, this shows the alleged risks are overblown and grossly exaggerated by an irresponsible government and medical establishment that fails to investigate the extent of the damage caused by the vaccines and exaggerates the risks of not having them. This is a re-run of thalidomide with the difference being the kids look physically normal this time. We really do need jail terms for government ministers and officials because this kind of thing keeps happening. PATENT ALLEGATIONS PATENTLY FALSE The Sunday Times ('ST') and Channel 4 Dispatches ('C4') accused Wakefield of:-
WHAT THEY DID NOT TELL YOU - MAIN POINTS (details below):-
WHAT THEY DID NOT TELL YOU - DETAILS:-
1) Sunday 14th November and Thursday 18th November 2) PATENTS ST & C4 APPEAR TO REFER TO GB2300259 "Diagnosing Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis by detection of measles virus" Competing interests: Close relative with life-threatening food allergy. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Jenny L Robertson, journalist London
Send response to journal:
|
Isn't it pathetic in this country that those
who whistleblow or carry out controversial research end up being hounded
out by the establishment? Research is supposed to ask questions. The
subject of vaccinations and their safety is an important one that should
concern us all. It deserves further research by those WITHOUT vested
interests. However we seem to have got to the stage where the
pharmaceutical companies call the shots. The suggestion that Wakefield was
only in it for the money is such a transparently obvious slur. Perhaps the
journalist in question should spend a bit more time exploring the motives
of the big pharmaceutical companies and a little less time carrying out
witch-hunts against people. He might learn something really worth writing
about - but The Sunday Times won't publish it.
Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Raymond Gallup, Founder of The Autism Autoimmunity Project 45 Iroquois Avenue. Lake Hiawatha, NJ 07034, USA
Send response to journal:
|
In response to Abi Berger, I want to say the following. First, I know Dr. Wakefield personally and that he has always put children with autism first, unlike his critics. I have never heard or seen Dr. Wakefield's critics call for more clinical science that would explain why children with autism have measles in the gut or measles in spinal fluid. Nor why Dr. Vijendra Singh has found elevated measles antibody titers in the blood. Both Dr. Wakefield and Dr. Singh have invited others to replicate their science. Why hasn't it been done and why haven't those in the medical community and news media call for this? Dr. Wakefield has defended himself and has said that he never developed a new vaccine to compete with the MMR vaccine. (1) Abi Berger picks up nonsense that comes from Brian Deer. Who is Brian Deer? Is he a doctor or scientist? No! F. Edward Yazbak, MD has written a wonderful article about Vioxx and Vaccines and how the prescription drugs are withdrawn when there are adverse reactions, and vaccines aren't. (2) Harold Buttram, MD writes another article about why vaccine safety studies should be done. (3) The time has come for less opinions and more clinical science. Opinions don't help the children and families, only science will do that. Those in the medical community should know that science helps mankind to move forward and not unscientific opinions. References: 1. http://www.mmrthequestions.com/ 2. http://www.redflagsweekly.com/conferences/vaccines/2004_nov22.html 3. http://www.sarnet.org/lib/VaxTest.htm Competing interests: Founder of The Autism Autoimmunity Project and father to Eric Gallup, who was born normal and regressed into autism after receiving the MMR vaccine |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John P. Heptonstall, Director of The Morley Acupuncture Clinic and Complementary Therapy Centre. Practitioner of TCM -acu LS27 8EG
Send response to journal:
|
Sir I awaited Brian Deer's version of events with great anticipation - after all it was he who exposed the dangers to children of Wellcome's antibiotic Septrin (co-trimoxazole)less than a decade ago leading to a UK ban, and he who exposed the shenaegans in South East Asia where VaxGen, a vaccine company close to the US administration, was implementating very questionable trials of a so-called potential anti-HIV/AIDS vaccine amongst Thai addicts and prostitutes. This time Deer's version of events involved the MMR vaccine, Dr Wakefield et al. It not only disappointed but, unlike the Septrin and AIDS vaccine controversies, Deer seems to have become unusually selective with his facts (perhaps that's just my opinion as I know more about this issue than I did Septrin or VaxGen) losing the ability to present hard-hitting breathtaking facts as those he used to expose the limitations of Big Pharma; his version of events was inadequate, poorly evidenced and so one- sided it must have increased public confusion no end. From someone in Abi Berger's position, the response is surprising and alarming. How could such an obviously biased report on MMR issues be seen as "one of the most exciting examples of investigative television journalism you will ever see" when there was clearly little evidence of in -depth investigation (what I heard was largely conjecture and opinion) or scientific fact? Brian Deer is obviously capable of investigative journalism, so was it, as suggested by Deer, Wakefield's refusal to entertain Deer's questions that foiled the investigation or was Deer incapable of understanding the complexities of scientific and legal process that are involved in the MMR debate? Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Stone, none London N22
Send response to journal:
|
I think it is interesting to reflect that while the original Deer/Wakefield story held the national news headlines for four days last February (though probably nothing would have happened if Richard Horton had not taken the surprising line he did over non-disclosure), Times Newspapers did not actually apparently take this last story very seriously. In fact in the online edition of the paper it appeared as only the twenty-third item in the national news. The lawyers had presumably looked it over very carefully and concluded that it would be not be safe to draw the sort inferences that Dr Berger has done above because Deer is forced to state: "While Wakefield was under no legal or professional obligation to disclose the patent, campaigners believe that his attack on MMR may have been viewed differently had it been known". [1] It is not incidentally very clear who the campaigners are apart from Brian Deer and Dr Michael Fitzpatrick who is quoted in the article as saying: "I think a lot of parents will be very angry". Also an oddly skewed presentation of the issue as it could not have been known at the time of the 1998 Lancet paper and Royal Free news conference when the patent did not yet exist. Interesting also to note that the article has not to date been added to the Times Online 'Focus on...' dossier on MMR, which contains virtually every publication in the two newspapers on the subject for the past two years (including letters from myself)[2]. [1] 'MMR scare doctor planned rival vaccine', Sunday Times 14 Noveber 2004. [2]http://www.timesonline.co.uk/section/0,,10009,00.html Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Stone, none London N22
Send response to journal:
|
Amusing to note that the day after I posted the above Rapid Response Times on Line removed the link to 'Focus on...MMR' from its website where it had been for many months. The link as given in my previous post to 'Focus on...MMR' still works at the time of writing. The newly revised 'Health Briefing' page where the link used to appear presently has no article on the subject of MMR out of the 70 or so listed [1]. http://www.timesonline/section/0,,8124,00.html Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Stone, none London N22
Send response to journal:
|
"It seems that the vociferous and well-organised group of parents supporting the Wakefield campaign have effectively intimidated many of the prominient authorities in the field." Dr Michael Fitzpatrick, 'How did the doctor get away with it?' (Review of Dispatches: 'MMR: what they didn't tell you')http://www.spiked- online.com/articles/0000000CA7C7.htm 19 November 2004) What on earth does he mean? Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Stone, none London N22
Send response to journal:
|
Currently I find myself unable to access any Sunday Times archive material through the search facility of the Times on Line website. Others, however, who can, report difficulty in locating Brian Deer's articles on the MMR topic. I note also that Dr Berger's article is now reproduced on Brian Deer's site [1] but without a link provided to these pages. [1] http://briandeer.com/wakefield/bmj-review.htm Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Stone, none London N22
Send response to journal:
|
