“We support Dr. Andrew Wakefield”?

Alright, I know that, after yesterday’s epic post (which was long even by Orac-ian standards), I said that I was going to try to get away from vaccine blogging for a while. I lied. Well, not really. At that time I really did mean it. But then I came across something that I just couldn’t leave alone.

Regular readers of this blog know my opinion of Andrew Wakefield, namely that he is a fraud, a quack, a charlatan, and a danger to the health of autistic children and public health in general. There is, as documented in my post and elsewhere, abundant evidence to support my opinion. But apparently there are some who don’t think the way I do. Apparently to some, the revelations of his research fraud notwithstanding, Andrew Wakefield remains a hero. In fact, there has recently appeared a website called We Support Dr. Andrew Wakefield.

Hand me a barf bag.

Let’s take a look at the “petition” they want people to sign

I had originally planned on a bit of deconstruction and translation, but Holford Watch beat me to it with a spot-on annotated version that I wish I had done. Instead, I was interested in who set up this website. A quick Whois revealed that the registrant is Edmund Arranga. I had no idea who Arranga is; so I Googled him. Guess what I found?

A page on Mothering.com labeling him as an “expert”:

Edmund C. Arranga is the co-founder of Autism One, a charity organization devoted to the care, treatment, and recovery of children with autism. Currently, a diagnosis of autism comes with the prognosis of forever and nothing could be further from the truth. Our children get better; some recover completely given the proper treatments and therapies.

AutismOne? That quackfest? Well, that explains a lot. Just look at the speaker list for this year’s AutismOne. It’s a veritable Who’s Who of autism quackery, fronted by Jenny McCarthy as keynote speaker and including Andrew Wakefield himself.

Still, there were a few parts of Arranga’s petition that struck me as worth commenting on. For example:

We declare that:

1. Dr. Wakefield is a man of honesty, integrity, courage, and proven commitment to children and the public health.

Ha.

Ha ha.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Oh, heheheheheheheehee! Ahahahahahaha!

Oh, me! Sorry, I just couldn’t help myself. Heh. Hahaha. Must. Regain. Composure.

There. Now I’m better.

2. Dr. Wakefield’s research is rigorous, replicated, biologically valid, clinically evidenced, corroborated by published, peer-reviewed research in an abundance of scientific disciplines, and consistent with children’s medical problems.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Dammit. That one caught me by surprise, just as I had composed myself. I’m sorry; I just can’t help it. That’s too hilarious! But I do thank whoever is behind this effort. I’m still not back to normal after the death of my mother-in-law. Anything that makes me laugh so raucously is good in that it lets me forget my sadness for a while.

In any case, I have to wonder: Wakefield’s research is “rigorous” and “replicate”?What planet are these people living on? By “rigorous,” perhaps they mean how incompetently he did his PCR.

Or maybe by “replicated,” they mean the latest attempt to replicate Wakefield’s work by a group at Columbia University last year. Oh wait. That group couldn’t replicate Wakefield’s work–just like every investigator not associated with Wakefield who has tried to replicate his work has failed to find any association at all between MMR vaccination and autism or “autistic enterocolitis.”

3. We support clinicians who pursue treatments for bowel disorders based on Dr. Wakefield’s work and corroborating science, most specifically Arthur Krigsman, MD.

Translation: We support quackery based on Wakefield’s pseudoscience and don’t mind if these quacks experiment with our children.

4. We support all scientists, including Dr. Andrew Wakefield, in the freedom to conduct medical research into the biological mechanisms for vaccine-related immune and brain dysfunction, including autism, without being attacked personally and professionally by industry, government, and organized medicine. We support scientific discovery, freedom to investigate, and freedom to speak in science.

Except when it fails to show what we want it to show, namely that vaccines cause autism. When that happens, as it always does except when we or investigators we support do it, we find ways to slime the scientists who did it and impugn their integrity as tools of big pharma or bad scientists.

6. We renounce pharmaceutical lobby groups and the London Sunday Times supporting the complaint lodged with the GMC, the actions of which result in intimidating doctors thereby preventing objective medical assessment of autistic children with co-morbid bowel involvement.

Translation: We hate it when the law stops our favorite quack from exercising his quackery. Obviously, it’s all a plot by big pharma to keep our hero from performing unnecessary and invasive colonoscopies on autistic children.

7. We condemn the censorship of science. There are more than enough facts and evidence to support the case of vaccine injury, but the politicization of these issues has made it impossible to publish important and valid science. The debate is rigged in favor of the vaccine industry.

Translation: We can’t understand why scientists don’t accept our findings. They insist on things like adequate negative controls and avoidance of contamination. We don’t have time for no steenkin’ controls; we know vaccines cause autism and we know what we need to find. So we find it. Anyone who says otherwise is “making it impossible to publish” or working for the vaccine industry. It’s obvious!

Certainly it’s obvious to me, and it should be obvious to you. That’s why I invite you, my readers, to make like Holford Watch and me and do your own “annotations” or translations of the petition above. The comments are open. I’ll personally e-mail my favorites to wesupportandy@wesupportandywakefield.org.

After all, they are asking for letters of support.

Comments

  1. #1 Drosera
    February 26, 2009

    So Jen is an anti-vax loon? How does this excuse the stupid name calling. Either you criticise what she writes – not hard or you don’t. The name calling remains stupid.

    Alyric, do you have any idea what is at stake? Anti-vax loons are not harmless idiots. If there are a sufficient number of them they will make it impossible to eradicate several dangerous viruses and may contribute to a pandemic of some mutated virus strain, potentially causing millions of deaths. Since they are oblivious to any form of scientific argument, as Jen here abundantly demonstrates, name calling seems to be the only way to penetrate their scull.

  2. #2 Rogue Epidemiologist
    February 26, 2009

    Wait, so Jen comes in as an anti-vaxer, but really it’s about paracetamol/acetaminophen/Tylenol??? Then WTF was the beef against vaccines? Can Jen just agree that vaccines should be delivered minus paracetamol/acetaminophen/Tylenol?

    What’s it going to be, Jen. Do you concede that we should stick to vaccinating our kids as long as we don’t give them Tylenol (I don’t see a reason for it anyway — babies are a lot more tolerant of fevers than adults)?

    Or are you going to shift your complaint with a new hypothesis-du-jour despite the best presentation of facts?

    Frankly, I think it’s shameful that a health professional would ever denounce one of the most effective preventive health practices ever developed.

  3. #3 wulfstan
    February 26, 2009

    I want facts, please. I want to know why my child suddenly has multiple food intolerances, to the point that he cannot tolerate any kind of nutrition with the exception of the elemental formula and water. I want to know why his self injurious and aggressive episodes seem to correspond with the ingestion of Tylenol.

    You understand that you don’t present facts to which you wish to receive facts in response? You present unvalidated assertions that are based on your assumptions and flawed perspective so are probably/possibly asking incorrect questions.

    I thought you had earlier claimed that your son had recovered after scoping?

    If I understand you correctly, you continue to give your son Tylenol until you come up with an explanation that satisfies you – irrespective of the distress that it causes him? That seems beyond harsh and more than a little unreasonable.

    I’m going to say that I don’t know the time stages of mouse embryo and foetus, so, please do enlighten me and explain why this is relevant.

  4. #4 Jen
    February 26, 2009

    What’s it going to be, Jen. Do you concede that we should
    stick to vaccinating our kids as long as we don’t give them Tylenol>>>

    Yes!

    (However, I still disagree with the one-size-fits-all approach to vaccination.)

  5. #5 Jen
    February 26, 2009

    I thought you had earlier claimed that your son had recovered after scoping?>>>

    My son has not been scoped yet. Dr. Krigsman has a long waiting list, and also requires lots of labwork, including multiple stool specimens before he can be seen, which I am still in the process of gathering. However, we couldn’t wait to start the elemental diet, due to the severity of his symptoms, which is why I’m paying hundreds of dollars per month for his formula, because insurance requires an actual diagnosis before they will pay for it. I still don’t know the extent of the damage in his gut. All I know is that he responded to the diet. Immediately. No more red ears. No more temper tantrums. No more visits to the state hospital. Gone.

    If I understand you correctly, you continue to give your son Tylenol until you come up with an explanation that satisfies you – irrespective of the distress that it causes him? That seems beyond harsh and more than a little unreasonable.>>>

    No, no, no. I didn’t realize a connection to Tylenol until recently. The last time we went through this with him was last year, after he had had some dental work done, and the dentist told me he would be a little sore for a day or two, and to give him Tylenol if he seemed uncomfortable. So I did. But the behaviors didn’t start right away, it took a few days, so I wasn’t able to connect the dots at that time. And the first time it happened, at age 7 was when he had fifth’s disease, and thinking back, I’d remembered giving him Tylenol for the fever. It was also during this time that he developed a particular liking for bananas…a highly phenolic food. I thought it was strange at the time, and questioned his doctors if there could be any correlation between aggressive behavior and bananas…as you can imagine, they thought I was the one who had gone bananas.

    So, after this recent episode, and not getting any answers or relief from any of the doctors I took him to, I came across some reading on sulfation deficits in autistic kids, and that’s when things started making sense.

    Mark my words, my children will never get Tylenol ever, ever again. In fact, I list it as an allergy on their medical forms, so there are no accidents. I get some strange looks, but oh well…

  6. #6 mandrake
    February 26, 2009

    Yes, of course. My thirteen years of experience as an LVN are completely irrelevant, and my first hand experience in raising two autistic boys and their improvements with biomedical treatments, as well as the thousands of other parents reporting the exact same results mean absolutely nothing. Gotcha.

    Actually, Jen, your experience as an LVN and a mother *are* irrelevant. Do you not understand the basic principles of science? Anecdotal evidence is not admissible.

