On Wed, 2 Feb 2011 09:22:28 -0000, "john" wrote:

Andrew Wakefield's Questions for BMJ Editors

I think a few answers from the fraudulent ex-doctor would be more
appropriate.

1. Do the BMJ editors stand by their 6 Jan 2011 editorial "Wakefield's
article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent" alleging Andrew
Wakefield alone and unassisted committed research fraud?

If he thinks the report was wrong why is he taking no action in court
to clear his name and reputation? It can't be cost, if his case is
a certain as he tries to make out any leading London solicitor would
take it on on a "no win no fee" basis as the potential profits from
such a case would be enormous. After all Wakefield lost not only his
reputation but also the chance of developing the multi-million dollar
commercial exploitation of his results he had planned.

Perhaps Wakers should answer that very simple question before asking
for responses to his irrelevant ones?

Is it because he knows he would lose so is reduced to fling mud around
in the hope that some stick sand diverts attention from his fraud?

7. If the editors still stand by their story how do they account for the
fact that those 12 specialist expert medical professionals read and reviewed
the Lancet paper before submission for publication, approved Wakefield's
report of their work and put their names to the paper.

How does Wakers account for the one whose name didn't appear? - Dr
Nick Chadwick who found no measles virus in _any_ sample from
Wakefield and whose results Wakefield consequently withheld from the
paper?

9. Do the editors also accuse the authors of the following papers of fraud
for claiming to have found the same or a closely similar condition in
autistic patients:-

More smoke and mirrors. Wakers original paper claimed ""We have
identified a chronic enterocolitis in children that may be related to
neuropsychiatric dysfunction. In most cases, onset of symptoms was
after measles, mumps, and rubella immunisation."

There has not been any independent verification of this triad of
results and none of the documents quoted claims to have done so

Balzola F, Barbon V, Repici A, Rizzetto M. Panenteric IBD-like disease in a
patient with regressive autism shown for the first time by the wireless
capsule enteroscopy: another piece in the jigsaw of this gut-brain syndrome?
Am J Gastro. 2005; 979-981. (Italian replication)

A case report of _one_ adult autistic patient with an inflamed bowel.

Balzola F, et al. Autistic enterocolitis: confirmation of a new inflammatory
bowel disease in an Italian cohort of patients.
Gastroenterology.2005;128:Suppl.2;A-303. . (Italian replication)

Not replication at all but a meeting abstract that was never reviewed
nor eventually published. The abstract did not support Wakefields
finding of MMR involvement nor did its findings support a distinct
pathology unique to autism.

Balzola F, et al. Beneficial behavioural effects of IBD therapy and
gluten/casein-free diet in an Italian cohort of patients with autistic
enterocolitis followed over one year. Gastroenterology, 2006:30; suppl. 2
S1364 A-21. . (Italian replication)

Neither replicates nor supports Wakefields paper.

Chen B, Girgis S, El-Matary W. Childhood autism and eosinophilic colitis.
Digestion. 2010;81:127-9. (Canadian replication)

"A rare association between autism and microscopic eosinophilic
colitis in 2 children is reported through retrospective chart review."
This does not even remotely replicate Wakefields findings.

Galiatsatos P, et al. Autistic enterocolitis: fact or fiction? Can J
Gastroenterol 2009;23:95-98. (Canadian replication)

A case report, featuring two adult patients with gastrointestinal
problems and an ASD diagnosis. The authors call for “more
investigations” in their discussion.

Gonzalez L, Lopez K, Navarro D, Negron L, Flores L, Rodriguez R, Martinez
M, Sabra A. Endoscopic and Histological Characteristics of the digestive
mucosa in autistic children with gastrointestinal symptoms. Arch Venez
Pueric Pediatr 69;1:19-25 (Venezuelan replication)

Wakers doesn't really understand this conflict of interest bit does
he? Why has he omitted to mention the financial links between
Gonzales and Thoughtful House? Even then, in this study the authors
cannot replicate Wakefield’s 1998 “findings” of a distinct autistic
enterocolitis, although they do report a higher incidence of
gastrointestinal problems in their autistic group.

Horvath K et al. Gastrointestinal abnormalities in children with autistic
disorder. J Pediatr. 1999;135:559-63. (US replication)

Neither replicates nor supports Wakefields paper.

Krigsman A, Boris M, Goldblatt A et al. Clinical Presentation and
Histologic Findings at Ileocolonoscopy in Children with Autistic Spectrum
Disorder and Chronic Gastrointestinal Symptoms. Autism Insights 2010;2:1-11
(US replication)

A "paper" written by the clinical director of Thoughtful House, which
Wakefield led at the time, with Stott, Wakefields publicist, as a
co-author. To make acceptance a bit easier Wakefield and Stott were
on the editorial board of the magazine which published it. Wow, that's
really strong independent support isn't it?