“Wakefield” New Angle / Old Story

by Jim West

Andrew Wakefield is a pro-vaxer. I am an anti-vaxer. I had read about his famous retracted study, but had never directly read the study.

It seems obvious that his formidable critic, Brian Deer, is a slime-ball.

Now I’m reading his study, as published in The Lancet, 1998.

“A. J. Wakefield” is first on the list of authors, as the “senior scientific investigator”.

The study reviews 12 children with developmental and intestinal disorders. It associates these symptoms with “environmental triggers”, of which, the attenuated viruses of the MMR vaccine are the main focus. [Ref]

Toxicology

The word “antibiotic” is mentioned only once in the entire study.

[Subject four] developed recurrent antibiotic-resistant [middle ear infections] and the first behavioural symptoms…
This is revealing.

Antibiotics are a common treatment for children. The “behavioral symptoms” could be the result of the overuse of antibiotics. Antibiotic-resistance could be a bad explanation for the failure of antibiotics for a disease which is actually not infectious, but rather toxicological. Antibiotics would just compound toxic damage.

Doreen Granpeesheh, PhD, describes two apparent triggers for autism. A) “Very high use of antibiotics”, and B) “Families reporting” vaccines prior to autism.

Granpeesheh is the founder of The Center for Autism and Related Disorders. Her statement is found in Vaxxed, Wakefield’s movie.

Ironically, Vaxxed continues to be a source for my evidence.

Polly Tommey is one of the movie’s producers. She reported that her son was vaccinated prior to her son’s autism, however, if you listen carefully to her interview in Vaxxed, the vaccine symptoms merely triggered her — to bring her son back to the doctor for a regimen of antibiotics.

I attempted to speak with Polly at the NYC movie premiere, but she blew me off, saying, “I’m not smart.” I ignored that nonsense, but she repeated, “I’m not smart. Talk to my husband.” Mr. Tommey was also unapproachable in the limelight.

Clearly, antibiotics should have been a major concern in Wakefield’s study of “environmental triggers”.

The study ignores neomycin, a known risk for anaphylactic reactions. This is MMR’s antibiotic preservative.

The study mixes the terms, “environmental” and “virus”, thereby eliminating the dichotomy (environment vs germ) as a tool for toxicological considerations.

It suggests MMR is an “environmental trigger”, however, a trigger must trigger something, such as a pre-existing vulnerability. The study advocates the most highly funded industrial view, “genetic predisposition”.

Genetic predisposition is based on twin studies. This is an admittedly weak type of study, which depends on The Equal Environment Assumption, an impossible assumption for twins in a womb exposed to, for example, hazardous ultrasound examinations.

The study ignores fetal ultrasound, which can establish vulnerability to antibiotics. Qian (1996) finds ultrasound “potentiating” subsequent antibiotics by 100-fold. [Ref]

Wakefield is bent on avoiding toxicology. This malpractice is a primary raison d’etre for Medicine.

Selection Criteria

The selection criteria is missing. How were the 12 children selected?

The term, “consecutively referred”, implies an explanation, but there is none.

12 children, consecutively referred to the department of paediatric gastroenterology with a history of [developmental delay and GI tract disease], were investigated.
Selection criteria can determine the outcome of the study.

Were the 12 subjects picked out of the clear blue sky?  For what specific purpose were they referred? Who requested the children, and how, what context, what letter, what language? Who referred the subjects to the department? What filters were run for any removal of inappropriate subjects?

Brian Deer, the detestable critic, makes more sense now:

Brian Deer’s Summary [Ref]

How the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed:– The Lancet paper was a case series of 12 child patients; it reported a proposed “new syndrome” of enterocolitis and regressive autism and associated this with MMR as an “apparent precipitating event.” But in fact:– Three of nine children reported with regressive autism did not have autism diagnosed at all. Only one child clearly had regressive autism– Despite the paper claiming that all 12 children were “previously normal,” five had documented pre-existing developmental concerns– Some children were reported to have experienced first behavioural symptoms within days of MMR, but the records documented these as starting some months after vaccination– In nine cases, unremarkable colonic histopathology results—noting no or minimal fluctuations in inflammatory cell populations—were changed after a medical school “research review” to “non-specific colitis”– The parents of eight children were reported as blaming MMR, but 11 families made this allegation at the hospital. The exclusion of three allegations—all giving times to onset of problems in months—helped to create the appearance of a 14 day temporal link– Patients were recruited through anti-MMR campaigners, and the study was commissioned and funded for planned litigation

Wakefield’s Defense

Generally, Wakefield defends himself during his 2010 interview with Alan Golding by highlighting his moral sense, his desire to help the families of autistic children. [Ref]

Deer found Wakefield’s financial conflicts. [Ref]
According to the figures, released under the Freedom of Information Act, Wakefield was paid £435,643 in fees, plus £3,910 expenses.Wakefield’s work for the lawyers began two years before he published his now notorious report in The Lancet medical journal in February 1998, proposing a link between the vaccine and autism.This was not listed in the study.

