Firstly, Bad Science are very strongly pro-vaccine and anti natural medicine and they try to trash everything that questions the status quo, so I would think that is the pro equivalent of looking on an anti-vaccine website.
I would think a gastroenterologist who had worked at the Royal Free for 14 years or so before the 1998 paper would be intelligent enough to know the difference between measles virus and human DNA. And that was on THEIR tests, not Wakefield's, so it's still hypothetical. If they really wanted to find out they could have asked Wakefield to repeat the tests in their presence and then do the follow up checks on HIS samples, if there was any question over competancy.
Again, how do they really know that Wakefield detected human DNA with the Crohns study? They didn't analyse HIS work, they just tried to re-create their own and they had a vested interest before they started. It says on the study:
BJW has served on a number of Canadian and US government advisory committees addressing the issues of vaccine use and safety between 1994 and 2006. He has provided expert testimony for both the US and Quebec vaccine injury compensation programs. Dr Ward has also provided advice and teaching to Canadian government and industry groups in the area of vaccine immunology. He has conducted and participated in several studies of measles vaccine safety sponsored by Canadian and US government funding agencies. He has also conducted a small number of phase I and phase II industry‐sponsored clinical trials of non‐licensed vaccines for smaller biotechnology companies. He has conducted a single, company‐sponsored, immunological study of a licensed, acellular pertussis vaccine.'
He has worked for biotech companies in which he was sponsored by 'industry', and has done 'expert testimony' in vaccine injury cases for the US and Quebec which sounds like he is arguing for the vaccine manufacturer and against the victim.
He should not have been allowed to take part in anything like that.
Also the paper says 'Controversy in response to this claim resulted in falling measles vaccination rates, mainly in the UK. Immediate concerns were raised regarding several aspects of these studies'
'These allegations further damaged confidence in MV vaccination programmes.'
That is the motivation behind such a thing, preserving the measles vaccine program, not the welfare of the children.
They also say:
'Our results suggest at least one plausible mechanism for what we believe to have been false‐positive results reported in the Kawashima and Uhlmann studies. '
The way this is worded sounds more like another hypothises and that they went in hoping to find a mechanism for their already present belief that the study was false.
Perhaps there were design faults with the study, but with conflicts of interest and people working on it who are clearly paid by vaccine companies, I wouldn't trust them either.
Instead of trying to prove that MMR is safe again and again, they should be trying to help the children and slow down the numbers getting autism.
They already know viruses can cause neurological dysfunction so theoretically vaccine viruses could do the same.
This says there are viruses in the brains of autistic patients that they have extracted during post-mortem so it's not that revolutionary to implicate measles virus.