Andrew Wakefield Struck off

[ShadeofViolet]

here

Leonie did you follow the link in my previous post? Please do.

Autism rates now stand at 1 in 64. And wakefield hypothesised that 7% of those MIGHT be affected by mmr. That's actually quite a lot of children. But they don't count, obviously, as they are not affected by an illness with a common name. They can co tinge to be hospitalized in agony, or worse still overlooked because they are non-verbal and so allegedly it is difficult to tell if they are in pain

Why is it so hard for people to accept that his hypothesis was val
d (it was and is).

Here is the (please note) peer-reviewed research by Dr Mady Hornig which replicated the Wakefield research: www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0003140

To quote Dr Hornig: "We found no relationship between the timing of MMR and the onset of either gastrointestinal complaints or autism."

Was just about to post and you got there before me Novice! I am not totally for Dr Ben just like some of the stuff he suggests to go and look at elsewhere.

Hi Linden, yes, I find Mr Goldacre a little patronising at times but he is nothing if not thorough and he has a very enquiring mind. I think he really cuts through the bullshit and as you say, directs his readers to the actual science so they can make informed decisions themselves.

It's precisely because of the anguish, uncertainty and argument caused by Wakefield's work that clinicians have to conform to strict practice guidelines for research and publication. Like free speech, there should be no taboos on research. However, also like free speech, that does not extend to shouting 'fire' in a crowded room and hang the consequences.

Autism affected a lot of children pre MMR and continues to do so. If they are being overlooked it could be because people are wasting time arguing about one flawed theory rather than investigating the problem more fully.

Ben Goldacre is patronising and/or very brainy
Brian Deer has mental health issues and is arrogant.
Andrew Wakefield is nice and trustworthy on camera
Joe Mercola is honest and/or a snake oil salesman.

Glad to see that we're cutting through to the issues. Any one got any thoughts on their clothes? Shoes? Hair?

And we wonder why people scoff at the idea 'a mother knows' - this thread is all about personality and opinion and nothing about the evidence base for making child health policy.

I would be upset if I had a child with an illness that wasn't fully understood and someone suggested a possible explanation, but then investigated in such a corrupt and damaging way that they became the by-word for poor, biased research. He hasn't been suspended for an idea he had but for seeing the idea as a business opportunity at the expense of good scientific practice. If anything he has harmed the prospects of genuine altruistic mavericks by damaging public trust in medical research and increasing the number and tightness of hoops they have to jump through.

He has done autistic children a disservice to approach it this way, to separate and isolate concerned parents from good scientific research and trustworthy doctors for his own personal gain. I personally think some parts of the media should be dragged over the coals as well. I hope this doesn't turn into another thread of MMR/vaccines because it isn't about that - imagine the fact that we went to war without the UN behind us had always turned into a debate about having an army at all (so you were forced into siding with the government over a more theoretical issue and conveniently ignoring the methods used).

Good, Irresponsible twit.

Good post, HippyGalore.

Hear, hear, HippyGalore

Andrew Wakefield had no contract to treat patients, he had NO paediatric qualifications, he was utterly unqualified to perform the unethical experiments he performed, which were 100% against the interests of the children he experimented on.

You can't shout 'la la la, you're not allowed to criticise him because you don't have a PhD' without looking ridiculous in view of Wakefield's own standing.

jeananddolly - people on these threads always ask to see research which has tested Wakefield's hypothesis. I have therefore linked to research which directly looked at his hypothesis and found no evidence for a link between MMR and autism

The debate on here is not all about opinions or who comes over well on tv, but no one is yet to respond to my link to the actual scientific research. Anyone? The link is here again if anyone cares to respond?

www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0003140

He authorised the tests. He signed the forms. he therefore ordered paediatric investigations upon children when he was not qualified to do so, nor was he contracted to do so.

This is unethical.

He also didn't call any witnesses in his defence to the GMC hearing. Odd that.

If you had been there Leonie perhaps it would have a different outcome...

no one going to read and respond to the actual science then?

Leonie out of interest, what are your medical / scientific qualifications?

Good.

Now lets campaign for better science in schools so people can make informed descions rather than just being frightened by charlatans, quacks and the Daily M.

And Ben Goldacre is a hero!