Merged Andrew Wakefield/Callous doctor who claimed MMR jab causes child autism is struck off

[catsmate]

Good.

 

[AlBell]

Sure, there's thoughtful and not rushed, and then there's laboured and overdue. Over a decade to strike off a man whose dishonesty has done immeasurable harm to public confidence in vaccinations seems to stray into the latter...

I suspect a considerable lack of public confidence in the efficacy of thimerosol use in vaccines with or without Wakefield.

If I had an actual interest in the matter (I have no pre-schoolaged children to worry about) I'd start a poll asking how many of the 'it's scientifically proven safe' proponents here have used a single MMR with thimerosol shot for their own children, or opted for 3 separate shots, or decided against any vaccinations.

I do doubt any posters here fall in the 'no vax' category. All the people I know who've recently made the choice either went with 3 shots, and a couple families with 'none'.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

As seems to be the norm - The comments on-line are disturbing and make me despair for the human race. There are a few rational ones but most seem to be on par with this gem.

"Repeat after me ... Mercury is GOOD as a preservative... Autism is GOOD for big pharma."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100524/ap_on_sc/eu_britain_autism_doctor

Arrgh.

It's like watching the scene of a train wreck... you stand there in horror and just want to turn and run and hide under your living room rug, but no, you remain in place, transfixed, mouth agape...

 

[Capsid]

I suspect a considerable lack of public confidence in the efficacy of thimerosol use in vaccines with or without Wakefield.

If I had an actual interest in the matter (I have no pre-schoolaged children to worry about) I'd start a poll asking how many of the 'it's scientifically proven safe' proponents here have used a single MMR with thimerosol shot for their own children, or opted for 3 separate shots, or decided against any vaccinations.

I do doubt any posters here fall in the 'no vax' category. All the people I know who've recently made the choice either went with 3 shots, and a couple families with 'none'.

But MMR has never had thiomersal (thimerosal) in it.

 

[AlBell]

But MMR has never had thiomersal (thimerosal) in it.

My mistake; after a quick look, it appears both MMR as well as thimerosal are part of the ongoing-in-the-real-world, unscientific, controversy.

As I said, not a matter of real interest to me personally.

 

[Rolfe]

I suspect a considerable lack of public confidence in the efficacy of thimerosol use in vaccines with or without Wakefield.

If I had an actual interest in the matter (I have no pre-schoolaged children to worry about) I'd start a poll asking how many of the 'it's scientifically proven safe' proponents here have used a single MMR with thimerosol shot for their own children, or opted for 3 separate shots, or decided against any vaccinations.

I do doubt any posters here fall in the 'no vax' category. All the people I know who've recently made the choice either went with 3 shots, and a couple families with 'none'.

I see Capsid got there first, but it's worth repeating.

MMR does not have and never has had thiomersal in it!!!!

Please, please try to get up to speed on this. You want to complain about thiomersal, at least pick a vaccine that contains it. You want to complain about the MMR, then complain about the MMR, not about an ingredient it doesn't contain.



Rolfe.

ETA: OK, you're not interested. It's always nice to have some idea what you're posting about, nevertheless.

 

[fuelair]

Wakefield was interviewed on Radio 4 this morning. He claims that he never said that the MMR was linked with autism. See this thread too

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=175918

So, it's doubly a liar. No surprise there. Ashame they didn't strike off it's head - as well as some of those dipsos who followed it. Not sufficient payment for the many children his stupidity and their's has caused harm too, though.

 

[Rolfe]

He was sort of nailed to the wall on the C4 news tonight.

Rolfe.

 

[commandlinegamer]

Apart from all the breaches of ethics, his 'continued lack of insight as to his misconduct' means he had to be removed from the register: who knows what he might do in the future. And this perhaps is where it might have been of benefit if this case had been heard long before now.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Finally, Britain bans the doctor who "linked" autism to vaccines

http://www.autismsupportnetwork.com/news/britain-bans-doctor-who-linked-autism-vaccine-2278273

Britain bans doctor who linked autism to vaccine

LONDON – A doctor who persuaded millions of parents worldwide that a common vaccine could cause autism was barred from practicing medicine in his native Britain on Monday after the country's top medical group found he conducted his research unethically.
Dr. Andrew Wakefield was the first researcher to publish a peer-reviewed study suggesting a connection between autism and the vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella. That prompted legions of parents to abandon the vaccine in moves that epidemiologists feared could lead to outbreaks of the potentially deadly diseases.
Vaccination rates in Britain and other rich countries have not fully recovered since Wakefield and his colleagues' research was published in 1998 and there are measles outbreaks across Europe every year. There are also sporadic outbreaks of the disease in the U.S.
His study in the medical journal Lancet was widely discredited, however, after Britain's medical regulator found it did not meet ethical standards; other studies found no link; and a British journalist revealed Wakefield had been paid by lawyers of parents who suspected their children were harmed by the vaccine.
Wakefield, 53, moved to the U.S. in 2004 and set up an autism center in Texas, where he gained a wide following despite not being licenced as a doctor there, and faced similar skepticism from the medical community. He quit earlier this year.

Snippity doo da​

Correlation does not equal causation! But idiocy equals ostracization.
​

 

[geni]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=176365

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Oh, joy... Wakefield is really doing his "I'm a victim of a conspiracy!" thing:

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/37313063/ns/today-today_health/

Wakefield has called the GMC a kangaroo court, and told Lauer that he believes the fix was in from the moment the council began investigating him. ​

“It was determined from the beginning,” he said. “I believe the pressure from the government was brought on the GMC to find this ruling. "​

“I think the panel, whether they believed they were influenced or not, were certainly of the opinion that this decision has been made from the outset.” ​

And he even passes off one of the common canards as a truth:

“The point is that despite denying it, in the public relations campaign they’ve used against me and against the parents, they are conceding these in vaccine court.”​

On the plus side, MSNBC balanced the story well, pointing out the lack of replication as well as his conflicts of interest. It could be better written, but at least it's not "rah rah, the little guy's being persecuted". That's a positive in itself.

