Andrew Wakefield & MMR Controversy

Lancet - Statements by all on Dr Wakefield's study

Long but please read thoroughly - maybe this will answer things that
have been muddy for some of you

"A minority of the children described in the 1998 Lancet report were
part of the second study that was funded in part by the Legal Aid Board
(later to become the Legal Services Commission). The relationship of
these two distinct studies to the legal status of the relevant children
is set out below. Professor Walker-Smith has already described the
basis for the referral of these children according to clinical need.

At the time that the children reported in the 1998 Lancet paper
werereferred to Professor Walker-Smith for investigation of their
gastrointestinal symptoms--the time material to their sequential
investigation and subsequent inclusion in the report--none of the 12
reported children was in fact legally aided, ie, in receipt of legal
aid certificates and therefore legal aid funding. "
Andrew Wakefield

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/la...40673604156997...

06 March 2004

1. Lancet Statement
2. Simon Murch Statement
3. John Walker-Smith Statement
4. Andrew Wakefield Statement
5. Royal Free and University College Medical School and The Royal Free
Hampstead NHS Trust Statement

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/la...40673604156997...

The Lancet 2004; 363:820-821

DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(04)15699-7
A statement by the editors of The Lancet

Richard Horton

On February 18, 2004, serious allegations of research misconduct
concerning an article by Dr Andrew Wakefield and colleagues published
in The Lancet in February, 1998,1 were brought to the attention of
senior editorial staff of the journal.

The allegations a

(1).

That, contrary to a statement in the Lancet paper, ethics approval for
the investigations conducted on the children reported in the study,
some of them highly invasive (eg, lumbar puncture), had not been given.
(2).

That the study reported in The Lancet was completed under the cover of
ethics approval for an entirely different study of 25 children with
"A new paediatric syndrome: enteritis and disintegrative disorder
following measles/rubella vaccination".
(3).

That, contrary to the statement in the Lancet paper that children were
"consecutively referred to the department of paediatric
gastroenterology" at the Royal Free Hospital and School of Medicine,
children were invited to participate in the study by Dr Andrew
Wakefield and Professor John Walker-Smith, thus biasing the selection
of children in favour of families reporting an association between
their child's illness and the MMR vaccine.
(4).

That the children who were reported in the Lancet study were also part
of a Legal Aid Board funded pilot project, led by Dr Wakefield-a
pilot project with the aim of investigating the grounds for pursuing a
multi-party legal action on behalf of parents of allegedly
vaccine-damaged children, the existence of which was not disclosed to
the editors of The Lancet.
(5).

That the results eventually reported in the 1998 Lancet paper were
passed to lawyers and used to justify the multiparty legal action prior
to publication, a fact that was not disclosed to the editors of The
Lancet.
(6).

That Dr Wakefield received £55000 from the Legal Aid Board to conduct
this pilot project and that, since there was a substantial overlap of
children in both the Legal Aid Board funded pilot project and the
Lancet paper, this was a financial conflict of interest that should
have been declared to the editors and was not.2

The editors of The Lancet have seen and reviewed the documentary
evidence available in support of these allegations. In acting on this
information we have followed the guidelines on dealing with alleged
misconduct as set out by the UK Committee on Publication Ethics, on
which representatives of The Lancet sit.3 We have presented this
evidence to the senior authors of the 1998 Lancet paper (Dr Wakefield,
Professor John Walker-Smith, Dr Peter Harvey, and Dr Simon Murch) in
order to seek their responses. Dr Richard Horton, Editor of The Lancet,
has also shared this information with Professor Humphrey Hodgson,
vice-Dean and campus director of the Royal Free and University College
Medical School, London, the institution at which the original work took
place.

With this notice are accompanying statements from Dr Murch, Professor
Walker-Smith, and Dr Wakefield, answering the allegations of research
and publication misconduct, together with a statement from the Royal
Free and University College Medical School.

Given these four statements, together with an evaluation of the
available documents, we consider that:
Allegation 1

The evidence we have seen indicates that ethics committee approval was
given for data collection from clinically indicated investigations in
the children with an initially undiagnosed illness and who were
described in the 1998 Lancet paper. This illness was at first believed
to be enteritis combined with a disintegrative disorder. Subsequent
detailed clinical investigations eventually showed this condition to be
the syndrome finally reported in The Lancet. This course of events was
not described in full in the Lancet paper, although the similarity of
the behavioural changes with those of a disintegrative psychosis
(Heller's disease) were commented on in the discussion section of the
1998 Lancet paper. In summary, the evidence does not support this
allegation.
Allegation 2

As described under Allegation 1, detailed clinically appropriate
investigations led to a re-evaluation of the initial diagnosis of these
children, as set out in protocol 172-96. The evidence we have seen
indicates that there was no attempt by investigators to conduct the
study of children reported in The Lancet in 1998 under cover of an
entirely different investigation. In sum, the evidence does not support
this allegation.
Allegation 3

Professor Walker-Smith notes that although the referral pattern was
unusual-direct contact by patients with Dr Wakefield leading to
referral to the Royal Free-the children were indeed consecutively
referred. He reports that to the best of his recollection he did not
invite any children to participate in the study. Thus, as far as the
facts can be ascertained by a review of the case notes and from memory,
children reported in the 1998 Lancet paper were consecutively referred
to the Royal Free and were not deliberately sought by the authors for
inclusion in their study based on parents' beliefs about an association
between their child's illness and the MMR vaccine.
Allegations 4-6

Dr Wakefield had two roles in this work. First, he was the lead
investigator of a Royal Free study into the nature of a new syndrome
with bowel and psychiatric symptoms. Second, he was commissioned
through a lawyer to undertake virological investigations as part of a
study funded by the Legal Aid Board. At the time of submission and
eventual publication of his 1998 Lancet paper, this second study had
not been disclosed to the editors of The Lancet and his coauthors. We
judge that it should have been so disclosed, irrespective of the number
of children overlapping between the pilot project funded by the Legal
Aid Board and the Lancet paper. Such a disclosure would have provided
important information to editors and peer reviewers about the context
in which this work was taking place-a context that would have been
vital in making a final decision about publication. We believe that our
conflict of interest guidelines at the time should have triggered such
a disclosure, including the fact that a significant minority of the
children described in the Lancet paper were also part of the Legal Aid
Board funded pilot project. These guidelines stated that: "The
conflict of interest test is a simple one. Is there anything ... that
would embarrass you if it were to emerge after publication and you had
not declared it?"

