Full Retraction—Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children

The Lancet has announced that following the recent GMC Fitness to
Practice Panel judgment it has fully retracted the paper :-

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

"...the claims in the original paper that children were "consecutively
referred" and that investigations were "approved" by the local ethics
committee have been proven to be false. Therefore we fully retract
this paper from the published record."

http://www.thelancet.com/

"Peter Parry" wrote in message
...
The Lancet has announced that following the recent GMC Fitness to
Practice Panel judgment it has fully retracted the paper :-

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

"...the claims in the original paper that children were "consecutively
referred" and that investigations were "approved" by the local ethics
committee have been proven to be false. Therefore we fully retract
this paper from the published record."

http://www.thelancet.com/

more lies

http://cryshame.co.uk/
GMC FINDING ON FACT - 28 JAN 2010
DR WAKEFIELD AND PROFESSORS MURCH AND WALKER-SMITH
A STATEMENT FROM PARENTS OF AUTISTIC CHILDREN TREATED BY THE THREE DOCTORS
The GMC was WRONG to find the doctors guilty on the findings of fact when no
parent or patient was a complainant in this fitness to practice hearing. The
Panel has chosen the facts it wants, and rejected those it doesn't want, to
find the doctors guilty on fact - facts that go back 16 years.

The evidence

Parents heard the doctors put up a robust defence. Documents and evidence
produced by the doctors showed

the 1995 ethics committee letter granting approval for the Lancet research
was produced
the research followed the terms of the approval given
the Lancet editor knew that Wakefield was doing a separate legal aided study
all the children were on the autistic spectrum
the children were recruited as described in the Lancet paper
the use of invasive interventions - colonoscopies, etc - was clinically
justified
no child was harmed; no parent refused consent; no parent complained

However, the GMC chose to ignore the 1995 ethical approval and substitute a
1996 approval, allowing them to reach the findings they did - a blatant
disregard for justice. They also insisted that 'pervasive developmental
disorder' was not the same as autism spectrum disorders which of course it
is; and that only children who had had the measles or measles/rubella
vaccine should have been admitted onto the project, not those who had had
the MMR. The hearing moved the goalposts so that the doctors had no chance
of overturning the serious charges against them.

The injustice
This is the same GMC that missed Harold Shipman, the Bristol babies and
Alder Hey. We believe it has made another blunder.

This scandalous show trial was used to mask real concerns parents have about
why their children regressed into autism following MMR. The GMC and
government engaged in a callous and diversionary tactic to end speculation
about MMR safety and ensure scientific research into autism and bowel
disease, and the role of vaccines, ended.

Parents' requests that this research should continue fell on deaf ears. At
the same time the numbers of autistic children has risen thirty-fold since
the MMR was introduced in 1988 amidst the parents' constant pleas for
research into why their children were damaged. What role vaccines play in
our children's deaths (in some cases), seizures, regressive autism, bowel
disease, daily pain and disability must be investigated.

The effects of the GMC hearing are to warn off doctors from expressing
similar concerns about one size fits all vaccination policy and to ensure
that scientists won't investigate vaccine safety. The effect is to ensure
government contracts with the large drug-makers are safeguarded and that
clauses compelling government to make good their loss of earnings should MMR
sales drastically fall are not activated. The commercial interests of the
drug-makers take priority over research into why autism has increased
dramatically.

The plan has been to "discredit" the doctors and ensure they are left
undefended in the media. The press have been compelled to refer to their
"discredited" work. But scientists claiming this have never fully replicated
their work; the doctors' research remains original and significant.

Independent research into why autism has increased must be funded, without
powerful drug makers influencing the research agenda to keep share prices
high and protect their products.


Please voice your support for the doctors with the CryShame Facebook Group.

On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 18:27:39 -0000, "john" wrote:

http://cryshame.co.uk/

Would this be the site set up by Wakefields now employee and head of
spin, one Stott?

the 1995 ethics committee letter granting approval for the Lancet research
was produced the research followed the terms of the approval given

You should read what that was.

However, the GMC chose to ignore the 1995 ethical approval

Probably because, as they explained in their findings, it wasn't what
was claimed by Wakefield.

The GMC and
government engaged in a callous and diversionary tactic to end speculation
about MMR safety and ensure scientific research into autism and bowel
disease, and the role of vaccines, ended.

