Again With Dr. Wakefield? Really?

Ah, how can I not talk about Dr. Wakefield?  Now, he’s accused of outright fraud.  An investigative reporter named Brian Deer (who I believe has attacked Wakefield before) supposedly found that the information contained in the medical records of the children subject to Dr. Wakefield’s original research did not match the information Dr. Wakefield actually published.

Is it just me, or is this whole thing getting weirder and weirder?  How did Mr. Deer get a hold of these kids’ medical records?  Why some thirteen (13) years after the fact?  (Could it have anything to do with Wakefield’s recent book, “Callous Disregard:  Autism and Vaccines:  The Truth Behind a Tragedy (2010)”?).  What about the other twelve (12) authors of the original study (yes, I know 10 of them renounced the study (one must wonder why – did they really have misgivings about the work, were they worried they would have to endure what Dr. Wakefield has had to go through, was money involved?) – how come none of them are ever mentioned?  How come we haven't heard from them?  Surely, if there was such massive fraud, then the others must have known about it and have been complacent.  Yet, only Wakefield’s name comes up again and again.

I was glad to see Delthia Ricks article in Newsday today (1/7/11).  Of all the articles I've seen of late, only she noted that Wakefield's original research never stated a "direct cause and effect" between the MMR and autism.  She also noted that Brian Deer's efforts have "consumed the past seven years" (bit much don't you think?).  Finally, she includes statements by those who praise Dr. Wakefield for helping "thousands of children," and wondering "why this focus is on him and these misleading statements -- these efforts to tar and feather him."

Of course, no one in their right mind would support research fraud, but I still think we're missing the bigger picture here.  Even if it’s true that Wakefield and the other researchers made it all up, this only deals with the MMR.  It still doesn't completely absolve all vaccines from, at the least, being possible contributing factors to our now present autism epidemic.   What about thimerisol (not contained in the MMR)?  What about aluminum and other potentially hazardous substances contained in most vaccines?  What about the actual immunization schedule?

I am so sick and tired of hearing how science has “proven” that vaccines have no connection to autism; it has not!  At best, some statistical analyses might indicate that there is no statistical connection, but as far as I know, no one has ever published any double-blind, control experiment that shows that vaccines, given in the combinations given, at the ages given, with all the original crap in them, are perfectly safe.  To the contrary, read “Evidence of Harm.”  Actual scientific studies using lab animals seems to prove the contrary when it comes to some of the materials used to produce vaccines.  (http://sparkdevelopment.blogspot.com/2010/02/poor-doctor-wakefield.html).

And, as many have come to conclude, autism is most assuredly caused by multiple factors; if you can only really investigate potential contributors one at a time, you are not likely to find any real answers. 

I'm also sick and tired of hearing how people like Wakefield have put our children at risk by creating a fear of vaccines.  Quite frankly, I think the government and the medical industry are far more to blame for creating an atmosphere of mistrust.  When originally presented with legitimate fears of harm back in the 1990's about a plausible, possible causal connection between vaccines and autism, instead of immediately taking steps to lessen any potential harm, the two entities dug in and did everything they could to defend the status quo.  I mean, really, first a denial that the staggering rise in autism wasn't real?  Their original explanation (which has seemingly been abandoned) was the higher numbers weren't really new cases, just "a change in the definition of autism," and "better diagnostics."

Then a denial that it had anything to do with the environment ("it's all genetics").  Also, now a seemingly abandoned train of thought, the numbers can't justify the "genetic roulette" theory, let alone the fact that if it were purely genetics, then where are all the thirty, forty, fifty, etc., year olds with autism?


Then a refusal to ban substances like thimerisol despite the AAP's suggestion to do so as early as 1999 because of it's potential to do harm, and the FDA's ban of the substance in animal vaccines and over the counter products because it was too dangerous, and it's not even really needed in vaccines at all!  


Then, just adding vaccine after vaccine to the list of mandatory shots that our kids have to get lest they not be allowed to attend public school.

Really??  Wouldn't it have been better to say, "We hear your concerns, and while we do not believe vaccines have any connection to autism, we will do everything we can to lessen any potential threat.  We will remove all non-necessary ingredients.  We will stop the practice of multi-dosing.  We will spread the shots out over a longer time period and warn parents to watch for potential side-effects.  We will only mandate vaccines for truly dangerous, life-threatening diseases."

I, for one, would have been far more trusting of this approach.