The difficulty of adopting a dual role as a clinical investigator and
as a participant in an evaluation on behalf of the Legal Aid Board is
revealed in Dr Wakefield's response to Allegation 5. Although it may be
correct that "this [Lancet] publication ... added nothing further to
the issue of causation than that that was already well known to the
lawyers", the perception of a potential conflict of interest remains.
Editors and reviewers should have had an opportunity to take his dual
role into consideration when assessing this paper for publication.

Finally, although the Legal Aid Board funding referred to a different
aspect of Dr Wakefield's work from that reported in The Lancet, the
perception of a conflict of interest nevertheless remains. This funding
source should, we judge, have been disclosed to the editors of the
journal.
Summary

The first three allegations of alleged research misconduct have been
answered by clarifications provided by the senior authors of this work.
The wording in the published paper regarding Ethical Practice Committee
approval and patient referral was accurate, yet at the same time
summarised obviously lengthy and complex institutional and clinical
review and referral procedures. In the light of the public controversy
surrounding this work and the allegations made to us, one could argue
that more explanation could and should have been provided in the
original paper. Although, with hindsight, this seems a reasonable
criticism, all research papers published by all journals are inevitably
concise accounts of often complicated research protocols. We do not
judge that there was any intention to conceal information or deceive
editors, reviewers, or readers about the ethical justification for this
work and the nature of patient referral. We are pleased to have had the
opportunity to clarify the scientific record over the matters raised by
these serious allegations.

We regret that aspects of funding for parallel and related work and the
existence of ongoing litigation that had been known during clinical
evaluation of the children reported in the 1998 Lancet paper were not
disclosed to editors. We also regret that the overlap between children
in the Lancet paper and in the Legal Aid Board funded pilot project was
not revealed to us. We judge that all this information would have been
material to our decision-making about the paper's suitability,
credibility, and validity for publication.

In considering what sanctions The Lancet should apply, the COPE
guidelines3 give eight options in a ranked order of severity. Given the
public-health importance of MMR vaccination, together with the public
interest in this issue, we have decided to pursue a course of full
disclosure and transparency concerning these allegations, the authors'
responses, the institution's judgment, and our evaluation.
References

1. Wakefield AJ, Murch SH, Anthony A, et al. Ileal-lymphoid-nodular
hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder
in children. Lancet 1998; 351: 637-641. Abstract | Full Text | PDF (758
KB) | MEDLINE | CrossRef

2. In 1998, The Lancet required that: "The Editor needs to be
informed [of any conflicts of interest] and will discuss with you [the
authors] whether or not disclosure in the journal is necessary. All
sources of funding must be disclosed, as an acknowledgment in the
text."

3.
http://www.publicationethics.org.uk/.../dealing.phtml
..

Affiliations

a. The Lancet, 32 Jamestown Road, London NW1 7BY, UK

**********
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/la...40673604157085...
The Lancet 2004; 363:821-822

DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(04)15708-5
A statement by Dr Simon Murch

Simon Murch

These allegations concerning our 1998 study are extremely serious, and
clearly require immediate clarification. I welcome the opportunity to
do so. My comment relates to the alleged lack of Ethical Practices
Committee approval. I refute the allegation absolutely on the basis of
extensive documentary evidence.

The protocol for the 1998 Lancet paper was submitted on September 16,
1996, to what was then termed the Ethical Practices Sub-Committee. It
was entitled "A new paediatric syndrome: enteritis and disintegrative
disorder following measles/rubella vaccine". It was signed by Andrew
Wakefield as lead investigator. Named consultants were John
Walker-Smith and myself, with signed collaborators Peter Harvey, for
the department of neurology, and Mark Berelowitz, for the department of
child psychiatry. The application was initiated due to findings at
colonoscopy of two children with behavioural disorders, which would now
be classified within the autistic spectrum, and a history of chronic
gastrointestinal symptoms, and recognition of a broadly similar
clinical history among other referred patients. Specifically, for
several years previously we had looked after an autistic child with
severe ulcerative colitis who eventually required colectomy (not
included in the study), and the second child colonoscoped (on September
2, 1996) had ileitis of sufficient extent that a diagnosis of probable
Crohn's disease was made. Following this diagnosis, the child had been
entered in good faith by our inflammatory bowel diseases fellow into an
ongoing (ethically approved) study of polymeric enteral nutrition. He
had already made remarkable symptomatic improvement, including apparent
cognitive advance. We, thus, appeared to be dealing with a condition of
significant severity, and had seen clinical improvement unprecedented
in this child's history. News of this improvement was rapidly
disseminated among parents of autistic children, which I believe led to
many further referrals. This child was included in the study, with
additional investigations performed after ethics approval was obtained.

The title of this submitted application is a point of contention, and
should be clarified. Having taken initial advice from our psychiatric
colleagues on the basis of referral letters, it was considered that
these children demonstrated a form of autism called disintegrative
disorder (Heller's disease). After full psychiatric assessment of each
child seen, it was later concluded that the more accurate description
for the submitted paper should be pervasive developmental disorder. Our
working title for these cases had, however, remained disintegrative
disorder, while some parents referred to their child as autistic, and
others did not. The whole area of nomenclature in autistic spectrum
disorders was notably difficult at that stage. As we saw more patients,
we moved towards a more inclusive label of autism, which was used in
subsequent correspondence after February, 1998, to the Ethical
Practices Committee. Measles and rubella were singled out in the
application since these conditions, but not mumps, had been linked to
autism in previous isolated reports.

This application (172-96) was for permission for in-depth analysis of
25patients, referred either by general practitioners or the vitamin B12
unit at the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, who had been studying B12
absorption in children with regressive neurological disorders. The
selection criteria explicit in this application were the presence of
disintegrative disorder, symptoms and signs suggestive of
gastrointestinal disease, and parental request for investigation. All
patients reported met these criteria. The consultant paediatricians
responsible for the children's care decided on the investigations,
although advice was taken from colleagues at other centres. We
determined that these investigations were required clinically, not only
to characterise gut inflammation but also to exclude primary
neurological diseases. We had in particular taken advice for the
neurological investigations, since some of the referrals appeared to
have suffered an encephalitic illness, and specifically the inclusion
of lumbar puncture was suggested to us as important for assay of
cerebrospinal fluid lactate, to exclude mitochondrial cytopathies that
can cause both neurological regression and bowel disease. Several of
these cases had not been investigated to exclude a primary cause of
their regression, and we thought it important to ensure that we were
not missing underlying metabolic or genetic abnormality. Proposed
investigations thus included ileocolonoscopy and upper endoscopy,
barium follow-through if ileitis was identified, lumbar puncture (if
sufficient fluid remained after lactate assay, serology and/or cytokine
testing would be performed), magnetic resonance imaging of the brain to
exclude structural defects, electroencephalography to exclude covert
epilepsy, electrophysiological testing, and a panel of standard
laboratory tests, with isolation of DNA for complement genotyping,
since C4 deficiency had been reported to be an association.

The protocol was referred back at first submission in November, 1996,
with clarifications and amendments suggested, and was approved in
December, 1996. This protocol formed the basis for all children
investigated in the 1998 Lancet paper, and all were investigated. We
had no idea at the time of our Ethical Practices Committee application
that lymphoid hyperplasia would prove so common, although it was a
prominent part of the final report.

It is important to document where the protocol differed from the
submission. First, neither I nor my fellow endoscopist, Mike Thomson,
eventually considered it justified to perform upper gastrointestinal
endoscopy in most patients-there was then no published evidence of
upper gastrointestinal pathology, and we were performing these
procedures under sedation, as was then our practice. Getting the
precise level of sedation is not easy in children with such behavioural
difficulties, and we felt this was not appropriate at that time,
although our policy altered in later years. Second, in the event, we
did not continue with this extended protocol for the full 25 patients,
again because of the clinical concerns of myself and my colleagues,
since we had found no evidence of underlying metabolic abnormality in
any case and did not consider that lumbar puncture of further cases was
indicated. Other children subsequently seen were thus not subjected to
this extended protocol, and investigated by testing of inflammatory
markers and abdominal X-ray, with endoscopies performed if thought
clinically indicated, unless there were clear clinical reasons to
perform additional tests.

Following the publication of the initial report, John Walker-Smith
sought guidance from the Ethical Practices Committee about further
investigation of future cases, stating "I would like formally to
request Ethical Committee approval for our clinical research analysis
of these children who we are continuing to see by clinical need". In
a letter to the ethics committee, further studies were referred to
under the title "autism and non-specific colitis and Lymphoid Nodular
Hyperplasia" since that was the clinical entity that the earlier
study had defined. This was reviewed on July 22, 1998, and data
collection from clinically indicated investigations was approved. This
was for study of subsequent patients investigated on the basis of
gastrointestinal symptoms and initial assessment, and in no way
relevant to the 1998 Lancet paper, which had been conducted entirely
according to the 1996 approval. Thus, there was no change in the name
of the ethical approval requested for the 1998 paper, as mistakenly
alleged.

A local review initiated by the Royal Free medical school in July,
1998, confirmed that the application had been fully considered by the
ethics committee, and that assurance had been given that the
investigations were clinically indicated. It was also apparent that the
continuing investigation of those children had been reviewed by the
ethics committee in July, 1998, and appreciated that investigation of
children seen after publication had become less extensive, and usually
restricted to gastroenterological testing as thought clinically
appropriate.

We contended then, and still contend now, that these were standard and
appropriate gastroenterological and neurological investigations for the
symptoms reported given the current state of knowledge at that time.
Undoubtedly we now perform endoscopy less frequently, but that is based
on extensive experience. Similarly, a child with coeliac disease in the
1970s would have had three diagnostic biopsies compared to the one, or
even none, now performed.

Thus, I can confirm that the patients presented in the Lancet study
were investigated in accordance with the ethics committee approval of
December, 1996, and that no attempt was made to seek retrospective
approval.
Affiliations

a. Senior Lecturer and Consultant in Paediatric Gastroenterology,
Centre for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Royal Free and University
College Medical School, London NW3 2PF, UK
************

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/la...40673604157097...
The Lancet 2004; 363:822-823
DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(04)15709-7
A statement by Professor John Walker-Smith

John Walker-Smith

I deny the allegation that there was systematic bias in the pattern of
referral for the children in the 1998 Lancet paper. No children were
invited to participate in the study.

Upon review of the Centre for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Royal Free
Hospital, work book entitled "Biopsies VI 4/9/95 to 21/7/97", we
confirm that the children who were reported in the Lancet paper of 1998
were the first 12 children consecutively referred to the university
department of paediatric gastroenterology with autism and related
disorders, who had gastrointestinal symptoms requiring ileo-colonoscopy
to exclude chronic bowel inflammation. These children were referred to
me at the university department of paediatric gastroenterology at the
Royal Free Hospital from July 25, 1996, to February 24, 1997-one
being referred from the island of Jersey and one from the USA. By the
time the paper was accepted for publication, as mentioned in an
appendix to the Lancet paper, up to January 28, 1998, a further 40
children had been so investigated, 39 with the syndrome reported in the
paper. The children were all investigated specifically and exclusively
by clinical need to determine whether bowel inflammation was present
that could then be appropriately treated.

These children were referred to the Royal Free by their general
practitioner (ten cases) or consultant paediatrician (two cases). Some
parents had heard of Dr Wakefield's previous work on inflammatory bowel
disease and specifically requested referral, but the channel of
referral was always as described above. However, the pattern of
referral was often that the parents of the children approached Dr
Wakefield directly knowing of his work, frequently by telephone. In the
case of one patient, in whom it has been alleged that I contacted a
consultant in order for a referral to be made, he had been asked by the
parents of this child to contact me to explain what investigations were
available at the Royal Free for children with autism and bowel
problems. To the best of my recollection, I did not invite any children
to participate in our study.

None of the children at the time of the referral was known by the team
of paediatric gastroenterologists who cared for and investigated these
children to be involved in a pilot project commissioned by the Legal
Aid Board. At the time of consultation, I was aware that some parents
were engaged in legal proceedings. Review of the clinical notes of the
12 children in the 1998 Lancet paper indicate that we had become aware
at the time of publication that one child was involved in litigation
proceedings against the vaccine manufacturers.
Affiliations

a. Emeritus Professor of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Wellcome Trust
Centre for History of Medicine at University College London, London NW1
1AD, UK

************
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/la...40673604157103...

The Lancet 2004; 363:823-824

DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(04)15710-3
A statement by Dr Andrew Wakefield

Andrew Wakefield

Allegation 4 completely misrepresents the facts. These were two quite
distinct issues; the first a clinical report of 12 cases and the
second, a hypothesis-testing laboratory study to examine for the
presence or absence of measles virus in autistic children when compared
with appropriate controls.

