Nytt intervju med Dr. Wakefield

[mamma-x-3]

Intervju med Dr Andrew Wakefield om the British Medical Journal, forskning og vaksiner. Dr Wakefield slår også her tilbake mot BMJ svartmalingsprosess.

 

http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=608256A446123276E4E72A5351322186

 

.....

"[The data] were faithfully reproduced in the Lancet paper, and they were made in the most scrupulous, meticulous way. Those are the facts. Brian Deer knew those facts. When he made his allegations to the BMJ, he knew those facts. Did he disclose them to the BMJ? More importantly, did the BMJ, as a peer reviewed scientific journal, did they check the facts? Because the facts were fully available to them in the book Callous Disregard."

 

Dr Wakefield also explains how this desperate move by the BMJ to attack Dr Wakefield has eroded the credibility of the publication:

 

"They have been hijacked by a freelance journalist who is not expert in any of these fields. They have handed over their journal to this man and allowed him to publish knowingly false allegations, and they have gone along with it. In my opinion, they [the BMJ] have blown their scientific credibility. In their desperation... their fundamental belief that vaccines must be safe, [they say] please don't tell me this terrible disease has been caused by the physician, don't tell me that. Tell me anything but that, and we will take any information, even information from Brian Deer, that will convince us it's safe, and we will publish that, because that conforms with our belief system. That makes us feel more comfortable......"

[MortenO]

I og med at du absolutt må åpne nye tråder om samme tema hele tiden fremfor å diskutere i en tråd om gangen, tar jeg meg den friheten å poste samme innlegg også i denne tråden:

---

Jeg venter fortsatt på en skriftlig debunk av Brian Deer, med kildehenvisninger.

Er imidlertid redd den dagen aldri kommer, da Deer har gjort en formidabel og grundig jobb med å rote i møkka til Wakefield.

 

Hva skal forresten til for at du slutter å tro på Wakefield?

---

Et lite tilleggspørsmål: Hvor mange innsatte i et fengsel tror du innrømmer skyld? Skal man slippe ut alle som sier de er uskyldige eller skal man forholde seg til bevisene som er lagt frem?

[Helseinterressert]

Virker som om BMJ og angrepene mot Wakefield sliter litt for tiden

[MortenO]

Eneste som sliter er Wakefield og hans troverdighet

 

Rapporteringen i Norske medier tar seg litt opp igjen:

http://fil.nrk.no/helse-forbruk-og-livsstil/1.7451733

 

Noen highlights:

12 barn utgjorde studien til Wakefield:

- Bare ett av barna hadde tegn på autisme.

- Tre var ikke autister i det hele tatt.

- Fem hadde autistiske trekk før MMR-vaksinen.

- Enkelte av tilfellene ble rapportert å ha inntruffet rett etter vaksinasjonen, men datoene ble forfalsket.

- Ni av barna hadde normale prøver fra endetarmen, men prøvene ble i rapporten endret til å indikere kolitt.

- Enkelte av barna ble rekruttert av MMR-motstandere, og studien ble bestilt og finansiert av et advokatbyrå som var ute etter å ta produsenten av vaksinen.

----

Så BMJ sliter ikke i det hele tatt faktisk

[Helseinterressert]

Spørsmål som synes vanskelig å besvare av angriperne:

 

QUESTIONS FOR BMJ EDITORS:

 

 

 

1. Do the BMJ editors stand by their 6 Jan 2011 editorial "Wakefield’s article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent" alleging Andrew Wakefield alone and unassisted committed research fraud?

 

 

 

This relates to a 1998 Lancet medical journal "early report" calling for more research into a finding of a new bowel syndrome in children exhibiting autistic symptoms?

 

 

 

2. The editors claim "Wakefield altered numerous facts about the patients’ medical histories in order to support his claim to have identified a new syndrome" and base this substantially on a comparison between early general family doctor records and what was reported in The Lancet early report.

 

 

 

Do the BMJ editors dispute that:

 

 

 

■it was impossible for that to be done by anyone as they have alleged

■it could not have been done by Dr Wakefield

■those experts carried out their own investigations afresh

■none of the other 12 expert specialist medical professionals at The Royal Free Hospital London worked from or even saw those "patients’ medical histories"

■Dr Wakefield faithfully reported the data and results provided by his other 12 expert professional colleagues

 

 

3. If these matters are disputed, can the BMJ produce the data and results provided to Dr Wakefield by his 12 colleagues and demonstrate where The Lancet early report diverges.

 

 

 

4. If the editors cannot produce evidence, do they now retract their editorial and the paper by Mr Brian Deer upon which it is based and which they also published.

 

 

 

5. Can the editors confirm that neither they nor Mr Deer had sight of or access to the "prospective developmental records" of the 12 Lancet children [the "Red Books"].

 

 

 

These were used as part of the basis for detailed clinical histories investigating afresh early signs of disintegrative disorder.

 

 

 

6. Do the editors agree that family doctors would not have considered "disintegrative disorder" nor looked for early signs.

 

 

 

7. If the editors still stand by their story how do they account for the fact that those 12 specialist expert medical professionals read and reviewed the Lancet paper before submission for publication, approved Wakefield's report of their work and put their names to the paper.

 

 

 

8. Do the editors accept that by accusing Dr Wakefield of fraud they are accusing all the other 12 experts.

 

 

 

9. Do the editors also accuse the authors of the following papers of fraud for claiming to have found the same or a closely similar condition in autistic patients:-

 

 

 

Balzola F, Barbon V, Repici A, Rizzetto M. Panenteric IBD-like disease in a patient with regressive autism shown for the first time by the wireless capsule enteroscopy: another piece in the jigsaw of this gut-brain syndrome? Am J Gastro. 2005; 979-981. (Italian replication)

 

 

 

Balzola F, et al. Autistic enterocolitis: confirmation of a new inflammatory bowel disease in an Italian cohort of patients. Gastroenterology.2005;128:Suppl.2;A-303. . (Italian replication)

 

 

 

Balzola F, et al. Beneficial behavioural effects of IBD therapy and gluten/casein-free diet in an Italian cohort of patients with autistic enterocolitis followed over one year. Gastroenterology, 2006:30; suppl. 2 S1364 A-21. . (Italian replication)

 

 

 

Chen B, Girgis S, El-Matary W. Childhood autism and eosinophilic colitis. Digestion. 2010;81:127-9. (Canadian replication)

 

 

 

Galiatsatos P, et al. Autistic enterocolitis: fact or fiction? Can J Gastroenterol 2009;23:95-98. (Canadian replication)

 

 

 

Gonzalez L, Lopez K, Navarro D, Negron L, Flores L, Rodriguez R, Martinez M, Sabra A. Endoscopic and Histological Characteristics of the digestive mucosa in autistic children with gastrointestinal symptoms. Arch Venez Pueric Pediatr 69;1:19-25 (Venezuelan replication)

 

 

 

Horvath K et al. Gastrointestinal abnormalities in children with autistic disorder. J Pediatr. 1999;135:559-63. (US replication)

 

 

 

Krigsman A, Boris M, Goldblatt A et al. Clinical Presentation and Histologic Findings at Ileocolonoscopy in Children with Autistic Spectrum Disorder and Chronic Gastrointestinal Symptoms. Autism Insights 2010;2:1-11 (US replication)

 

 

 

.

[modernemann]

Du burde oppgitt kilde for denne listen med spørsmål. Hvis dette er wakefields forsvar lyver han selv når han forsøker å forsvare seg, ingen av studiene som blir listet opp til slutt repliserer hans resultater.

[Helseinterressert]

Disse studiene støtter wakefields funn og styrker Wakefields sak. Det blir spennende å så fortsettelsen.

[ostepop123]

Hahaha, har du lest disse studiene, Helseinterressert? Ja eller nei?