What Court of Law Convicted Dr Andrew Wakefield of Fraud?

The "autism" news has been overwhelmed in the past 48 hours with news that Dr Andrew Wakefield committed fraud in conducting and publishing the MMR study which has since been retracted.  

I was aware that a medical society tribunal in the UK had found problems with the MMR study but I was unaware that a court of law, or governing medical society tribunal, had found Wakefield guilty of the serious offence of fraud.

If anyone knows which court of law,  or governing medical society tribunal,  found Dr. Wakefield guilty of fraud could you post a link to this site please?

Thank you.

Dr Wakefield's Formal Complaint Against Journalist Brian Deer

Some bloggers and mainstream media took as gospel, as decided fact, the allegations made against Dr. Andrew Wakefield by journalist Brian Deer in the Sunday Times (UK) last month. The article ran the week prior to the Vaccine Court's omnibus ruling in three cases involving allegations that vaccines caused autism and only 24 hours after Dr Wakefield claims he was informed of the story allegations. As reported by David Kirby at the Huffington Post, Dr. Wakefield has now filed a formal complaint against Mr Deer with the UK Press C0mplaints Commission. It should be must reading especially for those who accepted as decided facts the allegations made in the article.

Dr. Wakefield deals with the allegations in very specific, documented detail. As a lawyer who is regularly concerned with issues of fairness, proper notice and due process I am disgusted that a story such as Mr Deer's would run only 24 hours after giving notice to the person against whom the allegations are made. To make it worse the allegations were made against a person involved in a proceeding involving the same matters, a proceeding in which the journalist who wrote the article has been a key participant.

Some bloggers and mainstream journalists who accused Dr. Wakefield of data manipulation based on Mr. Deer's article may want to read Dr. Wakefield's complaint against Mr. Deer. They might also want to consider extending an apology to Dr. Wakefield.

autism

Vaccine-Autism War: CBC Dirties Itself, Advocates Censorship of Vaccine and Autism Discussions

There was a day when I looked to the CBC as the shining example of what modern journalism should entail. That day is gone, long gone. Now the CBC has dirtied itself with an incompetent, one sided presentation of the vaccine autism debate and an express call for censorship of public health debates, specifically the vaccine-autism debate.

Autism, the raison d' être for this blog site, was once covered very well by the CBC as witnessed by David Suzuki's outstanding 1996 Nature of Things feature on autism, The Child Who Couldn't Play:

1996

The Child Who Couldn't Play (Autism) - a program that closely investigated autism and explored some avenues for treatment for young children with this condition. The program generated a substantial amount of interest from viewers - especially from parents of autistic children, eager for more information and relieved that the subject of autism was entering the public forum.

Now it offers repeated promotion of the "autism is beautiful ideology" in appearances by Dr. Laurent Mottron and Michelle Dawson and other persons with very high functioning autism and Aspergers on Quirks and Quarks and Positively Autistic. I have yet to see a recent CBC feature on the severely autistic children like my son, or those who injure themselves or reside in institutional care.

The CBC has sunk to an all time journalism low though with its express , and one sided advocacy, of censorship of the vaccine autism debates in Linking vaccines, autism tantamount to crying 'fire' where there isn't one, an article written by Stephen Strauss, whose"bio" somewhat oddly claims that "he still remains smitten by the enduring wisdom of the motto of Austrian writer Karl Kraus. Say what is." In "linking vaccines" Mr Strauss most definitely did NOT "say what is". Quite the contrary:

"In the interest of public health, and medical truth, and the emotional well-being of autism sufferers everywhere, the legal system should declare that promoting the vaccine/autism hypothesis is the modern equivalent of falsely crying "fire" in a crowded theatre."

Mr. Strauss argues that alleging a vaccine autism link is analogous to yelling fire in a crowded theater, an image often used to demonstrate one of the limits to free speech, uttering knowingly false statements which are reasonably foreseeable to result in harm to others. Mr. Strauss's example is misguided. The vaccine autism debate does not involve knowingly false statements. Far from it the issues involved are more complex and very much debatable.

Some very credible scientists and health authorities have indicated that the question of vaccines as possible causes or contributors to autism is an open question. Dr. Bernadine Healy, the former NIH and American Red Cross head, has twice stated that the question remains open, that the epidemiological studies relied on in support of vaccine safety are not particular enough to determine the impact of vaccines on more vulnerable population subsets. She has called for more studies to be done.

Dr. Julie Gerberding recent CDC director has also stated in connection with the vaccine autism debate that more studies COULD and SHOULD be done on the issue. A person of such high authority and credibility does not call for more studies to be done just for the hell of it. Dr. Gerberding has, amongst other things, pointed out that studies should look at autism rates in unvaccinated populations.

