“"Which clearly contradicts your assertion that it was "only part of his scientific hypothesis". ScienceMom did not lie."

Yeah, she did. You said earlier that a patent does not have to work. Ergo, not all of the claims made in a patent have to pan out. You can even include a hypothesis as a claim in a patent knowing it might one day be disproved, and that's obviously what Dr. Wakefield did. In fact, that's all a patent really has to be - a hypothesis applied to a product.

"You owe her an apology."

I owe her nothing. That aside, I don't see her apologizing for calling me a stalker or making snide remarks about my employment prospects on this very thread, both of which have been removed thankfully.

"Here's what you say that you posed as a question in a public lecture:"

A lecture which ended with Paul Offit lying that I am a "stalker" and having me thrown out of his NIH talk for asking a question. You certainly had no trouble endorsing him as somehow above debate after he kicked me out of his Yale talk. I guess I can't say I blame you given that a debate would not end well for him, kind of like how this debate is not ending well for you.

Spin aside, Cochrane said the MMR vaccine's safety was "largely inadequate." A vaccine with a "largely inadequate" safety profile should not be given en masse to small children.”

“"Which is a perfectly acceptable thing to do in patents if you don't want to risk someone else coming along and stealing your idea."

Let's recap, shall we?

"Yes there was - you lied and said Dr. Wakefield said that the MMR was a major determinant in the development of autism, when that was only part of his scientific hypothesis. "

You were then presented with multiple quotes, including his patent:

"It has now also been shown that use of the MMR vaccine (which is taken to include live attentuated measles vaccine virus, measles virus, mumps vaccine virus and rubella vaccine virus, and wild strains of the aforementioned viruses) results in ileal lymphoid nodular hyperplasia, chronic colitis and pervasive developmental disorder including autism (RBD), in some infants." (from the Wakefield Patent)

Which clearly contradicts your assertion that it was "only part of his scientific hypothesis". ScienceMom did not lie. You owe her an apology.

Instead, looking facts in the face you state:

"Right, he stated it was his opinion. He never claimed his opinion was definitively proven as you claim he did."

I don't know how much closer to "definitively proven" one can get than "it has now been shown..."

And then try to dodge back into "it's perfectly acceptable thing to do...".

Your claim--made here and publicly multiple times--that Wakefield never said that MMR causes autism is false. Here's what you say that you posed as a question in a public lecture:

"You said that Dr. Andrew Wakefield said that the MMR vaccine causes autism. He never said that actually. He said that the safety data to back up the MMR vaccine's use was inadequate and seven years later the Cochrane Review basically came to that same conclusion. What do you have to say to that?"

By the way, Cochrane says that MMR vaccination should continue. Mr. Wakefield tried to get the UK to stop its plans to add a booster shot to the schedule. Mr. Wakefield and Cochrane are not at all on the same page.”

“"Take his patent as an example. (answer: he doesn't. He states it as a fact)"

Which is a perfectly acceptable thing to do in patents if you don't want to risk someone else coming along and stealing your idea.

I also see you never even bothered to go onto the website of the IRB Dr. Krigsman used:

"Copernicus Group IRB (CGIRB), a leading independent institutional review board, this month accepted Training Magazine's annual Training Top 125 award, which highlights companies' excellence in employer-sponsored training and development programs."
http://tinyurl.com/6menmzp

Yeah, that's an IRB with very low standards alright. :S

"...you persist in being wrong in the face of clear evidence to the contrary."

Speak for yourself.”

“"Right, he stated it was his opinion. He never claimed his opinion was definitively proven as you claim he did."

Where did he state that it was his opinion? Take his patent as an example. (answer: he doesn't. He states it as a fact)

"See what I've already said about this, your responses are annoyingly repetitive. "

I have read your previous responses. If it is annoyingly repetitive to keep pointing out that you are dodging the question and using poor logic, then so be it. I find it more than annoying that you persist in being wrong in the face of clear evidence to the contrary.

"Why? Because Dr. Krigsman wouldn't let a hospital review board second-guess his clinical judgement?"

Do you have any idea what an IRB is for? One doesn't shop around for an IRB to approve one's research.

The fact is that Dr. Krigsman used an external IRB when he had two in-house IRB's available to him. That is a warning. This led me to the fact is that he had already applied for IRB approval and been denied.

Dr. Krigsman is an example of the sort of low ethical standards that permeate the vaccines-cause-autism community.”

“I wasn't diverting anything, I was just saying that Mr. Tarhan's testimony should not be taken at face value as you suggested.

"...checked what Mr. Deer reported. I have."

So have I, the patent was for a medicine that would create an adequate immune response so children could clear the measles virus from their guts that the MMR infected them with. This was never meant to compete with MMR. If you check right under the heading "COMPETITORS" on your own blog of the GMC transcripts, you won't see MMR listed.

"His opinion was that MMR causes autism, which he stated. Clearly and repeatedly."

Right, he stated it was his opinion. He never claimed his opinion was definitively proven as you claim he did.

"You can't make definitive 'sounding' claims based on false information."

He didn't base any claims on false information.

"Mr. Wakefield's statement in his patent was clearly that MMR causes autism."

See what I've already said about this, your responses are annoyingly repetitive.

"That clue led me to do a minor amount of research which showed that the "Autism Insights" paper is flawed in more ways than was immediately obvious."

Why? Because Dr. Krigsman wouldn't let a hospital review board second-guess his clinical judgement?”

“"Mr. Crosby, you can find conflicts of interest where none exist."

That's funny coming from you, Matt - a guy who's received funding from a pharma front group.

"Why do you deny what is staring you in the face?"

Given that the findings made by Dr. Krigsman were from investigations undertaken before he ever worked with Dr. Wakefield - meaning the findings made from this were made independent of Dr. Wakefield and therefore count as an independent replication - there is clearly nothing to deny.”

“"Right, and the dean gave false testimony, so that quote is not is not the sort of thing you can take on trust, although he did like that Dr. Wakefield's patent applications listed the Royal Free as co-applicant."

Another diversion attempt. What does this have to do with the fact that Mr. Wakefield applied for a patent without notifying his hospital (a fact corroborated by Andrew Wakefield in the transcripts)?

So, the Dean "gave false testimony", but you believe the parts you want to believe?

"What he said was that he had no plans to market transfer factor as a routinely recommended vaccine on the population scale to compete with MMR as claimed in the myth Brian Deer elaborately concocted. "

You clearly haven't checked what Mr. Deer reported. I have. Check day 31 of the transcripts. You can find the business plan Mr. Wakefield had produced for his company:

"Paralleling the use of [transfer factors] as therapeutics will be a research programme aimed at demonstrating the value of [transfer factor] as a vaccine."

Under the heading "Establish the potential of the high specific active preparations as a potential measles vaccine" (in itself a clear statement of the intent):

"Medium term objectives for the venture will be: 1) to take the purified and characterised measles specific [transfer factor] through formal product registration by undertaking phase II and phase III clinical trials; 2) establish the most appropriate route for the commercial development of the product; 3) develop the potential for use of [transfer factors] as vaccine replacements; 4) introduce new anti-infectious agents TFs to the company's product development portfolio and take them through to formal product registration"

""Mr. Wakefield has made several clear claims that the MMR causes autism."

No, he's expressed his opinion several times that the MMR causes autism, which he has a right to."

Wow. He has the right to express his opinion, of course. His opinion was that MMR causes autism, which he stated. Clearly and repeatedly. You evasions are getting very strange.

""No Jake, it isn't acceptable to make such definitive sounding claims in a patent application;"

Yeah it is, otherwise if you wait till there's "proof," someone else might patent your own idea."

Jake, if you have the evidence, you can make definitive claims. They are backed up in that case. You can't make definitive 'sounding' claims based on false information.

Again, it's a diversion. Mr. Wakefield's statement in his patent was clearly that MMR causes autism. This is in clear contradiction of your claim below and the claims made often on his behalf.

"Why you've already figured it out, it's all a conspiracy..."

How did you jump to that conclusion? It is not what I stated nor implied. I stated that it was very odd to use a private IRB for work done at two institutions with IRB's in place (NYU and Lenox Hospital). That clue led me to do a minor amount of research which showed that the "Autism Insights" paper is flawed in more ways than was immediately obvious. I made those points clearly and you avoided responding to them.”

“"More discussion of this incident with other members of the Royal Free hospital staff are available in the transcripts."

Right, and the dean gave false testimony, so that quote is not is not the sort of thing you can take on trust, although he did like that Dr. Wakefield's patent applications listed the Royal Free as co-applicant.

"This patent, as you recall, is the one where Mr. Wakefield misrepresented, shall we say, the scope on American television."

What he said was that he had no plans to market transfer factor as a routinely recommended vaccine on the population scale to compete with MMR as claimed in the myth Brian Deer elaborately concocted.

"Mr. Wakefield has made several clear claims that the MMR causes autism."

No, he's expressed his opinion several times that the MMR causes autism, which he has a right to.

"Considering he's a microbiologist and not an autism nor GI expert,"

No, he has experience with investigating colonic biopsies. Brian Deer is not an autism or GI expert - his involvement is laughable.

"...besides, it isn't even replication as he merely reported GI symptoms in autistic children. Where is the MMR jab and regression within 2 weeks parts?"

The paper made no claim that the MMR caused their autism, the purpose of what was discussed in the paper was to investigate the GI disturbances of patients with ASDs.

"No Jake, it isn't acceptable to make such definitive sounding claims in a patent application;"

Yeah it is, otherwise if you wait till there's "proof," someone else might patent your own idea.

"you still need data."

Dr. Wakefield did cite data.

"And even more suspicious is that the patent application was before the Lancet study."

Only the provisional patent filing - the patent itself was not issued until after.

"He did make claims that MMR was responsible regression to the media and in a scientific journal; please avail yourself of all of the links I provided. He has also said it to parents."

No.

"No I didn't leave it out; it isn't relevant;

You did, and it is.

"...it's Wakefield making an unqualified statement that contradicts his many that the triple jab is responsible for autism."

It doesn't contradict anything he's said, because he never made any of those "many statements."

"The colonoscopies were performed while Kigsman was at Lenox Hill Hospital."

Before Krigsman ever worked with Wakefield - thank you for proving my point.

"The analysis for the paper was performed while he was an employee of Thoughtful House."

Whatever "analysis" you're referring to, the findings were made before he ever worked with Dr. Wakefield. It doesn't matter if he finished writing the paper at Lenox Hill or elsewhere, the same findings would have been made.

"Dr. Krigsman refused to allow a small sample of his patients' records to be reviewed:"

Probably because they were his patients, and the hospital review board had no right to second-guess the clinical judgments of a pediatric gastroenterologist.

"Why did someone from NYU (and Lenox Hill for that matter) use a private IRB (Copernicus Group Institutional Review Board)?"

Why you've already figured it out, it's all a conspiracy...”

“To put something extremely simple--

Andrew Wakefield was Krigsman's boss at the time when Krigsman was doing analysis and writing the paper. Mr. Crosby, you can find conflicts of interest where none exist. Why do you deny what is staring you in the face?”

“"Doesn't matter how many of them are his "sympathisers" or "apologists," it still doesn't change the fact that those findings by Dr. Krigsman were from a decade ago and made totally independently from Dr. Wakefield's findings."

The colonoscopies were performed while Kigsman was at Lenox Hill Hospital.

The analysis for the paper was performed while he was an employee of Thoughtful House. The study includes Carol Stott, also a Thoughtful House employee. If the "findings" were done a decade ago, why is Carol Stott on the paper? The answer is simple--the analysis was done

You know what is really suspicious about that paper? Two things. First, even though the colonoscopies were performed at Lenox Hill, Krigsman doesn't cite the hospital as an affiliation. Second, would be the Independent Review Board (IRB) approval. Why did someone from NYU (and Lenox Hill for that matter) use a private IRB (Copernicus Group Institutional Review Board)?

A simple internet search provides this document: http://tinyurl.com/DrKLenox

"On January 29, 2001, as required by federal and state law as well as the Hospital's by-laws, Dr. Krigsman submitted a research proposal to the Hospital's Institutional Review Board ("IRB") entitled "Evaluation of Gastrointestinal Symptoms in Autistic Children and Possible Association with Measles Vaccine Virus." This proposal was rejected by the Hospital's IRB on February 21, 2001, due to concerns that the procedure's risks would outweigh its anticipated benefits."

So, having failed to obtain IRB approval a decade ago, he revisits the study a decade later when his colleague is in trouble?

Was Dr. Krigsman's work at Lenox Hill as described in the Autism Insights paper? In specific, how about the claim that "All endoscopic examinations were clinically indicated"

Again, from the court document cited above:

"Pursuant to the Hospital's by-laws, a Departmental Ad Hoc Review Committee was appointed to investigate. Two hundred of Dr. Krigsman's cases were reviewed and discussions were held with pediatric gastroenterologists. Concerns about the medical necessity of the endoscopic
procedures persisted."

How many of the children reported in his paper were possibly subjected to endoscopy without clinical need?

We can't tell from that court document. Dr. Krigsman refused to allow a small sample of his patients' records to be reviewed:

"Since Dr. Krigsman had informed the Ad Hoc Review Committee that his patients had undergone a complete work-up in his office prior to their hospitalizations, the Hospital's Medical Board recommended that the Ad Hoc Review Committee randomly review ten of Dr. Krigsman' s patients' office records in an attempt to further evaluate the need for the procedures in question. Dr. Krigsman refused this request on June 2,2003. This action ensued."

This is the independent replication of Andrew Wakefield's research? Please. It is a nice replication of shady research procedures and dodgy ethical approvals.”