Spiked on MMR and Wakefield: What are the costs?
Dr. Michael Fitzgerald Fitzpatrick states “There’s nothing in it” regarding the MMR-autism theory in Spiked today. Fitzpatrick focuses on London-based molecular biologist Stephen Bustin’s testimony in the autism omnibus “vaccine court” hearings in Washington, D.C. in June. Fitzpatrick cites the 2002 claim made by a team led by Dublin pathologist John O’Leary, that measles RNA had been found in gut biopsies of children with autism—-a claim which “appeared to provide powerful vindication for Wakefield’s hypothesis that a distinctive inflammatory bowel condition – dubbed ‘autistic enterocolitis’ – was the mediating link between MMR and autism”—-but not so. Bustin, writes Fitzpatrick,
comprehensively exposed the unreliability of O’Leary’s findings, based on an investigation of his laboratory carried out in early 2004. ‘It has been incredibly frustrating’, Professor Bustin told me on his return from the USA. ‘For three years we have been unable [for legal reasons] to reveal our findings. Now I want to get the message out about the O’Leary/Wakefield research: there’s nothing in it.’
Bustin’s revelations follow a series of studies, using the most rigorous techniques, which have failed to replicate O’Leary’s results, while other researchers have disputed the existence of ‘autistic enterocolitis’ as a distinctive disease entity (see footnotes 1-3). All these results are reassuring to parents of autistic children, whose anxieties have been needlessly provoked by the Wakefield campaign. Parents facing decisions about immunisation can also be reassured that the MMR-autism scare has been shown to have no basis in science.
Though it is good news for parents, the testimony of Bustin and other expert witnesses was yet another blow for the anti-vaccine campaigners as Andrew Wakefield returns to London next week from his new base in a private clinic in Texas to face charges of professional misconduct at the General Medical Council.
Fitzpatrick notes that £15million has been spent in legal aid funding on the MMR litigation, with the following breakdown: around £8million to solicitors, £1.7million to barristers, £4.3million shared among expert witnesses. And, “the children, of course, were left with nothing.” And after the lawyers and witnesses in U.S. vaccine court get paid, what will the families be left with?
Related Stories
POSTED IN: Junk Science, Legal Issues, Money, Vaccines
28 opinions for Spiked on MMR and Wakefield: What are the costs?
Justthisguy
Jul 4, 2007 at 10:33 pm
Well, all I can say, is that sometimes doctors are better than lawyers, because sometimes they can save your life, whereas the best a lawyer can do for you is save you from another lawyer.
That aside, please have a look at the latest comment thread over at Ballastexentenz’s place in which I declared myself to be an idiot.
As a classical scholar and professor, even, please tell us what you think about that. In your own idiosyncratic way, of course.
Kristina Chew, PhD
Jul 4, 2007 at 10:48 pm
I think you mean this thread and comment—–the Greek root word has a much less exciting (fewer fireworks) meaning: Idiotes refers to a “private citizen,” versus one’s public self, and that could be related to, one would suppose, ““Cranky Weird Individualist Who Just Doesn’t Fit In With the Normal People”………
Justthisguy
Jul 4, 2007 at 11:06 pm
Yup, Ma’am, that’s what I thought.
Kristina Chew, PhD
Jul 4, 2007 at 11:14 pm
I’ve generally preferred not having to give our money to lawyers, but rather to teachers and therapists, who spend time with Charlie.
You might say that the idiotes stands out in a democracy, demokratia.
Justthisguy
Jul 4, 2007 at 11:55 pm
I think people have differing ideas of what democracy is. As near as I can tell, most people these days seem to think democracy means everybody voting on every public question which comes up.
Jerry Pournelle says that Aristotle said, that democracy means the polity is ruled by those who possess the goods of fortune in moderation, that is, the middle class.
The USA used to accord with the latter definition. We seem to be changing, so as to have more very rich people than formerly, and more very poor people than formerly, and not so many moderately well-off people as we used to have, proportionately.
I think that this is bad for the Republic
Justthisguy
Jul 5, 2007 at 12:07 am
Umm, sorry to get all off-topic like. In my defense, I plead associative thinking and drunkenness.
Good night!
John Taylor
Jul 5, 2007 at 11:44 am
You mean “Fitzpatrick” not “Fitzgerald”!
Kristina Chew, PhD
Jul 5, 2007 at 11:46 am
Thank you!
