I know I said I'd probably chill this weekend and not post anything new until after New Years, but another thing showed up in my in box that--shall we say?--inspired me to post another quickie. It's Medscape's list of the Physicians of the Year: Best and Worst. It starts with the worst, and guess who shows up first?
Andrew Wakefield, who is described thusly:
Wakefield's MMR-Autism Vaccine Study an "Elaborate Fraud"
In January, the BMJ published a series of 3 articles and editorials charging that the study published in The Lancet in 1998 by Andrew Wakefield (pictured above) and colleagues linking the childhood measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine to a "new syndrome" of regressive autism and bowel disease was not just bad science but "an elaborate fraud." Wakefield was planning to market a diagnostic testing kit with expected yearly sales of 28 million pounds (US $43 million) as well as immunotherapeutics and a "safer single measles shot," for which he held a patent. The third article in the BMJ series claimed that the medical establishment "closed ranks" to protect Wakefield.
Thank you, Brian Deer, from the bottom of my heart.
It's instructive to see who some of the other worst doctors of 2011 are, according to Medscape. Here are some of them:
- Medicare fraudsters, ten physicians who, along with around 80 accomplices, falsely billed Medicare for around $295 million.
- Dr. Rolando Arafiles, an incompetent physician who abused his position as a physician in a tiny rural hospital in Texas to sell supplements and, when two nurses complained, got the sheriff (also his business partner) to find out who these nurses were, leading to their being wrongfully fired. The sheriff did go to jail. One thing the news media didn't report is just how into serious quackery Arafiles was. Unfortunately, Arafiles unfortunately did not go to jail, though he richly deserved to, in my not-so-humble opinion.
- Dr. Conrad Murray, the physician who gave Michael Jackson his propofol.
- Gerald J. Klein, MD and 13 other doctors charged with selling opiods.
- Kermit Gosnell, MD, who was charged by a Pennsylvania grand jury with the murder of 7 newborn infants and a Bhutanese immigrant named Karnamaya Mongar, who died of cardiac arrest in 2009 following a Demerol overdose dispensed by unlicensed, untrained, and unsupervised clinic employees, among other things.
- Mark Midell, MD, who implanted hundreds of unneeded stents when he worked at St. Joseph Medical Center in Towson, Maryland.
Yes, I do think that Dr. Wakefield is deserving of being in such "august" company.
- Log in to post comments
Some of the best list includes
Andrew Wakefield for his excellent work on opening up the truth to people.
Mike Adames for his excellent website and research
Byron J. Richards for his excellent website and research
Doctor I.M. Smart for his personal research and annoyance of liberals who refuse alternative medicine.
Other "best of" includes
The worst of the worst includes
PZ Myers for fornicating polls
CBS News for pandering to the far left
PBS for pandering to the pagan earth warming worshippers
HAARP for destroying portions of Japan, Alabama, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Georgia
The far left for joining forces with radical muslims in ousting leaders and replacing them with Sharia law loving tyrants.
CERN and HAARP for opening a portal over Norway and letting weird creatures in.
NASA for hiding that spaceship and mummy they found on the moon and then nuking the site so others would never know (Apollo 18)
I never liked onions, but I do like Ketchup. I also love fried chicken with homeade rolls, french fries, and butterbeans and a tall glass of coca cola.
I forgot to add the federal government for the WORST OF list
The TSA completely out of control with highway monitoriing in Tennessee in the last couple of months. Also for the Senate for passing the bill that would allow the US military to detain a US citizen indefinitely without a trial is suspected (not convicted) of being a "terrorist". I think we know where they are going with this since the Obama administration sees TEA partiers as "terrorists". Camp FEMA is looking more real everyday now. Except the right looks at the 99 percenters as terroists as well. This could go either way depending on which party has the most control.
So, the federal government has to be at the top of the list for "worst of" for all eternity..
Not sure who Rob is in all of this, but I did have some popcorn a few minutes ago. As far as someone being able to counter HAARP, I doubt it. It would take billions of dollars or one big EMP device over Alaska. Then again I could be mistaken. Russia has its own HAARP weather warfare toys as well. it could have been Russia who targeted us, but being as the strongest signal hit Japan first, i would be willing to bet it was our own government who did it. I guess Japan's car that runs on water will not be coming to the states after all. I do not completely trust orgone products and cloudbusters to counter HAARP, but I'll let other deal with that.
Dean- I, like you then, are in the 99 %?
Seriously? I already told you on a previous post that I frequented the stupid "blog" and was kicked out. Shame that you fail to read. maybe too much sodium flouride in your water supply? You aren't Canadian are you?
I see Chris is still missing a few chromosomes. Methinks he sold them on ebay. A good place to purchase a new one.
Must have been on a post that you eventually ran away from like the Happy "holidays" (MERRY CHRISTMAS) post. Anyway, you know now.
When chris lost his chromosomes You didn't per chance pick them up and snort them did you? Are you also missing a few chromosomes? Maybe all those mercury laden vaccines have messed with your brain cells.
Now, if you will excuse me I must go and nibble on some snacks.
Not sure wether this is a science conversation or a troll invasion from hell.
You forgot one. The one who should be at the top of the list is Orac. I can't find anyone who is as much of a crank and a quack than he is.
Did they forget to include Mark Geier?
Cheers, Andrew! Here's to your new title.
And cheers to our esteemed host, my fellow shills and sister minions and of course, my beloved lurkers. I wish you all a happy, healthy new year and that the economy in the country you live in doesn't crumble into tiny bits ( aw, most of you live in the *safer* economies anyway so don't fret). So hurray for us!
Wakers making the list of worst docs is perfect.
Happy New Year all.
It's true that Mark Geier deserves to be on the list as well.
I don't recall Dr. Geier doing enough in 2011 to make the list.
However, he and Dr. Mercola should get consideration for lifetime negative achievement awards.
I had heard about the nurses - but not the sheriff and not the doctor. I hope the nurses found new jobs with ethical practices.
As for Conrad Murray - some libertarian types were insisting he did nothing wrong. After all, people should take whatever drugs they want to! It doesn't matter how you explain how dangerous drugs can be alone, or how the average lay person has only a vague idea as to correct dosage, or how the average lay person usually is completely ignorant of drug interactions - people should be free to do what they like. BTW - the libertarian view isn't just for pain relief or recreational drugs, but that terminally ill patients be given full access to whatever drugs they think will help them.
Reminds me of what the Geiers did.
Ah, but in my previous post I mistakenly repeated a link instead of including this one:
While a "lifetime negative achievement" award may be appropriate, I think Geier remains a strong candidate for an AoA Gallileo Award, although Judy Mikovitz is making a strong come-from-behind effort with her XMRV misadventures.
Why would Wakefield be in the worst category?
Would it be because he actually listened to parents and cared about their children? (as opposed to the other blowhard doctors who ignored the parents)?
Is it because he wrote a paper and suggested that more research be done? (He never stated that the mmr caused autism)? Is that what makes his so horrible?
Is it because he suggested that injecting babies with *3* live viruses at once may be too much for some developing immune systems? (I suppose that is too hard to believe for some of you geniuses... lol!)
You guys can take Brian Deer any day... he's a man-troll. He has been shown over and over again to be someone who has no respect for parents and their autistic children. Good luck with having that troll on your "side".
Happy New Year!
Because he's an incompetent fraud. SATSQ.
Yes Brian Deer, pharmaceutical companies and injured children everywhere say thank you. Stay proud.
Dr. Wakefield an incompetent fraud?
Sorry... I think that you must have him confused with Dr. For Profit Offit.
Honestly, this is an opinion (Wakefield on worst list). People are entitled to their opinion but it certainly doesn't make it true or correct. To me, it's just another propaganda piece. You can't take this stuff too seriously. The fact that Orac thinks it is worthy of his getting in one more entry before the year ends, just shows me that he is wrapped up in the propaganda. Time to get some independent thinking skills, Orac!
Wakefield was hired by a solicitor to find problems with the MMR Vaccine. He took 12 children from the lawsuit and subjected them to needless and invasive tests. When the tests failed to show what he wanted to show, he faked his data. In addition, he tried to set up businesses to profit from the scare he generated Oh, and there's a little technique called Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD). That's where you suggest that there may be a problem with X, but you don't explicitly state that there is.
Did anyone else's Irony Meter just explode?
Yeah, except for Merck. Deer's expose of Vioxx put rather a crimp in their profits, IIRC.
Announcing the Troll, NotTelling as the recipient of the coveted 2011 Respectful Insolence P. W. Herman "I Know You Are But What Am I" Cup for Utterly Ineffectual Dissing. Accepting the award in absentia, the hapless troll responded thusly, "No, you are a troll . . . trollhead! Orac is too a quack and a big dumb poo-head . . . times infinity!"
Lord Draconis Zeneca, Subjugator General of Terra and chair . . . person of the RI Awards Committee ordered the indestructible, 30kg cup to be delivered to the recipient from low orbit, launching it out of the level 12, axial airlock. It should reach its targ . . . I mean recipient any minute now.
Thank you all for playing.
Brian Deer has regularly taken on pharmaceutical companies. Two easily found examples:
Implying that Brian Deer's investigation and exposure of Wakefield has anything to do with gratifying drug companies, is lame even for antivax conspiracy theorists.
Wow, was the Wakefield retraction really just this year? How time flies... It's seriously amazing to me that people are still defending him, given just how hard he screwed the pooch.
@6 - Agreed. I'd also put that guy from 2010 who marketed an industrial chelator as a 'supplement' up for a lifetime award - he may have been a one-hit wonder, but gosh darned if that one hit wasn't a doozy.
I'd also put that guy from 2010 who marketed an industrial chelator as a 'supplement' up for a lifetime award - he may have been a one-hit wonder, but gosh darned if that one hit wasn't a doozy.
Boyd Haley's not a doctor, though. Not really a one-hit wonder, either--one has to earn one's own whale page.
I agree that the chelation fraud is worthy of this list but Boyd Haley was a professor of chemistry at the University of Kentucky, not a doctor as far as I know. Still, a worthy negative achiever.
A wonderful list, Orac, and happy new year!
@Duh? - Julian Frost has thoughtfully provided you with the condensed version of why Andrew Wakefield has been rightfully stripped of his license to practice medicine. He's a disgrace to the profession.
A very Happy New Year to Orac and all the shills, minions and dupes in the RI hive mind, and here's to hoping Dr Burzynksi makes the cut for next year's worst doctor list!
@17, 18: Ah, good point. I'd forgotten the specifics of that debacle - they sort of got drowned out by the tidal wave of "He gave those kids WHAT?!"
Maybe there should be some kind of award for cross-discipline crankery - doctors expounding on global warming, chemists expounding on autism treatments, et cetera.
"Wakefield was hired by a solicitor to find problems with the MMR Vaccine. He took 12 children from the lawsuit and subjected them to needless and invasive tests. When the tests failed to show what he wanted to show, he faked his data. In addition, he tried to set up businesses to profit from the scare he generated Oh, and there's a little technique called Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD). That's where you suggest that there may be a problem with X, but you don't explicitly state that there is".
I'm not some newbie who hasn't followed this topic for years now, okay. I know your arguments about how awful Dr. Wakefield is and how he did such awful testing on poor little children (many tests which are standard procedures for children with GI problems). I know, so don't think for a second that I haven't heard all this nonsense before... I am simply telling you that there is another side of the story - Dr. Wakefield's - and I find that one more believable. Now, that's not to say that I am right.... but let's face it... "Your" side isn't necessarily right either. Got it?
Keep in mind, there was every reason for those in the UK to make Dr. Wakefield out to be a villain. Those medical personnel absolutely needed to make someone a scapegoat as those geniuses approved a vaccine for use in their country which had already been recalled in other countries. Remember that piece of the puzzle? Apparently, you forgot to mention that in your little summary of the Wakefield scandal.
Wakefield has at last reached the top of a list.
Probably not the list he intended, it reads like a who's-who of medical bad-guys. The only one they missed was Geier of the "Lupron Protocol", who deserves to be force-fed his own treatments.
Oh, do tell us what research he used to come to that conclusion! Please list the title, journal and date of the studies that started in 1971 when the USA approved its MMR vaccine and ended in 1997 that support Wakefield's claim. Because it was certainly not in his now retracted Lancet paper!
What do you mean "a" vaccine. There was more than one MMR vaccine in use between 1988 and 1992 in the UK. Be so kind as to tell which MMR vaccine that retracted series of case studies was specifically targeting. One of three approved in UK before 1992, or the one used afterwards. And why was there an American who would have a different MMR vaccine?
We keep asking you for evidence of these injured children, especially when compared to those who have been injured by the actual diseases. Are you finally able to give us the real evidence? Seriously, Jen, where is the evidence that the MMR used in the USA is more dangerous than measles, mumps and rubella?
You do realize that by bringing up the problems with the Urabe strain of the mumps component of the MMR when Wakefield was promoting problems with the measles component just makes Wakefield appear even more incompetent, don't you?
For someone who supposedly has been following Wakefield for what, a decade or more, you really don't seem to have a clue about what actually occured, do you?
Let's see, based on Deer's research and the GMC inquest - we have, at minimum, failure to state COI, contra-indicative medical tests, paying for test subjects, medical records that don't match what Wakefield presented as his findings, among a whole host of other problems. Not to mention, there hasn't been a single reputable study that has replicated his results - so I'm having a hard time believing that anyone that has looked at the evidence would find Wakefield as anything other than an opportunistic charlatan.
I wasn't aware that spinal taps were "standard procedure" for GI problems. Please, enlighten me further.
You're right, he didn't state that in his paper. He just made a successful career out of stating it everywhere else. If he didn't actually think that MMR caused autism, then you'd think he would have clarified that somewhere along the line, instead of letting himself become a mascot for the cause.
Chemmomo, what makes it worse is that one of the MMR vaccines approved in the UK at that time did not have the Urabe strain. And what makes even worse was when Wakefield called for single vaccines some opportunistic folks illegally imported a single mumps vaccine, which was the Urabe strain:
"Oh, do tell us what research he used to come to that conclusion! Please list the title, journal and date of the studies that started in 1971 when the USA approved its MMR vaccine and ended in 1997 that support Wakefield's claim. Because it was certainly not in his now retracted Lancet paper!"
Oh, God help us. You mean that in order to even question the science behind injecting babies with 3 live viruses at once, you need to have the journal entries before about the dangers? Says a lot about how our medical professionals work around here. Approve the vaccines and then worry about the consequences later.... Yup, that's about right.
As everyone should know, before Wakefield was even a blip on the radar, there were already major concerns about the Urabe strain mmr vaccine... The medical professionals in the UK knew they screwed up... and luckily they were able to push all that blame over to Wakefield to cover their own butts. This shouldn't be news.
Thank you Duh for guaranteeing us lots more of RI to come in the next year, it's people like you whose utter lack of logical thinking ensure us a full inbox for the blinking lights box.
Happy New Year everybody, be safe.
"You're right, he didn't state that in his paper. He just made a successful career out of stating it everywhere else. If he didn't actually think that MMR caused autism, then you'd think he would have clarified that somewhere along the line, instead of letting himself become a mascot for the cause".
The paper is the paper. It was retracted based of the conclusion that more research is needed... LOL! So funny.... How horrible.
If Wakefield's opinion is that the mmr is an untested, possibly unsafe vaccine that may in fact cause autism, that he is allowed to give his opinion on that. That of course is separate from the paper. Geniuses.
Well, since it had been in use for around twenty years before Wakefield even heard of an MMR vaccine, surely there was some data. If he had suspicions the first thing would be to do a literature search that goes all the back to the 1960s on the development, testing and use of one particular MMR vaccine.
Why is that too complicated an idea for you to grasp?
Indexed on PubMed are studies of the Japanese use of the DTaP vaccine that were used to change the vaccine criteria in the USA:
Pediatrics. 1996 Feb;97(2):236-42.
Comparison of diphtheria-tetanus-two component acellular pertussis vaccines in United States and Japanese infants at 2, 4, and 6 months of age.
J Infect Dis. 1993 Jul;168(1):21-4.
Acellular pertussis vaccines--a solution to the pertussis problem.:Available data relating to pertussis and pertussis immunization are frequently overlooked or misinterpreted. Mortality due to pertussis is underreported. Most whole cell pertussis vaccines are effective; there is no evidence that pertussis vaccines cause brain damage. Moreover, acellular pertussis vaccines have been used successfully in Japan since 1981.
So why can't Wakefield and you guys come up with similar review studies?
Why should we care about his opinion about the safety of a vaccine if he can't back it up with real data? Why did he not find these studies:
Bull World Health Organ. 1970;42(2):283-9.
Experience with live rubella virus vaccine combined with live vaccines against measles and mumps.
JAMA. 1969 Mar 24;207(12):2259-62.
Combined live measles, mumps, and rubella virus vaccines.
Am J Dis Child. 1971 May;121(5):380-1.
Combined live measles, mumps, rubella vaccine. Immunological response.
JAMA. 1971 Oct 4;218(1):57-61.
Trivalent combined measles-mumps-rubella vaccine. Findings in clinical-laboratory studies.
Clin Pediatr (Phila). 1973 Mar;12(3):170-2.
A field trial of combined measles-mumps-rubella vaccine. Satisfactory immunization with 188 children in Chile.
> Posted by: Anj
> BTW - the libertarian view isn't just for pain
> relief or recreational drugs, but that terminally
> ill patients be given full access to whatever
> drugs they think will help them.
> Reminds me of what the Geiers did.
Letting terminally-ill people have access to any drugs they want reminds you of the quacks who subjected autistic kids to lupron and chelation? You are a morally disturbed person. I hope you don't end up in a position to care for either autistic children or old people.
The paper is the paper. It was retracted based of the conclusion that more research is needed... LOL!
Where's that in the retraction, again?
Crud, I even previewed my comment! I actually forgot blockquotes. One part should say:
J Infect Dis. 1993 Jul;168(1):21-4.
Acellular pertussis vaccines--a solution to the pertussis problem.:
Back to you, Huh and Duh to tell us why Wakefield was just going on gut instinct when there was research on MMR vaccines dating to the 1969. The more logical explanation was that it was not his gut (well, he was a gastroenterologist), but cold hard cash from a lawyer.
It seems like Duh?/Huh? doesn't understand that you can't absolve a person of doing very wrong things by pointing out other things they did which weren't wrong. It's no good to say that "many" of the tests Wakefield performed on the Lancet children were standard for children with GI problems, and ignore the other ones which were non-standard. It's no good to say that Wakefield merely "gave his opinion" that "more research was needed" and ignore the fact that the research he did, which he used to give false credibility to his "opinions" about the MMR vaccine, was fraudulent.
If Wakefield's actions were truly defensible, Duh? would be able to express a defense of them - perhaps trying to explain why falsely claiming a child's symptoms started after a vaccination instead of truthfully stating that they started before did not paint a distorted view of whether the vaccination could be held responsible for those symptoms?? - but instead, Duh? is merely changing the subject. It's a boring tactic.
Though I would contend "calling for more studies" while ignoring the decades of previous research is also wrong.
"Why should we care about his opinion about the safety of a vaccine if he can't back it up with real data?"
Good question. Why do you care so much about his opinion? You should all be ignoring Wakefield and his ridiculous opinion (as you believe).
We all know this isn't about Wakefield. This is about the parents who saw their children injured. This is about vaccine court and the millions shelled out for vaccine injured children. It's about all of that. Very little to do with Wakefield.
Don't get me wrong, I am thankful for Wakefield and the attention he brought to the issue... It's just that he is only a tiny piece of the puzzle. It is telling that you guys want to make him the end all, be all though. By the way, if you had any sense (doubtful), your side wouldn't continue bringing the topic up all the time. You just help the rest of us get the message out more and more. You are probably not smart enough to realize that though. So, I guess a big Thank You is thrown your way.
"By the way, if you had any sense (doubtful), your side wouldn't continue bringing the topic up all the time."
So Orac just does what exactly when 'bringing the topic up all the time' on the basis of reports elsewhere. Or are you arguing that all of us 'shills and minions' are feeding the garbage into blogs and websites and conferences just to give the blinking box something to do. Or what?
Huh? Duh? Meh!
Because you say:
And yet you don't care that Wakefield ignored that at least one version of an MMR vaccine had been used safely outside of the UK for decades.
Oh, and about those "the millions shelled out for vaccine injured children", how much was for the MMR vaccine? Hmmm, let us look at this page. Ah, looking for MMR we find that there were 321 cases compensated, and 414 that were dismissed. Also don't forget this statement: "**HHS has never concluded in any case that autism was caused by vaccination."
Now Huh/Duh, you can go around being a Wakefield fanboy, but we will always be here to tell you that he is a fraud.
And as far as "your side wouldn't continue bringing the topic up all the time", perhaps you should bring that up with the reason this blog posted was written: Medscape, which put him on the list of the Worst and Best Physicians of the Year.
This blog post is about Wakefield. Try reading the second paragraph (the one with just one sentence in it).
If youâre trying to make âthisâ about something else, why are you defending Wakefield?
We care about his opinion because other people care about his opinion.We care about his opinion because when people heard that "MMR causes autism!"*, they stopped vaccinating their kids.We care about his opinion because when people stopped vaccinating their kids, the rate of measles went back up, and children died.
*It doesn't matter that he never said it in those exact words. When the media picked his study up, they translated it into that - and that's what people saw in the headlines and on the news, "MMR Causes Autism!", not "Results of small case study could possibly indicate tie between MMR or Autism (or could be completely insignificant); better research on the issue needed". And the fact that he did not immediately go out and correct the media about their false interpretation makes him just as culpable as them in the whole affair.
I find it very weird that so many people come here telling people to think for themselves, and then demonstrate that they are simply parroting what someone else has told them, and haven't the first idea what thinking for yourself involves. Pathetic.
It does not even occur to them to actually do their own research. I am sure that Huh/Duh and Jen still have no idea that there were, and still are, more than one version of MMR vaccines, and that they have been researched for over forty years.
Hey, come on. Wakefield didn't rape anyone. So, by that measure - and as per "huh?'s" logic - he's a freakin' saint!
Seriously, what's with all the ellipses?
Some might argue that drugging a child in order to render them helpless and then forcing the surgical equivalent of a telescope up their rear end against their will, and/or stabbing them in the back and sucking fluid out of their spinal cord, all for no good clinical reason, is almost as bad. I wouldn't like to comment.
"Seriously, what's with all the ellipses?"
Maybe huh? has a doctorate in education.
Wakefield pulled in about four hundred thousand pounds for his litigation-driven work while he energetically touted his hypothesis, which explicitly included, he wrote, that â[T]he widespread use of MMR immunization is a major determinant of the apparent (now substantiated) increase in rates of autism.â [Pediatrics 2001; 107; e84]
However, when given the opportunity to actually test his hypothesis in a large study to be fully funded by the teaching hospital where he had his day job, Wakefield declined. Now we know why:
@LW - LOL!!
Nice try, Brian, go back into your hole.
Nice try, Brian, go back into your hole.
There's a zinger.
Jen is true to form, school yard insults when faced with facts she can't refute. OK Jen, start calling me names again.
Jen, apparently some middle school child has access to your internet account--you might want to fix that.
However, if an adult using your account is still with us, he or she might want to revisit the other elements of the hypothesis that Wakefield explicitly stated in the reference that I cited. Although Wakefield has been unable to provide meaningful support for his thoroughly-refuted hypothesis (and, as I noted, chose to walk away when given the fully-funded opportunity to do so), perhaps you can do what Wakefield clearly could not do. Good luck with that.
@Duh? and Huh?:
Then why not point out the holes in the accusations against Wakefield, demonstrate exactly how it's nonsense, rather than make accusations of people scapegoating Wakefield in order to cover their asses?
There's been pre-clinical trials, clinical trials and post-market surveillance. It might be that these were faulty, and/or insufficient, but you should present some evidence that of that, rather than just assuming it to be so.
If papers in scientific journals were retracted because more research was needed, lots more papers would be retracted then currently are. In fact, hardly any papers would be published in the first place.
Again, given the Wakefield was all about the measles component of the MMR vaccine, how would he make a good scapegoat about the mumps component of the vaccine?
Because after Wakefield's paper and his statements to the press measles vaccination in Britain fell to the point where measles once more became endemic? Seems like a good reason to me.
(Splitting up a long comment to avoid the spam filter)
Ah, but that was just deep cover on Deer's part, to give him some street cred when he eventually defended the one thing that Big Pharma really cares about: vaccines! See how diabolically clever they are, to plan so far ahead?!
That part particularly amuses me. Wakefield claimed he declined because he didn't want his academic freedom stifled. I can only translate "my academic freedom would be stifled" as "they would watch me like a hawk the whole time to make sure I didn't pull any tricks".
@ Mathew Cline
If my university had offered me the opportunity and the time, staff, and salary and other financial support to attempt to confirm a controversial but potentially important preliminary finding that I believed was correct, I would certainly have jumped at the chance.
I can imagine only one reason why Wakefield declined such an offer, and I think it's remarkable that Wakefield's supporters believe that his decision to bail had anything to do with academic freedom.
Nice try, Brian, go back into your hole.
Ah, Jen, there are some questions waiting for you at another thread about your accusations of scientific fraud directed at anyone who isn't Andrew Wakefield.
God only knows why it helps to claim that Wakefield never said that MMR causes autism. Of course, it is parroted from an angle he took up for a while when he was snivelling about how cruel life had been to him. But he then seems to have moved on from that to other preposterous assertions. Perhaps this isn't surprising because, if he says he never said this, then the next question would be: "who the hell did then?"
In fact, he not only said that MMR causes autism, he patented the claim, incorporated it in court documents, allowing him to pocket about $750,000 in hourly incentives to keep on saying it, and railed in public against public health doctors, not only claiming that MMR caused autism but that those doctors knew this and were covering it up.
BTW, as a New Year greeting, I can tell you that, after 12 months of pitiable excuses from Wakefield and his acolytes, deceitful blogs from the former journalist with links to Sun Myung Moon, and frankly hilarious abuse about my BMJ series of last January, we have not identified any error in the three reports kindly referred to by Medscape this weekend, apart from a two-character spelling transposition in one online-only footnote. Considering we ran about 18,000 words, with about 10,000 words of footnotes, I think that's pretty good going.
Meanwhile, I've given my Wakefield summary pages a bit of a facelift. Here's the first one:
Well, obviously those are all forgeries by the Conspiracy. It just demonstrates how desperately the shapeshifting reptilian aliens want smear him.
*adjusts tinfoil hat*
@58: Impressive. /Quake3 voice
"God only knows why it helps to claim that Wakefield never said that MMR causes autism."
I said this in respect to the Lancet paper only. A paper being retracted where the only conclusion was more research is needed? Laughable. Again, Wakefield's opinion, belief aside...
Let's all remember here... Brian Deer has made this about Andrew Wakefield. It helps his story to make a villain out of Wakefield (and I suppose he enjoys being the hero... as seen in his articles which one can almost picture Mr. Deer in his tighty whiteys with a superhero cape coming to the rescue). To those of us who have been around awhile, we know that the controversy continues, not because of Wakefield, not because of Deer but because of the hundreds/thousands of children whose lives were changed after being vaccinated. Period.
