Callous Disregard: Autism and Vaccines

From Amazon.com:

Callous Disregard: Autism and Vaccines: The Truth Behind a Tragedy
Andrew J. Wakefield (Author)
Jenny McCarthy (Foreword)

List Price: $26.95
Price: $17.43 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. Details
You Save: $9.52 (35%)
Kindle Edition $14.82

Hardcover: http://www.amazon.com/Callous-Disregard-Autism-Vaccines-Tragedy/dp/1616081694/thekonformist
Kindle: http://www.amazon.com/Callous-Disregard-Vaccines-Tragedy-ebook/dp/B003QHYU2S/thekonformist

Editorial Reviews

"I'm so glad Andy Wakefield finally has the chance to tell his story. . . . For hundreds of thousands of parents around the world, myself included, Andy Wakefield is a symbol of strength and conviction that all parents of children with autism can use to fight for truth and the best lives possible for their kids."
----Jenny McCarthy, from her foreword

"Dr. Wakefield sets the record straight. It was not he who showed callous disregard towards vulnerable, sick children with autism. It was the British medical establishment, the General Medical Council, the media and the pharmaceutical industry that threw the children under the bus to protect the vaccine program. This is a book for everyone who cares about our future."
----Mary Holland, Esq., Co-founder, Elizabeth Birt Center for Autism Law and Advocacy

"Andrew Wakefield has been subjected to extraordinary criticism and condemnation from professional colleagues and the wider community since he first questioned the safety of the MMR vaccine. In this book he answers his critics--powerfully and comprehensively---and sets the record straight. It is essential reading for anyone wanting to know the truth behind the MMR debate and the politics of vaccination policy."
----Dr. Richard Halvorsen, author of "The Truth about Vaccines"

"As a mother of a boy who regressed into autism immediately following his MMR vaccination, I welcome this book unreservedly . . . Whatever your thoughts on the issue, if you read nothing else at all on the vaccine-autism debate, this has to be the most crucial book you read."
----Polly Tommey, Editor-in-Chief, "The Autism File"

"Meeting Dr. Andy Wakefield changed our lives and . . . we are forever grateful. His wise and measured advice about vaccinations helped us dodge a bullet . . . Our fourth son [had] multiple allergies and repeated infections . . . We now fully realize [he] would have been a victim of immune overload had we followed the regular vaccine schedule. . . . [He] is [now] bright and healthy . . . This book provides a terrifying insight into what has been happening behind the scenes as efforts redouble to silence Dr. Wakefield . . . It is a wake-up call to those who think [he] is anything other than a modern day hero fighting for all of our children."
----Robert Rodriguez and Elizabeth Avellan, Troublemaker Studios, Austin, Texas

Andrew Wakefield reveals the the inside story of the vaccine-autism connection, and his controversial research. As Andrew Wakefield states in his prologue, “If autism does not affect your family now, it will. If something does not change—and change soon—this is almost a mathematical certainty. This book affects you also. It is not a parochial look at a trivial medical spat in the United Kingdom, but dispatches from the battlefront in a major confrontation—a struggle against compromise in medicine, corruption of science, and a real and present threat to children in the interests of policy and profit. It is a story of how ‘the system’ deals with dissent among its doctors and scientists.”

In the pursuit of possible links between childhood vaccines, intestinal inflammation, and neurologic injury in children, Wakefield lost his job in London’s Royal Free Hospital, his country of birth, his career, and his medical license. A recent General Medical Council ruling stated that he was “dishonest, irresponsible and showed callous disregard for the distress and pain of children.” Maligned by the medical establishment and mainstream media, Wakefield endeavors to set the record straight in Callous Disregard. While explaining what really happened, he calls out the organizations and individuals that are acting not for the sake of children affected by autism, but in their own self-interests.

About the Author

Andrew J. Wakefield, MB, BS, FRCS, FRCPath, is an academic gastroenterologist. He received his medical degree from St. Mary’s Hospital Medical School (part of the University of London) in 1981, and pursued a career in gastrointestinal surgery with a particular interest in inflammatory bowel disease. He has published over 130 original scientific articles, book chapters, and invited scientific commentaries. He and his wife, Carmel, live in Austin, Texas, and have four children: James, Sam, Imogen, and Corin.

Jenny McCarthy is a world-renowned autism activist, mother, and bestselling author. She splits her time between Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, and California. Her books include Belly Laughs, Baby Laughs, Life Laughs, Mother Warriors, Healing and Preventing Autism, and Louder Than Words.

