2. @auscandoc in your Nov. 27 tweets you used information from the UK’s General Medical Council (GMC) findings (http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/documents/vaccines/GMC …, Findings Of Fact Summary2.pdf)
Show this thread
1. @auscandoc, @glenpyle and @GidMK I haven’t forgotten about you. I’ve finally found the time to go over all the relevant documents about the Wakefield case and respond to you. It’s forced me to take a deep dive into the material and understand it very well. #vaccine #autism
-
-
-
3. But you ignored most of the information in the AHRP article.http://ahrp.org/laffaire-wakefield-shades-of-dreyfus-bmjs-descent-into-tabloid-science/ …
Show this thread -
4. And you ignored significant implications of the 2012 High Court decision. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2012/503.html …
Show this thread -
5. You also ignored a BMJ deputy editor’s sworn deposition that revealead among other things the lack of external peer review of Brian Deer’s BMJ articles http://www.rescuepost.com/files/ex-c-bmj-smith-depo-1.pdf …
Show this thread -
6. I’ll use info from these and other documents in responding to your Nov. 27 tweets (that is, the first section – I’ll respond later to the second section, about the CAEFISS report).
Show this thread -
7. Here’s a brief summary I've prepared of the timeline of some of the major events in l'Affaire Wakefield.pic.twitter.com/csmYigYAnG
Show this thread -
8. You stated that you agree with the premises and findings of the GMC and with Deer’s articles.
Show this thread -
9. You note that Deer collated the pathology findings – the grading sheets – prepared by one of the co-authors of Lancet paper, gastrointestinal pathologist Dr. Amar Dhillon. http://briandeer.com/solved/dhillon/tabulation.pdf …
Show this thread -
10. Regarding these grading sheets you say: “I draw your attention to column no 2 labelled T ileum: there is _nothing_ there. It is a stretch to make a diganosis of Ileo-colitis with normal pathology samples.”
Show this thread -
11. And you also assert that: “So I was in fact incorrect when I said subsequent review of the pathology findings found them to be normal. IN fact the _original_ findings were normal and AW fabricated them in his paper (more on this later).”
Show this thread -
12. BUT your and Deer’s assertions are shown to be false by, among many other sources, Dr. Amar Dhillon, the expert histopathologist in intestinal diseases who filled out the grading sheets for the children who were included in the Lancet paper.
Show this thread -
13. Here is Dr. Dhillon’s Rapid Response regarding the BMJ article by Deer falsely asserting that the grading sheets showed no disease. (Scroll down about two-thirds of the way down the page to see his Rapid Response.)https://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d6823/rapid-responses …
Show this thread -
14. Here’s the first part of Dhillon’s Rapid Response from his Rapid Response. Read it all carefully. He notes the articles against Wakefield are largely based on “a result of a lack of understanding of the essential difference between…pic.twitter.com/3TDUZPQ0he
Show this thread -
15. “the systematic documentation of specific microscopical features in a grading sheet “by a “blinded” (ie in the absence of any other clinical, or other information) pathologist on the one hand; and on the other hand concluding an overall...
Show this thread -
16. “clinicopathological diagnosis by integration of clinical information with diverse lines of investigation (including information in the grading sheet).”
Show this thread -
17. Here’s the 2nd section of Dhillon’s Rapid Response. It’s also a must-read. It includes: “Then there is a joint review by clinicians and pathologists to evaluate the significance of the microscopic observations in the light of additional clinical, endoscopic, radiologic,...pic.twitter.com/nhnA5vWkk3
Show this thread -
18. “and laboratory data that has been obtained after the “diagnostic” biopsy has been reported.” This shows a team effort, not Wakefield alone – and no fabrication of the pathology findings.
Show this thread -
19. Here’s more from the 2nd section of Dhillon’s BMJ Rapid Response: “Thus the purpose of my grading sheet observations in 1998 was not, could not have been, nor was it intended to conclude the final diagnostic assessment of colitis (which has to be made in light of full ...
Show this thread -
20. ”clinical/endoscopic/radiologic/laboratory data; and response to treatment).”
Show this thread -
21. And at the bottom of this 2nd section it says: “Therefore on the grading sheets “nonspecific” means: “this microscopical appearance doesn’t remind me of any particular disease...”
Show this thread -
22. This sentence is continued at the top of the 3rd section: “entity, and this is why in none of my grading sheet observations have I stated “colitis.””pic.twitter.com/EvGSltw0z0
Show this thread -
23. Here’s the fourth and last section of Dhillon’s Rapid Response. Please read all of this carefully.pic.twitter.com/4WGi6y28yS
Show this thread -
24. Your and Deer’s assertions are also contradicted by the fact that there was never any charge of fabrication against Wakefield. Here’s one of many parts of the AHRP article that addresses that. [insert Image #5]pic.twitter.com/hx3YOtQoT5
Show this thread -
[I'll end this thread and start another one immediately; the threads seem to become unstable when there are quite a few tweets and images in each thread.]
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.