| Re: So it's official, encouraging skepticism and doubt is "poor science", according to UK Govt's chief medical ossifer. |
BT Openworld |
| Mike Dworetsky (platinum198@pants.btinternet.com) |
2004/02/24 07:37 |
Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: "Mike Dworetsky" <platinum198@pants.btinternet.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.uncle-davey
Subject: Re: So it's official, encouraging skepticism and doubt is "poor science", according to UK Govt's chief medical ossifer.
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:37:19 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: BT Openworld
Lines: 122
Sender: root@darwin.ediacara.org
Approved: robomod@ediacara.org
Message-ID: <c1fnc1$eaq$1@sparta.btinternet.com>
References: <b9b3de8.0402240253.15fdda7e@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1077633439 61723 128.100.83.246 (24 Feb 2004 14:37:19 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@darwin.ediacara.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:37:19 +0000 (UTC)
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: host81-129-18-200.in-addr.btopenworld.com
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.uncle-davey:2703
"Jerzy Jakubowski" <branchofjesse@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b9b3de8.0402240253.15fdda7e@posting.google.com...
>
http://society.guardian.co.uk/publichealth/story/0,11098,1154677,00.html?79%3A+Uk+latest
>
> "Claim that MMR work mixed science and spin
>
> James Meikle, health correspondent
> Tuesday February 24, 2004
> The Guardian
>
> Tony Blair yesterday weighed in to the MMR controversy by appealing
> once more for parents to give their children the all-in-one measles,
> mumps and rubella jab.
>
> The prime minister, who refused two years ago to reveal whether his
> son Leo had received the vaccine, stepped in to hammer home his view
> of the MMR's importance as the General Medical Council paved the way
> for an investigation into the ethics of Andrew Wakefield's study into
> autism and bowel disease six years ago which lit the fuse for a series
> of explosive rows over the vaccine's safety.
>
> Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet medical journal, has said he
> would never have published the research study in February 1998 if it
> had known of "a serious conflict of interest", which Mr Wakefield
> should have revealed at the time.
>
> He and other senior staff conducted an urgent investigation last week
> following allegations presented by a researcher for the Sunday Times,
> and concluded that the fact that Mr Wakefield had not revealed he was
> receiving legal aid funds on behalf of parents seeking to establish a
> link between MMR and autism was a serious error of judgment and a
> "fatal conflict of interest".
>
> But Mr Wakefield, who denies any wrongdoing, and former colleagues
> were cleared by the Lancet of other allegations of research misconduct
> made about the study which provoked years of argument, serious falls
> in uptake of the vaccine and repeated warnings of a measles epidemic
> among young children.
>
> Mr Blair told ITV: "There is absolutely no evidence to sup port this
> link between MMR and autism. If there was, I can assure you that any
> government would be looking at it and trying to act on it. I hope, now
> that people see that the situation is somewhat different to what they
> were led to believe, they will have the triple jab because it is
> important to do it."
>
> Mr Blair, at the height of "did he or didn't he" row over Leo and the
> jab in 2002, made clear he would never advocate something he did not
> think safe for his own children.
>
> The government's chief medical officer, Sir Liam Donaldson, speaking
> on BBC's Today programme, said he had always regarded Mr Wakefield's
> study as poor science. "If the paper had never been published, then we
> would not have had the controversy and we wouldn't have had the seed
> of doubt sown in parents' minds which has caused a completely false
> loss of confidence in a vaccine that has saved millions of children's
> lives around the world.
>
> "When Mr Wakefield has been in contact with us, he has often been
> represented by a PR company rather than communicating directly.
>
> "I don't think that spin and science mix. If they are mixed, it is a
> very unfavourable position for children's health. Now a darker side of
> this work has shown through, with the ethical conduct of the research
> and this is something that has to be looked at."
>
> The GMC confirmed last night that it had spoken to Mr Wakefield and he
> had indicated his willingness to work with any investigation.
>
> Mr Wakefield has been defended by Jabs, a group including members who
> are trying to pursue legal action over MMR. Its founder Jackie
> Fletcher said: "Mr Wakefield's original data is not in question at all
> and the conclusions from it have not changed."
>
> But Sense, the national deafblind and rubella association, said the
> revelations "further undermine the significance and credibility of
> Andrew Wakefield's original paper".
>
> Abel Hadden, a PR spokesman at Bell Pottinger, has acted for Visceral,
> a charity that funds work by Mr Wakefield and others. The Guardian was
> unable to contact Mr Wakefield last night either by ringing Mr
> Wakefield's home or Mr Hadden"
>
There's nothing wrong with (literally) healthy skepticism or doubt, but the
study was based on only 12 autistic children brought in to Dr Wakefield by
parents involved in the lawsuit for which he was a consultant. Conflict of
interest? I think so. Where would his funders be if his study claimed no
basis for the legal action??? So would he have looked extra hard for a link
even if one did not exist? That's the implication.
It is standard practice in scientific publication to declare any conflicts
of interest when submitting work for publication. Even if it is accepted,
all readers have a right to this information.
A recent study based on approximately 700 autistic children and 1800 normal
children showed no statistical relationship between MMR and autism. This
study was more than 50 times as big as the other sample.
It's a sad but true fact: the onset of autism and the age when MMR jabs are
given are about the same, so inevitably there are going to be some children
who show signs of autism developing right after their jabs.
The main reason for the apparent increase in autism in the past few decades
is improved diagnosis of the condition.
Ask youself how many children have died or been handicapped by not having
the immunisations because of this junk science. There are real consequences
for believing it.
Deal with facts, not emotions. Thanks for listening.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)
|
|
|