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

"JG" wrote in message ...
"Jonathan Smith" wrote in message
m...
(abacus) wrote in message
om...
"Mark Probert-February 23, 2004" Mark
wrote in message
. net...

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

[...]

His results are suspect because of poor science and now there appears
to be evidence that the reason for the poor science may have been his
motivation. He was helping lawyers sue the makers and providers of
vaccines by providing the very evidence these lawyers needed to make a
case. He was a hired gun. The fact that he was a hired gun was not
disclosed.

You seem to have a lot of free time on your hands, Jonathan; why don't
you dig into this a little deeper and find out why the attorneys engaged
Wakefield's services? I find it extremely hard to believe that they
picked him at random. It's far more likely he and his colleagues had
already, *independently*, formulated their theory of an
autism-intestines-MMR
connection and were conducting research.

Not according to Pubmed. The authors were well known for their
measles-Crohn's disease link and not until 1997 was there ever any
mention by that group of the possible MMR - neurologic link. In 1997,
they were already doing the lawyer study as far as I know.

Here are some random quotes from the press regarding this remarkable
discover.

"Although his theory is very controversial and is based originally on
the observation of only 12 children with special needs (including 9
with autism spectrum disorders), the media attention it has received
has left parents scared and confused."

" Dr. Andrew Wakefield and colleagues first reported a possible
association of a syndrome of autistic regression, intestinal
complaints, ileal lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia and MMR vaccination
(Wakefield AJ et al, Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific
colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children, The Lancet
1998(Feb 28);351:637-641)."

I've seen no evidence of "poor
science";

The science underlying the report has been questioned - even by one of
the authors himself. The Lancet article describes how patients were
recruited into the study. The description is false.

presumably The Lancet didn't either, or its editors would
(should)have rejected the article.

Had the editors known of the funding source and that the content of
the article misrepresented the methods used, it would likel;y have
been rejectd - according to them.

[...]

It is not a conflict of interest when associations exist and these are
readily and fully disclosed. There is a potential of a conflict and
the potential is exaccerbated by a failure to disclose.

You appear to have an idiosyncratic definition of "conflict of
interest," Jonathan. A conflict of interest is NOT quashed by mere
disclosure of its existence!

A financial relationship is a potential conflict of interest. It
becomes a conflict when it is reasonable to expect that the
relationship would change the researchers strudy design or
interpretation of results. It becomes an effect when it does impact
on the design and it is shown. It is fraud when this potential
conflict is hidden and its impact, and the conclusions drawn are
affected.

In the case of the Wakefield paper, there is evidence to suggest that
all of this happened.

For whom do you think such disclosures are
intended? Not the researcher.

Abnsolutely for the researcher - remember, the only selling
proposition of the researcher is his integrity. Without integrity, he
has no value to the research community.

Not the individual or group with whom
he/she has the association that gives rise to the conflict of interest.

Rise to a POTENTIAL conflict of interest. The disclosure absolutely
has value to the funders.

They serve anyone who might conceivably rely on the information (e.g.,
research findings) presented and might, rationally, wish to discount
such tainted information. (The information *is* tainted, but that, of
course, doesn't mean that it's not true/accurate.)

The information is not, by the existance of a potential conflict of
interest which is fully disclosed, tainted. If that were the case,
there would be NO untainted research. Soemone is paying for it, hence
there is a potential conflict somewhere.

[...]

Wakefield was PAID to produce results that were specifically and
completely intended to show a vaccine autism link in support of a
legal action.

As stated above, it's probable that Wakefield and his colleagues were
investigating/researching (and had announced) their theory of an
MMR-autism link well *before* he (they) were contacted by the
plaintiffs' attorneys.

And as replied to above - it cannot be documented in the literature
that this is the case. Had this group been pursuing an active
research program linking MMR with autism, it would have been subject
to publications - Wakefield is a prolific letter writer to the Lancet
yet NOT ONCE until 1997 did he ewver suggest anything beyond a link
between measles and diseases of the gut.

You have absolutely NO evidence that Wakefield
was paid to produce research results favorable to the plaintiffs' case.