Alarming to note that while Brian Deer is no longer conspicuous in the Times Online website, he now has his own page on the Government's own MMR the Facts site [1]. So despite the inadequacies of his story outlined above the Government now provides links the Sunday Times story, Deer's own website, C4 Dispatches, Michael Fitzpatrick's Spike-online review but oddly not to Abi Berger's review here, or its subsequent discussion. The main problems with Deer's story are: 1) His admission in the Sunday Times that there was nothing in the patents that Andrew Wakefield needed to disclose. 2) His failure to publish the documents in order to substantiate his account of their significance. 3) The expert evidence of Clifford Miller above: "Patent allegations patently false etc." 27 November. 4) The misleading account of the Chadwick research which actually shows Wakefield in a good light, insisting on the publication of research which did not lend immediate support for his own views, while failing to acknowledge that John O'Leary had subsequently produced positive results and that the science was at present still genuinely unresolved. 5) Ambushing Andrew Wakefield at a meeting in Indianna without explaining that Wakefield faced a GMC enquiry as a result of his earlier allegations. It be will remembered that it was the Secretary of State for Health, John Reid, who asked the GMC to investigate the matter after Brian Deer's first raft of accusations in February. Now, his department is publicly endorsing Deer's research ahead of any hearing. In his recent book Richard Horton recalled the GMC's perplexity: "They had not a clue where to begin. At a dinner I attended on 23 February, one medical regulator and I discussed the Wakefield case. He seemed unsure of how the Council could play a useful part in resolving any confusion. As we talked over coffee while the other dinner guests were departing, he scribbled down some possible lines of investigation and passed me his card, suggesting that I contact him directly if anything else came to mind. He seemed keen to pursue Wakefield, especially given ministerial interest." There does not seem at any point anything in this chapter of events which lends the investigation of Andrew Wakefield probity. The minister lets it be known that he would like Andrew Wakefield to be investigated. A medical regulator is anxious to please the minister by pursuing Wakefield. Everyone scrapes around looking for parking tickets. The department endorses the journalist even though the professional enquiry has not taken place. [1] hhtp://www.mmrthefacts.nhs.uk/news/newsitem.php?id=89.html [2]Richard Horton, 'MMR: Science and Fiction - Exploring the Vacccine Crisis', Granta Books 2004 p.7. Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Teri Small, editor Delaware USA 19808
Send response to journal:
|
Dear Abi Berger and BMJ: Your sensationalistic review entitled "MMR: What They Didn't Tell You" (November 27) unfortunately fell short of doing its homework. For the sake of innocent children who may yet be damaged grievously by the MMR vaccine, I must hope that you and Brian Deer are not misinforming loving parents by allowing a pharmaceutical manufacturer or other entity with similarly vested interests to do your homework for you. My 6 1/2 year old son, who is diagnosed with autism, was scoped by quite possibly the best pediatric gastroenterologist in this country. The findings evidenced that my son's gastrointestinal tract pathology is consistent with the findings of Dr. Andrew Wakefield. The work/findings of Dr. Wakefield have been replicated by various parties. Elevated titers corresponding with the antigens in the MMR vaccine may provide further substantiation of an MMR reaction, as might my son's laboratory testing showing an autoimmune reaction to brain tissue, which is consistent with the work of Dr. Singh and his correlation with vaccine strain measles virus. Although you say that, "Large scale international epidemiological studies have repeatedly failed to find any indication for his advice to give single shots, or confirm the assertion of a causal link between the MMR vaccine and autism," you fail to mention that the most-often quoted study is the Danish MMR study, and that study has been refuted. In a press release of September 1, 2004, we read: "Goldman and Yazbak report association between start of MMR Vaccination and Increase in Autism. Based in part on a key Denmark study by K. Madsen in 2002, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) recently concluded that no connection existed between MMR vaccination and the increase in autism. During the period of Madsen’s study, in the US, the MMR vaccine was usually administered at the age of 12 months, often with two other vaccines (Hib and Hep B) that contained Thimerosal–a mercury derivative. By contrast, in Denmark, MMR vaccine was usually administered alone at the age of 15 months and by 1992 the thimerosal-containing pertussis vaccine had been phased out. From 1992 to 2000, by the age of 6 months, infants in the U.S. had been exposed to 12 vaccines and up to 187.5 micrograms of thimerosal, compared to only 6 vaccines with no thimerosal in Denmark. Thus, Gary S. Goldman, Ph.D. and F. Edward Yazbak, M.D. took the opportunity to investigate the effect of the MMR vaccine on autism without the confounding (complicating) effects of thimerosal. Goldman and Yazbak estimate that a substantial increase in autism occurred in Denmark after the introduction of the MMR vaccination in 1987. Their results therefore oppose those of Madsen who selectively restricted his review to the period between 1991 and 1998 and reported that a link did not exist. Goldman explains some of the flaws inherent to the Madsen study, “Because autism is usually diagnosed at age 5 or older in Denmark, many children born in 1994 and thereafter would not have been diagnosed by the end of the study period.” He continues, “Since unimmunized children were clustered in the earlier years of the study, ascertainment was more complete in this cohort [group] than in those immunized a few years prior to the end of the study period, when many cases were missed owing to insufficient follow-up time to make the diagnosis.” Yazbak additionally notes, “Madsen himself concedes in a manuscript published less than a year later (Pediatrics-September 2003) that increases in autism occurred from 1991 to 2000 among children born after thimerosal had been discontinued.” An MMR-autism link is supported by the fact that recently, measles genomic RNA has been detected in both the gut wall and the cerebrospinal fluid of some children with autism. It has been suggested that increases in autism in Denmark were due to (1) a change that occurred in the manner in which autism was diagnosed in 1993/94 and (2) the fact that outpatients were added to the Danish registry after 1995. Goldman and Yazbak, however, avoided biases associated with these events and were the first to strictly consider data from 1980 to 1992, before the influence of these events. The results of their analysis are strengthened by the fact that in both California and North London, appreciable increases in the prevalence of autism occurred a decade apart, shortly after the introduction and large scale use of the MMR vaccine." You may read the full study in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Fall 2004, Vol. 9, No 3. According to Dr. V. Singh, speaking at the Institutes of Medicine meeting in Washington, DC on February 9, 2004, "there was a positive correlation (90% or greater) between MMR antibody and MBP [myelin basic protein] autoantibody.... These findings led me to speculate that the measles subunit of the MMR vaccine might trigger an autoimmune reaction in a significant number of autistic children." If you would like a copy of this transcript or other writings of Dr. Singh, please let me know. A friend of mine has a son who never had shown a sign of autism, and they have nurses in the family who might have detected such. Within 10 minutes of being injected with the MMR vaccine, he had a 104 degree fever and commenced incessantly screaming and crying; this lasted 10 hours. The next day he was "gone" -- that is, regressed into the condition called autism. They did not give her next son the MMR vaccine, and he did not become autistic. Unfortunately, her youngest son was accidentally given an MMR vaccine by a practitioner; he developed a fever and started crying 6 hours after the shot, and he regressed into autism within 10 days. Another friend of mine has twin boys who, after receiving their MMR vaccines, also regressed into autism. I hope that for the sake of tiny innocent children and their loving parents, the BMJ will retract their sensationalistic libel against Dr. Wakefield. You cannot attack the science, so you are attacking the man. That is most uncivilized. Teri Small Delaware USA Competing interests: parent of child with medically documented gastrointestinal pathology consistent with damage attributed to MMR vaccination |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Lisa C Blakemore-Brown, Psychologist UK based
Send response to journal:
|
Teri Small describes tragic events occurring following vaccination and indisputably related to it, which I have seen and documented (1,2,3)over many years in many children. To ignore these reactions is grossly immoral and profoundly irresponsible. My reward for my own moral integrity and recognition of my moral and professional duty has been to face similar system trashing and destruction to Dr Wakefield, albeit surreptitiously. Yet the Shipman inquiry this week slammed those who did not report what they suspected and slammed the medical regulatory system for failing its service users - the patients. Its too late to apologise to the ones who died at the hands of Shipman. It is also of note that Shipman's murders may never have been found out if he hadn't committed fraud,causing the system to jump into action, obviously money more important than people's health and lives. Meanwhile, when it comes to vaccines, we are still stuck and no police force will address the damage done or the tactics behind it all. It seems no-one in `Authority` dares to face up to modern day Governments, and if they do, they face the consequences. Perhaps we should be grateful for not being poisoned, as it seems they do to challengers in the Ukraine - but whatever they do or don't do to us `whistleblowers` they are poisoning our future by destroying the brains and the health of vast numbers of children. That is truly unforgiveable and the attempts to expose it have gone on for too long for anyone to be able to claim they didn't know. 1. Blakemore-Brown LC 1998 The Therapist 2. Blakemore-Brown LC 2002 Reweaving the Autistic Tapestry . Jessica Kingsley Publishers. 3. Blakemore-Brown LC Numerous detailed ebmj articles since 1999 Competing interests: Expert in Autistic spectrum disorders |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Alan Challoner MA (Phil) MChS, Retired LL18 5UR