Wakefield defends, saying the money was actually for a subsequent study (but from the same interested parties). He says he didn’t read the fine print as he filled out the conflicts of interest area for the publication application. He says that he personally did not find his finances embarrassing and that was good enough to stay silent. [Ref]

Richard Horton, senior editor of The Lancet, stated that if the peer-reviewers were aware of this conflict, the study would never have been published.

Political Speculation

Wakefield uses humility to steer autism research towards virology…

We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described. Virological studies are underway that may help to resolve this issue.
…thereby avoiding toxicology.

Virology, as a disease paradigm, does not discount pollution factors and is therefore moot. [Ref]

Wakefield is a medical soldier. He claims to have paused to help families damaged from friendly fire. His army prosecutes him for misrepresenting the friendly fire. A public argument ensues, unrelated to the army’s actual intent.

He might have gotten a pass if he were not critiquing a vaccine, however, the premier medical publication, The Lancet, published his study with insufficient challenge. The flawed study dangled in The Lancet, awaiting its use as a polarizing device.

How is it possible that an obviously flawed study with anti-vax implications survived peer review?

a) No selection criteria

b) No conflicts of interest listed

c) No toxicology

d) Virology unsupported

Item a is not forgivable.

Item b is forgivable because reviewers did not know of the conflict of interest.

Item c and d are forgivable because ‘that’s medical politics’.

Brian Deer, The Lancet, UK General Medical Council (prosecuting Wakefield), and the media — care naught about items c or d, because, as stated, avoiding toxicology is synonymous with industrial medicine.

Politically, the study and Wakefield’s attention-grabbing scandal are valuable because of c and d.

Shills

Wakefield formally joined forces at the behest of Mark Blaxill, a well-paid omnipresent leader of the autism/vax movement who has been described as a shill and former pharma consultant by investigator Jake Crosby. [Ref]

Wakefield, the pro-vaxer, is the martyr for cheering anti-vaxers. He advocates that the 3-in-1 MMR injection be applied as three separate injections. Wakefield wants your child to have three toxic vaccinations instead of one.

Note that the autism histories of Cuba and Japan exculpate the MMR and indict ultrasound. [Ref]

Co-Authors

As senior scientific investigator, Wakefield managed his co-authors who performed specific tasks.

The co-authors survived the legal procedures that netted Wakefield. They did not come to his defense. Wakefield forgives them, as that is “human nature”.

Wakefield says he won’t debate Deer, because Deer is beneath him.

Vaxxed shows Wakefield with a few colleagues at the famous 1998 press conference at the Royal Free Hospital. One is grim and the other covering his face, as Wakefield presents his study. Was that only because of pharma politics?

The Three Monkeys, with one talking:

This is the silver bullet for the extremely hazardous practice of ultrasound, a must read for anyone who cares about children’s health or the health of society.

Prior to this publication, the Chinese Human Studies, with few exceptions, had not been acknowledged within the Western realm.

These are modern clinical studies, with analytic technology generally beyond the tradition of Western ultrasound science. These studies were conducted during a virtual explosion of ultrasound research in China, 1988‑2011. They directly investigate damage to virtually all aspects and stages of the human fetus. They support and reference Western animal and cell studies that had been neutralized, ignored, or denied funding for continuation.

This book presents a Bibliography of Chinese Human Studies, with commentary, analysis, tables, and graphs by Jim West. This is arcana, buried, disconnected documentation.

This bibliography includes over 50 studies of in utero fetal exposure, conducted in the modern era. These provide empirical evidence of ultrasound hazards to humans. The analytic techniques are sophisticated, far exceeding Western studies.

Presently, both the mainstream and the critics believe there are few modern ultrasound studies.

Decades ago, Western scientists had already found ultrasound hazards by way of animal studies, however, they claimed they were unable to confirm these with human studies, and unable to conduct human studies due to abortion and human rights ethics. Human studies were virtually banned in the Western realm. The medical industry was not reporting any human damage, and thus, it was assumed that humans were resistant to ultrasound toxicity.

These studies were previously unknown to the Western realm and little known even in the East. These represent a limited period of new, optimistic research, circa 1988 to 2011. These were pushed aside by a tremendous continual flood of studies that promote ultrasound medical and therapeutic innovations.

Because of cultural and language gaps, and an apparent lack of interest by industry to promote these studies, these studies have sat dormant, not discussed outside of China.

The studies reside in Chinese online databases in Chinese language. Some of these were roughly and partially translated by machine software. Many are not available through search engines, except directly through the Chinese databases.

Their conclusions are stunning, with recommendations that ultrasound sessions should be completely avoided “for a quality pregnancy”. Only if there are specific medical indications should ultrasound be recommended, and at minimum intensity settings. A session should last no more than 3 minutes, 5 minutes at most. Multiple sessions should be avoided.

These guidelines reflect and confirm the U.S. National Institute of Health “Consensus Statement”, published in 1984.

Note: This e-book can be read with a computer, SmartPhone, or Kindle reader. The e-book has an advantage in that the numerous references can be accessed via hyperlinks.

A paperback version in color is available at https://www.createspace.com/5522285 and soon to be available on Amazon

A paperback version is available in black and white and color formats.