PDA

View Full Version : Report linking vaccine to autism 'an elaborate fraud'



Gingersnap
01-06-2011, 11:05 AM
Report linking vaccine to autism 'an elaborate fraud'

Updated 4h 48m ago

By Liz Szabo, USA TODAY

An infamous 1998 study that ignited a worldwide scare over vaccines and autism and led millions of parents to delay or decline potentially lifesaving shots for their children was "an elaborate fraud," according to a scathing three-part investigation in the British medical journal BMJ.

The study has long since been debunked and dismissed by the scientific community, which points to 14 independent studies that have failed to find any link between vaccines and autism.

Last year, The Lancet issued a formal retraction. British medical authorities last year also found the study's lead author, Andrew Wakefield, guilty of serious professional misconduct, stripping him of his ability to practice medicine in England.

Now, the BMJ reports that Wakefield, who was paid more than $675,000 by a lawyer hoping to sue vaccine makers, was not just unethical he falsified data in the study, which suggested that children developed autism after getting a shot against measles, mumps and rubella.

In fact, the children's medical records show that some clearly had symptoms of developmental problems long before getting their shots, BMJ says. Several had no autism diagnosis at all.

Wakefield could not be reached by USA TODAY.

Becky Estepp, of the advocacy group Talk About Curing Autism, says the investigation is unlikely to sway vaccine critics. "I think it will make both sides dig in even further," she says.

Few studies have had such far-reaching and harmful effects, especially after being so thoroughly discredited, says William Schaffner, an infectious-disease expert at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine.

Vaccination rates in England plummeted after Wakefield's news conference to promote his study. Measles outbreaks in the United Kingdom and Ireland hospitalized hundreds of people and killed four children, says Paul Offit, a pediatrician at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia.

Nearly 40% of American parents also have declined or delayed a vaccine, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Many parents now have a vague distrust of vaccines with little to no memory of diseases that terrified their grandparents, Schaffner says.

USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/yourlife/health/medical/autism/2011-01-06-autism06_ST_N.htm)

Odysseus
01-06-2011, 11:53 AM
USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/yourlife/health/medical/autism/2011-01-06-autism06_ST_N.htm)


Now, the BMJ reports that Wakefield, who was paid more than $675,000 by a lawyer hoping to sue vaccine makers, was not just unethical he falsified data in the study, which suggested that children developed autism after getting a shot against measles, mumps and rubella.

Sounds like he can be prosecuted for perjury, if he testified in a court case regarding his findings.


Becky Estepp, of the advocacy group Talk About Curing Autism, says the investigation is unlikely to sway vaccine critics. "I think it will make both sides dig in even further," she says.

Sounds just like the Global Warming, er, uh, Climate Change, uh, Global Cooling, uh, (what's the current line of BS?) issue. Activists falsifying data and using it to scam the unsuspecting, while doing real harm. The four kids who died after contracting diseases for which they could have been vaccinated are on his head, and if I were a parent of one of those kids, I'd be looking for Wakefield, which is probably why he's not making himself publicly available.

noonwitch
01-06-2011, 12:12 PM
I never bought into that thinking. If the vaccine was responsible, there would be a staggering number of autistic children since the advent of the MMR vaccine, and there aren't any numbers to back that theory.

wilbur
01-06-2011, 01:24 PM
Sounds like he can be prosecuted for perjury, if he testified in a court case regarding his findings.



Sounds just like the Global Warming, er, uh, Climate Change, uh, Global Cooling, uh, (what's the current line of BS?) issue. Activists falsifying data and using it to scam the unsuspecting, while doing real harm. The four kids who died after contracting diseases for which they could have been vaccinated are on his head, and if I were a parent of one of those kids, I'd be looking for Wakefield, which is probably why he's not making himself publicly available.

Key difference: scientists tend to support the theory of climate change. They've been vocally against the moonbat anti-vaccine crowd for ages.

The anti-vaccine cause has basically been driven and promoted by dumb celebrities like Jenny McCarthy and Oprah, who think they know better than doctors and medical researchers and years of repeated studies - to the horror of the scientific community. They actually have more in common with the denier crowd, in that they tend to carefully handpick the few crank papers or supporting studies that they can find, choose to believe them over the greater body of research, which more often than not contradicts their beliefs. In other words, the science is only credible if it tells me what I already think.

obx
01-06-2011, 03:11 PM
Don't forget RFJ Jr. in your list of dumb celebrities.

Odysseus
01-06-2011, 04:00 PM
Key difference: scientists tend to support the theory of climate change. They've been vocally against the moonbat anti-vaccine crowd for ages.

The anti-vaccine cause has basically been driven and promoted by dumb celebrities like Jenny McCarthy and Oprah, who think they know better than doctors and medical researchers and years of repeated studies - to the horror of the scientific community. They actually have more in common with the denier crowd, in that they tend to carefully handpick the few crank papers or supporting studies that they can find, choose to believe them over the greater body of research, which more often than not contradicts their beliefs. In other words, the science is only credible if it tells me what I already think.

You've got it exactly backwards. The skeptics are the ones who question the conclusions of the cooked science in both cases. The major data on AGM was compiled by groups like the CRU at the U of East Anglia, which turned out to have destroyed data, fudged observations, slandered opponents and corrupted the peer review process in order to advance their own agenda and suppress dissent. The only people who still believe in this are those who, like Marxists and Flat Earthers (and anti-vaccine dolts) whose worldview demands that they reject the obvious. The Lysenkos of the AGM movement have lost the war of ideas, and are now advancing their agenda through sheer intellectual thuggery.

wilbur
01-06-2011, 04:58 PM
You've got it exactly backwards.

Nope, I've got it quite right, thanks.


The skeptics are the ones who question the conclusions of the cooked science in both cases. The major data on AGM was compiled by groups like the CRU at the U of East Anglia, which turned out to have destroyed data, fudged observations, slandered opponents and corrupted the peer review process in order to advance their own agenda and suppress dissent. The only people who still believe in this are those who, like Marxists and Flat Earthers (and anti-vaccine dolts) whose worldview demands that they reject the obvious. The Lysenkos of the AGM movement have lost the war of ideas, and are now advancing their agenda through sheer intellectual thuggery.


In the case of the anti-vaccine scenario, the skeptics would be the anti-vaccine idiots. They say all the same shit you say about global warming, you know - go check it out. The scientists, medical establishment and pharmaceutical companies are corrupt, they fudge facts, they don't want you to know what they're really up to, they slander anyone who questions them, blah, blah blah. Poor us, we're all victims of a shadowy conspiracy...

...and in both cases, the real scientists have been rigorously dismantling their bullshit, if one cares to listen or look.

The narratives, in both cases, are cut from the same template.

Gingersnap
01-06-2011, 05:00 PM
Make sure this discussion remains on topic about the vaccine scare fraud and doesn't devolve into a AGW discussion. Take that discussion to CU Weather. ;)

Odysseus
01-06-2011, 05:18 PM
Nope, I've got it quite right, thanks.

Oh, well in that case... :rolleyes:

Since I don't care to get into another long discussion with you, which will accomplish nothing, I'll simply point out that there is massive documentation of fraud in the IGW camp, including the East Anglia e-mails, while there is no evidence of fraud on the part of the pharmaceutical industry regarding vaccines. In order to equate the two, you have to ignore evidence in the former, which you are perfectly happy to do.