Andrew Wakefield - GMC ruling

Mojo · 28th January 2010, 07:04 AM

Breaking news:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...l-children-gmc

Quote:

Dr Andrew Wakefield, the expert at the centre of the MMR controversy, "failed in his duties as a responsible consultant" and did not act in the best interests of children involved in his research, the General Medical Council (GMC) ruled today.

Wakefield also acted dishonestly and was misleading and irresponsible in the way he described research which was later published in The Lancet medical journal, the GMC said.

Fnord · 28th January 2010, 07:07 AM

FYI...

"MMR" stands for "Measles, Mumps and Rubella" and refers to the vaccine.

So, is the OP anti-vax or pro-vax?

andyandy · 28th January 2010, 07:08 AM

Originally Posted by Mojo

Breaking news:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...l-children-gmc

Nothing like a speedy conclusion....what's that, 12 years later?

Mojo · 28th January 2010, 07:11 AM

Originally Posted by andyandy

Nothing like a speedy conclusion....what's that, 12 years later?

Conclusion? From the story in the OP:

Quote:

Verdicts on the "facts" to the allegations were delivered at the disciplinary hearing in central London.

The GMC will now decide whether these verdicts could amount to serious professional misconduct – which will be debated at a later date.

Ivor the Engineer · 28th January 2010, 07:12 AM

Originally Posted by andyandy

Nothing like a speedy conclusion....what's that, 12 years later?

Quote:

The GMC will now decide whether these verdicts could amount to serious professional misconduct – which will be debated at a later date.

Well you can't rush these things...

Mojo · 28th January 2010, 07:19 AM

Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer

Well you can't rush these things...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7006306.ece

Quote:

Final verdicts, on whether Dr Wakefield and his co-defendants are guilty of serious professional misconduct, are expected by June.

richardm · 28th January 2010, 07:21 AM

Originally Posted by the times

june

- 2015.

Darat · 28th January 2010, 07:28 AM

I am very glad to see the word "dishonest" being used in the ruling.

Soapy Sam · 28th January 2010, 07:44 AM

Why? You feel it's a threatened species of adjective?
(We didn't break the rules...)

dafydd · 28th January 2010, 08:01 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8483865.stm

richardm · 28th January 2010, 08:56 AM

Not very repentent is he?

Dave_46 · 28th January 2010, 09:01 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8483865.stm

From dafydd's link

Quote:

...and paid children £5 for blood samples at his son's birthday party.

That sounds very ethical.

Dave

Ivor the Engineer · 28th January 2010, 09:11 AM

Originally Posted by Dave_46

From dafydd's link

Quote:

...and paid children £5 for blood samples at his son's birthday party.

That sounds very ethical.

Dave

Five pounds is £5 more than I've ever got for a blood sample.

Mojo · 28th January 2010, 03:57 PM

Originally Posted by richardm

Not very repentent is he?

He seemed to be poisoning the well in the Mail at the weekend:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...onclusion.html

Quote:

While Dr Wakefield, 52, believes the GMC should vindicate his professional reputation, in an exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday he said he fears a ‘political’ verdict.

‘My lawyers feel confident that we have answered all the charges against us,’ he said from his home in Austin, Texas. ‘If there’s any justice, we should be cleared. However, there’s the political backlash to consider. I fear the GMC will want to make an example of us.

‘The issue was not about me, but about how to crush dissent. I scare the establishment because I care and I am diligent. I think they’re terrified because they’ve not done adequate safety studies. I’ve been treated in the standard way in which people who raise these kinds of questions are treated.

‘It’s extremely challenging, but if I fail to stand up to the bullies, the price to be paid is enormous.’

Capsid · 29th January 2010, 01:01 AM

I find it ironic that he finds the charges against him are unsupported.

Deetee · 29th January 2010, 02:49 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

I am very glad to see the word "dishonest" being used in the ruling.

More than that, they not only said he was dishonest but that he knew he was being dishonest.

Rolfe · 29th January 2010, 06:12 AM

Of course his swarm of groupies are going to scream "witch-hunt" and "stifling dissent". I heard one of them yelling that Dr. Wakefield was the only person who cared about the children. (Yeah, cared enough to subject them to colonoscopies and lumbar punctures without any particularly good reason....)

I just wonder how far that interpretation will penetrate into the mainstream consciousness. I would hope that most rational parents would now be beginning to see this affair for what it really is.

I was interested in one of Wakefield's defenders on TV saying it was all very well to criticise the procedures he carried out on these chldren, but not one of the parents had lodged a complaint. This is so often what happens in the case of woo-woo treatments where the patient (or the patient's carer) becomes highly invested in the treatment - the therapist can push this to outright cruelty, and yet the victim remains compliant. I think it's more so when the patient is being represented by a carer (animal or child patient) - because the "client" is not suffering themselves, it's easier to take the line that "it's all for your own good".

Rolfe.

Mojo · 29th January 2010, 06:23 AM

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Of course his swarm of groupies are going to scream "witch-hunt" and "stifling dissent". I heard one of them yelling that Dr. Wakefield was the only person who cared about the children. (Yeah, cared enough to subject them to colonoscopies and lumbar punctures without any particularly good reason....)

They don't seem to be quoting the "callous disregard" bit.

andyandy · 29th January 2010, 10:50 AM

i haven't read the full report...so is he being reprimanded solely for the way in which he conducted his now discredited study, for the way he over-publicised and over-hyped its results afterwards, or for both?

There was a piece on the BBC radio news about it, followed by a vox-pop 30 second quote from an anti-vax campaigner bleating about how it was a big pharma conspiracy of silence. Good old BBC "balance" - 50% fact 50% utter BS

And why in heaven's name has it taken over a decade for the GMC to get off their well pampered backsides and issue a ruling? Surely they don't normally take such a long time do they?

Eos of the Eons · 29th January 2010, 10:59 AM

The fraccin media headline has the nerve to advertise wakefield as being censured!!!'

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2010/...wakefield.html

*vomit*

Professor Yaffle · 29th January 2010, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by Eos of the Eons

The fraccin media headline has the nerve to advertise wakefield as being censured!!!'

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2010/...wakefield.html

*vomit*

Sorry, I don't get it - what's the problem with that headline?

(ETA - or are you confusing the word censured - meaning reprimanded, with censored)

Eos of the Eons · 29th January 2010, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle

Sorry, I don't get it - what's the problem with that headline?

(ETA - or are you confusing the word censured - meaning reprimanded, with censored)

I may not be the only one

Rolfe · 29th January 2010, 11:52 AM

Today's GMC verdict was also a 10-year-old case. The doctor was not struck off. People are outraged and declare that it's all just an old boys' club that protects its members....

Rolfe.

Estellea · 29th January 2010, 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by andyandy

i haven't read the full report...so is he being reprimanded solely for the way in which he conducted his now discredited study, for the way he over-publicised and over-hyped its results afterwards, or for both?

There was a piece on the BBC radio news about it, followed by a vox-pop 30 second quote from an anti-vax campaigner bleating about how it was a big pharma conspiracy of silence. Good old BBC "balance" - 50% fact 50% utter BS

And why in heaven's name has it taken over a decade for the GMC to get off their well pampered backsides and issue a ruling? Surely they don't normally take such a long time do they?

Andy, you can get a succinct description of the charges and findings here.

Este

andyandy · 29th January 2010, 12:11 PM

Originally Posted by Estellea

Andy, you can get a succinct description of the charges and findings here.

Este

Thanks for the link.

Given that it's pretty damning about professional conduct, why has it taken so long....?

Darat · 29th January 2010, 12:19 PM

Post 24 has some hints....

andyandy · 29th January 2010, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by Darat

Post 24 has some hints....

you know, i clicked on your link expecting a link to another thread....only to be taken a mouse scroll away

i'd have thought the GMC would have been keen to ditch and disown Wakefield ASAP years ago. But maybe it is "all doctors together" (even the really crappy ones..)

Chris Haynes · 29th January 2010, 05:54 PM

I read somewhere else the reason it took so long was that the GMC rules did not allow them to force Wakefield and the other defendants to hand over evidence. Apparently those rules have changed.

The Autism Omnibus cases in the USA were hampered by the slowness of getting evidence from the litigants. Things like medical records, etc.

jon · 29th January 2010, 06:04 PM

Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer

Five pounds is £5 more than I've ever got for a blood sample.

I've given almost am armful for a biscuit and a cup of bad coffee...

Yuri Nalyssus · 30th January 2010, 01:19 AM

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I was interested in one of Wakefield's defenders on TV saying it was all very well to criticise the procedures he carried out on these chldren, but not one of the parents had lodged a complaint.

That's because the parent of the children in the original trial at least were looking for evidence against the MMR vaccine so they could sue the manufacturers. Also at least one of the other children used as an unwitting guinea pig was the son of the managing director of Wakefield's pharmaceutical company.

http://aillas.blogspot.com/

Yuri

andyandy · 30th January 2010, 06:52 AM

Originally Posted by jon

I've given almost am armful for a biscuit and a cup of bad coffee...

i've given it for a cheap night out on the beer

Kevin_Lowe · 30th January 2010, 07:10 AM

Originally Posted by Yuri Nalyssus

That's because the parent of the children in the original trial at least were looking for evidence against the MMR vaccine so they could sue the manufacturers. Also at least one of the other children used as an unwitting guinea pig was the son of the managing director of Wakefield's pharmaceutical company.

http://aillas.blogspot.com/

Yuri

To be picky, only four or five of the Lancet 12 children's parents were involved in the lawsuit as far as we know.

I only mention this because I think it's important to be highly precise in tracking exactly what Wakefield did. If we exaggerate any one aspect of his unethical conduct his defenders have the opportunity to leap on it.

Of course those four or five were cherry-picked for the study and misrepresented as a serially admitted sample, and that's only the beginning of the methodological and ethical problems with Wakefield et. al. 1998.

Yuri Nalyssus · 30th January 2010, 07:48 AM

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

To be picky, only four or five of the Lancet 12 children's parents were involved in the lawsuit as far as we know.

I only mention this because I think it's important to be highly precise in tracking exactly what Wakefield did. If we exaggerate any one aspect of his unethical conduct his defenders have the opportunity to leap on it.

Of course those four or five were cherry-picked for the study and misrepresented as a serially admitted sample, and that's only the beginning of the methodological and ethical problems with Wakefield et. al. 1998.

Thanks Kevin, I've fixed it. Don't apologise for the 'picky' thing, I totally agree - Pedant is my middle name (I don't use it though, as it spoils the joke

).

Cheers,

Yuri

Estellea · 30th January 2010, 08:22 AM

Originally Posted by Hydrogen Cyanide

I read somewhere else the reason it took so long was that the GMC rules did not allow them to force Wakefield and the other defendants to hand over evidence. Apparently those rules have changed.

The Autism Omnibus cases in the USA were hampered by the slowness of getting evidence from the litigants. Things like medical records, etc.

HCN, as far as I know, the burden of evidence remained with the GMC and the defendants did not have to provide any evidence to support the GMC's charges.

Re: the birthday party. You know those caveats that investigators provide in studies with human research subjects? Such as, "Routine informed consent for clinical procedures was obtained by the insert investigator's name here.", "Informed consent procedures detailed additional research procedures to be performed, and specific written permission was provided by consenting parents and guardians and children capable of providing assent.", and "Study procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Boards of insert institution(s) names here."

So what did Wakers think he was going to do with those blood samples and phrase how they were obtained in a journal submission? It is either gross incompetence or sheer hubris to think that that was an acceptable thing to do and there is simply no other explanation that I can entertain.

Este

Professor Yaffle · 30th January 2010, 08:27 AM

Wakefield is just guilty of caring....

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-sto...5875-22005783/

Eos of the Eons · 30th January 2010, 12:28 PM

Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle

Wakefield is just guilty of caring....

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-sto...5875-22005783/

I can't read it. I bet they forget he was pushing for his own single jabs?

Mojo · 30th January 2010, 05:23 PM

Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle

Wakefield is just guilty of caring....

What happened to the "callous disregard for the distress and pain the children might suffer"?

Tricky · 1st February 2010, 07:57 AM

Discussion of doctors covering for each other's misconduct split to here. Please limit this thread to discussion of the Wakefield decision.

Posted By:Tricky

Capsid · 2nd February 2010, 08:16 AM

The Lancet have fully retracted the original article now.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8493753.stm

Skeptic Ginger · 2nd February 2010, 09:05 AM

NPR just briefly mentioned the retraction of the Wakefield study calling it "inaccurate" rather than falsified.

28th January 2010, 07:04 AM	#1
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 22,105	Andrew Wakefield - GMC ruling Breaking news: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...l-children-gmc Quote: Dr Andrew Wakefield, the expert at the centre of the MMR controversy, "failed in his duties as a responsible consultant" and did not act in the best interests of children involved in his research, the General Medical Council (GMC) ruled today. Wakefield also acted dishonestly and was misleading and irresponsible in the way he described research which was later published in The Lancet medical journal, the GMC said.
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

28th January 2010, 07:07 AM	#2
Fnord Metasyntactic Variable Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 6,633	FYI... "MMR" stands for "Measles, Mumps and Rubella" and refers to the vaccine. So, is the OP anti-vax or pro-vax?
	__________________ Belief is the subjective acceptance of a (valid or invalid) concept, opinion, or theory; Faith is the unreasoned belief in improvable things; *and Knowledge* is the reasoned belief in provable things. Belief itself proves nothing.**

28th January 2010, 07:08 AM	#3
andyandy anthropomorphic ape Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: up a tree Posts: 8,197	Originally Posted by Mojo Breaking news: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...l-children-gmc Nothing like a speedy conclusion....what's that, 12 years later?
	__________________ "Contentment is found in the music of Bach, the books of Tolstoy and the equations of Dirac, not at the wheel of a BMW or the aisles of Harvey Nicks."

28th January 2010, 07:11 AM	#4
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 22,105	Originally Posted by andyandy Nothing like a speedy conclusion....what's that, 12 years later? Conclusion? From the story in the OP: Quote: Verdicts on the "facts" to the allegations were delivered at the disciplinary hearing in central London. The GMC will now decide whether these verdicts could amount to serious professional misconduct – which will be debated at a later date.
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

28th January 2010, 07:12 AM	#5
Ivor the Engineer Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: South Britain, near the middle Posts: 9,553	Originally Posted by andyandy Nothing like a speedy conclusion....what's that, 12 years later? Quote: The GMC will now decide whether these verdicts could amount to serious professional misconduct – which will be debated at a later date. Well you can't rush these things...
	__________________ My Blog.

28th January 2010, 07:19 AM	#6
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 22,105	Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer Well you can't rush these things... http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7006306.ece Quote: Final verdicts, on whether Dr Wakefield and his co-defendants are guilty of serious professional misconduct, are expected by June.
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

28th January 2010, 07:21 AM	#7
richardm Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,270	Originally Posted by the times june - 2015.
richardm Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,270	__________________ Rimmer: Look at her! Magnificent woman! Very prim, very proper, almost austere. Some people took her for cold, thought she was aloof. Not a bit of it. She just despised fools. Quite tragic, really, because otherwise I think we'd have got on famously.

28th January 2010, 07:28 AM	#8
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,804	I am very glad to see the word "dishonest" being used in the ruling.
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

28th January 2010, 07:44 AM	#9
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,885	Why? You feel it's a threatened species of adjective? (We didn't break the rules...)
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,885

28th January 2010, 08:01 AM	#10
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,484	http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8483865.stm

28th January 2010, 08:56 AM	#11
richardm Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,270	Not very repentent is he?
richardm Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,270	__________________ Rimmer: Look at her! Magnificent woman! Very prim, very proper, almost austere. Some people took her for cold, thought she was aloof. Not a bit of it. She just despised fools. Quite tragic, really, because otherwise I think we'd have got on famously.

28th January 2010, 09:01 AM	#12
Dave_46 Muse Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: UK (south Bucks) Posts: 938	Originally Posted by dafydd http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8483865.stm From dafydd's link Quote: ...and paid children £5 for blood samples at his son's birthday party. That sounds very ethical. Dave

28th January 2010, 09:11 AM	#13
Ivor the Engineer Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: South Britain, near the middle Posts: 9,553	Originally Posted by Dave_46 From dafydd's link Quote: ...and paid children £5 for blood samples at his son's birthday party. That sounds very ethical. Dave Five pounds is £5 more than I've ever got for a blood sample.
	__________________ My Blog.

