Wakefield data not fixed....

[taterbug1999]

This was in my inbox this morning, didn't know if any of you had seen it....rather interesting.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...ng-Doctor.aspx

[KimberlyD0]

I have a very hard time believing it when there is nothing else that supports it in any legitamit media means. If this shows up on CNN or something come see me. Then I might believe it.

I also goggled it and no support there either. Although I don't fully trust googleing, it would at least show if this was in other realiable sorces.

[taterbug1999]

http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/03/b...mithkline.html

http://www.californiachronicle.com/articles/view/91757


http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.c...-fixing-story/

Here are a couple I've found so far... at the very least it appears Mr. Witherow and Mr. Deer have conflicts of interest...

Apparently this is news elsewhere in the world, unfortunately not here, yet, I guess.

[Scattershoot]

From the article:

On top of that, MMR vaccine manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline has just appointed James Murdoch, the head of News International and boss of The Sunday Times (the paper that published Deer’s story) to its board!

There are always rewards for those who push the agenda. For those who do not; see "Andrew Wakefield."

I have a very hard time believing it when there is nothing else that supports it in any legitamit media means. If this shows up on CNN or something come see me. Then I might believe it.

Andrew Wakefield is being drug through the mud in an unprecedented fit to practice trail that has consumed years and has nothing to do with fixing data. This has been the result of Deer and the Times. The GMC is almost exclusively an ethics case, and it is taking them years to try and hang something, anything on Wakefield and his associates.

The study was NOT retracted. Most of the authors responded to the heat they were receiving from within the medical community because autism absolutely cannot be linked to autism. That is a death sentence. The study actually said they did NOT find a link, so they retracted something they never wrote. That's only part of the absurdity.

[Deborah]

Here is a link to Dr. Wakefield's complaint against Brian Deer:
http://www.thoughtfulhouse.org/pr/co...brian-deer.pdf

“Wakefield himself, however, stands by his results, insisting that a link between MMR and autism merits inquiry. The 12 other doctors whose names were attached to the Lancet paper, which was written by Wakefield, were not involved in preparing the data used.”

Once again, this is completely false: the other authors generated and ‘prepared’ all the data that was reported in The Lancet. I merely put their completed data in tables and narrative form for the purpose of submission for publication. All authors were provided with drafts of the paper for the purpose of checking their data and making amendments as necessary, prior to submission. This example alone shows either egregious incompetence or malice on the part of a journalist whose work is presumed by the public readership to be in pursuit of fairness and objectivity.

[KimberlyD0]

Show me something reputable

when REAL media picks it up I will concider it.

So far the proof is against him

[Proverbs31]

So far the proof is against him

Is it? Please supply links to the proof, not just the accusations of a journalist.

ETA: We had a very informative thread going on a couple of weeks ago (particularly post #200)
http://www.mothering.com/discussions...ight=wakefield

[runes]

Originally Posted by KimberlyD0

Show me something reputable

when REAL media picks it up I will concider it.

So far the proof is against him

Consider that what is accepted as REAL, "reputable" media is manipulated.

Brian Deer is going to have to answer to a lot and I hope that they investigate HIS ethics as a journalist, because there are a ton of conflicts of interests.

[taterbug1999]

Show me something reputable

when REAL media picks it up I will concider it.

So far the proof is against him

We choose what we want to find reputable and real..... For instance I don't watch CNN....

[Scattershoot]

Originally Posted by KimberlyD0

Show me something reputable

when REAL media picks it up I will concider it.

So far the proof is against him

I respect the fact that you believe certain media outlets are reputable. Here's the specifics on Murdoch's appointment to Glaxo's board.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...-james-murdoch

Murdoch, the chairman and chief executive of News Corporation Europe and Asia, and chairman of BSkyB, starts in the £75,000-a-year post on 20 May.

At the current exchange rate, that is about $105,000. Remember that this is just extra income for him.

Here's my favorite part of the article, explaining his new position.

He will serve as a member of GSK's corporate responsibility committee, where he will help to review "external issues that might have the potential for serious impact upon the group's business and reputation."

I seriously don't see how people can keep a straight face when saying or even reading that.

[runes]

Originally Posted by Scattershoot

I seriously don't see how people can keep a straight face when saying or even reading that.

No doubt.

[Scattershoot]

I just had to add one more from The Guardian article:

He will also be an excellent addition to the board's corporate responsibility committee, an area where he has shown particular leadership at BSkyB and News Corporation.

Yes he has.

I wonder how many cushy, high-paying, low effort, pharmaceutical boards Andrew Wakefield will be placed on? Oh yah, he lost his job, and was run out of the country.

[KimberlyD0]

So how do you explain the discrepencies??

in most of the 12 cases mentioned the children’s ailments described in The Lancet were different from their hospital and GP records. even though research papers claimed that problems came on within days of the jab, in only one case did medical records suggest this was true, and in many of the cases medical concerns had been raised before the children were vaccinated.

or that hospital pathologists reported that the bowels of many of the children were normal, but Wakefield reported them as having inflammatory disease in his journal paper.

There is also the fact that no one has been able to duplicate his work as he says it was done. Which is a HUGE clue as to its untruth. Bad science is hard to replicte, good science would have supported it.

These are just a couple of the issues. So yes it very much looks like some BIG lies were given here.

What bothers me more in the end is that IF (and thats a BIG if) there trully is a link between vaccinations and Autism then all he has done by lieing is make it harder for people. Because by lieing he has given a big reason for people to stop looking into it.

Not one of the links you have given would I concider to be reliable. But then I am extreamly picky about what I believe. 4+ years of reseach has taught me what to look for and what is pure lies.

I'm not saying its impossible that he is wrong, anything is possible, but as of yet it is highly unlikly.

Brian Deer can at least stand up proud behind his findings and know they're not lies and are infact supported by others, and been seen the same way by others. Andrew Wakefield can not say the same. His work has yet to be proven to be reputable or repeatable.

Of the 2 right now Brian Deer has more cridibility

as for who he works for, its not like Wakefield wasn't on someones pay roll. He stood to gain a lot of money by discrediting the MMR vaccination. After all he was being paid by the lawers of Autistic children and their family. He went into the study with an existing biase and set to prove it one way or another.

[Proverbs31]

Kimberly, I posted a link to a (very lengthy) thread we had on the subject of Wakefield. I encourage you to read through it because it does address your questions. But I have to ask again: where is the proof against Wakefield?

[carriebft]

which proof are you looking for?

[taterbug1999]

Funny thing is I don't even have a dog in this fight. We personally choose not vaccinate for so many other reasons besides the possible autism link.... but whatever sources one may or may not find reputable, the men have conflicts of interest... it is not ethical reporting to do what Mr. Deers has done. I do think there are excellent arguments on the other side of the fence in the articles I sited as well as the information linked to by Proverbs31. If some people choose not to entertain it though I am just ....

[Proverbs31]

Originally Posted by carriebft

which proof are you looking for?

Me? I'm referring to the poster's assertion that "so far the proof is against him". I'd like to know what the proof is, not just the accusations.

[KimberlyD0]

Originally Posted by Proverbs31

Me? I'm referring to the poster's assertion that "so far the proof is against him". I'd like to know what the proof is, not just the accusations.

in most of the 12 cases mentioned the children’s ailments described in The Lancet were different from their hospital and GP records. even though research papers claimed that problems came on within days of the jab, in only one case did medical records suggest this was true, and in many of the cases medical concerns had been raised before the children were vaccinated.

or that hospital pathologists reported that the bowels of many of the children were normal, but Wakefield reported them as having inflammatory disease in his journal paper.

There is also the fact that no one has been able to duplicate his work as he says it was done. Which is a HUGE clue as to its untruth. Bad science is hard to replicte, good science would have supported it.

Do you need more??

I don't have the time with 2 small children and DH working tonight to sort through everything tonight, but I am sure I can find plenty.

[PaigeC]

Originally Posted by KimberlyD0

But then I am extreamly picky about what I believe. 4+ years of reseach has taught me what to look for and what is pure lies.

Your assertion that you would believe it if it were on CNN says otherwise considering how mainstream and condensed something would have to be to appear on this channel. Your bias is apparent in your arguments since they are nearly verbatim what Wakefield's detractors have said. You seem to be believing that blindly and distrusting all the other sources that pp have cited just as blindly. This boils it down to he said/she said. On that only time, or a true third party, will tell.

[Deborah]

I read through all 58 pages of Dr. Wakefield's response. He addresses all of the points being raised in detail.

The fact is, it would have been totally impossible for Dr. Wakefield to fake the lab reports. He wasn't doing the work. He explains who was examining the samples, how the samples were evaluated, how they met and discussed the samples. At every point in this process several other people were involved. Wakefield did not create the data for the Lancet paper. It was actually put together by the other people in the team. Wakefield compiled it and put it into tables, which were then reviewed by the rest of the team. BEFORE publication.

On the GP records and all that, Wakefield quotes from the records and demonstrates that Deer was cherry picking.

Read the 58 pages from Wakefield and then we can discuss these points.