Pressure mounts for inquiry into MMR furore
BMJ 2004; 328 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7438.483-a (Published 26 February 2004) Cite this as: BMJ 2004;328:483
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Please cross refer to the following rapid response also published on
the BMJ website. It explains why, in law, the science behind some of the
claims immunization is wholly safe is flawed and legally unreliable and
why governments, courts and officials may be making a fundamental error in
applying the wrong standard of proof when relying on that science to make
public interest decisions. The article is unique in its field and in the
way it explains the issues in a manner accessible to the non lawyer.
See BMJ rapid response:-
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/328/7440/602-c#52948
The BMJ article to which it responds can be found at:-
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7440/602-
c
Competing interests:
Practising English lawyer, graduate in physics, sometime examining lecturer on law, standards and ethics (particularly, law of evidence) to Masters technology students at the Imperial College of Science Technology and Medicine. Personal interest - close relative with life threatening food allergy.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Let's clear the fogs created by the medical establishment and drug
companies and see really what the issue is all about: BIG MONEY
1)Parents complaining about vaccines and especially parents of
autistic kids like me have the ultimate proof that we, unfortunately,
believed in the medical system since we vaccinated our kids. We will
regret for our whole life that we did not ask questions and that we
trusted a still in the Stone Age medical establishment. Thus, we are not
nuts or over-reacting, we have been hurt immensely.
2)I have three friends who are M.D.’s. Upon heated discussion, I
found out that none of them followed the vaccination schedule mandated by
the Center of Disease Control or by the American Pediatric Society. They
dismissed Hep B at birth for their kids and they never allowed their kids
pediatrician to put more than one vaccine at a time. Unlike me, they did
not allow the pediatrician to vaccinate when the baby was sick (fever,
diarrhea, or under antibiotics). Unlike me, they delayed most of the
vaccines until the kid immune system was mature enough. Thus, whoever
wants to discuss vaccine safety will have to show first his own kid’s
vaccination record.
3)The tobacco liability was in the $250 billions. This was for a
leisure product that was not mandated by the government and mostly hurting
people old enough to know what they were doing. Vaccines are totally
different. The government mandates them. They are put in kids who are not
aware of the danger and side effects. We all know that the liability for
vaccines is in the trillion dollars and that all what it is about.
4)Drug companies spent more than any other industry on lobbying -
$256 million in the US in 1999-2000. They had 625 Washington lobbyists at
a cost $92.3 millions. They are making sure that no research shows that
mercury and MMR and over-vaccination had an effect on Autism until there
is a law protecting them from any liability. They almost passed the first
one with a Homeland Security Bill. They are working on another right now.
5)Two years ago, when I started noticing something wrong with my kid,
my wife and I went through 4 specialists and a battery of tests in what is
called the world-class medical center in Houston. Except for the
genetician who did not find anything abnormal after examination of our kid
and analysis of the test results, all the other ones (gastroenterologist,
developmental pediatrician and neurologist) knew without any doubt the
cause of our son disease: GENETICS "What a wonderful word". They did not
know why my son’s mercury was very high (43 mcg/l) but according to them
it did not have anything to do with autism. They never read all the
scientific articles that I showed them because they read only trade
journals published by their respective association. According to them,
they keep up to date with science because twice or 3 times a week they
attend a free lunch seminar sponsored by a drug company about different
SCIENTIFIC subjects.
6)I have read a lot of articles on Autism for the past 2 years. The
epidemiological studies are all flawed toward the author belief and goals.
Take any good statistician and he can prove that readers of BMJ are all
women or men depending on what you want him to prove. Choosing the right
representative sample is all what it takes.
7)Let's read real science before talking science.
Saadedine Tebbal, Ph.D.
Competing interests:
Kid with Autism
Competing interests: No competing interests
As mom researcher, and founder of Childscreen, the first think tank
of it's kind on the PREVENTIONS of autism, I ask this very very simple
question...that is...had my child(ren) been identified as a "sitting duck
child", would I in fact not have two autistic children? The answer, YES.
I will tell you why. Both of them have complement C4B deficiency, both
inherited anulle genes from both my husband and I. Both come from
autoimmune histories. Both had infections in utero dealt with by
antipyretics (www.rollingdigital.com/autism), both came from parents that
have the STEALTH VIRUS, both come from a mom with amalgam fillings, both
were exposed to malathione (an immune lowering mercury salts pesticide),
both were visablly injured and medically injured by DPT 11 days after, and
MMR 2 weeks after, including biomarkers of those diseases in their gut, in
their brain, in the CSF. As far as I am concerned, I am a well researched
non hysterical parent, calling for a hysterical and wicked conclusion to
this argument, TEST THEM. Biological codes of ethics calls for any child,
any person, to be measured against the strength of a biologic, AKA
VACCINES. We ignore this ethic code routinely. We also set up damage by
cord clamping these kids into hypoxia in speech centers, opened blood
brain barriers and iron overload at birth, setting them up if you will for
the last trigger HEP B or MMR or DPT shot with opened and damaged BBB's,
which pushes them over the edge in a critical time of maturation and
pruning of the brain.
YOU DOCTORS MAKE ME SICK, in that you have not put this puzzle
together, and I, a mom, have...
So if it sounds as if I cloud the issue with all of these ioatragenic
causes, your right, but if you don't ask the questions OF WHAT WE CHANGED
IN THE LAST 50 YEARS since Autism's first recognition, HOW POISINED WE
HAVE BECOME, your genes genes genes theory is bogus bogus bogus. Cure
autism never, is your calling cards, and your genomic project will simply
go into oblivion until one out of every two children have AUTism or ADD or
MBD and every gene causes autism...last count 30 genes cause autism.
WHERE ARE YOU REAONSABLE PEOPLE???? A NEWBORN SCREEN MUST BE
DEVELOPED!!!!
Kathy Blanco
www.childscreen.com
www.voicesofsafety.com
Competing interests:
Mother of two children with autism, vaccine induced-founder CHILDSCREEN, a NPO calling for a newborn screen to identify a child with immune and metabolic difficulties before vaccinating them like pin cushions.
Competing interests: No competing interests
I would like to add to Alan Challoner's response on a human level
regarding, "How can vaccines cause damage?".
Our son was born normal on January 17, 1985 and regressed gradually into
autism after receiving the measles-
mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine on April 28, 1986. Since 2002 to the
present, our son, Eric, has had aggressive
tantrums including biting, kicking, pulling hair, scratching, choking
and head-butting. Eric is over 6 feet tall and over
200 pounds and when he would have a tantrum at home, my wife, my 15 year
old daughter and I would have to lock
ourselves in our room. Since 2002 we had to call the Parsippany police
many times and have Eric taken to St. Clare's
Hospital emergency room. Eric has been suspended several times from the
special school for autism because of his
behaviors. On December 10, 2002, Congressman Dan Burton read my letter
to the people at the Government Reform
hearing mentioning the fact that Eric was kicking down doors and that
we were living in hell and under seige because
of Eric's behaviors. Congressman Dan Burton mentioned his grandson who
has autism and said that when he gets to be
Eric's age, he is expected to be 6'10". He said to the participants at
the hearing that imagine what it would be like when
there are other young adults like Eric and his grandson having these
behaviors and being so strong.
Eric was suspended from school on Monday, February 23, 2004 because
of
his behaviors on the prior Friday. I took Eric
with me to the supermarket in the morning and Eric pulled my hair and
kicked me. I had to call the police and Eric was
taken to St. Clare's Hospital emergency room where he was transferred to
the Psychiatric Intensive Care Unit. On Friday,
March 5, 2004, we were told that if Eric wasn't taken home or
transferred to Greystone Park Psychiatric Hospital by Sunday,
March 7, 2004 we would be sued by the lawyers for St. Clare's Hospital.
This was despite the fact that we had private health
insurance and Medicaid. He was transferred to Greystone on March 7, 2004
and we are awaiting word on when Eric can be treated at the Kennedy
Krieger Institute in Baltimore, Maryland for a long-term inpatient stay.
We have been waiting since July
2003 to get Eric into Kennedy Krieger Institute but they only have 16
beds and treat only 40 children/young adults with autism
a year. They rehabilitate these children/young adults who have autism
and behavior problems.
On the front page of the Sunday edition, February 22, 2004 of the
Orlando Sentinel was an article titled, "Living with Disabilities.