Send response to journal:
|
It is abundantly clear to those who take an objective view of vaccination (i.e. those who accept the benefits but understand the dangers) that there is a sort of medico-political conspiracy to keep vaccine damage cases out of court. In the UK the politicians and their advisors hoped that the simple expedient of introducing a Vaccine Damage Payment Act in 1979 would appease the parents and satisfy the epidemiologists. This had absolutely no chance of succeeding with the parents. In fact it only reinforced their views that some vaccine could cause some damage in some children. So far the establishment has got away with their ploy to the extent that there was no possibility of knowing in advance, with any degree of certainty, which children might be affected. However, some of the mechanisms of causation have been researched and a number of these were summarised in my response to “We heard the silence”; [1] and “For those who do not believe that there are serious side effects from live or attenuated vaccines”. [2] There is also much to be understood from the online paper published by the Autism Research Unit at the University of Sunderland. [3] The problems caused by thiomersal have now been recognised and this substance should no longer be found in current vaccines. [4] My unpublished paper, “Brain Damage caused by vaccination” can be obtained from me on request. In addition I have another paper, “Autism Review Report: Epidemiology and Case Definition”, that runs to pp 62 with an index, that I can also make available to anyone who would like to read it. V.K. Singh has studied autism as an autoimmune disorder for over fifteen years. He believes that up to eighty percent (and possibly all) cases of autism are caused by an abnormal immune reaction, commonly known as autoimmunity. The autoimmune process in autism results from a complex interaction between the immune system and the nervous system. He hypothesizes that an auto-immune reaction to basic brain structures, especially the myelin sheath, plays a critical role in causing the neurological impairments of patients with autism. He has suggested that an immune insult to developing myelin (after a natural infection or vaccination) causes "nicks" or small changes in the myelin sheath. These changes ultimately lead to life-long disturbances of higher mental functions such as learning, memory, communication, social interaction, etc. [5] It is also important to recognise the difference between classical autism and autism spectrum disorder. A valuable presentation on the Neurobiology of Autism has been prepared by Christopher Gillberg, Professor of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (Univ. London – St George’s Hospital Medical School) [6] [1] Rapid Responses to: REVIEWS: David Elliman and Helen Bedford Hear the Silence BMJ 2003; 327: 1411-a. [2] article ID: 327/7428/1411-a [3] http://osiris.sunderland.ac.uk/autism/vaccine.htm [4] Barclay, Laurie. IOM Report, Mouse Study Continue Debate on Vaccine-Autism Link. Medscape Medical News 2004. From: Molec Psychiatry. [Posted online June 8, 2004] [5] Singh VK. Autism, Autoimmunity and Immunotherapy: a Commentary, Autism Autoimmunity Project. (See also: http://www.healing- arts.org/children/vaccines/vaccines-auto-immunity.htm#1) [6] http://www.awares.org/pkgs_files/librarydoc_435(1).ppt Competing interests: Father of daughter who has been brain damaged by vaccination. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Stone, none London N22
Send response to journal:
|
What exactly is the connection between the Government and Brian Deer's allegations? Although John Reid, the Secretary of State for Health, held back from condemning Andrew Wakefield after Deer's first article in February and restricted himself to calling for a GMC enquiry, the Chief Medical Officer, Sir Liam Donaldson told the BBC (23 February 2004): "Now a darker side of this work has shown through, with the conduct of the research and this is something which has to be looked at". The Prime Minister speaking on ITV also on 23 February said: "I hope now that people will see that the situation is somewhat different from what they were led to believe" An article in the Independent (24 February) entitled 'Ministers temper their triumphalism but delight spreads at Whitehall' by Jeremy Laurance reports: "At the Department of Health, which has striven for six years to bolster public confidence in the vaccine, joy is unconfined at the discrediting of Andrew Wakefield, as the researcher responsible for the scare". Already, at this point the Government seemed keen both to call for an enquiry and to prejudge the outcome. Working apparently in tandem with Deer was Dr Evan Harris MP. Richard Horton, talking in his book about the meeting at the Lancet offices on 18 February with Brian Deer, Andrew Wakefield, John Walker-Smith and Simon Murch remarks that "The tension had been heightened.... by the shadowy presence of Evan Harris, a Liberal-Democrat Member of Parliament" [1]. A litte later on Horton, describing the uproar that followed the publication of Deer's allegations writes: "A whirlwind of innuendo ensued which caught us all in its wake. Evan Harris, the MP who had mysteriously joined Brian Deer at the Lancet's offices, called for an independent inquiry into Wakefield's research. Put on the backfoot by the sudden escalation in media interest and by Harris's calls for a public inquiry, Britain's Health Secretary, John Reid, urged the General Medical Council...to investigate Wakefield as "a matter of urgency". Harris not only wrote an accompanying editorial in the Sunday Times for Deer's allegations (22 February 2004) he obtained a debate in the House of Commons on 15 March in which under the protection of parliamentary privilege he made further allegations of unethical practices against Andre Wakefield and the Royal Free Hospital. This was reported in these columns by Annabel Ferriman, and discussed in Rapid Resonse Responses [3]. Some of us at the time rather naievely hoped that Harris might be drawn into debate with us. Among the contributions was one from John Heptonstall (13 April) pointing to Harris's association with Glaxo Wellcome. Interestingly, this drew a response not from Dr Harris, but one clearly on his behalf explaining the limited nature of his interest in the company from an officer of the Health Protection Agency, Dr Brian McCloskey, Deputy Director, Local and Regional Services (14 April). We let it go at the time but the simple question arises, what was a Government officer doing writing in on behalf of a non-Government member of parliament, who was quite capable of explaining his interests on his own behalf? Looking back on it the connection seems even more significant than anything to do with Glaxo. [1] Richard Horton,'MMR: Science and Fiction - Exploring the Vaccine Crisis' Granta Books 2004, p 3. [2] Op.cit p. 7. [3] MP raises new allegations against Andrew Wakefield (328/7442/726- a) Competing interests: Parent of an autist child |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Teri Small, editor Delaware USA 19808
Send response to journal:
|
In the United States, the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is a contentious, long-term process weighted against vaccine-injured children. While the legislature votes for more money to litigate against the children (seemingly knowing that there will be more cases), they do NOT recommend more money to help compensate children (which would be the logical thing to do if they thought there were going to be more cases). They seem smug. Why? Does the pharmaceutical industry carry any legislators in their back pocket…like a wallet? So, whether in the UK or the US, parents should not feel comforted by any vaccine-injury compensation program promise. First of all, there is no adequate compensation for a virtual “living death” caused by vaccine- induced autism. That’s not saying that parents are greedy; that is saying that a child’s childhood and future – a child’s life – is inestimably valuable; furthermore, optimal and often intensive and varied rehabilitation measures are very costly to families. Secondly, by the time the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program might make some compensation, the child will probably be well past his/her prime years for optimal rehabilitation. Thirdly, if an “award” is made, it will be administered in a manner so as to nickel-and-dime the child to death: one child was denied an extra leg brace while his legs were growing (vaccine-induced polio injury) because he’d already gotten a brace that year; another child did literally die before an “award” was made. Parents aren't trying to win a lottery and have little energy to file frivolous lawsuits, as some legislators might be wont to accuse. Parents simply want the safest and healthiest life possible to be restored to their beloved children. Parents would trade all of the lawsuits in the world if this heinous vaccine-injury would never have happened to their precious children. Dr. Andrew Wakefield, through his courage and integrity, will not stop defending these children until no more are heinously injured, regressing into the abyss of autism. Brian Deer, Abi Berger, and the BMJ must realize that this is not a sterile war of words. Real lives of real tiny children – human beings – are at stake. This is not primarily about Dr. Andrew Wakefield. This is not primarily about the parents. This is about innocent children…vulnerable, trusting children for whom we are responsible. They are not pharmacopolitical pawns to be used as fodder. Verily, this is not a sterile war of words…And we must take every care with due diligence not to enslave the bodies of tiny children to a perpetual internal and sustained war from avoidable vaccine injury. Brian Deer, Abi Berger, the BMJ, and other “health” authorities must take care not to sell out the futures of children for thirty pieces of silver...lest the blood and ravaged viscera of the children be on their hands. Teri Small Delaware, USA Competing interests: parent of child with medically documented gastrointestinal pathology consistent with damage attributed to MMR vaccination |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Arnaud Descamps, IT 75010 Paris, France
Send response to journal:
|
Your article should have mentioned that the broader debate of vaccine and environmental causes of autism is not over. As time goes on, the ideas of Dr Wakefield have not been weakened, they have strenghtened. Any parent or person involved in biomedical treatments of autism could have been quoted on that matter. Unfortunately, I am one of those parent whose (likely at-risk) girl went sick, sad and not progressing after having MMR & DTP. That kind of fact alone is not proof, as we all know, but then it is how we look at the other facts... Competing interests: Parent with autistic spectrum child |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Stone, none London N22
Send response to journal:
|
Just to say that I agree with Teri Small that this is not really ultimately about Andrew Wakefield, and I do not even believe it is about loss of vaccine take up. In my view trying to discredit Andrew Wakefield by whatever means has two purposes. It distracts from the rather important fact that there is no ethical case for disregarding adverse reactions to pharmaceutical products (or trashing those who report them), and it serves as a warning to anyone else who steps out of line. Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Stone, none London N22
Send response to journal:
|
Further to point out that after Brian Deer wrote to BMJ Rapid Responses in April I wrote in twice challenging him on matters of fact without receiving an answer [1]. On the second occasion I quoted an article from the Daily Telegraph by James Le Fanu (2 March 2004): "None the less, it is beginning to look as if, as neurologist Peter Harvey pointed out in the same issue (Lancet, 14 February 2004) there is now "a step by step cascade of evidence" linking MMR to some cases of autism. "This could explain the assault on Dr Wakefield's integrity.The validity of his original findings, it is claimed, may have been compromised by a conflict of interest involving research funds that he failed to disclose. This might be relevant if it were true, but it is not, as anyone can check for themselves: Dr Wakefield acknowledged the source of his research funding back in 1998. It would seem that neither the Government or the medical establishment can afford for Dr Wakefield to be vindicated - and they are getting pretty desperate." And they look even more desperate now. [1] Rapid Responses for Joanna Lyall 'Editor in the Eye of a Storm', Deer's letter dated 4 April, min 7 and 11 April 2004, http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/328/7438/528 Competing interests: parent of an autistic child |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Lucas, Parent HR2oBD
Send response to journal:
|
The more mud thrown at someone with Wakefield's integrity just exposes the mud throwers, so carry on chucking. If that was investigative journalism I'm a banana--although I have to admire the way he made Wakefield look like he was fleeing the truth, rather than his hatchet! It's not surprising Abi thought a hatchet job was investigative journalism as the last serious media investigation into a childhood vaccine was in 1984!(1) Read that story and ask yourself why this great "investigative" reporter thinks DPT vaccine never causes brain damage, even though our very own gov has paid out for 900 such cases (now denied of course). What they don't like anyone to look at with the Wakefield distraction: 1. There isn't any evidence that vaccination reduced or eliminated measles deaths, as deaths had declined by 99.4% before vaccination, so the question here is why do we need a measles vaccine? 2. Why don't the medical profession use vitamin C when medical doctors such as Klenner and Kalokerinos have shown in clinical practice it will "cure" measles and eliminate deaths? "The use of vitamin C in measles proved to be a medical curiosity. During an epidemic vitamin C was used prophylactically and all those who received as much as 1000 mg. every six hours, by vein or muscle, were protected from the virus."----Dr Klenner The Treatment of Poliomyelitis and Other Virus Diseases with Vitamin C Fred R. Klenner, M.D. 1949 "But the ordinary child who gets measles, even the child with a moderate degree of malnutrition and so forth, if you give intravenous vitamin C supplementary to other forms of treatment, the response very often, not always, is absolutely dramatic If you get them early enough. You must get them early. If you delay, and they have been unconscious let us say for days, or a day or two, you cannot reverse it. The damage is permanent. If you get them early, give them this treatment and there is no problem. And that makes me very, very angry, because they talk about "Oh, we must stop these kids getting measles" and so forth. Well, all right, I can fix them if they get measles."---Dr Kalokerinos (International Vaccine Newsletter June 1995) 3. How many measles deaths are caused by immune destroying drugs? Using one drug (MMR) to stop deaths from another?? 4. If some other factor eliminated 99.4% of measles deaths why are parents given the belief that vaccination eliminated 100% of the deaths? And why aren't parents given information on those other factors such as diet, breastfeeding, junk food, nutrient levels, drugs etc---it is just vaccination. 5. How many measles deaths were in children under the age of vaccination, and how many had been vaccinated? 50%+? 6. How do the medical profession know that it is a good idea to suppress measles, how do they know that it isn't a beneficial process of the immune system and is needed to deal with such things as inherited disease traits??? They are not using my children in the experiment to find out. "Vaccinating against measles is not just useless, but harmful. In the past, infants would not get measles. They would get the protection through their mothers, who used to have measles themselves. Mothers who were vaccinated against measles cannot pass on the protection to their infants, so infants now get measles."--Dr Buchwald MD "After contracting measles and other childhood illnesses (e.g.. chickenpox, scarlet fever, whooping cough, rubella, mumps and may be others), it has been widely accepted by many health practitioners, including experienced orthodox paediatricians that this is often beneficial for the general health of many children. Specifically it has been shown that children contracting measles naturally were less likely to suffer from allergic conditions such as asthma, eczema and hayfever, (Lancer June 29 1996)."---Trevor Gunn BSc (1) http://www.whale.to/vaccines/fresno.html Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Stone, none London N22
Send response to journal:
|
In the Dispatches programme Brian Deer reported on a measles fatality: 1) In order to find a single such case he had to leave the confines of the United Kingdom. 2) The family he interviewed in Dublin were Rumanian refugees, and therefore the victim was likely to have suffered environmental and nutritional deprivation unusual in Western Europe prior to contracting the illness. 3) This disregards the fact that Andrew Wakefield has advocated the use of monovalent measles vaccines, and cannot be held responsible for the policy of the British Government. Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Christina England, Mother PO22 6HP
Send response to journal:
|
As Alan Challoner MA points out 'to those who take an objective view of vaccination there are benefits to vaccinations', nevertheless vaccination is medical procedure is it not?? All medical procedures carry some degree of risk or so we are led to believe, however if it were a surgical procedure these risks would be clearly outlined no matter how small the risk was. With surgical procedures the patient or indeed the parent or guardian would have a form given to them to read and sign so that they were made fully aware of any risk involved.Why then does this not happen when we take our children for vaccine?? maybe it is because the Government and Medical profession refuse to accept there is a risk. No form gives the parent the false impression there is no risk attached. If we can have warning on cigarettes and alcohol which we can only purchase in this country over the age of sixteen then why is it there is absolutely no warning when we inject our children with chemicals and live vaccines?? Children are being damaged as Ms Blakemore-Brown says ' It seems no one in 'Authority' dares to face up to modern day Governments and if they do they face the consequences'. It seems to me parents like myself who have a child damaged by the MMR have to sit back and watch professional after professional trashed and effectively removed if they dare to speak out while our children continue to be poisoned. Our childrens brains are being damaged. No one seems to care that these children are our future our countries future. This week we hear the story of Baby Charlotte the little girl whose life and very exsistance is at the mercy of a Sussex hospital, where now her parents believe she may be being poisoned by Morphine to promote her death. Does no one care any more??????? Competing interests: Parent of two Autistic Children |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Stone, none London N22
Send response to journal:
|
I think it is reasonable to voice concern, after all that has been said and documented about the shortcomings of Brian Deer's reportage, that the former Science Editor of the British Medical Journal should have endorsed his Dispatches programme to the extent of awarding it four stars out of the four available. The reality is - whatever your beliefs about the safety of MMR - that Deer has failed to produce the evidence, and has never been able to publish the documentation which demonstrates that Andrew Wakefield set out to destroy the reputation of MMR for commercial advantage. The texts of the controversial patents have never been quoted or reproduced by him: all we have ever had from him is a highly selective presentation of their content. Additionally, Dr Berger - deliberately or not - made an unfounded suggestion in her review of the programme that Andrew Wakefield suppressed research detrimental to his position, when in fact he published it: it seems very unfortunate that she has not so far taken the opportunity correct this error. Her review now appears on Brian Deer's website [1], where thanks to the Government's 'MMR the Facts' it is far more likely to be read than here and without the commentary provided by Rapid Responses. Also Deer has removed the URL to Andrew Wakefield's statement given in the BMJ at the end of Dr Berger's article above [2], which suggests that Deer himself does not believe his claims will stand critical scrutiny. There is also the serious inbalance that Dr Berger's article has been published in the hard edition of BMJ whereas there is little expectation on past form that any contrary opinions here, however well informed, will be reproduced in its columns. But I believe the editor ought to consider on this occasion whether the journal can continue to proceed on such a blatantly biased footing: it is a dubious cause which has to be defended by such means. [1] http://briandeer.com/wakefield/bmj-review.htm [2] Andrew Wakefield's statement and other important background information can be found at http://www.mmrthequestions.com Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child |
|||
|
|
|||
|
F. Edward Yazbak, Pediatrician, Director TL Autism Research, Falmouth, Massachusetts 02540 USA
Send response to journal:
|
Abi Berger, the physician, is obviously welcome to become informed and educated on medical matters on Television. As a citizen of a free society, she also has every right to become a TV critic and award Four Stars to a show she has so judged [Dispatches. MMR: What They Didn't Tell You –BMJ, November 27]. Unfortunately, when she signed her piece as Associate Editor of the BMJ, she compromised a respectable and good Journal. Dr. Berger’s commentary has already been carefully criticized by readers and parents alike. I kept hoping that she or the Editor would apologize for its contents but I note with concern that her only “retraction” was not even that. The problem with the Berger piece is that it concludes that accusations of a TV investigative reporter concerning a researcher are the Gospel Truth. By doing so, the Associate Editor and indirectly the Journal she represents also intimate that the research itself is non-valid. This is obviously not true and is certainly not supported by the available scientific evidence. The fact is that sooner or later, Andrew Wakefield will be exonerated, his theory will be accepted and a vaccine-autism connection will be proven. As the New Year comes around, Wakefield’s research is being duplicated in prestigious centers in the United States. In addition, viral culture results are expected soon from the National Institutes of Health laboratories. I am a pediatrician trained in infectious diseases and I have witnessed first hand what regressive autism is all about. I have also researched its incidence and its autoimmune causes. I have no doubt that the Wakefield hypothesis will stand. My oldest grandson was totally normal from birth until he had his first well-documented regression after his initial MMR vaccination. He improved for a while and then had a second and more severe regression at age 4 after his MMR booster. This sequence of events known as Challenge- Dechallenge-Rechallenge (CDR) was documented by private physicians, close relatives in the medical profession and photographs. U.S. Courts and a special committee of the Institute of Medicine have acknowledged that CDR proves causation. In addition, my grandson has typical findings of Wakefield Autistic Enterocolitis, and the specific urinary polypeptides pattern described by Shattock. Although he was never exposed to measles, he has documented evidence of measles virus genomic RNA in his gut wall in addition to elevated serum titers of measles virus antibodies. There are now hundreds of other children with similar histories and findings, not just twelve anymore. The genetically predisposed children in this subgroup seem to lack the ability to detoxify the mercury in the vaccines they received in the first year of life and have usually succumbed after receiving the combination of the three live viruses in the MMR, often simultaneously administered with several other vaccines. I have always been and remain pro-judicious vaccination. I have read all the epidemiological studies denying an MMR-autism connection and found substantial errors in every one of them. I believe that a vaccine-autism connection exists and I am scientifically- not emotionally- convinced that MMR vaccination can trigger an autistic regression in certain children. To date, I have not seen a single unbiased reliable clinical study to convince me otherwise. To prove me wrong, Dr. Berger or any one else only need to show me: ONE normal child who has evidence of both MMR antibody and Myelin Basic Protein auto-antibodies in his serum or his CSF Or ONE child who regressed after MMR vaccination and who does not have one of the following: The gut findings described by Wakefield, a suggestive pattern of urinary polypeptides, elevated serum measles virus antibody, MMR antibody or Myelin Basic Protein auto-antibodies The prevalence of autistic disorders in the United States is now 1 in 166, according to the Department of Health and Human Services, the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics. As the New Year dawns and resolutions are made, I sincerely hope that people of good will are able to join together and support solid unbiased clinical studies aimed at unraveling the mystery of regressive autism. Whatever its causes, this epidemic must be stopped. The distinguished Editorial Board of the BMJ should lead the way and support such research. Competing interests: Personal conflict outlined |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Joan Campbell, Carer Glasgow
Send response to journal:
|
I count my blessings on this first day of the year. Although 2004 was an extremely changelling year for me and my vaccine damaged son I hold on to the hope that this year brings with it more people like Dr Yazbak who have the energy and commitment to speak up for Dr Wakefield and for our vaccine damaged children who may I add a large percentage are teenagers now. We who have spoken out are just the tip of the iceberg and we need to continue to expose the whole of the iceberg. Each family has a story of heart breaking events. But I worry about young single teenage mums or dads who have to cope with their vaccine damaged child or children. More and more grandparents are speaking out about the epidemic of autism and how it has affected their children's family life. Having been on this earth longer and seeing many wars and tragedies happen they are gob smacked as to the amount of children who have speech and learning difficulties. This has got to stop. Competing interests: Parent of a child denied legal aid to pursue claim against Merck & Co |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Raymond Gallup, Founder of The Autism Autoimmunity Project 45 Irquois Avenue, Lake Hiawatha, NJ 07034, USA
Send response to journal:
|
