Count Down to Backpedaling...

Thursday, January 6, 2011
Great Britain's Mike Deer is reporting in the BMJ, the Sunday Times and on Britain's Channel 4 Network that freeze-dried whackadoo Andrew Wakefield wasn't just WRONG when he published his study linking the MMR vaccine with autism, he was a liar, liar, pants on fire. That's right - he and his colleagues deliberately falsified the data to support the conclusion they wanted. I'm pretty sure that's called FRAUD.

How long do you suppose it will be until the anti-vaxxers, those CRITICAL THINKERS OF OUR TIME, begin backpedaling? I suspect their rationale will be along the lines of, "Just because our hero is a big fat liar, liar, pants on fire who falsified the data that started our movement doesn't mean that vaccines DON'T CAUSE AUTISM."

In 5...4...3...2...1...

16 comments:

Steve Buchheit said...

I love the smell of science in the morning. It smells like... victory.

Nathan said...

Actually, things started yesterday (as far as I can tell). When I did a GoogleNews search for Wakefield, the first story that came up was one that essentially said, "Just 'cause he made up some stuff doesn't mean he was wrong."

I just love making your head all 'splodey.

The Mechanicky Gal said...

And making it all up - to what purpose? To cause hysteria? To couse in increase in communicable diseases?
World Class Douchebag.

neurondoc said...

I am sure that the fact that I can't help myself from commenting on your post will shcok you, Janiece. Right?

He made it all up in order to make money. Lots of money. Hundreds of thousands of pounds kind of money.

He ended his "medical career" in Feb 2010 as director of an autism center in Austin, TX. Nice to know that such a doctor found a remunerative post here in US. (Pardon me while I go off into the bushes and barf.)

I wonder if he truly believes his theory -- in that narrow minded "I have a pet theory and I pet it a lot" kinda way that scientists have. If not, I wonder how he lives with himself. His fraudulent (not just false, but fraudulent) study has led to hundreds, likely thousands, of deaths worldwide as vaccination rates dropped.

I really really really want to hit him with something much bigger than The Shovel of Doom(TM).

mom in northern said...

Maybe he figures it is way to control population growth???

Janiece said...

Natalie, I am not shocked. And I really, really, really want to hold your coat while you deliver the smack-down.

The Mechanicky Gal hit it on the head - A World Class Douchebag.

John the Scientist said...

I'm kinda confused. It's been open knowledge in the scinetific community that at least some of the data was forged since, I don't know, maybe 2 or 3 years ago. I'll have to look to see if this is anyhting knew, or if it jst happened to hit the lay press now.

John the Scientist said...

Ah, it is a little worse than the previous revelations, but I'm glad the lay press is finally widely broadcasting what the fine folks at Science Based Medicine (and the British Medical Journal) have been saying all along.

mattw said...

Maybe these scientist will start working on some new research with Jenny McCarthy now, because she said a couple months ago that she cured her son's vaccine-induced autism. *snort*

John the Scientist said...

MG, he did it because he was paid by unscrupulous trial lawyers to find a link.

Janiece said...

John, I do love me some Science Based Medicine. I think the key issue here is that the word FRAUD is being used liberally.

Hehe.

John the Scientist said...

Yeah, without fear of libel lawsuits. That's pretty significant in the UK. HAH!

Janiece said...

Science and the First Amendment FTW!

Bwahaha!

Carol Elaine said...

Natalie and Janiece, I'll hold him down for you.

"I have a pet theory and I pet it a lot" kinda way that scientists have.

Is that what the kid scientists are calling it today?

neurondoc said...

Science Based Medicine is a blog I read daily. Even when they bash my employer. :-)

I see well-petted scientific theories very frequently here at work.

Brian Deer has been after Andrew Wakefield for years. Some of the "revelations" in this article came out a couple of years ago. However, it wasn't so clear at that time that basically the data was made up whole cloth.

I am amused that this most recent article was published in the BMJ, while the original article was published in (and retracted by) The Lancet. The BMJ must be laughing up their collective sleeves.

Janiece said...

NeuronDoc, I know I'd certainly be snickering.