The Facts In The Case Of Dr. Andrew Wakefield

[Orrex]

Magnificent.

[HuckleB]

1. Recommended!

[RandomThoughts]

2. How is that different then money paid for studies from the pharmaceutical companies

to get drugs approved, then even agreements with physicians to push those drugs, and even lowering of standards for things like high blood pressure to increase drug usage.

How is it different then the lack of information on long term effects of brain drugs given to children.


Why and how would it be know which version of reports are correct?


I do know one thing, some of the media information sources are wrong because they contradict, and if some are wrong many could be wrong. So you have to go by what you see in real life, and from those observations make a view of what is right and wrong, and from that I have seen some things that need correcting.


:shrug:

[Orrex]

3. An entirely valid question with at least two answers

1. Wakefield passed himself off as a noble crusader for the sake of autistic children and their parents, whom he characterized as innocent victims of the malevolent and aggressive pro-vaccination propagandists. The fact that he undertook this campaign of falsehoods for personal financial game makes him criminally culpable and morally indefensible, and it calls into question everything he's ever done in his professional life. Any article or study that depends at all on Wakefield's anti-vaccination campaign should be rejected outright for its tainted source material.

I don't think that anyone here in this forum or anywhere on DU has suggested that drug companies should be immune from prosecution or legal action when they knowingly engage in a campaign of disinformation. If such companies have engaged in tactics like those that Wakefield has used, then by all means let those companies face censure and both civil and criminal prosecution. Who would argue otherwise?

2. Many here (in the Health forum and elsewhere on DU) have supported Wakefield and his work. If Wakefield's strongest defense is paraphrased as "that's what big pharma does," then the same people who've been condemning big pharma (while supporting Wakefield or his surrogates Jenny McCarthy and RFK Jr, for instance) should be among the first to condemn Wakefield for doing exactly what they've always condemned about pharmaceutical companies. In addition, such a paraphrase is not a denial of Wakefield's criminal culpability; it is in fact a clear statement that he is so culpable.


I for one vow not to mock any of Wakefield's former advocates who now see the light and join in the condemnation of his years-long mission of cruel and exploitative misrepresentation. I will in fact praise the courage of anyone who now comes to reject Wakefield's work.

[CreekDog]

5. If one of the anti-vaxxers around here steps up and says "wow, I was completely wrong about him"

I'll eat my hat.

And if they won't, I add them to my evidence of why one shouldn't listen to them.

[RandomThoughts]

6. Not sure about that guy.

But my point is why aren't there stories about the other drug related issues.

All I can do is discuss news anomalies around that specific topic, since they are from news stories, like where people were told they had to get vaccines for minor items, then later were told they could get an exemption, and the people trying to get them to get vaccines were already getting exemptions for their children.

And also the stories about swine flu, and the stories before 2004 about people waiting in line because of flu shot vaccine shortage, and a few other stories.

But which ones are true, including the story about that guy you mentioned?

I guess the point I am making is the systems that are funding the foundations paying for official studies on those issues have messed up many things, and I have heard some talk about some philosophy I disagree with, so it makes all the information from those foundations useless by not having regulation or a rule set for accurate reporting.

And if there is no way to know one way or the other, then it is a coin flip, and might as well go with not putting something into a person, rather then doing it if it is even odds on what is true and what is not. Although each parent has to decide, and it should not be like that. Although most people are more good then bad, so I also do not believe big conspiracies could happen like that. So honestly who knows.

Some of the older vaccines that did not have side effects after years of use, if still made the same way, would seem ok, but many of the newer vacines and drugs do not have a track record nor information to do more then guess on.

[Orrex]

7. Again, valid points. But consider:

Your concerns are worth addressing, but I'm reluctant to discuss them in a Wakefield thread if that discussion would distract from Wakefield's undeniable and inexcusable wrongdoing. It's not that other studies shouldn't be reviewed and critiqued; it's that Wakefield deliberately engaged in a scheme to exploit the fears of millions of parents around the world purely to pad his own pockets.

There are relatively few cases of pharmaceutical companies completely manufacturing evidence to support their own products, though such cases do occur and should be given a full airing. However, this differs from instances when drugs have later been shown to have an undesirable (or even deadly) side effect. In those cases, the value of the drug wasn't a lie crafted out of nothing; the actual value of the drug was (potentially) offset by the risks associated with use of the drug. Again, though, if a pharmaceutical company has indeed marketed a drug based on entirely false or nonexistent evidence, then I will eagerly join in any condemnation of that company.

In Wakefield's case, everything about his study and his vaccine/autism article is false from start to finish, and he knew it when he published them. This is completely unlike a case in which a study (or series of studies) is subject to honest but differing interpretations. Wakefield's work is completely fraudulent and not a matter of subjective analysis.


Your willingness to discuss the matter openly and seriously is laudable, by the way. Bravo!

[RandomThoughts]

8. It makes an assumption, first on the reports of what he did wrong.

By media trial, then it makes an assumption that his method is the only method that looked at that issue.

But really I am not talking about him or that issue, but the larger issue of foundations and accountability of information.

For many years foundations were paid to put out information to argue points of views. So information systems have a taint to them, that makes the whole topic obscure, hence the problem of inaccurate information, and how that makes it difficult for society to be able to keep itself in order.

[Orrex]

9. I understand your objection, but Wakefield's case is different.

His work has been disproven many times over by a range of agencies with no financial interest in proving him wrong. Therefore it is very likely that he falsified his work just as it is very unlikely that his work is correct.

In addressing your broader point, sure: it is necessary to consider the agenda behind any given study or research project, and it's grossly unacceptable that much data is permitted to remain proprietary to the companies benefiting from controlling it. However, when it's possible for multiple entities to review a study in an open and objective, then this greatly reduces the likelihood that a significantly tainted study will be accepted as valid. By "significantly tainted," I mean that the study is tainted in such a way that the value or legitimacy of the study is called into question. It's entirely possible (though improbable), for instance that Philip Morris might produce a valid study on the health effects of tobacco. Such a study shouldn't be dismissed outright simply because the company has a clearly vested interest in its outcome; the conclusions of the study must still be shown to be false or inaccurate before the study should be rejected.


The key is open and honest review, and I agree that this is a sad rarity in the modern environment.

[HuckleB]

11. Your patience is to be admired.

[CreekDog]

4. Appears Wakefield lied

and abused his patients.

i think that's different.

[Abq_Sarah]

10. Wakefield's "theory" would never have gained traction

If people weren't so scientifically ignorant.

People see a headline that states: "Scientific study concludes" and they accept it at face value.

[mzmolly]

12. Nice art work, but it's riddled with anything but "fact."

1. Wakefield had ZERO impact on MMR vaccination rates in the US.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/G/coverage.pdf

MMR Vaccine coverage levels from 1997-2007

1997 90.5
1998 92.0
1999 91.5
2000 90.5
2001 91.4
2002 91.6
2003 93.0
2004 93.0
2005 91.5
2006 92.4
2007 92.3

2. There was no increase in the number of reported measles cases in the US after the 1998 Lancet study. In fact if anything, measles rates declined. *Thanks for the correction Huck on my noting the # of deaths v. cases. You helped make my point, actually. ;)

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/G/cases&deaths.pdf

Cases of measles in US from 1997-2007

1997 138
1998 100
1999 100
2000 86
2001 116
2002 44
2003 56
2004 37
2005 66
2006 55
2007 43

It's one thing to disagree with a study, it's another for drug companies to promote lies and propaganda scapegoating a Dr. who essentially suggested THREE vaccines instead of ONE. And, how does suggesting MORE vaccines = anti-vaccination? ;)

[HuckleB]

13. Hogwash.

Where does the cartoon say anything about US vaccination rates?

If you're going to try to critique something, please find something to actually critique.

Oh, and you might want to check what you said, and the data you used to support it, in you "part 2." Something is very off, if you're going to talk about deaths in the US.

Thank you.

:eyes:

[mzmolly]

14. The cartoon states that due to Wakefield questioning the MMR jab,

"fear spread among parents." The cartoonist essentially concludes that "by 2009 health bodies in the US/UK etc. were reporting outbreaks of measles..."

I do believe it is legit to critique Wakefield about the conflict of interest. It's also fair to suggest he had a financial stake in a single jab version of MMR, but I don't believe there is scientific evidence to assert (or imply) that Wakefield is responsible for a supposed decline in vaccination rates or an increase in cases of measles.

[HuckleB]

15. So you made a supposition of your own imagination to go after one tiny part of the entire toon.

Thus, your statement which says that it's "riddled with anything but fact" is about as ludicrous as it gets! :crazy:

Meanwhile, your post made it sound like the toon was totally off base, Further, we've already discussed at length the problem in the US, with pockets of overeducated idiots, and how those pockets have led to outbreaks of a size that we hadn't seen in a while.

And it's funny how you didn't address the UK issue at all.

PS: I edited my other post to note that your data doesn't quite match up with your statement.

