- #31
nismaratwork
- 358
- 0
bobze said:
I believe that's a fair description of life.
Retracted autism study an elaborate fraud - BMJ
- Context: Medical
- Thread starter Ivan Seeking
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Study
Click For Summary
SUMMARY
The British Medical Journal (BMJ) has reported that the 1998 study by Dr. Andrew Wakefield, which falsely linked autism to childhood vaccines, was an "elaborate fraud." The investigation revealed that Wakefield misrepresented the medical histories of all 12 patients involved, leading to significant public health repercussions. The study was formally retracted by The Lancet in 2008, and Wakefield's medical license was revoked in 2010. The BMJ's recent findings emphasize the intentional nature of the fraud, which has fueled the anti-vaccine movement and contributed to outbreaks of preventable diseases.
PREREQUISITES- Understanding of vaccine safety and public health implications
- Familiarity with medical research ethics and peer review processes
- Knowledge of the historical context of the autism-vaccine debate
- Awareness of the impact of misinformation on public health
- Research the role of ethics in medical research and the implications of fraudulent studies
- Examine the historical response to the Wakefield study and its effects on vaccination rates
- Investigate current public health policies addressing vaccine misinformation
- Explore the mechanisms of peer review and retraction in scientific publishing
Public health officials, medical researchers, parents concerned about vaccine safety, and anyone involved in combating misinformation related to vaccines.
I believe that's a fair description of life.
- #32
bobze
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 648
- 18
nismaratwork said:
- #33
cobalt124
- 60
- 32
My thoughts on episode three:
"But within 48 hours, and working with the paper’s three senior authors, the journal was to publish a 5000 word avalanche of denials, in statements, unretracted to this day"
Disappointing. The Lancet editor got sucked into this as well.
"Facing public alarm over MMR and professional scepticism towards the research, for years he had championed his former colleague. “I do not regret publishing the original Wakefield paper,” he said in a 2003 book, at the height of the UK scare."
Or did he? It sounds a bit like an Old Boys Network. To what extent does a former colleague constitute a conflict of interest for the Lancet editor?
"“The objective,” he and his retaining solicitor had written in the application to the legal board, “is to seek evidence which will be acceptable in a court of law of the causative connection between either the mumps, measles and rubella vaccine or the measles/rubella vaccine and certain conditions which have been reported with considerable frequency by families of children who are seeking compensation"
Obviously the wrong way round. Never court case first.
"In short, the accused were investigating themselves—an investigation that Horton would say “cleared Wakefield""
Ugly.
"Is it customary,” asked Parimala Moodley, a member of the council of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, “for an investigation of possible serious research misconduct to be carried out by the people who have been so accused of the misconduct?” Horton paused to gather his thoughts. “It is customary for the institution to lead an investigation and to gather the data which will inevitably involve those who took part in the investigation,” he replied. “It is then the responsibility of the institution to make sure that there is some kind of separation between its interpretation of those findings and those who are involved in the investigation who are being in some sense accused of a set of allegations, and once that interpretation by the institution has taken place and has been conveyed to whoever has brought the allegations to them then we can go forward. So there certainly should be some separation, which is why in the first instance I wanted to get the reaction from Dr Wakefield, Professor Walker-Smith, and Dr Murch, but after that my duty was to go to the head of the institution, the vice-dean, in this case Professor Hodgson.”
But there had been no separation and no independent inquiry—as both the hospital and medical school later confirmed"
He talks like a cornered politician.
"Before I go on to the statements by the doctors, which were published in the Lancet, and by the Royal Free,” Sally Smith said to Horton at the hearing, “can I ask you, have there been other occasions when you have had to investigate allegations made about a research paper and its propriety, in general terms?”
“Frequently.”
“Is it customary to discuss and take the word of those against whom the allegations are made?”
“It is.”"
Disgraceful.
Reading the recent comments in this thread, whilst I understand the sentiment, I feel events have been far too generous to Mr Horton, and that he should have lost his job as editor of the Lancet.