 

[Rolfe]

I don't think I've ever seen anything quite as comprehensively trashed as Wakefield. And I include Fleischmann and Pons in that - at least they weren't involved in a conspiracy to defraud the legal aid fund, and no sentient palladium was harmed in their experiments.

I wonder what the statistical split is between parents who doubted vaccine safety but now realise Wakefield was a lying, profiteering scumbag, and those who are still determined to see him as a victimised crusader.

Can't the latter group read? How do they rationalise away the humungous piles of damning evidence?

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Mmmm, maybe this other cat is far enough out of the bag to allow a mention (I've been sitting on it for two years).

There's another potential vaccine scare story brewing. Nobody knows the mechanism, and the connection with the vaccine involved is statistical and epidemiological, not mechanism-based. But these calves are dying, and we can't stop them dying.

I'm hoping this won't really register with the antivax nutters, in the same way as Feline Vaccine-site Associated Fibrosarcoma, another fatal condition linked to vaccinations in animals, doesn't seem to have registered. But the last thing we need right now is another vaccine with an apparent serious ill effect, and it looks as if we might be getting it.

Rolfe.

 

[NWO Sentryman]

Andrew Wakefield, the British Kevin Trudeau.

 

[Ocelot]

Andrew Wakefield, the British Kevin Trudeau.

He's all yours now. Mr Wakefield can't work here so Mr Wakefield, don't live here.

Sorry

 

[Rolfe]

Sure, there's thoughtful and not rushed, and then there's laboured and overdue. Over a decade to strike off a man whose dishonesty has done immeasurable harm to public confidence in vaccinations seems to stray into the latter...

Here's the explanation.

Due to protections afforded uniquely to doctors, however, the hearing proved tough - and expensive - going. Although the rules have recently changed, not only was this GMC case required to be proven to the standard of criminal trials, rather than to the civil standard in disciplinary hearings in all other occupations, but, under the governing 1983 medical act, the GMC had no powers to compel those facing charges to volunteer information, or even to supply a statement of their case. This contrasted with civil court hearings [as Wakefield's disastrous libel adventure demonstrated] where parties are ordered to save time and money by sharing information, and by narrowing the areas of dispute. And while, in tackling crime, the police might kick down a suspect's front door, seize their records and warn them that it may harm their defence if they fail to mention something which they later rely on in court, in GMC cases the accused can stand mute behind a wall of non-cooperation: vastly increasing the mountain of effort the prosecution is forced to scale. Thus, the doctors were able to drag the case out: withholding their evidence - including documents and responses - for years after the GMC's approach.

Rolfe.

 

[pgwenthold]

Sure, there's thoughtful and not rushed, and then there's laboured and overdue. Over a decade to strike off a man whose dishonesty has done immeasurable harm to public confidence in vaccinations seems to stray into the latter...

But the process didn't take a decade. How many years did it take to establish that it was wrong? After that, it has to be determined why it was wrong. And THEN it comes down to hearings about what should be done about it.

The investigation/dismissal process didn't start when he published the paper. There were still years of science that had to be done to see what was going on. In fact, had they actually started doing anything back in 2000, it would have absolutely been grounds for objection, calling it a witchhunt. I would have basically agreed.

Science takes time to work itself out. Mistakes can happen, and you have to allow science time to expose those mistakes and make corrections. After that happens, that's when licensing boards or whoever can decide to look into the matter. But the scientific process has to happen first. 10 years is not a long time.

 

[Rolfe]

And definitely see what Brian Deer said about it in the article I linked to above. Wakefield was deliberately obstructive, and forced the GMC to take a lot of time and trouble getting the evidence together.

Brian Deer is really quite the hero in all this, isn't he. He's obviously quite proud of himself, but I believe rightly so. He's a wonderful counter-example to all the media sheep who were content to bleat their way along with the "controversial MMR" bandwagon, and the BBC producers who insisted on treating Wakefield as if he was representing one side of a balanced and legitimate argument.

I fear the current sociological climate doesn't encourage investigative journalism of that calibre. We need more of it!

Rolfe.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

I wonder what the statistical split is between parents who doubted vaccine safety but now realise Wakefield was a lying, profiteering scumbag, and those who are still determined to see him as a victimised crusader.

Can't the latter group read? How do they rationalise away the humungous piles of damning evidence?

Rolfe.

There was an insightful piece, from a link in another recent thread (Climate change scepticism - its sources and origins, I think) which may go some way to answering these questions.

Basically, IIRC, some solid research showed that people (adults at least) are quite distinctly bimodal when it comes to how they assess the validity of some of the stuff which is, here, called woo (or worse). As a shorthand, the two groups were called (again, IIRC) "numerates" and "innumerates".

One take-away from this is that engaging in dialogue with an innumerate, with the aim of making a strong case that "X is strongly inconsistent with {the totality of the objective, independently verifiable evidence}" using an approach that would work well with a numerate will, in all likelihood, fail (and, astonishingly, may even be counter-productive!).

And there's some evidence that, in the real world of house mortgages, this bimodal distribution really does exist. IIRC, some economists recently studied detailed data on people with sub-prime mortgages (in the NE of the USA, I think), and found two quite distinct differences in their responses to being now in trouble: the numerates attempted to work through the mess they'd found themselves in in an economically rational fashion (e.g. making changes to their personal finances so as to have at least some chance of avoiding foreclosure), the innumerates responded essentially chaotically.