This is a dialogue; an exchange of ideas, information, and opinion between several individuals with a wide variety of training, experience, and background. We are, predictably, not going to agree at all times.

It is hard to have an honest dialogue when one side ignores most of the other side’s questions, cherry-picks data and information to paint a distorted picture, attacks others’ character and motives rather than the evidence (except in cases where character and motive are the subject of the discussion), ignores contradictory facts despite them being routinely brought to his or her attention, seems to have a lot of time to posts several page long screeds but no time to answer simple questions, throws out large numbers of on-sequiturs and irrelevant facts, accuses people of implying things or holding positions they never did, gets personally offended when people point out flaws in their reasoning, and otherwise doesn’t behave in the manner expected from an honest dialogue. We have been pointing this out to you all along but have made no effort whatsoever to improve your behavior, on the contrary you have been doing this more and more as the discussion has progressed.

I have reached the same conclusion Chris apparently has, we have given you more than enough chances. I, like Chris apparently, have given up hope that you would realize your mistakes and make an effort to correct them. I am only sticking around to continue to point out the flaws in your reasoning. I will be pleasantly surprised if you do, but I have been in enough discussions of the last 10 years with people like you that I do not have any real hope at this point. If you had any intention of correcting your behavior you would have done so a long time ago.

And… how am I “dishonest? That is a serious charge. Please point out where -any- of the factual information I have posted is in error?

Surely you know there are ways to be dishonest without outright lying. There is, for instance, “lie by omission”, where someone leaves out critical information in order to paint a distorted picture of the facts. It is why courts require people to tell “the whole truth”, and why rules of science ethics require scientists to reveal information even if it may contradict their conclusions. It has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions that you are doing this, but you continue to do it with no hint of changing. As I said, it has become nearly impossible for me to conclude you are not being intentionally misleading, which is dishonest.

Re. Prof Simon Murch, how could he be “unaware the procedures (i.e., colonoscopies) were not clinically indicated”??? Simon Murch (MB BS PhD MRCP MRCS LRCP) is a pediatric gastroenterologist!

Maybe he was told they were when they really weren’t, or maybe he just assumed that his lab was following standard rules of medical ethics (few researchers just assume their colleagues are committing serious breaches of the rules of scientific conduct, especially since such breaches are very rare).

Wow. “End of discussion.” Why such an emotional response? This is a dialogue; an exchange of ideas, information, and opinion between several individuals with a wide variety of training, experience, and background. We are, predictably, not going to agree at all times.

And… how am I “dishonest? That is a serious charge. Please point out where -any- of the factual information I have posted is in error?

I was quoting the CDC pink book.

Re. Prof Simon Murch, how could he be “unaware the procedures (i.e., colonoscopies) were not clinically indicated”??? Simon Murch (MB BS PhD MRCP MRCS LRCP) is a pediatric gastroenterologist!

You are a formidable counter point. Unfortunately, my wife informs me that I am in the doghouse (seriously) for being on this site so much the last three days. But I will be back tomorrow, BC, to respond to your last post #96.

Did you notice that the reason Murch was not sanctioned was because he was unaware the procedures were not clinically indicated. It says so right in the snippet I cut and pasted from the GMC ruling, right up there in the comments. With a link and everything.

You are making lots of excuses for Wakefield.

Plus anyone who says “Measles is generally a well-tolerated infectious illness of childhood” and only uses the last 15 years of measles mortality (when twenty years ago over 120 Americans were killed by measles) is being dishonest by way of cherry picking data. Measles causes serious complications in about one out of a thousand cases (deafness, blindness, permanent brain damage and even death).

There is no way to have a dialogue with someone who is dishonest. End of discussion.

“As for your accusations of posts being blocked, there is a spam filter that sometimes holds up posts. They eventually come through when Phil gets around to it.”

Thank you for explaining that.

**1) Do you think that it is ethical to perform lumbar punctures on a child where it is not clinically indicated? Yes or No?

>>> No. It is -not- ethical to perform lumbar punctures on a child where it is not clinically indicated.

However, the team of experienced clinical doctors at the Royal Free University Hospital in London said the diagnostic procedures -were- medically indicated in order to diagnose the children in order to effectively treat them. In addition, Andrew Wakefield was -not- a member of the clinical staff. He could -not- order these diagnostic procedures.

**2) Do you think it is ethical to perform a colonoscopy on a child if it is not clinically indicated? Yes or No?

>>> No. It is -not- ethical to perform a colonoscopy on a child where it is not clinically indicated.

However, the team of -highly- experienced clinical pediatric gastroenterologists at the Royal Free University Hospital -including one of the most experienced and preeminent pediatric gastroenterologist in the world, Dr John Walker Smith (MB BS MD FRCP FRACP FRCPCH)- said the colonoscopies –were– medically indicated in order to diagnose the children in order to effectively treat them. Again, Andrew Wakefield was -not- a member of the clinical staff. He could -not- order these diagnostic procedures.

Now, I suspect you vigorously disagree, but are you a medical doctor or a gastroenterologist? Drs. John Walker-Smith and Simon Murch are highly experienced clinical pediatric gastroenterologists and pediatricians. I understand of course that the GMC tribunal obviously disagreed with Walker-Smith and Murch, but the 5-member GMC tribunal was comprised of two lay members (barristers I suspect), and a consultant psychiatrist, a consultant physician (retired), and a general practitioner:
Dr S Kumar, Chairman (Medical)
Mrs S Dean (Lay)
Ms W Golding (Lay)
Dr P Moodley (Medical)
Dr S Webster (Medical)

None of the three doctors on the GMC tribunal panel were gastroenterologists (or pathologists or histopathologists). Personally, and call me crazy, I think Prof Walker-Smith and Prof Murch have (much) more training and knowledge and expertise on this specific question and in this area of medicine than the three non-gastroenterologists on the GMC panel.

**3) Do you think that all of the children in the study should have had the same vaccine to reduce the number of variables? Yes or No?

>>> Yes. I agree rather strongly with you here. You make some excellent points in the second half of your post at # 71. Comparing the GI outcomes in children who have been administered two different MMR vaccines (MMR-I-Urabe vs. MMR-II-Jeryl Lynn) could be (very) problematic. Good point. I would like to discuss this with you more later.

**4) Do you think that a vaccine schedule can be decided with the results of series of twelve case studies? Yes or No?

>>> No. Of course not. But, -no one- was deciding the “vaccine schedule on the results of [a] series of twelve case studies.” And the paper by the team of Wakefield, Walker-Smith, and Murch was absolutely not a “study.” It was an early “case report.” There is a world of difference. And it was not a “series of twelve case studies.” Do you understand this?

I discussed this in my post #45 at part 14:

“The 1998 Lancet paper by Wakefield/Walker-Smith/Murch was not a “study” as the major news outlets reported over & over (and falsely). It was, in fact, an “early case series report.” It surprises me how many in the media and in the blogosphere who should know better (and who claim to possess significant training in science and biology) don’t understand what a “case report” is. The Wakefield/Walker-Smith/Murch case series report published in by the Lancet in 1998 is very similar to the original, famous case series report authored by Leo Kanner and published in 1944. Indeed, Leo Kanner’s famous 1944 paper on autism, which sparked the entire field of autism research, was based on the observations of 11 children.”

Prominent UK SBM advocate Ben Goldacre MD, who is a vigorous pro-vaccination advocate, said in 2005 that he thought “the [Wakefield et al] paper always was and still remains a perfectly good small case series report.”

**5) Do you think that Wakefield’s patent on a pill made from goat’s milk as both a vaccine for measles and a treatment for the gut issues “caused” by the MMR vaccine is a “conflict of interest”? Yes or No?

>>>No. It was not a vaccine. It was a treatment. It was a “transfer factor.” It was, as you say, a treatment for “gut issues ‘caused’ by the MMR vaccine.” The transfer factor treatment did not turn out to work. In addition, the patent beneficiaries were the Royal Free Hospital University and Hugh Fudenburg, not AW. How does any of this constitute a conflict of interest? And I ask that question plainly, sincerely.

**6) Do you think Wakefield should have declared payments from the tax payer funded legal fund in his paper? Yes or No?

>>>Yes.

As you know AW was working on two different projects (not many know this). Technically, under the rules -at the time- he didn’t have to. >>But, yes, he should have.< < I believe in strong COI declarations in the published literature, which is an ethical protocol which is frequently abused by many.

**7) Also, as an aside… have you checked the list of papers I posted in my first post (the ones before Brian Deer’s articles), along with the ones that I linked to in a more recently posted comment?

>>>No, I apologize, I have not had the time yet. But I will. I promise. I’m very interested in what you have put together. I’m just a little overextended this week (due to reasons I explained earlier today).

————————————————–

Other questions:

**On the question of whether autistic children are presenting GI distress/disorder at a higher rate than the general pediatric population, I have sincerely reviewed your response. But I respectfully disagree (though your position is reasonable). The data is conflicting and incomplete so far. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one (for the time being, anyway).

**Chris asked at #81, “Anyway, I am very interested in your impressions of the pills made from goat milk described in the JREF forum. The one that I have linked to twice.”

>>>Yes, I linked to it and skimmed it quickly on my lunch. I am sorry I did not have the time to read it more in depth. It looks interesting. I promise you that I will look into it more and get back to you.

That said, my wife was able to breast-feed our kids, so I studied the benefits to the infant in depth. Colostrum is a very important substance to human infants (immunologically and otherwise), but I would never dream of –injecting– goat’s milk colostrum into children (or even human colostrum). Yes, that sounds crazy. But, as I said, I’ll check out the JREF forum as soon as I can, and get back to you in a couple of days.

**Chris asked at #86, “Don’t you think that if one is going to see if a vaccine is causing a problem that it would be a good idea that all the case reports have had the same vaccine? Yes or no? (there was a vaccine lawsuit in the UK that had to be dropped because the wrong manufacturer was being sued, so you can see why this would be significant).”

>>>Yes. I agree with you here (as discussed above). Excellent point Chris.

Several times you have stated, “Under the rules of medical ethics, which you would know if you are as familiar with the medical field as you claim” or something similar, insinuating that I do not work in the medical field.

I do indeed work in the medical field. Your insinuations are false. I posted a comment at 2:00 pm that detailed much of my background but it was not posted by the moderator (I don’t know why, there was nothing critical, controversial, or too private said). I will try to post another version later.

I was insinuating nothing of the sort. What I was flat-out saying is that you are not as knowledgeable about a lot of stuff as you would like us to believe. If you try to invoke your own authority as part of an argument, then it is perfectly legitimate to call into question the level of authority you have on the subject. You may say that you don’t want us to treat you as an authority, but you have repeatedly brought up your own experience in the medical field to give weight to your statements, so you most certainly were invoking your own authority, and as such it is perfectly legitimate to criticize your level of knowledge of the subject.

My only point about measles, mumps, and rubella mortality numbers is that some people declare that AW is a “monster” and a “baby killer” and imply that he has caused hundreds of pediatric patients’ lives to be lost due to plummeting MMR vaccination rates in the UK.

I fail to say how stating the first in any way implies the second. I have seen no one come close to implying what you claim we are implying. And if we aren’t the ones implying it, then why are you bringing it up?

Yes, Wakefield’s hypothesis, and the 1998 paper, and the Feb 1998 press conference (especially), and the resultant UK media circus had a lot to do with measles becoming endemic again in the UK. But there -is- more to the story.

Of course there is more to the story. One of the big things that you keep trying to sidestep is how Wakefield has been aggressively pushing his anti-vaccine perspective and has made himself one of the leaders and spokepersons for the anti-vaccination movement. Your continuous attempts to ignore this by limiting his involvement to one paper and the corresponding press conference is highly disingenuous, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly. You know he has been done far more than that, why do you always neglect to mention it when discussing his involvement? Doing it once or twice is okay, but you have done it repeatedly despite being corrected every time, so I am starting to have a hard time avoiding the conclusion that you are being intentionally misleading in this regard. I’ll be more than happy to correct this if you can provide a legitimate reason, but so far you have not attempted to do so.

Measles is generally a well-tolerated infectious illness of childhood. Serious…

So what? How is that even remotely relevant to anything anyone has been saying up to this point? It is killing people, people who should not be dying. It doesn’t matter how many or what percentage.

The uptake rate fell in the UK for multiple reasons. The MMR-I-Urabe problems of 1988-1992, which caused great concern with UK parents, was a significant part of the story. Also, parents who would have vaccinated with the monovalent measles vaccine (as they had since 1961), where unable to do so because the UK public health officials discontinued its import license in late 1998. Furthermore, in 1994 the UK had to revaccinate approximately 7.1 million schoolchildren with the MR vaccine. This caused further concern in the public about the vaccine program..

If you actually looking at the rates of vaccination, the big drops didn’t happen until well after all these incidents you are listing.

You keep on asserting (without evidence) that these played a significant role in the large decrease in vaccination rates we have seen. Even if it did, that would not exonerate Wakefield in any way.

The uptake rate in the UK fell from 92% to 81-84%. While that is significant, it is inaccurate to imply (by not providing the actual numbers) that it went lower than that.

Who implied anything of the sort and where did they do so?

Also, the mortality rate for measles, mumps, or rubella in children in the entire UK (or the US) has never exceeded 0-2/year during the last 15 years (since publication of Wakefield’s case report in the Lancet in 1998). This is out of 4 million children born each year, for example, in the US.

Once again, how is this remotely relevant?

In addition, the efficacy of vaccines is not 100% It is often 60-80% depending upon the specific vaccine, antigen, and other factors. So, many of the cases of measles in the UK and the US in the last 15 years have occurred in vaccinated children.

Yes, in fact I said as much way earlier in the thread, in a post you replied to no less. If you think this is news to me you have not been reading what I have been writing. However, none of these people would have gotten it if Measles wasn’t spreading through the population, which it would not be if we were at the levels needed to maintain herd immunity (which it isn’t anymore, by definition since the disease is endemic).

As for your accusations of posts being blocked, there is a spam filter that sometimes holds up posts. They eventually come through when Phil gets around to it.

In follow-up to the last sentence in my last post (#85), I read –all– sources of information on vaccination safety (and separately autism) that I can. I see a lot of autistic children through my work and in my kid’s schools and in my community. I have tremendous empathy for full-diagnosis autistic children and their parents. I know some personally. What they go through is extremely difficult. However, I do not get all my information from anti-vax sites.

And, I agree that anything that Jenny McCarthy says should be considered with a (very) large grain of salt, if it is considered at all. And I agree that JB Handley is a jerk and AoA is an insular group. However, I do view the TACA and NVIC and Autism Speaks websites periodically (perhaps that’s part of my problem, some will respond here;). But, I also read/utilize Pediatrics, MedscapeCME, PubMed, SBM, and This Week in Virology; so I think it balances out. Personally, I think it is important to read both sides of the controversy (if nothing else, to see what is going on on the other side).

BTW, this all dovetails into the question of who I am and why I am here (posting at the Discover Magazine/Bad Astronomy blog). I think you have wondered. My name really is John. I really have lived in California all my life (and I did earn a BS and MS in bio sci from a UC). I am 44 years old. And I really do work in the medical field (though I am not a MD, as I have said before). And I do read the literature (some of it since I was a teen because of the influence of my father who was a MD). I have read Pediatrics for 20+ years. I read primary sources. I read, of course, the JAMA, NEJM, and the Lancet (and many other journals in areas of special interest: nutrition, sports medicine, exercise physiology, psychology). I also read articles at SBM by contributors such as Dr Hall, Steven Novella (and NeuroLogica), and Mark Crislip. I read David Gorski’s articles for the information, but I find his tone (insolent, to use a word) unappealing. Still I read most of his articles at SBM. I read Prometheus’ blog (photoninthedarkness); excellent. I have read three of Paul Offit’s books (including False Prophets). I read Ben Goldacre’s blog and book, Bad Science.

Separately (just to flesh out who I am), I have been a member of the Center for Science in the Public Interest for 20+ years and the Union of Concerned Scientists for ~10 years. Separately, I have had an interest in astronomy (inherited from my grandfather) since I was young. Carl Sagan was an early hero. This explains why I enjoy Discover Magazine and Phil’s blog.

So, none of this makes me particularly or unusually qualified. I am not. But I do work in the medical field (despite Black Cat insinuating several times above that I do not). My interest in the issue of vaccine safety (and separately autism) is due to my work and due to being a parent. I am not a “concern troll” as someone accused me above. My opinions are my opinions. They may be right or wrong. But they are sincere.

1) Several times you have stated, “Under the rules of medical ethics, which you would know if you are as familiar with the medical field as you claim” or something similar, insinuating that I do not work in the medical field.

I do indeed work in the medical field. Your insinuations are false. I posted a comment at 2:00 pm that detailed much of my background but it was not posted by the moderator (I don’t know why, there was nothing critical, controversial, or too private said). I will try to post another version later.

2) Regarding the mortality rate of measles in the UK or the US in the last 15 years, I certainly am -not- denigrating or even minimizing a single life lost. That is a false and acutely unfair charge. I have dedicated my entire adult life to the health and medical care of those in my community including children. And as a parent, I am particularly hurt by your suggestion that I am denigrating the lives of those children lost. Nothing could be further from the truth.

My only point about measles, mumps, and rubella mortality numbers is that some people declare that AW is a “monster” and a “baby killer” and imply that he has caused hundreds of pediatric patients’ lives to be lost due to plummeting MMR vaccination rates in the UK. That is simply not true. On multiple levels. Yes, measles has become endemic again in the UK (annual cases in the hundreds). Yes, Wakefield’s hypothesis, and the 1998 paper, and the Feb 1998 press conference (especially), and the resultant UK media circus had a lot to do with measles becoming endemic again in the UK. But there -is- more to the story.

Measles is generally a well-tolerated infectious illness of childhood. Serious complications are rare in otherwise healthy children. The death rate from measles infection reported in the US by the CDC is 0.2% for the years 1985-1992. “Before a vaccine was available, infection with measles virus was nearly universal during childhood, and more than 90% of persons were immune by age 15 years.”
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/meas.pdf

The uptake rate fell in the UK for multiple reasons. The MMR-I-Urabe problems of 1988-1992, which caused great concern with UK parents, was a significant part of the story. Also, parents who would have vaccinated with the monovalent measles vaccine (as they had since 1961), where unable to do so because the UK public health officials discontinued its import license in late 1998. Furthermore, in 1994 the UK had to revaccinate approximately 7.1 million schoolchildren with the MR vaccine. This caused further concern in the public about the vaccine program..

The uptake rate in the UK fell from 92% to 81-84%. While that is significant, it is inaccurate to imply (by not providing the actual numbers) that it went lower than that. And herd immunity is still largely in effect. Also, the mortality rate for measles, mumps, or rubella in children in the entire UK (or the US) has never exceeded 0-2/year during the last 15 years (since publication of Wakefield’s case report in the Lancet in 1998). This is out of 4 million children born each year, for example, in the US.

In addition, the efficacy of vaccines is not 100% It is often 60-80% depending upon the specific vaccine, antigen, and other factors. So, many of the cases of measles in the UK and the US in the last 15 years have occurred in vaccinated children. All the preceding are facts.

None of the preceding means we shouldn’t vaccinate children for MMR or DTaP. We should! Vaccines do significantly inhibit morbidity from infectious disease that we vaccinate for. But the whole issue is more complex than some will concede (or are aware of). And the fact is, hundreds (or even tens) of children are not dying from measles, mumps, or rubella per year in the UK or in the US due to Andrew Wakefield.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jan/28/mmr-doctor-timeline
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/default.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/appdx-full-g.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/G/cases&deaths.pdf
http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/#Rubel_Eng_Wales

Speaking of Hugh Fudenburg, you might be happy to hear that I agree that Gary Null is also a nut job. Needs to seek psy help caliber nut job. And, I agree that a lot of the others like him that the anti-vaxers cite in support of their claims are not credible as well.

However, I would submit to you that Dr Picciotto (at the MIND institute) and Dr Healy (Harvard, former head of the NIH, current advisor to the IOM) have made some observations over the last couple of years that I think are valid. Neither, of course, opposes vaccination.

I have tried to engage you and everyone here in this forum in a regular voice and in a civil way. In return, I am being attacked. How is that conductive to an open exchange of information, ideas, and opinion. I am not demanding (nor even expecting) that you agree with me. We can disagree, can’t we? Or, do you only want to hear from voices that agree with yours?

Can we lower the hostility level?

Sorry, I tend to react with hostility when someone says that people dying is not a big deal. Care to actually address my points are you just going to complain about how mean everyone is being to you?

This is a science blog, and as is common with science we tear apart each others’ positions and statements to the best of our ability. I am not going to apologize for pointing out the implications of your statements, your mistakes and contradictions, or anything else that I think is in error. That is how science works, it is how we make sure only the best ideas survive, and if you can’t handle that then this is really not the place for you.

I was in a dialogue with Black Cat where I pointed out that AW’s position on vaccination has evolved substantially from the mid and late 1990s to where it has arrived today. Black Cat’s comments seem to reflect the idea that AW’s position on vaccines are the same today as they were in 1995 or 1998. That is not accurate.

You have provided no evidence whatsoever backing up this conclusion. You have provided some evidence that during a single press conference he wasn’t as blatant about it as he is now, but that does not imply his overall position has evolved significantly.

That being said, I fail to see whether his position has evolved significantly is even remotely relevant to the discussion anyway. A lot of people dislike him because of the positions he holds. Whether he got those positions yesterday or 20 years ago does not in any way affect that. A lot of people dislike him because he committed serious breaches of medical and scientific ethics. When he developed his position on vaccines does not change that.

At # 80, you asked, “By the way, Wakefield was not just patenting a single measles vaccine. It was a whole lot of crazy he cooked up with Hugh Fudenburg.”

1) This was a transfer factor, not a vaccine. It was intended to be a treatment.

2) It did not work. Yes, I agree, it certainly does seems like a “whole lot of crazy.”

3) Yes, I’ve looked at the patent application (on BD’s website) several times. Yes, at times, it refers to the product as being a “vaccine.” I have never heard a good explanation for this error in terminology. Perhaps it was a patent attorney thing. But it was an error. Who thinks that AW, a gastroenterologist, working alone (and without partnership with GSK, Merck, Sonofi-Pasteur, etc.)could develop a vaccine? Really. And, who thinks one can formulate a vaccine from goats milk colostrum? Though colostrum is rich in antibodies and it is very important to the health of infant mammals, including humans, it is certainly not a vaccine!

3) No, I am not impressed that AW was involved in this or with Hugh Fudenberg. But it is inaccurate to say that this transfer factor was a vaccine, no less a “competing vaccine” to the MMR.

4) I don’t know a lot about Hugh Fudenburg, but from what I do know, I am not positively impressed. Yes, I agree with you, Hugh Fudenburg seems like a nut job. Seriously, some claim that his mental health status may not be what it should be.

I am going to try to answer some of your questions quickly (while I have a moment here). Because I am backed-up responding to your questions (for the reasons I explained above), I will start with the first ones you asked and work my way down.

At #79, you asked me, “JGH, why are you posting off topic stuff like thimerosal? It was never in the MMR vaccine.” Of course, thimerosal was never used as a bacteriostat in the MMR (or any live virus vaccine).

I was in a dialogue with Black Cat where I pointed out that AW’s position on vaccination has evolved substantially from the mid and late 1990s to where it has arrived today. Black Cat’s comments seem to reflect the idea that AW’s position on vaccines are the same today as they were in 1995 or 1998. That is not accurate.

Then I sated, “I do not agree much of his position today. However, I am glad that ethyl mercury was taken out of US vaccines in 2000 and 2001.” I was discussing how my position differs with AW’s, but went on to mention an example of a vaccine safety concern that I do have. I think it is a valid issue (so do many in medicine, like Neal Halsey MD of Johns Hopkins and the MIND institute). There are many valid issues of vaccine safety (just like any pharmaceutical).

Why was my comment at ~2:00 pm not posted? Was there a violation? Can you email me to explain?

Thank you.

I have been bombarded by questions from you and Black Cat (and others).Your questions are good ones. I am trying to answer everyone’s questions as fast as I can within the constraints of my time (on my breaks and in the evening after my kids go to bed).

I have a job and a marriage and children to attend to. And we moved just last week. We are still unpacking boxes (anyone want to discuss the pros and cons of moving a family of four while working full-time?) So, forgive me, if it takes some time to get to your questions. I am -not- ignoring you.

You posted the papers of two people, neither of which adequately support Wakefield’s study (case studies on two adults!). I posted three papers that showed that there was no real correlation between autism and GI problems, twice. But you have ignored that.

You were commenting on Dr. Hall and her review of Wakefield and from your statements it was clear you had not read it! And yes, the review is posted at ScienceBasedMedicine (which was mentioned before). If you had actually been checking that blog you would have found it.

And you should actually read the ScienceBasedMedicine blog’s special section on Vaccines.

Now please answer the following questions with a simple “yes” or “no.” All other responses will be ignored. Since this article is now on the second page, I won’t bother commenting until they are answered.