Perhaps Mr Strauss and the CBC are also unaware of the information found by CBS which, unlike the CBC and Mr. Strauss, actually examined some of the evidence on the "other" side of the vaccine debate and included in its reporting an interview with Dr. Healy in which she stated clearly her views that the vaccine autism connection is still an open question. CBS has also investigated and found more than a 1000 cases that have been settled before going to a decision. When cases are settled in favor of the plaintiff they accomplish the defendant government's goal of limiting their availability for use as legal precedents - or in public discussion of the issues involved.

As recently as last month an award was made to a child, Baily Banks, based on a 2007 vaccine court decision in which the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff's claim that the MMR vaccine caused brain injury resulting in autism in the plaintiff child. If Mr Strauss, or his "research assistants", if he has any, happen across this humble blog, the link to the Banks decision can be found at 2007 Banks v HHS.

The CBC and Mr. Strauss might also consider reading The Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee Strategic Plan for Autism Spectrum Disorder Research - January 26, 2009. In that document the IACC states, somewhat curiously if the issue of a vaccine autism connection has in fact been conclusively decided, that:

To address public concerns regarding a possible vaccine/ASD link, it will be important over the next year for the IACC to engage the National Vaccine Advisory Committee (NVAC) in mutually informative dialogues. The NVAC is a Federal advisory committee chartered to advise and make recommendations regarding the National Vaccine Program. Communication between the IACC and NVAC will permit each group to be informed by the expertise of the other, enhance coordination and foster more effective use of research resources on topics of mutual interest. Examples of such topics include: studies of the possible role of vaccines, vaccine components, and multiple vaccine administration in ASD causation and severity through a variety of approaches; and assessing the feasibility and design of an epidemiological study to determine whether health outcomes, including ASD, differ among populations with vaccinated, unvaccinated, and alternatively vaccinated groups.

One further suggestion to inform the next rant by Mr Strauss or the CBC on possible vaccine autism connections. They should review the public information available on the Poling case ,one of the settlements which found that vaccines aggravated a girl's mitochondrial disorder resulting in "autism like symptoms", one of the weasel expressions used in place of "autism" in settlements. In addition Mr. Strauss should read the editorial by Dr. Jon Poling, the child's father, in yesterday's Atlanta Journal Constitution:

Fortunately, the ‘better diagnosis’ myth has been soundly debunked. In the 2009 issue of Epidemiology, two authors analyzed 1990 through 2006 California Department of Developmental Services and U.S. Census data documenting an astronomical 700 to 800 percent rise in the disorder.

These scientists concluded that only a smaller percentage of this staggering rise can be explained by means other than a true increase.

Because purely genetic diseases do not rise precipitously, the corollary to a true autism increase is clear — genes only load the gun and it is the environment that pulls the trigger. Autism is best redefined as an environmental disease with genetic susceptibilities.

We should be investing our research dollars into discovering environmental factors that we can change, not more poorly targeted genetic studies that offer no hope of early intervention. Pesticides, mercury, aluminum, several drugs, dietary factors, infectious agents and yes — vaccines — are all in the research agenda.

Before Mr. Strauss and CBC dismiss Dr. Poling contemptuously as another hysterical, misguided parent, they should be informed that he is also a neurologist and an assistant professor at the Medical College of Georgia. And the CBC's omniscient smearers of concerned parents should also remember that the government backed down in the case of Dr. Poling's daughter and settled.

In the interest of public health, and medical truth, and the emotional well-being of parents fighting to help their autistic children, and in the further interest of their own journalistic credibility, the CBC should withdraw the call for censorship made on its site and cease publishing such incendiary columns by ill informed, lightweight dilettantes like Mr Stephen Strauss.

autism

Autism Reality from Professor Simon Baron-Cohen

I have not always been a fan of Professor Simon Baron-Cohen. He enjoys status as a world renowned autism expert, as the Director of the Autism Research Centre at Cambridge University, who has actually worked with autistic children from across the entire autism spectrum matter. When Professor Baron-Cohen talks about autism the world listen. In the past though, I have been concerned that he was contributing to the trivializing of autism, a serious neurological disorder, by some public comments apparently supportive of the view that autism should not be cured, that it is a "culture", or "way of life". Whether my interpretation of those remarks was accurate or not I admit to being pleasantly surprised by some of the autism facts articulated by Professor Baron-Cohen in Freedom of expression published December 15, 2007 in the TIMESONLINE.

In this article Professor Baron-Cohen addresses many of the myths and misconceptions about autism disorders and at the same time gently, but candidly, describes some of the realities of this disorder, realities which unfortunately are all too often ignored, or disputed, by some anti-autism cure ideologues:

"Autism comes by degrees. People with the milder form, Asperger’s syndrome, display communication difficulties and “obsessional” interests. In severe cases, however, it can be as if your child is locked in a glass bubble, staring vacantly past you as you desperately try to make eye-contact. The thought of never being able to fully communicate with your child, or to know what is going on inside his or her mind, can be heartbreaking."

