BMJ Practices Pseudo-Science


Dr.Andrew Wakefield was a victim of the BMJ’s (British Medical Journal) injustice, which also helped hide vaccine injury science from public awareness.
Dr. Wakefield was organizing clinical research on Crohn’s disease, colitis and gastrointestinal disorders in young children. The research intended to determine if there was a link between those disorders and measles at the Royal Free Hospital in England. Dr. Wakefield published the results of this clinical study in the U.K. medical journal Lancet in 1998.

Children were brought to him because of his interest, but contrary to all accusations, he never treated them. He described himself as “the thinker”. In this particular study, he was the thinker for the team of doctors directly involved with the treatment.

Another accusation, that Dr. Wakefield asserted a definite link of MMR vaccines to autism was never published. He never made that claim. Some of his team colleagues put forth their interpretation that MMRs were linked to autism, but that was not part of Wakefield’s Lancet paper. Dr. Wakefield was looking into the possible link of those commonly experienced gut disorders in children under five years old as a precursor to their autism related behavior.

That link to MMRs was actually made by the parents of those 12 participating children. They were doing fine until they received MMR vaccinations, and the parents reported this to Dr. Wakefield’s team. Dr. Wakefield included the parents’ reports in the case study findings. Including parents’ observations in case study reports is highly appropriate.

Dr. Wakefield’s only conclusion was the measles/gut disorder connection to autistic behavior possibilities merited further study.

Two other researchers discovered the same problems of gut disorders and autistic behavior in seven children. Their 1996 presentation was called “Entero-colitis and Disintegrative Disorder Following MMR – A Review of the First Seven Cases.” Those seven cases became part of the final twelve cases inDr. Wakefield’s 1998 Lancet paper. This and other facts disprove accusations thatWakefield fabricated the twelve reports.

 

Contrary to what the UK’s General Medical Council (GMC), BMJ, Brian Deer, and the host of biased media outlets continue to claim, Dr. Wakefield’s original study was a case series that made no actual claims about a definitive link between MMR and autism. And the observations, which do happen to suggest a link between MMR and autism regression, are not just unique to Dr. Wakefield’s research. Professor Walker-Smith and Dr. Amar Dhillon together documented their own independent research that also points to a link between MMR vaccine and autism

A more recent Wake Forest University study determined that 70 of 82 autistic children they studied had measles virus in their guts. Interestingly, the measles virus strain they discovered was not a wild virus — it was the same strain used in MMR vaccines.

A Russian born U.K. pediatrician, Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride, has not only established the connection of gastrointestinal tract disorders among the very young to autistic and other behavioral problems, she cures them with proper diet and supplementation. She learned how the hard way, by curing her own autistic son.

Dr. McBride coined the acronym GAPS for her book Gut and Psychology Syndrome. She describes the dietary solutions to her explanations of how the gut and the brain are connected. This relationship has been known by traditional Chinese medicine for centuries.

In a recent U.S. lecture, she mentioned that her colleagues were afraid to mention Dr. Wakefield due of the witch-hunt conspired against him earlier. But she acknowledges his research efforts as accurate contributions to her practice.

The U.K. government refuses to compensate cases of encephalitis (brain disease) due to vaccine injury. Here there may have one motive for a conspiracy against Dr. Wakefield.

There are other motives from the usual suspects. The allegedly corrupt Murdoch empire’s Sunday Times is run by Rupert Murdoch’s son James. The Murdoch family is heavily invested in GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), a vaccine manufacturer. James Murdoch is even on GSKs board of directors.

James hired a freelance hack journalist, Brian Deer, to fabricate the Wakefield fabrication. It created a firestorm in London that ignited another vaccine promoter, Dr. Fiona Godlee, who happens to be the editor in chief for the British Journal of Medicine (BMJ). She propagated Deer’s lies officially.

This pincer move encircled the U.K. Government’s medical establishment and forced a five member GMC (General Medical Council) hearing on Dr. Wakefield. Perhaps the hearing intended to defend the U.K.’s stance on not awarding vaccine injury victim?

Private admission of wrong doing by the BMJ to newsletter Age of Autism, spoken evasively out of both sides ofDr. Fiona Godlee’s mouth, is insufficient for the public damage done toDr. Wakefield’s integrity. But it has served to inspire a stronger alliance among medical professionals and aware parents of vaccine injured children on both sides of theAtlantic.

 

Be well

Dr Sundardas

Statins can damage your liver and kidneys


Cholesterol-lowering statin drugs significantly increase a person’s risk of cataracts, muscle weakness, liver dysfunction and kidney failure, according to a study in the British Medical Journal.

The study also confirmed that the drugs lower the risk of heart disease and esophageal cancer, but claims of other health benefits were unsupported.

Researchers from Nottingham University in the United Kingdom examined data on more than 2 million patients between the ages of 30 and 84, seen at 38 different general practices, who had been prescribed the cholesterol-lowering drugs. More than 70 percent were taking simvastatin (Zocor), 22.3 percent were taking atorvastatin (Lipitor), 3.6 percent were taking pravastatin (Pravachol, Selektine), 1.9 percent were taking rosuvastatin (Crestor) and 1.4 percent were taking fluvastatin (Canef, Lescol, Lochol, Vastin).

The researchers confirmed prior data suggesting that statins increase patients’ risk of cataracts, liver dysfunction, kidney failure and a form of muscle weakness known as myopathy. They found that for every 10,000 women treated with the drugs, 23 would develop acute kidney (renal) failure, 39 would develop myopathy, 74 would develop liver dysfunction and 309 would develop cataracts. Men suffered an even higher risk of myopathy, but their risks of the other three conditions were similar to those suffered by women.

Putting it in different terms, the researchers found that only 434 people would need to be treated with the drugs for five years for one case of acute renal failure to develop. It would take only 136 treated for each case of liver dysfunction and 33 for each case of cataracts. Among women, 259 would need to be treated for each case of myopathy; among men, the number was only 91.

The risk of developing all conditions was highest during the first year of treatment, but continued throughout the course of the study. Risk of liver and kidney problems increased proportionally with the dose of statins being taken.

All drugs appeared to pose a similar risk of all conditions, with the exception of fluvastatin, which increased the risk of liver dysfunction more than its competitors. Men taking fluvastatin were twice as likely to develop liver dysfunction as those not taking statins, while women’s risk increased by 2.5 times.

The researchers did find, however, that the risk of cataracts returned to normal within one year of stopping statin treatment, while the risk of liver and kidney problems returned to normal within one to three years. Additionally, they found no connection between statin use and the risk of dementia, osteoporotic fracture, Parkinson’s disease, rheumatoid arthritis or venous thromboembolism.

Examining the purported benefits of the drugs, researchers found that they did in fact lower the risk of heart disease, averting 271 cases for every 10,000 high-risk patients treated. Put another way, 33 high-risk men or 37 high-risk women would need to be treated with the drugs to avert one case of the disease.

Although advocates of the drugs have claimed that they may also reduce the risk cancer, the researchers found almost no data supporting these claims. The study “largely confirmed other studies that reported no clear association between statins and risk of cancers,” the researchers wrote.

The only cancer-fighting effect uncovered in the study was a slightly lower risk of esophageal cancer, with eight cases averted for every 10,000 high-risk women treated. In other words, 1,266 high-risk women or 1,082 high-risk men would need to be treated with the drugs to prevent one case of esophageal cancer.

Although sales of the blockbuster drugs are unlikely to be reduced as a result of the study, the researchers encouraged closer monitoring of patients for side effects and said their findings “would tend to support a policy of using lower doses of statins in people at high risk of the adverse event.”

Be well

Dr Sundardas