He was paid and the results, by the admission of his fellow
researchers, were overstated. Munch has recanted. Have I seen the
research agreement? No.

(Indeed, your statement is quite libelous.) Conflict of interest? Yes.
Proof of fraud? No.

Failure to disclose the relationship is fraudulent, in my opinion.
Misrepresenting the source of patients, in my opinion, is fraudulent.
Selection bias in the sampling that is misrepresented is fraudulent,
in my opinion.


"12 children, consecutively referred to the department of paediatric
gastroenterology with a history of a pervasive developmental disorder
with loss of acquired skills and intestinal symptoms (diarrhoea,
abdominal pain, bloating and food intolerance), were investigated. All
children were admitted to the ward for 1 week, accompanied by their
parents."

This is NOT true. 10 were referred by the laywers of which four were
reviewed in the study. There is nothing "consecutive" about that.

This is a statement made IN the article.

"We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella
vaccine and the syndrome described. Virological studies are underway
that may help to resolve this issue."

Then in the last paragraph, this happens:

"In most cases, onset of symptoms was after measles, mumps, and
rubella immunisation"

Well, DUH. A good part of the sample came from lawyers suing vaccine
manufacturers and representing parents who already knew that MMR
caused their childs autism. So - if you base the association on self
report of patients and select patients because they self reported it -
you get your conclusion. Paid for and delivered. And we all thought
it really was a valid sample selection methodology. Yep, you can fool
some of the people some of the time.

I like my science transparent. I like research articles to be
accurate and the conclusions to be supported. I don't like what the
lay press does to science.

I don't like what lawyers can do to science.

[...]

So there - are we done? Good.

js

"JG" wrote in message ...
"CBI" wrote in message
link.net...
JG wrote:
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:

First of all - yuor figures below confuse money to fund
reseach, from which the investigator can draw part of his
salary but mostly is spent doing the study, with money that
is completely kept by the researcher.

Hmmm... I think they're pretty straightforward, myself. (Just what do
you think "unrestricted grants" means?

They are called "unrestricted educational grants" and the general
policy across US universities is that the can only be spent on the
educational and research mission of the university. We used to fund
graduate students this way - either make them RAs, get them tuition
waivers, send them to conferences, etc. We also used it to pay for
lab supplies and normal operational costs.

The unrestricted part means that there was no specific deliverable or
project associated with the money.

Or "gifts"? The amount received
for *research* is listed separately from this amount.) Note, too, that
the money he (personally) received for research is listed separately
from that received by his institution (UCLA).

Gifts are discretionary funds. Usually the university got a cut but
mostly the faculty was able to pretty much spend it on stuff - not
salaries, but stuff. Computers were a big thing at one time; lab
equipment, telephone equipment, even desks and chairs could be
purchased with this money. The dean even sponsored an annual golf
outing and used gift money to pay green fees for faculty and students.

[...]

Besides, you miss the point. Did Cherry hide these
arrangements?

I don't know, did he? You're the one, no doubt, with better access to
the journals in which his articles dealing with pertussis vaccination
have been published.

Grant Support: Dr. Cherry's pertussis studies were supported in part
by contracts No1AI15124 and No1AI45249 from the National Institute of
Allergy and Infectious Disease and by grants from Lederle-Praxis
Biologicals.

Has he extolled some (profitable) theory with
a vehemence that is not supported by the science in a manner
that suggests he is seeking to maximize publicity?

IMO, yes; he's the "Number One Fan" (promoter) of adult (pertussis)
vaccination.

Maybe he actually believes in it and has the data to show that his
belief is scientifically supported?


"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.)

The references are telling. Got anything not from a whacko
conspiracy site that hasn't been discredited on a daily
basis in this forum?

Guess JGs answer is no.

Invoke tha Abacus principle? I know it because its true and I don't
have the time to prove it?

Good.

\
--
CBI, MD

"Jonathan Smith" wrote in message
m...
"JG" wrote in message
...
"CBI" wrote in message
link.net...
JG wrote:

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:

First of all - yuor figures below confuse money to fund
reseach, from which the investigator can draw part of his
salary but mostly is spent doing the study, with money that
is completely kept by the researcher.

Hmmm... I think they're pretty straightforward, myself. (Just what
do
you think "unrestricted grants" means?

They are called "unrestricted educational grants"

The Money article didn't refer to them as such. IMO, the salient word
is *unrestricted*. Who wouldn't like funding for a pet project (perhaps
one wholly unrelated to research that would benefit the grant provider)?

and the general
policy across US universities is that the can only be spent on the
educational and research mission of the university. We used to fund
graduate students this way - either make them RAs, get them tuition
waivers, send them to conferences, etc. We also used it to pay for
lab supplies and normal operational costs.

And how did Cherry/UCLA use theirs, hmmm?

The unrestricted part means that there was no specific deliverable or
project associated with the money.

Exactly. It's left to the discretion of the recipient(s).

Or "gifts"? The amount received
for *research* is listed separately from this amount.) Note, too,
that
the money he (personally) received for research is listed separately
from that received by his institution (UCLA).

Gifts are discretionary funds.

And so are *unrestricted* grants!

Usually the university got a cut but
mostly the faculty was able to pretty much spend it on stuff - not
salaries, but stuff. Computers were a big thing at one time; lab
equipment, telephone equipment, even desks and chairs could be
purchased with this money. The dean even sponsored an annual golf
outing and used gift money to pay green fees for faculty and students.

And your point would be, what? That such "gifts" couldn't/wouldn't
create a conflict of interest? Get real!

[...]

Besides, you miss the point. Did Cherry hide these
arrangements?

I don't know, did he? You're the one, no doubt, with better access
to
the journals in which his articles dealing with pertussis
vaccination
have been published.

Grant Support: Dr. Cherry's pertussis studies were supported in part
by contracts No1AI15124 and No1AI45249 from the National Institute of
Allergy and Infectious Disease and by grants from Lederle-Praxis
Biologicals.

Cherry's written dozens, if not hundreds, of pro-pertussis
vaccine/vaccination articles. Were his ties to Lederle (American Home
Products/Wyeth) disclosed in *all* of them?

Has he extolled some (profitable) theory with
a vehemence that is not supported by the science in a manner
that suggests he is seeking to maximize publicity?

IMO, yes; he's the "Number One Fan" (promoter) of adult (pertussis)
vaccination.

Maybe he actually believes in it and has the data to show that his
belief is scientifically supported?

By whom? Apparently not by enough other researchers/medicos to have
effected a recommendation for adult vaccination. (And he's been
exhorting adult vaccination for *years*.)

"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.)

The references are telling. Got anything not from a whacko
conspiracy site that hasn't been discredited on a daily
basis in this forum?

Guess JGs answer is no.

The source is (the highly respected) "Money" magazine, you friggin'
twits (first Probert, then CBI, and now you, Jonathan ...yes, that's an
ad hominem attack), NOT Roger's or John's sites. (They've simply
furnished verbatim copies of the article. If you wish to read the
article "direct from the source," go to
https://www.timeinc.net/subs/secure/...neymag_search/
and subscribe.) Sheesh!

Invoke tha Abacus principle? I know it because its true and I don't
have the time to prove it?

I've asked you to prove some things, Jonathan (e.g., that Cherry's
funding was *always* disclosed). Better get cracking....

"Jonathan Smith" wrote in message
...
"JG" wrote in message
...
"Jonathan Smith" wrote in message
m...
(abacus) wrote in message
om...
"Mark Probert-February 23, 2004" Mark
wrote in message
. net...


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

[...]

His results are suspect because of poor science and now there
appears
to be evidence that the reason for the poor science may have been
his
motivation. He was helping lawyers sue the makers and providers
of
vaccines by providing the very evidence these lawyers needed to
make a
case. He was a hired gun. The fact that he was a hired gun was
not
disclosed.

You seem to have a lot of free time on your hands, Jonathan; why
don't
you dig into this a little deeper and find out why the attorneys
engaged
Wakefield's services? I find it extremely hard to believe that they
picked him at random. It's far more likely he and his colleagues
had
already, *independently*, formulated their theory of an
autism-intestines-MMR
connection and were conducting research.