@ Brian Deer:
And a happy new year to you!
Although journalists, scientists, and even psychologists, struggle to untangle the web of reality, they will always be opposed by folks who can dream up imbroglios to rival Stieg Larsson. I have a sneaking suspicion that your detractors will not be going away any time soon because they benefit *emotionally* from their beliefs and may even fashion careers based upon their claptrap. AJW is only 50-something and life expectancy is nearly 80 in the west.
While Brian Deer is hanging around her in Orac's blog... perhaps we could put him to use. Throw on your tighty whiteys and answer a question if you would.
Do you have a retraction or some follow-up commentary on the question of Child 11's situation? You used this Child and his father as a main point in the BMJ article "How the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed". Clearly, since you started with this Child, it would seem as if maybe he was your best case against Wakefield's "misdeeds". You quote the father as perhaps indicating that Wakefield was sneaky with the dates associated with his son's situation... implying that there was misconduct there in terms of Wakefield faking the timing of the vaccine / autism symptoms.
Sadly, (for you), that idea was blown to pieces! As you know, Dan Olmsted was able to find the father of child 11 and interviewed him... As you also know, that father actually backed up Wakefield's version of the timeline of events and did in fact, implicate the mmr vaccine with his son's decline in health. Have you retracted your fabrication yet, Mr. Deer? Or, perhaps it was a simple mistake on your part. It is certainly one or the other. You pick. The father of Child 11 emailed you and explained to you that this "mistake" (cough, cough) was made. Have you addressed this yet, Mr. Deer? Inquiring minds want to know.
So if the conclusion of a paper is "more research is needed", then it should be retraction-proof, regardless of anything else?
Nice shifting of the goal posts.....you still need to show concrete evidence of all these vaccine injured children. As the mother of an autistic daughter (PDD-NOS) who I adore, if she were made this way due to vaccines, then thank you vaccines. But I can assure you that people outside my immediate family noticed odd things about her long before we did....parents are terrible at looking at their children objectively. So put up or shut up and further, who in their right mind would pick such a stupid on line name......
"So if the conclusion of a paper is "more research is needed", then it should be retraction-proof, regardless of anything else?"
Not necessarily.... However, why don't you go ahead and give me a list of some papers which have been "retracted" within the past 10 years (with such fanfare and tv, news commentary associated with this one), in which the conclusion was 'more research is needed'. You see, it has never been about the paper. Or, about Wakefield.... It is about vaccine safety and whether or not vaccines are dangerous for some children.... The fact that YOU GUYS make it about Wakefield is the interesting part of the story. When you look like you may be in trouble, throw the blame elsewhere. Apparently, it works (for a while...). Truth prevails in the end though. Thank goodness.
"But I can assure you that people outside my immediate family noticed odd things about her long before we did....parents are terrible at looking at their children objectively."
That's wonderful. You do realize that thousands of parents have had a different experience from you in this regard... right? You do know that? Just because you had one experience doesn't mean that everyone else must be wrong. I have never said that vaccines are / were the trigger for every case of autism. Would never say that.... I don't understand why you couldn't give others that same respect (assuming that you don't).
@Agashem Yes, you see the persistent shifting of goal posts by huh?/duh? as well. That's quite indicative of a sincere lack of integrity and dis-ingenuity on huh?/duh?'s part.
I also think there's a little bit of insight to be gleaned from such a choice of an online name. Could it mean that no matter what anyone else says that does not agree with huh?/duh?'s position, is by default, wrong. It's a prelude to whatever huh?/duh?'s response will be to any argument that is presented against huh?/duh?'s case, which is severely lacking..hence the shifting of goal posts, utterly fraught with shameless delusions, and a profoundly belligerent confidence of self-aggrandizing conclusions, etc.. Huh?/duh? is clearly out of their logical element.
I know this has been brought to your attention but you fail to acknowledge this...the paper wasn't retracted due to the conclusion that "more research is needed". It was retracted due to false claims and failure to divulge a huge conflict of interest. What part of this are you having trouble with?
"I know this has been brought to your attention but you fail to acknowledge this...the paper wasn't retracted due to the conclusion that "more research is needed". It was retracted due to false claims and failure to divulge a huge conflict of interest. What part of this are you having trouble with?"
Which false claims specifically? I had a post caught up in Orac's filter (due to using a full name of someone, I assume) which I will ask again since it pertains here. If/when it gets approved... please do not accuse me of asking the same question over and over.
'False claims' are an interesting concept in this debate. For example, BD (the "journalist" who posts here) falsely claimed in an article in the BMJ that one of the subjects in the Lancet paper (child 11) had been misrepresented by AW. BD went on and on about child 11 and how AW must have knowingly changed some dates / misrepresented dates in his paper to imply a possibly link with the mmr. BD's claims were completely blown away and proven to be false. The father of child 11 agreed with AW's version of the timeline. Is this one of the "false claims" associated with why the paper may have been retracted? Ok, strike it off the list. Next! Get the point? As for the conflict of interest questions.... This has been addressed by AW over and over again. The retraction has nothing to do with a conflict of interest of any sort... that's simply naive.
While we are on the topic, however, shall we get into the topic of conflicts of interests here... Perhaps all of Paul Profits articles should be "retracted".
I now have 2 comments pending in Orac's filter. Probably better to let it go until that is resolved, since I'm sure that I will be accused of 'ignoring' valid points or failing to 'acknowledge' certain points, etc.
Happy New Year!
Why don't you give us a list of some papers in which the conclusion was 'more research is needed' and the underlying data was shown to be grossly fraudulent? Comparing Wakefield's paper to any paper where the patient data was recorded without massive misrepresentation is comparing apples to oranges.
One of the factors in Uh?'s argument is that the phrase "more research is needed" has at least two different interpretations. That is, one can take it as trivially true: more research is needed into whether MMR causes autism, just as more research is needed into whether squirrels are secretly scouts for an alien invasion force, just as more research is needed into whether the moon is made of green cheese, just as more research is needed into whether cat-fur moustaches bring good luck and wealth. If we had infinite resources to spend investigating all possibilities, no matter how improbable, then sure, "more research would be needed" into these fantasies! Would you want to be the one who overlooked what the squirrels were up to until it was too late?
However, in this, the real world where research resources are limited, to say "more research is needed" into a particular possibility is inherently to say "this research direction should be prioritized over others." If you're going to make such a claim, it had better be on the basis of solid data indicating that that research shows a good possibility of uncovering answers - and as we know, Wakefield's data was not solid; it was in fact cooked.
If Uh? still thinks it's okay for Wakefield to assert to the world that MMR should be viewed as a possible cause for autism based on faked data, we can only assume that Uh? would be equally comfortable with faking evidence to frame people for unsolved crimes, since the result will be "more investigation is needed" and who could disagree with that?
It's really gratifying to have my point about confabulation being illustrated succinctly and rapidly.
So what's in it for them? Supporting AJW gives parents affected by autism a way to deny stigma associated with a hereditarial condition as well as casting blame on sources outside themselves while *simultaneously* swiping at large corporations and powers-that-be. They can blow off the steam that accumulates during the very difficult daily task of being a care-giver to a disabled child or adult and seek affiliation with others so afflicted. A few may build a career by broadcasting their views (see AoA), selling books, and enjoying status as a person opposing elitism ( or whatever else it is that they call educated people these days). Supporters of the movement may bask in glow emmitted by their star rebel, enjoying his fame vicariously.
All of which provides powerful reinforcement for belief. They ain't going away, kids.
If I'm understanding Huh/Duh, et al., Wakefield is a hero because he's the one who shouted "Eureka!" So even if his methods weren't exactly perfect and everything "needed more research," he was still the guy to make it clear that the emperor had no clothes. The MMR was doing bad things and he got started exposing this. But because Wakefield was then discredited (via various conspiracies and mean investigative journalists), he no longer matters per se. "We all know this isn't about Wakefield." Once Wakefield opened the world's eyes to this issue, others took up and furthered his cause, mostly moms who are heartbroken over their child's autism diagnosis. So Wakefield is a hero because he's kind of hot (I mean, let's be realistic) and because he cracked the case. He is, for all intents and purposes, dead in this battle, but he lives on in spirit and remains a symbol of all that's good in the world. Like Jesus.
"You do realise that your say-so is meaningless and you have proven nothing to the effect that Mr. Deer misrepresented anything. John Stone's maniacal rantings don't 'prove' a damn thing other than what an obsessed lunatic he is."
Well, while I enjoy John Stone's rantings and consider him a great source of information, in this case, Dan Olmsted has provided some information in regards the misrepresentation (ie possible fraudulent activities of Mr. Deer). I'm sure your next post will be how Dan Olmsted is also an obsessed lunatic. Yup, got it... Don't bother. Go read what the father of Child 11 has to say in regards to what Mr. Deer has said in his BMJ article. The father of child 11 provides a timeline similar to Andrew Wakefield's timeline. That father had to have been considered one of Brian Deer's most relevant accounts (as to Wakefield's alleged 'fraud'). That father (who has other issues with Wakefield), holds firm to the idea that Wakefield's timeline is correct - ie vaccine likely (possibly?, timeline correct) for a vaccine damage, leading to illness. This account proves that Brian Deer was incorrect (fraudulent or simple mistake). An honest journalist would recant and/or amend his article with this updated revelation. Has this been done, Mr. Deer? It may have, perhaps I missed it. We know this is correct because the father of child 11 sent Mr. Deer an emailing saying as much. So much for honest journalism in the UK (unless of course I am corrected and there has been an amendment to the original BMJ article).
Again, cry all you want about all the Wakefield "fraud"... I imagine the majority of it (if not all) would be shown by honest journalists (emphasis on honest) to be laughable.
Clearly, one thing is obvious... Wakefield was 100% correct in the only conclusion made in the Lancet article which was more research is definitely needed.
"If I'm understanding Huh/Duh, et al., Wakefield is a hero because he's the one who shouted "Eureka!" So even if his methods weren't exactly perfect and everything "needed more research," he was still the guy to make it clear that the emperor had no clothes. The MMR was doing bad things and he got started exposing this. But because Wakefield was then discredited (via various conspiracies and mean investigative journalists), he no longer matters per se. "We all know this isn't about Wakefield."
What are you babbling on about here? What don't you understand .... This has never been about Wakefield. YOU make it about Wakefield. It suits YOUR interests to make it about only Wakefield and whether or not he is the scum of the earth. Where do I lose you?
You are commenting on a thread about Wakefield This thread is about him and you are commenting on it again and again, often bringing up his name and showing yourself to be a fan:
"I'm not some newbie who hasn't followed this topic for years now, okay. I know your arguments about how awful Dr. Wakefield is and how he did such awful testing on poor little children (many tests which are standard procedures for children with GI problems). I know, so don't think for a second that I haven't heard all this nonsense before... I am simply telling you that there is another side of the story - Dr. Wakefield's - and I find that one more believable. Now, that's not to say that I am right.... but let's face it... 'Your' side isn't necessarily right either. Got it?"
If you read my comment, I am agreeing that you are saying it isn't about Wakefield. It can't be, because he's been discredited, even if you disagree with that. He is wrongly accused, in your opinion, but it's all irrelevant because now you know The Truth and will not rest until everybody understands that vaccines aren't safe to use.
It's amusing that the defenders of Wakefield insist that "This has never been about Wakefield" -- but then they insist that it *is* about Brian Deer. They seem to believe that if they can discredit any part of what Deer reported, then Wakefield will be exonerated.
No, it doesn't work that way. The UK General Medical Councilâs Fitness to Practise Panel investigated and held hearings for *years*. They called witnesses; they examined the records; they found that Wakefield's paper was fraudulent. That's why the paper was retracted and that's why Wakefield was struck off. It genuinely doesn't *matter* what Deer may or may not have got wrong (though I'll need more that the say-so of an anonymous person on the Internet before I'll believe that he got something wrong). What *matters* is what the GMC found.
"It's amusing that the defenders of Wakefield insist that "This has never been about Wakefield" -- but then they insist that it *is* about Brian Deer. They seem to believe that if they can discredit any part of what Deer reported, then Wakefield will be exonerated."
LOL! It isn't about Brian Deer either.... That's the whole point (which has been stated over and over again). It's about the children and whether or not they are being injured by vaccines. YOU want to make it about Wakefield. Deer wants to make it about Wakefield. Deer is only relevant in the sense that he has been lying in regards to the scandal... The entire scandal does revolve around Brian Deer's lies/fabrications/mistakes... The Child 11 information is critical here... But let's be clear... It's about vaccines / autism... Not Wakefield, Deer, etc...
I guess we can just wait for Brian to come on here and recant what he claims in the BMJ about Child 11 since we now know that what he has written was fabricated (or he made a major mistake). One or the other.... I'm sure he will explain himself soon.
Wakefield committed fraud. Brian Deer was instrumental in uncovering the fraud. Wakefield had ample opportunity to defend himself, both with research and in law. He failed in both arenas. No reputable researcher has reproduced his results. Hundreds, if not thousands of studies have found no link between vaccines and autism. (Fourteen monkeys is not a good study.)
Insanity - doing the same thing (insert fav thing here: supporting a fraud, wasting more research funding on vaccine-autism link, trusting Wakers) and expecting different results.
Fanatic - one who redoubles his efforts when he has forgotten his aim. (Remember looking for real causes and treatments for autism is the goal here, not fixating on a lost cause like Wakefield and vaccines.)
