When someone asks about the Dr. Wakefield, or the GMC hearing, do you talk about the ruling or point people to read it for themselves? Well, according to Mark Blaxill (blogger for SafeMinds), you shouldn’t. In an “opposing view” from USA Today, he stated:
Anyone convinced that Wakefield is the problem should ask a simple question: Can you name a single instance of fraud or misconduct by Wakefield, describe it simply without deferring to the authority of some faceless tribunal and defend the evidence to an informed skeptic?
Just for the record, I am not convinced that Wakefield is the problem. There are lots of problems.
Mr. Burton. Who funded your study, Dr. Wakefield?
Dr. Wakefield. We did. We have a small charitable contribution, but-
Mr. Burton. A charitable organization did; I see.
Dr. Wakefield. We found it a little difficult to get funding
I consider Dr. Wakefield not divulging his patent, which includes a claim for an alternate measles vaccine, during his news conference following the publication of the article in The Lancet to be misconduct.
I did those without even having to lean on all the information at BrianDeer.com, or Mr. Deer’s news articles.
Dedicated scientists who simply reported a series of cases combining bowel symptoms, autistic regression and exposure to the MMR vaccine (measles, mumps and rubella) stand accused of fraud and misconduct
Simply reporting? I guess if you throw out all the evidence, as Mr. Blaxill would have you do.
Simply reported? That downplays what happened. It makes it sound like they just found the data lying around and put it into a paper. Does performing lumbar punctures (spinal taps) to take cerebral spinal fluid from disabled childrenwithout any clinical needfall under the category of “simply reporting”? You can even take out the “without any clinical need” if you want to follow Mr. Blaxill’s call to ignore the GMC ruling.
“Simply reporting”...it sounds like they just looked at a bunch of kids’ records. If some major pharmaceutical house were taking samples from children using very invasive procedures, there would be no question of “simply reporting”.
As long as I am on the subject, Dr. Wakefield and his two colleagues are not “accused” of fraud and misconduct anymore. Most of the charges were “found proved”. Once again, a choice of words made to downplay the situation.