BrstPathDoc
Jul 5, 2007 at 12:22 pm
“..Andrew Wakefield returns to London next week from his new base in a private clinic in Texas..”
http://www.thoughtfulhouse.org/index.html
Well, now I’m depressed. The virtue of the Lone Star State, sullied. And in Austin, the very city of my beloved alma mater. I’ve previously balked at suggestions to take my daughter to Fraughtfull House. Good thing. I might as well take her to a fake doctor made of dynamite.
George Wade
Jul 6, 2007 at 1:48 am
Doc,
Do listen to one of Dr Wakefield’s own lectures before you dismiss him in language that he would not use against you. He is articulate and quietly spoken. Modest in his arguments; but firm.
“Fitzpatrick focuses on London-based molecular biologist Stephen Bustin’s testimony in the autism omnibus “vaccine court” hearings in Washington, D.C. in June.”
Focussing on one testimony gets us nowhere: courts use primitive logic that kills science. We have to focus on the whole field; with related disciplines kept in mind. We have to take promising ideas that can be used practically: not to do so is cowardice.
I’m still an aspie because dentists intoxicated themselves first, then 6 generations of Europeans and Americans with dangerous metals. Do you have to be an aspie to see through this?
The vaccines are just the straws that broke the toddlers’ backs. There were other straws… And other diseases. Sorry if that is too complex.
Kristina Chew, PhD
Jul 6, 2007 at 1:55 am
There is also the reporting of Brian Deer on Wakefield.
George Wade
Jul 6, 2007 at 2:23 am
I would not expect much of rhe proceedings of any court to stand up in a peer reviewed scientific journal. The objectives are different.
This may be why patients don’t often go to court for effective medical treatment: just to win or to lose money.
The work of Brian Deer is not much better; it is all verbal battles: wasting my time. Would either Dr. Michael Fitzpatrick or Brian Deer improve my Asperger’s condition? No. But either of them would very likely make it much worse and expect to be compensated accordingly.
BrstPathDoc
Jul 6, 2007 at 11:12 am
Mr Wade,
Your comments are well-received. However, I must respectfully disagree. While said Dr. Wakefield may be articulate and quietly spoken, he is operating on scientific data which are specious at best, fundamentally dishonest at worst. The Deer and Fitzgerald articles are not my main source. The Omnibus testimony of Dr. Bustin (ftp://autism.uscfc.uscourts.gov/autism/index.html) explodes the methodology which generated all the data forming the foundation of Wakefield’s “theories”. Having a rudimentary knowledge of molecular genetics, I myself was appalled at the lack of quality control and assurance. Believe who you want, but it’s usually a good bet that the world authority on the topic (PCR) who has zero financial interest in the results would be a good source of credibility.
Apparently the folks back in the UK also think there’s fire to go with all the smoke surrounding this guy’s credibility.
http://www.gmcpressoffice.org.uk/apps/news/latest/detail.php?key=344
When I learned that Wakefield is now at the Austin clinic, it made sense. I had my doubts about the place before, and then I saw one of their “applications.” Once you sign a few releases, they basically open up your wallet and they vacuum out all the money inside, for unproven and experimental therapies. As such, insurance won’t even thinking about helping with the costs - here are their own words: “Do you bill insurance? No, due to the variability of insurance benefits. We can assist you by providing invoices with coding and HCFA forms as needed, on request. You are responsible for payment for services, which is due at the time of service.” Translate: we’ll provide you with the proper forms so you can be denied by your insurance company for the reasons stated above. So how much do they charge? $390/hour. Not including labwork, procedures and whatever else they can think to bill you for. You can claim that’s how all medical clinics work, and I could make counterarguments, but that’s for another time.
“Would either Dr. Michael Fitzpatrick or Brian Deer improve my Asperger’s condition? No. But either of them would very likely make it much worse and expect to be compensated accordingly.” With all due respect, don’t you think this is a somewhat unfair presupposition of these gentlemen’s potential motivations, particularly in light of your admonishment to me vis-a-vis Wakefield (who has a proven, and significant, financial motivation)?
Thanks for the lively discussion.
Kristina Chew, PhD
Jul 6, 2007 at 1:07 pm
I’ve been wondering about the services offered at Thoughtful House — did you get the sense that a “package” of services was offfered, rather than the providers really considering your child’s individual needs?
George Wade
Jul 6, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Christina,
I am a member of the Thoughtful House Listserve, Watching that I get a very strong sense of individual needs being attended to. If I get some spare cash in the next two years I’ll certainly ask them about investigation and treatment for illiac disease / colitis for myself.
