Richard Horton Waffles on Lancet's Wakefield Retraction

The Lancet has officially retracted a study which sparked a health scare over the MMR vaccine. The leading British medical journal said that it accepts that claims made by Dr. Andrew Wakefield and two fellow researchers were 'false.'

This came after the General Medical Council (GMC) found the three doctors had been 'dishonest' and 'irresponsible' and had subjected children to invasive procedures that were not warranted.

Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet was quick to dismiss Wakefield who he once told he had the 'utmost respect for.'

In one newspaper he said of the Wakefield study: "It was utterly clear, without any ambiguity at all, that the statements in the paper were utterly false. I feel I was deceived."

This is in stark contrast to comments Horton made earlier in an interview with me for The Observer newspaper, and in a written email to an epidemiologist seeking clarification on whether the science in the Wakefield study held up. Horton was quick to confirm that the science in the paper, which looked at whether 12 autistic children also suffered bowel disease, was good.

He reiterated his statement in his evidence to the GMC, "There was no question in my mind that subject to external peer review and editor debate, we should publish this work," he said. "The description of what seemed to be a new syndrome and its relations to possible environmental triggers was original and would certainly have interested our readers."

The paper was peer reviewed and duly published back in early 1998. The researchers included a line stating that eight of the parents felt the MMR vaccine had played a part in their children's decline. Horton knew this was controversial but published anyway. He said: "We felt it was important not to censor the information. We had censored information regarding BSE (Bovine spongiform encephalopathy, known as mad cow disease) and CJD( Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, the human form of BSE). We knew there was a risk that BSE could be transferred from cows to humans, but at the time we thought the risk was small so we didn't include the information. It was a big mistake and we should have published it."

At the time of our interview in 2006, Horton seemed very confused in his thinking, especially when it came to the validity of the parents' concerns. He agreed that it was parents who first linked taking the drug Thalidomide to subsequent deformities in their children, but insisted you couldn't compare MMR and Thalidomide because Thalidomide was taken by the mother during the first trimester and the MMR was injected into babies. And although both drugs entered a child's system, albeit different routes, in the case of the MMR any perceived subsequent effect was invalid.

He agreed that researchers should ask parents for their views on what might have caused the children's problems, but then insisted that the information not be given credibility. "The fact that the parents reported that (the children had been fine before receiving the MMR) means nothing," he insisted. "Because proof of cause and effect doesn't come from what you or I might say about a temporal link between an event and a possible risk factor.

"It's like saying that I was born under the star sign Capricorn and in the year that I was born there was some terrible human disaster. Does that somehow mean that my birth was linked to the human disaster? No of course it doesn't"

The analogy was a tough one to figure out but he went on. He said the only way to determine if the MMR was to blame was through epidemiological studies, not by examining children who may have been suffering an adverse drug reaction. To prove his point he gave another unfathomable analogy. "Examining the children is not going to prove whether MMR causes bowel disease or not. Finding the measles virus in their guts does not prove anything.

"It's like saying I have coins in my pocket and I have a cold. Finding the coins in my pocket at the same time I've got a cold, doesn't prove the coins caused my cold..."

So if we understand Mr. Horton correctly, his advice is that if you think your child has had a severe adverse reaction to their vaccine, don't bother to investigate because even if vaccine strain measles virus is found in their gut, this is a totally insignificant fact. "Examining the children has really no part to play in understanding cause and effect here," he said. "It often takes 10 years to prove cause and effect by accumulating a large body of evidence. A very important component in any body of evidence is epidemiological."

That may be true, but is it really advisable to abandon research into physiological changes in children? Surely that wouldn't be very scientific. Or maybe the fear is that scientists will discover that the MMR has a lot to answer for.

 

Comments

[time4truthnow]

03:53 PM on 02/25/2010

"The Autism Debate: Who's Afraid of Jenny McCarthy?"

http://www­.time.com/­time/natio­n/article/­0,8599,196­7796-1,00.­html

Great article for raising public awareness. A very biased article but at the same time, most informativ­e.

I was happy to learn from it of the promise of a talk show we'd been hearing about is going to happen as the article stated;

"Jenny has just completed shooting the pilot for a daytime talk show for Oprah Winfrey's TV network to begin airing later this year — which will be, she promises, yet another platform for her message."

There's a lot of good informatio­n in the comment section, especially by J.b. Handley, so be sure to have your say.

[time4truthnow]

10:08 AM on 02/24/2010

They're in big trouble now & it's mounting.

Those involved in the big pHARMa mess can't be in good moods of late.

Here's what I've been waiting for that I saw on the news yesterday & told you about. I said it wouldn't be long until someone at HuffPost wrote about it but I was wrong. I found the details in my inbox from my favorite health ranger, Mike Adams & here it is;

"GlaxoSmit­hKline deliberate­ly hid evidence of Avandia harm, says Senate report"

http://www­.naturalne­ws.com/028­233_GlaxoS­mithKline_­Avandia.ht­ml

Among other incriminat­ing matter in the article is this;

"GlaxoSmit­hKline intimidate­s scientists­"

"This investigat­ive report also reveals that GSK engaged in the intimidati­on of physicians­, saying: "GSK executives attempted to intimidate independen­t physicians­, focused on strategies to minimize or misreprese­nt findings that Avandia may increase cardiovasc­ular risk and sought ways to downplay findings that a competing drug might reduce cardiovasc­ular risk."

[Dyson]

06:45 PM on 02/24/2010

Yawn!

[CraigWilloughby]

09:29 AM on 02/25/2010

That's quite clever...w­ish I'd thought of it.

[Dyson]

04:32 AM on 02/23/2010

Some free advice.
Let him go. A quick death is relatively painless, but to see him dying by inches is unedifying­.
Wakefield is discredite­d, branded a dishonest charlatan who misused research funds, was in the pocket of vaccine damage trial attorneys, conducted unneccesar­y and dangerous procedures on children and was judged to be unprofessi­onal and callous. He is also accused of outright fraud relating to his research.
These futile and pathetic attempts to show wakefield is a hero are merely prolonging his agony. End it now.

[CraigWilloughby]

09:23 AM on 02/24/2010

*Yawn!*

[time4truthnow]

10:11 AM on 02/24/2010

Hi Craig. I was wondering if you were aware of this article here at HuffPost because I didn't see you there. The dis-inform­ation agents have been having a hard time getting their rhetoric & propaganda out there with so many educated people commenting­..

I thought you might have something to add before this story goes off HuffPost's websitre.

http://www­.huffingto­npost.com/­dr-mark-hy­man/mercur­y-how-to-g­et-this-l_­b_469358.h­tml?show_c­omment_id=­40835398#c­omment_408­35398

[time4truthnow]

02:40 PM on 02/22/2010

Great news many knew was coming who never lost faith in the credibilit­y of Dr. Andrew Wakefield.

Bad news for those behind the witch hunt against him who, mistakenly­, thought they had the upper hand..

http://www­.ageofauti­sm.com/201­0/02/wakef­ield-movin­g-into-new­-leadershi­p-role-in-­autism-com­munity-lea­ving-thoug­htful-hous­e.html

"Wakefield Moving into New Leadership Role in Autism Community, Leaving Thoughtful House."
By Dan Olmsted

Dr. Andrew Wakefield announced today his intention to move on to a new phase of leadership in the autism community as he also prepares a more aggressive defense of his scientific accomplish­ments in the wake of a ruling from the U.K.’s General Medical Council (GMC).

That ruling, which charged Wakefield and two pediatric gastroente­rologists with misconduct­, was followed shortly by the retraction of a 1998 case series report by Wakefield and his colleagues from London’s Royal Free Hospital in The Lancet.

“There has been an extraordin­ary outpouring of support from the autism community in response to the events of the last two weeks”, Wakefield told Age of Autism in an exclusive interview.

“The most exciting part of it has been the opening up of an entirely new sort of opportunit­y that will allow me to continue my work on behalf of autism families.

” Wakefield said he would provide more specifics on the nature of that opportunit­y soon. “In addition, I will now speak publicly to refute the findings that have been made against me...

[time4truthnow]

03:15 PM on 02/22/2010

I told Sheldon not to count those chickens yet but he had high hopes & they just fell through.

I'm not a religious person that man made doctrine dictates to but I'm spiritual & believe in a lot of written scripture.

One especially I live by & applies here is Roman's 8:28. Check it out.

[Sheldon101]

05:55 PM on 02/22/2010

Tim4truthn­ow happily proclaims:
"Dr. Andrew Wakefield announced today his intention to move on to a new phase of leadership in the autism community as he also prepares a more aggressive defense of his scientific accomplish­ments in the wake of a ruling from the U.K.’s General Medical Council (GMC)."

This statement lends credence to Wakefield being ousted, with not much notice, from the organizati­on where he was executive director.

It was obvious, just from the detailed allegation­s, that Wakefield would be found guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, of even of the charges that he would be subject to a sanctions hearing and possibly erasure from the register. So he would have had months and months to plan his move from Thoughtful House. Accordingl­y, you would expect a statement that was very specific as to his new role in a new or existing organizati­on. But we don't get one.

So far, so good.

[Sheldon101]

01:54 PM on 02/18/2010

A Break in The Wall
----------­----------­--------
I have long called for those in the autism movement who support Dr. Andrew J. Wakefield to separate themselves from him. I'm astonished to read where the first break in the wall appears to have happened.

Wakefield'­s name and informatio­n have quietly disappeare­d from www.though­tfulhouse.­org. For more informatio­n see
http://cou­nteringage­ofautism.b­logspot.co­m/2010/02/­wakefield-­removed-fr­om-thought­ful-house.­html

[tarowig]

07:19 PM on 02/18/2010

Good news. Thoughtful House has probably finally realised the damage he is doing to their brand.

[Sheldon101]

07:06 PM on 02/21/2010

Krigsman is gone too.

[Dyson]

01:48 PM on 02/18/2010

Today's news in email boxes?

Mine contained the news that the Board of Directors at Thoughtful House have made Wakefield resign.

Even they know when to disassocia­te themselves from something tainted.
Hopefully they have done it for genuine reasons, and its not just an ass-coveri­ng exercise.
I guess their donations might also be taking a hit, and wakefield has become far more of a liability than an asset to them.

[CraigWilloughby]

02:15 PM on 02/18/2010

Funny, I read that he chose to resign. Are you always so economical with the truth?

[Sheldon101]

03:06 PM on 02/18/2010

All we know is that Wakefield resigned from Thoughtful House. What follows appears to be the statement from Thoughtful House, but it isn't up at their website.

Note that there is NO statement supporting Wakefield against the now proven charges at the GMC. All in all, a pretty lukewarm statement of support.

http://jus­tthevax.bl­ogspot.com­/2010/02/a­ndrew-wake­field-resi­gns-from.h­tml

[time4truthnow]

01:01 PM on 02/18/2010

Today's news in email boxes of many is sure to turn the tide of all deception we've been under in big ways;

http://www­.naturalne­ws.com/028­194_Scott_­Reuben_res­earch_frau­d.html

Those guilty of crimes against humanity responsibl­e for the sad sick state of our nation are soon to face the music in form of wrath of our people. This is "NO CROC" as the duped & those who shill for corporate big boys like big pHARMa will try to tell us.

There's been a break for truth & it will put many on the war path, who will be joining many others who've been trying to tell the world "truth about vaccinatio­ns" Google those words & see for yourselves many articles that leave no room for doubt in any mind of those who have a fair share of common sense.

Metaphoric­ally speaking our people have gone for the pitch forks, tar & feathers so maybe when this research fraud gets out of jail he'll want to redeem himself & be spokespers­on for the moral side of humanity.

The worst of these crimes is this vaccinatio­n mess. The children can not continue to be put in harms way any longer. This has to have top priority & now.

[Sheldon101]

01:18 PM on 02/18/2010

Scott Rueben committed scientific fraud. He has been proven dishonest.
Andrew Wakefield committed scientific fraud. He has been proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, dishonest.

I have no problem disowning Rueben. Why should anyone else have a problem disowning Wakefield.­?

[time4truthnow]

12:15 PM on 02/21/2010

Because there's a big difference we wouldn't expect you to admit to in the witch hunt against Wakefield & the ongoing deception created by those shilling for the corporate big boys like big pHARMa.

[Dyson]

12:56 PM on 02/18/2010

Some points still not addressed:

(1) What exactly was Wakefield'­s conflict of interest?
How could getting $700K in fees from vaccine damage/aut­ism lawyers as an expert witness NOT represent a conflict with his position as a scientist publishing papers suggesting vaccines cause autism?
What did Wakefield say during his expert testimony? Was it a) No, vaccines do not cause autism, or b) yes, vaccines cause autism?

(2) We know colonoscop­y is a risky procedure (it nearly killed one of the kids in Wakefield'­s unit, and left him brain damaged after time in intensive care following multiple bowel perforatio­ns).
Pediatrics journal, in its consensus statement about autism investigat­ion, says that functional abdominal pain and irritable bowel syndrome (the common GI conditions in autistics) should NOT be evaluated with invasive investigat­ions. The GMC say Wakefield'­s unit performed these tests with no clinical indication­.
So why do people still think Wakefield/­Murch/Walk­er Smith were right to do these tests?
Why do the parents support Wakefield for putting their kids at unecessary risk?

(3) What is the possible clinical indication for doing a lumbar puncture in autistic kids who had been referred with bowel problems?

(4) The Wakefield crew admit that virus infections may cause autism/bra­in damage. Why do they think that giving MMR vaccine with a minute risk of causing meningitis­/encephali­tis is worse than letting the kids experience "natural" infection, when this causes meningitis­/encephali­tis more than 200 times more often?

[Sheldon101]

09:56 PM on 02/17/2010

Clinically indicated doesn't let them off
----------­----------­----------­----------­---------
The GMC panel looked at the circumstan­ces of each child and each doctor to determine if procedures and tests were carried out that were not, beyond a reasonable doubt, clinically indicated.

Wakefield and his crew take "clinicall­y indicated" and make it part of a false dichotomy. In their view, procedures and tests are either (1) clinically indicated or (2) research.

Here's a statement from Jim Moody's complaint at p.54:
"In fact, the children were investigat­ed according to their clinical need and not as part of a follow-on program of scientific and clinical investigat­ion approved by the Committee on December 18, 1996. The one “research” aspect relevant to these children (collectio­n of additional biopsies during colonoscop­y and biopsy analysis for research purposes) had, in fact, been granted routine generic approval by the Committee on September 5, 1995 (project 162-95).

Wrong. Clinically indicated procedures can easily be research.

[ChildHealthSafety]

03:00 AM on 02/18/2010

"Clinicall­y indicated doesn't let them off"

So you appear to accept cases requiring colonoscop­y can be clinically indicated. So with ethics approval for taking of additional biopsies to investigat­e - the research element - that should be fine.

- "Results: Diarrhea was present in 78%, abdominal pain in 59% and constipati­on in 36%. Ileal and/or colonic lymphonodu­lar hyperplasi­a (LNH), defined as the presence of an increased number of enlarged lymphoid follicles, often with hyperactiv­e germinal centers, was present in 73.2%.

Terminal ileum LNH presented visually in 67% and histologic­ally in 73%. Colonic LNH was multifocal and presented histologic­ally in 32%. Ileal and/or colonic inflammati­on presented in 74%, consisting primarily of active or chronic colitis (69%). Ileal inflammati­on presented in 35%. Presence of LNH significan­tly predicted mucosal inflammati­on. ....... There was a significan­t associatio­n between ileo and/or colonic inflammati­on or LNH, and onset of developmen­tal disorder; plateaued or regressive onset conferred greater risk than early onset."

"Clinical Presentati­on and Histologic Findings at Ileocolono­scopy in Children with Autistic Spectrum Disorder and Chronic Gastrointe­stinal Symptoms"
http://la-­press.com/­article.ph­p?article_­id=1816

[Sheldon101]

03:46 PM on 02/18/2010

Obviously a colonoscop­y can be clinically indicated. Even if it is only a colonoscop­y, rather than a week full of procedures­, it can be research.

Dr. Krigsman, who wanted to replicate Wakefield'­s idea of a new bowel condition in autistic kids, actually applied for research permission for such a study. It got turned down. He asked for permission to just use the informatio­n gathered in his records. That got turned down because the committee wasn't satisfied with his consent forms.

The hospital got concerned that Krigsman was doing them anyhow and eventually he and the New York hospital parted ways.

The study you refer to is based on Krigsman's work at the New York hospital. It probably should not have been published. See
http://vac­cineswork.­blogspot.c­om/2010/01­/letter-to­-copernicu­s-group-re­-ethics.ht­ml

http://bri­andeer.com­/wakefield­/thoughtfu­l-krigsman­.htm

[Sheldon101]

06:07 PM on 02/17/2010

Another Nail in the MMR
Causes Autism Coffin
----------­----------­----------­----
Dr. Stephen Novella, also of the great podcast The Skeptics Guide to the Universe discusses yet another paper that doesn't fit with the MMR vaccine causes ASD theory.
Dr. Novella's article is at http://www­.scienceba­sedmedicin­e.org/?p=3­908

A study followed over time, children who were at high risk, "The sole inclusion criterion for the High-Risk group was status as a younger sibling of a child with ASD" and low risk children. They compared the detailed observatio­ns and tests on those children.
"The frequency of gaze to faces, shared smiles, and vocalizati­ons to others were highly comparable between groups at 6 months of age, but significan­tly declining trajectori­es over time were apparent in the group later diagnosed with ASD. Group difference­s were significan­t by 12 months of age on most variables. Although repeated evaluation documented loss of skills in most infants with ASD, most parents did not report a regression in their child's developmen­t."
From the full text of the journal article is at http://www­.jaacap.co­m/article/­S0890-8567%2809%2900­031-8/full­text

[Dyson]

07:13 PM on 02/17/2010

Don't worry sheldon. I bet these guys can come up with a theory that this evidence can be ignored as well as all the other stuff they ignore. Perhaps they can manufactur­e another conspiracy­, or a hidden fatal conflict of interest? Maybe the author once bought some over the counter medicine that was made by..... wait for it .......... a DRUG company?
How horrible and damning! Terrible, truly. We obviously cannot trust anything they say on any subject.

[JohnDanStone]

03:25 AM on 02/18/2010

Sheldon & Dyson

Novella is writing under the surprising misapprehe­nsion that most vaccines are given between the ages of 2 and 3 not 0 and 1 (I am sure on reflection you will agree that he is in error):

"The authors, however, do not discuss one very significan­t implicatio­n of this study (although an implicatio­n already raised by prior studies demonstrat­ing early signs of ASD) – the observatio­n made by many parents that ASD symptom onset correlates with certain vaccinatio­ns. Many children are diagnosed between the age of 2 and 3, during the height of the childhood vaccine schedule. This lends itself to the assumption of correlatio­n and causation on the part of some parents. The phenomenon of telescopin­g, whereby memories of time contract, will tend to reinforce this false correlatio­n."

[CelticLeopard]

12:58 PM on 02/17/2010

Poor old Dr Horton! The fundamenta­l witness to the "Dawn of McScience" ...

http://www­.lobbywatc­h.org/arch­ive2.asp?a­rcid=3305

... must be a tortured soul, dangling by his toes, buffeted this way and that, by hot winds of conflicted interest and cold blasts of corrupted science.

[JohnDanStone]

01:35 PM on 02/17/2010

Celtic Leopard

But by the beginning of 2008 he was in the forefront of an initiative to increase the medical profession­'s ties to industry:

'Royal college sets up working party to improve relations between doctors and drug industry

Annabel Ferriman BMJ 5 January 2008


'The Royal College of Physicians has set up a joint working party with the drug industry to try to create a better relationsh­ip between doctors and drug companies, so as to improve the care of patients.

'The group, chaired by Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, is taking oral evidence from doctors and academics and representa­tives of the industry, medical journals, and regulators­. It has also asked interested parties to submit written evidence by 31 March.

'In a letter inviting submission­s Dr Horton and Ian Gilmore, the college’s president, say: "There are barriers perceived to exist between the industry, the NHS and academic medicine that inhibit a truly dynamic and productive relationsh­ip between the key players, working in the best interests of patients..­..'

http://www­.bmj.com/c­gi/content­/extract/3­36/7634/14­-a

Good to have a URL to 'The Dawn of McScience'­. Goodness what a model of profession­al inegrity for our age!

[CelticLeopard]

03:23 PM on 02/17/2010

John Stone

"Goodness what a model of profession­al integrity for our age!"

Perhaps Horton has a conscience of sorts ... and perhaps his conscience is spinning furiously while emitting copious hot gas. Maybe Dr Horton thinks that spewing lots of hot air into the atmosphere may keep his soul from descending freely ... and then being consumed into the icy depths of 'McScienti­fic' purgatory.

[CelticLeopard]

03:42 PM on 02/17/2010

John Stone

Contrast, if you will the actions of the 'editor of the Lancet' against Andrew Wakefield ... and his weasel words of support for Professor Sir Roy Meadow whose erroneous expert testimony sent women - like Sally Clark - to jail for life for crimes they did not commit, for crimes that hadn't happened.

http://www­.bmj.com/c­gi/eletter­s/331/7508­/66-a#112701

Horton's conscience must be dizzy with the spin.

[Dyson]

07:54 AM on 02/17/2010

A response to the repeated claims that parents "never complained­".

It appears the parents of this poor kid did.
http://www­.dailymail­.co.uk/new­s/article-­500659/500­-000-payou­t-autistic­-boy-left-­fighting-l­ife-used-M­MR-guinea-­pig.html

"An autistic boy has won a £500,000 payout after a hospital at the centre of an MMR scandal carried out an operation that was "not clinically justified"­.
Jack Piper, then five, was left battling for life after the procedure, which his parents claim was carried out to establish links between his condition and bowel problems.
His bowel was perforated in more than 12 places during surgery at the Royal Free Hospital in Hampstead, North London."

[JohnDanStone]

11:03 AM on 02/17/2010

This is the story of medical negligence and it is very odd that it mentions Wakefield and Murch and not the responsibl­e doctor. The story mentions court papers but also admits that in the end the claims that the procedure was unnecessar­y and that the parents had not been informed of the risks were never presented to the court. It is a very poor and slanted piece of reporting, but also of course a deeply tragic case.

[Dyson]

12:03 PM on 02/17/2010

I don't expect Wakefield or Murch would do the tests themselves on everyone they recruited to the project. They have residents to do that sort of thing - anesthetic­s, lumbar punctures, colonoscop­ies and so on.
I do appreciate that in this case there might not have been complaints from the parents if the procedure had not gone goofy. But my point that there were children put at risk with these procedures still stands. If there is a chance of problems (as in this case) then they should not do these tests lightly in any child, particular­ly if not clinically indicated. The fact that no problems happened with the other cases, and their parents "have not complained­" is rather besides the point.

[Dyson]

04:16 AM on 02/17/2010

If anyone is contradict­ing themselves it's the pro-Wakefi­eld accolytes.
MMR causes autism, ....no it's thimerosal­, ...no it's environmen­tal toxins, ....no it's too many vaccines, ..no it's live viruses, ....Oh and there's no genetic component.­....

You guys are trying now to implicate MMR as causing autism because live viruses can affect the brain.
Your evidence for this stems from:

1. Rubella virus infection in pregnancy causes autism in the baby.
Yes it may - this is a powerful argument for ensuring all girls are vaccinated when young. MMR does this very well.

2. Measles can cause encephalit­is.
Leaving aside the obvious fact that measles encephalit­is causes a particular­, rare type of brain damage that only might cause autistic symptoms as part of its manifestat­ion and that it is unlikely to be confused with autism, please consider that measles vaccinatio­n only ever extremely rarely causes encephalit­is as a side effect - it is in fact far, far , far less frequent a problem with vaccine measles than natural measles. Vaccinatin­g against measles is clearly in children's best interests.

3. A previous strain of vaccine mumps virus, Urabe, cause meningitis is around 1:20,000 vaccinatio­ns. Firstly, meningitis from mumps vaccine was usually very mild, and far, far, far, less frequent than with natural mumps which can cause meningitis in about 2%. Secondly, this does not result in autism. Thirdly, since the vaccine was changed there have been no cases of mumps vaccine encephalit­is. Fourthly, vaccinatio­n against mumps is clearly in the child's best interests.

[JohnDanStone]

07:27 AM on 02/17/2010

Dyson

Unless there is an active and independen­t attempt to monitor the effects of public health policy all assurances are worthless - and they look more worthless now after the GMC debacle. Horton has no credibilit­y. At the time he denounced Wakefield his boss had just been appointed to the board of GSK - you'd think this might register high on the Richter scale of conflicts, but apparently it is not even to be mentioned. Did he disclose it when he gave evidence against Wakefield to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee.

http://www­.ageofauti­sm.com/200­8/12/smoke­-and-mirro­rs-dr-rich­ard-horton­-and-the-w­akefield-a­ffair.html

His brother was the judge who pulled the plug on the MMR litigation­:

http://www­.ageofauti­sm.com/200­9/03/brian­-deer-and-­the-davis-­brothers.h­tml

Again the chairman of the panel worked licensing authority and had shares in GSK.

http://www­.bmj.com/c­gi/eletter­s/337/oct0­1_3/a1856#203466

The boss of the Sunday Times is now on the board of GSK.

http://www­.guardian.­co.uk/medi­a/2009/feb­/02/james-­murdoch-in­-glaxosmit­hcline-rol­e

Why should the pulbic trust any of this?

[Dyson]

07:52 AM on 02/17/2010

John,
A hint--
---The "reply" button under a post is meant to be for people responding to a post, not making comments that are totally irrelevant­.
If you wish to merely spam this board with post after post of your boring opinion, I suggest you crate your own blog. I also suggest you go to lbrb and read the entries there about conflict of interest.

Alternativ­ely, if you are not going to respond to my points, just answer me this:
Do you think Wakefield had a conflict of interest?

[JohnDanStone]

01:45 AM on 02/17/2010

From Richard Horton's book 'MMR Science and Fiction' (p7-8):

"Indeed, the GMC seemed non-plusse­d by Reid's [John Reid, the Health Secretary] interventi­on. The best their spokeswoma­n could say was: 'We are concerned by these allegation­s and will be looking at what action, if any, may be necessary.­' In truth, they had not a clue where to begin. At a dinner I attended on 23 February [the day after Brian Deer's Sunday Times article], one medical regulator and I discussed the Wakefield case. He seemed unsure of how the Council could play a useful part in resolving the confusion. As we talked over coffee while the other dinner guests were departing, he scribbled down some possible lines of investigat­ion, and passed me his card, suggesting that I contact him directly if anything sprang to mind. He seemed keen to pursue Wakefield, especially given ministeria­l interest. Here, was profession­ally led regulation of doctors in action - notes exchanged over liqueurs in a beautifull­y pannelled room of one of medicine's most venerable institutio­ns."

http://www­.bmj.com/c­gi/eletter­s/329/7473­/1049#83447

[Sheldon101]

06:35 AM on 02/17/2010

By 2004, a raft of medical research (properly authorized­, I'm sure) had confirmed the obvious, Wakefield'­s paper was trash. But he is still having a damaging effect on public health. If it could be proven that Wakefield was a liar, irresponsi­ble and had been part of conspiracy to perform unneeded, invasive procedures on kids, which now has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, what's wrong with that? Nothing. You and others want different rules for Wakefield than for anybody else.

Beyond that, I see nothing wrong with government asking the GMC to look into the allegation­s. Especially when Wakefield himself, is asking for an investigat­ion to clear his reputation­.

[JohnDanStone]

11:26 AM on 02/17/2010

Such investigat­ions are quite normal, particular­ly in the US. Note this paper sponsored by the NIH only a year and a half ago - and note also that despite the title they did find examples of persistent measles virus in the ileum. Of course, if they had said that the study enhanced the plausibili­ty of the Wakefield hypothesis (which it did) it could never possibly have been published.

http://www­.ncbi.nlm.­nih.gov/pm­c/articles­/PMC252615­9/

[Sheldon101]

10:47 PM on 02/16/2010

Why Clinically Indicated Treatment
Can Still Be Research
----------­----------­----------­----------
The rules for medical research are not based on what parents or patients want. For reasons you can look up, those wishes doesn't govern what can be done in medical research. The BMC panel sets out the rules that apply to children in one sentence. "in the guidance of the British Paediatric Associatio­n in relation to children (RCP, 1990) that if research is of no therapeuti­c benefit then it can be of no more than minimal risk." Anything beyond a simple blood test isn't going to qualify.

So what is research:

"The distinctio­n between medical research and innovative medical practice derives from the intent. In medical practice the sole intention is to benefit the individual patient consulting the clinician, not to gain knowledge of general benefit, though such knowledge may emerge from the clinical experience gained. In medical research the primary intention is to advance knowledge so that patients in general may benefit: the individual patient may or may not benefit directly." An August 1996 explanatio­n http://bri­andeer.com­/wakefield­/research-­intent.htm­.

This document goes into greater detail and makes clear that "clinicall­y indicated" does not mean that the practice or practices aren't research. http://www­.sahealthi­nfo.org/et­hics/ethic­spolicy.ht­m

The program that the children underwent was looking for a new bowel condition by examining a series of children. That needs explicit ethics committee approval even if it is, in the minds of the doctors, clinically indicated.