Fraudulent "records" in Autism/Vaccine study.

ME - posted on 01/05/2011 ( 83 moms have responded )

2,978

18

190

Just heard on the evening news that Doc Wakefield faked many of the records/data in his autism study that linked the disorder to vaccines...What should be done to him? I vote stringing him up by his fingernails...anyone else???

MOST HELPFUL POSTS

Kate CP - posted on 01/05/2011

8,942

36

754

Wait, there's evidence of this but we're just going to ignore it because we don't like what it says? Uhh...okay.

I think he's a jerk for doing what he did. I'm not entirely sure WHY he did it...for money, for fame, for some false sense of "doing right" but he's really responsible for causing the great vaccine scare and causing these disease to pop back up.

Isobel - posted on 01/05/2011

9,849

0

282

you know what...I'm an avid environmentalist.

When the reports came out a couple of years ago that the guys who were reporting on global warming were fudging their figures, I questioned the whole movement. I still do...I'm PISSED that people just swept it under the carpet and pretended it never happened.

It's also the same as when it was learned that Jan Brewer lied about the headless bodies in the desert...never happened, but the believers still believe.

whatayagonnado? People who believe too strongly in any theory or story and lose their ability to question those who they have long respected have lost a part of their rationality...we all need to hold our leaders and informers more accountable for what they are saying.

Jodi - posted on 01/05/2011

2,694

52

171

Normally I wouldn't cite AOL news, but this must not be a "hot issue" at the present. This is from today:

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/05/dr-and...

"Wakefield is alleged to have received more than $674,000 from lawyers hoping to sue vaccine manufacturers..."

yes, alleged, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least!

"Numerous other studies have shown no link whatsoever between vaccines and autism, but none has been able to replicate Wakefield's results."

This I've read in numerous sources, it speaks volumes. I mean, really, not ONE other study has had the same results with thousands of children as this ONE, invalidated, study of TWELVE children and it's really being debated that he "might" not be lying?

Jodi - posted on 01/05/2011

2,694

52

171

http://briandeer.com/mmr/lancet-summary....



I realize that no amount of information will change your mind, people thought much like that when it was suggested that the world just might be round...



But here's an article highlighting (it's rather lengthy and I havn't explored parts 2 or 3 yet) Wakefield's "study" from 2 years prior to it's onset to May of 2010. It explains the conflict of interest in depth, it explains as Jodi A says the invalid and non-random sampling (seriously, you'll believe a study of TWELVE children vs numerous studies of thousands of children?) to every other aspect of his study that was wrong or fraudulant.



I get it if you don't want to vaccinate your kids, I dont' agree with it but it's your choice. I do not understand calling this man "brilliant" or disbelieving countless, VALID studies, I do not understand standing up for this man and his study in light of an overwhelming amount of evidence. But like I said before about the Earth being flat...



*edit to add "2 years prior to it's onset", NOT 2 years prior to May 2010!

Mrs. - posted on 01/05/2011

1,767

6

30

This is weird, if I was a non-vac person, I'd be pissed at this guy for muddying the cause with bad research and possible falsification, I wouldn't want to defend him, I'd find other researchers to back my beliefs who didn't pull a fast one.

This conversation has been closed to further comments

83 Comments

View replies by

MeMe - Raises Her Hand (-_-) (Mommy Of A Toddler And Teen) - posted on 04/07/2012

3,377

8

66

It's no "one" environmental issue. It makes more sense that multiple environmental substances play a role in bringing out the "already" inflicted child, with autism. How can anyone say it is "only" vaccines? Seriously.



It's 1:88 because of the broad autism spectrum. Which includes anything from high functioning to low functioning, autism. It never used to include as much as it does now. So, obviously there is going to be an increase with how many children are diagnosed being on the spectrum. There is so much more included in the definition now, compared to what there used to be.

Margaret - posted on 04/07/2012

2

0

0

I only read the first article cited by Kate. It amazes me that they want to spend money doing studies on antibacterial soap, flea shampoos....and no study has been done on the amount of aluminum in the vaccines. Not all vaccines have the same amount. Some children could be getting much more than others depending on the brand used. Read Dr. Bob Sears article on aluminum in vaccines. One has to ask, why are there not more studies done on vaccines considering they have almost all of the suspicious components known....timing of autism rise and vaccine rise, coincidence of onset of autism, they have the chemical dangers in them along with immune suppressants. It is enough to validate extensive studies.....but few that I can find have been done. I HOPE vaccines are not the cause because I have always been very thankful for them keeping my children safe from dangerous childhood diseases. My first 4 daughters are vaccinated completely. Now that autism is 1 in 88.......things are changing. 1 in 88 can't have a genetic problem without an environmental issue involved and vaccines should not be easily discounted as that environmental issue without extensive studies.

