Famous British Autism Study an 'Elaborate Fraud'

Charliemopps writes "An investigation published by the British medical journal BMJ concludes the study's author, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, misrepresented or altered the medical histories of all 12 of the patients whose cases formed the basis of the 1998 study — and that there was 'no doubt' Wakefield was responsible."

Comments

The Source Article

[eldavojohn]

Here's Brian Deer's publication at the British Medical Journal. Although lengthy (and apparently the first of a series to come), it has a lot of critical details about how this was fixed. It also has 124 citations through the article -- now that's journalism!

This guy tracked down subjects all the way over in the United States:

Child 11 was among the eight whose parents apparently blamed MMR. The interval between his vaccination and the first "behavioural symptom" was reported as 1 week. This symptom was said to have appeared at age 15 months. But his father, whom I had tracked down, said this was wrong.

"From the information you provided me on our son, who I was shocked to hear had been included in their published study," he wrote to me, after we met again in California, "the data clearly appeared to be distorted."

He backed his concerns with medical records, including a Royal Free discharge summary. Although the family lived 5000 miles from the hospital, in February 1997 the boy (then aged 5) had been flown to London and admitted for Wakefield’s project, the undisclosed goal of which was to help sue the vaccine's manufacturers.

Sadly, CNN couldn't even bother to have a single citation to the actual source text that is uncovering this. Of course they have all sorts of links internal to their site ... gotta keep those page clicks up, don't want eyeballs over at the BMJ.

Re:The Source Article

[queequeg1]

You have just perfectly described the CNN special I saw last night on TV about this. Anderson Cooper was using Jenny McCarthy as the counterpoint to the claims of fraud.

Re:The Source Article

[StikyPad]

Actually, it was a pretty good piece for television journalism, and certainly a step in the right direction. Anderson emphasized the importance of peer reviewed data; the guest speaker explained the difference between correlation and causation; and Gupta pointed out how people are prone to latch on to any convenient explanation, especially in the absence of a known explanation. The guest speaker pointed out how finding one flat earther and putting him in a national debate against a round earther created a false equivalence, and Gupta agreed. Jenny McCarthy was cited as the flat earther, more or less, and that her propaganda in the absence of evidence was potentially putting lives at risk by convincing parents not to vaccinate. They pointed out the consequences of a lack of herd immunity, such as the quarantine in San Diego due to a whooping cough infection. All in all, it was one of the better pieces they've done, so either you didn't watch it through, or you weren't paying attention.

That said, the piece was followed by what appeared to be a personal plea by Anderson Cooper to keep Camille Grammer on Real Housewives of Beverly Hills, so we haven't quite exited the Twilight Zone just yet.

Re:The damage is already done

[grub]

Jenny McCarthy's son was misdiagnosed.
Time article (lengthy)

Re:Isn't this already well-known?

[goodmanj]

Why is this making the news now?

Because the final in-depth analysis has been published by the journal which originally published Wakefield's findings.

To put it in courtroom drama terms, it's the difference between a suspect being charged with a crime and a being convicted.

Re:I wish it weren't true, but

[GooberToo]

asbestos

Asbestos is a very poor example. There are many, many cases where asbestos is actually safe for use. The problem with asbestos is that it become more lucrative, by far, to be anti-asbestos than the industry itself. Hell, removal of perfectly safe asbestos these days actually requires a team of hazmat workers, following hazmat procedures.

The biggest problems with asbestos came from using it as a fibrous insulator whereby fibers and particulate are easily shed and then inhaled. This, of course, created a hazard for installers and post-construction workers and inhabitants every time the material is disturbed. On the other hand, asbestos has far, far more uses than simple insulation, which is why you find it everywhere in old products and buildings. Some are dangerous. Some are now. Law suites and mitigation procedures make absolutely no distinction.

To be clear, I'm not saying asbestos has zero risk. I'm saying the risk has been far, far overblown because its far more lucrative to do so. Most people don't realize that common silica sand is far more hazardous to its workers - that is, if not properly mitigated. In fact, Silicosis is the primary reason so many quarry workers died when the first power tools were introduced to aid them. Back then, they didn't know about it and didn't use water and respirators to mitigate the silica dust. Back then, the life expectancy was 6-8 months. Thusly, the first quarry power tool was dubbed, "The Window Maker".

Re:It doesn't matter.

[fiannaFailMan]

Is it reasonable to expect that now that there would be a sizable sample size of "non-immunized" kids, that a study to compare the rates of autism between the two groups will be done?

Already done in 2002. There was a study done in Denmark (where there are comprehensive medical records for the whole population) that showed no link between MMR vaccination and autism rates.

A Danish study of more than half a million children showed no link between measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccination and autism.
In a commentary accompanying the study, which was published in the , Dr Edward Campion, senior deputy editor, wrote, “This careful and convincing study shows that there is no association between autism and MMR vaccination.”

Lead author Dr Kreesten Meldgaard Madsen, an epidemiologist and expert on infectious diseases at the Danish Epidemiology Science Centre in Aarhus, told the BMJ that the study showed that the risk of autism was similar in children who were vaccinated and children who were not.

The study reviewed records of 537303 children born in Denmark between January 1991 and December 1998, representing almost 100% of children born in that period. Of these children 440655 had been vaccinated.* Records were retrieved from three sources: the unique identification number assigned to each child at birth; MMR vaccination data reported to the National Board of Health by general practitioners, who give all MMR vaccinations and are reimbursed for their reports; and diagnoses of autism recorded in the Danish Psychiatric Central Registry. Only specialists in child psychiatry diagnose autism and related conditions.

Full story...

*My emphasis.

Inconvenient facts like this will not convince the Jenny McCarthys and Jim Careys of this world though.

Re:I wish it weren't true, but

[jeff4747]

Wow....your post is impressively bad.

You can't build a "natural immunity" to the flu. That's why there's a new vaccine every year. And doctors already only recommend flu shots for "at risk" people, such as those with weak immune systems where the flu can be deadly.

Also, I'm curious about your theory on how one could build an immunity on their own for, say, Smallpox or Tetanus.

Lastly, only a relatively small number of vaccines contain a live version of the infectious agent. So the vast majority of vaccines do not actually cause an infection.