May we direct your attention to Dr Andrew Wakefield’s 58 page submission to the Press Complaints Commission complaining of Brian Deer’s recent revelations in Sunday Times.
These allegations are false and/or misleading and will have a hugely adverse effect on my credibility as a scientist and my ability to ever practice again in my chosen field. More importantly, the impact of Mr. Deer’s false and misleading claims upon the perception of medical professionals of the medical disorder suffered by the Lancet children and therefore, the provision of adequate care for autistic children, is potentially devastating.
It is more probable that any shards of credibility as a scientist disappeared with the testimony of Dr Nick Chadwick and Professor Stephen Bustin at the Autism Omnibus Proceedings in 2007. Continue reading
In June 2007, as the Autism Omnibus Hearings were in progress and the initial test case was being heard, Patrick Holford contacted his mailing list and asked them to sign a petition in support of Dr Andrew Wakefield. Although it doesn’t look like he ever signed the petition, it is clear that he influenced other people to sign, people who directly cited him as instrumental in the decision not to vaccinate children against preventable diseases.
Dr Carmel O’Donovan, Andrew Wakefield’s wife, recently emailed around asking for signatures in support of him. However, it seems that there is another petition, this one grandiosely and desperately asking people to sign up to We Support Andy Wakefield (Tiny URL’d). Age of Autism rather half-heartedly just reproduces the blusterous call for an enquiry (Tiny URL’d) and, without any trace of irony, condemns “the censorship of science” and the competence of Brian Deer in his remarkable investigative journalism.
We offer an annotated version of the petition: all links have been added by us and our text additions are in italics. Continue reading
Former Visiting Professor Patrick Holford has what he calls a blog.[a]
So far, it contains the usual inaccuracies and reproduces articles that he wrote some time ago and Holford seems to regard it as a way of recycling his usual work.
However, this has been such a remarkable week for exposing the shoddy edifice that supports some of Holford’s cash cows and entrepreneurial enterprises that we had wondered if he would crack and write about them. Continue reading
The Autism Omnibus held hearings into three tests cases that were intended to establish a principle of general causation that links vaccinations with developmental conditions or neurological damage and would therefore qualify for compensation from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Three families agreed to be the test cases presented in court – the Cedillos, the Hazelhursts and the Snyders – on behalf of the Petitioners’ Steering Committee (PSC). However, the panel of Special Masters has ruled that the PSC did not presented sufficient plausible or adequante evidence to demonstrate that vaccines are causally linked to autism in these children, even using the comparatively light standard of the ‘preponderance of evidence’. Brief ruling note.
Thousands of parents who claimed that childhood vaccines had caused their children to develop autism are wrong and not entitled to federal compensation, a special court ruled today in three decisions with far-reaching implications for a bitterly fought medical controversy…
The decision by three independent special masters is especially telling because the special court’s rules did not require plaintiffs to prove their cases with scientific certainty — all the parents needed to show was that a preponderance of the evidence, or “50 percent and a hair,” supported their claims. The vaccine court effectively said today that the thousands of pending claims represented by the three test cases are on extremely shaky ground.
In his ruling on one case, special master George Hastings said the parents of Michelle Cedillo — who had charged that a measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine caused their child to develop autism — had “been misled by physicians who are guilty, in my view, of gross medical misjudgment.”
There is some additional information on US Court of Federal Claims and the detailed rulings behind the decisions are available. Continue reading
The first part of the list is: Jeni Barnett and the LBC Radio MMR Vaccine Segment: Updated with links of blog coverage.
We are now constructing a supplementary list of blog posts and other coverage of Ben Goldacre v. Jeni Barnett, LBC and Global Radio in re: MMR Vaccine Segment 7 Jan 2009 from Feb 11 2009 (with some key posts from the first list). This will be a rolling update for some time. Continue reading