[mzmolly]

16. I am not overly familiar

with the UK and don't know where to find their data, but I've read that he had little impact in that country as well (88% coverage before his study and about the same after.)

I maintain that the characterization of Wakefields impact on vaccination IS way off base. You're free to extrapolate some value from the sketches if you wish.

I'll check your other post for the edit. Just checked and am comfortable with my assertions. Measles related deaths declined overall from 1997 - 2007.

[HuckleB]

17. You extrapolated & assumed, and you ignored the UK. Now show us the data to back up your assertions.

And actually connect them to the real world. Don't just play games like you've done so far.

Further, this response ignores the reality that the hyperbole of your first post does not match your evidence, or your claim, even if your evidence backed up your details.

THE TOON STANDS AS BEING EXTREMELY ACCURATE.

On the other hand, your tiny critique (extrapolated by you to extreme hyperbole) of this toon is baseless.

On edit: As for the UK: Their rates went from 95% down to 80% after Wakefield's scam. There is no justification for defending Wakefield, at least not if evidence is truly something you care about.

http://briandeer.com/mmr-lancet.htm

[mzmolly]

18. I didn't ignore the UK. I simply don't have the data

at my finger tips. However, I'm addressing the US as the cartoonist did so in the pharma propaganda piece above. The meme that Wakefield impacted US vaccination rates is simply false. Jenny McCarthy also had no impact.

It would behoove those in favor of every vaccine for every child to be accurate, is my primary point. Hit Wakefield birthday cake for blood fiasco, or his conflict of interest. Those are legitimate points.

I'll check back tomorrow. G'night. :hi:

[HuckleB]

19. Actually, it's not hard to find.

As I showed in my previous post.

The meme that Wakefield affected vaccination rates is not false. We know that we have pockets with dangerously low rates, and that Wakefield had a big impact there. You can choose to ignore that reality again, but it only serves to undermine any credibility you bring with your "questions."

Good night.

[mzmolly]

20. There you are with the "pockets"

again. :eyes: There is no evidence or proof that we have any more or less in the way of "pockets" than we ever have. Also, you didn't show me any data in your post, unless you edited something? Just saw that you sourced Deer after editing. I'm going to have to verify his info, frankly. However, my information on the US is from the CDC - a definitive source on this data.

Good night. :hi:

[HuckleB]

21. You can choose to ignore the pockets all you want.

If you're going to do that, you're not going to have any credibility on this matter.

Further, your "questions" are going to have even less weight, since it's clear that you have very different expectations of proof for those who "ask questions" about vaccines and those who have shown their benefits and their safety record over time.

PS: I did show you data. It was there long before I edited and added the bold.

[mzmolly]

22. I'm not ignoring pockets, I'm saying they've always been a

factor. In fact, in the 1970's and 80's the US had "pockets" of roughly 20-30% of the entire population, not vaccinated against MMR.

Ok, I'm out for the night.

[HuckleB]

23. Prove those pockets existed, and that they are comparable to the ones that have developed today.

What were the causes, etc... and what were the death rates back then?

You're playing games. You know it. I know it. But why?

Isn't it funny that you go back that far, but ignore the time in between?

Hmmmmmmmmm.

I also find it funny that you had nothing to say about the UK data.

And I am still waiting for you to disprove anything of substance from a toon that you described as being "riddled with anything but fact."

Do you get how ridiculous your statement is?

:shrug:

[mzmolly]

25. You show me the data on todays "pockets" first. I've proven my point. I've showed you the data on US

vaccine coverage levels from 1950 forward. You can read for yourself that we didn't vaccinate large portions or "pockets" of the entire populace until the 1980's. Also, the follow up story you posted indicating that we had a decline in coverage was proven a crock by the long term CDC documentation I noted above. Spin master Novella chose to look at two years of data that supported his phony case and suggest that a normal fluctuation in coverage was due to Dr. Wakefield and the internet.

MMR Vaccine coverage levels from 1997-2007

1997 90.5 <<<< Coverage levels before the Wakefield study
1998 92.0
1999 91.5 <<<< Coverage levels after the Wakefield study show that the US maintained the same or greater levels.
2000 90.5
2001 91.4
2002 91.6
2003 93.0
2004 93.0
2005 91.5
2006 92.4
2007 92.3

Additionally, there is no data readily available on the SINGLE VIAL MEASLES vaccine coverage in the US, so it's entirely possible that the supposed 1.5 percenters chose an alternative, as suggested by Wakefield, and were considered "protected" by those who sell vaccines.

