Is Dr. Wakefield Vindicated over MMR Vaccine Link to Autism?
Documents Emerge: Is Wakefield Vindicated?
Natural News online reported on the 26 of January 2011 by Mike Adams "The Health Ranger" and editor of Natural News; an article titled "DOCUMENTS EMERGE PROVING DR WAKEFIELD INNOCENT; BMJ AND BRIAN DEERE CAUGHT MISREPRESENTING FACTS." There is now new evidence from documents that emerged, clearing any allegations against Dr Wakefield. The allegations of fraud made by the British Medical Journal and the investigative journalist Brian Lawrence Deere, were proven false when these documents proved they misrepresented Wakefield's study findings. Wakefield commented:
"...Completely negates the allegations that I commited scientific fraud. Brian Deere and Dr Goodlee of the British medical Journal knew or should have known about the fact set out before publishing their false allegations."
1996 December 20, a meeting was held of The inflammatory bowel disease study group at the Royal Free Hospital Medical School. This featured a presentation; given by Proffesor Walker-Smith; on 7 of the children that later appeared in Dr Wakefield's group of patients for his study. Wakefield had been accused of " completely fabricating"the link associated with Autism from the MMR vaccine in his findings. 14 months before; however, the 2 researchers Professor Walker-Smith and Dr Amar Dhillon, had found and documented the same issue in children which included autistic symptoms.
The editor of Natural News is correct when he points out that in order to avoid a retraction on the BMJ's behalf, they would have to include the other two researchers in a study Wakefield had no part of and accuse all three of a "conspiracy to commit fraud" amoung all three and potentially many more who replicated this study, in order to back up their original allegations against Andrew Wakefield.
Professor Walker-Smith's presentation notes in 1996 of Entero-colitis and Disintegrative Disorder Following MMR- A Review of the first Seven Cases, begins with:
"I wish today, to present some preliminary details concerning seven male children who appear to have entro-colitis and disintegrative disorder, probably Autism, following the MMR."
He did give the clinical history of the seven children and it was detailed by his medical team and senior pathologist, Dr Amar Dhillion. Wakefield was NOT a part of this study and actually independently REPLICATED the study with his own research medical team. Anderson Cooper claimed when interviewing Wakefield, no repliation of the study was ever done. Wakefield was interreputed many times when he tried to state it was indeed replicated. Notes on the seven children were given and correction for the mistakes also noted. This also vindicates any allegation that Wakefield had misrepresented any clinical history.
Among some of the findings in the kids and the medical history they had regression within a month of the shots, high fevers immediately after the shots, all had stomach and bowel problems, head banging within two weeks etc. This can be found on Natural New's website reported by Mike Adams.
"In allowing itself to become the vehicle for Brian Deer’s particular brand of journalism; in circumventing the process of due diligence in its enthusiasm to “kill the beast”, the BMJ has taken a huge risk. As the document presented above shows, this was a mistake. Medicine, presented with the possibility of an iatrogenic catastrophe, has boarded a dissonant bandwagon and has gone after those who have concerns - genuine concerns - that childhood vaccines may be responsible, at least in part, for the autism epidemic. The relevant science has been grossly misrepresented, crushed beneath the wheels of a Public Relations 16-wheeler that is out of control. In the meantime a relentless tsunami of damaged children claims this land."
1996 Clinical History by Proffessor Walker-Smith
Child 1. Immediate reaction to MMR with fever at 1 [corrected, illegible]
Rapid deterioration in behaviour → autism
Histology active chronic inflammation in caecum
Child 2. MMR at 15 months – head banging 2 weeks later.
Hyperactive from 18 months.
Endoscopy – aphthoid ulcer at hepatic flexure
Caecum: lymphoid nodular hyperplasia with erythematous rim and pale swollen
Histology, Ileum mild inflammation, colon moderate inflammation
Acute and chronic inflammation.
Treated CT3211 [a dietary treatment]
INDETERMINATE COLITIS** ? CROHN’S DISEASE
Child 3. ? dysmorphism – chromosomes and normal development
MMR [sic] at 5 months [sic]
Measles [sic] at 2.5 years* – 1 month later change in behavior
Hyperactive with food
Colonoscopy – granular rectum, normal colon and lymphoid nodular
Histopathology: lymphoid nodular hyperplasia.
Increased eosinophils 5/5 mild increase in inflammatory cells (Dhillon)
LYMPHOID NODULAR HYPERPLASIA
[* correction: he received measles vaccine first at approximately 15 months of
age and MMR at 2.5. years]
Child 45. Reacted to triple vaccine 4 months – screaming and near cot death
MMR at 15 months – behaviour changed after 1 week.
“measles rash” week beforeEndoscopy – minor abnormalities of vascular pattern
Histology – non-specific proctocolitis**
LYMPHOID NODULAR HYPERPLASIA
Child 67. MMR – 16 months – no obvious reaction
Child 56. MMR at 14 months.