[deleted account]

But, I guess that is kind of beside the point. The BMJ are probably just keeping the topic current and updating the issue. The evidence (whether it is old or not) stands that he falsified data and results to skew his findings and thus his report is not valid.



*edited to add*: I always seem to come to these debates late, damn real life getting in the way.Now that I've had a chance to do more than skim the whole thread, I see I've missed more drama and always come to the party after the mods have posted warnings and posts have been deleted. I really need to check on DM's more often.

[deleted account]

I just watched the video on Yahoo and it contains nothing new except the fact that the BMJ have labelled the original article and it's contents to be fraudulent. As I said in my original post this is a new stance from that journal (BMJ) to close the door on the link between MMR vaccine and autism based on Dr Wakefield's theories and 'research', but it doesn't appear to be based on any new evidence of fraud or false results. The original article linking the MMR vaccine and autism was retracted by The Lancet (where it was originally published and then a follow up study was also published in 2002) for those very same reasons.

[deleted account]

Oh, really? Does anyone have a link?
I know that he and his 'research team' conducted a 'research review' that overturned numerous pathology findings of nil abnormality or non-uniform and unexceptional findings in the children's tests without any clinical basis to support that and he went on to report of pathology abnormalities that weren't actually supported but apparently contributed to his diagnosis of a related syndrome. I also know that he reported on medical histories for the children that supported his theories but also weren't supported by the existing medical records for those children. I wasn't aware that there was much else in his report that was able to be newly reported as faked.

Kate CP - posted on 01/06/2011

8,942

36

754

No, Fiona, this is new information coming out that he just faked results.

[deleted account]

This is old news, it was reported in Feb '09 (possibly even earlier) that Dr Wakefield had fraudulently changed and misrepresented data in his research study as well as reporting on his conflict of interest in receiving funding from law firms/trial lawyers seeking to sue vaccine manufacturers and his application for a patent for a single measles vaccine. He was deregistered and brought in front of the General Medical Council on charges of scientific misconduct, his article in The Lancet was also retracted by the journal. Which is exactly what I think should have happened in the interest of transparency of conduct and ethical research (I just wish that all medical research was conducted ethically and that studies funded by pharmaceutical companies were as widely publicised and stringently monitored for conflicts of interest and ethical conflicts). This is "news" again now (I presume) because The British Medical Journal has recently declared the entire article and all the research to be fraudulent as they felt the simple act of retraction of the article by The Lancet still left the door open to people believing that the science of his research; while flawed, might still stand on it's own merit.



I do think that any parent who chose not to vaccinate their child based solely on Dr Wakefield's findings made a very simplified decision and really should have looked into the topic and researched a bit more, but have to hope that most non-vacc people did factor more into their decision than just one highly publicised study. Dr Wakefield has stated that his article was not a scientific paper but rather was a clinical report. Either way, whether his intentions were malicious in that he deliberately falsified and created misleading data to skew his results or whether he simply interpreted the data from subjective parental reports and qualitative data without verifying and comparing the relevant medical history of the 12 children from their existing medical records; the fact stands that his 'research' was highly flawed and not ethically or scientifically sound and thus the article was misrepresentative in its findings.



This is abhorrent behaviour in research in any medical field and while I can understand the disappointment from some that it closes the door on further research into what could have been valid fields of study (more so the link between inflammatory bowel disease and autism triggers as well as the dangers of using certain chemical compounds in combining vaccines rather than just targeting the MMR vaccine and autism in general), I do think that Dr Wakefield did try too hard to incorporate a negative finding regarding the MMR vaccine specifically and narrowed his range of research too much. I also think it such a shame that he didn't acknowledge the potential impact that his conflict of interest regarding his patent application for a single antigen vaccine for measles would have on the release of his findings (not to mention the financial conflict of interest) as I do think concerns regarding combined vaccines are valid and worthy of further research. It can be very difficult if not impossible to source single antigen vaccines for some childhood vaccinations and I would have liked to see his (or any other manufacturers) vaccine be further tested and potentially released as an option for those wishing to forgo combined vaccines.