Of course, Dan "walked right past the clinic that treats autistic Amish children and declares there are no autistic Amish children" Olmstead. Sure, he's a great source of information too [snort]. There's a bit of a problem you seem to be having and that would be your source. How about the words of the father of child 11 himself and medical records:
From: http://briandeer.com/solved/bmj-wakefield-1-1.htm All the hand-waving in the world by Olmstead and Stone don't change the timeline verified with medical records. But then again, we are operating in a world of reality.
Huh/Duh, if you are sincere (which I doubt) about other papers that have been retracted go to http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/.
Oh, and I love it when you say: "It's about the children and whether or not they are being injured by vaccines."
That is so funny. Especially since measles itself causes a much greater magnitude of injury, and parents got illegally imported single mumps with the Urabe strain! All because Wakefield pulled his suggestion that parents get single vaccines not an MMR out of his bum (which is located near his wallet that was handsomely filled by Richard Barr).
Along with the sock puppetry, and the ignoring the lies and fraud perpetuated by their hero, Wakefield. They are totally ignoring that there was decades of studies in the safety and efficacy of at least the Jeryl Lynn MMR (plus the others) before Wakefield even left his residency in Canada.
It's becoming clear that Uh? has privately reserved to him/herself the privilege of interpreting the phrase "it is about" to mean whatever he/she finds it convenient for it to mean.
Let's be more specific. Uh? is promoting the view that the Wakefield affair is "about" Brian Deer in the sense that you supposedly can't reach a conclusion that Wakefield's research was deceptively and unethically done and failed to support a case against the MMR vaccine without using Brian Deer's evidence. This is false. Even without Deer's revelations about how Wakefield misrepresented the case histories of all children (not merely Child 11) the fact that Wakefield concealed the way all the children had been referred to him as parties in a potential lawsuit, and how he was already receiving money from one of the sides in that lawsuit, and was concealing his own patent on a single measles vaccine that might be called for if MMR fell out of favor - these all torpedo the idea that Wakefield was serving science, justice, "the children," or anything save his own glory and his own pocketbook. And all these blots on Wakefield's copybook are known by evidence that has nothing to do with Brian Deer, and cannot be erased from the record no matter how badly Deer might be rightly or wrongly tarred.
"From: http://briandeer.com/solved/bmj-wakefield-1-1.htm All the hand-waving in the world by Olmstead and Stone don't change the timeline verified with medical records. But then again, we are operating in a world of reality".
Uh oh, poor Science Mom... How embarrassing for her that this is the exact fraud that I have been discussing in regards to Brian Deer. Dan Olmsted met with this exact same father and the father himself admitted that Brian Deer was absolutely incorrect about his child. Oops.
The timeline that the father reported on (to Olmsted) and had the documents to back up the claim is that Brian Deer was WRONG. And, uh oh.... Wakefield was absolutely correct (on this particular point in regards to timing of the vaccine / child's illness). Yikes.... Now what, Science Mom? According to Olmsted... Brian Deer, as well as Fiona Godlee, were made aware of this by both himself AND the father. So, you can quote all you want from Brian Deer's website... All that tells me is that Brian Deer has not updated his website with this new revelation... proving himself to be a fraud (or a journalist who little integrity).
In fact, after reading what Brian Deer wrote in the BMJ, the father of Child 11 wrote an email to Deer as well as Olmsted, in which he clarified that there was some paperwork given to Brian Deer that was incorrect. The end result, in terms of timing... Wakefield correct and Brian Deer completely incorrect.
I do wish, Science Mom, that Brian Deer himself was able to comment previous to your comment to perhaps soften the blow for you. I am sorry that I had to burst your bubble and make you look rather foolish for linking to Brian Deer's fraudulent website. That's life I suppose. I hope you continue to look at every aspect of this debate.
It is somewhat off-topic, but I just want to make the point that the AJW-supporting, autism-is-vaccine-injury autism parents are a minority of autism parents,and a teeny, tiny, vanishingly small percentage of adults with autism.
I do hope that 2012 is the last year that an autism diagnosis will be "stigmatizing".
Yes, it has.
Why havenât you figured this out yet?
It's curious that Wakefield's supporter continues to attack Brian Deer -- expecting us to believe Dan Olmstead who, like Deer, is a reporter -- and utterly disregards the work of the UK General Medical Councilâs Fitness to Practise Panel, which caused Wakefield to be struck off and his paper retracted for fraud.
Again, it does not matter what Deer says or what Olmstead says. What matters is what the UK General Medical Councilâs Fitness to Practise Panel said after extensive investigation.
Let's see, Olmstead said and thorough fact-checking by the editorial and legal team at BMJ, oh who should I believe? If the BMJ report was incorrect, then why no PSC complaint? Why none by Wakefield? That's right, no basis.
"It's curious that Wakefield's supporter continues to attack Brian Deer".
When something that Brian Deer has written has been proven (by the father of Child 11, not Dan Olmsted) to be completely FALSE... Why wouldn't we point it out?
How many other 'mistakes' have been made by Deer? How much more fraud has Brian Deer promoted?
This is not about "attacking" Brian Deer... This is about clearing up lies / mistakes that Brian Deer has made in regards to this matter. As you can see by Science Mom... People actually still believed that the father of Child 11 agreed with Deer's timeline as opposed to the correct timeline (Wakefield's). How sad. I'm sure that Brian Deer will be along shortly to admit his "mistake".
Huh/Duh, do you know who Dr. Brent Taylor is, and what he did? He took up an offer that Wakefield refused. What was that?
This reflects a popular misconception regarding the reliability of memory--one reason why people are so often falsely convicted of crimes based upon eyewitness testimony. What numerous scientific studies have shown is that we constantly edit our memories--every time you recollect a memory, it becomes open for editing, and what we think of as our memory of a pivotal event is more accurately a memory of a memory of a memory. It turns out that it is incredibly easy to create false memories or to alter memories of an event, and we tend to unconsciously edit our own memories to fit into a narrative that matches our preconceptions. Indeed, it is not uncommon for parents of autistic children to insist that their children's symptoms began immediately after vaccination when the medical records clearly show that symptoms manifested either well before or many weeks after vaccination.
So I don't doubt that the father is honestly reporting what he recollects, not realizing that over time he has substituted Wakefield's narrative for his own memories. This is why it is important to examine the actual medical records--and it was examination of the original records that revealed that Wakefield's accounts of the medical histories of his subjects were incomplete at best and in some cases downright false.
This by itself would be reason enough for the paper to be retracted. It is untrue that the only conclusion of the paper was that "more research was needed." This is essentially boilerplate for a research paper. Almost every research paper comments that more research is needed, because no single paper provides a final answer to every relevant question, and besides, the author is probably hoping for more funding to pursue follow-up studies. So a paper that had no other conclusion than this would never have been published in a prominent journal. The important conclusions were more narrow--the correlation between symptoms, vaccination, and pathology in this specific group of patients. And it was the evidence for these conclusions that re-examination of the medical records proved to be falsified to such an extent that every unbiased investigator has concluded that it goes beyond error to outright fraud.
And of course, on top of that, there is the fact that Wakefield turned out to be wrong--multiple subsequent studies have failed to replicate Wakefield's "observations" and the suggested correlation between MMR vaccination and autism does not exist. And of course there is the fact that the panic initiated by Wakefield's erroneous report (which certainly was not discouraged by Wakefield, regardless of how cautious the wording was in his original paper) undoubtedly lead to the deaths of children. I'd love to see the original submitted manuscript of that paper, by the way. Based upon his pubic statements, it wouldn't surprise me if the cautious wording was imposed by reviewers rather than being original with Wakefield.
"Let's see, Olmstead said and thorough fact-checking by the editorial and legal team at BMJ, oh who should I believe? If the BMJ report was incorrect, then why no PSC complaint? Why none by Wakefield? That's right, no basis".
How about you believe the father and all the paperwork that he presented which proved that Wakefield's timing was correct and Brian Deer's was incorrect. Start there.
Pretty interesting that Brian Deer's BEST example of a parent who supposedly claimed that Wakefield was involved in fraudulent activity in terms of shifting of dates of diagnosis, etc... Has been shown to be WRONG / FRAUDULENT. Ha ha! And people wonder why some of us may not put faith in the wonderful Brian Deer. He's a tool.
Duh @ 12:09 pm
It was at post #22:
To put it as simply as I can: I don't understand why.
Not only is that not Mr. Deer's only example of Wakefield's torture of medical records, but you still fail to present any evidence (hint: Olmstead says so doesn't count as evidence) that child 11 was misrepresented. In spite of your belief of a massive conspiracy, BMJ would be legally obligated to present an addendum should they have possession of viable evidence to the contrary. Again, could you please tell me why that hasn't occurred sans conspiracy? Can you also address the fact that your claim of the Lancet retraction based upon, "the need for more research" is demonstrably false?
A point that I alluded to, but which seems to have whisked over Wakefield's defender's head, is that Olmstead is a reporter just like Deer. Olmstead claims the father of Child 11 said one thing; Deer says he didn't -- why should we believe one reporter over another?
But the UK General Medical Councilâs Fitness to Practise Panel had the power, the resources, and the duty to investigate Wakefield, which they did, and the result is that Wakefield was struck off and his paper retracted for fraud. No quibbling about what Deer said or what Olmstead said can affect that simple fact.
Duh? (and? Huh?)
And I'll throw this out at you again, too:
If it's not about Wakefield, why do you keep defending him?
See, what gets me about Huh/Duh's noble crusade to defend Wakefield's honor is that never in a million years would he do this if it were Offit facing these charges. If Offit had done unnecessary spinal taps on kids, or failed to disclose his financial conflicts of interest, or mucked with his data, HuhDuh would frickin' crucify him for it*. And if Olmstead did an expose, and Brian Deer pointed out a factual error in it, it wouldn't be proof that Olmstead was a horrible fraud who couldn't be trusted about Offit; it would be proof that Brian Deer was a Big Pharma shill trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.
It will be interesting to see what the "vaccination causes autism" crowd will do when the true cause(s) of autism is/are found. Incidentally, the causes will be found by scientists and medics, not blog trolls.
Excuse me, but the editor/owner of the AoA blog, a former reporter, is Dan Olmsted. Please, for a bit of accuracy please remove the extra "a" in his last name. Thank you.
"A point that I alluded to, but which seems to have whisked over Wakefield's defender's head, is that Olmstead is a reporter just like Deer. Olmstead claims the father of Child 11 said one thing; Deer says he didn't -- why should we believe one reporter over another?"
Read this for clarification:
The father of Child 11 has corrected Brian Deer. The father would know AND has all the paperwork to back up this correction. This is why we should believe Olmsted over Deer in this particular matter. Brian Deer made this comment in post #58:
"we have not identified any error in the three reports kindly referred to by Medscape this weekend, apart from a two-character spelling transposition in one online-only footnote. Considering we ran about 18,000 words, with about 10,000 words of footnotes, I think that's pretty good going."
I am at a loss as to why Brian Deer would make this claim, knowing full well that he was corrected by the father of child 11. He did make a mistake. The father corrected him via email. Now, since I don't have access (and don't wish to have access to Medscape, perhaps it is a matter of this particular BMJ article not being referenced... Otherwise, Brian Deer has some explaining to do here. Because either a) Olmsted is completely making up this entire interaction with the father of Child 11 or b) Deer made fraudulent claims (or mistakes) and is not owning up to them.... It is certainly within the realm of possibility that Olmsted is not being truthful here. However, it is hard for me to imagine that Olmsted would go through such lengths here to make up this story when it could be so easily torn apart by Brian Deer (if Deer's story was accurate).
I'm sure that we will be hearing from Brian Deer shortly on this. We should give him some time considering the time difference between the UK and here. I imagine that you will agree that since this post is about Brian Deer and Brian Deer has in fact commented on this post... If we do not hear otherwise in regards to this matter... We must assume that Brian Deer is skirting the issue.
I disagree: this post is about Andrew Wakefield. Again, see the beginning of the second paragraph.
It is clear that Child 11's medical history has been distorted--but not by Brian Deer.
Deer reported the date of MMR administration as it was indicated in the records available to him (although that date turned out to be inaccurate) but Dan Olmsted, who attacked Deer for this, whistled past the fact that the father of Child 11 told Olmsted that the signs of his son's autism emerged months after vaccination--although Wakefield wrote that the "first behavioural sign" of the child's autistic regression was evident only one week following vaccination, rather than months later, as reported by the child's father; moreover, anyone who has read the paper will understand that the "first behavioural sign" of aberrant neurological development cited by Wakefield to support his thesis was actually a respiratory infection. Yes, someone was dishonest, but it wasn't Deer.
I disagree: this post is about Andrew Wakefield. Again, see the beginning of the second paragraph.
I presume this is similar to the assertion that the Lancet paper "was retracted based of the conclusion that more research is needed... LOL!", viz., some sort of Sextus Empiricus/Humpty Dumpty routine.
Sorry for misspelling Olmsted's name.
"However, it is hard for me to imagine that Olmsted would go through such lengths here to make up this story when it could be so easily torn apart by Brian Deer (if Deer's story was accurate)."
Argument from personal incredulity. It isn't hard for me to imagine.
In any case, the UK General Medical Councilâs Fitness to Practise Panel had the power, the resources, and the duty to investigate Wakefield, which they did, and the result is that Wakefield was struck off and his paper retracted for fraud. No quibbling about what Deer said or what Olmsted said can affect that simple fact.
"I disagree: this post is about Andrew Wakefield. Again, see the beginning of the second paragraph."
Agreed. My apologies.
Having said that, Orac did profess his love for Brian Deer in that same opening to this post thereby bringing Brian Deer directly into the conversation. I will also note, that the article which is posted about (referencing Andrew Wakefield), specifically brings up the BMJ articles... of which Brian Deer was an author... So, while I may have misrepresented what the intent of the post is... The Brian Deer talk is completely relevant. Obviously.
