Merged Retracted autism study an 'elaborate fraud'

[Foster Zygote]

Why? And are you claiming that there are no kids, older than ten, who have autism?

Is that your claim?

You have no logic do you?

Try again and this time with logic.

So are you claiming that there is no child over 10 who has autism? In fact they keep on putting the Mercury back into vaccines. But thats an whole other story.

Are you claiming that the rate of autism diagnosis isn't still increasing?

In a Danish study that used a sample of over half a million children, the rate of autism diagnosis was found to be identical between the group that received MMR vaccination and the group that didn't. How do you explain that, other than to conclude that the MMR vaccination is not a factor in autism?

 

[Aepervius]

Why? And are you claiming that there are no kids, older than ten, who have autism?

Is that your claim?

You have no logic do you?

Try again and this time with logic.

So are you claiming that there is no child over 10 who has autism? In fact they keep on putting the Mercury back into vaccines. But thats an whole other story.

Try again LOGIC. If thiomersal had any effect on kids, study would have shown it, and at the very least since it is not used anymore we would have seen a *drop* in autism after they stopped using it. it did not happen.

And you pretend to tell people did not sue logic ? Try reading the FULL post next time instead of ONE sentence.

Troll.

 

[Aepervius]

Well yes of course. The vaccines have Mercury, and some of the kids get autism. And when they don't get Mercury vaccines, then fewer of them get autism. Then when the authorities sneak the Mercury back in, more kids get autism and then they say ..... You see .... more kids are getting autism .... So it could not have been the Mercury that we had before.

This has some ways to go as ethical behavior. Particularly when everyone knows that Mercury is a nerve (and therefore a brain) poison.

The vaccine DO NOT have mercury, they have mercury compound, like thiomersal.

That is about as sane to compare both as saying rust or even pure iron , is the same as hemoglobin.

I suspect you have no idea what you are speaking about.

 

[bozothedeathmachine]

Journal: Study linking vaccine to autism was fraud

Linky

A new examination found, by comparing the reported diagnoses in the paper to hospital records, that Wakefield and colleagues altered facts about patients in their study.

Now it looks to be that the original paper in The Lancet was deliberate fraud. Seriously, how is this guy not doing serious prison time?

 

[ToddH]

Linky



Now it looks to be that the original paper in The Lancet was deliberate fraud. Seriously, how is this guy not doing serious prison time?

And the sad part is it won't do a thing to dissuade believers. They'll continue to believe that vaccinations cause autism.

 

[brodski]

The vaccine DO NOT have mercury, they have mercury compound, like thiomersal.

MMR, the vaccine this trhead is about, never contained any mercurry compound.

Wakfeild claimed, or implied, that it was measles (transferred to the kids via MMR) which a caused autism in a small number of cases. He may have got into mercury or other anti-vax woo, but his original fraud was of a different flavour.

 

[brodski]

Linky



Now it looks to be that the original paper in The Lancet was deliberate fraud. Seriously, how is this guy not doing serious prison time?

Which law which warrants serious prison time do you suggest he broke?
He has already been struck off the medical register in the UK, he doesn’t have a licence to practise medicine anywhere else and you can be dammed sure that he won’t be getting any legitimate research jobs any time soon. Therese not much more that can be done.

 

[Capsid]

Which law which warrants serious prison time do you suggest he broke?
He has already been struck off the medical register in the UK, he doesn’t have a licence to practise medicine anywhere else and you can be dammed sure that he won’t be getting any legitimate research jobs any time soon. Therese not much more that can be done.

Seems he has written a book.

http://callous-disregard.com/

 

[Rocko]

He published a very questionable report, which even his collaborators later disowned.

Just to be clear, the new revelations show that the report wasn't even "questionable", it was out-and-out fraudulent. The BMJ doesn't pull any punches:

http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452.full

The Office of Research Integrity in the United States defines fraud as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism.13 Deer unearthed clear evidence of falsification. He found that not one of the 12 cases reported in the 1998 Lancet paper was free of misrepresentation or undisclosed alteration, and that in no single case could the medical records be fully reconciled with the descriptions, diagnoses, or histories published in the journal.

Who perpetrated this fraud? There is no doubt that it was Wakefield. Is it possible that he was wrong, but not dishonest: that he was so incompetent that he was unable to fairly describe the project, or to report even one of the 12 children’s cases accurately? No. A great deal of thought and effort must have gone into drafting the paper to achieve the results he wanted: the discrepancies all led in one direction; misreporting was gross

The first part of Deer's report bears linking to again as well:

http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5347.full

It's truly damning stuff. Beforehand Wakefield could have been viewed as only misguided, unethical and incompetent. No longer; he was unquestionably on the make. He took money to create a scare which (entirely predictably) led to a bodycount.

 

[Rocko]

Which law which warrants serious prison time do you suggest he broke?

I'm curious about this. There's a direct and entirely predictable chain of causation that led from his fraud to an upsurge in deaths from preventable diseases. Simply put - he did an act knowing that preventable deaths would occur. It feels that that *should* be a breach of the law.

But I'm not sure you'd even need to take the deaths into account. After all, he misrepresented facts in return for money. Isn't that a breach of s.2 of the Fraud Act?

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/fraud_act/#a06

That could get him 10 years, if so! Note: this isn't my area of knowledge, so I'm just throwing it out there.

 

[Modified]

Surely there is some law against damaging the welfare of the public.

 

[brodski]

But I'm not sure you'd even need to take the deaths into account. After all, he misrepresented facts in return for money. Isn't that a breach of s.2 of the Fraud Act?

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/fraud_act/#a06

That could get him 10 years, if so! Note: this isn't my area of knowledge, so I'm just throwing it out there.

You probably could make that case, but IIRC, the facts which he missrepresnted were to the advantage of thsoe paying him, unless they make a complaint of fraud against him I doubt a charge will be forthcoming, even if teh case were winnable, which I doubt.

I'm curious about this. There's a direct and entirely predictable chain of causation that led from his fraud to an upsurge in deaths from preventable diseases. Simply put - he did an act knowing that preventable deaths would occur. It feels that that *should* be a breach of the law.

Surely there is some law against damaging the welfare of the public.

I would be very uncomfortable if Wakefield were charged under such a law (and I don't think one exists), as reprehensible and damaging as his actions were, prosecuting him would be abhorrent to my ideas of freedom of speech and would have a pretty nasty chilling effect on science (however badly conducted). We're currently trying to get libel laws out of science in the UK I wouldn't want to replace them with state censorship- which is what this could amount to.

I woudl be very uncomfortable if Wakefield were charged under such a law (and I don't think one exsists), as rerehensible and damaging as his actiosn were, prosicuting him would be abhorant to my ideas of freedom of speach and would have a pretty nasty chillign effect on science (however badly conducted). We're currtently trying to get libel laws out of science in the UK I wouldn't want to replace them with state censorship- whcih is what this could ammount to.

 

[zooterkin]

For those who prefer a NSFW version of the account, skepchick go to town on this, too.

 

[Tatyana]

Right I get it. Play a double game where you say that the special type of Mercury is not poisonous, and then say it wouldn't matter if it was since its been gone ten years. No it hasn't. And there are kids older than ten with autism. So what is your point?

This is just lawyer-like ass-covering talk. Yes your worship. I didn't borrow his car, when I borrowed his car the tank was empty. There was no car. He has no car. When I drove his car back to him I filled the car up with gas.

No, this is basic chemistry and R-groups or functional groups.

Ok, let's run a little experiment.

Go and drink some methyl alcohol (rubbing alcohol) and some ethyl alcohol (your choice, however, vodka might work the best for the purposes of our experiment), and see how you get on.

It is the same for ethyl and methyl mercury.

It isn't like ethyl alcohol is 'healthy' for children, however, a small amount of it isn't going to do them any harm.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12480426

Mercury concentrations and metabolism in infants receiving vaccines containing thiomersal: a descriptive study.

Pichichero ME, Cernichiari E, Lopreiato J, Treanor J.

Department of Microbiology/Immunology, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, NY, USA. [email protected]

Comment in:

* Lancet. 2003 Feb 22;361(9358):698-9; author reply 699.
* Lancet. 2003 Feb 22;361(9358):699; author reply 699.
* Lancet. 2004 Oct 2-8;364(9441):1217; author reply 1217-8.
* Lancet. 2003 Feb 22;361(9358):698; author reply 699.
* Lancet. 2002 Nov 30;360(9347):1711-2.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Thiomersal is a preservative containing small amounts of ethylmercury that is used in routine vaccines for infants and children. The effect of vaccines containing thiomersal on concentrations of mercury in infants' blood has not been extensively assessed, and the metabolism of ethylmercury in infants is unknown. We aimed to measure concentrations of mercury in blood, urine, and stools of infants who received such vaccines.

METHODS: 40 full-term infants aged 6 months and younger were given vaccines that contained thiomersal (diptheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis vaccine, hepatitis B vaccine, and in some children Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine). 21 control infants received thiomersal-free vaccines. We obtained samples of blood, urine, and stools 3-28 days after vaccination. Total mercury (organic and inorganic) in the samples was measured by cold vapour atomic absorption.

FINDINGS: Mean mercury doses in infants exposed to thiomersal were 45.6 microg (range 37.5-62.5) for 2-month-olds and 111.3 microg (range 87.5-175.0) for 6-month-olds. Blood mercury in thiomersal-exposed 2-month-olds ranged from less than 3.75 to 20.55 nmol/L (parts per billion); in 6-month-olds all values were lower than 7.50 nmol/L. Only one of 15 blood samples from controls contained quantifiable mercury. Concentrations of mercury were low in urine after vaccination but were high in stools of thiomersal-exposed 2-month-olds (mean 82 ng/g dry weight) and in 6-month-olds (mean 58 ng/g dry weight). Estimated blood half-life of ethylmercury was 7 days (95% CI 4-10 days).

INTERPRETATION: Administration of vaccines containing thiomersal does not seem to raise blood concentrations of mercury above safe values in infants. Ethylmercury seems to be eliminated from blood rapidly via the stools after parenteral administration of thiomersal in vaccines.

 

[Roadtoad]

After reading the links, I'm grateful Peggy and I listened to our pediatrician, and insisted on our sons getting vaccinated. At that time, there were only rumors of problems, not this god-awful nightmare that Wakefield has unleashed.

I'm not surprised that he's trying to defend himself. There's no doubt that someone will sue, and he wants to start covering his sittin'-down parts.

Still, I can't wait to see him squirming on a witness stand.

Now, if we could do something with Jenny McCarthy. Hell, Bruno Bettelheim got his, there's hope.

 

[Rocko]

You probably could make that case, but IIRC, the facts which he missrepresnted were to the advantage of thsoe paying him, unless they make a complaint of fraud against him I doubt a charge will be forthcoming, even if teh case were winnable, which I doubt.

From memory, I don't think that matters for fraud though; it doesn't need a complaint by the defrauded party, or for there to even be one. The offence is complete the moment the fraudulent misrep is made, and given it's a criminal offence then it's up to the police/CPS/SFO to take action, surely?

I woudl be very uncomfortable if Wakefield were charged under such a law (and I don't think one exsists), as rerehensible and damaging as his actiosn were, prosicuting him would be abhorant to my ideas of freedom of speach and would have a pretty nasty chillign effect on science (however badly conducted). We're currtently trying to get libel laws out of science in the UK I wouldn't want to replace them with state censorship- whcih is what this could ammount to.

Yeah, I was thinking about this after I posted. However, freedom of speech doesn't, and shouldn't, protect people against charges of fraud arising in other ways, so I'm not sure why Wakefield (or any other scientist) should be able to hide behind it. There's a fairly big distinction in that this involves rank dishonesty. It isn't a case where somebody got a bit of a study wrong, was incompetent or voiced an opinion someone took exception to. Wakefield actively lied to make cash for himself.

I don't see a chilling effect coming out of a prosecution for that, other than perhaps acting to dissuade other potential fraudsters.

 

[ddt]

You probably could make that case, but IIRC, the facts which he missrepresnted were to the advantage of thsoe paying him, unless they make a complaint of fraud against him I doubt a charge will be forthcoming, even if teh case were winnable, which I doubt.

I don't see where this matters. Wakefield willfully misrepresented facts - whether he did that for his own (monetary) advantage or for the advantage of those paying him seems irrelevant. But Wakefield had a monetary stake in it too: he had plans to set up his own Measles-only vaccine. From a timeline by Brian Deer:

June 1997: Wakefield files for a patent on his own supposedly “safer” single measles jab, and for miracle products to treat autism and bowel disease. Not publicly disclosed

I would be very uncomfortable if Wakefield were charged under such a law (and I don't think one exists), as reprehensible and damaging as his actions were, prosecuting him would be abhorrent to my ideas of freedom of speech and would have a pretty nasty chilling effect on science (however badly conducted). We're currently trying to get libel laws out of science in the UK I wouldn't want to replace them with state censorship- which is what this could amount to.

There's a difference between misguided science and outright changing of undisputed facts. Wakefield changed facts in his Lancet study; Deer's article in the BMJ has a table summarizing three aspects of the 12 cases of Wakefield's study and how they differ between what Wakefield reported and what was reality. To take one, Wakefield reported that in 8 of 12 cases, autism symptoms came days after the MMR vaccination. Deer's investigation shows that in 10 of the 12 children, this was not the case, in fact, that autism symptoms preceded the MMR.

ETA: to quote the BMJ editorial on the issue of fraud, they say:

Who perpetrated this fraud? There is no doubt that it was Wakefield. Is it possible that he was wrong, but not dishonest: that he was so incompetent that he was unable to fairly describe the project, or to report even one of the 12 children’s cases accurately? No. A great deal of thought and effort must have gone into drafting the paper to achieve the results he wanted: the discrepancies all led in one direction; misreporting was gross.

But if there's not a criminal case in there, I surely hope that the NHS will file a civil suit for their expenses in trying to restore faith in vaccines, his public financers will sue for their money back because he defrauded them and that parents who bought into the scare and now have children dead or affected by either disease will sue him for their damages. He deserves nothing better than to live the rest of his life destitute.

Has the lawyer, Richard Barr, who initially hired him, already been probed for possible breaches of ethics?

 

[technoextreme]

Well yes of course. The vaccines have Mercury, and some of the kids get autism. And when they don't get Mercury vaccines, then fewer of them get autism. Then when the authorities sneak the Mercury back in, more kids get autism and then they say ..... You see .... more kids are getting autism .... So it could not have been the Mercury that we had before.

This has some ways to go as ethical behavior. Particularly when everyone knows that Mercury is a nerve (and therefore a brain) poison.

Actually using your logic the rate of autism should have shot down drastically because at the time my parents were alive/babies mercury salts were still being used in certain materials.

Go and drink some methyl alcohol (rubbing alcohol) and some ethyl alcohol (your choice, however, vodka might work the best for the purposes of our experiment), and see how you get on.

Rubbing alcohol is technically still ethyl alcohol with crap thrown into it. It might not always be methanol.

 

[Kuko 4000]

Well yes of course. The vaccines have Mercury, and some of the kids get autism. And when they don't get Mercury vaccines, then fewer of them get autism. Then when the authorities sneak the Mercury back in, more kids get autism and then they say ..... You see .... more kids are getting autism .... So it could not have been the Mercury that we had before.

Fascinating. Now where is that study?

Boy will Chodorov be surprised if he one day decides to look at the actual data on that correlation

 

[Craig4]

Why would you want those? We already know what Mercury poisoning does. And its not like the government is going to fund studies that gets them in trouble. Its not a hard gig to figure out that if you jack babies with Mercury it will have the effects that Mercury has. Its not complicated.

So that's a no on the studies then? Oh and read post 6 for a reference to the MMR vaccine.