branchofjesse@hotmail.com (Jerzy Jakubowski) 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
snip
i am just making it a shorter link for ease of ref
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N1EF41287
> Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet medical journal, has said he
> would never have published the research [vaccination causes retardation]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.
snip
> 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."
snip
> 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."
the commontion here isn't that this guy was wrong for encouraging
skepticism and doubt, but that he was wrong for receiving payments for
doing so. He was working with an anti-vaccination group that was
also, i beleive, involved in a law suite, and simultaneously
publishing material that was supporting the law suite and
organizations, without revealing that he was on their bankroll. Did
blair address the issues raised by the paper? apparently and
unsurprisingly not.
All that any of the scientists involved are saying here is that it
would be in the best interests of everybody if the guy was honest. if
he isn't honest, then we can't honestly evaluate all of his claims, at
least not without repeating the relevant experiments and studies
wholesale, which, of course, may or may not be warranted in this case.
|
|