to be a little in love with Ben Goldacre?

[entropyglitter]

Just read 'bad science' (finally) and I think I am in love.....

my favourite bit was Gillian McKeith thinking that oxygen (generated by chlorophyll) in your gut is not only plausible, but at all a good idea....

presumably this is at the same time as main lining anti-oxidants (which had been shown to increase your risk of disease rather than decrease it).

Why is it people who bang on about how great Wakefield is never mention the video where he laughs about children vomiting and fainting as blood is taken from them at a party? Or about paying £5 for children's blood?

Sweetlily being paid to act as an expert witness is something doctors do all the time.

Rutter has done it too.

As long as you disclose it when it could be viewed as a COI there are no probs.

As silverfrog says there is documentation of Wakefield's disclosure (the Dean of the Royal Free and the co-authors of the Lancet paper knew too because Wakefield wrote to them to tell them what he had decided to do).

Which of course then begs the question, doesn't it, why was Wakefield struck off if he is so innocent?

Why did the Lancet say they never would have published the article then? They withdrew it because of the undisclosed COI.

And Beach, if I may say so, that is awfully disingenuous of you after all the things you saud about BG not being independent - the things you complained about re. BG were unbelievably tenuous in comparison.

if I answer those questions, I'll be written off as a conspiracy theorist

there is a paper trail of evidence. this was denied, even at the GMC trial. right up to the moment it was produced.

the reply to that? 'oh yes. that memo. I remember now.'

then no more was said, and the accusation of non-disclosure still stands.

the whole thing stinks.

and what is more worrying is that more people cannot see that it was not handled correctly. most people seem to fall into the 'perfectly understandable to forget those (several) memos, meetings, emails and conversations. even when under oath about it, it is ok to lie and say you never read them, hae never seen them, do not know of their existence. and then when it is proved that you have read them, and do know they exist, nothign will be done about your lies. because the lie we want ot stand is more important'

and now you can all jump in with your cries of 'conspiracy theorist'

So why then silverfrog? If this is all true, WHY was Wakefield struck off?

no, SWT they said that was why they withdrew it.

it can be proved that Horton (and a whole load of others) knew about the professional witness work. there is a paper trail.

but the lie is easier for most people to believe. because it fits with what they want to be true. that Wakefield is a monster, who carried out illegal and unnecessary invasive trsting on children, whose parents did not give fully informed consent, who falsified thei medical records, etc etc.

it is all a fabrication (mstly done by Deer)

Elaine - you know the answer to that.

don't ask disingenuous quesitons, in the hope that I will finally denounce the whole gmc as corrupt, so that you can tell me to find my tinfoil hat.

Ah gwan noblegiraffe link to the video.

You know you want to.

I think this has been commented on many many times on MN - probably on threads you have read!

Can we really be bothered to go over it again?

I suppose it is sort of interesting because it illustrates how even the most innocent of actions can be presented as something sinister and evil.

He did apologise for the joke and explain that it was a silly thing to say and nobody really fainted/was sick. He was trying to break the ice in a slightly stuffy atmosphere at the time and exaggerated his story slightly.

The blood samples were taken by medical staff with written permission from the parents. (There is nothing wrong with taking a sample out-with a medical setting, this is perfectly legal and happens all the time.)

The kids were given a fiver afterwards to thank them. They were not offered the money beforehand in order to not to influence their decision of agreeing to the sample being taken or not.

I accept that these details are quite boring and not nearly as much fun as sensationalist stories about doctors paying for children's blood and evilly laughing at children in distress. Disappointing I know but that is very often the case with the truth - it is pretty mundane.

Oh my goodness. I cannot believe the wily ways Wakefield's supporter's will stick up for this man.

Wakefield was absolutely criticised for the recruiting of children at a birthday party and paying £5. And rightly so.

Elaine, I think much of the answer to your question lies in the Urabe story.

I linked to the video ages ago, Beach. Were you not paying attention?

I'm afraid that despite what you say, I still find taking blood causing blood to be taken from a children at a party and giving them £5 for it is ethically suspect. Out of a medical setting being legal does not suggest that at a birthday party is appropriate.

The GMC thought so too.