"Argument from personal incredulity. It isn't hard for me to imagine."
Which is why I am certain that we will be hearing from Brian Deer shortly. I am sure that he will clear this up for us. If Brian Deer did not get a correction email from the father of Child 11, we will hear about it. No doubt.
"In any case, the UK General Medical Councilâs Fitness to Practise Panel had the power, the resources, and the duty to investigate Wakefield, which they did, and the result is that Wakefield was struck off and his paper retracted for fraud. No quibbling about what Deer said or what Olmsted said can affect that simple fact".
The creepiest thing about this entire saga is that a lot of the information being fed to the panels who were responsible for what happened to Wakefield, were started by and were being promoted by a journalist, Brian Deer.
There is something very wrong with that.
Realm of possibility? When has Olmsted ever gone to great lengths to falsely report anything? Oh right, in everything he fabricates about an autism vaccine connection. If what brian @ 101 is true (and while he has always been very accurate as far as I can tell), I would be interested in a bona fide report of the erroneous vaccination date. I would also be interested in why Olmsted refused to report that behavioural symptoms were not within the time frame that Wakefield reported. If I can accept that the vaccination date was erroneous and ask Mr. Deer for an explanation, then why can't you accept some rather dodgy reporting by Olmsted?
Assuming that child 11 data is in doubt (big assumption but we shall see), what of the other 11 children who were subjected to unnecessary medical procedures, had their data fiddled with by master Wakefield? What of Wakefield's conflict of interest? What of the hundreds of children who's parents also believed Wakers and caught measles?
Wakefield was responsible for what happened to Wakefield; let's be clear about that. As far as Mr. Deer "feeding information"; you act as though the GMC just mindlessly lapped up Mr. Deer's reports and ran with them. There was considerable investigation on their part and additional records obtained which Mr. Deer had no access to. Additionally, Wakefield presented absolutely no defence. Do you have any idea as to why this was? Don't you think that if he had something to clear himself of the charges against him, then presenting them at the GMC hearing would have been a good place? And if you do deign to answer, please leave out the conspiracy nonsense; in the grand scheme of things, Wakefield just isn't that important to conduct a conspiracy of global proportions (as if that could even be done).
"The creepiest thing about this entire saga is that a lot of the information being fed to the panels who were responsible for what happened to Wakefield, were started by and were being promoted by a journalist, Brian Deer.
There is something very wrong with that. "
Yes, there is. The medical oversight here was awful. It shouldn't 12 years to expose such an obvious fraud. I agree with Duh!/Hun!/Wah! that much better oversight is needed, so that future Wakefields, Geiers and the like are caught much more quickly.
P.S. The funniest part of the Wakefield saga is how Wakefield withdrew his bogus lawsuit against Deer (and paid Deer's legal bills). Apparently Wakefield's lawyers explained to him (in small words) that it's foolish to sue for libel when you're guilty.
it is hard for me to imagine that Olmsted would go through such lengths here to make up this story
Olmsted makes up stories all the time (e.g. "no autism among the Amish"; "Arsenic causes polio"). He has prior form. Tearing those stories apart is optional, since it has little effect on his credibility either among his readers, or in the fact-based world where it is already zero.
The Dynamically Dumb Duo of Duh/Huh remind me of Smarter Than You, who seems to have disappeared since nothing came of this:
Ah, he was so fun. I bet he had no idea what Wakefield did, and it was instead done by Dr. Brent Taylor. Long before Brian Deer had heard of the story.
AJW's supporters perseverate upon trivialities but fail to comprehend that his hypotheses neither fit in with research in neuro-development *at the time* he published nor do they mesh with more recent neurological and genetic data concerning autism. The vaccines-GI-autism concept never made sense to me *in the first place*.
While they grasp at straws and then use them to build castles in the air, the un-covering of his deceit itself has become part of the edifice of science.
"There was considerable investigation on their part and additional records obtained which Mr. Deer had no access to."
Interestingly enough, Mr. Deer seemed to have unprecedented access to medical records... How he got them has to be questioned. We should all be concerned that an oddball journalist should be able to wander through our children's medical files.
"AJW's supporters perseverate upon trivialities".
Wow. Trivialities? Is it trivial that Dr. Wakefield is accused of manipulating dates. Is it trivial that this is now being shown NOT to be true? If you are going to put Brian Deer up as a master of journalism who is uncovering some things about Dr. Wakefield... I would suggest you consider what he has done with this Child 11 fiasco. If that is what you consider "journalism", I'd be concerned.
Like the declaration "more research is needed," this statement is only true if you append "if you're desperate to pretend Wakefield is not the venal fraud the evidence shows him to be." Stop changing the subject, Uh?, and face facts: Wakefield took advantage of the public and of vulnerable children and earned his #1 spot at the bottom by doing so.
Huh? (emphasis mine)
Is this the reason behind your unconditional love of Andrew Wakefield? Your child is one of the "Lancet 12"?
That questionâs been answered: Wakefield sued him for libel. And dropped the suit, requiring Wakefield to pay Deerâs costs, because he was going to lose. If youâve been following this for years, you know that.
And if you are one of the Lancet 12 parents, I'm truly sorry about everything you've been through. But I still don't understand your unwavering support of a man who was stripped of his medical license for lack of ethics.
"Yes, there is. The medical oversight here was awful. It shouldn't 12 years to expose such an obvious fraud. I agree with Duh!/Hun!/Wah! that much better oversight is needed, so that future Wakefields, Geiers and the like are caught much more quickly."
We agree on medical oversight issues. I have been saying for YEARS now that we have a horrible track record of medical oversight. To think that vaccines are being recommended to infants which have not been fully tested for safety? This is shameful. To imagine that we have never had a single study done with vaccinated vs. an unvaccinated population. Unbelievable. The fact that there are never tests done which include all vaccines given to babies... as if each vaccine is given in a bubble. Truly remarkable. I am thrilled that we agree on medical oversight issues. It is truly is a concern for all. I do hope that this New Year brings about a change in this oversight.
"Is this the reason behind your unconditional love of Andrew Wakefield? Your child is one of the "Lancet 12"?
Ohhhh, you supersleuth. lol. Ah, no.
Deer needs to come clean about how he was able to get confidential medical records. It's a shame that people need to be concerned about dirty journalists getting their hands on personal medical records. Speaking of, I understand that Brian Deer has been diagnosed on the autism spectrum... This was found out by another dirty journalist who was peeping through some medical records of Deer's... I don't like that and more than I like the fact that Deer was able to do it.
@Huh - where have you been? The vac vs. non-vac study nonsense is done, I would recommend using the search function here.
As far as Deer & the medical records, again, old news & already explained, both here & from Deer directly.
You really need to get with the times - as your evidence is like a sandcastle at high tide, it just keeps slipping away....
Huh? Exactly how is âwe have never had a single study done with vaccinated vs. an unvaccinated populationâ consistent with âthere are never tests done which include all vaccines given to babiesâ? Either the studies are done on children who are receiving the other vaccines, or theyâre not. Which is it?
To think that vaccines are being recommended to infants which have not been fully tested for safety? This is shameful. To imagine that we have never had a single study done with vaccinated vs. an unvaccinated population.
Yawn. Define "fully" while you're at it. It seems to be a perpetually open-ended concept when trotted out.
" Is it trivial that Dr. Wakefield is accused of manipulating dates. Is it trivial that this is now being shown NOT to be true?"
What Wakefield's defender continues to fail to grasp is that all that has been shown is that Olmsted claims that Deer stated something untrue. It has not been shown that Deer actually did say something untrue, nor that the UK General Medical Councilâs Fitness to Practise Panel accused Wakefield wrongly of falsifying dates.
Even if Deer is wrong in this one case, that disproves nothing of the findings of the UK General Medical Councilâs Fitness to Practise Panel which were the result of lengthy and intensive investigation and hearings and were the reason that Wakefield was struck off and his paper retracted as fraudulent. So Wakefield's defender's argument is simply incoherent.
"@Huh - where have you been? The vac vs. non-vac study nonsense is done, I would recommend using the search function here."
Ha Ha... Sure it has.
I just read Dan Olmsted's AoA article. It says that Brian Deer correctly transcribed the date Child 11 first started exhibiting symptoms from his Royal Free discharge papers, a date that preceded the MMR shot. However, according to Olmsted, the child's father claims that the documentation was wrong and these symptoms didn't start until the child was 15 months old. Has this error been confirmed as Brian suggests? Or is this recall bias? Should we believe the father or the written documentation? It seems that if the documentation is right the child's symptoms started before the MMR, if the father is right they started several months later than Wakefield reported.
Olmsted also says that "Yes, the father was angry at Wakefield. Yes, he disagreed with other points, some of them unrelated to the content of the Lancet article. But no â he did not say that the symptoms came before the shot." Why was the father angry with Wakefield?
Is this the best that Wakefield's supporters can come up with to attempt to discredit the mountains of evidence against him? "This Child 11 fiasco" is nothing of the sort. Whatever way you look at it Wakefield got it wrong.
Duh?/Uh? Your desperate attempts to grub around trying to find something, anything, to discredit Deer ignore the mountains of evidence against Wakefield. As Deer once pointed out, he just told the GMC where the bodies were buried and they dug them up.
Huh? I understand that Brian Deer has been diagnosed on the autism spectrum
Butchered my blockquotes. I was quoting Huh? with
What is inside the quote is mine. That's what I get for hitting "Preview" while watching football.
The Onion is missing a contributor it seems...
I want to thank Medicien [sic] Man for being such a thoughtful and conscientious troll. Most trolls actually make us do all the work involved in a reductio ad absurdam; MM considerately does it for us.
Oh how many times does this tired canard get dragged out? There is no question as to how he got the medical records; Wakefield sued Deer for libel and as part of Deer's defence, he was given the medical records. Wakefield withdrew his suit, paid Deer and thus Deer could do nothing with them until the GMC trial concluded. So thank your precious Wakefield for Deer getting the Lancet children's medical records.
Ahem, you haven't shown anything and at best, someone else made the claim that child eleven's jab record was inaccurate but that it still doesn't explain the different time line that Wakefield reported. The only fiasco is the false reporting by Olmsted and your credulity to lap it up like a good little Wakefield fanboi.
Demonstrably false; http://justthevax.blogspot.com/search/label/Fox%20News go to the bottom to see just a partial list of vaccines tested against others. And stop changing the subject until you answer the questions posed to you earlier, that is if you are even remotely honest.
Mention has been made to a child 11 in my BMJ report. My report was accurate, the father has made no complaint, and the father wrote to the blogger with the links to Rev Moon, acknowledging the terms of the medical records I cited, and telling Mr Olmsted: "If my son really is Patient 11, then the Lancet article is simply an outright fabrication."
Hear that? "Outright fabrication". Mr Olmsted spent months trying to figure out a way of smearing me without revealing that this is what he was told. In the end, he couldn't figure out a way, so he simply tricked the readers of his blog: a cold, calculating deception, to help him sponge a living from autism after the Rev Moon's people were finished with him.
I noted that a number of readers of his blog wrote to Mr Olmsted querying aspects of his blogs. They were deleted from the site.
A year has passed and no material inaccuracy has been identified in my three BMJ reports. All I know of is a two character literal spelling error in an online-only footnote. So, sadly for the anonymous trolls who come here, my journalism remains without credible challenge.
Moreover,it has passed through the editorial and legal processes of three major UK media groups - all applying checks on the material - has been peer reviewed, honoured with the highest award in British journalism, and been rather niftily archived at my website, which you are welcome to visit.
This is a nice page: http://briandeer.com/wakefield-deer.htm
Does the Moonie blogger have editors, lawyers and medical specialists checking his work? Does anybody verify his claims, look at his documents, make sure that he's not leading people up the garden path?
I think not.
Moreover, lest we forget, Wakefield was found guilty of four counts of dishonesty, plus more than two dozen charges of child abuse,against a criminal standard of sureness, by a statutory tribunal of the UK general medical council, and he did not appeal after his legal team advised his funders that he would lose. He was fired from his job in Austin, Texas, where I don't think I held much sway. Something like four of his papers have been retracted. And he is now reduced to smirking with Aids denialists in blog videos. Or abusing decent people, such as in this:
CERN and HAARP for opening a portal over Norway and letting weird creatures in.
Can't MFJ whomp something up to deal with this, Rob? Can't you? It's right in that there rag-chewin' wheelhouse.
Oh goody, the antivaxx sock puppet production continues. I see the Medicien Man/Dokta I.M. Smart puppet is still trying hard for a vaguely coherent performance.
*gets some popcorn*
"Camp FEMA is looking more real everyday now."
Can't tell whether mm is truly a world class idiot or whether it just plays one on the web. Odds in favor of the first are probably 99 to 1.
Looks like I got somebody riled! Yes, *trivialities*. Dan & friends scrape around, looking for what appears inconsistent *to their eyes*, all-the-while *failing* to see the far-ranging panorama presented by the BMJ. It's like focusing on a thread hanging from the Bayeux tapestry. And not seeing the tapestry.
They're guarding their turf because their own fame is bound up with the fortunes of one AJW, and they probably enjoy being considered "experts" of a sort. However, after they hone in on a detail, they fail to integrate it into the whole picture; instead they fixate on it and confabulate from there. Whether *not* surveying the whole array is a deliberate choice or if it illustrates their limitations, I cannot say. Some people have difficulties along these lines and "can't see the forest for the trees".
When you take a broad overview, the BMJ articles fit in with consensus literature better than AJW's work does. To take an even wider view, his methods have much in common with alt med provocateurs who attempt to buck the SB consensus.
To Huh @ 124
hey neanderthal did you use the search function as suggested ?
