Slashdot Mirror


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."

24 of 813 comments (clear)

  1. The Source Article by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Informative
    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.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:The Source Article by queequeg1 · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:The Source Article by StikyPad · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:The Source Article by grub · · Score: 5, Insightful


      Chiropractors are not medical doctors. You may want to point out that fact to him.

      --
      Trolling is a art,
  2. I wish it weren't true, but by Officer+Friendly · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sadly, there's a lot of money in junk science.

    1. Re:I wish it weren't true, but by MrNiceguy_KS · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sadly, there's a lot of money in junk science.

      Sadly, there's even bigger money in Big Pharma.

      Why is this sad? Big Pharma at least provides benefits for the money they make. Junk science is more than happy to take your money, and give you placebos and ignorance in return. I think it's good that there's more money in Big Pharma than Junk Science.

      Ideally, there would be more money in almost anything than in Junk Science.

      --
      Redundancy is good And also good.
    2. Re:I wish it weren't true, but by GooberToo · · Score: 5, Informative

      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".

    3. Re:I wish it weren't true, but by jeff4747 · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

  3. The damage is already done by scoser · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People are still going to ignore all the retractions from the real medical and scientific community in favor of Jenny McCarthy saying on TV that "Vaccines gave my baby autism!"

    1. Re:The damage is already done by grub · · Score: 5, Informative
      --
      Trolling is a art,
    2. Re:The damage is already done by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Current Wikipedia article text on her:

      "... is an American adult model, comedian, actress, author, and activist/murderer whose ardent anti-vaccine quackery has doomed an unknown number of children to painful deaths by otherwise controllable diseases." [Emphasis mine]

      Lovely.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    3. Re:The damage is already done by geekoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, but she keeps going on and saying vaccines hurt her baby.

      That bitch can rot.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  4. It doesn't matter. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This has grown beyond Wakefield now. It's become a self-sustaining conspiracy theory, independant of it's source, and no mere facts are going to even slow it down. Parents want to worry, it's in their instincts to protect their children - if they can find no real dangers, they'll inflate anything that looks remotely threatening regardless of true risk.

    1. Re:It doesn't matter. by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
  5. The state of affairs today by dragonhunter21 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's a sad world when some money-grubbing fool can publish a fudged article claiming that a vital, lifesaving tool can cause horrible, debilitating disease, get international attention, and when he's finally disproven all the "concerned parents" of the world ignore him because The Man wants to keep their kids autistic, without sparing a thought to the possiblity that maybe The Other Man just wanted a quick buck.

    --
    Sent from my CR-48
  6. Conspiracies by schmidt349 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Everyone knows how conspiracy theories work. All the wingnuts will just claim this is a political chop job designed to cover up Big Brother/Big Pharma's Big Evil plan. The BBC could play video next week of Wakefield snorting coke and doing an underage hooker, all the while shouting that he had falsified his results, and it wouldn't matter. At some point they'd probably decide that Wakefield was a deep-cover government plant intended to discredit the movement.

  7. Re:Isn't this already well-known? by goodmanj · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  8. Re:There's a special place in hell for... by geekoid · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You can blame Oprah for that. She is directly responsible for giving a platform to this nonsense.

    She is an accomplice. Because of her platform, children are dead.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  9. Re:Isn't this already well-known? by Tony · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why is this making the news now?

    Because this not only debunks the study (which has been debunked for a few years now), it proves Wakefield manufactured the entire thing. He altered data, misrepresenting each case -- for instance, while Wakefield claimed none of the subjects exhibited signs of autism, medical records show that 5 of the 12 had already been shown to have autism. Further investigation shows that all twelve cases had been misrepresented to various degrees.

    Also, Wakefield misrepresented the study to the doctors from whom he received referrals. He called it a "clinical trial," not a study.

    Basically, this investigation proves that Wakefield was not simply careless; he intentionally fictionalized the entire study.

    We can no longer attribute to incompetency that which is demonstrably malicious.

    --
    Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
  10. Re:My kids are not vaccinated. by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The mortality of measles is about 0.3% - 3 kids in 1000 that contract it will die. Your sample size simply means nothing. That's why you leave epidemiology to the experts and don't recklessly endanger not only your kids but everyone they come in contact with by refusing vaccination. In my opinion, it should simply be mandated by law. Parents refusing to vaccinate are clearly unfit for their role, their kids are better off if their asshat parents get thrown into the slammer and the kids set up for adoption.

    --
    Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
  11. Re:My kids are not vaccinated. by grub · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Thimerosal is not mercury. It is a compound with mercury in it with low bioavailabity.
    That's like not eating salt because you're afraid of the chlorine molecule it contains.

    There are countless pages out there discussing the dangers of chlorine, that doesn't make salt a hyper-deadly toxin.

    --
    Trolling is a art,
  12. Re:Jenny McCarthy's page already has it's rebuttal by pjabardo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So a completely different vaccine has the same effect: autism! I have another explanation that is much more plausible: people who tend to believe in wild conspiracy theories have a 3 times higher risk of having children with autism.

  13. Re:My kids are not vaccinated. by grub · · Score: 5, Insightful


    How about I piss in your cornflakes? What's the problem it's not piss it just has a small amount of piss in it.

    If you were to bind the piss with the cornflakes and create a new, safe and tasty molecule then I would try it.

    They drink recycled urine on the space station, btw.

    --
    Trolling is a art,
  14. Please let's distinguish. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sadly, there's even bigger money in Big Pharma.

    Okay. Let's look at this clearly: Big Pharma is a mixed bag of positive and negative. They have undeniably provided products of great benefit to human health. And there is also undeniably many cases of them providing unnecessary vanity products, unintentionally harmful products, and products they knew were harmful or useless which they skewed data to get approved. I have lots of problems with Big Pfizer^H^H^H^H^Hharma.

    Junk science is not a mixed bag. At best it causes people to get ripped off buying placebos, and at worst causes significant harm by making people not seek real medical treatment when they need it, or not vaccinate their kids so you get outbreaks of measels or whooping cough that affect not just their children, but the children of people who didn't buy into the junk science.

    Please let us not talk about these things as if they are equal. There should be lots of money in legitimate pharmaceutical research and manufacturing, but we should also push to solve the problems with it. The problem with junk science, homeopathy, anti-vaccination movements, etc is the junk science itself.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are