Not according to Pubmed. The authors were well known for their
measles-Crohn's disease link and not until 1997 was there ever any
mention by that group of the possible MMR - neurologic link. In 1997,
they were already doing the lawyer study as far as I know.

As far as "*you* know, Jonathan? LOL. Not good enough. (And to think,
you carp on abacus!) Find out, okay?

Here are some random quotes from the press regarding this remarkable
discover.

"Although his theory is very controversial and is based originally on
the observation of only 12 children with special needs (including 9
with autism spectrum disorders), the media attention it has received
has left parents scared and confused."

" Dr. Andrew Wakefield and colleagues first reported a possible
association of a syndrome of autistic regression, intestinal
complaints, ileal lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia and MMR vaccination
(Wakefield AJ et al, Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific
colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children, The Lancet
1998(Feb 28);351:637-641)."

I've seen no evidence of "poor
science";

The science underlying the report has been questioned - even by one of
the authors himself. The Lancet article describes how patients were
recruited into the study. The description is false.

presumably The Lancet didn't either, or its editors would
(should)have rejected the article.

Had the editors known of the funding source and that the content of
the article misrepresented the methods used, it would likel;y have
been rejectd - according to them.

Well, then, they did a ****-poor job of (minimal!) verification, didn't
they? g

It is not a conflict of interest when associations exist and these
are
readily and fully disclosed. There is a potential of a conflict
and
the potential is exaccerbated by a failure to disclose.

You appear to have an idiosyncratic definition of "conflict of
interest," Jonathan. A conflict of interest is NOT quashed by mere
disclosure of its existence!

A financial relationship is a potential conflict of interest.

NO. For (I hope) the last time: A financial relationship IS a conflict
of interest.

It
becomes a conflict when it is reasonable to expect that the
relationship would change the researchers strudy design or
interpretation of results. It becomes an effect when it does impact
on the design and it is shown. It is fraud when this potential
conflict is hidden and its impact, and the conclusions drawn are
affected.

In the case of the Wakefield paper, there is evidence to suggest that
all of this happened.

For whom do you think such disclosures are
intended? Not the researcher.

Abnsolutely for the researcher - remember, the only selling
proposition of the researcher is his integrity. Without integrity, he
has no value to the research community.

Not the individual or group with whom
he/she has the association that gives rise to the conflict of
interest.

Rise to a POTENTIAL conflict of interest. The disclosure absolutely
has value to the funders.

They serve anyone who might conceivably rely on the information
(e.g.,
research findings) presented and might, rationally, wish to discount
such tainted information. (The information *is* tainted, but that,
of
course, doesn't mean that it's not true/accurate.)

The information is not, by the existance of a potential conflict of
interest which is fully disclosed, tainted.

YES, it IS. (Taint: place under suspicion or cast doubt upon; WordNet
1.6, Princeton University) But *again*, this does NOT mean that it's
false/fraudulent. Obviously we will never agree on this.

If that were the case,
there would be NO untainted research. Soemone is paying for it, hence
there is a potential conflict somewhere.

No; research can be, and is, undertaken independently. Do you think
entrepreneurial inventors, working, perhaps, in their basements, are
funded? Do you think someone's paying them to sit around, twiddling
their thumbs, until an idea just *might* pop into their heads?

[...]

Wakefield was PAID to produce results that were specifically and
completely intended to show a vaccine autism link in support of a
legal action.

As stated above, it's probable that Wakefield and his colleagues
were
investigating/researching (and had announced) their theory of an
MMR-autism link well *before* he (they) were contacted by the
plaintiffs' attorneys.

And as replied to above - it cannot be documented in the literature
that this is the case.

Cannot, or HAS NOT?

Had this group been pursuing an active
research program linking MMR with autism, it would have been subject
to publications

Speculation, Jonathan; nothing more.

- Wakefield is a prolific letter writer to the Lancet
yet NOT ONCE until 1997 did he ewver suggest anything beyond a link
between measles and diseases of the gut.

Hardly proof.