BPDoc:
The argument about Dr Wakefield’s work is to be carried on well into the future: at least 15 to 25 years. In the meantime I do not intend to do nothing. That is why I use techniques like 6 Hats & Mind Maps to scan the papers and articles available for useful possibilities. Mostly I choose traditional medicine: nutrition with supplements and detoxification. I would not turn down any pharmaceutical that appeared to work well and the side effects of which I could manage; but I’d probably phase it out in favour of nutrition that did the same job as soon as possible.
I absolutely don’t care if testimony in court exploded credibility… Under critical logic that is painfully easy to do in any required direction. What that logic cannot do is get on with action.
Western society has been extraordinarily weak in getting system logic working except in weather forecasting, perhaps genomics? space exploration. That prevents us “Getting a grip on the whole epidemic of childhood disease and disabilities” doesn’t it.
Believe me, I’m delighted not to have wasted my life in traditional cancer research. It has done no better than traditional autism research, has it? Excruciatingly slow progress.
Meanwhile Ortho Molecular Medicine has made great practical strides. Not proven? Why are modern medical researchers, or their taskmasters, so terrified of real research?
BrstPathDoc
Jul 6, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Kristina,
Thoughtful House begins with a check list evaluation of your child’s symptoms, tx histories, etc. They then offer a “new client intake call” where they steer you towards lab studies and a Thoughtful House appointment. Dr. Krigman (also of Omnibus trial fame) then does a GI assessment. I would suspect they would argue that any therapeutic intervention after that is taylored to the patient’s individual needs, but I’ve never seen a clinic that wouldn’t make that exact same claim. I also suspect that each patient’s individual needs end up in some sort of GI issues. Certainly some kids really have GI issues. My child really doesn’t. Between the GI-oriented questions are the usual “did mom have fish during pregnancy, does mom have amalgam fillings, did mom get a flu shot” direction - you can probably do the math where these lead. I’m note sure what lab they use for their results - that would be interesting to me. This may or may not answer your question, but I have declined to spend the thousands of dollars to collect more information to elaborate further.
GW:
Each person has the absolute right to seek medical intervention in whatever way they deem most suitable. If you choose to follow some “non-traditional” paths, by all means, I wish you well. There is a definite possibility of pouring money down a rabbit hole, and we all have individual thresholds for what we’re willing to try. You’re argument of “I don’t care if this method is proven, I’m trying this anyway” is commonly held. And it’s a cottage industry for those who will be more than happy to accommodate, with a tidy profit.
If you should read my moniker, you would undoubtedly suspect that my opinions on modern cancer research are somewhat disparate from yours. We both certainly agree on one point - cancer research certainly has shown excruciatingly slow progress in some areas. But progress, nonetheless, has been achieved. The genetics of cancer, and this is the core of the disease, is protean. “Cancer” is a catchall term - there are more different tumors than I care to elaborate, nor you to read. There are so many different pathways to one end - carcinogenesis - that it boggles the mind. Autism may be a similar case.
BrstPathDoc
Jul 6, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Kristina,
Thoughtful House begins with a check list evaluation of your child’s symptoms, tx histories, etc. They then offer a “new client intake call” where they steer you towards lab studies and a Thoughtful House appointment. Dr. Krigman (also of Omnibus trial fame) then does a GI assessment. I would suspect they would argue that any therapeutic intervention after that is tailored to the patient’s individual needs, but I’ve never seen a clinic that wouldn’t make that exact same claim. I also suspect that each patient’s individual needs end up in some sort of GI issues. Certainly some kids really have GI issues. My child really doesn’t. Between the GI-oriented questions are the usual “did mom have fish during pregnancy, does mom have amalgam fillings, did mom get a flu shot” direction - you can probably do the math where these lead. I’m not sure what lab they use for their results - that would be interesting to me. This may or may not answer your question, but I have declined to spend the thousands of dollars to collect more information to elaborate further.
GW:
Each person has the absolute right to seek medical intervention in whatever way they deem most suitable. If you choose to follow some “non-traditional” paths, by all means, I wish you well. There is a definite possibility of pouring money down a rabbit hole, and we all have individual thresholds for what we’re willing to try. Your argument of “I don’t care if this method is proven, I’m trying this anyway” is commonly held. And it’s a cottage industry for those who will be more than happy to accommodate, with a tidy profit.
