Is there any scholarship behind all this ado, or is it all crusaders on one side or another?
First, I admit ignorance on the state of the science. My understanding based on how I hear colleagues talk about it is that there are scant scientific findings of dubious quality supporting a relationship between the MMR vaccine and autism. And, there are many well done studies that failed to find a relationship. Does that sum it up, and this latest mix up in the press is just that: posturing in the press? -- Paul Bernhardt Frostburg State University Frostburg, MD, USA On 2/16/09 2:24 AM, "Allen Esterson" <[email protected]> wrote: > A brief comment on the ongoing Wakefield saga. Stephen Black highlighted > that Brian Deer, whose Huffington Post comments Mike Palij linked to at > http://tinyurl.com/c8xykb , has a (dubious) record of campaigning against > vaccines. I'll just add that the journalist Melanie Phillips whom Deer > quotes in support of his arguments in the Huffington Post article has a > long record of vociferous campaigning in favour of Wakefield in the Daily > Mail. That's not to say that what she writes in the quotes provided by Deer > is necessarily erroneous, only that it should be treated with caution. > > Allen Esterson > Former lecturer, Science Department > Southwark College, London > http://www.esterson.org > > ******************************** > [tips] "Wakefield redux" redux > sblack > Sun, 15 Feb 2009 17:38:25 -0800 > Mike Palij (on February 11) brought to our attention a recent dust-up in > the autism-vaccine war. > > The focus was on Andrew Wakefield, the British doctor who first proposed > in a 1998 report in the respected medical journal _Lancet_ that autism > was caused by MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccination. This claim was > influential in support of the anti-vaccination movement, and appears to > have helped persuade many parents to refuse vaccination as possibly > harmful to their children. But in 2004 ten of Wakefield's 12 co-authors > took the unusual step of retracting the paper. Currently Wakefield is on > trial before the General Medical Council (of Britain) on charges of > professional misconduct relating to his research. These charges seem to > have arisen, at least in part, as a result of an investigation by the > London Times journalist, Brian Deer. Deer has since written a further > article for the Times alleging that Wakefield fabricated his data. > > As Mike noted, Keith Olbermann, an American TV commentator, recently > named Wakefield as his "Worst Person in the World". This is apparently on > the basis of the accusations in Deer's most recent Times article. > > Mike then told us that "Brian Deer... apparently is not a disinterested > reviewer of facts. This was brought out in David Kirby's blog on the > Huffingtom Post... Kirby presents details about Brian Deer that cast > doubt on Deer's objectively and veracity; see: > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/keith-olbermann-todays-be_b_166 > 103.html " > > Mike notes that "Olberman has since offered an apology (correction?) for > his Worst Person nomination" but, appropriately cautious, Mike also > points out that " Whether David Kirby is a disinterested reviewer is also > open to review, as he has written at least one book on the vaccine-autism > controvery". > > This seems to be an understatement. Kirby's book is called Evidence of > Harm - Mercury in Vaccines and the Autism Epidemic: A Medical Controversy > According to Wikipedia, "Evidence of Harm was reviewed negatively in the > British Medical Journal. The reviewer described Kirby's book as "woefully > one-sided", and wrote: "In his determination to provide an account that > is sympathetic to the parents, Kirby enters into the grip of the same > delusion and ends up in the same angry and paranoid universe into which > campaigners have descended". > > OK, now that I've got through reviewing all that, here's what's new. The > "Autism News Beat", which bills itself as "an evidence-based resource for > journalists" claims that Olbermann was wrong to retract his "Worst > Person" award to Wakefield and to criticize Deer, and that Olbermann > retracted due to pressure from the anti-vaccination movement. In the > words of Autism News Beat, all Deer was guilty of was "investigative > journalism". > > You can read it here: > http://autism-news-beat.com/?p=318&cpage=1#comment-2209 > > So I think the best we can do is hope for some clarity on all this from > the General Medical Council when it completes its trial. > > Stephen > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. > Professor of Psychology, Emeritus > Bishop's University e-mail: [email protected] > 2600 College St. > Sherbrooke QC J1M 1Z7 > Canada > > ***************************** > [tips] Wakefield Redux > Mike Palij > Wed, 11 Feb 2009 21:08:13 -0800 > Since the first article on Wakefield came out on the London > Times website, a couple of events of note have happened. > > (1) Remember that the Times of London is a Rupert Murdoch > paper. That will either raise or lower the truth value on your > truthometer (or bring to mind quaint headlines like this one > from the Murdoch NY Post: "Headless Body Founrd in Topless > bar". See: http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/anniversary/35th/n_8568/ > > (2) Brian Deer, the writer of the London Times article > apparently is not a disinterested reviewer of facts. This was > brought out in David Kirby's blog on the Huffingtom Post > after Keith Oblerman had listed Wakefield as his "Worst > Person in the World"; see: > http://skepticcat.blogspot.com/2009/02/olberman-andrew-wakefield-worst-pers > on.html > However, Kirby presents details about Brian Deer that > cast doubt on Deer's objectively and veracity; see: > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/keith-olbermann-todays-be_b_16610 > 3.html > Olberman has since offered an apology (correction?) for his > Worst Person nomination > > (3) Olberman is in a perpatual war with Bill O'Reilly and when > he quotes Murdoch he does it in as "Pirate voice" with Arrgh! > thrown in. It is ironic that he used an article in a Murdoch paper > which he later had to retract. > > (4) Whether David Kirby is a disinterested reviewer is also open > to review, as he has written at least on book on the vaccine-autism > controvery. > > -Mike Palij > New York University > [email protected] > > > --- > To make changes to your subscription contact: > > Bill Southerly ([email protected]) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