Now, really, do you actually think it is okay to do invasive tests on children when there is no clinical/medical reason? Yes or no?

Do you think that Wakefield’s patent was a conflict of interest? Yes or no?

Did you read about the pills made from goat milk in the link I provided twice? Yes or no?

Don’t you think that if one is going to see if a vaccine is causing a problem that it would be a good idea that all the case reports have had the same vaccine? Yes or no? (there was a vaccine lawsuit in the UK that had to be dropped because the wrong manufacturer was being sued, so you can see why this would be significant)

[You can call me John, buy the way. That is my name. (JGH are my initials.) I’m not attempting to force a friendship, but you have supplied your name, so I will supply mine. I'm extending the courtesy.]

You said in #81, “This pretty much shows that you did not bother to read her review.”

Why are you criticizing me for that? I did not -know- that Harriet Hall received and advance copy of Andrew Wakefield’s book and wrote a review of it? How I can be criticized for that?

Now that I know, however, I would be happy to read Dr Hall’s review of the book. Was it posted at SBM? I read all sources of information on vaccination safety that I can.

I have posted a lot of information and facts in my comments here in the last two days. Please point out where -any- of the factual information has been in error.

I have tried to engage you and everyone here in this forum in a regular voice and in a civil way. In return, I am being attacked. How is that conductive to an open exchange of information, ideas, and opinion. I am not demanding (nor even expecting) that you agree with me. We can disagree, can’t we? Or, do you only want to hear from voices that agree with yours?

Can we lower the hostility level?

(1) He was trying to develop his own competing vaccine against the MMR. That is not true. It’s pretty absurd if you think about it. AW was an academic gastroenterologist. Not an immunologist or vaccine developer (like Paul Offit, MD).

Chris has already addressed this repeatedly, which you have ignored so far.

(2) Other accusations made against Wakefield have been amplified to an extreme degree. He is a monster. He obtained blood samples from children without consent. Not true. AW received complete informed consent from the children and their parents (his friends, many physicians themselves). Taking blood samples at his son’s birthday party, with consent, constituted “callous disregard” for the children. I don’t agree with severity of that characterization.

If this is what you think that you are grossly ignorant of the laws regarding research on human subjects and scientific researchers’ moral and ethical obligations to their subjects. Strange for someone who claims to be so familiar with the field of medicine.

(3) AW has caused children to die. Well, yes, cases of measles (morbidity) have increased significantly in the UK (into the thousands), but the number of deaths from measles in the UK (or the US) are still very low (~0-3/year) out of millions of children born in the UK/year (and 40 million/year in the US).

This in no way contradicts the point you are claiming to address. I also can’t believe you would denigrate the death of even one person in this way. It’s not a big deal because only a few people are dying a year? It is most likely that none of them would have gotten the disease were it not for Wakefield. Measles is now endemic again in the UK for the first time in decades. It isn’t just measles, either, it is the MMR shot, and people are dying from all 3.

In addition, Wakefield -never- called for zero vaccination -including MMR vaccination. He called for the right of parents to use the monovalent measles vaccine which was available in the UK from 1961 until late 1998 (which in his opinion was safer).

You are being extraordinarily dishonest and misleading here. He flat-out said that vaccines are more dangerous than the diseases they prevent. Under the rules of medical ethics, which you would know if you are as familiar with the medical field as you claim, that is the same as saying vaccines should not be used.

Furthermore, the MMR uptake rate had been falling in the UK since 1994, since the MMR-I-Urabe strain fiasco. So, the situation is much more complex than many are aware. And the MMR-I-Urabe strain fiasco (brought in from Canada despite known problems) is a whole story by itself.

Irrelevant, Wakefield was easily the largest contributor to a massive drop in vaccination rates throughout the developed world. The fact that there was some smaller drop before that is not relevant. The idea of a link between vaccines and autism would not exist to any significant degree were it not for him.

I did not know that Dr Hall received an advance copy of Wakefield’s book.

This pretty much shows that you did not bother to read her review, and the following comments. She wrote very early on in the comments she was given an advance copy of the book because of her column in “O” magazine.

Anyway, I am very interested in your impressions of the pills made from goat milk described in the JREF forum. The one that I have linked to twice.

Again, I see that my link to a discussion on that was not found due to the subtle font for links used in this blog. Well, here it is:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=176681

Please read it through, including the links to the patent documentation.