Scientists retract study suggesting vaccine, autism link

<<< Back to Vaccines

Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 13:18:58 -0800
To: CBC TV & Radio
From: croft woodruff
Subject: Scientists retract study suggesting vaccine, autism link
Bcc: LIFELINE, CDN MP's

Just where are these "rigorous studies" these "scientists" allege disprove the autism/vaccine connection ?

Reviews and opinions published so far in the medical journals are no substitute for time trend placebo controlled clinical trials. Such trials simply have not been done. I defy anyone to provide such a study to prove otherwise.

One study that has emerged demonstrated that the DNA in the MMR vaccine given to the children at Royal Free Hospital and found in their intestines is identical to the DNA of the virus found in their spinal fluid. DNA does not lie but those in private and public health, government, and the drug industry and who have much to lose in position, reputation, credibility and bankrupting litigation have motivation to be and have been careless with the facts. Incidentally, How does one tell if many of these so-called "rigorous studies" cited by the defenders of the vaccines may have been ghost written by operatives hired by the vaccine manufacturers as has occurred with other pharmaceuticals going through the approval process? Shame on the media for not demanding copies of these "rigorous studies" to be vetted and verified by scientists independent of the vaccine bureaucracy, industry and government.

Those most vulnerable to a confirmation of an autism/vaccine appear to prefer denial or trash the reputation of Dr. Andrew Wakefield rather than demand or do the necessary clinical trials that would settle the issue once and for all.

Since childhood vaccines became mandatory in the United States in the 1970's the incidence of autism has risen exponentially. Do insurance companies know something government, the medical establishment and a research challenged media is afraid to know or look into? In the early 1980's vaccine manufacturers in the U.S. threatened to cease production because of bankrupting lawsuits arising out of vaccine induced deaths and injuries and the refusal of insurance underwriters to offer liability coverage. In 1987 the U.S. government passed legislation assuming liability for vaccine induced deaths and injuries in order to save the national immunization program. Since that time over one billion U.S. dollars has been paid out in compensation representing only 10 percent of the claims for vaccine induced deaths and injuries.

How much pressure and by whom may have been placed on Dr. Wakefield's former colleagues to cause their retraction of a study that ultimately had been peer reviewed and accepted for publication by Lancet?

Croft Woodruff
6262-A Fraser Street
Vancouver BC V5W 3A1
604 327 3889

DR WAKEFIELD: His side of the story

Dr Andrew Wakefield, pioneered research into a link between autism and the MMR vaccine, was strongly attacked in the London Sunday Times the other week, as reported in the previous E-News. In particular he was criticised for receiving funds from a legal aid charity that was representing parents of children who were possibly injured by the vaccine. His statement follows in full.

"Serious allegations have been made against me and my colleagues in relation to the provision of clinical care for children with autism and bowel disease, and the subsequent reporting of their disease. These allegations have been made by journalist Brian Deer who has expressed, in front of witnesses, his aim of destroying me.

All but one of the allegations, which are grossly defamatory, have been shown to be baseless. One allegation remains against me personally. That is, that I did not disclose to the Lancet that a minority of the 12 children in the 1998 Lancet report were also part of a quite separate study that was funded in part by the Legal Aid Board.

It is the Lancet's opinion but not mine that such a disclosure should have been made since it may have been perceived as a conflict of interest. This is despite that fact that the funding was provided for a separate scientific study.

It needs to be made clear that the funds from the Legal Aid Board were not used for the 1998 Lancet study, and therefore I perceived that no financial conflict of interest existed.

The Lancet defines a conflict of interest as anything that might embarrass the author if it were to be revealed later. I am not embarrassed since it is a matter of fact that there was no conflict of interest. I am, however, dismayed at the way these facts have been misrepresented.

Whether or not the children's parents were pursuing, or intended to pursue litigation against the vaccine manufacturers, had no bearing on any clinical decision in relation to these children, or their inclusion in the Lancet 1998 report.

It is a matter of fact that there was no conflict of interest at any time in relation to the medical referral of these children, their clinical investigation and care, and the subsequent reporting of their disease in the Lancet.

As far as the 1998 Lancet report is concerned, it is a matter of fact that we found and reported inflammation in the intestines of these children.

The grant of �55,000 was paid not me but to the Royal Free Hospital Special Trustees for my research group to conduct studies on behalf of the Legal Aid Board. These research funds were properly administered through the Royal Free Hospital Special Trustees.

The Legal Aid research grant to my group was used exclusively for the purpose of conducting an examination of any possible connection between the component viruses of the MMR - particularly measles virus - and the bowel disease in these children. This is entirely in line with other studies that have been funded by the Legal Aid Board (latterly the Legal Services Commission) and reported in the BMJ. If and when this work is finally published, due acknowledgement will be made of all sources of funding.

It is unfortunate that, following full disclosure of these facts to the editor of the Lancet, he stated that in retrospect he would not have published facts pertinent to the parent's perceived association with MMR vaccine in the 1998 Lancet report. Such a position has major implications or the scientific investigation of injuries that might be caused by drugs or vaccines, such as Gulf War Syndrome and autism, where possible victims may be seeking medical help and also legal redress.

Back to top of Document