Andrew Wakefield Struck off

[ShadeofViolet]

here

Leonie whether the children were harmed or not is neither here nor there - he didn't conduct his research in the proper ethical way. Do you understand the peer-review process? scientific ethics?

aside from the assertion that we have a second brain in our gut (news to me, and I suspect to Dr Ben Goldacre ), it's not subjective to say he didn't do his research properly. The GMC is an independent body, they have investigated and that's exactly what they're saying.

i wasn't aware i was a ben goldacre fan...i am a big mmr fan though. i don't like that 168,000 people die every year from measles and it's preventable.

Brian Deer is not objective about Wakefield in the way that Woodward and Bernstein weren't objective about Nixon or John Pilger wasn't objective about the Khmer Rouge. Journalism isn't about objectivity - it's about facts.

No, dittany, I made it clear I wasn't talking about Deer specifically but about journalism generally, and tackling your point about a reporter's duty to be "objective".

In any case, presumably Deer didn't start out "having a stake in the outcome" of the Wakefield story? His role as "accuser", if you like, came as a result of his investigations.

Leonie, your comment on Deer's website is odd. The Wakefield story is clearly the one for which he is most well-known and the reason for most of the visits to the website, I'd have thought. Of course it would be prominent. That's just sensible web design.

Oh dear...in the view of his fans I've just compared AW to the Khmer Rouge. Relax - just a bit of hyperbolic rhetoric.

There's a second brain in the gut? Is that where the phrase 'shit for brains' comes from?

By silverfrog Mon 24-May-10 12:46:28
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

Silverfrog, that's awful and no child's pain should ever be overlooked. Just wanted to make it clear that it's very much the case that those of us who are glad Wakefield has been struck off can still find it appalling that doctors can overlook a child in pain. If this is your dc you're talking about, I hope you find some help.

If you carry out research, you need to do it properly, thoroughly and make sure it is beyond reproach.

If you want to be taken seriously in your field, you need to act in a responsible, ethical manner.

If you know the rules, you should stick to them, secure in the knowledge that your findings will prove you right.

If you want a balanced view, don't for god's sake trust our media to provide it.

Why make such a song and dance about Deer? Andrew Wakefield wasn't struck off because a journalist didn't like him or had a 'hard-on' for him.

Really? Do you honestly believe that this is a case of one shining knight tarnished by an evil journalist and persecuted by a corrupt and stupid GMC?

That's much more [facepalm] IMO.

Of course his research was handed over. That's standard procedure.

By LeonieDelt Mon 24-May-10 14:17:59
Dr Evan Harris ex-MP for Oxfordshire is also complicit. He complained to the GMC about Wakefield, and that complaint had to be investigated.

What on earth is wrong with that?

Leonie given that Wakefiled HAS been found to have acted unethically, are you saying he should not have been investigated? If Deer had not reported him, it all would have been fine?

If he had been exonerated by the GMC perhaps you could say that Deer and Evan Harris acted irresponsibly in dragging him over the coals unnecessarily. But he was found to be in breach of medical ethics. [facepalm] indeed.