F.Edward Yazbak, MD has made an excellent argument for investigating the MMR vaccine link to autism. Our son, Eric will be 20 years old on January 17, 2005. He is in an out-of-state residential school and he and our family have been affected profoundly because of the damage from the MMR vaccine. He was born normal on January 17,1985 and regressed into autism after receiving the MMR vaccine on April 28, 1986. This was self evident when we looked back on the videotapes of Eric and could see his developing speech and then his regression after April 28, 1986. Eric tested positive for myelin basic protein antibodies and has elevated measles antibody titers in a blood test as well as colitis. In the case of the immune blood panel tests both Dr. Vijendra Singh of Utah State University and Dr. Jim Oleske of UMDNJ, Newark, NJ both found the same results. Regarding the colitis results both Dr. Joel Rosh of NJ and Dr. Arthur Krigsman of NY found the same results in 1998 and 2003 respectively. Eric and other children with regressive autism are being deprived of treatment modalities because the medical community is dragging their feet in recognizing this epidemic. The medical community could be developing treatment modalities that would reverse the damage and prevent more children from being affected. I have heard in news items that the cause of autism is a mystery but that there is no MMR vaccine link to autism. A statement like this is the height of irresponsibility besides making no sense at all. How can you say a disease/disorder is a mystery and then rule out a cause? It makes no rational sense to make a statement like that. The ultimate tragedy is that hundreds if not thousands of children/adults with autism are being deprived of getting any medical treatment that will help them get better. They are entitled as are the rest of us to get the proper medical treatment. Competing interests: Founder of The Autism Autoimmunity Project and father to Eric Gallup, who was born normal and regressed into autism after receiving the MMR vaccine |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Bill Welsh, Charity chairman Action Against Autism, Eastwood Business Centre, Greenhill Ave, Glasgow, G46 6QX
Send response to journal:
|
May I contribute to recent correspondence on the 'autism issue' by providing some hard facts from a Scottish perspective? THE Scottish Executive’s Social Work Statistics Branch recently produced an Audit of Services for People with Autistic Spectrum Disorder, as part of a wider Public Health Institute for Scotland (PHIS) exercise. The full report is to be found in the deepest bowels of an impenetrable government website. It contains the long awaited official confirmation that ‘autism’ is epidemic in Scotland. There are now more than 3,400 children ("an underestimate") in school and pre-school with the diagnosis of autism, a once very rare condition. I ask you to consider this appalling statistic for a moment; 3,400 Scottish children have lost the gift of a full, meaningful and intelligent life, and to a condition implausibly considered solely genetic in origin. To those of us within the community of autism and the many carers, teachers and special needs operatives, verification of what we have been witnessing with our own eyes will come as no surprise. In fact this tragic phenomenon has been occurring throughout the UK, the USA and the rest of the developed world for a number of years. It is evident that an environmental factor, or factors, as yet unidentified, is implicated in this catastrophe. Exacerbating what is already a heart-breaking experience for parents has been the denial by health officials worldwide that an epidemic even exists, citing unsustainable spurious arguments, such as ‘better recognition’ and ‘changing diagnostic criteria’ for the increase. This knee-jerk denial culture has without doubt left tens of thousands of seriously ill children in need of proper medical investigation and treatment. Many of the children may be in constant pain and distress. Public health officials rather than addressing this human tragedy have become an impediment to progress. Astonishingly, had the affected children contracted an infectious disease a pre-planned action programme would have been implemented. For a chronic condition like autism no programme exists. The role of medical politics in this episode must urgently be given thorough investigation. Autism is an epidemic. That is now proven. It is now time to acknowledge the role of environmental factors. Investigative research into the potential culprits must be instigated and the results published, no matter the consequences to the medical and political establishments. Examination of the seriously ill children should be an urgent priority; only then can treatment protocols be properly established, founded on robust evidence. We are talking about an ‘epidemic’ sweeping the developed world, an epidemic affecting our most precious asset, our children. One Scottish example speaks volumes; in November 2003 it was established that one child in 49 at primary school in Inverness either had, or was awaiting the diagnosis of autism, a ‘rare’ condition. Why was no emergency debate called in any UK Parliament? Why did the Health & Community Care Committee of the Scottish Parliament not alter its agenda to discuss the loss of so many children to a lifelong and incurable illness - an agenda that included in December 2003 the Food (Brazil Nuts) (Emergency Control) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations? One assumes the advice being given to ministers and then driven down to the parliamentary foot soldiers was that no problem existed. Media scaremongering, a frequent loophole for beleaguered officials, was probably advanced as a reason for inaction. Action was and is essential, then and today. If they could all talk, 3,400 sick Scottish school children would testify to that. The lifetime cost to society for each autistic child has been estimated at £2.94m, which indicates a £10bn problem nestling within the Scottish school system, and growing daily. Extrapolate that figure for the UK and one asks when this £100bn plus cost is going to cross the UK chancellor’s radar screen? The UK Medical Research Council meanwhile has trumpeted the investment of £2.5m into autism research - less than the lifetime cost to society of one child. This tawdry response epitomises the lack of commitment the medical establishment has to identifying the causes of autism and to the important and urgent introduction of interventions that will aid the recovery of medically ill autistic children. Where is their compassion? The truth is inescapable; autism is a public health emergency. Competing interests: Chairman of an Autism Charity and grandfather to a child who withdrew into autism following MMR vaccination. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Lenny Schafer, Publisher, Schafer Autism Report 9629 Old Placerville Rd. Sacramento, CA 95827 USA
Send response to journal:
|
A suggested analogy: Autism epidemic? What autism epidemic?
Competing interests: A child with autism |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Christina England, Marketing West Sussex
Send response to journal:
|
Many parents are speaking out, we are simply ignored, brushed aside or accused of actually causing the problem.If facts are ignored what is now emerging as an epidemdic will actually become the 'norm'. More and more children are showing symptoms of ASD and related gastrointrological problems, many of whom are unrecognised so do not show up in the overall figures being presented to the government. My child was born 1986 and I adopted him at four. He came to me with mild Cerebral Palsy and learning difficulties. When he was placed I recieved Foster Carers diaries outlining a reaction after MMR mostly severe stomach problems. These had continued. He had many tests and was looked at for Crohn's and eventually at 12 was put on a restricted diet of no Wheat,Dairy,Eggs or Soya which improved his condition. However at 13 he was being fed on nightly feds through a naselgastric tube as he was severely underweight. Instead of receiving help and support I was accused of Munchausen by Proxy. If Lisa Blakemore-Brown and not been the excellent professional she is and intervened seeing the connections straight away I may not have my children today.She found that my son had Aspergers Syndrome which explained the behaviour issues and directed me to Paul Shattock for testing and sure enough the gut link was found. My son now is now 19 and he is not recognised as having either of these problems by my local Authority, I have no help or support and am finding it extrememly difficult to cope with his behaviour which includes violence towards me. Until these problems are looked at seriously by the medical profession and the Government, more and more children will suffer neglect and ridicule and parents like myself instead of getting help will be targeted as abusers if we speak out. Andrew Wakefields work is valuable scientific evidence and MUST NOT be ignored. The work of Lisa Blakemore- Brown as an Autistic Expert and a Psychologist who sees proof of many children with these problems during her assessments, her views, work and opinions MUST NOT be ignored, Paul Shattock is finding Scientific links between ASD and gut problems often related to adverse reactions to MMR again his work MUST NOT be ignored. Until these professionals and many more are taken seriously and not targeted as trouble makers the situation in this country will gradually slide into 'Autistic Chaos'. Please help our children and stop accusing the parents and the few professionals who realise THERE IS A PROBLEM.Just look at the evidence the facts are there. Competing interests: Mother of two Autistic Children |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Stone, none London N22
Send response to journal:
|
Extraordinary to note, following my documented observations above 'Kafka dreamt it II', that Dr Harris, Liberal-Democrat' MP was interviewed on the radio the other day (5 January) flying the infant meningitis vaccine kite on behalf of the Department of Health. Where were the Government ministers? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4147969.stm . See also: "Where are the named authors of the beleaguered Madsen and Smeeth papers?" (Stone, 7 January 2004) http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/325/7373/1134/a#91543 Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Lisa C Blakemore-Brown, Psychologist UK based
