Quantcast

Update on Father of Fake Vaccine Science

syadasti

i heart mac
Apr 15, 2002
12,721
290
VT
Hopefully they take his license, fine him, and put him in jail for spreading propaganda which has endangered the lives of children and fueled baseless rants from clueless nutcases.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1957656,00.html

Time said:
Doctor in MMR-Autism Scare Ruled Unethical
By Eben Harrell / London Friday, Jan. 29, 2010


In 1998, Andrew Wakefield, a gastroenterologist at London's Royal Free Hospital, published a study in the prestigious medical journal Lancet that linked the triple Measles, Mumps and Rubella (MMR) vaccine with autism and bowel disorders in children. The study — and Wakefield's subsequent public statements that parents should refuse the vaccines — sparked a public health panic that led vaccination rates in Britain to plunge.

Wakefield's study has since been discredited, and the MMR vaccine deemed to be safe. But now medical authorities in the U.K. have also ruled that the manner in which Wakefield carried out his research was unethical. In a ruling on Jan. 28, The General Medical Council, which registers and regulates doctors in the U.K., ruled that Wakefield acted "dishonestly and irresponsibly" during his research and with "callous disregard" for the children involved in his study.

After the finding, Wakefield, who now heads an autism research center in Austin, Texas, described the decision as "unfounded and unjust." He added that he had "no regrets" over his work.

The General Medical Council, which will now decide whether to revoke Wakefield's medical license, highlighted several areas where Wakefield acted against the interest of the children involved in the 1998 study. It criticized Wakefield for carrying out invasive tests, such as colonoscopies and spinal taps, without due regard for how the children involved might be affected. It also cited Wakefield's method of gathering blood samples — he paid children at his son's birthday party $8 to give blood — and said that Wakefield displayed a "callous disregard for the distress and pain the children might suffer."

The panel also criticized Wakefield for failing to disclose that, while carrying out the research, he was being paid by lawyers acting for parents who believed their children had been harmed by the MMR jab.

The panel's ruling follows a refutation of Wakefield's research from the scientific community. Ten of 13 authors in the Lancet study have since renounced the study's conclusions. The Lancet has said it should not have published the study in the first place, and various other studies have failed to corroborate Wakefield's hypothesis.

Despite this, the effects of the media frenzy surrounding Wakefield's research — a study found that MMR was the most written about science topic in the U.K. in 2002 — continue to be felt in Britain. Vaccination rates among toddlers plummeted from over 90% in the mid-1990s to below 70% in some places by 2003. Following this drop, Britain saw an increase in measles cases at a time when the disease had been all but eradicated in many developed countries. In 1998, there were just 56 cases of the disease in England and Wales; by 2008 there were 1,370.

Despite assurances from various health bodies that Wakefield's study was seriously flawed, he still has a dedicated following among parents concerned about a rise in autism rates in the U.K. and U.S. — the cause of which has so far baffled health experts. Wakefield is now the Executive Director of the Thoughtful House autism center in Texas, which the Times of London recently claimed receives millions of dollars in donations each year. At the ruling in London, Wakefield was flanked by a small group of supporters, some of whom shouted in protest as the ruling was read out. Speaking after the hearing, Wakefield remained unbowed, and addressed his supporters directly: "It remains finally for me to thank parents whose loyalty has been extraordinary, and I want to reassure them that the science will continue in earnest."
 

syadasti

i heart mac
Apr 15, 2002
12,721
290
VT
Here is another story about this jackass from a year ago:

http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pediatrics/Autism/12850

Father of Vaccine-Autism Link Said to Have Fudged Data
By John Gever, Senior Editor, MedPage Today
Published: February 11, 2009

LONDON, Feb. 11 -- The British researcher who first linked childhood vaccines to autism has been accused of falsifying data in a 1998 study published in The Lancet.

The Times of London reported Sunday that Andrew Wakefield, M.D., apparently altered clinical findings on eight of 12 children whose cases were the basis for the study.

