"JG" <
[email protected]> wrote in message news:<
[email protected]>...
> "Jonathan Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > [email protected] (abacus) wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > > "Mark Probert-February 23, 2004" <Mark
> [email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>
> http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/9305535?source=Evening Standard
>
> [...]
>
> > His results are suspect because of poor science and now there appears
> > to be evidence that the reason for the poor science may have been his
> > motivation. He was helping lawyers sue the makers and providers of
> > vaccines by providing the very evidence these lawyers needed to make a
> > case. He was a hired gun. The fact that he was a hired gun was not
> > disclosed.
>
> You seem to have a lot of free time on your hands, Jonathan; why don't
> you dig into this a little deeper and find out why the attorneys engaged
> Wakefield's services? I find it extremely hard to believe that they
> picked him at random. It's far more likely he and his colleagues had
> already, *independently*, formulated their theory of an
> autism-intestines-MMR
> connection and were conducting research.
Not according to Pubmed. The authors were well known for their
measles-Crohn's disease link and not until 1997 was there ever any
mention by that group of the possible MMR - neurologic link. In 1997,
they were already doing the lawyer study as far as I know.
Here are some random quotes from the press regarding this remarkable
discover.
"Although his theory is very controversial and is based originally on
the observation of only 12 children with special needs (including 9
with autism spectrum disorders), the media attention it has received
has left parents scared and confused."
" Dr. Andrew Wakefield and colleagues first reported a possible
association of a syndrome of autistic regression, intestinal
complaints, ileal lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia and MMR vaccination
(Wakefield AJ et al, Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific
colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children, The Lancet
1998(Feb 28);351:637-641)."
> I've seen no evidence of "poor
> science";
The science underlying the report has been questioned - even by one of
the authors himself. The Lancet article describes how patients were
recruited into the study. The description is false.
> presumably The Lancet didn't either, or its editors would
> (should)have rejected the article.
Had the editors known of the funding source and that the content of
the article misrepresented the methods used, it would likel;y have
been rejectd - according to them.
> [...]
>
> > It is not a conflict of interest when associations exist and these are
> > readily and fully disclosed. There is a potential of a conflict and
> > the potential is exaccerbated by a failure to disclose.
>
> You appear to have an idiosyncratic definition of "conflict of
> interest," Jonathan. A conflict of interest is NOT quashed by mere
> disclosure of its existence!
A financial relationship is a potential conflict of interest. It
becomes a conflict when it is reasonable to expect that the
relationship would change the researchers strudy design or
interpretation of results. It becomes an effect when it does impact
on the design and it is shown. It is fraud when this potential
conflict is hidden and its impact, and the conclusions drawn are
affected.
In the case of the Wakefield paper, there is evidence to suggest that
all of this happened.
> For whom do you think such disclosures are
> intended? Not the researcher.
Abnsolutely for the researcher - remember, the only selling
proposition of the researcher is his integrity. Without integrity, he
has no value to the research community.
> Not the individual or group with whom
> he/she has the association that gives rise to the conflict of interest.
Rise to a POTENTIAL conflict of interest. The disclosure absolutely
has value to the funders.
> They serve anyone who might conceivably rely on the information (e.g.,
> research findings) presented and might, rationally, wish to discount
> such tainted information. (The information *is* tainted, but that, of
> course, doesn't mean that it's not true/accurate.)
The information is not, by the existance of a potential conflict of
interest which is fully disclosed, tainted. If that were the case,
there would be NO untainted research. Soemone is paying for it, hence
there is a potential conflict somewhere.
> [...]
>
> > Wakefield was PAID to produce results that were specifically and
> > completely intended to show a vaccine autism link in support of a
> > legal action.
>
> As stated above, it's probable that Wakefield and his colleagues were
> investigating/researching (and had announced) their theory of an
> MMR-autism link well *before* he (they) were contacted by the
> plaintiffs' attorneys.
And as replied to above - it cannot be documented in the literature
that this is the case. Had this group been pursuing an active
research program linking MMR with autism, it would have been subject
to publications - Wakefield is a prolific letter writer to the Lancet
yet NOT ONCE until 1997 did he ewver suggest anything beyond a link
between measles and diseases of the gut.
> You have absolutely NO evidence that Wakefield
> was paid to produce research results favorable to the plaintiffs' case.
He was paid and the results, by the admission of his fellow
researchers, were overstated. Munch has recanted. Have I seen the
research agreement? No.
> (Indeed, your statement is quite libelous.) Conflict of interest? Yes.
> Proof of fraud? No.
Failure to disclose the relationship is fraudulent, in my opinion.
Misrepresenting the source of patients, in my opinion, is fraudulent.
Selection bias in the sampling that is misrepresented is fraudulent,
in my opinion.
"12 children, consecutively referred to the department of paediatric
gastroenterology with a history of a pervasive developmental disorder
with loss of acquired skills and intestinal symptoms (diarrhoea,
abdominal pain, bloating and food intolerance), were investigated. All
children were admitted to the ward for 1 week, accompanied by their
parents."
This is NOT true. 10 were referred by the laywers of which four were
reviewed in the study. There is nothing "consecutive" about that.
This is a statement made IN the article.
"We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella
vaccine and the syndrome described. Virological studies are underway
that may help to resolve this issue."
Then in the last paragraph, this happens:
"In most cases, onset of symptoms was after measles, mumps, and
rubella immunisation"
Well, DUH. A good part of the sample came from lawyers suing vaccine
manufacturers and representing parents who already knew that MMR
caused their childs autism. So - if you base the association on self
report of patients and select patients because they self reported it -
you get your conclusion. Paid for and delivered. And we all thought
it really was a valid sample selection methodology. Yep, you can fool
some of the people some of the time.
I like my science transparent. I like research articles to be
accurate and the conclusions to be supported. I don't like what the
lay press does to science.
I don't like what lawyers can do to science.
> [...]
So there - are we done? Good.
js
