• 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

Today's GMC verdict was also a 10-year-old case. The doctor was not struck off. People are outraged and declare that it's all just an old boys' club that protects its members....

Rolfe.
 
andyandy said:
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?
Click to expand...
Andy, you can get a succinct description of the charges and findings here.

Este
 
Darat said:
Post 24 has some hints....
Click to expand...

you know, i clicked on your link expecting a link to another thread....only to be taken a mouse scroll away :)

i'd have thought the GMC would have been keen to ditch and disown Wakefield ASAP years ago. But maybe it is "all doctors together" (even the really crappy ones..)
 
I read somewhere else the reason it took so long was that the GMC rules did not allow them to force Wakefield and the other defendants to hand over evidence. Apparently those rules have changed.

The Autism Omnibus cases in the USA were hampered by the slowness of getting evidence from the litigants. Things like medical records, etc.
 
Rolfe said:
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.
Click to expand...
That's because the parent of the children in the original trial at least were looking for evidence against the MMR vaccine so they could sue the manufacturers. Also at least one of the other children used as an unwitting guinea pig was the son of the managing director of Wakefield's pharmaceutical company.

http://aillas.blogspot.com/

Yuri
 
Yuri Nalyssus said:
That's because the parent of the children in the original trial at least were looking for evidence against the MMR vaccine so they could sue the manufacturers. Also at least one of the other children used as an unwitting guinea pig was the son of the managing director of Wakefield's pharmaceutical company.

http://aillas.blogspot.com/

Yuri
Click to expand...

To be picky, only four or five of the Lancet 12 children's parents were involved in the lawsuit as far as we know.

I only mention this because I think it's important to be highly precise in tracking exactly what Wakefield did. If we exaggerate any one aspect of his unethical conduct his defenders have the opportunity to leap on it.

Of course those four or five were cherry-picked for the study and misrepresented as a serially admitted sample, and that's only the beginning of the methodological and ethical problems with Wakefield et. al. 1998.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
To be picky, only four or five of the Lancet 12 children's parents were involved in the lawsuit as far as we know.

I only mention this because I think it's important to be highly precise in tracking exactly what Wakefield did. If we exaggerate any one aspect of his unethical conduct his defenders have the opportunity to leap on it.

Of course those four or five were cherry-picked for the study and misrepresented as a serially admitted sample, and that's only the beginning of the methodological and ethical problems with Wakefield et. al. 1998.
Click to expand...
Thanks Kevin, I've fixed it. Don't apologise for the 'picky' thing, I totally agree - Pedant is my middle name (I don't use it though, as it spoils the joke :D).

Cheers,

Yuri
 
Hydrogen Cyanide said:
I read somewhere else the reason it took so long was that the GMC rules did not allow them to force Wakefield and the other defendants to hand over evidence. Apparently those rules have changed.

The Autism Omnibus cases in the USA were hampered by the slowness of getting evidence from the litigants. Things like medical records, etc.
Click to expand...
HCN, as far as I know, the burden of evidence remained with the GMC and the defendants did not have to provide any evidence to support the GMC's charges.

Re: the birthday party. You know those caveats that investigators provide in studies with human research subjects? Such as, "Routine informed consent for clinical procedures was obtained by the insert investigator's name here.", "Informed consent procedures detailed additional research procedures to be performed, and specific written permission was provided by consenting parents and guardians and children capable of providing assent.", and "Study procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Boards of insert institution(s) names here."

So what did Wakers think he was going to do with those blood samples and phrase how they were obtained in a journal submission? It is either gross incompetence or sheer hubris to think that that was an acceptable thing to do and there is simply no other explanation that I can entertain.

Este
 
Discussion of doctors covering for each other's misconduct split to here. Please limit this thread to discussion of the Wakefield decision.
Posted By: Tricky
 
NPR just briefly mentioned the retraction of the Wakefield study calling it "inaccurate" rather than falsified. :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom