tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8211371452778645597.post3736821671513131249..comments2023-07-15T04:39:59.759-07:00Comments on Genomics, Medicine, and Pseudoscience: Autism's false theoriesSteven Salzberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16549957293973146438noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8211371452778645597.post-9280112320490105742008-11-29T13:39:00.000-08:002008-11-29T13:39:00.000-08:00Yes, Wakefield committed fraud, in several ways. ...Yes, Wakefield committed fraud, in several ways. (Webster's dictionary defines "fraud" as "deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence.")<BR/> First, Wakefield represented the 12 children in the study as "consecutive referrals" from a unit in his own hospital. He did NOT reveal that nearly all the children were clients (through their parents) of a lawyer who was trying to build a case against vaccine makers. Quoting the statement made by the editors of The Lancet when this was revealed: "Contrary to the statement that children were 'consecutively referred' to the department of paediatric gastroenterology ... children were invited to participate in the study by Dr. Andrew Wakefield and Dr. John Walker-Smith, thus biasing the selection of children in favor of families reporting an association between their child's illness and the MMR vaccine." Thus the paper itself contains a very deceptive statement about who these children were.<BR/><BR/>Second, Wakefield did not reveal to his co-authors or to the Lancet (the journal) that he had been receiving consulting fees from this same lawyer's group. This is a clear case of fraud, in my view - no honest scientist would do this to his co-authors (or to a journal). His co-authors retracted their findings when they found out - which wasn't until several years later. See the retraction here: <A HREF="http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(04)15715-2/fulltext" REL="nofollow">Lancet retraction</A>.<BR/><BR/>So yes, the study was fraudulent, and Wakefield was deceptive. It's not just an interpretation - the facts here are clear. It might be that the legal system would still give one room to interpret, or to argue, about whether this is legal fraud (in the UK, or the US, or elsewhere), but I'm talking about scientific fraud. I can't imagine everything I'd do if a co-author of mine behaved as Wakefield did, but I'd certainly call it fraudulent.Steven Salzberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16549957293973146438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8211371452778645597.post-87557132340396304132008-11-29T12:47:00.000-08:002008-11-29T12:47:00.000-08:00oops -- that was meant to say "... Ben says about ...oops -- that was meant to say "... Ben says about the behaviour <I>of the media</I>, but..."Joe Dunckleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09181811863117684351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8211371452778645597.post-80107307351483049762008-11-29T12:45:00.000-08:002008-11-29T12:45:00.000-08:00Fraudulent? Isn't that just an allegation at this...<I>Fraudulent</I>? Isn't that just an allegation at this stage? I don't know how much of the GMC hearing is made public, but I'm not aware of him having admitted to or been found guilty of the charges (yet). Not that I'm going to defend his behaviour...<BR/><BR/>It's interesting to contrast your take on Wakefield with <A HREF="http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/the-medias-mmr-hoax/" REL="nofollow">this extract</A> from Ben Goldacre's book. I agree with almost everything Ben says about the behaviour, but I can't really agree with his characterisation of Wakefield's role -- his misdemeanor, if the charges are correct, is bigger than just "speaking his mind" and "holding bad ideas".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com