From: john on
The Lancet Retraction Changes Nothing

by David Kirby

Feb 2, 2010

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/the-emlancetem-retraction_b_446749.html

Dr. Andrew Wakefield is one of the most vilified medical practitioners of
recent times, and now he carries the extremely rare dishonor of a retraction
in The Lancet, on the paper he coauthored in 1998 suggesting a potential
link between autism, bowel disease and Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) vaccine.

I believe that the public lynching and shaming of Dr. Wakefield is
unwarranted and overwrought, and that history will ultimately judge who was
right and who was wrong about proposing a possible association between
vaccination and regressive autistic spectrum disorder (ASD).

Wakefield's critics can condemn, retract, decry and de-license all they
want, but that does nothing to stop or alter the march of science, which has
come a long way over the past 12 years, and especially in the last year or
two. The evidence that autism is increasing at alarming rates, and that some
thing (or things) in our environment is wreaking havoc on a vulnerable
one-percent of all US children is now so irrefutable that, finally, the
federal government is climbing aboard the environmental research bandwagon -
way late, but better than never.

This long-overdue paradigm shift will leave many in the scientific community
with some proverbial but nonetheless uncomfortable egg on their increasingly
irrelevant faces: Those who have protested with shrill certainty that autism
is almost purely genetic, and not environmental in nature, and therefore not
really increasing at all, will hopefully recede from the debate.

And that begs a nagging question: If those people were dead wrong about
environmental factors in autism, could they also be mistaken in their
equally heated denials about a possible vaccine-autism link? More bluntly,
why should we heed them any longer?

We need to examine a host of environmental factors (air, water, food,
medicine, household products and social factors) and how they might interact
with vulnerable genes to create the varying collection of symptoms we call
"autism." But these triggers almost have to be found in every town of every
county of every state in the land - from Maine to Maui.

Are vaccines the only contributing factors to autism? Of course not. Other
pharmaceutical products like thalidomide and valporic acid, as well as live
mumps virus, have been associated with increased autism risk in prenatal
exposures, so we already know that a variety of drugs and bugs can likely
make a child autistic.

But, there are now at least six published legal or scientific cases of
children regressing into ASD following vaccination - and many more will be
revealed in due time.

There was the case of Hannah Poling, in federal vaccine court, in which the
government conceded that Hannah's autism was caused by vaccine-induced fever
and overstimulation of the immune system that aggravated an asymptomatic and
previously undetected dysfunction of her mitochondria. Hannah received nine
vaccines in one day, including MMR.

Then there was the Bailey Banks case, in which the court ruled that
Petitioners had proven that MMR had directly caused a brain inflammation
illness called "acute disseminated encephalomyelitis" (ADEM) which, in turn,
had caused PDD-NOS, an autism spectrum disorder, in Bailey.

And last September, a chart review of children with autism and mitochondrial
disease, published in the Journal of Child Neurology, looked at 28 children
with ASD and mitochondrial disease and found that 17 of them (60.7%) had
gone through autistic regression, and 12 of the regressive cases had
followed a fever. Among the 12 children who regressed after fever, a third
(4) had fever associated with vaccination, just like Hannah Poling.

The authors reported that "recommended vaccination schedules are appropriate
in mitochondrial disease," although "fever management appears important for
decreasing regression risk."

That conclusion, however, is not supported by some of the world's leading
experts on mitochondrial disease, including Dr. Douglas Wallace, a professor
of pediatrics and biological chemistry at UC Irvine, and director of its
Center for Molecular & Mitochondrial Medicine and Genetics. "We have always
advocated spreading the immunizations out as much as possible because every
time you vaccinate, you are creating a challenge for the system" in people
with mito disorders, Dr. Wallace, who was recently named to the National
Academies of Science, testified at a federal vaccine safety meeting.

The possibility that vaccines and mitochondrial disease might be related to
autism was also supported in another chart review published in PLoS Online.
The authors wrote that mitochondrial autism is not at all rare, and said
that, "there might be no difference between the inflammatory or catabolic
stress of vaccinations and that of common childhood diseases, which are
known precipitants of mitochondrial regression."

In fact, they added, "Large population-based studies will be needed to
identify a possible relationship of vaccination with autistic regression in
persons with mitochondrial cytopathies."

Another fact that gets little attention in this never-ending debate is that
more than 1,300 cases of vaccine injuries have been paid out in vaccine
court, in which the court ruled that childhood immunizations caused
encephalopathy (brain disease), encephalitis (brain swelling) and/or seizure
disorders. Encephalopathy/encephalitis is found in most if not all ASD
cases, and seizure disorders in about a third of them.

If we know that vaccines can cause these injuries, is it not reasonable to
ask if they can cause similar injuries that lead to autism? (Stay tuned as
those 1,300 cases come under closer scrutiny).

Fortunately, the federal government seems to be getting serious about
identifying ALL potnetial environmental factors that could contribute to
autism, including a few studies that take in vaccines and the
mercury-containing preservative thimerosal. And President Obama's brand-new
budget includes increased spending for autism research at NIH, including
money to help identify environmental factors that contribute to ASD.

Meanwhile, the National Vaccine Advisory Committee has unanimously endorsed
a CDC proposal to study autism as a possible "clinical outcome" of
vaccination, and has recommended several more studies pertaining to vaccines
and autism, including a feasability study on analyzing vaccinated vs.
unvaccinated populations.

And over at the government's leading autism research panel, the Inter-Agency
Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC), the Chairman, National Institute of
Mental Health Director Dr. Thomas Insel, recently told me that that better
diagnosis and reporting could not "explain away this huge increase" in ASD
cases.

"There is no question that there has got to be an environmental component
here," Insel said.
I asked him if the IACC would ever support direct research into vaccines and
autism, now that CDC has rasied the estimated ASD rate from 1-in-150 to
1-in-110, in just two years. "I think what you are going to see with this
update is that there is a recognition that we need to look at subgroups who
might be particularly responsive to environmental factors," he answered.

So what might those factors include? Well, it turns out that the IACC has
unanimously recommend research to determine if certain sub-populations are
more susceptible to environmental exposures such as "immune challenges
related to naturally occurring infections, vaccines or underlying immune
problems."

Nobody seriously thinks that the retraction of The Lancet article, and the
international flogging of Dr. Andrew Wakefield, will do anything to make
this debate go away. And they are right.

David Kirby's new book, "Animal Factory - The Looming Threat of Industrial
Pork, Dairy and Poultry Farms to Humans and the Environment," will be
released on March 2, 2010 by St. Martin's Press. It is currently available
for pre-order at several online outlets, including here.


From: Citizen Jimserac on
On Feb 3, 7:39 am, "john" <nos...(a)bt.com> wrote:
> The Lancet Retraction Changes Nothing
>

Excuse me, there most certainly HAS been a change.

LANCET, the formerly unassailable, irreproachable medical journal,
has admitted it was in error in publishing that article.

And if it was wrong in publishing that one, you can bet that other
articles, which have been given significance way beyond their actual
import or validity, may need to be retracted too.

One of them is a meta analysis which appeared in 2005 in the famous
"End"(sic) of Homeopathy issue in which absurdly broad conclusions
were drawn from a meagre number of studies which were then further
whittled down to grand total of 8 studies on which the erroneous
conclusion, that Homeopathy was no better than placebo, was based. By
an incredible coincidence, PREVIOUS meta analyse that appeared in
Lancet in the preceeding decade, and which concluded that Homeopathy
DID show efficacy.

Now is the time for Lancet to fess up, to admit that they prematurely
rushed into publication a slipshod study which did not even release
the meta analysis data for some weeks or months after the article was
published, and only then after numerous demands for it from outraged
Homeopaths and researchers. In my opinion, Lancet editors were in a
mad rush to make a "response" to a famous speech, which had been
given before the WHO with wide publicity, by Prince Charles in favour
of Homeopathy and Alternative Medicine,

It has been obvious for quite some time that some sort of
politicization has lowered the standards of a once great medical
journal and it is about time that they own up to it, and take the
steps necessary to correct this regrettable unscientific tendency.

This is something which both pro and anti-alternative medicine
advocates should agree on.

Citizen Jimserac (James Pannozzi)
From: drcee on
On Feb 3, 9:45 am, Citizen Jimserac <jimse...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 3, 7:39 am, "john" <nos...(a)bt.com> wrote:
>
> > The Lancet Retraction Changes Nothing
>
> Excuse me, there most certainly HAS been a change.
>
> LANCET, the formerly unassailable, irreproachable medical journal,
> has admitted it was in error in publishing that article.
>
> And if it was wrong in publishing that one, you can bet that other
> articles, which have been given significance way beyond their actual
> import or validity, may need to be retracted too.
>
> One of them is  a meta analysis which appeared in 2005 in the famous
> "End"(sic) of Homeopathy issue in which absurdly broad conclusions
> were drawn from a meagre number of studies which were then further
> whittled down to  grand total of 8 studies on which the erroneous
> conclusion, that Homeopathy was no better than placebo, was based.  By
> an incredible coincidence, PREVIOUS meta analyse that appeared in
> Lancet in the preceeding decade, and which concluded that Homeopathy
> DID show efficacy.
>
> Now is the time for Lancet to fess up, to admit that they prematurely
> rushed into publication a slipshod study which did not even release
> the meta analysis data for some weeks or months after the article was
> published, and only then after numerous demands for it from outraged
> Homeopaths and researchers.   In my opinion, Lancet editors were in a
> mad rush to make a "response" to  a famous speech, which had been
> given before the WHO with wide publicity, by Prince Charles in favour
> of Homeopathy and Alternative Medicine,
>
> It has been obvious for quite some time that some sort of
> politicization has lowered the standards of a once great medical
> journal and it is about time that they own up to it, and take the
> steps necessary to correct this regrettable unscientific tendency.
>
> This is something which both pro and anti-alternative medicine
> advocates should agree on.
>
> Citizen Jimserac (James Pannozzi)

Citizen, you are confusing science with medicine. Anytime a scientist
tries to report the quackery of modern medicine his grants are cut and
he is not allowed to publish. Should a medical practitioner publish
anything which tarnishes the image of medical quackery the action of
the medical monopoly will be to villify, scorn, discredit, and remove
said medical menace's license.
You can always recognize how valid and harmful the truth is to medical
quackery by how much time, money, and effort they put into burying the
scientific truth.
As for vaccines:
The mercury and aluminum contribute to CNS diseases and mental
confusion.
The diptheria toxoid may cause encephalopathy and brain swelling. The
kid may respond with high pitch screaming due to the pain of the
world's worst migraine headache, and lose 10 IQ points.
The Measles toxins may give enteritis with projectile vomiting,
diahrrea, and severe stomach pain.
The cancer viruses used may cause cancer long term as they do in
animals.

Isn't modern medical quackery wonderful?

DrCee
You cannot secure nor restore health with pus or poison
From: Mark Probert on
On Feb 3, 7:39 am, "john" <nos...(a)bt.com> wrote:
> The Lancet Retraction Changes Nothing
>
> by David Kirby
>
> Feb 2, 2010
>

Yes, Davey, it changes nothing. The Lancet was absolutely wrong for
not retracting the study years ago, when the authors, bailed out.

They should have retracted the study when it was shown that Wakefield
KNOWINGLY relied on false tests.

They should have retracted it when his undisclosed conflicts of
interest became known.

However, they just sat on their hands until it was impossible for them
not to retract it.

They, along with the overly credulous media, are as culpable as he is
for the resurgence of measles which have led to dead children in the
UK.

> David Kirby's new book, "Animal Factory - The Looming Threat of Industrial
> Pork, Dairy and Poultry Farms to Humans and the Environment," will be
> released on March 2, 2010 by St. Martin's Press. It is currently available
> for pre-order at several online outlets, including here.

Uh-oh, Kirby is going after BigFarma, with his usual bullshit.

Chuckle.


From: shot on
When all this hand waving is finished, the reason he lost credibility
and the co-authors withdrew their names and the journal retracted it is
quite simple.

He was in the pay of a lawyer in the business of sueing on the basis of
what the paper was to come to conclude. He did not disclose this as is
now accepted ethics in journal publishing.

This disorder is increasing suggesting an environmental link. With this
study withdrawn and several others showing no such link with vaccines we
need to look elsewhere.

The social movement to make the vaccinee link came from this paper. It
is now gone and the social momentum should support efforts to now find
the real link. The motivation to do the several other studies came from
this paper. It is proper that research turn to other possible links in
light of the scientific findings.