Andrew Wakefield Struck off

[ShadeofViolet]

here

Leonie as I said - the pertinent point about those papers is (to quote) 'according to Mercola'

You asked for any research which had specifically looked into the link which Wakefield hypothesised. I found this exact piece of research and linked to it. What else are you looking for?

Leonie - have you read any of the 29 linked papers? How many of them mention MMR?

Leonie you have posted a link to some random readers comments on the BMJ website. How are these relavant? a few of them link to published papers which allegedly support their views but most do not, and even then, not all the comments support your view. Sorry to break it to you but this is not 'vindication'

Dittany your post proves my point. You are talking about the respective qualifications of Brian Deer and Ben Goldacre - what have they got to do with anything? The research and evidence on MMR or autism and the lack of a link is myriad and wide ranging involving hundreds if not thousands of qualified parties and organisations.

Click through to novicemama's link if you want to see my point - look at the number of authors on that one study.

That Deer and Goldacre were vocal in their criticism of Wakefield is neither here nor there - they weren't his only judge and jury. They are not the law. The GMC are not relying on their sole testimony.

Leonie oh dear - so if Wakefield didn't say 'MMR causes autism' then why is it exactly that you've not vaccinated your children?

Novice, I would love to read the paper you link to. Sadly, am on my phone and cannot follow links. If dd2 gives.me some time off from garden play supervision I will look up the link (one day soon our broadband might get fixed. It's only been a month...)

I suspect, however that, as is usually the case, the sub groupwas not correctly identified. And that the hypothesis "disproved" wad that mmr doesn't cause autism.

Which has never been claimed. At all. Ever.

leonie a quote from one of the papers YOU linked to states:

"In 1998, Wakefield et al reported an
association between ileocolitis and de-
velopmental regression in 12 children
and coined the term ?autistic entero-
colitis.? From the same uncontrolled
study they reported NLH of the ileum
and colon as an abnormal finding in
most children with ASDs. However,
similar findings are known to be
present in children with typical devel-
opment, as well as children with food
allergies and immunodeficiencies. The significance of these findings, therefore, is unclear. Wakefield et al also proposed a causal relation be-tween measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccination and autism, a sug-
gestion that was later retracted by
many of the original authors."

Just randomly posting links which look official doesn't really help if you haven't read them...

sorry, the cut and paste did not work well there so it's hard to read.

dittany I also have no problem with proper scientific research being done into a possible link between MMR and autism - no problem whatsoever.

However:

a) There is a point to having proper ethical peer-reviewed scientific research.
b) Wakefield didn't follow the rules and didn't do his research properly. That's why he's been struck off. In the process he succeeded in making a lot of parents very anxious and caused a drop in vaccination rates which has seen the return of some very nasty diseases
c) When the research has been done in a proper scientific ethical manner, no link has been found

In the light of this, for some reason people still seem to prefer to believe Wakefield over the other research. Puzzling.

How do you spot a Ben Goldacre fan? Is it the people who believe in well carried out and properly designed research?

The lack of a 'science phd' doesn't really seem relevant (and I would have thought a medical degree was pretty 'sciency'). You can afterall be an excellent English teacher without actually writting books, you can be a restaraunt critic without being a chef and you can identify good and bad science without a degree in it.

Dammit, Bambi, don't take away my feeling of superiority!

FGS Brian Deer is an investigative journalist. That's what investigative journalists do. They investigate. Where their investigations are pertinent, they are frequently called as witnesses in hearing such as this one, or in House of Commons select committees for example.

The point Dittany makes about the investigator also being the accuser I don't quite understand. If by reporting back what you have found in your investigation you are reporting they have done something wrong, then (if you want to look at it that way) you could say you are accusing them. Or you could say you're reporting what you've found.

Leonie - this "hardon" stuff you keep saying is really distasteful.

I don't know enough about Brian Deer to talk about him specifically, but I have to take issue with dittany's (and other's) points about journalists being "objective".

Some journalism is - and always ought to be - objective, eg straightforward news reporting. But one of the strengths of the media is its campaigning role and many of the best journalists have not been "objective" in that sense - see Paul Foot, for example, whose work was crucial in overturning miscarriages of justice such as the Birmingham Six case.

Similarly, when newspapers uncover criminal wrongdoing, the news report will usually state that the evidence collected has been handed over to the police. The newspaper is, I suppose, in a sense the "accuser" in this case. I think such behaviour is entirely justifiable.