Send response to journal:
|
It was also most interesting to see Dr Evan Harris at the meeting on False Accusations of Abuse (1) in which, as one of the speakers, I referred to vaccine and other experimental drug damage as some of the omitted material in false abuse court cases. His presence in various situations set out in John Stone's responses and in this one surely waves the flag for a connection between drug reactions and false accusations. 1. Blakemore-Brown LC 'MSBP - A Pseudo Scientific Trap.' APGAI - 'Abuse Allegations - Systemic Failure' - Portcullis House - UK Houses of Parliament 2nd December 2004 Competing interests: Expert on Autistic Spectrum Disorders |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Stone, none London N22
Send response to journal:
|
It is important to understand that the campaign against Andrew Wakefield is not only a campaign against Andrew Wakefield, it is a campaign against parents who have seen things they ought not to have done. In the last year it has become very intolerant indeed in the British media: not merely Brian Deer but Ben Goldacre in the Guardian [1], Tim Hames in the Times [2] and dozens of other opinionated journalists who seem to think they are being intellectually superior. I myself had a particularly unpleasant outburst of sarcasm in a private communication from a high profile BBC journalist when I tried to call for a fair hearing. And of course when Dr Evan Harris MP announces that Andrew Wakefield and concern about MMR safety have been discredited [3], no one raises a murmur of protest for Wakefield, the parents - least of all for hundreds of deeply compromised children. But the reality is that people who were not there are brow-beating and insulting the people who were. I thought in context that some comments by Simon Baron-Cohen in the Guardian two days ago [4] were deplorable: "I believe the cause of autism will turn out to be the assortative mating of two hyper-systemisers. I believe this because we already have three pieces of the jigsaw: (1) that fathers of children with autism are more likely to work in the field of engineering (compared to fathers of children without autism); (2) that grandfathers of children with autism - on both sides of the family - were also more likely to work in the field of engineering (compared to grandfathers of children without autism); and (3) that both mothers and fathers of children with autism are superfast at the embedded figures test, a task requiring analysis of patterns and rules. (Note that engineering is a chosen example because it involves strong systemising. But other related scientific and technical fields would have been equally good fields to study.) We have had these three pieces of the jigsaw since 1997, published in the scientific literature. They do not yet prove assortative mating theory. They simply point to it being highly likely. I will be the first to give up this idea if it is proven wrong, since I am not in the business of holding onto wrong ideas, but I will not give up the idea simply because it will be unpopular with certain groups (such as those that want to believe that the cause of autism is purely environmental). About this I would note: (a) I have not observed the major claim despite wide acquaitance with parents and granparents of autistic children. (b) The general claim being made against parents who observe environmental damage is that they are collectively fantasists, so they do not fit into the Baron-Cohen stereo-type: a self-defeating paradox. (c) The intolerant tone adopted against those who disagree with him prejudices his evidence. (d) He proposes a false alternative. In fact no one claims that the causes of autism are purely environmental: even the mainstream view has been that it results from a confluence of genetic and environmental factors. If there was no genetic predisposition presumably all children would be as badly affected by adverse environmental factors (subject critically to other issues of health and nutrition). (e) It would surely be an extreme - not to say eccentric - view that all examples of the non-specific disorder of autism are determined by pure genetics. But what I like least is the dismissive and intolerant tone he adopts towards those who disagree with him, and the context, the Guardian newspaper which is not only in the habit of publishing such things, but which in my experience excludes any contrary views, even in its correspondence. Simon Baron-Cohen is wrong simply on the grounds of manners. (I await his early renunciation of the theory.) [1] Notably, 'Atomic tomatoes are not the only fruit', Guardian 16 December 2004: http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/sciences/story/0,12243,1374401,00.html [2]'Elvis lives, MI5 murdered Diana, MMR is dangerous' The Times 23 February 2004. One of many examples of science by sarcasm in the Times in the weeks surrounding Deer's orginal article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,170-1011853,00.html [3]'Plan for new vaccine for babies': http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4147969.stm [4] The Edge: Faith v.Fact , 7 January 2005: http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1385026,00.html Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Christina England, Sales and Marketing and Mother West Sussex
Send response to journal:
|
What Simon Baron-Cohen reported to the Guardian was that he supports the theory that there is a possible Genetic link that causes Autism. No doubt to enable him to say this he has come into contact with many Autistic children with Autistic Parents or Grandparents and many Autistic experts support his belief. However surely this can only account for a proportion of children with Autism. I feel what experts are saying in the field is not that MMR is the cause of Autism but that in certain children who are susceptible it can cause Autism. It is being proven in Scientific studies and through careful study of case histories that some children have become Autistic after the MMR. This has also been seen in video footage. If Genetics were the only or main cause for Autism then surely the children would be born Autistic and developmental patterns such as eye contact and non appropriate speech patterns would emerge from birth. However Experts have seen video evidence where a child has full eye contact and good speech patterns which deteriorate or diminish very often after the booster MMR at the age of four sometimes within 48hours. Children do not simply loose established skills, some children have been left severely brain damaged. If these cases were not fact why then are parents winning compensation battles? I agree with Mr Stone when he says 'What he dislikes is the dismissive way and intolerant tone Mr Simon Baron-Cohen adopts with those who disagree with him'.Simon Baron - Cohen says 'but I will not give up on the idea simply because it will prove unpopular with certain groups'. If he holds with this, then he must in turn respect others who have alternative ideas and theories. Why should they give up what they believe to be true?. There is a rise in Autism some have said to epidemic proportions since the MMR was introduced however any professional speaking out and voicing their opinion is quietened or discredited.When parents speak out they are often accused of MSBP, one has to wonder why this is and also why certain professionals who go along with the traditional theories are allowed to have their opinions where others are not even when backed up with solid evidence. Competing interests: The Mother of Two Autistic Children |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Stone, none London N22
Send response to journal:
|
I am very grateful to Christina England but there is a further point I would like to make. In my opinion Simon Baron-Cohen is not simply wrong because he fails to show respect for an alternative belief system, he is wrong because he arrogantly dismisses the testimony of people who contradict his own theory based on their experience. He says he will happily give up his theory if disproved on the one hand, but on the other those that not only think differently but possess contradictory knowledge are shown the door. The intolerance hides scientific weakness, and this is the way public discussion of science is now conducted. Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child |
|||
|
|
|||
|
F. Edward Yazbak, Pediatrician, Director T L Autism Research, Falmouth, Massachusetts 02540 USA
Send response to journal:
|
