Journal peacefinder's Journal: Let's have us a lynchin' 9
ANDREW WAKEFIELD, the former surgeon whose campaign linking the MMR vaccine with autism caused a collapse in immunisation rates, was paid more than £400,000 by lawyers trying to prove that the vaccine was unsafe.
The payments, unearthed by The Sunday Times, were part of £3.4m distributed from the legal aid fund to doctors and scientists who had been recruited to support a now failed lawsuit against vaccine manufacturers.
[...]
Wakefield's work for the lawyers began two years before he published his now notorious report in The Lancet medical journal in February 1998, proposing a link between the vaccine and autism.
This suggestion, followed by a campaign led by Wakefield, caused immunisation rates to slump from 92% to 78.9%, although they have since partly recovered. In March this year the first British child in 14 years died from measles.
Please let me know if any mobs form to give Dr. Andrew Wakefield a good old fashioned tar-and-featherin'. Think you've had enough? Wait. It gets more sordid still:
Later The Lancet retracted Wakefield's claim and apologised after a Sunday Times investigation showed that his research had been backed with £55,000 from lawyers, and that the children in the study used as evidence against the vaccine were also claimants in the lawsuit.
[...]
Also among those named as being paid from the legal aid fund was a referee for one of Wakefield's papers, who was allowed £40,000.
Patients in his study were plaintiffs in the lawsuits? Ya think his study might have a little selection bias? Crap of a stick.
He's already been scientifically refuted. Now, hopefully, his credibility is entirely destroyed. So if there's any of y'all that have been avoiding MMR for your kids, it looks like this would be a good moment to re-evaluate.
My nephew (Score:2)
I don't dispute that this study was deeply flawed. But also deeply flawed is injecting kids with mercury when other forms of perservative can be used for the same vacine. My child got the MMR- a safer version that didn't use m
Re: (Score:2)
You're missing the point. The flawed study was paid for by the lawsuit. It most likely was never anything but junk science.*
That said, I agree that purposely giving kids mercury in any amount is a daft idea. Environmental exposure is bad enough already. But it's not at all difficult to get all of a kid's vaccinations without additional mercury exposure.
[*: That is, a report which had a conclusion in mind before it star
Re: (Score:2)
Now if we can only get the medical community to actually admit to the problems, instead of merely sweeping it under the rug, we could get autistic children at least the treatment that they need. But then again, who ever heard of a health insurance industry wanting
Re: (Score:2)
Strange. We gave out hundreds of flu shots to kids under 12. See the CDC for more info. [cdc.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing to see here, move along (Score:2)
Or so I've been told.
Because Men of Science(tm) are for the Common Good(tm) and above such petty things as crass commerce(tm).
Also among those named as being paid from the legal aid fund was a referee for one of Wakefield's papers, who was allowed £40,000.
A mere coincidence. You kids and your crazy conspiracy theories!
Sheesh.
what is not being reported. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just to be clear, my ire is not directed at the plaintiffs. I think the courts are a reasonable remedy for this sort of thing. It's Dr. Wakefield that appears to have done everyone a disservice. Using the plaintiffs as part of the study? How could that be double-blind enough to produce a valid result? Not disclosing his financial interest when he published in the first place?
He a
The only problem I see... (Score:2)
As far as I’m concerned, the worst that could be said about this case is that they managed to do the right thing the wrong way. Far f