The Lancet has officially retracted a study which sparked a health scare over the MMR vaccine. The leading British medical journal said that it accepts that claims made by Dr. Andrew Wakefield and two fellow researchers were 'false.'
This came after the General Medical Council (GMC) found the three doctors had been 'dishonest' and 'irresponsible' and had subjected children to invasive procedures that were not warranted.
Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet was quick to dismiss Wakefield who he once told he had the 'utmost respect for.'
In one newspaper he said of the Wakefield study: "It was utterly clear, without any ambiguity at all, that the statements in the paper were utterly false. I feel I was deceived."
This is in stark contrast to comments Horton made earlier in an interview with me for The Observer newspaper, and in a written email to an epidemiologist seeking clarification on whether the science in the Wakefield study held up. Horton was quick to confirm that the science in the paper, which looked at whether 12 autistic children also suffered bowel disease, was good.
He reiterated his statement in his evidence to the GMC, "There was no question in my mind that subject to external peer review and editor debate, we should publish this work," he said. "The description of what seemed to be a new syndrome and its relations to possible environmental triggers was original and would certainly have interested our readers."
The paper was peer reviewed and duly published back in early 1998. The researchers included a line stating that eight of the parents felt the MMR vaccine had played a part in their children's decline. Horton knew this was controversial but published anyway. He said: "We felt it was important not to censor the information. We had censored information regarding BSE (Bovine spongiform encephalopathy, known as mad cow disease) and CJD( Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, the human form of BSE). We knew there was a risk that BSE could be transferred from cows to humans, but at the time we thought the risk was small so we didn't include the information. It was a big mistake and we should have published it."
At the time of our interview in 2006, Horton seemed very confused in his thinking, especially when it came to the validity of the parents' concerns. He agreed that it was parents who first linked taking the drug Thalidomide to subsequent deformities in their children, but insisted you couldn't compare MMR and Thalidomide because Thalidomide was taken by the mother during the first trimester and the MMR was injected into babies. And although both drugs entered a child's system, albeit different routes, in the case of the MMR any perceived subsequent effect was invalid.
He agreed that researchers should ask parents for their views on what might have caused the children's problems, but then insisted that the information not be given credibility. "The fact that the parents reported that (the children had been fine before receiving the MMR) means nothing," he insisted. "Because proof of cause and effect doesn't come from what you or I might say about a temporal link between an event and a possible risk factor.
"It's like saying that I was born under the star sign Capricorn and in the year that I was born there was some terrible human disaster. Does that somehow mean that my birth was linked to the human disaster? No of course it doesn't"
The analogy was a tough one to figure out but he went on. He said the only way to determine if the MMR was to blame was through epidemiological studies, not by examining children who may have been suffering an adverse drug reaction. To prove his point he gave another unfathomable analogy. "Examining the children is not going to prove whether MMR causes bowel disease or not. Finding the measles virus in their guts does not prove anything.
"It's like saying I have coins in my pocket and I have a cold. Finding the coins in my pocket at the same time I've got a cold, doesn't prove the coins caused my cold..."
So if we understand Mr. Horton correctly, his advice is that if you think your child has had a severe adverse reaction to their vaccine, don't bother to investigate because even if vaccine strain measles virus is found in their gut, this is a totally insignificant fact. "Examining the children has really no part to play in understanding cause and effect here," he said. "It often takes 10 years to prove cause and effect by accumulating a large body of evidence. A very important component in any body of evidence is epidemiological."
That may be true, but is it really advisable to abandon research into physiological changes in children? Surely that wouldn't be very scientific. Or maybe the fear is that scientists will discover that the MMR has a lot to answer for.
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 09:10:16 -0000, "john" <nos...@bt.com> wrote: > So if we understand Mr. Horton correctly, his advice is that if you think your child has had a severe adverse reaction > to their vaccine, don't bother to investigate because even if vaccine strain measles virus is found in their gut,
Therein lies the slight problem for proponents of this approach - no measles virus (much less vaccine strain virus) was detected in the gut of these children. The results Wakefield reported were false.
Peter Parry wrote: > On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 09:10:16 -0000, "john" <nos...@bt.com> wrote:
>> So if we understand Mr. Horton correctly, his advice is that if you think your child has had a severe adverse reaction >> to their vaccine, don't bother to investigate because even if vaccine strain measles virus is found in their gut,
> Therein lies the slight problem for proponents of this approach - no > measles virus (much less vaccine strain virus) was detected in the gut > of these children. The results Wakefield reported were false.
