Orac is the nom de blog of a (not so) humble pseudonymous surgeon/scientist with an ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually give a rodent's posterior about his miscellaneous verbal meanderings, but just barely small enough to admit to himself that few will. (Continued 
This should come as no surprise. Thanks to Brian Deer, the journalist who uncovered so much of Dr. Andew Wakefield's shady research and dealings, we now know that Wakefield was paid by lawyers before his infamous MMR study and that he failed to disclose this clear conflict of interest:
ANDREW WAKEFIELD, the former surgeon whose campaign linking the MMR vaccine with autism caused a collapse in immunisation rates, was paid more than £400,000 by lawyers trying to prove that the vaccine was unsafe.The payments, unearthed by The Sunday Times, were part of £3.4m distributed from the legal aid fund to doctors and scientists who had been recruited to support a now failed lawsuit against vaccine manufacturers.
Critics this weekend voiced amazement at the sums, which they said created a clear conflict of interest and were the "financial engine" behind a worldwide alarm over the triple measles, mumps and rubella shot.
"These figures are astonishing," said Dr Evan Harris, Liberal Democrat MP for Oxford West and Abingdon.
"This lawsuit was an industry, and an industry peddling what turned out to be a myth."
According to the figures, released under the Freedom of Information Act, Wakefield was paid £435,643 in fees, plus £3,910 expenses.
Wakefield's work for the lawyers began two years before he published his now notorious report in The Lancet medical journal in February 1998, proposing a link between the vaccine and autism.
This suggestion, followed by a campaign led by Wakefield, caused immunisation rates to slump from 92% to 78.9%, although they have since partly recovered. In March this year the first British child in 14 years died from measles.
Later The Lancet retracted Wakefield's claim and apologised after a Sunday Times investigation showed that his research had been backed with £55,000 from lawyers, and that the children in the study used as evidence against the vaccine were also claimants in the lawsuit.
At the time Wakefield denied any conflict of interest and said that the money went to his hospital, not to him personally. No disclosure was made, however, of the vastly greater sums that he was receiving directly from the lawyers.
As a result of Wakefield's bad science claiming that the MMR was associated with autism and his self-promotion in pushing that message, vaccination rates fell across the U.K. Let's review the timeline again, shall we? Here it is:
* FEBRUARY 1998: Andrew Wakefield's paper is published in The Lancet, linking the MMR triple vaccine with autism* 2000: Demand for single vaccines rises
* JANUARY 2001: The Government rejects calls for a single measles vaccine on the NHS
* 2001: MMR vaccinations fall to 84.2 per cent of children, down from 92 per cent in 1996
* EARLY 2003: Immunisation rates reach low of 78.9 per cent
* NOVEMBER 2003: Dr Simon Murch says there is "unequivocal evidence that MMR is not a risk factor for autism"
* 2004: It emerges that while preparing his Lancet paper, Dr Wakefield was being paid by lawyers for parents of children allegedly damaged by MMR
* 2004: Immunisation rates rise to 81 per cent
* 2004: Number of cases of mumps: 16,436, up from 4,204 the previous year. In 2005 the number is up to 56,390
* MID-2005: Immunisation rates rise to 85 per cent
* OCTOBER 2005: Cochrane Library says there is no credible evidence that MMR harms
* APRIL 2006: A boy, 13, who had not received the MMR vaccine, becomes the first person to die of measles in 14 years
Almost single-handedly, Dr. Wakefield promoted a decrease in vaccination rates due to a false autism scare that resulted in the return of large numbers of measles and mumps cases in the U.K.
And what, specifically, did the lawyers pay Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues for? This:
Five of his former colleagues at the Royal Free hospital, north London, under whose aegis The Lancet paper was written, received a total of £183,000 in fees, according to the LSC.Wakefield now runs a business in Austin, Texas, two of whose employees are listed as receiving a total of £112,000 in fees, while a Florida physician, who appointed the former surgeon as his "director of research", was paid £21,600, the figures show.
All have appeared in media reports as apparently confirming Wakefield's claims.
It is understood that the payments -- for writing reports, attending meetings and in some cases carrying out research -- were made at hourly rates varying between £120 and £200, or £1,000 a day.
"There was a huge conflict of interest," said Dr John March, an animal vaccine specialist who was among those recruited. "It bothered me quite a lot because I thought, well, if I'm getting paid for doing this, then surely it's in my interest to keep it going as long as possible."
March, who the LSC allowed almost £90,000 to research an aspect of Wakefield's theories, broke ranks this weekend to denounce both the science of the attack and the amount that the case had cost in lawyers' and experts' fees.
"The ironic thing is they were always going on about how, you know, how we've hardly got any money compared with the other side, who are funded by large pharmaceutical companies. And I'm thinking, judging by the amounts of money you're paying out, the other side must be living like millionaires," he said.
