"Elaborate Fraud"
Yesterday, after the news broke of an extensive investigative report by Brian Deer, a British journalist, CNN’s Anderson Cooper took it from there and completed the evisceration of huckster Andrew Wakefield, whose infamous 1998 study supposedly linking autism to the MMR vaccine was retracted last year by the journal Lancet.
Cooper doesn’t mince words, and neither does the British Medical Journal editorial accompanying the investigative report:
Who perpetrated this fraud? There is no doubt that it was Wakefield. Is it possible that he was wrong, but not dishonest: that he was so incompetent that he was unable to fairly describe the project, or to report even one of the 12 children’s cases accurately? No. A great deal of thought and effort must have gone into drafting the paper to achieve the results he wanted: the discrepancies all led in one direction; misreporting was gross.
Additionally, the editorial chastises the media for “unbalanced” reporting on the bogus vaccine-autism link, and also blames the continuing vaccine scare on
an ineffective response from government, researchers, journals, and the medical profession.
There’s also this that seems to get lost in all the controversy:
But perhaps as important as the scare’s effect on infectious disease is the energy, emotion, and money that have been diverted away from efforts to understand the real causes of autism and how to help children and families who live with it.
So will this news of “elaborate fraud” by a champion of the debunked vaccine-autism connection give pause to the the anti-vaxxers, who regard Wakefield as their hero? Of course not.
A very important post, Keith.
The Wakefield theory was published by the Lance then cleared by an investigation. Now it’s been retracted.
Some will rejoice in the new orthodoxy and get all pro-vaccination. Wiser heads will observe that any orthodoxy is only a temporary state and will be more cautious about going full speed in any direction.
A peer-reviewed study, purportedly replicated several times in several different countries, subsequently cleared by an investigation, turns out to be a fraud.
What are the chances of that happening?
Jack, that’s a misread of the orthodoxy, which has always been squarely and legitimately pro-vaccination. Also, the Lancet study was controversial long before it was officially retracted. The study was an isolated outlier; there’s never been any scientific evidence for the autism-MMR link.
Simon, the Lancet study was never replicated and it certainly was not cleared in any investigation. From the BMJ editorial:
“Wakefield has been given ample opportunity either to replicate the paper’s findings, or to say he was mistaken. He has declined to do either. He refused to join 10 of his coauthors in retracting the paper’s interpretation in 2004, and has repeatedly denied doing anything wrong at all. Instead, although now disgraced and stripped of his clinical and academic credentials, he continues to push his views.”
Keith, who said I was talking about Wakefield’s paper? Okay, I set that one up. As you know my principle interest, in discussion, is related to climate (though courtesy of your blog I’m also increasingly interested in archaeology) :o)
There are claims on t’internet that Wakefield’s findings are replicated, but I have to fess up to crippling ignorance of the integrity of the sources.
I’m far from being an anti-vaxxer, but I do have concerns about WHO’s ties with commercial drug manufacturers impacting poorer nations’ abilities to provide for their people. There are fundamental issues and they need addressing. When Indonesia has to circumvent the WHO in order to secure protection for its citizenry, something is rotten in the state of Denmark. http://www.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=6911
Hi KK,
From the Lancet piece:
‘In a statement published online ( www.thelancet.com ) the editors of the Lancetsaid: “Following the judgment of the UK General Medical Council’s Fitness to Practise Panel on Jan 28, 2010, it has become clear that several elements of the 1998 paper by Wakefield et al are incorrect, contrary to the findings of an earlier investigation.‘
My point is that when ‘received wisdom’ changes some people’s take-away is that the current state is correct and other people’s take-away is that things can and do change.
Let’s be clear it is Deer and only Deer, a journalist with no medical training, who alleges fraud. That he does it in several media organs, and apparently obsessively, doesn’t belittle that salient fact.
Next thing to note is that 13 expert doctors put their name to that study, which, of course did not even link MMR to autism at all – it was about a claimed new bowel disorder. It was mentioned in the paper that the parents, and only the parents, claimed, and still claim, that the symptoms of autism appeared after vaccinations. These parents are uniformly behind Wakefield still because he was the only one who listened to their ideas, rightly or (most probably) wrongly.
If you had actually read Deers piece though, apart from the extremely bad writing you might note that none of the parents or doctors he interviews are impressed by him – to the point of officially complaining about his methods and misrepresentations. Deer seems indeed to accuse everyone of being wrong but him!
Ultimately this is not about one poor study, nor about vaccines, it is about piss poor journalism creating the scare, then creating the merciless witchhunt that makes them all feel a little less guilty.
Now forget MMR and forget Wakefield vs Deer, just imagine there may be something seriously wrong with some future product from big pharma, as there have been in the past many times, and this problem was noticed early by a doctor. What pray tell, are the chances now of anyone being brave enough to risk his entire career over trying to highlight it to the authorities or the public at large? It’s a rhetorical question because we all know the answer is absolutely nil! Congratulations hacks! Just keep removing all trace of real journalism until you all become totally irrelevant.
“Ultimately this is not about one poor study, nor about vaccines, it is about piss poor journalism creating the scare, then creating the merciless witchhunt that makes them all feel a little less guilty.”
Well said.
In November 2009, the Lancet published a series of articles offering computer model based predictions of incidence in respiratory diseases. This type of layered conjecture is clearly bunk – a series of what ifs resting on other what ifs. I am sure ten years from now there will be journalists ‘exposing’ the Lancet for publishing these type of studies.
Exposes should be done when the ‘iron is hot’, no?
“it is about piss poor journalism creating the scare, then creating the merciless witchhunt that makes them all feel a little less guilty.”
Oh, too rich. Just too rich.
So I guess when an elaborate scientific fraud has actually been *established*, it’s *merciless* to condemn the perp, Dr. Wakefield. But when Rep. Cuccinelli et al launch witch-hunts where no such fraud has been established, it’s just *long overdue justice*.
And btw Shub, if epidemiological computer modelling is such ‘clear bunk’, perhaps you should write and submit a critical review article to that effect. Should be easy to get it published in a reputable journal if you’ve got the evidence and logic behind you, rather than just, I dunno, shooting your mouth off.