Nearly 14,000 disabled Floridians need help with daily living, but a
strained state program can't keep up. Many are
...........DESPERATE". Also, there was an additional related article
titled, "Family struggles alone to deal with autistic son." by
Debbie Salamone. It told the following about the family of David and
Beth Schaefer that included their 16 year old daughter, Emily and their
11 year old son with autism, Dillon:
"The loud squeak of a chair echoes through the house as Dillon rocks
wildly back and forth. He leaps up and runs from his bedroom to the
kitchen, where his screams echo through the house. He turns the lights
on, off, on, off. He runs to the bathroom and flushes the toilet once,
again and again. He races into the living room, slams himself into the
windows and throws himself on the couch. He rushes toward his older sister
and pinches her. Then he targets his mother. She tries to restrain him,
but Dillon is almost her size. In an instant, he slams his head into her
mouth.
Tiny drops of blood slowly ooze from her swelling lip.
This is actually a good morning."
I talked to a New Jersey Department of Developmental Disabilities (NJ
DDD) representative and they said over 50% of their placement cases are
for young children with autism. Like Florida and other states in the
United States, New Jersey has problems getting funding for group homes
and residential centers for children and adults with autism. NJ DDD in
fact told us in July 2003 that Eric could only be placed in a residential
center in
Pennsylvania which was 2 1/2 hours from our home and that
many placements were being done outside New Jersey in states as far away
as Texas. In the prior February 22, 2004 response by Dr. F. Edward Yazbak
response and my response titled, "Research is needed, not propaganda",
a strong point is made regarding research and the numbers. (1)
The United States, United Kingdom as well as other countries
will be facing a big problem with financial costs involving the autism
epidemic that will involve millions if not billions of dollars/pounds.
The human cost can not be calculated and will be an international
tragedy that is a ticking time bomb waiting to go off. The longer our
governments wait, the bigger the disaster.
References:
1. BMJ Rapid Responses
"Research is needed, not propaganda"
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/328/7437/421-a#51141
Competing interests:
Founder of The Autism Autoimmunity Project and father to Eric, who has
regressive autism and tested
positive for myelin basic protein antibodies, has elevated measles
antibody titers, T-cell abnormalities and
colitis.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Russell Blaylock, MD has published a review article in the Fall 2003
issue of an obscure journal, The Journal of the American Neutraceutical
Association. The title of this article is: "Interaction of Cytokines,
Excitotoxins, and Reactive Nitrogen and Oxygen Species in Autism Spectrum
Disorders."
The Abstract of Blaylock's article reads as follows:
ABSTRACT
There is growing and compelling evidence that excessive peripheral as well
as central immune activation of brain microglia can result in alterations
in brain growth and connectivity during rapid brain growth, the so-called
“brain growth spurt.” A considerable amount of evidence, presented in this
paper, demonstrates the deleterious effects of immune factors, such as
cytokines, chemokines, and excitotoxins, when present in excess. The
interaction between excitotoxicity, ROS and RNS injury and immune
dysfunction is discussed. It is concluded that excessive activation of the
brain’s immune system during critical growth periods can occur when
vaccines are given as combination vaccines, using schedules that are too
close together or by the use of certain live viruses in the vaccines.
Blaylock concludes his article with three recommendations, as
follows:
1) Since the greatest period of synaptogenesis occurs during the
first two years of life, all vaccines should be delayed until after this
period unless absolutely critical to individual health; 2) A halt in the
use of live virus vaccines; 3) A reduction in the innoculation schedules.
...This would mean that no more than one vaccine should be given during a
physician visit and that each of the vaccines be spaced at least six
months apart.
Blaylocks paper is chock full of evidence linking "overstimulation of
systemic immunity" to a variety of "deleterious effects [such as] autism
and autism spectrum disorders."
The science is complex, the evidence of linkage with MMR --
especially from autopsies performed on children who had suffered from
autism or a related disorder -- is overwhelming and conclusive. In
contrast, arguments from ignorance, i.e., that the pharmaceutical industry
has no knowledge of harm being caused by MMR and other vaccines, are
clearly seen as being empty and fallacious. The pharma industry may indeed
be ignorant of the harm caused by some of its products, but do they need
to keep reminding us of this deplorable fact?
British medicine ought to see through the fog of criticism that now
surrounds Andrew Wakefield's 1998 Lancet paper, and rapidly adopt the
three recommendations offered by Dr. Blaylock. The welfare of thousands of
children is at stake, and there is no doubt at all that Andrew Wakefield's
research on this subject is sound.
Lawrence J. O'Brien
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Families want choice. Why dont all these researchers make their kids
have the tripple jab?
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
A few months ago, the BMJ used conflicts of interest as a theme. The
rapid responses showed that while some members of the profession
disapprove strongly of pharmaceutical industry bribery, others believed
there is no harm in it. Indeed, Simon Wessely, professor of psychiatry,
proudly proclaimed he currently holds 53 conflicts of interest and he
urged all to accept the situation for it is now a fact of life. How can
we argue with that when doctors who reach a target of MMR vaccinations,
are financially rewarded?
It seems to me that the current attack against Andrew Wakefield for a
conflict of interest, is not only hypocritical but typical of the manner
in which medical whistle-blowers have traditionally been treated.
The following rebuttal by Wakefield was published in "What Doctors
Don't Tell You". Permission to repost was given. I do hope the BMJ has a
sufficient sense of fair play to accept it for publication as a rapid
response.
DR WAKEFIELD: His side of the story
Many of you will know that Dr Andrew Wakefield, who pioneered
research into a link between autism and the MMR vaccine, was strongly
attacked in the London Sunday Times the other week, as reported in the
previous E-News. In particular he was criticised for receiving funds from
a legal aid charity that was representing parents of children who were
possibly injured by the vaccine. His statement follows in full...
"Serious allegations have been made against me and my colleagues in
relation to the provision of clinical care for children with autism and
bowel disease, and the subsequent reporting of their disease. These
allegations have been made by journalist Brian Deer who has expressed, in
front of witnesses, his aim of destroying me.
All but one of the allegations, which are grossly defamatory, have
been shown to be baseless. One allegation remains against me personally.
That is, that I did not disclose to the Lancet that a minority of the 12
children in the 1998 Lancet report were also part of a quite separate
study that was funded in part by the Legal Aid Board.
It is the Lancet's opinion but not mine that such a disclosure should
have been made since it may have been perceived as a conflict of interest.
This is despite that fact that the funding was provided for a separate
scientific study.
It needs to be made clear that the funds from the Legal Aid Board
were not used for the 1998 Lancet study, and therefore I perceived that no
financial conflict of interest existed.
The Lancet defines a conflict of interest as anything that might
embarrass the author if it were to be revealed later. I am not
embarrassed since it is a matter of fact that there was no conflict of
interest. I am, however, dismayed at the way these facts have been
misrepresented.
Whether or not the children's parents were pursuing, or intended to
pursue litigation against the vaccine manufacturers, had no bearing on any
clinical decision in relation to these children, or their inclusion in the
Lancet 1998 report.
It is a matter of fact that there was no conflict of interest at any
time in relation to the medical referral of these children, their clinical
investigation and care, and the subsequent reporting of their disease in
the Lancet.
As far as the 1998 Lancet report is concerned, it is a matter of fact
that we found and reported inflammation in the intestines of these
children.
The grant of £55,000 was paid not me but to the Royal Free Hospital
Special Trustees for my research group to conduct studies on behalf of the
Legal Aid Board. These research funds were properly administered through
the Royal Free Hospital Special Trustees.
The Legal Aid research grant to my group was used exclusively for the
purpose of conducting an examination of any possible connection between
the component viruses of the MMR - particularly measles virus - and the
bowel disease in these children. This is entirely in line with other
studies that have been funded by the Legal Aid Board (latterly the Legal
Services Commission) and reported in the BMJ. If and when this work is
finally published, due acknowledgement will be made of all sources of
funding.
It is unfortunate that, following full disclosure of these facts to
the editor of the Lancet, he stated that in retrospect he would not have
published facts pertinent to the parent's perceived association with MMR
vaccine in the 1998 Lancet report. Such a position has major implications
or the scientific investigation of injuries that might be caused by drugs
or vaccines, such as Gulf War Syndrome and autism, where possible victims
may be seeking medical help and also legal redress.
Health Secretary John Reid has called for a public enquiry. I
welcome this since I have already called for a public enquiry that
addresses the whole issue in relation vaccines and autism.
It has been proposed that my role in this matter should be
investigated by the General Medical Council (GMC). I not only welcome
this, I insist on it and I will be making contact with the GMC personally,
in the forthcoming week.
This whole unpleasant episode has been conflated to provide those
opposed to addressing genuine concerns about vaccine safety with an
opportunity of attacking me - an attack that is out of all proportion to
the facts of the matter.
I stand by everything that I have done in relation to the care,
investigation and reporting of the disease that I and my colleagues have
discovered in these desperately ill children.
My family and I have suffered many setbacks as a direct consequence
of this work. As a family, we consider that our problems are nothing
compared with the suffering of these children and their families. For the
sake of these children, this work will continue."
* To search the WDDTY database - where every word from the last 14
years of research can be found – click on
http://www.wddty.co.uk/search/infodatabase.asp
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Recently published guidelines on vaccinations contain evidence that
many vaccines can harm and that "although immunisation has successfully
reduced the incidence of vaccine-preventable diseases, vaccination can
cause both minor and, rarely, serious side effects."
The following papers should be scrutinised by all who are involved in
the vaccination conflict.
Update: Vaccine Side Effects, Adverse Reactions, Contraindications,
and Precautions Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization
Practices (ACIP)
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00046738.htm#top
Vaccinating With MMR
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/469133?mpid=25309
[FULL REPORT]
Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)
and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP)
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00046738.htm#top
Competing interests:
Father of Vaccine damaged daughter with autistic syndrome
Competing interests: No competing interests
Richard Smith argues for parents' right to choose over single
vaccinations or MMR.
(Editor's Choice)
Abusing patients by denying them choice
"It first hit me that denying patients choice is a form of abuse when
about six years ago I read a paper on patient choice in screening for
colorectal cancer. One hundred Californian patients were given full
information on five options…. Patients were told about the nature of the
test, the preparation required, the need for sedation, the time required,
how often the test would be repeated, the likely results with both
positive and negative outcomes in detail, and the cost. The result was
that patients chose very different options.
"Steve Woolf, a family physician and North American editor of the
BMJ, wrote: "Suppose these same 100 patients had not received this
information and were instead cared for by a physician who routinely
performs flexible sigmoidoscopy because he considers it the best test.
According to these data, fully 87% of the patients would undergo a
procedure other than the one they would prefer if properly informed" ( J
Fam Pract 1997;45: 205-8[ISI][Medline]). Nine out of 10 patients have been
abused…."
"Some 15-20 years ago an editorial in the BMJ suggested that every
menopausal woman should have hormone replacement therapy. That now looks
like bad advice….
The main arguments against fully informing patients are that 'It's too
difficult, costly, and time consuming.' But they are neither evidence
based nor politically sustainable."
(BMJ 2004;328 (14 February), doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7436.0-f )
Medical history is littered with treatments that caused more harm
than good yet supposedly intelligent people seem incapable of learning the
lessons.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Not Really
Please allow me to comment on certain statements in Ms. Clare Dyer’s
piece:
Statement I: “Andrew Wakefield's study of 12 children, published in
the Lancet (1998;351: 637) …provoked a huge media controversy that was
followed by a substantial fall-off in the percentage of children given the
triple vaccine.”
Comment: Not Really. The fact is that Andrew Wakefield never
suggested that vaccination against measles, mumps and rubella be stopped.
On the contrary, his recommendation to have the monovalent vaccines
available, alongside the MMR, would have improved vaccination rates in the
United Kingdom, because all parents, including those concerned about the
safety of the triple vaccine, would have rushed to have their children
vaccinated. Furthermore, MMR uptake in the United Kingdom had already
decreased substantially before the February 1998 article by Dr. Wakefield.
The source of the following information is a document entitled “NHS
Immunisation Statistics, England: 1997-1998”
[www.doh.gov.uk/pub/docs/doh/imstat98pdf]. If it cannot be accessed
online, the document is available from the UK Department of Health.
Between 1994 and 1998, MMR (first dose) vaccination rates decreased
at a faster rate (16.1%) than all other vaccines.
In 1993-94, 588,000 children received three doses of pertussis
vaccine and 640,000 received the first dose of MMR. In 1997-98, 589,000
children received the pertussis vaccine series of three injections and
only 563,000 received one dose of MMR. Put in perspective, British parents
were more likely in 1997 to bring their children back THREE times to
receive the pertussis vaccine, a vaccine that has historically been a
concern in the United Kingdom, than once for the MMR vaccine.
The authors’ comment was: “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”.
Examining the vaccination rates in the year of second birthday, 93.7%
of eligible UK children received 3 doses of pertussis and 91.9% received
their first MMR in 1995-96 compared to 94.2% for 3 doses of pertussis
vaccine and 90.8% for MMR in 1997-98.
When one looks at coverage rates, at age 24 months, by health
district in England, only 4 of the 100 health authorities reported a
coverage rate of less than 90% for diphtheria, tetanus and polio in 1997-
98 and 72 reported rates of 95% or over. For MMR, 28 health authorities
reported coverage rates of less than 90% including 9 with rates below 85%
and only 6 reported rates of 95% or over.
The United Kingdom district range vaccination coverage at age 2 years
in 1997-98 was a low of 82.6% and a high of 97.6% for three doses of
pertussis vaccine compared to a low of 75.2% and a high of 95.9% for one
MMR.
Statement II: “The chief medical officer for England, Professor Liam
Donaldson, told BBC radio's Today programme that Dr Wakefield's research
had led to a loss of confidence in a vaccine that had saved millions of
children's lives”.
Comment: Not Really. I respectfully submit that measles deaths had
decreased precipitously before the introduction of the measles vaccine
because of better nutrition and hygiene. The following can be checked with
the DOH. In 1901, there were 9,019 deaths attributed to measles in a
population of 32,612,1000 in England and Wales, giving a mortality rate of
276.5 per million.
In 1960, there were 80 deaths and the population was 45,775,000. The
measles mortality rate in England and Wales was therefore 1.75 per million
in 1960. In other words, the mortality rate from measles had decreased by
99.12% before the introduction of the measles vaccine. If Professor
Donaldson were talking about measles control (and not deaths) then indeed
vaccination would be most helpful. He offers two options: MMR or
“nothing”. Dr. Wakefield offers two other options: MMR or single vaccines.
I submit that single vaccines are immensely better than “nothing”.
Unfortunately, for many English parents, it has been “nothing” for years
before Dr. Wakefield’s article.
Statement III: Professor Donaldson added: "We have always thought
that Dr Wakefield's original study was poor science, but it is not just us
that thought that. Individual experts and individual medical bodies around
the world criticised it,"
Comment: Not Really. Six years after the study in question, there is
ample evidence by several independent investigators, from respectable
scientific centers, in support of Wakefield’s research. Identical
endoscopic findings have been described, measles virus persistence in
diseased tissues has been documented and abnormal measles immunity, in a
specific subset of children with regressive autism, has been repeatedly
detected.
Many of the individual experts and medical bodies who criticized
Wakefield had ties with the health authorities, the immunization programs
or the vaccine manufacturer. In adition, most of the epidemiological
studies they quoted had serious flaws and were funded by the CDC or the
vaccine manufacturer. (1)
Two of those anti-Wakefield studies actually reported increases in
autism after the introduction of the MMR vaccine in the UK and in one, a
regression after MMR vaccination was also documented.
In the first by Taylor and Associates, (2) the authors stated: “We
looked for evidence of a change in trend in incidence or age at diagnosis
associated with the introduction of MMR vaccination to the UK in 1988…
There was a steady increase in cases by year of birth… No significant
temporal clustering for age at onset of parental concern was seen for
cases of core autism or atypical autism with the exception of a single
interval within 6 months of MMR vaccination.”
Two co-authors of this study are employees of the Immunisation Division,
Public Health Laboratory Service Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre,
London. In addition, Dr. Taylor’s inter-personal conflict with Dr.
Wakefield should have been declared.
The second study by Kaye and Associates (3) is based on information
from the UK general practice research database (GPRD). The authors
reported that: “The incidence of newly diagnosed autism increased
sevenfold, from 0.3 per 10 000 person years in 1988 to 2.1 per 10 000
person years in 1999.”
Dr. Kaye is employed at the Boston Collaborative Drug Surveillance
Program. He disclosed the following:
Funding: No specific funding. Competing interests: The Boston
Collaborative Drug Surveillance Program is supported in part by grants
from AstraZeneca, Berlex Laboratories, BoehringerIngelheim
Pharmaceuticals, Boots Healthcare International,Bristol-Myers Squibb
Pharmaceutical Research Institute, GlaxoWellcome,Hoffmann-La Roche,
Janssen Pharmaceutica Products, R W JohnsonPharmaceutical Research
Institute; McNeil Consumer Products, andNovartis Farmaceutica.