No, they acted to correct a fraud.

The effects of the GMC hearing are to warn off doctors from expressing
similar concerns

Do remember that the MMR claims in the UK were ended when the
_claimants_ barristers, having seen the report by Bustin disproving
Wakefields measles virus claims, , went to Court to state they had no
realistic prospect of proving any link between MMR and ASD.

That is the claimants lawyers, the ones acting for the parents, not
those acting for the defendants.

ensure that scientists won't investigate vaccine safety.

On the contrary, the verdict threatens only the dishonest, not those
carrying out genuine research.

The plan has been to "discredit" the doctors

They discredited themselves, although in the case of Wakefield made
himself wealthy at the same time.

The press have been compelled to refer to their
"discredited" work. But scientists claiming this have never fully replicated
their work; the doctors' research remains original and significant.

It hasn't been replicated because it was based on laboratory error.
The research was never significant nor original, now it is shown quite
clearly to be worthless.

Please voice your support for the doctors with the CryShame

Wakefield self promotion exercise.

On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 18:27:39 -0000, "john" wrote:


the 1995 ethics committee letter granting approval for the Lancet research
was produced

It was not approval for the Lancet research.

"Re The taking of two extra mucosal biopsies for research purposes
during the course of colonoscopy in children. I am pleased to be able
to inform you that your recent submission to the Ethical Practices
Sub-Committee has now received approval by Chairman’s Action.
This approval will be formally documented at the next meeting of the
full committee and meanwhile you are free to carry out the above
procedure at the Royal Free.
Please note the code number 162-95 that the submission has been given
and quote this in all correspondence. "

the research followed the terms of the approval given

The approval was for the taking of biopsies during routine surgery or
investigation which was going to take place anyway. It did not
authorise colonoscopies or any other procedure.

the Lancet editor knew that Wakefield was doing a separate legal aided study
all the children were on the autistic spectrum
the children were recruited as described in the Lancet paper

No they were not, they were described as a "case series", in other
words routine referrals to the gastroenterology department. In fact
the children were recruited to the trial.

As the findings state (P45 onwards) :-

"In a letter to the Lancet volume 351 dated 2 May 1998, in
response to the suggestion of previous correspondents that there was
biased selection of patients in the Lancet article, you stated that
the children had all been referred through the normal channels (e.g.
from general practitioner, child psychiatrist or community
paediatrician) on the merits of their symptoms,

Admitted and found proved

b. In the circumstances set out in paragraphs 32.a., 34.a. and 34.b.
this statement was,

i. dishonest, - Found proved.
ii. irresponsible, - Found proved
iii. contrary to your duty to ensure that the information
provided by you was accurate; - Found proved "

the use of invasive interventions - colonoscopies, etc - was clinically
justified

No it was not. The colonoscopies were for research only, they were
not part of the childrens treatment..

no parent refused consent; no parent complained

As they were involved in litigation this is hardly surprising.

However, the GMC chose to ignore the 1995 ethical approval and substitute a
1996 approval, allowing them to reach the findings they did - a blatant
disregard for justice.

They did not ignore 162-95 but rather interpreted its boundaries as
they were written.

"The Panel has heard that ethical approval had been sought and granted
for other trials and it has been specifically suggested that Project
172-96 was never undertaken and that in fact, the Lancet 12 children’s
investigations were clinically indicated and the research parts of
those clinically justified investigations were covered by Project
162-95. In the light of all the available evidence, the Panel rejected
this proposition. "
(P3).

and that only children who had had the measles or measles/rubella
vaccine should have been admitted onto the project, not those who had had
the MMR.

That is because that is what the proposal submitted for approval
(172-96) specifically said in its objective. "We will test the
hypothesis that in genetically susceptible children measles
vaccination is associated with ..."
http://briandeer.com/mmr/royal-free-11.htm
If they had wanted to investigate MMR they should have said so.

The hearing moved the goalposts so that the doctors had no chance
of overturning the serious charges against them.

No goalpost was moved or required moving.

Parents' requests that this research should continue fell on deaf ears.

It didn't fall on "deaf" ears. In court the parents own lawyers,
once they had read Bustins report on Unigenetics (whose findings were
crucial to Wakefields conclusions) said they could not prove their
case :-

"The actions proceeded and expert evidence was exchanged. At this
stage, three leading counsel for the claimants in the group action
produced a lengthy advice. They advised that, as the evidence stood,
there was no reasonable prospect of establishing that the MMR vaccine
could cause ASD,"

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/155.html

Of course the parents involved wanted the legal gravy train to keep
rolling and yet more millions of £ to be spent but the reality was
that despite vast expenditure nothing had been discovered and there
was no indication anything would be.

Given that the solicitors were employing such world class "experts" as
Byers, Krigsman, Geier, Halvorsen, Stott, Bradstreet and Shattock
(diploma in agricultural and veterinary pharmacy) as well as Wakefield
it is probably unremarkable that they were not getting anywhere.

The Lancet Retraction Changes Nothing

by David Kirby

Feb 2, 2010

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-..._b_446749.html

Dr. Andrew Wakefield is one of the most vilified medical practitioners of
recent times, and now he carries the extremely rare dishonor of a retraction
in The Lancet, on the paper he coauthored in 1998 suggesting a potential
link between autism, bowel disease and Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) vaccine.

I believe that the public lynching and shaming of Dr. Wakefield is
unwarranted and overwrought, and that history will ultimately judge who was
right and who was wrong about proposing a possible association between
vaccination and regressive autistic spectrum disorder (ASD).

Wakefield's critics can condemn, retract, decry and de-license all they
want, but that does nothing to stop or alter the march of science, which has
come a long way over the past 12 years, and especially in the last year or
two. The evidence that autism is increasing at alarming rates, and that some
thing (or things) in our environment is wreaking havoc on a vulnerable
one-percent of all US children is now so irrefutable that, finally, the
federal government is climbing aboard the environmental research bandwagon -
way late, but better than never.

This long-overdue paradigm shift will leave many in the scientific community
with some proverbial but nonetheless uncomfortable egg on their increasingly
irrelevant faces: Those who have protested with shrill certainty that autism
is almost purely genetic, and not environmental in nature, and therefore not
really increasing at all, will hopefully recede from the debate.

And that begs a nagging question: If those people were dead wrong about
environmental factors in autism, could they also be mistaken in their
equally heated denials about a possible vaccine-autism link? More bluntly,
why should we heed them any longer?

We need to examine a host of environmental factors (air, water, food,
medicine, household products and social factors) and how they might interact
with vulnerable genes to create the varying collection of symptoms we call
"autism." But these triggers almost have to be found in every town of every
county of every state in the land - from Maine to Maui.

Are vaccines the only contributing factors to autism? Of course not. Other
pharmaceutical products like thalidomide and valporic acid, as well as live
mumps virus, have been associated with increased autism risk in prenatal
exposures, so we already know that a variety of drugs and bugs can likely
make a child autistic.

But, there are now at least six published legal or scientific cases of
children regressing into ASD following vaccination - and many more will be
revealed in due time.

There was the case of Hannah Poling, in federal vaccine court, in which the
government conceded that Hannah's autism was caused by vaccine-induced fever
and overstimulation of the immune system that aggravated an asymptomatic and
previously undetected dysfunction of her mitochondria. Hannah received nine
vaccines in one day, including MMR.

Then there was the Bailey Banks case, in which the court ruled that
Petitioners had proven that MMR had directly caused a brain inflammation
illness called "acute disseminated encephalomyelitis" (ADEM) which, in turn,
had caused PDD-NOS, an autism spectrum disorder, in Bailey.

And last September, a chart review of children with autism and mitochondrial
disease, published in the Journal of Child Neurology, looked at 28 children
with ASD and mitochondrial disease and found that 17 of them (60.7%) had
gone through autistic regression, and 12 of the regressive cases had
followed a fever. Among the 12 children who regressed after fever, a third
(4) had fever associated with vaccination, just like Hannah Poling.

The authors reported that "recommended vaccination schedules are appropriate
in mitochondrial disease," although "fever management appears important for
decreasing regression risk."

That conclusion, however, is not supported by some of the world's leading
experts on mitochondrial disease, including Dr. Douglas Wallace, a professor
of pediatrics and biological chemistry at UC Irvine, and director of its
Center for Molecular & Mitochondrial Medicine and Genetics. "We have always
advocated spreading the immunizations out as much as possible because every
time you vaccinate, you are creating a challenge for the system" in people
with mito disorders, Dr. Wallace, who was recently named to the National
Academies of Science, testified at a federal vaccine safety meeting.

The possibility that vaccines and mitochondrial disease might be related to
autism was also supported in another chart review published in PLoS Online.
The authors wrote that mitochondrial autism is not at all rare, and said
that, "there might be no difference between the inflammatory or catabolic
stress of vaccinations and that of common childhood diseases, which are
known precipitants of mitochondrial regression."

In fact, they added, "Large population-based studies will be needed to
identify a possible relationship of vaccination with autistic regression in
persons with mitochondrial cytopathies."

Another fact that gets little attention in this never-ending debate is that
more than 1,300 cases of vaccine injuries have been paid out in vaccine
court, in which the court ruled that childhood immunizations caused
encephalopathy (brain disease), encephalitis (brain swelling) and/or seizure
disorders. Encephalopathy/encephalitis is found in most if not all ASD
cases, and seizure disorders in about a third of them.

If we know that vaccines can cause these injuries, is it not reasonable to
ask if they can cause similar injuries that lead to autism? (Stay tuned as
those 1,300 cases come under closer scrutiny).

Fortunately, the federal government seems to be getting serious about
identifying ALL potnetial environmental factors that could contribute to
autism, including a few studies that take in vaccines and the
mercury-containing preservative thimerosal. And President Obama's brand-new
budget includes increased spending for autism research at NIH, including
money to help identify environmental factors that contribute to ASD.

Meanwhile, the National Vaccine Advisory Committee has unanimously endorsed
a CDC proposal to study autism as a possible "clinical outcome" of
vaccination, and has recommended several more studies pertaining to vaccines
and autism, including a feasability study on analyzing vaccinated vs.
unvaccinated populations.

And over at the government's leading autism research panel, the Inter-Agency
Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC), the Chairman, National Institute of
Mental Health Director Dr. Thomas Insel, recently told me that that better
diagnosis and reporting could not "explain away this huge increase" in ASD
cases.

"There is no question that there has got to be an environmental component
here," Insel said.
I asked him if the IACC would ever support direct research into vaccines and
autism, now that CDC has rasied the estimated ASD rate from 1-in-150 to
1-in-110, in just two years. "I think what you are going to see with this
update is that there is a recognition that we need to look at subgroups who
might be particularly responsive to environmental factors," he answered.

So what might those factors include? Well, it turns out that the IACC has
unanimously recommend research to determine if certain sub-populations are
more susceptible to environmental exposures such as "immune challenges
related to naturally occurring infections, vaccines or underlying immune
problems."

Nobody seriously thinks that the retraction of The Lancet article, and the
international flogging of Dr. Andrew Wakefield, will do anything to make
this debate go away. And they are right.

David Kirby's new book, "Animal Factory - The Looming Threat of Industrial
Pork, Dairy and Poultry Farms to Humans and the Environment," will be
released on March 2, 2010 by St. Martin's Press. It is currently available
for pre-order at several online outlets, including here.

The Lancet was named after the device that spread infections around the
world for over 100 years, killing over a million
http://www.whale.to/v/lancet.html

When all this hand waving is finished, the reason he lost credibility
and the co-authors withdrew their names and the journal retracted it is
quite simple.

He was in the pay of a lawyer in the business of sueing on the basis of
what the paper was to come to conclude. He did not disclose this as is
now accepted ethics in journal publishing.

This disorder is increasing suggesting an environmental link. With this
study withdrawn and several others showing no such link with vaccines we
need to look elsewhere.

The social movement to make the vaccinee link came from this paper. It
is now gone and the social momentum should support efforts to now find
the real link. The motivation to do the several other studies came from
this paper. It is proper that research turn to other possible links in
light of the scientific findings.

wrote:

This disorder is increasing suggesting an environmental link.

No, it doesn't. If it were an environmental risk,
it would remain constant. If it were due to increasing
awareness (for example, due to media coverage) and resulting
increasing diagnosis rates, then it would be increasing.

You don't seem to be able to interpret the facts reliably.

"john" wrote in message
...
The Lancet Retraction Changes Nothing

by David Kirby

Feb 2, 2010

What's the matter? Cat got your tongue? Can't think for yourself?

Or are you just an oversized coward hiding behind the words of others.

Yeah, you're a coward.