  7. #7 Jen
    February 27, 2009

    Just FYI, for anyone that’s still interested, this is the reading that caught my attention wrt tylenol…

    “Since sulfur intake is low, and its oxidation is slow in many
    autistic children, sulfate is low, and PST activity is slower than it
    would be otherwise. It would seem that this sub optimality of
    sulphotransferase activity is a function of low plasma sulfate levels
    rather than of deficits in the actual enzyme. Cellular level
    enzymatic effects of mercury’s binding with proteins include blockage
    of sulfur oxidation processes and of the neurotransmitter amino
    acids. These have been found to be significant factors in many
    autistics. Thus, mercury, and any foodstuff that requires or uses up
    sulfate ions during its metabolism, will make the situation worse.
    These foodstuffs include foods that supply neurotransmitters, like
    bananas (serotonin), chocolate (phenylethylamine), and cheese
    (tyramine), apple juice (and one mother reports her child drank a
    quart a day!), citrus fruit juices, and paracetamol (Tylenol™). For
    instance, one or two minutes after a dose of Tylenol™, the entire
    supply of sulfate in the liver is gone!”

    http://www.newtreatments.org/Sulfur/ga/252/Autism%20and%20phenol-sulphotransferase

    Does anyone have anything to add to this, or am I completely off base here?

  8. #8 Prometheus
    February 27, 2009

    Jen asks:

    My question is…if the liver is exerting a good deal of energy metabolizing frequent doses of acetaminophen, do glutathione levels in the liver immediately return to normal? If not, is it possible that it may have difficulty processing other things that need detoxifying?

    To begin with, the liver doesn’t “exert a good deal of energy” to metabolise acetaminophen – especially if the does is within sight of the recommended dose. In fact, the “backup” metabolic pathway using glutathione isn’t used very much unless the dose is very high.

    Glutathione reductase rapidly returns “used” glutathione to service and the production of glutathione is readily “ramped” up to meet demand. In fact, the current best (and very effective) treatment for acetaminophen overdosage is N-acetyl-cysteine, which gets the rate-limiting amino acid cysteine to high levels very rapidly, allowing the liver to return its glutathione levels to normal and prevent damage.

    Repeated doses of acetaminophen induce the enzymes of the sulfation pathway, which is why people who take acetaminophen regularly can easily tolerate doses that would kill someone who rarely or never uses acetaminophen.

    I seem to remember reading about sulfation deficits causing problems with phenol processing, and in my son’s case, I did notice that his ears would turn very red at times, and my “googling” (since his pediatrician didn’t seem to know what would be causing it)came across some reading wrt sulfation deficits being caused by acetaminophen.

    The “ears turning red” question comes up a lot in autism discussion, but asking a group of mothers of children without autism, I found that it was a fairly common phenomenon. It happens to me occasionally, in relation to nothing that I can determine. The spurious association with “phenol-containing” foods has never been tested.

    You also seem to have confused/conflated “sulfation deficits” with acetaminophen. Acetaminophen does not deplete the body’s sulfate level. A few researchers used acetaminophen as a test agent to determine – so they thought – the “sulfation capacity” of children, which is probably the source of your confusion.

    The reason they did this is that acetaminophen is metabolised primarily by sulfation and only secondarily by glucuronidation. By administering a dose of acetaminophen and then testing the metabolic products in the urine, the researchers thought they could determine the “sulfation capacity” of the children.

    There are several problems with their line of reasoning:

    [1] The sulfation pathway is inducible – meaning that the more it is used, the greater its capacity becomes – so a child’s “sulfation capacity” depends more on their recent exposure to substances (foods and drugs) that use sulfation for their metabolism.

    [2] The sulfation pathway – like most metabolic pathways – is saturatable – meaning that it has finite (but expandable, with time) capacity, so the acetaminophen dose would have to compete with other compounds queing up for sulfation. If something else – a food or drug – had a higher affinity for the sulfation pathway, a larger amount of the acetaminophen dose would go down the gluronidation pathway.

    [3] The speed, capacity and affinity of the sulfation and glucouronidation pathways for acetaminophen show a fair amount of genetic variation. Just because one child’s ratio of sulfated vs glucuronidated acetaminophen is higher (or lower) than another’s tells us nothing about the state of their “sulfation capacity”.

    The final problem with the “sulfation capacity” study was that the researchers were clearly trying to prove their hypothesis that autistic children have sulfation deficits. They got one piece of data that was consistent with their hypothesis (although, in truth it only failed to contradict their hypothesis – there is a difference) and then made a lot of claims not supported by the tiny bit of data they collected.

    Prometheus

  9. #9 Prometheus
    February 27, 2009

    Jen asks again:

    Does anyone have anything to add to this, or am I completely off base here?

    The cited text is probably originally from about 1999 or 2000. It is the sort of over-inflated claims made from the very meagre acetaminophen metabolism study (a “pilot study”, actually) done in 1999. It has never been expanded or repeated.

    There are a number of clearly false statement in the archived web-page you linked to, characteristic of the sort of things I used to see written on the subject by parents who felt that they “understood” the subject and wanted to pass on (“..with advantages..” Henry V) to fellow parents.

    Like the child’s game, Telephone, the small kernel of data was rapidly swamped by the avalanche of speculation, supposition, erroneous assumptions and wishful guessing that were stuck to it.

    It’s not even one of the current “top ten” hypotheses among the DAN! practitioners, although they probably still prescribe things like the Feingold diet and Epsom salt baths (thought to increase sulfate levels by absorbing it through the skin) without remembering how those “treatments” got their start.

    So, I have nothing to add to that because it is all pretty much fantasy. I don’t know if you’re “off-base”, but that link is.

    Prometheus

  10. #10 Jen
    February 27, 2009

    It has never been expanded or repeated.>>>

    I know…personally, I’d like to see more study, but I will say (and yes, I’m well aware that my anecdotes don’t count for much) that I noticed certain food items (especially FD&C food colorings-they were his WORST triggers) seemed to trigger behavior problems in my son, and when the offending foods were removed, the behavior problems improved as well.

    [2] The sulfation pathway – like most metabolic pathways – is saturatable – meaning that it has finite (but expandable, with time) capacity, so the acetaminophen dose would have to compete with other compounds queing up for sulfation. If something else – a food or drug – had a higher affinity for the sulfation pathway, a larger amount of the acetaminophen dose would go down the gluronidation pathway.

    So would it be reasonable to assume that a child who, in addition to ingesting acetaminophen, and is also exposed to other items that use up sulfates over a period of time, would tend to have more problems than a child not exposed to these other items?

    I appreciate the additional insights, BTW, sans the personal attacks. Thank you.

  11. #11 Wulfstan
    February 27, 2009

    Prometheus, Joseph and others who have responded to an extraordinary range of questions, I want to thank you for the clarity of your answers on this thread – I have found them accessible and helpful.

  12. #12 Prometheus
    February 27, 2009

    Jen asks:

    So would it be reasonable to assume that a child who, in addition to ingesting acetaminophen, and is also exposed to other items that use up sulfates over a period of time, would tend to have more problems than a child not exposed to these other items?

    No, it would not be reasonable to assume that.

    You are assuming – as did the reasearchers who did the autism-sulfation study – that these children (or any children) are somehow running “close to the edge” of their ability to sulfate xenobiotic compounds. This is not true and has not been shown in any study.

    There is also a lot of conflation between the sulfation of xenobiotics (like acetaminophen and food) and the sulfation of proteins, sugars and the like. Even finding that someone has a “defect” in their liver’s ability to sulfate acetaminophen does not mean that their ability to sulfate cellular products is impaired. Different enzymes are used.

    Even when the enzyme name is the same, different enzyme isoforms are often used to do different things.

    If you are truly concerned about your child’s ability to sulfate xenobiotics, you should stringently avoid feeding them anything but highly processed and purified sugars, lipids and amino acids. The worst offenders for causing problems with liver metabolism are “natural” compounds – aflatoxin (found in peanuts) being just one example.

    Your concern about an occasional gram or so of acetaminophen is misplaced, especially if you are letting your child eat potatoes or green vegetables.

    Prometheus

  13. #13 anon
    February 27, 2009

    Prometheus,

    I agree with Wulfstan that this thread has become very enlightening. What I don’t see addressed, though could have very well passed over it and if so, accept my apologies – is the inflammatory component involved in vaccination and how that might affect an infant’s (or anyone’s) drug handling capacity. While fever containment seems reasonable to address mild vaccine reactions, I think this aspect is a bit overlooked. I’m not sure I agree with fever containment anyway, but that is another topic entirely.

    I agree with Jen, that discourse without condescension or personal attacks, is a positive position for the scientific community. I understand there are other blogs for one to peruse if the concern is to be handled more gently, but realistically, common courtesy should be widely applied.

  14. #14 Jen
    February 27, 2009

    Prometheus:
    Thanks again for the reasoned response. However, I feel I am left with more questions. I feel like I’m missing something, and I’m not really sure what, or how to elaborate on it. Perhaps it would be helpful to discuss what specifically about the article I linked to (and I realize it is very lengthy, and that you have a life outside of this blog!) in order to tease apart what you feel is “fantasy” and what about it is more in line with reality. If anyone else reading would care to jump in and help out, it would be much appreciated, as well. All I want are answers, and only truthful answers will do, even if that answer is: “I don’t know.”

    I just want to know what happened to my kid.

  15. #15 Bill H
    February 28, 2009

    Jen,

    I feel like I owe you an apology. I’m new to the whole commenting thing (I’ve been a lurker for some time now), and am still feeling out my persona. It’s easy to be snarky and condescending, but that’s not really me. More importantly, you don’t deserve it. You’re just looking for answers.