Big pharma, meet big legal. The article even reveals that one of the referees on one of Wakefield's scientific papers was paid £40,000! (This is particularly galling, given Wakefield's pious pontificating on conflicts of interest between agencies that promote vaccination and investigate vaccine safety.) If there was ever any doubt that the whole MMR scare was based on no science and was motivated by lawyers who wanted to sue for "vaccine injury" in the case of autistic children, this should put it to rest. Indeed, more people than just Wakefield were riding the gravy train, but rather quite a few "luminaries" of the "vaccines cause autism" movement, as Kevin Leitch points out:
But is good old Wakers alone? Oh no, this money making machine had a few members, some familiar names to this blog:Dr Ken Aitken, Scottish DAN! Doctor: £232,022. After resigning under a cloud from his role at Royal Hospital for Sick Children, Edinburgh, Aitken gladly signed up for this gravy train which seems to have netted him nearly a quarter of a million quid of tax payers money. In 2004, Aitken was severely reprimanded by the British Psychological Society concerning his handling of an autistic child's case. The society's conduct committee said that he "allowed his professional responsibilities or standards of practice to be diminished by considerations of extraneous factors".
Peter Fletcher: £39,960. I wrote a blog entry about Peter Fletcher's anti-MMR strawmen awhile ago.
[...]
Arthur Krigsman, Business partner of Andrew Wakefield: £16,986. His unpublished 'papers' have been cited numerous times by Wakefield and supporters as evidence Wakefield was right, conveniently forgetting they were a) unpublished and b) written for his boss. According to Brian (see link in Aitken paragraph), in December 2004, he left Lennox Hill hospital, New York,after a lawsuit, which was followed by an ethics inquiry. In August 2005, he was fined $5,000 by the Texas Medical Board for misconduct. Gotta try and recoup some of that money somewhere eh?
Jeff Bradstreet: £21,600. Bradstreet - who recommends exorcism for autism - snapped up Wakefield as Director of his business after Wakefield was booted out of the Royal Free.
Mark Geier: £7,052. We could write a whole book on the Geier's and their dubious practices. Luckily, Kathleen has documented most of them already. Suffice it to say, Geier shouldn't be offering legal expert advice to anyone.
On the one hand, my disgust at these people knows few bounds anymore. Clearly, they have little concern for ethics, as I have pointed out before. On the other hand, Brian Deer gets kudos from Orac for unearthing this disgusting underbelly of the antivaccination movement.
More on this issue:
Profiting from autism: Tempest in a teapot, or ...?
Follow the money
Unethical is too mild a word
Comments
A bit of a subject hijack here, but I just wanted to say: Happy New Year to you and yours. I wish you all the best for 2007.
Posted by: Liz | January 1, 2007 6:50 PM
I wonder if the parents of the boy who died can sue the hind legs off Quack Wakefield.
Posted by: Monado | January 1, 2007 6:51 PM
The way the scientific establishment has closed ranks against Andrew Wakefield is both despicable and shortsighted. Maybe Wakefield was wrong, maybe his findings were affected by undisclosed conflicts of interest, maybe he is a terrible scientist.
But the fact is he asked questions and challenged asusmptions that needed to be asked and challenged.
The idea that you can pump three lots of foreign material all at once into a whole generation of babies and children without any negative consequences is ludicrous, not to mention insanely dangerous.
Whatever short term benefits the MMR program might provide, we simply have no idea about the long term implications. Ultimately the whole MMR project has been a crazy experiment, imposed on us by an unholy alliance of pharmaceuticals, doctors and politicians.
Challenging it is therefore an eminently reasonable thing to do.
The fact that the person who makes the challenge can be so vilified, sends out a terrible message to the scientists of tomorrow.
Science needs its maverick researchers, its awkward characters who are unintimidated by sacred cows, and hellbent on asking the unaskable.
Thanks to the Wakefield witch hunt there will now be fewer scientists brave enough to take on prevailing scientific views. Basically, if you want to forge a career in science in 21st century Britain become a boring yes man.
Posted by: Rhodes | January 1, 2007 7:28 PM
Hm. Maybe that's why the scientific establishment closed ranks against him?
Posted by: Coin | January 1, 2007 7:53 PM
It is understood that the payments -- for writing reports, attending meetings and in some cases carrying out research -- were made at hourly rates varying between £120 and £200, or £1,000 a day.
It's really tempting to use my scientific superpowers for evil...
Posted by: Mike the Mad Biologist | January 1, 2007 8:33 PM
"The fact that the person who makes the challenge can be so vilified, sends out a terrible message to the scientists of tomorrow."
Yeah, it's so terrible to require future scientists to adhere to the scientific process, to value controls, and to actually know what the hell they're doing before turning the crank.
"Science needs its maverick researchers, its awkward characters who are unintimidated by sacred cows, and hellbent on asking the unaskable."
Yeah, for comedy purposes. Research is largely funded by public tax dollars. How about we solve cancer first and then worry about setting up a govt-sponsored organization to investigate the UFO coverup story. Here's a scared cow: honesty. Another? Competence.
Posted by: Bartholomew Cubbins | January 1, 2007 8:42 PM
Besides which as this investigation clearly shows he was no maverick but rather a shill, and he was no researcher but rather a spin doctor.
I'm all for speaking the unspeakable, but only when done with regard to evidence.
There's nothing wrong with being politically correct, so long as you are factually correct (or at least intellectually honest).
Posted by: James | January 1, 2007 10:48 PM
There's no "maybe" about it. Wakefield is a bad scientist; he's biased; and now he's been revealed as a shill for the trial lawyers looking to make money suing the government for "vaccine injuries" that aren't.
No he didn't. He proceeded from the assumption that there was something wrong and then designed a fallacious study to "prove" his assumption.
Gee, did you get that off of an antivaccination website?
Yep, definitely standard antivax boilerplate.