The allegations follow disclosures in 2004 that Dr. Wakefield's research was partially, and secretly, funded by plaintiffs' lawyers in suits against vaccine makers, and that he had cut procedural corners in the research.

Dr. Wakefield issued a statement denying the new allegations. He also repeated earlier denials that the funding of his research affected his scientific conduct.

The 1998 study was the first to be published in a reputable journal that suggested the MMR vaccine could lead to autism.

Following its publication, rates of childhood vaccination in Britain and elsewhere fell dramatically.

The Times story noted that 1,348 cases of measles were reported in England and Wales in 2008, compared with 56 in 1998.

In the U.S., a large spike in measles cases was seen in 2008.

In the 1998 paper, Dr. Wakefield and colleagues presented evidence that the children had developed intestinal inflammation following vaccination. They suggested that the inflammation released gut proteins into the circulation that eventually migrated to the brain, causing permanent damage reflected in autism symptoms.

But according to the Times, the children's original hospital records differed in important ways from the descriptions in the Lancet paper.

Whereas the paper indicated that, in most cases, symptoms developed within days of vaccination, the records indicated that this was true only for one child, according to the Times.

The children's records also indicated that five of the children had psychosocial problems before vaccination, said the Times, but the paper described them as "developmentally normal."

In addition, the Lancet paper described abnormal intestinal pathology results in the children, but the hospital pathology reports showed no findings of inflammation, the Times report said.

Dr. Wakefield and two of his Lancet co-authors are currently facing misconduct charges before Great Britain's medical licensing board, the General Medical Council, related to the 1998 study and subsequent research.

They are accused of failing to obtain required approvals for the tests they performed on the children and other ethical violations, but the data-manipulation charges reported in the Times are not at question in the hearings.

In his statement, Dr. Wakefield rejected the newspaper's account, contending that the Lancet paper represented the children's conditions accurately. He added that other members of the research group performed the pathology reviews, not he.

"I did not play any part whatsoever in making the microscopic diagnoses of inflammation on any biopsy from any child investigated at the Royal Free Hospital," according to the statement.

The Lancet paper has come under fire before, sparked by an earlier investigation by the same reporter, Brian Deer, who wrote Sunday's Times story.

In 2004, Deer reported that parents of some of the 12 children in the 1998 study had been recruited as potential plaintiffs in a lawsuit against vaccine manufacturers and that the research had been partially funded by Great Britain's Legal Aid Board.

Those allegations led to the current General Medical Council proceeding.

That same year, 10 of the paper's 13 authors -- not including Dr. Wakefield -- retracted the paper's conclusion that the MMR vaccine may cause autism.

Paul Offit, M.D., a pediatrician at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, and a prominent critic of Dr. Wakefield, said the new allegations cannot really undermine the credibility of the MMR-autism theory because it had already been disproved.

A series of population-based studies have failed to find evidence that vaccines cause autism.

"I'm not sure what more people need to say than that this man and his theory are discredited," Dr. Offit said.

He said there was no longer a scientific controversy about the role of vaccines in autism.

At the same time, he said, the Times report is unlikely to change the minds of those who believe in the link.

"There is not one shred of his hypothesis that has held up," Dr. Offit said.

He counted Dr. Wakefield among the true believers. "I think if you gave him a lie detector test, does MMR cause autism, and he said Yes, he would pass that test. He believes this at the level one holds a religious conviction."

Dr. Wakefield left Britain more than five years ago and now serves as executive director of Thoughtful House, an autism research and treatment center in Austin, Texas.
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,183
1
TN
Okay fine, you can refute that guy... but what about Jenny McCarthy, who both diagnosed the cause and found the cure for autism?