    Bill

  16. #16 anon
    February 28, 2009

    Bill,

    I hope you’re being genuine. If so, you encompass hope.

  17. #17 Jen
    February 28, 2009

    Thanks, Bill. Apology accepted. 🙂

  18. #18 Prometheus
    February 28, 2009

    Jen,

    There was so much wrong in the “article” you cited that it might be easier if I just show you where they went wrong in the first paragraph. Maybe that will give you an indication of how unreliable the rest of the information is.

    Phenolsulfotransferases (there are at least eight in humans) do metabolise phenol-containing xenobiotics (compounds made by other organisms – or synthesised – that end up in the human circulation). They do not metabolise hormones – that is the domain of an entirely different family of sulfotransferases.

    There are about 40+ known sulfotransferases in humans, but interestingly, sulfotransferases have no role in breaking down heme, hemoglobin, biliverdin or bilirubin (the last of which isn’t broken down but excreted intact). The author got that one completely wrong.

    Phenol-preferring sulfotransferases (the preferred name) are found in a variety of cells, including platelets (which are not, strictly speaking, cells), which make them easy to study.

    Although this doesn’t come up until the next paragraph, it’s important to realize that phenol-preferring sulfotransferases also don’t use circulating sulfate, so increasing the amount of sulfate won’t “fix” a damaged or defective “phenolsulfotransferase”. These enzymes use 3′ phosphoadenyl sulfate as a sulfate donor (that’s why they’re called sulfotransferases).

    The paragraph then segues into a discussion of Clostridia, although they seem to confuse C. tetani – which causes tetanus – with C. difficile, which can cause enterocolitis. In either case, the toxins produced by Clostridia are proteins, not “phenols”. Big difference, that.

    And sulfotransferases are not involved in metabolising any of the Clostridia toxins – not tetanospasmin, not C. difficile toxin A or B and not botulinum toxin (“botox”).

    I suppose this is nit-picking, but describing the action of tetanospasmin (the toxin made by C. tetani) as “reducing the production of GABA” when it actually reduces the release of GABA (and glycine), is yet another sign of the overall inaccuracy of the “article”. At any rate, confusing “tetanus” (which doesn’t cause enterocolitis) with C. difficile, (which doesn’t affect GABA or glycin release) is a major error.

    In short, I found almost everything the author said in that first paragraph to be wrong. And the first paragraph isn’t unique in its degree of inaccuracy.

    I could go on, but I’ve reached the end of the first paragraph. As you can see, to describe what is wrong in this “article” would take more time (and space) than it took for this person to write it in the first place.

    It would probably be best to just ignore everything in this article, because the chaff outnumbers the wheat ten to one (or more).

    Prometheus

  19. #19 Jen
    February 28, 2009

    It would probably be best to just ignore everything in this article, because the chaff outnumbers the wheat ten to one (or more).>>>

    Well, I’m not certain that it’s really fair to dismiss EVERYTHING in the article, especially since I was able to incorporate a few of the interventions suggested, and did notice improvements in behavior. It might be more realistic for someone in my position (scientific illiterate that I am) to just read it, but take it with a grain of salt. A bit of skepticism is a healthy thing, and that’s true with most everything in life.

    Whatever is going on with my kid seems to be affecting his entire body, and I owe it to him to get to the bottom of this.

    In addition to all the gastrointestinal symptoms that have been going on with him, he also had a mole on his back that started changing in shape. The dermatologist was doubtful that it was cancerous, but removed it at my insistence. The biopsy showed that it was moderately to severely dysplastic, and he actually had to go back and have more of the surrounding tissue removed. As if the poor kid hasn’t suffered enough. 🙁

    He also had his first seizure the day before thanksgiving.

    So, as you might imagine, I am quite alarmed by all of this, and am desperate and VERY determined to get to the bottom of it.

  20. #20 Katherine
    March 1, 2009

    Jen posted: I would LOVE to be proven wrong, so I can quit beating myself up for giving Tylenol to my kids and taking it for frequent headaches and back pain during my pregnancies. And I wouldn’t be pushing this so hard if I didn’t witness severe behavioral regressions in my older son after ingesting acetaminophen, an association that I am only recently realizing.

    Wouldn’t acetaminophen only be given when there is some evidence of pain or fever, or I suppose in some cases before a vaccination? Isn’t it likely that this pain or fever itself is what caused a behavioural regression rather than the medication? My son is not autistic and I know this is only anecdotal, but he frequently has behavioural issues when he is in pain or ill and I have heard the same from every other parent I know.

    Jen also posted: So, as you might imagine, I am quite alarmed by all of this, and am desperate and VERY determined to get to the bottom of it.

    I would be alarmed as a parent as well, and likely looking at everything that might even potentially help my child. I just don’t understand why you believe there is something “at the bottom of this” other than genetics.

  21. #21 Joseph
    March 1, 2009

    Well, I’m not certain that it’s really fair to dismiss EVERYTHING in the article, especially since I was able to incorporate a few of the interventions suggested, and did notice improvements in behavior.

    The thing is, Jan, you can read any article about any hypothesis, and after you incorporate interventions suggested, you’re bound to note improvements in behavior. Have you read about placebo effects in autism, e.g. Sandler (2005) ?

  22. #22 Jen
    March 1, 2009

    The thing is, Jan, you can read any article about any hypothesis, and after you incorporate interventions suggested, you’re bound to note improvements in behavior. Have you read about placebo effects in autism, e.g. Sandler (2005) ?

    Yes, I’ve read about secretin and the placebo effect. And from what I’ve continued to read on the subject, while not every child improved with secretin, it has been shown to help those children with chronic diarrhea. Even the study’s authors admit that there were some limitations:

    “Drs. Bodfish and Sandler noted, however, that the study had several limitations. Because the study was only four weeks’ duration, it could not detect any improvements that might have occurred over a longer period of time. Also, study participants received only one injection of secretin, and it is possible that more than one injection would be required before any effects were noticeable.”

    http://www.nichd.nih.gov/news/releases/secretin1299.cfm

    This is part of what makes treating autism so very complicated. What may work beautifully for one child, might do absolutely nothing for another. There is such a wide spectrum of symptoms and sensitivities.

    At any rate, I’d tend to agree with you wrt placebo effect if it were ONLY behavioral improvements that I noticed. You have to understand that these were not your ordinary, garden-variety temper tantrums. I’m talking about a kid that would physically attack police officers twice his size, would pick up heavy kitchen chairs and smash them to bits, then beat his head with the remaining pieces. He has left quite a trail of destruction in my house that will be costly to repair, including a huge crack in my new granite countertops! >:( Sometimes, he would go without sleep for days on end, and I think that it was actually this lack of sleep that may have triggered the seizure. The red ears also went away, as well as the very dilated pupils and profuse sweating. There was one time that he worked himself up so much that he jumped fully clothed in the middle of the night into the swimming pool!

    We started noticing a pattern during his admissions to the state hospital, that his behaviors would improve, even without any medical interventions. It turns out that while he was at the hospital, he didn’t care much for their food, and refused to eat. But, when he returned home, and food consumption resumed, the behaviors would slowly start to return.

    People who know my son IRL continually ask me what medication I have him on now, because he is just so calm and laid back now. He is on no medication, other than the dietary supplements prescribed by Thoughtful House.

  23. #23 Katherine
    March 1, 2009

    Jen, it is great that you’ve found somehong that helps your son but I still don’t see why you are so certain that it is a single cause for both the autism and the digestive issues. Neither food issues not autism is so rare that they wouldn’t be expected to occur in the same person from time to time.

  24. #24 Jen
    March 1, 2009

    Wouldn’t acetaminophen only be given when there is some evidence of pain or fever, or I suppose in some cases before a vaccination? Isn’t it likely that this pain or fever itself is what caused a behavioural regression rather than the medication? >>>

    Initially, that’s what I thought too. This all started when we began working with a behavioral analyst that gave him skittles as a reinforcer. Ordinarily, I don’t let him have very much of that sort of thing, but I made an exception, because she made it clear that we needed to let him have some sort of incentive to make him do what we wanted. However, over a period of several days, I started noticing the behaviors returning, and since the skittles were the only thing new, I started reading up on FD&C food colorings and behavior. I wasn’t entirely convinced of a link yet, so just to be sure there wasn’t something else bothering him, I took him to his pediatrician to look him over. She couldn’t find anything obviously wrong with him, other than his throat looking a little red, but seemed to agree that this sudden onset of behaviors was unusual, so she gave me a prescription for Tylenol #3 and suggested giving it to him for a day or two to see if pain was really the problem. This didn’t really do much, so it was discontinued, and I continued to read up on the dyes, and I came across the Southampton study, and discovered that these are actually banned in parts of Europe now because of concerns wrt hyperactivity and behavior problems. So I removed all FD&C dyes, and to play it safe, sodium benzoate as well, and we actually had a few weeks of really good behavior, so I thought the problem was solved. I continued to read more, and discovered the Feingold diet, and decided to give it a try. Later on, when he started having issues again, and since aspirin and ibuprofen are not allowed, Tylenol was my only option for treating pain. At first, it seemed to help a little, but then I started suspecting that it might be aggravating his problems, and that’s when I discovered the above link. Things just made sense, and while there is quite a bit that I still don’t understand, it was enormously helpful.

  25. #25 Joseph
    March 1, 2009

    Yes, I’ve read about secretin and the placebo effect. And from what I’ve continued to read on the subject, while not every child improved with secretin, it has been shown to help those children with chronic diarrhea.

    Not every child improved with secretin? No child improved with secretin any more than would be expected from a placebo response. It’s possible that diarrhea improved, but nothing having do with autism did. In fact, some studies found placebo to be non-significantly better than secretin, and researchers wondered if they were looking at negative placebo effects. Note there are double-blind secretin studies in the sub-group of autistic children with chronic diarrhea. They find basically the same thing, except for one I believe.

    That’s beside the point, though. Placebo effects are significant in autism, and claims of improvement can be assumed to be due to a placebo response absent a more plausible explanation.

  26. #26 Prometheus
    March 1, 2009

    Jen comments:

    “Well, I’m not certain that it’s really fair to dismiss EVERYTHING in the article, especially since I was able to incorporate a few of the interventions suggested, and did notice improvements in behavior.”

    Funny thing, I’ve heard the same thing from parents who used everything from vitamin B12 to HBOT. They try a number of “treatments” and – voila! – their child is better.

    Even funnier – I saw exactly the same thing myself, when we tried a number of “remedies” to treat our son. Eventually, I noticed that “treatments” that had produced improvement in the past either stopped working or caused behaviors to worsen.

    After a few years chasing our tails, we realised that we were superimposing our “therapies” on a remitting-relapsing behavior pattern (“two steps forward; one step back”) and that our “treatments” had nothing to do with the improvements or the “regressions” (except, of course, the more aversive “treatments” probably did produce some behavioral worsening).

    Believe what you like, Jen, but remember our exchanges in the coming years when you start to wonder if anything is “working”. With luck, you’ll make this discovery before you end up in bankruptcy or, worse, end up hurting your child while attempting to help them.

    The article you linked to is about 90% untruths, confused and conflated “facts” and unsupported speculation. The part that is correct is only trivial facts, like the existence of phenolsulfotransferases and their action on phenol-containing compounds, as related in the first paragraph.

    It is not surprising that you should find some of the recommended “remedies” to be “effective”. If you get the chance, find an excerpt of a 17th century medical text and see what people thought was “effective” back then.

    Bleeding, purging, blistering and mercury were all once thought to be “effective” based on clinical observations. It wasn’t until we actually started testing the treatments (scientifically, you know) that we discovered how easily it is to fool ourselves into believing that something “works” when it doesn’t.

    The multi-centre secretin study, sponsored by Repligen (maker of recombinant secretin) showed that it was no better than an injection of saline. This study was never published – you might want to ask Repligen why – but the results were released by Repligen several years ago. Still, a number of parents and practitioners swear that it works.

    “It might be more realistic for someone in my position (scientific illiterate that I am) to just read it, but take it with a grain of salt. A bit of skepticism is a healthy thing, and that’s true with most everything in life.”

    I would suggest that you take this “article” you linked to with a train-load of salt. Skepticism is a good thing and never so much as when we find ourselves in agreement with someone. While we humans are very adept at coming up with reasons to not believe something we already don’t believe in, we are very bad at finding the flaws in things that seem to support our preconceived ideas.

    I’ve pointed out the flaws in just one paragraph of that “article” – I could do the same for each paragraph. Yet, since it seems to resonate with your beliefs on the matter, you have come up with a reason to keep believing what it contains – you’ll just add a grain of salt and convince yourself that it is still mostly valid, even if 90% of the statements of fact are demonstrably incorrect.

    Prometheus

  27. #27 HolfordWatch
    March 1, 2009

    Dr Edwin Cook discussed both secretin and the genetics of autism in his testimony during the Cedillo hearings. He was very interesting about both and presented the material in a clear, straightforward way.

    This overview of the Repligen autism trials does indicate that secretin isn’t worth pursuing as an appropriate treatment intervention – as Prometheus and Joseph comment, it’s unfortunate that this wasn’t written up formally.

  28. #28 John C. Welch
    March 1, 2009

    Jen, it is great that you’ve found somehong that helps your son but I still don’t see why you are so certain that it is a single cause for both the autism and the digestive issues. Neither food issues not autism is so rare that they wouldn’t be expected to occur in the same person from time to time

    Not only are neither terribly rare, (hello, household with lactose intolerance, mild reactions to hot dogs & capcacin, and rather colorful reaction to certain vegetables), but in some cases, both are the “go to” diagnoses. For example, my son is, for want of a better phrase, an “ADD Poster Child”. This is not surprising, I’m just as bad, if not worse. He’s also an only child, far more comfortable around adults than kids his own age, and up until really high school, very uncomfortable around kids his own age, in large groups.

    I had several go-rounds with school counselors who wanted me to agree that he had Asperger’s. They meant well, but were looking for a way to buttonhole him, so their ‘standard’ programs could fit him better.

    I refused as a) the psych he’d been seeing disagreed, and of the two, I know who was more qualified, and b) the behaviors they described only happened at school.

    I think a large part of it was that they didn’t want him to feel bad, or maybe fail a class, but my response was, “He’s going to feel bad for a ton of other reasons in his life, and if he fails, then he deals with the outcome, and learns how to avoid it in the future. Life involves failure, and this is a far better time to experience it than in his 30s.”

    It was all polite, but in the end, since I wouldn’t sign the papers, there wasn’t much they were going to do, and, no surprise, as he’s gotten older, we’ve worked together to find ways to deal with his ADD in ways that don’t require maintenance meds, etc. Slower going, but more effective in the longer term. (Much better than my unconcious way of dealing with it, in the bad old days before anyone really knew about it: Massive doses of caffiene. The few times I’ve seen a psych about it, they said, “Well, not as effective as other meds, but you wouldn’t be the first person with ADD to be a caffiene addict as a way of self-treating. Just watch your water intake.”

    So there are a lot of people using Autism/food allergies as some magical “see, it’s not that he’s being a butt, he’s GOT A CONDITION” so that they can get put in the right box.

    Doesn’t mean it’s true.

    Just like there’s no magic bullet, which is what your quest is all about.

    You’re looking for one “magic bullet” that will account for the dietary issues, the autism, the behavioral issues, and there’s probably not going to be one. In fact, your own actions show theire isn’t one. Your kid was in a lot of pain and discomfort from diet, acting out a lot over it, and when you changed his diet to alleviate that, he calmed down.

    You didn’t “fix” his autism in the least with that dietary change, it’s that he’s no longer in pain. Funny how the cessation of pain can calm you right down. You’ve also discovered, the hard way, that there are certain food dyes that he needs to stay away from.

    I hate to tell you this, but there’s nothing special there. Millions of people figure this out the same way: the hard way. You saw a reaction to the skittles, and intelligently, stopped letting him eat them. Surprise, that’s not some great miracle, that’s “Doctor, it hurts when I do this.” “So don’t do that.” “Hey, it stopped hurting”. You’re not a special snowflake here, nor is your kid. He just found another thing he can’t eat. That’s all.

    Chances are, your kid may always have a highly restricted diet. I’ve not been able to eat 4 very popular veggies, one of which I actually like, for almost 35 years, since I first discovered I can’t eat them. On the other hand, at a very young age, orange juice gave me hives. By the time I was 6-7, it didn’t.

    However, there’s no magic bullet that will let you say “THIS! THIS is what caused every.single.problem my child has.” Well, unless you want to count “genetics” as a magic bullet. But your insistence that it’s…vaccines/vaccines with tylenol/tylenol without vaccines/etc/etc/yadda show that you’re probably never going to accept the role of genetics here, even though, as we learn more about things like Autism, genetics seems to be the only cause that isn’t getting disproven.

    But hey, it’s your windmill to tilt at. Just don’t be surprised when it doesn’t turn into a dragon.

  29. #29 Jen
    March 1, 2009

    Even funnier – I saw exactly the same thing myself, when we tried a number of “remedies” to treat our son. Eventually, I noticed that “treatments” that had produced improvement in the past either stopped working or caused behaviors to worsen. >>>>

    If you don’t mind, could you elaborate on what you tried with your son (and I will understand completely if you don’t want to discuss your son’s medical issues here) and what specifically caused behaviors to worsen? Because that is a big concern of mine, believe it or not. I think that there is a stereotype of us “autism moms” that we will try ANYTHING, and in my case, that simply isn’t true. Before I even think about trying a new supplement or intervention, I read up on it as thoroughly as I can, and make certain I understand its purpose, in addition to continually monitoring him for any changes, both positive AND negative. (This is an instance where my years of nursing experience serve me very well.) Chelation is my biggest worry, and is also one that TH is at some point going to start pushing after his gut heals. Right now, I am just not comfortable with it, and I might never be comfortable with it, but it could be simply because I don’t have enough information. My “gut” tells me to tread very carefully. (I know, I know, gut feelings don’t count for much, scientifically speaking, as some of you have pointed out to me many times over the past few days.)

    For me, though, this isn’t about “curing” his autism. I know that no matter how many interventions we try, he will always be autistic. I accepted that a long time ago, which was why I never really did biomedical treatments with my son, until just recently, when I was essentially backed into a corner, and left with few other options. For us, this is more of a quality of life issue.

  30. #30 Jen
    March 1, 2009

    While we humans are very adept at coming up with reasons to not believe something we already don’t believe in, we are very bad at finding the flaws in things that seem to support our preconceived ideas.>>>

    Ah, yes. I came to that realization many years ago when I started questioning the whole religion thing. (Unrelated to the topic at hand, but similar parallels.) I’ll remember to keep that thought in mind as I continue this journey with my son.

  31. #31 K.R
    April 9, 2009

    This has nothing to do with what Jen was talking about.

    What about Cortisone injection (1 shot) during the first trimester? Could that cause brain damage?(I would think it would have to be used a lot to cause any kind of damage)

    The reason I ask is we have 3 sons 2 of them have autism (genetics right there I know and believe that) during the first trimester I was given a cortisone shot for inflamed cartilage (not knowing I was pregnant both times)but I still have in the back of my head that what if the cortisone triggered a gene fug up? not possible right? I just want an extra yeah it’s not possible and it would make hubby feel better about it too….so lets have at it please.

    Thanks Kel

  32. #32 Prometheus
    April 9, 2009

    K.R.,

    Your adrenals produce cortisol (cortisone) – about 100 mg per day in good times, more when you’re under stress (like pain, for instance). The amount that was injected was most likely less than a day’s production without the added stress of pain and pregnancy.

    In addition, most steroids injected for local inflammation are formulated for slow release, so the effect would have been spread out over several days.

    Additionally, there are people who are on chronic steroid medication for a variety of disorders – there has been nothing reported about an increase in autism among these people.

    Steroids can accelerate lung maturation in later fetal development, which is thought to be an adaptive response to maternal stress and the possibility of a premature birth. Apart from that, I’m not aware of any effects it has on fetal development.

    Prometheus

  33. #33 K.R
    April 9, 2009

    Prometheus,

    Thanks for the feedback!

    Kel

  34. #34 K.R
    April 9, 2009

    Prometheus,

    Thanks for the feedback!

    Kel

  35. #35 Amy Jones
    April 22, 2009

    Do any of you have a child on the spectrum who got sick hours after their shot? Have any of you become doctors afterwards in order to learn the science behind what happens to these children? There IS scientific evidence that prooves the gastrointestinal system and connect with Autistic kids will be added to the new version of the DSM in 2012.
    In fact some of you won’t even list your names…how sad. Must be nice to be able to write something so incorrect about a human being and doctor might I add whose research has helped a generation of parents RECOVER their autistic kids from vaccine damage. Your pathetic and whats worse is you have no journalistic integrety. Have you read any of Dr. Wakefields articles? I doubt it.
    Congrats…you look like an idiot. Site examples that are actually correct next time based on EVIDENCE. This is a science blog after all.

  36. #36 Chris
    April 22, 2009

    Yes, many of us do.

    And we are so very angry that Wakefield’s fraudulent paper has diverted funds and attention to the real needs of our children.

  37. #37 Blah Blah Blah
    April 22, 2009

    Amy Jones is such a common name that it might as well be a pseudonym.

    First. Correlation doesn’t imply causation. Getting sick after a shot does not mean that the shot caused you to get sick. Given that all chidlren get sick and all chidlren should be vaccinated it doesn’t mean anything at all.

    Second. Some of are already real doctors.

    Third- Science. You keep saying that word but I don’t think it means what you think it means.

    Fourth. You already know what’s in the DSM 2012? Provide citation

    Fifth. Note that the word is Cite not Site.

    Sixth. Where are the data showing recovery? Cite it. Wakefield Lancet paper that kicked all this off was fraudulent so you have no aetiological data now. Scientists who make stuff up are not trustworthy they tend not to have their articles read seriously after that.

    Seventh- Evidence. See Third regarding Science.

  38. #38 David
    May 21, 2009

    This debate has become a farce.
    The issue is simple. Those of us parents that have taken the time and trouble to ascertaine the ingredients and processes used to compile these vaccines can only be lft in a state of complete disbelief.
    Of my children (those that have not resided with me, but with their mother (a nurse)) have received multiple vaccines and I can see a difference.
    If you know that a given chemical is a biocide, whether it be a preservative, an emulsifier or the tissues of chicken embryos, to suggest that you inject it into any one least of all an infant, is absurd.
    If my child falls and cuts themselves, my first reaction is to clean the wound. But because these people in white coats come along with a language comprising of medispeak and tell you that no harm will come to your child, you are left either having to trust them, or trust in nature and provide them with the best possible diet, free of all corruptions as possible.
    The medical institutions seem to be insanely driven to promulgate more and more of these nasty cocktails, why?
    All culpability is denied and the producers of these poisonous mixtures protected from law. Why?
    It is time, that this madness stopped. Unless of course you believe that humanity has become too numerous and culling is required (Johnathan Porrit and Sir David Attenborough).
    All those of you who advocate this insanity, should before pushing this onto others, take all of the injections given to infants adjusted for your body weights. If you really believe these things to be harmless, you have no risk.
    So here you are, I call you out, right now. Come forward into the light and place your names so that you can become our guinea pigs. You should be fine with this since as you keep telling us, these injections are harmless.

  39. #39 Dedj
    May 21, 2009

    David – many of us that come here on a regular basis work, or have worked, in medical or health care. Many of us have recieved not just our childhood vaccines, but also many otherwise non-compulsory boosters or vaccines, in order to be allowed to work in healthcare. This does not include additional vaccinations that are sometimes required to work in ICU, Isolation units or renal care.

    We have already ‘called’ ourselves out. You fail.

    “If you know that a given chemical is a biocide,….to suggest that you inject it into any one least of all an infant, is absurd.”

    Why? If it can be shown that the overall net effect is a gain then why not? By what process does mere status as a ‘biocide’ negate all other possible actions by that chemical.

    Explain yourself.

    Now.

  40. #40 Chris
    May 21, 2009

    David:

    Of my children (those that have not resided with me, but with their mother (a nurse)) have received multiple vaccines and I can see a difference.

    The plural of anecdote is not data.

    he continues:

    If you know that a given chemical is a biocide, whether it be a preservative, an emulsifier or the tissues of chicken embryos, to suggest that you inject it into any one least of all an infant, is absurd.

    Just tell us exactly what preservative is used in the MMR. It comes as a powder that is mixed with sterile water and must be used within eight hours (and both the powder and mixture must be kept under certain conditions!).

    Also, tell us what issue you have with chicken eggs. I plan to have an omelet tomorrow for lunch, should I be worried?

    By the way, the MMR is only given after a child is over a year old, by then they are no longer infants.

    Also, do you know of any research that replicates what was in Wakefield’s now retracted paper? This one failed to replicate his tiny study:
    Lack of association between measles virus vaccine and autism with enteropathy: a case-control study.

  41. #41 leena
    January 29, 2010

    I am a parent of an autistic child who is now well on the way to recovery. She became autistic 2 months after her MMR jab. She suffers with her bowels, her stomach is distended, all due to the MMR jab. Dr Wakefield and J.Tommey are the only people who listened and helped with her pain. She can now talk and socially engage. Thank you Dr Wakefield for standing up to the members of the GMC who have interests in the pharmacetical industry that make vaccines.

    To all the parents, now that you know, you would be crazy to allow your child to have this vaccine.

    Ignore this crackpot who is trying to discredit Dr Wakefield, he dosen’t know what hes talking about and is probably employed by the very people who make this vaccine. BTW I am a medical professional too and am disgusted by what is going on. 1 in 64 kids are being diagnosed, due to this vaccine.

  42. #42 Dedj
    January 29, 2010

    Unfortunetly for leena above, the ‘crackpot’ had his opinions validated and (indirectly) substantiated by the relevant institutional authourity.

    Implied accusations of corruption and fraud may sound all well and good, but the rest of us would like to stick with the reality of what has actually occured, and not resurrect ten month old threads just to spill a load of cookie-cutter dross.

  43. #43 Chris
    January 29, 2010

    leena, the MMR vaccine has been used in the USA since 1971. If you are under the age of 40, you may have received the MMR as a child.

    Also, have you actually read this almost year old blog posting? Or are you just looking for blog postings critical of Wakefield and pasting your little rant without bothering to read them?

  44. #44 Chris
    January 29, 2010

    Hmmm, this is interesting. Leena uses the word “jab” and did not put a period after “Dr”. This must mean that she is in the UK. Wakefield has been in the USA running his clinic for the past several years (note, he is not licensed to practice medicine in Texas).

    I sincerely doubt that Leena has traveled all the way to Texas.

    I have no idea who J. Tommey is, though there is a Polly Tommey.

  45. #45 triskelethecat
    January 30, 2010

    @Chris: Not only has it been used since 1971 in the US, my elementary school recommended that all children get the MMR, so, even though I was WELL over the age of 1, I got the MMR in (according to my vaccine records) 1972. My sister was also over 2, and she got it (our mom bundled us off to the Health Dept, which had the vaccine). I can well recall the LONG lines of elementary school kids there who were getting the vaccine, so even if you are over the age of 40, you probably got it, at least in Michigan.

  46. #46 redrabbitslife
    January 30, 2010

    zOMG! Became autistic two months after the MMR vaccine? Holy smoke, stop the presses.

    But wait, did your child do anything else in those two months? Go to a soccer game, maybe? Or eat at McDo’s?

    zOMG! Soccer causes autism! And so do Big Macs!

    I suspect Leena is indeed in the UK, where healthcare professional is a term that is now being expanded to mean “anyone who has ever opened a packet of bandaids.”

    Yeesh.

    As has been pointed out repeatedly in the past, Leena, autism is classified as a “developmental delay.” Not arrest. Not reversal. Delay. Meaning, handwaving and blame or none, a child with autism who continues to be nurtured will continue to develop socially, albeit at an altered rate and perhaps with an altered endpoint. There are many people who are denizens of scienceblogs who are on the spectrum, and who will tell you in no uncertain terms that they live full lives, and are not the damaged souls portrayed by your antivaccine quack movement.

    Please continue to love and nurture your kiddo, and leave the blame bullshit behind. Good luck.

  47. #47 Joseph
    January 30, 2010

    Leena’s comment is boilerplate anti-vax. It’s like the have a bot posting these things. Child became autistic X months/days after vaccine? Check. Child is now “recovering”? Check. Mainstream doctors didn’t listen but DAN/Wakefield did? Check. Everyone in a position of authority and the blog owner are employees of Big Pharma in disguise? Check. Medical professional themselves? Check.

