Polly Tommey and the Autism File
Polly Tommey is feeling the pressure. According to an article she wrote for The Age of Autism leading autism organizations in the UK, academics and celebrities are telling her that her continuing support for Andrew Wakefield is a liability. Even her advertisers are threatening to pull out.
Specifically, I have been “warned” not to print any more articles written by Dr. Andrew Wakefield (he wrote for the first time in the last issue); I was also warned not to invite him to speak at our conference. Separately, some organizations have warned me that they will not have anything to do with me if I continue to support and publish papers by him. Some advertisers tell me they have to stop working with us as they are “under pressure” to pull out, and a number of celebrities, high earning individuals, journalists, scientists, practitioners, and people who want to contribute to the magazine or to our campaigns say that it’s more than their job’s worth to be associated with the work of this man more than their job’s worth to even listen to what he has to say. All of them say that they can’t support The Autism File if The Autism File appears to support Dr. Wakefield.
Tommey presents this as a threat to her editorial integrity. “They” are trying to silence her. The pressure is all “political.” Even people who might want to work with her or write for the Autism File are afraid to because Andrew Wakefield has been discredited and if they identify themselves with his most stalwart supporter in the UK they too could be discredited and marginalized. Academics are afraid of losing their government funding.
Tommey offers no real evidence to support these claims. She describes a meeting with a senior representative of a leading autism organization,
The message I was very clearly given at this meeting was that if The Autism File magazine continued to publish Dr. Wakefield’s work, if I continued to support him publicly, and if I allowed him to speak at our conferences, then they could not work with either me or The Autism File. He also reminded me, very pointedly, that they worked closely with the Department of Health and were the decision makers regarding many important issues relating to autism . . . .
At some unspecified time in the past, some time ago, an unnamed eminent academic was invited to join the scientific advisory board of the Autism File
He was keen but stated he could only do so if certain existing members – specifically including Andrew Wakefield – were removed from it. He then bluntly warned me that if The Autism File continued to support Dr. Wakefield it would be “shut down.” Despite his standing and expertise, his concern was such that ultimately he chose not to even write for our magazine because, he said, “it is too controversial,” and, given that he is funded by the government, he felt that if he did, then his funding would be at risk.
Finally, she tells of the time when she was appearing on a popular daytime TV show, The Wright Stuff.
Before going on air, the host Matthew Wright joined us in the “green room” and said that he had been told by the show’s lawyers that if Dr. Wakefield’s name was mentioned, he had to say that Wakefield was “discredited.” We questioned why, but Matthew said that he had no choice these were his lawyers’ instructions . . . .
When I was on GMTV they said pretty much the same thing, and we have all read the same in many newspapers.
That is the sum total of her evidence, or at least the evidence that she chooses to present to support her claim that
a number of people and organizations have evidently decided that they should be determining the editorial policy of our magazine
But Polly Tommey is unbowed. She sets out to refute all claims that Wakefield has been discredited and restates her commitment to publish reports and stories that are sympathetic to Wakefield and his theories.
Part of Tommey’s problem is that she is a victim of her own success. The Autism File is a professionally produced, attractive read. It’s basic premise is that autism is a medical disorder that responds to biomedical interventions associated with alternative therapists - diet, supplements, chelation etc. Tommey’s husband, Jonathon runs an Autism Clinic which is promoted by The Autism File and offers
Dietary Modifications
Nutritional Supplementation
Immunological Regulation/ Modulation
Homoeopathy
Gastrointestinal Treatments
Liver Support & Enhanced Detoxification (methylation and transulfation)
Glandular Support (adrenals, thyroid and pancreas)
Heavy Metal Clathration(sic) Therapy
Physical Therapies - exercise, massage, reflexology, kinesiology, lymphatic drainage, yoga, breathing and relaxation techniques, etc.
This is the secret of its success. It has a core readership amongst those parents who believe autism has environmental causes that are treatable. These beliefs are never challenged. According to Tommey
The Autism File exists to provide help and support to parents, professionals, and caregivers in understanding autism better by bringing informed articles and opinions on the condition from all over the world and enabling them to then make up their minds about whether this advice will help their families and their children. We have done this for over 10 years and our readers’ feedback supports our continuing to do this.
But the Autism File does this by offering positive endorsements to a number of approaches including non-biomedical aspects of autism like behavioural therapies, educational therapies and services for adults. It does not publish critical views of any of these therapies. Though it may publish opinion pieces about why conventional research that does critique these therapies is flawed. Unlike its American counterparts that sneer at neurodiversity it acknowledges some of the concerns of autistic adults. It is supporting Gary McKinnon’s campaign against extradition to the USA. It boasts Temple Grandin on its editorial board and publishes articles on education by Stephen Shore. These are two autistic individuals, prominent speakers and authors who distinguish themselves by either endorsing biomedical cures (Grandin) or displaying a benign agnosticism (Shore).
The Autism File has been a commercial success. The international edition is on sale in over 2000 bookshops in the USA and Canada, there is a Spanish language edition and the UK magazine is available from W.H. Smiths, Sainsbury’s, Borders, and selected Tesco stores. Tommey has used this success to promote herself as an autism advocate. I have referred in the past to her successful PR campaigns that have resulted in meetings with the Prime Minister and his wife and invitations to speak at seminars.
But all this limelight has brought her support for Andrew Wakefield into focus. This did not matter when the Autism File was a subscription only house magazine for the Andy Wakefield Fan Club. But now the magazine and its proprietor are bidding to go mainstream they are meeting with widespread suspicion and hostility for their support of Wakefield.
In her defence of Wakefield Tommey seems to think that this is all the fault of a couple of journalists; Horton at the Lancet and Deer at the Sunday Times. She fondly imagines that their campaign to discredit Wakefield will all come unstuck when the GMC delivers its verdict on Wakefield this year after a lengthy investigation into accusations of professional misconduct and breaches of research ethics. I do not know what the outcome will be. If the GMC runs true to form it will probably deliver a fudge that satisfies nobody.
Never mind. In one sense the hearings are irrelevant. Wakefield is already discredited because his ideas have been proved wrong. The NAS fudged the vaccine question for years. Now they have come out against a link between MMR and autism because the science overwhelmingly says so. The MMR hypothesis has been tried in the US courts and found wanting.
Tommey poses some of the bigger questions.
• Why is it so important that Dr. Wakefield is seen to be discredited?
• Whom is it important to?
• Who stands to gain from this?
• Who will lose out if the truth is revealed?
• What is it that people are so frightened of?
• What is it they don’t want us to know?
Given the overwhelming nature of the evidence against Wakefield’s theories one could equally ask similar questions of the Autism File itself and its continuing support for Wakefield and anti-vaccine quackery.
Pingback by blog-thing : Polly Tommey and the Autism File | My Autism Site | All About Autism | January 8th, 2010
[...] View post: blog-thing : Polly Tommey and the Autism File [...]
Pingback by Twitter Trackbacks for blog-thing : Polly Tommey and the Autism File [actionforautism.co.uk] on Topsy.com | January 8th, 2010
[...] blog-thing : Polly Tommey and the Autism File actionforautism.co.uk/2010/01/08/polly-tommey-and-the-autism-file – view page – cached _your description goes here_ [...]
Comment by Clay | January 8th, 2010
Poor Polly, doesn’t she know that if you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas? Glad to hear she’s going to “stay the course”. It worked so well for Bush.
Comment by Michael Fitzpatrick | January 8th, 2010
Polly is mistaken in believing that Wakefield has been discredited by the activities of Richard Horton and Brian Deer (who only became involved in this controversy in 2004). Wakefield was discredited long before this as a result of
a) the work of scientists, including Brent Taylor, Elizabeth Miller and others, surveyed by the Medical Research Council (U), the Institute of Medicine (USA) and the American Academy of Pediatrics, which failed to support the vaccine/autism hypothesis;
b) the failure of Wakefield and his supporters to substantiate his MMR/autism hypothesis in the 1998 Lancet paper in the spheres of epidemiology or virology.
Subsequent scientific research (notably by Stephen Bustin, Thomas MacDonald, Paola Domizio and others on measles virus and autistic enterocolitis; and clinical studies by Gillian Baird and others, and many more) have further discredited Wakefield’s theories.
Brian Deer compounded the damage to Wakefield’s reputation with revelations about undisclosed conflicts of interest and ethical violations - but he had long been discredited scientifically before these issues were taken up by the GMC. Wakefield’s subsequent association with quack treatments for autism in both the USA and the UK only reinforces his ill repute in the autism mainstream as well as in medical and scientific circles.
Comment by Socrates | January 8th, 2010
A question I asked Tommey (so far unanswered):
Why hasn’t Wakefield applied for a licence to practice medicine in Texas?
Comment by Peter | January 8th, 2010
Mr Fitzpatrick says: “Polly is mistaken in believing that Wakefield has been discredited by the activities of Richard Horton and Brian Deer”
I’m saddened to see the game-changing contributions of these two being belittled in this way. Anyone familiar with parental acceptance of MMR will know that it was in steep decline until Dr Horton and Mr Deer became invoved in 2004. Following that, the trend reversed, rose sharply and reached a plateux. I believe the British government is poised to release data that it has returned to pre-Wakefield levels following the disclosure last year of data manipulation. Since that time, the UK media has been all but silent on the issue.
How many lives were saved by these two medical journalists can only be guessed at.
Comment by Mike | January 8th, 2010
Peter
Dr Fitzpatrick is not belittling Deer and Horton’s contributions. He is placing them in the context of overwhelming scientific evidence that contradict’s Wakefield’s hypothesis that live virus strain measles RNA persists in the gut of some children, rendering them vulnerable to a new form of bowel disease that is strongly associated with autism.
Horton and above all Deer have produced evidence that causes us to question Wakefield’s integrity as a scientist and a doctor. This has led to the GMC hearing and helped to sway the media and public opinion. But even after Deer’s revelations the media have largely ignored all the science that has emerged since 2004 that contradicts Wakefield while continuing to publish MMR scare stories.
Even if his conduct had been blameless his hypothesis would still be wrong. This is the point that eludes Polly Tommey. She believes that Wakefield is right and that given the time and opportunity he will produce the science to back his hypothesis. She thinks the GMC hearing is part of an establishment plot to silence Wakefield because he is right. She thinks that by attacking Horton and Deer’s reputations she can restore Wakefield’s.
Of course her chances of success are close to zero. But that is marginally better than the totally impossible task of taking on and refuting the scientific evidence to which Dr Fitzpatrick refers in his comment.
Comment by IanH | January 8th, 2010
Peter, Mike
In some ways this sums up many of the real concerns with the claimed link between MMR and autism.
The scientific understanding, as developed by these scientists (and of course many others) and the public understanding, as improved by the efforts (principly) of these two journalists are worlds apart. What should have been one problem - addressing an admittedly tenuous suggested link - became the paired issues of disproving a link and making the public believe that MMR is, in almost all cases, a much safer choice than not to vaccinate. Please note I am excluding those who have medical reasons not to vacinate, such as immunosuppression, rather than those whose parents are scientifically illiterate.
As a science teacher I find it quite sad that so many of the UK population failed to understand the basic ideas.
Comment by Laurentius Rex | January 8th, 2010
I do not think we need to worry too much about Polly Tomney, (although we should still keep an eye on what she is up to as she still has potential for damage within the ‘movement’)
She is, like J B Handley of Generation Rescue and the other die hards of the anti vax movement painting herself ever further into a corner whilst the rest of them, the newly badged Autistica and even dare I say the more sober minded scientific advisors in Autism Speaks, have moved further in the direction of common sense and scientific accuracy.
We have seen considerable progress over time in terms of journalism too, and the initial “Tsunami” of biased reporting has subsided leaving nothing but flotsam on the beach, which will eventually be cleaned up and buried.
Comment by Clay | January 8th, 2010
Until all those dead fish, crabs, and jellyfish are buried, they really, really stink!
Comment by Robert Rampson | January 10th, 2010
Vaccines are very important to the pharmaceutical companies. Most are shifting investment away from prescription drugs and into vaccine research. It’s highly profitable to sell a new vaccine each year to governments around the world against a real or perceived threat of disease. This has made the pharmaceutical companies a ‘buy’ for both pension funds and private investors on the stock markets.
Pharmaceutical companies plough back huge sums into research at government laboratories. In fact, research would be nowhere without their funding. So when people like Dr Wakefield start to suggest inconvenient conclusions using pharmaceutical funding, there is only ever one result: ‘get rid of him or lose your funding’. This is what happened at the Royal Free.
People like Dr Wakefield put a multi-billion dollar industry at risk. If he were proved right – or even slightly right – the financial earthquake would be greater than the huge asbestos claim provisions that nearly brought down Lloyds of London and which bankrupted so many ‘Names’ a couple of decades ago. Both pharmaceutical companies and government health budgets could be decimated by claims from a generation of vaccine-damaged children.
Rumours in the City persist that Dr Wakefield’s latest research - testing children’s vaccines on primates (chimpanzees) –has been circulated and that other laboratories are beginning to replicate his alarming findings. At least one City fund manager has cut his exposure to pharmaceuticals as a result. Watch the share price and follow the smart money…..
Comment by Mike | January 10th, 2010
Robert,
your argument might have more weight if there was any independent science to support Wakefield. I would not listen to rumours in the city. Perhaps you ought to read Wakefield’s paper yourself:
Neurotoxicology. 2009 Oct 2. [Epub ahead of print]
Delayed acquisition of neonatal reflexes in newborn primates receiving a thimerosal-containing Hepatitis B vaccine: Influence of gestational age and birth weight.
Hewitson L, Houser LA, Stott C, Sackett G, Tomko JL, Atwood D, Blue L, Railey White E, Wakefield AJ.
The primates in question where monkeys, not chimpanzees. The study is a poor one and should not cause worry to your city contacts. The Hep B vaccine has never been part of the vaccine schedule for children in the UK. The Hep B vaccine in the USA has been thiomersal free since 2002.
Regarding drug company income. vaccines are important to some companies but drugs that need to be taken continually for diseases like hypertension, asthma and diabetes still dominate. Consider these projected sales figures for Merck:
Sales forecasts for Merck & Co., Inc. and major products for 2009 are as follows:
Worldwide 2009 Sales
Total Sales (as recorded by Merck & Co., Inc.)
$23.2 to $23.7 billion
PRODUCT
SINGULAIR (Respiratory) $4.4 to $4.7 billion
COZAAR/HYZAAR (Hypertension)
$3.4 to $3.7 billion
JANUVIA/JANUMET (Diabetes)
$2.4 to $2.7 billion
GARDASIL (as recorded by Merck & Co., Inc.)
$1.1 to $1.3 billion
Other vaccines (as recorded by Merck & Co., Inc.)
$2.7 to $3.0 billion
Other reported products*
$6.4 to $6.8 billion
Their best selling vaccine came fourth. all vaccines combined produced less revenue than a single anti-asthma drug. I do hope your city fund manager is not managing my pension.
Comment by John Stone | January 11th, 2010
I am re-posting my recent response to Jeremy Laurance in British Medical Journal Rapid Responses:
Health stories of the decade: MMR vaccine 7 January 2009
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/339/dec10_4/b5281
Laurance [1] writes:
“One of the greatest puzzles of the saga is what has sustained this level of mistrust in the medical authority.”
It may seem like this to a newspaper jounalist, not paying enough attention to the small print, but it does not seem like this to many autism parents. One of the features of this episode is the reverse spin given to studies which actually support further concern.
For instance, a widely reported study by Hornig et al ‘Lack of Association between Measles Virus Vaccine and Autism with Enteropathy: A Case-Control Study’ actually immeasurably enhanced the plausibility of the Wakefield hypothesis by showing the persistance of measles virus in the ileum of two patients (one autistic, one control, but both with bowel disease and having had MMR) confirmed in 3 laboratories. To cap it all in the discussion the authors stated:
“Our results differ with reports noting MV RNA in ileal biopsies of 75% of ASD vs. 6% of control children [10]… Discrepancies are unlikely to represent differences in experimental technique because similar primer and probe sequences, cycling conditions and instruments were employed in this and earlier reports; furthermore, one of the three laboratories participating in this study performed the assays described in earlier reports. Other factors to consider include differences in patient age, sex, origin (Europe vs. North America), GI disease, recency of MMR vaccine administration at time of biopsy, and methods for confirming neuropsychiatric status in cases and controls.”
thus, quietly endorsing the results of the Uhlmann (O’Leary/Wakefield) study [2,3]. These anomalies were not picked up or reported by mainstream journalists.