- #34
nismaratwork
- 358
- 0
Yeah... it's not the best moment to take pride in medicine reading this kind of material. It's so hard to see why this wasn't an issue at the time!
- #35
cobalt124
- 60
- 32
nismaratwork said:
It would seem that by default they were respected and trusted, possibly within some "old boys network" or some such like. This suggestion is possibly reinforced by seeing how much effort it took to expose them.
Just had a skim through the GMC report, the nearest thing to a positive outcome in this whole affair that we have (the fact that it had to be done in the first place is hardly positive). On my skimming of it, the report doesn't seem to miss a thing, and of the 143 pages, the vast majority deals with what happened to the twelve children, rather than highlighting the odious acts of the perpetrators, which we knew anyway. It seems that aspect of the affair (the victims viewpoint) is underepresented in this case.
- #36
bobze
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 648
- 18
cobalt124 said:
I agree Cobalt.
I had wondered if this regard of the GMC report was again, an aspect of the "old boys network". And that is why it remained limited to the 3 and really only dealt with the ethical and COI problems, rather than uh...fraud! Or the degree to which others went to resist looking into that.
- #37
nismaratwork
- 358
- 0
bobze said:
I agree with you and Cobalt; it's terrifying how far that "old boy/girl network" really extends beyond medicine. It's just not a comfortable life to be someone who as a matter of process, has to entertain the notion that your friend or colleague is not just wrong, but lying for profit.
AFAIK the only cure for this kind of network, is just more transparency.
I would just note, that as many studies are done each year, it is RARE for one to have such an immense impact. Some are certainly biased, even many, but this is to bias, as car-theft is to premeditated murder. I hope that people in the position to peer review their friends realize that one price of their profession is the need to be dispassionate at times.
- #38
cobalt124
- 60
- 32
bobze said:
I was happy the report concentrated on the childrens' experiences, I hadn't thought of it like that. Hmmm.
- #39
Proton Soup
- 223
- 1
Wakefield says he's a patsy, and a few other things
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4PeLtH6RWY
there's also 2 more of them at yt. I'm sure something will be made of acceptable sources, but if you want to build more of a case against wakefield, I'm sure you'll find some ammo.
- #40
nismaratwork
- 358
- 0
Proton Soup said:
I'd hate this guy he wasn't such a pathetic human being; really, the people who bought the type of line this guy seems to sell under the NAME of peer review should be tried and hanged.
- #41
cobalt124
- 60
- 32
That is a desperate man going to a desperate place for publicity IMO. A quick Google failed to display the replicating studies as claimed. Do they exist? And he's plugging a book. Grrrrrrrrrr!
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy#Research:
"In October 2005, the Cochrane Library published a review of 31 scientific studies, which found no credible evidence of an involvement of MMR with either autism or Crohn's disease. The review also stated "Measles, mumps and rubella are three very dangerous infectious diseases which cause a heavy disease, disability and death burden in the developing world ... [T]he impact of mass immunisation on the elimination of the diseases has been demonstrated worldwide." However the authors of the report also stated that "the design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing, are largely inadequate."
(Bold mine) If this is true it could only have helped Wakefields cause.
- #42
nismaratwork
- 358
- 0
On the bright side, can you imagine how angry the parents who DO believe that this was a fraud are now? If I were Wakefield, I'd be looking over my shoulder for the rest of my life.
- #43
cobalt124
- 60
- 32
Yep, I know what he looks like now!
- #44
BWV
- 1,638
- 1,992
unfortunately nothing will convince the true believers
there is an autism support group in my city that invited Wakefield to speak to them just a couple of weeks ago
there is a good interview with Brian Deer here
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2011/01/deer_on_autism.html
the other point about Wakefield is that children in his study were subjected to invasive and potentially dangerous medical procedures including colonoscopies as far as the small intestine (which means inserting a tube all the way around the large bowel into the small bowel), lumbar punctures, brain scanners and they drank radioactive fluids
- #45
nismaratwork
- 358
- 0
True Believers... *spit*
I understand the mechanism, and I still can't stand them... even when it's not their fault. Wakefield... I truly hope that he spontaneously combusts.