A minority of the children described in the 1998 Lancet report were
part of the second study that was funded in part by the Legal Aid Board
(later to become the Legal Services Commission). The relationship of
these two distinct studies to the legal status of the relevant children
is set out below. Professor Walker-Smith has already described the
basis for the referral of these children according to clinical need.

At the time that the children reported in the 1998 Lancet paper were
referred to Professor Walker-Smith for investigation of their
gastrointestinal symptoms-the time material to their sequential
investigation and subsequent inclusion in the report-none of the 12
reported children was in fact legally aided, ie, in receipt of legal
aid certificates and therefore legal aid funding.

Whether parents perceived an association with MMR vaccine or not,
whether parents had approached lawyers with the intent to seek legal
redress, or whether children were in receipt of legal aid funding or
not, had no bearing whatsoever on their selection for clinical
investigation or inclusion in the Lancet report. Since these
allegations were made I have returned to parents (and where appropriate
their current lawyers) to determine these facts. At the time the
children underwent ileo-colonoscopy (ie, the time at which their
pathology, as reported in The Lancet in 1998, was detected and reported
by endoscopists and histopathologists), one child had been granted a
legal aid certificate. The authors had no knowledge of this fact until
now.

In support of this and in view of these allegations, parents of
children in the 1998 Lancet report have provided a written signed
statement that (i) they contacted me for help given their child's
gastrointestinal symptoms, (ii) their referral to the department of
paediatric gastroenterology at the Royal Free was through their child's
doctor, (iii) that at no time did I encourage them to seek legal
redress through the courts in the MMR class action, and (iv) that their
child formed part of the initial study of 12 children reported in The
Lancet in 1998.

Independently, I was commissioned through a solicitor, Richard Barr, to
undertake quite separate virological studies on ten children. This is
entirely in line with other university-based studies that have been
similarly funded by the Legal Services Commission, and reported, for
example, in the BMJ.1 The list of children provided to me by Richard
Barr was based on his knowledge of an overlap between patients referred
to the Royal Free and those whose parents had made contact with Richard
Barr. I could not have constructed such a list since I had no knowledge
of the litigation cohort or the legal status of children within this
cohort. I was specifically concerned with addressing the scientific
question in relation to measles virus-a perfectly legitimate question
in view of the nature of the intestinal disease and the sequence of
events in the children. Measles virus infection of the intestine is a
specific interest of mine.

Once again, it is important to emphasise that I had no specific
knowledge of the legal status of the ten children on the list other
than as described above. Investigations, in light of the current
allegations, indicate that four of these children (exact number to be
confirmed by Richard Barr) were among those reported in the 1998 Lancet
paper. The virological studies on these children have been submitted
for publication. If and when these studies are finally published, due
acknowledgment will be made of all sources of funding, including that
from the Legal Services Commission.

Allegation 5 is an inaccurate misrepresentation of the facts. The
results eventually reported in the 1998 Lancet paper were in the public
domain long before their publication in February, 1998, having been
presented at several national and international scientific meetings.
They were readily available for interested parties to scrutinise and
interpret as they saw fit. The findings were not actively made
available to the media until after publication but, other than this,
there was no attempt to conceal these data.

Such was the level of concern from the clinical and scientific team at
the findings in this group of children with a similar history and an
apparently novel bowel pathology, that I and Professor Walker-Smith
reported them to a meeting in October, 1997, convened by the Hon Tessa
Jowell MP, then Minister of Health, attended by the Chief Medical
Officer Sir Kenneth Calman and other officials from the Department of
Health in the presence of Richard Barr of Dawbarns solicitors, and
representatives of interested parent groups. Barr, for his part, was in
attendance as a lawyer, responsibly concerned by the sheer numbers of
parents reporting, to him, developmental regression and
gastrointestinal symptoms in their children following MMR vaccination.

It is important to emphasise that the only aspect of the 1998 Lancet
paper that could have been used to justify a multi-party action, as in
the foregoing accusation, is the parents' perception of a temporal
relationship between MMR vaccine exposure and onset of symptoms. This
perception was well known to the lawyers long before we were even aware
of the role of the lawyers, or the proposed multi-party action, and
certainly long before our publication in The Lancet in 1998. This
publication alone added nothing further to the issue of causation than
that which was already well known to the lawyers. The accusation is
therefore specious. My own report to the Legal Services Commission on
this matter was served in 1999.

With respect to allegation 6, as has been indicated above, these were
two separate matters. One, a report of clinical investigations, and the
other, a study commissioned quite independently through Richard Barr.
The latter study was designed in order to explore the issue of possible
causation. These studies were concerned with viral detection in the
diseased intestinal tissues of ten potentially affected children. This
approach is entirely in line with other university-based studies that
have been similarly funded by the Legal Services Commission, and
reported in the BMJ.1 Funds received from the Legal Aid Board were paid
into, and properly administered through, a research account with the
special trustees of the Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust.

I have stated above that the origin of the list of children was
provided to me by Richard Barr. My involvement was limited to the
legitimate concern: was measles virus present in the intestinal tissue
of these children?

As outlined above, I can confirm that publication of the relevant
virological studies is still awaited. An interim submission of a report
of this study (rejected) contained an explicit acknowledgment of the
Legal Aid funding; this will be made available as necessary.

If and when the relevant virological studies are finally published, due
acknowledgment will be made of all sources of funding, including that
from the Legal Services Commission.

For none of these or any subsequent children has legal status
influenced the need for investigation or the interpretation of the
findings. Where it is known that children are in receipt of legal aid
certificates or where studies receive funding from the Legal Services
Commission, this will be included in any relevant publication.

The clinical and pathological findings in these children stand as
reported. They have now been confirmed independently by reputable
physicians and pathologists. On the basis of the molecular detection of
measles virus in the diseased intestine of these children this issue,
too, merits further study.

I regret the difficulties that this issue has caused my colleagues over
the last week and I am grateful to them for their advice and support. I
am enormously grateful for the timely manner in which Richard Horton
has dealt with this issue and for his clarification of the issues
surrounding perception and reality where conflict of interest may be
concerned.

