A couple notes. First, be careful about brandishing the “censorship” flag against those with whom you disagree. AoA censors a lot of comments that don’t agree with the party line. I have personal experience of that.
Second, the GMC ruling, based on the findings, was justified. Wakefield performed colonoscopies, MRIs and lumbar punctures which were not clinically indicated. These procedures are not without risk, as evidenced by the child whose bowel was perforated during a colonoscopy (performed by someone other than Wakefield, I believe). He also drew blood for research from children at a birthday party, using undue influence (payment of 5 pounds), without prior ethical review board approval. These are all documented and reflect poorly on Wakefield’s ethical behavior during the study.
Whatever sanctions the GMC imposes on Wakefield, Walker-Smith and Murch will have been brought about by their behavior, not their stand on vaccines. The GMC ruling is not censorship.
The Lancet retraction, likewise, is not censorship. In light of details that came forth as a result of the GMC hearings, the validity of the study has come into question (e.g., method of enrolling subjects). Perhaps Wakefield could replicate the study, following proper ethical procedures and sticking to the approved protocol, and try to publish his results, but the 1998 study has too many issues with it to be a reliable source. Wakefield himself should have retracted the paper, quite frankly, but he didn’t. So the Lancet had to.
This comment will be cross-posted to other blogs, so that if you decide to censor it, at least it will still be available to others to read.
I see you are continuing to censor my comment. Pray, tell, what happened to honest and open discussion? Your conduct, and that of your fellow editors, makes me glad that I've cross-posted to other blogs so that people can see just how open you are to discussion.
Posted at AoA on Feb. 3, 2010 at 8:40am (EST)
ReplyDelete@Kim
A couple notes. First, be careful about brandishing the “censorship” flag against those with whom you disagree. AoA censors a lot of comments that don’t agree with the party line. I have personal experience of that.
Second, the GMC ruling, based on the findings, was justified. Wakefield performed colonoscopies, MRIs and lumbar punctures which were not clinically indicated. These procedures are not without risk, as evidenced by the child whose bowel was perforated during a colonoscopy (performed by someone other than Wakefield, I believe). He also drew blood for research from children at a birthday party, using undue influence (payment of 5 pounds), without prior ethical review board approval. These are all documented and reflect poorly on Wakefield’s ethical behavior during the study.
Whatever sanctions the GMC imposes on Wakefield, Walker-Smith and Murch will have been brought about by their behavior, not their stand on vaccines. The GMC ruling is not censorship.
The Lancet retraction, likewise, is not censorship. In light of details that came forth as a result of the GMC hearings, the validity of the study has come into question (e.g., method of enrolling subjects). Perhaps Wakefield could replicate the study, following proper ethical procedures and sticking to the approved protocol, and try to publish his results, but the 1998 study has too many issues with it to be a reliable source. Wakefield himself should have retracted the paper, quite frankly, but he didn’t. So the Lancet had to.
This comment will be cross-posted to other blogs, so that if you decide to censor it, at least it will still be available to others to read.
Posted at AoA on Feb. 4, 2010 at 12:29pm (EST)
ReplyDelete@Kim
I see you are continuing to censor my comment. Pray, tell, what happened to honest and open discussion? Your conduct, and that of your fellow editors, makes me glad that I've cross-posted to other blogs so that people can see just how open you are to discussion.
BTW, this post is also getting cross-posted.