Doctor behind MMR jab panic failed in his duties

[~Temet Nosce~]

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23800261-doctor-behind-mmr-jab-panic-failed-in-his-duties.do

I don't really get into the vax debate much but I never realised that this guy based his claims on a study of only 12 children :eek: and yet so many people took his claims as gospel?

[jaq]

"The charges against the trio run to 93 pages and include the allegation that Dr Wakefield failed to disclose to the Lancet that he had accepted £55,000 from the Legal Aid Board. The money was allegedly for research to support legal action by parents who believed their children were harmed by MMR."

That's the bit that worries me most. Research being BOUGHT specifically to support a legal case. Can that research then have any claim to be free of bias?

It was always fairly widely known that his sample size was small (sorry KiaKai!), but the claims about it being so very dodgy ethically are new for me.

[Fuchsia!]

I personally think he was onto something, but he went about it in the wrong way.

[MimiGrace]

I personally think he was onto something, but he went about it in the wrong way.
i was just about to say that i think its sh!t that it happened the way he went about it, because now the researchers will probably avoid it, and instead of us getting answers, anyone who questions the vax is seen as being as crazy as the initial researcher :(

just because this study was BS, doesn't mean they shouldn't test for it anyway

*if i make no sense, i appologise in advance*

[~Temet Nosce~]

It was always fairly widely known that his sample size was small (sorry KiaKai!), but the claims about it being so very dodgy ethically are new for me.
lol like I said I never got into it much so didn't know of the exact number.

[jaq]

i was just about to say that i think its sh!t that it happened the way he went about it, because now the researchers will probably avoid it, and instead of us getting answers, anyone who questions the vax is seen as being as crazy as the initial researcher :(

just because this study was BS, doesn't mean they shouldn't test for it anyway

*if i make no sense, i appologise in advance*

Actually, you make perfect sense. Autism is still a very badly understood condition, and they haven't/can't rule out a link ... and this study has spoiled potentially fertile ground for other, reputable, thorough, independent researchers to investigate.

Getting ethics council permission in the UK is hard enough; getting grants to support research etc is hard ... a lot of people will avoid this as an area of investigation in future BECAUSE of what Wakefield did.

And that means vaxes are LESS safe, simply because this hasn't been appropriately investigated. :gloomy:

[Amara]

As it says in the article other studies have been done & no link has been found since, yet people still choose to believe such a tiny study that has been in disrepute for years.

I'm glad this article has made it on to this forum as I think it's important that people read it & see that study for what it really was.

[elleandsam]

I'm glad this article has made it on to this forum as I think it's important that people read it & see that study for what it really was.

:iagree: Nicely said.

[kay11]

Actually, you make perfect sense. Autism is still a very badly understood condition, and they haven't/can't rule out a link ... and this study has spoiled potentially fertile ground for other, reputable, thorough, independent researchers to investigate.


I agree that autism is a very poorly understood condition but there have been further studies that have been unable to find a link. For people to keep pushing for more and more proof of the autism/vaccination link they do a disservice to both vaccination research and autism research. Yes more needs to be done, but the vaccination/autism link has never been replicated in later studies that were much more rigorous.

[Tici]

Richard Norton (Cheif Editor of the Lancet)
in the General Medical Council trial, said that Wakefield's study was a superb case study, of the highest quality.

When he was confronted with printed evidence that his office had received notification of conflicts of interests a year before the paper was published, he said that he never saw it!!!



I agree that autism is a very poorly understood condition but there have been further studies that have been unable to find a link.

But who does those studies ?

Vaccine manufacturers are behind pretty much everything we have been told about the safety of vaccines. As Dr. Samuel Katz, developer of the measles vaccine, stated, “Government doesn’t fund clinical studies of vaccines. Industry does.”

So until there is some independant research/studies they can tell me till their blue in the face that vaccines are safe.

[delirium]

I don't think there's a link, but that doesn't mean there isn't. The major study from Japan was pretty conclusive to me. However, I would like to see more studies before I would say without a doubt it's not true.

[jaq]

I don't think there's a link, but that doesn't mean there isn't. The major study from Japan was pretty conclusive to me. However, I would like to see more studies before I would say without a doubt it's not true.

This is my position also. I am reasonably convinced that autism spectrum disorders are largely a neurological condition that is primarily genetically determined, BUT ... I think its up to vaccine researchers (whether it be from the vaccine manufacturers or completely independent) to inexorably prove there is NOT a causal relationship between the vax and autism.

The fact that a link has not yet been demonstrated is not conclusive proof it doesn't exist; the possibility of ANY link must be disproved.

I fully appreciate this is a very difficult thing to do, given the fact that ASD present so very differently from individual to individual, and the fact that vaccines effect individuals very differently.

I think this is a failing of vaccination science and lobby groups generally - there is little appreciation of the breadth of different reactions that might occur, and that while the MAJORITY of children will be fine after the majority of vaxes, a small percentage may not. (And I'm not talking about specific allergies or the like - simply that some children react, and some do not.)

If I was managing director of a vaccine company (or the research dept!) I'd be looking at the percentage of subjects who reacted badly, and directing my research dollars there, rather than looking at the 90% (a random figure, no relation to reality) that did not. Because if two or three children in a thousand have major problems after a vax, that vax is not definitively safe.

They need to disprove the possibility of a link, NOT be "unable to find a link."

[kay11]

So until there is some independant research/studies they can tell me till their blue in the face that vaccines are safe.

But they'll NEVER be able to do the sorts of studies that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that vaccines are 100% safe. You could never do a randomised controlled study where one group of babies are given a vaccination and another group gets a placebo because that would be unethical.

And to be honest I never quite understood the doctor/big pharmaceutical conspiracy because surely they'd make a lot more money if people were sick. Eg a case of deafness from a childhood bout of measles creates a long term burden (or paycheck) for the medical industry.. I wear hearing aids myself (not from measles though) and am up for about $3k every 5 or so years.. That's after rebates etc..

[ManekiNeko]

I think of it this way ok some things are pretty obviously detrimental like hitting yourself in the head with a hammer no one is going to do a study on that really are they. It took 30 years for people to recognise that smoking causes lung cancer amongst other thigns. No studies actually prooved that smoking causes lung cancer and for along time people in the medical proffesion denied it. However now we just accept it we put to and two together with smoking and like hitting yourself in the head with a hammer it's obviouse that no further studies need to be done on it.

As for not understanding the conspiracy on pharmacutical companies making money off vaxing even despite the cost of of the medically ill on the system. Think about when someone gets cancer or some other condition that requires expensive medical treatment in the form of pharmacuticals... Who suplies those? Not saying the conspiracy is true or not just saying you canmake sense in it if you want to. At the end of the day you either believe or you don't and for those who believe no explanation is necessary and for those who don't no explanation is possible.

[kay11]

I think of it this way ok some things are pretty obviously detrimental like hitting yourself in the head with a hammer no one is going to do a study on that really are they. It took 30 years for people to recognise that smoking causes lung cancer amongst other thigns. No studies actually prooved that smoking causes lung cancer and for along time people in the medical proffesion denied it. However now we just accept it we put to and two together with smoking and like hitting yourself in the head with a hammer it's obviouse that no further studies need to be done on it.

As for not understanding the conspiracy on pharmacutical companies making money off vaxing even despite the cost of of the medically ill on the system. Think about when someone gets cancer or some other condition that requires expensive medical treatment in the form of pharmacuticals... Who suplies those? Not saying the conspiracy is true or not just saying you canmake sense in it if you want to. At the end of the day you either believe or you don't and for those who believe no explanation is necessary and for those who don't no explanation is possible.

But to make sense of it you'd have to believe that vaccines cause more long term chronic diseases than not which would provide sufficient alternative income to the parmaceutical companies than those already known to exist. Measles and deafness, rubella and birth defects, mumps and infertility, polio disabilities are known problems that cause long term reliance on pharmaceutical company products. There are much stronger links here than other chronic problems. At the moment vaccination doesn't seem to cause more problems than those from the actual diseases themselves. Sure research/whistleblowers may prove this wrong in a few years time as in the smoking cases but you could do your head in trying to second guess every future development in medicine.

[sockstealingpoltergeist]

It's really scary.

[ManekiNeko]

But to make sense of it you'd have to believe that vaccines cause more long term chronic diseases than not which would provide sufficient alternative income to the parmaceutical companies than those already known to exist. Measles and deafness, rubella and birth defects, mumps and infertility, polio disabilities are known problems that cause long term reliance on pharmaceutical company products. There are much stronger links here than other chronic problems. At the moment vaccination doesn't seem to cause more problems than those from the actual diseases themselves. Sure research/whistleblowers may prove this wrong in a few years time as in the smoking cases but you could do your head in trying to second guess every future development in medicine.


Would it also not be costly to throw away millions of vaccines and start over again?

I guess when you feel that vaccines may have made a difference in your childs life it's hard not to try and put things into perspective even if it does your head in... That goes for both sides of the coin aswell.