Apparently, it never occurred to you that the reason Wakefield is so vilified is because his science is exceedingly bad and his ethics dubious at best. Such people should be vilified in science.
Posted by: Orac | January 1, 2007 11:07 PM
Sorry, but I couldn't help but imagine that Road Apples would have been a more appropriate moniker than Rhodes.
Posted by: epador | January 2, 2007 1:23 AM
The idea that you can pump three lots of foreign material all at once into a whole generation of babies and children without any negative consequences is ludicrous, not to mention insanely dangerous.
Yes - I mean, letting babies drink milk (which contains a whle host of assorted antigens) must be dangerous! And as for letting children play outside - how many hundred different types of bacteria come through a single grazed knee? Lethal! And obviously, if the vaccine causes damage, imagine how much damage the real disease (containing all of the antigens in the vaccine and many, many more) does.
Now, where's my cheque from Big Pharma? What's the going rate for blog comments nowadays?
Posted by: Andrew Dodds | January 2, 2007 3:40 AM
Orac,
I am based in the UK and my 2-year-old son has been given the MMR vaccine. When he was born the MMR story was still very muddy in the popular press, so I read a lot of research myself and made up my own mind based on the credibility of the evidence provided by both sides. It is unfortunate that such a process is even necessary, and that such irresponsible hysteria can so easily damage our society. It was as part of this research process that I first found your blog, and I have been a regular reader ever since - in fact, I have found much of the information you have provided here to be invaluable, so thank you.
There are no hard and fast certainties to cling to and science rarely offers any - only the weighing up of risks and going with the balance of probability. Unfortunately, reassurances from government spokespeople do nothing to allay our fears - we remember similar statements during the BSE crisis all too well, and in such a climate the instinctive, fearful reaction is hard to overcome.
All that said, deciding to go with MMR, and taking my son to be vaccinated was still one of the most terrifying things I have ever done. I think there is little that is more horrifying to a parent than the idea that your own actions could directly and irreperably harm your child. I am a rational individual, and a strong proponent of the scientific method, and all that I had read on this subject could still not completely eradicate that fear.
Posted by: Dave | January 2, 2007 7:38 AM
The ignorance demonstrated in many of these responses is breathtaking.
I despair for the future of humanity when attitudes like these are so deeply ingrained, even in apparently intelligent people.
I thought science was about being open-minded, and receptive to new avenues of thought. Apparently not.
Instead it's some kind of narrow-minded religion where the unthinking have to follow the prevailing dogma of the era, and there's no greater pleasure than the childish delight that's obtained from gloating at someone else's mistakes.
Someone mentioned UFOs. Where did I ever talk about UFOs? It's clear you're not responding to my post, but to some stereotypical version of what you would have liked me to have said.
A happy New Year to you all.
Posted by: Rhodes | January 2, 2007 10:06 AM
And just for the record I am not anti vaccination, am up to date with all my jabs and have never visited an anti vaccination site in my life.
Some of you need to break free from the stereotypical view of the world that so enslaves your thought processes.
Posted by: Rhodes | January 2, 2007 10:14 AM
By "stereotypical world view," I presume that you must be referring to scientists' and doctors' extreme disapproval of Wakefield's failure to support his scaremongering with sound science and his appalling lack of ethics in accepting large payments from lawyers without disclosing them as a potential conflict of interest. If that's a "stereotypical world view," then I'll stick with it. I'm funny that way, and a bit old-fashioned. I value sound science, sound ethics, and transparency in disclosing potential conflicts of interest, all things that Wakefield (and, apparently, you, given your defense of Wakefield and painting him as some sort of martyr) do not share.
Posted by: Orac | January 2, 2007 10:35 AM
Rhodes,
If you wish to defend an individual who was paid BY LAWYERS to fabricate evidence against the MMR vaccine, then go ahead. But do not insult my intelligence by trying to convince me or anyone else that you are not an anti-vaxer, since you parrot their arguments so flawlessly. I mean, to the letter.
You're not fooling anyone.
Let me ask you this, my friend - while you may be up to date on your jabs, do you have children...and if so, do you intend to make sure they're up to date on all of theirs?
Yeah, I thought so.
Posted by: anonimouse | January 2, 2007 11:17 AM
His research was flawed and his findings were incorrect. If he really wanted to challenge assumptions he should have used proper research methods, declared his vested interests and, most importantly, not revised his conclusions at press reviews to garner the maximum publicity.
All over the world there are scientists who toil to "challenge assumptions" and improve our understanding of the world. They are not silenced by the "Witch hunt" around Wakefield because their methods are sound and if they come up with a "new conclusion" it will be valid and accepted.
As you can see the UFO post never implied that "you" had mentioned them, so I suggest you read the posts properly and not reply to a stereotypical version of what you would have liked people to have said.Other than that, thank you to Orac for posting this information and Happy New Year to you all.
Posted by: TW | January 2, 2007 11:30 AM
Thanks, Orac, for discussing this story. I hope all the lawyers associated with this abomination will be prohibited from practicing law ever again. Ditto for Wakefield and medicine.
Proud mom of a fully vaccinated child
Posted by: Melissa G | January 2, 2007 11:32 AM
APRIL 2006: A boy, 13, who had not received the MMR vaccine, becomes the first person to die of measles in 14 years
Yeah, poor Andrew Wakefield. He's made $$$ and all that kid got was a grave.
