Comments on: Wakefield’s abuse of the legal system and media

By: Do Vaccines cause autism? « Autism Ideas

Do Vaccines cause autism? « Autism Ideas — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 01:04:28 +0000

[...] Wakefield’s abuse of the legal system and media Autism News beat [...]

By: Prometheus

Prometheus — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 23:50:55 +0000

Silky Sienna asks:

"What if he’s right? "

Meaningless speculation, since other studies have shown that Wakefield is wrong and investigation of his "research" has shown errors and possibly even deliberate tampering. This is on par with asking "What if they're right?" about the Pons/Fleischman cold fusion debacle. If they were correct, it would have resulted in a major breakthrough in energy generation and nuclear physics. However, since they weren't correct - and further research has shown that (just as it has with Wakefield's hypothesis), none of their work means anything - except as a cautionary tale for scientists (as Wakefield's work should be, as well). We can ponder "what if" all day, but in the end, it is only those findings that can be independently reproduced that mean anything. Prometheus

By: David N. Brown

David N. Brown — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 06:04:33 +0000

Sienna,
“What if he’s right?”
Then it is all the more unfortunate that he acted as he did. I believe that, as a rule, research professionals who commit fraud sincerely believe what they try to “prove”, and I accept Wakefield as falling into this pattern. Presumably, they believe that convincing others is more important than satisfying objective standards of proof. But what really happens is that exposed fraud drives scientists away from an idea, and it will take that much longer to recognize a viable theory, legitimate observation or real problem that inspired the fraud.

By: Dedj

Dedj — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 00:10:27 +0000

Then he’s done one hell of a lot of damage to the arguement of people that agree with him.

One thing some people don’t seem to realise, he could have had zero contact – clinical or otherwise – with any of the research subjects, yet many of the charges in the GMC report would still hold true.

Some of what he’s done has nothing to do with the children at all, but would still have held true even if he’d done secondary research.

By: silky sienna

silky sienna — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 21:44:54 +0000

What if he’s right?

By: FreeSpeaker

FreeSpeaker — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 16:35:52 +0000

Between David’s super article and Liz’ compilation, no one will be at a loss to respond to the Wakefield Lemmings’ and Drones’ ranting, ravings and foot stompings.

By: Kwombles

Kwombles — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 23:39:22 +0000

That’s nice news, Liz!

By: Liz Ditz

Liz Ditz — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 20:35:07 +0000

One of my blogging habits is to collate pro and con posts on a particular issue.

One reason to do is that each blog has its own set of commenters and often the comments reveal aspects of the issue previously not considered elsewhere.

Today’s issue is the UK’s General Medical Council’s ruling on Andrew Wakefield.

The list can be found at

http://lizditz.typepad.com/i_speak_of_dreams/2010/01/andrew-wakefield-dishonesty-misleading-conduct-and-serious-professional-misconduct.html

It will be interesting to see the blog responses over the next few days. Currently the “Andy Wakefield is a hero of science and will be vindicated” posts stand at 18; the “GMC findings are correct. Good science is eventually self-correcting” posts stand at 61.