Regarding the UK I've done some digging. Brian Deer tells half the story, here's why ... The HPA (Deer's source for the data on MMR coverage) tabulates coverage of the triple MMR jab. This means that those getting the single vial vaccine, per Wakefield's suggestion, are not in the official tabulation of "vaccine coverage" rates noted by Deer. That's something Brian Deer probably hasn't investigated huh? How many parents REPLACED THE MMR with Rouvax or an alternate product? According to the BBC's Rob Smith, "The number of children getting the single measles jab has rocketed."

See here for more info on the UK.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1808163.stm">Demand for single measles jab soars

There has been a huge surge in demand for the single measles vaccine in the UK amid concern over the safety of the MMR vaccine, the BBC has learned.

There was a nine-fold increase in the take-up of single measles vaccines between May-December last year compared with the same period the previous year, according to the Medical Controls Agency.

There are a growing number of parents calling for the single vaccine as an alternative to the MMR.

Demand is so high that clinics are reporting a worldwide shortage of the vaccine, said the agency.

And conversely the take-up of the MMR vaccine is down, latest figures indicate.

I maintain my point about the questionable "facts" in the comic strip above. I don't blame the artist. These "stories" are wide spread. However, if you wish to suggest that it's ridiculous to point out that WAKEFIELD HAD ZERO IMPACT ON US VACCINATION COVERAGE/MEASLES RATES, in spite of claims to the contrary, be my guest. If you wish to ignore that parents in the UK seemingly chose an alternate vaccine, that's fine by me. But don't expect me to remain silent if you do.

[HuckleB]

27. Again?

It's now very clear that you are simply playing games. You are not being intellectually honest, in any way. The pocket issue has been shown over and over again. I ask you to bring some honesty to your claims, some context, some evidence, and you refuse. Instead you go off on another baseless tangent, and repeat yourself, while ignoring all contexts. You continue to redefine things as you go, and you ignore everything that shows your BS for what it is. There are no questionable facts in the strip above. It is very dishonest to repeat such a claim. Further, your one piece of evidence for the claim is of your own imagination. Still, you say you can't see how your blanket statement is simply ludicrous. If you are truly going to stand by your BS, then I have no more reason to discuss any matter with you. My time is not going to be wasted on such games.

Your posts on this matter are unbelievable. I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I gave you my time, and you want me to play games, and repeatedly show you evidence that has already been given to you, over and over again. I will not waste time on discussing this matter with you again.

:mad:

[mzmolly]

30. I'm sorry your discouraged and expect not to have to prove

your claims. I, however have addressed you and the highly questionable facts that I referenced in my original statement, head on.

[HuckleB]

31. This is why I am done discussing anything with you.

You are asking me to prove something that has been proven to you far more than once already, yet you continue to pretend otherwise. Further, YOU have not proven any of your claims, yet you pretend otherwise. YOU are asking me to repeatedly prove the same thing over and over again. I have done that. And I am not going to do it again. You cannot play the ignorance card, when you know that the questions you are asking have already been done to death. That is crap, pure and simple.

Goodbye. I am done. You have shown that you will not discuss anything in good faith, much less with an ounce of honesty. Your agenda is VERY CLEAR, no matter how you try to hide it. You always show it in the end.

Again, goodbye.

[mzmolly]

33. You've proven nothing but the fact that you post opinion pieces

and anger when others refute the so called gospel within.

Goodbye.

[HuckleB]

24. PS...

Media Coverage Influence on MMR Vaccination Rates
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=275

[mzmolly]

26. Responded above

thanks. :hi:

[HuckleB]

28. Of course, your response only addresses what you want to address.

I have clearly shown that your statement is BS. You have clearly show, AGAIN, that you have no actual interest in actual discussion. You continue to deploy the same old, tired anti-vaccine routine. Yes, that's what you offer. You'll deny it, but the reality is not different.

I am not going to respond to you on this topic again. I have no more patience for the type of redefining and ignoring games that you play. Over and over again, the evidence has been presented to you. You have chosen to ignore it repeatedly, and then pretend it doesn't exist. That's simply disingenuous.

[mzmolly]

29. I've demonstrated that my statement is based on fact.

I haven't investigated all the claims and propaganda in the OP, but I addressed one of the most repeated, blatant falsehoods. You can feign that I'm ignoring some sort of "evidence" that you've pointed out if you like. I'm comfortable letting the record of discussion speak for itself.

Peace

[HuckleB]

32. No, you have not.

Why do you repeat the same BS?

Good grief.

GOODBYE!

[mzmolly]

34. Cheers.

:hi:

[Odin2005]

35. And here come the idiots saying I've been poisoned by vaccines.

:eyes: