MMR Doctor struck off

[Amateurish]

Magog said:

I always get a bit suspicious when there is a complete concensus on something being incorrect. Particularly when it was up to a point supported. I don't know the ins and outs of the case in absoloute detail, nor exactly the details as yo why he was struck of. But it seems that his report had 12 co-authors to start of with, surely one of these would have been flagged up if their was something wrong with their article. According to the Lancet, they wouldn't have published the article had those involved in the peer review process known. Now surely any medical paper should stand or fall on the quality of it's content only, I would have thought that any bias should be apparent in the paper itself were the motives of it's author questionable. It strikes me that a lot of people have backpeddled over their positions in the last decade, perhaps for political expediency rather than any greater motive.

It seems that Dr Wakefield had a relatively successful career, up until the point that he became involved with the link between MMR and Autism. I find it hard to believe that he didn't genuinely feel that there might be a link and that it should be investigated further. Perhaps the funding did colour his judgement, but he didn't completely make things up just to get his hands on the money.

Part of me worries that these events might discourage scientists and doctors from taking on difficult and potentially unpopular investigations into the side effects of other drugs.

I don't believe that there has been a cover up, it seems that the matter has been thoroughly investigated in the last ten years. It does seem that there is a slight whiff of witchunt to this, as well as a lot of arse covering.

As I understand it, one of the reasons he was struck off was because he was carrying out invasive procedures (lumbar punctures) without medical benefit on children for the purposes of research without having clearance from the ethics committe (which is mandatory). The GMC found that these procedures were contracry to the clinical interests of the children involved.

[shoggoth1]

If I recall correctly (and possibly already mentioned by someone else), Wakefield carried out unethical/unauthorised experiments. He was also being 'retained' by a group of parents in the US who were looking to sue the drugs industry over just such a thing - some might say a conflict of interest. The media was largely to blame as well - found an extract:

http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/the-medias-mmr-h...

(Ah, I see someone had beaten me to it.)

Edited by shoggoth1 on Tuesday 25th May 16:23

[Amateurish]

hairykrishna said:

His study was rubbish, 12 cases non randomly selected, but it was mostly the medias fault. It makes a lot more sense if you read the account of what happened, extract from Ben Goldacres excellent book;

http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/the-medias-mmr-h...

I don't agree with this part of Goldacre's analysis. He seems to lay the blame mainly on the media. However, Wakefield's study was wilfully misleading and his judgement was compromised by conflicts of interest. I don't think it would be unreasonable for the media to report the very controversial findings and to put credence on his reputation as a respectable doctor.

[DrTre]

J&J, notwithstanding that these conditions DO present a danger to children, as I C&P'd up above (you'll have to forgive me if I give as much credence to your "me and my mates were fine when we were ill" evidence as I do to Mr Wakefields findings... although your observations were probably drawn from a greater population), what's the cover up? The need for vaccination at all (as you are now suggesting, based on your findings) or the need for MMR?

And what's all this got to do with cost? Are you somehow suggesting that it's wrong to use the cheapest, safe and effective treatment that prevents the spread of disease?

This entire thing was based on a study of 12 cases. Twelve. FFS I'd not base the statement "my st is brown" on twelve dumps, let alone draw a causal link between a ten year old treatment with millions of instances of use and a new, unidentified "disease" on a sample size of twelve.

Amateurish said:

I don't agree with this part of Goldacre's analysis. He seems to lay the blame mainly on the media. However, Wakefield's study was wilfully misleading and his judgement was compromised by conflicts of interest. I don't think it would be unreasonable for the media to report the very controversial findings and to put credence on his reputation as a respectable doctor.

Me either. The media undeniably played a very large part however it's churlish to suggest Wakefield didn't fuel (and continues to) the fire by refusing to admit the shortcomings in his reporting.

[off_again]

As mentioned, there is no cover-up and there certainly is no risk of autism with MMR. The issues are that MMR provides the most effective method to immunise against three common, preventable and potentially dangerous diseases. There is no if's or but's - it works and it happens to be the cheapest way to do it too.

There is no cover-up - some of the most stringent testing, research and field trials have been carried out around the world and not a single one came back with any comments about autism. The research covered thousands and thousands of test subjects using statistically proven and trusted mechanisms and it was all fine. So much so that governments, non-governmental bodies and charities backed MMR as a safe, reliable and cost-effective drug to give. There is NO COVER-UP. There is no global cabal of Pharma companies keeping the truth from us and there certainly aren't thousands of children who have autism as a result.

What happened is that ex-Dr Wakefield took money from the families of children 'who caught autism' and tasked him with finding who did it with a view to launching a prosecution against those involved. He used dubious test techniques, paid children at his own son's birthday party for blood samples (without parents consent!) and managed to lie his way to getting his paper into the Lancet. All this from an initial sample of 12 children - yep, 12. Quite how you can extrapolate meaningful statistics from 12 cases to reflect 500m+ MMR jabs I am not sure, but he managed it. Supposedly these 12 are important - or is that because he was paid to find the link? Anyway, the researchers involved had their findings twisted to fit the science and later the Lancet removed the article.

The government at the time didn't handle it well and yes, its clear the Cherie Blair didn't get her son done with an MMR. This didnt help but like all good conspiracies - the likes of ex-Dr Wakefield just turned the finger to the government, big Pharma, the UN and just about everyone else and called them liars. Of course, the die was set now and enough doubt was in the minds of the public to question it.

Of course, the illustrious ex-Dr Wakefield now makes a living selling pills to parents in the US that
'cure' autism. What a nice man..... I wouldn't trust anything he says. He is an ambitious liar who clearly rates fame, fortune and his opinions over everything and everyone else. A charlatan, a thief and a cheat.... and now and ex-Doctor.

[otolith]

Jasandjules said:

How many children are killed by measles and mumps each year in the UK? I had measles, mumps, chickenpox and other assorted things when I was a kid and I am still alive now, so are they as serious as people make out? Geniune question.

Historical data for measles:

http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandar...

graph:

http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandar...

[fluffnik]

Jasandjules said:

So basically the main answer is that MMR is cheaper than three separate jabs.

...and less traumatic, and just as efficacious, and no more risky, and in no way responsible for autism.

The rate of autism in children given MMR is identical to rate of autism in children not given MMR.

[Yeast Lord]

I just find it bemusing some children are born, a year or so later they develop autism and with all our medical advances we don't know what is the cause.

I'm always suspicious of big pharma because its motive is purely profit. You never see articles like this anymore:

http://www.pathlights.com/nr_encyclopedia/hn041598...

Why because their stamped out with an iron fist.

[otolith]

Yeast Lord said:

I'm always suspicious of big pharma because its motive is purely profit.

That applies to industry in general and not specifically to pharma, big or otherwise.

[Yeast Lord]

otolith said:

Yeast Lord said:

I'm always suspicious of big pharma because its motive is purely profit.

That applies to industry in general and not specifically to pharma, big or otherwise.

What other industry is making drugs for human consumption to be prescribed by doctors?

[otolith]

What's that got to do with being motivated purely by profit?

[eldar]

Jasandjules said:

shoggoth1 said:

As mentioned already, you really (that's Jasandjules) want to read the chapter about this 'research' in Bad Science by Ben Goldacre.

Your attitude to MMR I think tells us all we need to know about the damage Wakefield has done.

If I get the time I will take a look.

But I know a few doctors and am aware of certain practices which I don't quite agree with, thus a cover up would suprise me not one jot. Hence my questions.

How many children are killed by measles and mumps each year in the UK? I had measles, mumps, chickenpox and other assorted things when I was a kid and I am still alive now, so are they as serious as people make out? Geniune question.

