Prove yourself
| 18 January, 2011 | Richard P. Grant |
6
|
|
The Wakefield story rumbles on.
Last week we linked to the BMJ editorial, signed by Fiona Godlee, Jane Smith and Harvey Marcovitch, introducing investigative journalist Brian Deer’s report on the extent of the autism/vaccine fraud. Yesterday, we linked to the first piece by Deer, in which he describes the scientific discrepancies: the details of the alleged financial motives are in the follow-up piece.
(Interestingly, according to Andy Lewis, writing in a BMJ Rapid response, “the solicitor at the heart of the Wakefield affair, Richard Barr, is a Director of the Society of Homeopaths – an organisation whose members offer homeopathic sugar pill alternatives to MMR.” This just gets better and better.)
Now, Faculty Member Steven Salzberg at the University of Maryland has evaluated Deer’s first article at F1000 [free link].
Steven nicely summarizes the main points:
Wakefield’s small study (just 12 children) recruited students who were referred to him by a lawyer who was trying to collect evidence for a lawsuit against vaccine makers. In addition, […] Wakefield himself was paid directly by the lawyers, a fact he didn’t reveal to his co-authors.
[…]
5 of 12 [children] had symptoms of autism before their vaccinations, although the paper reported that all were “previously normal”.
And yet, the crazies still bang on about this supposed link. Wouldn’t it be good if we could do an experiment of replacing triple MMR vaccine with single vaccines and look at autism levels? We could hypothesize that cases of autism should fall after withdrawal of MMR. Well, the experiment was done over five years ago: in Japan, withdrawal of the MMR vaccine was followed by a rise in autism cases 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.01425.x. Even if diagnostic criteria changed, no rational person can reasonably claim that the MMR vaccine causes autism spectrum disorders. The tragedy in all of this is the human cost: the very children who were supposed to be protected have suffered as cases of measles increase, as a direct consequence of the scam.
|
|
previous post
Scientific “misconduct” is better understood as an attempt to gain advantage (money, tenure, promotion, fame, etc.) by deception. In other words, it is fraud. Until we criminalize scientific misconduct & label it as fraud, it will remain attractive to the dishonest, the liars, the cheats & the con-artist of the scientific community. If Wakefield’s actions are to be deterred, he should be prosecuted for fraud under the Crimes Act and if found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, he should be penalized for his crimes in proportion to their scale & the damage caused.
Statement From Dr. Andrew Wakefield: No Fraud. No Hoax. No Profit Motive.
AUSTIN, Texas, Jan. 13, 2011 /PRNewswire/ — Dr. Andrew Wakefield issued the following statement today on the recent British Medical Journal articles:
“The British Medical Journal and reporter Brian Deer recently alleged that my 1998 research paper was ‘a hoax’ and ‘an elaborate fraud’ and that my motivation was profit.
“I want to make one thing crystal clear for the record – my research and the serious medical problems found in those children were not a hoax and there was no fraud whatsoever. Nor did I seek to profit from our findings.
“I stand by the Lancet paper’s methodology and the results which call for more research into whether environmental triggers cause gastrointestinal disease and developmental regression in children. In fact, despite media reports to the contrary, the results of my research have been duplicated in five other countries (to see citations to studies, visit http://tinyurl.com/4hrdt5y.)
“It is not unexpected to see poor reporting and misinformation coming from Brian Deer, the lead reporter of the recent BMJ coverage. But to see coverage in other media that cites Deer’s shoddy journalism in the BMJ as a final justification to claim there is no link between vaccines and autism is ludicrous. The MMR is only one vaccine of the eleven vaccinations on the pediatric schedule that has been studied for causing developmental problems such as autism. That is fact, not opinion. Any medical professional, government official or journalist who states that the case is closed on whether vaccines cause autism is jumping to conclusions without the research to back it up.
“I continue to fully support more independent research to determine if environmental triggers, including vaccines, are causing autism and other developmental problems. The current rate of autism is 1 in 110 children in the United States and 1 in 64 children in the U.K. My goal has always been and will remain the health and safety of children. Since the Lancet paper, I have lost my job, my career and my country. To claim that my motivation was profit is patently untrue. I will not be deterred – this issue is far too important.”
Quote: 5 of 12 [children] had symptoms of autism before their vaccinations, although the paper reported that all were “previously normal”.
Answer: Since ‘scientists’ are now reporting that every kid is ‘mental’ in ‘some way or another’ one might wonder WHAT kid WOULD be considered ‘normal’ in the eyes of some ‘scientists’ and ESPECIALLY in the eyes of an ‘investigative reporter’ with ‘possible’ bias ? Or is ANYONE normal to these guys ?
It was Wakefield’s paper, was it not, that called them ‘previously normal’? I’m not sure what your point is.
I find it interesting that in that press release that he’s shifting focus away from MMR onto other vaccines, and yet refuses to accept responsibility for the harm that reduced uptake of MMR caused.
Quote: yet refuses to accept responsibility for the harm that reduced uptake of MMR caused
Answer: I suppose IF one were to follow Vioxx back one ‘could’ find a scientist or two who DID NOT WANT to use Vioxx BECAUSE of ‘reservations’ ? If Vioxx HADN’T been PROVEN to cause problems then THOSE doctors who DID ‘speak out’ against Vioxx could very well have gone down the SAME road as Dr. Wakefield ? They could have been charged with “using ‘unproven’ information to discredit a company” ? It is those doctors who ‘refuse’ to toe the line BLINDLY that many times are able to elucidate the ‘shortcomings’ in Science ? As to the ‘normal’ children that Wakefield used ? What I seem to be hearing is Wakefield considered them to BE ‘normal’ whereas OTHERS ‘may’ NOT have considered them to BE ‘normal’ because of symptoms which ‘could’ be considered by some to be symptoms of autism BUT could also be considered symptoms of everyday normal children. IE: staring off into space for periods of time , ADHD , etc.
What I hear is Wakefield whining but his followers are undaunted. He certainly seems to have a good chance of salvaging an ‘alternative’ career from the counter-skeptic believer culture he helped to create. I agree that punishment may need to be part of the scientific bargain.