• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Andrew Wakefield - GMC ruling

Mojo

Mostly harmless
Mojo
Joined
Jul 22, 2004
Messages
42,848
Location
Nor Flanden
Breaking news:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jan/28/mmr-doctor-fail-children-gmc

Dr Andrew Wakefield, the expert at the centre of the MMR controversy, "failed in his duties as a responsible consultant" and did not act in the best interests of children involved in his research, the General Medical Council (GMC) ruled today.

Wakefield also acted dishonestly and was misleading and irresponsible in the way he described research which was later published in The Lancet medical journal, the GMC said.
Click to expand...
 
FYI...

"MMR" stands for "Measles, Mumps and Rubella" and refers to the vaccine.

So, is the OP anti-vax or pro-vax?
 
andyandy said:
Nothing like a speedy conclusion....what's that, 12 years later? :)
Click to expand...


Conclusion? From the story in the OP:
Verdicts on the "facts" to the allegations were delivered at the disciplinary hearing in central London.

The GMC will now decide whether these verdicts could amount to serious professional misconduct – which will be debated at a later date.
Click to expand...
 
Why? You feel it's a threatened species of adjective?
(We didn't break the rules...)
 
richardm said:
Not very repentent is he?
Click to expand...


He seemed to be poisoning the well in the Mail at the weekend:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-12-years-finally-approaches-conclusion.html
While Dr Wakefield, 52, believes the GMC should vindicate his professional reputation, in an exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday he said he fears a ‘political’ verdict.

‘My lawyers feel confident that we have answered all the charges against us,’ he said from his home in Austin, Texas. ‘If there’s any justice, we should be cleared. However, there’s the political backlash to consider. I fear the GMC will want to make an example of us.

‘The issue was not about me, but about how to crush dissent. I scare the establishment because I care and I am diligent. I think they’re terrified because they’ve not done adequate safety studies. I’ve been treated in the standard way in which people who raise these kinds of questions are treated.

‘It’s extremely challenging, but if I fail to stand up to the bullies, the price to be paid is enormous.’
Click to expand...
 
I find it ironic that he finds the charges against him are unsupported.
 
Of course his swarm of groupies are going to scream "witch-hunt" and "stifling dissent". I heard one of them yelling that Dr. Wakefield was the only person who cared about the children. (Yeah, cared enough to subject them to colonoscopies and lumbar punctures without any particularly good reason....)

I just wonder how far that interpretation will penetrate into the mainstream consciousness. I would hope that most rational parents would now be beginning to see this affair for what it really is.

I was interested in one of Wakefield's defenders on TV saying it was all very well to criticise the procedures he carried out on these chldren, but not one of the parents had lodged a complaint. This is so often what happens in the case of woo-woo treatments where the patient (or the patient's carer) becomes highly invested in the treatment - the therapist can push this to outright cruelty, and yet the victim remains compliant. I think it's more so when the patient is being represented by a carer (animal or child patient) - because the "client" is not suffering themselves, it's easier to take the line that "it's all for your own good".

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
Of course his swarm of groupies are going to scream "witch-hunt" and "stifling dissent". I heard one of them yelling that Dr. Wakefield was the only person who cared about the children. (Yeah, cared enough to subject them to colonoscopies and lumbar punctures without any particularly good reason....)
Click to expand...


They don't seem to be quoting the "callous disregard" bit.
 
i haven't read the full report...so is he being reprimanded solely for the way in which he conducted his now discredited study, for the way he over-publicised and over-hyped its results afterwards, or for both?

There was a piece on the BBC radio news about it, followed by a vox-pop 30 second quote from an anti-vax campaigner bleating about how it was a big pharma conspiracy of silence. Good old BBC "balance" - 50% fact 50% utter BS :)

And why in heaven's name has it taken over a decade for the GMC to get off their well pampered backsides and issue a ruling? Surely they don't normally take such a long time do they?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom