On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:52:10 -0000, "john" <email@example.com>
> Wakefield's observation, finding vaccine-strain measles in the gut of
>*some* autistic children, has been replicated by other researchers.
No it hasn't
> > Japanese study: Detection and Sequencing of Measles Virus from
>Peripheral Mononuclear Cells from Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease
I hate to break this to your osteopath but even Wakefield admitted the
results from this study were wrong.
>What do you know about Dr. Wakefield's 1998 paper? Do you feel the response
>of the GMC was appropriate?
>1. Dr. Wakefield's paper was SIMPLY a case study of 12 children.
I'm afraid it wasn't a simple case study - that's one of its major
failings. It was _presented_ as a case series study but in fact the
children had been hand picked. Most of the researchers involved were
not aware of this at the time.
>He didn't make *any claims* in his original paper that
>has gotten all the attention.
No, he did it in the press conference he called to publicise the
>4. Wakefield's most recent research incriminates the use of hepatitis B
>vaccines in newborns. The first phase of this monkey study was published
>three months ago in the journal Neurotoxicology,
And promptly retracted.
>5. Dr. Wakefield's research was never questioned by the GMC.
It most certainly was. The fact that the children who were presented
as a case series had been specifically selected was not revealed by
Wakefield and completely negated any conclusion the study reached.
Other errors in his work, such as the faulty analysis by Unigenetics,
were irrelevant to the disciplinary hearing.
>6. Dr. Wakefield has never been "anti-vaccine."
He just liked turning up at anti-vaccine gatherings? He also worked
for a time as "Research Director" for the International Child
Development Resource Center.
>7. Dr. Wakefield has always recommended single antigen vaccines. He
>hypothesized that the three live viruses given together in the MMR vaccine
>are the source of potential problems in at least SOME children.
A hypothesis sunk without trace by the discovery that Unigenetics did
not discover measles virus in Wakefields samples.
>Question #2: Do you have concerns over Dr. Wakefield's failure to disclose
>financial links to a malpractice attorney and to patents he was working on
>to develop a single vaccine solution?
>Answers: I was rather surprised at the question and my response is, no. I
>don't feel one bit concerned about that particular issue.
Now that is a surprise.
> I'm not even sure the accusation is 100 percent true;
Why not - Wakefield admitted it.
>Question #3: Do you think the Lancet was justified in pulling the paper for
>pure scientific reasons?
>Answer: It was inappropriate for the Lancet to retract his 1998 paper.
It was built upon dishonesty - there was no possible alternative but
to retract it.
>. AND NOT ONE mainstream reporter dared to report that Wakefield's
>observation, finding vaccine-strain measles in the gut of *some* autistic
>children, has been replicated by other researchers.
As explained above, it hasn't.
>Question #4: Are you simply a blinded, "Dr. Andy Groupie"?
>Answer: No, I am not. I clearly understand the reason why this has happened.
>Could he have done things better?Probably. Could he have been more
>forthcoming about certain events that he has been accused of? Of course.
He could have been honest from the start, he chose not to be.