It's probably time you took your body with 12 arseholes elswhere. Mind you if you want to stay the shills will continue to rip new ones for you providing the lurkers with much mirth and merriment :)
the choice is yours
"Wakefield sued Deer for libel and as part of Deer's defence, he was given the medical records."
Yeah, because that makes sense. lol!
@Duh - you have no idea how discovery works in civil cases, do you?
Of course, given your lack of general knowledge, I'm not surprised.
Not sure who Rob is in all of this
Sure thing, kid.
"@Duh - you have no idea how discovery works in civil cases, do you?
Of course, given your lack of general knowledge, I'm not surprised."
Brian Deer was able to get confidential medical records of patients with names and addresses because of a lawsuit with Wakefield? Seriously?
God help us.
Brave Sir Robin Right Wingnut, and a complete idiot. He probably decided to pay us a visit after downing a few cheap beers.
The Dynamically Dumb Duo of Duh/Huh are getting rather boring. They are repeating themselves, and don't seem to know how to the search function on this page. Even when they are hand fed information they go back to the same stupid irrelevant comments, totally ignoring that several versions of an MMR vaccine had been researched for decades.
@Duh/Huh - Deer has been quite public about exactly what information he received and how, and since Wakefield was the one that opened the box by suing Deer in the first place, he ended up biting off a lot more than he could chew (hence dropping the lawsuit & paying Deer's legal fees).
So, care to explain, if Wakefield had even a leg to stand on, why he'd cut and run (not only with Deer, but also presenting no defense whatsoever during the subsequent investigation by the medical board authorities)?
You seem to be attempting to put up more of a defense than even Wakefield did himself - and he's supposed to be the expert, right?
Seriously? I already told you on a previous post that I frequented the stupid "blog" and was kicked out.
Oh, really? I don't recall that. Perhaps you could demonstrate this again.
Okay, some more spoon feeding for the Dynamically Dumb Duo:
Deer Interview, Part 1
and Deer Interview, Part 2. A bit over three minutes into the second video is a dramatization of Wakefield's lawyers trying to drop his lawsuit and get the records back from Deer. It makes for some great comedy.
Actually, there should be a movie about the whole affair, similar to The Informant. Or a dramady, with Wakefield being depicted in his true form: a bumbling narcissistic sociopath.
"So, care to explain, if Wakefield had even a leg to stand on, why he'd cut and run (not only with Deer, but also presenting no defense whatsoever during the subsequent investigation by the medical board authorities)?"
Why would he bother?
I would do the same thing if I were him... Why put yourself through more nonsense? When freaks like Brian Deer are able to get confidential information? When freaks like Brian Deer are able to harass parents about their sick children? Why spend years going through all this again...
I wish Brian Deer would post a picture of himself in his tighty whiteys with a cape and title it ... "I'm here to save the day". What a tool.
I don't think that's what Duh/Huh is saying (though it's the same interpretation that I first made). I think that he's saying: why bother to retract a paper that says "more research is needed"? It seems pointless, a waste of time and effort, to retract a paper which merely says "more research is needed", since in the grand scheme of things a paper which merely says that is unimportant. Therefore, the fact that people did go to the time and effort of retracting it means something fishy is happening.
Well, I would, since I'm a squirrel minion.
@herr doktor bimler:
Sweet Cthulhu, he's one of those "the polio virus didn't cause paralytic polio" people? I shouldn't be surprised, yet I am.
I'm trying to see if Orac's spam blocker blocks tighty whiteys?
(Long comment split into parts)
You were asked why, if the GMC was just mindlessly repeating the information given to them by Deer, Wakefield's defense didn't point this out during his trial. And your answer is to change the subject. Nice.
What would count as "fully tested"? Wait a hundred years to see if vaccines have any effect on the great-grand children of the people who take it?
@ Science Mom
Brian Deer correctly indicated that his work was remarkably free from errors given the length and complexity of his investigation, but my note was not to his standards. It wasn't the date of Child 11's vaccination that was in question, but rather the timing of the onset of symptoms.
Deer wrote that based on the child's Royal Free discharge summary, the onset of behavioral symptosm was months before the child was vaccinated at age 15 months.
"For Wakefield to be correct, then, (1)the hospital records must be incorrect; (2) the child's father must be mistaken; and (3) respiratory infections must be a "behavioural sign" of ASD."
The most important part is that Brian Deer got caught being deceitful (or making a huge error) in the BMJ report. No getting around that. Brian should be getting up soon. I'm sure he will clear this all up.
@Duh - how do you figure again? Since everything you've posted has been shown to be "less than accurate."
Whose lawsuit was it?
Are you against due process?
If I sue you, saying you lied, are you entitled to defend yourself, on the principle that we are all innocent until proven guilty?
Oh, and by the way, I donât actually expect you to address this question, just as you havenât addressed the question that Iâve been asking you all day: why is it that you think Wakefield â a man stripped of his medical license due to a lack of ethics (for transcripts of the hearing see here http://sheldon101blog.blogspot.com) - deserves your unwavering support?
@ Duh? ( #149)
It blocks all sorts of people, for all kinds of reasons, darling. As a matter of fact, it is currently blocking my response to *you*.
-btw- there ain't no one tighter or whiter than me.
Have a drink or something.
Or a village is missing its' idiot.
Seriously mm, give it up - you are no Mad the Swine*.
*Now there was a Poe troll to end all Poes
Yeah, Medicien Man is a real Sir Brave Robin Right Wingnut. He is probably married to someone with a Y-chromosome. He just can't tell since he is in a constant stupor.
Wow! The latest posts at 'RI' seem to have become an alternative definition for 'crank magnetism'.
It would appear that Cranks of every stripe and colour (and grade of lunacy) have assembled here for the festivities.
Kudos to the regulars for:
Keeping up the fight against the slurry of nonsense.
Successfully ignoring Thingy.
A happy new year to our most gracious host and a happy new year to everyone.
duh/huh Trolls: Why doesn't Wakefield go back to the U.K. and re-institute a libel lawsuit against Brian Deer? Why indeed, doesn't Wakefield institute a lawsuit against Brian Deer for slander...now that Mr. Deer has been interviewed numerous times on television here in the United States and in the U.K.?
I see that AoA is begging for donations again...maybe duh/huh would consider donating to Andy's legal fund so that Andy could clear his "good name" and retrieve his medical license.
Well, according to One Queer Fish, it's because The Time Is Not Yet Right. When the time is right he'll sue and win, and all us pro-vaxxers will see just how wrong we are, just you wait...
But Matthew...shouldn't the time "be right now"...being that Mr. Deer has found some other damnable information about Wakefield and publicized it.
duh/huh needs to look up the phrase "discovery before trial" and try to figure out what Andy's chances are of prevailing.
Cripes, we are going to be stuck with this charlatan quack for years to come.
It is indeed impressive. I had actually planned on kicking back and taking it easy during the week between Christmas and New Years, and then somehow this troll infestation led to hundreds of comment notifications showing up in my e-mail. Oh, well.
I rather suspect that, it having been the holidays and all, the usual sites where these trolls congregated were very slow, with few or no posts, leaving them to find someplace to go. I suspect that, now that we're past New Year's, they will probably disperse to wherever they all came from.
Does the ScienceBlogs blogging software not give you access to the HTTP referrer data, which could tell you which websites they might have come from?
You wouldn't bother defending yourself if you were innocent of all charges? Even if being found guilty meant your license to practice medicine being taken away, losing your means of earning a living and disgrace being heaped upon you, you wouldn't bother? I suppose you wouldn't bother doing the research that would prove you were right all along either, when offered the opportunity? Of course you wouldn't.
By the way, Brian Deer has replied to your accusations at #137.
Mathew Cline @ 168
I suspect the heat death of the universe will occur before the time is right for Wankfield to sue.
@Kerbiozen - wow, and what a response it was. I guess it is now very easy to see who is lying here, and it isn't Brian Deer.
So, good luck with that Duh/Huh....
'Dan Olmsted wrote that "perhaps the '13-18 months' was a typo for â15-18;â'
Did he really say that? I don't generally look at his blog, so I must have missed that. You really have to wonder about the calibre of these people - not their views - but just the amount of RAM they came installed with. If I recall, this is the guy who not only claims to have established the cause of autism, but also of poliomyelitis. And yet, curiously, nobody takes a blind bit of notice.
I'm sure many people would be fascinated to know that Wakefield disclosed a detailed medical history of child 11 during his aborted "gagging" writ lawsuit over my MMR TV show, which the judge said Wakefield was bringing "for public relations purposes" rather than wanting to face our defence.
Of course, as the document was disclosed in litigation, I can't tell you what this history says without the court's permission, so intelligent readers must be left speculating as to whether this document is consistent with the discharge summary given me by the father and reported in the BMJ, or whether I've flagrantly ignored what I read in litigation and left myself open to serious criticism if Wakefield sued and the document is then produced (as of course it would be).
As the old saying goes: "You pays your money, and you takes your choice."
As I previously noted, the BMJ will not be withdrawing, retracting, correcting or amending what was published about Wakefield a year ago, since it's all true.
Thanks again Brian. That line from the former journalist for the Rev Sun Myung Moon (who I think was convicted of fraud, if I recall right), is just priceless. "Perhaps the '13-18 months' was a typo for â15-18;â
Indeed. And perhaps "Dan Olmsted" is a typo for "wanker".
I love these people.
Since I've been following the meandering, crooked path of alt med for *nearly 12 years!*( this month!), here are a few things I've learned:
advocates make wild accusations about people without backing them up; similarly their scientific claims follow suit. If you watch a particular charlatan, you'll notice that the story-line is constantly transforming to fit present needs. I've heard the same g.d. story about feeding green juices to lab rats more times than I care to count: each time highlighting or presenting a new facet of crankery, relevant to a new product being hawked.
So much depends upon developing a persona and a cult that revolves around it: usually the presentation involves frightening the audience off of standard medicine/ psychology with professionals being portrayed as corrupt, greedy, and scandalously unsympathetic. However, the charlatan reveals himself to be your one avenue of hope, bucking the system to bring you the Truth. Conspiracies explain why this brilliant innovator's work is being squirreled away from the public where it would enlighten and benefit the masses. Any opposition to him reveals alliance with the Corrupt Ones.
These mis-educators travel in packs, providing each other with support. Thus what you read @ NaturalNews will often show up at the ProgressiveRadioNetwork and AoA. AJW, being an enemy of their enemies, is therefore a friend; actually, he's the jewell in the friggen crown to these guys.
"By the way, Brian Deer has replied to your accusations at #137."
Wow. Someone is full of deceit. Whether it is Deer or Olmsted, let us hope we find out sooner rather than later.
Brian Lawrence (oops, I mean Brian Deer... which one is it? Do you only go by Brian Lawrence when you are attempting to use your journalism "skills" with unsuspecting parents of children with autism?). Scumbag move, Sir.
Anyway... Brian Deer has boldly stated that the father of Child 11 has not emailed him / written to him to say that the discharge report was incorrect in terms of the dates. Please correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Deer. Let us be clear here so there are no questions... Did the father of Child 11 let you know that the papers were incorrect? You state that the father "has made no complaint"... Keep that aside for now. We already know that the father is not a pro-Wakefield man. That is known. So, is your comment that there has been no complaint made an attempt to say that yeah, the discharge papers were incorrect in the dates but the father didn't complain about it... no big deal, etc. If so, you are a lame excuse for a journalist as we know it is a big deal.
Go on record, were the documents that you were provided by the Father shown to be inaccurate, or not? Your entire premise in the BMJ article was that and let me quote: "That put the first symptom two months earlier than reported in the Lancet, and a month before the boy received the MMR vaccination". True or not true? According to the father (based on Olmsted's reporting), that is wrong. It was the mmr, followed by multiple illnesses, followed by autism diagnosis. Does the father agree with your timeline? Very important. Let us keep in mind that (again, according to Olmsted), there is other documentation from other doctors in the US that seem to suggest that the Olmsted timeline is more accurate. Unless of course that "other" documentation are lies as well. Interesting that some of those "other" documents supposedly say that there was also "indeterminant inflammatory bowel disease". I suppose that those doctors in the United States were also in on Wakefield's "fraud". Are you going to move on to them next, Mr. Deer? (Again, assuming that Olmsted did not make up this entire interview with the father).
Just so everyone is clear. This is not trivial. Some may attempt to chalk this up as a stupid little trivial piece of the puzzle. Explain to me how it can be trivial when Mr. Deer used the Father of Child 11 as one of his main points (in the article in the BMJ)? He started off with him - I can assume that Mr. Deer considered this child / this father to be one of his strongest pieces of evidence. Interesting. So, if you are going to say that *I* am harping on trivial matters... I would suggest that you first toss that insult towards your hero, Brian Deer.
Let us keep in mind that Child 11 seems very important here in the sense that the other Lancet parents are on record (or at least the vast majority of them - 9 / 10 out of the 12) as believing in and defending Dr. Wakefield and the rest for helping their children. Those parents have zero complaints with Dr. Wakefield and have frankly been berated, mocked and have been misrepresented by the lovely Mr. Deer. Those parents deserve a voice as does the Father of Child 11. We know the other parents opinions (again the majority), let's find out the real story behind Child 11.... Again, Mr. Deer seems to think Child 11 is important... I imagine you would all agree.
I would also like to make a quick comment on the last sentence of Mr. Deer's most recent post. He states (in regards to Dr. Wakefield) that he (Wakefield) has been seen "abusing decent people". Let me tell you about my first introduction to you, Mr. Deer. I had read a lot about you and your views, etc... I was not a newbie... but my first introduction to you where I actually "saw" you and heard from you was from a video where you berated, scoffed at and quite frankly made a fool out of yourself with some parents of children with autism. That, was disgusting. Perhaps, you shouldn't be so quick to judge others. Just a thought.
Duh/Huh, why have you ignored my questions about Dr. Brent Taylor? Wakefield was offered an opportunity and turned it down, but Dr. Taylor took it up. What resulted? And when was it?
@Huh - your posts are dripping with "confirmation bias." You are taking the word of someone who has yet to provide any concrete evidence of his claims over a fully researched and fact-checked series of published articles, plus a multi-year investigation by the medical authorities
So,let us know when you have some real evidence for a change.
Give it up. ?uh? will comment on nothing other than what is in its script. It offers no proof of any of its assertions. It regards Olmsted and Wakefield as reliable sources. It ignores every attempt to move beyond child 11.
No depth to this ijit.
"You are taking the word of someone who has yet to provide any concrete evidence of his claims over a fully researched and fact-checked series of published articles, plus a multi-year investigation by the medical authorities".
My apologies. I must have missed where the father of Child 11 has confirmed that Brian Deer's timeline is correct. Again, that timeline being.... child sick / symptoms first and that followed by the mmr. That is the timeline that Deer has put out there on record in the BMJ. Can you point to the Father's confirmation of this timeline. It says a lot because Olmsted claims that the father believes that it was mmr first, then everything else...
I probably simply missed the Father's confirmation of Deer's timeline. Let me know. Much thanks!
Take it easy, Mister!
I've always been a great booster of adult education: have you ever thought about taking a few courses in an area that sparks your interest? You might develop your skills in IT or in a sport (I like tennis) or even learn how to cook that intriguing cuisine you once sampled at an exotic Pakastani restaurant. It's healthy to expand your repetoire, get out more, talk to people- most of them are pretty nice, once you get to know them. Even us. We're not fire-breathing dragons or evil faeries, you know. Take care.
MikeMa, you are correct. It looks like the Dynamically Dumb Duo of Duh/Huh cannot think for themselves, and are just playing a damaged playback. Repeating the same stuff over and over again, but without any place for conflicting information.
Alright, I couldn't resist chuckling out loud after I read that...
" It ignores every attempt to move beyond child 11."
Is there a reason why you wish to move beyond child 11?
Remember, Brian Deer (not Wakefield, not Olmsted) but *Brian Deer* has made child 11 the focus. He started off with child 11 in a BMJ article. I do believe that the BMJ article (or Medscape's article discussing the BMJ series) is where Orac started off here. Correct? So, why would we move on when Brian Deer has yet to answer the question in regards to whether his timeline in that very important series (and specifically relating to child 11) may be incorrect. Aren't you interested in knowing if the BMJ article is correct or not? You wouldn't want Joe Citizen thinking that Deer is correct about the timeline he presents (sickness first, mmr second) if that wasn't accurate. Would you? That would be crazy.
I'm sure that Brian Deer in all his honestly will agree with me on that point.
@ Brian Deer
Yes, that's a direct quotation from Part 7 of Olmsted's "Elaborate Fraud" series.
It is unresolvable in this venue. You do not accept Brian Deer's evidence. No one here accepts Olmsted's or yours, mostly because you (he) provided none.
Things beyond child 11 which we have tried, unsuccessfully, to address with you:
Wakefield's conflict of interests.
Wakefield's data manipulation.
Wakefield's use of unacceptable medical procedures on children.
Wakefield's fraud conviction for which mounted no defense.
Wakefield's failed lawsuit against Brian Deer.
I'm sure I missed some points but this is a partial list of ignored (by you), but relevant, issues.
"I, like you then, are in the 99 %?"
Probably in income. But, if you really believe the lies and scams you post, you are alone in the bottom 1% in terms of intelligence and honesty and top 1% in terms of stupidity.
So you've *also* actually waded through that miasmic dumping ground of cognitive detritus? In my own case, I find that the prep afforded me by studying abnormal psych was invaluable, (e.g. sample responses to testing, loose associations, idiosyncratic usage, et al). That and wearing boots.
@ Denice Walter
I did indeed waste part of my holiday reading Olmsted's screed, partly as penance for my mistaken post earlier in this thread regarding the timing of Child 11's MMR vaccination.
Let's try something a little different. Uh?, let's see if you have the mental skills needed to express your point of view in syllogism form. I can only guess at what you believe yourself to be arguing from which subjects you perseverate on, but it seems to be something like the following:
1) Brian Deer's account of Child 11 is wholly inaccurate.
2) Wakefield was not accused of or caught in any form of wrongdoing that did not involve Child 11.
3) Therefore, Wakefield might actually be innocent of any wrongdoing.
Now, the problem for you is that even if your Premise 1 was true - highly unlikely for a number of reasons - your Premise 2 is still bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. Wakefield is still guilty of withholding information that was absolutely vital to any scientific understanding of his Lancet paper, namely that the patients he wrote about, in whom he reported a conjunction of autistic spectrum disorders and GI issues, were referred to him because they had that specific conjunction of issues. Do you understand that this is established fact? That there is no way for a person with a functioning mind to deny that Wakefield did this? And that it is serious misconduct? There's plenty, plenty more, but that alone is enough to make the point.
See, this is why your perseveration on Child 11 looks so insane. Because it leaves you trying to argue a syllogism something akin to the following:
1) Wakefield committed serious scientific misconduct, withholding facts about how his study subjects were selected which were absolutely vital to correctly interpreting his reported observations.
2) Herp! Brian Deer Child 11 arglebargle Olmsted oddball journalist derp retraction further research is needed la la la hands are over my ears I can't hear youuuuuuu!!!!!!
3) Therefore, Wakefield engaged in no wrongdoing.
So your problem is that neither your offered Premise 2, nor anything else you might substitute in its place, can complete that syllogism and make it valid. If you insist on trying, we're going to have to ask you to be more focused and spell out how you think Wakefield is exculpated.
I wonder if ?uh? is actually Olmsted? Same blindered style.
The world view of huh/duh etc. etc. puzzles me. If so many interlocked interests will stop at nothing to ensure children get damaging vaccines (to huh/duh's mind), then presumably they will stop at nothing to perpetuate other criminal acts and offenses -- and in fact, it would logical for them to do so since it's not as if anyone is making that much money off vaccines. So how are we to explain the fact that drugs like Vioxx (for example.. but there are many others) which are much more valuable to pharmaceutical companies get withdrawn when problems arise, while vaccines do not?
" "Perhaps the '13-18 months' was a typo for â15-18;â
This was a possibility put out by Olmsted (he was not saying that this was the case....). Here's the reality. As of now, we know that the father has said (according to Olmsted, and very likely to be the truth, otherwise Child 11's story makes zero sense), that the child received the mmr and then became ill, etc. etc...
Timeline being: mmr followed by sickness, etc. (amount of time between mmr and sickness not part of the discussion at this point).
You in all of your glory (tighty whiteys, cape and all) have stated that the illnesses (problems) came first followed by the mmr.
One story is correct, the other is incorrect. You, Mr. Deer, should admit if the father has stated that the timeline is mmr and then illness. That would be the right thing to do. It would obviously prove that your BMJ article was a lie (or a bad mistake). But mistakes do happen, so we could move along. Remember, there are other documents provided (according to Olmsted) that indicate.... mmr and then illness.
That's all there is to it. Without a link to where the father has said that your timeline is correct, then I have to believe that your BMJ article is wrong... Hence, frankly, a bunch of lies.
There is nothing wrong with admitting that this one piece of your article is incorrect. You have an easy out in the sense that the discharge papers were wrong (per the father, who would know). A mistake was made. Correct it. That's all.
@Duh - if there is evidence that Deer's article is wrong, then present it. Putting it out there that Olmsted has stated something different (given his track record with the truth) isn't evidence - it is nothing but a baseless accusation.
So, put up or shut up - if you think you've got something on a distinguished journalist, editorial staff, and medical investigation board, then go ahead & play ball - otherwise, you've got nothing but hot air....
"@Duh - if there is evidence that Deer's article is wrong, then present it. Putting it out there that Olmsted has stated something different (given his track record with the truth) isn't evidence - it is nothing but a baseless accusation."
This is not about *me* proving anything. Obviously, I (like you) cannot. Simple. This is about Brian Deer being able to contradict Olmsted's article. Brian Deer who as you claim, is such a great journalist who is able to prove what he writes - since it has been researched and look over so much by the powers to be - should be able to answer on the record in regards to the father of Child 11... It should be easy for him to say... Due to my incredible journalistic abilities, I have been able to show that the father of child 11 agrees with me that the timeline went like this: Illness and issues BEFORE mmr. This is what Brian Deer claimed in the BMJ article. What is so difficult to understand here? Brian Deer made a claim. I am asking him to stand by that claim. What's the problem?
Pretty much what Lawrence said and you are still begging the question /Uh. Who fact-checks Olmsted? Who reviews his work and did he have the same access to information that Mr. Deer did? You need to believe Olmsted for some reason so why let some simple facts get in the way of that. Don't speak of any of us being dishonest when this drek is the basis for your argument.
@Huh/Duh - which ever one you are for this post, Brian Deer already put forth his evidence - Olmsted's article, if you can call it that, is pure supposition and conjecture - unless there is solid evidence to the contrary, and if there is, Mr. Olmsted should have no problem providing it, since he has his own exclusive forum.
You're putting the cart before the horse - just because you think something is incorrect does not mean that it is so, unless you have evidence to the contrary. Since you seem to have no proof, other than your own opinion, it isn't up to Brian Deer to prove himself right (at this point - because everything that he wrote was both fact-checked by an editorial staff and was in line with the subsequent multi-year medical investigation) - because he has already done so.
Again, if you have concrete proof - present it. Until that time, you're just spinning yarns....
Still cannot address anything besides child 11. No surprise.
So rather than trying to argue against placing Wakefield first in the illustrious list of scumbag quacks, the neanderthal trolls resort to shooting the messenger. As Brian Deer pointed out in his post here
"Wakefield was found guilty of four counts of dishonesty, plus more than two dozen charges of child abuse,against a criminal standard of sureness, by a statutory tribunal of the UK general medical council, and he did not appeal after his legal team advised his funders that he would lose. He was fired from his job in Austin, Texas, where I don't think I held much sway. Something like four of his papers have been retracted. And he is now reduced to smirking with Aids denialists in blog videos. Or abusing decent people, such as in this:"
Like how many times do we have to point out that Wakefield is a convicted fraud ? Despite your attempts to derail the thread it is obvious that this is about Wakefield and not Deer.
One more time so that you dunderheads get it.
Wakefield as a convicted fraud deserves his place at the head of the scumbag alt quack wacko tinfoil hat brigade. Brian Deer did not convict Wakefield a court of law did. No amount of you shooting the messenger is going to change this fact.
Anyway back to the show...where did I put my popcorn?
Of course I should have written:
'Wakefield as a convicted fraud deserves his place at the head of the scumbag alt quack wacko tinfoil hat brigade. Brian Deer did not convict Wakefield a a statutory tribunal of the UK general medical council did. No amount of you shooting the messenger is going to change this fact.'
'Wakefield as a convicted fraud deserves his place at the head of the scumbag alt quack wacko tinfoil hat brigade. Brian Deer did not convict Wakefield a court of law did. No amount of you shooting the messenger is going to change this fact.'
I think what he's implying is more like:
1) Brian Deer's account of Child 11 is wholly inaccurate.
2) If his account of Child 11 is wholly inaccurate, what else did Deer get wrong?
Not so. You have proved nothing of the sort.
" If his account of Child 11 is wholly inaccurate, what else did Deer get wrong?"
What difference does it make? Deer is a reporter. A very good reporter to whom we are indebted for making sure this didn't get swept under the rug, but a reporter.
Wakefield was investigated by a duly established panel and struck off by the action of that panel, and his paper was retracted because of the findings of that panel. If Deer made an error in reporting the events (and I'm not going to assume he did just on Olmsted's say-so), so what? That doesn't alter the investigation by the panel, nor does it alter the results of that investigation, nor does it alter the actions of that panel. Obsessing about whether Deer did or did not make an error in reporting is absurd.
@Herp/Derp - if Olmsted actually had some evidence & given his vaccine position, love-affair for Wakefield, and desire to please his fan-base, he would be screaming it from the tops of the highest mountains.
Since he has not & has instead moved on to other anti-vaccine crankery (besides the usual ad hominem attacks against pro-vaccine personalities), I would suspect that the cubboard is empty. So, move on, nothing to see here....
Bit late to the party, sorry.
Doh/Duh/Huh/Jake Crosby said that the father of child 11 backed up Wakefield's "timeline" of when his symptoms developed...
(...my turn to say "Huh?", or more appropriately, "WTF?")
The father said the autistic symptoms started 3 months after the MMR vax.
Wakefield said they started within a week.
@ LW. Thanks for your kind words. But, in one respect, you are kind of falling foul of an MMR fallacy that anti-vaxxers have promoted over the years. It's splitting the difference: "Oh, well, even if, then..." and it's giving a concession, perhaps out of tiredness with it all.
I did not make a mistake. My first BMJ report (and the previous Sunday Times material) was premised on conflicts between medical records and Wakefield's claims in the Lancet. It was never to retrospectively diagnose, but rather to present contemporaneous documentary evidence, which is generally of phenomenal probative value.
This is a classic issue in vaccine litigation. Parental accounts are almost invariably different to what was recorded at the time. There is an interesting literature on the comparative primacy of contemporaneous records versus human recall, and I won't bore you with it.
In the case of child 11, where Wakefield claimed the child to have suffered his first "behavioural symptom" of autism "1 week" after MMR (to create a purported 14-day "temporal link" for the litigation which was paying him Â£150 an hour), there are medical records indicating developmental concerns before he was vaccinated. These I reported, and the father acknowleges that they say what I said they say.