  48. #48 Corina Becker
    January 31, 2010

    “As has been pointed out repeatedly in the past, Leena, autism is classified as a “developmental delay.” Not arrest. Not reversal. Delay. Meaning, handwaving and blame or none, a child with autism who continues to be nurtured will continue to develop socially, albeit at an altered rate and perhaps with an altered endpoint. There are many people who are denizens of scienceblogs who are on the spectrum, and who will tell you in no uncertain terms that they live full lives, and are not the damaged souls portrayed by your antivaccine quack movement.”

    As an autistic adult, I will validate this words. I’m currently 24, and while in between jobs and houses at the moment, am able to develop socially.

    And oh, wait, what’s this? I wasn’t diagnosed until I was 17.

    WOW!!! and that’s without the benefit of all the nifty programs and specialized schooling that’s available nowadays.

    Does this mean that every autistic doesn’t need aid and support? absolutely not. It just means I’ve clawed my way through life so far, and had a heck of a time with it, but am managing fairly intact. But that’s just me. I’m not everyone, and definitely not every autistic.

    But there’s plenty of us out there who WILL agree that being autistic does not mean living in a static state of non-development. It means living in a delayed and somewhat off the beaten track development.

    (and for the record, it’s been three months since my H1N1 vaccine. I’m in Canada, so that means the whole “toxin” version, and two months since my seasonal flu vaccine. And a couple of months since my last tetanus shot. oooooh…. still not more autistic)

  49. #49 john
    February 2, 2010

    Silenced Witnesses Volume II: The Parents’ Story
    http://www.whale.to/vaccine/silenced_witnesses2.html

    enjoy

  50. #50 Isabella
    February 7, 2010

    To be blunt, that’s the point. It isn’t yours,it’s vulnerable children. One of the Lancet children subjected to this ended up dangerously ill with a colon perforated in multiple places.
    Pearl C, Ware get your facts right. He was NOT one of the Lancet children.

  51. #51 Chris
    February 7, 2010

    Isabella, yes he was not one of the Lancet children. That in no way makes the lumbar punctures and colonoscopies any safer. Those were still invasive procedures done for no good reason.

    John Scudamore, perhaps you have heard of Scopie’s Law?

    In any discussion involving science or medicine, citing Whale.to as a credible source loses you the argument immediately …and gets you laughed out of the room.

    Of course the laughter is even bigger if you are webmaster of whale.to!

  52. #52 Antaeus Feldspar
    February 7, 2010

    If Jack Piper, the autistic child with the bowel perforated by a colonoscopy, was not one of the Lancet children, it really is a remarkable coincidence and it’s no wonder there would be confusion. The colonoscopy was ordered by Wakefield’s collaborator Simon Murch; according to Piper’s parents the intent was to establish a connection between his autism and bowel problems, the same connection the Lancet paper tried to draw; it took place at the Royal Free Hospital, exactly where all the Lancet children were seen.

    I can’t at the moment get information precise enough to determine whether Piper’s surgery took place before or after the publication of the Lancet paper, but it’s obvious that room for confusion is rife and a curt dismissal like “Get your facts right” is unjustified.

  53. #53 Valerie
    February 28, 2010

    I find it incredibly sad to see that the same issue continues unabaited with regards children`s reaction to immunizations. The reality is, it is not the vaccine which is the issue here, but the individual health state of the infant prior to administration of the various vaccines, this will determine the degree of reaction within the host.When a child is contraindicated, ( weaker and sicker – naturally immune compromised )they cannot react appropriately to the procedure of immunization. They can actually end up with a persistant low lying vaccine induced viral illness that can cause persitant ill-health and even death in cases of severe reaction. Where we have failed collectively as a society, over the last 20/30 years, and continue to fail is we did not collectively recognise that a greater number of compromised infants are now surviving, very pre-term infants, or infants who have suffered undue birth related trauma etc, and these are the generation of infants/children contraindicated when it comes to immunization. But Public Health continue to fail them, as we have not introduced strict screening for suseptible infants prior to immunization.The Medical Establishment also recommend that 95% of the herd require immunization for the full schedule to be effective. And currently between 12 and 15% are contraindicated. So in effect, the World Vaccine Programme cannot in all logic achieve its target if we were to screen out all infants at risk of serious reaction. The World Health Organisation would come under intense pressure if this reality became public knowledge. Too much vested interest and biases. The collective profession of Medicine put forward the theory “Benefits outweight Risk” theory, meaning that the weaker children pay the ultimate price, in our collective effort to provide effective “Herd Immunity”. Immunuzation is not the proper way forward to safe guard the collective ‘herd immunuty’,but better education around the issues that govern true health. Health (like Autism) is a spectrum, and some people are naturally weaker, through genetics, but also through poor diet, sanitation, and also environmental influences. This truth has to eventually picked up and promoted by the general public.Maybe if as a world, we were prepared to properly investigate some of the real factors leading to a weaker human genome, poor birthing practices, and proper promotion and regulation of best international practices within obstetrics maybe we could see a true reduction in the number of weaker infants born. Practices like elective ceasaraen section, pre-term Induction, Restrictive Maternal Positioning, Early Cord Clamping, etc etc. There are many things which could be reviewed within Obstetrics which could definatley maximize the future health and well being of a greater number of infants.Thus reducing also the numbers currently suffering serious adverse reaction. The Birthing Process is the single most important proccess we all have to go through to take on this life, and we fail to fully recognise that it can also influence personality development health and well-being of the infant… I have learned this truth the hard way, a mother of a severely birth traumatised infant, who went on to suffer Severe Vaccine Reaction, Viral Encephilitis, Chronic Bowel Disease, Persistent Viral Infection and eventually was diagnosed as “AUTISTIC” at the age of three. I have come full circle, my sons condition was identifiable post delivery, treatable and in some mild cases reversable, but definately totally preventable. But this truth came too late for him.

  54. #54 Chris
    February 28, 2010

    In the wall of text word salad I managed to pick this out:

    Immunuzation is not the proper way forward to safe guard the collective ‘herd immunuty’,but better education around the issues that govern true health. Health (like Autism) is a spectrum, and some people are naturally weaker, through genetics, but also through poor diet, sanitation, and also environmental influences

    Um, huh. And you have actual evidence that immunization does not contribute to her immunity? Because that pretty much goes against all epidemiology science and statistics.

  55. #55 Antaeus Feldspar
    February 28, 2010

    The Medical Establishment also recommend that 95% of the herd require immunization for the full schedule to be effective.

    No argument there.

    And currently between 12 and 15% are contraindicated.

    Can you support this claim with something besides bare assertion?

    So in effect, the World Vaccine Programme cannot in all logic achieve its target if we were to screen out all infants at risk of serious reaction.

    And here’s where you sacrifice any credibility you were granted by referring in capital letters to an entity, the “World Vaccine Programme,” that appears to be a pure figment of your imagination.

  56. #56 Chris
    February 28, 2010

    Antaeus Feldspar:

    And here’s where you sacrifice any credibility you were granted by referring in capital letters to an entity

    How much credibility do you give to anyone who decided paragraphs are optional, argues through blatant assertion and who employs random capitalization?

  57. #57 Antaeus Feldspar
    February 28, 2010

    There’s a reason I said “were granted” instead of “had earned”. It may not be exactly within the Principle of charity to give the factuality of a person’s assertions the benefit of doubt until/unless the assertions grow particularly doubtful, but generally I find it a good practice.

    I’m willing to believe that there might be a significant problem with people being vaccinated when a closer examination of their medical condition might contraindicate vaccination. The idea that such people constitute 12-15% of the population, however, is definitely not one that can be accepted just on say-so. (Though, to be truthful, I should have caught the assertion that infants might suffer a “low lying vaccine induced viral illness” even earlier than that. What on earth does “low lying” mean? I believe what it actually means, to an anti-vaxxer, is “something that I can argue is all over the place, even though people who are watching for such things have seen no signs of such a thing; I can simply argue that it was so ‘low-lying’ that they missed it.”)

  58. #58 Valerie
    March 1, 2010

    In responce to a remark by Chris,
    …’how much credibility do you give to anyone who decided paragraphs are optional, argues through blatent assertion and who employs random capitalization?’

    I would just like to say, it was not my intention to annoy, but I feel strongly that every society has notions of what one should believe and how one should behave. Some of these societal conventions are given explicit formulation in a legal code, others are more intuitively held in a vast body of ethical and practical judgements described as ‘common sense’. Anyone with a curious and well-ordered mind, and who can exercise free thinking, this my friend is what’s important.
    My own personal ideas and beliefs were hard earned. I may not pocess in your mind, the right quality of writing to express them appropriately, but the essence of my paragraph, no matter how articulately they are presented, remain the same.
    After all, the correctness of a statement cannot be determined by whether it is held by a majority or has been believed for a long time by important people. A correct statement is one incapable of being rationally contradicted.

    And in responce to a question raised by Antaeus Fieldspar “What on earth does ‘low lying’ mean?”
    What was meant by this remark is my son is naturally immune compromised, and thus he does not pocesss the ability to heal or rid the body fully of an active infection, so it becomes persistent.
    It is how ever, my intention to put forward another way of thinking in relation to the practice of immunization. Maybe, there is a safer way, as taking a “one-size fits all” approach, can and does lead to secondary disability and sometimes death in an infant who is in some way contraindicated prior to administration.This is not my own assertion,this is a well known medical fact.
    Regards.

  59. #59 Antaeus Feldspar
    March 6, 2010

    It is how ever, my intention to put forward another way of thinking in relation to the practice of immunization. Maybe, there is a safer way, as taking a “one-size fits all” approach, can and does lead to secondary disability and sometimes death in an infant who is in some way contraindicated prior to administration.This is not my own assertion,this is a well known medical fact.