My colleagues and I have acted at all times in the best medical
interests of these children and will continue to do so.
References

1. Altmann P, Cunningham J, Dhanesha U, Ballard M, Thompson J, Marsh F.
Disturbance of cerebral function in people exposed to drinking water
contaminated with aluminium sulphate: retrospective study of the
Camelford water incident. BMJ 1999; 319: 807-811. MEDLINE
***

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/la...40673604157115...

The Lancet 2004; 363:824

DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(04)15711-5
A statement by The Royal Free and University College Medical School and
The Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust

Humphrey Hodgson

We are entirely satisfied that the investigations performed on the
children reported in the Lancet paper had been subjected to appropriate
and rigorous ethical scrutiny. Because the nature of the condition
affecting child behaviour and gastroenterological symptoms was unknown
and required elucidation, the investigation of these children was
properly submitted to and fully discussed by the Ethical Practices
Committee at the Royal Free Hampstead in 1996. Specifically, that
committee was a sub-committee of the then Camden and Islington Health
Authority Research Ethics Committee (subsequently incorporated into the
new Central Office for Research Ethics Committee arrangements) whose
decisions were independent of the university and hospital. The
committee, after clarifying a number of issues including that the
children's investigations were defined by the clinical symptomatology
and diagnostic requirements, and having taken expert advice, approved
the protocol submitted.

The clinical management and investigation of these children was
performed at the Free by a dedicated team of consultant paediatric
gastroenterologists, in full consultation with and agreement of the
parents of the affected children. The investigations were those thought
appropriate in the light of the severity of the children's symptoms
according to the clinician's judgment at the time.

Had the advice of the Institutions been sought at the time concerning
conflict of interest, they would undoubtedly have advised that any
potential conflict should be declared, so that others could judge
whether such conflicts were real.
Affiliations

a. Vice-Dean and campus director, Royal Free and University College
School of Medicine, London NW3 2PF, UK

FURTHER STMT by A WAKEFIELD -The Smearing Of Andrew Wakefield

E-NEWS FROM THE NATIONAL VACCINE INFORMATION CENTER
Vienna, Virginia http://www.nvic.org

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
UNITED WAY/COMBINED FEDERAL CAMPAIGN
#9119
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

"Protecting the health and informed consent rights of children since
1982."

================================================== ========================================
BL Fisher Note:

The extent to which the forced vaccination proponents have gone to
smear Andrew Wakefield and the meticulous biological mechanism research
he has conducted into MMR-vaccine associated autism is in direct
proportion to the fear they have that his hypothesis is correct: MMR
vaccine can cause a persistent vaccine strain measles virus infection
in genetically vulnerable children that leads to chronic inflammatory
bowel disease and autistic behaviors. It is unfortunate they are so
frightened of the scientific truth Dr. Wakefield is pursuing that they
find it necessary to behave like a band of thugs out to score a hit.

For the past 22 years, NVIC co-founder Kathi Williams and I have
watched abies die and be horribly crippled by vaccine reactions while
officials in industry, public health agencies and medical organizations
have refused to support the kind of biological mechanism research that
Dr. Wakefield is doing so that parents and doctors can have more
information about children at high risk for suffering vaccine reactions
and find ways to spare their lives.

Parents around the world are not fooled by the ignorant, inhumane
behavior of forced vaccinaton proponents, whose zealous defense of
one-size-fits-all vaccine policies injure and kill innocent children.

The truth will shine bright and clear in the end.

THE LANCET
Published online February 23, 2004

To read the full PDF version of a Statement by the Editor's of Lancet
go to:

http://image.thelancet.com/extras/st...Feb2004web.pdf

A STATEMENT BY DR ANDREW WAKEFIELD

Allegation 4 completely misrepresents the facts. These were two quite
distinct issues; the first a clinical report of 12 cases and the
second, a hypothesis-testing laboratory study to examine for the
presence or absence of measles virus in autistic children when compared
with appropriate controls.

A minority of the children described in the 1998 Lancet report were
part of the second study that was funded in part by the Legal Aid Board
(later to become the Legal Services Commission). The relationship of
these two distinct studies to the legal status of the relevant children
is set out below. Professor Walker-Smith has already described the
basis for the referral of these children according to clinical need.

At the time that the children reported in the 1998 Lancet paper were
referred to Professor Walker-Smith for investigation of their
gastrointestinal symptoms-the time material to their sequential
investigation and subsequent inclusion in the report-none of the
12reported children was in fact legally aided, ie, in receipt of legal
aid certificates and therefore legal aid funding.

Whether parents perceived an association with MMR vaccine or not,
whether parents had approached lawyers with the intent to seek legal
redress, orwhether children were in receipt of legal aid funding or
not, had no bearing whatsoever on their selection for clinical
investigation or inclusion in the Lancet report. Since these
allegations were made I have returned to parents (and where appropriate
their current awyers) to determine these facts. At the time the
children underwent ileo-colonoscopy (ie, the time at which their
pathology, as reported in The Lancet in 1998, was detected and reported
by endoscopists and histopathologists), one child had been granted a
legal aid certificate. The authors had no knowledge of this fact until
now.

In support of this and in view of these allegations, parents of
children in the 1998 Lancet report have provided a written signed
statement that (i)they contacted me for help given their child's
gastrointestinal symptoms, (ii) their referral to the department of
paediatric gastroenterology at the Royal Free was through their child's
doctor, (iii) that at no time did I encourage them to seek legal
redress through the courts in the MMR class action, and (iv) that their
child formed part of the initial study of 12 children reported in The
Lancet in 1998.

Independently, I was commissioned through a solicitor, Richard Barr, to
undertake quite separate virological studies on ten children. This is
entirely in line with other university-based studies that have been
similarly funded by the Legal Services Commission, and reported, for
example, in the BMJ.1 The list of children provided to me by Richard
Barr was based on his knowledge of an overlap between patients referred
to the Royal Free and those whose parents had made contact with Richard
Barr. I could not have constructed such a list since I had no knowledge
of the litigation cohort or the legal status of children within this
cohort. I was specifically concerned with addressing the scientific
question in relation to measles virus-a perfectly legitimate question
in view of the nature of the intestinal disease and the sequence of
events in the children. Measles virus infection of the intestine is a
specific interest of mine.

Once again, it is important to emphasise that I had no specific
knowledgeof the legal status of the ten children on the list other than
as described above.

Investigations, in light of the current allegations, indicate that four
of these children (exact number to be confirmed by Richard Barr) were
among those reported in the 1998 Lancet paper. The virological studies
on these children have been submitted for publication. If and when
these studies are finally published, due acknowledgement will be made
of all sources of funding, including that from the Legal Services
Commission.

Allegation 5 is an inaccurate misrepresentation of the facts. The
results eventually reported in the 1998 Lancet paper were in the public
domain long before their publication in February, 1998, having been
presented at several national and international scientific meetings.
They were readily available for interested parties to scrutinise and
interpret as they saw fit. The findings were not actively made
available to the media until after publication but, other than this,
there was no attempt to conceal these data.

Such was the level of concern from the clinical and scientific team at
the indings in this group of children with a similar history and an
apparently novel bowel pathology, that I and Professor Walker-Smith
reported them to a meeting in October, 1997, convened by the Hon Tessa
Jowell MP, then Minister of Health, attended by the Chief Medical
Officer Sir Kenneth Calman and other officials from the Department of
Health in the presence of Richard Barr of Dawbarns solicitors, and
representatives of interested parent groups. Barr, for his part, was in
attendance as a lawyer, responsibly concerned by the sheer numbers of
parents reporting, to him, developmental regression and
gastrointestinal symptoms in their children following MMR vaccination.

It is important to emphasise that the only aspect of the 1998 Lancet
paper that could have been used to justify a multi-party action, as in
the foregoing accusation, is the parents' perception of a temporal
relationship between MMR vaccine exposure and onset of symptoms. This
perception was well known to the lawyers long before we were even aware
of the role of the lawyers, or the proposed multi-party action, and
certainly long before our publication in The Lancet in 1998. This
publication alone added nothing further to the
issue of causation than that which was already well known to the
lawyers. The accusation is therefore specious. My own report to the
Legal Services Commission on this matter was served in 1999.

With respect to allegation 6, as has been indicated above, these were
two separate matters. One, a report of clinical investigations, and the
other, a study commissioned quite independently through Richard Barr.
The latter study was designed in order to explore the issue of possible
causation. These studies were concerned with viral detection in the
diseased intestinal tissues of ten potentially affected children. This
approach is entirely in line with other university-based studies that
have been similarly funded by the Legal Services Commission, and
reported in the BMJ.1

Funds received from the Legal Aid Board were paid into, and properly
administered hrough, a research account with the special trustees of
the Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust.

I have stated above that the origin of the list of children was
provided to me by Richard Barr. My involvement was limited to the
legitimate concern: was measles virus present in the intestinal tissue
of these children?

As outlined above, I can confirm that publication of the relevant
virological studies is still awaited. An interim submission of a report
of this study (rejected) contained an explicit acknowledgment of the
Legal Aid funding; this will be made available as necessary.

If and when the relevant virological studies are finally published, due
acknowledgement will be made of all sources of funding, including that
from the Legal Services Commission.

For none of these or any subsequent children has legal status
influenced the need for investigation or the interpretation of the
findings. Where it is known that children are in receipt of legal aid
certificates or where studies receive funding from the Legal Services
Commission, this will be included in any relevant publication.

The clinical and pathological findings in these children stand as
reported. They have now been confirmed independently by reputable
physicians and pathologists. On the basis of the molecular detection of
measles virus in the diseased intestine of these children this issue,
too, merits further study.

I regret the difficulties that this issue has caused my colleagues over
the last week and I am grateful to them for their advice and support. I
amenormously grateful for the timely manner in which Richard Horton has
dealt with this issue and for his clarification of the issues
surrounding perception and reality where conflict of interest may be
concerned.

My colleagues and I have acted at all times in the best medical
interests of these children and will continue to do so.

Dr Andrew Wakefield

STATEMENT FROM DR. ANDREW WAKEFIELD

February 2004

Received from Dr. Andrew Wakefield -
PERMISSION GIVEN & APPROVAL TO SEND AROUND THE PLANET BY DR. ANDREW
WAKEFIELD
OK to forward
Please read carefully
Sheri

Statement from Dr Andrew Wakefield

Serious allegations have been made against me and my colleagues in
relation
to the provision of clinical care for children with autism and bowel
disease, and the subsequent reporting of their disease.

These allegations have been made by journalist Brian Deer who has
expressed, in front of witnesses, his aim of destroying me.

All but one of the allegations, which are grossly defamatory, have been
shown to be baseless. One allegation remains against me personally.

That is, that I did not disclose to the Lancet that a minority of the
12
children in the 1998 Lancet report were also part of a quite separate
study
that was funded in part by the Legal Aid Board .

It is the Lancet's opinion but not mine that such a disclosure should
have
been made since it may have been perceived as a conflict of interest.
This
is despite that fact that the funding was provided for a separate
scientific study.

It needs to be made clear that the funds from the Legal Aid Board were
not
used for the 1998 Lancet study, and therefore I perceived that no
financial
conflict of interest existed.

The Lancet defines a conflict of interest as anything that might
embarrass
the author if it were to be revealed later. I am not embarrassed since
it
is a matter of fact that there was no conflict of interest. I am,
however,
dismayed at the way these facts have been misrepresented.

Whether or not the children's parents were pursuing, or intended to
pursue
litigation against the vaccine manufacturers, had no bearing on any
clinical decision in relation to these children, or their inclusion in
the
Lancet 1998 report.

It is a matter of fact that there was no conflict of interest at any
time
in relation to the medical referral of these children, their clinical
investigation and care, and the subsequent reporting of their disease
in
the Lancet.

As far as the 1998 Lancet report is concerned, it is a matter of fact
that
we found and reported inflammation in the intestines of these children.

The grant of £55,000 was paid not me but to the Royal Free Hospital
Special
Trustees for my research group to conduct studies on behalf of the
Legal
Aid Board. These research funds were properly administered through the
Royal Free Hospital Special Trustees.

The Legal Aid research grant to my group was used exclusively for the
purpose of conducting an examination of any possible connection between
the
component viruses of the MMR - particularly measles virus - and the
bowel
disease in these children. This is entirely in line with other studies
that
have been funded by the Legal Aid Board (latterly the Legal Services
Commission) and reported in the BMJ . If and when this work is finally
published, due acknowledgement will be made of all sources of funding.

It is unfortunate that, following full disclosure of these facts to the
editor of the Lancet, he stated that in retrospect he would not have
published facts pertinent to the parent's perceived association with
MMR
vaccine in the 1998 Lancet report. Such a position has major
implications
for the scientific investigation of injuries that might be caused by
drugs
or vaccines, such as Gulf War Syndrome and autism, where possible
victims
may be seeking medical help and also legal redress.

Health Secretary John Reid has called for a public enquiry. I welcome
this
since I have already called for a public enquiry that addresses the
whole
issue in relation vaccines and autism.

It has been proposed that my role in this matter should be investigated
by
the General Medical Council (GMC). I not only welcome this, I insist on
it
and I will be making contact with the GMC personally, in the
forthcoming
week.

This whole unpleasant episode has been conflated to provide those
opposed
to addressing genuine concerns about vaccine safety with an opportunity
of
attacking me - an attack that is out of all proportion to the facts of
the
matter.

I stand by everything that I have done in relation to the care,
investigation and reporting of the disease that I and my colleagues
have
discovered in these desperately ill children.

My family and I have suffered many setbacks as a direct consequence of
this
work. As a family, we consider that our problems are nothing compared
with
the suffering of these children and their families. For the sake of
these
children, this work will continue.

Lancet -Retraction of an interpretation - RETREACTION of an
INTERPRETATION
(MMR/Autism/1998 Study)

REMINDER.......contrary to how this has been portrayed in the media -
the ONLY THING retracted was the interpretation attributed to it but
others..............but because everyone is now blocked at every turn
when trying to find the truth, trying to do more studies, we may never
know until parents continue to demand truth in even larger numbers!
Meantime children suffer.
Sheri

"We wish to make it clear that in this paper no causal link was
established between MMR vaccine and autism as the data were
insufficient. However, the possibility of such a link was raised and
consequent events have had major implications for public health. In
view of this, we consider now is the appropriate time that we should
together formally retract the interpretation placed upon these findings
in the paper, according to precedent.4 "

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/la...40673604157152...

Retraction of an interpretation

The Lancet 2004; 363:750

DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(04)15715-2
Retraction of an interpretation

Simon H Murch email address a, Andrew Anthony b, David H Casson e,
Mohsin Malik f, Mark Berelowitz c, Amar P Dhillon b, Michael A
Thomson a, Alan Valentine d, Susan E Davies g and John A
Walker-Smith a

See Commentary
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/la...40673604157140...

This statement refers to the Early Report "Ileal-lymphoid-nodular
hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder
in children",1 published in The Lancet in 1998. It is made by 10 of
the 12 original authors who could be contacted. It should be noted that
this statement does not necessarily reflect the views of the other
co-authors.

The main thrust of this paper1 was the first description of an
unexpected intestinal lesion in the children reported. Further evidence
has been forthcoming in studies from the Royal Free Centre for
Paediatric Gastroenterology and other groups to support and extend
these findings.2,3 While much uncertainty remains about the nature of
these changes, we believe it important that such work continues, as
autistic children can potentially be helped by recognition and
treatment of gastrointestinal problems.

We wish to make it clear that in this paper no causal link was
established between MMR vaccine and autism as the data were
insufficient. However, the possibility of such a link was raised and
consequent events have had major implications for public health. In
view of this, we consider now is the appropriate time that we should
together formally retract the interpretation placed upon these findings
in the paper, according to precedent.4

We were unable to contact John Linnell.
References

1. Wakefield AJ, Murch SH, Anthony A, Linnell J, Casson DM, Malik M,
Berelowtiz M, Dhillon AP, Thomson MA, Harvey P, Valentine A, Davies SE,
Walker-Smith JA. Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific
colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet 1998;
351: 637-641. Abstract | Full Text | PDF (758 KB) | MEDLINE | CrossRef

2. Murch S. MMR and autism: the debate continues. Lancet 2004; 363:
568-569. Full Text | PDF (60 KB) | CrossRef

3. Horvath K, Perman JA. Autistic disorder and gastrointestinal
disease. Curr Opin Pediatr 2002; 14: 583-587. MEDLINE | CrossRef

4. Zhang L, Lopez P, He T, Yu W, Ho DD. Retraction of an
interpretation. Science 2004; 303: 467.
Back to top

Affiliations

a. Centre for Paediatric Gastronenterology, Royal Free and University
College Medical School, RoyalFree Campus, London NW3 2PF, UK
b. Department of Histopathology, Royal Free and University College
Medical School, Royal Free Campus, London NW3 2PF, UK
c. Department of Child Psychiatry, Royal Free and University College
Medical School, RoyalFree Campus, London NW3 2PF, UK
d. Department of Radiology, Royal Free and University College Medical
School, RoyalFree Campus, London NW3 2PF, UK
e. Institute of Child Health, Royal Liverpool Children's Hospital,
Liverpool
f. Department of Paediatrics, Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother
Hospital, Margate, Kent
g. Department of Histopathology and Cytology, Addenbrooke's Hospital,
Cambridge, UK

See Commentary
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/la...157140/fultext

"Sheri Nakken RN, MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath" ...

You are a naughty homeopath. You are going against the Society of
Homeopathy.

From:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...medid=12531857
....
"The Society of Homeopaths does not encourage its members to advise patients
against vaccination. "

Now answer this question... what is the homeopathic remedy for encephalitis,
which is one of the complications of measles? There is one, exactly ONE
document in 1986 addressing this:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum
...1: N Z Med J. 1986 Jul 9;99(805):513. Links

Myalgic encephalomyelitis and Immunovir.
a.. Blackmore RJ.
PMID: 3461389 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]



Just answer the question in your own words. Don't cut and paste random
abstracts. Just tell us which miasm you would treat for, and why you would
choose a particular remedy... explaining how "like versus like" assisted in
your decision.



And to continue... What would you have done to prevent the blindless and
paralysis of these young men if they were taken to you instead of the NHS?:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...061838,00.html ?

HCN wrote:
"Sheri Nakken RN, MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath" ...

You are a naughty homeopath. You are going against the Society of
Homeopathy.

From:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...medid=12531857
...
"The Society of Homeopaths does not encourage its members to advise patients
against vaccination. "

Sorry - I speak the truth and will post on that in a minute.
The Society of homeopaths does not speak for me. Just because someone
sets up a society and says they are homeopaths does not mean they
understand the concepts or follow the principles, or have a clue about
the dangers of vaccination.

They are misguided just like most of you allopathy lovers


Now answer this question... what is the homeopathic remedy for encephalitis,
which is one of the complications of measles? There is one, exactly ONE
document in 1986 addressing this:

Because you are not a homeopath and don't comprehend how homeopathy
works, that's why you ask this question.

You treat measles before it ever gets to this stage. You help the rash
to come out. All peds and peds nurses knew this years ago - the
children who did not have their rash come out or it was very slow
coming out, were the children who had deeper injury - encepahalitis,
etc. So many peds would do everything they could to help that rash
come out and that was usually hot baths. Very common knowledge in the
past. Parents knew that too. But of course not every pediatrician
knew that and hence measles encephalopathy

Same thing with vaccination - the rash is not able to come out after
injecting measles into the body, bypassing the first part of the immune
system - nose/mouth. Is it any wonder we have encephalitis after the
vaccine resulting in autism, add/adhd, etc? Same principle.

Homeopathic treatment can assist the measles rash to come out. Assist
the person's body to progress through measles rather than getting
stuck, and the disturbance going deeper to the deeper organs.

Its very simple.

Homeopathy works to prevent the progression to encephalitis. And if
the encephalitis were to develop before being seen by the homeopath,
then there are remedies that can be given, but it all depends on the
whole symptom picture. There is one remedy for this or one remedy for
that. It is individualized.

And any good homeopath would also suggest life saving emergency
allopathic treatment if that was necessary to save a life.

You all act like this is commonly how it was with measles. It was NOT.
Everyone had measles and most, except for the most unhealthy, went
through it without difficulty.




Just answer the question in your own words. Don't cut and paste random
abstracts. Just tell us which miasm you would treat for, and why you would
choose a particular remedy... explaining how "like versus like" assisted in
your decision.

You think you know so much ;-)
These are acute diseases and the acute miasm and you aren't treating a
miasm, you are assisting the symptoms to be more effective to dissipate
the disturbance that is called measles.

I'm sure you could care less, but the remedy that is given is the
substance that would cause a similar set of symptoms in a healthy
person - documented through studies called provings or from
documentation of poisonings that are in the literature.



And to continue... What would you have done to prevent the blindless and
paralysis of these young men if they were taken to you instead of the NHS?:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...061838,00.html ?

This article is very vague and obviously need more facts instead of
hype and scare tactics
Were these children vaccinated? I'm sure they were or they would have
said that?
What other vaccines had they gotten right before this?
Does measles encephalopathy occur after measles vaccine far in the
future. Probably. Most complications from measles are the same
complications after a vaccine.

What was their state of health? Nutritional status?

Many questions.

If these children would have been under homeopathic treatment from the
time they were born, or soon thereafter, I would have treated them long
before it had progressed to to this. They wouldn't have been
vaccinated and would have immune systems that were intact. But too
little information to give you details.

If they showed up on my door in this condition, I could treat the
symptom picture but also send them to casualty for other lifesaving
measures, besides homeopathy.

Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm

"HCN" wrote in message
. ..



So what is the homeopathic remedy for encephalitis caused by measles? You
know, like what caused blindness and paralysis in these young men:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...061838,00.html


I bet they were vaccinated. And vitamin C would have cured them, time you
allopaths started using it http://www.whale.to/a/levy_h.html

Sheri Nakken RN, MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath wrote:
HCN wrote:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...061838,00.html ?

This article is very vague and obviously need more facts instead of
hype and scare tactics

You did not read the entire article. Tsk! Tsk! Tsk! Instead, you are
weaseling and bull****ting, just like the anti-vac lair you are.

How do I know that you did not read the entire article? Simple,
toots...your questions were answered...

Were these children vaccinated? I'm sure they were or they would have
said that?

Page 3: "The boys could not be vaccinated with the MMR jab because of
the drugs they were taking."

What other vaccines had they gotten right before this?

Considering that they were immunocompromised, not many, if any.

Does measles encephalopathy occur after measles vaccine far in the
future. Probably.

Do prove that idle conjecture....

Most complications from measles are the same
complications after a vaccine.

Do prove that idle conjecture...


What was their state of health? Nutritional status?

The article clearly addresses the issue of their state of health. Only
someone who did not read the article would pose that question.

Many questions.

If these children would have been under homeopathic treatment from the
time they were born, or soon thereafter, I would have treated them long
before it had progressed to to this. They wouldn't have been
vaccinated and would have immune systems that were intact.

No, toots, these kids would either have been dead from kidney disease or
immunocompromised like they were.

But too
little information to give you details.

Not so.

If they showed up on my door in this condition, I could treat the
symptom picture but also send them to casualty for other lifesaving
measures, besides homeopathy.

What caused this problem is that they caught measles from someone who
was not immunized, thus defeating herd immunity.

"This would not have been of too much concern provided the “herd
immunity” was high — in other words as long as most other children were
vaccinated. That would stop diseases getting a foothold in the first
place, keeping the risk of infection minimal."

"But as vaccination rates began to slip after the publication of
Wakefield’s research and the subsequent flurry of sensational headlines,
the risk to both boys increased. In Southwark, the borough where Joe
lives, the take-up rates of MMR dropped to among the lowest in Britain."

"Joe, who was discharged from hospital at the end of August, is unlikely
to regain the full use of his left leg and has partial paralysis of his
tongue and throat.

Matthew, who was not discharged from hospital until December 21, is more
severely disabled. His optic nerves were permanently scarred by the
virus and he is now registered blind.

He is also virtually confined to a wheelchair and has had to drop out of
his mainstream school. Karen said: “Before he had measles, he could go
out, he could play football, he could do what he wanted."

Lay this right on the doorstep of Andy Wakefield and the vaccination
liars, like you.

JOHN wrote:
"HCN" wrote in message
. ..

So what is the homeopathic remedy for encephalitis caused by measles? You
know, like what caused blindness and paralysis in these young men:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...061838,00.html


I bet they were vaccinated.

You lose. Send your check to Steve Barrett as extra punishment for being
stupid.

In message . com, wrote:

It is ok to have "scientific" studies on homeopathy with a mindset to
prove homeopathy false as in the Lancet latest effort?

I would hope so -- that's how all sound research goes.
You try to disprove a theory and sometimes, no matter how
hard you try, you fail. Have a look in the journals of
any quantitative science (not just physics; some of the
quantitative sociology research, for instance, is quite
sound too.)

The "cold fusion" affair in the early 90s is a pretty good
example.

--
begin signature.exe
A:*Because*it*messes*up*the*order*in*which*people* normally*read*text.
Q:*Why*is*top-posting*such*a*bad*thing?
A:*Top-posting.
Q:*What*is*the*most*annoying*thing*on*usenet?