28th January 2010, 03:57 PM	#14
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 22,105	Originally Posted by richardm Not very repentent is he? He seemed to be poisoning the well in the Mail at the weekend: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...onclusion.html Quote: While Dr Wakefield, 52, believes the GMC should vindicate his professional reputation, in an exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday he said he fears a ‘political’ verdict. ‘My lawyers feel confident that we have answered all the charges against us,’ he said from his home in Austin, Texas. ‘If there’s any justice, we should be cleared. However, there’s the political backlash to consider. I fear the GMC will want to make an example of us. ‘The issue was not about me, but about how to crush dissent. I scare the establishment because I care and I am diligent. I think they’re terrified because they’ve not done adequate safety studies. I’ve been treated in the standard way in which people who raise these kinds of questions are treated. ‘It’s extremely challenging, but if I fail to stand up to the bullies, the price to be paid is enormous.’
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

29th January 2010, 01:01 AM	#15
Capsid Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,506	I find it ironic that he finds the charges against him are unsupported.
Capsid Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,506

29th January 2010, 02:49 AM	#16
Deetee Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 3,790	Originally Posted by Darat I am very glad to see the word "dishonest" being used in the ruling. More than that, they not only said he was dishonest but that he knew he was being dishonest.
Deetee Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 3,790	__________________ "Reci bobu bob a popu pop." - Tanja "Everything is physics. This does not mean that physics is everything." - Cuddles "The entire practice of homeopathy can be substituted with the advice to "take two aspirins and call me in the morning." - Linda "Homeopathy: I never knew there was so little in it." - BSM

29th January 2010, 06:12 AM	#17
Rolfe Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: NT 150 511 Posts: 34,340	Of course his swarm of groupies are going to scream "witch-hunt" and "stifling dissent". I heard one of them yelling that Dr. Wakefield was the only person who cared about the children. (Yeah, cared enough to subject them to colonoscopies and lumbar punctures without any particularly good reason....) I just wonder how far that interpretation will penetrate into the mainstream consciousness. I would hope that most rational parents would now be beginning to see this affair for what it really is. I was interested in one of Wakefield's defenders on TV saying it was all very well to criticise the procedures he carried out on these chldren, but not one of the parents had lodged a complaint. This is so often what happens in the case of woo-woo treatments where the patient (or the patient's carer) becomes highly invested in the treatment - the therapist can push this to outright cruelty, and yet the victim remains compliant. I think it's more so when the patient is being represented by a carer (animal or child patient) - because the "client" is not suffering themselves, it's easier to take the line that "it's all for your own good". Rolfe.
	__________________ "The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

29th January 2010, 06:23 AM	#18
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 22,105	Originally Posted by Rolfe Of course his swarm of groupies are going to scream "witch-hunt" and "stifling dissent". I heard one of them yelling that Dr. Wakefield was the only person who cared about the children. (Yeah, cared enough to subject them to colonoscopies and lumbar punctures without any particularly good reason....) They don't seem to be quoting the "callous disregard" bit.
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

29th January 2010, 10:50 AM	#19
andyandy anthropomorphic ape Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: up a tree Posts: 8,197	i haven't read the full report...so is he being reprimanded solely for the way in which he conducted his now discredited study, for the way he over-publicised and over-hyped its results afterwards, or for both? There was a piece on the BBC radio news about it, followed by a vox-pop 30 second quote from an anti-vax campaigner bleating about how it was a big pharma conspiracy of silence. Good old BBC "balance" - 50% fact 50% utter BS And why in heaven's name has it taken over a decade for the GMC to get off their well pampered backsides and issue a ruling? Surely they don't normally take such a long time do they?
	__________________ "Contentment is found in the music of Bach, the books of Tolstoy and the equations of Dirac, not at the wheel of a BMW or the aisles of Harvey Nicks."

29th January 2010, 10:59 AM	#20
Eos of the Eons Mad Scientist Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Alberta Posts: 13,894	The fraccin media headline has the nerve to advertise wakefield as being censured!!!' http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2010/...wakefield.html vomit
	__________________ Motion affecting a measuring device does not affect what is actually being measured, except to inaccurately measure it. the immaterial world doesn't matter, cause it ain't matter-Jeff Corey my karma ran over my dogma-vbloke The Lateral Truth: An Apostate's Bible Stories by Rebecca Bradley, read it!