He still has his life. Come to the U.S. sometime Rhodes, the lowest of the developed nations in distribution of health care. Visit Mississippi sometime and see what you think about how "original" Wakefield's "questioning" is. (It's straight out of the revival tent--no wonder he's raking it in.)
Posted by: Kristine | January 2, 2007 11:52 AM
Rhodes, you really need to stop invoking the Galileo defence. Some people are simply wrong. In Wakefield's case, he was not only wrong, but wilfully and dishonestly so. He was wrong for money. The amount of noise this study received was vast compared to the amount of substance it actually had. Pages upon pages of frenzied tabloid attacks on our vaccination programme, that turned out to be completely unwarranted. As a result, the FUD is out there, and the completely unjustified suspicion over the safety of MMR lingers. Has there been an equivalent amount of publicity of this turn of events? Has there been a new media feeding frenzy, backtracking and apologising, setting the record straight? That's a big fat no right there.
There is no pleasure in exposing Wakefields work as rubbish. Merely disappointment that this sorry affair happened in the first place, that his work received an unjust amount of attention given how shabby it was, and that the effect on our society was so profound. People have a tendency to try to be fair and balanced, so when a controversy such as this is presented, with two sides so diametrically opposed, we tend to believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle. In reality, the truth is very rarely in the middle (one side can be far more correct than the other), but it is human nature to overlook that. Creating an artificial controversy to weaken your oponnent's position is a tried and true political technique, and it is exactly the strategy used by Intelligent Design proponents, fabricating a controversy where none exists. In this case a paper that turned out to be grade-A dishonest bullshit has forever left a stink over MMR. The attitude is now one of "no smoke without fire" - a bit like the one you're representing. Even if this guy was wrong, there must be *something* dodgy about MMR, right?
This kind of thing has to be fought, and fought vigorously, but no - you condemn the scientific community for doing even that! Should scientists ignore the tabloid hysteria and turn the other cheek? Silently work away as best as they can and hope it all turns out for the best? Assume that people will actually read and understand the academic works and make up their own minds, rather than getting their information from the mass media? Seriously, what are you actually suggesting?
Posted by: Dave | January 2, 2007 12:02 PM
Unfortunately, reassurances from government spokespeople do nothing to allay our fears - we remember similar statements during the BSE crisis all too well, and in such a climate the instinctive, fearful reaction is hard to overcome.
Which makes Wakefield's behavior all the worse; imagine knowingly putting misinformation about vaccines into a setting where the BSE debacle had already rattled confidence in the public health system.
Posted by: Clare | January 2, 2007 12:12 PM
Lucky, lucky you, Orac! There's a new thread at Smothering.com that links to this post, at http://www.mothering.com/discussions/showthread.php?t=586756. I just can't wait to see the spin that the tinfoil hat brigade tries to put on it.
Posted by: General Zia | January 2, 2007 1:32 PM
You said in a previous post that you felt uncomfortable about Wakefield being prosecuted. I take it that discomfort has now been dispelled? On the basis of this information it seems to me that he deserves at least a substantial fine, if not a period of compulsory leisure in a large Victorian building of limited egress.
Posted by: Stephen | January 2, 2007 1:50 PM
There you go again, making assumptions, trying to impose your stereotypes on me. I'm really sorry to disappoint but I don't fit.
These ideas are not copied from anywhere else. They are entirely my own. Judging by your comments thinking for oneself is unusual on this kind of forum. I find that sad.
For the record, I have absolutely no links to and no interest in any anti vaccination campaign. I and my kids are fully up to date, except for the MMR which I opted them out of, because as far as I am concerned it is several steps too far.
I sincerely hope I am wrong about this (because the consequences of being right could be horrendous). If I am proven to be wrong I will be the first to own up, but right now we simply do not know what the long term effects of this approach are.
Furthermore I do not trust the vested interests who are so certain of the total safety of MMR. That certainty alone should be enough to make any thoughtful person see danger signals.
Your unquestioning faith in modern pharmaceuticals is very touching. Excuse me, but I do not share it.
Posted by: Rhodes | January 2, 2007 2:26 PM
Posted by: Bronze Dog | January 2, 2007 2:31 PM
So interesting. I love to see you guys jumping up and down when every once in awhile you get a piece of good news on your side (very rare). Yes, so Wakefield is so horrible, right? Yeah, sure he is. He works with children with autism, sees similarities amongst them and studies the issue. Then asks for more research to be done? He is sooooo horrible. The nerve. Oh, yeah, he gets paid for his work. Hey, I'll be honest, it would have been better had his "research" been funded by the government officials whose job it is to protect children and ensure the safety of vaccinations... of course, that's too much to ask, isn't it? So, ok, conflict of interst... ok, getting paid for research by sources who would be interested in seeing a certain outcome? Cool. Ok. Let's talk all the bullcrap that goes on on your side? Can you say bogus epidemiological studies? Can you say CDC telling the IOM what to say in their reports? Can you say pharma companies paying other organizations to do their "safety studies". Can you talk of the CDC being responsible for both the promotion of vaccines as well as the safety of vaccines?
How about that? I never hear any talk of these things here. I wonder why?? Lame...
Posted by: Common Sense | January 2, 2007 2:43 PM
Common Moron,
You're missing the point again.
Wakefield lied about taking money from lawyers.
He lied about when he received that money.
He tries to be Mr. Sanctimonious when he was getting paid off AND was complicit in paying off people that got his research published.
The points you are making in your diatribe - most of which aren't valid anyway - are irrelevant. This about the conduct of Andrew Wakefield. If you think what the drug companies are doing in your paranoid fantasy world are bad, shouldn't you be condemning Wakefield in the same breath.
Posted by: anonimouse | January 2, 2007 2:59 PM
The points you are making in your diatribe - most of which aren't valid anyway - are irrelevant. This about the conduct of Andrew Wakefield.
You are a class act, Mouse. They need to recruit you for some mouse studies... thimerosal injected into mousey brains would be my choice. It is too bad that no matter how this conflict of interest, using money from other sources idea plays out... ultimately Wakefield is likely correct :)
As for my diatribe, what isn't valid?
Posted by: Common Sense | January 2, 2007 3:26 PM
The whole thing about Wakefield getting caught shilling is merely icing on the cake. It tastes good, but it's irrelevant to the core subject.
So far, we've still got the evidence in favor of vaccinations, and none for thimerosal-autism link.
All I see from CS is a failed attempt at tu quoque.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | January 2, 2007 3:27 PM
CS: ultimately Wakefield is likely correct :)
Correct about what? That he found persistent vaccine strain measles in the guts of autistic children? Really? Do you think he'll ever be proven correct on that one Sue?
You really don't care if it's measles, thimerosal, or formaldehyde, Sue. You'll side with anything that casts doubt on vaccine safety just because you don't like vaccination. True or false?
Posted by: clone3g | January 2, 2007 4:02 PM
Sue, it apparently doesn't bother you what someone says or does as long as they tag on a "call for research" bit at the end.
I've yet to see anyone criticizing Wakefield for the call itself. What is being criticized is the leadup to the call, which was formed in a way to focus attention to his call. Why couldn't he have simply done the research the right way? The answer is because he couldn't have published a link between the MMR and autism -- you see, there has never been one proven.
The people on this page who don't consume the typical mothering.com insanity as unadulterated fact believe in logic: IF followed by THEN. When doing so, there is no luxury of pandering feelings and suppositions as fact.
Sue, you're an antivaxxer through and through. You have a feeling that vaccines injured your children and you've run with that feeling trying to grab at any little piece of evidence that supports your feeling. You fail miserably at seeing the big picture, because you're hurt at what you see right in front of your face. I'm not laughing, there's nothing funny about a mother's angst. I hope you find peace in the end.
Posted by: Automatic Caveat Machine | January 2, 2007 4:19 PM
"But the fact is he asked questions and challenged asusmptions that needed to be asked and challenged."
Woo-Suk Hwang's work would have been beneficial to mankind and might have helped all sorts of childhood disease. He's probably a good guy and wanted to help humanity so we should just give him a pass on the whole stem cell cloning thing.
Posted by: Snuppy | January 2, 2007 5:11 PM
I was wondering how long it would take somebody to mention Woo-Suk Hwang. For those who don't recognize the name, he's the disgraced Korean cloning researcher who took a few, um, "short cuts" in his research. As a consequence, most of his research on the subject is now impossible to judge scientifically. It's essentially junk now. We'll probably never know if he was on to something. And it was all done because he was lured by the promise of grant money.
It happens from time to time in science. The temptation to take the easy way can be all too alluring. This is something scientists and the public must always be on guard against. Science, contrary to an earlier assertion in this thread, isn't about being open-minded. It's about being honest -- brutally honest, especially with oneself. That is the first line of defense against fatal conflicts of interest like this one. Wakefield most certainly should've known what he was doing was wrong, and that he didn't have the evidence to back his statements. He's not an idiot. So he either cast science aside in the pursuit of wealth, or he allowed himself to go into denial, lured by the promise of money. Either way, it's not good news for his research.
People are not right because they ask "the tough questions" or because they are controversial. Certainly some people who do so will turn out to be right, but definitely not all. This is why it is important to be open-minded enough to entertain their ideas -- but critical enough to recognize when they're full of it, or when their ideas simply don't have enough to back them up just yet.
Posted by: Calli Arcale | January 2, 2007 5:44 PM
This is an important discussion because it DOES affect children into their futures. The conflict of interest among researchers must be brought out and reviled continuously, because if left unchecked it damages all the good that medical science has done. My daughter questioned the necessity of polio vaccine for her newborn because of this quack, despite the fact that her father (who had polio at 6 just before the vaccine was available) is now in a wheelchair and experiencing post-polio syndrome, and despite the fact that, living in Arizona, we are three hours away from from a border with desperately poor people who have NO access to medical care at all. Thank her good sense that she understood intelligent arguments.
Wake up. We are hours away from any epidemic, anywhere.
I am so furious when I read about researchers on the take! How dare they exchange the lives of children for cash!
And now I really want an in-depth review of how the guys who pushed postmenopausal hormone therapy got away with that for so long? How many miles do we have to run for breast cancer research before we discover how many women died because of that pharmaceutical boondoggle?
Posted by: herdottiness | January 2, 2007 7:03 PM
You'll side with anything that casts doubt on vaccine safety just because you don't like vaccination. True or false?
False
Posted by: Common Sense | January 2, 2007 7:10 PM
You have a feeling that vaccines injured your children and you've run with that feeling trying to grab at any little piece of evidence that supports your feeling.
Really? I have injured children?
Posted by: Common Sense | January 2, 2007 7:15 PM
I am so furious when I read about researchers on the take! How dare they exchange the lives of children for cash!
How ironic... I don't think you have any idea about all the "behind the scenes" manipulation that has gone on in this debate. I wish you did, you may even be able to see the light. Until then, you guys are a waste of energy.
Posted by: Common Sense | January 2, 2007 7:20 PM
Common Sue said: False
So you do like vaccines? Name five things you like about them?
Posted by: clone3g | January 2, 2007 7:24 PM
So you do like vaccines? Name five things you like about them?
Hee hee... Am I in kindergarten again? No thanks, Clone.
Posted by: Common Sense | January 2, 2007 7:42 PM
How ironic... I don't think you have any idea about all the "behind the scenes" manipulation that has gone on in this debate. I wish you did, you may even be able to see the light. Until then, you guys are a waste of energy.
There you have it, guys. This dude knows far more about the medical industry than medical professionals like Orac and others who post here. He thinks your a waste of energy, I say he's a waste of oxygen. Feeding trolls like this thing will get you nowhere.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | January 2, 2007 8:24 PM
Correction: "You're" not "your".
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | January 2, 2007 8:25 PM
There you have it, guys. This dude knows far more about the medical industry than medical professionals like Orac and others who post here. He thinks your a waste of energy, I say he's a waste of oxygen. Feeding trolls like this thing will get you nowhere.
Another newbie. I can't stand it here for this reason. Too many clueless newbies who THINK they know something. Yawn....
Posted by: Common Sense | January 2, 2007 8:28 PM
Although, to be fair, if the kid who died from measles was 13, then he was born in 1993, and would have had his MMR (if he'd had one, which he didn't) several years before the Wakefield paper.
I'm just saying.
Posted by: miz_geek | January 2, 2007 8:49 PM
There seems to be a lot of childish tribalism going on here which most sensible people will just sidestep.
I'm neither pro vaccine nor anti vaccine. I don't see this issue in those simplistic terms.
I am merely concerned about the safety of children, and wish to err on the side of caution.
Bear in mind that MMR is a significant and unprecedented intervention involving a threefold assault on the underdeveloped immune systems of an entire generation.
Is that really such a sensible way to proceed?
But hey. Maybe everything will turn out right - all benefits and no downside.
And there again maybe if I walk blindfold across a major highway I'll reach the other side unscathed.
What we're doing is playing dice with our children's future. And what we're seeing is scientific arrogance getting in the way of good decision making.
No doubt Wakefield transgressed in this respect too. In that case he is little different from the pro MMR lobby who continue to display an unbelievable lack of humility in the face of so many unknowns.
Whether Wakefield is a crook or made some honest mistakes, or indeed something more complicated than that happened, is a side issue compared to the uncertain long term effects of this program.
I realize there is great satisfaction to be gained from rounding on a wounded member of the herd and clubbing it to the death, but I'd rather spend my time more productively.
Posted by: Rhodes | January 2, 2007 8:50 PM
miz-geek: The child who died is not the only victim. Some children with other medical issues cannot be vaccinated, so they must depend on herd immunity. Like these two young men who were disabled by measles:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1061838,00.html
Posted by: HCN | January 2, 2007 9:08 PM
The details are now vague, and I am signing off for the evening so I am not going to search for them... The child who died of measles in the UK was either not vaccinated because of some family beliefs (something like they were "gypsies") or because he also had some lung condition.
Anyway, I kind of remember the response from Scudamore (the whale.to guy, a known usenet loon) was something along the line of "the kid was sick anyway".
I am kind of ignoring Rhodes... but the MMR used in the UK is pretty much the same one that has been used in the United States since 1971. The big change in the late 1980s was the switch from the Urabe strain of mumps to the Jeryl Lynn strain.
What needs to be done is for anyone concerned about the "safety" issue is to produce some kind of study showing what the dangers are... Paper published in "Medical Hypothesis" and by the "Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons" would not be acceptical (for the former look up the what the word "hypothesis" means, and for the latter, it is a political group not a medical one!). For my part I present this paper:
Encephalopathy after whole-cell pertussis or measles vaccination: lack of evidence for a causal association in a retrospective case-control study.
from Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2006 Sep;25(9):768-73 ... abstract at www.pubmed.gov at:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16940831&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum
Posted by: HCN | January 2, 2007 9:45 PM
Clarification: The big change for the UK was the change in the mumps component. The American vaccine had been using the Jeryl Lynn mumps strain (spelling?) since 1968 (the year I got mumps!). It was in the first American MMR.
By the way, one has to clarify which vaccine they are talking about. The MMR used in Japan is different than the one used in the UK... This is also true of the "DTP" vaccine.
Posted by: HCN | January 2, 2007 9:49 PM
Last one until tomorrow I promise! I just noticed this paper on the side of the one listed above. I include it here just for Common Sue:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/108/6/e112
Posted by: HCN | January 2, 2007 9:56 PM
Don't feed the particularly stupid trolls - they lack basic literary skills and math is such a bore.........anecdote is so much easier than those silly p value things and who can read those ghastly statistical clinical trial and WHO thingeys...The antivaxers are child abusers - they are not just dangerous idiots , their "worldview" kills children. The worst part of it is of course , that most of them had a full set of vaccinations , but deny their kids the same protection.