Subsequent to publication, he produced a letter he wrote to Wakefield in 1997 in which, contrary to the records, he dated the onset months, not days, after MMR. He supplied me with this letter a few months back, after having told the blogger with the Moonie links that Wakefield's paper was "a complete fabrication", and asking for privacy. (The blogger didn't respect this).
The father's recollection does not prove the records wrong, or show me to be a liar, or to have made a mistake, or anything of the sort that the antivaxxers would have you believe. Had he produced the letter prior to my reports, I'd have eagerly added another paragraph to my piece, even though it was already almost impractically long for print. Indeed, elsewhere, I've sought to highlight variations between records and parental recollections, because this, too, is an important aspect of vaccine claims (and I think of medical practise generally).
Astoundingly, after I accused Wakefield of falsely reporting cases in the Lancet paper (in The Sunday Times in 2009), he changed his account of child 11 again, claiming, in his "book" that the boy's first behavioural symptoms were months after MMR, but without mentioning that the story had been changed again.
So you get the following situation. The Lancet said the boy's first behavioural symptoms started a week after MMR. That went into the 14-day temporal link to trigger the MMR vaccine scare, and all that followed. It was critical to unlocking the millions that funded the whole thing.
But, in fact, nothing ever evidenced that, and nobody at all now even asserts it. The records don't. The parent doesn't. I don't. Wakefield doesn't. And nor does the Moonie blogger.
So, since the records and the parental letter are absolutely clear - and neither can be squared with the paper - Wakefield either intentionally misrepresented the boy's case in the Lancet, or he made the "1 week" claim with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity. In civil litigation, that amounts to the same thing.
And this is just a tiny part of what went on...
Even if he goes that direction, though, he's still dependent on the premise "All our evidence of Wakefield's wrongdoing comes through Brian Deer," which is utterly false.
Krebiozen @127 said, "As Deer once pointed out, he just told the GMC where the bodies were buried and they dug them up."
Wakefield's defender puts me in mind of someone reading the account of the murder trial in which Deer reports where each body was found and then leaping up to say, "No! Olmsted says body number 11 was found three feet east of where Deer says! Three feet east, do you hear me? And that invalidates all of Deer's reporting and the entire murder trial and conviction so my guy is completely innocent! Why won't you listen to me?"
To sum up here**- and repeat myself:
We have perseveration upon *trivialities* because looking at the whole picture is much too disturbing to AJW's supporters ( esp those @ AoA)- the BMJ articles fit in with other SB lit- prior to and following the original paper, they unmask motivation, they show *evidence*, they were fact checked ,reviewed, studied by the courts and the GMC, and above all: they make sense.
** I find it lovely that scoffers @ RI continually illustrate my points. I should thank them.
"Wakefield's defender puts me in mind of someone reading the account of the murder trial in which Deer reports where each body was found and then leaping up to say, "No! Olmsted says body number 11 was found three feet east of where Deer says!"
Actually guys... child 11 is only one of his mistakes. You can't continue on though until you systematically go through each one and recognize the errors that Deer has made.
@Herp/Derp - and what would they be again & what evidence do you have (besides Olmsted's word - which again, contains no actual evidence)?
You are an exercise in futility.....
@Duh? (204): Okay, I'll play. Deer made a mistake with the date. Even if correct this doesn't invalidate Deer's other findings, doesn't touch the findings of the GMC or absolve Wakefield of falsifying data in this case, but okay, I'll go along with your statement.
Now that's out of the way, I'm interested to see the next "one of his mistakes". Hopefully it's better than this trivial mistake you've decided to focus on first that in no way invalidates the strength of the case against Wakefield.
@Herp/Derp - now that Brian Deer has responded with more detailed information (and in my mind, he certainly did not have to) proving your assertion to be incorrect, I look forward to your critical analysis of Olmsted's falsehoods.
I suppose the Lancet made the same errors in retracting Wakefield's paper, and the GMC made all the same errors despite spending years looking at written evidence and interviewing witnesses, and the BMJ failed to spot all Deer's errors, as did the editorial and legal processes of three major UK media groups. Not only that but the researchers who tried and failed to replicate Wakefield's work were all in error too.
I suppose we have a choice between believing that all these well-qualified and otherwise reliable people were in error or that Wakefield's supporters are a bunch of idiots who would still proclaim Wakefield's innocence while he was beating them over the head with a colonoscope. Not a difficult choice from where I'm sitting...
Then now please explain why you are ignoring Dr. Brent Taylor? What was his mistake?
I asked Jake: is it more likely that all of these people ( journalists, doctors, editors, media, professional associations, universities, courts, governments) are in on a gigantic, over-arching conspiracy that *spans the Atlantic* and more than *a decade* or that a doctor fixed data?
They carry on even more @ AoA today. I have paper work to do. So long.
@Denise - I saw that. More trying to "connect the dots" through any and all potential points of contact, even if they don't really have anything to do with one another. They can't get their heads out of the idea that this is some kind of worldwide conspiracy (that would have to involve literally hundreds of thousands of people).
Indeed. Lest we forget that spelling error...
That's false. We can continue on using only evidence for which we have independent confirmation, not dependent on Deer in other words, and using only that evidence we can clearly see that Wakefield is guilty of serious misconduct.
In a report as lengthy and complicated as Deer's investigation, it is almost impossible to avoid errors. But if Deer has made any, you haven't provided any evidence of it. You have a hearsay account from an unreliable source that a parent's memory of events many years ago does not match the medical records. Even if this is accurate, it is almost certainly just poor memory. It is well established that people often remember events in a way that "makes sense" to them instead of what actually happened, and reversal of the sequence of effects and supposed causes is not at all unusual. This is known to be particularly common in the case of autism and vaccinations.
Considering your reluctance to talk about anything other than patient 11, it seems clear that you think this is your best shot. And it is pretty lame.
Huh and Duh have absolutely no proof that anyone other than the mad Moonie "journalist" reported contact with the parent of child #11. So why don't they restrict their berating questioning to Olmsted...after all he is reportedly the last person to have had contact with the parent?
We look at the thorough reporting of Brian Deer and the verification of all his facts by an assortment of editorial boards and the GMC and compare it to the wild ravings of Olmsted...who is not fact-checked by any editorial board or administrative body of inquiry, and reach the logical conclusions:
Wakefield original lied about the proximity of the onset of symptoms to be qualified as an expert witness for the proposed lawsuit against the manufacturers of the vaccine that the child received. Wakefield then changed the date of the onset of symptoms...for "the record"...when found out by Deer.
Olmsted, who reigns supreme at AoA without any fact-checking from any editorial boards or administrative hearing boards, concocts a story about contacting the child's parent and weaves it into his expose of Deer's treachery.
Huh and Duh continue to post at RI with not one iota of "proof" except what the Moonie editor has written and they deserve the same amount of attention that we afford Olmsted.
Time to shut down these trolls.
@ Denice Walter: I saw that blog of Jake's on today's edition of AoA.
Jake, with his "unique" form of "connect-the-dots/six, sixty or six hundred degrees of separation" journalism is now attacking Sanjay Gupta. Jake's sole reason for this attack is that Gupta finally trashed Wakefield.
Jake has "linked" Gupta's trashing of St. Andy to Dr. Gupta's participation in the popular movie "Contagion". Is it just me, or are we watching the further deterioration of this young man into sheer lunacy?
Jake's paranoia has nothing to do with his being on or off "the spectrum"...and everything to do with his Wakefield "fixation". Why don't his parents intervene to get this kid some help with his mental problems?
It's quite pathetic really, the level of argument that Jake (aka "Doh") and his AoA cronies (John xxx Stone) have stooped to.
The nature of their vindication of Wakefield has sunk to the point where the discovery that the gardener who used to cut Brian Deer's hedge once bought a copy of the Times newspaper in 1994 is loudly trumpeted as confirming the global conspiracy against Wakefield.
Jake has become a very sad, deluded young man. He fits well within the AoA cocoon but is unable to work well outside that twisted, protected environment. I posited that ?uh? might be Olmsted but it might also be Jake. Either way the party is over.
It is very sad, but typical behavior of someone with a paranoid personality disorder - the more you hit them with facts that contradict their own views, the further they retreat into a netherworld of conspiracies and paranoid delusion.
What, really? *checks Age of Autism* Oh, wow. The mention of the movie is right there in the title of his article.
@ dt: "The nature of their vindication of Wakefield has sunk to the point where the discovery that the gardener who used to cut Brian Deer's hedge once bought a copy of the Times newspaper in 1994 is loudly trumpeted as confirming the global conspiracy against Wakefield."
Why are you telling that story NOW...I happen to know, through a fourth cousin who is a friend of the gardener's daughter-in-law, that the gardener was reading the Times newspaper as recently as 2002...not 1994 as you "allege". Are you a paid "stringer" for Orac or an undercover agent for the CIA?
@lilady: It gets worse. I hear that Deer also went to Tesco's supermarket one day in 1998 - just when Wakefield published his article! Coincidence or what???!!
And guess who was serving at the checkout? None other than the friend of a girl whose father had 300 shares in Hewlett Packard, which as we know also produces laptops which might have been used by journalists! I don't think the conspiracy can get any deeper, really.
(and Jake, I give you the OK to turn the above statement into another AoA article about the Wakefield uberconspiracy, if you so please)
Well, you've probably given him top flight material for his next few articles. Maybe he'll write a novella. After my fandango with him @ RI, I threw in a FYI blurb- to see if he would concoct a story out of my relationship with the FTSE & the NYSE, having blonde hair, & other nearly random distractors .-btw- He really is not a fan of prose or of me.
Truth be told: he never wrote up his adventures @ RI for AoA. And we've seen very little of him since ( although he has appeared once or twice). I wonder why?
Sheepmilker@99 It will be interesting to see what the "vaccination causes autism" crowd will do when the true cause(s) of autism is/are found. Incidentally, the causes will be found by scientists and medics, not blog trolls.
We don't need to ask,when there is stuff like this out on teh interwebz
If I am not mistaken .. thimerosal .. the once commonly used mercury based vaccine preservative .. is quite capable of mutating genes.
In other words .. instead of seeking a "drug" to repair mutated genes .. why not conduct research seeking to identify and remove all chemicals that our children being exposed to that can induce a gene to mutate?
In other words .. instead of seeking a "drug" to repair mutated genes .. why not conduct research seeking to identify and remove all chemicals that our children being exposed to that can induce a gene to mutate?
Because, silly, without mutations there would be no superpowers. It's like you've never seen a single X-Men movie.
Brian Deer @201: "But, in one respect, you are kind of falling foul of an MMR fallacy that anti-vaxxers have promoted over the years. It's splitting the difference: "Oh, well, even if, then..." and it's giving a concession, perhaps out of tiredness with it all."
I do apologize if I gave the impression that I was splitting the difference or giving a concession. I was not. I was only trying -- quixotically, I'm sure -- to get through to Wakefield's defender that your accuracy and veracity (about which I have no doubt) are irrelevant to Wakefield's being found to have committed fraud, among other things, to Wakefield's being struck off, and to his paper being retracted. If they want to defend Wakefield, they need to attack the findings of the panel, not your reporting.
Wakefield is suing them! Perhaps you are wrong.
We could play the "perhaps" game all day and night, but what matters is not what Wakefield claims to have as far as exculpatory proof, but what he can show. In his libel lawsuit against Deer he ended up not only losing the lawsuit but paying Deer's costs, and in the GMC hearing he didn't put forth any defense. Claiming that these two things happened while Wakefield was holding all the trump cards is close to full-bore lunacy.
Actually...Wakefield practically begged the court for a "continuance" of his lawsuit against Deer, as the "discovery before trial" would have revealed Wakefield's complete and utter duplicity and fraudulent study findings.
As I recall, after Wakefield offered absolutely no defense of the charges brought by the GMC and the GMC issued its ruling, Wakefield did "discontinue" the lawsuit against Deer and was ordered to pay all of Brian Deer's court costs.
BTW, Wakefield has been found guilty of all charges in "The court of public opinion"...get yourself a new 'nym.
We can now guess why Herp/Derp was attempting to engage Deer on here....
Are people still trotting out the "it's got MERCURY in it!" line?
No it hasn't. It has a mercury salt in it. Completely different properties to elemental ('raw') mercury and completely non-toxic.
That's why you can happily cover your dinner with sodium and chlorine. Both poisonous elements by themselves, but quite tasty when combined to make good old table salt.
Basic chemistry, it's just too complicated for anti-vaxxers...
On the off chance you're serious, you'd have to start by never letting anyone outdoors during the day (ultraviolet light is a mutagen), which in turn means putting everyone on vitamin D supplements for life. Then you can take on all the industries that are dumping potentially mutagenic substances into the air children breathe. And stop burning coal for energy: coal ash is radioactive.
Of course, without mutations, we'd almost certainly be single-celled organisms, and have no internet to argue over.
It gets worse, Vicki; free radicals can damage DNA as well as UV light, so you'd have to have everyone avoid oxygen. Naturally that'd be 100% effective at preventing cancer... though I suspect everyone would agree that the cure (asphyxiation) is worse than the disease.
Even worse! The most common cause of DNA damage (serious damage - abasic sites) is water! Not "heavy water" or "activated water" or even "succussed water" - plain old aitch-two-oh.
So, if you stay away from UV light, avoid all reactive chemicals (including and especially oxygen) and don't consume any water, you can significantly reduce your chance of DNA damage (not to mention your chance of offspring).
Accursed dihydrogen monoxide... is there nothing it does not destroy? #banDHMO