Autism Insights has published a new editorial addressing the question,
They neglect to mention Tim Buie’s recent consensus report on gastrointestinal disorders and autism and autism published in Pediatrics. Nor, for that matter, do they refer to Arthur Krigsman’s study which they published last month. However, despite it being retracted by the Lancet, they manage to reference Wakefield’s discredited paper along with another of his studies twice.
10. Wakefield AJ, Murch SH, Anthony A, Linnell J, Casson DM, Malik M, et al. Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet. 1998;351:637–41.
11. Wakefield AJ, Anthony A, Murch SH, et al. Enterocolitis in children with developmental disorders. Am J Gastroenterol. 2000;95:2285–95.
12. Wakefield AJ, et al. Enterocolitis in children with developmental disorders. Am J Gastroenterol. 2000;95(9):2285–95.
13. Wakefield AJ, et al. Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet. 1998;351:637.
The authors present an analysis of the complete medical history records of the Autistic Genetic Resource Exchange (AGRE). They compare parental reports of Gastrointestinal disease in autistic subjects and their non-autistic siblings. The data is interesting, if inconclusive. The only significant differences were the greater frequency of constipation and diarrhoea in autistic subjects. But no reasons were offered as to why this might be the case.
The most striking feature was the complete absence of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). I was surprised that the authors did not pick up on this during the discussion as they highlighted the controversy surrounding IBD and autism in their introduction.
To return to the question, “Is there a relationship between autism and gastrointestinal disease?” the answer is we do not know. We are still waiting for some definitive data. On the evidence so far I do not expect to find it any time soon in Autism Insights.
February 15th, 2010
Posted by
Mike |
Andrew Wakefield, Autism Insights, GI disorders |
10 comments
If you watch a lot of cop shows you soon come to recognize the basic plot lines. Perhaps the villain is obvious from the start but is able to elude justice until a dogged investigator uncovers the evidence that will put him away. Or else all the evidence points in one direction but a lone detective refuses to buy it and unearths the secret that saves an innocent man from a miscarriage of justice. Sometimes the guilty are protected by their friends in high places. Then along comes the brave maverick policeman who overcomes all obstacles to expose the corruption and justice prevails at the end.
I was reminded of this by responses to the recent judgement against Wakefield by the GMC and the subsequent retraction of his 1998 Lancet paper. Wakefield’s defenders still see him as the brave maverick. Vaccines are the villain and so far they have evaded justice thanks to the corruption at the heart of the medical/research establishment. We have reached that stage in the plot where everything seems hopeless. Our hero has been all but destroyed. The conspirators are congratulating themselves. Evil has triumphed. Or has it?
Now, when they least expect it, our hero strikes. They have no answer to his new and devastating evidence. They realize their mistake and try to silence him. Too late! The truth will out and Justice shall prevail. Of course real life is not like the movies. But that fact is lost on many of Wakefield’s supporters. They clutch at the flimsiest of straws to convince themselves that we are about to enter the final reel when all will be revealed.
One such straw is Arthur Krigsman’s long awaited paper which supports Wakefield’s premise that gastro-intestinal disease and autism are connected. In fact it is so faithful to the master’s original that Krigsman even replicates Wakefield’s breaches of medical ethics. We are promised more studies and devastating proof that Wakefield was right along. This proof is so devastating that it could not be used in his defence at the GMC and had to be held in reserve until after his public humiliation and the destruction of his professional reputation (aka “the witch hunt,” “kangaroo court,” “censorship,” “conspiracy,” etc., etc.,)
At this point in the script I should be saying that the plot thickens. But sadly for Wakefield et al it seems that the plot is unravelling instead. His most recent paper, an attempt to diversify into mercury and vaccines has been withdrawn by the editor. no reason was given. It may the undisclosed conflict of interest from lead author Laura Hewitson or simply the fact that it is an atrocious piece of work. Meanwhile his fan base are doing their best with a number of gambits.
No parent ever complained to the GMC.
The GMC brought the complaint after it was made aware of Brian Deer’s allegations. As Deer points out in this comment on LBRB Wakefield’s parent supporters may have packed the public gallery and joined protests outside the hearing but the only parent to give evidence appeared for the prosecution not the defence.
Not only could Wakefield have called anybody he wanted (and he called nobody whatsoever, and didn’t even ask questions of the government’s vaccine supremo), but a parent of one of the 12 kids – Rochelle Poulter – DID give evidence. She appeared in August 2007 for the prosecution, and gave them a mass of documents which were devastating to Wakefield’s case. One of the letters was to Walker-Smith where she says that he’d told her that the research might not help her child, but might help other children. Devastating stuff.
There was an estabishment conspiracy to silence Wakefield.
All I can say is they did not do a very good job. Two of the most pro establishment newspapers in Britain, the Mail and the Telegraph, regularly carry pro Wakefield stories. The BBC still gives the pro Wakefield website, JABS, web address alongside every MMR story it runs. The Spectator, unofficial house magazine of the Conservative Party, continues to carry pro Wakefield stories from Melanie Phillips. Fiona Phillips (no relation) is still writing paeans to Wakefield in the pro-Labour Daily Mirror. Even the Guardian Group succumbed with a terrible front page article in the Observer that had to be withdrawn and a fawning two page spread by sports writer turned health editor. Meanwhile science that refutes Wakefield has been virtually ignored by the mainstream media outlets.
Government witnesses lied to the GMC
This potentially libellous accusation from Ron Moody made a brief flurry but seems to have faltered along with an open letter to the GMC from a retired sex therapist and the We Support Dr Andrew Wakefield petition against Times Newspapers. Claiming to represent “multitudes of citizens worldwide” they have collected around 2000 signatures so far. But with names like Seymour Butz, Fivepounds Forkidsblood and Al Coholic, not every signatory is taking it seriously.
Good Cop or Bad Cop?
To return to my original theme, I think that they are all watching the wrong movie. What about the story where the cop goes after the bad guy and finds out that he is innocent? But he is so convinced of his guilt that he goes after him for something else. And when the evidence fails again he decides to fake it. The bad guy has to be guilty. No way is he going to escape on a technicality like lack of evidence.
Wakefield is a surgeon with a research interest in gastroenterology. He was supposed to be investigating the causes of Crohns Disease. He thought a potential cause was measles virus, possibly measles vaccine virus. But his research was flawed and when others failed to replicate his results the theory was forgotten.
At this point if his prime purpose was to research Crohns he would have dropped the failed measles hypothesis and explored other venues. But Wakefield had a prime suspect - MMR. If he could not tie it to Crohns he would get it for something else. Why not autism?
But what if the bad guy was innocent all along? What if the cop let his obsession cloud his judgement, leading him to ignore the real evidence and fabricate his own so-called proof. We all know how that movie ends.
Sadly for us as well, real life is not like the movies. While Wakefield’s career as a serious medical researcher may be over he appears to have made good his escape and seems set to enjoy his ill-gotten gains in his Texan hideaway for some time yet.
February 15th, 2010
Posted by
Mike |
Andrew Wakefield, MMR, Uncategorized |
22 comments
