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

"JG" wrote in message
...
"abacus" wrote in message
m...
"Mark Probert-February 23, 2004" Mark
wrote in message
. net...


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

The Government claims Dr Andrew Wakefield had a conflict of
interest when he
produced a study suggesting a link between the vaccine and autism,
because
he was paid £55,000 by lawyers to investigate whether MMR was safe.

£55,000= around $75,000 just for starters....

Where is the outrage of the anti-vacs? They have none! They will,
instead,
point out that the pro-vacs also have conflicts. However, Wakefield
kept
this gem a secret....

I'm not sure exactly what the problem here is.

Is it that he is accepting funding for his research? Do you expect
him to do it for free? Simply accepting funding for research does
not constitute a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest occurs
when one is accepting funding from different sources with different
and potentially conflicting goals.

Was he hiding the source of his funding? That would be a problem, but
I'm not clear about whether he was not disclosing the source of his
funding or whether it simply was not given adequate acknowledgement by
those who were reporting his results. If Wakefield did, as you claim,
keep this "secret" then outrage would be appropriate (a list of
funding sources should accompany research results) and it would make
his results suspect, but it doesn't, by itself, constitute a conflict
of interest. It depends on what other work he was accepting payment
for.

As I understand it, there are *two* Wakefield studies, one of which was
underwritten by a group of attorneys representing kids allegedly damaged
by the MMR vaccine and the other not. (I don't know who, if anyone
other than Wakefield himself/his university, funded this study.)
Presumably Wakefield would benefit by receiving payment for his "expert"
testimony when the cases go (went?) to court. (I imagine he'd receive a
flat fee, i.e., one not contingent on the amount(s) awarded to the
plaintiffs, should they prevail.)

I should hope not. IIRC, that would break the legal canons of ethics, and
destroy any of his credibility that he had remaining.

The fact that he received such
funding should have been disclosed alongside *both* studies, although it
is certainly less damning if the non-attorney-funded study took place
first.

A fair assessment.

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:

JG, it is not the funding, but the lack of disclosure, and who was paying
that is in issue. I expect experts to be paid.

"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.)

Well, those are well respected sources.

However, assuming that they are correct, then the money he recevied is a
matter of public record. Not so, until now, with Wakefield.

Is he sitting on vaccine policy-making committees?

Not to my knowledge. (LOL)

Small miracles.

Then there is a
conflict of interest. Even so, that alone is not necessarily a serious
problem. If he was keeping the funding source 'secret', then it is.
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.

Is he sitting on vaccine policy-making committees composed primarily
or entirely of people with the same bias as he has? This would be a
serious problem and make all decisions put forth by such a committee
suspect. That sort of situation should and does cause outrage.

For more examples of such situations (not about vaccines though) in
the U.S. and the seriousness and extent of the problem, I suggest you
check out the report on "Scientific Integrity in Policymaking" put out
earlier this week by the Union of Concerned Scientists. Their entire
report in online at
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/index.html

Interesting...thanks!

(abacus) wrote in message om...
"Mark Probert-February 23, 2004" Mark wrote in message . net...
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...ing%20Standard


The Government claims Dr Andrew Wakefield had a conflict of interest when he
produced a study suggesting a link between the vaccine and autism, because
he was paid £55,000 by lawyers to investigate whether MMR was safe.

£55,000= around $75,000 just for starters....

Where is the outrage of the anti-vacs? They have none! They will, instead,
point out that the pro-vacs also have conflicts. However, Wakefield kept
this gem a secret....

I'm not sure exactly what the problem here is.

Is it that he is accepting funding for his research?

No

Do you expect
him to do it for free?

No

Simply accepting funding for research does
not constitute a conflict of interest.

No

Conflict of interest occurs
when one is accepting funding from different sources with different
and potentially conflicting goals.

No

Was he hiding the source of his funding?

YES

That would be a problem, but
I'm not clear about whether he was not disclosing the source of his
funding or whether it simply was not given adequate acknowledgement by
those who were reporting his results.

It was not disclosed to the journal. Generally, this is a
requirement.

If Wakefield did, as you claim,
keep this "secret" then outrage would be appropriate (a list of
funding sources should accompany research results)

They generally do - the publishers of research articles, that is.

and it would make
his results suspect,

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.

but it doesn't, by itself, constitute a conflict
of interest. It depends on what other work he was accepting payment
for.

Why?

Is he sitting on vaccine policy-making committees?

Why does this matter?

Then there is a
conflict of interest. Even so, that alone is not necessarily a serious
problem. If he was keeping the funding source 'secret', then it is.

DUH.

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.

Is he sitting on vaccine policy-making committees composed primarily
or entirely of people with the same bias as he has?

So, who makes the policy?

"In the U.S., the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), an agency of the
federal government. The schedule is based primarily on recommendations
of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)."

ACIP makes recommendations to the CDC, it does not set policy. Only
the CDC can set policy. The FDA operates in a similar fashion. This
happens across government on a regular basis.

This would be a
serious problem and make all decisions put forth by such a committee
suspect. That sort of situation should and does cause outrage.

Why?

Wakefield was PAID to produce results that were specifically and
completely intended to show a vaccine autism link in support of a
legal action. The ACIP is charged with the responsibility to review
data (not produce it) and provide a recommendation.

For more examples of such situations (not about vaccines though) in
the U.S. and the seriousness and extent of the problem, I suggest you
check out the report on "Scientific Integrity in Policymaking" put out
earlier this week by the Union of Concerned Scientists. Their entire
report in online at http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/index.html

The argument is not about the quality of science but how the science
is used by the administrative branch of the US government. That would
be akin to the ACIP recommended that a vaccine NOT be used and having
the CDC include it in the schedule anyway.

Back to the old tricks?

js

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.

The 6 figure amounts do not go directly to the researcher.
The fees for testimony do. Biomedical research s typically
funded in 5 or 6 figure amouints so what he has recived is
typically what is needed - ti si not at all inflated. The
$35K for 15 suits seems about the normal amount (about $2000
per suit). The 15 suits is nothing compared tot he hundreds
or thousands that Wakefield was lining up to recieve.

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



"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?

--
CBI, MD

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

[...]

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! For whom do you think such disclosures are
intended? Not the researcher. Not the individual or group with whom
he/she has the association that gives rise to the conflict of interest.
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.)

[...]

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. 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.

[...]

"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? 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).

[...]

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.

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.

"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?

--
CBI, MD

Kathy Cole wrote in message . ..
On 25 Feb 2004 11:10:39 -0800, (abacus) wrote:

Is it that he is accepting funding for his research? Do you expect
him to do it for free? Simply accepting funding for research does
not constitute a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest occurs
when one is accepting funding from different sources with different
and potentially conflicting goals.

As I understand it, he was particially funded by a group of
what would in the US be referred to as medical malpractice lawyers,
and did not declare that when submitting a paper claiming to find a
cause for autism (which cause would be eminently litigatable).

At a minimum, the conflict needed to be declared (at a mazimum, as the
Lancet article suggested, that specific article would not have been
accepted for publication). It doesn't just strain credulity to accept
that Wakefield didn't think he needed to declare the conflict, it breaks
credulity.

If this is the case, then I agree. It doesn't just strain credulity,
it breaks it. Further, if he is sincere in that claim, that he didn't
realize he needed to do so, that just makes his credibility as a
legimate researcher even more suspect.

(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.

"In the U.S., the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), an agency of the
federal government. The schedule is based primarily on recommendations
of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)."

ACIP makes recommendations to the CDC, it does not set policy. Only
the CDC can set policy. The FDA operates in a similar fashion. This
happens across government on a regular basis.

This would be a
serious problem and make all decisions put forth by such a committee
suspect. That sort of situation should and does cause outrage.

Why?

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.

Wakefield was PAID to produce results that were specifically and
completely intended to show a vaccine autism link in support of a
legal action. The ACIP is charged with the responsibility to review
data (not produce it) and provide a recommendation.

For more examples of such situations (not about vaccines though) in
the U.S. and the seriousness and extent of the problem, I suggest you
check out the report on "Scientific Integrity in Policymaking" put out
earlier this week by the Union of Concerned Scientists. Their entire
report in online at http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/index.html

The argument is not about the quality of science but how the science
is used by the administrative branch of the US government. That would
be akin to the ACIP recommended that a vaccine NOT be used and having
the CDC include it in the schedule anyway.

Back to the old tricks?

I'm not sure what you mean by this. It borders on a personal attack,
but no matter. While I do enjoy vigorous debate about many varied
subjects, I'm afraid that I have not the time or inclination to
indulge my taste for a lengthy discussion right now. I'll pop in
again when I get the chace.

"abacus" wrote in message
om...
Kathy Cole wrote in message
. ..
On 25 Feb 2004 11:10:39 -0800, (abacus) wrote:

Is it that he is accepting funding for his research? Do you expect
him to do it for free? Simply accepting funding for research does
not constitute a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest occurs
when one is accepting funding from different sources with different
and potentially conflicting goals.

As I understand it, he was particially funded by a group of
what would in the US be referred to as medical malpractice lawyers,
and did not declare that when submitting a paper claiming to find a
cause for autism (which cause would be eminently litigatable).

At a minimum, the conflict needed to be declared (at a mazimum, as the
Lancet article suggested, that specific article would not have been
accepted for publication). It doesn't just strain credulity to accept
that Wakefield didn't think he needed to declare the conflict, it breaks
credulity.

If this is the case, then I agree. It doesn't just strain credulity,
it breaks it. Further, if he is sincere in that claim, that he didn't
realize he needed to do so, that just makes his credibility as a
legimate researcher even more suspect.

Agreed. Wakefield is in a no-win scenario, as there is no spin that he can
use to retain credibility. Remember, his supporter have always used the
pro-vaccine supporters financial ties to discredit them.

"Jan" wrote in message
...
From: "CBI"
Date: 2/26/2004 3:41 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: .net

snip

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?

Translation:

The sites are outside of organized medicine.

Close..the sites are outside of rational thought....


Those who discredit them are organized medicine brainwashed members, who
over
look the vested interest from the CDC and FDA, and say that is honest.

Those who accept them are AltMed braincleansed members who overlook factual
information and the vested interestes of the child murderers.

(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.

Mitigate - defined as "To moderate (a quality or condition) in force
or intensity; alleviate" What is "completely mitigate"?

Disclosure allows the USER of the information to understand the
context in which the data were derived and the conclusions made.
Hence, the EFFECT of the potential conflict is mitigated. The
disclosure makes the provider accountable and the user aware. That's
what science is all about - accountability and transparency.

You keep arguing that the only information worth considering is one in
which no potential conflicts exist. Guess what - there is no such
case. That doesn't mean that the data aren't actionable. If one is
informed of the potential conflicts that may exist, and one is
informed of the methods and statistics used to collect and analyze the
data, then one can make an informed decision about the quality of the
data and the veracity of the conclusions.

"In the U.S., the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), an agency of the
federal government. The schedule is based primarily on recommendations
of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)."

ACIP makes recommendations to the CDC, it does not set policy. Only
the CDC can set policy. The FDA operates in a similar fashion. This
happens across government on a regular basis.

This would be a
serious problem and make all decisions put forth by such a committee
suspect. That sort of situation should and does cause outrage.

Why?

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.

You mean to tell me that these experienced thought leaders in the
medical community can't make scientifically valid assessments of
technologies? And you know this because nine of the ten actually DO
the science and as part of DOING the science, they rely on funding
from a variety of sources INCLUDING government and private industry?

Wakefield was PAID to produce results that were specifically and
completely intended to show a vaccine autism link in support of a
legal action. The ACIP is charged with the responsibility to review
data (not produce it) and provide a recommendation.

For more examples of such situations (not about vaccines though) in
the U.S. and the seriousness and extent of the problem, I suggest you
check out the report on "Scientific Integrity in Policymaking" put out
earlier this week by the Union of Concerned Scientists. Their entire
report in online at http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/index.html

The argument is not about the quality of science but how the science
is used by the administrative branch of the US government. That would
be akin to the ACIP recommended that a vaccine NOT be used and having
the CDC include it in the schedule anyway.

Back to the old tricks?

I'm not sure what you mean by this. It borders on a personal attack,
but no matter.

You did the same thing with Crossens book, Abacus. You proposed that
it was evidence of one thing when in truth it wasn't that at all. In
the case of the report referenced above, what you proport it to be, it
is not.

ile I do enjoy vigorous debate about many varied
subjects, I'm afraid that I have not the time or inclination to
indulge my taste for a lengthy discussion right now. I'll pop in
again when I get the chace.

Honestly, I don't care if or when. You are hardly a worthy adversary.

js