Wakefield Barred by the British General Medical Council: Roundup

If you're going to join the fiery debate about Andrew Wakefield's barring by the British General Medical Council, then you need to be clear about why he was barred: for unprofessional conduct (e.g., taking blood samples from children at birthday parties), and conflict of interest (e.g., having his research funded by "lawyers for parents seeking to sue vaccine makers for damages"). This is a man who swore to do no harm but kept his fingers crossed behind his back during the oath. He is an embarrassment to scientists and doctors of principle.

It doesn't matter how charismatic or well-intentioned Wakefield is, or even if his research had had some validity (it didn't); the man showed "callous disregard" for research guidelines and scientific ethics. He deserved sanctioning. Anyone who claims differently is also claiming that ends justify means, and needs to stay the hell away from any discussion that contains the word "science" unless it's followed by the word "fiction."

A roundup of week's reactions to the GMC's actions, both directly and tangentially related to Wakefield's official sanctioning:

•The man himself. Don't look into his eyes!

• In case you think I'm kidding about the man's magnetism, look what happened when this skeptical journalist met with Wakefield in person. (Update: That journalist has since clarified that it was what he said rather than who said it that commanded her attention.)

• In the Wake of Wakefield's barring and the revelation that he caused a world-wide panic about vaccines for venal, self-serving rather than legitimate reasons, the Today Show polled readers, asking if they still think vaccines cause autism.  83% said no, they do not believe there is a link between vaccines and autism. (Kristina Chew wrote a followup post on Care2.com as well.)

• You want impartial journalism's perspective? Not Orac, not LBRB? Okay, how about the NY Times? The Times' piece might contain less cackling or outright disgust, but covers the same points. LBRB also published extensive excerpts from the GMC's Wakefield press release, no less damning for their neutral phrases.

• If you're looking for one Wakefield fiasco link to send your family and friends, I suggest this cartoon timeline (it could have fawned less over journalist Brian Deer, though I agree he deserves praise).

• I also recommend Anthony Cox of Black Triangle's excellent Wakefield: One Less Crocodile in the Swamp, which reminds us, "[Wakefield's] book, sickeningly playing on the words used by the GMC, 'Callous Disregard' has even been been timed to make best use of the [GMC verdict's] publicity." (Hat tip: Liz Ditz.)

• And finally, Emily wrote an excellent parody of the Wakefield camp's attempt to promote that new book by any means necessary.

A Formal Spanking for Dr. Andrew Wakefield, Vaccination Boogeyman

If you're a follower of the never-ending vaccines/autism chronicles, then you probably already know that Dr. Andrew Wakefield, the researcher who sparked the "vaccines cause autism" panic, has been formally sanctioned by the UK's General Medical Council. After an investigative hearing lasting more than two years, the GMC reached their verdict [PDF]: Wakefield conducted his research "dishonestly and irresponsibly."

There is so much to be pissed about when it comes to Wakefield: he was in a vaccine-injury lawyer's pocket when he conducted his original study. He had applied for a patent for a vaccine alternative to the MMR before he held the press conference that set off the vaccine/autism storm. His original study comprised only twelve children, few of whom actually met the criteria for the study. He continues to assert that his research is valid, even though 10 of his original co-authors and the journal in which his study was originally published issued formal retractions. And on. And on.

I summarized the matter for BlogHer, and included plenty of links if you'd like to spend your entire day riding an outrage-fueled adrenaline rush. Excerpt:

Have you ever wondered why, exactly, vaccines are erroneously associated with autism? I'll tell you: In 1998, Dr. Andrew Wakefield held a press conference to announce that his research had revealed a possible link between the MMR vaccine and autism. He published his findings in the respected independent medical journal The Lancet, and spent the next few years promoting his vaccine-autism "concerns" through media outlets like the TV news magazine 60 Minutes.

The result was panic, a vaccination rates nosedive, and the resurrection of vaccine-preventable diseases like measles.

In 2004, it was revealed that Wakefield had also been conducting a separate, simultaneous study funded by lawyers seeking compensation for clients who claimed their children suffered from vaccine damage. Ten of Wakefield's twelve original paper co-authors, horrified by Wakefield's conflict of interest as well as the public health crisis they'd help cause, issued an official retraction in The Lancet [PDF], stating, "We wish to make it clear that in [Wakefield's] paper no causal link was established between MMR vaccine and autism as the data were insufficient."

The facts, the deception, the denialist mercenary mindset, the damage to public health, are bad enough -- but Wakefield's actions cause additional damages. As my favorite scientist Emily so eloquently wrote:

Why do I care so much? Oh, it's not just because this hack job of science ended up in so much wasted time, money, energy, emotion, and lives. It's also because in science, we've got ethics. We're supposed to, anyway. We have standards. We've got these rules, you see, about "research involving human subjects." They're designed to keep the more nefarious among us from taking advantage of vulnerable populations, to keep them from exploiting people who are least able to defend themselves because of false hope, scientific ignorance, desperation, or incapacity.

And when a researcher, scientist, doctor violates those rules, steps outside of those bounds, acts dishonestly, doesn't act in the best interests of the children involved, they're joining ranks with the big cheaters of science. With the big selfish bastards of science who are in it only for themselves, the research "subjects" be damned. The ones who will, without compunction, do things that harm just so they can do themselves good.

Iz and I recently watched the movie Contact, in which Jodie Foster plays Ellie Arroway, an astronomer whose principles never waver, not even when doing so would let her fulfill a lifelong dream of extraterrestrial contact. My daughter's face remained naked with awe during Dr. Arroway's hearings, as it dawned on her that devotion to science means devotion to courage. It's a lesson that Dr. Wakefield could stand to learn.

Journalist Brian Deer vs. MMR Researcher Andrew Wakefield

Those who keep up with reporter Brian Deer's ongoing research into Dr. Andrew Wakefield's questionable research practices re: autism and the MMR vaccine, or who read the Schaefer Report, may have read that:

"Press Complaints Commission Orders Sunday Times to Remove MMR journalist's Stories on Dr. Wakefield from Paper's Web Site"

The Press Complaints Commission (PCC) of London, an independent body that oversees journalism fairness in the UK, has issued an interim order calling for the Sunday Times to remove stories written by Brian Deer about Dr. Andrew Wakefield from its web site. Dr. Wakefield had filed an extensive complaint with the PCC regarding errors of fact in Deer's reportage on the MMR vaccine and its possible relationship to autism. The General Medical Council (GMC) in the UK is presently hearing evidence involving Dr. Wakefield and two of his colleagues following a complaint to the GMC by Deer himself. The PCC decision today appears to indicate there are questions about the accuracy of the Deer stories. (Full article)

The problem is that the article excerpted above is from the media arm of Thoughtful House, which is Dr. Wakefield's US research/treatment facility, and that it distorts the facts (as reported on LBRB):

The Sunday Times has not been ordered to take down the articles. The PCC [Press Complainants Commission] decided to postpone its investigation until after the GMC [General Medical Counci] reaches a decision on the allegations of misconduct. This makes sense. If Wakefield is found guilty the complaint will fail. Meanwhile the PCC has asked the Sunday Times to remove the article from its website until matters can be resolved and the Sunday Times has agreed. [...]

So no order was issued, no judgement was made and there is no suggestion of impropriety by Deer or the Sunday Times. All the suggestions come from one source, Wakefield himself. (Full article.)

More from Brian Deer on Dr. Wakefield and the MMR/autism brouhaha.