You certainly managed to cram a great deal of misinformation into a single article: You included virtually all the anti-vaccine talking points in an effort that might well confuse the naïve parents in your audience.
A minor point: Wakefield did not, as you indicated, write a “case paper.” Perhaps you simply repeated or misinterpreted something you read on an anti-vaccine website; you must mean a “case study.” More importantly, though, it is quite clear that Wakefield was wrong, whether or not (as stated by the editors of the British Medical Journal) his work was fraudulent and whether or not you agree with the UK General Medical Council that he was repeatedly dishonest.
For example, the PCR primers that Wakefield used to detect “measles” in his gut and CSF samples clearly react to normal human DNA, and the reaction results cannot be distinguished as false positives unless additional careful work is performed, which Wakefield simply did not do but which was done in this emphatic take-down of Wakefield’s PCR work: http://pediatrics.aapublications.org/cgi/reprint/118/4/1664. In a.ddition, of course, Wakefield’s work also included the production of “positive” results even when there was no sample at all in the reaction, as shown in this unusually pointed analysis by a PCR expert who devoted 1,500 hours to analyzing the equipment, protocols, and original laboratory notebooks related to Wakefield’s PCR work: http://www.badscience.net/wp-content/uploads/erp_mmr.pdf. In addition, the ONLY attempt to replicate his results suggesting a temporal link between MMR vaccination and the onset of ASD and GI symptoms showed conclusively that Wakefield was wrong; the authors of this careful case-control study, which included Wakefield’s former business partner and co-author, concluded: “The work reported here eliminates the remaining support for the hypothesis that ASD with GI complaints is related to MMR exposure." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2526159/?tool=pubmed
BTW, your support for the recent paper that suggests an increase in the risk of ASD associated with hepatitis B vaccination is also surprising. Given that the apparent prevalence of ASD has undeniably increased in recent decades, you might think that the authors would have stratified the data by age since the odds of ASD diagnosis clearly increase in later birth cohorts. The authors did not do this. Skewing the age distribution in their two groups could in itself account for their results, but we simply cannot tell since the authors did make even the most rudimentary efforts to provide that critical information: not only did they fail to include that analysis, they didn’t even include such basic information as basic age-related parameters of the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. That's weird.
Similarly, this statement is false: ““Autism” symptoms and mercury poisoning symptoms are virtually identical.” Nope. You might want to check the testimony of Dr. Patricia Rodier, one of the very few people in the world who is expert on both autism and mercury toxicity: "My conclusion is that the allegation has no scientific support and is highly improbable.” Dr. Rodier’s expert report for the Omnibus Autism Proceedings is available here: http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/autism/Expert%20Reports/King_03-584V/ExEE_Rodier_Report_03-584.pdf. You may also be interested in this thorough refutation of that failed hypothesis: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/111/3/674.long.
Of course, you should also understand that dramatic decreases in exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines in several countries have been shown by independent groups of investigators to have been followed, even years later, by continuing increases in the prevalence of autism, as shown in this recent article: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/111/3/674.long.
Honestly, you should consider refraining from commenting on subjects that you do not understand.
Comment Reply
You certainly managed to cram a great deal of misinformation into a single article: You included virtually all the anti-vaccine talking points in an effort that might well confuse the naïve parents in your audience.
A minor point: Wakefield did not, as you indicated, write a “case paper.” Perhaps you simply repeated or misinterpreted something you read on an anti-vaccine website; you must mean a “case study.” More importantly, though, it is quite clear that Wakefield was wrong, whether or not (as stated by the editors of the British Medical Journal) his work was fraudulent and whether or not you agree with the UK General Medical Council that he was repeatedly dishonest.
For example, the PCR primers that Wakefield used to detect “measles” in his gut and CSF samples clearly react to normal human DNA, and the reaction results cannot be distinguished as false positives unless additional careful work is performed, which Wakefield simply did not do but which was done in this emphatic take-down of Wakefield’s PCR work: http://pediatrics.aapublications.org/cgi/reprint/118/4/1664. In a.ddition, of course, Wakefield’s work also included the production of “positive” results even when there was no sample at all in the reaction, as shown in this unusually pointed analysis by a PCR expert who devoted 1,500 hours to analyzing the equipment, protocols, and original laboratory notebooks related to Wakefield’s PCR work: http://www.badscience.net/wp-content/uploads/erp_mmr.pdf. In addition, the ONLY attempt to replicate his results suggesting a temporal link between MMR vaccination and the onset of ASD and GI symptoms showed conclusively that Wakefield was wrong; the authors of this careful case-control study, which included Wakefield’s former business partner and co-author, concluded: “The work reported here eliminates the remaining support for the hypothesis that ASD with GI complaints is related to MMR exposure." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2526159/?tool=pubmed
BTW, your support for the recent paper that suggests an increase in the risk of ASD associated with hepatitis B vaccination is also surprising. Given that the apparent prevalence of ASD has undeniably increased in recent decades, you might think that the authors would have stratified the data by age since the odds of ASD diagnosis clearly increase in later birth cohorts. The authors did not do this. Skewing the age distribution in their two groups could in itself account for their results, but we simply cannot tell since the authors did make even the most rudimentary efforts to provide that critical information: not only did they fail to include that analysis, they didn’t even include such basic information as basic age-related parameters of the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. That's weird.
Similarly, this statement is false: ““Autism” symptoms and mercury poisoning symptoms are virtually identical.” Nope. You might want to check the testimony of Dr. Patricia Rodier, one of the very few people in the world who is expert on both autism and mercury toxicity: "My conclusion is that the allegation has no scientific support and is highly improbable.” Dr. Rodier’s expert report for the Omnibus Autism Proceedings is available here: http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/autism/Expert%20Reports/King_03-584V/ExEE_Rodier_Report_03-584.pdf. You may also be interested in this thorough refutation of that failed hypothesis: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/111/3/674.long.
Of course, you should also understand that dramatic decreases in exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines in several countries have been shown by independent groups of investigators to have been followed, even years later, by continuing increases in the prevalence of autism, as shown in this recent article: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/111/3/674.long.
Honestly, you should consider refraining from commenting on subjects that you do not understand.
September 8, 2011 - 6:13pmThis Comment
Reply