29th January 2010, 11:02 AM	#21
Professor Yaffle Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Emily's shop Posts: 15,360	Originally Posted by Eos of the Eons The fraccin media headline has the nerve to advertise wakefield as being censured!!!' http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2010/...wakefield.html vomit Sorry, I don't get it - what's the problem with that headline? (ETA - or are you confusing the word censured - meaning reprimanded, with censored)
	__________________ I think you'll find it's a little bit more complicated than that. My blog "Well I think I've made it abundantly clear in this thread I have no idea what I'm talking about..." - truethat

29th January 2010, 11:23 AM	#22
Eos of the Eons Mad Scientist Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Alberta Posts: 13,894	Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle Sorry, I don't get it - what's the problem with that headline? (ETA - or are you confusing the word censured - meaning reprimanded, with censored) I may not be the only one
	__________________ Motion affecting a measuring device does not affect what is actually being measured, except to inaccurately measure it. the immaterial world doesn't matter, cause it ain't matter-Jeff Corey my karma ran over my dogma-vbloke The Lateral Truth: An Apostate's Bible Stories by Rebecca Bradley, read it!

29th January 2010, 11:52 AM	#23
Rolfe Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: NT 150 511 Posts: 34,340	Today's GMC verdict was also a 10-year-old case. The doctor was not struck off. People are outraged and declare that it's all just an old boys' club that protects its members.... Rolfe.
	__________________ "The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

29th January 2010, 11:57 AM	#24
Estellea Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 1,120	Originally Posted by andyandy i haven't read the full report...so is he being reprimanded solely for the way in which he conducted his now discredited study, for the way he over-publicised and over-hyped its results afterwards, or for both? There was a piece on the BBC radio news about it, followed by a vox-pop 30 second quote from an anti-vax campaigner bleating about how it was a big pharma conspiracy of silence. Good old BBC "balance" - 50% fact 50% utter BS And why in heaven's name has it taken over a decade for the GMC to get off their well pampered backsides and issue a ruling? Surely they don't normally take such a long time do they? Andy, you can get a succinct description of the charges and findings here. Este

29th January 2010, 12:11 PM	#25
andyandy anthropomorphic ape Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: up a tree Posts: 8,197	Originally Posted by Estellea Andy, you can get a succinct description of the charges and findings here. Este Thanks for the link. Given that it's pretty damning about professional conduct, why has it taken so long....?
	__________________ "Contentment is found in the music of Bach, the books of Tolstoy and the equations of Dirac, not at the wheel of a BMW or the aisles of Harvey Nicks."

29th January 2010, 12:19 PM	#26
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,804	Post 24 has some hints....
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

29th January 2010, 01:06 PM	#27
andyandy anthropomorphic ape Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: up a tree Posts: 8,197	Originally Posted by Darat Post 24 has some hints.... you know, i clicked on your link expecting a link to another thread....only to be taken a mouse scroll away i'd have thought the GMC would have been keen to ditch and disown Wakefield ASAP years ago. But maybe it is "all doctors together" (even the really crappy ones..)
	__________________ "Contentment is found in the music of Bach, the books of Tolstoy and the equations of Dirac, not at the wheel of a BMW or the aisles of Harvey Nicks."

29th January 2010, 05:54 PM	#28
Chris Haynes Perfectly Poisonous Person Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Wacky Washington Way Out West Posts: 4,205	I read somewhere else the reason it took so long was that the GMC rules did not allow them to force Wakefield and the other defendants to hand over evidence. Apparently those rules have changed. The Autism Omnibus cases in the USA were hampered by the slowness of getting evidence from the litigants. Things like medical records, etc.
	__________________ I used to be intelligent... but then I had kids "HCN, I hate you!" ( so sayeth Deetee at http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1077344 )... What I get for linking to http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/

29th January 2010, 06:04 PM	#29
jon Muse Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 923	Originally Posted by Ivor the Engineer Five pounds is £5 more than I've ever got for a blood sample. I've given almost am armful for a biscuit and a cup of bad coffee...
jon Muse Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 923	__________________ Holford Watch: the truth about Patrick Holford, media nutritionist.

30th January 2010, 01:19 AM	#30
Yuri Nalyssus Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: The Ancient Isle of Avignuon Posts: 1,074	Originally Posted by Rolfe I was interested in one of Wakefield's defenders on TV saying it was all very well to criticise the procedures he carried out on these chldren, but not one of the parents had lodged a complaint. That's because the parent of the children in the original trial at least were looking for evidence against the MMR vaccine so they could sue the manufacturers. Also at least one of the other children used as an unwitting guinea pig was the son of the managing director of Wakefield's pharmaceutical company. http://aillas.blogspot.com/ Yuri
	__________________ "The test of democracy is freedom of criticism." -David Ben-Gurion Peasant: Now we see the violence inherent in the system. King: Shut up! Peasant: Come and see the violence inherent in the system, help, help! I’m being repressed! King: Bloody peasant! Peasant: Ooh, what a giveaway, did you hear that... that’s what I’m on about, d’you see him repressing me? You saw it didn’t you... - Monty Python and The Holy Grail

30th January 2010, 06:52 AM	#31
andyandy anthropomorphic ape Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: up a tree Posts: 8,197	Originally Posted by jon I've given almost am armful for a biscuit and a cup of bad coffee... i've given it for a cheap night out on the beer
	__________________ "Contentment is found in the music of Bach, the books of Tolstoy and the equations of Dirac, not at the wheel of a BMW or the aisles of Harvey Nicks."

30th January 2010, 07:10 AM	#32
Kevin_Lowe Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Queensland Posts: 10,285	Originally Posted by Yuri Nalyssus That's because the parent of the children in the original trial at least were looking for evidence against the MMR vaccine so they could sue the manufacturers. Also at least one of the other children used as an unwitting guinea pig was the son of the managing director of Wakefield's pharmaceutical company. http://aillas.blogspot.com/ Yuri To be picky, only four or five of the Lancet 12 children's parents were involved in the lawsuit as far as we know. I only mention this because I think it's important to be highly precise in tracking exactly what Wakefield did. If we exaggerate any one aspect of his unethical conduct his defenders have the opportunity to leap on it. Of course those four or five were cherry-picked for the study and misrepresented as a serially admitted sample, and that's only the beginning of the methodological and ethical problems with Wakefield et. al. 1998.
	__________________ Thinking is skilled work....People with untrained minds should no more expect to think clearly and logically than people who have never learned and never practiced can expect to find themselves good carpenters, golfers, bridge-players, or pianists. -- Alfred Mander

30th January 2010, 07:48 AM	#33
Yuri Nalyssus Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: The Ancient Isle of Avignuon Posts: 1,074	Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe To be picky, only four or five of the Lancet 12 children's parents were involved in the lawsuit as far as we know. I only mention this because I think it's important to be highly precise in tracking exactly what Wakefield did. If we exaggerate any one aspect of his unethical conduct his defenders have the opportunity to leap on it. Of course those four or five were cherry-picked for the study and misrepresented as a serially admitted sample, and that's only the beginning of the methodological and ethical problems with Wakefield et. al. 1998. Thanks Kevin, I've fixed it. Don't apologise for the 'picky' thing, I totally agree - Pedant is my middle name (I don't use it though, as it spoils the joke ). Cheers, Yuri
	__________________ "The test of democracy is freedom of criticism." -David Ben-Gurion Peasant: Now we see the violence inherent in the system. King: Shut up! Peasant: Come and see the violence inherent in the system, help, help! I’m being repressed! King: Bloody peasant! Peasant: Ooh, what a giveaway, did you hear that... that’s what I’m on about, d’you see him repressing me? You saw it didn’t you... - Monty Python and The Holy Grail

30th January 2010, 08:22 AM	#34
Estellea Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 1,120	Originally Posted by Hydrogen Cyanide I read somewhere else the reason it took so long was that the GMC rules did not allow them to force Wakefield and the other defendants to hand over evidence. Apparently those rules have changed. The Autism Omnibus cases in the USA were hampered by the slowness of getting evidence from the litigants. Things like medical records, etc. HCN, as far as I know, the burden of evidence remained with the GMC and the defendants did not have to provide any evidence to support the GMC's charges. Re: the birthday party. You know those caveats that investigators provide in studies with human research subjects? Such as, "Routine informed consent for clinical procedures was obtained by the insert investigator's name here.", "Informed consent procedures detailed additional research procedures to be performed, and specific written permission was provided by consenting parents and guardians and children capable of providing assent.", and "Study procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Boards of insert institution(s) names here." So what did Wakers think he was going to do with those blood samples and phrase how they were obtained in a journal submission? It is either gross incompetence or sheer hubris to think that that was an acceptable thing to do and there is simply no other explanation that I can entertain. Este

30th January 2010, 08:27 AM	#35
Professor Yaffle Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Emily's shop Posts: 15,360	Wakefield is just guilty of caring.... http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-sto...5875-22005783/
	__________________ I think you'll find it's a little bit more complicated than that. My blog "Well I think I've made it abundantly clear in this thread I have no idea what I'm talking about..." - truethat