Autism Study Was A Complete Fraud-Ran A Front of Fake Study Algorithms for Years And Now the Doctor Lives in the US
Posted Jan 05 2011 9:46pm
Upon further investigation it was found that there not only errors, but just numbers that were made up. In May of 2010 he was struck from the the medical register in the UK and lucky us he lives here now. I guess he ran here for some type of protection or just a getaway?
In healthcare we are seeing it all over the place and big reason I focus on those Algorithms as they can create fraud too. Look what we had with numbers that were altered in the payment with Ingenix/United Healthcare underpaying on out of network charges on medical claims for around 15 years which was a case of technological war fare in taking advantage of the algorithm ignorance and lack of time to pursue from those without the technology. There are many more lawsuits with Ingenix/United and people still giving the anti fraud contracts to audit and ensure their medical billing is correct-go figure.
That will give you a good idea on how long this has been working behind the scenes and in this case the doctor made up algorithms to support his studies. Sometimes it is outright scary to see how people react and work when they find out how they can use formulas aka algorithms to either disrupt or completely lie in studies and reports. We audits all over today.
Ask questions and be aware that everyone is not nice and if there is a buck to made, code will be written and outcomes are either for accurate or desired results just as this case was fabricated. BD
(CNN) -- A now-retracted British study that linked autism to childhood vaccines was an "elaborate fraud" that has done long-lasting damage to public health, a leading medical publication reported Wednesday.
An investigation published by the British medical journal BMJ concludes the study's author, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, misrepresented or altered the medical histories of all 12 of the patients whose cases formed the basis of the 1998 study -- and that there was "no doubt" Wakefield was responsible.
Wakefield has been unable to reproduce his results in the face of criticism, and other researchers have been unable to match them. Most of his co-authors withdrew their names from the study in 2004 after learning he had had been paid by a law firm that intended to sue vaccine manufacturers -- a serious conflict of interest he failed to disclose. After years on controversy, the Lancet, the prestigious journal that originally published the research, retracted Wakefield's paper last February.