Dr. Kaye did not perceive that he had a conflict because GlaxoSmithKline
was a defendant in the MMR litigation in the UK.
Statement IV: “The furore was sparked by a Sunday Times investigation
(22 February, pp 1, 12, 13) which also cast doubt on whether research
ethics approval had been properly granted for the study”
Comment: Not Really. Statements by the Editor of the Lancet also
sparked much of the furor. Now that the dust has settled, here are the
facts. A class action suit brought by hundred of parents, who believed
that the MMR vaccination was responsible for their children’s regressive
autism, was getting to Court at last, when suddenly legal aid funds were
cut. Simultaneously, the researcher, who dared to suggest that there was a
link between the triple vaccine and autism, was attacked and vilified. His
pioneer research was also deemed flawed because he did not disclose to the
Lancet that a minority of the 12 children in his original study was
included in a separate study that was partly funded by the Legal Aid
Board. According to the editor of The Lancet, such a disclosure should
have been made, because of the potential perception of a conflict of
interest.
From Andrew Wakefield’s point of view, there was neither a real nor a
perceived financial conflict. Funds from the Legal Aid Board were never
used for any part of the study that was published in The Lancet, in
February 1998. In addition, Dr. Wakefield did not personally receive any
portion of the much-publicized Legal Aid Board grant of £55,000 to the
Royal Free Hospital Special Trustees. In a letter published in the Lancet
in May 1998, Dr. Wakefield reported that he was undertaking a pilot study
on behalf of the Legal Aid Board to examine the merits of parental claims
of an association between their child’s exposure to the MMR vaccine and
subsequent autistic regression and intestinal symptoms.
It is evident that the editor of The Lancet did not perceive, for six
long years, that any conflict of interest existed because neither did he
question the principal investigator nor did he disavow the research. He
only made his recent accusations just before the Sunday Times report of
February 22, 2004 for reasons that we can only conjecture.
The fact is that the first 12 children reported in the Lancet study
were properly referred to the Royal Free specialized unit solely because
of their intestinal symptoms. The physicians, who examined and
investigated them and later reported their findings, had no interest in,
and probably no knowledge of, any future litigation.
The February 1998 Lancet article (4) consisted of a summary of each
child’s history as reported by the parents and the relevant clinical and
laboratory findings. The authors, including Andrew Wakefield, did not
claim that a causal association with MMR vaccination existed and only
suggested further research and investigation of the findings. When most of
Wakefield’s co-authors simply repeated that fact recently, the Press and
the vaccine lobby and its puppets hailed their statement as an earth-
shattering event.
The clearly orchestrated efforts by numerous parties to halt the MMR-
Autism litigation in the UK had to target the man who appeared to have
some answers. Being unable to refute his findings by clinical studies,
Wakefield’s enemies targeted him personally and attacked his integrity and
his character. Such attack will not change the beliefs of many parents who
are seeing their legal cases stalled and the UK Government investing over
£3 million to promote the MMR vaccine and not a penny to-date towards
autism research.
So is the Government going to convince parents that the MMR vaccine
has never caused autism in a small percentage of predisposed children? Not
Really.
Is Andrew Wakefield going to just go away? Not Really.
Will the truth ever come out? Absolutely.
References
1. Regressive Autism and MMR Vaccination
F. Edward Yazbak, MD, FAAP, TL Autism Research.
http://www.redflagsweekly.com/yazbak/2003_nov01_1.html
2. Taylor B, Miller E, Farrington, Cetropoulos M, P, Favout-Mayaud,
JL, Waight P, Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: no
epidemiological evidence for a causal association. Lancet 1999; 353: 2026-
29.
3. Kaye JA, del Mar Melero-Montes M. Mumps, measles, and rubella
vaccine and the incidence of autism recorded by general practitioners: a
time trend analysis. BMJ 2001; 322: 460-463 (24 February.)
4. Wakefield AJ, Murch SH, Anthony A, et al. Ileal-lymphoid-nodular
hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder
in children. Lancet 1998; 351: 637-41.
Competing interests:
Grandfather of a boy with two documented regressions, autistic enterocolitis and evidence of measles genomic RNA in the gut wall.
Competing interests: No competing interests