Britain bans doctor who linked autism to vaccine

[Javaman]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37311056/ns/health/

LONDON - Britain's top medical group banned a doctor who was the first to publish peer-reviewed research suggesting a connection between a common vaccine and autism from practicing in the country, finding him guilty Monday of serious professional misconduct.

Dr. Andrew Wakefield's research led to millions of parents worldwide abandoning the shot for measles, mumps and rubella, even though the study was later widely discredited.

Wakefield, 53, then moved to the U.S. and set up an autism center in Texas, where he has a wide following, but faces similar skepticism from the medical community. The ruling in Britain only applies to his right to practice medicine in the U.K., not in other countries.

Wakefield was not immediately available for comment. He has the right to appeal the ruling, which takes effect within 28 days.

[SidDithers]

1. Happy to K&R this post...

now, Texans need to do the same thing.

Sid

[Statistical]

2. Crminal charges would be better but stripping him of his license would be good start. n/t

[Christa]

3. Where there is smoke ...

[hobbit709]

5. There's usually mirrors

[Rhythm]

4. k&r'ed gladly

[xchrom]

6. A very happy recommend. Nt

[Confusious]

7. That little F-er

Had a vaccine in the background he was trying to sell. Nothing makes money like badmouthing the competition.

[Odin2005]

8. GOOD! That huckster should never be allowed to practice medicine again!

[charlesg]

9. He's now breaking new paths in bowel disease...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7135099.ece

[Ian David]

10. Why isn't this admitted fraud who killed so many people in jail yet? n/t

[Donald Ian Rankin]

11. Note that this was not what he was struck off for.

One piece of information not mentioned in the OP (although it may well be in the link) that I think it's worth including in this story is that Wakefield was stuck off not for advocating a link between the vaccine and autism, but for violating several ethical standards while carrying out research on children.

[foxfeet]

12. K&R

[arbusto_baboso]

13. About damn time. Unfortunately the gullible idiots who took him for gospel...

Aren't easily discouraged by something like his lying.

I still deal with "low information" clients every day who won't immunize their kids because they're convinced the children will become autistic.

In a totally unrelated story (no, really...), childhood diseases previously thought extinct are back with a vengeance...

[Xithras]

14. A minor but important point for everyone...

His license was NOT revoked because of the science in his research. Publishing a peer reviewed study is NEVER cause for a license revocation, no matter how damaging or ethically questionable that research is. He could have published a study proclaiming that "vegetarianism causes AIDS", and his license would have been perfectly safe (though his sanity and professionalism would obviously be called into question).

His license was suspended because he didn't divulge his funding sources, and because his data collection methods included things like taking blood from his kids friends at birthday parties. They aren't questioning his study, but simply the methodologies he employed to come to his conclusions.

I only point this out because I've already heard the decision blasted a few times by researchers who were horrified by the notion that their careers could be ended simply because others found their subject matter to be objectionable. There's a longstanding belief among scientists that all should have the right to conduct research freely and push the boundaries of known science without fear of persecution. Few of them would agree with this quack, but all would defend his right to research and publish whatever he wanted, in whatever field he chose.

None of those researchers understood that this particular idiot wasn't punished for his subject matter, but simply for his unethical way of collecting data, and his improper obfuscation of his funding sources. There's nothing wrong with being funded by corporations or lawyers, but you are expected to disclose that, so readers understand that biases may be present.

If you hear anyone objecting to this decision, please set them straight.

[proud2BlibKansan]

15. Good news

[Maru Kitteh]

16. Good! That man's need for attention has killed babies and children and set health science backwards

by untold years. He should be jailed.

[Soylent Brice]

17. K&R

[Q3JR4]

18. I concur. n/t

Q3JR4.