"Dr Wakefield caused blood to be taken from a group of children for research
purposes at a birthday party, which the Panel found to be an inappropriate
social setting. He behaved unethically in failing to seek Ethics Committee
approval; he showed callous disregard for any distress or pain the children
might suffer, and he paid the children £5 reward for giving their blood. He
then described the episode in humorous terms at a public presentation and
expressed an intention to repeat his conduct. When giving evidence to the
Panel, Dr Wakefield expressed some regret regarding his remarks. The Panel
was concerned at Dr Wakefield?s apparent lack of serious consideration to the
relevant ethical issues and the abuse of his position of trust as a medical
practitioner with regard to his conduct in causing the blood to be taken. The
Panel concluded that his conduct brought the medical profession into
disrepute. "

I wouldn't call him a 'monster' but that party trick is simply indefensible.

I'm not a mind reader, silverfrog. Why are you ashamed of your views and unwilling to share them in an open forum?

Well Sweetlily he agreed himself afterwards that it wasn't one of his best ideas to joke about taking the samples and apologised for doing so.

I don't think there is much to be gained from making a mountain out of this particular molehill though.

I agree that if he had not had permission from the parents and had coerced the children with money and than drank the blood afterwards we would have some pretty major ethical issues on our hands.

The blood samples were used for research purposes and the parents gave written permission for this as is required by ethical committee standards. The money is irrelevant because it wasn't used to coerce the children.

The GMC couldn't figure out how to find fault with the actual taking of the samples so they kicked his arse on the joke.

Now I don't know about you but I find that a bit worrying. To think that a doctor can be in serious trouble with the GMC because of a joke. It all feels a bit Orwellian to me.

It's crazy NG! I've done social science research and we had to submit proposals to an ethics committee before we did any kind of human subjects research - even if just doing a survey. The idea of cavalierly taking blood from children at a party is so beyond the pale that you have to be blind not to see it. Of course it doesn't mean you're a monster but it does mean that you have little regard for medical ethics, either through ignorance or design.

Are you actually serious, Beach? You think that the problem with taking blood at a birthday party is merely because he made a joke about it afterward? I am that anyone would try to defend this as ok.

And the problem wasn't the joke. Further in the GMC report

"Dr Wakefield defended the ethical basis for the taking of blood at a birthday party contrary to the experts who gave evidence to the Panel and who strongly condemned this action. The Panel determined that his conduct fell seriously short of the standards expected of a doctor and was a breach of the trust which the public is entitled to have in members of the medical profession. It concluded that this behaviour amounted to serious professional misconduct. "

I think you're very selective about how you designate your molehills and your mountains Beachcomber.

BG working in the same institution as others who share his opinion = MOUNTAIN
Wakefield seriously violating medical ethics = MOLEHILL

I think you may have your priorities wrong.

You do not need Ethics Comittee approval to take blood from someone at a birthday party.

You need written consent from the person concerned or from their guardian if the sample is being used for research purposes.

This stuff is ridiculous.

All this faux outrage at something that doesn't actually break any rules and that the people concerned were quite happy to go along with.

Thank you, I have read that extract from the GMC hearing before. Like I say it is is Orwellian.

The callous disregard bit has turned out to be good value though

Sorry I missed the video link NG - I will admit that I don't pay a huge amount of attention to your posts, although I did enjoy chatting to you about Sense About Science.

No, you absolutely need clearance from an ethics committee if you're taking blood for research purposes. Absolutely. Get your facts straight.

Which is highly amusing, Beach considering your lengthy posts about BG earlier today. Which certainly make an oversized mountain out of a molehill, about getting dates of reports wrong and messing with Wakefield's research 'timeline'.

You revere Wakefield and make countless excuses for him despite the fact that he was struck off by the GMC on 30 counts. The GMC didn't make a mountain out of a molehill did it? Anyone that is even slightly critical of Wakefield is given the most unfair smearing as BG has had done to him on this thread. It is laughable really.

So there was a paper trail with Andrew Wakefield's COI's all along was there? Fine. But he certainly has been accused of vested financial interests beyond mentioned in my earlier post). But on here people criticised BG for writing for the Guardian and being paid by the IOP - when it's perfectly open information, on his website and not even a COI. Double standards or what?

"This stuff is ridiculous."

Is it? Go on, do an 'AIBU to be concerned that a doctor started taking blood samples from the kiddies at a birthday party my DC attended today?'

What do you reckon the response will be?

Right Elaine you said it so much better than me.

"Orwellian" ? Please tell me you're joking.