Mumps is nasty past puberty. Measles is not a trivial disease, killed around 750,000 in 2000. A large worldwide rollout of measles vaccine reduced that to 197,000 by 2007, and to between 10,000 and 20,000 by this year.

Used to kill thousands in the UK, but improved medical treatment and vaccines have just about eliminated deaths.

[hairykrishna]

Amateurish said:

hairykrishna said:

His study was rubbish, 12 cases non randomly selected, but it was mostly the medias fault. It makes a lot more sense if you read the account of what happened, extract from Ben Goldacres excellent book;

http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/the-medias-mmr-h...

I don't agree with this part of Goldacre's analysis. He seems to lay the blame mainly on the media. However, Wakefield's study was wilfully misleading and his judgement was compromised by conflicts of interest. I don't think it would be unreasonable for the media to report the very controversial findings and to put credence on his reputation as a respectable doctor.

I think it's both. Wakefields study was rubbish but there's no shortage of shoddy papers in the literature and it's the fact that the papers ran with the story so gleefully, with no fact checking, that caused it to be such a big deal. 12 anecdotal cases, for something so common, is no findings at all. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of stats would know that from reading the paper.

[hairykrishna]

Yeast Lord said:

I just find it bemusing some children are born, a year or so later they develop autism and with all our medical advances we don't know what is the cause.

I'm always suspicious of big pharma because its motive is purely profit. You never see articles like this anymore:

http://www.pathlights.com/nr_encyclopedia/hn041598...

Why because their stamped out with an iron fist.

Well, maybe.

How accurate that article is depends entirely on how reliable Lazarou's meta analysis is really;

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/279/...

I lean towards 'not very'.

[goldblum]

My own view is that the vigour with which the medical establishment has pursued Dr Wakefield seems ott,and will only fuel the MMR as a cause for Autism lobby.I don't think the GMC has handled this in anything near the best possible way.

Edited by goldblum on Thursday 27th May 01:29

[GavinPearson]

Hammer67 said:

As a father of an autistic child this guy caused me, for some years, to blame myself for allowing my son to have the MMR jab.

What symptoms does your son have that led him to be diagnosed as autistic? How does that impact your life compared to the parent of a non-autistic child?

[MilnerR]

Go and read the original paper and the responses published in the lancet. If you still believe the link after you've read the study conclusions, it's methods and the assumptions made to draw those conclusions then you'll believe anything! It continually amazes me that I and my colleagues spend huge amounts time and effort getting things published, yet clinicians seem able to get junk like this into the professional literature with little or no difficulty. The Lancet peer-review systems need looking at!

[hairykrishna]

goldblum said:

My own view is that the vigour with which the medical establishment has pursued Dr Wakefield seems ott,and will only fuel the MMR as a cause for Autism lobby.I don't think the GMC has handled this in anything near the best possible way.

Edited by goldblum on Thursday 27th May 01:29

What were they supposed to do? It was about as clear a case of misconduct as you could hope to find.

[Amateurish]

goldblum said:

My own view is that the vigour with which the medical establishment has pursued Dr Wakefield seems ott,and will only fuel the MMR as a cause for Autism lobby.I don't think the GMC has handled this in anything near the best possible way.

Edited by goldblum on Thursday 27th May 01:29

Are you kidding?

He carried out invasive procedures on kids who did not need them for his own research purporses which he had a financial interest in which he hid. He took blood samples for his children's friends without their parents' consent. His research was flawed and compromised and caused a crisis in vital vaccinations treatments in the UK.

He is a cock.

[Yeast Lord]

What magic dust is this doctor giving autistic kids and has there been any success cases like complete reversals?

Can't get my head around how little progress has been made with autism in medical science compared to other ailments. On the net there is countless number of parents determined that there is a link and it almost seems like the medical establishment won't even consider the possibility of a link. Why not just test a load of healthy and autistic kids for the stuff thats in these vacines and compare, simples? If it effects brain function maybe some kids don't absorb the jab properly and it gets stuck in the brain, can't they test for this?