You have absolutely NO evidence that Wakefield
was paid to produce research results favorable to the plaintiffs'
case.

He was paid and the results, by the admission of his fellow
researchers, were overstated. Munch has recanted. Have I seen the
research agreement? No.

Then go find it!

(Indeed, your statement is quite libelous.) Conflict of interest?
Yes.
Proof of fraud? No.

Failure to disclose the relationship is fraudulent, in my opinion.
Misrepresenting the source of patients, in my opinion, is fraudulent.
Selection bias in the sampling that is misrepresented is fraudulent,
in my opinion.

We're talking about the results obtained.

"12 children, consecutively referred to the department of paediatric
gastroenterology with a history of a pervasive developmental disorder
with loss of acquired skills and intestinal symptoms (diarrhoea,
abdominal pain, bloating and food intolerance), were investigated. All
children were admitted to the ward for 1 week, accompanied by their
parents."

This is NOT true. 10 were referred by the laywers of which four were
reviewed in the study. There is nothing "consecutive" about that.

How do you know? Merely "rejecting" some kids doesn't mean the kids
reviewed weren't done so consecutively.

This is a statement made IN the article.

"We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella
vaccine and the syndrome described. Virological studies are underway
that may help to resolve this issue."

Then in the last paragraph, this happens:

"In most cases, onset of symptoms was after measles, mumps, and
rubella immunisation"

Well, DUH. A good part of the sample came from lawyers suing vaccine
manufacturers and representing parents who already knew that MMR
caused their childs autism. So - if you base the association on self
report of patients and select patients because they self reported it -
you get your conclusion. Paid for and delivered. And we all thought
it really was a valid sample selection methodology. Yep, you can fool
some of the people some of the time.

I like my science transparent. I like research articles to be
accurate and the conclusions to be supported. I don't like what the
lay press does to science.

Then take it up with "the lay press," for heaven's sake! (And be sure
to tell the authors of all pro-vaccine/vaccination articles that you'd
like to see their raw data, while you're at it.)

I don't like what lawyers can do to science.

Too bad.

[...]

So there - are we done? Good.

Okay by me...

(abacus) wrote in message . com...
(Jonathan Smith) wrote in message om...
(abacus) wrote in message om...

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.

It is not a conflict of interest when associations exist and these are
readily and fully disclosed. There is a potential of a conflict and
the potential is exaccerbated by a failure to disclose.

Sir, I must respectfully disagree with this position. Yes, it is
necessary that such associations be disclosed, but such disclosures
do not completely mitigate the effects of such conflicts of interest.

No - disclosure does not mitigate the conflict. It does, however, the
the reader the opportunity to view the work in light of the potential
biases. The Lancet has issued a statement that they would have not
published the paper if the conflict had been disclosed.




If all members of a committee are biased in a common direction, it is
to be expected that the discussion, recommendations, and decisions
made by such a committee will be affected by that bias.

It is possible but I would not go as far as to say that it is
expected. One must also look at the natureo fthe bias and speculate as
to how much it is likely to affect decisions. Like I said in another
post - a grant to do research is much less money directly to a
researcher than a fee for testifying. Also fundong from a source that
comonly funds studies can be viewed in a different light than money
from a non-scientific group who is commissioning a study to use for
such a specific purpose as to support lawsuits.

Also, one must consider the choice of the funding body. In this case
they chose a scientist who was already known to be fairly plastic in
his thinking of what evils the shot does. It makes sense that they
clearly chose a specific person who was likely to respond to the money
with a specific result. The upshot is that it is pretty obvious that
the whole thing was designed to produce a certain result and so should
have been rejected by the journal - which would have happened if not
for the deception.

--
CBI, MD

"JG" wrote in message ...

His results are suspect because of poor science and now there appears
to be evidence that the reason for the poor science may have been his
motivation. He was helping lawyers sue the makers and providers of
vaccines by providing the very evidence these lawyers needed to make a
case. He was a hired gun. The fact that he was a hired gun was not
disclosed.

You seem to have a lot of free time on your hands, Jonathan; why don't
you dig into this a little deeper and find out why the attorneys engaged
Wakefield's services? I find it extremely hard to believe that they
picked him at random. It's far more likely he and his colleagues had
already, *independently*, formulated their theory of an
autism-intestines-MMR
connection and were conducting research.


Of course it was not at random. He had a history of trying to blame
MMR for different things (like Crohn's disease).

I've seen no evidence of "poor
science"; presumably The Lancet didn't either, or its editors would
(should)have rejected the article.

The science as stated in the original paper is not so bad (where he
just says there is an association that bears further investigation).
The poor science comes in his trumpeting of the work later (where he
says there is proof of a cause and effect relationship.


They serve anyone who might conceivably rely on the information (e.g.,
research findings) presented and might, rationally, wish to discount
such tainted information. (The information *is* tainted, but that, of
course, doesn't mean that it's not true/accurate.)

No, but the fact that he tried to hide the taining does cast further
doubt on the research.


Wakefield was PAID to produce results that were specifically and
completely intended to show a vaccine autism link in support of a
legal action.

As stated above, it's probable that Wakefield and his colleagues were
investigating/researching (and had announced) their theory of an
MMR-autism link well *before* he (they) were contacted by the
plaintiffs' attorneys.

If he announced such a thing then there should be a record of it.


You have absolutely NO evidence that Wakefield
was paid to produce research results favorable to the plaintiffs' case.
(Indeed, your statement is quite libelous.) Conflict of interest? Yes.
Proof of fraud? No.

Conflict of interest? - yes.
Unequivocal proof of fraud in producing the research? - no.
Proof if fraud in presenting the research? - absolutely.
Significant reason to suspect the research is bogus? - yes.

--
CBI, MD

"JG" wrote in message ...

Hmmm... I think they're pretty straightforward, myself. (Just what do
you think "unrestricted grants" means? Or "gifts"? The amount received
for *research* is listed separately from this amount.) Note, too, that
the money he (personally) received for research is listed separately
from that received by his institution (UCLA).

No- $100K grants to do research do not all go to the pocket of the
researcher. He is to use the money to fund the research. It is
customary to take a small amount of it for salary.



[...]

Besides, you miss the point. Did Cherry hide these
arrangements?

I don't know, did he? You're the one, no doubt, with better access to
the journals in which his articles dealing with pertussis vaccination
have been published.

YOu are the one hoding him up as an example. It is up to you to show
that it is apt.



Has he extolled some (profitable) theory with
a vehemence that is not supported by the science in a manner
that suggests he is seeking to maximize publicity?

IMO, yes; he's the "Number One Fan" (promoter) of adult (pertussis)
vaccination.

Yes, he is a fan. But you didn't answer the question. What has he said
that is not supported byt he evidence?

--
CBI, MD

"CBI" wrote in message
om...
(abacus) wrote in message
. com...
(Jonathan Smith) wrote in message
om...
(abacus) wrote in message
om...

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.

It is not a conflict of interest when associations exist and these
are
readily and fully disclosed. There is a potential of a conflict
and
the potential is exaccerbated by a failure to disclose.

Sir, I must respectfully disagree with this position. Yes, it is
necessary that such associations be disclosed, but such disclosures
do not completely mitigate the effects of such conflicts of
interest.

No - disclosure does not mitigate the conflict. It does, however, the
the reader the opportunity to view the work in light of the potential
biases.

Exactly. Can you get this through to Jonathan? g

"CBI" wrote in message
m...
"JG" wrote in message
...

His results are suspect because of poor science and now there appears
to be evidence that the reason for the poor science may have been his
motivation. He was helping lawyers sue the makers and providers of
vaccines by providing the very evidence these lawyers needed to make a
case. He was a hired gun. The fact that he was a hired gun was not
disclosed.

You seem to have a lot of free time on your hands, Jonathan; why don't
you dig into this a little deeper and find out why the attorneys engaged
Wakefield's services? I find it extremely hard to believe that they
picked him at random. It's far more likely he and his colleagues had
already, *independently*, formulated their theory of an
autism-intestines-MMR
connection and were conducting research.


Of course it was not at random. He had a history of trying to blame
MMR for different things (like Crohn's disease).

I've seen no evidence of "poor
science"; presumably The Lancet didn't either, or its editors would
(should)have rejected the article.

The science as stated in the original paper is not so bad (where he
just says there is an association that bears further investigation).
The poor science comes in his trumpeting of the work later (where he
says there is proof of a cause and effect relationship.


They serve anyone who might conceivably rely on the information (e.g.,
research findings) presented and might, rationally, wish to discount
such tainted information. (The information *is* tainted, but that, of
course, doesn't mean that it's not true/accurate.)

No, but the fact that he tried to hide the taining does cast further
doubt on the research.


Wakefield was PAID to produce results that were specifically and
completely intended to show a vaccine autism link in support of a
legal action.

As stated above, it's probable that Wakefield and his colleagues were
investigating/researching (and had announced) their theory of an
MMR-autism link well *before* he (they) were contacted by the
plaintiffs' attorneys.

If he announced such a thing then there should be a record of it.


You have absolutely NO evidence that Wakefield
was paid to produce research results favorable to the plaintiffs' case.
(Indeed, your statement is quite libelous.) Conflict of interest? Yes.
Proof of fraud? No.

Conflict of interest? - yes.
Unequivocal proof of fraud in producing the research? - no.
Proof if fraud in presenting the research? - absolutely.
Significant reason to suspect the research is bogus? - yes.

right on.

"CBI" wrote in message
m...
"JG" wrote in message
...

His results are suspect because of poor science and now there
appears
to be evidence that the reason for the poor science may have been
his
motivation. He was helping lawyers sue the makers and providers
of
vaccines by providing the very evidence these lawyers needed to
make a
case. He was a hired gun. The fact that he was a hired gun was
not
disclosed.

You seem to have a lot of free time on your hands, Jonathan; why
don't
you dig into this a little deeper and find out why the attorneys
engaged
Wakefield's services? I find it extremely hard to believe that they
picked him at random. It's far more likely he and his colleagues
had
already, *independently*, formulated their theory of an
autism-intestines-MMR
connection and were conducting research.

Of course it was not at random. He had a history of trying to blame
MMR for different things (like Crohn's disease).

"Trying to blame MMR" (bit judgmental, don't you think?), or simply
investigating a suspicion? Do you have any reason to suspect he wished
to harm Glaxo-SmithKline?

I've seen no evidence of "poor
science"; presumably The Lancet didn't either, or its editors would
(should)have rejected the article.

The science as stated in the original paper is not so bad (where he
just says there is an association that bears further investigation).
The poor science comes in his trumpeting of the work later (where he
says there is proof of a cause and effect relationship.

Rather backs up one of my points, i.e., that Wakefield wasn't, at least
*initially*, a "liar for hire."

They serve anyone who might conceivably rely on the information
(e.g.,
research findings) presented and might, rationally, wish to discount
such tainted information. (The information *is* tainted, but that,
of
course, doesn't mean that it's not true/accurate.)

No, but the fact that he tried to hide the taining does cast further
doubt on the research.

Agreed.

Wakefield was PAID to produce results that were specifically and
completely intended to show a vaccine autism link in support of a
legal action.

As stated above, it's probable that Wakefield and his colleagues
were
investigating/researching (and had announced) their theory of an
MMR-autism link well *before* he (they) were contacted by the
plaintiffs' attorneys.

If he announced such a thing then there should be a record of it.

Yes. Maybe Jonathan can find it (he seems adamant that the funding from
the attorneys came first), even though it wouldn't suit his purposes.
(OTOH, maybe he can produce incontrovertible proof that Wakefield
deliberately concocted false results/conclusions.)

You have absolutely NO evidence that Wakefield
was paid to produce research results favorable to the plaintiffs'
case.
(Indeed, your statement is quite libelous.) Conflict of interest?
Yes.
Proof of fraud? No.

Conflict of interest? - yes.
Unequivocal proof of fraud in producing the research? - no.
Proof if fraud in presenting the research? - absolutely.
Significant reason to suspect the research is bogus? - yes.

No argument. Jonathan maintains it IS bogus, however; let him *prove*
it.