Second day after, fever and rash, bangs head and behaviour abnormal
thereafter.Endoscopy - Lymphoid nodular hyperplasiaHistopathology: Marked increase in IEL’s [intraepithelial lymphocytes] in ileumwith chronic inflammatory cells in reactive follicles. Increase in inflammatorycells in colon and IELs increased.LYMPHOID NODULAR HYPERPLASIA NDETERMINATE COLITIS
2 years behavioral change – 2.5 years
Screaming attacks - / food related
Endoscopy - Lymphoid nodular hyperplasia terminal ileum
Histology - Prominent lymphoid follicles
Dhillon: moderate to marked increase in IEL’s, increase in chronic inflammatory
cells throughout the colon – superficial macrophages not quite granuloma
Child 78. MMR 14 months
16 months “growling voice”
18 months - behavioural changes – autism diagnosed at 3 years
Barium [follow through X ray] 5 cm tight stricture [proximal] to insertion of
Endoscopy- prominent lymphoid follicle in ileum
Mild proctitis with granular mucosa
Ileum – reactive follicles
Colon – bifid forms, increased IEL’s
Slight increase in inflammatory cells
? CROHN’S DISEASE
The footnotes from Dr Wakefield
2 All intestinal biopsy tissues went through three rounds of microscopic review: the first from the duty non-specialist
histopathologist, the second by Professor Walker-Smith and his team, and the third – a blinded review – by Dr Amar
Dhillon, the senior pathologist with expertise in intestinal diseases. (Statement of Dr. A.P. Dhillon to the GMC
lawyers, footnote 14. p. 214 and p. 199-203 Callous Disregard: Autism and Vaccines – The Truth Behind a Tragedy.
2010. New York. Skyhorse Publishing, and Complaint against Brian Deer to UK’s Press Complaints Commission
4 Inflammation that is not diagnostic of either Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis
5 Child 6 in The Lancet paper. The chronological order was corrected for the final Lancet paper.
6 Child 3 in The Lancet paper
7 Child 9 in The Lancet paper
8 Child 5 in The Lancet paper
9 The pathologist is unaware of the symptoms or diagnoses of the patients from whom the biopsies came.
Emails between Dr Wakefield and Dr Godlee
Here is that correspondence
Dr. Godlee on 13.1.2011:
Dear Dr Godlee,
In the light of your many allegations, may I ask first, whether you were
made aware by Mr. Deer of the precise10 substance of the active
complaint against him and the Sunday Times that is before the UK Press
Complaints Commission, and second, whether you read my book Callous
Disregard: Autism and Vaccines – The Truth Behind a Tragedy, prior to
publishing these allegations? This book deals comprehensively with Mr.
Deer’s allegations, including all of the matters that you have labeled as
Dr Andrew J Wakefield
Dr. Godlee responded on 14.1.2011:
Dear Dr Wakefield,
Mr Deer did make us aware of the substance of your complaint against
him and the Sunday Times to the PCC. Your complaint is specifically
referred to and summarised in the article headed “How the case against
the MMR vaccine was fixed”. Footnote 119 also cross-refers (and in the
online version of the article is hyperlinked) to a copy of the complaint
itself, enabling readers, if they so wish, to consider it for themselves. As
stated in footnote 119, we understand that the complaint was suspended
by the PCC in February 2010.
As regards your book, my understanding is that in your book you make
the same points concerning Mr Deer’s allegations as you made in your
suspended complaint to the PCC. As I have indicated, those points are
summarised and cross-referenced in the article.
responded the same day, 14.1.2011:
Dear Dr Godlee,
Thank you for your response. I am reassured that Mr Deer made you
aware of the substance of the complaint against him - a complaint which
is still active and which is being pursued. I take it from your response
that you have not actually read the complaint or the relevant chapters in
my book. Please could you confirm this.
Dr Andrew Wakefield
Answer, came there none. I wrote again on 18.1.11
Dear Dr Godlee,
Last week I made a simple request: that you confirm whether or not you
have actually read the PCC complaint against Mr Deer and/or the relevant
chapters in my book. Clearly my question was with reference to whether
you had read these documents before publishing, not after. The question
requires a simple yes or no answer and I would be grateful if you could
respond by return.
Dr Andrew Wakefield
Reply from Godlee1.21.2011
Dear Dr Wakefield,
Thank you for your further emails. I can confirm that I have read your complaint
to the Press Complaints Commission and that we took appropriate account of it
in preparing our coverage in the BMJ. Indeed it was essential to the publication
of our reports, for which we did not approach you for further specific comment,
that your various detailed claims and counter-allegations were available in this
form to the BMJ editors and reviewers and to our readers.
As for your book, I have not read it. My understanding, as I have said, is that the
relevant chapters, particularly chapter 12 ("Deer"), cover the same ground as
your PCC complaint.
If as you say, you now intend to pursue your complaint to the PCC of March
2009, which we understand to have been suspended almost a year ago, we will
follow that development with interest.
Best wishes, Fiona Godlee
Dear Dr Godlee,
If, by your response you are seeking to reassure me that you read the
relevant Press Complaints Commission documents in advance of
publishing Mr Deer's articles and your accompanying editorials, you have
failed to do so. Please, for the record, could you state explicitly and
candidly whether you had read these articles in advance of publication.
Either way, your journal finds itself in some difficulty. I refer you to
Professor Walker-Smith's evidence to the GMC on Wednesday 16th July
2008 where he describes the meticulous detail that was applied to
resolving the correct histological diagnosis in each of the biopsy samples
from seven of The Lancet children over 14 months prior to publication - a
process that was completely independent of me but for which I am
accused of "fraud".Your reference to not asking me for "further specific comment" is notrelevant to my previous question. It now becomes so in the light of theaforementioned facts. It goes without saying that you should put thesefacts before your lawyers at the earliest opportunity.You will be hearing from me.
Yours sincerely,Dr Andrew Wakefield
This content is accurate and true to the best of the author’s knowledge and does not substitute for diagnosis, prognosis, treatment, prescription, and/or dietary advice from a licensed health professional. Drugs, supplements, and natural remedies may have dangerous side effects. If pregnant or nursing, consult with a qualified provider on an individual basis. Seek immediate help if you are experiencing a medical emergency.
© 2011 Abigayle Rourk