    But what is not a medical fact is your assertion that “between 12 and 15% [of the population] are contraindicated [for vaccination].” That’s an extraordinary claim, and we would need extraordinary evidence in order to accept it. Do you provide extraordinary evidence? You do not. Instead you put forth the eternal refrain of the conspiracy theorist: “everything I’m telling you is the truth, the way things really are, but the Big And Powerful Entrenched Interests are suppressing that truth.” That doesn’t make up for your lack of any supporting evidence; it only brings up the question, how would you know?

  60. #60 valerie
    March 16, 2010

    10 Years of intensive Research.

  61. #61 Chris
    March 16, 2010

    Evidence?

  62. #62 ameliagrace7
    March 17, 2010

    This is a quote directly from the General Medical Council’s (UK) findings on the Lancet study on January 28th, 2010: “The panel wish to make it clear that this case is not concerned with whether there is a link between the MMR Vaccination and Autism.”

    This is directly to Orac: Your article is not only the most ridiculous piece of journalistic trash I’ve ever read but its also factually incorrect! whats sad is that all of you are talking about how the parents that support Dr. Wakefield are in a cult but most of you made comments on this article that had no original thought other than what was written in Orac’s article, if you can call it that. The GMC (UK) made no findings on the MMR vs. Autism link. Read the decision on the GMC next time your going to publically write an article about something it usually goes along with something called “Journalist Integrity.” Look it up.

    On a personal note, I have a son with Autism who had a seizure 5 minutes after the MMR vaccine was adminstered with NO prior history of seizures. He was diagnosed with Autism 3 weeks later. He lost his speech, seized constantly, stopped looking us in the eye, stopped smiling. When I took him to the Dr. they said I’m sorry but he was born like this, interesting because I have video that proves he wasn’t. Doctors like Dr. Wakefield who founded Thoughtful House created a place where these parents can go to get help. My son now talks, laughs, looks us in the eye again after alternative treatments and goes to school with kids his age without even as much as an aid. I could care less of what you think of us as parents but we are fighting to see our kids get better and for those of us who have won we will never stop supporting the doctors who stopped at nothing to help us.

    Gag, barf do whatever you must but while your doing that I’ll watch my son sleep at night knowing that Dr. Wakefield and Doctors just like him helped bring my child back to me. Sad that all you believe is what you read because the stories behind this man would bring you to your knees. I’m sure someone will write something in response to this that finds some way to discredit him for his work and the lancet study but do you even know who he was working for at the time he came out with that study? What happened afterwards? Do some research more than looking at blogs and you may find that you may be the ones in part of the kind of blind faith cult that you see us in…..best of luck because honestly you people are the ones who need it, we’re all good.

  63. #63 Chris
    March 17, 2010

    ameiliagrace7:

    The GMC (UK) made no findings on the MMR vs. Autism link.

    And neither did Wakefield’s now retracted paper. There is nothing in that paper about the MMR causing autism. The only mention by Wakefield of that hypothesis is during his press reports.

    By the way, your story is just an anecdote. The plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data.

  64. #64 Kelly
    June 10, 2010

    Well, I am glad to see there are still some thinking people around!
    I decided to check out Andrew Wakefield for myself and I am pleased to find there are people on this site that will stand up to the insanity presented by the great gifted intellectuals! How sad when one becomes so educated they are blinded by their own light.

    What I was looking for was a study done between a group of children where there was no autism and a group where there was autism and the ratio of vaccines given to said groups.
    There has never been a formal study done, the door is open here.
    But there is a group of children where there is no autism reported or recorded. This is a group of Amish children. Now for the death blow, there have been NO VACCINES GIVEN TO THESE CHILDREN. That would be the final word in my study.
    I am looking forward to the ‘intellects’ explaining this.

    Dr. Wakefield is NOT the first Dr. that has been vilified for voicing a connection between autism and vaccines. This will all die down and Dr. Wakefield will fade into the background and the next Dr. will be on the front line. Meanwhile the producers of the vaccines will make a few billion more and we will see 1 in 50 children afflicted with autism.
    Perhaps when 1 out of 2 children have autism the medical/scientific profession will take note. But then again that would be dependent on how much money would be involved.

    Still waiting for that study.

  65. #65 David N. Brown
    June 10, 2010

    Another anti-vax crank on an old thread… or is it the same one?

    News flash: The “Amish Anomaly” story was a hoax. On top of that, even Dan “18/3=29” Olmsted admitted there were unvaccinated autistic children among the Amish.

  66. #66 Dinah Everett Snyder
    February 11, 2011

    Having just spent some time reading the posts attached to this blog on autism and Dr. Wakefield I would like to tell the author of the article , if it could be called such, that he has done a damning and despicable disservice to the now millions of children in absolute agony due to their symproms of an illness that they were not born with, and on whom governments,the medical establishment, the media and special interest groups have turned their backs.
    Oh! Wait, not exactly ! The special interest groups
    ( read : pharmaceutical companies) have found a way to profit even from this travesty by prescribing more and more drugs to alleviate the symptoms in these children.( which do not work .) Please be aware that attention deficit and related ” labels” are part of the autism spectrum and as such, these children support a multi billion dollar additional drug platform through such drugs as Ritalin etc.

    Scientific Integrity demands following the principles of ethical research, taking a hypothosis through to its own natural conclussion and NOT trying to make the science fit the need or preconceived idea/ notion !

    Contrary to what the media has said, Dr. Wakefield questioned a causal link between autism and the combination vaccine of Measles, Mumps and Rubella, noting that a new measles strain had been used in the combo jab.

    And, the study HAS been duplicated, ad nauseum, in the US, Japan and Australia in the years since Dr. Wakefields first paper hit the headlines.

    Further,many papers have been published that seek to understand the chronic inflammation of the gut associated with many autistic children.Papers have been published that look at the gut issues of ADHD children too, lest you think otherwise. And the evidence supports this as a relevant area of study, a relevant area of answer seeking.

    Rather than attack one man, governments and medical establishments would be better off finding ANSWERS to the question of autism. In fact, each and every person who pays taxes should be demanding that the FDA fund those critical studies, now ! Most especially in light of the fact that the FDA is seeking more and more funding ( read: OUR tax dollars) in order to finance “research” and
    ” development” in “critical areas” on behalf of drug companies, which are global entities and the biggest sector of commerce. They DO NOT need the additional support from a government entity, OR our tax dollars. Unless they intend to gift all tax payers with the resulting medications free of charge to both us and our insurance providers ( read: of course this is a joke ! ) The ignorance and bias on this ENTIRE blog site is indicative of the sick culture that we have become. Know this then, autism issues are no different to those of cancer, diabetes, HIV Aids and auto immue illness…and as such they ALL deserve our investment in Scientific Integrity and transparancy from the Department of Health and Human Services. Drug companies are merely interested in profit, not solutions. There is NO MONEY in a cure, you ignorant bunch of fellow people.

    Autistic children deserve our compassion and attention and their families NEED our help. But for the grace of god, there stands each and every one of YOU.

    If we are able to turn our backs on our wounded soldiers and our damaged children, what does that say of us, and what have we become? Shamed, you have all been shamed.

    Ignorance is no excuse.

    Should you have something intelligent to say, you may contact me at:
    dinaheverettsnyder@hotmail.com

  67. #67 Dinah Everett Snyder
    February 11, 2011

    Having just spent some time reading the posts attached to this blog on autism and Dr. Wakefield I would like to tell the author of the article , if it could be called such, that he has done a damning and despicable disservice to the now millions of children in absolute agony due to their symproms of an illness that they were not born with, and on whom governments,the medical establishment, the media and special interest groups have turned their backs.
    Oh! Wait, not exactly ! The special interest groups
    ( read : pharmaceutical companies) have found a way to profit even from this travesty by prescribing more and more drugs to alleviate the symptoms in these children.( which do not work .) Please be aware that attention deficit and related ” labels” are part of the autism spectrum and as such, these children support a multi billion dollar additional drug platform through such drugs as Ritalin etc.

    Scientific Integrity demands following the principles of ethical research, taking a hypothosis through to its own natural conclussion and NOT trying to make the science fit the need or preconceived idea/ notion !

    Contrary to what the media has said, Dr. Wakefield questioned a causal link between autism and the combination vaccine of Measles, Mumps and Rubella, noting that a new measles strain had been used in the combo jab.

    And, the study HAS been duplicated, ad nauseum, in the US, Japan and Australia in the years since Dr. Wakefields first paper hit the headlines.

    Further,many papers have been published that seek to understand the chronic inflammation of the gut associated with many autistic children.Papers have been published that look at the gut issues of ADHD children too, lest you think otherwise. And the evidence supports this as a relevant area of study, a relevant area of answer seeking.

    Rather than attack one man, governments and medical establishments would be better off finding ANSWERS to the question of autism. In fact, each and every person who pays taxes should be demanding that the FDA fund those critical studies, now ! Most especially in light of the fact that the FDA is seeking more and more funding ( read: OUR tax dollars) in order to finance “research” and
    ” development” in “critical areas” on behalf of drug companies, which are global entities and the biggest sector of commerce. They DO NOT need the additional support from a government entity, OR our tax dollars. Unless they intend to gift all tax payers with the resulting medications free of charge to both us and our insurance providers ( read: of course this is a joke ! ) The ignorance and bias on this ENTIRE blog site is indicative of the sick culture that we have become. Know this then, autism issues are no different to those of cancer, diabetes, HIV Aids and auto immue illness…and as such they ALL deserve our investment in Scientific Integrity and transparancy from the Department of Health and Human Services. Drug companies are merely interested in profit, not solutions. There is NO MONEY in a cure, you ignorant bunch of fellow people.

    Autistic children deserve our compassion and attention and their families NEED our help. But for the grace of god, there stands each and every one of YOU.