So where's the cavalry? Where are all the doctors beating down our door to take a closer look at Evan? We think we know why they haven't arrived. Most of the parents we've met who have recovered their child from autism as we did (and we have met many) blame vaccines for their child's autism.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/02/mccarthy.autsimtreatment/index.html
 

syadasti

i heart mac
Apr 15, 2002
12,721
290
VT
More on the Wakefield scam:

http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/199/

neurodiversity.com said:
U.K. General Medical Council Rules Wakefield & Co. "Dishonest," "Irresponsible" · 2010-01-28 15:25

Today, the General Medical Council (GMC), which registers doctors to practice medicine in the U.K., issued a decision in its inquiry into the professional conduct of Dr. Andrew Wakefield and his colleagues Dr. John Walker-Smith, and Dr. Simon Murch, co-authors of a study which concluded that a causal connection exists between the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and autism.

The GMC determined that the three doctors failed to act in the best interests of the autistic children under their care, that Dr. Wakefield was dishonest, misleading and irresponsible in his descriptions of research, and that the findings of the investigation “would not be insufficient to support a finding of serious professional misconduct” against all three doctors.

The study at the center of the inquiry was published in The Lancet in 1998. Six years later, ten of its thirteen co-authors retracted their conclusions in that study.

Further background can be found on the website of journalist Brian Deer, whose in-depth investigation of Wakefield and his research alleged numerous irregularities — including his failure to disclose his role in litigation against vaccine manufacturers, failure to disclose pending vaccine patents, performance of needless, invasive medical procedures on autistic children, and misrepresentation of data — and ultimately led to the disciplinary hearings.

On 7 April 2010, the GMC Disciplinary Panel will consider whether the conduct described in the decision warrants professional sanctions, including revocation of Dr. Wakefield’s, Dr. Walker-Smith’s or Dr. Murch’s license to practice medicine in the U.K. Dr. Wakefield now resides in Texas, and although not licensed to practice medicine in the United States, is the Executive Director of Thoughtful House, which provides medical care to autistic children.

The following passages are excerpted from the GMC decision.


On the responsibilities of a physician/researcher:

[A]mongst the responsibilities of a Responsible Consultant, is the requirement to conduct research within ethical constraints, and report it responsibly, accurately and fairly. At no stage should a doctor take any action that is contrary to the clinical interests of the patient involved.

On Dr. Wakefield’s, Dr. Walker-Smith’s and Dr. Murch’s authorization of hospital admission and medical procedures on children for whom they were not clinically indicated, and commencement of research for which no ethical approval had been obtained:

Child 1 underwent a colonoscopy, MRI scan of his brain, an EEG and a variety of blood and urine tests. These were some of the investigations listed in the programme of the project. He was further admitted on 23 October 1996 for further investigations regarding the “etiology of the autism”, again for no obvious clinical gastro-intestinal reasons. During this admission, Child 1 underwent a barium meal and follow-through and a lumbar puncture. These were also the investigations listed in the programme of the project. The Panel has concluded that Child 1 underwent a programme of investigations for research purposes and for which there was no Ethics Committee approval. (p. 16)

You [Dr. Murch] attempted to carry out a colonoscopy on Child 1 when such an investigation was not clinically indicated… You wrote in your colonoscopy report dated 22 July 1996 that the child’s history is “disintegrative disorder” and noted that the letter to the child’s GP from Professor Walker-Smith concluded the child had features of toddler’s diarrhoea. The Panel concluded that these were not clinical indications to undergo a colonoscopy… You attempted to carry out a colonoscopy on Child 1 when such an investigation was not clinically indicated. (pp. 120, 125)

[T]here is no evidence in Child 3’s clinical notes to indicate that a lumbar puncture was required. Experts on both sides… both considered that such a test was not clinically indicated… The Panel is persuaded by the letters written by [Dr. Walker-Smith] at the time, to Child 3’s paediatric neurologist, his school doctor and his GP, that you did conclude there was no evidence of bowel inflammation on routine blood results but nevertheless you decided to admit Child 3. In particular, the Panel noted the wording of the letter dated 18 July 1996 to the paediatric neurologist: “…the initial blood screens for bowel inflammation were negative, however Dr Wakefield is of the opinion that subtle changes in relation to inflammation may be present… and we have arranged (Child 3’s) admission”. (p. 68)

The Panel is satisfied that… you [Dr. Wakefield] exposed Child 4 to an unnecessary test. (p. 24)

You [Dr. Wakefield] ordered the neurophysiological investigations [on Child 7] without having requisite paediatric qualifications and writing an incorrect diagnosis on the investigation form. (p. 40)

Child 8 was admitted to the Royal Free Hospital on 19 January 1997, without prior outpatient assessment. (p. 37)

The Panel concluded that subjecting the child [Child JS] to a colonoscopy was not clinically indicated as his main presentation was behavioural difficulties and you [Dr. Walker-Smith] accepted his GI symptoms were “rather minor… In your evidence to the Panel you accepted that you did “lower the threshold” in relation to this child… The Panel concluded that these findings, which include those of your irresponsible conduct and not acting in the child’s best clinical interests in several instances, would not be insufficient to support a finding of serious professional misconduct. (p. 111)

On Dr. Wakefield’s taking of blood samples from guests at his son’s birthday party:

On a date unknown prior to 20 March 1999 at your son’s birthday party you… caused blood to be taken from a group of children to use for research purposes… [Y]ou showed a callous disregard for the distress and pain that you knew or ought to have known the children involved might suffer.. The Panel is satisfied by your evidence that the children were “paid for their discomfort”, which it concluded was evidence of a callous disregard. (54-55)

On Dr. Walker-Smith’s “parent-driven” testing and treatment recommendations:

The Panel was satisfied on the basis of your letter to his GP dated 21 June 1996, where you stated “…if (child 1’s mother) feels that is appropriate we could consider performing endoscopy and further assessments…” The Panel concluded that your reliance on her views that there was a link between autism and immunisation and bowel inflammation was inappropriate. (p. 67)

On Dr. Wakefield’s assertion that the definition of “conflict of interest” changed after publication of the Lancet study:

The Panel is satisfied that the concept of a conflict of interest, and the extension of this to the perception of a conflict of interest, was known in the scientific community in 1997. At that time the Lancet and other organisations had published guidance on the requirement for authors for recognising and declaring financial and other conflicts of interests, as well as the importance of declaring “potential”, “perceived” or “apparent” conflicts of interest. The Panel therefore rejects the proposition put forward by your Counsel that third party perceived conflicts of interest did not fall within the relevant definition at the time. (p. 44)

On Dr. Wakefield’s failure to disclose relevant information about the purpose and subjects of the Lancet study:

[T]he project reported in the Lancet paper was established with the purpose to investigate a postulated new syndrome and yet the Lancet paper did not describe this fact at all. Because you drafted and wrote the final version of the paper, and omitted correct information about the purpose of the study or the patient population, the Panel is satisfied that your conduct was irresponsible and dishonest. (p. 45)
Cont'd below:
 

syadasti

i heart mac
Apr 15, 2002
12,721
290
VT
Conclusion of article above:

On Dr. Wakefield’s assertion that his autistic subjects were “routine referrals” for whom invasive testing was medically indicated:

Having regard to its findings in relation to Child 1, 9, 5 and 10, namely that these children were admitted to undergo a programme of investigations for research purposes, and that they all lacked a history of gastrointestinal symptoms, the Panel is satisfied that these referrals did not constitute routine referrals to the gastroenterology department… In reaching its decision, the Panel concluded that your description of the referral process as “routine”, when it was not, was irresponsible and misleading and contrary to your duty as a senior author. (p. 46)

On Dr. Wakefield’s response to allegations of selection bias:

The Panel is persuaded by all the correspondence in the Lancet Journal volume 351 dated 2 May 1998 regarding a suggestion by correspondents to the Lancet that there was a biased selection of patients in the Lancet Paper of 28 February 1998, of which you were one of the senior authors. The Panel has found that your [published response] does not respond fully and accurately to the queries made by correspondents to the Lancet. The Panel is satisfied that the statement you made would be considered by ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people to be dishonest. Additionally, you knew that this statement omitted necessary and relevant information, such as the active role you played in the referral process, and the fact that the referral letters in four cases made no mention of any gastrointestinal symptoms and the fact that the investigations had been carried out… for research purposes. Therefore, the Panel is satisfied that your conduct in this regard was dishonest and irresponsible. (p. 47)

On Dr. Wakefield’s failure to disclose conflicts of interest to the editors of the Lancet:

…[T]he Panel is satisfied that your conduct in failing to disclose your involvement in the MMR litigation, your receipt of funding for part of [your research] from the Legal Aid Board and your involvement in the Patent, constituted disclosable interests. Your failure to disclose these to the Editor of The Lancet was contrary to your duties as a senior author of the Lancet paper. (p. 50)

On the administration of an unlicensed drug to a study subject:

The Panel noted that Child 10’s deterioration was not assessed by any clinician prior to being administered Transfer Factor. Therefore the Panel has concluded that Child 10 was given Transfer Factor for experimental reasons… Furthermore, an essential requirement of a doctor is to share information with colleagues in the ways that best serve patients’ interests. The Panel has noted the evidence that Child 10’s GP did not have any knowledge of any prescription of Transfer Factor other than that contained in a letter from the community paediatrician. The Panel is satisfied that you [Dr. Wakefield] did not inform the GP or arrange for someone else to do so. (pp. 52-53)

The Panel is persuaded that Child 10 was administered Transfer Factor by the weekly diary card completed by his mother, submitted to the Royal Free Hospital in January 1998 which states, “over Christmas and New Year we felt very optimistic about the apparent effect of Transfer Factor… is it possible that the dose now needs to be increased?”. The Panel concluded that you [Dr. Murch] caused the child to be administered with Transfer Factor on the basis of the letter of 23 July 1997 that you and Dr Wakefield wrote to the Dispensary Manager. You informed her that “we would like to start Child 10 …on measles-specific Transfer Factor and we are prepared to take full responsibility for the outcome of this treatment. The supplies of the drug are presently in our hands (Dr Wakefield).” … The Panel is persuaded that this was experimental treatment and not given for clinical reasons, because you had not seen or assessed the child before causing him to be administered with the unlicensed drug and you stated “we do not know whether the treatment will work” in your letter to the Dispensary manager of the pharmacy, dated 23 July 1997, jointly signed by you and Dr Wakefield. (p. 100)

Conclusion re Dr. Wakefield:

The Panel concluded that these findings, which include those of dishonesty and misleading conduct, would not be insufficient to support a finding of serious professional misconduct. (p. 55)

Conclusion re Dr. Walker-Smith:

The Panel concluded that these findings, which include those of your irresponsible conduct and not acting in the child’s best clinical interests in several instances, would not be insufficient to support a finding of serious professional misconduct. (p. 111)

Conclusion re Dr. Murch:

The Panel concluded that these findings, which included Dr. Murch failing in his duty as a responsible consultant and in some cases, not acting in the best clinical interests of the children, would not be insufficient to support a finding of serious professional misconduct.
 

syadasti

i heart mac
Apr 15, 2002
12,721
290
VT
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8493753.stm

Lancet accepts MMR study 'false'
By Nick Triggle
Health reporter, BBC News

BBC said:
The medical journal which originally published the discredited research linking autism and MMR has now issued a full retraction of the paper.

The Lancet said it now accepted claims made by the researchers were "false".

It comes after Dr Andrew Wakefield, the lead researcher in the 1998 paper, was ruled last week to have broken research rules by the General Medical Council.

The publication caused vaccination rates to plummet, resulting in a rise in measles.

The Lancet had already issued a partial retraction.

In 2004, editors argued they had been right to publish it as the journal was there to "raise new ideas".

But they accepted that in hindsight they may not have been, after accusations of a conflict of interest - Dr Wakefield was in the pay of solicitors who were acting for parents who believed their children had been harmed by MMR.

But this move goes further by accepting the research was fundamentally flawed because of a lack of ethical approval and the way the children's illnesses were presented.

The statement added: "We fully retract this paper from the published record."

Last week, the GMC ruled that Dr Wakefield had shown a "callous disregard" for children and acted "dishonestly" while he carried out his research. It will decide later whether to strike him off the medical register.

The regulator only looked at how he acted during the research, not whether the findings were right or wrong - although they have been widely discredited by medical experts across the world in the years since publication.

After the hearing, Dr Wakefield, who now lives and works in the US, said the findings were "unjust and unfounded".

Professor Adam Finn, a leading paediatrician based at the University of Bristol Medical School, said: "This is not before time. Let's hope this will do something to re-establish the good reputation of this excellent vaccine.

"And I hope the country can now draw a line under this particular health scare and move onto new opportunities for vaccination."
 

Jim Mac

MAKE ENDURO GREAT AGAIN
May 21, 2004
6,364
281
the middle east of NY
I am much more concerned about endocrine disrupting chemicals passed in vitro, etc than I am the whole vaccination scare when looking at the origins of spectrum disorders.
 

X3pilot

Texans fan - LOL
Aug 13, 2007
5,861
1
SoMD
Phht, I gots all my vaccines as a kid and look at me, I'm fine....:D

Seriously, I seem to notice in my unscientific mind that a lot of people say their kids are autistic these days. Just a few years ago, it was ADD, the ADHD. Pretty much some of the kids I've seen that their parents say they are mildly autistic or Asberger's (sp) have kids that need a good smack upside the head or some attention paid to them.
 

dante

Unabomber
Feb 13, 2004
8,815
8
looking for classic NE singletrack
Was just unFriended by someone after pointing out (in response to her "this is why I'm not vaccinating my kids"! post) that I'm currently watching my father-in-law slowly die from complications due to polio (he had it when he was a kid, and the lack of mobility and movement caused (aspirational?) pneumonia last December... He's still in the hospital, and goes back and forth between the normal hospital and the icu) and that vaccines are actually a *good* thing.

Needless to say, she, uh, didn't take my critique of her parenting skills so well. I never think that people can actually be this dumb, and then I'll find out I'm actually friends with someone like that.
 

stevew

unique white person
Sep 21, 2001
32,084
2,953
Was just unFriended by someone after pointing out (in response to her "this is why I'm not vaccinating my kids"! post) that I'm currently watching my father-in-law slowly die from complications due to polio (he had it when he was a kid, and the lack of mobility and movement caused (aspirational?) pneumonia last December... He's still in the hospital, and goes back and forth between the normal hospital and the icu) and that vaccines are actually a *good* thing.

Needless to say, she, uh, didn't take my critique of her parenting skills so well. I never think that people can actually be this dumb, and then I'll find out I'm actually friends with someone like that.
facebook just leads to disappointment.
 
Last edited:

Andyman_1970

Turbo Monkey
Apr 4, 2003
3,105
5
The Natural State
Pretty much some of the kids I've seen that their parents say they are mildly autistic or Asberger's (sp) have kids that need a good smack upside the head or some attention paid to them.
Yeah I think that's called "being a parent"..........shockingly a skill that seems to be in short supply in my parts at least.
 

292.89

Chimp
Mar 22, 2011
26
0
it also is surprisingly great for letting you discover which of your friends are complete fvcking idiots
I find myself learning more than I bargained for on FB in regards to friends and/or acquaintances.

One thing I have learned is that many of my peers, in midlife, are discovering faith and posting about it. Spreading the gospel as it were.
 
Last edited:

Pesqueeb

bicycle in airplane hangar
Feb 2, 2007
28,707
4,497
Riding the baggage carousel.
I find myself learning more than I bargained for on FB in regards to friends and/or acquaintances.

One thing I have learned is that many of my peers, in midlife, are discovering faith and posting about it. Spreading the gospel as it were.
Nobody has faith like the recently converted. Try to avoid those people as much as possible.