Sherri - posted on 01/06/2011

9,593

15

387

Someone just shoot him!! What an ass. All those poor mom's who didn't get their innocent children vaccinated because of him, that are now at risk of dying or becoming seriously ill from some horrible disease.

Tara - posted on 01/06/2011

2,567

14

107

At no time did I say I took Pharma at their word, what I said was that I have no respect for professionals who alter, omit or otherwise tweak their study results.... etc. etc.
I don't have a lot of respect for Pharma either, but do my own research regarding any Pharm. products etc. my family is taking/been injected with etc.
I was someone who second guessed my decision to vax because of his initial study results, but upon further investigation of my own, decided he didn't have enough "proof" for me to leave my children un vaxed.

Tiffany - posted on 01/06/2011

435

41

10

I was just coming on to post about this! So disgusting that he would falsify reports linking MMR vaccine to autism. His study let to widespread fear amongst parents and he is a VERY large part for people being afraid to vaccinate.

Mother - posted on 01/06/2011

1,627

79

28

I've NEVER been to couples therapy, we've NEVER needed it. this is good to know. I always learn something new everyday!!!!!! LOLOLOLOL

Couldn't resist.

Isobel - posted on 01/06/2011

9,849

0

282

excuse me while I bow out of this gracefully...it was a dig at nobody, and I will not be pulled into another argument like this...I have learned my lesson.

Kate CP - posted on 01/06/2011

8,942

36

754

Kelly, must you ALWAYS resort to personal attacks whenever the conversation doesn't go your way?!

Mother - posted on 01/06/2011

1,627

79

28

"People who believe too strongly in any theory or story and lose their ability to question those who they have long respected have lost a part of their rationality..." -- Man, did I chuckle at this statement. I know this was a dig at me but its ironic how it also is about everyone else as well. I think its funny that the pharmaceuticals and doctors are like GOD to some. I think its funny that everyone comes to their aid when some crazy non-vax person comes in yet everyone has forgotten that the Pharmaceuticals made numerous phony reviews. Paid Doctors to give the thumbs up to vaccines, paid out hush money when the vaccines got contaminated...oh my the list goes on. Why is the medical establishment not held accountable as you say??

"I have no respect for any professional who alters/omits/or otherwise "tweaks" the results of their work. To do so says he wasn't confident in his study and therefore needed to commit fraud in order to "prove" his theory." -- WOW...yet you're still taking Pharma at their word.

See, how there is two sides to every story. Pot....meet kettle.

Tara - posted on 01/06/2011

2,567

14

107

That is way more plausible to me than exposure to vax being the trigger for autism.
They already know that tons of the common chemical we put into our body every day are considered endocrine disrupters that can mimic estrogen in the human body.
There's a great documentary called "Homo-Toxicus" that talks about all the chemicals we humans have made in the last 100 years or so and how that is affecting our whole planet and subsequently ourselves and our children.
Male sperm counts are on the decline almost across the world, more female sperm are present in more and more men each decade. As well as issues of infertility, reproductive abnormalities etc. etc.
It makes sense that these would also affect our neurology.

Kate CP - posted on 01/06/2011

8,942

36

754

I posted it earlier but I wanted to post it again alone so people would notice it more. This is an article published by Scientific American about the possible link between common toxin exposure to fetuses and infants (pesticides, house hold chemicals, etc) and the rise in autism rates. Interesting read.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...

Tara - posted on 01/06/2011

2,567

14

107

I have to agree with Jodi and Kate on this one, a study of 12 children is not a study at all, and would not be accepted as such. In order to factually determine the potential affects of vax. on children and how that affects/does not affect the increase in autism diagnosis, you would need to follow a large group of children who have been tested prior to being vaxed, tested for normal brain development, tested for allergies, etc. etc. and then follow them for at least 7-10 years after the fact. Anything short of that kind of long term, variable controlled study wouldn't sway me one way or the other. I have no respect for any professional who alters/omits/or otherwise "tweaks" the results of their work. To do so says he wasn't confident in his study and therefore needed to commit fraud in order to "prove" his theory.
Dumb.
I don't believe he was rail roaded, I think that if that were the case, there would be some other doctor/researcher/ethics professional etc. standing up and defending him based on any "proof" that could be obtained to "prove" he didn't lie and deceive the public and his peers.

Sara - posted on 01/06/2011

9,313

50

584

Well, obviously he has lost all credibility in the research world. He should never work again, having violated ethics so abhorrently.

Jakki - posted on 01/06/2011

731

11

26

I know this is not the point of the debate, but re the climate change issue, I think the "fudging" was tiny compared to the extent of the real, verified evidence for climate change. It was a beat up which obviously suited some people who still want to make money out of the planet while the good ship sinks (ok ok too many metaphors!).

Good night all.

[deleted account]

hey i support green living, but i think global warming is only halt truth. Pollution effects our weather, but the natural earths seasons do as well. People tend to pick one aspect of something and go with that. We need to look at the whole picture.

Meghan - posted on 01/05/2011

3,169

33

202

If you want the masses to believe what you are telling them you need two things- facts and logic. His findings clearly had neither.

[deleted account]

Kate, it won't let me give you two funnies about the tinfoil hat so here's the second one lol



Also, I was thinking the same thing as what Miss Golightly said about global warming and when some of the "facts" were disproven. I absolutely support going green and saving our planet and all that other hippy stuff and when I found out some of "our" scientists were basically lying? I was PISSED. I still believe that global warming is a real thing, but now because of a few people fucking it up, there are lots who won't take it seriously, when it's something that SHOULD be taken seriously.



That totally applies here. Hard core non vaxers will hang on for dear life to their beliefs, just like we pro-vaxers will hang on for dear life to our facts. Like Golightly said, "whatayagonnado?"

Kate CP - posted on 01/05/2011

8,942

36

754

Are...are you being facetious, Julianne? I have a hard time telling online.

[deleted account]

well i was thinking more along the lines of the government framed him because they want to control the population and do so with vaccines.they cant let the word out now can they......LOL(i dont actually believe this fyi :))

Mrs. - posted on 01/05/2011

1,767

6

30

Yes, I think the grey aliens enchanted the doctor because they created a vac that is laced with tiny little autism robots and they don't want the truth out there. Trust no one ladies.

Sal - posted on 01/05/2011

1,816

16

33

i thought it was proven as no connection a long time ago also, i think it was in some british report on it, i truly feel sorry of parents who are facing life with an child with problems and i can imagine wanting someone the blame and how they would grab hold of this sort of report and get the answers they are looking for but i do think he and who ever published him should be made accountble in some manner....i remeber jenni mcathey (no sure if i got that right) on any tv show she could find saying this same thing and i know personally of several people who saw it, looked up the drs research and then decided tnot to vaccinate, these kids were in a position to start these illnesses in our community, i think we have been so lucky that we don;t have these sickeness anymore and people just think it isn't a big deal. these things have done and still do kill kids. kids that can't be vaccinated for what ever reason (too young, sick, allergies) need protection. It wasn't untill the day care centre wouldn't enroll her son that my friend changed her mind..

Jodi - posted on 01/05/2011

2,694

52

171

LOL, thanks Kate, my daughter woke up and completely interrupted me! And much like my LO, I'm off to dreamland for the night....have fun with this one...

Jodi - posted on 01/05/2011

2,694

52

171

However, evidence from several studies examining trends in vaccine use and changes in autism frequency does not support such an association.

From the CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Concern...

I'm sure on the site you can find the actual study, but I trust the CDC and consider them a highly reliable source (not to mention it's 10 pm here and WAAAY past my bedtime! lol). I also trust the Lancet Medical Journal, more so now that they've removed the Wakefield study and reported it as falsified and fraudulant.

Kate CP - posted on 01/05/2011

8,942

36

754

So in the face of evidence that there is absolutely no link between autism and vaccines, to the point where even the autism support groups are saying there's no link, you're still saying there is one? Why? Because you just feel it?

There's evidence that there is some sort of external causation to the rise in autism rates but they're still trying to figure out what causes autism in the first place.

Do you often stick your head in the sand when you don't like the answer?

Jodi - posted on 01/05/2011

2,694

52

171

I have done no studies Kelly, I'm not a scientist, but since you believe his made-up study I could go ahead and create my own I suppose...
If you're so interested in reading them (which you really should have already in making the decision to not vac, or to vac, your children)I suggest you look them up...I have limited time right now, but I'll do my best to find one for ya!

Mother - posted on 01/05/2011

1,627

79

28

Numerous studies of thousands of children? Really? You've done a study comparing vax'ed and unvax'ed children? Because that is the only way you're going to know. I'm more interested in reading these thousands of studies you claim have been done to prove there is no link.

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms