Journal: Study linking vaccine to autism was fraud

[bobalot]

Journal: Study linking vaccine to autism was fraud

LONDON – The first study to link a childhood vaccine to autism was based on doctored information about the children involved, according to a new report on the widely discredited research.

The conclusions of the 1998 paper by Andrew Wakefield and colleagues was renounced by 10 of its 13 authors and later retracted by the medical journal Lancet, where it was published. Still, the suggestion the MMR shot was connected to autism spooked parents worldwide and immunization rates for measles, mumps and rubella have never fully recovered.

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.

The analysis, by British journalist Brian Deer, found that despite the claim in Wakefield's paper that the 12 children studied were normal until they had the MMR shot, five had previously documented developmental problems. Deer also found that all the cases were somehow misrepresented when he compared data from medical records and the children's parents.

Wakefield could not be reached for comment despite repeated calls and requests to the publisher of his recent book, which claims there is a connection between vaccines and autism that has been ignored by the medical establishment. Wakefield now lives in the U.S. where he enjoys a vocal following including celebrity supporters like Jenny McCarthy.

Deer's article was paid for by the Sunday Times of London and Britain's Channel 4 television network. It was published online Thursday in the medical journal, BMJ.

In an accompanying editorial, BMJ editor Fiona Godlee and colleagues called Wakefield's study "an elaborate fraud." They said Wakefield's work in other journals should be examined to see if it should be retracted.

Last May, Wakefield was stripped of his right to practice medicine in Britain. Many other published studies have shown no connection between the MMR vaccination and autism.

But measles has surged since Wakefield's paper was published and there are sporadic outbreaks in Europe and the U.S. In 2008, measles was deemed endemic in England and Wales.

Source

Can't this guy get in serious trouble for outright fraud?

BTW, here is a video of this guy getting reamed by a reporter.

[mr friendly guy]

We already knew this study was flawed. However this is the first time someone actually outright accused him of being fradulent. Another article I read said Wakefield was paid by law firms who were just waiting to sue big pharma. Geez you don't suppose there is a conflict of interest there.

[PeZook]

Wakefield can no longer practice medicine in the UK. The fact his study was fraudulent was known for some time now, enough to conclude the entire process to strip his licence from him.

And good riddance. The man is indirectly responsible for several deaths.

[Patrick Degan]

If actual money exchanged hands at any point in the process of this quackery, might the Crown Prosecutor's Office be taking a closer and harder look at Mr. Wakefield's activities from a decade past?

[Zaune]

Wakefield can no longer practice medicine in the UK. The fact his study was fraudulent was known for some time now, enough to conclude the entire process to strip his licence from him.

In point of fact, I believe he was only hauled up before the General Medical Council for failing to declare an interest (he owned quite a bit of stock in a company that produced individual vaccines) and acquiring some of the blood samples under dubious circumstances. Falsifying his actual results is a wholly new accusation.

[NoXion]

A reply to the Lancet's article. This was posted in another forum, but I'm not sure what to make of the "evidence" given.

[PeZook]

It's a site that says, and I quote:

Homeopathy STOPPED Epidemic in Cuba

Large-scale application of highly-diluted bacteria for Leptospirosis epidemic control.
Bracho G, Varela E, Fernández R, Ordaz B, Marzoa N, Menéndez J, García L, Gilling E, Leyva R, Rufín R, de la Torre R, Solis RL, Batista N, Borrero R, Campa C.

And dresses it up like an actual study despite glaringly obvious design flaws in its methodology.

As for the article itself? It's a mess. Cursory reading shows they only quote reputable sources where they support their cause: for example, they go on at length about how mild measles is in "healthy, well-nourished children" (What about the unhealthy ones? Oh, we don't care! ), but end their analysis there (and often quote single sentences, which is always suspect).

Worst of all, when they criticize studies done on the vaccines, they quote things like the goddamned Pulse Magazine (Lifestyle and entertainment!) or Jenny McCarthy's Generation Rescue foundation, or radio interviews that nobody will ever be able to find and check that they weren't quoted out of context.

They also are trying to make it seem like there was only one or two studies that found no connection between autism and MMR, which is patently false.

They also quote a fucking court sentence. Because we all know that courts can legislate reality

There's probably more hilarity, but I don't have the time to read the entire article. It uses the scattergun approach anyway...

In point of fact, I believe he was only hauled up before the General Medical Council for failing to declare an interest (he owned quite a bit of stock in a company that produced individual vaccines) and acquiring some of the blood samples under dubious circumstances. Falsifying his actual results is a wholly new accusation.

I'm not sure about that ; I've been reading how his study may have been faked since 2009.

I suppose we can say this latest accusation is supported by hard evidence, though, so it may be "new" in the sense that there's no real way to dismiss it out of hand as a conspiracy.

EDIT: There's also a brilliant argument in the form of a terrible cartoon. Remember people, shots = bad.

And appeals to emotion, of course: "LOOK AT THIS POOR CHILD!!!". Why should this piece of trash be given the light of day?

[mr friendly guy]

Just some tidbits from that article

This approach has only served to heighten public concern as many wonder why the DOH refuse to look at any opposing evidence or have a rational discussion of the issues.

Translation - why the DOH refuse to ACCEPT our "evidence". Because if they refused to look at Wakefield's publishing, they wouldn't have disbarred him no. He would still be writing more crap.

If a person had an allergic reaction to paracetamol, this would be accepted. So are the dangers of mercury fillings, which are now not recommended for pregnant women. When it comes to vaccines, however, it is a scared cow that no one is allowed to question.

Except thats not true. People are warned about allergic reactions to some vaccines which use egg in them. Its just that the claim that MMR causes autism has been found to be bullshit, and its potentially dangerous that this belief is still peddled.

[PeZook]

None of the anti-vaccine people compare complications from disease vs. those from vaccines. The problem isn't that measles is a mild disease on children ; The problem is that a large group of children will not get measles on time, and for adults measles is a serious disease with potentially deadly complications.

So while complications in children are very low, it was deemed worthwhile to provide herd immunity via mass vaccinations (especially since yes, some children can't be vaccinated and will be mangled/killed by measles) because of the added risk to adults who didn't go through measles, especially since contrary to what that article claims, complications from the vaccine are rare (also, since you know the child was vaccinated, the doctors know what's going on and can warn parents to watch for certain symptoms ; When your kid gets measles, it's harder to pick up complications and rush to the hospital in time).

Except thats not true. People are warned about allergic reactions to some vaccines which use egg in them. Its just that the claim that MMR causes autism has been found to be bullshit, and its potentially dangerous that this belief is still peddled.

Not potentially. Children have already died because of those beliefs.

[Zaune]

I'm not sure about that ; I've been reading how his study may have been faked since 2009.

I suppose we can say this latest accusation is supported by hard evidence, though, so it may be "new" in the sense that there's no real way to dismiss it out of hand as a conspiracy.

Hadn't run across these accusations myself, but then again Wakefield's study had been flatly contradicted by a much larger one in the United States long before, so who cares whether or not he faked his data at this point? Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of the scientific method already knows he was talking through his hat.

[CaptainChewbacca]

How many children have died, you may ask?

Useful website for shutting people up.

[Molyneux]

How many children have died, you may ask?

Useful website for shutting people up.

That...is a very sobering website.
I really hope that I never meet Ms. McCarthy in person.

I wasn't all that surprised that Wakefield flat-out pulled data out of his ass, but I am impressed by the quality of the investigative reporting that went into this. Something we need much more of today.

[Zaune]

Bit of background that I found whilst looking for something else. Brian Deer, an investigative journalist who did a lot of work highlighting the flaws in Wakefield's story, has the whole sordid business chronicled in great detail here.

[xthetenth]

How many children have died, you may ask?

Useful website for shutting people up.

That's some pretty damn good data right there, much appreciated. The bibliography is great too, and it's good to see that level of attention paid to documenting the sources.