Parenting & kids - Big $$$ for Wakefield's spinning...

ParentingBanter.com (http://www.parentingbanter.com/index.php)

- Kids Health (http://www.parentingbanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=8)

- - Big $$$ for Wakefield's spinning... (http://www.parentingbanter.com/showthread.php?t=9349)

Big $$$ for Wakefield's spinning...

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...ing%20Standard

The Government claims Dr Andrew Wakefield had a conflict of interest when he
produced a study suggesting a link between the vaccine and autism, because
he was paid £55,000 by lawyers to investigate whether MMR was safe.

£55,000= around $75,000 just for starters....

Where is the outrage of the anti-vacs? They have none! They will, instead,
point out that the pro-vacs also have conflicts. However, Wakefield kept
this gem a secret....

Big $$$ for Wakefield's spinning...

"Mark Probert-February 23, 2004" Mark
wrote in message et...

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...ing%20Standard

The Government claims Dr Andrew Wakefield had a conflict of interest when
he
produced a study suggesting a link between the vaccine and autism, because
he was paid £55,000 by lawyers to investigate whether MMR was safe.
£55,000= around $75,000 just for starters....

Try £55,000 = around $102,000US (the exchange rate is £1 = $1.86US)
according to today's New York Times.

Where is the outrage of the anti-vacs? They have none! They will, instead,
point out that the pro-vacs also have conflicts. However, Wakefield kept
this gem a secret....

That's ok. Don't you know his motivation is honorable? So what if he has
conflicts of interest?

If he suits John's purpose, it doesn't matter.

Unless what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Jeff

Big $$$ for Wakefield's spinning...

"Jeff" wrote in message
...

"Mark Probert-February 23, 2004" Mark
wrote in message et...

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...ing%20Standard

The Government claims Dr Andrew Wakefield had a conflict of interest
when
he
produced a study suggesting a link between the vaccine and autism,
because
he was paid £55,000 by lawyers to investigate whether MMR was safe.
£55,000= around $75,000 just for starters....

Try £55,000 = around $102,000US (the exchange rate is £1 = $1.86US)
according to today's New York Times.

Capitalist.

Ouch..it is worse than I thought. I wonder what a doctor in Wakefiled's
poisiton was paid while he was working?

Where is the outrage of the anti-vacs? They have none! They will,
instead,
point out that the pro-vacs also have conflicts. However, Wakefield kept
this gem a secret....

That's ok. Don't you know his motivation is honorable? So what if he has
conflicts of interest?

Yes, that is one of the anti-vac lairs defenses. IOW if they agree with the
person, then it does not matter if the money came from Satan herself.

If he suits John's purpose, it doesn't matter.

Unless what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Big $$$ for Wakefield's spinning...

"abacus" wrote in message
m...
"Mark Probert-February 23, 2004" Mark
wrote in message . net...

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...ing%20Standard

The Government claims Dr Andrew Wakefield had a conflict of interest
when he
produced a study suggesting a link between the vaccine and autism,
because
he was paid £55,000 by lawyers to investigate whether MMR was safe.

£55,000= around $75,000 just for starters....

Where is the outrage of the anti-vacs? They have none! They will,
instead,
point out that the pro-vacs also have conflicts. However, Wakefield kept
this gem a secret....

I'm not sure exactly what the problem here is.

Is it that he is accepting funding for his research? Do you expect
him to do it for free? Simply accepting funding for research does
not constitute a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest occurs
when one is accepting funding from different sources with different
and potentially conflicting goals.

Was he hiding the source of his funding? That would be a problem, but
I'm not clear about whether he was not disclosing the source of his
funding or whether it simply was not given adequate acknowledgement by
those who were reporting his results. If Wakefield did, as you claim,
keep this "secret" then outrage would be appropriate (a list of
funding sources should accompany research results) and it would make
his results suspect, but it doesn't, by itself, constitute a conflict
of interest. It depends on what other work he was accepting payment
for.

Is he sitting on vaccine policy-making committees? Then there is a
conflict of interest. Even so, that alone is not necessarily a serious
problem. If he was keeping the funding source 'secret', then it is.
But as long as the issue is on the table and everyone is aware of the
potential bias, the conflict of interest is not an insurmountable
problem.

Is he sitting on vaccine policy-making committees composed primarily
or entirely of people with the same bias as he has? This would be a
serious problem and make all decisions put forth by such a committee
suspect. That sort of situation should and does cause outrage.

For more examples of such situations (not about vaccines though) in
the U.S. and the seriousness and extent of the problem, I suggest you
check out the report on "Scientific Integrity in Policymaking" put out
earlier this week by the Union of Concerned Scientists. Their entire
report in online at
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/index.html

Big $$$ for Wakefield's spinning...

oops...hit that send button too fast...