If you should read my moniker, you would undoubtedly suspect that my opinions on modern cancer research are somewhat disparate from yours. We both certainly agree on one point - cancer research certainly has shown excruciatingly slow progress in some areas. But progress, nonetheless, has been achieved. The genetics of cancer, and this is the core of the disease, is protean. “Cancer” is a catchall term - there are more different tumors than I care to elaborate, nor you to read. There are so many different pathways to one end - carcinogenesis - that it boggles the mind. Autism may be a similar process. Both are obviously complex. Talk to the mother of a child with a curable malignancy, when that child would be dead in a matter of months 40 years ago, and ask them if the research was worth it. 40 years from now, there may be treatment interventions which would place autism in the same category as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder - 2 highly manageable neurologic conditions. Would that benefit be worth the time devoted? What’s it doing for us now? The same thing that the current treatment for the curable malignancy is doing for the mother of 40 years ago. The era in which you are born in some ways can be a blessing, in others a curse. Such are the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.
BrstPathDoc
Jul 6, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Some unknown entity caused my computer to send a half-composed message. Mercury, I suspect. Sorry about that. I’m looking into a chelation mousepad.
George Wade
Jul 6, 2007 at 5:55 pm
“I don’t care if this method is proven, I’m trying this anyway” is commonly held.”
This is a very small part of my argument. The treatment I tried has been working well for me over 10 years; much better lately.
Now I’m off to try MB12, perhaps with Valtrex, as a practical exercise: because the only true science is experimental.
I won’t be arguing anymore. And careful with that Chelation Mousepad…
Kristina Chew, PhD
Jul 6, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Perhaps one session in a far infrared sauna might do the trick.
George Wade
Jul 6, 2007 at 6:36 pm
100 sessions: I don’t know anything that does the trick in one shot. Neither does just one technique.
See you in August.
BrstPathDoc
Jul 6, 2007 at 7:25 pm
George: Cheers.
Kristina: Touche.
Crimson Wife
Jul 10, 2007 at 6:31 pm
I would personally like to see a well-designed, non-corporately funded randomized trial comparing the combined MMR vaccine plus 2 placebos with the 3 monovalent vax. The studies the medical establishment loves to cite in their claim of no link between the combined MMR and autism have serious conflicts of interest and methodological flaws.
I don’t know whether there is a link between the combined MMR and autism, but enough questions have been raised about it to warrant caution.
HCN
Jul 10, 2007 at 7:32 pm
Have you looked towards Japan. There they abandoned the use of the MMR (by the way, it was a different one than the UK and USA). The rates of autism still went up, along with the incidence of measles:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=16865547
and
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=15877763
HCN
Jul 13, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Crimson Wife, why won’t you answer my questions on Orac’s blog or your own blog?
I tried to post it on this entry:
http://bendingthetwigs.blogspot.com/2007/07/petition-in-support-of-mmr-autism.html … but it has not appeared. Did it get lost? Did you read it? Have you just made up your mind and are now unwilling to accept any information that counters that belief?
Anyway, other good reading can be found here:
http://nhsblogdoc.blogspot.com/2007/07/andrew-wakefield-mmr-autism-and-gmc.html
John Fryer
Sep 11, 2007 at 8:27 am
To BrstPathDoc
Regardless of whether Bustin is right you cannot get away with ZERO FINANCIAL INTEREST. He has probably the lions share of 4.3 millions for his testimony and is the preferred mouthpiece of Merck and all the other vaccine companies.
He who pays the piper?
O’Leary got huge sums and came up with the goods for Wakefield.
Bustin got his pay and comes up with the goods for Merck.
But why is Bustin taken above O’Leary?
I too have rudimentary knowledge of science and these techniques are fairly low in accuracy but rather than say he doesnt like posters on doors why not publish his results of the investigation with the figures given to him by O’Leary?
If they are not saying what O’Leary claims I would like to see the evidence of O’Leary malpractice.
What I see is one argument against another.
This is obfuscation.
John Fryer M Sc B Sc Advanced Analytical Chemist
Justthisguy
Sep 14, 2007 at 2:11 am
OMGWTFBBQ anti-vaxer “Advanced Analytical Chemist”?
Jtg giggles.
Look, Mr. Fryer, Big Pharma does exist, and it is Big, and there are (I think) some problems there, but I don’t think those guys make up unnecessary vaccinations. I don’t think that would be in their interest.
No skin off my nose, I got my measles immunity the old-fashioned way, in the 1950s, by getting the measles, like everybody else back then.
Oh, and Scarlet Fever, too, which I think got me my asymmetrical myopia.
Biomed, Anecdotal Evidence, and Thoughtful House
May 4, 2008 at 4:13 pm
[…] and his theories about autism causation and the misconduct charges against him in the UK, go here, here, and […]
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: