Diseases/Conditions

Wakefield’s Autism Research Is Cited by Researchers Who Say They Can’t Replicate It

September 26, 2011 by GaiaHealth in Vaccines with 32 Comments

Boy in SilhouetteSomething rather strange is going on in autism research. Andrew Wakefield was smeared, his reputation trashed, his career torched, and his work labeled every negative thing conceivable—including fraud. The Lancet pulled his work off their site; they disappeared it. Everything conceivable was done to discredit Wakefield’s work and make it disappear.

So why are researchers who have disavowed Wakefield and his work, and who have stated that it isn’t replicable, now citing his papers extensively? The only thing they don’t do is use the initials M, M, and R in one breath.

The journal PLoS one has just published an article on autism and gastrointestinal disorders entitled, Impaired Carbohydrate Digestion and Transport and Mucosal Dysbiosis in the Intestines of Children with Autism and Gastrointestinal Disturbances. It discusses, as a fully accepted concept, that many autistic children suffer from severe gastrointestinal disorders. This is the arena in which Andrew Wakefield was working when he came afoul of the powers-that-be.

One of the claims made against him by Brian Deer, the point man in the attack against Wakefield, was that gastrointestinal disorders claimed by Wakefield didn’t exist. Here’s a quotation from a comment he made in the British Medical Journal just over a year ago:

I’m grateful for Susan E Davies’s response to my report on the wholesale changes in histopathology diagnoses which lay behind the now- retracted Wakefield et al “MMR” paper of February 1998, and the genesis of the expression “autistic enterocolitis” which, 12 years later, hasn’t been confirmed to exist as an entity. [Emphasis mine.]

Now, here is the beginning of the paper cited above:

Autism spectrum disorders (ASD) are defined by impairments in verbal and non-verbal communication, social interactions, and repetitive and stereotyped behaviors. In addition to these core deficits, previous reports indicate that the prevalence of gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms ranges widely in individuals with ASD, from 9 to 91% in different study populations [1]. Macroscopic and histological observations in ASD include findings of ileo-colonic lymphoid nodular hyperplasia, enterocolitis, gastritis, and esophagitis [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7].

Clearly, the authors of this paper leave no room for doubt about severe gastrointestinal disturbances being associated with autism. But it’s even more dramatic than that. Two of the seven citations in that text are of Wakefield’s work, and one of those, citation number 3, carries the earliest date. It’s the foundation of all the rest of the research. It’s the same paper that The Lancet pulled!

New Paper’s Authors

Now let’s take a look at the new paper’s authors. They are: Brent L. Williams, Mady Hornig, Timothy Buie, Margaret L. Bauman, Myunghee Cho Paik, Ivan Wick1, Ashlee Bennett, Omar Jabado, David L. Hirschberg, and W. Ian Lipkin.

W. Ian Lipkin is quoted in a 3 November 2008 Scientific American article in regard to a study in which he was the lead author. He stated, “We are confident that there is no link between [the measles vaccine] and autism.” He went further to urge parents to vaccinate their children with the measles vaccine.

Mady Hornig published a PLoS one study in 2008 that was supposed to be an attempt to duplicate Wakefield’s research. Hornig claimed that no correlation between MMR and autism was found, the measles virus was not found in the guts of autistic children with gastrointestinal complaints, and that Wakefield’s study was contradicted.

Margaret L. Bauman published a rebuttal of Wakefield’s research in Pediatrics. She stated that none of the classic symptoms of mercury poisoning are found in autistic children. Therefore, according to her, Wakefield’s research was wrong.

With the exception of Timothy Buie, the rest of the authors seem to be new to published research. Buie, though, is the sole author of this paper to have openly supported Wakefield’s work.

Implications

Obviously, Andrew Wakefield was right on target. His research was accurate and reliable. It was so reliable that it now stands as the basis of research into gut disturbances in autism.

The new paper takes research by Wakefield and others on gastrointestinal disturbances in autistic children further. They could not have done so if they hadn’t relied on Wakefield’s work, which appears to have formed the basis for the entire field of the association between autism and gastrointestinal problems.

Now, if only they could take that last step: Acknowledge that the rest of Wakefield’s work is also valid—acknowledge the connection he found between the MMR vaccine and autism. I wouldn’t, though, hold my breath. More than a dozen years have been allowed to elapse as the blinders stay on, allowing astronomical numbers of children to develop autism. Wakefield’s work can now be quietly accepted, with the exception of the most salient point: The finding of a possible connection between a vaccine and the development of autism.

Nothing can be allowed to stand in the way of Big Pharma’s vaccine profits, not the career of one prominent researcher, and not even the health and welfare of thousands of children.

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Related Posts

  • http://www.autismmedia.org/ Erik Nanstiel

    Dr. Wakefield’s first name is Andrew, not Anthony.

    • GaiaHealth

      Thank you. (She says with red face.) Corrected – Anthony under Implications changed to Andrew. Would Dear Abby’s punishment do? 5 lashes with a wet noodle?

  • Jenny Allan

    Actually, It was Brian Deer, a journalist with NO medical or scientific qualifications whatsoever, (and it SHOWS), who ‘rubbished’ any connection between autism and bowel disease. The BMJ obligingly gave him free rein to challenge experienced qualified histopathologists and eminent gastroenterologists. Deer dismisses Wakefield’s expertise due to him being a ‘surgeon not a pathologist’!!
    Unfortunately and scandalously, it is Deer’s version which prevails, although I am quite sure the medical community are well aware of the truth. They are all just too frightened to say it!!

    http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c1127.full
    Wakefield’s “autistic enterocolitis” under the microscope. Brian Deer, journalist
    http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c1807.full
    Does autistic enterocolitis exist? Nicholas Wright

    • Jimbo

      Have you read the latter of the 2 items you linked to? It details how in the Wakefield paper, histopathology reports of “normal bowel mucosa” as recorded by Dr Susan Davies, became altered after “review” by Dr (not a pathologist) Wakefield into “colitis”. The other pathologist who reviewed the samples, Dr Dhillon, said “he was not involved in applying the term colitis to his histopathological gradings, and that he doesn’t know who did this.” Wakefield was the only one who reviewed all the biopsies, and was the one who wrote the paper describing the findings as “colitis”.

      It all sounds very murky to me, even if you take Brian Deer out of the equation completely.

      • GaiaHealth

        The issue is not whether Wakefield’s research was good. In fact, you’re suggesting that it wasn’t – even that it was fraudulent.

        But the point is that the work was cited!

        If it’s so bad, then using it as a reference would not be legitimate.

        You’re using an argument contrary to one you made earlier, claiming that it’s quite all right to cite the work because it hasn’t been pulled. Now, you’re trying to undermine his work. Your arguments are quite situational. Obviously “There is no there there,” (to quote Gertrude Stein) in your position. Clearly, your only purpose is to act as a shill and troll.

        • Jimbo

          So some of Wakefield’s work was cited. Yabba dabba do!
          …..and?

          It was apaper describing bowel problems in autistic kids. It was not the Lancet paper you claim was cited (you know, the fraudulent one which also made a spurious link between bowel damage and MMR).

          • GaiaHealth

            That was an error. However, it builds on the same work that was supposed to have been corrupt. It doesn’t change the basic fact that his papers are being cited, in spite of the claims against him.

            You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say it was okay to cite them while also attacking them. That’s what you’ve done.

          • Jimbo

            Thanks for admitting the primary thrust of your article was based on an error.

            I never said Wakefield’s work was wrong where he describes bowel problems in autistic kids as described in the European Gastro journal. If someone wants to cite that to point out that kids with autism get bowel problems, then I guess that is fine.

            However, Wakefield’s Lancet paper (the one you erroneously claim was cited) was fraudulent and severely flawed scientifically speaking. If someone cited that as an example of bowel disease in autistics then that would be problematic.

          • Anonymous

            You savage Wakefield’s work, and then try to claim that it doesn’t matter if such terrible work was cited by others. There’s a distinct lack of ethics and morality in such a stance.

            Tossing off a bit of sarcasm doesn’t change the duplicity.

          • Jimbo2

            I am not saying that “it doesn’t matter” if his work is cited by others – what I am saying is that it is not of great relevance if some of his uncontroversial or decent work is cited.

            It does matter if someone cites his retracted or repudiated work.

            Gaia Health was cock-a-hoop that someone had cited his work, but failed to notice what work was being cited. She claimed (with emphasis) that it was his Lancet paper that had been cited (the dodgy one which was debunked and retracted). Except it was not this one which was cited, so Gaia Health’s arguments have been rather chopped off at the knees as a result. Not that this fact will stop her though.

            Sorry to post as a “sock” but Gaia Health has censored “Jimbo” from posting further on this site.

  • Janice Blase

    Brian Deer was/is (?) employed by James Murdoch/News Corp. His employment undoubtedly comes with a free rein to attempt to discredit and/or destroy anyone who puts forward any position not held by the Murdochs and/or those connected with them. Enough said….

  • Oliver Dowding

    Not to forget that the despicable Deer is/was working for Murdoch, of which clan James is on the board of directors of Glaxo Smith Kline. Wheels within wheels…..

    • Jimbo

      Just to point out that Brian Deer’s other claims to journalistic fame were his exposes on septrin, a drug manufactured by Glaxo Smith Kline, Vioxx manufactured by Merck, and several articles against other drug manufacturers. (Not to mention the time line you propose for Deer-Murdoch-Glaxo is all wrong)

      Don’t let the desire to see conspiracy everywhere divert you from the facts.

      • GaiaHealth

        Deer is now acting primarily as the get-Wakefield point man. His previous work (and apparent willingness to sell out) made him a good choice.

        His Vioxx reporting was after the fact. He had nothing to do with exposing it. His reporting on Septrin/Bactrim occurred many years after Wellcome’s patent had expired.

        Deer didn’t do any real harm to his benefactor.

        • Jimbo

          Who exactly is his “benefactor”….Glaxo? Seriously, how can he publish studies slating Glaxo if they are his supposed paymaster?
          I’ve heard of some convoluted conspiracy theories but that one takes the cake.

          • GaiaHealth

            I just pointed out why it doesn’t matter to Glaxo/Wellcome if he trashes those products or how they were brought to market. The patents ran out. Deer reported on nothing that wasn’t already known, and he didn’t report on any of it at a time when it might have done Glaxo harm.

            It does, of course, lend an aura of legitimacy to Deer – but he’s done nothing that could really harm Glaxo since the days of his AIDS/HIV reporting.

    • http://www.facebook.com/frances.ingram2 Frances Ingram

      Oliver, I was just thinking that very thing … It’s these connections that matter; It would be interesting to know which GSK patents were running out at the time Wakefield published his findings, and how that could connect to MMR vaccines

  • Jenny Allan

    Yes Oliver Dowling……..and the BMJ is also ‘rife’ with conflicts of interest including extensive funding and ‘sponsorship’ from MMR manufacturers Merck and GSK, something that BMJ Editor-in-chief, Fiona Godlee was recently forced to admit in a BMJ ‘correction’, following Brian Deer’s recent Wakefield bashing BMJ trilogy ‘Secrets of the MMR scare’.
    Yes these wheels are well oiled with all of this pharma cash, but you know the old saying?
    ‘What goes around comes around’.

    • Jimbo

      The journal BMJ is part of the larger BMJ group. The group has multiple revenue sources, including phama sponsorship. The journal is funded in the following manner (and the lion’s share of funding derives from direct subscriptions):

      “BMJ Journals receive revenue from a range of sources to ensure wide and affordable access while maintaining high standards of quality and full editorial independence. These are:

      subscriptions from specialist societies, institutions and individuals
      display advertising for pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical products
      author charges for open access articles
      sale of article reprints
      sale of rights and royalties
      fees for providing publishing services for products not owned by BMJ Group
      sponsorship for supplements”

      “BMJ Group sets high ethical standards in all its activities and above all defends the right to editorial independence. It does not allow advertising or sponsorship to influence in any way the decisions made on editorial content.”

      Pity the same journalistic and ethical standards could not be applied to Wakefield’s multiple undeclared conflicts of interest, and pity you don’t look at what Wakefield did with a fraction of the scrutiny you apply to the BMJ.

      • GaiaHealth

        To think that you actually believe a self-promoting statement like that – as if they’d come out and tell you directly that they’re utterly dependent on such money.

        Such naivety!

      • Anonymous

        Unbelievable!

        If you actually believe that BMJ is unaffected by the fact that nearly all its income is from pharmaceutical companies, then your naivety is incurable.

  • Jimbo

    I think you will find that the 3rd paper cited in the study mentioned is NOT the same paper that was pulled by the Lancet. It is actually an article from a European Gastroenterology Journal.

    Check your facts. The paper cited actually includes more patients than were detailed in the “Lancet 12″ paper in 1998. The fact that autistic kids have bowel problems was and has never been in dispute. This paper has nothing to say about autism resulting from MMR vaccination, which was the Wakefield hypothesis. His Lancet paper was withdrawn not because it described bowel problems in autistic children, but because of concerns about the veracity of substantial parts of the article and the erroneous link to MMR.

    Since the rest of Wakefield’s articles remain in press, it is still scientifically appropriate to cite them when relevant. Citation of an article does not necessarily imply complete endorsement of its contents.

    Recognizing that Wakefield’s team described autistic kids with bowel problems does not mean that one has to accept his notion that autism is caused by MMR.

    • GaiaHealth

      So you’re suggesting that scientific ethics are so loose that it’s okay to cite an article – by the same researchers – that builds on one that’s supposed to have been debunked and done unethically and fraudulently. You’re saying that A is false, the basis of B is A, but B is fine. That’s a strange logic and ethics.

      And you’re saying that Wakefield made a claim he didn’t. He did not state that autism is caused by MMR.

      • GaiaHealth

        You’re absolutely wrong. Wakefield did not say that autism is caused by the vaccine.

        • Jimbo

          Like I say – if that’s true then we can all calm down and relax about this vaccine-MMR scare nonsense then, can’t we?

          • GaiaHealth

            No. He found a possible association with the vaccine. That’s all he claimed – but it certainly doesn’t mean we can ignore it.

          • Anonymous

            No we can’t. He found a possible association between MMR and autism. The distinction matters.

  • Jenny Allan

    Jimbo- Yes of course I read both of the BMJ papers which I referred to. They were both obvious attempts to ‘rubbish’ any connection between autism and bowel disease. This is very obvious from the titles of the articles alone, even before reading the contents. It’s my opinion that the likes of Brian Deer, who knows zilch about histopathology should not have been allowed to pontificate about this in the BMJ, a so called ‘respected medical journal’. The other writer, Nicholas Wright, whose BMJ article was purely a treatise backing up all of Brian Deer’s assertions, at least had the grace to state at the conclusion of his article:-
    “The expert review, referenced by Deer,12 concludes that key areas such as the prevalence and best treatment of gastrointestinal disorders in people with autistic spectrum disorders are incompletely understood, and that evidence based recommendations are not yet available. We should remember, as recent experience in several fields has shown, that although science has its defects, it is a self correcting process. Time is, perhaps, the wisest counsellor of all. ”
    Yes Jimbo; you yourself appear to be ‘ Recognizing that Wakefield’s team described autistic kids with bowel problems’.
    Time once more has spoken!

    • Jimbo

      I am quite sure that any paper that disagrees with you would be labelled as “obvious attempts to rubbish” what you believe in.
      Point is, they managed to expose the nefarious goings on about the classification of colitis in the Lancet 12 children.

      If Wakefield was libelled or slandered by the BMJ, why has he not sued them? I can only conclude he is scared to, because he knows they are right.

      • GaiaHealth

        No, they didn’t. If you actually looked at the information – not just the claims made by Deer – you’d know it’s not true.

        Whether Wakefield sues is not the issue. We don’t know if he will – you’re merely assuming he won’t.

        Your presumption of my views on the papers is utterly irrelevant, simply an attempt to redirect from the fact that you were caught trying to both rubbish Wakefield’s papers and justify their acceptance as legitimate to cite. You can’t have it both ways.

  • Jimbo

    Interesting… I see you’ve been so concerned about all the negative comments and feedback that you’ve pulled all the comments.
    Far easier than having to justify yourself, I guess.

  • Pingback: New Gambit to Pretend Autism Isn’t Caused by Vaccines: Blame It on Antidepressants in Pregnancy | Gaia Health

Search Gaia Health

Subscribe to the Gaia Health
Newsletter

Don't miss breaking Gaia Health articles.
Rest assured that your e-mail address will never be sold or shared.

newsletter software