This statement may seem straightforward and obvious to many. It certainly is to me as the father of a severely autistic boy on the threshold of his teen years. Yet there are many in the internet autism "community" who take offense at any attempt to distinguish between levels or degrees of autism severity. Professor Baron-Cohen's acknowledgment of this reality will be hard from them to dismiss. So too will his description of some autistic children as existing as though they were locked in glass bubbles with vacant stares. Such comments from other sources might elicit internet petitions protesting the "harsh-upsetting" language used to describe some children with autism. Professor Baron-Cohen is unlikely to receive the same treatment for his honesty.

The article contains other comments which should also be uncontroversial but which still generate considerable debate. Professor Baron-Cohen addresses misconceptions about autism such as those that blame autism on the MMR vaccine or bad parenting or those that attribute autism entirely to genetic causes:

Studies of twins have established that it is not 100 per cent genetic, since even among identical twins, when one has autism, the likelihood of both twins having autism is only about 60 per cent. This means there must also be an environmental component, but what it is remains unknown.

Professor Baron-Cohen clearly distinguishes between Autism and Aspergers and states that persons with autism may also have below average IQ, language difficulties and social avoidance on a much different level than those with Aspergers. This article reviews some of the recent research which has advanced our understanding of the neurological bases of autism disorders.

Professor Baron-Cohen also refers to a helpful autism educational approach being practiced at TreeHouse school which he describes but does not mention by name:

Schools such as TreeHouse in North London are excellent examples of what can be provided: small class sizes, at times even one-to-one teacher-child ratios, where teaching is aimed at building simple skills and rewarding the child for every small step they make. Specialist teachers shape such skills into more complex ones, giving the child the experience of success and thus self-confidence. Such schools have to be highly organised because such children have problems in coping with unexpected change.

The educational approach described by Professor Baron-Cohen sounds suspiciously like ABA
and a visit to the TreeHouse web site confirms that suspicion on the ABA and Teaching at Treehouse page:

ABA and Teaching at TreeHouse

ABA is the comprehensive application of scientific principles, such as reinforcement, to developing skills and promoting positive behaviour and learning. Specific teaching strategies, programmes and other interventions are individually tailored and adapted. The principals of ABA underpin the teaching and learning of pupils at TreeHouse school. The responses and progress of the pupils are very carefully defined and monitored through appropriate data collection methods. .......

It says much about the intensity of the anti-ABA ideological movement, led by Laurent Mottron and Michelle Dawson in Canada, that a distinguished Professor who has spent much of his adult career actually working with autistic children would feel the need to cloak his helpful advice concerning the effectiveness of ABA in educating autistic children. Nonetheless, with this article Professor Baron-Cohen has helped address many of the distortions and misconceptions that plague discussion of autism.

A large helping of autism reality from such a credible source makes for a fine holiday season gift for autistic children, adults, their families and caregivers.

autism

In Praise of Jenny McCarthy

I do not share Jenny McCarthy's views on the MMR vaccine and autism.

Nor do I believe that she any better able to assess the evidence or the scientific literature on the subject than any other parent of an autistic child. But she does have the gift of celebrity status, the power to command media attention and disseminate her views. And it is harder to get better media attention than to appear on Oprah Winfrey's show. Much more effectively than this humble small town blogger can do. Although I disagree with her views though, I admire her willingness to fight for her child. Ms McCarthy has not embraced the culture of defeat, the attraction of the sweet surrender, of giving in and convincing yourself that there is joy in autism, a profoundly disabling neurological disorder. For that refusal to imbibe the kool aid of the cult of defeat Ms McCarthy deserves credit.

In speaking out and expressing her views on MMR vaccines and autism Ms McCarthy surely knew that she would be the object of ridicule. Some of the commentary is snide, some of it is out and out mean spirited and belittles only those who offer it. A cheap shot artist is a cheap shot artist, whether they sport a Ph. D. or not. Ms McCarthy spoke out to express her beliefs in support of helping her child. A noble cause. And she, and Ms Winfrey who hosted her on her show, are nobler for fighting for that cause. As for Ms McCarthy's friend Jim Carrey I know what it means to be an autism dad by fate. Mr Carrey has freely chosen to take on that role and also earned my admiration.

I don't agree with Ms McCarthy's MMR autism views, although future evidence could still prove her right and me wrong. But I admire her fight for her child, and Ms Winfrey for helping and Mr Carrey for caring and taking on the challenge.

Well done; all three of you.

Autism-Vaccine Link Continues to Erode - LA Times

Autism discussions often provoke heated, intense discussion, debate and worse. Neurodiversity advocates condemn parents for seeking to cure or treat their own children, Dr. Ivar O. Lovaas, who has in fact done so much to help generations of autistic children, is painted as an evil mad scientist, but some of the most intense verbal warfare has been spawned by the belief that the MMR vaccine and thimerosal, a mercury based vaccine preservative have caused the dramatic rise in numbers of autism diagnosis in recent years. This belief has led to ome parents refusing to vaccinate their children in some countries. Here in Atlantic Canada we have recently experienced a mumps outbreak which some medical people have traced back to the United Kingdom and areas of lower vaccination rates resulting from the MMR Autism scare. As the following article from the online edition of the LA Times summarizes the science to date just does not support the existence of a vaccine autism link.

Link to autism continues to erode
Study after study dispels an earlier theory that the vaccine triggers the disease.
By Mary Beckman, Special to The Times
June 18, 2007


Last week, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims began hearing arguments about whether a childhood vaccine that protects against measles, mumps and rubella caused autism in a 12-year-old (Cedillo versus Secretary of Health and Human Services). Here is a look at the studies behind the controversy.

In 1998, a gastroenterologist named Dr. Andrew Wakefield, then at the Royal Free Medical School in London, examined 12 children with bowel problems. Nine had autism, a disorder that affects 1 in 150 youngsters. The parents of eight recalled that the symptoms started soon after the children received a vaccine against measles, mumps and rubella (the MMR vaccine). Wakefield postulated in an article in the Lancet that the vaccine might cause autism.

"Then he held a press conference and went a bit further," says Rachel Casiday of Durham University in the United Kingdom, who studies peoples' attitudes toward MMR and autism. Wakefield recommended the United Kingdom's Department of Health provide the three vaccines separately. The department refused, due to scientific, logistical and economic reasons. Casiday said this response probably made people think the government wasn't taking the issue seriously, and some parents of autistic children began to wonder.

Autism researcher David Mandell, of the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine in Philadelphia, says the U.S. government made similar mistakes, with discussions about the potential link being held behind closed doors at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta. "That gave off the appearance of impropriety," he says.

In 2004, 10 of 12 coauthors of Wakefield's paper retracted the claims in it.

Because of the public's concern, various governments investigated the possible autism-vaccine link with more rigorously-designed studies. Researchers focused on two vaccine components: thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative, and the killed virus that provides the immunization against measles.

Scientists started with studies that looked at how many children were being vaccinated and how many new cases of autism were diagnosed, to see if there was a link between the two, says epidemiologist Craig Newschaffer of Drexel University School of Public Health in Philadelphia. A 2001 study in California, for example, found that between 1980 and 1994, the number of MMR vaccines administered every year rose about 14%, but the autism rates rose 373%. Thus, vaccine administration could not account for the rise in cases of autism.

A 2005 Japanese study of children in Yokohama between 1988 and 1996 found that MMR vaccination rates dropped over that time, but autism rates rose, even after vaccinations stopped in 1993.

But the best evidence compares rates of autism in children who received the vaccine with rates in children who did not, Newschaffer says. A 2002 Denmark study of more than 537,000 children — 440,000 of whom had received the vaccine — between 1991 and 1998 found the same autism risk in vaccinated and unvaccinated children. No link was found between vaccination date and onset of autistic symptoms.

Wakefield had proposed the measles virus hid in tissues and induced the immune system to cause autism. But a 2006 report found that autistic children had no more measles virus in their blood cells than other children. Also, no connection has been found between children contracting measles, and autism.

Still more studies have found that autism rates continued to rise after thimerosal was removed from vaccines.

"Those studies just kept piling up that showed no association between MMR or thimerosal exposure and autism," Newschaffer says. To date, he says, about a dozen studies have investigated autism's link to one or the other, and none has found one. "Among the scientific community, it's pretty generally accepted that there is no link."

Newschaffer says researchers can't rule out a small percentage of highly susceptible individuals that the vaccine might affect, and so the search is still on for a possible link between either measles or mercury and the disease. The idea is not unreasonable, Newschaffer adds, but finding susceptible individuals is difficult.

Another unresolved issue is whether autism is actually increasing or physicians are getting better at diagnosing it. "It is extremely, extremely hard to tell the difference," Newschaffer says.

Mandell says he sympathizes with parents who see their toddlers all of a sudden lose the skills they've acquired. "It's human nature to search for an answer: 'Why does this happen?' " he says.

But regardless of where the disease is coming from, most people still get their children vaccinated. "There wasn't a wholesale revolt against the vaccine," Casiday says. "And in the last few years, it's been on the rise." And that, she says, is good news for the public welfare.