In her review “Dispatches. MMR: What They Didn't Tell You” and referring to Andrew Wakefield, Dr. A. Berger, Associate Editor of the BMJ, stated: “In one fell swoop he had undermined the MMR vaccination programme in the United Kingdom, and subsequently around the world.” For the record, here are the REAL facts about the subject: 1. Andrew Wakefield never said that children should not be vaccinated and protected against measles, mumps and rubella. 2. Andrew Wakefield never said that the MMR vaccine should not be used. 3. Andrew Wakefield only suggested that the monovalent vaccines against measles, mumps and rubella be made available alongside the MMR. 4. Wakefield not only notified the Department of Health of the above in writing but also repeated it at a private meeting that was held in October 1997 with the then Health Minister, Tessa Jowell and in the presence of the Chief Medical Officer, Sir Kenneth Calman, Dr. David Salisbury and others. 5. The UK had a single dose measles vaccine program since 1967. The single rubella and mumps vaccines became available in the early seventies. The MMR vaccine was introduced in 1988. When parents started requesting the monovalent vaccines in increasing numbers, the DOH decided in August 1998 to withdraw their license. Those who could afford it crossed the Channel to get their children vaccinated or purchased the single vaccines at private clinics. 6. The single vaccines have always been licensed and available in The United States and most other countries. 7. If the DOH had agreed to make the MMR and the single vaccines available in the UK, the vaccination rates and the immunity against all three diseases would have been remarkably better than they are. 8. The DOH did not have to endorse Wakefield’s recommendation for a one-year interval between single vaccines and could have opted for the 3 month interval-routine recommended in the US pre-MMR. The argument raised by the UK Medical Authorities that they could not support such a schedule “because it had not been offered that way before” is frivolous. In fact the DOH had previously recommended the administration of an MMR booster three months after a primary vaccination at 12 months of age. 9. Starting in 1998, if the monovalent measles, mumps and rubella vaccines had been made available and had been administered a whole year apart to those children who were not getting the MMR anyway, most if not all the children in the UK would have been, by now, protected against all three diseases. 10. In November 1994, because of dropping vaccination rates, the DOH embarked on a mass vaccination campaign of school-age children and over seven million doses of Measles-Rubella (MR) vaccine were administered in a short period of time. Although the DOH had strongly reassured parents that serious adverse events were unlikely because most children were already immune by either natural disease or prior vaccination, 530 serious adverse events were reported and documented. 11. The extensive media coverage that followed those unfortunate reactions resulted in a significant drop in the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccination rates well before the Wakefield Lancet article of February 1998. The following information is from “NHS Immunisation Statistics, England: 1997-98” - http://www.publications.doh.gov.uk/public/imunstat.htm -. According to NHS “This is the first statistical bulletin to be published on immunisation since 1987”. Approximately 19,000 (3.3%) fewer children received 3 doses of pertussis vaccine in 1997-1998 than in 1993-1994. In comparison, 87,000 (13.6%) fewer children received one dose of MMR vaccine. Reporting on vaccination rates during the two years preceding Wakefield’s paper in the Lancet, the DOH stated: “Between 1996-97 and 1997 -98: The highest ever levels of immunisation coverage for diphtheria, tetanus, polio, pertussis and Haemophilus influenzae B., achieved for children reaching their second birthday in 1996-97, continued in 1997-98; coverage for measles, mumps and rubella vaccine in this same age fell by about 1%. “In the case of pertussis, coverage rates have regained the ground lost in the mid-1970’s due to public anxiety about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine. The recent fall in MMR coverage may be the result of similar concern over the vaccine”. (End quote) 12. Spokespersons for the Health Department and the Press have stated that the MMR Vaccine is “more effective” than the monovalent vaccines. Looking specifically at the Merck products, this is not true. MMR II contains Attenuevax, Mumpsvax and Meruvax, all registered trade marks of Merck and Co. In the 2003 Physician’s Desk Reference (PDR), the manufacturer states that a single injection of MMR vaccine induced measles hemagglutination- inhibition (HI) antibodies in 95 %, mumps neutralizing antibodies in 96% and rubella HI antibodies in 99% of susceptible individuals (p. 2022). Referring to the monovalent vaccines, the manufacturer states that a single dose of Attenuevax has been shown to induce measles HI antibodies in 97% or more of susceptible individuals (p. 1946). Similarly, one dose of Mumpsvax resulted in 97% immunity in susceptible children (p.2046) and one dose of Meruvax II resulted in immunity in 97% or more of susceptible individuals (p. 2035). Pre-MMR licensure, the manufacturers had to conduct safety and efficacy studies. It is well known that the safety studies were few, small and of short duration. On the other hand, there were many efficacy studies performed because of fear that combining the three live attenuated vaccines would result in decreased effectiveness of one or more of the components. (End quote) One must note that no synergistic effect was ever claimed or detected by the manufacturer. The problem of decreased efficacy when vaccines are combined was demonstrated recently when the DOH ordered the revaccination of thousands of UK children because of vaccine failure and a high incidence of invasive Hemophylus Influenzae B illness in children who had received a combination vaccine containing HIB, tetanus, diphtheria and whooping cough vaccines. 13. The DOH claims that a vaccination rate of over 90 % is needed to provide “Herd Immunity” and effectively eliminate disease. That is often true but not always so. Toronto, Canada: “Eighty-seven laboratory-confirmed or clinically confirmed cases of measles were identified (for an attack rate of 7.7%). The measles vaccination rate was 94.2%” Sutcliffe PA, et al. CMAJ. 1996 Nov 15;155(10):1407-13. PMID: 8943928 Anchorage, Alaska: “The 33 case-patients ranged in age from 2 to 28 years (median: 16 years). Twenty-nine case-patients had received at least one dose of measles-containing vaccine (MCV) at or after age 12 months; one person with laboratory-confirmed measles had received two appropriately spaced doses of measles-mumps-rubella vaccine (MMR). At the high school where 17 cases occurred, based on school records, only one of 2186 students had not received at least one dose of MCV before the outbreak. 49% of the students had received one dose of MCV, and 51% had received two or more doses. CDC, MMWR: January 08, 1999 / 47(51); 1109- 1111 Cape Town, South Africa “Immunisation coverage (at least one dose of any measles vaccine) was 91% and vaccine efficacy was estimated to be 79% (95% CI 55-90); it was highest for monovalent measles (100%) and lowest for measles-mumps-rubella (74%) Coetzee N, et al. S Afr Med J. 1994 Mar; 84(3):145-9. PMID: 7740350 West Switzerland: “Since 1991, 6 years after the recommendation of universal childhood vaccination against measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR triple vaccine), Switzerland is confronted with a large number of mumps cases affecting both vaccinated and unvaccinated children. Up to 80% of the children suffering from mumps between 1991 and 1995 had previously been vaccinated …”Ströhle A, et al. Schweiz Med Wochenschr, 1997 Jun, 127:26, 1124-33 Switzeralnd: In evaluating the impact of the MMR mass vaccination program begun in Switzerland in 1985: “We conclude that MMR mass vaccination has not interrupted the circulation of rubella virus in Switzerland, and that improvements in the implementation and surveillance of the MMR vaccination campaign are necessary in order to avoid [the] untoward effects of it.”European Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 11, no. 3, June 1995, pp. 305-10) 14. To prevent a measles epidemic the Afghan Government embarked in a massive campaign in 2002. Some twelve million children aged 6 months to 12 years were given the monovalent measles vaccine under the auspices of WHO and UNICEF. The Minister of Health estimated that 35,000 lives may have been saved by the campaign. (1) 15. It was estimated that there were 350,000 cases of measles in Madagascar in 2002. Between September 13 and October 8, 2004 a massive campaign was carried out with the help of the UNICEF. Over 7,000 vaccinators and 15,000 community workers administered the monovalent measles vaccine to over 7 million children aged 9 months to 14 years in the Country’s 111 districts. (2, 3) 16. Without a doubt, the WHO and UNESCO will be using the single (monovalent) measles vaccine and NOT THE MMR, to vaccinate thousands and prevent outbreaks of measles in the areas of the Far East that were devastated by the Tsumanis of December 2004. The above are the facts, the REAL facts. They are well worth remembering. References 1.http://www.unicef.org/publications/files/WHO_UNICEF_Measles_Emergencies.pdf 2. http://www.unicef.org/media/media_23437.html 3. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/490996 Competing interests: Grandfather of a child with regressive autism |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John Stone, none London N22
Send response to journal:
|
In order for Dr Evan Harris, Liberal-Democrat MP, to speak on behalf of the proposed infant meningitis jab on the BBC Today programme he must surely have been briefed by the Department of Health. Pushed foward ahead of ministers to soften public opinion this could also surely have only have happened with the agreement of the Secretary of State for Health, John Reid. Did he also, I wonder, do it with permission of his party spokesman on health Paul Burstow, and his leader Charles Kennedy? This plainly circumvents all traditional political discussion and public scrutiny. Frankly, it is a marketing strategy. The real message to the public is no more vaccines until there is a radical change of culture at the Department of Health. Competing interests: Parent of an autistic child |
|||