Another key case is the Cochrane review of MMR 2005 [4], which actually gave a poor review to the six autism studies included, and found little evidence for the vaccines safety - indeed, had found the safety studies to be “largely inadequate” - against which the claim that it had not found any evidence that MMR causes autism and bowel disease has to be assesed for its relevance [5].
Meanwhile, a Cambridgeshire study of autism in children detected an incidence of ~1 in 60 [6], a result which the Observer newspaper was pilloried for reporting by Ben Goldacre and the lead author Simon Baron Cohen, ahead of the GMC hearing against Wakefield and colleagues [7], but which later turned out to be well-founded.
Whatever happens at the GMC, I suggest, the greatest gap in credibilty lies with a scientific profession which has failed to explain what is happening to our children.
[1] Jeremy Laurance, ‘Health stories of the decade’, http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/339/dec10_4/b5281
[2] Hornig et al, ‘Lack of Association between Measles Virus Vaccine and Autism with Enteropathy: A Case-Control Study’, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2526159/
[3] Uhlmann et al, ‘Potential viral pathogenic mechanism for new variant inflammatory bowel disease’,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1187154/
[4] Demicheli et al, ‘Vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella in children’, http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD004407/frame.html
[5] John Stone, ‘Re: Evidence is not bullying’, http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/339/sep09_1/b3658#220537
[6] Baron-Cohen et al, ‘Prevalence of autism-spectrum conditions: UK school-based population study’, Br J Psychiatry. 2009 Jun;194(6):500- 9,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19478287
[7] Ben Goldacre, ‘MMR: the scare stories ar back’, http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/335/7611/126
Competing interests: Autistic son
Comment by David N. Brown | January 12th, 2010
Ms. Tommey seems to be thrown off by a long-standing tradition: Once a scientist or journalist is known to commit fraud, editors will voluntarily censor anything he subsequently submits.
As far as I am concerned, those advising her to dump Wakefield are being too generous. Autism file should be boycotted out of business. So should Neurotoxicology and every other journal to accept a latter-day Wakefield work, UNLESS they retract said papers, denounce Wakefield and FIRE the staff most directly responsible for accepting the work.
Comment by Cybertiger | January 12th, 2010
What kind of fudge do you like, Mike? I’ll guess the sort of fudge that satisfies you is the kind the GMC served up to sciencey, child-protecting villains like Professor Sir Roy Meadow and Professor David Southall. Am I right, Mike?
Comment by Cybertiger | January 12th, 2010
Come off it, Dave! A man is innocent until proven guilty and the GMC have yet to come with proof of guilt. I guess you must be a disciple of that highly principled medical scientist, Professor Sir Roy Meadow, who introduced some damned new principles into the British justice system.
Comment by Mark | January 14th, 2010
Mike
GSK is in huge trouble , in India over dubious marketing of Cervirax. In Europe France, Belgium and Germany wanting money back on unused H1N1 vaccine.
and in this country where we have by all accounts we have 126 million H1N1 shots “spare” (130million purchased less than 4 million used)
this is what Credit Suisse are saying
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/credit-suisse-downgrades-glaxosmithkline-2010-01-13
Does this make the majority in the UK Antivax?
Comment by Mike | January 14th, 2010
Cybertiger,
The point is not whether Wakefield is innocent or guilty, but whether he is right or wrong. The science overwhelmingly points to one conclusion - Wakefield’s hypothesis about vaccine strain measles in the gut being linked to autism is wrong on every count.
The GMC hearing may or may not help to explain Wakefield’s motivation in persisting with a failed hypothesis. But it has no bearing on the fundamental questions about the validity of his research. He may or may not be guilty of ethical breaches and falsifying data. But even if he turns out to be completely blameless he is still wrong.
Comment by Cybertiger | January 14th, 2010
The cholesterol hypothesis is wrong and the science overwhelmingly points to that conclusion … but the British taxpayer is still paying 2 billion GBPs per year to subsidize the great cholesterol circus. Is that right, Mike?
Comment by Mike | January 15th, 2010
Mark
I fail to see the relevance of your comment about GSK’s commercial difficulties to a discussion about Polly Tommey, Andrew Wakefield and autism. But while we are on the subject how did you source your figure of 130 million doses purchased?
A quick search of the news archives reveals that in the event of a pandemic being declared the UK government had contracts with pharmaceutical companies to supply up to 132 million doses of vaccine. (Guardian Newspapers 15 May 2009) The government has actually ordered 90 million doses: 30 million from Baxters and 60 million from GSK and taken delivery of 5 million doses from Baxters and 23.9 million doses from GSK. It has a break clause in its contract with Baxter but is negotiating with GSK. Germany has already negotiated a 30 per cent reduction with GSK. If Britain does the same it will have bought 47 million doses and has administered 3.2 million doses so far in England. (Reuters January 8th 2010)I do not have figures for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland but if vaccine take up is comparable to England that adds up to 4.2 million doses.
So the UK will have to pay for between 47 and 65 million doses (assuming no deal with GSK) and will have used at least 4 million doses, possibly more.
Comment by Mike | January 15th, 2010
John Stone cites a paper with the title
‘Lack of Association between Measles Virus Vaccine and Autism with Enteropathy: A Case-Control Study’
The authors of the paper themselves conclude that
The work reported here eliminates the remaining support for the hypothesis that ASD with GI complaints is related to MMR exposure. We found no relationship between the timing of MMR and the onset of either GI complaints or autism. We also could not confirm previous work linking the presence of MV RNA in GI tract to ASD with GI complaints.
For Stone this actually immeasurably enhanced the plausibility of the Wakefield hypothesis … quietly endorsing the results of the Uhlmann(O’Leary/Wakefield) study. Stone is referring to the same study that was so utterly discredited by Dr Bustin because of gross cross-contamination of samples that it caused the collapse of the class action against the manufacturers of MMR in the UK.
Yes, John, if you say so.
Comment by David N. Brown | January 16th, 2010
Cybertiger,
I have no idea who prof. Meadows is. Also, I don’t live in the UK.
On the question of “innocent until proven guilty”, I have read about several cases where fraud is known or suspected. The evidence that Wakefield committed fraud (NOT just in the MMR/autism study) is the strongest I have seen in a case without a confession. Paul Kammerer shot himself over charges less serious and well-substantiated. Given this evidence, I would expect any professional concerned with enforcing ethical standards to act as I advise. Judging from the steady decline in Wakefield publications since 2001, it appears that they have been doing just that for some time.
Comment by David N. Brown | January 16th, 2010
Mike,
I don’t expect the GMC hearings to shed much light on Wakefield’s motivations. It has long been my belief that fraud within a profession is rooted in psychological factors. My judgement on Wakefield is that he is a narcissistic underachiever who used fraud to give himself the appearance of importance. I see parallels to cases of art forgers and “angels of death”.
One thing I take as a rule of thumb in fraud: At least when the offender is really a professional, it’s NEVER about money.
Comment by Cybertiger | January 16th, 2010
Thank you, Dave, for your enlightening insights into the psychological world of the professional fraudster. The GMC did not shed much light on Sir Roy’s motivations back in 2005. Of course, Professor Sir Roy Meadow was not a narcissistic underachiever and the professional fraud perpetrated was obviously NEVER about money. What were Meadow’s motivations and why did Professor David Southall do what he did? I know you’ll have the answers, Dave.
Comment by Cybertiger | January 16th, 2010
While there is talk of the perpetratration of professional fraud, I am reminded that professional birds* of a like professional mind are often seen to congregate together …
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/331/7508/66-a#112701
*birds = big professional cuckoos
Comment by Cybertiger | January 16th, 2010
Dave Brown thinks Andrew Wakefield is a narcissistic underachiever. The editor of the Lancet thinks otherwise. See this fascinating excerpt from Sir* Richard Horton’s book,
http://briandeer.com/mmr/horton-wakefield.htm
“I worked at the Royal Free from 1988 to 1990 and met him on many occasions. He is a committed, engaging, and charismatic clinician and scientist. He asks big questions about diseases - what are their ultimate causes? - and his ambition often brings quick and impressive results.”
How can Horton have got it so wrong?
* The knighthood is a virtual certainty at some time in the future.
Comment by Mike | January 16th, 2010
Cybertiger,
your quote is less impressive if you include Horton’s next sentence
But his findings sometimes have limited staying power, and are overturned or substantially modified by less iconoclastic colleagues.
If Horton did indeed get it wrong it was because he wrote this book in 2003 before he knew of the allegations reported by Brian Deer in 2004. As a result he modified his view of Wakefield in a second book: MMR Science and Fiction published in 2004.
While still sympathetic to Wakefield as a person he concludes that Wakefield
was a good man, brought low by an exceptional mélange of personality traits. Some saw these traits as desperate failings. But such a conviction, while resonant with the medical zeitgeist of the time, seems to me unfair. Wakefield was hasty and at times ill-considered in his actions. He did let his desire to be an advocate for these children - a perfectly reasonable role to adopt in ordinary circumstances - cloud his scientific judgement when he advocated splitting the MMR vaccine at the Royal Free Hospital’s press conference in 1998. But these were not, and never had been, ordinary circumstances. He had lit the fuse of a gunpowder trail that could not be extinguished. His pride had made it impossible for him to retreat honourably from an extreme and ultimately untenable position.
But these character traits did not make him a poor doctor, let alone a bad man. He did make mistakes in the way he acted - sometimes foolish, sometimes grave mistakes. He should have disclosed his potential conflict of interest; he should not have advocated splitting the MMR vaccine into its component elements in such a public and unqualified way; he did refuse to take part in the partial retraction of his paper when invited to do so by those well placed to advise him.
Wakefield was guilty of naïveté, of relying on flawed intuition, of equating instinct with evidence, and of allowing his beliefs to drive a series of public statements that cracked the foundation stone of one of Britain’s most important programmes for protecting the health of its children.
No matter what the final judgement is on Wakefield as a person the judgement is already in on the merits of his autism/MMR hypothesis. It completely lacks any foundation in science.
Comment by David N. Brown | January 16th, 2010
Cybertiger,
I have just now taken a look at Roy Meadow. I see nothing to indicate that he committed intentional fraud in his research and testimony, though there seems to be at least a strong possibility that he misrepresented his background as credentials.
As for Wakefield, the main basis on which I favor an “underachiever” description is his early career: His first paper (at any rate first recorded in PubMed) was published in 1987, 6 years after he became a doctor, and he did not establish a regular output until as late as 1991. A frustrated early career is a recurring characteristic of art forgers.
Comment by John Stone | January 18th, 2010
The problem with the Hornig paper isn’t mine, it’s the authors. I cannot help the fact that it says completely cotradictory things. I it is a conflicted paper and concludes against its own evidence.
Comment by Rae | February 3rd, 2010
Even if Wakefield was proven 100% correct, where is the research to support any of the ‘cures’ that Tomney and her crew peddle?
Comment by Mike | February 3rd, 2010
Rae,
coming in the week that Wakefield was so severely caned by the GMC and had his research withdrawn from the Lancet, I think the short answer to your question is, “Nowhere.”
Comment by Becky Fisseux | July 27th, 2010
It appears from posts on JABS that Autism File will no longer be available in shops, and is having to revert to a subscription -only model.
I can only say “good”.
Kind regards,
Becky
Comment by Robin | August 19th, 2010
>It appears from posts on JABS that Autism File will no longer be available in shops, and is having to revert to a subscription -only model.
>I can only say “good”.
>Becky
Yes, more of this censorship is what will really reassure the public about the honesty of the GMC and so on.
Comment by Rob | August 19th, 2010
Here’s the huge outrageous crime hiding behind the persecution of Wakefield:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxP5LEYg4LQ
http://goldenhawkprojects.blogspot.com/2010/04/dr-andrew-wakefield-in-his-own-words.html
Comment by The Almighty | August 19th, 2010
>It appears from posts on JABS that Autism File will no longer be available in shops, and is having to revert to a subscription -only model.
>I can only say “good”.
>Kind regards,
>Becky
Yes, this censorship is a great way to increase confidence in our medical establishment.
Comment by Mike | August 22nd, 2010
Robin, rob and The Almighty are all the same person. Please decide who you want to post as. Continued sock puppetry will get you banned.
Autism File has not been censored. Distributors make decisions on commercial grounds. AF is not selling well enough to meet their margins and has been dropped. That is good.
People who follow Rob’s video link might also like to view Brian Deer’s commentary.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcRw9ZZ6HxA