"abacus" wrote in message
m...
"Mark Probert-February 23, 2004" Mark
wrote in message . net...

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...ing%20Standard

The Government claims Dr Andrew Wakefield had a conflict of interest
when he
produced a study suggesting a link between the vaccine and autism,
because
he was paid £55,000 by lawyers to investigate whether MMR was safe.

£55,000= around $75,000 just for starters....

Where is the outrage of the anti-vacs? They have none! They will,
instead,
point out that the pro-vacs also have conflicts. However, Wakefield kept
this gem a secret....

I'm not sure exactly what the problem here is.

I will write slowly, as you seemed to have missed my point....

The anti-vac liars, John Scudamore of the whale.to website being the most
notorious, along with Roger, et al, have bleated and brayed a cacophony of
noise whenever anyone who is pro-vaccine, i.e., pro-child health, has any
form of an apparent conflict of interest, even though they may have
disclosed it.

These same folks have held Wakefield, et al, up as saints, pure as the
driven snow...to be beleived without question...

Now, along came this story about how Wakefield was financed by a group of
lawyers who stood to make some evil money from the outcome of the class
action suit they brought...

And, the anti-vac lairs are fuming and fussing, whining and whinneying, that
it just ain't right. Wakefield is a saint, and the money di dnot affect the
outcome...

Horse****.

Their hero was even more conflicted since he was paid for the initial study,
and stood to be paid for his testimony.

And they just cannot stand it.

I hope I am clear.

Is it that he is accepting funding for his research? Do you expect
him to do it for free?

Of course not. Just like I do not expect other researchers to do it for
free. I am merely commenting on the duplicity of the anti-vac liars and
others.

Simply accepting funding for research does
not constitute a conflict of interest.

True. But, sometimes, the source of said funds says a lot. Here, it was the
lawyers who stood to make gadzillions of pounds if he found a link. He then
goes on to testify for more gadzillions of pounds.

Conflict of interest occurs
when one is accepting funding from different sources with different
and potentially conflicting goals.

OK, then he if does not have a conflict of interest he is nothing mor ethan
a medical whore.

Was he hiding the source of his funding?

Seems to be so. It is just being revealed now, years after his study was
first published.

That would be a problem, but
I'm not clear about whether he was not disclosing the source of his
funding or whether it simply was not given adequate acknowledgement by
those who were reporting his results.

Nice weasel. Pro-vaccine researchers are held to this high standard by the
anti-vac liars. Turnabout...

If Wakefield did, as you claim,
keep this "secret" then outrage would be appropriate (a list of
funding sources should accompany research results) and it would make
his results suspect, but it doesn't, by itself, constitute a conflict
of interest. It depends on what other work he was accepting payment
for.

Not really. Th ebuyers of his research stood to make money based on his
outcome, and he stood to make more.

Is he sitting on vaccine policy-making committees?

There are small miracles.

Then there is a
conflict of interest. Even so, that alone is not necessarily a serious
problem. If he was keeping the funding source 'secret', then it is.
But as long as the issue is on the table and everyone is aware of the
potential bias, the conflict of interest is not an insurmountable
problem.

Sometimes, it is. Here, with this revalation, his value as an expert witness
is shot.

Is he sitting on vaccine policy-making committees composed primarily
or entirely of people with the same bias as he has? This would be a
serious problem and make all decisions put forth by such a committee
suspect. That sort of situation should and does cause outrage.

Check out his history, as you seem not to know about him.

For more examples of such situations (not about vaccines though) in
the U.S. and the seriousness and extent of the problem, I suggest you
check out the report on "Scientific Integrity in Policymaking" put out
earlier this week by the Union of Concerned Scientists. Their entire
report in online at
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/index.html

Big $$$ for Wakefield's spinning...

"abacus" wrote in message
m...
"Mark Probert-February 23, 2004" Mark
wrote in message
. net...

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...ing%20Standard

The Government claims Dr Andrew Wakefield had a conflict of
interest when he
produced a study suggesting a link between the vaccine and autism,
because
he was paid £55,000 by lawyers to investigate whether MMR was safe.

£55,000= around $75,000 just for starters....

Where is the outrage of the anti-vacs? They have none! They will,
instead,
point out that the pro-vacs also have conflicts. However, Wakefield
kept
this gem a secret....

I'm not sure exactly what the problem here is.

Is it that he is accepting funding for his research? Do you expect
him to do it for free? Simply accepting funding for research does
not constitute a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest occurs
when one is accepting funding from different sources with different
and potentially conflicting goals.