Product Details

Hardcover: 288 pages
Publisher: Skyhorse Publishing (May 24, 2010)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 1616081694
ISBN-13: 978-1616081690

In the Vaccine-Autism Debate, What Can Parents Believe?

Jenny McCarthy
Author, model and autism activist
January 10, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jenny-mccarthy/vaccine-autism-debate_b_806857.html

Andrew Wakefield , Autism , Autism And Vaccines , Autism Vaccine , Autism Vaccine Debate , Autism Vaccine Link , Autism/Vaccine Debate , Huffington Post Jenny Mccarthy , Jenny McCarthy , Jenny McCarthy Autism , Jenny McCarthy Autism Vaccine , Health News

Last week, parents were told a British researcher's 1998 report linking the MMR shot to autism was fraudulent -- that this debate about vaccines and autism is now over, and parents should no longer worry about giving their children six vaccines at a single pediatric appointment or 36 by the time they are five years old.

Is that the whole story? Dr. Andrew Wakefield's study of 12 children with autism actually looked at bowel disease, not vaccines. The study's conclusion stated, "We did not prove an association between measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described [autism]."

Dr. Wakefield did something I wish all doctors would do: he listened to parents and reported what they said. His paper also said that, "Onset of behavioral symptoms was associated, by the parents, with measles, mumps and rubella vaccination in 8 of the 12 children," and that, "further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome [autism with gut disease] and its possible relation to this vaccine."

Since when is repeating the words of parents and recommending further investigation a crime? As I've learned, the answer is whenever someone questions the safety of any vaccines.

For some reason, parents aren't being told that this "new" information about Dr. Wakefield isn't a medical report, but merely the allegations of a single British journalist named Brian Deer. Why does one journalist's accusations against Dr. Wakefield now mean the vaccine-autism debate is over?

One of the actual parents from the study, who talked to Generation Rescue, wondered the same thing:

How could the BMJ [British Medical Journal, publisher of Brian Deer's article] scrutinize what Brian Deer has said without looking at our children's medical notes which they are not allowed to have? This needs to be challenged.

Another parent of one of the 12 children put things even more strongly:

To hear that my son's gastrointestinal condition has been extensively refuted, by unqualified and ill-informed individuals who have never laid eyes on him, looking at and mis-interpreting scanty medical notes without the courtesy to ask for our version of our son's early childhood, flies in the face of everything that the medical community and its professional bodies seek to represent. This is especially curious as gastrointestinal issues in autism are well recognized and documented and are included in the UK government's own best practice guidelines for early investigation and treatment.

American media, why aren't we hearing from these parents? If Brian Deer's allegations are actually false, if the Lancet 12 parents stand with Dr. Wakefield, then what exactly are moms and dads supposed to think about last week's media circus?

I know children regress after vaccination because it happened to my own son. Why aren't there any tests out there on the safety of how vaccines are administered in the real world, six at a time? Why have only 2 of the 36 shots our kids receive been looked at for their relationship to autism? Why hasn't anyone ever studied completely non-vaccinated children to understand their autism rate?

These missing safety studies are causing many parents to approach vaccines with moderation. Why do other first world countries give children so many fewer vaccines than we do? What if a parent used the vaccine schedule of Denmark, Norway, Japan or Finland -- countries that give one-third the shots we do (12 shots vs. 36 in the U.S.)? Vaccines save lives, but might be harming some children -- is moderation such a terrible idea?

This debate won't end because of one dubious reporter's allegations. I have never met stronger women than the moms of children with autism. Last week, this hoopla made us a little stronger, and even more determined to fight for the truth about what's happening to our kids.

Lancet Vaccine Study: Elaborate Scam Or Vaccine Industry Victim?

The news cycle has been ecstatic over a British Medical Journal report charging that Andrew Wakefield (the medical researcher who co-authored a 1998 Lancet study questioning the safety of vaccines) is a fraud:
How the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed
Brian Deer
5 January 2011
http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5347.full

This seems to provide extra confirmation of a 2009 report by the London Times alleging the same. After all, two independent reports from respectable sources coming up with the same conclusion is pretty hard to dismiss:

Hidden records show MMR truth
Brian Deer
February 8, 2009
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5683643.ece

Of course, the problem with this line of thinking, as anyone paying attention may have already noticed, is that both reports have the same author. So this isn't exactly two different reports, it's more like one reporter repeating himself in two places.

Meanwhile, the actual story by Deer has two primary areas of attack. One, that Wakefield made mistakes that were not mere honest accidents but part of an intentional, elaborate hoax. (On his blog, Deer compares the Lancet study to the infamous Piltdown Man fraud.) Two, that Wakefield's intentional fraud was partly inspired by greed. As TodayShow.com reports, "Wakefield was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to act as a medical expert in a class-action suit against the MMR manufacturers — and the doctor never disclosed that information."

Controversial autism doc: ‘I’m not going away’
Michael Inbar
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/37313063
A BMJ editorial concludes: "We hope that declaring the paper a fraud will close that door for good."

It would be easy to dismiss Deer as a hack attack artist for the pharmaceutical industry. And that's precisely what Wakefield has done, calling Deer "a hitman" on CNN. (For the record, the BMJ declares: "Brian Deer’s investigation was funded by the Sunday Times of London and the Channel 4 television network. Reports by Deer in the BMJ were commissioned and paid for by the journal. No other funding was received, apart from legal costs paid to Deer by the Medical Protection Society on behalf of Andrew Wakefield.") Still, after reading Deer's piece, this writer has to admit he makes a very strong case attacking the credibility of Wakefield. If Deer is a hitman, he sure is a good one. When Wakefield responds to the charges in writing, The Konformist will be sure to report his answers. In the meantime, it seems there are legitimate questions raised about Wakefield's work. Certainly pressure from the vaccine industry is intense, but perhaps the retraction of the study by the Lancet and 10 of the 12 co-authors has less to do with professional cowardice and more to do with a refusal to defend what they couldn't defend any longer.

That said, questions over the safety of vaccines neither begins nor ends with Wakefield's report. Former Playmate of the Year Jenny McCarthy (who may deserve more recognition for her advocacy of autistic children than looking awesome naked, which is saying quite a bit, since she looks really awesome naked) had this to say on her Website GenerationRescue.org:

"For years, the media has mischaracterized Wakefield's work as implicating the MMR vaccine in the autism epidemic. This was never true, as Wakefield himself wrote in the conclusion to his paper:

'We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described.'

We hope the media will take the time to read the actual Lancet study, rather than repeating the message of a vaccine-industry funded media circus."


To read the actual Lancet study:

http://www.generationrescue.org/pdf/wakefield2.pdf

So ironically, Wakefield has been demonized even though his own study came to no firm conclusions. But by just making it respectable to question the safety of vaccines on children, he opened a door the vaccine industry wanted to keep shut, which probably has more to do with his Public Enemy Number One status by the medical establishment than any errors in his work.

Elsewhere on GenerationRescue.org, it is noted:

"The growth in the number of vaccines given to our children in the last 20 years is rarely discussed in the media, despite a 260% increase in vaccines administered (were millions of children dying from deadly diseases 25 years ago?). Parents should know that vaccines are never tested for their "combination risk", despite the fact that children may get as many as 6 vaccines in a single visit to the doctor. And, when it comes to vaccines, how can it be possible that one size fits all? What may present as no risks for one child may present enormous risks for another...

Vaccines have risks and parents are rarely told about these risks. Any pediatrician who represents that vaccines are "completely safe" is not presenting the facts. Many vaccines contain other toxic substances including ethylene glycol (antifreeze), phenol (a disinfectant dye), benzethonium chloride (a disinfectant), formaldehyde (a preservative and disinfectant), and aluminum (another known neuro-toxin). Further, some viruses used in vaccines are cultured in animal tissue including chicken albumin and monkey liver...

Vaccine manufacturers are no different from other corporations: they want to sell more of whatever it is they make. Unfortunately, there is a revolving door between the policy-makers who determine the vaccine schedule and the pharmaceutical companies who make vaccines..."

http://www.generationrescue.org/vaccines/vaccines

Who's Afraid Of The Truth About Autism?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jenny-mccarthy/whos-afraid-of-the-truth_b_490918.html
Jenny McCarthy
Author, model and autism activist
March 9, 2010
Who's Afraid Of The Truth About Autism?

Parents of recovered children, and I've met hundreds, all share the same experience of doubters and deniers telling us our child must have never even had autism or that the recovery was simply nature's course. We all know better, and frankly we're too busy helping other parents to really care.

Corner one of the hundreds of doctors who specialize in autism recovery, and they'll tell you stories of dozens of kids in their practice who no longer have autism. Ask them to speak to the press and they'll run for the door. They know better.

Most doctors in our community share a common trait: their own child regressed into autism. They fixed their kid first and knew they'd have to spend their lives helping parents do the same, accepting the loss of "mainstream" status in their field.

Who's afraid of autism recovery? Perhaps it's the diagnosticians and pediatricians who have made a career out of telling parents autism is a hopeless condition.

When I first went public with my son Evan's story, I just planned to talk about the "R" word -- Recovery. But soon I was spending most my time talking about the "V" word -- vaccines.

It's hard to address one without the other because so many of the parents of recovered children I know, myself included, blame vaccines for their child's regression into autism and use vaccine injury as the roadmap to treat their child.

The idea that vaccines are a primary cause of autism is not as crackpot as some might wish. Autism's 60-fold rise in 30 years matches a tripling of the US vaccine schedule.

With so many kids with autism, the environment has to be to blame, and vaccines are an obvious culprit. Almost all kids get vaccines -- injected toxins -- very early in life, and our own government clearly acknowledges vaccines cause brain damage in certain vulnerable kids.

Take those simple facts, along with tens of thousands of parental reports of regression after vaccination, not to mention a growing list of court cases where our government paid claims to children with autism acknowledging vaccines as the trigger, and the case we Moms are making makes sense.

Time magazine's article on the autism debate reports that the experts are certain "vaccines don't cause autism; they don't injure children; they are the pillar of modern public health."

I say, "that's a lie and we're sick of it."

How do you say vaccines don't cause autism when only a single vaccine -- MMR -- has ever been looked at for its relationship to autism? What about the other 10 vaccines our children receive through 36 doses? If Viagra is considered safe, is Vioxx then safe too, or do you need to test both?

Even with the MMR, studies only compare kids who have otherwise been fully vaccinated. Is that really an honest way to evaluate the issue? How come no one has ever looked at unvaccinated kids to compare their autism rates? It could be so easy.

How do you say vaccines don't injure kids, when a government website shows more than 1,000 claims of death and over $1.9 billion paid out in damages for vaccine injury, mostly to children?

Perhaps its better to say vaccines have both benefits and risks? Who's afraid of being honest about the good and the bad of vaccines?

In the recent case of Dr. Andrew Wakefield, why did the press constantly report that his 1998 study said the MMR caused autism when anyone could read the study and know that it didn't? And, why did we never hear that the actual finding of Dr. Wakefield's study -- that children with autism are suffering from bowel disease -- has been replicated many times?

How come the press never interviewed the parents of the 12 children in Dr. Wakefield's study? In a letter they wrote:

All of the investigations [by Dr. Wakefield] were carried out without distress to our children, many of whom made great improvements on treatment so that for the first time in years they were finally pain free...We are appalled that these doctors have been the subject of this protracted enquiry in the absence of any complaint from any parent about any of the children who were reported in the Lancet paper.
Who's afraid of the truth about Dr. Wakefield? Could it be the vaccine industry's spokespeople trying to put the vaccine-autism genie back in the bottle?

There's something wrong with this generation of kids. They aren't healthy. The LA Times just reported that, "more than a quarter of all US children have a chronic health condition [ADHD, autism, asthma]...a significant increase from the rate seen in earlier decades." One quarter of our kids?

Writing for the New York Times last week, Nicholas Kristof asked the question, "Do Toxins Cause Autism?" and went on to say, "suspicions are growing that one culprit may be chemicals in the environment."

Is it possible all these things are related? Could we afford to give fewer shots slightly later and possibly reduce these chronic conditions? How do you go on a hunt for toxins and not consider vaccines?

The parents of children with autism aren't crazy. We're recovering our kids. We're trying to help other parents do the same, and we hope new parents can avoid our fate.

There has to be room for moderation on vaccines, for a recognition that one size does not fit all, for an honest dialogue around risks and benefits, and for a willingness to maybe delay or scale back some vaccines. How come many other countries give their kids one-third as many shots as we do?

Health authorities said autism was caused by cold mothers; parents proved them wrong. They said kids didn't regress into autism; parents proved them wrong. They said kids with autism weren't more sick with gastrointestinal issues; parents proved them wrong. They said autism was genetic and this epidemic wasn't real; parents proved them wrong. Is now the time to bet against the parents?

Who's afraid of the truth? Usually the people it would hurt the most.