MotherGoose Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/05/autism.vaccines/index.html?hpt=T1 Not trying to enter into a debate about this, just thought it was interesting reading that the doctor that published the study has had his medical license revoked and was employed by attorneys planning to sue vaccine manufacturers when he did the study. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChandlerMom Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/05/autism.vaccines/index.html?hpt=T1 Not trying to enter into a debate about this, just thought it was interesting reading that the doctor that published the study has had his medical license revoked and was employed by attorneys planning to sue vaccine manufacturers when he did the study. Article fails to mention that Wakefield also holds a patent for a competing MMR vaccine (claims to be "safer"), something else he didn't disclose. And the journal Lancet retracting an article is almost never done -- they actually went so far as to have it removed from the archives. I read Lancet and BMJ a lot and they do not balk at publishing papers that oppose the common beliefs or the opinions of the health dept, so the publishers must have felt something was really wrong with that paper to take the extreme step of retracting it. I'm not debating the issue, just adding a few facts. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MotherGoose Posted January 6, 2011 Author Share Posted January 6, 2011 Facts are good! :001_smile: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SailorMom Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 I thought this info had been around for a while...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i.love.lucy Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 I thought this info had been around for a while...... Yeah, wasn't that study proved false years ago?:confused: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MotherGoose Posted January 6, 2011 Author Share Posted January 6, 2011 I had heard that too, but just saw it on Facebook via CNN and thought it was worth repeating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudoMom Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 From what I understand, there have been several studies that have proved this study false. But the new hubbub is because it's now been shown that the original study was fraudulent/based on false information. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perry Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 Yeah, wasn't that study proved false years ago?:confused: This new article is an analysis of the extent of the fraud. It goes into great detail about how he falsified the data. There is a good explanation at Respectful Insolence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=234937&highlight=CNN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smalltown mom Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 (edited) I believe the following statement sums it up quite nicely: "I suspect that if any researcher’s methods, associations and data were scrutinized with a fine tooth comb like they have done for 12 YEARS with Dr. Wakefield, the Lancet would be forced to retract many articles — maybe all of them. Looking at the Big Picture, one *has to see* that the issue with Dr. Andrew Wakefield is a witch hunt with an agenda. When the twisted associations of those who have been out to crucify Dr. Wakefield are mapped out, it is plain that he had not a chance of exoneration. http://drtenpenny.com/Wakefield_Inquisitioners_Have_their_day.aspx Edited January 7, 2011 by smalltown mom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perry Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 I believe the following statement sums it up quite nicely: "I suspect that if any researcher’s methods, associations and data were scrutinized with a fine tooth comb like they have done for 12 YEARS with Dr. Wakefield, the Lancet would be forced to retract many articles — maybe all of them. Looking at the Big Picture, one *has to see* that the issue with Dr. Andrew Wakefield is a witch hunt with an agenda. When the twisted associations of those who have been out to crucify Dr. Wakefield are mapped out, it is plain that he had not a chance of exoneration. http://drtenpenny.com/Wakefield_Inquisitioners_Have_their_day.aspx Having done research and authored articles, I find this ridiculous. There is no question that there are going to be mistakes and errors. There is no such thing as a perfect study, or perfect results. But the overwhelming majority of researches are honest, ethical, and do their best. Wakefield is incompetent, irresponsible and dishonest. Scientific fraud is completely different than an honest mistake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatCyndiGirl Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 "Dr. Tenpenny" has a vested interest in keeping vax hysteria going. She sells anti-vax products on her website. (I've said it about religion and I'll say it again: If she felt that this "goldmine of anti-vax information'' was so valuable....WHY IS SHE SELLING IT? Why can't she support herself/her family with the practice of medicine and do her anti-vax work for free/very low fee? If I were so passionate about something I considered the truth, that is supposedly going to save lives, I would consider it immoral/unethical to SELL it.) Not exactly an unbiased source of information. The truth is that this Dr. Wakefield: Knowingly falsified information because he had a relationship that ETHICAL researchers would regard as a conflict of interest. Also, he had developed a competing vaccine. How anyone can defend him or his studies is beyond me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smalltown mom Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 (edited) What is different, then, about Dr. Offitt's COI's? Edited January 7, 2011 by smalltown mom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatCyndiGirl Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 (edited) What is different, then, about Dr. Offitt's COI's? Could you explain what that is?:confused: I know who Dr. Offitt is (and that he donated the royalties from his book to Autism research), but I can't find "COI's" anywhere?? ETA: In the interest of transparency I will state that I used to be anti-vax when my first child was an infant so I do understand the thought process. But,.....when I started researching more I just couldn't buy the whole, "they are all trying to hurt our children/they are all in the pocket of big pharma" rhetoric. I don't take everything from the AMA as gospel (for instance I have always been anti-circ), but I just don't think that "all vax is bad". Edited January 7, 2011 by ThatCyndiGirl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smalltown mom Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 COI's=conflicts of interest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smalltown mom Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 "If I were so passionate about something I considered the truth, that is supposedly going to save lives, I would consider it immoral/unethical to SELL it.) So you are saying Dr. Paul Offit should then NOT profit from his rotavirus vaccine. He seems pretty passionate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatCyndiGirl Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 To me....for me....it feels different when someone, in the course of doing his or her job discovers something that is of use to others and can sell vs. "I will write this book that I tell people will save their lives and charge them money for it". So many people get those vaccines free/low cost that, no, I don't have a problem with him owning a patent on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danestress Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 To me....for me....it feels different when someone, in the course of doing his or her job discovers something that is of use to others and can sell vs. "I will write this book that I tell people will save their lives and charge them money for it". So many people get those vaccines free/low cost that, no, I don't have a problem with him owning a patent on it. One should earn a living for his or her work. I just think we have to be honest and transparent about potential conflicts. I have no dog in the autism/vaccines debate, but I did hear this guy on NPR today - just a snippet. As long as his patent isn't a secret and as long as her book writing profits aren't a secret, I don't think there is a major problem. The fact that people are able to say, "Does she profit by stirring up fear?" "Does he profit by encouraging vaccines" then I think the system is working. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perry Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 What is different, then, about Dr. Offitt's COI's? He discloses them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pdalley Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 Could you explain what that is?:confused: I know who Dr. Offitt is (and that he donated the royalties from his book to Autism research), but I can't find "COI's" anywhere?? ETA: In the interest of transparency I will state that I used to be anti-vax when my first child was an infant so I do understand the thought process. But,.....when I started researching more I just couldn't buy the whole, "they are all trying to hurt our children/they are all in the pocket of big pharma" rhetoric. I don't take everything from the AMA as gospel (for instance I have always been anti-circ), but I just don't think that "all vax is bad". :iagree: My older two were vaxed on schedule - the younger one was not. Delayed, separated, etc. Guess who has the most autistic symptoms? The youngest. I don't deny there are vaccine injured people. However that does not mean that Wakefield's study is valid. I think it's been proven as shoddy and manufactured as it could get. And I think he should answer for it. Some lady on the news - local - last night said that she still thought the MMR contains mercury and that was the root cause. The MMR never contained thimersol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatCyndiGirl Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Yeah, I guess it all comes down to this: Those of us who believe that vaccinations have their merits are suspicious of those who seem to want to "take down the vaccine companies" by any means possible and those who are anti-vax refuse to believe anything that is pro-vax, even if it can be proven. And the two sides shall never agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pdalley Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Yeah, I guess it all comes down to this: Those of us who believe that vaccinations have their merits are suspicious of those who seem to want to "take down the vaccine companies" by any means possible and those who are anti-vax refuse to believe anything that is pro-vax, even if it can be proven. And the two sides shall never agree. Pretty much. My grandmother - who saw some of the bad effects of no vaccines as a Nurse as well as living through it as a child - always told me to do my own research and do what I felt best for my kids. No judgement - no hysterics. I'm that way as well. To each their own - just respect me enough to not harass me about what I do with my own kids. It's like that in the local autism support group. I was told quite plainly I was not welcome because I don't believe that my kids can be 'recovered', they are fully vaccinated, I don't chelate (nor would I), we don't see a DAN dr and I homeschool. If something works for someone else then that's wonderful. I never said any of those things were wrong. It's just not right for MY kids. Sad to say, there is very little local support for people like us. The homeschool groups think we're too weird and the support group thinks we're too 'typical'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nd293 Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 told me to do my own research and do what I felt best for my kids. No judgement - no hysterics. I'm that way as well. To each their own - just respect me enough to not harass me about what I do with my own kids. Absolutely. But it does kind of bother me, as a former researcher when people equate anecdotal evidence with empirical evidence. In my experience when a researcher uses anecdotal evidence it's to bolster conclusions that are not quite rock solid - "I think I see this in the stats, or I see this in broader stats but not in my sample group, and here is an emotional example you can relate to to convince you of my position." I still mind my own business, but it bothers me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kalanamak Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Act One on this episode of This American Life interviews both sides of the debate: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/370/ruining-it-for-the-rest-of-us Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Absolutely. But it does kind of bother me, as a former researcher when people equate anecdotal evidence with empirical evidence. In my experience when a researcher uses anecdotal evidence it's to bolster conclusions that are not quite rock solid - "I think I see this in the stats, or I see this in broader stats but not in my sample group, and here is an emotional example you can relate to to convince you of my position." I still mind my own business, but it bothers me. Empirical evidence means a lot when it's your kid that IS the statistic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatCyndiGirl Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Act One on this episode of This American Life interviews both sides of the debate: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/370/ruining-it-for-the-rest-of-us thanks for linking this! I LOVE This American Life! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smalltown mom Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Having done research and authored articles, I find this ridiculous. There is no question that there are going to be mistakes and errors. There is no such thing as a perfect study, or perfect results. But the overwhelming majority of researches are honest, ethical, and do their best. Wakefield is incompetent, irresponsible and dishonest. Scientific fraud is completely different than an honest mistake. So, you're saying there is no such thing as researcher bias? What about the researchers who conducted the "science" concluding that tobacco was, indeed, safe? Who was being honest and ethical there? I'm sorry, but science motivated by greed is not valid. When we look around and we see a clinical picture (thousands of reports of adverse reactions immediately following the shots) that is so vastly different from what the *science* is telling us, maybe we need to re-examine the quality of the science. The FDA is revisiting the *science* on mercury fillings. How about while they're at it, they revisit some or all of the vaccine safety studies: ".....the FDA used flawed science when it set the guidelines for mercury safety levels. "http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2010/12/14/fda-revisits-the-dangers-of-mercury-fillings/ Do I *know* that Dr. Wakefield is telling the truth? No. But neither do any of you *know* that the GMC or journalists like Brian Deer are above corruption and the influence of outside interests. Smear campaigns can and do happen, per the story of Dr. Ignaz Semmelweiz http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi622.htm. Also, the Merck Doctor Hit List: "We may need to seek them out and destroy them where they live," (in an email from Merck referring to the doctors speaking out about Vioxx risks). http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6664/is_200905/ai_n39231765/ Yes, kids die/get sick from vaccine-preventable diseases, but they also die/get sick from vaccines. ThatCyndyGirl: Call it vax hysteria if you want; I call it an informed alternate viewpoint. Actually, if you want to see hysteria, just go observe some of the tantrums and bullying that occur in doctors' offices when patients wish to opt out of shots. That "shut up and salute" approach from the medical establishment is downright frightening. We don't live in Nazi Germany or communist Russia. Too many children have been thrown under the bus in the name of the greater good. Not mine. Just curious, Perry, what type of research did you do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perry Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 So, you're saying there is no such thing as researcher bias? No, of course not. I wouldn't put too much stock in any *single* study, and possibility of bias and error is one important reason. Studies with multiple researchers from different institutions are less of a concern. Any time I read a study, I am evaluating it for all sorts of possible biases. What is most important is looking for scientific consensus. When 10 different studies by researchers at different institutions are coming up with the same results, I feel pretty confident that that is useful information. Just curious, Perry, what type of research did you do? Infectious disease epidemiology. Mainly influenza. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KatieH Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 How anyone can defend him or his studies is beyond me. :iagree: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perry Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 I wouldn't put too much stock in any *single* study, and possibility of bias and error is one important reason. Studies with multiple researchers from different institutions are less of a concern. Any time I read a study, I am evaluating it for all sorts of possible biases. What is most important is looking for scientific consensus. When 10 different studies by researchers at different institutions are coming up with the same results, I feel pretty confident that that is useful information. I wanted to add something... Study design is important. Usually, when people start investigating a new line of research, you start with cheaper, smaller studies with a straighforward design. You won't get a huge grant to do a huge study for something out of the blue. You have to have some preliminary research first. Of course, these kinds of studies are more prone to problems than the gold standard "randomized controlled studies". Large RCTs are the best way to answer a question, but they can be monstrously expensive, lasting many years and involving many, many researchers. It isn't unusual to have early research pointing in a certain direction, but when the RCT is done, find something totally unexpected and opposite of the original research. This is exactly what happened with the Women's Health Initiative Study, which found that post-menopausal hormone replacement resulted in increased rates of MI and stroke. Even though it was just one study, it was a huge study, with the gold standard design, and was much, much more powerful than the earlier studies suggesting that HRT was beneficial. So sometimes, one study can be useful for making policy. But it should still be replicated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smalltown mom Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 How anyone can defend him or his studies is beyond me. That's just a testament to the effectiveness of the smear campaign. Interesting how NO complaints from the parents of these children were ever brought forth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatCyndiGirl Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 The anti-vax crowd will always consider news like this a "smear campaign" while those of us who are not anti-vax will be grateful that his misdeeds were brought to light. I have a feeling that if a pro-vax researcher had committed the same errors in judgment the anti-vaxers wouldn't be calling it a 'smear campaign'. How you word it is determined by your particular bias. We only made it to Page 3 before Godwin's Law was invoked?! Is that a new WTM record? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChristineW Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Dr Wakefield is the worst type of scientist--a dishonest one. I don't know what is causing the rise in diagnosis of autism; no one does. I have anxiety every time I take my kids to well checks for shots. I'm careful. No more than 1 live vaccine, no more than three vaxes total and no vaxes if the kids show any sign of infection or if anyone else in the house is sick. But at the same time, I'm pretty familiar with the legal system in the UK. It is pretty hard to lose a libel case in England.The burden of proof is on the defendant not the plaintiff. If you imply that someone is less than golden, you had better have solid proof that they are the devil. Just ask the WSJ. Dr Wakefield sued the Brian Deer for libel. He lost. Deer and the Lancet had to prove in court that their article was true and they succeeded. Wakefield could sue again based on the new accusations, but having already been through the ringer in court I bet Deer and the medical journal were pretty thorough in their fact checking. And these facts are ****ing. Horrible, horrible if true. because the OP is right, Wakefield's bluster and refusal to admit to any wrongdoing make those who believe that vaccines should be safer look nuts. Its Wakefield who is the problem here, not the parents, not the press. If Brian Deer had any financial motive beyond being a freelance journalist someone would have dug it up by now. No one has. Deer is being paid significantly less for his story for the BMJ than Wakefield was being paid by the plaintiffs attorney firm that originally hired him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asta Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Just curious, Perry, what type of research did you do? Infectious disease epidemiology. Mainly influenza. Oops. Gotta be careful when ya ask questions around here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pdalley Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 That's just a testament to the effectiveness of the smear campaign. Interesting how NO complaints from the parents of these children were ever brought forth. I read quotes from at least one father who was furious that Wakefield had used his son to deceive people. Where I couldn't tell you but it was the last time this had come to light. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perry Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 I read quotes from at least one father who was furious that Wakefield had used his son to deceive people. Where I couldn't tell you but it was the last time this had come to light. It's in the Deer article. Respectful Insolence discusses it too. Even better, this is part one of a two-part series, and it knocks down whatever is left of Andrew Wakefield's scientific reputation (such as it was), jumps up and down on it, and then kicks the ashes away. Deer begins, as he began one of his news stories before, with the testimony of a parent of one of the 12 children that Wakefield included in his study:Mr 11, an American engineer, looked again at the paper: a five page case series of 11 boys and one girl, aged between 3 and 9 years. Nine children, it said, had diagnoses of "regressive" autism, and all but one were reported with "non-specific colitis." The "new syndrome" brought these together, linking brain and bowel diseases. His son was the penultimate case. Running his finger across the paper's tables, over coffee in London, Mr 11 seemed reassured by his anonymised son's age and other details. But then he pointed at table 2--headed "neuropsychiatric diagnosis"--and for a second time objected. "That's not true." Child 11 was among the eight whose parents apparently blamed MMR. The interval between his vaccination and the first "behavioural symptom" was reported as 1 week. This symptom was said to have appeared at age 15 months. But his father, whom I had tracked down, said this was wrong. "From the information you provided me on our son, who I was shocked to hear had been included in their published study," he wrote to me, after we met again in California, "the data clearly appeared to be distorted." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smalltown mom Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 (edited) In any case, Godwin's law or not, I believe medical choice and medical freedom must be present in a free society. Parents DO have a right to question/doubt vaccine safety, in light of the track record of pharma companies not exactly putting consumer safety first (how long did Merck know about the cardiac dangers of Vioxx before recalling the drug? Try 5 years). See just what kind of people you are putting your trust in: http://www.maryalice.com/cases/Vioxx.asp Parents are also understandably concerned about the funding sources of the *science*, and also the cozy relationships between the regulatory agencies that are supposed to protect us (CDC, ACIP) and the vaccine manufacturers. The attitude of many doctors when confronted with concerned parents is appalling. Methinks they protest too much. Does my doctor's rage stem from a deep seated concern over the wellbeing of my child? I doubt it. I don't know about you, but it concerns me that vaccine manufacturers have exempted themselves from liability. If they really believed in the safety of the product they were selling, wouldn't they stand behind it? And let's talk about the limitations of the germ theory in itself. Exposure to germ A does not equal disease A in everybody. The whole philosophy of vaccines doesn't really take into account the susceptibility of the host, does it? Immunization may be a way to prevent disease, but it is ONLY one way. In truth, there are many natural ways to protect the body from disease and build a healthy immune system (ways that don't involve injecting a little body with toxins). Exclusive breastfeeding is probably the most important. So, no thanks. I don't want my child, say 20 or 30 years down the road, developing an autoimmune disease that we all know, of course, *cannot be caused by the vaccine.* I know I've veered way off topic here, and I've got a family to take care of, so I'm about done with this conversation. But whether or not Wakefield is actually guilty of everything he has been accused of, certainly his example will be a used as a deterrent to any future researcher who might consider "going against the flow" and questioning any of the sacred cows of medicine. "Every truth passes through three stages before it is recognized. In the first, it is ridiculed, in the second it is opposed, in the third it is regarded as self-evident." ~Arthur Schopenhauer Edited January 8, 2011 by smalltown mom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pdalley Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 I don't see anyone saying there shouldn't be healthy skepticism. But I do believe it should extend to both sides. It seems to be ok to be skeptical of vaccines and believe that all Doctors are vaccine pushing maniacs (And mine is NOT that way at all. My boys have never had a flu shot due to his concerns and he never once pressured me into any vaccine of any kind. He listened to me - told me the latest research he's read and he's also on the local committee to keep a cement plant from leaking toxic fumes into our environment. No, he's not Mr. Vaccines for sure.) So if all Doctors are Vaccine pushers, the CDC is bought off by Big Pharma, etc... then what's to say that other researchers (Wakefield) are doing this out of the goodness of their hearts? There is a huge amount of money to be made in the 'curing' of autism/autistic like symptoms. I really do not understand why all Doctors are painted with a broad brush but the researchers - even when they have been proven to have ulterior motives and worse yet, faulty, staged research - must not be questioned. :001_huh: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.