    If we are able to turn our backs on our wounded soldiers and our damaged children, what does that say of us, and what have we become? Shamed, you have all been shamed.

    Ignorance is no excuse.

    Should you have something intelligent to say, you may contact me at:
    dinaheverettsnyder@hotmail.com

  68. #68 Chris
    February 11, 2011

    First question, Ms. Snyder, why did you choose to grace us with your unsupported opinions on an article that is almost two years old? There are more recent articles on Wakefield, autism and vaccines. By the way, you are welcome to defend your position on those articles, we are not interested in private email debates. It is much more interesting when the discussion is public.

    Now let us go through some of those unsupported opinions:

    Dr. Wakefield questioned a causal link between autism and the combination vaccine of Measles, Mumps and Rubella, noting that a new measles strain had been used in the combo jab.

    Please show us the evidence for that. Plus be specific on which MMR vaccine he was discussing. Was the one approved for use in the UK before or after 1992 (the difference between them was the mumps strain)?

    And, the study HAS been duplicated, ad nauseum, in the US, Japan and Australia in the years since Dr. Wakefields first paper hit the headlines.

    Please list those papers, noting in particular if they are independent (Wakefield, Krigsman and their collaborators are not authors), how many children (there should be at least twelve), and which MMR vaccine they received (it should be either of the two used in the UK between 1988 and 1998, which means that the Japanese study is not suitable).

    I shall not deal with any more of your rant. If you had truly read this blog with coming up with this opinion “The ignorance and bias on this ENTIRE blog site is indicative of the sick culture that we have become.”, you would have commented on an active thread. Like the one on Bill Gates and the posted today.

  69. #69 NJ
    February 11, 2011

    DES @ 267:

    Should you have something intelligent to say

    We’ll wait for you to start {somehow knowing that it will never happen}

  70. #70 Antaeus Feldspar
    February 11, 2011

    Scientific Integrity demands following the principles of ethical research, taking a hypothosis through to its own natural conclussion and NOT trying to make the science fit the need or preconceived idea/ notion !

    If you really believed that, why on Earth would you support Andrew Wakefield? Trying to make the science fit the need AND the preconceived notion is EXACTLY what he was doing. If you don’t believe that, then ask yourself, “Which came first? Andrew Wakefield seeing the twelve children upon which he based the Lancet paper? Or Andrew Wakefield deciding that he was going to try and depict MMR as a cause of autism?” Remember, Wakefield and Barr went to the UK’s Legal Aid Board specifically requesting funds with which to try and prove an MMR-causes-autism hypothesis before Wakefield examined a single one of the twelve children upon whose cases his hypothesis was supposedly based!

  71. #71 Chris
    February 11, 2011

    I think Ms. Snyder was a post and run crank. She will not be coming back. It looks like it is time to close this two year old blog posting.

  72. #72 Narad
    February 12, 2011

    Not until I get “I’ve Been Working on the Railroad” out of my head.

  73. #73 Chris
    February 12, 2011

    I’m not sure I get the joke, Narad. But it made me laugh.

  74. #74 Narad
    February 12, 2011

    Dinah, won’t you blow your horn?”

  75. #75 squirrelelite
    February 12, 2011

    Narad was probably thinking of the line:

    “Dinah, won’t you blow your horn?”

    That seems to be what Dinah dropped to do.

  76. #76 Matthew Cline
    February 12, 2011

    Remember, Wakefield and Barr went to the UK’s Legal Aid Board specifically requesting funds with which to try and prove an MMR-causes-autism hypothesis before Wakefield examined a single one of the twelve children upon whose cases his hypothesis was supposedly based!

    Ooooh, interesting! Do you have a cite?

  77. #77 Chris
    February 12, 2011

    Can we just say the silly woman is gone? She never intended to defend her warped point of view in the first place. Wakefield was replicated in Australia? What? Who knew?

  78. #78 Dinah Everett Snyder
    February 12, 2011

    When people ( like you) use ONLY the information spoonfed to you by the journalists and medical journals something is sure to get lost in translation.
    You ask why I posted on an old thread, well, I posted because I was replying to ignorance and malice. Those are the types of things that somehow never seem to grow old and fade away. It was sad, sad to see such animosity on a blog and postings…have any of you seen an autistic child? Tried to comfort one? Hold one? Tried to look into the eyes of a non verbal, rocking in agony child who is clearly in pain. Have you tried to imagine the life of a mother as she deals 24/7 with a child of autism, locked away in their own private horror show of fear and anger and pain with no end?
    Didn’t think so.
    I will refrain from answering each of the specifics of the immature commentaries posted subsequent to mine not because I am unable, merely because they are regurgitative of the spoonfeeding of pharmaceutical supported word junkies masquerading as ” journalists”….may I suggest that you take time off from blogging ” opinion” and do a little self serving independant journalism of your own!

    In particular look at the studies of inflammatory gut in comparatives: ” normal” children versus autistic children.

    Further, I am neither ” for” nor ” against” Dr. Wakefield, rather I am intrigued at how the frenzy has frothed around the individual, while relegating the study to “irrelevance”, as opposed to attacking the Science.

    And it is hardly irrelevant now is it? There are far too many autistic children, many suffering horribly on a daily basis, for anything related, for better or worse, to be deemed ” irrelevant”.
    As for the mention of funding: no science, no experiment, no diagnosis and no treatment is free of cost.
    Funding is the cornerstone of science, and medicine.
    R and R is what Big Medicine rolls out as an excuse to charge the public astronomical prices for mediocre medicines, repackaged and revamped to restart the patent clock, while at the same time costing more on the consumer end, and less on the pharma end ( how many times can they R and R a color additive for eg? to restart the patent clock!)

    The papers which I mentioned earlier, as being subsequent to the Lancet Paper by Wakefield are indeed peer reviewed and NOT in any way affiliated with the original UK team.
    In fact one was published in 2010….

    And, just as some sub groups of Jews are predisposed to certain cancers, other ethnic and genetic groups are predisposed to certain illness. Black people IN Sub Saharan Africa are predisposed towards TB. The question is merely: WITHIN that subset, what are the factors of emergence, or cause, and WHY are some, in some way ” protected” ?

    Dr. Wakefield is ONE man….his was ONE study…..many years have passed ( sadly) there have been many others and yet autism is on the rise….denialists say otherwise, the numbers prove my point.

    Vaccines are NOT being handled cautiously enough from lab to consumer, Gardasil is another example…..it has been turned down in India after too many adverse reactions, while in the states it has been recently approved for boys too ! The study was conducted on 15 year olds and up, yet the FDA approved it for children as young as 9…..are they insane? Medications handed out like candy to children with ADHD carry this on their packaging info, ” the exact nature of the treatment mechanism is unknown”….. and the studies are all for short term periods of no more than 5 weeks….yet many many of these children have been on those meds for years, some started as young as 3 years old….

    My point is merely that medicine has run amok, at the expense of our health, we are the most vaccinated country on the planet, and yet we are also the sickest country and spend the most per person on healthcare, while ” outcome” is no better and in fact is dropping sharply…I cite World Health Org on this by the way.

    And in the meantime you write drivel about misreported and bastardized personal attacks, making light of what is a truly horrific issue, autistic children and what their families endure. Governments, media and Medicine has turned their backs on these families and YOU sensationalize it with verbal rubbernecking.

    There, this Dinah has blown her horn, I will not return to this ethically and morally flawed site, and you can read more from me in my upcoming book:
    FDA; CrimesAgainstHumanity:
    Is FDA the Rogue Militia for Big Medicine
    and why it matters……

    Cure? don’t make me laugh….why would they want a cure…for anything…

    yes indeed, go back to singing on your railroad…to nowhere.
    Dinah Everett Snyder.

  79. #79 Matthew Cline
    February 12, 2011

    @Dinah Everett Snyder:

    It was sad, sad to see such animosity on a blog and postings

    Well, when someone commits scientific fraud which contributed to the resurgence of measles in the UK, animosity isn’t exactly an unexpected reaction.

    have any of you seen an autistic child? Tried to comfort one? Hold one?

    If you have the sympathy for autistic children which you imply we lack, then you should be angry at Wakefield for causing autism research resources to be wasted in unfruitful areas.

    I will refrain from answering each of the specifics of the immature commentaries

    Asking for citations is immature? Well, since you haven’t actually named any of these studies I guess that yes, asking for citations in immature.

    rather I am intrigued at how the frenzy has frothed around the individual, while relegating the study to “irrelevance”, as opposed to attacking the Science.

    If Wakefield had merely been wrong, had merely done sloppy research, then we would only have attacked the research he’d done. But he had massive undisclosed conflicts of interest, and committed research fraud, so we attack him as well.

  80. #80 Orac
    February 12, 2011

    Other “wisdom” from Dinah in the comments of this post:

    It is past time that the truth be revealed and I challenge the mainstream media to pick up their pens and start accurately reporting the truth to consumers about the chronic dangers associated with vaccines. For too long the media and FDA has been complicit in the coverup, allowing Big Medicine to reap tainted rewards from a fraudulent practise: that of vaccinating our vulnerable population groups: the young, the elderly and pregnant women. This is a crime against humanity and, Mr. Holden sir, you should be morally and legally obligated to try the pharmaceutical industry in a courtroom for this malpractise towards the population. Later this year a book will be published: FDA; CrimesAgainstHumanity…..and vaccines top the list for the sheer number of humanitarian violations, and don’t forget Guardasil which is an abomination and now being offered to our young boys, as if putting our daughters in harms way were not enough for these criminals. Convict each and every one. Time to clean house!

    Dinah’s a new antivax wingnut. I don’t recall having come across her before.

New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.