Patrick Holford and Dr Andrew Wakefield's Discredited Findings: Part 2
Patrick Holford is a staunch supporter of Dr Andrew Wakefield and recently set out his case as to why we should likewise support him. Patrick Holford claims to have remarkable insight into the causation of autism and how to "bring them back" when children are on the autistic spectrum. He suggests that there is hard evidence that links MMR and autism.
Wakefield's claims about the inflamed and diseased guts of the children in his original Lancet study have been shown to be unfounded.
But what about those measles antibodies in the cerebro-spinal fluid and the gut tissue of the children Wakefield examined? Whatever significant problems there may be with the rest of his work, surely this is the crux of the matter.
Yes, the findings concerning the measles antibodies are significant, albeit, not in a way that most people would admire. And here we pass to one of the most alarming and distressing aspects of this whole affair; something that has been known for some time but about which Patrick Holford is silent. Those antibodies were never there.
The account of those (now) infamous PCR samples that 'proved' the existence and persistence of the measles antibodies in the children's samples, along with the issues discussed below and in part 1 is why a lawyer for the US Govt. Health and Human Services Dept. recently made this remarkable comment in his concluding statements for the first part of the Autism Omnibus hearings in the US. The MMR-autism case has no plausible or verifiable science to support it.
It's at best speculation, idle speculation. Now, at worst--at worst--it's a contrivance. It's a contrivance that's been developed and articulated and promoted by its chief proponent, and that's Andrew Wakefield. He promoted it for financial gain. Either way it's not science.What about those samples, the ones with the measles RNA?
pgs 28-9: Day 12 Transcript of Cedillo v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (pdf)
Orac has written an excellent account of the difference between real scientists and crank scientists. By liberal referral to the leading PCR authority, Dr Bustin, we learn precisely why we can have no confidence at all in the Unigenetics lab that reported many of these findings.
Now, here's where Dr. Bustin was so devastating to the claim that MMR causes autism. Andrew Wakefield and Arthur Krigsman, who claimed to have replicated Wakefield's work and found measles virus RNA in the guts of autistic children, both used Professor John O'Leary's Unigenetics Laboratory in Ireland, and it was the Unigenetics lab whose results led to a paper by Uhlman et al and an as yet unpublished poster presentation by Walker et al, both claiming to find measles virus in the guts of autistic children.The irregularities were extraordinary and the whole of Dr. Bustin's testimony (pdf) is worth reading as a primer into how PCR can go horribly wrong.
I don't know why Patrick Holford still finds this an area of controversy and debate rather than acknowledging that there has been some bad science that has been roundly and repeatedly exposed. He mentions none of this in the theory of autism aetiology that he promotes in his books or websites. He promotes the existence of the measles antibodies in the gut and CSF as fact despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The theoretical underpinning for his heavily promoted treatment programme relies upon the existence and persistence of these measles antibodies.
So, the Unigenetics lab returned suspect results and can not be relied upon but surely the original PCR results from the Royal Free Hospital are above reproach? No.
Dr Nick Chadwick started to work as a graduate student in Dr Wakefield's lab in the Royal Free Hospital in 1994. The lab started to focus on testing samples and tissue from autistic patients in 1996. Chadwick was responsible for processing the materials and looking for measles RNA. He reported that there were never any confirmed findings of measles RNA. The only positives that were obtained were rapidly shown to be false positives and he reported this. Chadwick's account has been known for some time; more than enough time for Patrick Holford to have addressed this issue. At the very least he should have referred to it when purporting to give his email list an overview of Wakefield's work and why we might consider signing that petition.
Chadwick's testimony to the Autism Omnibus hearings (pdf) was devastating.
pg 10Chadwick further reported that Wakefield had decided that it would be useful to send samples to Dr Kawashima's lab because he was also working on the detection of measles virus using another methodology. Chadwick discovered that there were serious and significant reporting errors from Kawashima's lab and that, yet again, the only positive results were subsequently shown to be false positives. He had concerns about contamination. He informed Wakefield of the problem with the Kawashima results. Chadwick's results also returned negative results, with every positive being subsequently shown to be a false positive.
Q [Y]ou personally tested while you were in Dr. Wakefield's lab gut biopsy material, CFS, PBMCs?
A Yes, that's right.
Q And all the results were either negative, or if they were positive it always turned out that they were false positives?
A Yes, that's correct.
Q Did you inform Dr. Wakefield of the negative results?
A Yes. Yes.
pg 12It is a remarkably serious step to request that your name is taken off a paper and should not be used in reference to data. The significance of this would be apparent to any researcher or scientist. Except, of course, to Patrick Holford, who does not mention any of this when instructing his readers in the role of MMR in the development of autism. Nor does he mention it when discussing the scientific rationale for his treatment programme for children on the autistic spectrum.
Q [D]uring your time on your Ph.D. research in Dr. Wakefield's lab you only obtained nine positive PCR results for measles. Every time you did that you sequenced them.
A That's correct, yes. We sent it off to a sequencing lab to be sequenced, and the data that came back showed that they were all false positive results.
Q Every positive result you got was a false positive?
[pg 12 cont. to pg 14]
Q [Y]ou state that you had reservations about the immunohistochemistry done to detect measles virus, specifically the use of an antibody from Porton Down?
A Yes, that's right. The antibody seemed to cross-react.
Experiments we did in the lab seemed to show that the antibody cross-reacted with bacterial proteins, which I think is an artifact of how the antibody was made, and that led us or led me to think that it may have been cross-reacting with bacteria in the gut of patients rather than measles virus.
Q Now, that would lead to contamination?
A Well, it would lead to a false positive result. Say for instance if the antibody was binding to something in the guts of these patients, it may well have been a bacteria rather than the measles virus.
Q Okay. Producing the false positives in those?
A Yes, that's correct.
Q You also state in your affidavit that you believe Dr Wakefield was aware of all your negative results when he submitted his paper "Ileal Lymphonodular Hyperplasia, Nonspecific Colitis and Pervasive Developmental Disorder," which was published in 1998 to the Lancet.
A Yes, that's correct.
Q You were working at the lab at that time, and you had actually published some articles with Dr. Wakefield on other subjects, hadn't you?
A Yes. Yes.
Q Why isn't your name on the paper I just referenced?
A Well, my name isn't on that because none of my data went into that paper.
There was a manuscript which did use some PCR data I think from Dr. Kawashima's lab, and I asked for my name to be taken off anything that was related to PCR data because I wasn't comfortable with the quality of the data.
Patrick Holford has not included any of this material when updating his publications or websites nor when writing his recent books. If he were to, perhaps he would have to acknowledge that there is no scientific foundation to his treatment programme which relies upon the findings of Wakefield.
Patrick Holford recently asked: Was Dr. Andrew Wakefield Right About the Link Between Autism, the Gut, Allergy and the MMR Vaccine?. He purported to give an overview:
If you are not sure, then please read on to find out what we know about autism, the gut, vaccinations and what food has to do with it.We do not know any of that: the science has been well and truly exposed. At best, Patrick Holford is outdated in his knowledge and it is past time that he updated it. Something he had ample opportunity to do before repeating these beliefs in recently published books.
Patrick Holford depends upon Wakefield's work to justify some of his entrepreneurial and charitable endeavours. He owes it to the people who rely upon him to revise his acceptance of Wakefield's science and findings. And people are guided by Patrick Holford when it comes to MMR. Petition signatory 4797 credits Patrick Holford with her daughter's decision not to vaccinate her children (she was previously no. 4805, there have been some alterations to the petition):
Thank God my daughter used her judgement and did not have the MMR for her children. She based her decision on extensive research, most particularly 'What Doctors Don't Tell You' and Patrick Holford.Patrick Holford owes it to that woman to put together a better overview of the research that purports to find a link between MMR and autism: he may even owe it to her that he should strongly reconsider his position on a number of important matters.
Patrick Holford and Dr Andrew Wakefield's Discredited Findings: Part 1
Kevin Leitch on Andrew Wakefield and the death of the MMR debacle and Justice for Katie
Mike Stanton on Patrick Holford and his unusual views on vaccination, MMR and autism
Patrick Holford Claims Remarkable Benefits for Homeopathic Vaccinations
Dr Crippen on the remarkable cost-savings that Patrick Holford could offer the NHS: Pay £6.99 to say "no" to cancer
Holford Watch: Holford believes Secretin is "Worth considering" as an autism treatment; however, there is no evidence that this treatment is effective and
Holford is sceptical about off-label prescribing, but thinks that secretin for autism is "Worth considering"
Patrick Holford alias Doctor Knock aka Holt Senior
Flickr credits for the images. 1. question, 2. Questions?