Was he hiding the source of his funding? That would be a problem, but
I'm not clear about whether he was not disclosing the source of his
funding or whether it simply was not given adequate acknowledgement by
those who were reporting his results. If Wakefield did, as you claim,
keep this "secret" then outrage would be appropriate (a list of
funding sources should accompany research results) and it would make
his results suspect, but it doesn't, by itself, constitute a conflict
of interest. It depends on what other work he was accepting payment
for.

As I understand it, there are *two* Wakefield studies, one of which was
underwritten by a group of attorneys representing kids allegedly damaged
by the MMR vaccine and the other not. (I don't know who, if anyone
other than Wakefield himself/his university, funded this study.)
Presumably Wakefield would benefit by receiving payment for his "expert"
testimony when the cases go (went?) to court. (I imagine he'd receive a
flat fee, i.e., one not contingent on the amount(s) awarded to the
plaintiffs, should they prevail.) The fact that he received such
funding should have been disclosed alongside *both* studies, although it
is certainly less damning if the non-attorney-funded study took place
first.

Not that "two wrongs make a right," but Wakefield has a loooong way to
go to reach the level of research funding/testimony fees realized by
James Cherry:

"Cherry, a physician and professor of pediatrics at the University of
California at Los Angeles, is a widely recognized pertussis expert who
has
been a leader on advisory committees that help frame immunization policy
for
the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control.
Back in 1979, at a symposium, he said, "All physicians are aware that
pertussis occasionally produces severe reactions and that these may be
associated with permanent sequellae [complications caused by the
vaccine] or even death." But by 1990, Cherry had changed his mind,
proclaiming in the Journal of the American Medical Association that
severe brain damage caused by pertussis vaccine was nothing but "a
myth." From 1980 through 1988, Cherry got about $400,000 in
unrestricted grants that he termed "gifts" from Lederle. From 1988
through 1993, he was given $146,000 by Lederle for pertussis research,
and from 1986 through 1992, UCLA received $654,418 from Lederle for
pertussis research. Additionally, drug manufacturers paid Cherry and
UCLA $34,058 for his testimony as an expert witness in 15 DPT lawsuits
brought against the companies." (Andrea Rock, "Money" article; December
1996. The entire article is available at
http://www.mindspring.com/~schlafly/vac/money.txt and
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/money_mag.html.)

Is he sitting on vaccine policy-making committees?

Not to my knowledge. (LOL)

Then there is a
conflict of interest. Even so, that alone is not necessarily a serious
problem. If he was keeping the funding source 'secret', then it is.
But as long as the issue is on the table and everyone is aware of the
potential bias, the conflict of interest is not an insurmountable
problem.

Is he sitting on vaccine policy-making committees composed primarily
or entirely of people with the same bias as he has? This would be a
serious problem and make all decisions put forth by such a committee
suspect. That sort of situation should and does cause outrage.

For more examples of such situations (not about vaccines though) in
the U.S. and the seriousness and extent of the problem, I suggest you
check out the report on "Scientific Integrity in Policymaking" put out
earlier this week by the Union of Concerned Scientists. Their entire
report in online at
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/index.html

Interesting...thanks!

Big $$$ for Wakefield's spinning...

abacus wrote:

I'm not sure exactly what the problem here is.

Is it that he is accepting funding for his research?

No, it is that this while time, while writing and debating
the issue (often in forums that require this type of
disclosure), he has never mentioned it.

Big $$$ for Wakefield's spinning...

Mark Probert-February 25, 2004 wrote:

Their hero was even more conflicted since he was paid for
the initial
study, and stood to be paid for his testimony.

This is the bogger point - it really was more than just
funding a study. He stood to be made wealthy through paid
testimony if he found one thing and to get nothing if he
found another. That needed to be disclosed.

This new information puts the shoddy science and his active
campaigning for publicity in a while new light. I alsways
just figured he was greedy for notariety. Now I see that he
is just greedy.

--
CBI, MD

Big $$$ for Wakefield's spinning...

"CBI" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Mark Probert-February 25, 2004 wrote:

Their hero was even more conflicted since he was paid for
the initial
study, and stood to be paid for his testimony.

This is the bogger point - it really was more than just
funding a study. He stood to be made wealthy through paid
testimony if he found one thing and to get nothing if he
found another. That needed to be disclosed.

This new information puts the shoddy science and his active
campaigning for publicity in a while new light. I alsways
just figured he was greedy for notariety. Now I see that he
is just greedy.

Using the anti-vac line, just follow the money...and I was confident that
one day it would come out. He was just too attached to his theory for any
other conclusion to make sense.