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 07:13:42 -0600, Lefty <Jusle...@gmail.com> wrote: >Peter Parry wrote: >> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 09:10:16 -0000, "john" <nos...@bt.com> wrote:
>>> So if we understand Mr. Horton correctly, his advice is that if you think your child has had a severe adverse reaction >>> to their vaccine, don't bother to investigate because even if vaccine strain measles virus is found in their gut,
>> Therein lies the slight problem for proponents of this approach - no >> measles virus (much less vaccine strain virus) was detected in the gut >> of these children. The results Wakefield reported were false.
> Sez you
Says the man who investigated Unigenetics. You can read what he discovered at
Do not forget that Wakefield also saw the same results and could have challenged them but chose not to. Instead the claimants in the UK MMR case admitted that in the light of Bustins report and the separate independent (negative) tests of the samples carried out away from Unigenetics they could no longer prove a link between MMR and Autism.
No one since (with the exception of one other study also using Unigenetics) has discovered measles virus in the gut.
Peter Parry wrote: > On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 07:13:42 -0600, Lefty <Jusle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Peter Parry wrote: >>> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 09:10:16 -0000, "john" <nos...@bt.com> wrote:
>>>> So if we understand Mr. Horton correctly, his advice is that if you think your child has had a severe adverse reaction >>>> to their vaccine, don't bother to investigate because even if vaccine strain measles virus is found in their gut, >>> Therein lies the slight problem for proponents of this approach - no >>> measles virus (much less vaccine strain virus) was detected in the gut >>> of these children. The results Wakefield reported were false.
>> Sez you
> Says the man who investigated Unigenetics. You can read what he > discovered at
> Do not forget that Wakefield also saw the same results and could have > challenged them but chose not to. Instead the claimants in the UK MMR > case admitted that in the light of Bustins report and the separate > independent (negative) tests of the samples carried out away from > Unigenetics they could no longer prove a link between MMR and Autism.
> No one since (with the exception of one other study also using > Unigenetics) has discovered measles virus in the gut.
On Feb 13, 8:13 am, Lefty <Jusle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Peter Parry wrote: > > On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 09:10:16 -0000, "john" <nos...@bt.com> wrote:
> >> So if we understand Mr. Horton correctly, his advice is that if you think your child has had a severe adverse reaction > >> to their vaccine, don't bother to investigate because even if vaccine strain measles virus is found in their gut,
> > Therein lies the slight problem for proponents of this approach - no > > measles virus (much less vaccine strain virus) was detected in the gut > > of these children. The results Wakefield reported were false.
> Sez you
Brilliant! Incisive!
Lefty, let me clue you in. There are those of us in this newsgroup who are extremely well informed on the entire issue of the mythical link between vaccines and autism. For instance, I have read every shred of inforation I could find regarding the issue including the transcripts of the entire Autism Omnibus hearings held last year. However, when it comes to depth and bredth of information, I take a back seat to Peter Parry.
Be that as it may, Peter's point was addressed under sworn testimony during those hearings. Chadwick, who was intimately familiar with the research, since he was part of the group of researchers, testified that the laboratory studies that Wakefield relied on to show "measles in the gut" were actually false positives and should never have been used. Chadwick withdrew his name from the paper.
His testimony was buttressed by Prof. Stephen Bustin, who is probably the world's leading expert on PCR testing. This is a means by which DNA is examined. Simply put, Wakefield should have stopped the study, but did not. Furthermore, he withheld this information from his colleagues.
That is pure intellectual dishonesty and only a lunatic would try to weasel out of that.
You can do some of your own reading, if you desire to be clued in, here:
> Peter Parry wrote: > > On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 07:13:42 -0600, Lefty <Jusle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Peter Parry wrote: > >>> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 09:10:16 -0000, "john" <nos...@bt.com> wrote:
> >>>> So if we understand Mr. Horton correctly, his advice is that if you think your child has had a severe adverse reaction > >>>> to their vaccine, don't bother to investigate because even if vaccine strain measles virus is found in their gut, > >>> Therein lies the slight problem for proponents of this approach - no > >>> measles virus (much less vaccine strain virus) was detected in the gut > >>> of these children. The results Wakefield reported were false.
> >> Sez you
> > Says the man who investigated Unigenetics. You can read what he > > discovered at
> > Do not forget that Wakefield also saw the same results and could have > > challenged them but chose not to. Instead the claimants in the UK MMR > > case admitted that in the light of Bustins report and the separate > > independent (negative) tests of the samples carried out away from > > Unigenetics they could no longer prove a link between MMR and Autism.
> > No one since (with the exception of one other study also using > > Unigenetics) has discovered measles virus in the gut.
Mark Probert wrote: > On Feb 13, 8:13 am, Lefty <Jusle...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Peter Parry wrote: >>> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 09:10:16 -0000, "john" <nos...@bt.com> wrote: >>>> So if we understand Mr. Horton correctly, his advice is that if you think your child has had a severe adverse reaction >>>> to their vaccine, don't bother to investigate because even if vaccine strain measles virus is found in their gut, >>> Therein lies the slight problem for proponents of this approach - no >>> measles virus (much less vaccine strain virus) was detected in the gut >>> of these children. The results Wakefield reported were false. >> Sez you
> Brilliant! Incisive!
> Lefty, let me clue you in. There are those of us in this newsgroup who > are extremely well informed on the entire issue of the mythical link > between vaccines and autism. For instance, I have read every shred of > inforation I could find regarding the issue including the transcripts > of the entire Autism Omnibus hearings held last year. However, when it > comes to depth and bredth of information, I take a back seat to Peter > Parry.
> Be that as it may, Peter's point was addressed under sworn testimony > during those hearings. Chadwick, who was intimately familiar with the > research, since he was part of the group of researchers, testified > that the laboratory studies that Wakefield relied on to show "measles > in the gut" were actually false positives and should never have been > used. Chadwick withdrew his name from the paper.
> His testimony was buttressed by Prof. Stephen Bustin, who is probably > the world's leading expert on PCR testing. This is a means by which > DNA is examined. Simply put, Wakefield should have stopped the study, > but did not. Furthermore, he withheld this information from his > colleagues.
> That is pure intellectual dishonesty and only a lunatic would try to > weasel out of that.
> You can do some of your own reading, if you desire to be clued in, > here:
Mark Probert wrote: > On Feb 13, 8:56 am, Lefty <Jusle...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Peter Parry wrote: >>> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 07:13:42 -0600, Lefty <Jusle...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Peter Parry wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 09:10:16 -0000, "john" <nos...@bt.com> wrote: >>>>>> So if we understand Mr. Horton correctly, his advice is that if you think your child has had a severe adverse reaction >>>>>> to their vaccine, don't bother to investigate because even if vaccine strain measles virus is found in their gut, >>>>> Therein lies the slight problem for proponents of this approach - no >>>>> measles virus (much less vaccine strain virus) was detected in the gut >>>>> of these children. The results Wakefield reported were false. >>>> Sez you >>> Says the man who investigated Unigenetics. You can read what he >>> discovered at >>> <http://www.europeanpharmaceuticalreview.com/imag/eprdigital108/eprdig...> >>> Do not forget that Wakefield also saw the same results and could have >>> challenged them but chose not to. Instead the claimants in the UK MMR >>> case admitted that in the light of Bustins report and the separate >>> independent (negative) tests of the samples carried out away from >>> Unigenetics they could no longer prove a link between MMR and Autism. >>> No one since (with the exception of one other study also using >>> Unigenetics) has discovered measles virus in the gut. >> So what?-
> Mark Probert wrote: > > On Feb 13, 8:13 am, Lefty <Jusle...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Peter Parry wrote: > >>> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 09:10:16 -0000, "john" <nos...@bt.com> wrote: > >>>> So if we understand Mr. Horton correctly, his advice is that if you think your child has had a severe adverse reaction > >>>> to their vaccine, don't bother to investigate because even if vaccine strain measles virus is found in their gut, > >>> Therein lies the slight problem for proponents of this approach - no > >>> measles virus (much less vaccine strain virus) was detected in the gut > >>> of these children. The results Wakefield reported were false. > >> Sez you
> > Brilliant! Incisive!
> > Lefty, let me clue you in. There are those of us in this newsgroup who > > are extremely well informed on the entire issue of the mythical link > > between vaccines and autism. For instance, I have read every shred of > > inforation I could find regarding the issue including the transcripts > > of the entire Autism Omnibus hearings held last year. However, when it > > comes to depth and bredth of information, I take a back seat to Peter > > Parry.
> > Be that as it may, Peter's point was addressed under sworn testimony > > during those hearings. Chadwick, who was intimately familiar with the > > research, since he was part of the group of researchers, testified > > that the laboratory studies that Wakefield relied on to show "measles > > in the gut" were actually false positives and should never have been > > used. Chadwick withdrew his name from the paper.
> > His testimony was buttressed by Prof. Stephen Bustin, who is probably > > the world's leading expert on PCR testing. This is a means by which > > DNA is examined. Simply put, Wakefield should have stopped the study, > > but did not. Furthermore, he withheld this information from his > > colleagues.
> > That is pure intellectual dishonesty and only a lunatic would try to > > weasel out of that.
> > You can do some of your own reading, if you desire to be clued in, > > here:
> > There is a lot more, just asked and I will tell you where to go.
> Not impressed.-
My message posted at 9:52 EST, and yours posted at 10:02 EST. There is no way you could have read the amount of information that I posted in 10 minutes.
IOW, you do not want to be confused with the facts. Your mind, if you have one, is closed.
> Mark Probert wrote: > > On Feb 13, 8:56 am, Lefty <Jusle...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Peter Parry wrote: > >>> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 07:13:42 -0600, Lefty <Jusle...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> Peter Parry wrote: > >>>>> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 09:10:16 -0000, "john" <nos...@bt.com> wrote: > >>>>>> So if we understand Mr. Horton correctly, his advice is that if you think your child has had a severe adverse reaction > >>>>>> to their vaccine, don't bother to investigate because even if vaccine strain measles virus is found in their gut, > >>>>> Therein lies the slight problem for proponents of this approach - no > >>>>> measles virus (much less vaccine strain virus) was detected in the gut > >>>>> of these children. The results Wakefield reported were false. > >>>> Sez you > >>> Says the man who investigated Unigenetics. You can read what he > >>> discovered at > >>> <http://www.europeanpharmaceuticalreview.com/imag/eprdigital108/eprdig...> > >>> Do not forget that Wakefield also saw the same results and could have > >>> challenged them but chose not to. Instead the claimants in the UK MMR > >>> case admitted that in the light of Bustins report and the separate > >>> independent (negative) tests of the samples carried out away from > >>> Unigenetics they could no longer prove a link between MMR and Autism. > >>> No one since (with the exception of one other study also using > >>> Unigenetics) has discovered measles virus in the gut. > >> So what?-
> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 07:13:42 -0600, Lefty <Jusle...@gmail.com> wrote: > >Peter Parry wrote: > >> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 09:10:16 -0000, "john" <nos...@bt.com> wrote:
> >>> So if we understand Mr. Horton correctly, his advice is that if you think your child has had a severe adverse reaction > >>> to their vaccine, don't bother to investigate because even if vaccine strain measles virus is found in their gut,
> >> Therein lies the slight problem for proponents of this approach - no > >> measles virus (much less vaccine strain virus) was detected in the gut > >> of these children. The results Wakefield reported were false.
> > Sez you
> Says the man who investigated Unigenetics. You can read what he > discovered at
> Do not forget that Wakefield also saw the same results and could have > challenged them but chose not to. Instead the claimants in the UK MMR > case admitted that in the light of Bustins report and the separate > independent (negative) tests of the samples carried out away from > Unigenetics they could no longer prove a link between MMR and Autism.
> No one since (with the exception of one other study also using > Unigenetics) has discovered measles virus in the gut.
> Mark Probert wrote: > > On Feb 13, 8:56 am, Lefty <Jusle...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Peter Parry wrote: > >>> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 07:13:42 -0600, Lefty <Jusle...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> Peter Parry wrote: > >>>>> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 09:10:16 -0000, "john" <nos...@bt.com> wrote: > >>>>>> So if we understand Mr. Horton correctly, his advice is that if you think your child has had a severe adverse reaction > >>>>>> to their vaccine, don't bother to investigate because even if vaccine strain measles virus is found in their gut, > >>>>> Therein lies the slight problem for proponents of this approach - no > >>>>> measles virus (much less vaccine strain virus) was detected in the gut > >>>>> of these children. The results Wakefield reported were false. > >>>> Sez you > >>> Says the man who investigated Unigenetics. You can read what he > >>> discovered at > >>> <http://www.europeanpharmaceuticalreview.com/imag/eprdigital108/eprdig...> > >>> Do not forget that Wakefield also saw the same results and could have > >>> challenged them but chose not to. Instead the claimants in the UK MMR > >>> case admitted that in the light of Bustins report and the separate > >>> independent (negative) tests of the samples carried out away from > >>> Unigenetics they could no longer prove a link between MMR and Autism. > >>> No one since (with the exception of one other study also using > >>> Unigenetics) has discovered measles virus in the gut. > >> So what?-
> > BRILLIANT!
> > BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH!
> He who laughs last.....
Didn't get the joke. In this case, the joke is on Wakefield and yourself.
