A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » misc.kids » Kids Health
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Dr Andrew Wakefield In His own Words Q2 Conflicts of Interest and Dishonesty?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 8th 10, 09:55 PM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids,misc.kids.health,sci.med,sci.medicine
john[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 822
Default Dr Andrew Wakefield In His own Words Q2 Conflicts of Interest and Dishonesty?

Question 2: Conflicts of Interest and Dishonesty?
[Transcript] There have been some slightly difficult moments about
differences of opinion, for example with Richard Horton over conflicts of
interests...the Lancet statement on conflict is: 'anything that would
embarrass you if it were later disclosed', and my involvement with the Legal
Aid Board didn't embarrass me at all, and it wasn't relevant, in my opinion,
to disclose it in the Lancet paper because they didn't fund any of the
Lancet paper, they funded a subsequent viralogical study, as was always
intended, but it had been misrepresented in the media that they had funded
the Lancet study, and it wasn't disclosed, and this was the perception
Richard Horton originally had, and when I was aked about this by him way
back in 2004 I said, no, they didn't fund the study at all, they funded a
separate study, and he said 'well in that case it could be perceived as a
potential conflict of interest', and I said where did that come from?
The statement as I read it in the Lancet, the requirement is to 'disclose
things that might embarrass you if they emerge later'. And it was
interesting because within that document, which was self contained, anyone
writing a paper for the Lancet would just need to read that and the actual
statement is the test of conflict of interest in the Lancet is an easy one,
'anything that would embarrass you', and so you don't go beyond that, it is
a self contained document, why would you go any further, but there is a
website flagged up in there where you can go and there is a more broader
description of conflict of interest there which does include potential or
perceived conflicts of interest, which no one ever went to. Why would you
do it? You have got it in front of you. Now there is a very big
difference. Anything that would embarrass you is the active move, OK, it is
what would embarrass me, so I can think what would embarrass me, and I can
make a decision about that.

What others might perceive to be a conflict of interest is myriad, it goes
on forever. You have to put yourself in the third person and think what
might someone else with their various views and biases construe to be a
conflict of interest, and that is massive, where does that end?

So that is a huge conceptual leap in terms as to what you would disclose,
and there was no formal way for doing it at the time. Now you have a
document where you fill in the boxes, saying no shares, no this, no that.
That is very straight foreword, but in those days it wasn't, it was highly
ambiguous, and it was always my intention, and always was disclosed, when
there was a direct funding for a study, a grant giving body, or in this case
the Legal Aid Board, and so in the viral study it was disclosed, 'this study
was supported in part by the Legal Aid Board, and Dr Wakefield is acting as
an expert in the MMR litigation', that is an easy one as it goes, but in the
Lancet study I felt no need to disclose it at all, and neither did any of my
colleagues who knew that I was involved with the Legal aid Board on behalf
of some of these children.

So that was a difficult moment but it was a difference of opinion, he
thought I should have disclosed it. I felt at the time that I didn't, now
in retrospect, having seen this new document about perceived conflict I can
see that it should have been disclosed, but there was no dishonesty, and he
was good enough to say there was no intent to deceive, 'when Dr Wakefield
was asked about it he was entirely open, he said yes there was this grant'.
We got into an argument and debate about what was or wasn't a conflict of
interest, but there was absolutely no intent to deceive and the charge is
dishonesty, so he was extremely helpful in this as much he said, no this was
not dishonest, this was a genuine difference of opinion, and so that then
largely resolved.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.