Make no mistake you antivaxers - you are no better than any other kind of garden variety child molester.
Posted by: Thirldworlder | January 3, 2007 1:13 AM
This has been bothering me for a while now, and I can't let Rhodes go unchecked on this one:
(MMR)...is a threefold assault on the underdeveloped immune systems of an entire generation
We're talking about a handful of antigens - a tiny fraction of what any human being would encounter in a particular day. And these are attenuated viruses at that. This is not some kind of overwhelming assault on the immune system here. But of course, when you're really hate vaccines and oppose them mightily, you'll say things like "assault on the immune system" because it's loaded with all sorts of negative connotations.
Posted by: anonimouse | January 3, 2007 1:14 AM
Remember on PZ's thread, someone was commenting about the antigen exposure being "unnatural."
Well, of course it's unnatural. Nature would have us get the disease and risk death and disfigurement, rather than just a mild fever.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | January 3, 2007 7:23 AM
Rhodes:
I'm neither pro vaccine nor anti vaccine. I don't see this issue in those simplistic terms.
[...]
Bear in mind that MMR is a significant and unprecedented intervention involving a threefold assault on the underdeveloped immune systems of an entire generation.
Why do you even bother pretending to be reasonable with statements like that first one when you then follow up in this way? Could you possibly have found more biased language than the second sentence I quoted? I have no doubt that you'll be looking for some for your next post.
Bear in mind that "bear in mind" doesn't in itself make the following statement true. Naturally, you don't bother making yourself at all clear, preferring to launch alarmist rhetoric, but precisely what about MMR are you saying is unprecedented? As you're well aware, it's certainly not the first vaccine around, so I really don't know what you mean.
While we're bearing things in mind, how about the problems in the UK mentioned in this very article?
Rhodes:
But hey. Maybe everything will turn out right - all benefits and no downside.
[ridiculous highway analogy snipped]
What we're doing is playing dice with our children's future.
Yeah, more or less. Maybe you've got the gift of prophecy, but we mortals can't predict exactly what the future holds, so we do the best we can with estimates. This reminds me of silliness from "Common Sense", who claimed some time ago in all caps that she would never accept anything less than 100% safety from vaccines. I wonder how the two of you can manage not to be incapacitated by anxiety with such attitudes, since no activity is free of risk. Those who choose no or partial vaccination for their children are playing dice with them, but most likely playing poorly. Diseases have absolutely no respect for your wish to keep "foreign material" out and I tend not to see many kids who live in sterile environments. Like it or not, children may well be exposed to disease and the choice of vaccination is one way to help keep them safe from harm.
But hey. Maybe everything will turn out right - "disease, disease, go away, come again some other day!" If only life were like that, doctors would no doubt be glad enough not to have to worry about diseases or vaccinating against them. Now, if actual evidence were presented that vaccines are worse than the diseases for which they are intended, we'd take notice. However, there's not much convincing about frauds like Wakefield and low-content antivax rhetoric like this.
Posted by: wrg | January 3, 2007 9:26 AM
I think that describing Wakefield as 'singlehandedly' causing the dangerous decline in MMR vaccination rates is wrong. The completely irresponsible (not to say hysterical) reporting by the UK news media was the real problem. They're now busy backtracking of course and chucking as much shit as they can at Wakefield as a way of obscuring this. Don't get me wrong, his behaviour was inexcusably and certainly deserves punishment, but I regard them as far more to blame for frightening parents and putting thousands of children at risk.
Posted by: sharon | January 3, 2007 11:51 AM
miz-geek: The child who died is not the only victim. Some children with other medical issues cannot be vaccinated, so they must depend on herd immunity. Like these two young men who were disabled by measles:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1061838,00.html
Tragic. No doubt. Unfortunately, things like this also happen. Let's not forget about them while we are discussing this topic.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=391163&in_page_id=1770
Posted by: Common Sense | January 3, 2007 12:54 PM
Anyway, I kind of remember the response from Scudamore (the whale.to guy, a known usenet loon) was something along the line of "the kid was sick anyway".
Can we get this quote in context please? Not that I don't trust you or anything.
Posted by: Common Sense | January 3, 2007 12:56 PM
Last one until tomorrow I promise! I just noticed this paper on the side of the one listed above. I include it here just for Common Sue:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/108/6/e112
Thanks for posting this again... as if I haven't seen it 100 times. What I would like you to find for me is either a) A study like this done on children born PREVIOUS to 1988 (that's the approximate time that children started to get more vaccinations and of course the added thimerosal) vs. children born in the mid-1990's or b) a study comparing vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children.
If you find either one of those, feel free to post.
Otherwise, are you interested in looking at the numbers of children diagnosed with type 1 diabetes in Australia of late? It seems as if the number of young children (under age 5) who have been diagnosed with type 1 diabetes has doubled (yes doubled) over the past 5 years or so. Are you interested in discussing how the Australian vaccination policy changed in approx. 1997. Seems as if the emphasis on vaccinations was pretty obvious:
http://www.immunise.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishing.nsf/Content/history#iaspp
Must be a coincidence.
Posted by: Common Sense | January 3, 2007 1:09 PM
Sue, you had me read that whole story and then looked at the comments only to see sex therapist Dr. J McCandless weigh in with her sexy opinion about vaccines. That's indicative of the whole anti-vax propaganda. I feel so badly for the parents of those two children in the article, but then someone who is a key player in the anti-vax and autism treatment movement - someone with expertise like sex therapy - is interjected as evidence.
You've built up your story on feelings and horror stories from individuals in order to fit your belief. Real scientists, unlike Wakers, have to go the other way: observation, formulate a hypothesis, and then test the hypothesis using the proper methodology. It's a pain, but in the end, it works.
And then I have to ask - what does the MMR have to do with your child's diabetes? Do you honestly feel there's a correlation? Did you find live virus in his/her gut? Or are you simply concentrating on the mercury story?
Posted by: Evidence by Sex Therapist | January 3, 2007 1:10 PM
Sue, you had me read that whole story and then looked at the comments only to see sex therapist Dr. J McCandless weigh in with her sexy opinion about vaccines. That's indicative of the whole anti-vax propaganda. I feel so badly for the parents of those two children in the article, but then someone who is a key player in the anti-vax and autism treatment movement - someone with expertise like sex therapy - is interjected as evidence.
You are kidding, right? This was an article in a newspaper. Dr. McCandless must have read the article and commented on the article. How does this constitute being "injected as evidence"? You are twisted.
And then I have to ask - what does the MMR have to do with your child's diabetes? Do you honestly feel there's a correlation? Did you find live virus in his/her gut? Or are you simply concentrating on the mercury story?
Where did I say the mmr had anything to do with the diabetes? You obviously have no clue. The reason that I brought up the type 1 diabetes was in regards to the link that HCN posted (rather off topic, blame him/her). You guys need to wrap your head around what is being said and who is saying it... clearly you get confused easily.
Posted by: Common Sense | January 3, 2007 3:03 PM
I'll take the antivax/Sue M. stance and ask you to prove that you're not an antivax extremist, that you do not feel that there is a government conspiracy to poison children in order to propagate the earned income of pharma execs and political advisors and that you don't believe that vaccines (name your favorite) caused your child's diabetes.
Posted by: Proving a negative | January 3, 2007 4:29 PM
I'm a parent of an autistic kid, and someone recommended that I came over here, but after a quick browse, I see that there's no solutions being discussed here. It's also obvious that if my story doesn't fit the agendas of some people that I'm going to get yelled at and insulted. Life is too hard; I'd rather not deal with more crap.
I don't know whether the MMR vaccine caused my son's symptoms. What I do know is that the Wakefield ethic investigations related to the "consent" issue predated all of this information, and that it was a railroad. Maybe Wakefield did screw up, but that first investigation shows that there are also interested parties in power, and that the MMR issue is not going to get serious examination. Until it does, it's the most likely suspect. My son got his MMR vaccine late in his 4th year, and that's when the symptoms started. Normally they vaccinate earlier and the symptoms start earlier. I couldn't understand it when our case report file kept on getting changed. The dates pushing the vaccine to earlier. Then someone started adding facts to suggest he'd shown autism symptoms earlier. So we brought back in the earlier doctor reports, and showed the vaccine dates again. Not saying it's a conspiracy. What I'm seeing is closed minds, and people who would rather shut off inconvenient facts.
All the sarcasm and insults in the world aren't going to change that.
I don't trust the anti-vaccine folks; the stories they tell sound too far out. But I sure as hell am not going to trust people who use anger, sarcasm, venom, and gloating to reply the honest questions of desparate parents. My son's last words before he lost ability to speak were "I need some medicine, Mom." I go on these anti-anti vaccine sites and I see people blaming parents, saying that we're trying to force our kids into moulds and should just adapt to their autism. We have adapted, and will continue to adapt. But I'm not going to forget my son's last request before whatever this is buried him alive. I'm not trying to make him be "normal." My son was never normal; he was brilliant. I just want to him to be able to tell me what's on his mind. There's nothing wrong with that.
Posted by: Christian | January 4, 2007 1:20 AM
No, it wasn't a "railroad." To get the samples analyzed, colonoscopies were required, some of which were done based dubious indications.
I'm curious why, after all this, you still think MMR is the "most likely suspect." Science would say otherwise, and even if these minds were all as closed as you describe and the government really was trying to prevent an investigation (neither of which I accept), the science simply doesn't support your statement, particularly in light of the large Canadian study published last summer. The MMR issue has gotten serious investigation; it has not panned out. No one has been able to replicate Wakefield's results. All we have now are cronies of his who keep claiming that they've replicated his results but somehow can never quite get around to publishing them. They've been claiming it for a few years now, which should be plenty of time to get it published if they really had the results. I suppose it's all part of the "conspiracy."
Once again, as I've said before, even though I can understand how some parents can mistakenly come to believe that it was the MMR that caused their children's autism, the difficulties they have suffered and sympathy they may deserve should not inoculate them from criticism when they start spouting conspiracy theories and bad science. Wakefield is nothing but a cynical opportunist; you would do well not to hitch your wagon to his.
Posted by: Orac | January 4, 2007 6:58 AM
MMR is NOT the most likely trigger for autism, and to suggest as such is quite frankly ridiculous.
However, the rubella disease itself, when contracted by a woman during the first term of her pregnancy, is considered a risk factor for a child becoming autistic. There's more than a sliver of irony there.
Posted by: